Split (1)

train · 26 rows

text stringlengths 255k 454k
[ni-assembly-official-report][plenary_report] Official Reports https://aims.niassembly.gov.uk/officialreport/report.aspx?&eveDate=2025/12/09&docID=462201 Official Report: Tuesday 09 December 2025 Table of Contents Members Statements Lives Lost to Suicide William Irwin MLA Royal Belfast Academical Institution: McCullough Cup Victory Legacy Reports St Johns Point Lighthouse Moneyglass GAC: All-Ireland Final Welfare System Calebs Cause NI An Coinbhinsiún Eorpach um Chearta an Duine European Convention on Human Rights Prince Charles Way: Pedestrian Crossing Abortion Scoil Gheimhridh Ghearóid Uí Chairealláin Gearóid Ó Cairealláin Winter School COVID-19 and Lockdown: Deaths Ministerial Statement Disability Strategy: Public Consultation Private Members Business UK COVID-19 Inquiry: Institutional Reform Ministerial Statement December Monitoring Oral Answers to Questions Infrastructure Assembly Business Ministerial Statement December Monitoring Private Members Business Neurology Services Tackling Scams and Improving Public Protection Question for Urgent Oral Answer Justice Adjournment Poverty: North Down The Assembly met at 10:30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair). Members observed two minutes' silence. Members' Statements Lives Lost to Suicide Ms Flynn: Today, I rise with a very heavy heart. This morning, my thoughts are with families across the island who are grieving someone who they have lost to suicide. The latest NISRA figures on suicide are deeply troubling. They show that 290 deaths by suicide were registered in 2024. That figure is up from 221 in the previous year. To those who have lost someone to suicide, I express how sorry I am for what you have been through and for what you are still going through. I know that no statistic can ever capture the person whom you miss and you have lost. The figures are based on the year that the deaths are registered, and delays in inquests can sometimes mean that some of the deaths that have been recorded happened in earlier years. While that explanation is important, it does not take away from the reality that too many lives are being lost in that way year after year. Men remain much more likely to die by suicide, especially younger and middle-aged men. People living in our most deprived communities also face higher risk. Older people, often living alone, are particularly vulnerable, and we have seen that the rise in the latest NISRA statistics for 2024 has impacted more on our older population. We are now moving into winter and towards Christmas. On the surface, it is a time of joy, lights and music, but, for many people, it is the darkest, loneliest, most pressurised time of the year. The cost of heating your home, the pressure to spend money that you do not have, empty chairs at a table that cannot be filled and anniversaries of loved ones who we have lost all sit in stark contrast to the positivity that we see on our screens and on our streets. At a time when everywhere seems bright, many people feel completely in the dark. So, I ask Members and the wider public for something very simple over the weeks ahead: please be kind in the Chamber, online and in our communities. We rarely know what the person in front of us is dealing with or what they are carrying, and a harsh word can push someone further down. A small act of kindness can make it easier for them to hold on. For anyone who is listening and might be finding it hard, please know that you can reach out to the Samaritans and to Lifeline. We cannot undo the loss that so many families have already experienced, but we can listen to them, learn from what they are telling us and try to do more to stop others going through that pain. William Irwin MLA Miss McIlveen: I rise this morning to recognise the contribution of my friend and DUP colleague William Irwin MLA from the Newry and Armagh constituency. As you will be aware, William has indicated his intention to step down from the Assembly at the end of the year, and it is fitting to mark that occasion. William was first elected to Armagh City and District Council in 2005, prior to his election to the Northern Ireland Assembly in 2007. As a member of the class of 2007, William and the rest of us newbies learned our craft from the old hands. In what seems like a blink of an eye, we are the old hands. As a farmer, William has agriculture in his blood. He earned the right to serve, from day one, on the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development and, later, the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. A true stalwart, William is the authentic voice of the rural community: the natural farmer's friend. Coming from an agricultural background, he has always been fiercely proud of those roots, and becoming Chair of the Committee was one of the highlights of his political career. He has also served with distinction as Deputy Chair of the Committee for Culture, Arts and Leisure and the Deputy Chair of the Infrastructure Committee. He has been a stalwart for unionism in Newry and Armagh; a mantle that he has carried with unwavering principle, and, with that, he has earned the respect and affection of his constituents. His are big shoes to fill. Yesterday, as a tribute, a colleague summed up William Irwin in two words: faithful and true. However, there are other words that can define William: tireless, loyal, generous, compassionate, quiet, diligent, effective, husband, father, grandfather, colleague and friend. It has always been a privilege to serve with and a pleasure to work with William. In the bitter world of local politics, where harsh words and insults are bandied about easily without any consideration of the consequences, one thing that stands out about William is that, in all the years that I have known him, he has never spoken ill of someone or fallen out with anyone. On a personal note, I will miss William's friendship, loyalty, wit, advice and guidance in this place. He has been a fantastic help and support to me through my time in the Assembly, particularly on all matters rural. He is also one of those sensible heads that we all need when passions are high. It is deeply sad that this day has come. After William's serving 20 years as a public representative in the council and the Northern Ireland Assembly and in recognition of his long service to his country and his party, I take the opportunity to mark that service properly and purposefully in the Chamber and to place on the public record my party's and my personal appreciation for William. "Retirement" is not a word in William's vocabulary; perhaps, more fittingly, it is simply about refocusing on his other priorities. Our loss is his wife, Olive's, gain. I wish William, Olive and his family every blessing in the future. Royal Belfast Academical Institution: McCullough Cup Victory Ms Bradshaw: As an MLA for South Belfast, I say a massive "Congratulations" to Royal Belfast Academical Institution (Inst) on winning the 2025 McCullough Cup schools hockey competition. Last Thursday, Inst secured a superb 3-1 victory over Banbridge Academy in the final at Havelock Park, retaining the trophy that it won last year. Two goals from Josh Gill and a penalty from captain, Matthew McAreavey, sealed the win, with defender Riley Marney delivering a man-of-the-match performance at the back. That latest success means that Inst has now lifted the McCullough Cup for a record eighteenth time, extending its position as the most successful school in the history of that Ulster competition. It is also the first side to retain the title for a second year since Cookstown High School managed the feat in the 2010-11 and 2011-12 seasons. That is a remarkable achievement that speaks to the depth of talent and strength of the coaching set-up at the school. I pay tribute to all the players whose commitment over many months and even years of training has culminated in this moment of well-deserved success. School sport is not just about trophies. It is about teamwork, resilience, learning to handle pressure and supporting one another in victory and defeat. The young people representing Inst have shown that all those qualities are present in abundance, and they showed that throughout the campaign. I also extend my congratulations to the coaching and support staff, the teachers who juggle academic responsibilities with time on the pitch and, of course, the parents and families who stand on the sidelines in all weathers. Their encouragement, lifts to training and constant support are crucial to making success such as this possible. As a South Belfast MLA, I am particularly proud that the school, which has such strong links across our constituency, is setting the standard in schools hockey and providing positive role models for younger pupils, who will be inspired by that success. Through its long tradition of excellence in sport across hockey, rugby and many other disciplines, Inst continues to make an important contribution to life in the city and the health and well-being of our young people. I also acknowledge Ulster Hockey and all those who are involved in organising the McCullough Cup and wider schools competitions. Their work ensures that our young people have access to high-quality competitive sport in a safe and supportive environment and helps to promote participation, inclusion and respect across schools and communities. I wish the team every success as it continues its season. Legacy Reports Mr Beattie: A number of legacy reports will be released today. I thank those individuals who were responsible for conducting the investigations, which will, hopefully, give us the closure and information that we so desperately need. Operation Denton was about investigating what was known as the Glenanne gang, a terrorist organisation that was responsible for over 120 murders of men, women and children. As a unionist, I stand here and say that I have absolutely no link whatsoever to those people. We know that they are a scourge on our society. They do not get any unionist support whatsoever. It is important to understand that. They killed mostly because of religion, including 34 people — men, women and children — in the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. Those who served in the security forces and were part of the Glenanne gang are an utter disgrace — a disgrace — to the uniform that they wore and those brave men and women who served alongside them and did so within the law. They can never be viewed as anything other than terrorists. Operation Denton looked at the Dublin and Monaghan bombings, and although those involved cannot be named because of a legal challenge, the investigators have the names of those who were responsible. I wish that the Dublin Government could do something similar in regard to Omagh. Operation Kenova was about the human intelligence source known as Stakeknife. Stakeknife murdered 18 people. Stakeknife did that. The nutting squad — the Disneyfication of violence in Northern Ireland is absolutely astounding — murdered 30 people. It was responsible for that. Some people will try to spin that and say, "Well, it was the UK security forces that did that", but let us be clear: of course, the security forces made mistakes, but the people who tortured and murdered others were part of that Disneyfied nutting squad, including the man who was called Stakeknife. Anybody who supported that or knew about it is also an utter disgrace. We know that there are people in a party in the Chamber who know information about it. Operation Turma looks at the murder of three RUC constables in 1990, and Operation Mizzenmast looks at the murder of Jean Smyth-Campbell in 1972. We will have those four reports to look at, but let us be clear: the people who pulled the trigger, those who sent them out and those who supported them are the ones who are responsible. Let us not allow anybody to redirect us, in any shape or form, from pointing the finger at the individuals who are responsible. St John's Point Lighthouse Mr McGrath: I will speak about a treasure of the Lecale coastline; a sentinel that has watched over generations and guided countless fishermen and sailors safely home: St John's lighthouse. It is the tallest lighthouse on the island of Ireland and one of the last to maintain that beautiful and iconic sweeping beam. It is a piece of engineering heritage that still performs its duty every night and is seen for miles around. At its heart is the Bourdelles rotation system, which rests on mercury-based bearings that are designed to allow the lens to glide with frictionless precision. That system has stood the test of time: it is remarkably efficient and remains in working order. Yet plans are now in place from the Commissioners of Irish Lights to remove that system and replace it with metal-on-metal roller bearings, despite the planners rejecting such a proposal in 2018. The proposal is fundamentally flawed. It may be called modernisation, but it is a step backwards in engineering. It introduces friction, noise and wear into a mechanism that is currently smooth, silent and reliable. I will be clear: a noisy, mechanical system being introduced into a quiet coastal environment will be disruptive to local wildlife, particularly marine and nocturnal species. Top 10.45 am As if that were not enough, the proposal includes replacing the current lamp with a static LED. That is not progress; it is the removal of the lighthouse's character, identity and purpose. LED systems are prone to faults. They alter the visual signature that mariners depend on, and they carry well-documented ecological impacts that have been disastrously overlooked by the historic environment division during the planning process. What we have at present works and works safely. The sweeping beam is one of the last of its kind and is a living link to our maritime history. To extinguish it now would be an act of professional cultural vandalism. Instead of recognising the enormous potential of St John's Point lighthouse as a world-class tourist attraction, we face plans that would diminish it. I acknowledge the extraordinary work of the Lecale Lightkeepers community campaign group — some of them are here today — which stands in defence of the sweeping beam. We owe it to the Lecale Lightkeepers, to our fishing community, to our heritage and to the generations yet to come to ensure that St John's Point lighthouse remains what it has always been: a true beacon. Once the beam has gone, it will be gone forever. We will never get another chance to protect it. Moneyglass GAC: All-Ireland Final Mr Kearney: Where is Moneyglass? That is the question on the lips of many sports journalists in the aftermath of the Moneyglass senior ladies footballers' winning their All-Ireland semi-final nine days ago. Well, Moneyglass is a cluster of townlands in the south-west of County Antrim, beside the River Bann and adjacent to Lough Beg. It is a small place with just a few hundred residents. There is Boyd's garage and shop; Tumbledown bar; one chapel; a small community centre; and a large number of small family businesses and farms. The beating heart of Moneyglass is St Ergnats GAC. Formed in 1948, the club has a strong tradition in an Cumann Lúthchleas Gael [Translation: the Gaelic Athletic Association.] That is reflected in the men's footballers' participation and score and in underage development for young boys and girls. However, ladies Gaelic football is one of the club's huge successes. The club has enjoyed great progress in recent times. New facilities have been opened on Loughbeg Road. The men won the 2025 Intermediate Club football final. Furthermore, the club has elected its first female chairperson, Sarah McCann. In a special, personal first for Sarah, in the past few weeks, she qualified with a doctorate in education, specialising in climate change and sustainability. The crowning glory of 2025, however, will be this weekend's All-Ireland Club final. Not surprisingly, local excitement is at fever pitch. Everybody is up to high doh. In my book, whatever happens this Saturday in Croke Park, the Moneyglass women are already winners. The footballers will travel to Croke Park as pride of the parish, queens of the county and champions of Ulster. Those girls are a credit to their families, their friends and all of us, and I wish them all the luck that they deserve in the All-Ireland final this Saturday. Give it your all, girls. Leave it all on the pitch. Ádh mór oraibh. Tapaigí an deis. An Muine Glas abú. [Translation: Good luck to you. Seize the opportunity. Moneyglass forever.] Welfare System Mr Buckley: To begin with, I join Members in offering my colleague William Irwin every best wish for his retirement alongside his family. He truly is the authentic friend of the farmer. He spoke with such conviction and passion in representing those people across Northern Ireland, probably long before it was popular to do so in the House. He certainly will be missed in this place, and I wish him well for his retirement. Our Executive are meeting, next door, to grapple with the huge budgetary pressures that face core Departments such as Education and Health. I will offer not only an observation but a clear warning: the benefits system is killing the United Kingdom. Its stranglehold is getting tighter year-on-year. The Chancellor's autumn Budget made one thing unmistakably clear: taxes are being driven to record highs, not to invest in growth or to strengthen our public services but to prop up an outdated, unsustainable and inflated welfare system. Total spending on social security and welfare in the United Kingdom has gone from £152 billion in 2005 to £326 billion in 2025. The Office for Budget Responsibility predicts that that will rise to £406 billion by 2030. Yes, Members, we value those who cannot fend for themselves and who, due to health needs or injury, need support; we are a generous nation, but the system is open to corruption and abuse. In Northern Ireland alone, benefit fraud is estimated to cost as much as £350 million per year. That is a national shame. That is money that cannot be spent on core public services; the taxpayer has been cheated of that money. That must be addressed. Money that should be used to support our hospitals, our schools and our police is being taken directly from those core services in order to fund cheats. In Northern Ireland, we have the additional pressure of an accommodation system for the likes of asylum seekers that has ballooned. Across the United Kingdom, the cost is projected to balloon from £4·5 billion to £15·3 billion over a decade. That is more than triple the initial estimate. Our constituents ask us why taxes are going up, why we cannot help to support businesses by reducing VAT and other taxes and why we are not supporting and standing up for the working middle — alarm-clock United Kingdom — who get up in the morning and work two or three jobs but simply cannot afford to live. Why can we not do that? It is because we have an outdated benefits system that is being abused. Caleb's Cause NI Mrs Guy: Every MLA in the Chamber is aware of the Caleb's Cause NI campaign through the advocacy of Caleb's mum, Alma, but, at the recent session of the Disabled People's Parliament, Caleb spoke for himself. It was a powerful and moving moment when every one of us was asked to keep using our voices to support the cause of post-19 SEN reform. These are Caleb's words: "My name is Caleb. I am 17 years old. When I get older, I want to be an inventor. When I leave special school, at 19, my options will be limited. I want a lifelong care plan to allow me to fulfil my potential and achieve my dreams. My friends and I, along with many others, want to be seen, heard and included in your world. We want laws to give us a future. We are human beings, just like you. Executive Ministers and Departments, you all can choose to help me and so many others in this mandate. My question is, will you?" If Members have not watched that online clip of Caleb, they should. It really is a powerful moment when he looks up and asks that question. Investing in kids such as Caleb is not a waste of our time. They are not lost causes. We know that, if we invest in the right support at as early a stage as possible, they can thrive, contribute and inspire. As MLAs, we must keep advocating not just for them but with them. Let me assure you that Caleb's Cause will not stop until every one of our post-19 children is cared for. An Coinbhinsiún Eorpach um Chearta an Duine Mr Gildernew: Tabharfar an ráiteas seo as Gaeilge. Dá bhrí sin, impím ar Chomhaltaí atá gan Ghaeilge a gcluasáin a chur orthu. Déanfar Lá Chearta an Duine a chomóradh an tseachtain seo. Is é téama an lae i mbliana "Cearta an Duine, Ár mBunriachtanais Laethúla". Tá sé seo thar a bheith ábhartha, nó sheas mé sa tSeomra tá seachtainí beaga ó shin agus labhair mé ar a thábhachtaí a bhí an Coinbhinsiún Eorpach um Chearta an Duine agus an ról luachmhar a d’imir sé anseo in Éirinn agus mé ag comóradh 75 bliain ó bunaíodh an coinbhinsiún. Tá páirtithe polaitíochta áirithe sa Bhreatain ag rá gur chóir an Ríocht Aontaithe a tharraingt amach as an Choinbhinsiún Eorpach um Chearta an Duine, cinneadh a rachadh go holc do gach aon duine ar an oileán seo. Cé go leanann na díospóireachtaí sin ar aghaidh sa Bhreatain, tá sé tábhachtach againne cuimhneamh ar an méid a chumasaigh an coinbhisiún anseo agus an méid sin a chosaint. Bhí ionchorprú an choinbhinsiúin sa dlí riachtanach le cearta saoránach a chosaint agus le muinín a chothú i gComhaontú Aoine an Chéasta. Cuireadh béim ar thábhacht an choinbhinsiúin sa chomhaontú um tharraingt siar i ndiaidh an Bhreatimeachta. Is maolú ríthábhachtach lenár síocháin agus ár rathúnas a chosaint i bhfianaise pholasaí díobhálach Rialtas na Breataine é. Rinneadh ionsaithe eile ar chearta, agus tá reachtaíocht sceimhlitheoireachta na Breataine ag gabháil faoi chearta fosta. Ba é an rud a bhí Rialtas na Breataine ag iarraidh a dhéanamh i gcás Kneecap ná srian a chur ar an chead cainte; sa chás sin, féachadh le lucht cáinte chinedhíothú Iosrael in Gaza a chur ina dtost. Ach d’éirigh le Rialtas na Breataine sárú ar cheart cruinnithe lucht agóide agus chuaigh ag Rialtas na Breataine cosc a chur ar Palestine Action. Léiríonn an dá shampla sin an gá atá le cearta a choinneáil agus a chosaint. Ach ab é an Coinbhinsiún Eorpach um Chearta an Duine, níorbh ann do phróiseas na síochána; agus ach ab é an Coinbhinsiún Eorpach um Chearta an Duine níorbh fhéidir próiseas na síochána a choinneáil ag gabháil. Trí chearta uilíocha agus comhionannas a leabú sa dlí, leanann sé de bheith ag tacú leis an athmhuintearas agus leis an chobhsaíocht dhaonlathach. Seo iad ár mbunriachtanais — Mr Speaker: The Member’s time is up. Mr Gildernew: — laethúla. Tá siad le cosaint. Tá siad le ceiliúradh. European Convention on Human Rights [Translation: The following statement will be made in Irish. Therefore, I ask Members who do not speak Irish to put on their headphones. This week marks Human Rights Day. The theme of this year’s day is "Human Rights, Our Everyday Essentials". That is particularly relevant, as, just a few weeks ago, when marking its 75th anniversary, I stood in the Chamber and spoke of the importance, value and role of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) here in Ireland. There have been proposals from certain political parties in Britain to remove the UK from the ECHR, which would have serious negative impacts for everyone across this island. While those discussions continue in Britain, it is important that we reflect on and champion what the ECHR has enabled here. The incorporation of the ECHR into law was essential in protecting the rights of citizens and in building trust in the Good Friday Agreement. The importance of the ECHR was enshrined in the withdrawal agreement following Brexit. It is a vital mitigation to protect our peace and prosperity in the face of damaging British Government policy. There have been other attacks on rights, which have been undermined by British terrorism laws. British Government attempts to restrict freedom of expression were a key issue in the Kneecap case, when efforts were made to silence critics of Israel’s genocide in Gaza. However, the British Government were more successful in infringing on protestors’ right to assembly and in banning Palestine Action. Both examples show the need to uphold and safeguard rights. The European Convention on Human Rights was essential not only in bringing about the peace process but in maintaining it. By embedding universal rights and equality into law, it continues to underpin reconciliation and democratic stability. They are our everyday essentials. They are to be protected. They are to be celebrated.] Prince Charles Way: Pedestrian Crossing Miss McAllister: Before I begin my statement, I will also put on record my party's best wishes to William Irwin, who is retiring in a few weeks. I spoke to him briefly yesterday, and it is clear that he is looking forward to retirement. I wish him all the best. He really is a kind soul, so I hope that he can enjoy his retirement. Mr Speaker, all politics is local. In May this year, I presented to you a public petition signed by hundreds of people in the North Belfast community asking for a pedestrian crossing. That might not seem important to everyone, but, for the people who have to cross the road at the roundabout on Prince Charles Way every day, most of whom are schoolchildren going to and from school, it is very important. The safety of our children going to and from school and of all those walking on that road and getting about their day is important to us all. I say again that all politics is local, because we can have successes sometimes, but they are often too slow in coming. Following that public petition, we had another visit from the Department for Infrastructure, which carried out a full survey of the site, and works on the roundabout have now been approved. However, that has also come with the caveat that the works will be budget-dependent. I understand that all Departments are under pressure with their resources. When we passed the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022, a successful Alliance amendment secured the provision saying that 10% of the transport budget should be spent on active travel. At the minute, however, we are not seeing that budget being spent on active travel; instead, we see it being repurposed for other areas. I call on the Infrastructure Minister — I will ask her about this later during questions for oral answer — to prioritise the safety of local schoolchildren to ensure that they can get to and from their school, walking or cycling, by using a pedestrian crossing. People's voices have been heard and listened to, but we need to finalise that and take action and ensure that we install a safe pedestrian crossing. Top 11.00 am Mr Speaker: Members, I have three more requests to make statements, and I think that I have three minutes for that. However, I am in a generous mood today because it is coming up to Christmas, so I will include everybody, even Mr Carroll. I will have to listen to your statement as well. Abortion Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Since abortion was decriminalised through the legislation imposed on the Province as part of the package that facilitated the return of Stormont, the number of abortions carried out has risen year on year. We now know that, between 2020 and 2024, more than 8,000 lives were taken through abortion in Northern Ireland. An answer that I received yesterday from the Finance Minister raises further questions. In response to my question asking how many death certificates had been issued for babies who were born alive after an abortion procedure, the Minister stated that a search of death registrations for the category of termination of pregnancy affecting fetus and newborn identified 32 deaths up to the end of 2024 where that cause was recorded on the death certificate as either contributory or underlying. We should all reflect on what that means. Those were living children, infants who had taken their first breaths. They are 32 little boys and girls whose deaths were officially recorded as being affected by a termination of pregnancy. Whatever the circumstances leading to those procedures, whether elective or in situations where the mother's health or life was in danger, the stark fact remains that those children were born alive and, sadly, later died. Each one represents a tragedy. The headline statistics demonstrate that the way that the issue was framed by many media outlets before the change in the law was deeply dishonest. We were told repeatedly that legal change was required for so-called hard cases, yet 8,000 abortions in four years did not occur because of the exceptional situations promoted by those with an anti-life agenda. As abortion becomes more common, it is anything but compassionate to ignore the social pressures — economic, familial and cultural — that push women towards ending a pregnancy. A genuinely humane society would champion the truth that every human life is worthy of protection. I commend organisations such as Precious Life and the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, which continue to do that. It remains my deep conviction that abortion is the greatest moral evil of our lifetime. While others may prefer to look the other way, I will ensure that no one can say that they were unaware of the quiet holocaust taking place in our Province. Scoil Gheimhridh Ghearóid Uí Chairealláin Mr Carroll: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Chomhairle. Tá sin iontach cinéalta. Nollaig shona duit. Ba mhaith liom cúpla focal gasta a rá faoi rud a bhí ar siúl ag an deireadh seachtaine in Iarthar Bhéal Feirste. Tá moladh mór tuillte ag na daoine sin ar fad a d’eagraigh Scoil Gheimhridh Ghearóid Uí Chairealláin — bhí an-rath ar fad uirthi. Ba cheannródaí teanga agus pobail é Gearóid Ó Cairealláin. Bhí sé mar chuid de ghrúpa Gaeilgeoirí a bhunaigh an Chultúrlann. Bhunaigh siad an nuachtán Lá, Raidió Fáilte agus, ar ndóigh, Meánscoil Feirste. D’fhág Gearóid lorg ollmhór ar an Ghaeilge ó Thuaidh. Is tábhachtach an rud é Scoil Gheimhridh a bheith ann a thabhairt ómos dó. Bhí plé breá ann ar an iriseoireacht, ar an ghníomhaíochas, agus ar an teanga. D’fhreastail mé féin ar chuid de na himeachtaí Dé hAoine, agus tá taispeántas an-suimiúil ann thuas staighre sa Chultúrlann. Bhí spiorad Ghearóid le mothú an deireadh seachtaine ar fad. Arís eile, comhghairdeas mór le gach duine a d’eagraigh an scoil. Gearóid Ó Cairealláin Winter School [Translation: Thank you, Mr Speaker. That is very kind. Merry Christmas to you. I would like to say a few words about something that happened at the weekend in west Belfast. Those who organised the Gearóid Ó Cairealláin winter school deserve great praise: it was very successful indeed. Gearóid Ó Cairealláin was a pioneer of language and community. He was one of the Gaeilgeoirí who founded the Cultúrlann. They founded the newspaper ‘Lá’, Raidió Fáilte and of course, Meánscoil Feirste. Gearóid left a huge legacy for the Irish language in the North. It is important that the winter school exists to honour him. There was an excellent discussion on journalism, activism and language. I attended some of the events on Friday, and there is a very interesting exhibition upstairs in the Cultúrlann. Gearóid’s spirit could be felt throughout the weekend. Once more, I would like to congratulate everyone involved in organising the school.] COVID-19 and Lockdown: Deaths Mr Frew: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your grace. I thought that, in your generosity, you had discovered the Christmas Carroll there. [Laughter.] I speak about an event that I attended this morning, a collective healing through honouring our loved ones. It was a meeting to launch a report on all the people who died during the pandemic and the lockdowns. The process of grieving was explored with the individuals who took part in the study, and a question was asked whether the individual felt that they were able to grieve the passing of their loved one. While 17% stated that they could, 55% reported that they had not been able to do this and 28% were unsure. Self-reported mental health rates revealed that 56% described it as either "poor" or "very poor". Some 32% stated that it was "average", while the remaining 12% gave their mental health a rating of "good" or "very good". When asked about receiving support following the person's death, a large proportion, 37%, indicated that this was not offered to them. For those who got support, the source of this was largely family, 40%, or friends, 15%. That included 80% who reported that they did not get the support needed for the grief that they experienced during the pandemic and lockdowns. The conclusions from the report include that a number of salient themes were evident through a review of responses on both the survey and from the support session evaluations. The most prominent of those themes was the traumatic impact of experiencing a death during the pandemic. That was impacted by the systematic and structural restrictions enforced by the Government in the management of the pandemic. The absence of opportunities to have traditions associated with death and dying, whether religious or cultural in nature, was cited often in the feedback. Saying goodbye to loved ones or being present during their final moments was not available to the majority of respondents. Those psychological and emotional omissions were described as having a significant toll on the individual and the family, amplified by the variations in manner and tone of communications or interactions with professionals at the time of the loved one's death. Those people seek a physical memorial through which their loved ones who died in the pandemic and during the lockdown should be remembered, but the greatest memorial that we can give those people is that never again will our people, communities and society be locked down as they were during the pandemic. Ministerial Statement Disability Strategy: Public Consultation Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): I wish to make a statement to the Assembly regarding my plans to bring forward a new Executive disability strategy for Northern Ireland. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Blair] in the Chair) Around one in four people in Northern Ireland experience some form of disability, and it is fair to say that we are all impacted to some extent. Everyone’s experience of living with disability is unique, and so any new strategy needs to be able to flex to accommodate the often complex and unique interventions that are to be managed. Through the sharing of lived experience by deaf and disabled people and by our commissioning of bespoke research, the disability strategy demonstrates that we have taken account of the issues raised by deaf and disabled people, the expert advisory panel, the co-design group, the cross-departmental working group and many other stakeholders during significant engagement processes. The disability strategy vision, outcomes, principles and terminology and language used are all a product of that extensive engagement process, and the strategy commitments are broadly reflective of the wishes of the sector. The strategy represents further delivery against our Programme for Government (PFG) commitments. It also intersects with a range of strategic agendas such as the anti-poverty strategy, the autism and mental health strategies, my Department’s disability and work strategy and the review of special educational needs (SEN) provision. In co-producing the disability strategy, we have placed people with lived experience of disability at the centre, involving them at every stage to ensure that we have identified and shaped the change needed to achieve better outcomes. We have a wealth of experience in our voluntary and community sector, and we know that its insight and value cannot be overstated. In developing the disability strategy, we have carried out many engagement events with individuals and organisations that represent the deaf and disabled community. Those events were delivered online and in person. Special efforts were made to engage with those who can often be the hardest to reach in Northern Ireland, including minority ethnic communities and the Travelling community. Those marginalised yet often inspirational people freely contributed their lived experience and ideas to my officials. I want to tell them this: your views were valued greatly. You were not only heard but, more important, listened to. From an early stage of the engagement, it was apparent that a number of key asks were coming from across the sector about what it wished to see in a new disability strategy. I wish to cover some of those asks briefly and how we intend to deal with them through the new strategy. First, there was a universal desire to establish a Northern Ireland disability forum wholly comprised of deaf and disabled people and having a role in supporting the monitoring and reporting processes involved with any new disability strategy. I can announce today that the strategy commits my Department to establishing a Northern Ireland disability forum to monitor the actions included in the strategy. The forum's membership will be made up entirely of deaf and disabled people, with my officials providing secretarial support. The forum will also link in with the Department of Health's existing regional disabled people's health and social care forum as appropriate and will be able to engage with all Departments on their responsibilities in the strategy. I have also taken steps to ensure that forum membership will be fully representative of our community. For example, places will be reserved for young people who have not yet had the life opportunities or lived experience to be able to demonstrate the academic credentials or experience that normally indicates suitability for a place on such a body. We were also told of the desire to see reform of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which, stakeholders believe, is no longer fit for purpose. I, too, believe that there is a clear case for the review and potential reform of disability law here. The Disability Discrimination Act is 30 years old. There is a clear gap between the legislative protections available to disabled people here and those in, for example, Great Britain, where the Equality Act 2010 is in force. I can also announce today that scoping work is under way in my Department with a view to the full incorporation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) into domestic law. That, of course, will require additional funding across Departments, but I am sure that we can all agree that it is the right thing to do. The strategy is constructed around eight outcomes. During the lifetime of the strategy, there will be continuous monitoring of its delivery. Those outcomes will ensure that deaf and disabled people can effectively exercise their rights and fundamental freedoms and participate in society on an equal basis, free from discrimination; that they can access our built environment, facilities and transport on an equal basis; that, across our public services, government information and communications will be provided on an equal basis; that they can access and participate in culture, leisure activities and sport on an equal basis; that they can live independently in the community with choice and control, with a sufficient and sustainable standard of living; that they can have access to quality health and social care on an equal basis and without discrimination; that they can access, sustain and progress in quality employment in an inclusive labour market; and that deaf and disabled children and young people can exercise their rights and reach their full educational, social and developmental potential. Once it is approved in final form by the Executive, the disability strategy will run for a 10-year period from 2025 to 2035. It will be underpinned by an action plan that will contain a range of time-bound, measurable actions targeted at progressing the strategy outcomes and commitments. The action plan will be monitored, reviewed and updated annually, with published progress reports that will be agreed by the Executive. A formal midpoint review will allow for the strategy to be assessed, taking account of the annual reports on the action plan. That review will provide an opportunity for the strategy's commitments to be reviewed, amended, removed or added to if necessary. The strategy's impact will be measured through the delivery of actions in the action plan and progress against agreed indicators and outcomes. Top 11.15 am We have worked closely across Departments to commit to the actions in the strategy, and the Executive have given it their endorsement. We must continue to work together to ensure that, collectively, we achieve better outcomes for deaf and disabled people. I will be launching a minimum 12-week public consultation on the disability strategy. That wide-ranging conversation with society provides an opportunity for everyone to contribute their views and highlight any areas that can be strengthened further. In addition to being able to engage in the consultation online, we will be hosting a series of roadshow events across Northern Ireland, at which people who attend can engage with officials. Naturally, all documents will be available in a range of accessible formats to make it as easy as possible for everyone to contribute to the consultation. I encourage as many people as possible to take part in the consultation. I place on record my sincere thanks to everyone who has taken the time to share their experiences and suggestions. Taken in conjunction with the recent launch of my Department's disability and work strategy, today's announcement signifies my commitment to the deaf and disabled community and a step change from the Northern Ireland Executive in delivering for deaf and disabled people, their families and their carers. I commend the statement to the House. Some Members: Hear, hear. Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for the statement. It is welcome to hear some of the progress that has been outlined today on the new disability strategy. We look forward to hearing of similar progress on the other social inclusion strategies for which the Minister is responsible. The statement refers to the potential reform of disability law. Will the Minister give us a flavour of what that might be, and how he intends to bring forward any such reforms? What time frame are we talking about? Is it realistic to expect that any such reform will be done in the remainder of this mandate? Mr Lyons: We are going to start that work now. Some people think that we in Northern Ireland should replicate the Equality Act 2010, but, as I said, key stakeholders in the disability sector do not believe that it is fit for purpose. One of the reasons that it is important that we put the disability forum in place is that we will hear views from people before that legislation is drafted. I want that forum to be set up and for it to feed into the process. The legislation can then be brought forward. If any legislative changes can be made during the rest of the mandate, we will certainly do that, but the Member will be aware of how long it takes legislation to progress. If that is not possible, I want to make sure that we are well placed to introduce fit-for-purpose legislation at the start of a new mandate. Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): I thank the Minister for the statement. It is a very important strategy. The incorporation of the UNCRPD is an important factor. You have dealt with some of that already, Minister. You stated that many Departments will have a role in delivering the strategy. Who will hold those Departments to account if progress stalls, and who will report to the Assembly if commitments are not met? How will you ensure that the regional forum, which is very welcome, has real teeth and is not simply an advisory body? Mr Lyons: I had a meeting last week with some people representing the disability sector. The points that I made to them will answer the Member's question. First of all, it will be for Ministers to bring forward actions, and they need to be held to account on those actions. I hope that the Assembly and its scrutiny Committees will do that for individual Ministers. During my time in office, I will certainly make sure that I hold other Ministers to account, and that we put proper priority on delivering things that will be of benefit to deaf and disabled people. Last week, I made it clear to the group that the forum is not simply a tick-box exercise for me. I have not simply put a few deaf and disabled people on the group as a token; the group will comprise deaf and disabled people entirely. I expect them to be very forthright in holding Ministers and the Department for Communities to account. I want them to do that, and I know that they will. We will certainly look at how it is structured to make sure that we can do that effectively. Ultimately, we should all want to deliver, and we need to be held to account on that. Ms Brownlee: I thank the Minister for bringing the statement to the House. This is a huge day for the deaf and disabled community, and I really welcome his statement. Minister, it is a time-bound issue. When will the strategy be finished, and when can people expect delivery on the ground? Mr Lyons: The time frames will depend on the responses that we get to the public consultation. I will go back to Executive colleagues so that they can look at the recommendations that come through during the consultation process. The Executive will then consider what can be put into the final strategy and the action plans that can come from that. That will take some time. We do not have definitive timescales, but it is important to note that, even in the absence of the strategy, we have not been found wanting in getting on and delivering for deaf and disabled people in Northern Ireland, whether that is through the disability and work strategy; the Sign Language Bill that is progressing through the House; the JobStart programmes that we have been able to put in place; what we are doing in housing, in particular with the disabled adaptations and grants that we make available; lobbying the Government on some of the disgraceful changes that they announced on support for disabled people; or the many other issues. Although it will take some time to progress the strategy, it is important that we do it right and that we deliver for deaf and disabled people in the meantime, and I will certainly do that. Ms K Armstrong: Thank you, Minister. I must declare an interest as a member of the deaf community. The statement is very welcome. We have been waiting for the strategy for quite a while. I am a little bit concerned at the timing of it, given that the multi-year Budget is coming up. In the sign language legislation, it says that, without doubt, Departments can take into consideration affordability when deciding about reasonable adjustments. Have you had any discussions with your Executive colleagues on the amount of money that they should be setting aside in their multi-year budgets to deliver the eventual outcomes of the strategy? Mr Lyons: Of course, it is hard for us to put a price tag on that because we are just going out to consultation. We will hear people's views, and that is when we will decide the specific actions to implement as an Executive. Ministers will be aware that the strategy is coming forward. They will not necessarily be aware of all the actions that they may be required to take, but sufficient budgetary processes are there, and they should be thinking ahead about what needs to be done. If necessary, the Executive should allocate additional funding for that purpose. It is a little bit hard for us to be final on it until we know what will be in the final strategy and the action plans that will follow. However, we absolutely should be prepared to allocate money to it, where possible. We should see the strategy as an investment. We should not see it as money that we have to put into something; we should see how it can generate a return for us. I made this point in the House yesterday: taking the disability employment rate from 40% to 50%, as it is in the rest of the UK, for example, has the potential to generate savings of around £750 million a year. Helping deaf and disabled people can actually bring an economic return as well, so we should not see the strategy just as money that we spend but rather as an investment. Mr Allen: I, too, declare an interest as a member of the disabled community. Minister, I thank you for getting the strategy to this point. However, many in the disabled community have highlighted to me the fact that the previous iteration of the strategy, 2012-15, which was extended to 2017, did not deliver the tangible benefits for the disabled community that it desired to do. Minister, how can you ensure that this strategy will deliver real and tangible benefits for the disabled community; and, if I may ask, when did the scoping work on disability law reform commence? Mr Lyons: It is important to highlight that that is why we will have the regional disability forum: to make sure that the strategy that we have and the actions that we put into the action plan are necessary and deliverable and that we are held to account on them. I am more than happy for us to subject ourselves to that scrutiny, because I do not want this to be a wasted opportunity; I want to do something that actually makes a difference, is tangible and has the right outcome. That is why I am committed to doing that and why the forum has such a key role. As I have said, I do not want that to be a tick-box exercise. I genuinely want to get that feedback, input and monitoring and to be held to account by that group. Mr Baker: Recent statistics show that 38% of households living in poverty include a person with a disability, which highlights disability as a real risk factor that can contribute to a person's falling into poverty. What new measures aimed at tackling disability-related poverty will flow from the strategy? Mr Lyons: The Member is absolutely right to raise the issue, because we see time and again that disability is a huge factor that impacts on poverty. That is why we have 58 commitments in the strategy, many of which will directly impact on that and some of which will have an impact in other ways. There are a number of ways in which we can make a difference. One of the first key actions will be the collection and increased availability of data. A problem that we have had in the past is this: if we do not have the data, it is hard to put the policies in place to make a difference. A number of other things that we are doing will also tackle poverty. It is often related to isolation, so, for example, there are ways in which we can make sure that people in urban and rural settings have access to transport. Other issues include communication, which is why it is so important that we have introduced the sign language legislation. We will implement the disability and work strategy because we know that one of the best routes out of poverty is through work. We have to make sure that people have jobs, that they have the ability to travel to them and that they get the reasonable adjustments that they need. We know that participation in the arts and in sport is also a contributing factor in helping to deal with poverty, and the strategy includes that. It is also about making sure that people have suitable accommodation; housing is another key commitment in the strategy. All those things together can help us to tackle poverty, along with, of course, improved access to health and social care. That is why it is important that we have a joined-up approach and why the strategy will help us to deal with poverty. Mrs Cameron: I thank the Minister for his very welcome statement on the launch of the public consultation on the Executive's disability strategy. Does the Minister have any plans for reform of the disability legislation in Northern Ireland? Mr Lyons: Yes, absolutely. That was a key ask and is one that we will deliver on. That work is starting now. It will require significant resource, because the existing disability legislation is extremely complex, but we have to see that as an opportunity to create meaningful and lasting improvements in the lives of deaf and disabled people. Any new disability legislation would be a positive measure but would also be cross-cutting; we would need to collaborate across Departments and then get Executive agreement. I am committed to doing that because that is what the sector tells us that it needs, and listening to it on those issues is important. Ms Mulholland: I thank the Minister for the very welcome statement; I am delighted to see that step towards my colleague Danny Donnelly's Member's Bill on the UNCRPD. Will the Minister give an idea of the timeline? What will come first? A wee bit of clarity would be useful on whether the recruitment for the disability forum will happen first or the actions will all happen alongside one another. I really welcome the disability forum, which is a great idea — we have to put people at the heart of the policies that matter to them — but how will the forum members be recruited? What will the process be, and how will the Minister ensure that the forum is fully representative? Top 11.30 am Mr Lyons: The specific details are still being worked out. The Member raises an important issue, however, because we want to make sure that the forum will be fully representative of the sectors and individuals that need to be on it, and I have stated that it will be. As for timelines, we can do some preparatory work now, but we are keen to have the forum in place to feed into some of the changes that we want to see. At the very most, I would expect it to be created and in place within 12 months. That is very long-term, so I want to pull that back as much as I can and have the forum in place as soon as possible. The furthest away would be 12 months, but I hope that we can pull it forward, and I have instructed officials to do that. Mr McHugh: Minister, we live now in an ageing society, and, clearly, I am also well in that ballpark. As the society ages, it is more likely that many people will suffer from a disability of one form or another, and, as a result, the demand for disability adaptations and the like will increase. The facilities grant is already struggling to cope with demand, so when will the review of that grant be completed? Will its recommendations be implemented by 2027? Mr Lyons: The Member is right to highlight that issue. It is important that we have the resources in place. It is also important that we take action now to make sure that people do not find themselves in the situation that the Member described due to ageing and that we have as healthy a population as possible. The Member will be aware of the significant investment that we put into those issues. It would certainly be inappropriate for me to comment right now, but I hope that we will have further good news on that later today. However, we certainly need to make the most effective use of our resources, which is why that work is being carried out. I will update the Member accordingly. Mr Kingston: I thank the Minister for his statement progressing a new disability strategy. A disability forum has been long called for by the deaf and disabled community, and I welcome its inclusion in the statement. The Minister said that he is aiming for it to be in place in 12 months. Will he provide details of the recruitment process for those who would be keen to get involved? Mr Lyons: The Member is right to highlight the fact that I want the forum to be in place as soon as possible; in fact, we have already had quite a bit of interest from those who have volunteered their services. Obviously, we still need to go through the consultation process, getting final agreement from the Executive and putting it out there. I will make sure that we do as much of that preparatory work as possible, and we will inform people of what it will entail. As I said in my statement, the forum will be different from any of the other bodies that have been set up. For example, we are not asking for some of the professional or life experience that some may have required for other roles. Instead, we are trying to make sure that we get as wide a range of views as possible, because it is important that we have expertise and representation from all sectors. That is what I am determined to do, and we will update as soon as we have more information on that. Mr Butler: On 6 December last year, we lost Mr Seán Fitzsimons, one of the most powerful disability advocates. I am sure that the Minister would recognise his loss to that piece of work and that Seán Fitzsimons would have loved to hear the news today about the potential for significant change for our disabled communities. We extend our thoughts to the family, who were mourning his loss this time last year. Minister, this is good news — at least, it certainly has the potential to be good news — but your statement refers to "potential reform" of the DDA, which is 30 years old. As chair of the all-party group (APG) on disability, I have not heard a single person say that the DDA is not fit for purpose. Will the Minister outline why changes have not happened in the past 30 years and give a more significant and complete timeline for the full implementation of the UNCRPD and changes to the legislation? Mr Lyons: First, I thank the Member for his kind words about Seán. I was at an event that paid tribute to him last week at City Hall. I have no doubt that he made a significant contribution to the document through his work in the groups. I pay tribute to him and to the work that he carried out. It was great to meet his family and his son, Ollie, last week. I am very grateful to him for that work. The Member may have been a little bit wrong when he said that he had not met anyone who thinks that the Act is not fit for purpose, rather than fit for purpose. I do not think that it is fit for purpose. That is why we need to do more work on it, and that will be done. There is a commitment, as I said in the statement, to review that. I hope that there is not any misunderstanding. We will take that forward. Mr McGuigan: Minister, you mentioned that there would be a number of groups and organisations in the forum to hold you to account. Can I have some more detail on that? Mr Lyons: As I said, the forum will be composed entirely of deaf and disabled people. We want as broad a representation on it as possible. There are many people involved in the disability sector. I want it to be broad, because I want to hear the views, the expertise and the lived experience of those involved. We do not have the details yet on the exact process for that. It will also depend on the feedback from the consultation. However, the forum will have a key role not only in monitoring and holding us to account but in bringing forward new ideas as time progresses, because it is a 10-year strategy. Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for bringing forward the disability strategy today and for the announcement on the disability forum. Minister, you mentioned the fully representative nature of the forum and referred to the young disabled people who will be on it. However, given that we have an ageing population, Minister, can you confirm that older people will also be on the panel, as well as representatives from rural areas, such as those in my constituency, where deaf and disabled people face increased barriers and isolation? Transportation is a particular issue in accessing services. Mr Lyons: Absolutely. I have said that I want representation to be as broad as possible so that we hear those views. As I said, there are differing circumstances in rural and urban areas. Those need to be taken into account. We want it to be as comprehensive as possible in taking in all those views. I certainly hope that we have some representation from South Down as well. Mrs Guy: Minister, I welcome the statement. I am pleased to see that you are reserving places for disabled young people on the disability forum. What collaboration has your Department had with the Department of Education to ensure that the strategy will help disabled young people to fulfil their educational potential? Mr Lyons: There has been extensive engagement not just with the Department of Education but all Departments because it impacts on so many areas of life. Of course, that engagement has happened through the groups that have been set up. We have been clear that we want to make sure that we help people fulfil their full potential, and that includes children's educational experiences. I encourage people to look at the document and to respond to it and to the commitments that we have made to see what needs changed and what can be improved. It will be a genuine consultation process. If the Member would like to see any further issues included in it, we would be happy to hear from her. Mr McNulty: Nollaig shona daoibh. [Translation: A merry Christmas to you.] I hope that every family, especially children, get to experience the magic and the joy of Christmas. I thank the Minister for his statement, and I hope that it delivers on its promise to deaf and disabled people. Does the Minister anticipate any necessity for training public servants in the delivery of the disability strategy in order to achieve the eight outcomes, as outlined? Mr Lyons: A very happy Christmas to Mr McNulty as well. Some Members: Hear, hear. Mr Lyons: I hope that Santa comes. I hope that the Member has been a good boy this year. That is maybe to be determined. Maybe he can ask Santa for a new phone [Laughter] if he is not able to find his. The Member asks a relevant question. It is important that we have a step change and that staff, be they in the public or private sector, understand the needs and concerns of deaf and disabled people. Those are changes that we look forward to bringing through, but, of course, there will be a requirement, whether for the Civil Service or elsewhere in the public sector, to understand the changes that will be implemented and the things that they can do to make it easier for deaf and disabled people. You will see some of those come through in the action plan, specifically, but, if the Member thinks that there is anything missing, I encourage him to respond to the public consultation. Mr Gaston: I welcome the Minister's statement and the confirmation that the forum will work closely with the various Departments. That is key to delivering for the deaf and disabled community. Mid and East Antrim Borough Council recently established a lived experience group made up of councillors and members of the public with disabilities. It meets for the first time tomorrow, and I wish it all the best as it moves forward. Is it envisaged that the forum will work closely with local councils and groups such as the one I have outlined as well as the various Departments in Stormont? Mr Lyons: I am pleased to hear that that group has been set up in Mid and East Antrim Borough Council, and I wish it well as it carries out its work. Of course I would like to see the regional disability forum engage with other stakeholders as it carries out its work and monitors the implementation and development of the strategy. It would be useful for them to take into consideration the views of others, particularly when it comes to ensuring that the needs of all deaf and disabled people are met, because there are significant differences in some of the challenges that are faced, especially between urban and rural areas. That is where the expertise of the group that he mentioned in Mid and Antrim Borough Council can be useful. I welcome its establishment, and I hope that other councils can look at that example. One of the reasons why it is so important is that we need to raise awareness and visibility, and we need to be better aware of the small things that we can do every day to improve the opportunities, experiences and life chances of those who are affected. I welcome the establishment of that group and his support for the strategy. Mr Carroll: The Minister talked about access to the labour market. Can he expand on that and what will it look like? How will he ensure that people whose personal independence payment (PIP) has been cut and who have lost their mobility car, will be able to get into work? Quickly — with your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, given the time of year — as the Minister has been speaking, I have been tagged online by Dermot Devlin. He, alongside three members of the disability strategy co-design group, has published a brief outlining concerns about the strategy. I have not read it yet, but will the Minister commit to engaging with Dermot and members of the group to hear their concerns? Mr Lyons: We have the disability at work strategy in place, because opportunities should be open to everyone. Work is an opportunity — it is a good thing — and people should not be prohibited from working because of their disability. That is why we have put that strategy in place and why we think that employers should make reasonable adjustments if that would help people enter the workplace. That is why we are putting through JobStart to help people, many of whom have disabilities, get into work. I want to be clear: I am not taking the approach that the Labour Government have taken and pulling the rug from under people. I want to help people get into work and improve their life chances. The Member will be aware that I have not seen the documentation that he talks about, but of course we will engage. This is a consultation process: we are going to hear from people. Having put other strategies in place, I understand that, when you go out for consultation, there will always be those who will say, "Why isn't x in?", or, "Why do we not have y or z in the document?". This is the opportunity, through the strategy, for people to give us their feedback and views. I met many of the stakeholders last week. It is fair to say that there is broad welcome for the strategy; that people are pleased that it is in place, that they have been listened to and that we are now going to be able to start collecting data; that the disability forum is in place; and that there will be a review of the legislation. Many of the other 58 commitments in the strategy are to be welcomed. If there are more, of course we will listen, engage and take on board what we can, because we want something that genuinely meets the needs of disabled people. That is why the process is in place. We will be happy to listen to all. Top 11.45 am Mr Sheehan: Many people who live in social housing require accommodation that suits their needs, and that demand is likely to grow. The Minister, however, has indicated that he intends to change the design standards of social housing to reduce the minimum requirement for disability-inclusive accommodation. Does the Minister agree that the policy proposal flies in the face of the spirit of the disability strategy? Mr Lyons: No, it does not, because I want to ensure that we have more houses in Northern Ireland that are suitable for those who require them. We do not need to ensure that all houses are built to the same standard. Doing that would increase the cost, and, over the lifetime of the house, there might not be anybody living in it who requires those expensive changes. I want to make sure that we have sufficient houses that are properly constructed and adaptable for those who need that. I would rather make sure that we have more houses overall that meet the needs of disabled and non-disabled people than have fewer houses that are built to a certain spec that is not necessarily needed for everybody. It is a common-sense thing to do. We can keep doing things the way that we have always done them and wonder why we do not get different results. I am prepared to do something differently to meet the challenges that we face. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Before we move on, I remind Members that, if they wish to ask a question following a ministerial statement, they need to have been in the Chamber to hear the statement. Apart from that, I confirm that the goodwill expressed during that set of questions, from the Minister and Mr McNulty, also comes from the Chair, and it will hopefully prevail in the following debates. That concludes questions on the statement. Private Members' Business UK COVID-19 Inquiry: Institutional Reform Ms Bradshaw: I beg to move That this Assembly notes with grave concern the findings of module 2 of the UK COVID-19 inquiry report, including that the current institutional structures weakened the ability of the Executive to respond during a global emergency and that decision-making was marred by political disputes; regrets that, at certain critical points during the pandemic, Ministers from the two largest parties failed to put the common interest of all the people of Northern Ireland above their party political interests; condemns the inappropriate use of cross-community votes within the Executive and the breaking of rules by Ministers; resolves that that dysfunction in decision-making must never be repeated; believes that no single party should ever again have the ability to hold decision-making in the Executive, or the Executive themselves, to ransom; and calls on the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to convene a process of institutional reform, in consultation with the Irish Government and local parties, without further delay. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. An amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List, so the Business Committee has agreed that 15 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate. Please open the debate on the motion. Ms Bradshaw: The findings of module 2 of the UK COVID-19 inquiry speak directly to the functioning of the Executive during one of the most serious crises of our lifetime. Before I turn to the substance of my remarks, I confirm that we will support the SDLP's amendment. My party made it clear in its response to the draft Programme for Government that institutional reform ought to be part of the Executive's work, but that becomes impossible when the two largest parties block progress. That, in itself, illustrates why reform is needed. What the inquiry has laid out is stark; it describes a system that responded too slowly and which suffered from what Baroness Hallett called a fractured and dysfunctional approach to collective decision-making. In Northern Ireland, the dysfunction was magnified. What emerged here was a disjointed and, at times, politically motivated approach to a global emergency that touched every household. The uncomfortable truth is that some Ministers did not consistently put the people of Northern Ireland first. When unity, clarity and discipline were needed, political point-scoring too often filled the space instead. The inquiry has confirmed that. Those are not Alliance's criticisms; they are the findings of an independent, statutory process, the chair of which concluded that Northern Ireland's institutions and structures significantly weakened the Executive's ability to respond effectively in the pandemic. Rightly, the motion notes those findings with grave concern and expresses regret that there were failures of leadership displayed by Ministers from the two largest parties at key moments. Those failures are now matters of public record. There were delayed interventions, public disputes and decisions blocked when time was critical. Sadly, recent behaviour in the Chamber suggests that the culture has not materially changed. Bickering, point-scoring and the pursuit of sound bites still displace the serious collective work that the public expect from us. After the report was published, members of the public told the media that they have been conditioned not to expect much from political leaders here. That is a devastating indictment and one that we should all take seriously. Health must never be a partisan battleground. In a public health emergency, the Executive table should be a place of unity, yet the inquiry found that cohesion was missing at several key points. Baroness Hallett stated plainly that the Executive were not the central forum for crisis leadership that they needed to be. A major factor in that failing was the misuse of cross-community mechanisms. Alliance has long warned that those safeguards were designed to protect inclusion, not to be used as political weapons. During the pandemic, they were used in ways that eroded public confidence and trust at a time when trust was already fragile. That reflects a deeper structural flaw. The current cross-community voting arrangements create a democratic deficit. Alliance MLAs are elected by voters from all backgrounds, yet our votes do not count in cross-community Divisions. During the pandemic, that meant that thousands of people whom we represent were effectively excluded from some of the most consequential decisions ever taken here. The most striking example —. Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way? Ms Bradshaw: I would like to make a bit of progress. The most striking example came in November 2020, when a cross-community mechanism was used to block a proposed circuit breaker, despite majority support for stronger restrictions. As Baroness Hallett noted, that left the Executive unable to take timely and consistent decisions. The result was weaker and delayed intervention during a major wave of infection. It is difficult to see the fairness or the democracy in that outcome. Dysfunction in a crisis is not just poor governance; it is dangerous governance. That is why the motion states: "no single party should ever again have the ability to hold decision-making ... or the Executive themselves, to ransom". No mandate gives a party the right to paralyse government when lives are at stake. Let me be clear: this is not an attack on power-sharing. Power-sharing is essential here in Northern Ireland. What we oppose is power-dividing. The institutions must be robust enough to function in a crisis. They must be fair, credible and genuinely collective when tested. We must never forget the human reality behind what happened. Thousands of people in Northern Ireland died; families grieved without funerals; older people endured isolation; disabled people felt invisible; workers faced impossible choices; and children lost months of learning, stability and their normal lives. Those are human stories, not statistics, and many families now ask, with reason, whether clearer, faster and more decisive leadership could have reduced their suffering. We cannot undo what happened, but we can choose what we learn. One of the most serious findings for Northern Ireland was the fragmentation of decision-making. The Department of Health carried an impossible burden while the Executive failed to operate as a coherent system. Authority was unclear, advice was disputed and responsibility was not shared. Baroness Hallett described that as a structural weakness that left Northern Ireland exposed. Key sectors, especially care homes, carers and disability organisations issued repeated warnings about disproportionate impacts. Their voices were not systematically built into decision-making, and that must change. Our institutions were designed to end conflict, protect identity and guarantee representation. Those purposes remain vital, but a system built primarily to manage division is not automatically a system that is capable of managing a fast-moving public health emergency. The inquiry makes that point plainly. Reform does not mean dismantling power-sharing. It means strengthening it and building resilience into the structures that we already have so that they hold firm under pressure. We need open, honest communication with the public. Trust takes years to earn and moments to lose, and we cannot claim to have learned lessons unless transparency becomes the norm rather than the exception. We must recognise that future crises will not stop at our borders. Whether the next shock is in public health, the economy or climate, cooperation with the UK Government and the Irish Government must be grounded in stable, agreed structures, not improvised arrangements made in panic. Those are the foundations of competent government, and they reflect Alliance's values: pluralism over polarisation; service over division; and the belief that good government is not optional but our duty. That is why the motion calls on the Secretary of State to convene a process of institutional reform in consultation with the Irish Government and local parties and stakeholders. Some of what is needed requires action beyond this Assembly. Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. Can the Member outline why she believes that the Irish Government should be involved in institutional reform in Northern Ireland? Would that not be a breach of the current arrangements via the Belfast Agreement? Ms Bradshaw: We know that the Belfast Agreement was an international agreement, so we think that institutional reform will require all partners to step forward. I do not see any reason why we would exclude the partners who were instrumental in bringing about the institutions in the first place. I will move on. There will always be those who say that this is not the right time, but, if we cannot reform our institutions after a crisis that took so many lives, when will be the right time? Another crisis will come. It will not look exactly like COVID, but it will come. The test for us all is whether we act when we have the chance. We owe it to the families who grieved; the health and social care workers who carried unbearable burdens; the children and young people whose lives were disrupted; and the future generations who deserve institutions that are capable of protecting them. I urge Members to support our motion, and I commend it to the House. Mr O'Toole: I beg to move the following amendment: After "to ransom;" insert: "laments the failure by Executive parties to adopt institutional reform as a priority within the Programme for Government; accepts that that missed opportunity has contributed to continued political instability and a loss of public confidence;" Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): You will have 10 minutes to propose the amendment and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who speak will have five minutes. Mr O'Toole, please open the debate on the amendment. Mr O'Toole: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion. It is one of the final motions before we break up for Christmas, and, in many ways, it is fitting because, since we came back in February last year after our two-year forced absence — forced by one party, as it had been forced by a different party previously — in one sense, as an official Opposition, we represent one of the bits of institutional reform that has happened. I hope that — perhaps I am not the one to judge — we have been relatively successful, or the idea of opposition has been successful. As leader of the Opposition, the first thing that I did was challenge the newly appointed First Minister and deputy First Minister not to resign their offices. The only way to directly collapse these institutions is for one of the two major designated parties to resign that office and then refuse to appoint a replacement. Neither of those individuals, nor their parties, has ever given me that commitment. That speaks to a fundamental problem with the way our system works. It is why the motion is necessary, and it speaks to dysfunction. However, that is not the only thing that is dysfunctional about the way that our politics works. Our amendment is an important one. It is about accountability. Yes, it is about holding Executive parties to account. We make no apology for that, because, as I said, one of the most important bits of institutional and political reform that has happened here is the creation of an official Opposition. Like everybody else, we deserve to be held to account through robust debate in the Chamber, and robust debate in the Chamber is necessary so long as it is focused on policy and outcomes for the public, not personalities. Top 12.00 noon I will come on to the Executive parties — all of them — and their failure to make progress on a Programme for Government, because that is important, but, first, I will reflect on the core thrust of the motion: the findings of module 2 of the COVID inquiry. They are shocking. Let us remember not only the awfulness of the years of COVID-19 and the difficult position in which every individual and family across the world was put but the immense pressure that healthcare workers, educationalists, teachers, families and, indeed, policymakers were under. For those of us who had to legislate and make decisions for people, it was extraordinarily difficult. All those things were made worse by the two major parties in our Executive. The inquiry is scathing about that and about how our system of government let down the public, who lost loved ones. The inquiry made it clear that the situation was worse for families and the public in Northern Ireland because of decisions that were made by the two big parties. Sinn Féin facilitated and attended a funeral in the middle of Belfast in clear violation either of the restrictions themselves or of the spirit of them, which undermined people's confidence in leadership at a time when others' loved ones either died alone or were buried effectively in private. That was immensely hurtful, and it took years for an apology. The DUP used cross-community vetoes to block public health measures. That was an extraordinarily inappropriate thing to do. Mr Frew: Will the Member give way? Mr O'Toole: I will give way in a few minutes, not just yet. That is not what those vetoes are for. As we know from yesterday, the DUP is trying to use those vetoes again. At least, in the case of yesterday, the use of the veto is totally futile, because it is being used in relation to a non-binding motion, but it comes back to how, unfortunately, the DUP occasionally sees politics. The COVID-19 inquiry exposed why we need to change how we do politics here. As a party that was an architect of the Good Friday Agreement, we remain profoundly morally, politically and intellectually committed to the idea of sharing power, but, as Paula Bradshaw said, it has to be about sharing. In order to share power, you have to have a vision of the common good that respects different identities and aspirations for the future. Our politics has become about negative vetoes, stalemate, divvying up power and sharing it out when it suits one another. We have already seen that this week, with the failure to agree a multi-year Budget in time for the end of the year and the beginning of the financial year. There are multiple examples of that every day. The case is proven for the need to reform how this place works. The word "reform" is often bandied about without precision about what it means, and it can mean a multiplicity of things. It is understood most definitively as meaning "institutional reform", but what we have to mean by that is making it harder to collapse the institutions, so that they are more sustainable. It should not just be about their being here and our showing up and debating motions that have no legal effect but about our Government's being more effective at dealing with the issues that face people in their lives. It is about recognising that there are different aspirations and traditions in this society, having a clear list of priorities, ideally in a Programme for Government that is matched to a Budget, and saying to the public, "This is what we are delivering for you". That is what reform should be about, and that is what we are about. That is why we have championed reform, and I acknowledge that others in the Chamber want to do that too. That brings me on to the thrust of our amendment, which is about accounting for all the parties in the Chamber. Literally every party in the Chamber has said at one point that it wants to fundamentally reform how the institutions work. It is a much more recent move for Sinn Féin, but it now says — rhetorically at least — that it wants the Assembly and Executive Review Committee to investigate that. I welcome that. To be honest, I do not think that that would have happened without political pressure from other quarters, including from us as the official Opposition. I do not think that that is an unreasonable position for Sinn Féin to take; it is a welcome development, and I hope that it keeps that up and is serious about delivering on it. I will come on to the Alliance Party, but we know that the Ulster Unionist Party has acknowledged that there needs to be reform. The DUP, however, now seems to be implacably opposed. It keeps talking about how any change to the way in which Stormont works would be a profound offence. I will very briefly read out some words: "We believe that in the long-term, the best means of governing Northern Ireland would involve a voluntary coalition Executive and weighted majority voting of around 65% in the Assembly, resulting in an end to Community Designation. This ... could provide for both an Executive and an official Opposition" — we are flattered to be included — "which would be consistent with normal democratic institutions", blah-blah-blah. Those words are not from the Alliance Party or the Ulster Unionist Party's manifesto; they are, in fact, from the DUP's manifesto in 2011. When a Programme for Government was agreed, we did not see any of that. When it comes to accountability, we are —. Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way? Mr O'Toole: I am not going to give way; I have been asked to give way multiple times. I am happy to do so in a second, if I have time, but I need to make some progress. I think that I am one of the most generous Members when it comes to taking interventions in the Chamber. I want to say this, however: we know that all parties in the Chamber, including the Alliance Party, have a long-standing commitment to reform. I do not say this to be gratuitous — it is pre-Christmas, and I say it in a spirit of goodwill — but it is important to say that the Alliance Party won an extraordinary mandate in 2022. I know that it was extraordinary, because we lost a third of our seats thanks to the Alliance Party. The Alliance Party is right when it says that that was an historic mandate. Unfortunately, however, the people who voted for the Alliance Party on that day have not seen a clear, meaningful return on that investment. That is not just the fault of the DUP and Sinn Féin — they cannot simply be blamed for that. This is a really important point: when discussions were had about restoring the Executive last year, a lot of people would have felt that it would be entirely reasonable for the Alliance Party, with a more than doubled representation in the Executive, to say to the other parties, "As a condition of our participation in this Executive, we insist upon a commitment to make progress on institutional reform". That would not have been, as it is sometimes described, ransom politics. It could not have been ransom politics. The Alliance Party does not designate as First Minister or deputy First Minister, so it could not have blocked Sinn Féin or the DUP from forming an Executive. It would simply have been keeping true to the mandate that it received in 2022, but I am afraid that it did not do that. Mr Tennyson: Will the Member give way? Mr O'Toole: I do not have time, but I am happy to engage. If I have time at the end, I will give way. That party did not hold faith with its mandate. I am not saying that that would have been easy, nor am I saying that it would have led to institutional reform, because the two big parties may well have blocked it. However, it is true to say that it would have been an entirely reasonable and, in fact, obvious thing to do, because the upshot of some of the Alliance Party's proposals for reform is that it wants a more voluntary or more flexible form of coalition. Saying that your participation is conditional not on getting everything that you want but on at least making progress on one thing, even if it involves saying, "We will enter an Executive for a period of time, subject to its being included in a Programme for Government", would have been the entirely responsible thing to do. It is hugely regrettable to me that that did not happen, because I want to see reform. It is also true to say that many people who voted for a party that does not traditionally designate as unionist or nationalist and who wanted to see reform have not seen progress on that. I do not say that to be rude or unkind — it is pre-Christmas — and I want to work with the Alliance Party to deliver reform, but it did not use the mandate that it received in 2022 to deliver on that. Where do we go from here? We must use all the means that are available to us. Let us go back to being honest. All of us in the Chamber must acknowledge that trust in politics is at an all-time low. We simply cannot go on like this. The Assembly and Executive Review Committee is doing some important work, but it is a relatively obscure Stormont Committee. Let us agree today in the Chamber with the Alliance Party motion that we need to make progress on this. Let us do it; let us not simply write to Santa Claus, Hilary Benn, asking him to do it for us. Let us start the work here, and let us take responsibility. People do not trust us; they have contempt for those of us who are in the Chamber. Let us reform this place — Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up. Mr O'Toole: — and let us take responsibility for our actions. Mr Sheehan: We are 27 years on from the Good Friday Agreement, and we must acknowledge how far we have come and how much things have changed. The context in which we now operate is fundamentally different from that of 1998. With that in mind, we must look seriously and maturely at reform. Sinn Féin is up for that discussion. We are open to exploring how our institutions can be strengthened and how accountability can be improved. However, we are equally clear that any reform must defend, not dilute, the principles of and protections in the Good Friday Agreement. The proper forum in which to examine those issues in detail, hear expert evidence and bring forward meaningful proposals is the Assembly and Executive Review Committee. That work is ongoing, and a process of evidence gathering and consultation is under way. As part of our current work programme, we on that Committee are engaging with academics, constitutional experts and others on questions such as the role and election of the Speaker, cross-community voting and designations, the process for Executive formation and all the other important issues. Those are complex issues that require thoughtful consideration. The Assembly and Executive Review Committee is the place to have that conversation, test ideas, build consensus and ensure that any changes strengthen, rather than undermine, these institutions. As I have said previously in the Chamber, I was pleased to support a proposal from my Committee colleague Alliance MLA Michelle Guy to explore enhanced civic engagement on the issue of institutional reform. Civic participation was key to building the Good Friday Agreement, and it should remain central to how we continue to shape these political institutions. If we were to hand responsibility for the process to a Secretary of State who has consistently shown himself to be out of touch with people here, it would be the wrong approach. It would also cut across the constructive work already taking place at Committee level. People elected representatives to this Assembly to take forward proposals, debate them, test ideas and work towards agreement. Our message is clear. Sinn Féin is up for the discussion. We are engaging with the detail, and we will continue to do so through the proper forum, the Assembly and Executive Review Committee. Others, particularly the DUP, need to explain where they stand because setting your face against reform is not a plan for the future, and it is not good enough for all the people whom we come here to represent. Mr Buckley: I suppose that I have mixed emotions about the debate. Primarily, my thoughts are with those who lost loved ones during COVID, those who continue to suffer the aftermath of long-term health effects, the children who missed out on schooling and, indeed, those who were bereaved. Those of us who were in the Chamber at the time can recount a very difficult time as an elected representative. I remember the elderly constituent who was impaled on the cemetery fence as he went to lay flowers at his wife's grave when the cemeteries were closed due to COVID restrictions. I remember the constituent who presented late at A&E and his throat cancer was so developed that it was missed. He died. I remember the businesses destroyed. I remember going to the window of a care home to visit a dear friend and watch him die from the window. I remember those things. I was present as an elected representative. I took views in the Assembly that were different from those of other Members, but they were all taken from a position of huge empathy and a huge degree of respect for those who had no voice. That is why I look at the motion, and I look at Governments around the world that struggled with COVID. There was not one Government that did not struggle with the COVID pandemic. If we look at deaths per million around the world, we see that the UK does not even enter the top 10. That is not to say that the UK Government got everything right; they got many things wrong, as did the devolved Administrations. However, it is a fallacy to say that it is because of the institutions and the way in which they operate here that we so failed the people of Northern Ireland. I am disappointed in the Alliance Party today because it is not only low but crass to try to insinuate and link that to your desire for institutional reform, which you know rightly goes to the very heart of safeguards in the agreements, the Belfast Agreement and the St Andrews Agreement, that are crucial to this place functioning. We know that this is a divided society, and we know that it needs to have cross-community support on key issues. Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way? Mr Buckley: I will in a minute, because the Member gave way to me. When I look at that, I say that that is crass and is gaslighting the victims who suffered as a result of some the decisions taken by Members in the House. I will make this point, and then I will give way: it is very obvious to me that it is the Alliance Party that is so keen to talk up collapse, and it is quite obvious that there is a campaign. You are in a political vice. You are being squeezed from the left by the SDLP, which is putting you under pressure. There is a huge chasm between you and unionism because of the positions that you have adopted. Ms Bradshaw failed to mention in her opening speech that one of the most brass-necked, outlandish and despicable acts during the COVID pandemic in Northern Ireland was the mass attendance at the Bobby Storey funeral. To the SDLP's credit, Matthew O'Toole mentioned it. Ms Bradshaw could not even mention it. It shows how far to the left, and indeed into Sinn Féin's lap, Alliance has fallen. Top 12.15 pm Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give take an intervention? Mr Buckley: On that point, I give way to a Member of the Alliance Party who can suggest an action of reform that would have delivered better results during the COVID pandemic. Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Member for giving way. This is about institutional reform, so — A Member: No, it is not. Ms Bradshaw: No, it is. It is about institutional reform. The report laid bare the need for it. My question to you is: have you read Baroness Hallett's response? These —. Mr Buckley: Let me answer. Ms Bradshaw: OK. Mr Buckley: I only have a moment. Have I read the report? Yes. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): You have an extra minute. Mr Buckley: The Member is quite crass to talk about whether I have read the report. I sat on the Health Committee with her during the COVID pandemic. She did not even realise at the time that the Coronavirus Act 2020 enabled the Minister of Health to have vast, overreaching powers beyond the Assembly. She is trying to rewrite the past. Ms Bradshaw: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Two Members cannot be on their feet at the same time. I will take your point of order, Ms Bradshaw. Ms Bradshaw: I want the record to reflect that I spoke in every single debate on the COVID regulations, and I always stressed that we in the Alliance Party were deeply troubled by the fact that the Health Minister had such far-reaching powers. During —. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I am going to move on. Mr Buckley's time —. Mr Buckley: The Member did not even realise —. Ms Bradshaw: What are you talking about? Of course I realised. Of course I realised. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members will resume their seats. Points of order will not be used as points of information during the debate. Mr Buckley will continue. Mr Buckley: It is quite easy to understand why the Member is angry — Ms Bradshaw: You are telling lies. Mr Buckley: — because she failed fundamentally to scrutinise —. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Order. Mr Buckley: She failed to fundamentally scrutinise legislation that had a huge impact. The Alliance Members were lockdown fanatics. That caused huge harm in our schools. There are still record levels of truancy in our schools. The legislation caused record levels of anxiety in our communities, which craved leadership, and Alliance showed none. Alliance wants to come to the House today to try to rewrite its record during the COVID pandemic. Talk about accountability? It was the Alliance Party's leader, Naomi Long, who wiped her WhatsApp messages. Where was the accountability there? Perhaps take a mirror and look at your own face before throwing around accusations —. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Buckley, resume your seat. I am going to call order again. I refer all Members to the terms of the motion, but particularly you, Mr Buckley. You have strayed some way from that and you are straying into the business of reviewing the entire COVID process. Return to the motion. Mr Buckley: I will, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I think there is a brave degree of rewriting and hypocrisy from some of the parties that are debating the motion. Parties fundamentally disagreed on aspects of COVID. Do you know what? Rightly so, because they were huge decisions. However, understand this — I want to be clear — you will not use the COVID inquiry or the death of loved ones from all across Northern Ireland to take away safeguards that are crucial to the functioning of this place. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up. Mr Buckley: I say this to the Secretary of State: no unionist will support it. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up. Thank you. Mr Butler: I have a speech written, but I might digress from it because the debate has moved into a slightly different sphere. In the first instance, my party would have loved to support the first part of the motion, because it talks about the reform of the institutions for the common good. However, I listened to Mr Sheehan's speech, and he did not reference the first part of the motion at all. Sinn Féin has spotted the two parts of the motion: one to ignore and one to lean into. Now, we have looked at it from a balanced perspective. Members in the Chamber have different views on what happened during COVID and what has happened since. Sadly, the motion has lost every bit of good that it could have had. I was one of the MLAs who was here during New Decade, New Approach, when we worked for weeks through talks, about 200 or 300 yards away from the Chamber, to try to restore these institutions. Part of those talks was about reform. That is hard to deliver and, if you do not deliver reform in the House with the authority of all the voices in the Chamber, you doom yourself to failure. I ask the Members who tabled the motion to reflect on the fact that it is a missed opportunity. I want to turn to Baroness Hallett's module 2 findings for a moment or two. The findings are damning — absolutely damning. Evidence showed the clear failure of leadership in this place. Sinn Féin, evidently, failed spectacularly when it did not obey the laws that we had passed here collectively. That was not mentioned today. The ongoing process that we had at the very top between the DUP and Sinn Féin and the failure to put people before party became evident when we could not make decisions. I want to deal with that very quickly because I am sure that, some day, we will have a better debate about what happened during COVID. I am genuinely pleased that we had a Health Minister in Robin Swann, who did not delete his phone or WhatsApp messages and has been able to contribute fully to the COVID inquiry. I do not claim that I got everything right in the whole COVID debate. However, what I will say is that I have a background in dynamic risk assessment. When you dynamically risk assess something such as the COVID pandemic, you do not have all the facts, so what you do is listen to those who do have the facts — the scientists and medical experts — and put your faith in the people who are giving you the best advice based on what has been proven. We are certainly not experts. We could have acted more speedily. Would we have got everything right? We absolutely would not have done because it was an imperfect storm. Nothing was going to protect —. Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. With regard to the advice that was given to Robin Swann, the Health Minister, who had all the power — whether he chose to use it or not was up to him — the CMO in England silenced the ethical and moral group that was there to advise him on ethical standards. That would have migrated over the sea in the advice that Robin Swann received. Does the Member agree that it was dangerous to have power in one man and one party throughout that emergency? Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute. Mr Butler: I do not actually see how one man had that power. We passed legislation. There were 90 Members in the House and an Executive. Had that Executive been functioning properly, and has there been trust among Members, we would not have been in the mess that we are discussing today. Therefore, I do not accept what the Member has said. I agree with Mr Buckley's assertion. The second part of the motion actually asks us to disregard strand one of the Good Friday Agreement. Some Members: Yes. Mr Butler: That should have been separated out. If that is what the Alliance Party wants to do, that should be a separate motion in and of itself. I genuinely lament the fact that we could not simply have debated a motion on how we collectively bring leadership, collaboration and cohesion to the Executive, because the people of Northern Ireland darned well deserve that. It is not just about COVID. The first part of the motion speaks to the fact that we have not had a Government here for 12 years out of 25. That is an indictment of why we cannot govern at times. If and when there is a serious motion to debate the reform and betterment of the Good Friday Agreement for the future prosperity and well-being of the people of Northern Ireland, my party will not be found wanting. However, we will not set aside aspects of the Good Friday Agreement for anybody's political whims. Ms Ní Chuilín: I thank Alliance and the SDLP for tabling the motion and amendment. While I do not like some of the language in them, I completely support the spirit of both. I declare an interest as I was a Minister from June 2020 to December 2020 and was responsible for making some of the COVID regulations. I went in front of the COVID inquiry. I have read each of the module reports. I have read the recent report. It is not good reading for anyone. I apologised privately to families and at the COVID inquiry for my attendance at Bobby Storey's funeral. That is the measure of political leadership. Matthew, my party has not come late to the table on reform. We have taken part in a series of citizens' assemblies right across the island. We have listened to people. I do not agree with a lot of what they said, but we can certainly appreciate what they said. That is why we are serious about reform. I do not want to do down AERC, because it is a space in which we go through the process of working with academics, listening to consultations and doing the citizens' assemblies before bringing our findings back to our parties. I want to put to bed any suggestion that we are not serious about reform. If people want to approach that from a different political perspective, that is up to them. This debate is really interesting for me, and a lot of observers who watch this place. Paul Frew is very vocal about the impacts of COVID, which is his prerogative, and Jonathan Buckley has talked about what Jonathan talks about. I, and, I think, the people watching and listening, would have much preferred to hear what you are doing about reform. Instead, you attacked parties because they are different from you. Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way? Ms Ní Chuilín: I will give way in a wee minute, Jonathan. That demonstrates a lack of political confidence and political leadership. Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. I appreciate that she apologised for her attendance at Bobby Storey's funeral; it is just a pity that other members of her party did not. I am serious about the reform that we should all be serious about, which is the reform of public services. Does the Member agree that key institutional reforms, such as the removal of cross-community safeguards, will be achieved only if there is agreement across the House, rather than the agreement of one political party? Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute. Ms Ní Chuilín: Alliance, the SDLP and ourselves are trying to get to that point in AERC. The Member may not appreciate this, but we are trying to get to a point at which we all agree on institutional reform. With respect, Jonathan, coming from a party that has blocked equality and progress —. Mr Buckley: Nonsense. Ms Ní Chuilín: The proof has been in the pudding. We are looking at the bill of rights and lots of other issues that would promote rights, equality, inclusion and respect, which are the fundamental cornerstones of the Good Friday Agreement and anything that comes with it. Both Governments need to be involved at some stage. If we get to the stage of having to decide on proposals in AERC — hopefully we will — and yourselves and the UUP —. Robbie is not here, but I was on the Executive when Robin Swann voted against his own proposal because he was a DUP fanboy at the time. I am just putting that on the record. At some stage or other, we are going to have to look at reform. What is happening here at the minute is not working. Mr Tennyson: Will the Member give way? Ms Ní Chuilín: I will surely, Eóin. Very briefly. Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for giving way. I appreciate what she said about the spirit of reform, but I am still not clear on whether her intention is to support the motion. Ms Ní Chuilín: Begrudgingly. I do not like the language, but I will support it. We will also support the amendment. I say "begrudgingly" because we did not write it, but, accepting the spirit of it, we absolutely will support it. You cannot talk about reform, equality, inclusion and the very essence of this place and then block the very motions and amendments that are trying to look at things differently. What some Members are going to say has become almost predictable. Members need to be genuinely serious about reform. If they are happy to hold on to vetoes and blocking mechanisms, at least we will all know where we stand. The progressive parties need to get on with the business, and, hopefully, some people will come to their senses along the way. Mr Frew: Today, so many people who have suffered loss and bereavement have been in the Building. I do not know whether Members got to see and hear the event in the Long Gallery this morning involving people who suffered loss and bereavement due to the pandemic and the lockdown philosophy that meant that they could not bury their loved ones, attend a funeral or attend a wake. Alliance would dare to exploit that and, indeed, Alliance's own failings to try to further its political goals and objectives. Top 12.30 pm Mr Tennyson: Will the Member give way? Mr Frew: No, I will not give way. Reform will not fix incompetence, reform will not fix lazy governance, and reform will not fix stupid. Everything that was constitutional and institutional about this place was held in abeyance at the time of COVID. Reform would not have stopped those parties and the Assembly giving away all its power to one person, no matter who that person was, to dream up regulations and restrictions and have them written up over breakfast, implemented at lunchtime and enforced by supper time. It shifted the whole dynamic of the Executive. The Executive changed, in one move, how they would make decisions that impacted on our people so badly and disastrously. Reform could not have stopped the Coronavirus Act 2020, which made this a zombie Assembly that rubber-stamped horrific laws weeks after they had been enforced and then, of course, superseded. Those laws had been made redundant numerous times over before the Assembly even voted on them. A Member: Will the Member give way? Mr Frew: No, I will not. Whilst the regulations were fleeting, the damage remains to this day: people filled with anxiety, not able to leave their home; people not able to attend school; people who were coerced to take vaccines that damaged them — of course, the Member called for house-to-house and door-to-door vaccine teams to coerce people into taking a vaccine that caused them adverse reactions. That is what we are left with, but it is what Alliance will not get to grips with. When I was asking questions about and raising objections to those restrictions, two SDLP Members came to me in the corridor and said, "You know, Paul, we agree with everything that you say in there". I asked, "Well, why do you not get up off your hind legs and actually say that?", and they said, "No, our party would go through us". That party, the SDLP, then called for the sacking of nurses, who had worked for a whole year on the front line; the SDLP called for their sacking. Those people, the SDLP, even called for the unvaccinated and those who chose not to have the discriminatory certificate to be banished. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Frew, I asked earlier for people not to reassess the entire COVID period and processes, and I will certainly not indulge party critiques. Will you return to the motion? Mr Frew: Yes, I will, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am referring to module 2 of the UK COVID-19 inquiry, which talked about all those matters. An Alliance Member asked me one day, "Why do you keep asking those questions?". Well, that is our job. It was their incompetence. We know that the Alliance Party played a massive role in the coercion around vaccine certification. We need to grapple with this issue, but to use it as an excuse to reform these institutions, which were held in abeyance? The Executive did not function properly. The Assembly could not do its scrutiny work. It should take months to pass regulations and legislation in this place. Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. The Member makes an interesting point. Does he agree that it was not the structures of the Executive that prevented adequate scrutiny and adequate legislation but the Coronavirus Act 2020, which those Members supported? Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute. Mr Frew: Yes. I thank the Member for that vital intervention. It is that Act, which still sits on the statute book, that has done the damage. We have families who are filled with regret, guilt and torment because they could not give their loved ones a proper send-off according to their religion. They could not do that. In Ireland, North and South, a wake is really important, and those people were denied it. In fact, they could not even stand in the open air in a field — a burial ground. That was disastrous, and we still live with the consequences. Assembly Members in the Chamber were denied the ability to scrutinise and denied their say, because we passed laws weeks after they had been enforced, when they had been duplicated, removed and superseded three or four times over. That is no way to run an Executive; that is no way to run an Assembly. In a crisis, we need more scrutiny powers and more of a say, not less, but that is what all those parties supported at the time: shame on you all. Mrs Guy: The purpose of the motion is not to re-litigate the failures of leadership and decision-making during COVID that have been vividly expressed by Baroness Hallett in the latest findings of the COVID-19 inquiry. At its heart, the purpose of the motion is to understand how the two largest parties in the Executive are prepared to react to them. When I heard the finding that decision-making was "chaotic", "deeply divided" and "marred by political disputes", I know how I reacted — I was angry — but, when I listened to the reaction of those who lost loved ones, my heart broke for them. Brenda Doherty's mother, Ruth Burke, was the first local woman to die from COVID-19 here. Speaking on 'Good Morning Ulster' after the latest inquiry findings, her reaction and her call were clear: "I need you to be leaders. I don't care about orange and green. I care about the fact that I want to save lives. No matter what happens in the future, we cannot bring the past in to pollute the present or the future." That is wisdom and clarity from a place of grief. Her grief — her story — is one of thousands. Families have empty seats at the table because our politics failed them when they needed leadership most. That is why the report must be a tipping point. It is absolutely intolerable that anyone in the Assembly could look at the evidence, especially the abuse of cross-community voting, and still argue that the current institutional arrangements are fine as they are. If, when an independent inquiry has shown that lives may have been lost because decision-making was paralysed by political disputes, the DUP and Sinn Féin are not willing to accept the need for reform, we must ask whether those parties are capable of change at all. Maybe I should stop being surprised by that, because those are the parties that were willing to collapse the Government here for years and watch as our public services deteriorated. Even to me, however, the inquiry report feels different. It cuts through every excuse, every deflection; it shows us, in black and white, that party politics were prioritised over public safety. I am a member of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, and we continue to take evidence on reform of the institutions. Experts and academics tell us that the public want to see reform. They tell us what could be done and how it could be done, but it feels as though some parties on that Committee just simply dance around the issues. The DUP will not engage with the thought of changing anything while it has a veto. Sinn Féin talks about being open to reform; I welcome that, and I am keen to understand what kind of reform they will support. Those of us who want to see change know that nothing can be done without those parties. Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way? Mrs Guy: No, I will not give way. The motion calls on the Secretary of State to convene a reform process, but we should do that ourselves. If we cannot do so, we must take the conversation to the public through a citizens' assembly. Let me be clear: a citizens' assembly is not a new institution. It does not mean outsourcing our responsibilities. It is a proven model for serious, structured, civic engagement. It brings together a representative group of citizens to examine reform proposals in depth and to provide evidence-based recommendations. It strengthens political decision-making; it does not replace it. We cannot undo the pain of the pandemic — we cannot give families back the people whom they lost — but we can learn from what went wrong. We can build institutions that serve the common good, not party interest. We can create an Executive that cannot be collapsed at the whim of one party. It is our responsibility to meet the moment and to show that the Assembly has the will and the maturity to act for all our people. It is our duty to honour those who were failed, by ensuring that those mistakes are never, ever repeated. Mr Gaston: As we speak today about the COVID inquiry's findings, we must begin with the most catastrophic failure of leadership. That failure of leadership brought an end to the public paying attention to anything that the Executive had to say about the health messaging around COVID restrictions. That breaking point came for many on the day of the Bobby Storey funeral. How could any party bring a motion to the House on the failures that the COVID inquiry exposed without making a single direct reference to the shameful spectacle that was put on for all to see? Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. Will he agree that what is really telling is that we have now had two Members from Alliance to speak and neither of them mentioned that? Mr Gaston: Neither one of them mentioned the Bobby Storey funeral, and that is telling and there for all to see. Mr Tennyson: Will the Member give way? Mr Gaston: I will maybe think about it later on. Two Alliance Members have already spoken; you have missed your opportunity. If one moment crystallises the failures that were identified in module 2 of the inquiry, it was that day. While the people of Northern Ireland were burying their dead — their loved ones — alone, and while families could not come together and restrictions were still being enforced on ordinary people, senior members of Sinn Féin, including the current First Minister, flouted the law in broad daylight. They did so deliberately and without consequence, and they should never be allowed to forget the hurt and pain that they caused to many families right across Northern Ireland. Today, we still have no accountability, no resignations and no genuine remorse other than from one Member who travelled to the funeral in their Executive limo. Sinn Féin behaved as though the rules did not apply to it. The evidence suggests that it was right, because nothing has happened. That is a consequence of the peace process. The COVID inquiry states plainly that the Executive's response was undermined by political dysfunction, rule-breaking and a failure among Ministers to put public interest above party interest. Yet, astonishingly, the motion, tabled by Alliance, tries to airbrush that reality by making it sound as though certain parties were uniquely responsible while others were perfect models of moral excellence. The motion rewrites the inquiry for political convenience. It tries to narrow the scope and blame only the two largest parties. That phrase does not occur in the report. It was the Executive, of which Alliance was part, that failed the people of Northern Ireland. It was the Belfast Agreement that produced a system in which all Executive parties are trapped in structures that reward vetoes and political theatre. The dysfunction is not selective; it is structural. What the Alliance Party cannot escape is this: the system that failed us during COVID is a system that it championed, defended, supported and still clings to, as its two ministerial posts and the trappings that come with them are more important than the accountability and reform that it talks about. We have a system in which a single party can collapse the Executive at will. Ministers can act without collective responsibility. No sanction is applied when rules are broken. Accountability evaporates the moment that party political convenience demands it. Who helped to deliver and sustain that system? The Alliance Party. Ms K Armstrong: Will the Member give way? Mr Gaston: I am happy to give way, but briefly. Ms K Armstrong: Thank you very much. The Member talks about reform, but, in the previous mandate, Alliance, alongside his predecessor, Jim Allister, worked on AERC to have the report on reform brought to the House. Have you read that? Mr Gaston: Where is it? What have you achieved? What has your mandate produced? Nothing. We are still where we are here today. The Storey funeral scandal was not only a disgrace from Sinn Féin but a case study in how the Belfast Agreement, the flawed institutions and their design make accountability optional. The rules were broken, the police investigation became political theatre, and the system — this very system — made sure that nothing happened. Top 12.45 pm The motion attempts to rewrite the COVID inquiry to absolve the Alliance Party and direct attention away from its role in propping up this broken system. The people of Northern Ireland deserve better than a system that allows rule-breakers to walk away untouched. They deserve better than motions designed to protect political friends and narrow the blame to suit political and party narratives. They deserve institutions that work, and, quite frankly, the people of Northern Ireland simply do not have them. The House must be honest. The Storey funeral scandal showed us that the system is broken. Sinn Féin's behaviour showed us that it is still unfit for office. The Alliance motion shows us that political convenience still trumps honesty. Mr Carroll: I support the motion and the amendment. As somebody who sat in the House and on the Health Committee during COVID, I think that there is a lot of amnesia and that there has been a lot of rewriting of the history of that, no doubt, turbulent and difficult period by Members to my right, in particular those in the DUP. The COVID-19 inquiry told us that our local institutions failed and that political disputes trumped the public good and what was good for people's health. However, what the inquiry did not say loudly enough is that that was entirely predictable to anyone who watches this place, at present or in the past. While thousands of people died, often alone, and were denied the company of loved ones to comfort them, our political system was paralysed by sectarian vetoes and political point-scoring. Working-class communities bore the brunt of that failure. They could not access adequate healthcare then, and tens and hundreds of thousands still cannot today. They faced impossible choices between following restrictions and putting food on the table, and they watched as those who made the rules broke them without consequence. Our institutions are fundamentally built on a foundation that incentivises division. When the crisis hit, we saw the consequences: people died alone in hospitals, while Ministers played political games and let the virus flow and grow. Families were denied funerals for their loved ones. My grandmother died of COVID in 2022 because, in part, she could not get a care package and was forced to stay in hospital. We were lucky to have a small funeral for her, but we were denied a wake, which is so important to many families. Many families did not get a funeral at all, while the Executive lurched from one chaotic meeting to the next, leaking like a sieve. This is not just about COVID; it is about a system that cannot deliver on housing, that watches our health service collapse and that fiddles while Lough Neagh and Belfast lough turn toxic. It is a system where "transformation" means another unfunded strategy document gathering dust and where an aspirational, non-binding Programme for Government exists. Fifty-eight per cent of people who responded to the life and times survey said that they want reform, and 79% said that they think that the Assembly had achieved little or nothing. They are absolutely right; they are not wrong. People see MLAs whose votes do not count equally, depending on which box they tick when they take their seat in this place. They see a political class that is more interested in looking after wealthy and vested interests than building houses or treating the sick. Reform is not optional; it is absolutely essential. Reform must serve working-class communities across the board and not just tinker with mechanisms that protect elite and well-connected interests. We need institutions that can act decisively in emergencies, and we need accountability mechanisms that work. Citizens' assemblies could — I emphasise "could" — provide a democratic mandate for change. However, let us be honest: reforms in this Building and even talking about them threaten those who benefit from dysfunction. That is why previous attempts have failed and why Mr Buckley and others are dead set against them. Here is the terrifying reality: we are no better prepared for the next pandemic than we were for the last. It would be foolish to say when there will be another, but there is no doubt that, at some time, one will come round the corner. The COVID inquiry's recommendations have not been fully implemented, as has been stated. We still lack robust emergency planning structures. Our healthcare system remains fragile and underfunded, with a gap of thousands of health and social care workers. The cross-departmental coordination needed for a pandemic response is totally absent; it is non-existent. When — not if — a public health emergency strikes, we risk repeating the same catastrophic failures that cost thousands of lives. That is totally unconscionable, but preventable. People deserve institutions that work for them, not against them. They deserve a Government that can respond quickly and effectively to emergencies, not one that is tied to the internal dysfunction of Westminster during a public health crisis. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Sinéad McLaughlin to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. You have up to five minutes. Ms McLaughlin: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. If ever a debate personified the dysfunctionality of these institutions, it is the debate that we have heard over the past hour. People deserve better. As we close the debate, I bring the focus back to the people who lived through the worst days of the pandemic. Too often, discussions like this become abstract. For many families, the COVID inquiry's findings go to the heart of their personal grief. They are people across the North who have lost loved ones, without being able to hold their hand or sit beside their bed; families who said goodbye through windows; people who were denied the chance to give their relatives a proper funeral, while others in positions of power ignored the rules. It was disgusting. Those wounds have not healed, and they may never fully heal. The inquiry has put in writing what so many already knew: the Executive did not function as they should have. Divisions, delays and political disputes shaped decisions at a time when leadership should have been steady, united and dignified. That failure had consequences. It caused confusion, weakened public confidence and left people more vulnerable than they ever should have been. We cannot talk about moving forward unless we are honest about what went wrong, and we must also be honest about where things stand today. The dysfunction that was highlighted by the inquiry did not vanish when the pandemic ended. We continue to see gridlock on issues that should command agreement. The childcare strategy has sat unresolved for almost a month in the Executive, and, repeatedly, key strategies on investment, climate and public services struggle to get through the Executive. Even Ministers are acknowledging the extent of that backlog. Those delays have real effects. Families who are waiting for childcare support cannot put their lives on pause, workers need certainty, businesses need decisions and communities need a Government that set priorities and follow through. The public can see that the system is still under strain. Nothing has changed. "Negative vetoes" was even given an outing this week. Many feel that this place is not delivering what was promised and, when frustration builds, confidence in the institutions weakens further. Our amendment simply recognises the obvious: reform was not placed at the centre of the Programme for Government, and avoiding it has contributed to continued instability. This is not about pointing fingers. It is about accepting that, without meaningful, structural change, the problems highlighted by the inquiry will not go away. Reform is not an academic exercise. It is about making sure that the decision-making is dependable, that crisis responses do not collapse under political tension and that the Executive can work collectively on challenges that affect every family. To be honest, the public do not trust us. The two main parties — Sinn Féin and the DUP — lost the changing room during COVID. Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way? Ms McLaughlin: Yes. Mr O'Toole: We hold every party here to account. Mr Frew talked about "a zombie Assembly" during COVID, but his party then collapsed the Assembly for two years after that. How much more "zombie" can you get? Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute. Ms McLaughlin: Furthermore, if the institutions had not been collapsed for the two years prior to COVID, maybe we would have been more prepared. The institutions need reform. The inquiry, and what it outlined in its report, said that very clearly. Does anybody here believe that, if it happened tomorrow, we would be any more prepared? We would not. We have a duty to every constituent whom we serve. We are their servants. We have a duty to reform these institutions and to take the inquiry as seriously as possible. Mr Frew: Will the Member give way? Ms McLaughlin: The SDLP has put forward proposals to equalise the titles of First Minister and deputy First Minister, improve how the Speaker is selected and create stronger requirements for Departments to cooperate. Those modest but important changes will help to create more stability and reduce the opportunities for political brinkmanship. At its core, it is about restoring trust. People need to know that their Government can act together when it matters most. They need confidence that the lessons have been taken seriously, and they deserve institutions that are built around the needs of the public not the internal politics of one party. The inquiry has given us a clear picture of what happens when systems fail and leadership falters. Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way? Ms McLaughlin: We have a responsibility to learn from and act on that. Mr Buckley, I have heard enough from you today and yesterday. Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way? Ms McLaughlin: If reform is pushed aside again, we should not be surprised if instability continues and public confidence continues to drift. Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way? Ms McLaughlin: I support the motion and our amendment, which will strengthen it. More importantly, I support the people who lived through the consequences of the failures that are outlined in the report. They deserve a Government that have learned from the past and are willing to make the changes needed to prevent it from happening in the future. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up. I give a gentle reminder to Members that they should not persist in asking a Member to give way when the Member clearly will not do so, nor should they speak over the Member who has not given way, Mr Frew. [Inaudible] Ms McLaughlin: did it today and yesterday. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you. I call Eóin Tennyson to conclude the debate on the motion and make a winding-up speech. You have up to 10 minutes. Mr Tennyson: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. In closing the debate, first, I pay a heartfelt tribute to those whose lives were irrevocably changed by the pandemic; to the families who lost loved ones, often without a chance to say goodbye, we hold you in our thoughts today; to those whose lives and livelihoods were upended, we acknowledge your resilience in the face of hardship; and to those front-line workers — our doctors, nurses, carers and key staff — who went above and beyond in a time of crisis, we owe you a debt of gratitude that can never truly be repaid. Given that neither the First Minister nor the deputy First Minister has said it — at least, not jointly — I will: I am sorry, and I am embarrassed by the way that the institutions operated during that period. All those people deserved better from the House. It is the experiences, the sacrifices and the voices of those who bore the greatest cost that must be at the heart of the discussions as we reflect on the pandemic, chart a way forward and prepare for the future. COVID-19 was, in every sense, unprecedented. No event in living memory has reshaped our lives so suddenly, profoundly and universally. Mr Buckley said that every Government struggled; I agree with him. No Administration emerged from the crisis without mistakes to acknowledge or lessons to learn, and it would be wrong to pretend otherwise. However, the findings that relate to the Northern Ireland Executive in particular are stark. Mr Carroll: I appreciate the Member's giving way. No Government handled the pandemic brilliantly, but does he agree that other countries handled it in a much better way, including countries in Southeast Asia that prioritised public health over opening businesses at any cost and letting the virus run rampant through communities? Does the Member agree with that point in a general sense? Mr Tennyson: There is a balance to be struck between the economy and health. Various models operated across the world, and we are still analysing their impact. It would be wrong for me to prejudge that at this stage, when the inquiry has not entirely concluded. I can understand why the DUP's attacks on the Alliance Party are so vociferous today. The DUP led the Executive during the pandemic as the largest party, and some of the most stinging criticism is reserved for the two largest parties in the Executive at that time. Do not just take my word for that; the inquiry described decision-making in the Executive as "chaotic" and marred by political disputes, and it found that, at critical junctures, Ministers from the DUP and Sinn Féin: "failed to put the common interest of all people in Northern Ireland above their party political interests." It is a damning indictment that, even in the face of a global pandemic, when our people and public services were on their knees, the institutions descended into more chaos and dysfunction. Top 1.00 pm It is true that the political vacuum created by Sinn Féin's boycott of the Assembly between 2017 and 2020, right before the onset of the pandemic, weakened preparedness, damaged public services and contributed to a chaotic response. It is equally true that, as the pandemic progressed, and when the public were asked to make some of the most difficult sacrifices, the actions of some Sinn Féin Ministers who broke the rules undermined public confidence and deepened the hurt of families who had been denied the very same opportunity to have a funeral and grieve their loved ones. We saw Ministers seeking to sectarianise the virus, with a DUP Minister claiming that one section of our community was spreading COVID more than others. That rhetoric was reckless and corrosive at a time when clarity and unity were so desperately needed. Of course, those were not just failures of leadership, integrity or preparedness, but failures of the current power-sharing structures. Baroness Hallett was clear in her report that the abuse of cross-community votes resulted in dysfunctional decision-making and undermined the ability of the Executive to respond effectively. At the height of the pandemic, sectarian vetoes were being thrown around the Executive like confetti. That led to there being gridlock in one Executive meeting for four days, when swift and decisive action was so desperately needed to protect lives. Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way? Mr Tennyson: No, I will not. COVID did not discriminate between nationalists and unionists. It struck indiscriminately and demanded a united response. The sheer folly of DUP Ministers deploying a cross-community vote against a fellow unionist Health Minister was not only farcical but exposed just how warped the so-called cross-community mechanisms in the Chamber had become. Mr Frew: Will the Member give way? Mr Tennyson: No, I will not. Whether it is those making the rules in the Executive breaking them outside of the Executive, or those abuses of rules in the Executive to block vital public health measures, the people of Northern Ireland deserve better. Those displays of division and dysfunction are not the preserve of times of global crisis. Since the pandemic, we have experienced yet another walkout of the Executive, this time by the DUP. Then, just this week, we saw the petition of concern deployed on the Floor. In previous mandates, we have seen those mechanisms being used and abused to prevent accountability, frustrate the rights of LGBTQ+ people in our society and frustrate the democratic will of the Assembly. Those shameful abuses are a perversion of democracy, and the displays of arrogance that often accompany them have contributed directly to the collapse of the institutions in previous mandates. Therefore, we all have to learn lessons about where this show inevitably ends. It is long past time that we had a system of government that prioritised the interests of the people whom we represent ahead of the interests of the DUP and Sinn Féin. The current system of up-down, stop-start government and ransom politics needs to end. No single party should have the ability to hold decision-making in the Executive or the Executive itself to ransom. I am weary of successive UK Governments telling Alliance that we have won the academic argument on reform because this is not merely an academic exercise. Failure to act is ruining lives, eroding public confidence and jeopardising the Good Friday Agreement. If the institutions cannot deliver, or, worse, are allowed to collapse once again by those who poke and prod one another across the Chamber in sham fights, I fear that devolution will not return. By pandering to those who upend the institutions or block progress, the Secretary of State is not only rewarding bad behaviour but condemning devolution to death by a thousand collapses. To argue for reform is not to undermine or reject the Good Friday Agreement. It is simply to acknowledge that, with the passage of time and the changes in our society — evidenced not least by the growth of this party — and with the benefit of hindsight, having tested the structures in practice — in some cases, almost to the point of destruction — there is room for change and, indeed, change is a necessity. Our proposals are consistent with the Good Friday Agreement. The principles of power-sharing, inclusion, interdependence and respect are necessary if we are to realise those ambitions and those principles —. A Member: Will the Member give way? Mr Tennyson: No, I will not give way because I do not have time. Our proposals enshrine the right of parties to be in government based on the strength of their mandates but remove the right of any single party to exclude everybody else from government, as is currently the case. They would not remove cross-community consent, but they would remove parallel consent as a measure of that cross-community support. Ironically, cross-community votes, as they are currently structured in the Assembly, are the least cross-community votes that can happen, because they exclude the voices of genuinely cross-community parties like the Alliance Party. Instead, weighted majority voting would enshrine cross-community protection whilst incentivising cooperation and genuine equality in the way that the Assembly operates, rather than the mutually enforced sectarian vetoes that have not done so and cannot do so. There can be no more time for prevarication. The Secretary of State has said that the issue is in the hands of the local parties, just as the Good Friday Agreement was. That is not true. Without an active and engaged Secretary of State and Irish Government pushing the parties in the right direction, we would never have achieved the Good Friday Agreement. Many of the people out there who were horrified by the COVID inquiry report — they will be equally horrified, I might say, by some of the contributions to this debate — are looking for hope. We have an opportunity to give that to them today by, for the first time as an Assembly, calling on the Secretary of State to convene a reform process that enables us to move beyond what passes for politics in Stormont at the moment and beyond a power carve-up to true power-sharing so that we can finally deliver a form of government that represents everyone and delivers for everyone. I commend the motion to the House. Question put, That the amendment be made. The Assembly divided: Ayes 41; Noes 32 AYES Ms K Armstrong, Mr Baker, Mr Boylan, Mr Carroll, Mr Delargy, Mr Dickson, Mrs Dillon, Miss Dolan, Mr Donnelly, Mr Durkan, Ms Egan, Ms Ferguson, Ms Finnegan, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Mrs Guy, Miss Hargey, Mr Honeyford, Ms Hunter, Ms Kimmins, Mr McAleer, Miss McAllister, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McNulty, Mrs Mason, Mr Mathison, Mr Muir, Ms Mulholland, Ms Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Ms Nicholl, Mr O'Dowd, Mr O'Toole, Ms Reilly, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Mr Tennyson Tellers for the Ayes: Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath NOES Dr Aiken, Ms D Armstrong, Mr Beattie, Mr Brett, Mr Brooks, Ms Brownlee, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mr Burrows, Mr Butler, Mrs Cameron, Mr Chambers, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mrs Erskine, Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew, Mr Gaston, Mr Harvey, Mr Irwin, Mr Kingston, Mrs Little-Pengelly, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Martin, Mr Middleton, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Robinson, Mr Stewart Tellers for the Noes: Mr Buckley, Mr Frew Mr Clarke acted as a proxy for Mrs Erskine. Question accordingly agreed to. Main Question, as amended, put. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I have been advised by the party Whips that, in accordance with Standing Order 27(1A)(b), there is agreement that we can dispense with the three minutes and move straight to a Division. The Assembly divided: Ayes 41; Noes 31 AYES Ms K Armstrong, Mr Baker, Mr Boylan, Mr Carroll, Mr Delargy, Mr Dickson, Mrs Dillon, Miss Dolan, Mr Donnelly, Mr Durkan, Ms Egan, Ms Ferguson, Ms Finnegan, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Mrs Guy, Miss Hargey, Mr Honeyford, Ms Hunter, Ms Kimmins, Mr McAleer, Miss McAllister, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McNulty, Mrs Mason, Mr Mathison, Mr Muir, Ms Mulholland, Ms Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Ms Nicholl, Mr O'Dowd, Mr O'Toole, Ms Reilly, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Mr Tennyson Tellers for the Ayes: Ms K Armstrong, Mr Honeyford NOES Dr Aiken, Ms D Armstrong, Mr Beattie, Mr Brett, Mr Brooks, Ms Brownlee, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Mr Burrows, Mr Butler, Mrs Cameron, Mr Chambers, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mrs Erskine, Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew, Mr Gaston, Mr Harvey, Mr Irwin, Mr Kingston, Mrs Little-Pengelly, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Martin, Mr Middleton, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Robinson, Mr Stewart Tellers for the Noes: Mr Buckley, Mr Frew Mr Clarke acted as a proxy for Mrs Erskine. Main Question, as amended, accordingly agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly notes with grave concern the findings of module 2 of the UK COVID-19 inquiry report, including that the current institutional structures weakened the ability of the Executive to respond during a global emergency and that decision-making was marred by political disputes; regrets that, at certain critical points during the pandemic, Ministers from the two largest parties failed to put the common interest of all the people of Northern Ireland above their party political interests; condemns the inappropriate use of cross-community votes within the Executive and the breaking of rules by Ministers; resolves that that dysfunction in decision-making must never be repeated; believes that no single party should ever again have the ability to hold decision-making in the Executive, or the Executive themselves, to ransom; laments the failure by Executive parties to adopt institutional reform as a priority within the Programme for Government; accepts that that missed opportunity has contributed to continued political instability and a loss of public confidence; and calls on the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to convene a process of institutional reform, in consultation with the Irish Government and local parties, without further delay. Top 1.30 pm Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members may take their ease before we move to the next item in the Order Paper. (Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair) Ministerial Statement December Monitoring Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Speaker has received notice from the Minister of Finance that he wishes to make a statement. Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that they must be concise in asking their question. Without further ado, I call the Minister. Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): Thank you for the opportunity to update Members on the 2025-26 December monitoring round, which was agreed by the Executive earlier today. Reaching that decision as soon as possible following the autumn Budget was essential to provide Departments with the certainty that they need to plan and deliver. That was particularly important, given the magnitude of the capital funding allocations that we are in a position to make to allow investment in vital infrastructure. Looking now — I think that it is time for the glasses — at the funding available for allocation, following the autumn Budget, the Executive had the following available for allocation: £111·2 million resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL); £162 million capital DEL; £16·8 million financial transactions capital (FTC) DEL; and £0·9 million ring-fenced resource DEL. Turning first to resource DEL, I will begin by addressing a prior commitment made by the Executive as part of June monitoring. The Executive agreed that the Department of Justice would have first call of up to £7 million towards PSNI workforce recovery costs, recognising the importance of investing in our police workforce. That funding is now being allocated in full. On 16 October, the Executive agreed that the Departments of Health, Education, Justice and Infrastructure would have first call on available funding of up to £150·4 million in total for pay awards. No other resource bids were sought from Departments. Instead, the focus was on working towards meeting those previous commitments to ensure that public-sector workers receive the pay that they deserve. The autumn Budget delivered just £18·8 million in additional Barnett consequentials this year. Combined with reduced requirements from Departments, that meant that the Executive had £104·2 million of available funding to allocate. In line with the prior commitment to public-sector pay, the Executive have therefore agreed that the funding available will be provided across the four Departments earmarked for pay. That represents a significant step towards supporting pay award costs for health workers, police, teachers and infrastructure workers. The Department of Health will receive an allocation of £69·3 million for the Health and Social Care (HSC) pay award. The Department of Education will receive £25·6 million for teachers' pay. The Department of Justice will receive £4·6 million for the PSNI pay award. The Department for Infrastructure will receive £4·6 million for pay awards. I understand that the additional funding provided in the December monitoring round will allow the Minister of Justice to work with the Chief Constable on delivering police pay recommendations. The ministerial direction agreed by the Executive for health workers' pay parity will ensure that there is no delay in the implementation of the award to health workers. Today's allocation demonstrates the priority that the Executive and I attach to our vital public-sector workers and our desire to support public-sector pay despite the financial constraints that we face. I have asked all Ministers to endeavour to find further efficiencies to help to fund the pressures that are facing Departments. I have also committed that, should any further Barnett consequentials arise from the Westminster Estimates in January, I will move quickly to bring recommendations to the Executive to allocate that funding towards those costs. Moving to capital DEL, the Executive have agreed allocations of £162 million targeting key priorities across social and affordable housing, education, health and infrastructure. The Department for Communities will receive £42·4 million. That includes £29·8 million to meet in full its bid for the social housing development programme. That investment will be a major contribution to the Executive's Programme for Government (PFG) target of providing more social, affordable and sustainable housing. That investment and others that I am announcing today will be a huge boost to the construction industry and the local economy by sustaining and creating jobs. There is £8·6 million for the cladding safety scheme, which will ensure that residents live in buildings that have the necessary building safety standards, and £4 million for priority adaptations to Housing Executive properties for tenants living with a disability. The Department for the Economy will receive £12·6 million to provide strategic support for higher education research and essential works in further education colleges, investing in skills and innovation for the future. The Department of Education will receive £22 million, which includes £5·2 million for essential school maintenance; £3·2 million for schools' minor works and energy-saving solutions; £6·7 million for business-critical ICT pressures; £1 million for ICT infrastructure contractual commitments; and £6 million for Irish-medium accommodation and facilities. The Department of Health will receive £25·2 million, recognising our commitment to investing in our health service and supporting bids to modernise it. Allocations include £19·7 million for IT equipment and £5·5 million to tackle significant backlog maintenance across the health estate. Finally, the Department for Infrastructure will receive £59·8 million, which will fund £34·1 million for waste water services, public transport, rail and road projects and ensuring that the Department can maximise the delivery of capital projects to meet statutory obligations; £13·2 million for road maintenance and safety improvements; £4·1 million for drinking water infrastructure, which supports housing development as well as improving water quality; £5 million for new trains and track improvements to support the Enterprise cross-border service, which will enhance connectivity on the island of Ireland on the cross-border rail corridor between Belfast and Dublin; £2 million for street lighting, contributing to safer environments and encouraging more active travel; and £1·5 million for the A26 Glarryford Lands Tribunal case. The Executive also agreed a central allocation of £0·027 million capital DEL to the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs for the city and growth deals complementary fund. On financial transactions capital DEL, the Executive have allocated £2·5 million to the Department for the Economy for Invest NI to support businesses and encourage innovation, as well as £1·5 million to the Executive Office for capitalised loan interest. Following those allocations, there remains £12·8 million of FTC to be allocated. I have encouraged all Ministers to explore further opportunities for utilising FTC in the remainder of this financial year. Full details of all the allocations that have been made are set out in the tables accompanying the statement. Ring-fenced resource DEL can be used only for non-cash costs relating to depreciation and impairments. Given that only £0·9 million was available for allocation, no allocations have been made in this round. Should funding become available at Westminster Estimates, it will be allocated in line with the bids set out in the tables accompanying the statement. To increase transparency, the statement is also accompanied by tables outlining the detail of changes to departmental budgets. Included under "Technical Adjustments" are Treasury-earmarked funding for city and growth deals and budget cover transfers from Whitehall Departments. In total, those amount to £11·6 million resource DEL and £26·6 million capital DEL. The allocations made today reflect our determination as an Executive to deliver tangible change across a wide range of public services and utilities. Despite the highly constrained financial environment, we continue to invest in our workers and public services. The allocations agreed will make a positive difference to citizens' lives across society. Much-needed funding is being provided towards public-sector pay awards. Reflecting our key priorities in the Programme for Government, capital allocations have been made to enable the delivery of new social housing. We are also investing in our schools estate, further education colleges and higher education institutions, reflecting our commitment to supporting learning and delivering investment in skills. We have also agreed funding for infrastructure, which is critical to sustainable economic growth and connectivity, with allocations for key projects in water, roads and rail. Following the conclusion of the December monitoring round, my next step will be to bring the multi-year Budget to the Executive. The multi-year Budget will give Departments the certainty they need to plan on a longer-term and more strategic basis and to transform our public services for the years ahead. Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Minister. Many of the allocations will, of course, be welcome — they always are — but surely you must acknowledge that this monitoring round is an example of criminal financial mismanagement. We are three months from the end of the financial year. Despite everything that you say about not getting enough money from London — you are right about that in many cases — the Executive are underspending their capital budget by £0·25 billion three months from the end of the financial year. There is mismanagement of the A5, Casement Park and the maternity and children's hospitals, and £0·25 million will have to be handed back. We need a multi-year Budget to fix those problems. When will a multi-year Budget be delivered to help us move away from this monitoring round chaos? Mr O'Dowd: I think the Member referred to "criminal negligence" — was it? Mr O'Toole: Mismanagement. Mr O'Dowd: Criminal mismanagement. If the Member has any evidence of criminal mismanagement, he should bring it forward. It sounds to me like a very serious accusation for the leader of the Opposition to make. If the leader of the Opposition has any evidence to back that up, the leader of the Opposition should come forward with it. It has become Matthew's job to be the dark cloud over the Executive. No matter what you come forward with, Matthew will find fault with it; he will direct a negative agenda towards it; and he will attempt to get a headline that is as dramatic as possible and runs down the efforts of the Executive, the Assembly and public-sector workers to improve the daily lives of the people whom we all serve. The fact of the matter is that, today, despite all your suggestions in the Chamber yesterday, the Executive agreed almost £300 million of funding for front-line public services that will improve the lives of the citizens whom we all serve. Despite your, perhaps, wishing overnight with your fingers crossed, the Executive agreed that this morning, and we will now move on to the multi-year Budget. Ms Forsythe: Thank you for the statement, Minister. As outlined, £250 million, including £162 million of capital, was returned and reallocated in December this year. It is late in the year. I very much welcome the allocation to the Department for Communities for social housing, which is a key priority in the Programme for Government. However, had that been reallocated earlier, the Communities Minister would have been able to hit the 1,950 housing target. He is keen to deliver 1,750, and I am confident that he will. Can lessons be learned about how we can reallocate funding earlier, as soon as it becomes available, to meet those targets? Mr O'Dowd: It is worth remembering that the Chancellor's autumn Budget was probably four weeks later this year than it usually is because of needs in Westminster and elsewhere. We were operating four weeks behind the usual time frame. While a significant proportion of the funding has been returned from the A5 and other sectors — the A5 is beyond our control at this stage because of legal challenges; legal deliberations on it are taking place today — the Departments have to improve how they deliver capital projects. I am not arguing against that, but we allocated the money to all Departments as soon as it was practically possible. I welcome the fact that we have increased and will significantly increase the delivery of social housing as we move forward. I mentioned in my statement that there would be a further fiscal event at Westminster: the Estimates in January. Some small amounts of capital may come from that, and we will again allocate those to Departments that can spend them in the time frame in which we are able to do so. The multi-year Budget will allow us to plan much better the delivery of major capital projects, which will mean that less capital comes to the centre. At the end of the day, this money today is going to projects that are worthy and needed and would not have been delivered otherwise. Mr Boylan: With a little indulgence, I will pay tribute to Willie Irwin, my constituency colleague, and recognise his contribution to politics and to the people of Newry and Armagh. I wish him well in his retirement. Turning to the Minister's statement, will the Minister provide more detail on the funding for infrastructure? Top 1.45 pm Mr O'Dowd: I, too, pay tribute to Willie. I do not think that he is in the Chamber, but I understand that he is stepping down from this place — the lucky duck — so he is moving on to other things. We have made a significant investment in the Department for Infrastructure, covering a wide range of areas, including water services, public transport, road maintenance, drinking water infrastructure and trains and infrastructure for the Belfast-Dublin Enterprise service. It is about funding that has become available being reinvested in front-line public services and making a real difference to people's lives. Water infrastructure and waste water infrastructure are, understandably, often debated in the Chamber and elsewhere, but the further investment in that will allow more businesses and more homes to be connected to water and waste water services. Mr Tennyson: I thank the Minister for his statement, and I welcome the funding that has been allocated. Minister, following the leaked exchange of letters between you and the Education Minister, how confident are you that the multi-year Budget will proceed at pace? Will those disagreements impede agreement on that? Mr O'Dowd: In most institutions, there will be tension between Ministers and the Finance Minister. It would be hugely surprising if other Ministers and I were not in correspondence and engaging with one another. The letters that were leaked to the media are an example of that. I am confident that all Ministers around the Executive table see the worthiness of a three-year Budget. I have no doubt that there will be some bartering and negotiations ahead of our getting an agreed draft Budget out to public consultation, but all Ministers see the benefit of having a three-year Budget, and, when they focus on those benefits, that will allow us to deliver a Budget for public consultation. Dr Aiken: Minister, from doing my maths, I see that the health pay shortfall is now about £140 million, despite the £109 million overspend that you agreed with the Health Minister. The resource allocation in this monitoring round is far short of the £100 million that the Health Minister was told in October was available; that was reiterated in the media by the First Minister. Is Health really the priority of the Northern Ireland Executive? Mr O'Dowd: The Executive have agreed a ministerial direction that authorises the Health Minister to proceed with the health workers' pay award. There should be no doubt in the Chamber that the health sector's pay award is going ahead. Mr Sheehan: Will the Minister provide more detail on the Irish-medium capital allocation? Mr O'Dowd: That is a welcome allocation of £6 million for Irish-medium education and for Iontaobhas na Gaelscolaíochta for the facilities that it provides to the Irish-medium sector. It is a significant investment, but I have no doubt that continued investment in that sector and others will be needed. That, again, shows the value of monitoring rounds, by which funding can be allocated to areas of need. Those areas of need can absorb that funding quickly. Mrs Cameron: I thank the Minister for his important statement. Like my colleague, I very much welcome the fact that the bid for social homes was met. It is disappointing, however, that we cannot meet the target that every Minister signed up to and agreed in the housing supply strategy and the Programme for Government. Will the Finance Minister today show his commitment to social housing and confirm that future Budget bids will be met in full? Mr O'Dowd: The final whistle has not blown on this financial year. At least one fiscal event is still to take place in Westminster, from which, I hope, the Executive will benefit, although I do not suggest that that will be by huge amounts. There may also be some reprioritisation of capital in the Executive's Budget. I will commit to working with all Ministers to ensure that that funding is spent where it can be delivered. If it can be delivered in social housing, I will have no difficulty in directing it towards social housing. As I said to Mr Tennyson, I have no doubt that there will be robust engagement and negotiations around the three-year Budget and that, if Ministers keep themselves focused on the need for a three-year Budget and the benefits that it will bring to all Departments, we will get it delivered. Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for his statement. I welcome the prioritisation of staff, and particularly the fact that PSNI staff will get their pay rise. That is most definitely welcome. Will the Executive continue to prioritise the police recovery plan in the multi-year Budget so that we can see our officer numbers increase? Mr O'Dowd: I am on record saying that one of the recommendations that I will make as part of the multi-year Budget will be that the fund for the police recovery plan be supported and that we see a recovery in our police numbers. That is essential to delivering front-line public services, of which policing is one. It will also assist the police to recruit from across our community, ensuring that policing represents the community that it serves. Miss Dolan: I congratulate the Minister for his work on the matter. How will today's allocations support Programme for Government commitments? Mr O'Dowd: They will go across a range of areas. Social housing, which is one of those commitments, has been mentioned. Significant investment is going into bringing us towards the target for social housing. There has been other investment. If you look at infrastructure, for instance, you will see that allocations to that will allow us to develop more homes and connect more businesses. There are investments in further and higher education, such as investment in skills etc. That is a theme of the Programme for Government where our economy is concerned and for ensuring that we have a skilled workforce to further develop and support that economy. Mr Clarke: Like others, I welcome the statement and the recovery plan for the PSNI and the pay awards, which have been discussed. Minister, an opportunity that was not addressed in the statement is money for the data breach. Lots of officers are concerned about pay rises and data breach money. Do you foresee that being delivered before the end of the financial year? While I am on my feet, I will ask this: do you anticipate today's pay award being in their December pay packets? Mr O'Dowd: The delivery of the pay award is down to the Justice Minister and the Chief Constable. I have no doubt that the Justice Minister will comment further on that later today. My understanding is that legal engagement on the data breach will not conclude in this financial year. That will allow us to plan making payment on the data breach in the following financial year. That is the recommendation that I will make to my Executive colleagues. However, we continue to engage with the Treasury and others to urge them to allow the Assembly and the Executive access to the reserve claim. That goes to the highest levels of government, including the Prime Minister. Mr Chambers: I thank the Minister for his statement. Whilst the £69·3 million that has been announced today for health pay goes some way towards funding this year's pay award, as the Minister will be aware — it has been mentioned — based on expectations that have been raised previously, many will view today's allocation as falling far short of what was promised. Does the Minister therefore accept that, based on the previous promises, it would be entirely unfair if today's £31 million shortfall in the Health budget were also to be taken off next year's opening budget for Health? Mr O'Dowd: Let us not send out a mixed message from the Chamber today. Let us be very clear about this: the pay award for health and social care workers is going to be paid. That is beyond doubt. The Executive have passed a ministerial direction supporting the Health Minister on that. It will go ahead, therefore, and it will be paid. There is no doubt or question about that. How the Executive deal with that in their future Budget is entirely a matter for the Executive. I will make recommendations to the Executive on the three-year Budget and how we deal with the potential overspends of this year. It will be up to my Executive colleagues to decide how to respond to those. As I said to another Member, however, the final whistle has not blown on this financial year. The game is still on. There can be changes in circumstances from month to month that may be to people's advantage or disadvantage, but I continually monitor the situation and engage with Executive colleagues to ensure that overspend is minimised to as little as possible. Mrs Dillon: I thank the Minister for his answers so far. I also welcome the pay awards for our healthcare workers as well as for the PSNI. Will the Minister outline and expand on the capital funding being provided to Health, given that some of our health facilities are not fit for purpose and are actually in an unsafe condition? Mr O'Dowd: Around £5 million has been set aside for urgent repairs to the health estate, and there is a substantial investment in IT equipment for the health sector. It is vital that we have modern, up-to-date IT equipment in all Departments, but particularly in the health sector, to allow it to run as efficient and effective a service as possible. Mr Middleton: I thank the Minister for his statement. As other Members have stated, the First Minister spoke publicly about the £150 million secured for pay awards, including £37 million for teachers. However, in the Finance Minister's statement, he states that the Education Minister will receive £25·6 million for teachers' pay, which is quite a bit short. Our teachers deserve a pay award. If the Education Minister issues a ministerial direction, will the Minister support him in that and provide the necessary finance to give teachers the pay award that they deserve? Mr O'Dowd: I am sure that the Education Minister will further outline how he intends to deal with the pressures facing his Department, and the particular pressure with regard to teachers and education workers' pay. I will support any ministerial direction if it is in line with and similar to the way in which the Health Minister approached the issue previously. That is the way forward; it is a well-tested route, and it received a collective response from the Executive. I am willing to work with the Education Minister on that. I think that there is a way through it, but it has to be a managed process. Ms K Armstrong: Will the Minister outline how much of the remaining £12·8 million of financial transactions capital (FTC) can be allocated, and is he aware of any shovel-ready projects? Mr O'Dowd: I am not aware of any projects, other than the ones that we have funded at this stage, but, again, I have encouraged Ministers and their senior officials to engage with the various sectors with which they operate, to see whether we can further invest that FTC. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Members. We will take our ease — Mr O'Toole: On the point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: If I could just finish first, Matthew, and then I will bring you in. Thank you. We are going to take our ease before Question Time. Questions on the statement will resume afterwards, and Colin McGrath will be the next Member to ask a question. I will take your point of order, Matthew. Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I will be brief. Earlier, during the debate, I described the underspend of a quarter of a billion pounds as "criminal". The Minister implied that I said that a criminal act had literally taken place; I did not. Just to be clear, the Oxford English Dictionary is clear that, in addition to the formal legal meaning, there is the meaning that something can be criminal if it is "shocking and deplorable" — [Interruption.] Members may laugh, but this is important. The Minister accused me of something that I did not do. Underspending capital by a quarter of a billion pounds is shocking and deplorable. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Matthew, please take your seat. First of all, that was not a point of order. You have, kind of, clarified what you, kind of, said. We all have the gist, so I appreciate that. Members, please take your ease. (Mr Speaker in the Chair) Top 2.00 pm Oral Answers to Questions Infrastructure Waste Water Treatment Plants 1. Ms Egan asked the Minister for Infrastructure, given that NI Water has paused works to increase capacity in waste water treatment plants to prevent untreated pollution entering Belfast lough, to outline any action that she will take to ensure that the necessary funding is provided to allow these essential works to proceed. (AQO 2863/22-27) Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure): I am clear that there needs to be investment in drainage and waste water treatment around Belfast lough. With regard to the necessary funding for those projects, I assure the Member that I have been working hard to deliver the most funding possible within the budget available to my Department. This year alone, NI Water has received over £500 million of public money, representing 23% of the opening resource and over 40% of the general capital budget allocated to my Department. At opening budget, NI Water was receiving 86% of what, it identified, it could deliver this year, and, when the additional £11 million capital funding that I was able to secure in June monitoring is taken into consideration, that increases to almost 90% of its ask, which is a significant level of investment in our water and waste water infrastructure. It is for the board of NI Water to prioritise the funding that it has been allocated to ensure the delivery of water and waste water services across the North. Members will be familiar with my three-pronged approach, which I am progressing and delivering: securing more investment for waste water infrastructure from Executive colleagues; considering the approach to developer contributions; and bringing in legislation to provide for sustainable drainage systems (SuDS). Additionally, my Department has secured £15 million in funding from the transformation fund that will implement a pilot project to help transform the way in which rainwater is managed in the Belfast area, and I am progressing further bids to the transformation fund for investment in waste water treatment. As I have said on many occasions, however, funding is not the only answer, and I have been encouraged by NI Water's delivery of faster and lower-cost solutions to how it manages waste water. I have advised NI Water to look at more options in that regard, and I look forward to the company using innovation to unlock waste water capacity and protecting the environment in other areas across the North. Finally, in dealing with the very serious challenges in Belfast lough, it is vital that we continue to work collaboratively across government. My Department is working closely with the environmental regulator, officials in DAERA and DFC and other stakeholders as we seek to deliver solutions. I remain committed to working together and will continue to make the case for additional funding to expedite the delivery of those projects in Belfast. Ms Egan: Thank you, Minister. It is concerning that, as I understand it, NI Water faces a £2 billion funding gap. Can that realistically be addressed by your three-pronged approach, and can you give us more details of the other options that you are exploring? Ms Kimmins: As the Member may be aware, that £2 billion shortfall is over a number of years. Given the overall Executive Budget, it would be unrealistic to say that that could be met. However, I am an optimist, and it is important that we look at what is available to us and how we can do that. That is why I have talked about some of the innovation that NI Water has already shown. We have seen delays to the living with water programme for Belfast because of a 60% increase in the original cost. We have to manage and work through that and see how we can continue to deliver on all the issues. I am under no illusions. I have said on many occasions that this is extremely challenging; there is no doubt about that. That is why I am looking at all the options available to me, whether it is through securing additional funding with work through the Executive, the developer contributions options or the sustainable options for waste water treatment and drainage solutions. We can make a real difference. As well as working collaboratively with NI Water, there are solutions out there, and I am working with it to achieve that. Ms Finnegan: Will the Minister plan for natural sustainable urban drainage such as the urban drainage transformation project to reduce spills into Belfast lough, thereby improving water quality? Ms Kimmins: As I suggested there, the aim of the pilot project is to make a robust case to transform the way in which rainwater is managed in towns and cities by managing rainwater naturally on the surface and slowing the flow into our rivers and pipe drainage system. Slowing that flow will help to reduce flood risks and improve water quality by reducing spills from combined sewers. I recently had the privilege of seeing how that is working in the Eglinton area of Derry. There is a pilot project in place there. We have seen in real life how that is slowing the flow. Hopefully, we will see positive impacts from that. The initial focus of the pilot is in the Fortwilliam and Whitehouse catchments of Belfast, where specific surface water and sewerage issues have been identified. The pilot project aims to retrofit 10,000 cubic metres of rainwater storage that will either divert or delay its entry into the combined sewerage network in order to increase capacity and, therefore, increase the system's capacity to handle storm conditions. As I have said before, such projects and other solutions mean that we can ensure that the water that comes through the system to be treated is water that needs to be treated and is not rainwater that is taking up capacity and using up resource. We are trying to be sensible and use the natural options available to us that will help to alleviate the pressure on the overall system. Mr Chambers: With the clock ticking down on the compliance of the Kinnegar treatment plant, where do the unacceptable levels of pollution entering Belfast lough sit in the priorities of the Minister's Department? Ms Kimmins: That is a major priority. I have been working with the Agriculture Minister on those serious issues. I have already outlined some of the steps that I am taking to offset that. You will be aware of the recent investigation by the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP): I welcome that, because it gives us an opportunity to look at how we can do things differently. My Department will fully cooperate with the OEP on that. However, compliance is the Department of Agriculture's responsibility. As I have said, I am working collaboratively with the Minister and all stakeholders to see what we can do to address the issue at earliest possible stage. Mr O'Toole: Minister, I am slightly at a loss. Your colleague the Finance Minister and you were not impressed by my asking about mismanagement of the capital budget. However, you have just said that there is not enough money for NI Water. You have just handed back £140 million in unspent capital to the centre in this monitoring round. That is remarkable mismanagement. Given that, when will we see a comprehensive, multi-year plan for investment in NI Water? You have talked about a developer levy and about seeking more money from your colleagues: when will that convert into a plan for us to rescue Belfast lough and our water system more generally? Ms Kimmins: The Member has chosen his words carefully, because he is fully aware of why there has been an underspend in capital in my Department. The issue with the A5 is completely beyond my control. I cannot spend money that I am not allowed to spend, and that is the reality of it. However, the Member will also be aware that, in the Minister's statement, he outlined a further allocation of almost £60 million back into my Department to deal with some of the issues that he has outlined. That money will be put to good use. Let me be clear: we continue to work extremely hard to deal with the issues that he has outlined. It is unfortunate and disappointing that we are in this position. I would love to have spent that money on the A5 and to have construction well under way. Unfortunately, that was not to be. However, as you know, legal proceedings started today on the appeal. I will continue to look at what is available to me. I have outlined clearly what we are doing through the different avenues of work that are under way to try to tackle the issues. I have outlined exactly how much NI Water has been allocated in this financial year and what we have been able to do with that. I will continue to work with everybody to ensure that we find solutions and continue to make good progress on the issue. Mr Gaston: Minister, the farming community is often used by Northern Ireland Water as a convenient scapegoat for the pollution in many of our loughs and waterways. Will the Minister update the House on what immediate steps she is taking to get her own house in order and stop millions of tons of raw sewage being dumped into our loughs and waterways annually by Northern Ireland Water? Ms Kimmins: The "millions of tons" that the Member refers to might be a wee bit of an exaggeration. I have a breakdown of the content of the spills that have gone into some of the waterways. We do not want any to go in; I want to make that very clear. I do not want anybody to be scapegoated. There is work for us all in tackling the issue, and there is a responsibility on everybody. I will play my part in that. We are working collaboratively with NI Water and other Departments to ensure that we find solutions that are viable, make sense and are realistic in addressing what we are dealing with. Funding is, undoubtedly, a huge challenge, but we have to make the best of the funding that we have. That is what I am committed to doing. Road Maintenance 2. Mr Clarke asked the Minister for Infrastructure to outline her Department’s road maintenance plans in order to address dangerous road defects. (AQO 2864/22-27) Ms Kimmins: As the Member will be aware and as I have mentioned today, my Department has been operating in a difficult financial environment for many, many years as a result of underfunding and underinvestment by British Governments. That has created significant challenges in our ability to maintain the road network in a safe condition. As Members will be aware, last week — on 2 December — I was pleased to launch the new road maintenance strategy, which is now open for public consultation. The main objectives of the strategy are to make our roads better by enhancing safety and quality through the delivery of a targeted programme of intelligent maintenance investment and a sustainable maintenance regime. As I have said in the House previously, that means that, instead of workers filling one or two potholes and walking past a number of others, there will be more patch resurfacing. When that is done, the repairs last longer, because they are of higher quality. It will mean filling more potholes, where that is needed most, and ensuring that we are not sending the same resources back to the same spot on a number of occasions. Through the new strategy, my Department will ensure that the road maintenance function is organised to improve day-to-day effectiveness and enhance our ability to respond to incidents and weather events. Along with the strategy, my Department is investing £1·3 million in the provision of a full digital survey of the entire road network in the North, which is almost 27,000 kilometres. That will provide a much greater understanding of road condition and allow officials to take a more data-driven approach when they are making decisions and to deliver more focused maintenance interventions. The value of deeper, more accurate information to support an intelligent road maintenance strategy is widely recognised. We are world-leading in that approach. It is a landmark initiative, and, in just six months, we will have an unprecedented understanding of the road infrastructure to better target maintenance, reduce costs and react quickly to future opportunities and innovations. Mr Clarke: It sounds good, Minister, that we will have an intelligent system, but that implies that some of the current engineers are not intelligent. That said, I can think of one example in my constituency about which I have asked officials for a meeting a number of times, but they say that they are working on the basis of defects and actionable defects. In most constituencies, the actionable defects are so bad that, after staff have marked the defects, by the time that they come round to fix them, the defect markings are part of the potholes. The problem there is either management in Roads Service or the management of contractors. When, Minister, will your Department get a grasp and manage the contracts appropriately so that the roads do not get into the state that they are in? Ms Kimmins: I am not for one second questioning the intelligence of any of my staff. That was a disappointing remark. We are using the digital technology available to us to make smarter decisions so that we can free up our workforce to do the work that needs to be done and ensure that we are not sending staff out to the same locations time and time again. The Member will be fully aware that the issues that we have are a result of underfunding; there is no denying that. It has been going on for well over a decade, and we are constantly playing catch-up. I fully concur with the Member on the issues that he has raised. If you come to my constituency and look at some of the roads around Newry and south Armagh, you will see that we have the exact same issues. We are taking a different approach to try to address all of the issues that you have just outlined. Let us see what happens; let us see how this beds in. I am positive about it. I think that it will make a real difference. It will ensure that we make more efficient and cost-effective decisions that build the resilience and sustainability of our road network. Mr Boylan: Will the Minister outline how she will use the technology to improve our road maintenance activities? Ms Kimmins: As I have mentioned, the new strategy will focus on delivering higher-quality repairs instead of spreading resources too thinly. That will ensure a more reliable and safer road network and that our interventions prove to be more effective, so that we are not having to come back time and time again to the same areas. As part of the strategy, my Department is taking forward the development of digitally supported procedures for the inspection and repair of roads to inform decision-making. The first step in that work is to get a complete understanding of the condition of our entire road network. We are already over halfway through that process. It will help to give us a full picture of the deterioration on our roads and ensure that we can properly target the areas of greatest need and continually build resilience. Top 2.15 pm The process will use advanced AI, HD imaging and roadscape-modelling technology to capture a digital twin of every road in the North to an extraordinary level of detail, generating billions of data points that will provide a detailed insight into the condition of all our carriageways and footways. It will map the extent of every visible defect, from minor cracks to large potholes. It will not only identify and prioritise urgent maintenance but perform life-cycle modelling that will provide clear, long-term projections of how the road network will perform under different investment scenarios. That will help my Department to plan investments more effectively, reducing the carbon impact of its maintenance and optimising the safety and lifespan of its road assets. Mr Stewart: Minister, our roads are in a diabolical state, and we are spending millions of pounds on compensation, which is increasing year-on-year. You have highlighted the work that is being done, but what engagement have you had with the Mineral Products Association (MPA) and its contractors about their concerns and their vital role in resolving the situation? Ms Kimmins: I have met the Mineral Products Association on a number of occasions since coming into post, and I am acutely aware of the concerns that it continues to raise. That is why I focused in the December monitoring round on putting in a specific bid for structural maintenance. I said that I wanted to do that and that I would press for funds, and I was pleased to have been awarded £13·2 million in today's monitoring round, which will go a long way. I give credit to my officials, staff on the ground and contractors, who are members of the Mineral Products Association, who can turn the money around quickly so that we can see real results. I look forward to further engagement with it on the outcome of the monitoring round. I recognise that it does not go far enough, but I hope that the public that we represent will see and feel a real difference in the coming weeks and months. Mr McNulty: The Mineral Products Association asked for £20 million as a minimum to enable essential maintenance and repairs of our crumbling road network, which has potholes galore, even though a winter freeze has not happened yet. The MPA asked for £20 million; you bid for £19 million and were allocated £13 million. What does that mean for the safety and state of our roads? You talked about your bells-and-whistles mapping system, but how long will it take to map the road network? Surely — Mr Speaker: Minister. Mr McNulty: — the Minister agrees that we need — Mr Speaker: Minister. Mr McNulty: — to fill the potholes, not take pictures of them. Ms Kimmins: As the Member takes plenty of pictures of potholes, maybe he should listen to his own advice. [Laughter.] To answer his question on the Mineral Products Association and today's December monitoring outcome, yes, there is £13·2 million. There was a £20 million ask, but we have also been allocated money from overplanning, so there is room for flexibility in my Department. I will do my best to ensure that we meet as much of that as possible and deliver as much as we can in the rest of the financial year. Temporary Exemption Certificates: Criteria 3. Mr Kingston asked the Minister for Infrastructure to outline the criteria being applied for one-year temporary exemption certificates (TEC). (AQO 2865/22-27) Ms Kimmins: From 1 June 2025, private cars that were first registered between 1 June 2020 and 31 May 2021 or that were registered between 1 June 2018 and 31 May 2019 and have a valid MOT certificate will be given a temporary exemption certificate. The TEC means they will not need a vehicle test — MOT — for 12 months from the date that their current certificate expires. If a vehicle meets the eligible date criteria but does not have a valid MOT certificate, an MOT test will need to be conducted and passed. A TEC for 12 months will be automatically applied from the expiry of the latest test certificate. Mr Kingston: Unfortunately, the introduction of the emergency measures speaks to a lack of capacity in the MOT testing system. Will the Minister ask her officials to check that Government websites give a consistent online message? When I tried in October to check my MOT status on GOV.UK, it told me that the MOT would expire in December, as I thought. When I went to the nidirect website to book an MOT test, after I went through the process, it told me that I could not book a test because it was not due until 2026. Having got a different message from nidirect, I had to check that that was correct when I looked up the information — Mr Speaker: Interesting story, Mr Kingston, but we need a question. [Laughter.] Mr Kingston: Will you ask officials to check whether the two websites are giving a consistent message about the temporary exemptions? Ms Kimmins: I appreciate the Member's raising that. I am happy for you to provide more detail on that specific issue to my private office, and we can look into it and try to get it rectified. I have outlined how that process works, but if there are issues, I am keen to make sure that they are addressed. Mr McHugh: Ignoring the comment that was just made about how difficult it is to get an MOT, most people have noticed that it has become a lot easier to get an MOT appointment now than it was back in 2024. Did implementing the temporary exemption certificates impact on waiting times? Ms Kimmins: It absolutely did. In May 2024, the average MOT waiting time was approximately 100 days. I am pleased that the waiting time for an MOT is now down to 32 days. That has been achieved by increasing the number of tests that are conducted and managing demand through the use of TECs. The Driver and Vehicle Agency has increased its testing capacity by recruiting additional vehicle examiners. It has also been offering appointments on Sundays and bank holidays, when testing has not normally been available, and has increased the number of vehicles that each examiner tests. As I mentioned, TECs were first introduced in June 2024, and I was able to extend their use for certain five- and seven-year-old private cars for another year to help manage waiting times further until the new test centres at Hydebank and Mallusk open. Once both those test centres are fully operational, they will provide capacity for over 200,000 additional vehicle tests per year. Both centres are expected to open in 2026. That will be a marked difference from the experiences that we have seen in recent years. It is important to pay tribute to the staff who have worked extremely hard doing overtime and putting in extra shifts. We have also been able to recruit new staff, which has made a really positive difference. Mr Durkan: The Minister and Members outlined the benefits that have derived from the introduction of temporary exemption certificates, but what consideration has the Minister given to consultation responses on the move to biennial MOT testing? What other evidence might be considered? Should we have more up-to-date evidence on vehicle condition as a causation factor in collisions? Ms Kimmins: As the Member will know, we have done a consultation on biennial testing. The responses are with my officials, who are finalising a detailed paper that will come to me for consideration on the future of MOT testing here. I will update Members in due course when that is available. From a road safety perspective, it is important to remember and to remind people that the condition of your vehicle is your responsibility. Regardless of when your MOT is due, it is your responsibility to ensure that your vehicle is fit for purpose and fit for the road. Over the past number of years, we have seen some of the issues that we have had with the testing centres. Back in 2020, we had issues with the lifts, which also had an impact on MOT testing. Then we had COVID, and we are gradually seeing a recovery from both those really difficult situations. During that period, the majority of motorists were acutely aware that it was their responsibility to ensure that their vehicle was roadworthy. That continues, regardless of whether your car has just been through its MOT or is two weeks out from an MOT. That is a really important point, particularly from a road safety perspective. Foundations for a Better Future: Inclusion 5. Mr Baker asked the Minister for Infrastructure to outline the work taking place under the inclusion pillar in her seven foundations for a better future. (AQO 2867/22-27) Ms Kimmins: The Inclusion Foundation, which is also known as Including People, is about creating an infrastructure system that works for everyone, including older people, those with disabilities and those with sensory impairments. Accessible transport is not just about ramps or designated seating; it is about dignity, equality and enabling people to participate fully in society. By removing barriers, we open opportunities for employment, education and community life. Our initial focus has been on understanding the barriers that people encounter when accessing our services. That has enabled my Department to review existing functions and identify areas where programmes can be strengthened to better reflect individual needs. We are actively working to remove obstacles for older people and those who are deaf or disabled while addressing how active travel can feel intimidating for women and girls and how racial and ethnic minorities face risks when using public transport. We work very closely and collaboratively with the Inclusive Mobility and Transport Advisory Committee (IMTAC). Building on that commitment to accessibility, I recently announced my intention to bring forward legislation to tackle inconsiderate pavement parking across the North. A vehicle parked fully on a pavement creates serious and often dangerous barriers for pedestrians, forcing people to step out on to the road into oncoming traffic. That poses a safety risk, particularly for people with disabilities, older people, children and people pushing prams. This legislative action complements wider engagement efforts, such as our recent inclusive transport and travel conference, which brought together almost 140 people from various areas of that sector. Key messages included involving users from the outset, future-proofing infrastructure and improving parking enforcement. Stakeholders also called for better payment systems, real-time information and a more joined-up approach to public and community transport. To ensure that there is a central and continuous focus on the diverse needs of the people who are using our services, all DFI senior civil servants, along with other lead policy officials, have completed a disability equality training programme, which is delivered in partnership with Inclusion London — Mr Speaker: Minister —. Ms Kimmins: — and in collaboration with IMTAC. Mr Speaker: Thank you. Mr Baker: I thank the Minister for her answer and for putting inclusion and equality at the heart of what she does. Will the Minister consider extending the half-fare pass for disabled people to full fare? Ms Kimmins: Yes. I am glad that the Member raised that question as it is an issue that I have been quite vocal about for many years. I fully acknowledge the significant societal and economic benefits that free public transport can deliver for people with disabilities. As well as that, increasing the use of public transport is a vital step towards reducing congestion, improving air quality and achieving our climate objectives, which will bring benefits to all our society. As part of my ongoing review of budget allocations, I am carefully considering the funding available for the concessionary fares scheme, including the option of extending free travel to disabled people, who currently only receive the half-fare discount. In anticipation of when resources permit, my officials have been working closely with Translink to resolve any operational challenges, particularly those associated with the major upgrade of Translink's ticketing system. I am firmly committed to enhancing social inclusion by improving access to our public transport network through the extension of free public transport to people with disabilities, and I have met a number of representatives and organisations from across the sector to hear their views and hear why it is so important. I really appreciate and am grateful for their input to date. Mr T Buchanan: Economic growth, roads and transport are part of your seven foundations for the future. That is very much needed in West Tyrone. Should there be a negative outcome to the ongoing court case regarding the A5, what is plan B? Ms Kimmins: I am sure that the Member will appreciate that, at this point in time, it would be remiss of me to go into any level of detail. However, I will say that, as the work on the appeal has been ongoing, my officials have also been looking at a contingency plan as to what other options there are for us to take that forward. When the time comes and when I am able to do so, I will keep all Members updated. Road Safety Priorities 6. Mrs Cameron asked the Minister for Infrastructure for an update on her Department’s current priorities for improving road safety on rural and high-risk routes across Northern Ireland. (AQO 2868/22-27) Ms Kimmins: Road safety remains a major priority for me. This year, more than 50 families have already received the devastating news that their loved one has been killed in a road traffic collision, and many more have learned of life-changing injuries. My Department continues to collaborate with blue-light organisations and other Departments through the road safety strategic forum to steer the road safety strategy action plan. The plan will address the latest and emerging needs in road safety, with interventions that are based on sound research and success in other jurisdictions. The forum is finalising a new action plan of high-level interventions. Whilst not all those interventions will specifically target rural or high-risk roads, any intervention to improve road safety has the potential to have a positive impact on any type of road and on road safety in general. The interventions will include, amongst others, a consultation on a number of speed-related matters; a local transport and safety measures programme; working with Translink on public transport and school bus safety in rural areas; a new tranche of part-time 20 mph speed limits at schools; continuing work on impaired and distracted driving policy and legislation; and targeted awareness campaigns. It is important to remember that the majority of collisions are caused by human error, so road user behaviour must also be addressed. That is a specific focus that Members will potentially have seen through some of the more recent road safety advertising campaigns and awareness-raising work that we have been doing. Mrs Cameron: I hope that the Speaker will not mind indulging me for a second to congratulate my good colleague beside me, Willie Irwin, on reaching his final day of service in the Assembly Chamber. We all wish him well for the future. Top 2.30 pm I thank the Minister for her answer. She will be aware of the very recent and tragic loss of life on the Lurgan Road in Glenavy. Our hearts go out to those families who have suffered such terrible loss. Given the long-term ambition of the 'Road Safety Strategy for Northern Ireland to 2030', can the Minister outline how the new technology that she has already spoken about and the maintenance strategy reforms and budget allocations, including the £13·2 million that was announced today, will align with the strategy's targets to ensure meaningful reductions in deaths and serious injuries on our roads? Mr Speaker: Briefly, Minister, please. Ms Kimmins: I also offer my best wishes to my constituency colleague William Irwin. We have always had a very good relationship, and I appreciate his work over many years. I wish him all the best in his retirement, which is, at this stage, well deserved. The best of luck with that, William. On the Member's question, we are doing a number of things. As I have talked about before, I am continually looking at ways that we can narrow those gaps. Road user and driver behaviour is one of the key areas, which is why I wanted to increase road safety advertising. I was able to approve an allocation of £1·9 million — almost £2 million — for road safety promotion for this financial year, which is an increase of over £1·5 million. In addition, the road safety partnership was allocated half a million in sponsorship, which brought the total budget to almost £2·5 million. That, in itself, shows my commitment and dedication to ensuring that we do more and do as much as we can. We recently announced the drug-driving campaign, which the Member may be aware of. We have been working across Departments on a number of other areas, including with her party colleague the Education Minister on school bus safety. When it comes to the road maintenance aspect, anything that improves our road surfaces and network will improve safety. I am very conscious of that, and I want to achieve that. There are a number of things that we can do here, and I am always looking for more ideas for how we can improve driver behaviour and make our roads safer for everyone. Mr Speaker: We now move to topical questions. Water Infrastructure: Funding Mr McNulty: I wish my constituency colleague and her family a happy Christmas in the run-in to the magical season of festivities. T1. Mr McNulty asked the Minister for Infrastructure, having noted that it is extraordinary that she is crying foul when her Executive have handed back a quarter of a billion pounds unspent, to outline her plans to overcome the funding challenges that her Department faces in developing water and waste water infrastructure. (AQT 1881/22-27) Ms Kimmins: I thank my colleague for his warm wishes and wish him the same. I hope that he gets a good break over Christmas and gets time to enjoy it with his family. We are all looking forward to it at this stage, and, hopefully, we will get to enjoy it, along with many others. I have probably answered that question in some of my responses today about waste water infrastructure. There is no doubt that it is a significant challenge. It has not just arisen since my predecessor, John O'Dowd, or I came into post. It has been a characteristic of the Department for many years. However, when we look at what we have achieved in the past year, albeit with a constrained budget, we see that, while NI Water had indicated that the target was just over 4,000 houses for the PC21 period, over 5,000 houses have already been built due to the work that has happened across Departments, around the Executive table and with other partners across the sector using innovation to unlock waste water capacity. I hope that that shows my commitment to finding solutions. It may not always be funding. Funding is the key issue, but looking at the British Government's Budget, or lack of a decent Budget, last week, I do not think that that money is going to drop out of the sky any time soon. That will not deter me from doing the work that I need to do to ensure that we keep this place moving forward and deliver for the people whom we all represent. Mr McNulty: I thank the Minister for her answer. Minister, the current funding model for NI Water is not fit for purpose. You know it, your Department knows it and the industry knows it. Industry has told you that. What is the plan to ensure that funding is in place to allow NI Water to connect new houses, schools, hospitals and commercial, hospitality, retail and industrial developments? Ms Kimmins: Again, I have outlined the plan for my three-pronged approach on many occasions here, as well as the approaches that we are taking in different areas of work, which have made and continue to make a difference. I am of the view, however, that the funding model works. It is the right one for NI Water, because it ensures that the Government still have a level of control, which protects it for the people whom we represent. I have said it very clearly, and I will say it once again: I do not intend to introduce water charges. For me, that seems to be the only other option that people are bringing forward. The Member is shaking his head, so if he has another solution to that —. Mr McNulty: Mutualisation. Ms Kimmins: Mutualisation is water charges by the back door. The Member is shaking his head, but he clearly needs to do a wee bit of research on that. Mutualisation is water charges by the back door, and that is something that I am not prepared to do, even though he may be. Speed Limit Reduction: Markethill Mr Irwin: I thank my party colleagues and Members from all sides of the House who have wished me well on the occasion of my retirement. It has been an absolute privilege to represent Newry and Armagh since 2007. I think that most people will recognise that I represented everyone irrespective of their class or creed. T3. Mr Irwin asked the Minister for Infrastructure whether she will look at the possibility of reducing the speed limit on a short stretch of the Newry to Armagh road, which includes five main junctions, in close proximity to Markethill, where, as she will be aware, a number of accidents have occurred in recent weeks, including just last week when a lady pedestrian lost her life. (AQT 1883/22-27) Ms Kimmins: I send my condolences to that lady's family. That was such a devastating incident, and I cannot imagine what they are going through. As I said, many families have, sadly, had similar experiences this year. I will ask my officials to review that again, because I know that we have looked at it in the past, particularly in light of that most recent incident. I travel on that road myself quite a lot, and I am very familiar with it. As the Member said, there are a lot of junctions. The junction at Gosford Park, which is not far away, is a very busy junction. I am very conscious of that, and I will be happy to ask officials to look at that situation and reassess it. Mr Speaker: Before I call you, Mr Irwin, I extend to you my best wishes on your retirement. I have known you for a very long time, and I know you as a very hard constituency worker over those years. Many people have benefited from that, and you have always done what you do with honesty and integrity, which is a great value for someone to have. Some Members: Hear, hear. Mr Irwin: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. We have worked closely together, and I hold you in high esteem. I thank the Minister for agreeing to look into the matter. I was at the funeral on Sunday, and the family are devastated by their loss. The lady was going to get her hair done and was killed on that main road. The traffic travels quite fast on that road, and it is a very busy road. It is important that we all realise the seriousness of the matter. Ms Kimmins: Absolutely. The seriousness of that incident and the danger on that road cannot be overstated. I reiterate my commitment to ask officials to review that situation. If he prefers, I will arrange to come back either to the Member personally through the Department or to his successor. Developer-led Contributions Mr Dickson: I pass on the Alliance Party's best wishes to Mr Irwin on his retirement. He has been in the Assembly longer than I have, and I wish him a long and happy retirement. T4. Mr Dickson asked the Minister for Infrastructure how she intends to proceed in light of the Department's recently published report on its consultation on developer-led contributions. (AQT 1884/22-27) Ms Kimmins: The consultation was heavily responded to, as the Member will be aware, so we are considering that and looking at what the next steps will be. It is important to recognise that this is a good opportunity to look at how we can bolster our waste water infrastructure funding, while recognising the need for an equal and fair approach. I will update the House when I go through that and finalise those plans. Mr Dickson: Minister, the consultation showed strong opposition to developer-led contributions. What measures do you plan to take to minimise the potential negative impact on housing affordability? Ms Kimmins: The opposition was not a surprise. As I think the Member will understand, none of us wants any additional costs, but it is important to look at what the outcomes will be and what we can actually achieve. We are trying to finalise what it would look like, and I am very conscious that we do not want it to have a further negative impact in other ways. In particular, the possibility of its having an impact on house prices has been mentioned. Obviously, I do not want to see that. However, it is also important to recognise that, for housebuilders or anyone else who is building and who needs a waste water connection, there is already a cost. In many cases, the cost is quite significant if a new connection is needed. The idea behind developer contributions was to look at how we could do that more equitably, whereby we invest in our system with people feeling less impact. That was the desired outcome, and I am very conscious of that in making my final decision. Pedestrian Crossing: Prince Charles Way T5. Miss McAllister asked the Minister for Infrastructure, having pointed out that this topical question will not be a surprise, as it was her question for oral answer for which there was not enough time, when a safe pedestrian crossing at Prince Charles Way roundabout will be completed for schoolchildren from Ashgrove Primary School and other road and active travel users, given that it has been approved and that there is a safety issue for all in the local community for her Department to deal with. (AQT 1885/22-27) Ms Kimmins: I am aware of that site. As the Member alluded to, a full site survey and assessment has been completed. The site has been scored, with that indicating that it is considered to be a high priority in the council area. As you mentioned earlier during Members' Statements, it is, ultimately, down to budget and where it fits in with what we can deliver. It is on the Department's prioritised list for inclusion in the future works programme. I do not have a timetable in front of me, but I am happy to come back in writing if there is any idea, particularly now that we have additional funding through December monitoring, of what that may look like. I am happy to keep you updated, because I recognise how important it is. I do not know what may be in front of it: we could have someone else complaining that a site that scored as higher priority had its funding overridden; that is also important to remember. Given that it has been identified as a high-priority site, we can get more detail from officials, if that would be helpful. Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for her answer. Yes, if we could have more details about whether it will happen in the next financial year, that would be helpful. I might invite the Minister to come to the site along with Ashgrove Primary School's council, so that she can see how busy the road is. There are four lanes — it looks almost like a dual carriageway — with speeds of 50 mph. She would see what it is like for children to cross the road in that area. I understand the point about budgets, but it is a serious safety concern. Ms Kimmins: I am happy to accept the invite. As a parent, I am so keen that we do our best to maximise road safety at all costs and to encourage our children to walk, cycle or whatever it may be to get to places that are close to them, including school or the local youth club. I am very conscious of those issues, and, when the Department carries out the assessments, they are all factored in. If you want to write to the Department, I will be happy to accept the invitation. Electric Vehicles: Pay-per-mile Tax T6. Ms Egan asked the Minister for Infrastructure whether she has had any engagement with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the pay-per-mile tax on electric vehicles that was announced in the recent Budget. (AQT 1886/22-27) Ms Kimmins: I have not had any engagement with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As I am sure that the Member will appreciate, it is, largely, the Finance Minister who is involved in such direct negotiations. As we await further information, I imagine that there will be engagement with the British Government and their relevant Ministers on what that will mean for people here. Ms Egan: Thank you, Minister. Do you have concerns about how that tax might impact on Northern Ireland's ability to meet its climate change targets? Top 2.45 pm Ms Kimmins: Absolutely. At the first look at it, at a time when we are trying to encourage more people to transition to electric vehicles, it is understandable that concerns are raised if costs will increase. At this point, I am keen to get more information on what the British Government propose, what that will look like and what it will mean for people here. I will then be better able to provide a rationalisation of what we can expect. (Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair) Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That ends questions to the Minister for Infrastructure. Assembly Business Mr McNulty: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I wish my constituency colleague Willie Irwin well on this, his last day in the Chamber after more than two decades of dedicated service to the people of Newry and Armagh. He has been a fearsome advocate for farmers and their families. Willie, you will be sorely missed. We shook hands in the Great Hall in front of the Christmas tree: you still have that farmer's grip. Best of luck for whatever is next. Take care. Some Members: Hear, hear. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you for that. I, too, wish William all the very best for the future. It has been a pleasure working with you. You are an absolute gentleman. Ministerial Statement December Monitoring Business resumed. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Before we broke for Question Time, I indicated that Colin McGrath would be the next Member to ask a question. Mr McGrath: Last week, at the Health Committee, we were told that the maintenance bill for our health estate had blown past £1·6 billion, with £251 million of that judged to be high-risk, 40% of the estate failing to meet statutory standards and nearly a fifth of it in a physically unacceptable condition. Does the Minister seriously believe that it is acceptable for the Executive to leave patients in such conditions? Will he explain how a criminally low level of £5·5 million — Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Colin. Mr McGrath: — has been allocated amounting to a fraction of a fraction of the backlog? Will it make any meaningful difference? Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Minister, there are several questions there. Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): Not only has he done his homework but he has been reading the dictionary. I have heard no one around the Executive table or, indeed, beyond it claim that patients should be kept in anything other than first-class, first-rate conditions in our health service. Despite the best efforts of our health workers and teams, circumstances often fall below par, but patients very often receive world-class care in world-class conditions. Where there is a maintenance backlog, I will work with the Health Minister and others to try to alleviate that. Nowhere in my statement is there any suggestion that the allocation that we have made today will resolve that problem. We are doing the best that we can with the limited resources that we have, but we will continue to drive forward change. Mr Kingston: The allocation and reallocation of over £290 million is to be welcomed and will relieve many pressures. You said, Minister, that £104·2 million had been allocated to pay award costs, and your statement also highlighted the fact that, across four Departments, up to £150 million is needed for pay awards. From what you said earlier, it seems that the health and policing pay awards will be met in full. Can you provide the clarity that workers across the four Departments are seeking as to what they can expect? Mr O'Dowd: Let us be clear: there has been a ministerial direction approved by the Executive on health workers' pay. That has been agreed: health workers' pay will now proceed. The £7 million for police restructuring and recruitment has been agreed and will proceed. I understand that the Justice Minister will set out later how she will implement policing pay. That leaves teachers and infrastructure workers. I understand that the Education Minister is bringing forward a ministerial direction in relation to teachers' pay. As I have said, if that is laid out in the same circumstances as the Health Minister's ministerial direction was, there will be grounds for the Executive to approve that. A ministerial direction is a document on its own and contains information etc, but, in principle, that is the way to proceed to ensure that all our public sector workers receive their agreed pay awards. Mrs Dodds: Thank you for the statement, Minister. It is an important step forward. In it, you indicated that there will be almost £70 million for healthcare workers' pay. I am glad that you have confirmed, through the ministerial direction process, that that will go ahead. However, it may involve an overspend into next year or a three-year Budget. What discussions have you had with the Health Minister about how he will manage the pressures on his budget, given that considerable potential overspend and its implications? Mr O'Dowd: I have had ongoing discussions with the Health Minister over a protracted period on the pressures that his budget is under. There has been a significant decline in the forecasted pressures on Health as a result of the work of the Health Minister, his permanent secretary, the team around them and all the staff involved in the health service. They are all playing their part in that work. As I said to another Member, a number of manoeuvres are still to be made in this financial year. There is still a fiscal event to come in Westminster with the Estimates, when we will receive some money, although we are not expecting huge amounts from that. That will allow us to further analyse the figures and better project how we will overspend. I suspect that there will be an overspend by the Executive. One or two Departments will probably give us an overspend. However, I am not in a position to predict firmly what that overspend will be at this stage, because there are still a number of moving elements. I have engaged with the Health Minister at length about that, and my officials have engaged at official level. Mr Martin: Minister, thank you for your statement. I will take you to table 3, which shows capital allocations. I will let you flick towards it while I read my question. Essentially, in the DFI budget's capital allocations, you have fully funded the Glarryford land tribunal, which was an inescapable cost. You have fully funded the "Overplanning" at £34 million, which was an inescapable cost. You then part-funded capital structural maintenance and Northern Ireland drinking water infrastructure. You went on to part-fund a high-priority item with £5 million for fleet replacement. Is it usual not to fund inescapables as far as you can within the envelope while funding a high-priority item ahead of those inescapables? Mr O'Dowd: For clarification, I have not funded anything: this is an Executive document. The Executive approved it. The Executive can make whatever decisions they want about monitoring rounds and how they fund items. A considerable amount of capital was brought forward on this occasion. My officials work with departmental officials across the board on what could be spent in the time frame that we have, hence the presentation that you have in front of you. Mr Durkan: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a ráiteas agus as ucht a fhreagraí go dtí seo. [Translation: I thank the Minister for his statement and for his answers so far.] There is certainly some good news in the document. However, that does not mean that it is a good way of doing business, particularly given the allocation of so much capital so late in the financial year. We welcome the bid for social housing of almost £30 million being met. Can the Minister clarify — maybe it is for the Communities Minister — how many new units that will provide and how far we will fall short of the target? Mr O'Dowd: How close will we get to the target? That is another way of looking at it. Monitoring rounds are not a new invention. I did not wake up during the week and say, "Here is what I will do: I will have a monitoring round". Monitoring rounds are a part and fixture of budgetary processes in the Assembly and elsewhere. They are a proven way of doing business in institutions and of redistributing moneys across Departments at set periods. I have not made that process up; it is a fixed, sound process. As I said, the reason why it is a bit later in the year is that the Chancellor's autumn Budget was approximately four weeks later than it would usually be in the Westminster calendar. That prevented me coming forward with proposals to the Executive earlier and the Executive signing off on them. Mr T Buchanan: I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, I note the return of £4·9 million as a result of unfilled vacancies in DAERA.Given the pressures that our agriculture sector is experiencing and the large number of vacancies in the Department, especially in veterinary personnel, that is a matter of concern. Have you had any discussions with the AERA Minister about those vacancies and the filling of them? Mr O'Dowd: Mr Durkan asked how close we were to the target: it will be for the Communities Minister to make an announcement in that regard. He will have all of the facts and figures. On Tom's question, I have not had a discussion specifically with the AERA Minister about those vacancies. I do not know what the specific challenges are with recruitment in DAERA. The public sector faces the challenges that many private-sector businesses face with recruitment: at times, it is difficult to recruit the staff you need for the jobs that you have at that time. That question is probably best directed to the AERA Minister. Mr Harvey: I thank the Minister for his statement. I see a bid from DFI relating to the Ballynahinch bypass, but I have not, as yet, seen it on the list of awards. Will you update the House on that priority project, which, hopefully, is due to start soon? Mr O'Dowd: I am familiar with the Ballynahinch bypass, given my previous role as Infrastructure Minister. However, I am not sure what stage it is at, Harry. The Infrastructure Minister will have to profile her budget in a way that responds to how that project is moving forward. I have no further information for you on it. Mr Carroll: Revenue raising has been doing the rounds again. Something that I have raised before but was not in the statement is some form of empty property levy or tax through the rating system. According to your Department's figures, Minister, a £1,000 fine on empty properties could bring in somewhere between £22 million and £50 million a year. Is that something that you are likely to look at and support developing further? Mr O'Dowd: Deliberations about empty properties will form part of the ongoing rates review. The Member will be aware that I am proposing to increase the rates on empty non-domestic properties. That consultation has gone out in the past week or so. Further exploration of the rates reviewing policy is ongoing. If there is an opportune time to further develop that proposal, it could be something that we consult on. Mr McNulty: Minister, "Casement Park will be built" was the rallying call of your Executive's First Minister. Casement Park is, of course, an Executive flagship project, but, sadly, it remains derelict. It is astonishing, therefore, to see a £27·3 million allocation for the development of Casement Park being handed back unspent. What is going on? Mr O'Dowd: There has clearly been a slippage for all to see in the delivery of Casement Park. However, I and other Ministers are engaging with the Communities Minister to ensure that that project is delivered and built and that it meets the needs of the GAA. It is unfortunate that it has not progressed at this stage, but I am still confident that it will. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That is us. I remind Members that, in the new year, all being well, if they wish to ask a Minister a question, they need to be in for that Minister's statement. That concludes questions to the Minister on his statement. Members should take their ease before we move to the next item of business. Top 3.00 pm Private Members' Business Neurology Services Mrs Dodds: I beg to move That this Assembly expresses grave concern at the crisis facing neurology services in Northern Ireland; believes that it is unacceptable that almost 20,000 people are still waiting on a first-time consultant appointment, with a further 11,000 overdue a review appointment; highlights recent statistics indicating that over three quarters of neurology patients surveyed in Northern Ireland had experienced delays accessing services or reported worsening mental health and that half felt unsupported after their diagnosis; further believes that systemic delays in diagnosis and care are resulting in poorer outcomes and quality of life for those with neurological conditions, whilst placing unacceptable pressures on the existing health workforce; is alarmed that it is five times more common for patients presenting to emergency departments with a neurological condition in Northern Ireland to be admitted to a hospital without a dedicated neurology service than in England; calls on the Minister of Health to address underfunding of, fragmentation between, and critical workforce shortages within neurology services throughout health and social care trusts; and further calls on the Minister to publish an implementation plan for the recommendations contained in the regional review of neurology services without further delay. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. An amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List, so the Business Committee has agreed that 15 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate. Diane, please open the debate on the motion. Thank you. Mrs Dodds: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Minister, just in case you are interested in how we think about health issues and those that we should debate in the Chamber, I recently attended an event at which a lot of neurology patients were present. At that event, I found groups of people who felt abandoned, who have lost hope and who felt that, even though they were able to speak to MLAs, they had no clear answers. So I made up my mind that we would have a debate through which you could, perhaps, give them the answers that they deserve. The review of neurology services, launched in 2018, followed the, at that time, largest patient recall in the history of the NHS. Nearly 5,500 people met the criteria for recall, and over 4,000 patients were reassessed. Almost one in five patients was advised that their original diagnosis was insecure. That illustrates a system that was not functioning properly or offering a high standard of care. Seven years on from the review, it is time that some action was taken to implement fully its recommendations. An estimated 40,000 people in Northern Ireland are living with a chronic neurological condition and rely on regular access to neurology services. The review was clear: we need more neurologists, more neurophysiologists, more neurology nurses and advanced nurse practitioners, and more allied health professionals (AHPs), psychologists, pharmacists and neuropsychiatrists. Yet, for those people in that room that day, it seemed that there had been next to no progress. Some could not even get a diagnosis. On-site neurology opinion should be available at every acute hospital receiving unscheduled admissions, with patients being seen by a neurologist within 24 hours, in line with recognised standards. We do not have that in Northern Ireland. In fact, one trust does not have a neurology service. In response to a question for written answer on the neurology review, the Minister stated: "Progress on taking forward the agreed priorities set out in the report will be subject to available funding." Another answer was: "I will need to secure significant additional funding to take these matters forward." I am disappointed that it seems to have become the norm for the Department of Health to have a new strategy, plan or service development, and even to have the adult protection legislation that we are considering, but to have no idea where the funding is to come from to implement them. As an Assembly, we should agree to end that approach, because we are promising people something that the Department is not delivering. The responsibility for review and reform lies firmly with the Department and the Minister. We cannot expect everybody else to fund those initiatives. That priority must be within the Department. At the weekend, the My Waiting Times NI website showed that those referred for a routine neurology outpatient appointment were waiting 192 weeks in Belfast — 192 weeks. The figure was exactly the same in the Southern Trust. In the Western Trust, it was 263 weeks. According to the website, those figures were up to date at the weekend. That is just over five years for a first routine neurology appointment. Minister, can you confirm the waiting time for routine appointments in the South Eastern Trust? At the weekend, the My Waiting Times NI website stated that that was 16 weeks; previously, it had been 14 weeks. I would like to know whether that is accurate, particularly in light of the figures in every other trust. The referral time for urgent cases is twice as long, at 35 weeks. Those figures do not seem to be quite right, but I would be delighted if they were correct. I would like the Minister to give some answers on those. Northern Ireland has only 25 full-time equivalent neurologists, with limited 24/7 emergency cover beyond the Royal Victoria Hospital. Only two of 138 core medical training places are allocated to neurology. How are we going to make up the deficit? How will we get more people in place to tackle the backlog of that terrible waiting list? The lack of timely access to neurology care causes deterioration in health conditions and a preventable rise in disability across Northern Ireland. Delayed access to neurology treatment can also be life-threatening. The economic implications as well as the implications for individual well-being are significant. Direct costs include ambulance call-outs, emergency admissions and longer hospital stays, while indirect costs due to lost productivity and the impact on informal care contribute to that economic burden. A 2024 study by the Economist Intelligence Unit estimated that 14·5 million people in the UK live with neurological conditions. The total direct and indirect burden was calculated as 4·3% of GDP, or £96 billion per year, as far back as 2019. Presumably, that figure is much higher now. The same study suggested — this is the most interesting part for us all — that timely intervention and timely and improved access to care could reduce those costs by a third. The figures are probably an underestimate, not just because they are based on 2019 data but because the study considered only 10 common neurological conditions, whereas, in fact, there are many. The impact of those waiting lists on people who are unable to secure a diagnosis, or even, as one person at that event explained to me, on people who have obtained a diagnosis privately, is that health services are almost impossible to access as well. I cannot emphasise enough, Minister, how much we need to invest in the neurology workforce and the introduction of minimum standards to ensure that all trusts provide timely access to care. Consultant time is not being used efficiently, because the workforce lacks the right mix of skills. A shortage of specialist nurses and allied health professionals means that many people go directly to consultants when other options may have been more suitable. I again plead with you on the issue of GPs. Your instinct to shift care to the community is right, but there will be great difficulty with that if GPs do not have the support to manage neurology patients who have complex needs. The report on the neurology review recommends the development of a broader skill mix through extended roles such as advanced nurse practitioners and advanced practice AHPs. That would ensure a more efficient use of resources. I presume, Minister, that the roll-out of the multidisciplinary teams in your reset will help with that as well. Those who suffer from neurological conditions, such as Parkinson's disease, epilepsy and the wide range of other such conditions, deserve something better than what is being provided. I would like you to address the waiting lists and the issues with the workforce. Unless we can address those two things in the debate, we will not give answers to the many thousands of people who are on waiting lists, without hope and in pain. Mr Donnelly: I beg to move the following amendment: After "than in England;" insert: "endorses the FightForNeuro campaign launched in November 2025, which recognises that people living with Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy and other lifelong conditions are being failed by the current system and that reform and improvement are therefore essential;" Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Danny, you will have 10 minutes to propose your amendment and five minutes in which to wind. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes. Please open the debate on the amendment. Mr Donnelly: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I endorse the FightForNeuro campaign, which was launched in Stormont in November of this year. That campaign is testament to the powerful stories of those with lived experience, and it highlights the urgent need to address the gaps identified in neurological care following the publication of the final report of the regional review of neurology services. Some of the quotes from the campaign are shocking. One patient said: "It's currently impossible to contact someone for help or advice when needed." Another said: "I feel like my condition has deteriorated which could have possibly been prevented." As Diane highlighted, those people feel abandoned. We have heard about the shockingly long waiting lists for routine appointments, on which patients wait for years, while their conditions deteriorate. That impacts on their health, quality of life and finances. It also results in additional pressures on the health service. In August, Alliance responded to the consultation on the neurology review, which accurately outlined the serious and systemic challenges within neurological services. Waiting times are unacceptably long. Workforce shortages across consultants, nurses, AHPs and psychology staff create an unacceptable variation in access and outcomes across the trusts. The absence of local neurology teams and condition-specific pathways further undermines service consistency and quality. The report of the neurology review sets out four main priorities: a person-centred service; developing additional workforce capacity within neurology; addressing gaps in current services; and using current resources more effectively. In responding to the consultation, we strongly supported the vision but urged that the focus needs to be on delivery. Person-centred, evidence-based care cannot be achieved without investment, across all trusts, in workforce, infrastructure and support services. Services need to be designed with and for people with neurological conditions, particularly through condition-specific pathways that reflect lived experience. Is that going to happen? Well, the Minister attended the launch of the FightForNeuro campaign, and the Northern Ireland Neurological Charities Alliance (NINCA) stated that he: "took the time to listen to personal stories from people across the neurology community. He listened carefully as people living with neurological conditions like Parkinson’s, Epilepsy, Functional Neurological Disorder (FND), Migraine, and Multiple Sclerosis (MS) shared the reality of what it's really like navigating a broken system and living with a long-term neurological condition." NINCA said: "While the Minister couldn’t commit to immediate funding, he assured us that neurology will be a top priority in the upcoming budget discussions. He also expressed his willingness to work with us to deliver real, meaningful change, acknowledging that the neurology community deserves better." I do not doubt that the Minister has genuine empathy for the people in those circumstances, and I do not doubt that he would like to deliver real and meaningful change in neurology services, but empathy and kind words will not fix the health service. Top 3.15 pm Consider the Department's approach to some of the priorities set out in the review. At the Health Committee last week, when discussing the Department's budget, my colleague Nuala McAllister asked the departmental finance officer about projected savings and whether they were simply cost savings or efficiencies. She was informed that they were mostly just savings, which raises serious concerns that there is a culture of bottom-line budgets on paper as opposed to efficient spending with best outcomes and patient-centred care in mind. How will we ever have a person-centred service if that is the Department's approach? It feeds into the need to use current resources more effectively, but how can it be a more efficient service when the Department admits that it is more focused on saving money than being efficient? I have spoken previously about the constant recommendations in basically every report across our health service that recognise the need to develop additional workforce capacity. The Minister told me in the Assembly that a delayed winter plan would have no impact on staff morale, yet, two weeks later, it has appeared as a red-line concern in the departmental report. I can say from personal experience and from speaking to healthcare staff that it has had a serious impact on morale in the service. It has been consistently reported that mental health problems are one of the biggest causes of staff sickness in the public sector, including the trusts, yet we have a mental health strategy that is effectively shelved and completely underfunded. We have pay uplifts that leave out vital parts of the healthcare workforce, and we have a neurology service that has roughly one consultant for every 1,600 patients and one specialist nurse for every 700 patients. We cannot continue to address recognised failures only with words and unactioned reviews. A funded delivery plan with clear timelines, accountability structures and the patient voice embedded throughout is clearly needed. How can we call for those things when the embedded culture is clearly set on keeping the system inequitable and reactive? The review will just be another waste of resources if actionable delivery does not follow, along with the culture change and reform that are needed. Mr McGuigan: I begin by thanking the Members who tabled the motion and the amendment. We will support both. The regional review of neurology services was first launched in 2018 in response to serious concerns about service pressures, clinical governance and patient safety, following, as has been pointed out, the largest patient recall in the history of the NHS. Now, in 2025, with the publication of the final report, it is clear that neurology services remain under-resourced, understaffed and under substantial pressure. Waiting lists, both in numbers and length of wait, have reached unacceptable levels. That has led to inevitable delays in diagnosis, treatment, follow-up care and, potentially, missed opportunities for early intervention that, in some cases, have resulted in patients presenting to emergency departments in crisis. People living with neurological conditions and those presenting with symptoms deserve better; they deserve far better. The report identifies significant capacity constraints across the system that are compounded by fragmentation between primary, secondary and community care. That fragmentation creates gaps in services and inequitable access to timely neurological care across trust areas. The report also highlights the acute workforce shortages, including in consultant neurologist, specialist nurse, allied health professional and psychology roles. The findings echo the concerns that have been raised by patients, carers and advocacy groups. The 'My Neuro Survey 2024-25' provides stark evidence of the reality. Many people living with neurological conditions and their carers reported feeling unsupported by the healthcare system physically and mentally. Access to specialist services remains a major challenge. As has been pointed out, 82% of those who responded to the survey reported difficulty accessing inpatient neuro-rehabilitation; 80% reported difficulty accessing neuropsychiatry; and 71% reported difficulty accessing neuropsychology. Respondents raised concerns about insufficient time during appointments, a lack of continuity in the professionals whom they see, difficulty in accessing follow-up care and the additional financial burden of managing their condition, including the cost of transport, therapies, equipment and, in some cases, having to seek private healthcare. We are all aware that lengthy delays can lead to deterioration in physical and mental health, placing unnecessary strain on carers and limiting the ability of individuals and families to remain in employment or to participate in the activities that give their lives meaning. I have heard first-hand how living with a neurological condition can be life-altering, complex and unpredictable. Those conditions, which include MS, Parkinson's, epilepsy and migraines, to mention a few, can affect mobility, cognition, communication and emotional well-being not only for the individual but for their families and those who care for them. That is why it is vital that patients feel listened to and supported from the moment that symptoms emerge, regardless of which trust area they live in. It is clear that that is not currently the case. I acknowledge the important work of the Neurological Charities Alliance in the North, and I voice my support for its FightForNeuro campaign. Charitable organisations too often have to step in to fill gaps in statutory services, providing a lifeline for patients, carers and families. I thank Treasa and Bill, whom I met along with the Neurological Charities Alliance last week, for sharing their lived experience with me. Their personal accounts were deeply impactful, and I am grateful to them for sharing how they were diagnosed, the problems that come with their conditions and in accessing services in the health service and the impact that that has on their condition, their physical and mental health and their families. While I welcome the priorities and the associated recommendations outlined in the report on the review, particularly on person-centred care, expanding the neurology workforce, addressing gaps in existing services and making better use of current resources, I fully concur with the Members who moved the motion and the amendment. I ask for implementation without further delay of the recommendations in the report as well as any additional actions arising from the consultation process. That action is needed to restore trust and public confidence in our neurology services. Mr Chambers: I welcome the motion and the opportunity that it gives the House to debate an important part of our health service. There is no doubt that there are huge challenges in neurology; in that, neurology is similar to many specialties, but the challenges are particularly significant in that service. Regrettably, too many people across the health system have been waiting too long, but the waits are especially poor in neurology services; no one in the House could suggest otherwise. Those waits affect many thousands of people living with a wide spectrum of neurological conditions from Parkinson's to epilepsy, from multiple sclerosis (MS) to motor neurone disease (MND) and from functional neurological disorders (FNDs) to rare but devastating conditions such as Huntington's disease. Every one of those conditions brings its challenges and the need for timely specialist care. As in many specialties, there is a wide spectrum of patient impacts and outcomes. For someone living with emerging symptoms of a condition such as MS, the earlier the intervention, the greater the opportunities. Sadly, for those with Parkinson's or motor neurone disease, time is often not a luxury, so they really need specialist guidance and support urgently. The current provision is far from ideal. It was far from ideal five years ago, just as it was far from ideal a decade ago. Unfortunately, the neurology-related problems and pressures that we see on these shores are being experienced across the rest of the UK. While big problems persist, positive things are now happening. The publication of the evidence-based regional review of neurology earlier this year represented the most comprehensive assessment of neurology services undertaken in Northern Ireland. Crucially, it placed the voice of patients and carers at the core of its recommendations. I especially welcome the review's insistence on person-centred care. As MLAs, we are regularly and understandably on the front line hearing about what, patients feel, works or does not work well in our health service, and lived experiences of poor diagnostic and treatment pathways are part and parcel of that. It is clear to me that too many people living with neurological conditions feel that they are navigating the system alone, and, as with many other health-related journeys, that can often be a scary or intimidating experience. I fully support putting patients at the centre, ensuring that they have access to reliable information and providing a designated point of contact. The review also shone a bright light on the workforce crisis that opened up many years previously. We currently operate with only a fraction of the necessary consultant, nursing and AHP workforce. I therefore fully support the latest renewed emphasis on having a workforce that is fit to meet our significant needs. This time, it feels different. Of course, more staff alone will not fix everything, but more staff will allow us to provide the multidisciplinary service that reflects the complexity of neurological care. At last, there is a road map that reflects the full complexity of neurology. As I have often heard the Minister say, an action plan is more valuable than a lengthy strategic document any day. What patients and staff need and deserve now is clarity on how and when the improvements will be implemented. Whilst funding or the lack thereof may be a big barrier to achieving all that is possible, I am pleased that there are other measures that do not have a financial price tag but will deliver improved patient care and experiences. I commend the work that has been undertaken, especially in recent months, and I urge us to continue with that progress at pace. With commitment, investment and partnership, we can build neurology services that meet the needs of the people whom they serve. Mr McGrath: I am pleased to take part in the debate, not least because it impacts on and reflects the needs of thousands of people across the places that we represent and the many thousands in their families who support them every day. The crisis that we face is not new, and it is certainly not hidden. It was laid bare in the regional review of neurology services, which showed that we have a system that is underfunded, understaffed and sometimes unable to meet even the most basic of needs. With almost 20,000 people waiting for a first neurology appointment and more than 11,000 waiting for a review, waiting times in some trusts are now stretched, as has been explained, to nearly five years. That is not the case in my area, for some reason, but I am sure that we will get the detail on that later. Even in recent weeks, I received a deeply moving message from a family whose loved one was among the deceased patients of Michael Watt. They reminded me that it has been seven years and seven months since the Department first announced the review of his deceased patients. Still the families have no clarity, and still they wait. They described the unprocessed grief, the daily torment and a profound sense of abandonment. The fact that people who have already suffered immeasurable loss are left searching for answers that they should not have to fight for tells us everything that we need to know about the need for urgency in turning this round and changing the service. That urgency is echoed across the broader neurological community. According to Parkinson's UK and the NI Neurological Charities Alliance, 76% of people with neurological conditions have faced delays in accessing healthcare; 77% report negative impacts on their mental health; and 74% say that delays have worsened their physical condition. Families have told us bluntly that, without timely care, treatable conditions become chronic, lives shrink and hope diminishes. One patient said: "I haven't had a pain-free days in years." Another said: "My reviews used to be every six months. I haven't been seen in nearly a year." In the starkest of terms, we hear of individuals being driven to suicide attempts, because the system that was meant to support them could not respond. The system is in crisis, because we have not resourced or prioritised neurology as a core part of our health service. Nowhere is that clearer than in the case of Produodopa — I hope that I have pronounced that correctly — which is the first major new treatment for advanced Parkinson's in decades. It is approved across the UK. It offers transformative, stabilising symptom control for those with severe motor fluctuations, but it is entirely unavailable here, not because clinicians doubt it or the evidence is lacking but because Northern Ireland does not have the workforce, the specialist teams or the infrastructure to deliver it. Patients here watch others in the UK begin to benefit while they remain stuck, with no options left. When the possibility of a better life exists but is out of reach simply because the system is not staffed to provide it, that is an absolute moral failure. Top 3.30 pm The regional review showed us the path forward. It said that we should have a properly staffed workforce; a person-centred model of care; designated points of contact for every patient; community neurology teams in every trust; clear pathways; joined-up care; access to psychology and rehabilitation; and modern treatments delivered safely and consistently. However, seven years after that review was commissioned, we are still debating its implementation. There could be no more important moment than this, on the last sitting day of 2025, for the Assembly to act. As we close the doors on yet another year, thousands of families cannot close the door on their fear, deterioration and unanswered questions. They cannot wait for another year, another new plan or another new promise. They need action, now — not in 2026 and not in due course; they need it today. Solidarity is expressed through decisions that honour the suffering that we have heard about and from which we can build a service that is worthy of the people for whom it exists to serve. They are the families who are waiting for answers, the patients waiting for care and all those who cannot afford another year of delay. Hopefully, we will hear how the Minister and the Executive are going to act. I support the motion and the amendment. Mrs Dillon: I support of the motion and the amendment, because the crisis in neurology services in the North is not abstract or distant, and it is not something that can be ignored. These experiences are being lived every day by thousands of people who are living with Parkinson's, MS, epilepsy, stroke, brain injury and many other conditions and who are having to navigate a system that is fragmented, overstretched and incapable of meeting their needs. The Department's review and the experiences that have been shared through the FightForNeuro campaign paint a picture of delay, deterioration and distress that no person should have to face. Sinn Féin is clear that the waiting times are unacceptably long, that capacity is far below what is needed and that the absence of consistent services across trusts is leading to inequity and unnecessary suffering. When a person has to wait for five years for a first neurology appointment or cannot access the neuro-rehabilitation or psychological support that they desperately need, it is not simply a health service issue. It becomes a crisis that affects their family life, employment, mental well-being and independence. Carers are exhausted and unsupported, and clinicians are working in impossible conditions, and they have outlined that they feel moral injury as a result of not being able to do the best for the people whom they serve. I have spoken to many in the allied health professions who are clear that if people who are impacted on by neurological disorders were to get the early intervention and support that should be available to them, they would have a better quality of life, improved mobility and independence and, in some cases, the ability to continue to work. We were given clear indications of that. We heard stories of people's lived experiences of being able to return to work when they got the interventions that they required. The fact that three quarters of people surveyed experienced delays that actively worsened their health is not only a cause for shame but represents a significant cost to our health services and economy. The reality is that many are forced into private care because the system cannot meet the demand. That is an absolute disgrace. People are using their benefits, such as the personal independence payment (PIP), to access private care and treatments, leaving themselves in financial hardship. We know that, due to mobility issues, they may need additional heating and support, but they cannot afford that because they are using the money for private care. I will also speak about the all-island dimension of the crisis, because that is a vital part of the solution. The North does not exist in isolation. Neurology is a highly specialised field, the population here is small, and the expertise required for many neurological conditions is concentrated in a handful of centres across the island. The development of all-Ireland pathways is a practical, urgent and clinically sensible approach to ensure that people, especially in rural and border communities, get timely diagnosis and treatment. We have long argued for cross-border collaboration, and we welcome the review's recognition that some services will only ever be sustainable on an all-Ireland-wide basis. It is common sense, and it is on page 75 of the ‘Regional Review of Neurology Services’ in section 5, "NEXT STEPS". Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is the kind of life-changing treatment that can dramatically improve the quality of life for people with Parkinson's disease. The establishment of an all-Ireland DBS service, with neurology services in the South working closely with neurosurgery in the Royal Victoria Hospital, would mean that people from Donegal to Fermanagh and from Tyrone to Monaghan could access specialist care without navigating fragmented pathways or waiting years for treatment. The same is true for rare neurological conditions, where expertise may exist only in Dublin or Belfast. Rural patients, in particular, stand to benefit. Too many people in the west, in border counties and in rural regions are disadvantaged by geography. An all-island framework would allow the closest and most appropriate centre, North or South, to become the default option. It would mean bringing services closer to people instead of forcing people to travel. At the heart of my speech and the motion is a simple truth: people cannot wait any longer. Seven years after the review began, the Minister must now publish and fund an implementation plan that matches the urgency of the need. The Department estimates that £65 million will be required in the first five years, and that investment is not optional; it is essential if we are to rebuild trust, cut waiting lists and improve outcomes. We fully endorse the FightForNeuro campaign, because it amplifies the voices of those who are living with neurological conditions, and they can no longer be ignored. On that basis, we support the motion and the amendment. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Peter Martin. No? Mr Martin: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. The Health Minister will be aware —. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sorry, Peter. There has been a bit of a mix-up. Mr Martin: There has. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Can you give us a minute? OK. Are you winding up? Mr Martin: I am winding up. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: OK. Mr Martin: I can do a range of things, although my wife says that I cannot fill a dishwasher properly. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: No, Peter, can you take your —. Mr Martin: I can sit down again, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Yes. Somebody in the DUP is winding up as well, because you are down as the next Member to speak, and Alan is on the list as winding up. Apologies, Peter. Mr Martin: Not a problem. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: You are winding up, and Alan is the next Member to speak. I call Alan Robinson. Mr Robinson: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. We got there. We thank the signatories to the amendment. We will certainly support the amendment, and we very much value and welcome its inclusion today. It is important to say that we do not table motions to poke anyone in the eye or to play a game of one-upmanship. We table motions because our constituents and the organisations that frequent these Buildings, as Diane mentioned, ask us to highlight the issues that people are very concerned about, and the appropriate forum in which to do so is the Chamber. On the final plenary day of 2025, no apology should be given for debating health issues in the Chamber, given the importance of these matters. Access to neurology services is important because the conditions affect tens of thousands of people; it is an issue that people want to see escalated by the Department of Health. The scale of the conditions, which now affect tens of thousands of local people, is frightening. Like all of us, I find myself feeling quite frustrated and down when I read and speak about the stats, especially when, because of our aging population, there will be an increase in people who present with issues such as Parkinson's disease, MND and epilepsy. Approximately 20,000 people are on a waiting list to see a neurologist: 11,000 of those people have been waiting for over a year and over 11,000 people are overdue for a review appointment. Only 25 full-time equivalent consultants work in the field, and there is very little emergency 24/7 cover beyond that offered at the Royal Victoria Hospital. Only two of 138 core medical training places are allocated to this field, which restricts the ability to train the next generation. There is a need for substantial growth in the allied health and nursing workforce. The statistics do not make for good reading. Is it any wonder that the Economist Intelligence Unit stated in 2024 that, if you are ever in Northern Ireland, pray that you do not need a neurology appointment? That at a time when 40,000 people are living with such issues, including 22,000 people with epilepsy; 5,400 with MS; 4,000 with Parkinson's; and 140 with that horrible condition MND. I acknowledge the Northern Ireland Neurological Charities Alliance, which has repeatedly warned that delays in neurology services are adding to the worsening mental health of patients and feelings of being abandoned after diagnosis. Diane referred to that in her opening remarks. The impact of the delays is multilayered, with worse patient outcomes, adult mental health, worsening strain on emergency services, workforce burnout, with staff in the field stretched to breaking point, and geographical inequity, with the concentration of expertise being at the Royal Victoria Hospital and no consultants in the Northern Trust. However, it would be wrong of me not to acknowledge that the Department has recognised many of those challenges. The recent neurology review recommendations created a road map to work our way out of the mess, with four key areas in the report to drive forward improvements. That elephant in the room remains, however. It is the one that we hear about so often in health debates in the Chamber: the lack of available investment, which, no doubt, will slow down the pace of the implementation. Despite the road map, we await a published plan. The Minister has acknowledged that substantial additional funding will be required but that, in the current constrained budget environment, meeting the full costs will be challenging. I am sure that we will hear that in his contribution. That is what is so deeply concerning: a once-in-a-generation opportunity could be lost. Therefore, as stated in the motion, we urge the Minister to commit to publishing the time-bound implementation plan for the neurology review's recommendations, including the costings and, hopefully, some form of timeline to help to at least inch the issue forward. The cost of not doing it will be profound. While the cost to do it may seem steep, surely it is cheaper in human terms than letting our neurology services collapse under their own weight, which is the fear of where we may just get to. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Alan. Members may have seen that the clock ran over the five minutes. That was to allow for the mix-up at the start. Mr Carroll: I will speak in the main about two individuals. The first is a lady called Jeanette. Twelve years ago, she was diagnosed with functional neurological disorder, which is condition that disrupts the brain and body communication, leading to symptoms such as seizures, tremors, paralysis and chronic pain. Despite its prevalence, FND remains widely misunderstood, with minimal awareness, inadequate health services and significant stigma. At the time of Jeanette's diagnosis, there were no care pathways, specialists or rehabilitation services available. There are misdiagnoses and dismissal. Jeanette was ridiculed and told by healthcare professionals that her symptoms were imagined or that she was attention-seeking. I hope that she was the only one who was told that, but I am sure that she was not. There is also a lack of resources. Patients were left to research their condition themselves, with no structured care or support from the healthcare system. There is a stigma. FND patients were often blamed for their condition, which exacerbated emotional distress for patients and their families. There is also insufficient medical education. Many clinicians lack the knowledge or confidence to manage FND, leading to delays in diagnosis and treatment. Jeanette and her family were determined to take action. She founded the charity FND Matters NI, which I am sure that Members are familiar with. It has provided 800 hours of free counselling funded by grants and members' contributions. It has set up support networks and established drop-in sessions, as well as a befriending service and social media platforms to connect patients and families. It does really important stuff. It provides training for healthcare professionals and advocates for better education to improve understanding and care for FND patients. I thank Jeanette and her group for their work. Despite that effort and that sterling work, systemic issues persist. There are no formal care pathways for people with FND, no rehabilitation programmes or specialist healthcare professionals for FND patients. Patients are still dismissed, stigmatised and left without adequate support. There is delayed diagnosis and a lack of treatment, leading to worsening symptoms for many and placing emotional and financial strain on families in the healthcare system. FND is a common but under-recognised condition, and the lack of timely, appropriate care has severe consequences for patients and their families. Patient-led organisations like FND Matters are leading the charge for change, but systemic support is still urgently needed. As Jeanette states: "Stop being a stumbling block and be their stepping stone". I urge the Minister to pay heed to that and ensure that FND support is in place. Top 3.45 pm The second person whom I want to speak about is a constituent of mine, Ms Catherine Mullen. I met her and her daughter on Friday. She is one of the tens of thousands of people who are waiting for treatment and to see a consultant. Despite the severity of her seizures and her neurological issues, she has been told that she will have to wait at least five years to see a consultant. That is completely unacceptable. Her GP wants to start her on medication. However, she has been told that she has to wait because she is under a consultant, despite never having seen a consultant. That is completely unacceptable, and I urge the Minister to act on that. To add insult to injury, Catherine was recently forced to wait two hours for an ambulance to come when she fell after her seizure and was found to be black and blue. She lives just a stone's throw away from the Royal Hospital. That is completely unacceptable. I do not blame the people working in the Royal or anywhere else for that, but that is a symptom of the failure of the system. Her GP has put in an urgent referral but has been told that Catherine will have to wait years. That is totally unacceptable, Minister. I know that she is not the only person, but she is the person whom I most recently met, and I urge you to hear her story, listen to her concerns and make sure that she gets the treatment that she deserves. After one recent seizure, the cooker in the house was left on. The family told me that it was a miracle that nobody was tragically injured or worse. As Catherine's daughter said to me on Friday: "Does it take her" — her mother — "to smash her head open to get treatment?" I urge the Minister to listen to that call and that story and make sure that Catherine gets the treatment that she deserves, as well as the tens of thousands of people across the North who are waiting for treatment. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The next contributor will be the Minister of Health to respond to the debate. Minister, you have 15 minutes. Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): Principal Deputy Speaker, thank you very much for your indulgence: I begin by adding to the good wishes to Mr William Irwin as he steps away from the Chamber. From listening to the contributions, there can be no doubt how serious neurology and the issues surrounding it are. As Members are aware, my Department published a final report of the regional review on 7 May this year, and, in the context of ongoing challenges in the service, the review team was tasked with identifying the optimum configuration for neurology for the next 10 to 15 years. The review report sets out an ambitious vision for future services and is underpinned by priorities for improvement and associated recommendations. The focus of my comments this afternoon will be on how those priorities and recommendations address the issues that have been raised today. The first priority identified in the report is the need to ensure that neurology services are person-centred. The voices of people with neurological conditions and their carers have been central to the review, and that has been achieved by working closely with the Northern Ireland Neurological Charities Alliance and through direct engagement with people with neurological conditions. As Members have noted, I recently attended and spoke at an event organised by the Neurological Charities Alliance, which focused on the experience of people with neurological conditions. I had the opportunity to hear first-hand the devastating impact on the physical and psychological well-being of people while they wait for a diagnosis, treatment and support. That has to change. We can and must do better. The "House of Care" model set out in the report crucially recognises that people with neurological conditions are experts in their own health. By also ensuring that people have access to the right information and have a designated point of contact, we can ensure that the voices of patients are at the centre of neurology. The neurology workforce is the focus of the report's second priority, and there is no doubt that our workforce is made up of passionate and dedicated individuals who do their very best every day to deliver care and support to everybody with a neurological condition. However, it is clear from the report's comprehensive analysis that there are significant shortfalls in the current workforce. The report identifies that we are operating with only 60% of the recommended consultant and nursing capacity; 50% of the recommended allied health professions capacity; and only 20% of the recommended psychology capacity. Those shortages have a direct impact on the delivery of timely diagnosis, treatment, care and support. In that context, the report recommends substantial growth and development across the spectrum of the neurology workforce. That includes an additional 20 neurology consultants; 41 neurology nurses, including 12 advanced nurse practitioners; 38 allied health professionals and 22 psychologists. In addition to an increase in numbers, the report recommends the development of a broader skill mix. That will be achieved through extended roles, such as advanced nurse practitioners, advanced practice allied health professions and GPs with enhanced roles. All that will ensure that people are seen by the right person in line with their needs. Growth in the workforce will not only better align demand and capacity but, crucially, support new ways of working, which will make the system more responsive. It is clear from the personal accounts that I have listened to and those shared in the course of the review that, for many people, timely access to services is key. That is the focus of the third priority in the report: "Addressing gaps in current services". In order to better understand the extent of the challenges, a gaps and constraints assessment of current services was undertaken as part of the review. The assessment, much of which is reflected in the motion, identified significant variation in access to inpatient neurological care. In addition, a large proportion of patients are admitted to a hospital without a consultant neurologist on-site. More widely, access to some supporting services that sit outside neurology, such as mental health services, was also identified as a major gap. The report makes specific recommendations to address those gaps and promote equity. They include a recommendation to double the number of inpatient beds at the neurosciences centre at Royal Victoria Hospital. That will ensure that all patients have access to inpatient neurological care when they need it, regardless of where they live. The report is also clear that, where patients are admitted as a neurological emergency, access to specialist neurological opinion must be available in line with recognised standards of care. It is not acceptable that almost a quarter of neurology patients are admitted to a hospital with no neurologists available on-site. To address that issue, the report recommends that trusts must ensure access to specialist neurology opinion at all acute hospitals that receive unscheduled admissions. Where workforce constraints pose a challenge, trusts must consider alternative methods, such as tele-neurology, as an interim measure. Regarding access to ongoing care and support, the report notes the benefits of a multidisciplinary approach and care closer to home where that approach is sustainable. In that context, the report recommends the establishment of local neurology teams in each trust area to support that approach and ensure robust service delivery. The completion of condition-specific pathways within the first two years of implementation is noted as a priority recommendation. Pathways will set out the services and care that people should expect and ensure equity of access for all. Progress against that priority will be a key metric during implementation. The fourth priority focuses on opportunities to work more effectively with the resources that we already have. Recommendations include the roll-out to all trusts of innovative practices, such as referral management for outpatient appointments. Those are already present in the South Eastern Trust and the Southern Trust and have been shown to be a very effective way of working. In addition, there is a focus on trialling new ways of working, including the use of patient-initiated reviews and providing protected slots in neurology clinics for people experiencing a change in their condition. The drive for efficiency is further supported by recommendations to improve the use of data in neurology and for closer partnership working with our colleagues in the voluntary and community sector. It is clear that the implementation of the report's recommendations would drive improvements across the service. Workforce development, supplemented by working more effectively, would provide the basis for a more responsive, sustainable service that better aligns capacity with demand. That is critical to ensure that we are in a position to sustainably address the issue of unacceptable waiting lists for a first appointment and review appointments that Members have raised. The report estimates that an additional £65 million will be needed over the first five years of implementation, primarily to support growth in the workforce. While that amount will be refined as part of the development of the implementation plan, it is clear that the funding needed for reform is significant. Many of you — most of you — should be aware of the financial challenges that my Department faces, starting with a funding gap this year of £600 million. Today, we had December monitoring and another pressure in terms of pay that will materialise in the next financial year. In that context, while I would like to be in a position to commit the funding required to implement the neurology review recommendations, the current financial position means that, unfortunately, I am unable to do so at this stage. With regard to future years, the Finance Minister has indicated that he will bring forward recommendations for a multi-year Budget. Mr Donnelly: Will the Minister give way? Mr Nesbitt: A multi-year budget will allow my Department to better plan for the next three years, and that will enable us to prioritise spending and investment. As part of the Budget process, my Department has submitted nine high-priority bids that are aligned to the health and social care reset plan that I published in July 2025. I will give way to the Member. Mr Donnelly: Just so that I understand you clearly, Minister, you said that, due to financial pressures, you were unable to progress any of the recommendations: is that your current position? Mr Nesbitt: The current position is that it is all under review. Until I know what my three-year budget will be or what next year's budget is, I will not be in a position to make definitive, concrete commitments. We now know what the pressures are, and we have a pretty good idea of how we will end this financial year. We will be in deficit, and it will be a significant deficit. That money will have to come out of next year's budget, but, until I know what next year's budget is, I will not know how big the pressure of this year's deficit will be. It is just too early to make definitive commitments. I made a definitive commitment on the real living wage for social care workers, and I do not want to make that mistake again, having had to withdraw that promise. The neurology review recommendations are aligned to the neighbourhood focus and the commitment to reform that were set out in the reset plan, so the funding required is included in those bids. Depending on the outcome, the scale and pace of implementation may be adjusted in line with available future funding. That is a more positive and encouraging statement for the Member. My Department recently concluded a public consultation on the review report. An initial assessment of the responses indicates that the report adequately reflects the experience of people with a neurological condition. The impact on people who struggled to access the care and support that they need came out loud and clear. I look forward to receiving the final consultation analysis report in the coming weeks. That will inform the development of an implementation plan. It is intended that a neurology delivery team will be established to oversee the delivery of the review recommendations. The development of an implementation plan will be an initial priority action for the delivery team. In conclusion, I will touch on something that Mrs Dodds said when she opened the debate. She listed the specialists who are required to make the neurology service fit for purpose, and, indeed, I listed a number of them. She explicitly said that the service needs investment. The question is this: where do we get that investment from? I am often told in the Chamber that Health has over 50% of the Executive's Budget, and I recognise that that has gone up from 46% in recent years. That is an unsustainable direction of travel, which is why we have to reset and to go for the neighbourhood model. Mrs Dodds also had a specific question about waiting times in the South Eastern Trust. The waiting time for a neuromuscular first appointment is 19·1 weeks; for other conditions, it is a little longer. I am clear that the challenges faced by people with a neurological condition and those who care for them are unacceptable and are the product of a system under extreme pressure. I must also take the opportunity, however, to commend the committed and dedicated Health and Social Care workforce, who, in challenging circumstances, do their best for patients. I assure you all of my commitment to deliver better neurology services and outcomes for the people of Northern Ireland. The challenges are significant in some cases, and there are no quick fixes. However, I am confident that the report's recommendations provide an opportunity to build neurology services that are equitable, timely, suitably resourced and centred on the needs of people with neurological conditions. Top 4.00 pm Principal Deputy Speaker, this is the last sitting day of the year, so I wish you and fellow Members a very merry Christmas. I believe that 2026 will be a highly consequential year for the delivery of health and social care in Northern Ireland, and it is my commitment to come back in January and begin with some good news. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister, and the same to you. I call Nuala McAllister to wind on the amendment. Nuala, you have five minutes. Miss McAllister: Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank the Members who tabled the motion, and I thank them for acknowledging that they will support the Alliance Party amendment. It was not our intention to take away from the motion but to add support to and recognise the sector's work. I will start by highlighting the complexity of neurological conditions and, therefore, the complexity of neurological care and the training that is required of healthcare professionals in neurology. There can be no doubt that we all agree with that. I also put on record my thanks to the Northern Ireland Neurological Charities Alliance for the work that it has done as a collective to ensure that neurology services remain a key priority for the Department of Health and for us as Health Committee members. As MLAs have referenced in their speeches, we received a significant amount of correspondence calling for support for neurological conditions not only ahead of the FightForNeuro launch event but in our engagements since we returned to the Assembly after the election. Specifically on the FightForNeuro launch, we have received correspondence about the wide-ranging impact of those conditions across our constituencies. The complexity and depth of neurological conditions in Northern Ireland is often misunderstood by the public and, sometimes, by MLAs, so it is very important that all in the sector work together and that there is specialist care. Quite often in the Chamber, we speak about unacceptable waiting times in health, and, unfortunately, as many Members said during the debate, neurology services are another example of those. I have used the official statistics from the Department of Health on the number of people who are on waiting lists. The Department stated that, as of June 2025, over 16,500 people were waiting for a neurology outpatient appointment. However, I know that there is some dispute about the waiting times and the number of patients, so we have stuck with the official statistics. The median amount of time that those patients were waiting was one year and 20 weeks, and, as mentioned, some of the longest waits were sitting at over six years and 34 weeks. In comparison, a waiting time for an outpatient appointment in 2023 was one year and 26 weeks, with the longest wait being six years and 32 weeks, so there really has not been much change in either two years or since the review. The motion calls on the Minister to: "publish an implementation plan for the recommendations contained in the regional review of neurology services". I am thankful that the Minister has responded, but he did so with what the review set out as its recommendations. As a Committee, we have discussed those recommendations, and, as MLAs, we have already read them, so we are very well aware of what they are. I understand that each Department is under budgetary pressure, and every MLA in the Chamber has recognised that. As my colleague said when moving the amendment, we have had a commitment from the Department of Health to do things differently, but, just last week at the Health Committee, we had recognition that there really has not been any efficiency in the Department of Health. When I asked the Department's finance team directly about that, there was a recognition that there have been savings just through what has not been spent, not from doing things differently. Therefore, I highlight to the Minister the fact that, whilst there is some acknowledgement that you cannot implement the recommendations in the review, the Department is already spending money on neurology services. However, they are not working for everyone, so the money is going to be spent anyway. Therefore, how about spending it differently? That goes not only for neurology but for loads of services. I agree with some of the comments that have been made regarding minimum standards. The proposer of the motion highlighted that, and every MLA has highlighted workforce training. We need to look not just at workforce training but at succession planning, training places and the issues associated with retirement of those who are further up the bands, such as specialist nurses, consultants and allied health professionals. We will lose a core value there, and if we do not have the training places for specialists to come up, we are just kicking the can down the road. Every MLA has highlighted that, and there is much of what has been spoken about today that we agree on. However, first and foremost, we need to see the three-year budget. If we do not get that, even now, we can still implement changes within our health service that will do things better. There needs to be a political assessment and acceptance that that means that some things will have to change for the better so that we can improve patient outcomes. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Peter Martin to make a winding-up speech on the motion. You have 10 minutes. Mr Martin: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I will skip past the first sentence, as some Members may have heard it already. I have written to the Minister on a number of occasions. Health is not my area. Previously I was on the Education Committee, and now I am on the Infrastructure Committee. Most of my interest in writing to the Minister is because constituents have approached me, and I have met a number of them who suffer with Parkinson's disease or MS. I imagine that a number of them are watching today. The Minister has written back to me on a number of occasions, and I want to try to be fair to him. The best representation is, "I would like to do more, but I probably need more money." I hope that that is fair comment on what the Minister has said to me. As has been highlighted in the debate, in England, about half of the neurology patients are seen within the 18-week NHS target for treatment, and, in Northern Ireland, as has been mentioned, we have patients who wait for more than five years. When I looked up the NHS statistics, they place it in the negative: they say that it is pretty bad that some patients are waiting for more than 18 weeks. I thought, "My goodness, you want to see what Northern Ireland is like." You could make the argument, and it has been made, that funding for Health is the reason for those excessive waits. However I do not think it fair just to make that case. As has been mentioned, Health receives about 51% of the Budget. However, health spend in England, whilst it varies by region and is a complicated mix, is about £12,000 to £15,000 per person, and yet, in Northern Ireland, we spend £16,000 in a comparable per capita figure. Mr Carroll: I thank the Member for giving way. Will he concede that that does not take into account lower wages, higher levels of deprivation, higher levels of poverty and more-complex health issues and trauma. It takes no account of that stuff. Mr Martin: I thank the Member for his intervention. I worry that it is the Christmas season: I agree with him. We do not have the economies of scale. I accept that as well. We have some of the problems that Mr Carroll has suggested, and, in comparison, the Republic of Ireland spends about one third of what we spend in Northern Ireland on health. Clearly, there is a reason for that: it is a private system. It spends about £5,000 per year per capita. However, you can see where I am generally going with this. In England, they spend less per capita, but they achieve better outcomes. That leads me to conclude that it is not necessarily all about the money; it is about the system. The Minister is right with his shift left idea. Earlier diagnosis and support will not only achieve better outcomes for patients but will be much more cost-effective. Those things are absolutely clear and undisputed. It would be wrong of me, at this point, not to acknowledge the clinicians in the sector. I have spoken to lots of patients and, without exception, they say that their clinical care, when they receive it, is second to none, so I thank the clinicians, who are doing their best. Recently I, like others, met the Northern Ireland Neurological Charities Alliance and Treasa and Bill, whom Mr McGuigan referenced, and I heard about the difficulties that the sector faces. The Minister needs to get to grips with the workforce challenges, particularly in neurology and specialist nursing. As Miss McAllister mentioned, pathways need to be improved. Workforce planning and, in particular, training places are key to that. The Minister mentioned the regional review of neurology and the need for more consultants, nurses and allied health professionals. I am conscious that, as MLAs, we often stand here and make speeches — yes, that is undoubtedly part of our job — but let us be honest with people: no one who has spoken in the debate walks in the shoes of someone with Parkinson's disease or MS. We probably do not see at first hand or experience personally the debilitating effects of those dreadful diseases unless we are unfortunate enough to have a parent or relative with one. According to recent research by the Northern Ireland Neurological Charities Alliance, only 22% of those people feel supported by the healthcare system in Northern Ireland. That has to change. I am so glad that, across the board, Members support our motion. To be clear: we will also support the Alliance amendment. We need implementation of some of the things that were talked about today. My job in winding up is to summarise the debate a little bit, which I will do, if people will indulge me. I thank my colleague Diane for opening up for us. She mentioned waiting times and the particular problems that patients face across Northern Ireland. Danny mentioned the FightForNeuro campaign and the change of culture that has to take place in neurology in Northern Ireland. Philip highlighted the work of NINCA and mentioned Treasa and Bill in particular. Clearly, their story had an impact on him. Alan mentioned the evidence-based review, which did, and does, place patients at the centre. Colin shared a very personal story about a constituent who really felt abandoned in the middle of the dreadful situation in which they found themselves. Linda is not in her place, but she mentioned how early intervention and support would make a huge difference to patient outcomes. My good colleague Alan Robinson made the excellent point that the situation cannot remain the same. For patients across Northern Ireland who are suffering from those illnesses, it simply has to improve. Gerry mentioned Jeanette and Catherine. In particular, he spoke about Jeanette, who has a diagnosis of FND, having received great support from FND Matters Northern Ireland. The Minister took us through the review and talked about how we had to optimise the configuration for neurology. He said that we can, and simply must, do better. He highlighted the fact that it is not acceptable for a quarter of neurology patients to be admitted with no neurologist in place, and I agree completely. In winding up on the amendment, Nuala mentioned training places and workforce planning. A lot of the issues that we have talked about in the debate will not be solved today, and they would probably not even be solved if the Minister were to get more money in next year's Budget. We all know the challenges around the Budget. However, like many of the problems that the Executive face, it reminds me of the Indian proverb that asks, "How do you eat an elephant?". The answer is, "One bite a day". I am not suggesting that anyone leaves this place, finds an elephant and tries to eat it. It simply points out that, in order to tackle the big problems that we face, we have to start somewhere. I urge the Minister of Health to look at this area, examine the review and do what he can to find the money to fund it. It will make a real and present difference to people who are suffering with these incredibly debilitating illnesses across Northern Ireland. Question, That the amendment be made, put and agreed to. Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly expresses grave concern at the crisis facing neurology services in Northern Ireland; believes that it is unacceptable that almost 20,000 people are still waiting on a first-time consultant appointment, with a further 11,000 overdue a review appointment; highlights recent statistics indicating that over three quarters of neurology patients surveyed in Northern Ireland had experienced delays accessing services or reported worsening mental health and that half felt unsupported after their diagnosis; further believes that systemic delays in diagnosis and care are resulting in poorer outcomes and quality of life for those with neurological conditions, whilst placing unacceptable pressures on the existing health workforce; is alarmed that it is five times more common for patients presenting to emergency departments with a neurological condition in Northern Ireland to be admitted to a hospital without a dedicated neurology service than in England; endorses the FightForNeuro campaign launched in November 2025, which recognises that people living with Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy and other lifelong conditions are being failed by the current system and that reform and improvement are therefore essential; calls on the Minister of Health to address underfunding of, fragmentation between, and critical workforce shortages within neurology services throughout health and social care trusts; and further calls on the Minister to publish an implementation plan for the recommendations contained in the regional review of neurology services without further delay. Top 4.15 pm Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members should take their ease. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Dr Aiken] in the Chair) Tackling Scams and Improving Public Protection Ms D Armstrong: I beg to move That this Assembly notes with concern the rising number, and sophistication, of online, telephone, postal and doorstep scams targeting individuals and businesses across Northern Ireland; further notes the serious financial and emotional harm caused to victims, many of whom are older people or vulnerable; recognises that scams are increasingly linked to organised and cross-border criminal activity, seeking to exploit gaps between enforcement agencies and jurisdictions; acknowledges the work of the PSNI, the National Crime Agency (NCA), ScamwiseNI, consumer protection bodies, financial institutions and community organisations in raising awareness and supporting victims; and calls on the Minister of Justice, working with Executive colleagues and in partnership with the National Crime Agency and the PSNI, to bring forward a coordinated, cross-departmental strategy to strengthen prevention, improve detection and enforcement, enhance data sharing between agencies and financial institutions, deliver more effective public awareness campaigns and ensure better support for victims of scams across Northern Ireland. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. An amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List, so the Business Committee has agreed that 15 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate. Diana, please open the debate on the motion. Ms D Armstrong: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The goal of the motion is to draw attention to the real and growing threat that scams and fraud pose to people across Northern Ireland. From rogue traders preying on our elderly constituents to the most sophisticated cyber-enabled fraud, the challenge is local and global. The scale and sophistication of fraud and scams has stepped up markedly across Northern Ireland in recent years. In the 12 months to the end of October 2024, over 5,200 fraud reports were made to the PSNI, with close to £19 million in reported losses, ranging from ticket scams to six-figure impersonation frauds. Fraud is not a victimless crime. It devastates lives not only through financial loss but by leaving victims feeling invaded, humiliated and unsafe in their own home. The elderly are particularly vulnerable when they are deliberately targeted by fraudsters online and in person. It is our collective responsibility across communities and law enforcement to protect the most vulnerable from those who would prey on them. While mobile phones and the internet have opened the door to more sophisticated scamming, the perpetrators still use traditional methods as well. Postal scams are still rampant and appearing through letter boxes. Last summer, Enniskillen residents received convincing lottery letters, claiming that the recipient had won a fortune. In fact, it was quite the opposite: those letters were designed to pry out bank details and personal information. Let us be clear: scams are not victimless crimes. They are deeply traumatic and cause profound financial and emotional harm. This September, it was reported in my local press that an Enniskillen woman had lost over £40,000 in a romance scam. She had been groomed on social media for months and was persuaded to transfer money and gift cards. Of course, the person on the other end of the phone was not who they said they were. Such scams are not just, as I said, financially devastating. Many victims never come forward. Some are embarrassed, some blame themselves and others feel that reporting will not make a difference. As a result, the true scale of harm is almost certainly greater than the official figures suggest. What is particularly worrying about many of the scams is how convincing they are. Scammers seek to present themselves as trusted companies or public bodies using familiar branding and professional language, although that is not always the case. Poor language and grammar are often telling signs of a scam. Many victims genuinely believe that they are responding to routine communications from organisations that they deal with regularly. That is not carelessness; it is organised, deliberate deception. That is especially common through email and, increasingly, on social media. We have seen a rise in fake accounts posing as customer service teams for well-known companies. Airlines are a frequent example, particularly on platforms like X, where people often post publicly about cancelled or delayed flights. Scammers actively monitor those posts. When someone is already stressed and looking for help, a fake account moves in quickly, appearing helpful and legitimate. In reality, the aim is to extract personal details or encourage payments under false pretences. The emotional impact can be severe. Victims speak about anxiety, loss of sleep and a lasting loss of confidence. Older people, in particular, can become afraid to answer the phone or use the internet at all. That fear can lead to isolation and wider decline in well-being. Families and carers are often left trying to provide reassurance and support, while also dealing with the practical and financial fallout. Let us not forget the grave human cost. Consider the tragic case of Ronan Hughes, a teenager from Coalisland, who took his own life after being tricked online and blackmailed — a devastating demonstration that fraud is not just a financial crime. Scammers see any new incentive as a means of exploitation. We see it annually, when a new scheme is announced for affordable heating or insulation. A barrage of text messages is sent out to vulnerable people, demanding personal information and sometimes even threatening customers with bills if they do not respond. Such scams create huge fear among the most vulnerable in our society. Members will know that border communities are particularly exposed to scams linked to organised and cross-border criminal gangs. This autumn, the PSNI and its counterpart, an Garda Síochána, highlighted a cross-border criminal gang that was targeting farmers and agribusinesses on the border. The gang has been using cloned cards, fake bank transfers and redirected deliveries to steal high-value machinery. It is an issue with global ramifications, as it is often said that fraud and scams are borderless crimes. Members may recall a high-profile telemarketing fraud case in the USA this year, when Alan Redmond, a Belfast-born businessman, was charged by US federal prosecutors in an alleged multimillion-dollar insurance fraud scheme. We also remember the case of Patrick and Matthew McDonagh from Irvinestown in my constituency, who were jailed last year after scamming elderly American homeowners out of hundreds of thousands of dollars in a phoney home-repair business. That case was described by an FBI agent as a "a travelling roadshow of fraud". Increasingly, small businesses and sole traders are being targeted. They are people who work long hours, often on small margins, and rely on digital platforms to trade. A clear example is the coordinated scam targeting local takeaway firms through sophisticated phishing attacks. Between December 2022 and 2024, it is estimated, businesses in Northern Ireland lost over £200,000 through that scam, alongside customer-focused phishing scams and fraudulent orders. In those cases, business accounts were compromised, payments were redirected and income disappeared with little warning. For some, that was not a minor disruption; it threatened their ability to pay staff, meet rent or keep trading at all. Those were everyday, local businesses doing exactly what they needed to do to operate in a modern economy. We must thank the PSNI, the National Crime Agency, ScamwiseNI and, indeed, the main banks for their work in preventing scams. Other bodies, such as councils, have also stepped up, partnering with police, banks and the telecoms industry to amplify awareness and offer practical guidance. The motion calls on the Minister of Justice: "to bring forward a coordinated, cross-departmental strategy" to strengthen our opposition to scams and their perpetrators. The strategy should focus on prevention, which is always better than detection, especially with fraud. We need tough penalties for those who commit fraud, with sentencing that reflects the economic and personal trauma inflicted. Judges must be trained in the impact of fraud, and full victim impact statements should be presented in court. The inclusion of fraud in the DOJ's penalty notice proposals is, frankly, disappointing and sends the wrong message. Fraud is a calculated crime and should never be met with a mere slap on the wrist. That is why the motion is so important. Raising awareness, strengthening support mechanisms —. Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): Will the Member give way? Ms D Armstrong: Yes, certainly. Mrs Long: The Member refers to penalty notices being a "slap on the wrist". However, they are criminal convictions and carry with them all the import of criminal convictions. They may, in effect, be a greater sanction than the one determined by the courts, if a case is prosecuted at all. Does the Member agree, therefore, that the focus of discussions should be on giving the PSNI the greatest possible flexibility to pursue crime at an appropriate level and in a way that is most likely to bring offenders to justice? Ms D Armstrong: I thank the Minister for her comments. Yes: any actions that can be taken to bring perpetrators to court are essential. Raising awareness, strengthening support mechanisms and sharing best practice are vital steps. At a community level, rogue traders continue to target vulnerable people, cold-calling at homes and pressuring residents into unnecessary and overpriced work. We must support initiatives such as no-cold-calling zones, empower communities to say no and ensure that clear advice is available at clinics, faith groups and constituency offices. With police resources stretched, voluntary groups often have a crucial role to play. Cyber-enabled fraud is now a daily threat. Simple steps, such as using strong passwords, enabling two-step verification and staying vigilant, can make a real difference. Businesses must invest in prevention, but we must also ensure that young and old alike are aware of the dangers. We need to ensure that victims of such crimes get emotional support. The victim of a romance scam needs not just a crime reference number but signposting to trauma services and help to secure their digital life against becoming a future target. The motion is timely and necessary. Fraudsters exploit technology and our trust. We must have a cross-cutting response that spans public bodies, banks, businesses and institutions in Northern Ireland. We must send a clear message that the people of Northern Ireland will not be easy prey for fraudsters and scammers. We must strengthen prevention; improve detection and enforcement; and enhance data-sharing between agencies and financial institutions. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Will the Member draw her remarks to a close, please? Ms D Armstrong: I commend the motion to the House. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Emma Sheerin to move the amendment. Ms Sheerin: Molaim an leasú: [Translation: I beg to move the following amendment:] After second "National Crime Agency" insert: "joint agency task force" Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you. You will have 10 minutes in which to propose the amendment and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes. Please open the debate on the amendment, Emma. Ms Sheerin: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. [Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.] I welcome the motion. We have tabled a small amendment to close the gap left by not including the cross-border agencies in the motion and to make sure that there is no scope for criminals to avail themselves of that gap. We often say that crime knows no border. We are currently in a storm that knows no border. Whilst crime might know no border, it definitely exploits the border on this island, and scams are one example of how that can happen. I agree with a lot of what the proposer of the motion said. We can see a rise in such scams, which are becoming more and more sophisticated, to the point where even those of us who might consider ourselves to be fairly tech-savvy — I assure Members that staff on the fourth floor of the Building would not count me among them — who are familiar with social media and how things should be worded and who, like me, work online every day find ourselves stopping in our tracks and almost getting caught out by some of the messages and emails that come through. Top 4.30 pm It has already been said that scams target our older and more vulnerable people in particular. It is about the shame that comes with it. There are ramifications such as loss of earnings and, a lot of the time, of savings, and the real-life implications that that has for people. As well as that, however, they may be embarrassed to report it or even to tell family and friends. They feel that they have been made fools of. It is the exploitation of people in their most vulnerable moments that makes that type of crime so horrible and nasty. We want to see joint working. We want the Minister to work with the rest of the Executive, the PSNI, the gardaí and the cross-border joint agency task force (JATF) to ensure that we clamp down on the scams and the people who are involved — they are very manipulative; increasingly, it is criminal gangs and groups that carry out such scams — so that more of our constituents do not fall prey to them. There are legislative changes that can be made. In the interim, however, we can send out these messages: "Think twice", "Check, check, check" and, "Ask the question". People contact me as an MLA, as I am sure they do other MLAs, to ask, "Is this right enough?", checking the veracity of a message or an email that they received. I always say, "Ask the question, because you are better to be safe than sorry". A clear message needs to come from the Assembly today that we do not accept the situation, that we will challenge it and that we want to support people, particularly those who are vulnerable, who may fall prey to those sorts of crimes. Ms Brownlee: Thank you for tabling the motion. We should all have been horrified when we read the recent story of 82-year-old Eddie Rushe from Lurgan, who was cruelly scammed out of nearly £35,000. Eddie was targeted through sophisticated AI-generated advertisements bearing the faces of well-known public figures. It began as what he believed to be a legitimate and trusted investment opportunity but ultimately led to a devastating financial and emotional loss. Tragically, his experience is not an isolated incident. It is shameful that older people are increasingly singled out because of their vulnerability, trust and lower familiarity with technology. The criminals know exactly what they are doing. They prey on loneliness and fear, and the harm that they inflict goes far beyond bank statements. Many victims are left feeling deeply shaken, anxious and distraught, particularly at this time of year, when isolation can make the emotional impact even heavier. It is the scale of the problem that should alarm us all. The PSNI reported more than 5,200 cases of fraud in the past year alone, with almost £19 million in losses. Every week in Northern Ireland, about 100 reports of scams are made to Action Fraud, and I am sure that there are many more that are not reported. Those crimes are no longer small. They are growing in sophistication, using phones, tech, social media and email in order to deceive, impersonate and manipulate. Increasingly, scams are enabled by modern technology, with the likes of AI making scams harder to identify. The emerging rise in cross-border fraud is even more concerning. Under the new joint agency task force, the PSNI and the gardaí are investigating dozens of complex scams that target individual companies, particularly in border areas. The perpetrators of those scams pose as legitimate buyers and have left local businesses thousands of pounds out of pocket, sometimes stealing valuable machinery by using fake or cancelled payment screenshots. That is a coordinated criminal threat. It is planned and requires coordinated policing and a governmental response. Although we recognise and value the work of the PSNI, ScamwiseNI and other partnerships and, of course, our policing and community safety partnerships (PCSPs) and Crimestoppers, along with many other important contributions by the voluntary and community sector, the message from the evidence is clear: more needs to be done. The Department of Justice has an essential role, not just in awareness-raising but in ensuring that agencies on the ground have the support and resources that they need to keep pace with the evolving nature of fraud. Our older generations deserve to live in safety, free from the threat of crime, abuse and exploitation. We have continually set out in our manifestos that we should protect our older generation from financial abuse, and redoubling our efforts against online fraud is now more important than ever. We also need better data to understand both how such abuse is broken down by age and its true impact on our older population. The motion rightly calls for "a coordinated, cross-departmental strategy", because joined-up action will protect our elderly, support victims and bring the criminals to justice. Working together across departmental organisations will bring justice here, and we will try to deal with it in a coordinated way, because we all must work together. Before I conclude, I want to say that there is no shame whatsoever when a scam happens. Emma said that people can feel embarrassed about it, but it has probably happened to every person in the Chamber in some shape or form. Things are becoming more complex now, and it is harder to distinguish between the truth and fraud. People should never feel shame and never feel embarrassed. They should always contact somebody to clarify things and be sure before they go any further. As I said, it has happened to me, and I thought that I was pretty decent with tech, but obviously not, and things are also more complex. We are very happy to support the motion and the amendment. The more that we can do to raise awareness and support for everybody involved in this space, the better, in order to protect our community and society. Ms Egan: On behalf of the Alliance Party, I support the Ulster Unionist Party's motion on tackling scams and improving public protection and the amendment. We have all seen the concerning upward trend in scams, which often take advantage of the most vulnerable people, with around 100 reports to Action Fraud per week and close to £19 million lost in the period from November 2023 to October 2024. We also know that the losses are under-reported and only scratch the surface due to the shame and embarrassment that victims of fraudulent crime can feel for not seeing through the scam that they have endured. That is not good enough, particularly in a world where fraudsters are using increasingly sophisticated technology and scams to commit these crimes. We need to move the dial not only to make people feel comfortable enough to come forward and report the crime but, perhaps more importantly, to work together across all Departments and agencies to intervene and prevent people becoming a victim to begin with. That is why we welcome the motion. What makes those scams particularly sickening is that they usually arise from a victim putting trust in a fraudster. They have genuine intentions of doing what is needed, fostering a connection or helping another. It makes the cruel impact of the scams all the more felt. I think particularly of the deception that is used in romance scams, and the proposer of the motion mentioned in her speech how that affected one of her constituents. It really is despicable that, for their own criminal gain, a person will prey on someone who is perhaps just seeking love or feels a bit lonely. There is a common misconception that, if you are smart and savvy enough, you will not fall victim to a scam or fraudulent activity, but with modern technology and the weaponisation of digital products, such as artificial intelligence and spyware, scams are getting more sophisticated and harder to spot. For example, in my borough of Ards and North Down, a story hit the news during the summer of a business owner and bank customer who lost thousands of pounds from her hard-earned business because of multiple fraudulent banking messages. Of course, such fraud also extends to our communities through postal and doorstep scams, manipulating and misleading those in our communities, young and old, to give over their money in the promise of receiving goods and services that just never materialise. As the motion states and the amendment reiterates, it is essential that we include as many partners as possible in the work to tackle cybersecurity threats and scamming behaviour. That extends from the Department of Justice, the PSNI and ScamwiseNI through to the Department for the Economy's Trading Standards Service. Scams can happen anywhere and at any time, so having a joint approach that coordinates with the joint agency task force and bodies in Westminster makes sense. Last year, Members may have seen last that 'The Nolan Show' highlighted a story about the Just Eat platform and the scams that followed a cybersecurity breach. The losses in that amounted to something in the realm of at least £200,000 across Northern Ireland. That breach was felt deeply in my constituency of North Down, with two local businesses in Bangor losing nearly £30,000 combined. Following that news breaking, I wrote directly to Just Eat as the home platform and engaged with investigatory bodies. To be honest, I was disappointed with how that was initially handled. I am not here to rehash that but to highlight the devastating impact that those crimes have, threatening the livelihoods of local business people who already face many barriers to success and leaving them unsure as to whether they could pay their staff's wages. Such crimes take a heavy mental toll on victims, leaving them feeling under pressure. If we are to prevent anything like that from happening again, we must have clear accountability for online platforms and those who commit those crimes. Scams and fraud devastate people, businesses and communities. We must work with everyone we can to deliver better outcomes for victims of fraud and to minimise the risks of such distress and real hurt from happening again. Mr McGlone: The SDLP welcomes the motion and the opportunity to discuss the growing threat of scams and how the Executive can improve public protection and support for victims right across the North. In 2024, the PSNI received more than 5,200 reports of fraud, with a loss of around £19 million. The National Cyber Security Centre reported that almost £12 million was lost to online shopping fraud across the UK over last year's festive season. The PSNI figures cover a wide range of scams and amounts of money lost, from hundreds of pounds lost to ticket scams to hundreds of thousands of pounds lost to impersonation and investment scams. We all know about those. We all know individuals who have sought our advice. In fact, in some instances, we have been surprised by the individuals who were taken in by those offers. It is true that if it looks too good to be true, it probably is too good to be true. Each fraud leaves behind a victim of financial loss, often with emotional and psychological damage. Those responsible are mostly organised criminal groups operating not just cross-border, as in across this island, but internationally. It makes little sense for the motion to refer to "cross-border criminal activity" and not call for greater cooperation with an Garda Síochána. Indeed, there is a case for improving the already close working relationship between the Police Service in the North and an Garda Síochána to tackle the organised criminal groups involved in scams on this island. There already is a cross-border policing strategy, with a focus on tackling crime and preventing harm, roads policing and road safety, community policing and major emergency management. Obviously, that strategy is primarily about the cross-border area, but there is no reason why it should be limited in the geographical sense when the criminal activity is not. The criminal gangs deliberately target the isolated and vulnerable, but anyone can fall victim to their scams. They are increasingly sophisticated in their operations. They have the technology and the time to create elaborate fictions to ensnare the unwary. It makes fascinating watching on social media some evenings to see how the gentleman — I think that he is from here — turns the tables on those individuals and hacks into their systems, and when the previously unwary become very wary, and when the tables are turned, the scammers do not particularly like it. In some countries, there are literally thousands of dedicated scammers and cybercriminals targeting the citizens of other countries with romance, investment, pyramid, shopping and identity fraud. There is also evidence that, having been scammed once, victims' details have been sold on to other groups as potential targets for future scams. Given the level of fraud reported here and the financial cost to individuals and business, more could and should be done. The European Union has taken the initiative against some types of cross-border fraud, and there has been some action by Interpol. However, there has been limited interest elsewhere in combating truly cross-border fraud on an international scale. Therefore, the SDLP supports the call for the Minister of Justice, working with Executive colleagues, to bring forward a coordinated, cross-departmental strategy to strengthen prevention and improve detection and enforcement in this area. The public can only benefit from enhanced data sharing between agencies and financial institutions, from the delivery of a more effective public awareness campaign or campaigns and from better support for the victims of scams. Those benefits will be greater still if delivered on an all-island basis, across these islands and internationally. Top 4.45 pm Mr K Buchanan: The Democratic Unionist Party believes that our older generation and, indeed, every generation must live in safety, free from crime, abuse and exploitation. That is not just policy; it is a moral duty. Fraudsters today are organised, sophisticated and global. We have pushed for fraud and cybercrime statistics to be broken down by age so that the scale of the problem facing older people is clear. Along with others in the Chamber, I was horrified to read about what happened to 82-year-old Eddie, whom my colleague referenced earlier, who was tricked by a fake AI-generated advert. He trusted what looked like a real company, only to be defrauded. It is shameful that criminals target older people's vulnerability and exploit their trust. Scams cause more than financial loss; they leave deep emotional scars. Victims often feel betrayed, humiliated and fearful, especially in isolation. It is shameful that older people are targeted because of their increased vulnerability and lack of technological awareness. Indeed, as others mentioned, some younger folks are maybe not that savvy either, and I include myself in that. It is shameful that criminals exploit trust and innocence for profit. We must recognise that scams do not only inflict financial trauma. Every week in Northern Ireland, around 100 scams are reported. Those are the ones that are reported. Those are 100 families who have been disrupted and 100 crimes that must be stopped. Technology such as AI and deepfakes have made scams more sophisticated. What began on social media is now being used in bold frauds against individuals and companies. The Assembly must send a clear message that we will not allow our older generation or any generation to be preyed on. We need to strengthen awareness, improve legislation and give law enforcement the tools to fight the threat. Our elderly citizens deserve dignity, safety and peace of mind. Let us decisively act to protect them. Ms Nicholl: I welcome the motion and the opportunity to speak on it and talk about a case that came into my constituency office. An older woman came in very distressed because she had received a message from someone saying that they were her son. The message read, "Hi, mum. It's me. I've changed my number. Can you save it?", so she saved the number. Later that afternoon, she got another message saying, "Hi, mum. I need some help paying an online bill, and I'll pay you back at the weekend. Here are the account details", so she transferred, I think, about £900 to the account. An hour later, she got another message saying, "Hi, mum. Sorry, the amount is actually an extra £600". It was at that moment that she realised that she had been scammed. She called her son after realising that it was not him who had messaged her. She called the bank, the PSNI and Action Fraud. What began was a long saga of going backwards and forwards. My colleague Curtis, who works in my office, is a phenomenal caseworker, among other things, and was so diligent. He ended up taking the case to the Financial Ombudsman Service and managed to get the money back with 8% interest. That is the exception, not the rule. It took an awful amount of work. I welcome the motion and the discussion around it. As is the case with so many issues, it is cross-cutting and touches on so many other Departments. We had been in touch with the Older People's Commissioner about this as well. Everyone knows that I am passionate about AI and how we get up to speed with digitisation, but people are being left behind, and we are not doing enough to talk about it. I tabled a question to the Department for Communities about the goods and services directorate for older people and the need for that here, because every day we have people coming into the office. Another constituent came in and said, "I used to book all my tickets online. I don't have a smartphone. No one belongs to me" — the most heartbreaking phrase that you could hear. Those are the people who are falling victim to such scams and who are being manipulated and tricked. It is not just that they are left out of pocket; it is deeply humiliating for them. They feel so humiliated by it. It is great that we are talking about it here. Thank you so much for tabling the motion and shining a light on the issue, because we need to have the conversations and to remind people that there is no shame. As Cheryl said, anyone can fall victim to scams, because they are becoming so much smarter, and, with the advance of technology, we have to be especially mindful of that. Real people are at the heart of this, and I am grateful when they come to their elected representatives for assistance. When we look at the issue, we see that it is not just for one Department. It is for many others, and we all have a role to play in addressing it. I wanted to mention that one case, because I think about her a lot. I think about the people who are being left behind in the age of digitisation, how vulnerable they are as a result of that and how we have a duty to support them as best we can. Mr Martin: I was not planning to speak on the motion, but the more I saw of the debate on my monitor upstairs, the more I thought that I had better come down and say something about it. I pay tribute to my colleagues from the Ulster Unionist Party for tabling the motion. I will focus on one issue and pick up on my constituency colleague Ms Egan's comments about Just Eat. I have a constituent who runs the Bokhara Indian restaurant in north Down. They were defrauded out of £17,000 as part of some sort of scam. That incident was reported in 'The Irish News', which stated: "Just Eat says the food companies were victims of phishing scams" and that Just Eat has been in dispute with businesses, many of which feel that the company has not done enough to prevent fraud. I have been working on the issue for a number of weeks. I think that it was yesterday that my office received a statement from Just Eat. The more I read the statement and looked at the press coverage from the time of the incident, the more I realised that it had simply sent me a press statement from about a year ago, because all the details and sentences in the statement that I received were part of the press coverage at that time. That is wholly unacceptable. My understanding of that phishing scam is that the money was taken not from the restaurant's bank account but from its partner centre account, which is some sort of holding account between the restaurant and Just Eat. I would like to address Just Eat. I have two questions. First, what action has it taken to recover those funds on behalf of my constituent from its account? Secondly, how will it make the matter right? A fact in this case is that the company is not registered in the UK — apparently, it is registered in Amsterdam — and it is charging our restaurants and takeaways fairly high levies for their business. That is not money that is staying in our local economy. It is money that is being siphoned off, in this case —. Ms Egan: Will the Member give way? Mr Martin: I certainly will give way to Ms Egan. Ms Egan: I appreciate the Member raising that. Does the Member think that that is a disgraceful way to treat our constituents and local business people? Just Eat is a huge company. It has millions of pounds and can afford to remunerate them. It has a lot more resources to address it than the small, local business owners in our constituency. It should do the right thing. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Member has an extra minute. Mr Martin: I am not sure that I will need that extra minute, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I will do the best that I can. I completely agree with my colleague. Just Eat is an enormous company. My understanding is that it has offered some of those businesses small sums. It was reported in 'The Irish News' that: "One Belfast business claims it was offered money by JustEat to 'keep quiet' about their loss of over £15,000", after the company described it as a "goodwill gesture". Some of us will recall the press coverage from that time. Unless Just Eat wants me to stand in the Assembly talking about the company, how it acts, the percentages that it takes off our local businesses and the fact that I have a constituent who is £17,000 down through no fault of his own, I suggest that it engages with MLAs better than it has done and sorts out the matter. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call the Minister. Minister, you have up to 15 minutes. Mrs Long: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to the Members from the Ulster Unionist Party who tabled the motion, because it is a very important issue, not least at this time of the year as many people move online to buy goods and services. In my Department, fraud and scams fall under the umbrella of safer communities. Members will be aware that the Programme for Government, which was published this year, made safer communities one of its key strands, making the issue of scams and fraud one of utmost importance. The Department is fully committed to working with all its partners, including the community and voluntary sector, as well as other Departments and organisations, to ensure that we have a community where we all feel safe to live and work. Tackling fraudsters and the impact of scams is not something that can be addressed by any one individual or organisation. As the motion rightly recognises, it takes a partnership approach to tackle crime, including fraud and scams, from the initial process of identifying the fraudsters and, just as important, supporting the victims, to ensure that those participating in such crimes are brought swiftly to justice. Prevention through awareness is a vital tool in combating fraudsters and scammers, who, unfortunately, often target the most vulnerable people in society. Despite Report Fraud’s figures showing that over 5,400 scams and frauds were reported in Northern Ireland for the period October 2024 to October 2025, we believe that under-reporting remains an issue. People often feel ashamed and embarrassed, even humiliated, that they have fallen prey to scammers, so we must be diligent and report all incidents of attempted fraud or scamming to ensure that we raise awareness of new trends and new scams as and when we become aware of them. Hopefully, the justice system has made it easier for those scams to be reported by anyone in a number of ways, including via Report Fraud, the PSNI or, indeed, Crimestoppers. There are elements of tackling fraud in the motion that are reserved matters and fall outside my area of responsibility as the Minister of Justice. They include aspects relating in particular to financial institutions. I will, however, take a moment to reflect on and acknowledge the harm and trauma that comes with being a victim of financial fraud. I have heard heartbreaking accounts of the effect that being a victim of fraud has had on individuals' lives and those of their families. Often, we hear of people who feel deeply ashamed that they have fallen victim to those manipulators and very distressing offences, and we know that there continues to be under-reporting. I emphasise that there is no shame in coming forward to report those crimes should you find yourself a victim. I encourage anyone who finds themselves in that position to come forward. I also stress that anyone, including any of us in the Chamber, could fall victim to fraud, not least given the increasing sophistication of those engaged in the crimes. Whilst fraud happens at all levels, I acknowledge that some of it has an organised and coordinated element to it. From a justice perspective, the risk of harm caused by organised crime, including fraud, is one of my top priorities. Criminals are interested in only one thing: lining their own pockets. They are motivated purely by profit, and they really do not care who gets hurt in the process. We all recognise that organised criminals are agile and innovative. They find new ways of exploiting people's vulnerabilities for their own gain, and, in turn, we have to adapt our collective response. It is essential that we send clear and consistent messages that crime does not pay and that profiting from people's vulnerabilities will not go unchallenged. I acknowledge the outstanding work of the PSNI in the area. It has a comprehensive approach to tackling fraud: protect, pursue, prevent and prepare. I am well aware that the PSNI works closely with other forces across the UK and feeds into national and international investigative arrangements. Only a few months ago, I visited the PSNI's cyber centre and heard first-hand about the work that it carries out on a daily basis and the difference that it makes. I am aware that the PSNI engages with financial institutions and makes proactive interventions to safeguard the public, where it is expected that people are actively being targeted by fraudsters. The National Crime Agency also has a key role to play in tackling fraud. It works closely with PSNI colleagues, and, in recent weeks, I met the director general of the NCA and was briefed on the complexity of the issues that the agency increasingly faces. Members will be aware that there is an already an exceptionally strong partnership-working model, which provides a robust response to organised crime across Northern Ireland. My Department works closely with a range of partners through the organised crime task force (OCTF) to reduce the harm caused by organised crime, including fraud and scams. The OCTF supports the development of operational partnerships and plays a key role in informing the public about successful operations against criminal groups and how to protect themselves from and report any suspicions of organised crime. The most recently published OCTF annual report and threat assessment provides case studies of how law enforcement partners have worked together to combat the threat posed by fraudsters and scammers, and it is available online if members wish to read more about it. The OCTF report, which my Department coordinates and publishes, includes work by the Department for the Economy's Trading Standards Service. The Trading Standards Service works to tackle mass marketing scams and doorstep crime and disrupt the operations of the perpetrators behind phone-enabled, online and mail scams. Tackling the cross-border response to financial crime, including scams and fraud, is of high importance to police forces on both sides of the border. Only last month, senior officials from my Department attended the Sir George Quigley memorial lecture in Queens University, hosted by the Centre for Cross Border Cooperation. The focus of that event was on combating economic crime across the island of Ireland, with the keynote speakers being the Chief Constable of the PSNI and the Commissioner of an Garda Síochána. That demonstrates the importance that both organisations place on the issue. Both addresses covered the response to tackling fraud and scams, which shows the dedication and commitment to ensuring that that is viewed as a priority area of focus. Top 5.00 pm On the point in the motion regarding recognising that scams are increasingly linked to organised and cross-border activity, the PSNI has indicated that it is not aware of any specific data to show that there is a marked increase in cross-border criminality, including scams, in the context of Northern Ireland and the rest of Ireland. However, Members will be aware that all borders, whether on the island of Ireland or internationally, pose no obstacle to organised crime groups that are intent on carrying out fraud or exploitation. Indeed, they may provide them with additional opportunities. I also want to highlight and pay tribute to the excellent working relationships that exist between wider law enforcement agencies. Members will be aware that I regularly make ministerial statements to the Assembly following meetings that I hold with my Irish counterpart under the auspices of the intergovernmental agreement arrangements on criminal justice matters. Those meetings include updates on the work of the joint agency task force; I think that it was Mr McGlone who talked about that cross-border working. The joint agency task force is a powerful example of what can be achieved by collaboration and partnership working. Its meetings are jointly chaired by the PSNI and an Garda Síochána, alongside a range of partner organisations. JATF focuses on six designated strategic priority areas, one of which is financial crime. The Garda National Economic Crime Bureau works closely with the PSNI and the NCA in the prevention and detection of such crime. The Department of Justice is not a member of the joint agency task force because it has an operational focus. However, I am kept updated about its work, and I see great value in the positive, collaborative work between the members of the JATF and its many successful operations. In addition, the joint PSNI and an Garda Síochána cross-border policing strategy 2025-27 aims to build on established collaborative relationships. There are four main areas of focus in the strategy, one of which is proactive collaboration in the prevention and detection of crime, including financial crime and cybercrime. Both those examples — the JATF and the working group deriving from the strategy — demonstrate the strong partnership and close working relationships that often go unseen but are vital in keeping people safe. Fraud affects not only individuals but businesses. I note what my colleague Ms Egan and Mr Martin raised with regard to their constituents. I am determined to ensure that Northern Ireland does not fall out of step with the rest of the UK and, critically, that law enforcement agencies here have the full range of powers that are available elsewhere. As Justice Minister, I work closely with UK Government Ministers to consider any developments in policy and legislation that would benefit Northern Ireland. That includes the UK-wide fraud strategy led by the Home Office. The PSNI is also engaged in aspects of the fraud strategy, working with the UK and international law enforcement partners to identify and tackle emerging scams and assist in investigations impacting on victims in Northern Ireland. The UK Government will soon publish their new fraud strategy, which includes references to Northern Ireland. The strategy acknowledges and provides a response to the ever-increasingly sophisticated and transnational nature of fraud, with advances in technology making online fraud and scams more complex. We know that legislative measures alone will not solve the problem and that we all have a role to play. My Department helps to address harm and vulnerability caused by fraud and supports partnership working to tackle the threat of scams through its membership of the ScamwiseNI Partnership, chaired by the PSNI. The partnership was established in 2016 and now has over 45 partners that work collaboratively to provide valuable information and crucial advice to keep the public informed, aware and vigilant. The ScamwiseNI Partnership also has an effective online presence, and my Department uses its own social media channels, whether it is Bluesky, X, YouTube or Instagram, to highlight current scams and the steps that people can take to protect themselves. I will give Members an example of the work of Scamwise. On 29 September 2025, the PSNI launched a new romance fraud social media campaign, sharing advice on how to spot and stop those types of scams. A conference led and facilitated by the PSNI was held on 6 November 2025, where Dr Elisabeth Carter, a criminologist and forensic linguist, was the key speaker. She educated partners about how romance scams work, explained the psychological manipulation involved and provided insight into why victims stay engaged with the scammer. Those insidious crimes are carried out by people who exploit those who are lonely and vulnerable and who are living in the hope of having companionship; it is horrific that they carry that out in such a calculated manner. At the conference, Ofcom introduced partners to its recently launched serious game, which is an online interactive simulator to help users identify romance scam red flags. In addition to all that, the Department and the Northern Ireland Policing Board fund community safety partnerships across each of the 11 council areas, and those partnerships lead on community safety at a local level. Many have a dedicated community safety warden scheme that provides sessions on crime prevention and raises awareness of a range of scams and fraud, including romance scams. For example, as part of the awareness campaign, I was pleased to open the Mid and East Antrim Agewell Partnership's Challenging the Scamdemic scam awareness conference earlier this year, which was a really insightful opportunity for people to share their experiences. My Department and the PSNI jointly fund the Crimestoppers Northern Ireland regional manager post, which is a key role in raising awareness and encouraging reporting of intelligence by promoting, developing and maintaining awareness of Crimestoppers throughout Northern Ireland among all our partners and the general public. Crimestoppers ran a "Stop! Think Fraud" campaign on social media and radio earlier this year. The Department also provides about £2 million in core grant funding to Victim Support NI — the proposer of the motion and other Members have indicated the importance of having proper support for people who have been victims of fraud — which can provide a range of services to all victims and witnesses of crime, including victims of scams and fraud. Services include the provision of emotional support, advocacy, information and advice to victims; assistance with claiming criminal injuries compensation; and court support to adult prosecution witnesses who are called to give evidence in court. Together, those services help people who are affected by crime to deal with the impact, to claim compensation and to give their best evidence. I will close by reiterating that any of us could be a victim of fraud or a scam. I encourage anyone who has been a victim to report it. There is no shame in being a victim. By coming forward, you can help to protect others and to bring the scammers and fraudsters to account. Addressing community safety issues such as this can only be done through partnership working. My Department is committed to working with all relevant stakeholders to support preventative action, to raise awareness and to ensure that our communities are safe places to live, work and visit. I will continue to do everything that I can in support of that endeavour, and I thank the Members who secured the debate today. As this is the last opportunity that I will have, I wish all Members a peaceful Christmas and a crime-free new year. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Hear, hear. The same to you, Minister. I call Ciara Ferguson. Ciara, you have five minutes. Ms Ferguson: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I, too, thank those who tabled the motion on tackling scams and improving public protection. I will start by acknowledging the publication last Friday of the research and statistical bulletin on the findings of the 2023-24 safe community telephone survey, including experiences of cybercrime and awareness of online cybercrime-related issues. Whilst it is welcome news that the proportion of respondents who know where or how to seek advice about cybersecurity and staying safe online has risen by 3%, concerningly, the number of those who are confident that the criminal justice system can effectively deal with cybercrime has fallen by 3%. We recognise, as the motion does, that we are experiencing a rise in the number and an increase in the sophistication of scams across online, telephone, postal and doorstep methods. We also know, as outlined by Age NI, that, sadly, it is only too often older people who are specifically targeted. I welcome Age NI's campaign, in collaboration with Power NI, to provide practical steps to help people recognise, avoid and report fraudulent activity. I also thank the Minister for the Economy for her recent warning to consumers to be alert to scams set up by heartless rogue traders during the Christmas period. The Trading Standards Service is highlighting the "12 scams of Christmas" to help raise awareness and educate people about the common festive frauds to look out for during the holidays, including fake shopping sites, delivery texts phishing for details and other risks, such as technology viruses and tech support scams. Some core advice includes the following: never share personal or banking details; use strong passwords; avoid clicking on suspicious links; end incoming calls and return them using numbers from an official website; and, importantly, adequately report all scam efforts to protect not only yourself but others. We have a duty to spread an awareness and understanding of common scam tactics and to stay vigilant by stopping to think and making checks when approached. I, too, welcome the work of Scamwise and the community safety initiatives that it leads in our local communities alongside restorative justice organisations, which do excellent work. We also welcome the reference to stepping up public information campaigns on the matter, but we emphasise that those must be supported by adequate measures to enable us to hold large social media platforms accountable for any fraudulent content that is advertised online on their channels. Reports can be made to the PSNI, Crimestoppers and Action Fraud, alongside further contact with Consumerline and the potential involvement of the Trading Standards Service. People can forward any suspicious texts for free to 7726 and use the "report phishing" or "report spam" option for questionable email correspondence. As we all know, scammers cause devastating harm to individuals and communities. They cause severe financial ruin for ordinary people, workers and families. Scammers can cause people severe emotional distress and create health implications due to the shame and stigma that are attached to scams. For all those reasons, a much wider challenge exists in rebuilding the trust and self-esteem of the many who have been impacted on and in restoring their confidence so that they feel fully safe online again. We cannot thank Victim Support NI enough for the work that it does to support people in such times. We support the call for a: "coordinated, cross-departmental strategy to strengthen prevention, improve detection and enforcement" and to "enhance data sharing between agencies and financial institutions". Sinn Féin tabled the amendment, which includes a reference to the cross-border joint agency task force, that we hope will attain cross-party support. We recognise that the joint agency task force, which exists between the gardaí and the PSNI and which was established under the Fresh Start Agreement in 2015, brings other agencies together to conduct synchronised operations, days of action and any other coordinated action that it takes on these matters. Consideration must be given to expanding and strengthening the existing all-Ireland collaboration that takes place in the strategic oversight group and the operations coordination group, alongside significantly improving data sharing on the issue. We have consistently called for that all-Ireland coordinated response to tackling the rising problems of scams and financial fraud. The statistics that were published last week are evidence of the clear need to step up that response, including through a shared database to tackle fraud and protect consumers. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Ciara, will you draw your remarks to a close, please? Ms Ferguson: We need a strengthened and coordinated all-Ireland response for the protection of all our citizens. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Doug Beattie. Doug, you have up to 10 minutes. Mr Beattie: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Tackling scams is not just about catching criminals; it is about protecting dignity, safeguarding savings and restoring trust in our digital and financial systems. Scams can be tackled effectively when there is a joined-up effort on prevention, enforcement and the public awareness of trade. Stronger real-time cooperation between the PSNI, the National Crime Agency, banks and telecom providers would allow suspicious activity to be identified and stopped more quickly, preventing losses before they occur. Better use of shared data and fast account-freezing powers would significantly disrupt organised scam networks. Ultimately, tackling scams successfully depends on making criminals' lives harder while making the public more confident, informed and protected. I thank the Minister for coming to the Chamber and giving us quite comprehensive feedback on the motion and outlining how it sits with the safer communities strand of the Programme for Government. However, it is important to say — this has been said across the Chamber — that the issue sits not just with our criminal justice system and that there has to be a response from all Departments, including Health, Communities, Infrastructure and Finance. Everybody has a part to play in it. My colleague, Diana Armstrong, highlighted the issue well in her contribution. Scams are an insidious method of theft. It is organised crime and the harvesting of information. It creates victims, even big corporate organisations. It is certainly not victimless crime. Top 5.15 pm I will give an example of a Romania-based organised crime group that was involved in a large-scale phishing operation targeting UK government services and individuals. It sent out emails and texts that appeared to come from legitimate organisations such as HMRC, banks and other authorities in order to trick victims into revealing sensitive information. It then used that sensitive information to claim benefits. That is what those groups are sucking from society. In July 2025, 13 individuals were arrested near Bucharest and one in the UK as part of a major international operation targeting a phishing campaign that defrauded UK taxpayers to the tune of £47 million. People do it in other ways, however. Scammers impersonate NHS GPs and contact individuals by phone, text or email, pretending to be from the NHS, a GP practice or other health service. They might ask you to update your records because, if you do not, they will take your name off their list. People give them their date of birth, their NHS number or their address, and, again, that information is harvested in order to claim benefits. There are multiple types of scam. I did not realise how many types of scam there were until I looked them up. There is phishing, smishing, vishing, spear phishing and whaling, as well as romance scams, investment-in-crypto scams, tech-support scams, impersonation scams, lotteries, jobs and rental scams. Kate Nicholl mentioned emergency scams, where somebody messages, "Hi mum, I've lost my phone, and I'm using a friend's phone. Can you send me money?". It happens a lot; I have received that one myself. I have kids and grandkids, so I had to stop and think twice. They gain your information if you engage. The motion notes the: "financial and emotional harm caused to victims, many of whom are older people or vulnerable". Many older people are far too embarrassed to say that they have been scammed, so they do not report it. That is what the Minister was saying when she talked about under-reporting. People are too embarrassed, but they need to be told that they must come forward to their bank or financial services. We need a public awareness campaign on that, and, again, the Minister outlined that well. Knowledge, awareness and information are key in this digital world. Knowledge is the battleground in scams. The motion calls on the Justice Minister to work with her Executive colleagues. That is the important part, because, although she is here and gave her response, all Ministers need to come together. Further to that, the motion calls for a: "cross-departmental strategy to strengthen prevention, improve detection and enforcement". It has been a good debate. I will be honest; I have not heard any dissenting voices, and I have learned something from all corners of the House. That is a good thing, because this is important. This is happening in real time, and it is affecting our people. We can all have our disagreements and arguments, but this is real. Emma Sheerin was absolutely right to point out that crime recognises no borders. Her amendment adds value to our motion, and we will support it. In her winding-up speech, Ciara talked about the rising number of scams and their increasing sophistication. Cheryl Brownlee mentioned the case of Eddie and the way in which older people are being targeted by fraudsters, as well as the use of AI. AI is a great tool, but it is a double-edged sword, and it can be used against us. Connie Egan said that scams are under-reported because of shame and embarrassment, and she is absolutely right. People are ashamed to say that they fell for a scam, particularly if it is one of those romance scams, where somebody takes money off you because you think there is —. Mr Clarke: I thank the Member for giving way. I am sure that he will agree that many people who face financial difficulties tune into Martin Lewis's programme, which, I think, is on a Tuesday night. Many people watch his programme for ideas. They scammed Martin Lewis. How much more authentic can they get when they can do that on the internet and social media? Does the Member agree that the social media platforms are not doing enough to stamp that out? Mr Beattie: You raised two points. The first point is that every one of us in here is susceptible to scams, as is every person outside here. If Martin Lewis can be scammed, everybody can be scammed, and social media can, of course, do more. It can always do more. Patsy McGlone outlined the financial cost of scams and, like Emma, focused on cross-border cooperation. Keith Buchanan talked about the sophisticated global threat and the emotional scars that come from being involved in scams. That is why I mentioned the international element to all of this. Sometimes we think that scams are on our doorsteps, but they are absolutely not. They may feel as though they are on our doorstep, but sometimes they are from an awfully long way away. When you are replying to that Nigerian prince who wants to put £2 million into your bank account, that is coming from an awful long way away. It is certainly not coming from somewhere close to home. I already mentioned Kate, who raised a good point in her contribution, as did Peter when he talked about Just Eat. That had slipped my mind until you mentioned it, Peter, to be honest. I remember watching a programme about the very issue of Just Eat, and it shows you that some of the larger companies can afford to take the hit on those scams, but it is the smaller people who simply cannot do so. It was a good debate, and I am glad that we have had it. It was the last debate of 2025. Maybe things will get hotter when the debate is finished; I do not know. It was a good-natured debate, and some good information came across. As it is the last debate of 2025, on behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party, I wish everybody in the Chamber and outside of it a very merry Christmas and a happy new year. Some Members: Hear, hear. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Hear, hear. I think that we can all echo that. Question, That the amendment be made, put and agreed to. Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly notes with concern the rising number, and sophistication, of online, telephone, postal and doorstep scams targeting individuals and businesses across Northern Ireland; further notes the serious financial and emotional harm caused to victims, many of whom are older people or vulnerable; recognises that scams are increasingly linked to organised and cross-border criminal activity, seeking to exploit gaps between enforcement agencies and jurisdictions; acknowledges the work of the PSNI, the National Crime Agency (NCA), ScamwiseNI, consumer protection bodies, financial institutions and community organisations in raising awareness and supporting victims; and calls on the Minister of Justice, working with Executive colleagues and in partnership with the National Crime Agency, joint agency task force and the PSNI, to bring forward a coordinated, cross-departmental strategy to strengthen prevention, improve detection and enforcement, enhance data sharing between agencies and financial institutions, deliver more effective public awareness campaigns and ensure better support for victims of scams across Northern Ireland. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Ladies and gentlemen, take your ease for a few moments while we change the top Table. (Mr Speaker in the Chair) Question for Urgent Oral Answer Justice Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland: Resignation Mr Speaker: Jonathan Buckley has given notice of a question for urgent oral answer to the Minister of Justice. I remind Members who wish to ask a supplementary question that they should rise in their place. Mr Buckley asked the Minister of Justice, in light of allegations made during Assembly proceedings on 8 December, when she became aware that the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland had tendered her resignation in September 2023. Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): The Member will be aware that I did not return to office until February 2024, following the restoration of the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive. I was therefore not in post in September 2023. I first became aware of the matter upon being briefed by my officials on 12 February 2024. For clarity, the Police Ombudsman is independent and appointed as a corporation sole by His Majesty the King on the recommendation of the First Minister and deputy First Minister acting jointly. For further clarity, the Department of Justice is not afforded any specific powers under the terms of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 to act to temporarily suspend or otherwise interfere with the ombudsman's term of office. The legislation is clear that a person may at any time resign the office of ombudsman by notice in writing to His Majesty. For the avoidance of doubt, I say that the then permanent secretary had no vires to accept a resignation from the Police Ombudsman. Mr Buckley: The Justice Minister knows that the role of the Police Ombudsman and their conduct whilst in office is of huge public importance. The Minister has been asked over a dozen times in the Chamber about the position and credibility of the ombudsman, yet never did she notify us, even when a question for urgent oral answer previously identified the matter, that the ombudsman had ever tendered a resignation. Why did she deliberately withhold that information from the Assembly? Was it incompetence or cover-up? Mrs Long: I did not deliberately withhold the information in question from the Assembly. It was neither incompetence nor cover-up. Mr Brooks: Minister, you were asked about the matter directly on 17 June 2024 in the Chamber and asked whether the Police Ombudsman should step aside. You did not inform the Assembly then that the ombudsman had previously tendered her resignation. Why did you withhold that important information? Mrs Long: Because it was not relevant to the question that was asked, which was whether the ombudsman should step aside. By the time I came to the House, it had been made clear to the ombudsman that the resignation that was tendered prior to me taking up office was not tendered to the appropriate person and was then withdrawn. The question was whether she should step aside, and I made it clear then, as I do now, that the Department of Justice has no role to ask the ombudsman to retire early or to step aside. It is for the Executive Office to deal with matters pertaining to the Police Ombudsman and her employment, and I have made that clear every time that I have been brought to the Chamber to answer these questions. Mr Burrows: When the resignation was tendered to her Department, the response — I have it — was not, "We have no vires to take it"; it was: "After a brief chat, just now, I have agreed to park this email and no action will be taken." That is a decision. It was not a referral elsewhere. That happened in your Department. You were not there then, but you have been there since. I seem to know much more about what is going on in the Department of Justice than you do. I call on the Police Ombudsman to resign. Confidence in her comments is in tatters. Will you please explain why you did not make it transparent that your Department had received a resignation and clearly bungled it? Mr Speaker: Minister. Mr Burrows: The officials either did not have the power to answer or answered wrongly. Mr Speaker: Minister. Mrs Long: The only person who can answer as to the response that was given to Marie Anderson, either in a phone call or a private email, is Richard Pengelly, who was then the permanent secretary of my Department. I am aware only of that which is on the formal record, and I have come to answer only on that basis in the House. There is no vires for anyone in my Department to accept or reject any resignation, because we have no vires to alter the terms on which the Police Ombudsman has been appointed or otherwise. Therefore, the issue that the Member raises is not one for my Department. Mr Frew: In June of this year, the Justice Minister told 'The Nolan Show', of all people, that she wanted to acknowledge the Police Ombudsman's decision to delegate the powers to the chief executive and the senior staff of the ombudsman's office. That being the case, why did the Justice Minister not choose to acknowledge and inform the Assembly of the Police Ombudsman's previous offer to resign? Mrs Long: Asked already and answered. Ms Forsythe: The Minister has been clear in saying that clear rules are set down in law about when the ombudsman should be removed from office. Does she accept that the threshold is somewhat lower if the ombudsman herself chooses to resign? Mrs Long: The ombudsman can resign at any time for any reason. She must do so in writing to His Majesty The King, and that is the only basis on which she can do so. Top 5.30 pm Mr Kingston: Minister, do you commit to publishing all records that are kept by your Department in which the offer of resignation from the Police Ombudsman is mentioned? Mrs Long: As those matters remain sub judice, I will not commit to doing so until I have sought legal advice on them Mr Clarke: I was going to thank the Minister for her answers thus far, but I do not want to go as far as that because you have not actually answered any questions, Minister. Why did you mislead the House when there was a confidence issue around the conduct of the ombudsman? Mrs Long: I did not mislead the House at any time. The suggestion that I did so is very serious. Whether the House or individual Members had confidence in the ombudsman was a different matter. I did not mislead the House on those issues. Mr Gaston: We now know that the ombudsman did, indeed, tender her resignation to the Justice Minister's Department. The Justice Minister is a caretaker Minister and, indeed, her answers have proved, once again, that she wants to take only some, not all, the responsibility. Mr Speaker: Get to the question. Mr Gaston: We now know that there was a brief chat, part of which was about the resignation. Will you commit to releasing all the information on the matter? It is a huge matter of public confidence in your Department and in you as Justice Minister. Essentially, the resignation was received by your Department. Why was it not passed on? If you say that it was not for your Department, why was it not passed on through the correct processes so that it could be acted upon and, indeed, accepted at that time, as it should have been? Mrs Long: Let me correct a few of Mr Gaston's remarks. First, I am not a caretaker Minister. I was a caretaker Minister between the collapse of the Executive and October 2022, when Ministers were suspended. To clarify: that is the context in which the term "caretaker Minister" was used. I was not the Minister at the point at which those discussions and debates took place, nor was I party to them. Mr Gaston: You are the Minister now. Mr Speaker: Order. Mrs Long: Am I to have order so that I can answer the question? Mr Speaker: Continue please. Mrs Long: Thank you. With respect to the publication that the Member has sought, I have said already that these matters remain sub judice. Therefore, I will not commit to the House to releasing all the correspondence and papers until I have had the opportunity to seek detailed legal advice. Mr K Buchanan: I thank the Minister for her part-answers so far. Minister, have you misled the House by omission? Mrs Long: No. Mr Chambers: Minister, does the ombudsman still have full security clearance? Mrs Long: Security clearance and other HR matters pertaining to the ombudsman are for the Executive Office. Security clearance is not granted by the Department of Justice. It is actually granted by the Home Office. Mrs Cameron: If the Justice Minister had been in post in 2023, would she have accepted the Police Ombudsman's resignation? Mrs Long: Had I been in office in 2023, I would have had no vires to accept the resignation of the ombudsman. My Department and its Minister and permanent secretary have no vires to accept the resignation of the ombudsman. The ombudsman must resign directly by notice in writing to His Majesty. Ms Brownlee: When preparing for the question for urgent oral answer in June 2024, did your briefing papers have any details of the resignation? Mrs Long: Those details were not pertinent to the question for urgent oral answer and were, therefore, not included in the briefing papers that were provided to me in June 2024. Ms D Armstrong: Minister, do you have any concerns about the conduct of the ombudsman? Mrs Long: I am not, within my Department, empowered to make judgements about the ombudsman's office. The Public Prosecution Service made a decision not to prosecute the ombudsman. We must respect that decision. It is not for me to judge the fitness for office of the ombudsman. That is the role of the Executive Office. I suggest that the Member directs her question to that Department. Mr Middleton: Minister, some of us are finding it hard to believe your responses. You are telling us that it was not in your briefing pack in June, yet you were informed in February. Is that right? Mrs Long: That is exactly what I said; that is correct. It was not pertinent to the question that I was asked in June and was therefore not included in my briefing pack, to the best of my recollection. However, I was briefed about it in an early-day briefing at the beginning of February. Mr Speaker: That concludes questions to the Minister of Justice. Motion made: That the Assembly do now adjourn. — [Mr Speaker.] Adjournment Poverty: North Down Mr Speaker: In conjunction with the Business Committee, I have given leave to Connie Egan to raise the matter of poverty in North Down. Ms Egan, you have up to 15 minutes. Ms Egan: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I secured this debate on poverty in North Down for many reasons. At its core, the debate is on behalf of all those across our constituency who are struggling to make ends meet and to deal with the cost of living and of the organisations that are fighting for funding to support them. It is incredibly timely: this is the last item to be discussed in the Chamber before Christmas, which is a time when so many feel pressure financially, whether it be because of presents for the kids or the increasing use of fuel to keep homes warm and families healthy. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Dr Aiken] in the Chair) To set the tone from the outset, I have brought the matter to the House not to point fingers and propel blame but to have a frank and constructive conversation about the vast income inequality and areas of deprivation across the place that I represent. I thank every Member who has made the time to come to the Chamber and contribute to the debate, including the Minister. Poverty across our region continues to be an issue of serious concern. It feels right to begin the debate by putting some numbers to it. Although I am here to raise issues relevant to my constituency, we all know that poverty is a problem across Northern Ireland. It is not about pitting communities or constituencies against each other; it is about shining a light on an issue that persists in our area and the grassroots work that is being done on the ground to mitigate it. Approximately 330,000 people, including approximately 24% of all children, in Northern Ireland are in relative poverty after housing costs. That is about 17% of our total population. Up to 40% of our population are thought to have been in fuel poverty at some point over the past few years. Almost half of all workers have experienced low pay in one of the past five years. It is estimated that one in five households in Northern Ireland has faced food insecurity in the past 12 months. Before the debate, I spoke with many individuals across North Down, including those who are struggling and those who provide direct support to the people who need it most. In each of those conversations, I heard the repeated message that high levels of income and wealth in North Down continue to overshadow the struggle and deprivation of many people. Perhaps that message is best put in simple terms, as Trussell did in a briefing that was sent to all MLAs in advance of today's debate: poverty in our borough is hidden, and the stigma of getting help is rising. Our constituency is sometimes called "the gold coast", and it is seen as being a wealthy area. That perception has contributed to the stigma, making those who are struggling across the community feel a lot of shame because their finances or living costs are not more manageable. I am here today to make it clear that that is not their fault; it is the fault of the system that has let them down. It is our local community and voluntary sector organisations that deal with individuals directly and provide essential support. Charities such as the Society of St Vincent de Paul or Christians Against Poverty operate locally, Bangor Foodbank and Community Support runs a food bank and a baby bank, Kilcooley Women's Centre's runs a social supermarket, and there are too many churches and local community groups to mention: they all see at first hand the level of need in their local communities and areas. They address that need directly and offer support. Those are the groups and the people doing the work on the ground. Together, between the councils, Departments, Westminster counterparts and grassroots action, we can deliver better. We can deliver a transformational anti-poverty strategy that acts to the benefit of all across Northern Ireland. I would like to see clear, ambitious targets. The strategy should listen to the expertise of those with lived experience, and to organisations providing practical support in communities. We have really good examples of collaboration and co-design in Executive strategies. I hope that we will also see that in the finalised anti-poverty strategy. One of the items that I would like to raise with the Minister is the need for updated information on poverty at a small area level. That is vital to unpick the stigma that is felt so strongly across North Down and to track the tangibility of the outcomes of interventions. For example, I can see that, in 2017 — the last time that that data was disaggregated so — Bangor Central, the district electoral area (DEA) where my office sits, was ranked amongst the 100 wards with the most income deprivation in Northern Ireland. The same goes for the areas of Conlig and Loughview in Holywood, where 23·9% of the working population was employment deprived. However, all that was eight years ago, pre pandemic and the cost-of-living crisis. When preparing for the debate, I found that there is very little hard, up-to-date data available on the levels of poverty and deprivation in specific areas of constituencies rather than in local government districts as a whole. As I have said, there is a broad spectrum of wealth in North Down and a number of high earners in the area, but that is simply not the case for everyone. Income inequalities can hide the struggle of those in areas across the constituency. As one community worker put it to me: "One of the biggest concerns that we see locally is the number of working families who are doing everything right, earning what they can, yet still cannot make ends meet, and who do not qualify for the types of support that might keep them afloat. These households are slipping through the gaps, and that reality is too often hidden because our borough is perceived as affluent". They see, at first hand, how that misconception contributes to a disproportionate lack of investment. I ask the Minister to address the need for solid data on those areas. We do have a rather helpful collection of data from Bangor's 2022 neighbourhood renewal profile. For anyone who is not familiar with that project, its focus was on supporting areas that fell into the 10% most deprived in Northern Ireland. Clandeboye and Dufferin in North Down fell into that category, based on the 2017 baseline data, with 44% of children in poverty; 31% of the working-age population employment deprived; and 21% of people living in households whose equalised income was below 60% of Northern Ireland's median. I want to pay particular attention to the doubling in the number of drug-related deaths between 2005-09 and 2017-2021, and the 37% increase between 2011-15 and 2017-2021 in the number of deaths from suicide and undetermined intent, in the Bangor neighbourhood renewal area. Poverty and struggles with the cost of living have clear connections with people's health, both physical and mental. Poverty does not happen in isolation; there are so many factors. The inability to work due to long waiting lists or health inequalities, mental health pressures, housing insecurity and the rising cost of living are all compounding one another and pushing people to breaking point. That gives a direct reminder of the need for cross-departmental working on anti-poverty measures, as stated in our Programme for Government. I will highlight two anonymised, real-life stories of my constituents, who, plainly put, are struggling not just with the cost of living but with the cost of surviving. A woman knocked on the door of a local community centre one morning and asked whether she could borrow a loaf of bread for her children's breakfast. When she came in for help, she admitted that her children had missed school as she did not have enough electric to wash and dry their uniforms and was rationing her washing powder. Another parent experienced extreme malnutrition because they chose to put food on the table for their child and heat the home instead of filling their own plate. I know that those are not isolated incidents and that there are many such heartbreaking stories across Northern Ireland. In North Down, local community organisations always step in and address the need, connecting those who need support to food banks or social supermarkets or providing advice or expertise to recalculate social welfare support. However, the same organisations find themselves struggling and competing for impactful funding, in part due to limiting criteria set by the council and Departments. We need to move beyond that and short-term sticking plasters and focus on long-term, collaborative solutions. I would really welcome the Minister's telling us what he is doing about that in preparation for the multi-year Budget. Top 5.45 pm For example, Ards and North Down Borough Council's community development fund makes no assessment of applicants' reserves, unrestricted income or financial vulnerability. Instead, allocations are based on a 0 to 5 score for postcode deprivation, when we know that, across the board, multiple deprivation statistics are outdated. Our area's needs must be better understood in order to ensure genuine equity so that all communities can thrive equally. Another issue that is often raised with me is the missed opportunities for regional funding, as North Down is often seen and counted as being part of the greater Belfast area, which feeds into geographic inequality and a postcode lottery of support. For example, in the BT19 postcode area, there are some of the most expensive properties in the constituency — maybe even in Northern Ireland — but there is also one of Northern Ireland's three largest housing estates. The visibility of that wealth in close proximity to those who are living in significant poverty hides the deprivation that needs to be tackled. A practical way to address that, which communities welcomed, was the hardship fund that DFC issued and that was distributed through councils to the front-line communities that needed it. Minister, I have raised that fund with you previously, so if progress has been made on its reintroduction or if your Department is doing any work to bring forward similar schemes, we would all appreciate an update. Ultimately, we need the council and DFC to work with our community and voluntary sector partners to ensure that funding is distributed on the basis of need and is proportionate to the population of the local area. It is really unfortunate that many of the community groups to which I speak cite councils and Departments as being the most difficult partners to work with. They cite the length of application forms for relatively small grants; the amount of paperwork and monitoring that are involved; and the timescales in which funding is received competing with the need to spend it by the end of a financial year. I do not think that that is a situation that any of us want to see or be in. We need all of us to work together and our councils and Departments to support our community partners. No one type of person experiences poverty. I really hope to see that reflected in the anti-poverty strategy. There are those who cannot work for a variety of reasons, including caring responsibilities and accessibility needs, and there are those who can. In fact, a significant majority of people who are in poverty, which is 60% of such adults, live in households with someone who works, but the work-first approach does not adequately combat poverty when other significant barriers, such as poor health, unaffordable childcare and housing, are not being addressed. I thank all who spoke to me in anticipation of today's debate. I hope that you feel that it reflects what you had to say. Thank you for the work that you do and the work that keeps so many people in our constituency surviving and living. I look forward to hearing all the other contributions, and I will listen with an eagerness to collaborate and deliver positive change together for all our communities. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much indeed, Connie. All other Members who are called to speak will have approximately five minutes. Mr Martin: As Ms Egan mentioned, our North Down constituency is frequently associated with prosperity. We all know and are aware of jokes about living on the "gold coast". However, the truth is very far from that for a number of my constituents. Behind the averages and headlines, households are struggling to meet basic needs, families are navigating the rising cost of living and individuals are feeling disconnected from opportunity. Poverty in North Down may be less concentrated than it is in other parts of Northern Ireland, but it is no less real for those who have to experience it. As highlighted, there are significant income disparities across our constituency. I thank the organisations that work in North Down and support those who are in need. There are some excellent charities and third-sector organisations, and I will highlight a few that have been mentioned. Kilcooley Women's Centre runs a superb social supermarket that I have visited on numerous occasions; North Down Community Network runs a range of support programmes; and Bangor Foodbank, in partnership with Trussell, distributed 2,500 parcels during 2024-25. As mentioned, there are other organisations, such as Christians Against Poverty, which my family supports, and a range of churches that run programmes and offer support networks such as homework clubs. We need to continue to support the community organisations that already make a measurable difference. I mentioned food banks, and there are also advice centres, mental health centres and many other brilliant youth groups and social enterprises. Their work is invaluable and must be underpinned by stable funding and strong collaboration. I thank my colleague the Communities Minister for all his work and the support that he gives. Some of that is done directly, but some comes through programmes that are delivered by Ards and North Down Borough Council. As has been referred to, we have a neighbourhood renewal area in North Down — Kilcooley, which is the third largest estate in Northern Ireland. I note, from some research that I did earlier, that about £0·5 million has been put through the scheme this year, supporting 13 projects, all of which are making a real difference to people in the area. I have to note that it is Christmastime. I am not a big fan of Christmas. For some, the income disparity is highlighted most acutely at Christmastime. There is pressure to buy presents and to feel happy and content. Those are pressures that many folk simply do not need at this time of year. There are real challenges for working families, as well; I was glad to hear Ms Egan reference that. That is a major concern for me. We have to do all that we can to support people — the families who work hard, raise children and struggle financially at the end of the month, having to make incredibly tough decisions. That is a key policy area that the Minister is working on. The Communities Minister will not be able to tackle or solve the issue of poverty in Northern Ireland in a silo. He simply cannot do that, and he certainly does not have the money allocated to his budget that is needed to do it. The issue needs not only cross-departmental working but cross-departmental Executive support. I thank my North Down colleague for bringing the debate to the Assembly, and I very much look forward to what my colleague the Minister has to say at the end of the debate. Mr Chambers: The recent Joseph Rowntree Foundation report, 'Poverty in Northern Ireland 2025', provides important insight into the scale and impact of poverty across Northern Ireland. One of the most striking findings is that the: "majority of people in poverty now live in working households". It found that 60% of working-class adults in poverty live in houses in which someone is in work. That figure rises to 64% for children. Put simply, employment alone is no longer a guarantee of financial security. That reality applies in North Down as it does elsewhere, albeit often in less visible ways. As others have said, North Down is often referred to as the "gold coast". Undoubtedly, many prosperous families, who have worked hard to secure financial stability, live in comfort in my constituency. There are, however, areas of serious deprivation where the damaging effects of poverty can be seen. Behind the curtains of many seemingly prosperous homes, the issue of balancing the family budget is very real. In 2017-18, Bangor Foodbank and Community Support distributed 634 emergency food parcels. In 2024-25, that figure has risen to a staggering 2,569. For that to happen, something in our society must not be working. It is not just food poverty that is an affliction in North Down. Fuel poverty provides challenges across all sections of the community, from young families to pensioners who struggle to heat their entire home to the recommended, comfortable levels. The cost of energy has risen at rates that do not equate to the rise in income. The cost of private rentals and the disgraceful lack of affordable social housing is making a huge dent in family incomes. Providing a roof over their heads means that a family has less income available to heat or eat. Another group of people who are largely forgotten but who have a daily struggle to make ends meet is the army of unpaid carers, a group that not only faces financial challenges but, in many cases, is deprived of any level of social life or respite self-time. All the issues I have spoken of are not purely financial. Cold homes, financial stress and insecurity can harm physical and mental health and increase social isolation. Even the shame of poverty can seriously lower self-esteem and extinguish hope in people. Addressing poverty, therefore, supports better health outcomes and can reduce pressure on public services, and tackling poverty cannot rest with one Department alone. While the Department for Communities has the lead role in addressing poverty in all its forms, the pressure faced by people requires coordinated action, as others have said, across the Executive, including housing, health, energy, employment and infrastructure. I commend the Minister for Communities for attending tonight to listen to the debate. Finally, as my colleague Andy Allen has done in previous debates, I acknowledge the work that the Minister has undertaken in progressing the long-overdue anti-poverty strategy. However, I also recognise the widespread concern amongst sector experts about its current strength and delivery, and I look forward to seeing how the feedback from sector experts is factored into the final iteration of the strategy so that it delivers practical and measurable improvements for individuals and families in North Down and across Northern Ireland. I join other Members in expressing my appreciation and thanks to all the voluntary organisations in North Down that help to deal with poverty. One in particular that I was unaware of until recently is the Kiltonga Christian Centre, which operates under the radar. Without those charities, things would be an awful lot worse, so we owe them a huge debt. Mr Muir: I speak today as an Alliance Party MLA for North Down, and I thank my constituency colleague Connie Egan MLA for securing this timely and important debate in the Assembly. Contrary to the perceptions of some, there are many people in North Down who are suffering from poverty. They are wondering how they will feed their families and whether they can afford to put the heat on, in the same way as is experienced in many other constituencies across Northern Ireland. North Down still has around one fifth of children living in poverty, and, within the wider borough, over 3,000 people are on the housing waiting list and approximately 20% are experiencing fuel poverty. Just last week, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation reported that 330,000 people and 110,000 children are living in poverty here, and, despite misconceptions, the majority of those live in working households. That means that hundreds of thousands of people have a lower life expectancy and greater mental health challenges, and those children will suffer worse educational and wider life outcomes. The failure to meaningfully tackle poverty over the past 20 years and beyond is a dreadful legacy, particularly with the austerity policies of subsequent Conservative Governments. I have been incredibly disappointed that the Labour Party has sought to continue some of that legacy by targeting those in our society who are most vulnerable to poverty, particularly older people and people with a disability. I commend those MPs who forced concessions from the UK Government on welfare and the winter fuel payment and championed the removal of the two-child limit, including my Alliance Party colleague Sorcha Eastwood MP. We know that families with three or more children experience higher rates of poverty, and the removal of that punitive cap will make a huge difference to the 50,000 families who are set to benefit in every constituency in Northern Ireland, especially in North Down. Although it is important to acknowledge that it is a wider UK problem, we should not shirk our responsibilities locally, especially because, before housing costs, our poverty levels in Northern Ireland are similar to the UK as a whole. Given the drastic rise in the number of private renters, the rate at which rent is rising should be a concern to us all, particularly in North Down, where rent prices are already much higher. I am sure that we can all see the huge strain that the housing crisis places on our constituents, particularly as the cost of living and inflation continue to bite. It is vital that we deliver new social homes to address the issues hampering development, not least in relation to our waste water infrastructure. We must also see an anti-poverty strategy not only in place but delivering meaningful change in North Down and beyond. Top 6.00 pm I look forward to hearing from the Communities Minister about his departmental efforts to finalise the strategy and how he will address concerns raised by relevant stakeholders in the consultation. I also hope that he will be able to update us on the anticipated fuel poverty strategy, because, as the Joseph Rowntree Foundation highlights, the downward trend of poverty here has stalled in recent years and our child poverty rates remain high. Clearly, the lack of an anti-poverty strategy and the collapse of the Assembly have had consequences. Regrettably, our time to discuss such a complicated and layered topic is short, but I will close by again thanking Connie for securing the debate and all the organisations in North Down for the sterling work that they do. Their work is a lifeline for many in the constituency, which I am proud to represent, and I am glad that we have been able to air this important topic in the Assembly. Mr Gildernew: I thank Connie for bringing the issue to the Floor. Although I do not represent North Down, I will say a few words as Sinn Féin's community spokesperson, as poverty is an issue that affects every town, village and area across the North. As Connie said, it is important to recognise that deep poverty can exist side by side and cheek by jowl with massive wealth. On a global level, inequality is a pervasive issue at present. A number of years ago, the World Bank issued a warning to the wealthy that the inequality levels were no longer sustainable and had to be addressed. That is something that we locally need to take account of as well. It is important that, when we discuss poverty, we remember the very human suffering that poverty inflicts on people every day in all our constituencies. Right now, as we debate the issue, there are people in our communities who do not have enough food to eat, do not have enough fuel to keep themselves warm or, potentially, do not even have a roof over their heads. Imagine what it must be like to wake every morning not knowing how you will feed yourself or your children or whether you will be able to afford to turn the heating on that day. We all have a moral obligation to do everything that we can to end that intolerable situation and ensure that everyone in our society has a fair chance in life. Over recent years, a number of economic and political factors have had a disproportionately negative impact on those on lower incomes, including Brexit, the COVID-19 pandemic, the cost-of-living crisis, the disastrous Tory mini-Budget and a prolonged period of British Government austerity, with signs that the Labour Government have carried it on, as Andrew mentioned. That combination of factors has undoubtedly led to an increase in the overall level of poverty in our society, with the most recent 'Poverty and Income Inequality' report showing that roughly 18% of our population live in relative poverty while 15% live in absolute poverty. The figures for children are even more shocking, with roughly 23% of children living in relative poverty and 20% of children living in absolute poverty. We know that certain risk factors make someone more vulnerable to falling into poverty such as having a disability, being a carer, as Alan mentioned, or being in receipt of benefits. Other factors include low-wage or precarious employment, being a lone parent, geographical location and even gender. With regard to geographical location, poverty rates are generally even higher west of the Bann. Earlier this year, the Minister — I am glad to see him in the Chamber listening to the debate — published the long-awaited anti-poverty strategy, which promises to identify and address the root causes of poverty, mitigate its worst impacts and support people to exit poverty. While the publication of the strategy is indeed welcome — it was long overdue — the strategy falls short of what is needed and, as a result, has been criticised by anti-poverty experts, including some who helped to co-design the strategy. Alan Chambers's point about working people is really important. We need to be careful and understand that there is no clear or easy divide between people who are on benefits and people who are working. Many of our people who are working — our working poor — are dependent on benefits as well, so it is not a question of some people who get up in the morning and are struggling and other people who do not. It is much more complicated than that, to be honest. As we await the final draft of the strategy, I strongly urge the Minister to consider the many voices that are calling for a change of approach and to come back with a strengthened anti-poverty strategy that will make a real difference in eradicating poverty once and for all, wherever it occurs across the North. With your indulgence, a LeasCheann Comhairle [Translation: Mr Deputy Speaker] , as this is the last debate of the session, I wish all my colleagues and you a very happy, peaceful and reflective Christmas. Nollaig shona daoibh. [Translation: A merry Christmas to you.] Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you. I call Kellie Armstrong. Ms K Armstrong: Thank you very much, Mr Principal — "Principal"? — Deputy Speaker. I have given you a promotion, Mr Deputy Speaker. Obviously, I am not a Member for North Down, but I am a Member for the Strangford constituency, which is next door to North Down and shares one of its council areas, Ards and North Down Borough Council. As has been said by everyone here, poverty is a scourge on our society. More and more people who work are on universal credit and need the support of our Government in order to get by. We have children living in poverty, we have middle-aged people living in poverty and we have a growing number of older people living in poverty. I know that the Minister is due to come forward with the final anti-poverty strategy. Other strategies such as the fuel poverty strategy are due to come forward. There is much that we need to do. We cannot keep depending on the community and voluntary sector to pull the Assembly out of a hole when it comes to poverty. As many of us will know through our constituency offices, the Bryson scheme opened recently. Within a week — I tell a lie: it was not a week; it was two days — the vouchers issued to my office to help people who live in poverty with their electricity bills were gone. Fifty vouchers were snapped up just like that. I could have given out another 150 vouchers if I had had them. The food bank is constantly giving out vouchers for food parcels and is asking people what they need help with in order to prevent them from having to use a food bank. To be honest, it all comes back to one thing: they do not have enough money. There are many people who try their very best, but, after they have paid their rent, their electricity bill and their gas or oil bill, they have nothing left at the end of the month. That is what we have come to in Northern Ireland. I know that the Minister is determined to look at fraud, but not everyone who is on benefits is a fraudulent person. They simply need help from us to keep going. Costs and the cost of living have continued to rise. As we have seen, the local housing allowance (LHA) has not kept in line with housing benefit rates or private rented sector rates. There are issues. The number of people who call all our offices to reach out for help is incredible. From working in the constituency next door to North Down, I know that that is the case there too. Mr Chambers spoke about the Kiltonga centre. I know a mum-of-six who was recently offered support through the Kiltonga centre. I was amazed that it was able to deliver that. That support was not available anywhere else. I encouraged her to go forward for discretionary support, but, because she had had a loan before, she was out of the system. She has six children. As we know, the two-child cap is going, thank goodness, so she will see some light at the end of the tunnel, but it will not solve her problems. Thanks very much to all those who work for the community and voluntary sector organisations. They, too, are living in poverty, because many are paid the minimum wage. To those whom we in the Assembly depend on to see people living in poverty through the winter and the school holiday period, when there is no help with hunger, I say, "Thanks". I am so sorry that they live on the minimum wage. I would love to see that improve, because they are as important to me in my work as an MLA as a GP. They are vital to keeping people well in our community. The stress that is placed on constituents in North Down and elsewhere because of poverty is unimaginable to someone like me. Ms Egan: Will the Member give way? Ms K Armstrong: I certainly will. Ms Egan: Does the Member agree that, in both our constituencies, we see the presence of paramilitaries and how they exploit poverty? There are two Communities in Transition (CIT) areas in North Down. There are loan sharks exploiting those in poverty. That is why we need a cross-departmental approach and different agencies to come on board in order to tackle the root causes of poverty. Ms K Armstrong: I thank the Member for her intervention. I will confirm that by saying that the food banks that I know, which work extraordinarily hard, are not required to report paramilitary lending and that possibly being the reason why someone is in debt.Paramilitaries see themselves as the solution, the helper, the people who will step in when there is nobody else to provide that help. We do not lift data that enables us to say how many people are borrowing money from paramilitaries. I know for a fact that paramilitary lenders were sitting in a car outside a North Down and a Strangford constituency food bank and support system, watching to see who was going in, and saying to them afterwards, "I can lend you fifty quid" or, "If you put in for discretionary support, we'll help you fill out the form. You give us fifty quid, and you'll get the rest". That is non-stop, and the pressure that it puts on some communities is unbearable. That is where we need to work together. That is a solution that should not exist for someone who is living in poverty. We need to make sure that, when we fund and support those community and voluntary organisations, we support them to stop that activity. It is important. Our local police also have a role in that. I say this to all of our community and voluntary organisations: I know that you are on the front line, and I know that you find it tough, but we need you. I only hope that, with the anti-poverty strategy and fuel poverty strategy coming forward, there will be help for the too many people in Northern Ireland living in poverty. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Minister, you have up to 10 minutes. Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome the debate and, indeed, congratulate the Member for securing it. I am sure that she and others in the Chamber will have heard the jokes and guffaws around the Building today about our debating the issue of poverty in North Down, as if that is somewhere where poverty could not or should not exist. However, we know that poverty does not stop at constituency boundaries. Yes, we have areas, as we have in my constituency, that are considered to be affluent, but, right next door, you have areas of deep deprivation. Therefore, it is right that we have this debate and talk about what we can do to help. I give the firm commitment that I am every bit as keen to make sure that we tackle poverty in North Down as I am to tackling it everywhere else in Northern Ireland. I give my commitment that I will do everything that I can to tackle the issue. We have already done and continue to do many things in the North Down area to help those who are in need. For example, over the past year, the Make the Call outreach team has helped 1,159 people in North Down, securing additional benefits of £6·57 million that they were entitled to. We have secured the winter fuel payment support; the Northern Ireland Housing Executive has invested almost £7 million in 660 homes; £3·25 million of private-sector grants and support has been made available; and there has been £500,000 for projects in 13 neighbourhood renewal areas, £138,000 for independent advice services, £820,000 for labour market partnerships and £135,000 for social supermarkets. I know that there is more to be done and more that we need to do, but that demonstrates that support is going into the North Down constituency, and that will continue. Of course, much more needs to be done to tackle the issue. First, I will pick up on one issue that was raised by most Members who spoke this evening: working families. Members are absolutely right to highlight the fact that many of those who experience the effects of poverty most acutely are in working households. We see that time and time again. I want to stand up and speak up for them, because they are doing the right thing — they are going to work; they are trying to do their best; and they are playing by the rules — but they find time and time again that they miss out on support that is available to others. Understandably, they can say to themselves, "Why am I doing this? Why am I knocking my pan in when I'm actually hurting myself by excluding myself from some of the support that is available?". That is what we need to change, and it is why I have two areas of focus for working families. Top 6.15 pm The first relates to housing. We know the impact that housing can have — the costs of rent and mortgages. We need to do a better job of building more homes and of doing more to address the cost of housing, because we know that it is one of the biggest outgoings for any family. That is why we are taking action and why the housing supply strategy is in place. We have put in place other initiatives, such as using financial transactions capital (FTC) in new and innovative ways through the intermediate rent scheme, which will help people who find themselves stuck because they do not qualify for social housing but cannot afford the rents that we see in the private rented sector. FTC was underutilised; we are using it. We are building more homes, and we are using reduced rent to help people. The social housing development programme is also important, and I am pleased that we are making progress on that. With the budget that was available in June, we were going to be able to build only 1,000 homes across Northern Ireland this year, but, working with my Executive colleagues, after today's announcement, we will be able to build 1,750 homes, which is really close to our target and should be welcomed. The loan to acquire —. I will happily give way to the Member. Ms Egan: Thank you. Everybody in the Chamber wants to see more social homes being built. Do you have the figures? How many of the 1,750 homes will be in our constituency? Mr Lyons: That is still being finalised. We got the extra funding only today, but I will provide that information to the Member when it becomes available. We are trying to do many other things in housing. Over the past 20 months, we have tried many innovative ways of increasing housing supply, and, after discussions with the Finance Minister, I will bring a paper to the Executive about what we can do with public-sector land to increase housebuilding in Northern Ireland. Fuel poverty is the second issue; addressing that could help working families. Huge amounts of money go out to pay for rent or mortgages, and one of the next biggest outgoings is the cost of heating homes. I am pleased to say that the fuel poverty strategy will be with the Executive this month; I look forward to Mr Muir's contribution to the discussion. The strategy will be ambitious, and I will be looking for a significant capital investment in energy efficiency measures in particular because those things could make a real difference. Every year, we spend lots of money on helping people, when we could have helped them earlier and for longer. Changes to the energy efficiency of a home can have a recurring benefit every year. That is where our focus should be, and it is what you will see in the fuel poverty strategy. I will address a couple of the other issues that were raised. The Member who secured the debate expressed some concern about my approach to getting people into work. I acknowledge that many people are in work and still find themselves squeezed financially, and that is why I want to help in the ways that I have just outlined. One reason why I want to make sure that we get more people into work is that it frees up money that we can use to help people in other ways. I have already mentioned the disability and work strategy. That is about getting 50,000 more people into work and bringing the disability employment rate from 40% to 50%, which is the rate in the rest of the UK. That will save £750 million that otherwise would be paid out in benefits or would not come in through National Insurance and income tax payments. That £750 million will go to the Treasury, but think of how that could give working households some of the extra support that we want to see. I am keen to get people into work and to provide support with the additional funding that that frees up. The Member who secured the Adjournment debate also mentioned the need to avoid short-term measures: sticking plasters. That is exactly what has driven me in the development of the anti-poverty strategy. It is not about asking, year by year, what additional mitigations we can put in place or what other help we can give to those who are in need; it is about how we can spend the money sooner and in a better way so that it will have a lasting impact. In 2022, we got extra money because of the rising cost of energy, and we gave the money directly to people. I want to see such money spent earlier on energy efficiency measures to help people who face difficulties with their home every year, rather than their being given one-off support. The anti-poverty strategy is entirely about spending the money that we have earlier and in a better way so that we can achieve longer lasting benefits. The Chair of the Communities Committee said that we need to see a strengthening of the anti-poverty strategy. I am open to that. I am open to any and all measures that will make a lasting and real difference to people. We absolutely need to support people now. We absolutely need to provide immediate support and relief, as we do through discretionary support. However, we need to get real: we need to start doing things that will make a long-term difference. We need to invest rather than just handing out money in that way. That is what I am determined to do, and I will not be found wanting on that. Another issue that was raised by Ms Armstrong was around fraud. She might be getting sick of me saying this, but let me just say that this is not about those who are in need. This is not about those who have made mistakes. This is about people who are misrepresenting their circumstances in order to get money, and, sometimes, we are talking about £30,000 or £40,000 and, in one case, £65,000. That is money that they are not entitled to, so I will happily crack down on fraud and on the error that takes place in my Department. I want that money to go towards helping people who need it most, and I will continue to address that. I will address one more issue, which is around the hardship fund. It is another example of sticking plasters. I want to make sure that we spend that money better as well. One thing that was missing from the debate was the issue of creating wealth. We need to be in the position to do that. We need to make sure that we are generating more in our economy. We need to make sure that we have more productivity in our economy so that we can help people and put that towards those need it. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Minister —. Mr Lyons: You are being very generous. I was thinking for a second there —. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): You are going off tack with another party political broadcast. Mr Lyons: I am sorry. You gave me so much latitude that I thought I had an extra minute because I had given an intervention. My time is up. This is the last debate in this place for the year. I wish you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and everyone here at the Assembly a very merry Christmas. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much. Before we adjourn, I wish everybody a very happy Christmas and a peaceful new year, and, hopefully, I will not see you until the new year. That is particularly what I want. Adjourned at 6.22 pm. Top
[ni-assembly-official-report][plenary_report] Official Reports https://aims.niassembly.gov.uk/officialreport/report.aspx?&eveDate=2025/12/08&docID=462200 Official Report: Monday 08 December 2025 Table of Contents Assembly Business Members Statements Eurovision Song Contest: Israel Droppin Well Bomb: Anniversary Live Life Well-Being Centre and Ballymacash Sports Academy: Kings Award Police Ombudsman: Conduct Nazareth House and St Eugenes Primary Schools: Structural Issues Nazareth House Primary School: Structural Issues Supreme Court Gender Ruling Dying in Poverty in Northern Ireland 2025 Irelands Hidden Heartlands Abortion Slieve Gullion Girlguiding Ulster Private Members Business European Parliament Observer Status Oral Answers to Questions The Executive Office Communities Private Members Business European Parliament Observer Status Traffic Collision Sites: Privacy and Dignity The Assembly met at 12:00 pm (Mr Speaker in the Chair). Members observed two minutes' silence. Assembly Business Mr Speaker: I have received correspondence from the First Minister and the deputy First Minister in relation to my referral to the Executive of the decision of the Minister for the Economy to instruct officials to prepare additional measures to eliminate any risk of public funds being used to support the manufacture of arms or components that are used for genocide. The advice was that no consensus was reached on whether the Minister for the Economy's decision contravenes section 28A(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, as to whether that decision related to a significant or controversial matter, or regarding any actions. I will arrange for a copy of the letter to be placed in the Assembly Library. Members' Statements Eurovision Song Contest: Israel Ms Ennis: While the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) was making its mind up as to whether 20,000 dead Palestinian children was quite enough to remove Israel from the Eurovision Song Contest, Ireland, Spain, Slovenia and the Netherlands acted under the weight of their own conscience and took the morally correct decision to withdraw from Eurovision and not allow themselves to be used to normalise and sanitise Israel and its crimes. It is wholly unconscionable that it has been left to national broadcasters to be the moral compass of the competition in the face of the abject cowardice and hypocrisy shown by the EBU. In 2022, Russia was, rightly, expelled from the competition following the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The EBU said at the time that Russia had brought the contest into disrepute. No such consensus was reached about Israel on the genocide in Gaza. Somehow, the starvation, the mass graves, the 70,000 dead Palestinians — 25,000 of them children — the bombed-out hospitals, the dozens of murdered journalists, the flattened neighbourhoods and the live-streamed horror of a people being annihilated does not bring the contest into disrepute. That death toll continues to rise by an average of seven people a day, despite a ceasefire. We know, because it has been documented, that Israel uses Eurovision as a soft-power tool to sanitise its image and to deflect from its atrocities in Gaza. Eurovision is, essentially, a branding exercise to repackage its apartheid reality as progressive, LGBTQ-friendly, multicultural and fun. When it hosted Eurovision in 2019, Israel erased Palestinians entirely, fined a contestant for holding a Palestinian flag and, much like the Education Minister, showcased illegally occupied territories as Israeli land. Audiences are no longer buying it, however, and broadcasters, artists and viewers across Europe are confronting the obvious fact that Eurovision has become a platform for laundering Israeli state crimes. I read over the weekend that the deputy First Minister thinks that boycotts do not work. Deputy First Minister, they do work, and I am quite sure that Emma Little-Pengelly is familiar with South Africa. If she does not believe me that boycotts work, maybe she will listen to a South African caller to LBC radio on Friday, who, when asked whether boycotts work, said: "The boycotts worked. Every one of us ... knew that we were not accepted ... because our laws and our actions were unacceptable from a global perspective." The withdrawal of the Irish, Spanish, Dutch, Slovenian and now Flemish broadcasters was a human response and an act of resistance, and I call on the BBC to follow their example. If the contest is to survive, we, the fans, need to stop it being used as an apartheid talent show. We cannot be complicit in the cultural artwashing that exists to distract from a genocide that Europe continues to arm, fund, excuse and sanitise. Droppin' Well Bomb: Anniversary Mr Robinson: The date of 6 December is one that is ingrained in my mind, as it was a dark day in my childhood in 1982. However, it was an even darker day for so many other others. It was the date on which evil descended upon the village of Ballykelly, when republican terrorists decided that they would plant a bomb in the Droppin' Well nightclub, killing 17 young people who were having a night out three weeks before Christmas. Protestants and Catholics, the terrorists did not care who they killed. They could not care less who they injured, some with terrible, lifelong injuries. As I said last year, the bombing was an act of evil republican terrorist violence that served no purpose and advanced no cause other than to rob families of loved ones and remove good and decent human beings from this world. While it is a dark date for me from my childhood — I can clearly remember the wail of emergency vehicles — it is an even darker day for those who are left with an empty chair at this time of year and for those who have the mental and physical scars to this day. Again, I thank the Cheshire Regiment Association, which ensures that, every year, those who suffered by the evil that was inflicted upon that village and its people are remembered by an annual solemn event in Tamlaght Finlagan. While others wish to stand on the side of evil and terror, I am always proud to stand, every year, shoulder to shoulder with the innocent to show them that we support them and that we still, and always will, care after the passing of all those years. It truly sickens me to the core that gullible young people are brainwashed to believe that individuals who sneak in and plant a 5 kg bomb in a pillar to bring a roof down upon young people having a night out at Christmastime and who then scurry away are heroes and so-called brave defenders of their bloody, filthy terrorist cause. Let us call it as it is: only murdering psychopaths, blinded by hatred, would do such a thing. Parents and those with responsibility must tell young people that there is nothing to celebrate in terrorism, that it was as wrong then as it is today and that it should never be repeated and can never be justified. I tell that to my child, who is the same age that I was when that dastardly evil was brought on the people of the beautiful and peaceful village of Ballykelly. Live Life Well-Being Centre and Ballymacash Sports Academy: King's Award Mrs Guy: I rise to congratulate two amazing organisations from our community, the Live Life Well-Being Centre and Ballymacash Sports Academy, on being awarded the prestigious King's Award for voluntary service. That is the highest honour that a volunteer-led group can receive in the UK and is often described as the MBE for organisations. To see not one but two groups from our area recognised in that way is an exceptional achievement and a testament to the incredible work that is happening on the ground in Lagan Valley. The Live Life Well-Being Centre's recognition marks an important first because it is the first time that a group of disabled young people has received that award. Live Life director of services, Philip Reain-Adair, recently highlighted the type of contribution that the young people make, which includes knitting hundreds of small woollen hats for neonatal unit at the Belfast Royal Children's Hospital, bucket collecting for local charities, supporting local food banks and providing entertainment to nursing home residents. The dedicated volunteers at Ballymacash Sports Academy show what community-led sports can achieve by giving opportunities to all regardless of age, gender or ability, improving people's mental and physical health. They have demonstrated a genuine commitment to inclusion and are focused on meeting the needs of the local community. What they have built is pretty remarkable and a credit to everyone involved. Commenting on the award, the chairman of Ballymacash Sports Academy, Philip Trimble, said: "This is a tremendous achievement and honour for all of those connected with Ballymacash Sports Academy. From our BRFC coaches to our fantastic craft club members, school and club partnerships, we are simply delighted to have our vision and hard work recognised by His Majesty The King." As an MLA, I have been warmly welcomed by both groups, and I know that their volunteers do what they do not for recognition or applause but because they care and genuinely want to improve the lives of people in our community. It is inspiring and appreciated. Congratulations to you all. Police Ombudsman: Conduct Mr Burrows: I address a matter of immense public interest. There are no outstanding criminal proceedings in relation to this matter. The office of Police Ombudsman is one of the most significant in Northern Ireland. The ombudsman exercises vast powers, is paid a vast salary, has ongoing access to top-secret material, investigates the most serious complaints against police officers and issues legacy reports to this day. Following an incident at Marie Anderson's house on the 22 to 23 September, the West Midlands Police Service conducted a lengthy police investigation. It submitted a file to the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) for the offences of perverting the course of justice and misconduct in public office. On 9 October this year, the PPS determined that there was insufficient evidence to proceed, and Ms Anderson is, as a matter of law, innocent. However, serious questions about conduct remain. Shortly after the incident, the media asked the Department of Justice and the ombudsman organisation whether Ms Anderson had tendered her resignation after the incident. They refused to answer. I can now report that Ms Anderson tendered her resignation on 24 September 2023 at 9.38 pm to the permanent secretary at the Department of Justice. Within one hour, the DOJ permanent secretary had said that the resignation would be parked and no action would be taken. I want to know who was involved in making that decision. Was there any political involvement? Why was such a decision made in such rushed way on a Sunday night? That decision is hugely consequential, because the Police Ombudsman has been, off and on, absent from work for a significant period. There has been much speculation about the inability to suspend the Police Ombudsman, yet there was an opportunity to take that resignation right at the outset of the incident. There are further concerns. There is clear and unchallenged evidence that the Police Ombudsman, during the incident at her home and in the days after, discouraged a member of her own staff from providing a statement to the Police Service about a live criminal investigation and that she divulged confidential information about an ombudsman investigation to a family member, who then confronted a third party with that information. Those are serious issues, which pose serious concerns about the integrity, fitness for office and security clearance of the Police Ombudsman, but we cannot get any answers. Last year, I revealed that there were no powers to suspend an ombudsman, even if they were charged with murder. If they were out on bail, they could walk into their office. Too many people have been asleep at the wheel for too long in relation to the ombudsman's office. I call on the Executive Office and the Justice Minister to urgently clarify the position of the Police Ombudsman and update the House. Nazareth House and St Eugene's Primary Schools: Structural Issues Mr Durkan: I will speak briefly about the severe challenges facing Nazareth House Primary School and St Eugene's Primary School in Derry. Both schools are dealing with unacceptable, unsafe structural issues and huge uncertainty. Our children and families are feeling the impact. Even in the midst of the disruption, the dedication of the staff in both schools has been exceptional. Their professionalism, compassion and resilience are keeping the school communities together. They have adapted at speed, reassured pupils and continued to deliver high-quality learning under immense pressure. I pay sincere tribute to every teacher, classroom assistant, principal and member of support staff, as well as to the wider community, which has rallied to support them. Top 12.15 pm Let me be clear: the roofs did not fall in overnight. Issues had been flagged for almost two decades. If appropriate action had been taken earlier, those crises could — would — have been avoided. Timely investment and appropriate intervention would have spared families, staff and pupils the huge inconvenience and uncertainty that they are now forced to endure. It is beyond time for the Department of Education and the Education Authority (EA) to act decisively to provide immediate and safe learning spaces and to put in place and communicate a firm, funded plan to address long-overdue repairs and rebuilds. While the leaders of those schools ask, "What next?", others who are fighting similar, seemingly endless battles for funding to address similar structural issues will be asking, "Where next?". Without a proper review of and investment in the maintenance of our crumbling school estate, we will see more forced closures of schools and the chaos that comes with that. To the staff of Nazareth House Primary School and St Eugene's Primary School and to all those other schools out there, I say this: thank you. We will continue to stand with you and fight for the facilities and investment that our children deserve. Nazareth House Primary School: Structural Issues Mr Delargy: I will speak on a matter that will come as no shock to Members, because, for around a week, my party has been clear about the situation at Nazareth House Primary School and the fact that children in my constituency are being denied the opportunity to go to school. Last week, I requested an urgent meeting with the Minister of Education. I got a holding response and have received nothing since. Clearly, the Department of Education's definition of "urgent" is different from mine. No proper solutions have been put in place. Temporary use of a community facility for a time-bound period — until only Christmas — for some children, in confined circumstances, does not cut it. It is not the job of the principal, school staff or parents to do the job of the Education Authority or the Department of Education. In the run-up to Christmas, when schools are thriving and children are excited to be in school, it is particularly bad. While many local people have stepped in to provide some facilities, children are still being denied their fundamental right to teaching, learning and a proper education. The situation should come as no surprise to the Department of Education, because a business case for the roof was submitted in 2017. Over eight years on, nothing has happened. For maintenance work, the first of the EA's own criteria prioritises: "Projects that meet inescapable statutory requirements such as health and safety, fire protection and statutory obligations under the Disability Discrimination Act", yet a recent report by the Public Accounts Committee, on which I sit, showed clearly that there has been poor prioritisation by the Education Authority, and I can think of no clearer example than Nazareth House. In Derry, within a mile of each other, there is one school whose roof has collapsed and another that has had to close because its roof is about to collapse. That will not be lost on the people of Derry, particularly when, in the past year, another school in Derry received a fourth pitch despite not having made a bid for it and despite already being awash with other sporting facilities. The people of Derry have been failed by successive DUP Education Ministers. The work should be a ministerial priority. The Minister should meet us, as local elected representatives, and go to Derry to meet school leaders and to give parents answers and certainty about what happens next for the children of Nazareth House Primary School. Supreme Court Gender Ruling Mr Buckley: On 16 April 2025, For Women Scotland secured a landmark victory for common sense and for women across the United Kingdom. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the word "woman" in the Equality Act 2010 refers to biological sex and does not include men who self-identify as women. It concluded that basic terms such as "man" and "woman" are defined by biological sex, not by someone's preferred gender. That has meant a great deal to women in protecting their personal space, their sport and their safety. It is not hard, Mr Speaker. It has never been hard for the vast majority of our common-sense constituents. They know, despite First Minister Michelle O'Neill not knowing, that men should never be able to enter female toilets, that men should never be allowed to compete in women-only sports and that men self-identifying as women should never be able to compromise the privacy rights of biological females. We thought that, finally, balance was being restored, only to find out in the past week that that common-sense ruling is being challenged by those with ulterior motives. In order to undermine that historic ruling, the argument is that a biological man can somehow magically become a female while on a ferry from Stranraer to Larne. It is literally ridiculous. I have heard of seasickness, but promoting such a narrative really is sick indeed. It is none other than the chief defender of woke causes in Northern Ireland — the Equality Commission — that is taking the case. It is attempting to claim that the Windsor framework's article 2 rights have supremacy over our Supreme Court's ruling. Guess who is paying, Members? The taxpayer. Make no mistake: this has come about as a result of weak, far-left lily-livered politicians in this place from parties such as Sinn Féin, the SDLP and the Alliance Party, who cannot state basic facts such as that a man is a man and a woman is a woman. It will have consequences. The voters are no fools. They understand what is means to be a man and a woman, and it is high time that Members in the Chamber caught on too. 'Dying in Poverty in Northern Ireland 2025' Mr Donnelly: I draw attention today to the findings of Marie Curie's report entitled 'Dying in Poverty in Northern Ireland 2025'. I recently attended and took part in a discussion on the report launch with the Marie Curie team. It was an incredibly powerful event that highlighted the desperate and inhumane situations that those in their final days face at a time when they need the most support. No one deserves to die in poverty. The report sets out a stark and deeply troubling reality for people in Northern Ireland and discusses the rise in poverty, specifically fuel poverty, for those at the end of life. Dying in poverty is not inevitable, but, for too many people, it has become their expected reality. The testimonies in the report make for harrowing reading. Extremely sick people have been forced to choose between heat and food, using credit cards to keep the lights on while undergoing chemotherapy. Individuals too unwell to work have been forced to because they lack the income that they need to survive. Those stories highlight a deeply inhumane crisis affecting people when they are at their most vulnerable. The report states that being in the last year of life is a significant risk factor for falling into poverty, and the rates are getting worse: 20% of people in their last year of life are estimated to be in poverty, rising to 27% if we look at fuel poverty specifically. Council areas in Northern Ireland such as Derry City and Strabane; Belfast; Newry, Mourne and Down; and Causeway Coast and Glens are in the top 20 in the UK for the highest fuel poverty rates during the last year of life. We need to recognise that rising levels of poverty at the end of life do not occur in isolation; they mirror structural inequalities that have gone unaddressed for too long, including gaps in income support, limited access to specialist palliative care services and the absence of coordinated planning across Departments. People receive support only when they reach crisis point or, in some cases, not at all. A more coherent approach, grounded in early intervention, predictable financial assistance and reliable data-sharing, would reduce hardship and strengthen public confidence that government is willing to meet its responsibilities to those who are least able to navigate complex systems at a time of profound vulnerability. Marie Curie has set out recommendations, such as better identification and information-sharing to ensure that people with a terminal illness are reached quickly with support; a minimum income guarantee that includes early access to the state pension for those of working age and reforms to income support; and measures to address energy costs and to support the most vulnerable in our society in their final days. The report makes it clear that it is an issue for all levels of government, including the Assembly. People in the last year of life deserve security and dignity, not financial crisis. The evidence that Marie Curie has presented demands a serious and coordinated response, and I urge the Executive and all parties to give the recommendations the consideration that they deserve. Ireland's Hidden Heartlands Miss Dolan: I welcome the announcement by the Economy Minister, Caoimhe Archibald, that the Ireland's Hidden Heartlands tourism branding will be extended into Fermanagh. It is incredibly positive news for our county. The Hidden Heartlands initiative has been a major success only a few miles down the road, drawing visitors, investment and new opportunities. Its expansion into Fermanagh will provide a real boost for our local tourism and hospitality sectors. We are blessed with world-class attractions from Belleek Pottery to the Stairway to Heaven and the stunning waters of Lough Erne. The branding extension gives us the platform to showcase all that we have to offer. At a time when the all-island economy continues to strengthen, it is only sensible that we work together to unlock the full potential of tourism across our island. The campaign is set to begin next year, and I have no doubt that it will attract more visitors to Fermanagh, support jobs and grow our local economy. I also commend Minister Caoimhe Archibald for her leadership and steadfast commitment to driving that exciting project forward since taking up office. Abortion Mr Harvey: As we move towards Christmas and the focus of many turns to the Christmas story of the Christ child of Bethlehem's manger, I pause to remember the many babes conceived in recent months whose lives have been cut short as a result of the practice of abortion. I was saddened to see that, between April 2024 and March 2025, some 2,899 abortions were carried out in Northern Ireland, legislated for by the previous Westminster Government through the Abortion (Northern Ireland) (No. 2) Regulations 2020. This year's figure represented an increase of 3·7% on the 2023-24 reporting period, which equated to 2,795 souls. In total, 11,192 abortions have been carried out in Northern Ireland since the new legislation came into effect and to the period ending 31 March 2025. For me, my party and countless thousands across Northern Ireland, that figure represents a mark of collective shame on our society. There are, of course, instances where compassion and medical necessity require such a course of action, but the overwhelming majority of the 2,899 abortions conducted over the past reported year were actions of convenience in which the life of the unborn was unvalued by the individuals involved and, sadly, is now unprotected by the law of the land. The current legislative framework is far more expansive than the people of Northern Ireland were ever consulted on or wanted. The 2020 regulations were an example of how not to do government. Imposed, as it was, over the heads of democratically elected representatives in this House, it stands as the gravest of warnings to those who would advocate the virtues of London rule in preference to devolution. The injustice of that legislation, which is the most liberal to be found across these islands, continues to be an issue that those of us on these Benches will highlight and fight to overthrow. It is often stated in the discourse around the subject that both lives matter. Every life carries inherent dignity and worth. Human rights belong to everyone equally and without exception or, at least, they should. Slieve Gullion Ms Finnegan: I rise to speak about something that matters deeply to the people of south Armagh. I will say it plainly so that there is no confusion: for the first time in over 6,000 years, the South Cairn on the summit of Slieve Gullion is closed. It is the highest surviving Neolithic passage tomb in Ireland, older than the Pyramids, aligned with the winter solstice and a place where families, walkers, tourists and schoolchildren have gathered for generations to witness sunlight travel through a stone chamber that was hand-built by our ancestors. However, this winter, for the first time in its history, they will meet a locked gate. Top 12.30 pm The Department for Communities closed the South Cairn due to safety concerns. No one disputes that safety matters, but it was closed without funding being in place to fix the issues, a clear plan or a timeline for reopening. That is the core of the problem. A monument that has survived invasion, weather, famine, plantation and conflict now has access to it stalled by bureaucracy. That tells us something that many in south Armagh already know all too well: too often, heritage is the first to be restricted and the last to be prioritised. The mountain is not geography; it is identity, memory and story. Tradition tells us that St Oliver Plunkett, Primate of All Ireland, once hid in that cairn, sheltered by the people of south Armagh, as the Crown hunted and sought to arrest him. A community that risked itself to protect its faith and culture now stands behind a fence at the very site that it safeguarded. That history of resistance, endurance and defiance is written into the stone of Gullion. It is who we are. Yet, despite its importance, tourism and cultural value and international archaeological significance, our council area does not even carry the name south Armagh. We sit inside the Newry, Mourne and Down District Council, even though south Armagh makes up more than one third of the district. Slieve Gullion is routinely marketed under the Visit Mourne brand, despite its not being in the Mourne region. Slieve Gullion is in south Armagh, which is a region of unique heritage, mythology, language, landscape and creative energy, and we deserve to be recognised, respected and invested in. Our people should not be locked out of their own history, and our children should not grow up being told that their identity is the footnote to someone else's brand. We want transparency, clarity and a commitment to reopen access to the South Cairn, not some day or when budgets appear, but with purpose, because heritage delayed is heritage denied. As a wise woman once said, we are women of south Armagh; born of granite, we endure. We will keep speaking up for that place, the mountain and the story until the cairn, Cailleach Berra’s house, is reopened. Mr Speaker: I call Kate Nicholl. I ask that you confine your remarks to two minutes. Girlguiding Ulster Ms Nicholl: Yes, thank you, Mr Speaker. If anyone is feeling a bit low about politics and needs a dose of inspiration, I have the answer. At the end of November, I had the privilege of meeting with Girlguiding Ulster in Parliament Buildings. I was grilled by them to a level of which no journalist would be capable. It was wonderful to spend time with those young women and talk about the Girls’ Attitudes Survey. This year, the 17th year of the survey, they surveyed over 2,500 girls and young women aged between seven and 21 to hear about the challenges that girls and young women right across the UK face. The survey highlights a lot of the challenges, including key concerns around sexism, misogyny in schools and challenges to mental health. It found: "In the past year, 68% of girls have changed their everyday behaviour to avoid sexual harassment." It also found: "More than 1 in 4 young girls feel sad most days or every day compared to 1 in 10 in 2015." It also found that 36% of 11 to 21-year-olds say that they feel depressed after spending time on social media. Those are sobering and powerful statistics. Even more powerful is the hope and optimism in the survey report, and the action that Girlguiding is taking to turn those statistics around. The survey found: "More than 2 in 3 supported another girl who may have experienced sexism or misogyny." It also found: "80% of girls and young women aged 7-21 agree that ‘being outdoors and in nature helps me to feel happy’." Of the respondents, 72% said that they want more of those opportunities. Another finding was: "Almost two-thirds ... of girls and young women aged 7-21 want to be leaders in their chosen job, compared to 53% in 2018." I encourage all Members to read the report, engage with young people and, together, take the action that is required to support all young people in our society to develop, grow and flourish. Private Members' Business European Parliament Observer Status Mr Speaker: I inform Members that a valid petition of concern (POC) has been presented today in relation to the motion. The debate can still proceed, as can the vote on the amendment, which has not been petitioned and, therefore, requires a simple majority. However, the vote on the motion, whether it is amended or not, will not be taken today, as section 42 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 requires that there must now be a 14-day consideration period. The consideration period for this petition ends on 21 December 2025. Following that, on 22 December only, the petition may be confirmed. If the petition is confirmed by 30 Members on that day, the vote on the motion, whether or not amended, will require cross-community support. If it is not confirmed by 30 Members, the vote will require simple majority support. In either case, the vote will not take place until a date after 22 December. Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker: I will take points of order in a moment. Ms Ferguson: I beg to move That this Assembly recalls that the majority of people here voted to remain in the European Union; acknowledges that our long-term future would be best served by rejoining the European Union; recognises the democratic deficit as a result of Brexit; supports the request made by Irish MEPs in a recent letter to the President of the European Parliament for observer status in the European Parliament for our locally elected political representatives; and agrees to write to the European Parliament to express the Assembly’s position with regards to the observer status. Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting my point of order, which is pursuant to the ruling that you just gave us on the petition of concern. What import does a petition of concern have on what is a non-binding private Member's motion? Further, will you confirm that, even if the petition of concern were successful after the cooling-off period, it would not negative an almost verbatim motion that was moved by the official Opposition some months ago and that was not the subject of a petition of concern by any party? Will you provide clarity on those two points? Mr Speaker: The petition of concern will apply to only the motion that is before us. It is a valid petition of concern that can be presented. I explained the new rules that apply — because we have not had a petition of concern in about 10 years: there is to be a period of 14 days before it can be reconfirmed; after that reconfirmation, we can organise to have a vote on it; if it is not reconfirmed, it will be a simple majority vote. The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. An amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List, so the Business Committee has agree to add 15 minutes to the total time for the debate. Please open the debate on the motion, Ms Ferguson. Ms Ferguson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The motion goes to the very heart of the unique position of the North of Ireland as a region that remains in the EU single market and where over one third of our people retain European citizenship as Irish passport holders and where that birthright is enshrined through our peace agreement. The motion seeks, once again, to address the democratic deficit that Brexit created and give us a stronger voice in Europe. No one has anything to fear from that. Almost a decade ago, the majority of our citizens voted to remain within the European Union, recognising the significant social and economic benefits to our island as a whole. Those benefits include, but are not limited to, receipt of significant funding towards peace and regional development; enablement of free movement and educational opportunities for workers and students; protection of international human rights agreements; and unfettered trade. Whilst Britain ignored our democratic mandate, our Derry-based MEP at the time, Martina Anderson, got to work, carrying out a dedicated campaign alongside the wider all-Ireland Sinn Féin MEP team. That campaign fought to secure key commitments on no diminution of hard-won rights and protections as outlined in the Good Friday Agreement. The call from the Sinn Féin team in the wake of Brexit was for EU observer status for elected representatives from the North, something that the majority of Irish MEPs has now endorsed and that, I believe, the Assembly would also endorse. Notably, as of 2022, over one third of this region's population had an Irish passport, and, therefore, Irish and European citizenship. That birthright is protected in the Good Friday Agreement, an international treaty registered with the United Nations, the provisions of which are binding under international law. Article 3 of the Treaty on the European Union confirms that the European Union shall: "contribute to the protection of its citizens." I make the case clearly today that offering observer status to our locally elected representatives will assist in upholding that duty and protecting our peace process. EU observer status enables a formal but limited form of voice and participation in Europe that includes attendance at plenary sessions and the strengthening of lines of communication. It is a practical and constructive step that we can take to strengthen our voice on the European stage. I am confident that the public see the DUP petition of concern for what it is: a political stunt that, like the DUP's position on Brexit, is not representative of the views of the majority of people in the North and on this island, who oppose Brexit and want us to return to the EU. Only two weeks ago, DUP Members bemoaned the fact that there is a democratic deficit and a lack of representation for people here on Brexit and trading arrangements. It is therefore, in my opinion, hypocritical of DUP Members to attempt to block the motion and its practical call to give our communities greater representation. As a Derry-based MLA, I am only too aware of the continued impacts of Brexit, which are particularly felt in border constituencies such as mine, on students, workers and the wider community. Those impacts include the continued risk to so many voluntary and community sector jobs and life-saving projects that, without adequate replacement of the funding from Europe that has been lost, will disappear. It is our families, people and communities who will suffer. I will give one example of the ridiculous implications of Brexit. Some of our councillors recently met the North West Academy of English, which, through ERASMUS, has always hosted European students in Derry. Due to electronic travel authorisation (ETA) regulations, those students now have to stay in Donegal, limiting the potential for tourism and cultural enrichment in Derry city. The context is this: if an MEP were to try to meet students at the North West Academy of English, which is based in Derry, they would not be able to meet them there. Additionally, vital projects are funded by the European PEACE PLUS programme, including the Cooperation and Working Together (CAWT) cross-border health and social care partnership, representatives of which I met last week. It was set up to improve all-Ireland health outcomes, yet concerns exist about its continuing post 2028. Derry, Donegal and other border counties have benefited enormously from that fund. It has, quite literally, transformed communities across the region. Whilst we know that, in the event of Irish reunification, automatic re-entry to the European Union is guaranteed, we have a duty in the interim to enhance all-Ireland mobility, to provide businesses and workers with stability and trade continuity and to mitigate the very worst excesses of Britain's failed agenda on Ireland and its people, which include risks to health outcomes and vital support services for some of our most vulnerable people. Additionally, we support the call for the opening of an EU Commission office in Belfast. Such an official local presence will help to support our position, which has been recognised to be unique, offering an enhanced communication channel and better support for people and small businesses that have been left bewildered. I will finish with this: we were dragged out of Europe against our wishes, and nothing has come from Brexit for our economy and our people. There are huge opportunities ahead to continue to build momentum for a stronger and fairer Ireland and to realise our full potential as an island and a people. In the interim, in recognition of our unique, at present, position as a region, the fulfilment of observer status is a reasonable, sensible and practical step forward. Mr O'Toole: I beg to move the following amendment: At end insert: "and its support for the establishment of a European Commission office in Belfast." Mr Speaker: You will have 10 minutes in which to propose the amendment and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members will have five minutes. Please open the debate on the amendment. Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am pleased to speak to the motion, with which we enthusiastically agree. We are so much in agreement with it that we pre-empted it by six months by putting down basically the same motion, albeit today's motion is updated with the reference to a letter calling for observer status — Sinn Féin MEPs had a part in that — which I strongly welcome. We, obviously, have engaged with our Irish MEPs on that. Top 12.45 pm I will not hold it up, because I know that we are not supposed to brandish props, but, in front of me, I have a paper that we produced a year ago called 'Our European Future'. In it, we in the SDLP set out in detail our vision for our European future in the short term, meaning how we will achieve the like of European Parliament observer status in order to improve our responses to some of the questions and dilemmas that people have raised about our post-Brexit arrangements and to build for a European future back inside the European Union. To be clear, those who are not in favour of our rejoining the European Union via a new Ireland should be, because they have said repeatedly, "You should be in favour of us addressing some of the issues to do with the democratic deficit that have arisen as a result of our being bound by a corpus of EU law on the single market for goods and a couple of other discrete areas". One does not guarantee the other, but we are clear that our vision is for a new Ireland that is back inside the European Union. (Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair) We are also clear that the only way for Northern Ireland to rejoin the European Union is via a new Ireland. That is because we have the unique right of automatic re-entry. It is also because British politics looks strikingly and infinitesimally unlikely to move in the direction of a full-blown rejoining of the European Union, even if, although I hope it that does, there is progress towards greater alignment and membership of the single market and the customs union. Even that currently looks unlikely. Therefore, having moved an almost identical motion six months ago, I am more than happy to support this one. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, so, obviously, we are keen and delighted to debate this motion today. I am, however, slightly surprised at the DUP pulling the stunt today of tabling a petition of concern on a non-binding motion when it did not do so six months ago on our motion. Even if the petition of concern is successful after a cooling-off period, not only will it have no effect, because it is giving an indication of the Assembly's will, but it will not matter, because the Assembly voted in favour of the topic only six months ago. The DUP did not table a petition of concern then. This is about two things: first, Sinn Féin imitating our policy, which I am happy about — it has been happening for years, we are flattered by it and that is grand; we are all on the same page on that — and, secondly, the absurdity of the DUP tabling a petition of concern on a motion that is not only non-binding but that has already been given the will of the Assembly. Regardless of whether you like it or not, a majority of Members has already supported the thrust of the motion. Mr Givan: Will the Member give way? Mr O'Toole: I will give way to the Education Minister in one minute. Further to what I was saying, the majority of the people of Northern Ireland voted for us to remain. I will come back to that point, because it is germane to our amendment. I give way. Mr Givan: Obviously, I am not intervening as Education Minister, hence my sitting on these Benches for the debate. He makes a valid point and asks a valid question about the SDLP motion that was tabled around six months ago. For the record, the DUP does not have within its gift the ability to secure a petition of concern. I welcome those in the Ulster Unionist Party and the TUV who joined the DUP in securing the petition of concern. The Member has talked a lot about majoritarianism. [Interruption.] He ought to know that we operate on consensus, and nationalists, along with Alliance, need to realise that cross-community consensus is the way forward, which will not be to the exclusion of unionists in the House. Mr O'Toole: He has made a —. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sorry, but I advise Members that if they take an intervention, it is up to the Member who intervened to decide when the intervention has ended, and, when Members make an intervention, it needs to be short. Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. That was not a short intervention. Clearly nothing is happening in the Northern Ireland education system if the Education Minister can afford to come in here to debate our European motion. That is fine. I will respond, because I believe in responding in debates. There were two points from the Education Minister. He said that this place proceeds on "consensus". It proceeds on the basis of our having inclusive, pluralist government respect for one another. It does not proceed on the basis that our constitutional future is decided by cross-community consensus. That would not work, because, right now, we are still part of the UK. I do not consent to that, because I want a new Ireland. That is not how the Good Friday Agreement or, indeed, the St Andrews Agreement works, so that is a factual fallacy that pro-Brexit politicians have constantly pushed. To come back to the point, a majority of people in Northern Ireland supported us, that is, the UK, remaining part of the EU. We were dragged out against our will. I will not go through all that history, but it is why I am a politician here, and I am sure that the DUP is delighted by that. Our best future is not in the UK as it is currently constituted but in a new Ireland inside the EU, and I will relentlessly make that case. However, in the here and now, — as Ciara Ferguson said — there are a number of specific reasons why Northern Ireland deserves and should have EU observer status. First, as noted in the ‘Our European Future’ paper, we are distinct within the EU. First, by dint of birthright, even before Brexit, the protocol, the awful Windsor framework and all the stuff that the Members opposite hate so much, people here had an automatic right of citizenship in this part of Ireland. In fact, I should say in this part of the UK, because it is the only part of the UK where people, by birthright, have EU citizenship. My second point is consistently made by the DUP members opposite: we are bound by EU law. They keep telling us about how we are bound by EU law, and how awful that is, specifically in relation to goods. While I do not think that it is awful, by all means, we need the opportunity to scrutinise, lobby and test, and what better opportunity could we have than through observer status? The best thing that we could have is full-blown EU membership via a new Ireland. They do not want to go there. That is fair enough — it is their position — but EU observer status in the new Parliament would at least give us that opportunity —. Mr Frew: It is servile. Mr O'Toole: Members across the Chamber say, "It is servile", as if we want to be in the service of the EU. Those are the same people who, last week, moaned and groaned about everything that the UK Government were doing to them — "the awful British Government that forced an awful Budget on us. Isn't it terrible, but we have to stay inside the UK as it is currently constituted.". It is the worst thing in the world to even talk about leaving the UK. They are silent now, because it is awful for me to aspire to rejoining the EU, and a united Ireland would have exactly the same vote at the European Council as every other EU member state, but we have to stay in the UK as it is currently constituted, where we, in the Chamber, can huff and puff about how much we hate the UK's Budget but can do very little about it. That is their preference, not mine. They can answer for it. Mr Frew laughs. He laughs because his position is indefensible. Let us go back to the main thrust of the motion and the amendment: better representation for Northern Ireland's farmers and businesses on how EU law affects us. Why not? Even if you are a unionist, that makes sense. The final point is that I aspire to full membership of the European Union, and I acknowledge that unionists do not. We are guaranteed automatic re-entry into the EU after a referendum on a new Ireland; that is guaranteed to the people of Northern Ireland. We can take that power into our hands, and that is unique. The people of Scotland cannot do that, and Ukraine, which has been bombarded by Vladimir Putin, does not have that power, and many of those people want to join the EU. That right is not automatic. The only place where it is automatic is right here. Therefore, for all those reasons, we have specific rights. Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way? Mr O'Toole: I will not give way because your colleague's intervention took up so much time that I do not have enough time. Specifically, in the here and now — I am very flattered to debate a very similar motion to the one that stood in my name a few months ago — our amendment adds something very practical: a European Commission office. What could be wrong with that? I want business groups, farmers and others who are affected by the consequences of Brexit to be able to say to the European Commission, "Actually, lads, can we engage on how that is being implemented? Can we have a bit of a conversation about that?" A European Commission office in Belfast would not jeopardise anybody's constitutional position; it would be rational and it would be a protection. The Members opposite are not fans of this UK Government; they do not seem to be fans of any UK Government, which is ironic, because they do not want us to leave the UK. The position of the DUP appears to be that — Mr Burrows: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Mr O'Toole: Point of order? Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Point of order. Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way? Mr O'Toole: No, I will not give way. If the Education Minister had not pushed his luck in taking so much time, I would be able to give way to more people. The best future for Northern Ireland is in a new Ireland, back inside the EU. The SDLP is the most consistently pro-European party in the Chamber and will keep making that case. I welcome today's motion, and we have added our amendment to it, which seeks to support an European Commission office in Belfast. I only wish that the DUP would finally face up to the consequences of its actions, the consequences of the Brexit that it supported and the consequences of everything that it has done over the past decade. We are looking for practical solutions to improve things for people in the here and now, and that could include EU observer status in the European Parliament and, yes, a European Commission office in Belfast. In the future, I want us to be back in the European Union, and there is no reason why we cannot have better representation and accountability in the here and now. I support the motion and commend our amendment to the Assembly. Mr Buckley: Today's motion is but yet another attempt to rewrite the Brexit referendum. It is as if Christmas has come early for the European Union. The motion is a present that is wrapped in sparkling Sinn Féin wrapping paper, because it is viewed through the lens of a united Ireland and through the lens of majoritarianism. It will come as no surprise that the Alliance Party is falling in behind that type of proposal. The party has been on record as doing just that in many votes in the Assembly. The approach of the leader of the Opposition, Mr O'Toole, is reminiscent of that of the spoilt, crying toddler on Christmas evening who has lost his Christmas present to a cousin. He has moaned and groaned during the debate so far because other people have the same opinion as him, but — guess what? — no unionist will support the motion today. Unionists did not support such a motion when he brought one to the House, and they will not support Sinn Féin's motion today. That goes to the very heart of why a petition of concern was tabled today. We want to talk about democratic deficits. That term was alien to those on the Benches opposite from the very genesis of the Brexit negotiations. They did not want to admit that a problem existed. They wanted hard and radical forms of protocols that would damage our businesses and destroy industry. Rigorous implementation has been mentioned. That is the approach that they adopted time and time again, but the white rabbit has now been pulled out of the hat: having observer-status MEPs will sort it all out. Sinn Féin is rather used to being an observer when it comes to parliamentary debate. Observer status is something that comes quite naturally to its MPs. In fact, observer-status MEPs would have more legitimacy than its current MPs at Westminster. Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. Is it not a bit rich for Sinn Féin to have tabled such a motion, which is divisive and couched in the language of majoritarianism, when it does not even take its seats at Westminster? Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute. Mr Buckley: The Member makes a valid point, because, and let us get real, the motion is about misrepresenting views in Northern Ireland. Yes, some constituencies in Northern Ireland voted to remain, but some voted to leave. That was part of the democratic vote. For people to try to rewrite the outcome of the vote here time and time again further undermines trust in these institutions and, indeed, in democracy right across the United Kingdom. I have not heard one single time when Members on the Benches opposite have been prepared to acknowledge the huge hurt that the Windsor framework and other agreements have caused to our businesses. We import some £16 billion worth of goods from GB. Full customs codes are applied, courtesy of the Alliance Party, the SDLP and Sinn Féin. We import £7 billion from the EU, yet we are hammered with bureaucracy because of the arrangements that those parties have tried to impose on the people of Northern Ireland. Observer-status MEPs have no right to vote. They therefore have no right to influence the vote. You are so keen to talk about the issue, yet when 300 areas of law came before the Assembly, resulting in six hours of debate, the vast majority of you did not even speak. You come here, however, to howl in the wind about observer-status MEPs. It is utter hypocrisy. The DUP tabled the petition of concern for very legitimate reasons. There is a serious attempt, via the motion, to misrepresent the views of the House, just as they were misrepresented by the EU when cross-community voting in this place was discarded to serve its agenda. It is happening again. It was therefore right to table the petition of concern, which will stop the vote, and I pay tribute to the UUP Members and the TUV Member who signed the petition, because it is important that we ensure that those institutions that are foreign to this one understand that there is no democratic legitimacy to the arrangements that they have put in place. There is no support from one single elected unionist in this place, so it is entirely legitimate for us to use such a mechanism, and we will ensure that the voice of unionism is represented. Top 1.00 pm I want to see the issues resolved. I want to see the democratic deficit reduced. The way to do it is through votes in this place. Mr O'Toole had no care or concern when over 300 areas of law went through. He spoke for a pitiful 10 minutes on 300 areas of law, yet he wants to throw his toys out of the pram because Sinn Féin stole his motion today. Utter hypocrisy. Businesses know exactly that Mr O'Toole is all about sound bites. He is all about trying to throw around his EU credentials. Mr O'Toole was at the heart of the Downing Street team when these things were being talked about. He has been very quiet about his time there. I mean —. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Excuse me. Can you get back to the substance of the motion, please? Mr Buckley: Absolutely. I will, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. It is rich from the SDLP. We have seen again and again the nationalist front of the Alliance Party, propped up by the SDLP and Sinn Féin — Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up. Mr Buckley: — bringing motions that do not — Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up. Mr Buckley: — bear out reality. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up. Mr Buckley: We will vote against. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up. Time is up. I just want to give Members a wee warning. When I say, "Time is up", time is up, OK? It is just courtesy. [Interruption.] Yes, good courtesy. It is also courtesy, when you are talking, to talk through the Chair and not point at other Members. I am just reminding everyone of that. [Interruption.] Yes. OK. Much appreciated. I do not need you to agree; I am just telling you how it is. I call Stewart Dickson. Mr Dickson: Thank you very much, Principal Deputy Speaker. Maybe we will try to calm things down after the foot-stamping, screaming and shouting that we have just had. The Alliance Party will support the motion today, but, before anything else, let me be clear about what the motion is and is not about. This is not a constitutional matter. Nothing in the motion alters the principle of consent or our status within the United Kingdom. What is before us today is how Northern Ireland secures a level of listening and input into processes that already shape parts of our economy by being able to simply observe. That is not a threat to anyone's identity. It is all about good governance, and it really does beg this question: why do the DUP and their colleagues in the UUP want to use a petition of concern on something that is just as easy as our ability to observe? Our economy, supply chains and regulatory environment remain closely connected to the EU single market. That was the practical outcome of Brexit and the arrangements required to protect the unique circumstances of this region. The Windsor framework and the withdrawal agreement are how those issues are managed on a day-to-day reality. We have an Executive office in Brussels: I hear no calls to have it closed at the same time as there is refusal to have an EU office in Belfast. Those evolving arrangements have created a democratic deficit whereby we continue to be affected by EU law but no longer have a say in the institutions where that law is shaped. We are not on that Commission, and our voice is not heard in the committees that make consequential decisions. We no longer elect Members to the European Parliament. The idea of observer status in the European Parliament speaks to a real desire for Northern Ireland to be seen and heard within the EU's democratic institutions. We need our listening ear and want our perspective in the room, and that is why the Alliance Party supports the motion and the amendment. Until we return to the EU — I am passionate about that and believe that we will return one day — it is important that we continue to have engagement. Observer status is far short of where I and the Alliance Party want to be in Europe. We are proud Europeans. Today's motion is about what might be possible and focuses on what could make progress for us right now. Let us look at the reality. Observer status is reserved for countries in the accession process and has never been offered to a region or third country. Creating a unique category for Northern Ireland would set a precedent for others, with far closer ties to the EU. There is no intention or indication that the European Parliament is considering such a move, and, even if it changed, it would almost certainly require UK Government initiation and European Parliament agreement. However, that does not mean that we should stop aspiring to have those close ties; it simply means that we should put energy into trying to push open a door that is currently closed. If we are serious about addressing the democratic deficit, we need to walk through the doors that are already open to us and work to widen them. One such door is the EU-UK Parliamentary Partnership Assembly (PPA). It is not only the formal forum where MPs, Lords and MEPs meet to scrutinise how the post-Brexit relationship is functioning but —. Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way? Mr Dickson: No, I want to get through. Northern Ireland already has observer status in the PPA, which is a useful starting point, but there is a catch: the PPA is permitted to discuss only the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, yet so much of what matters to us around the Windsor framework and the practicalities of trade regulation and market access falls under the auspices of the separate withdrawal agreement. Therefore, it makes little sense to keep those issues in silos; in fact, in 2021, the European Parliament suggested that the PPA should oversee both agreements. Let us push for that. Let us get the Windsor framework properly on the PPA's agenda. That would give us a regular, structured opportunity to raise concerns directly with MEPs at the stage when influence is still possible. We can also take other practical steps. The people whom we represent deserve politics that engage seriously with the world as it is. They deserve influence, clarity and a seat at the table — Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up. Mr Dickson: — where it counts. Dr Aiken: The Ulster Unionist Party opposes this unconstitutional motion and the amendment. I shall outline our reasons for doing so. There is no doubt that the decision by all the people of the United Kingdom to leave the European Union has had far-ranging and highly disruptive consequences not only here but across Europe. The predictions of slower growth, loss of global influence, the undermining of our existing treaties and the potential large-scale impact on Northern Ireland and our unique position, as laid out by the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, that our party made as part of our case to remain — the only unionist party to have done so — have been borne out. Indeed, we are on the record as saying that our wish was for the United Kingdom to stay and give leadership to Europe, as we all faced the multiple challenges of Putin's war in Europe, the growth of China and an increasingly disengaged United States. Rather than it being the best of both worlds, with the UK-USA tariff agreement, the EU single market and the UK internal market, even the most myopic can see that we are suffering the worst of at least two of those three worlds. Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way? Dr Aiken: No. The unattainable chimera of EU observer status will not change that. We already have a report before us from Lord Murphy that makes it clear that we need to beef up our capacity, including giving more staff to the Northern Ireland Office in Brussels, our Departments and the Assembly. The Ulster Unionist Party made those recommendations on page 16 of his report. If we act on those, we would at least improve awareness and be able to try to intervene earlier. The motion calls for us to apply for accession state observer status in the EU, because, bizarrely, some believe that a united Ireland within the next few years is credible or even possible. That is precisely what the motion implies. As a party, however, we welcome moves by our Government to develop ever-closer relationships with the European Union, not because we believe that we are heading back to full EU membership — that is not going to happen — but primarily because we need to deal with the absurdity of the self-imposed Irish Sea border. On the back of the actions of those who would rather rigorously implement decisions that most other EU nations privately ignore, that border is increasingly morphing into a trade, regulation, sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS), digital and, should the ridiculous idea of digital ID cards come to fruition, identity border. However, the motion does not seek to address those issues. It is a farcical attempt by Sinn Féin to undermine the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement and further the united Ireland agenda. As the Connolly House drafters know full well, the EU is very legalistic. The European Parliament observer status is granted only to accession states. That rule is clearly laid out in rule 13 of the rules of procedure of the European Parliament. The Irish MEPs made a particularly clumsy attempt to have the EU follow on behind in recognising that the constitutional settlement of the United Kingdom should be changed. This will come as no surprise, but, on the basis of a calculation made in Brussels between keeping the most capable military power in Europe engaged in European security or throwing a Bonio to the biggest freeloaders and tax evaders on the continent, that is not going to happen. The motion and the amendment are, therefore, a farce. We will not support them in any way, and neither should any party that believes in the peace settlement that was laid out in 1998. Unconstitutional and majoritarian stunts will achieve absolutely nothing — not here, not in London and definitely not in Brussels. Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way? Dr Aiken: No. I have just finished my remarks. Mr Delargy: The majority of people in the North voted to remain in the European Union. That democratic choice was overturned, and our communities have been living with the consequences ever since. The loss of EU programmes, reduced study and work opportunities and weakened international links have had a real and lasting impact on an entire generation who see themselves as European and want the same freedoms as their peers across the continent. This is about young people who have lost access to ERASMUS. Although an alternative has been put in place, we are continuing to punish all generations for a decision that the majority of people in the North voted against. Restoring access to study, work, cultural exchange and mobility across Europe must be a priority. Our young people deserve nothing less. Despite those challenges, our economy has shown resilience. The Windsor framework has protected our unique dual market access. Businesses here retain the ability to trade freely with the EU and Britain, an advantage that no other region enjoys. That access is drawing investment, supporting jobs and giving firms confidence about the future. If we look at NISRA figures from 2023, we see that sales between the North and Britain rose in that year by 12·4%. Similarly, purchases between the North and Britain rose by 16·2% in that time. When we look back as far as 2001, we see that cross-border trade then was valued at £1·9 billion, and it was at a similar level in 2015. However, that has grown dramatically since the Windsor framework regulations were put in place. In 2022, that trade was valued at over £7 billion a year. The evidence is clear: the Windsor framework is helping our businesses to grow, protecting our jobs and strengthening our economy. Businesses tell us that they want certainty and that they want to grow by using both markets. At the Economy Committee last week, Invest NI was clear that having dual market access leads to higher exports, more jobs and more skills. Invest NI also highlighted that some companies here will continue to work hard under the current system but will not celebrate that success, because the issue has been politicised by some. We all want our economy to grow. We want opportunities for businesses to develop and for our skilled workforce to expand. That should be a priority for everyone in the Chamber. As the European Parliament considers establishing an observer mechanism for the North, this is an important moment. It recognises that we did not choose Brexit but had it imposed on us; acknowledges our unique position; and gives locally elected representatives a direct voice on decisions that affect our economy, rights and young people's futures. Our message is clear: Ireland belongs in Europe. We should not be disadvantaged because of decisions made in London that have been forced on us. Our businesses thrive through having European access. Our young people need European opportunities, and we will continue working for a future in which those connections are strengthened and fully restored. Mr Brooks: The motion is not harmless, as has been articulated, not only by my colleague Mr Buckley but by Dr Aiken and in the previous speech from the Benches opposite. It wishes to strike at the very foundation of Northern Ireland's constitutional position. The Belfast and St Andrews Agreements were crystal clear: on issues of this magnitude, cross-community consent is essential. Yet, today, those opposite would have that safeguard cast aside. Why? Sinn Féin, the SDLP and the Alliance Party know that they cannot achieve consensus on the issue and therefore seek to impose their will by simple majority. Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way? Top 1.15 pm Mr Brooks: Not at the moment, thank you. During the Brexit process, unionists were lectured about protecting the agreement in all its parts — every jot and tittle, we were told — but here we are again, faced with a proposal that seeks to trample on those very principles. While working in the European Parliament, I heard not only Sinn Féin MEPs but those from other nations wax lyrical about the deified Good Friday Agreement, when I am sure that many of them had not set eyes on much of it, much less on all its parts. Some of them had expansive and fantastical ideas about what it said. The motion is not about political engagement. It is a Sinn Féin a ploy. As has been outlined, it is a stepping stone to its wish to break up the United Kingdom. If the motion is passed, it will lead to a letter being sent to Brussels claiming that the Assembly supports observer status, despite there being fierce opposition from all on the unionist Benches. No legitimacy will be given to the motion in this place today. Those in Brussels will not have the opportunity afforded to them to ignore and ride roughshod over the concerns of the unionist population of Northern Ireland, against the principles of the Good Friday Agreement, as they did when the protocol was imposed following the acquiescing of the UK Government of the day. Today, the Democratic Unionist Party, along with unionist colleagues, has, rightly, had no hesitation in using the petition of concern to ensure that unionist voices are not silenced or misrepresented. What, after all, does observer status offer? It offers no vote, no influence and no power. It would do nothing to fix the democratic deficit that has been created by the protocol. Instead, it would be an attempt to signal Northern Ireland's willingness to join the EU, a message that those who tabled the motion hope that Brussels would seize upon, entrenching the flawed arrangements that have already damaged our economy. We are still battling threats to veterinary medicine supplies and restrictions on car dealers registering UK-approved vehicles. Those are the real consequences of surrendering control. In many ways, perhaps having the privileges of partial membership that were outlined by my colleague, without the responsibilities or costs, would suit Sinn Féin well. Is that not the arrangement that they have at Westminster, where they are free to travel to London and live the London lifestyle without having any of the responsibility of the work of the House of Commons or any voice for those whom they represent? Perhaps the plan is for John Finucane to add "EU observer" to the jobs that he has but does not do, while he continues his legal career. Mr Dickson: Will the Member give way? Mr Brooks: Yes. Mr Dickson: I am interested in the fact that the Member rails against all those things in his speech but is nevertheless quite happy to represent the Assembly on the reference group for the Committee of the Regions, which is the only listening ear that we currently have there. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute. Mr Brooks: I assure the Member that I would not give up my seat for it to be filled by one of the Europhiles on the other side of the House. Yes, we will listen intently, but we will respect the vote of the United Kingdom. I know that the Member would like to reduce the referendum to one that is at a more local level, so perhaps he would look at how East Antrim voted in that referendum. I will give the SDLP its dues: it has, at least, been consistent in its Europhile position, whereas Sinn Féin, as we know, has flip-flopped on the issue. Even now, with its relatively new-found passion and enthusiasm for fighting for freedom of sovereignty from the existing Union so that it can hand over power to Brussels, it criticises the Irish Government for not being neutral enough. It wishes to speak about European values and be part of the European system, but it does not want Ireland to contribute in any way to the defence of those values and people. It seems that Sinn Féin's position is no different now than Ireland's was in the 1940s, which is: "We're all right, Jack: you can pay for our defence while we sit on the edge of Europe". It wants to continue to take the benefits of that system, whilst the UK stands with those in Ukraine, as my colleague said, to ensure that defences are maintained across Europe. The protocol was imposed over the heads of the people of Northern Ireland, without the support of a single unionist representative. Checks resulting from the border in the Irish Sea undermine our economy and constitutional integrity. If passed, today's motion would compound that harm by further eroding the principle of consent — the cornerstone of our settlement, which it championed when it suited it and at national behest. Some claim that this would give us a voice, but the truth is that Northern Ireland has already had negligible influence over EU laws. Engagement has been tokenistic: merely communicative and not participatory. Goods regulations will still be dictated by Brussels, without the UK's input. The SDLP's answer is not to take back control of our laws but to have an EU office in Belfast. For what? So that we can go to that office to beg, after the fact, after those regulations have been imposed — Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up. Mr Brooks: — on our businesses? Mr Tennyson: As a passionately pro-European party, Alliance supports the motion to secure observer status for Northern Ireland in the European Parliament and, indeed, a European Commission office in Belfast. The debate has highlighted the fact that, despite having campaigned for Brexit 10 years ago, the DUP is still not able to name one solitary benefit of leaving the European Union. You cannot come to the Chamber, having campaigned for Brexit, and pin all its inevitable consequences on the Windsor framework. That is the political equivalent of driving your car into a brick wall and then blaming the airbag for your broken nose. The DUP was warned pre referendum that Brexit would inevitably mean increased friction and barriers and that that would impact on the UK's ability to influence the European Union, to make rules and to contribute on matters of peace and security, poverty, migration and the global economy. That is exactly what has happened. Despite not causing that mess, Alliance has consistently come to the Chamber and other forums with practical and pragmatic solutions that would address the situation in the best interests of people in Northern Ireland. We believe that, by having observer status, we would be able to influence upstream EU law that has an impact on Northern Ireland. Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. Would he suggest that his party's position of rigorous implementation of the protocol was in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland? Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute. Mr Tennyson: It was through faithful implementation that we were able to secure trust and confidence for many of the changes that followed in the Windsor framework. Unlike the Member, we are not in the business of championing breaches of international law. In his contribution, Mr Buckley said that the debate was about rewriting the Brexit referendum and misrepresenting the views of the House. Of course, that is exactly what the DUP did when it held the balance of power at Westminster between 2017 and 2019, when it was only the voices of members of the DUP that were heard in the room. They are the architects of their own misfortune in all of that. Mr Brooks cannot claim that there must be cross-community support for how we Brexit but not for whether we Brexit in the first place; you cannot have it both ways. That principle needs to be applied consistently and fairly, but, more important than that, Northern Ireland has evolved and changed since 1998. There is no majority and minority in the House. We are all minorities: those who are unionist, those who are nationalist and those of us on these Benches who do not designate as nationalist or unionist. Our voters deserve better than to be treated as second-class citizens. The deployment of a petition of concern on this vote is a shameful perversion of democracy and an abuse of process. Prior to the debate, the Members opposite complained in their press statement of a rigged debate. There is no clearer way of rigging of a debate than the deployment of a petition of concern, because nobody's vote matters now except for that of the DUP, which wishes to govern by diktat. Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way? Mr Tennyson: No, I will not give way. I gently say to the Members opposite that we have seen where this has led in the past. In previous mandates, the petition of concern was deployed and abused to deprive LGBTQ+ people of their rights, to prevent Members from being held to account and to derail bread-and-butter politics. That directly led to a breakdown in relationships and a collapse of the institutions. That is simply not good enough. No one should play fast and loose with the operation of the institutions. I also gently say to the Members opposite that there has been an awful lot of sneering and laughing in the debate. This is not a game; this is not debate club. We come here to work together in a spirit of respect and cooperation to deliver for the people who elected us, not to knock lumps out of one another and trade insults across the Chamber every day. The politics of distraction, fear and division is what upended the institutions in the past. The people whom we represent deserve better. Mr Martin: I am a little surprised by the Member's criticism of, I assume, Members over here for student politics and sneering. Often, when I watch across to the Alliance Benches, I see him laughing at some of our Members when they are speaking. He is angry, and he can be angry if he wants. My colleagues have covered a range of points, and I have no intention of going over them again. The United Kingdom has, contrary to what the motion suggests, a democratic mandate to remain outside the European Union. Therefore, there is no need or requirement for observer status. In fact, EU observer status in the European Parliament would bring with it no right to vote. It would do nothing to address the democratic deficit that we have with the protocol or the deprivation of locally elected representatives' ability to make laws. I have said before in this place that many countries in Europe are incredible. They have interesting cultures, many of which I love, and I have very much enjoyed travelling to many of them. However, there is no dichotomy between valuing European countries and culture and being wholly opposed to an economic lock-in with them. The motion suggests that we would be: "best served by rejoining the European Union". That is the same nirvana that many in the Chamber suggested when they said, "If only the Assembly was back up and running, everything would be great. All our problems would be solved". I certainly was not in the Assembly — I was not elected at that time — but I remember watching many of the Members who have spoken today going to the gates at Hillsborough saying, "If only we could get this place back up, all our problems will be solved". We all knew then — I certainly did — that that was never going to be the case. It was never going to be the nirvana that people said it would, and telling the electorate that or, in the context of the motion, telling them that rejoining the EU will somehow solve all our problems is simply dishonest. It is also worth looking at some of the economics underlying that premise, particularly the economic performance of some big EU countries. Data that the OECD released last week states that UK GDP growth outstripped that of eurozone countries in quarter 1 of 2025. It is particularly noticeable that we will continue to grow faster than Germany through all three quarters of 2025. Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way? Mr Martin: I will give way to the leader of the Opposition. Mr O'Toole: I appreciate the Member's giving way, and, in the spirit of debate, I will be brief. He points out that the UK is outperforming some eurozone countries, and that is true. Will he also acknowledge that Northern Ireland is outperforming the UK, despite what his party would deem to be the imposition of the appalling sea border? Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute. Mr Martin: That is very kind. I always welcome the leader of the Opposition's comments. A lot of that is about diversion, and we have heard some of the diversionary arguments. Trade is going down South that we would like to see going to and coming back from GB, and that is a consequence of the operation of the protocol. Germany, of course, is the economic powerhouse of the EU, yet it is suffering and struggling financially. In fact, France has stagnated all the way through 2025 and is struggling still. Data from the World Bank this year confirms that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the sixth largest economy in the world and is ahead of all eurozone countries except Germany. Therefore, why would we want to leave the strength of the United Kingdom for a united Ireland or, for that matter, to rejoin the EU? I will move on to the letter that spawned the private Member's motion. I think that it did, but there has been some debate on the other side of the House over who exactly is responsible for the motion or whose idea it was. I will not get into that, but I checked who signed the letter, and I found that one of the people was a lady called Lynn Boylan, who is a Sinn Féin MEP. Many in the Chamber will not have heard of that lady, but she was in the news recently for one particular reason, which was that she abstained from a resolution in the European Parliament that called for EU support for Ukraine. After three years of Russia's war and aggression, there was a proposal for a 30-day ceasefire and an expectation that Russia would agree to it and would cease all attacks on Ukraine. Ms Boylan could not even support that. Top 1.30 pm I do not believe that it is in our best interests to rejoin the EU. I also note that, in their letter to President Metsola, the MEPs who signed the letter even admitted that the granting of observer status would in fact, and I quote directly: "require a request from the UK government" Therefore, to be honest, I am not even sure why the motion refers to writing to the EU Parliament, unless the policy wonks on the other Benches have got it so badly wrong at the drafting stage. Regardless, I will not support the motion, and nor will my party. Ms Ennis: Will the Member give way? Mr Martin: I have all of 10 seconds, and you can have it. Ms Ennis: I appreciate the Member giving way. I find the complete lack of self-awareness on the part of the DUP almost comical. Your colleague Jonathan Buckley said that the way to demonstrate the will of the people was through votes in the House — Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up. Ms Ennis: — yet you misuse a petition of concern to block a vote in this place. What are you afraid of? Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up. Mr Martin: My time is up. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: We all gather that. Thank you, Peter. Mr Burrows: I oppose the motion. It is divisive, negative, fails to learn the lessons of Brexit or our past and wastes time dealing with matters that we have no authority over. Frankly, if we are building something in Northern Ireland, it should not be an office for bureaucrats in Belfast but homes for young people. We are short of homes in Northern Ireland. This shows that our focus is entirely on the wrong thing. Brexit was divisive and negative, and I say that as a lifelong Eurosceptic. The EU is an organisation that was committed to ever closer union, was not very democratic and was tin-eared to reform. David Cameron tried to strike a deal but got nowhere. However, the Ulster Unionist Party, to its credit, before I was in it, thought through the implications of Brexit with its head and not its heart and realised that it was going to be particularly difficult for Northern Ireland, as it came to pass. I credit my colleagues, before I came into the party, for that. Majoritarianism is worrying. A signal is being sent by many in nationalism and now Alliance that majoritarianism suits when they are in the majority, otherwise we have to exercise cross-community consent. A Member: Will the Member give way? Mr Burrows: I am not going to give way. I will towards the end. Ms Ferguson, I think, said that people in Northern Ireland did not endorse Brexit. However, people in Northern Ireland have not supported this stunt. This is a constitutional change, yet it has no support from the people of Northern Ireland, only the arrogance to think that we in the Chamber can make a decision that is constitutional and rests squarely with the people of the United Kingdom as a whole. It is a constitutional issue. Let me deal with this. Frankly, for MEPs to write to the president of the European Parliament to say that we should have observer status is little different from me writing to Catherine Connolly and saying, "Dear President, I think that Ireland should join NATO. It should join the Commonwealth". Members of the Dáil, who sometimes have more sense, would not waste their time debating it. They would realise that they have more important things to do, like build infrastructure for young people like those from Friends' School Lisburn, if I recognise the uniform, who are watching from the Gallery. Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. He talks about issues that are more important. At the moment, a cliff edge for veterinary and pet medicines is impending because of the obstinacy of the European Union. Should we not be talking about that issue today, rather than fantasy school politics? Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute. Mr Burrows: Thank you. We will come back to that in a moment. The motion is about supporting a united Ireland. The Alliance Party has fallen into a trap. I do not want to paint them green, white and gold; they never got over me painting them yellow on Facebook [Laughter.] I have committed that I will not paint any of their faces again. However, that is a trap that they fall into. Let me deal with the democratic deficit. The biggest democratic deficit in Northern Ireland is — Mr Tennyson: You [Interruption.] Mr Burrows: Thank you. The biggest democratic deficit is that people in eight out of 19 constituencies in Northern Ireland are represented by Sinn Féin MPs who do not go to Westminster. It is all right for the ones who voted for Sinn Féin but not for the rest of the electorate, who only get one choice of MP. Here is the thing: what could they be doing at Westminster? Making a contribution to the assisted dying Bill, lobbying about the family farm tax, making representations about veterinary medicines or, like our party, putting amendments down to the Legacy Bill — the Troubles Bill — that mean that those who committed sexual crimes in the name of the IRA can be investigated by the Legacy Commission. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sorry, Mr Burrows. I really do not mean to interrupt your flow, but can you return to the substantive —. Mr Burrows: I am dealing with the democratic deficit: the real one. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I know where you are going, but it is not relevant to the motion. Mr Burrows: It seems as though we have failed to learn the lessons from our past and from Brexit. In this place we should be joining together and asking, "What can we agree on, so that we can lobby to change the invidious and iniquitous Irish sea border? On what issues can we can come to a consensus as a body so that we can then go and make representations?". We do not do that, however. The motion is a divisive stunt and party politicking by a party that wants to cause endless problems in Northern Ireland. When we deal with economic issues, we should welcome investment such as the Bank of America investment, but we do not. That is the reality. Alliance has made a mistake here. It has fallen into a trap set by Sinn Féin. We in the Ulster Unionist Party have thought with our heads and not our hearts throughout. The motion is dangerous and unconstitutional, and we are right to oppose it forthrightly. Mr Gaston: We have heard a great deal today about democratic deficits and observer status in Brussels. Once again, we have witnessed the republican and nationalist alliance in the House fall over itself to see which party can stand up and say, "We are the biggest Europhiles". My goodness, we even got a Christmas card from the SDLP with its list of priorities. Matthew, I think that the SDLP takes the prize today for being the biggest Europhiles, having outdone Alliance very marginally. When we strip away all of that, however, we need to remind ourselves of the simple democratic reality. In 2016, the people of the United Kingdom were asked a straightforward question: should the UK leave the European Union? The answer that came back from the British people was equally straightforward: "Yes, leave". That democratic decision should have been honoured. Mr Dickson: Will the Member give way? Mr Gaston: It should have been implemented in full. It should have restored the sovereignty of the nation. I am happy to give way to Mr Dickson. Let me hear you. Mr Dickson: I thank the Member for giving way. I am just interested in knowing whether you and your party believed the lies that were printed on the side of a bus. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute. Mr Gaston: There were have the Alliance Party. The SDLP, Sinn Féin and Alliance were able to come together to cook up the fudges that were the protocol and the Windsor framework. When any business has problems in Northern Ireland, blame those three parties. They were the chief makers, pushers, movers and shakers. What we now have is an arrangement that leaves Northern Ireland governed by laws that we do not make, that we cannot change and that are interpreted by a foreign court. If we want to talk about a democratic deficit, why not start there? That does not suit the narrative of the nationalist and republican alliance, however. The idea that the solution to Northern Ireland's problems and to the democratic deficit is somehow more EU involvement, more EU buildings or EU observer roles is frankly nonsense. The deficit comes from the EU's continued grip on Northern Ireland. It will not be remedied by allowing the EU to tighten its grip even more. We then have the SDLP amendment and its proposal on: "support for the establishment of a European Commission office in Belfast." That sounds very official. Let me be clear to the SDLP: Northern Ireland does not need a European Commission office; it needs full restoration of its place within the United Kingdom. What is an EU office in Belfast supposed to achieve? Is its purpose to normalise EU oversight of laws that we do not make? Is it to entrench a system in which Northern Ireland is treated differently from the rest of the country and the Union to which we belong? After all the talk about democratic deficit, I remind the House of what happened when the Assembly was asked to vote on the continuation of the protocol — the very arrangement that means that we have no say on vast swathes of the economic laws that govern us. What did it do? Ah, it did not want to know. The Members who support the motion today are the very ones who supported the motion on the protocol. You cannot complain about democratic deficits if you support the very arrangements that led to our colonial status. Why did they do that? Some claim that it was to protect the sacred Belfast Agreement, but their protocol destroys the basis of that agreement. The Belfast Agreement states that Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom until the people of Northern Ireland say otherwise. If that promise means anything, it means that I have the same rights as anyone else in the UK to take part in national referendums and have the result respected. The agreement says that no significant or controversial decision can be taken without the buy-in of both communities. We have the petition of concern; that is good. Let us work together for unionism. The DUP brought this place back on the basis of the dodgy Donaldson deal. For that, you will pay the price. To the SDLP and Alliance I say this: all your cuddly relationship is doing is pushing you down and down in the polls, sitting behind the TUV. Let that sink in. You are cuddling up to Sinn Féin as part of your pan-nationalist and republican alliance. Whatever you want to tell yourself, come 2027, the people in this country will cast their views on everything that has taken place since the restoration of Stormont. Those who gave away their principles to become implementers will have to face the electorate, as will the Alliance Party and the SDLP, which have cuddled up to Sinn Féin over the past number of years. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The next Member to speak will be Sinéad McLaughlin to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. Sinéad, you have five minutes. Ms McLaughlin: Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. I begin by thanking the proposers of the motion for bringing the SDLP's former proposal back to the Assembly. It is really good. I also thank Timothy Gaston for giving the SDLP the prize for being the most European party here. That is almost as good, sincere and heart-warming as FIFA's peace prize for Trump at the weekend. [Laughter.] As many contributors to the debate have said, we cannot ignore the simple truth that Brexit has not delivered what people were promised. The DUP petition of concern is just a farce. There was no cross-community consent for Brexit. That was not on the agenda. Cross-community consent is also not required for the constitutional status of this place. Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for giving way on that point. Does she agree that there are different methods of measuring cross-community support, such as a weighted majority vote? In fact, there was cross-community support for Remain in 2016. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute. Ms McLaughlin: Thank you. I agree, Eóin. It is just wheeled out when Members want to put wedge issues into this place to create bad politics and a bad environment. Brexit has held back our economic growth, caused real pressures for businesses and affected social and political cohesion here and across these islands. The Deputy Prime Minister, David Lammy, said in a recent podcast that it was self-evident that Brexit had damaged the British economy. He is right, because that is what the evidence tells us. According to information collated by Best for Britain, the cost of Brexit to the UK economy is now estimated at £240 billion. An estimated 1·8 million jobs have been lost in the UK, and households pay over £250 more a year for food as a direct result of Brexit-related pressures. Top 1.45 pm We cannot plan for the future unless we are honest about where we are. However, today's debate is not about running old arguments. Well, I suppose that it precisely is about running old arguments, because today's debate is like a copy or cut and paste from previous, pointless debates that have taken place in the Assembly. We should be prioritising limiting the damage and creating better opportunities for people here. The majority on this island voted to remain in the European Union. They deserve a serious, practical route back towards closer partnerships with our largest trading partner. We are already seeing the UK Government take steps in that direction — small steps, but steps nonetheless. The recent UK-EU agreement on areas that include trade, fishing and defence shows that cooperation works. The expectation that the UK will rejoin ERASMUS, for example, is hugely positive for our students, universities and local industries. Northern Ireland should not be left behind as that relationship improves. That is why the SDLP consistently proposes ways that we can rebuild our European links. Observer status in the European Parliament, the central idea of the motion, was set out in the SDLP's 'Our European Future' paper. That idea has now gained strong international support. Just last month, 13 Irish MEPs and an Italian MEP wrote to the President of the European Parliament arguing that Northern Ireland representatives should be granted observer status. There is nothing to fear from that. That is a significant endorsement, reflecting the unique position that we are currently in. However, if we truly want to support businesses — the party opposite often says this — strengthen democracy and maximise the benefits of dual market access, observer status alone is not enough. That is why the SDLP amendment calls for the establishment of an EU Commission office in Belfast. To put it plainly, it makes no sense that we do not already have one. Every week, businesses tell us the same thing: they are trying to navigate the Windsor framework; they want to trade confidently but do not know where to go to get reliable guidance. Mr Buckley, I totally refute your assertion that we do not raise issues in relation to barriers to the economy. I have raised it in the Committee, and you are in the Committee with me, so do not play that game with me. You will go nowhere with it, OK? Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way? Ms McLaughlin: No, I will not. [Interruption.] I raise it regularly on behalf of my constituents. [Interruption.] I have raised it regularly in the past on behalf of my constituents. I have been in contact with the Northern Ireland chamber; I have been in contact with the FSB. The office would give clarity, improve communications and act as a point of support for traders who simply want to get on with their work. Many businesses were pushing for that during Lord Murphy's review of the Windsor framework. Unfortunately, it was seen as politically unacceptable for unionists. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sinéad, your time is up. [Interruption.] Sorry, I was getting a lecture from Mr Buckley on Standing Orders in the middle of all that. [Interruption.] Ms McLaughlin: I did not know who was talking: was it me or Mr Buckley? [Inaudible.] Mr Buckley: Sorry, do you want to give way? Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: No. Time is up. Apologies about that. Mr Tennyson: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a Member to reference directly another Member across the Chamber rather than engage in the debate through you? I ask because Mr Buckley needs to cool his jets. [Interruption.] Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: A lot of Members in the Chamber need to cool their jets, Eóin [Interruption] but I also think that the lack of courtesy from certain Members, at least, is consistent, and I ask them to reflect on that. We move to the winding-up speech on the substantive motion. I call Declan Kearney. Declan, I advise that you have 10 minutes. Mr Kearney: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-leas-Cheann Comhairle. [Translation: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.] Every party in the Assembly agrees on one thing: Brexit has left us all with a democratic deficit. The difference, of course, is in how that democratic deficit is defined and then addressed. Some carp about that deficit without facing up to realities, still refusing to acknowledge that they themselves bought them and us all a pig in a poke. Then there are the rest of us: the representatives elected to this place who represent the citizens in the North who voted against Brexit — the majority. The POC attempt by unionism overshadows the DUP approach to the debate. Let me briefly deal with the fake news narrative that the motion is somehow a constitutional stalking horse. It is divisive and inflammatory to say that, because the constitutional future of this place will be addressed and resolved under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement. That is a settled matter. This is a case of back to the future, with the abuse and misuse of POCs to subvert democracy. You could say that unionism appears to be resolved to undermining the democracy of the institutions with negative politics in one hand, and the misuse of a POC in the other. Ms Ennis: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree, as I said previously, that it is disgraceful for the DUP to talk about votes in this place while using the petition of concern — a mechanism that was designed to protect minority rights — to block a vote that would give voice to people's views? That would be democracy, so why are they afraid of it? Mr Kearney: Go raibh maith agat as sin. [Translation: Thank you for that.] I would go further; it is a subversion of democracy. It is a classic case of cutting your nose off to spite your face. Why would you not look for increased access and maximum engagement with the European Union and the British Government on how we navigate the post-Brexit realities? By contrast, there have been reasoned contributions in the debate from others, which are predicated upon the logic of maximising democratic engagement with the European Commission. In my remarks, I will touch on the importance of that. Brexit has been an economic, political and social disaster for citizens and businesses here and in Britain. Since its imposition, Sinn Féin, other parties here, the Irish Government and the EU have sought to mitigate its worst impacts, and the mechanisms now exist to do just that through the protocol and the Windsor framework. While our regional economy is showing growth because of the dual market access that is available under the Windsor framework, our voice is silenced in the European institutions because Brexit removed our ability to directly input in them. Unsurprisingly, British Governments have been focused on the democratic deficit that their approach provoked. They have failed to address how that can be best remedied. The good news is this: the damage caused by right-wing Tory and DUP recklessness does not have to be a permanent condition for people in the North. Practical and pragmatic approaches are available to us, and I agree with many of our local businesses, and with the report of the Murphy review, that a one-stop shop mechanism to simplify administrative processes would, indeed, be an advantage to us. The British Government need to listen and take on board the need for those reforms. On maximising our input to EU processes, a decision to confer observer status representation for the North at the European Parliament and the opening of a European Commission office in Belfast would be good starting points. Maximising our democratic input in the post-Brexit systems, for which the British Government and the EU are responsible, makes sense. Brexit has swept away all the constitutional, political and economic assumptions about this place, but the North of the island also enjoys distinct advantages over other regions that have been directly harmed by Brexit. In 2017, as colleagues have mentioned, the European Council stated that in the event of Irish reunification, the entire territory of Ireland would become part of the European Union. We, in the North, therefore have an automatic legal route to rejoining the EU via constitutional change and a referendum on a new Ireland. The reunification of our island is no longer just an aspiration; it is a viable project that should be pursued in earnest by the British and Irish Governments. Irish unity has become the defining issue of our generation. The case for constitutional change is being made across this island and further afield by people from all walks of life. It is time that the British and Irish Governments began to plan and prepare for the constitutional change that is allowed for under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement. The Dublin Government should do so through the appointment of a Minister of State for reunification, the immediate publication of a Green Paper on constitutional change, and the convening of a citizens' assembly on our constitutional future. Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way? Mr Kearney: In a moment. The British Government should set a date for a unity referendum before the end of this decade. The EU played a strategically important role in helping to develop and consolidate our peace process through political, diplomatic, economic and financial support. Twenty-seven years after our peace settlement, it is time for us to open up the next phase of the peace process based on national reconciliation and reunification. Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. In the first part of his contribution, he told us that this is not about constitutional change. He then went on to talk a lot about constitutional change. Which is it? Is the motion, tabled by Sinn Féin, a tool for constitutional change? Mr Kearney: Did you read the motion? Mr Buckley: I did. Mr Kearney: You did. Did you understand the motion [Interruption] because it appears that, characteristically, [Interruption] having —? Listen, the pantomime season has not even begun. It will start, but we are not going to start it here today. Thanks for your intervention. The proposals advanced in the motion will help to address the current democratic deficit and navigate the new post-Brexit trading realities. At the same time, they will create pragmatic interim arrangements to facilitate a smooth reintegration of the North within the European Union, and in the context of constitutional change and Irish unity. Therefore, supporting the motion is not about the fake news narrative being purported by some on the other side of the House. It is, in fact, about pragmatically addressing the practical realities and challenges that we face in the immediate term — in the here and now — and how we can sensibly prepare for the democratic transformations and opportunities that lie ahead, instead of, as some would prefer, sticking our heads in the sand. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The next item of business in the Order Paper is Question Time. I propose, therefore, to put the Question on the amendment after Question Time, and, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The business stood suspended. The sitting was suspended at 1.58 pm and resumed at 2.00 pm. (Mr Speaker in the Chair) Oral Answers to Questions The Executive Office Equality Commission: Funding 1. Mr Donnelly asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister how their Department will ensure that the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland is adequately funded to carry out its statutory duties, including for any obligations under evolving equality standards. (AQO 2833/22-27) Mrs Little-Pengelly (The deputy First Minister): The Executive Office is committed to ensuring that the Equality Commission has the resources required to fulfil its statutory responsibilities, including those that it has under evolving equality standards. The commission has been allocated £4·7 million in resource and capital budget from the Executive Office for the financial year 2025-26. We engage regularly with the commission, including through quarterly partnership meetings and attendance at its audit and risk assurance committee. That engagement helps to align resources with responsibilities and supports the identification of emerging needs. As an arm’s-length body of the Executive Office, the commission participates in the required forecasting and monitoring budgetary processes. Mr Donnelly: I thank the deputy First Minister for that answer. Earlier this year, the Equality Commission published a research paper entitled 'Funding for Equality Groups in NI: The impact of the transition from EU funding to UK Shared Prosperity Fund'. Which recommendations from that research has the Department considered, and which, if any, is it taking forward? Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his supplementary question. We want to ensure that there is adequate funding for community groups across all areas, including those in the equality space that work with older people, younger people, people with disabilities and many more. It is important that they are properly funded and that they know well in advance what funding they will get for the coming year. There is no doubt that the three-year Budget will help with that process. As the Member is, no doubt, aware, however, there is a particular issue with the ending of the Shared Prosperity Fund and its transition into the local growth fund. I have corresponded with and spoken directly to the Finance Minister on that issue. I have worked with a number of groups throughout Northern Ireland that are very concerned about that transition. We are actively looking at options to support those groups. The fact that we, as an Executive, had such late notice of the replacement of that funding with the local growth fund is unacceptable, as is the impact of that on employees in the organisations that are still in a position of uncertainty. Ms Ní Chuilín: Can the deputy First Minister confirm that the budget figure that she read out will not impact on the work that the Equality Commission does, particularly for vulnerable groups, on equality, inclusion and, indeed, respect? Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her supplementary question. From speaking to groups, including our arm's-length bodies, we know that they could always do more with more — there is no doubt about that — and, indeed, we have to make difficult decisions in order to balance that with the budget that we are allocated. I have no doubt that the Equality Commission wants to do more and that it could do more if it had a bigger budget, but it has a sizeable budget of almost £5 million. In this case, that budget is very much for the commission itself, because the groups on the ground are funded through a range of Departments, agencies, councils etc. We always want to work in a collaborative way to ensure, as far as possible, that those groups get sufficient funding and, as I said, sufficient notice of the funding that they will get; hopefully, the three-year Budget process will really help with that. Mr Clarke: Has any assessment been done of what the Equality Commission spends its budget on and, in particular, how much it has spent on the legal cases that it has taken recently? Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. The Equality Commission has operational independence from the Executive Office. There is, of course, concern among many people out there about the commission's prioritising. Just this week, we have seen further action being launched in relation to the Supreme Court judgement on the definition of "sex" and the biological definition of "man" and "woman". I do not believe that that is necessary expenditure; however, the commission is operationally independent, and that is a decision that it can make. However, the question is about whether it should make that decision. Should it prioritise it? I advise the Member that the commission has a full-time equivalent staff cohort of just over 100 and is carrying a significant number of vacancies. Just under 50 staff are in place. That is not uncommon across the system, because we are carrying a significant number of vacancies. Part of that is because of the challenges within our budget and trying to ensure efficiency across our system. Mr Gaston: Does the deputy First Minister agree that it is a disgrace that the Equality Commission has enough money to take an action against the Supreme Court to try to get men into girls' bathrooms? Does that not suggest that her Department is giving the commission far too much money if it can waste it on a futile challenge such as that? Mrs Little-Pengelly: That aligns with my answers to the substantive and supplementary questions. At this difficult time of fiscal constraint, people should be looking at what they are doing and making decisions that are based on what best serves people. I do not believe that that legal action is necessary at all. It is more legal action, more cost and more delay, but on what? It is about common sense, and common sense must prevail. I think that most people find the issue to be completely bonkers, not because they want to hate on anyone but because it is common sense that the definition of a man or a woman is related to biological sex. More important is the reality that there should be, and must be, safe spaces and female-only spaces, be they in changing rooms, toilets or places of sanctuary. It is also about fairness. We have seen that play out in sport. As a woman, I never consented to my rights being diminished by that definition being changed or by evolving attempts to change it. However, what we see now is an Equality Commission that is arguing that to reset that to a common-sense definition of biological male or female is somehow a diminution of somebody else's rights. That is wrong. It is absolutely bonkers; we need to get back to common sense and to stop wasting money on that type of thing. Urban Villages: West Belfast 2. Mr Baker asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to outline the impact of the work undertaken by their Department through the Urban Villages initiative in West Belfast. (AQO 2834/22-27) Mrs Little-Pengelly: The Urban Villages initiative has had a positive impact on communities in Belfast and Londonderry. In the Colin area of West Belfast, a total of £12·7 million has been invested — £10·4 million to support 11 capital projects and over £2·3 million in revenue funding. Capital investment has included a £5·6 million transformation of 15 acres of derelict land into a new park, as well as new community centres, a football and community club, a healthy living centre and a transport hub. Revenue funding has supported 275 events and 575 workshops, engaging more than 24,500 participants. Support that Urban Villages provides will ensure the sustainability of investment and support local community organisations to create a lasting, positive legacy for the community. Urban Villages helps to drive regeneration and community development across the area, providing much-needed physical regeneration, creating safer communities and making a positive difference to people's lives. Mr Baker: I thank the deputy First Minister for her answer. The Colin area is the wee part of the world that I live in and represent. We benefited greatly from Urban Villages, especially after we came into the Belfast City Council area after decades of neglect when we were under the Lisburn council. Will the deputy First Minister provide an update on phase 2 of the initiative? Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his supplementary question. As he will be aware, I was very much involved in the creation of Urban Villages. The junior Minister at the time, who represented the area, and I engaged with people in the Colin area. I felt very strongly that there were significant gaps in service provision. I very passionately supported Colin's inclusion in a programme that I created and helped to develop. The programme is a commitment to work with communities — that means all communities — right across Northern Ireland. I am really pleased to see that the local community's hard work has contributed to the collaborative design, the actions that are being taken and the investment from the Executive Office, which has transformed the Colin area, as he is well aware. As we move to phase 2 of Urban Villages, we should reflect on its huge success. It has been a success in many areas. There have been lots of nuances and differences in the schemes. The First Minister and I are actively looking at phase 2. The programme should absolutely roll forward, because it has provided much support. We are looking at areas to see where we can maximise that type of investment through the Executive Office. Mr Kingston: As the deputy First Minister knows, Urban Villages funding has been allocated in North Belfast to the much-needed replacement of the Sunningdale community centre. There have been issues with securing planning permission. Will the deputy First Minister advise the House on her commitment to delivering that much-needed project? Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his hard work for the community, and both our North Belfast representatives have been heavily involved in the North Belfast Urban Villages scheme. I know that because I get actively lobbied on their constituents' behalf to ensure that those schemes move forward. There is an absolute commitment from the Executive Office for the Sunningdale project. There have been difficulties with the planning system, but we remain committed to the scheme. We will work with the local community to navigate the changes and, importantly, to ensure that we deliver the outcome, which is a facility and services for the Sunningdale community. Ms Bradshaw: I very much welcomed the announcement made earlier in the year that the School of Music in Donegal Pass was going to be included in the Urban Villages programme in that area. Can you give an update on the arts creative hub? Have any collaborative arrangements been put in place with other arts groups? Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her supplementary question. I was pleased to see those additional projects come through, not least the tunnel project, which has been on the go since before my involvement in South Belfast. I am pleased that we were able to include some additional projects, including the Westland community centre. I met representatives from the Westland community, maybe 10 years ago, and they needed that service. I am pleased to see its inclusion, both the political commitment and the flexibility in the scheme. I am also pleased that the School of Music has been included. There have been a number of Urban Villages projects there, which demonstrates the delivery of everything from play parks to re-imaging to the exciting project at the police station, and the School of Music coming on board is a welcome development. The Member is absolutely right, we are working with local community groups on collaboration because we want to make sure that not only the local community benefits from the scheme but other organisations can come in to complement and supplement the arts offering in that area, which has a rich history, heritage and diversity. Rural Communities in North Antrim: Investment 3. Ms Mulholland asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to outline any actions that their Department is taking to ensure rural and semi-rural communities in North Antrim, which are impacted on by paramilitarism and drugs, benefit from equivalent investment and support. (AQO 2835/22-27) Mrs Little-Pengelly: We are aware that many of our communities continue to be impacted on by paramilitarism and drugs, including those in rural and semi-rural areas. Communities in Transition (CIT), which is part of the Executive programme on paramilitarism and organised crime, delivers support across the eight designated areas identified as those most impacted on by paramilitarism and organised crime, with a key focus on paramilitarism and drugs. Although North Antrim is not formally included in CIT, it is part of the planned interventions programme, which funds community activity to engage young people most at risk of entering the youth justice system and/or at risk of paramilitary recruitment. By providing positive alternatives for our young people, the programme mitigates the impacts that antisocial behaviour can have on community tensions. Ms Mulholland: Deputy First Minister, I appreciate your answer. There is a real fear about hidden harm, especially in rural and semi-rural communities. You mentioned the planned interventions, but can there be an evaluation of whether an extension to the existing programmes, such as Urban Villages and Communities in Transition, would prevent those rural and semi-rural communities from being left behind? Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her important question because that is an issue that is very close to my heart. Very often, the challenges that a community faces can be hidden because of its location, whether in a rural area or in a city or town, where it is surrounded by relative wealth. That is why, over the years, I have supported schemes that are nuanced enough to pick up on those challenges. The reality is that if you have a need, it does not matter where you are living, and your ability to access the services can be very different depending on whether you live in a rural area or one that does not score under neighbourhood renewal or other schemes. We have asked the Department to pick up on that, and Urban Villages is good at picking up on those needs, but we are conscious that it does not have a rural aspect — the clue is in the name "Urban Villages". We want to extend the scheme and take the learning on co-designing a series of interventions to increase community resilience and community social capital to ensure that all communities are able to engage in enduring cross-community work with confidence. We can spread the work outside the urban areas into the rural areas. Top 2.15 pm We are trying to integrate more flexibility into the planned interventions programme. In the aftermath of what happened in the summer and the previous summer, we need to have programmes that can commence really quickly and work with young people. The idea of having a lengthy application process, where it is six or 12 months before the outcome is found out, is not fit for purpose. We are actively looking at that, and we want to work with all communities to make sure that programmes are fit for purpose. Ms Sheerin: Minister, you will know that the Communities in Transition programme made a significant contribution to building communities that are equipped to deal with paramilitarism and organised crime. Can you set out how the Communities in Transition programme is currently being delivered to achieve that outcome? Mrs Little-Pengelly: There has been huge investment made under the programme, with £29 million invested across the eight CIT areas. The real focus has been on tackling some of the root causes that can create the vulnerability through which people are dragged into antisocial behaviour, paramilitarism or crime. We are looking at community resilience, prevention and support for addiction and mental health. We are looking at trying to provide better opportunities, with ambition for the young people who live in those communities. There has been a huge amount of success. Yes, there is frustration that it has been limited to some geographical locations, but there is lots of really good practice that we can roll out. One of the issues that I am passionate about is making sure that we get better collaboration. If something works in a particular scheme, let us look at expanding it and mainstreaming it into other interventions that we have. We need better collaboration and cooperation. There is so much to work with, because there have been examples of really good practice here. Mr Dunne: What assessment has the deputy First Minister made of Communities in Transition, specifically on how it has tackled paramilitary coercive control in communities across Northern Ireland? Mrs Little-Pengelly: With such projects, it can be difficult to drill down into them, because a lot of what they are trying to do involves stopping things happening. They are trying to stop young people being dragged into antisocial behaviour. They are trying to stop young people being pulled into paramilitary organisations and criminal gangs, and they are trying to provide better opportunities and outcomes for young people. It can therefore be difficult to determine some of the outcomes, but I am really pleased to say that, since the beginning of the programme — not that programme alone, because there are communities working together across so many interventions — we have seen a 60% reduction in paramilitary-style attacks. There has been a 70% reduction in the number of households reporting homelessness due to paramilitary intimidation. The number of convictions for paramilitary-related and criminal gang-related offences has increased sevenfold since the beginning of the programme. That is evidence that it is working, but we should stand together and say clearly that criminal gangs and paramilitarism are absolutely wrong and that there is no place for them in our society. They need to go away. They should never have been there in the first place. I really support all such interventions to support communities to be resilient against such organisations. Belfast City Hall: 19 October 2024 4. Mr Clarke asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to outline any correspondence that their Department received in relation to an event in Belfast City Hall on 19 October 2024. (AQO 2836/22-27) Mrs Little-Pengelly: The Executive Office received one item of correspondence regarding the event at Belfast City Hall on 19 October 2024, which was an invitation dated 9 September 2024 forwarded by junior Minister Aisling Reilly from her constituency office to the Ministers' mailbox. Mr Clarke: I thank the deputy First Minister for that answer. During the question for urgent oral answer last week, the First Minister — or the Sinn Féin vice president; I am not sure which she was on the day — was at pains to talk about the invitation. Can the deputy First Minister confirm or otherwise whether there was an invitation issued to others or whether tickets were available for the event? Mrs Little-Pengelly: As is common from time to time, when we receive invitations to our constituency office accounts, we will forward them to the Department to ask for them to be considered as ministerial invitations. Understandably, people who are out and about do not necessarily make a distinction between a consistency office email and the departmental account. In this case, junior Minister Reilly had received an invitation with, I think, four other Sinn Féin MLAs copied into it, offering five tickets to the event. That is what was forwarded to the Department, and junior Minister Reilly had requested to attend the event as a junior Minister. I can only assume — I do not know, because the junior Minister did not attend the event as a junior Minister — that it was not accepted as a junior Minister event. She therefore attended it in her capacity as a constituency MLA. Mr Sheehan: The First Minister has indicated that she has signed off on a letter to the Committee dealing with misinformation around this issue. Can the deputy First Minister explain the reason for the delay in that letter issuing? Mrs Little-Pengelly: The letter is currently under consideration, but it will say what I have just said to the House. The junior Minister and four other Sinn Féin MLAs received an invitation to the event. The junior Minister wanted to go as junior Minister, but it was not agreed for her to attend in that capacity. The letter clearly offered five tickets to Sinn Féin Members, whether those Members were named in that email or whether they went to other people. I want to be very clear: the events of that night were disgraceful. There were plenty of people there, including, it appears, a number of Sinn Féin MLAs and other people. While it is absolutely right to say that people have a right under the law not to cooperate with a police investigation, not to incriminate themselves and not to cooperate with whatever investigations are happening, it is not the right thing to do, not to cooperate. I appeal to Sinn Féin Members who were at that event — clearly, they were at that event — to say what they saw when they were there, to come forward and cooperate with all investigations and to tell the truth about what happened in what looks like an appalling sectarian attack that happened at that event that night. Good Relations Programme: North Belfast 5. Mr Brett asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to outline any assessment that has been made of the effectiveness of the North Belfast strategic good relations programme. (AQO 2837/22-27) Mrs Little-Pengelly: The North Belfast strategic good relations programme is managed by the Community Relations Council and delivered as part of the Together: Building a United Community (T:BUC) strategy. In 2024-25, 40 projects were delivered, engaging approximately 14,000 people, with local solutions being provided to local issues. The programme has been independently reviewed, most recently in 2022, and was found to be successful in meeting its intended aims. It is currently being considered as part of the T:BUC review, and we are currently working with officials on the development of a refreshed approach to good relations, including how to meet the ongoing needs of North Belfast. Mr Brett: I thank the deputy First Minister for that update. Can the deputy First Minister confirm that the fresh look at the scheme will take into consideration the geographical changes that have happened in North Belfast since the scheme was first introduced? Will she also confirm that the groups that currently benefit from that funding are representative of the entire community and not just one section of the North Belfast community? Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. I also thank him for being a relentless champion for the groups in North Belfast and ensuring that the issues remain actively discussed and on the table. I am pleased to say that, just in this financial year, there are over 120 funding awards to North Belfast totalling somewhere around £2·6 million. That is a significant amount of support. The Member is absolutely right: the scheme was developed some time ago, and it is fair to say that a number of the groups that historically benefited from the scheme are, for a range of reasons, no longer part of that scheme. That has meant that there is not a fair and equitable distribution of that funding in North Belfast, nor is it accurately and relevantly getting to the places that it needs to get to. The scheme needs to be reviewed, and it certainly needs to be revised with more groups coming into that, but we are also looking at that in the context of the T:BUC review to see how best we can support the communities in North Belfast that the Member champions. Miss McAllister: Minister, do you agree that taking a fresh look at the good relations strategy in North Belfast should also include considering the reasons that keep communities apart? Some fantastic work goes on in my constituency of North Belfast, but, 25 years on from the Good Friday Agreement, we still have peace walls, with one in particular that runs through the park. Should peace walls also be part of that initiative, working alongside the Department of Justice and the council to bring communities together so that — Mr Speaker: Minister. Miss McAllister: — we can address the reasons that divide them? Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. She will be aware that I was heavily involved in the creation of the first T:BUC strategy, and I look forward to T:BUC 2, which will be the refreshed and revised strategy. However, it is also fair to say that the core aspects of that strategy remain as relevant today as they were when we first launched it. It is all about community cohesion and community resilience but also, importantly, working with communities. There was a signature project as part of the first T:BUC strategy that was about the reduction of the barriers between communities. There has been some success from that, but it has not been as fast as we would have hoped. We set ambitious targets to remove all peace walls. We worked closely with her then party colleague David Ford in the Department of Justice and others to push Departments to do everything that they could to remove them. Some really good work has been done in North Belfast to that end, but, importantly, it is about working with communities and ensuring that they feel safe and secure. It is not about doing things to communities but about working with them to make sure that there is community consensus. UK COVID Inquiry Report: Findings 6. Mr O'Toole asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister whether their considerations of the findings set out in the UK COVID-19 inquiry module 2C report on core decision-making and political governance will include the need for Executive reform. (AQO 2838/22-27) Mrs Little-Pengelly: The module 2 report sets out 19 key recommendations concerning governance and decision-making that we will now carefully consider. Our priority is to ensure that the Executive can respond swiftly and cohesively in any future emergency and that the governance arrangements support collaboration rather than division. Mr O'Toole: Speaking of collaboration rather than division, deputy First Minister, the Hallett inquiry/COVID inquiry was scathing about the two big parties, particularly your party's use of cross-community vetoes to block public health measures. You were a special adviser in TEO at that point: were you involved? Did you support and advocate the use of those cross-community vetoes? Do you stand by them now? If not, do you agree that the inquiry has illustrated the need for fundamental reform of how this place works? Mrs Little-Pengelly: It is an incredibly important but sensitive issue. We have worked with the Northern Ireland COVID Bereaved Families for Justice, and there is no doubt that that group wants to see improvements in how we handle and deal with such situations. I take that responsibility hugely seriously. We have been working through all the recommendations. We will go back to the families and will publish that report every six months. Serious consideration is being given to how we can make meaningful differences. Ours is not an easy system of government to operate at the best of times, but it is particularly difficult in challenging circumstances because four parties are around that table. I was a special adviser at the time. I recognise how challenging it was, particularly because, as the report highlighted, there was no clear evidence to follow. Often, the mantra was "follow the evidence", but the evidence was not there. It was "follow the science", but the science was very unclear. In that sense, of course, there needs to be discussion, challenge and examination. I am pleased to say that we have already taken action on some of those recommendations, such as the appointment of the Chief Scientific and Technology Adviser (CSTA) and ensuring that we have by right a seat around the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) table, so that, if such things happen again, we are very much integrated with the medical and scientific evidence. Mr McGuigan: Deputy First Minister, how will Executive Office structures apply the lessons from what was an unprecedented global health emergency? Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. Recently, we had Exercise Pegasus across the UK to see what improvements had been made to the systems. It was a mock exercise, but it was taken seriously. For example, there were a number of Executive meetings at which we considered the evidence that emerged. There is no doubt that, at the heart of it, there must be the right structure and the ability to get advice from the right people in a timely way. We in the Executive must ensure that we ask the right questions, take the advice and try to plot the way forward. Often, particularly with things such as pandemics, it will be an evolving situation when it comes to the issue itself and to the evidence and the scientific issues that come out about it. Should it happen again, we want and need to get it right. That is why we are taking time to improve the structures so that we have clear decision-making mechanisms and, importantly, get the right advice in a timely way. Ms Forsythe: Does the deputy First Minister agree that the attendance of the First Minister at the funeral of Bobby Storey during the pandemic was hugely damaging to public confidence and the Executive's advice? Mrs Little-Pengelly: Personally speaking, I agree with the Member: it sent absolutely the wrong message. I spoke to many people about it. I have friends who lost loved ones during the COVID pandemic. They could not have a proper funeral, and, if they had a large family, they could not have all of their family at the funeral. They sat at a funeral and could not be comforted by family members. That was absolutely heartbreaking. So many families across Northern Ireland did not get that closure, but they abided by the rules. It was so offensive for them to see what played out when thousands of people turned out at that funeral. Regardless of the technicalities around whether attendance was within the guidance, the people who set the rules ought to have abided by them, in detail and in spirit. That incident really let us all down. We need to learn from that and move on. The people whom we serve must be at the heart of everything that we do. Top 2.30 pm Mr Speaker: We move on to topical questions. Multi-year Budget T1. Mr O'Toole asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, after noting that panto season has begun with the Education Minister and the Finance Minister engaging in a "Oh no they didn't" episode over the Budget and that Budget dysfunction has been going on, frankly, nearly as long as May McFettridge at the Grand Opera House, the difference being that May is entertaining and, unlike the Assembly, provides value for money, to guarantee that there will be a multi-year Budget, which the people of the North deserve and have been promised, and that the deputy First Minister’s party will not block one. (AQT 1861/22-27) Mrs Little-Pengelly: That was a rather laboured metaphor. The Budget is a serious matter, and we will deal with it seriously. The exchange of letters between the Finance Minister and the Education Minister outlined starkly the challenges that we face in our core public services. Throughout this year, Health and Education in particular have made clear the pressure that they are under. That is not new; we know that there are big challenges in those areas. Until we can get transformation, we will continue to run inefficient services that cost too much of what we have. Those are big issues for the Executive to take on. We must tackle transformation and inefficiency and ensure that the money that goes to Departments for our public services is maximised. The Minister of Education and the Minister of Health are up for that, but it is an important discussion to have, because, again, the heart of the matter is that we want excellent public services for the people whom we serve. Mr O'Toole: Deputy First Minister, there is nothing laboured about holding you to account for what your party does. Today, you have failed to give me a commitment on a multi-year Budget and on institutional reform, both of which are essential. Your party claims to want to make Northern Ireland work, but your actions suggest anything but that. In sincerely wishing you and your colleagues a merry Christmas, may I say that, if a ghost appears before you or your colleagues on Christmas Eve — the ghost of Christmas yet to come — and shows you a vision of a new Ireland, you should reflect on whether your party's actions have helped to hasten the arrival of that day? Mrs Little-Pengelly: I am absolutely committed to making Northern Ireland work. We must all work together constructively, drive forward transformation, drive forward efficiency and make sure that we deliver excellent public services. We have a challenge at the moment in our big Departments. That is no laughing matter. It is not a joke. It is serious, and we will engage on that in the next days and weeks, because I fully support a multi-year Budget. There are challenges, looking across all the needs and demands in each Department, but I give an absolute commitment to work with everyone to drive forward the outcomes that we want to see. Civic Forum: Proposals Mrs Guy: I do not have any festive metaphors. I just have a simple question. T2. Mrs Guy asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, in light of TEO's announcement in July that it would reconstitute the Civic Forum and its commitment to bringing forward detailed proposals by the end of 2025, whether they will still bring forward those proposals, given that it will be the Assembly’s final plenary session of 2025 on Tuesday. (AQT 1862/22-27) Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. We are actively looking at that. We have looked at a range of ideas and proposals for what a civic forum would look like. The reconstituted Civic Forum will be smaller. The idea behind it is that people with particular expertise on an issue can be brought in to produce a report. We are actively looking at a range of issues, in line with other developments that we have been pushing forward in the Executive Office, including the delivery unit. It is about finding a way of adding value to the work that happens in Departments and other places to ensure that it amounts to value for money, and, perhaps, to bring a different way of looking at those issues. The value of the likes of the Civic Forum is in bringing people in from the outside, partly as disruptor and partly to come with different ideas and new ways of doing things to try to better reach the outcome. Mrs Guy: I will interpret that as a "No" to the question of getting those proposals by the end of 2025. Staying with civic engagement, there is a commitment in 'New Decade, New Approach' to bring forward one to two issues a year for civic engagement, including one citizens' assembly. We are halfway through that decade. Will TEO deliver a citizens' assembly next year? Does the deputy First Minister agree that reform of the institutions is the logical first topic of discussion at that citizens' assembly? Without the institutions, we cannot deliver for any of our people. Mrs Little-Pengelly: Thank you. There is a tendency in this place, from the Ministers from the Member's party in particular, to try to devolve responsibility for decision-making from this place, should that be to arm's-length bodies, new bodies or new commissions. I do not know how many of those are coming through. Reform is an issue that should be discussed, but it should be discussed in this place, not put out to another body. I also say to the Member that we need to be very careful when talking about 'New Decade, New Approach'. Members in this place talk, all the time, about so-called commitments in 'New Decade, New Approach'. I ask that everybody look at that document carefully. There are a number of annexes and attachments to it that indicate that such issues may be "considered" by the Assembly, but there were not political agreements across the parties on those. We have no plans to have a citizens' assembly. International Relations Strategy T3. Mr Donnelly asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister why the Executive have still not agreed an international relations strategy, particularly given that they should have done so many years ago? (AQT 1863/22-27) Mrs Little-Pengelly: Thank you. As I indicated to the House previously, international relations is not a devolved issue, although we do, of course, engage internationally, which is why our international relations strategy will incorporate a range of work that we do through Invest NI and trade discussions, as well as through soft diplomacy of the type that we do around St Patrick's Day and incoming visits to Northern Ireland from a range of delegations. All those aspects of the strategy are very clear: we do that at the moment. The Member will be aware, however, that a number of significant global issues have been happening. We have asked the international relations team to fully consider those, particularly how we engage on tariffs and the evolving nature of the UK-EU discussions on the substantive trade deal. There are a number of moving parts in our international relationships. We want to make sure that what we come out with is fit for purpose and takes into account not just the way that we have done things in the past but the challenges that we have seen evolving over the past 12 months. Mr Donnelly: Without wishing to extend the seasonal metaphors, that is Christmas fudge. The Economy Minister is in China. Does the deputy First Minister accept that such overseas engagements are happening without an Executive-agreed framework and that the lack of strategy is potentially damaging to Northern Ireland at a time when clarity and agreement are urgently needed on the approach to handling issues such as human rights? Mrs Little-Pengelly: Thank you. No, it does not impact on that at all. It does not take there to be a strategy for people to know that they need to go out and champion Northern Ireland and our businesses to try to attract inward investment. We have a strategic direction for that, which is set with Invest NI, in where our offices are. I support bringing forward a revised and refreshed international relations strategy that brings in all those threads, but I highlight the fact that, Michelle, the First Minister, and I raised the issue of human rights when we met the Chinese, and that I have asked for a look to be taken at what a human rights framework for the approach to international engagement would look like, particularly in our China office. EU Observer Status T4. Mrs Dillon asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, given that observer status in the EU would help to strengthen relations with Europe and enable concerns with post-Brexit trading realities to be raised with MEPs and the Commission, whether they accept that it is entirely inappropriate to use the petition of concern mechanism, which is intended to protect minorities, in respect of a motion that calls for increased democratic representation through having observer status in the European Parliament? (AQT 1864/22-27) Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. The mechanisms set down by the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement and amended by the St Andrews Agreement recognised that significant sections in each community are represented in the Executive and in this place. In fact, it was her party and nationalist parties that pushed so hard to ensure that there were minority vetoes and consensus on the various voting blocs in this place. It is now the case that, every time that there is a majority, or there is a feeling that there may be a slight majority, on a particular issue, no matter how divisive that may be, that that should simply prevail. That is not how those mechanisms work. We have seen that play out in City Hall and in this place. There is no consensus on that issue. From the point of view of a power-sharing Executive in a place where we are all here by consensus — we agreed on the terms of Executive formation and Assembly restoration — we need to be clear that, where there is no community consensus, the petition of concern is the mechanism to very clearly demonstrate that, and, on this issue, there is no community consensus. Mrs Dillon: It is to protect minority rights. There was consensus from the people of the North that they did not want to be removed from the European Union; I just make that clear. Do you now accept that Brexit, with everything that has resulted from it, has been an economic and political disaster that is supported by a shrinking minority in Britain, in the North and, indeed, in the Assembly and that the people of the North voted to remain in Europe? Mrs Little-Pengelly: There was not consensus on the issue in Northern Ireland; there was a majority that voted in Northern Ireland, but there was also a majority across the United Kingdom that voted to leave. At the very heart of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement was an acceptance that Northern Ireland would remain, in its entirety, part of the United Kingdom until such time as the people of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland separately voted otherwise: the Member's party accepted that. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. By democratic referendum, the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. Regardless of your view of it, that is a democratic decision that, of course, the UK Government ought to have abided by. It is not about how the constituent parts of the UK voted. The UK, as a whole, voted to leave, and the UK as a whole, of course, ought to have abided by that referendum and to have left. Mr Speaker: Mr Bradley is not in his place. Armed Forces Act 2021: Armed Forces Covenant T6. Mr Allen asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, further to the motion on support for our armed forces community that the House passed on 4 November, what steps the Executive Office has taken, particularly on the armed forces covenant, to implement the Armed Forces Act 2021. (AQT 1866/22-27) Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his important question, which, as he will know, is about something that is close to my heart. Our veterans have not been treated and respected as they ought to have been. The needs of Northern Ireland veterans are just as important as those of veterans in any other part of the United Kingdom, if not more so. We contribute significantly more per head of the population to our armed forces, and many people were impacted on by the Troubles. We have many people coming forward for the Troubles permanent disablement payment scheme who suffer from a range of mental health issues and, it is important to say, from post-traumatic stress disorder. It is clear from listening to people talk about that that it was not treated as it ought to have been at the time. Our armed forces community has significant needs, and we need to do more to support it. I am pleased to say that, under the armed forces legislation, there are particular obligations for Education, Health and councils. Each relevant Department is examining those in order to push them forward, but I firmly believe that the Northern Ireland Executive should fully adopt the armed forces covenant. We should step up and support those who, like you, did so much to defend and to serve. Mr Allen: I declare an interest as a military veteran. I thank the deputy First Minister for her answer. What further steps are available to the Executive to oversee governance and accountability and to make sure that, where disadvantage arises, it is tackled and addressed head-on? Mrs Little-Pengelly: Unfortunately, there is not, nor has there been, political agreement in the Executive Office, because Sinn Féin takes a particular approach to the issue. I appeal to the Sinn Féin Ministers in the Executive to overcome their prejudice against our armed forces community and to recognise that it has objective needs. We often hear from the Sinn Féin Benches that things should be based on objective need. There are objective needs in our armed forces community, and Sinn Féin should overcome what it thinks politically about our armed forces in order to make sure that those needs are met. I would like the Executive to agree the armed forces covenant. We talk about a minority and a majority, and I believe that there is a majority in the Executive to support an armed forces covenant being fully applied across all our Departments. In the meantime, individual Departments, such as the Department of Health, the Department for Communities and the Department of Education, can drive forward what they can do to really support those in our armed forces who did so much to defend and protect all of us in Northern Ireland and across the UK. Mr Speaker: Members, please take your ease for a moment while the Ministers change. Top 2.45 pm Communities Mr Speaker: Question 2 has been withdrawn. Fuel Poverty 1. Mr Allen asked the Minister for Communities to outline the policies implemented by his Department to tackle fuel poverty in each of the past five financial years. (AQO 2848/22-27) Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): Over the past five financial years, my Department has implemented the following policies to tackle fuel poverty and reduce the impact of rising energy costs. The COVID-19 heating payment scheme was established in 2021 as part of the COVID-19 response to assist households to offset additional heating costs incurred during the pandemic so that they would not create an added burden or anxiety. The energy payment support scheme was implemented in 2022. The cost-of-living support payments commenced in 2022-23 and extended into 2023-24. In October 2024, I secured £17 million in Executive funding, enabling a one-off £100 payment during the winter of 2024-25 for pensioners affected by changes to the winter fuel payment scheme. Alongside that, over the past five years, my Department has continued to deliver cold weather payments, discretionary support schemes, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE) oil-buying networks, the NIHE energy savings advice line, the affordable warmth scheme and winter fuel payments. Mr Allen: I thank the Communities Minister for his answer. Minister, the question refers to tackling fuel poverty, so will you elaborate on the analysis that the Department has done of how those initiatives have driven down fuel poverty? Mr Lyons: I do not have that analysis to hand. However, before the end of this month, I will present the new fuel poverty strategy to the Executive. The point of that strategy is to make sure that we have measures in place that will make a difference. I am clear that we need to make sure that we target people with interventions that will make a difference not just for one winter but year after year. We will do that by making sure that improvements are made to homes and to heating systems. Those measures have the longer-term impact and bring better value for money, which is what I am determined to deliver. Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for his commitment to address fuel poverty. Minister, do you have any plans to increase funding for the affordable warmth scheme? Mr Lyons: Yes, because that is one of the most effective ways that we can use our money, whether that is on boilers, insulation or other measures that can have benefit year-on-year, as I outlined in my previous answer. I committed an opening budget of £7·5 million to the affordable warmth scheme this year, covering 5% of committed approvals from the previous year and £2·5 million for new approvals this year. As always, I requested additional funding for the affordable warmth scheme in the monitoring rounds; however, those bids were not met. For that reason, I have committed a further £1·5 million to the scheme this year for new approvals, and that will be found from within my Department's budget. Ms K Armstrong: Minister, we await the much looked-forward-to fuel poverty strategy. Have you made adequate application to the multi-year Budget to fund any innovative measures that will come forward in that strategy? Mr Lyons: I am happy to confirm that I will make significant bids to the Executive for the fuel poverty strategy. I want it to be ambitious and transformational, and it is a good investment. We have been good in recent years at handing people funding to help them with their energy bills, but that helps for only one year. I want to do something that is much longer-term and that has recurring benefit every year without a recurring cost. That is one of the best ways that we can use our money and one of the best ways that we can tackle poverty, because so much poverty in Northern Ireland can be attributed to fuel poverty and the costs associated with it. I will make ambitious bids to the Executive and look forward to support for something that can be truly transformational. Ms Hunter: With regard to fuel poverty, can you outline what effort you are making to tackle the issue of damp and mould in houses across Northern Ireland? Have you considered introducing Awaab's law in Northern Ireland? Mr Lyons: That is why I am bringing forward the fuel strategy and why it will have targeted measures to help those most in need. The issues that the Member raises are a direct result of the inefficiency of some of our homes, so that will be addressed. We are not considering Awaab's law at the minute because we have other measures and standards already in place in Northern Ireland that were not present in England and the rest of the UK. However, those things will all be kept under review. Anti-poverty Strategy 3. Mr Mathison asked the Minister for Communities to outline how his Department intends to utilise the statutory duties and mechanisms available under the Children’s Services Co-operation Act (Northern Ireland) 2015 in the development of the anti-poverty strategy. (AQO 2850/22-27) Mr Lyons: I anticipate that, throughout the lifespan of the strategy, as individual Departments develop and deliver actions, they may wish to use the potential of the Children's Services Co-operation Act to ensure a joined-up and sustainable approach to delivery. That will be especially important where actions to be delivered require partnership work and extend across the competency and vires of more than one Department. In particular, when developing the associated action plan for the anti-poverty strategy, I will ensure that colleagues consider the Children’s Service Co-operation Act where appropriate. Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for his answer. There are so many issues, as he has alluded to, in tackling poverty for which we need cross-departmental action, not least when we seek to tackle poverty that affects children. The issue of widening access to free school meals was debated a couple of weeks ago in the Chamber. What collaborative work is he undertaking with the Education Minister to deliver on that agenda? Mr Lyons: The Member is right to highlight that there are issues that cut across Departments, and that is why it is a cross-departmental and Executive anti-poverty strategy. There have been ongoing discussions at the cross-departmental working group level to look at the actions that we can put in place that will make a difference. We need to spend our money where it can be most effective and go towards those in need. That is where the issues come, along with the universal approach to free school meals in particular. I assure the Member that there has been close working with the Education Minister on a number of the issues that will affect children and young people in schools. Mrs Cameron: Both Sinn Féin and the Alliance Minister have talked about introducing a child payment similar to that operating in Scotland. Has the Minister assessed that, and can he share any indications of associated costs? Mr Lyons: I want to see targets set that are realistic, achievable, sustainable and, most important, based on evidence. The last estimate that we have of the cost of introducing a child payment in Northern Ireland is just short of £300 million a year, and that does not count IT and other delivery costs. However, I have yet to see clear evidence that that funding would have the intended impact. Scotland is not on track to meet its targets, despite the delivery of a new child payment costing their Government in excess of £471 million annually. Let me be clear: I am not at all opposed to spending more money to make sure that we tackle poverty, but I want it done in the right way. That highlights the distinction between choosing what is popular and what is right. We need to work hard at getting more people the opportunities they need, getting more people into work, tackling fuel poverty, having better energy efficiency and ensuring that we have better-paid jobs in Northern Ireland. That is what I want to focus on. Employment: Upper Bann 4. Mrs Dodds asked the Minister for Communities to outline any actions that he is taking to get more people into work in Upper Bann. (AQO 2851/22-27) Mr Lyons: I am fully committed to helping people into employment as a key route out of poverty. That is why I have championed employment programmes and initiatives to help people across Northern Ireland, including in the Upper Bann constituency. I have provided £685,000 to the Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon Labour Market Partnership this year. That funding is delivering a wide range of supports to individuals, including a return-to-work programme, a disability employment programme, a disability upskilling programme and a classroom assistant academy. On 6 October, I announced a £12·4 million JobStart scheme focused on supporting working-age benefit claimants to move into employment. There has been a positive start across Northern Ireland. In Upper Bann specifically, over 40 JobStart opportunities are already available for claimants in the area. Staff in my jobs and benefits offices in Banbridge, Lurgan and Portadown provide help and support daily to claimants and jobseekers in the Member's constituency. That ranges from job clubs and mini job fairs to bespoke employment and training opportunities. We also fund a range of activities that are designed not only to get more people into work but, importantly, to keep people in work, particularly if they are trying to manage health conditions or disabilities. Mrs Dodds: Thank you, Minister, for your response. We all want to see a more inclusive economy in which people with disabilities can play a part and be economically active. What further work can be done to lower barriers and provide more help for employers who are willing to look at that route to providing employment? Mr Lyons: The Member is absolutely right to raise the issue. That is why my disability and work strategy is out for consultation right now, as she will know. Its ambition is to lift the disability employment rate from 40% to 50%, which represents an additional 50,000 people in employment. That is the combined total of the current workforce of the Northern Ireland Civil Service and the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust. That is the difference that we can make. Not only is it good for employers to have access to a wider pool of talent and for employees to have the economic and health benefits of being in work but it will result in savings from welfare payments and in money from income tax of £750 million a year. We are simply saying that we want to get the disability employment rate up to where it is in the rest of the UK and that doing so will have £750 million of economic benefits. That is why the strategy is out for consultation. I encourage people to respond to it. I hope that, in doing that and through implementing the measures, we can change the perceptions of disabled people and show that work is a route for them. I hope that the strategy will impact on many people in Upper Bann and beyond. Liquor Licensing 5. Ms Finnegan asked the Minister for Communities, in light of the 26 recommendations of the independent review of the liquor licensing system in Northern Ireland, including the surrender principle, to outline any action that he is considering to modernise liquor licensing. (AQO 2852/22-27) Mr Lyons: My published response outlines the actions that I have instructed my officials to take. Actions that can be delivered in the shorter term include approving an industry code of practice from 1 January that will strengthen existing provisions associated with the recommendation for mandatory training on responsible service, protecting vulnerable groups and alcohol harm for licence holders and staff; improving the accessibility of the licensing regime, including updating the Department's dedicated liquor licensing web page and working with court staff on the design of its modernisation and digitalisation programme; and investigating the options for the licensing of cultural venues, including the potential to introduce secondary legislation to expand the categories of venue eligible to apply for a place of public entertainment licence. The relevant recommendations in the report on a review of the local producer's licence are to be considered as part of a departmental review of those provisions that is expected to launch early next year. Ms Finnegan: I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, the report that your Department commissioned was unequivocal in showing that the surrender principle prevents new pubs from being set up. Evidence shows that two thirds of existing licences are being surrendered to off-licences rather than to bars. Do you accept that your do-nothing approach will do further damage to the night-time economy and will cause the number of bars in cities, towns and villages to continue to reduce while preventing entrepreneurs from setting up new bars and businesses? Mr Lyons: The abolition of the surrender principle in its totality would have a detrimental impact on existing hospitality businesses. I do not accept, however, the Member's assertion that I am taking a do-nothing approach. I have already outlined some of the actions that I will take in the near future. There is also further work to be done — I have set out that work already — on how the current licensing regime has contributed to the growth in off-licences at the expense of pub licences and how that is informed by changes in demand. We will look at how increases in pub sales have contributed to alcohol-related harms. We will also look at occasional licences and at producers' licences. The Member's characterisation of the issue is wrong. Top 3.00 pm Mr O'Toole: If you will indulge me, Mr Speaker: this place is some craic. Sinn Féin asks this question today, but it opposed the review that I secured in law four years ago. It did not vote for it. The Minister and his party, who are now not doing anything about it, did vote for it. This place is bonkers. I am proud to have been the most consistent champion of reforming the way in which our licensing system works. People in lots of small towns and villages across Northern Ireland will not be able to go to the pub over Christmas because the pub has shut. The pub has shut because an off-sales has had to open, which means that people will go in and buy big slabs of beer and drink it in far-too-large quantities in their house. If the Minister is not going to reform the surrender principle — I accept that it is a challenge to reform that — will he at least look at establishing a licensing authority? The system is totally opaque and cannot continue the way it is. Mr Lyons: The Member is just making generalisations. We do not have any evidence for what he has just said. That is why we have said that we are going to look at what the causes are of the licenses being surrendered to off-licences rather than other pubs. You have to look at the picture across the UK and Ireland, where there are different licensing regimes in place. They are having similar issues in those areas. Pubs and bars are struggling to stay open in other parts of the UK as well, so I do not think that you can lay that entirely at the feet of the licensing regime. I hope that the Member listened to what I said when I made the statement in the Chamber and to what I have said today. He is wrong to assert that nothing is being done on the issue. Mr Martin: Minister, what is your plan regarding the report recommendations specifically around providing help to local producers by extending taproom opening hours and the possibility of allowing guest taps in pubs? Mr Lyons: I have not rejected the author's recommendations in relation to local producers' licences. We introduced those licences to modernise the regime in 2022. We are under an obligation to undertake a statutory review of the provisions, which I anticipate will be launched early next year. My response to the author's recommendations, in addition to the need for further revision and reform, will be considered in the context of the responses to that wider review. My Department does not have the power to require pubs to provide a guest beer tap on their premises, and it will be for the Department for the Economy and Invest NI to look at that, but we will be reviewing that next year. Ms Bradshaw: Minister, I was in the Chamber along with many others on the day on which you made your statement on how you were taking forward the recommendations from the University of Stirling's review. It was very clear that day that you took your direction on the surrender principle from conversations, possibly, with Hospitality Ulster. Will you explain why you failed to engage with other stakeholders, such as local brewers and producers and CAMRA, in your decision-making? Mr Lyons: The Member is making that up. She has no idea of what informed my view or the view of this —. Ms Bradshaw: I am going by what you said, Minister. Mr Lyons: You have to let me answer the question. That is how Question Time works. I engaged with other stakeholders. I have engaged with those who came forward. The response to each of the recommendations was set out by me in the Chamber, and they were informed by a variety of factors. Do not try to muddy the waters in any way and say that —. Ms Bradshaw: Minister, I am just explaining that you said —. Mr Speaker: You asked a question, Ms Bradshaw, and it is now the Minister's turn to speak, so you should let him. Mr Lyons: You are trying to muddy the waters and insert some uncertainty into this. These were all carefully considered. I have to take into consideration all the evidence. That is exactly what we have done. Ms Bradshaw: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker: We do not do points of order during Question Time. Irish Language Strategy 6. Mr Sheehan asked the Minister for Communities for an update on when he will bring an Irish language strategy to the Executive. (AQO 2853/22-27) Mr Lyons: All Departments are engaged in the development of the Ulster-Scots language, heritage and culture strategy and the Irish language strategy through the work of the programme of the cross-departmental working group. The group is working to ensure that each strategy is coherent, costed and accompanied by a series of achievable actions within departmental remits. The detailed timing for that work is, to a large degree, outside the control of my Department. There is a wide range of material to be considered. Ministers need to take into account their existing departmental priorities and budgets and the practicalities involved in delivering on the vision. Once the group has completed its work programme, and on receipt of relevant departmental approvals, officials will bring both draft strategies for my consideration, and I will then bring them to the Executive. Mr Sheehan: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a fhreagra. [Translation: I thank the Minister for his answer.] Now that Pól Deeds has been appointed as the Irish Language Commissioner, will the Minister tell us what discussions he has had with him around the development of an Irish language strategy and what role the commissioner will have in its implementation? Mr Lyons: I have not met the commissioner at this stage. Obviously, right now —. The Member is shaking his head, but it is the truth. I have not met the commissioner at this stage. [Interruption.] I have not met any of the commissioners yet. Right now, the working group —. He is sighing quite a lot, Mr Speaker. He is not very happy, but I am setting out the position for him. [Inaudible] Mr Sheehan: interest is zilch and zero. Mr Lyons: He says that my interest is "zilch and zero" on the issue. Let me tell the Member that I have not had responses on the issue yet from some Departments. I have had no responses from the Department for Infrastructure. Some Members: Ooh. Mr Lyons: I have had no responses from the Department for the Economy — Some Members: Ooh. Mr Lyons: — and I have had no responses from the Department of Finance. Some Members: Oh dear, dear. Mr Lyons: So, perhaps he might want to spend his time asking some of his party colleagues where their interest lies in the matter. [Interruption.] He can shout —. He likes to do this: when he does not have any arguments left, he likes to shout from those Back Benches. [Interruption.] Mr Sheehan —. Mr Speaker: I think that Mr Sheehan would need to let the Minister respond. Mr Lyons: Mr Sheehan, the truth might hurt — Mr Sheehan: The truth is that you are not interested. Mr Lyons: — but that is what is happening. Mr Sheehan: You are not interested in developing —. Mr Speaker: Mr Sheehan, you have been heard. It is the Minister's turn to be heard. Mr Lyons: Mr Sheehan says that I am not interested in the matter, but it appears that it is his Ministers who are not interested. Mr Donnelly: We have just heard from the Minister that he has not met any of the language commissioners yet. Does he have any dates or plans to meet them? Mr Lyons: Yes, I do have plans to meet them, but I am not sure whether those dates have been set yet. If the Member has a genuine interest in that, I am happy to let him know when those meetings happen. Mr Brooks: There will be some cross words, it appears, in the Sinn Féin group room. Minister, having seen some of the costs that are being brought about by policies in Belfast City Council, will cost be taken into account in the development of the strategies? Mr Lyons: I assure the Member that we will certainly not allow ourselves to get into the position that Belfast City Council has allowed itself to get into over the issue. It is right that, when we bring forward proposals on language, those are costed, proportionate, reasonable and accepted by the wider community. Unfortunately, with Belfast City Council, we have seen what happens when some parties ride roughshod over others and have no care or consideration for the public purse. That will not happen in the development of these strategies. Mr Durkan: If the Minister wants to assure us that his interest in the Irish language is not zilch, will he outline what steps he has taken since being in office to promote and safeguard the Irish language? Mr Lyons: The Member will be aware that the promotion and development of the Irish language takes place through my Department in the funding that is given to the North/South language bodies. Last week, we had a North/South Language Body meeting and were updated on its work and the new, innovative programmes that it is rolling out. That is where that work on the Irish language takes place. Sport NI: CEO Appointment 7. Mr Gildernew asked the Minister for Communities for an update on when a new chief executive officer of Sport NI will be appointed. (AQO 2854/22-27) Mr Lyons: Employment issues for individual Sport NI staff are a matter for Sport NI. At present, the interim chief executive officer remains in place. I am not aware, at this time, of any planned recruitment of a new chief executive officer. Mr Gildernew: Minister, as we all know, Sport NI has been beset with governance issues for a number of years. It is crucial that that organisation has effective and stable leadership. Will the Minister give an update on the overall governance arrangements of Sport NI and whether he plans to review them? Mr Lyons: The Member will understand that I cannot comment further on that particular issue. However, there has been considerable improvement over the past year, in particular. I am very supportive of and pleased with the work that the board, under its new chair and the interim chief executive officer, is doing. We are in a much better governance position in Sport NI than we have been in the past, and I hope that it can focus now on sporting issues rather than some of the governance issues that have been such a cause for concern over the past number of years. Mr McMurray: While Sport NI has had its travails, with two chief executive officers and the governance issues that the Minister has referenced, the jewel in its crown — Tollymore National Outdoor Centre — remains closed. What commitments and assurances can the Minister give that a new Sport NI chief executive officer will ensure that NI retains a national outdoor centre and ensure the safety of all those involved in outdoor recreation? Mr Lyons: I am grateful to the Member for his question and for his support of the project. Both he and Diane Forsythe have raised it with me separately, and I understand its importance, not just for South Down but for Northern Ireland more widely. The Member will be aware that a review is taking place. I cannot say anything more on that at the moment, but I promise to keep him and other interested Members updated. Mr Gaston: Will the Minister give an assurance that, during the search for a new chief executive of Sport NI, consideration will be given to finding someone who will strive to ensure that people from Northern Ireland can compete for the United Kingdom at an international level in all sports if they want to? Mr Lyons: Under my leadership, that is the policy of the Department. That is what we are pursuing, and we believe that people should be free to choose. There has been ongoing work on that since I came into office, and I have made very clear what I expect of officials. Work is being done, some of it at an international level, and some of it at a UK-wide level as sports councils meet to set policy. The Member can be assured that that is the policy of the Department under my leadership. Community Infrastructure Fund 8. Mr Clarke asked the Minister for Communities how he will ensure that funding from the Northern Ireland community infrastructure fund will address the needs of community halls across Northern Ireland. (AQO 2855/22-27) 14. Ms Ferguson asked the Minister for Communities for an update on the Northern Ireland community infrastructure fund. (AQO 2861/22-27) Mr Lyons: Mr Speaker, with your permission, I will answer questions 8 and 14 together. I can advise that 744 of the 835 applicants who submitted expressions of interest have been invited to complete a stage 2 application. The stage 2 application process opened on Thursday 4 December, and it will close on Monday 23 January 2026. Stage 1 — the expression of interest — was deliberately light touch to make it accessible for all groups. However, stage 2 will be a more in-depth application form, which will be assessed by Co-operation Ireland. Applications will be scored against evidence of need, impact and sustainability, capacity and readiness and value for money. It is intended that applicants will be notified of the final outcome by the end of March 2026. Mr Clarke: First, I commend the Minister for the programme. It has clearly been successful, given the high number of applications. As I am sure that the Minister knows, a high number of those will be from rural locations. Will the Minister give an update on Mr Muir's commitment to providing additional funding, given that he has responsibility for rural areas? Also, now that the application window is open, will the Minister look to move the requirement for building control certificates to a later stage so that the process is not front-loaded? Otherwise, that could make it difficult for some applicants. Mr Lyons: I am pleased to report that there has been positive engagement with the AERA Minister. As the Member will be aware, over 50% of applications were from rural communities. I hope that we can make progress and announce the detail of that very soon. It is an important fund, which will make significant changes to communities, rural and urban, and I look forward to its being progressed. I understand the Member's concerns with regard to the high costs involved with building control applications. I will be meeting officials after Question Time to discuss that, and I am happy to provide the Member with an update in due course. It is important that projects are shovel-ready to ensure that all spending is incurred within the financial year, but I hear what is being said, and I will do my best on that. Ms Ferguson: Many groups are frustrated by the fact that you have to have planning permission in place to qualify. Will the Minister clarify why that requirement was added? Mr Lyons: As I have said, we need to make sure that projects are shovel-ready so that the money can be spent in the next financial year. We did not want to be in a position where we were taking a risk on applicants being able to get planning permission, because that would put the ability to spend that money in-year under pressure. That is why that rule was put in place. Mr Butler: I do not know whether the Minister is aware of the Ballinderry War Memorial Hall in my constituency, which is a small volunteer-led community hall. Will the Minister detail how those smaller community halls will receive equitable access to the funding and support with any further application processes? Top 3.15 pm Mr Lyons: I am happy to confirm that it will all be done in a completely fair and transparent manner. That is set out in all the guidance notes and documentation. I encourage Members, and members of the public who have applied, to read that guidance, where they will see the processes that will be put in place and what we will be doing to help the projects to progress. Ms Egan: Minister, will you commit to producing, once the funding is allocated, a full list of the successful applications, the works to be carried out, the location of the community halls and the amount awarded to each? Mr Lyons: There are rules around the release of information — some of it may need to be caveated or redacted — but I am more than happy to do everything that we can within the law to be as open and transparent as possible. Mr Speaker: We move on to topical questions. Housing Association Grants T1. Mr Durkan asked the Minister for Communities for his response to the publication of research into the impact of the changes that he has made to the rate of housing association grants and total cost indicators, which concludes that they will have a detrimental impact on the delivery of desperately needed social housing. (AQT 1871/22-27) Mr Lyons: The Department and the sector face many challenges, particularly in relation to budget. Those challenges create opportunities for us to be creative. We need to do more with less. We need to work together to address the barriers to finance and social housing supply. I have not seen the research that is quoted in the media today. I have no doubt that it will continue to be a challenging environment for housing associations if they continue to do everything in the way that they have always done. That is why I have said that I will work with them urgently on the design guide and other regulations to find efficiencies and make it as cheap as possible, within current standards, to build more homes. Yes, the reduction in the grant, if that is the only thing that happens, will have an impact, but it needs to be matched by other actions, looking at efficiencies, the design guide and private investment. Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for his answer, although I am surprised that he has not had time to see that important research. There are varying opinions on the impact of the Minister's move. I sincerely hope that he is right; I fear, however, that he will be proven wrong. He has now committed to working with the housing associations; he did not consult with them prior to the decision. What assurances can he give to the 40,000 households on the waiting list that the changes will not impact on them negatively? Mr Lyons: We have done extensive work and research to make sure that we are putting the grant where it can make the most impact and deliver the most homes. I need to stretch it as far as possible. Quite frankly, Mr Durkan, the status quo is not good enough. I can do only what I can with the money that I have. I need to make it go further. That is why I need the housing associations to work with me and to look at, yes, additional private finance but also making the moves that we can make, and that they have asked me to make, to make the building of homes more cost-effective. There are issues around the design guide that I have said that I will look at urgently. The housing associations have asked me whether every single home needs to have the extra structure in place so that they can be adapted for disabilities. That requirement adds thousands of pounds to the cost of every house, and removing it would more than outweigh the reduction in the grant that is available. I am more than happy to say that I will not stick to the status quo and will always look for innovative ways in which we can do our job and meet our targets. I will work with the housing associations on that, and we will use every lever that we can. It is important, however, that we get as much out of our grant as possible so that we can build as many homes as possible. Economic Inactivity T2. Ms Brownlee asked the Minister for Communities, given the significant concern about the growing rate of economic inactivity in Northern Ireland, what steps he is taking to support more people to get into work and reduce the number of individuals who are not in education, employment or training. (AQT 1872/22-27) Mr Lyons: We have a problem in this country with economic inactivity. In the UK as a whole, economic inactivity is at 21%; in Northern Ireland, it is at almost 27%. That is why I am investing over £12 million in a new JobStart programme that helps those who find it hardest to access employment. We need to get more people into work, and that is what we are doing through that scheme. Ms Brownlee: I thank the Minister for his answer. Does he agree that it is simply unfair that an ever-increasing number of working people are being asked to pay more to cover the cost of rising benefits bills and that that situation is becoming completely unsustainable? Mr Lyons: Yes, absolutely. I will give the Member some figures. Ten years ago, working-age benefits across the UK cost £57 billion. Today, the cost is more than £127 billion. In Northern Ireland, five years ago, the estimated working-age welfare bill was £3·2 billion. In just five years, that has risen to £4·7 billion. That is an increase of almost 50% in five years. Let me ask this: do we feel 50% better off? Have we dealt with poverty through that? No, we have not, so we cannot keep going down that route. We need the economy to be more productive and to get more people into work, because that is unsustainable. We cannot continue to find ourselves in a position where, perversely, it is more economically advantageous to be on benefits than in work. It is about how we will create a functioning, better society. We need to make sure that we become more productive overall. We also need to tackle not only the benefits bill but fraud and error in the system. The cost of that is £350 million a year. Our constituents go out every day to work hard, but there are those who deliberately misrepresent their circumstances. People ask, "Why do you always go on about this? Why do you always go on about welfare fraud and welfare error?". I do so because that comes at a cost to the people whom I represent and impacts on those who are in need. I am unashamed in standing up for and alongside those who go out and do a decent day's work. The question is this: why will Sinn Féin not join me in that? Why will it not let my paper go on the Executive agenda so that we can put a plan in place to deal with welfare fraud and error? I am on the side of working people. Why is it on the side of criminals? Housing Executive: Borrowing T3. Ms Finnegan asked the Minister for Communities, given that concerns about the viability of some housing schemes have added impetus to calls to get the Housing Executive building homes again, for an update on the ongoing discussions with the British Treasury about giving it the ability to borrow. (AQT 1873/22-27) Mr Lyons: I am grateful to the Member for raising the matter. I raise it all the time in the House, and I have to say that I am starting to get really fed up with how we are going round and round in circles on it. I am quite happy to update the House today. The Treasury asks for more information, we provide that information and it then asks for more. We need the Government to recognise how urgent it is, and we need them to get on with it. This is not complex; it is about a slight clarification of what the Northern Ireland Housing Executive is. We need to get on with that, and we need the Government to step up. I will continue to make that case. Ms Finnegan: I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, you previously indicated that you plan to bring a policy to the Executive on utilising public land for social housing. When will the details of that policy be made public? Mr Lyons: I hope to bring that to the Executive very soon. Before doing so, I wanted to engage with the Department of Finance — that is what I have been doing — and Land and Property Services on some of the issues. Unfortunately, we are still going back and forth on them. I hope to bring that policy to the Executive very soon, however, because I want us to use every single tool in our arsenal to get into a position to build more homes. I will continue to work on that. Policymaking: Young People T4. Ms Egan asked the Minister for Communities whether he agrees that young people's voices must be heard in policymaking and to outline how his Department meaningfully engages with young people. (AQT 1874/22-27) Mr Lyons: I absolutely agree with the Member: the voices of young people need to be heard. Their voices are heard in different ways. We have public consultation processes in which young people can share their views. I have had a number of engagements with the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People. Engagements have also happened through different arm's-length bodies to ensure that we meet the needs of young people and hear their views. If the Member thinks that we should take any further actions, I would be happy to hear about them. Ms Egan: Thank you, Minister. Do you therefore support the adoption of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in domestic law? Mr Lyons: I would need to do a little bit more work on that to see exactly what would be involved and what additional responsibilities it would place on the Department, but I will happily come back to the Member on that. Football Fund T5. Mr Delargy asked the Minister for Communities for an update on the football fund and, specifically, any reviews that his Department has undertaken, or will undertake, of the funding model. (AQT 1875/22-27) Mr Lyons: We are not currently undertaking reviews of the football fund, because we are progressing through to the next stage and doing the due diligence that we said would be done. That continues, and I look forward to its being completed so that we can move on to the next stage. Mr Delargy: Minister, Derry City Football Club is a thriving club, but your Department left it out of the football fund. What will you do to support Derry City Football Club and the other clubs that were excluded from your fund? Mr Lyons: I would like to see all clubs going through and all needs being met. Perhaps if the money had not been held to ransom over the past 14 years by members of his party, we might have been able to see more people get through. He shakes his head, but that is the case. There is no reason why that money could not have been released earlier. There is no reason why we could not have made progress. It was left —. Mr Delargy: There is no reason why [Inaudible] to the north-west. Mr Lyons: It was left by members of his party to get us to this stage. I am the one who is driving it forward. It would be preferential if it had been done long before now. State Pension: Early Access T6. Ms D Armstrong asked the Minister for Communities for an update on any engagement that he has had with the UK Government on enabling people who have paid into the state pension and who have been diagnosed with a terminal illness to access their pension early, potentially as a lump sum. (AQT 1876/22-27) Mr Lyons: Those discussions have taken place. There has also been correspondence, but, to date, there has been no positive response from the relevant Ministers. Ms D Armstrong: Minister, I thank you for your reply. Allowing early access is the right and caring approach to ensure that people who have been diagnosed can focus on the precious time that they have left without the worry of finances. What support is your Department providing for those who are in such circumstances? Mr Lyons: A number of supports are available through the Department, including discretionary support for those who find themselves in difficulty. If the Member would like a full list of the supports that we give, I would be happy to provide it to her directly in writing. I understand what a difficult time that can be, and we want to be in a position to help. We have a number of schemes that will help those who are in need. Youth Guarantee Scheme T7. Mr Mathison asked the Minister for Communities whether any Barnett consequentials will come to Northern Ireland on the back of the UK Government's £820 million youth employment and work placement scheme and, if so, how much he anticipates will be delivered. (AQT 1877/22-27) Mr Lyons: I am not sure how much will come from that or how much will be a Barnett consequential that we will be able to avail ourselves of. However, none of it will come ring-fenced; it will be for the Executive to decide how to spend it. Mr Mathison: Thank you, Minister. As has been referenced, the latest labour force survey shows that around 23,000 young people in Northern Ireland are not in education, employment or training. In that context, if Barnett consequentials materialise on the back of the UK scheme, will you make the case that some of it should be allocated to tackling those numbers and the underlying causes that keep young people out of employment and training? Mr Lyons: Absolutely. We have another expansion of the JobStart scheme to ensure that we can get more people into work and give them the support that they need. Certainly, I will make a bid for that, because it is a programme that has had a high success rate. Benefits System: Fraud and Error T8. Ms Forsythe asked the Minister for Communities to remind the House of his plans to tackle fraud and error in our benefits system, given the fact that we lose over £350 million a year to fraud and error, which should be shocking to everyone in the Chamber. (AQT 1878/22-27) Mr Lyons: I have two papers with the Executive on fraud and error. I cannot comprehend why the party opposite is not allowing them on to the agenda. The Treasury has committed to a business case that would see Northern Ireland recover some of the money that is lost to fraud. When we have Ministers going around saying how tight budgets are, I would have thought that they would welcome the fact that I am bringing forward something that would take money off criminals — those who are deliberately misrepresenting their circumstances to take money that is not theirs. That does not involve a few hundred pounds, but £30,000, £40,000 and, in some cases, £65,000. Therefore, we need to deal with the issue. Ms Forsythe: Will the Minister detail the risk that is involved in breaking parity with GB through the Bill that is going through Parliament and other interventions by DWP to tackle welfare fraud? Mr Lyons: The Bill is going through Westminster, and, if we cannot get the Executive's agreement on the matter, we will not have the same enhanced measures to detect, prevent and deter fraud and to recover money that has been overpaid or stolen. It means that the Treasury may consider penalising the Northern Ireland block grant, so there is a reputational risk. (Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair) My goodness, how shameful would it be if we were unable to recoup money from criminals and fraudsters but continued to pay them and be fined by Westminster for that? It is a black and white issue. It is straightforward, and it is time to get on with it. Let us target those who are stealing from the rest of us and do everything we can so that we are not fined. Top 3.30 pm Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That ends questions to the Minister for Communities. Members can take their ease for a moment or so. Private Members' Business European Parliament Observer Status Debate resumed on amendment to motion: That this Assembly recalls that the majority of people here voted to remain in the European Union; acknowledges that our long-term future would be best served by rejoining the European Union; recognises the democratic deficit as a result of Brexit; supports the request made by Irish MEPs in a recent letter to the President of the European Parliament for observer status in the European Parliament for our locally elected political representatives; and agrees to write to the European Parliament to express the Assembly’s position with regards to the observer status. — [Ms Ferguson.] Which amendment was: At end insert: "and its support for the establishment of a European Commission office in Belfast." — [Mr O'Toole.] Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: As a valid petition of concern on the motion has been accepted, I will proceed to ask the Question on the amendment. Question put, That the amendment be made. The Assembly divided: Ayes 42; Noes 33 AYES Ms K Armstrong, Mr Baker, Mr Blair, Ms Bradshaw, Miss Brogan, Mr Delargy, Mr Dickson, Mrs Dillon, Miss Dolan, Mr Donnelly, Mr Durkan, Ms Egan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Finnegan, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Mrs Guy, Miss Hargey, Ms Hunter, Mr Kearney, Ms Kimmins, Mr McAleer, Miss McAllister, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McMurray, Mr McNulty, Mrs Mason, Mr Mathison, Mr Muir, Ms Mulholland, Ms Murphy, Ms Nicholl, Mr O'Dowd, Mr O'Toole, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Mr Tennyson Tellers for the Ayes: Mrs Dillon, Mr Durkan NOES Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Ms D Armstrong, Mr Beattie, Mr Brett, Mr Brooks, Ms Brownlee, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mr Burrows, Mr Butler, Mrs Cameron, Mr Chambers, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mrs Erskine, Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew, Mr Gaston, Mr Harvey, Mr Irwin, Mr Kingston, Mrs Little-Pengelly, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Martin, Mr Middleton, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Robinson, Mr Stewart Tellers for the Noes: Ms Brownlee, Mr Kingston Mr Clarke acted as a proxy for Mrs Erskine. Ms Ennis acted as a proxy for Miss Brogan. Question accordingly agreed to. Top 3.45 pm Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: As Members are aware, because a valid petition of concern has been presented in relation to the motion, the vote on the motion will not be taken today. That concludes the debate. Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I will make two brief points of order. First, I mentioned earlier that the House had debated a very similar motion and indicated that the House had supported it: it did not, as some Members abstained. I wanted to correct the record in that regard. I am happy to do that, unlike others who are happy not to correct records. Secondly, I wanted to record that a majority in the House have now given their clear view that there is a need for a European Commission office in Belfast. The public will draw their conclusions about what the House supports. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: OK. Thank you for that, Matthew. Neither of those points was a point of order. [Laughter.] Members, take your ease before we move to the next item of business. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Dr Aiken] in the Chair) Traffic Collision Sites: Privacy and Dignity Mr McGlone: I beg to move That this Assembly expresses concern at the increasing trend of individuals and media outlets capturing and distributing distressing footage at the scenes of fatal or critical road traffic collisions; recognises the trauma that that causes to the families affected by those activities; supports the campaign for Caoimhe’s law, which would make it a criminal offence to record or share images and videos of victims at the scene of a fatal or critical traffic collision without lawful authority or family consent; and calls on the Minister of Justice to work with the Minister for Infrastructure to pass legislation to that effect by the end of the mandate. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who speak will have five minutes. Patsy, please open the debate on the motion. Mr McGlone: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. [Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.] The SDLP has tabled the motion in recognition of the widespread public support for the introduction of Caoimhe's law; in fact, Caoimhe's parents, Marie and Noel, are with us today in the Public Gallery, along with other people and relations who have faced similar trauma as a result of the recklessness of others. The support for legislation on the issue is a result of growing concern at the increasing trend of individuals and media outlets capturing and distributing online distressing footage of fatal or critical road traffic collisions with no thought for the families affected. Usually, the person who initially takes the images or videos has no connection to the victim or their family. The scene is simply something that they witnessed, and they want to record it as if they were at a music gig or a festival. The legislation that we want to see implemented would: "make it a criminal offence to record or share images and videos of victims at the scene of a fatal or critical traffic collision without lawful authority or family consent". Our motion calls on the Minister of Justice and the Minister for Infrastructure to work together to deliver legislation by the end of the mandate. Caoimhe O'Brien was a young woman who died in a road traffic collision on the A5 between Derry and Strabane in October 2016. News of her death was broadcast on social media before some of her relatives could even be informed of the tragedy. Caoimhe's law is named in her honour and in recognition of the additional trauma caused to her family by the online content about the accident and her death. I thank and pay tribute to Caoimhe's mother, Marie, and the members of Road Victim Support Northern Ireland-Donegal for their tireless campaign to raise awareness of the pain and hurt that has been caused to families and friends of victims of road traffic accidents (RTAs) by the thoughtless actions of strangers — strangers who, for whatever reason, chose to record the often gruesome scenes of accidents and publish the recordings online, compounding the pain, grief and loss of the victims' families. We want the Assembly to say loudly and clearly to those people, "It is not your story to tell". A number of councils have called on the Assembly and Executive to legislate. In my constituency of Mid Ulster, SDLP councillors, one of whom is here today, Councillor Malachy Quinn, secured unanimous support for their motion, which called for legal restrictions on the sharing on social media of images and videos taken at the scene of serious traffic collisions. Motions in support of the introduction of Caoimhe's law have also been passed by Newry, Mourne and Down District Council and Derry City and Strabane District Council. Those motions also had cross-party support, reflecting the public desire to see action being taken. We hope that all parties in the Assembly will support our motion today. We recognise how difficult it is to control the spread of images and videos once they have been published online. The reluctance of social media companies to accept their role as publishers and the legal restrictions that that brings has resulted in a hands-off approach to content moderation by those giants of modern technology. That approach allows them to continue to make massive profits through the sale of their users' personal data while abdicating responsibility for any pain and hurt caused by the online activities that they facilitate. Shutting down individual accounts often fails to prevent the spread of the hurtful content. The ease with which new accounts can be created can result in lengthy and costly battles with social media companies and with the offenders themselves. That is why it is particularly important to place primary responsibility with the person who chooses to take and share the image or video of the scene. That is not to say that the media companies and other individuals would be immune from the legislation, but making the act of taking the image a criminal offence would send a clear signal that we, as a society, do not accept that activity. In the North, it is not a crime to film or share footage of victims of fatal crashes, and it should be. It is an affront to the dignity of the victims in their final moments. It is a violation of their privacy. Recording those moments and publishing them online creates a painful, often permanent, reminder to families and friends of those final moments. We are not alone in trying to combat the voyeuristic impulses of some people at the scene of an accident. Some countries continue to rely on outdated legislation that fails to take account of modern technology and the speed at which that content can be replicated and shared across social media. Other countries are looking at specific ways in which to address the issue. In Spain, for example, constitutional privacy protections extend to the families of the deceased; sharing images of dead or injured people without consent can lead to criminal and civil penalties; and, importantly, families can sue for the emotional harm caused by the publishing of those images. Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. Does he agree that, after the fact, the harm has already been done? Speaking as somebody who lost someone in a horrific road traffic accident, I can tell you that I am glad that we did not have to see that scene. I can also tell you that we will always remember how we were told that we had lost our loved one. Every family should be afforded the same dignity. After the fact is much too late. People need to take personal responsibility for the harm that they do. Mr McGlone: Absolutely, and my sympathies are with you, Linda. To be told in such a way — by proxy on social media — must be awful. It is gruesome. It shows no empathy, sympathy or understanding; no reaching out to the other human being or thinking, "This is the wrong way to do things". I do not understand why anyone would even attempt to do that, but, unfortunately, they do. As I said, the most effective way to prevent it is by influencing the actions of people at the scene, because, once the images and videos are online, it is increasingly difficult to put the genie back in the bottle. A few countries have taken the initiative to put in place robust legislation that, we believe, shows the way forward. In Germany, for example, it is a criminal offence to take or share images that violate a person's highly personal sphere of life, including injured or deceased victims. German police can seize phones at the scene if they suspect that illegal recording has taken place, and German courts have upheld convictions for photographing crash victims even when the images were not shared. It is important that any legislation or proposal for legislation be done in a coordinated manner and on an all-Ireland basis. Every day, there is a lot of movement of traffic across the border, and the legislation to stop those practices should not just be in one jurisdiction but be comprehensive and all-embracing. New Zealand has the wide-ranging Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015, which makes it an offence to share images that would cause "serious emotional distress". New Zealand police can order the immediate removal of images that have been posted online. Significantly, so-called bystander filming can be prosecuted if it breaches privacy or causes distress. In comparison, the only crime that someone can be arrested for here is obstruction of emergency services at the scene. Caoimhe's law would change that. This is not about censorship; it is about compassion, respect and dignity. Families should not find out through a video on social media that their loved one has been killed or injured, nor should they have to relive those moments every time they unexpectedly come across a video of the scene. It is cruel, traumatising and unacceptable. The legislation is urgent, proportionate and widely supported. That is why we call on the Executive to act without delay to introduce the necessary legislation by the end of the mandate. Caoimhe's law will put compassion, respect and dignity first. Ms Sheerin: I support the motion and thank my constituency colleague for moving it. As Mr McGlone outlined, motions have been passed with cross-party support by a number of councils, including our own Mid Ulster District Council. We hope to see that replicated here today, because it would be important legislation. I commend the campaigners, particularly the O'Brien family, some of whom, I know, have travelled here today. Their quest to see the harm caused to them as a family not repeated for others is admirable. They should be commended for their work. As we will hear throughout the debate, road traffic accidents and fatalities are all too regular an occurrence. We are coming into a time of the year when we seem to hear about more and more accidents on our roads. Every life lost on our roads is a tragedy, and that hurt, pain and grief is compounded and exacerbated by the unnecessary sharing of images and videos on social media. I approach the conversation almost with disbelief. I cannot really believe that we need legislation to stop people doing that. I want to believe that it is a lack of awareness — ignorance — rather than malice that causes someone to whip out their phone when they come upon a road accident to do anything other than call emergency services. Unfortunately, however, we too often see circumstances in which that happens. We talk an awful lot in the Chamber about the dangers of social media and about how toxic it can be when it is not used for good. This is an example of something that causes untold damage and harm; that is completely unnecessary; and that feeds into a culture of people seeing likes, hits and other forms of attention as more important than basic human decency and kindness. Top 4.00 pm Even while we wait for legislation to be put in place — we know that implementing it properly and policing it will be complex and that it needs to be thorough and well thought out — and work towards that, we can send a clear message from the Chamber today, asking people to think in the wake of a road traffic accident and not to take pictures or videos of people in their most vulnerable moments. Doing that adds absolutely nothing in such a situation; no one adds any value by taking photos or videos of that. People need to cop on a bit and to think carefully before they start filming something like that. The message that we need to send today, even while we wait for legislation to be put in place, is this: everyone needs to think seriously about how their actions can impact on a family in their worst moments. There has been a spate of measures, and the Infrastructure Minister is working on road safety measures. There have been a number of losses on our roads in recent years, and we want to see that reduced. We want all road users to think carefully when they are out and about. The motion is about just a small element of that that should be common sense. It should not even have to be said, but it is important that we all say it clearly today. Mr Frew: I support the motion and commend the proposer of it for bringing to the House a very sensitive issue. We are a legislature, and, in legislating, we need flexibility to bring in new laws when they are required. As life becomes more modern and digital technology takes over, the Assembly must adapt. The legislative process takes a long time, as it should, for all sorts of good reasons, but we really need to get started on legislation that is required for the modern era. We support the motion wholeheartedly, because it is simply wrong to take an image on a phone or to use another device to take a picture of the scene of a horrific incident in which someone might be seriously injured or, indeed, lose their life. I was a first responder to an accident. There was a fatality in a multi-vehicle traffic accident that blocked the road in both directions, which meant that ambulances had to come from both directions, putting them miles out of their way. When I came across that, I would never have dreamt of using my phone to take a picture of the horrific scenes that I witnessed. Not only do people sustain injuries in such incidents, but others can suffer from shock, causing them to do things that are completely out of character. In that moment, such a situation can be dangerous and volatile. Rather than take your phone out, you need to deal with what you see in front of you. You need to think about the casualties who need your help and how you can respond in the best way that you can in that situation while feeling, as you do, completely hopeless. The last thing that you should do is take out your phone, other than to contact the emergency services. When I came across that scene, I was able to communicate with the fire and ambulance services in order to describe where exactly the accident was on the road and to make sure that appliances came from both directions, as was required. When people come across accidents, it is important that they act responsibly and as best they can and that they communicate with the people whom they need to communicate with, not least those who are involved in the accident. It is really important that we send the message today that it is wrong to take images at the scene of a tragic, fatal or horrific road accident. You are not serving the people who are caught up in it, you are not solving any of their vulnerabilities and you are absolutely not helping at the scene of an accident. Therefore, I support legislation that will prohibit someone taking an image of such a scene. Think of the devastation for the families finding out that their loved one has perished or has been severely hurt. Think how much more negatively impactful that would be if you were to hear it or see it on social media. Of course, when loved ones get that message from the police, it is all about trying to get around extended family before they hear it from somewhere else. They do not stand a chance if the news goes out on social media quickly and instantly and travels around the community and the town or village where they live. They have absolutely no chance. I think that we can do this, and we should search through all the existing legislation to see whether we can amend it to include this matter. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Will the Member bring his remarks to a close? Mr Frew: That is the way that we should go on the issue in order to have it in legislation as quickly as possible. Mr McMurray: I thank Mr McGlone for tabling the motion, and I thank the family members of those involved for taking the time to travel here today. For a long time, we have treated the online world as a separate realm that has limited impact on real life, but that is no longer appropriate. We are becoming increasingly aware of the real and substantial harm that online activities can create, whether those are child abuse, bullying, online scams or the capture and distribution of distressing footage of road traffic collisions. We are discussing the latter today, but it is important to recognise that the motion is part of a bigger piece of work, as Mr Frew referenced, of tackling the much wider picture of online harm. The Minister of Justice, who I thank for being here, has begun to tackle online harm in relation to violence against women and girls, and, in the previous mandate, she strengthened the law in that area by making cyberflashing a criminal offence. Furthermore, she introduced the new offences of adults pretending to be a child to groom a child and of disclosing or threatening to disclose private sexual images. Finally, Minister Long recently consulted on criminalising the creation and sharing of sexually explicit deepfake images. All those offences commonly happen online, and those are important steps in tackling online harm. Something else that those offences have in common is that they are an assault on a victim's dignity and privacy, and the same is true of taking images of serious or even fatal road traffic collisions or, for that matter, other tragic incidents. I pay tribute to the families who are here today. The family of John O'Brien, who was tragically killed in Newry this year, will know much about the videos that are being shared and how awful that is, with the loss of dignity and the sadness that goes with it. First and foremost, it is about dignity and privacy in the most intimate, private and personal moments, which, of course, include death. In this day and age, we are used to sharing and even oversharing a lot of our private lives, but I do not believe that we have lost the capacity for empathy yet. It has been expressed that the very idea of learning about someone's death through social media, be that by a message or some other way, does not bear thinking about. For members of the public, the one and only legitimate use of a smartphone at the site of a road traffic collision is to call 999. As Mr Frew described it, as a first-aider, you wonder what you would possibly do in such a scenario, but taking out your phone to voyeuristically capture such things does not bear thinking about. Taking pictures and videos of victims and distributing those images online is completely unacceptable. It can cause real hurt and emotional harm to families, and that should be reflected in the law. An individual was arrested under the Communications Act on suspicion of the misuse of a public electronic network to send a grossly offensive message. That is one route, but it does not tackle the pictures having been taken in the first place, and, among other considerations, it is ultimately dependent on the interpretation of whether the footage shared is grossly offensive. It would be helpful to have that clarity. Legislation to that effect is already in place in several European countries, and we should follow suit. Road safety is primarily a matter for the Infrastructure Minister, but this proposal touches on the responsibilities of, among others, the UK Government and the PSNI. The Minister for Infrastructure should do her part, and I urge her Department to work with key stakeholders to bring forward legislation as soon as possible. Mr Beattie: The Ulster Unionist Party will support the motion from the SDLP. We see three elements in it. The first is that it outlines the trend of taking pictures at the scene of an accident instead of assisting. We now have some elements of society who are so wedded to their phones and social media, scrambling for likes and shares and making media input, that they are too busy creating a story to help. They have lost all sense of decency, morality and compassion. We saw that back in October of this year, as has just been referred to. In a road traffic accident, a 67-year-old pedestrian was struck by a lorry and, sadly, passed away at the scene. Some people stopped to help, but others just stood and took pictures. For reasons known only to them, they decided that they would share those distressing images, which had a terrible effect on the family. John O'Brien, our lovely "Scottish John", or "Scotty John" as he was referred to by many, deserved better. His family deserved better. Sadly, the trend of taking pictures instead of helping goes well beyond traffic accidents. We see it with assaults on the person, abuse of staff and accidents in the workplace. One of my own staff saw it in the attempted abduction of a female. It has to stop. It is a societal issue that we are going to have to deal with. Secondly, the motion calls for support for the campaign known as Caoimhe's law: "which would make it a criminal offence to record or share images and videos of victims at the scene of a fatal or critical traffic collision without lawful authority or family consent". I absolutely support that, but I would go further and count in all those other instances that I mentioned. Caoimhe's family learned of her death through social media. How utterly reprehensible, disgusting and disgraceful that that could ever happen. It was done by design by those individuals. The individuals responsible have lost touch with any form of morality. They caused unimaginable hurt to Caoimhe's family and friends. Lastly, the motion calls for the Justice Minister to bring forward legislation: "by the end of the mandate" to make the taking of those ghoulish images illegal. I support that 100%, but, on a practical level, I am not sure that we can get that done before the end of the mandate. I hope that we can and that the Minister can find a way. My colleague on the Justice Committee Paul Frew outlined a way of doing that, and I would support that. However, if it cannot be achieved by the end of the mandate, we need to use what we have available to us to create a deterrent to prevent people from taking pictures. The Communications Act 2003 was used by the police to arrest a 47-year-old woman under the misuse of the public communications network to send grossly offensive and indecent material in regard to the death of John O'Brien in Newry. It did not stop the images, but it can act as a deterrent. We need more of that, but, as was mentioned in a previous debate, the police need the resources to do that, and the courts need to ensure that a deterrent goes with it. As I bring my remarks to an end, my thoughts are with the families of "Scotty John" and Caoimhe and with all the families who have suffered in this way. It is truly appalling. While the criminal justice system is not the answer to all the issues — I fully accept that — where we have nothing else, we have to use it. We have to create that deterrent. We have to make people aware that, if they are at the scene of an accident or if they witness something else, such as an assault, and their first action is to pick up the phone not to dial 999 but to take a video, they are wrong, and the justice system will come down on them. Top 4.15 pm Ms Ferguson: I thank the signatories to the motion, alongside Derry City and Strabane District Council and others that have agreed similar motions in recent weeks. I acknowledge the individuals and families across Irish society who have been affected by fatal road traffic accidents and collisions and have suffered unimaginable loss and heartbreak that no family member, parent or grandparent would ever want to happen to them. I also thank the road safety organisations across our small island that have focused on providing emotional and practical support to people who have been impacted on by the greatest possible tragedy as they navigate life after such heartbreaking loss. I recognise the work that they do on training, education and advocacy around road safety awareness, responsibility and care. As a Derry MLA, I acknowledge the work of Life After and Road Victim Support NI-Donegal. They are voluntary, family-led initiatives by people who have used their personal grief to support others through providing professional counselling services and peer support on shared harrowing experiences and through awareness-raising initiatives. In border constituencies such as mine, we know that partnership working across Ireland and honest conversations about what we can all do are vital if we are to reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries on our roads. I commend our Minister, Liz Kimmins, for her work on the Share the Road to Zero campaign, which is a road safety initiative encouraging all road users to slow down, stay alert and respect others, alongside specific campaigns for Road Safety Week, the wearing of high-visibility clothing and the protection of particularly vulnerable groups. I acknowledge the Department's road safety strategy and the accompanying action plan and targets, which have been set in collaboration with the blue-light organisations in order to keep a shared focus on reducing the number of fatalities and on specific matters including excessive speed, pedestrian casualties and the prevention of driving whilst under the influence of drink or drugs. I recognise the distress and trauma to which the motion refers that can be caused by the recording of footage by individuals or media outlets of individuals at their most vulnerable: injured or, devastatingly, deceased. In current times, that is all the more prevalent, given the constant access to phones with cameras and to social media. Such sensitive situations should be treated with dignity, compassion and respect for the individual and their grieving family, friends and community. They should be left alone. We should help reduce crowding to enable our first responders to act and, vitally, to allow families to be properly informed by the relevant authorities. Alongside my Justice Committee colleagues, I encourage whatever can be done within a review of existing legislation to be done. If something could be done in this mandate, that would be welcome. I will finish by sending my solidarity to the family of Caoimhe O'Brien and the many other relatives here today who may have lost loved ones. I thank and commend them for their efforts and for their ongoing campaign to highlight the human impact on families such as theirs who have been affected by that reality. We have a collective duty to close a harmful gap and ensure that those who are suffering do not have to face additional suffering. Mr Martin: I send my condolences to all families across Northern Ireland who have been impacted on by road collisions and road traffic accidents. They are simply terrible events for the families who have to go through them, and they often live with the consequences for years to come. As other Members have reflected, immediate coverage and distressing images being shared on a range of online platforms can severely compound their loss. My colleague Paul mentioned an example. As he was talking, I thought about the fact that I have witnessed only one road traffic accident. I was a special adviser to a Minister at the time. It all came back to me as Paul was speaking. We came across a fairly bad RTA that had just happened. A husband and his daughter were in one car, and another car was involved. The young girl was bleeding fairly badly and trapped in the car. We phoned 999; we were the first on the scene. The Fire and Rescue Service and the Ambulance Service came out and so forth. I would never think of photographing or videoing that sort of thing. We need to get the message out that, in that situation, phones are useful for one thing, which is to phone the emergency services. Caoimhe was 23 when she passed away. Her family, as they told their loved ones, were slower than social media, which is so speedy these days, and her name was shared online by strangers. I cannot imagine the pain that that caused the family. I acknowledge Caoimhe's family, who are here today. That singular act is so immeasurably cruel and heartless. I want to clarify one aspect. In answer to a question from Cathal Boylan, the Justice Minister — I am happy to give her the Floor if she wishes to respond to this, or she can answer me when she is summing up — said: "The decision to introduce legislation to prohibit the sharing of photos of road traffic collisions would be a matter for the Department for Infrastructure, which has primary responsibility for road safety policy within the Executive." I am happy that the Justice Minister is here. Is there a reason that she is here, rather than the Infrastructure Minister, if the Infrastructure Minister holds the vires? I will give her the Floor if she wants. Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): I volunteered; otherwise, there might not have been a substantive response to the motion, and I wanted to ensure for those who have been affected that there was an Executive response. As I will outline further, it will require a lot of cross-cutting cooperation between a number of Departments and, potentially, the UK Government. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Member has an extra minute. Mr Martin: That is great; thank you very much. At this point, I pause to thank the Justice Minister and the Infrastructure Minister for meeting a constituent of mine whom I will come to in a second. I lost a constituent called Jaidyn Rice on 8 July. She was just 16 at the time of her death. She had a bright future ahead of her; she wanted to join the army. A man has subsequently been charged with causing death through dangerous driving, causing death while driving without a licence and causing death while driving without insurance. I thank the Justice Minister and the Infrastructure Minister for meeting Elaine and Judith, Jaidyn's mum and grandmother, who are creating a legacy for Jaidyn by trying to protect other pedestrians in the future and keep them safe. What a legacy that would be. I pay tribute to Patsy for proposing the motion. As he mentioned, legislation exists in Germany, where photographing or recording an incident or victims is treated as a crime. This party fully supports the introduction of such legislation in Northern Ireland. Perhaps the Christmas spirit has finally descended on this place, because we will send a united message today that capturing or distributing distressing footage of fatal or critical road accidents is disgraceful and should be made illegal. My party supports the motion. We would like to see, as the Justice Minister has just mentioned, quick and firm coordination between Justice and Infrastructure, if the vires lies with it, which seems to be the case. As Chair of the Infrastructure Committee, I will raise the issue with the Infrastructure Minister. I have spoken so far as DUP lead on infrastructure, but I think that I can get away with saying, as Chair of the Infrastructure Committee, that we will raise the matter with the Minister and see what the Committee can do to get some traction on Caoimhe's law. Mr Blair: I thank the Members who tabled the important motion. It reflects current concerns and the worry that fills us all that we face a troubling trend of people and some media outlets capturing and distributing upsetting images and videos from serious or fatal road traffic accidents. What used to be rare and isolated decades ago has, with smartphones and social media, become a common and deeply invasive problem for victims and their families. Countries across Europe, such as France, Spain and Norway, have introduced strong privacy and image rights, ensuring that sharing identifiable images of victims is less permissible. In the United Kingdom, while it is legal to photograph in public, there remains no adequate safeguard against the harm caused by publishing such images. Therefore, we need a legal change. Many who stop to assist at a crash site show immense bravery and compassion. It is, however, utterly unacceptable for anyone in those circumstances to exploit those moments of crisis and turn the suffering of others into a spectacle for likes or retweets or for a fleeting — for want of a better word — moment of fame. Those actions betray not only the victims and their families but our shared sense of community decency. Such behaviour is driven by selfishness, and those responsible should feel shame and must be held to account. Moreover, social media platforms must do more to remove such material rapidly so that it cannot continue to traumatise families. At this juncture, I thank publicly my Alliance colleague Sorcha Eastwood MP for her work at Westminster, calling for greater regulation of social media platforms. Media outlets must also exercise responsibility. Drones and new technologies should not become new tools for disregarding the dignity and privacy of the deceased or their loved ones. I especially thank the campaigners for Caoimhe's law. My Alliance Party colleagues and I firmly support making it a criminal offence to record or share images at the scene of fatal traffic collisions. Hopefully, the relevant Ministers across Departments can, moving forward, work closely together to deliver legislation or the appropriate regulation as soon as possible. We become elected representatives not only to improve the lives of our constituents but to uphold their dignity, demonstrate compassion and take all possible measures to reduce harm. At this juncture, I draw attention to how inaccurate reporting or the broadcasting of speculation can also cause serious harm to the families of road accident casualties. I know personally those who have been impacted by that after losing a loved one. No retraction and no token compensation can mend the hurt or trauma or both caused by speculation on circumstances before a fatal accident or about police inquiries afterwards. Broadcast media must be held responsible in that regard, especially where so-called initial reports do not reflect the facts. Legislative change backed by cross-departmental effort is essential and must be accompanied by a fundamental behaviour change in our society. I am hopeful that we can move forward and away from such acts and ensure that no family endures additional pain at a time of tragedy. I therefore urge Members to support the motion in the strongest possible terms. Mr Dunne: As a Member of the Infrastructure Committee, I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of the motion. I, too, thank Mr McGlone, the proposer of the motion, for tabling it. The loss or serious injury of a loved one in a traffic collision is a truly devastating event. It not only tears through the fabric of immediate family life but can have a lasting and deeply distressing impact on close friends and the wider community from which the victim comes. I, too, commend Caoimhe's family for their campaign over the years. To have that trauma exacerbated by the selfish actions of individuals chasing engagement on social media or, indeed, any other form of media outlet is as immoral as it is avoidable. Importantly, it can also interfere in the work of our emergency services and compromise the judicial system. It is disappointing that measures such as those proposed through Caoimhe's law should even have to be considered, but, with the omnipresence of social media in the lives of us all, I agree with the Members who tabled the motion that it may, ultimately, be a necessary step. We have seen examples, as others have said, in Germany and other parts of the world, including the Netherlands, of various steps being taken to tackle the issue. The evidence suggests that that has had a positive impact on dealing with it. Top 4.30 pm In recent years, there has been a noticeable increase in the level and, indeed, the graphic and disturbing nature of the content, which is so easily accessible for all users, regardless of age, on social media platforms, such as Facebook, X, TikTok and others. There is, ultimately, an ethical duty on those companies to play their part in moderating the content on their platforms. The role of AI has added a further layer of complication, raising questions about what is genuine and what is fake news. Unfortunately, that only adds to the pain of loved ones and those who are left behind. All of that can be done so instantly — within seconds — which also highlights the seriousness of the situation and reaffirms the need for action. Loved ones should have dignity, and family privacy should always be respected during such heartbreaking times. No family should ever have to see such horrific videos or images of their loved one's final moments or, indeed, find out from social media that their family member has been involved in an accident. We have heard countless stories of cases in which the families first heard about the accident through social media rather than the official channels of the emergency services. There is no doubt that that type of activity is a form of voyeurism. We have to call it for what it is: non-consensual. Often, it makes victims of people while they are vulnerable, exploits them and causes them, their families and the wider community humiliation. Members have rightly reflected on the experience of Caoimhe's family and, sadly, we can all point to similar stories in our constituencies. As my colleague mentioned, in recent weeks and months, we have had the privilege of engaging with the family of the late Jaidyn Rice, who was just 16 years old, with her whole life ahead of her, when she was so horrifically killed in a road traffic collision in Bangor. That was only a number of months ago during the summer. Losing a loved one devastates families, and spending a short time with the family of Jaidyn was a real reminder of the pain, hurt and heartache that is now a part of their lives, 24/7. The unauthorised recording and sharing of photos of road traffic collisions is truly traumatising for families, and it can spread so rapidly and virally across the world in such a short space of time. It goes not just to a local paper distribution area but right across the globe. We support the motion and wish to see more constructive and joined-up work between the Minister of Justice, the Minister for Infrastructure and the UK Government to that end. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call the Minister. Minister, you have up to 15 minutes. Mrs Long: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is a very important motion. I very much welcome the proposer of the motion tabling it and giving the Assembly an opportunity to condemn the sharing of images and videos of fatal road traffic collisions, which is an utterly deplorable practice. It is also a very important opportunity for us to show unity of purpose when it comes to something that can affect anyone at any time in our community. I commend the hard work of Road Victim Support Northern Ireland-Donegal, the O'Brien family and all the families who have campaigned to raise awareness of the issue and for the introduction of Caoimhe's law, named in honour of Caoimhe O'Brien, who was killed in a crash on the road between Derry and Strabane in October 2016. Caoimhe's mother, Marie O'Brien, has written to me: we have corresponded, and I hope to meet her soon as part of a round-table that we are organising to discuss a way forward. I have also been disgusted, frankly, to hear stories about bystanders photographing or recording images of fatal road accidents and subsequently sharing them on social media, without any thought or empathy for the impact on the families and friends of the victims. I thank Linda Dillon for her powerful intervention. Any road traffic death is traumatic, but it is especially cruel to have that trauma compounded by the capturing and distribution of images of the scene in the immediate aftermath, causing distress to families, survivors and others who may have previously been involved in road traffic collisions. It is difficult to imagine the pain experienced by family and friends who have lost a loved one in those circumstances only to have their dignity and privacy, and that of their loved one, violated by someone else's voyeurism — and you are right that it is voyeurism. Such images, when shared, can also trigger others who witnessed or were involved in serious road traffic collisions. There is no avoiding those videos once they go online: they will be there in perpetuity and will always turn up on people's feeds. I was deeply concerned to read about the experience of Fiona Ferris, who bravely stopped to provide CPR to Dominic McGrath after he was knocked down by a bus in Newry in December 2024. Despite the brave efforts of Ms Ferris and others, Mr McGrath sadly passed away at the scene. In the aftermath, it transpired that Mr McGrath's family had been sent a video recording of the scene, although, mercifully, it was received after the PSNI had informed the family of his death. Nonetheless, the callous nature of that type of recording, and the devastating impact that it can have, is clear. As Ms Ferris's brave testimony demonstrates, the recording and distribution of such images not only causes untold pain for the family of the deceased but has the potential to traumatise people and even discourage potential Good Samaritans who attend a scene from being willing to provide medical and first aid assistance. It is important that we ensure that that type of behaviour is discouraged and identify the best approaches for doing so. As proposed in the motion, one such approach could be the introduction of a specific offence prohibiting the recording and sharing of: "images and videos of victims at the scene of a fatal or critical traffic collision without lawful authority or family consent". A similar approach, as many Members noted, was adopted by the German Parliament in 2020. It is important to note that, whilst no equivalent offence exists in Northern Ireland, police recently charged an individual for that behaviour under the Communications Act 2003, which contains offences relating to offensive, malicious and nuisance communications. However, the clarity that would be provided by a change in legislation that makes it an explicit offence would, I think, be welcomed by all. Introduction of the proposed new offence would be novel and cut across the responsibilities of many Departments and organisations, including mine. Sadly, we continue to see lives lost on our roads in the most tragic circumstances. Every family that finds itself in that situation has my deepest sympathy and that of my Department. I would dearly like to see a future in which no family has to endure the loss of a loved one in that way. Whilst primary responsibility for road safety legislation lies with the Department for Infrastructure, my Department and I are working hard to ensure that sentences delivered in the courts reflect the seriousness of the related offences and the impact that they have on, and the sense of loss felt by, victims and their families. To that end, my sentencing Bill will deliver tougher sentencing by increasing the maximum penalty and minimum disqualification periods for the offences of causing death or serious injury by driving. It is important that Ministers work together across the Executive to find timely and effective solutions to these matters. Whilst the Department for Infrastructure has the main responsibility for road safety, enforcement of the related offences and penalties is often undertaken by police. In addition, telecommunications legislation, including the regulation of social media platforms, is reserved to Westminster, and, therefore, the responsibility lies with the UK Government. Indeed, it may be beneficial and even expeditious, following a more detailed consideration, for the Executive to agree collectively to write to the UK Government to determine whether it may be possible to legislate on a UK-wide basis on this issue given that it engages a reserved matter. I agree with the proposer of the motion that cross-border cooperation is important in this, and I am, therefore, happy to raise the matter with my Irish counterpart. As a first step, however, it is incumbent on us all as stakeholders, including DFI, the PSNI and social media organisations, to take a key role in the development of proposals. I am committed to ensuring that my Department engages on a cross-departmental basis, led by the Department for Infrastructure, to consider how best we might provide that support. Therefore, I have agreed to participate in a proposed round-table discussion, convened by Road Victim Support Northern Ireland-Donegal, with the Infrastructure and Health Ministers and other organisations, to consider appropriate measures to prevent the unauthorised recording and sharing of photos of road traffic collisions. It is my hope that, through discussions between all the interested parties, we will be able to identify an approach and a vehicle that will adequately respond to this most serious issue in a timely way, not least because, as John Blair and Stephen Dunne mentioned in their contributions, the videoing of such incidents is not just distressing but often accompanied by speculation that could undermine a police investigation and, where offences are detected, future prosecutions. In the meantime, I want to use the opportunity that we have been given today to appeal directly to the public to refrain from photographing or recording at the scene of road traffic collisions and to refrain from sharing such images without consent in order to avoid further trauma for victims and their families. I will restate what others have said: the only legitimate use of a phone at the site of a road traffic collision is to call the emergency services. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Mark Durkan to wind up the debate on the motion. Mark, you have up to 10 minutes. Mr Durkan: Thanks, Mr Deputy Speaker. In closing today's debate, I thank every Member who has contributed. The seriousness of the issue has been made clear by the tone of the debate and the compassion shown in it. It is about coming together to protect families and to provide them with dignity, a modicum of humanity and the right to grieve in peace. It is good and refreshing that parties are unanimous in their support of action and of the families. The SDLP does not own the issue; it has been brought to councils by different parties and by independents. For me, however, the topic is deeply personal. When my sister Deirdre was killed in a car crash at just 18 years of age, our world stopped. It is a devastation that you do not overcome. You simply learn to live with the weight of that profound grief. Ms Dillon spoke earlier of her personal experience. Even now, two and a half decades later, I can recall every single detail of those hours in the immediate aftermath: the phone call from my daddy, who was driving, asking us to pray; the cries of my mother and my sisters; the hopelessness that we felt as we huddled in hope and in prayer; and then the second call to say that Deirdre was dead. What I cannot imagine is the added cruelty of having that horror filmed or shared by strangers, whether out of curiosity, for clicks or for social media likes. I cannot imagine my family learning of that tragedy from a post online or a message pinging into a public WhatsApp group, yet that is exactly what so many families here in the North have had to endure. The testimonies from the families involved in the campaign have been nothing short of heartbreaking. They are the experiences of people whom we know — our constituents; our neighbours — and I commend and offer condolences to those courageous families, some of whom are in the Public Gallery. Sixteen-year-old Lisa O'Donnell and her boyfriend were killed in a road traffic accident. Her mother did not hear that news from the police or a family member; it was broken on Facebook. As she stood in her kitchen, unpacking shopping, strangers online were already posting their condolences. The Bradley family spoke of their brother's motorbike accident. Strangers filmed his final moments, his attempted resuscitation and even his passing, uploading that to Snapchat before his children had even been told. The campaign carries the name of a young woman loved by her family and her community: Caoimhe O'Brien. Her mother, Marie, has described racing against the internet to reach her son before the rumours and posts did. Her words are worth repeating: "A post can wait, a message can wait, a family's pain will last forever." Those are the real-life consequences of the absence of legislation. That is what happens when the law lags behind technology and the new norms that should not be normal anywhere. In the age of Snapchat, WhatsApp groups, Instagram stories and TikTok, news travels faster than compassion and faster than the speed at which police can knock at a door. For what? It is so that a random stranger can have their morbid curiosity satiated for a moment or two. Meanwhile, it is the families who are left to pick up the pieces. They are not only traumatised by the tragic loss of their loved one but haunted by the invasion that follows and the disturbing images that no one wants to see. Top 4.45 pm I am not judging all those who may have shared such content. Many of us will have done it. We will have been the first with the big news, even when it is really bad news. The campaign has worked already in some respects — at least, I hope that it has — by helping all of us to re-evaluate our response to incidents. As we have heard, Germany has taken decisive action on the issue, concluding that freedom of expression does not extend to capturing the final moments of someone's life for entertainment or intrusion. We owe it to our constituents to protect them from that violation of privacy and dignity. Mr Blair correctly identified that this is not just about social media, and he commended campaigners for their work with media outlets to redraw responsible reporting guidelines. Every day that we delay, we run the risk of another family going through what these families have endured. This is not something to be kicked into the long grass. The harm is happening now, and the protection is needed now. That is why we want to see the introduction of the protections before the end of the mandate. I welcome Mr Frew's suggestion that we explore what legislative vehicles are already in transit to which we may be able to tie this in a sensible and sensitive manner. I pay tribute to those who have carried the campaign on their shoulders while dealing with their grief and trauma: the O'Donnells, the Bradleys, the O'Briens and so many others. I thank Road Victim Support Northern Ireland-Donegal for its relentless advocacy. Ms Ferguson also rightly lauded the work that Life After has done primarily but not exclusively in our constituency. I can think of so many bereaved families who have channelled their enormous loss and insufferable grief into reducing not just the numbers of tragedies on our roads but the suffering of others. Many of those tragedies have happened on roads that we know well, such as the A5, where far too many families have received life-altering news. One life lost on any road is one too many. Caoimhe's law is just one part of our duty of care. We owe it to bereaved families to work together to make our roads safer, progress long-awaited projects such as the A5, improve road safety and invest more in education and information rather than just more enforcement. That said, today we have a chance to do something meaningful. Caoimhe's law is not just about censorship. It is not even about censorship: it is about decency and preventing further cruelty. It is about giving families the space to grieve without intrusion and ensuring that no parent has to compete with a social media feed to tell their child that their sibling has died. I wrote to the Infrastructure and Justice Ministers in the summer to ask that they implement Caoimhe's law. Minister Kimmins, whilst stating that the legislation would fall outside her policy remit, committed to supporting its introduction. In the South, the Department of Transport is bringing forward similar measures. Responding last month, Minister Long recognised the importance of the campaign and committed to engaging on the issue by agreeing to take part in a round-table discussion. I thank her for continuing to engage here today. All Members would be keen to get an update following that round-table discussion, as well as an update on how Ministers' commitment to support and engage can become a commitment to act. The Ministers of Justice and Infrastructure need to work together and with others, and we all need to work quickly to pass the much-needed legislation. Behind every accident, there is a family waiting for that devastating knock on the door. Nobody wants to get that knock, but let us make sure that that knock, if it is coming, comes before the notification on Facebook or elsewhere. In the words of the families who know the pain better than any of us, "It is not your story to tell", but it is our duty to speak out and do something about it. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Before we call the vote, I thank Members for the respectful debate that we have had in the Assembly today. I express my condolences, on behalf of the Northern Ireland Assembly, to the families who are sitting in the Gallery. Question accordingly agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly expresses concern at the increasing trend of individuals and media outlets capturing and distributing distressing footage at the scenes of fatal or critical road traffic collisions; recognises the trauma that that causes to the families affected by those activities; supports the campaign for Caoimhe’s law, which would make it a criminal offence to record or share images and videos of victims at the scene of a fatal or critical traffic collision without lawful authority or family consent; and calls on the Minister of Justice to work with the Minister for Infrastructure to pass legislation to that effect by the end of the mandate. Adjourned at 4.51 pm. Top
[ni-assembly-official-report][plenary_report] Official Reports https://aims.niassembly.gov.uk/officialreport/report.aspx?&eveDate=2025/12/02&docID=461172 Official Report: Tuesday 02 December 2025 Table of Contents Assembly Business Members Statements Robert Emmets GAC Slaughtneil Belfast City Council: Flag of Palestine Newry, Mourne and Down District Council: Threats Non-disclosure Agreements Newry, Mourne and Down District Council: Threats Newry, Mourne and Down District Council: Threats Belfast City Hall: 19 October 2024 Proposed Ministerial Trade Mission to China Newry, Mourne and Down District Council: Threats Katie Simpson Carrickmannon Primary School Regional Balance Executive Committee Business General Teaching Council Bill: Second Stage Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill: Final Stage Committee Business Inquiry into Access to Palliative Care Services Oral Answers to Questions Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Northern Ireland Assembly Commission Committee Business Inquiry into Access to Palliative Care Services Assembly Business Adjournment The Assembly met at 10:30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair). Members observed two minutes' silence. Assembly Business Mr Speaker: I have been notified by Carál Ní Chuilín that she is not available to raise her Adjournment topic on mental health de-escalation services in North Belfast, so that debate will not happen today. Members' Statements Robert Emmet's GAC Slaughtneil Ms Sheerin: I rise this morning, in what is becoming an annual tradition, to congratulate Robert Emmet's GAC Slaughtneil on its retention of the Ulster Club Senior Hurling Championship title, having won the final on Sunday past. That is its sixth title in nine years, which is an amazing feat for the small south Derry club. I congratulate the club following its emphatic 13-point victory over St John's of Antrim and wish it all the very best in its next game against Galway champions, Loughrea. I know that the people of Slaughtneil are very proud of their team and their club. Their success is the result of an awful amount of commitment and hard work over the past year. I mention in particular my friends the McMullans from Moneysharvan — Patrick, Myra and Jimmy — who will, no doubt, be shouting, "Up the Robbies" for many weeks to come. Belfast City Council: Flag of Palestine Mr Brett: The people of Belfast deserve better. They deserve better than the absolutely disgraceful scenes that we witnessed at Belfast City Council last night, when 32 members of that council showed exactly where their priorities lie, and it is not with the ratepayers of Belfast. In a move that is now subject to legal action, councillors changed the rules to try to avoid court scrutiny. They forced a member of staff to work after midnight last night, but they were not asked to empty the overflowing bins that are in every part of our city or remove the 80 alley gates that sit derelict in Duncrue industrial estate and are meant to be used to protect pensioners but cannot be installed due to a lack of staff. Nor was the staff member instructed to fix Grove leisure centre, which has been closed for two years. Instead, they were forced by the party opposite to stay in City Hall to erect the flag of Palestine. That was a blatant abuse of process and a disgraceful attempt by Sinn Féin and the SDLP to run ahead of the court, which will sit in 25 minutes' time. The very party that introduced minority protections in the Local Government (Northern Ireland) Act 2014 — the SDLP — has ridden roughshod over those protections. Last night, a letter from the Jewish community, which I am honoured to represent, was read into the council record, outlining the community's objections to the decision. When it was read, members of the council laughed and sneered at its opposition. They laughed and sneered at the fact that that community, which is a minority in Belfast, felt intimidated by that decision. Of course, shortly after the attacks of 7 October, the parties opposite blocked the lighting up of City Hall in solidarity with the victims of the Hamas terrorist attacks. Their record is clear when it comes to the protection of the Jewish community in our city. Unionism in Belfast will not be walked over. We successfully legally blocked the previous decision, and we will continue to use every legal and political protection to ensure that the people of Belfast are not discriminated against by a pan-republican front that is more interested in fighting wars in the Middle East than delivering for the people of the city that we should all feel honoured to represent. Newry, Mourne and Down District Council: Threats Mr McMurray: It is the season of peace and goodwill to all men. It is also the season of Advent, which, Mr Speaker, I am sure that you are reflecting on. Advent defines the story of a young family making their journey in a challenging political, social and economic situation. I reflect on that story a lot, but some people in our society have missed the whole point of it. Last night, a threat was issued to all elected reps in Newry, Mourne and Down District Council against the council's decision to endorse the area as a council of sanctuary. At the outset, I stand in solidarity with all elected reps in Newry, Mourne and Down, be they councillors, MLAs or MPs, and with all parties sitting here today, because it is such a humbling and proud role to be an elected rep and serve society. I also thank the PSNI for the proactive role that it has taken. The issue has been ongoing, and the PSNI is working hard and was quick last night to phone around and offer support and advice. I will also say that having men in balaclavas standing in front of flags reading crumpled statements and holding guns has not defined my politics and does not define my politics, nor will it ever. What defines my politics is this: my party colleagues here and the political discourse with other parties in the Chamber, whether we agree or disagree. That is what moves society forward. I stand in solidarity with other elected reps, I thank the PSNI, and I completely refute the threats made by the group last night. On the matter of the city of sanctuary designation for Newry, Mourne and Down District Council, the decision was the right, just and empathetic thing to do. Non-disclosure Agreements Mr Beattie: The issue of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) has been thrown into sharp focus since a criminal investigation was launched into the Presbyterian Church in Ireland. I do not intend to talk about that case but about NDAs in general. Of course, NDAs are needed for commercially sensitive material or privileged medical information, for example, but, having been approached by multiple individuals, I have grave concerns about the general use of NDAs. NDAs are mostly put in place following employment disputes. However, there seems to be a prevalence of NDAs in the charity sector and in religious organisations, to the extent that I am concerned that the Charity Commission is blind to many of them or is turning a blind eye. Women seem to be more susceptible than men to being asked to sign NDAs. There are cases of coercion being used to force individuals to sign NDAs, including, in one case that I heard about, a family member in employment being targeted to get their spouse to sign an NDA. NDAs are used to cover up bullying, harassment and sexual impropriety, and, incredibly, they are used to hide criminal offences. Those who sign NDAs do not know the long-term effect on their future employment, because they have no way of explaining to a future employer that the issue that they had with their previous employer was settled between them. Why is that? It is because industrial employment tribunals no longer give a full judgement on the NDA's being agreed, apart from saying, "The claim was dismissed following withdrawal". That is all that it says on the judgement. The judgement is not publicly registered, so nobody can go on to the industrial tribunal web page to see that a case has been settled. We now have the ludicrous situation whereby, because it is no longer recorded, charities, churches, employees and government organisations can neither confirm nor deny whether an NDA is in place and the public and an individual's future employers have no way of checking whether there is a systemic issue. If you are a claimant, you are not even allowed to say that you have an NDA. That needs to change. The wording of any tribunal needs to reflect exactly what has happened, and that needs to go on to a public register. Sadly, the Assembly changed those rules only last year. We need to sort out the system for the Justice Department and the Department for the Economy, because, right now, it is being abused. Newry, Mourne and Down District Council: Threats Mr O'Toole: I will speak on the same subject as Mr McMurray. No doubt, other local reps in the Chamber will wish to mention it. Last evening, a video emerged to which I am almost loath to give the oxygen of publicity. It was clearly, in part, a disgraceful attempt to garner publicity for a group of masked men who were wearing balaclavas and holding what appeared to be weapons, although we do not know whether they were real. Thankfully, the PSNI has moved quickly to investigate. Those individuals sought to verbally intimidate and issue threats to elected members of Newry, Mourne and Down District Council, which stretches from Saintfield at the outskirts of my constituency all the way to Crossmaglen at the border. A number of months ago, a vote took place endowing the council with the status of council of sanctuary. That status is not in any way what lots of online misinformation has suggested that it is. Lots of that misinformation has been grotesque and deliberate, and online actors have used it to stir up hatred. Social media companies have allowed that to fester and ferment, and that has culminated in masked men regurgitating last night the tropes that so many of us thought that we on this island had moved on from. Masked men with guns issuing threats to elected representatives is grotesque, contemptible and unacceptable. I do not wish to overestimate what this means, nor, however, do I wish to minimise it. Individuals have been elected to that council, many of whom are friends and colleagues of mine for whom I have the utmost respect. I have the utmost respect for representatives of all the parties that are represented in the Chamber who are on that council and who serve as elected representatives more broadly. They get up in the morning — often they have their own family responsibilities and things going on in their lives — and they do their best, whatever their political perspective, to represent their district and constituency. Those representatives put themselves forward; we all put ourselves forward. We put our faces on election posters and our names on a ballot paper. We put our email addresses and other contact details out there so that the people who elect us can contact us with their views and we can articulate those views. That is the precise opposite of the cowardice that is represented by people putting out a video threatening elected representatives. That is grotesquely anti-democratic. I stand in solidarity with colleagues not just in my party but in every party. I also say to all Members in the Chamber that we need to stand united as democrats against this kind of wicked and grotesque intimidation, which is being fomented online by parts of the far right. We do not know which international actors are helping to spread it. There is, apparently, no accountability for social media companies, but we cannot allow this incident to chill democracy. In Newry, Mourne and Down, as well as everywhere else, the people who are elected — Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up. Mr O'Toole: — will do their jobs without intimidation. Top 10.45 am Newry, Mourne and Down District Council: Threats Ms Ennis: I, too, will speak about the disgraceful escalation in threats against elected representatives in Newry, Mourne and Down over recent weeks. The sinister threats issued online against elected members of Newry Mourne and Down District Council are an attack on democracy and the mandate that each of us has received from the public, and they deserve unequivocal condemnation from political leaders. I express my solidarity with my colleagues on Newry, Mourne and Down District Council and colleagues from other parties with whom we work collegiately and have done since being elected. I also express my solidarity with their families. These individuals represent no one, and they will not deter Sinn Féin elected representatives, or any democratically elected representatives, from carrying out our work of representing constituents daily. Those pushing fear and scapegoating minorities promote a failed, backward agenda that has no place here. The overwhelming majority of people across this island reject that toxic narrative. Ireland, today, is diverse, inclusive and compassionate. Sinn Féin elected representatives will continue building an Ireland that rejects racism, hatred and division and promotes equality, compassion, socio-economic justice and unity. As others have said, we have seen a dangerous escalation in these incidents. It started with online abuse, threats against people, graffiti at people's homes, people being harassed when they are out shopping and socialising, bombs left at their offices and, now, this latest threat last night. Someone is going to get hurt as a result of this, and it will not be enough to offer condemnation after that. All elected representatives have a responsibility to promote human rights and equality. The language and tone of elected representatives in the Chamber and in the media should be accurate, respectful and promote unity rather than division. There is no place in our society for paramilitaries, thugs and gangsters. The gangsters behind the threats represent no one. They speak for no one, unlike those of us who have been democratically elected. We are from and of our communities, and we will continue to speak for them. All of us here must work together to face down these chilling threats against people who are democratically elected to represent their constituents. Belfast City Hall: 19 October 2024 Mr Kingston: Yesterday, my colleague Phillip Brett put a question for urgent oral answer to the First Minister regarding the clear contradictions in Sinn Féin's position on the damage caused to the portrait of a DUP Lord Mayor at Belfast City Hall during an Irish language event in October 2024. What resulted in that Question Time was a blatant example of stonewalling and evasion, with the First Minister refusing to give any meaningful answers. Some may ask why the DUP and other parties are going on about the issue. We have a duty to expose the blatant cover-up that Sinn Féin is engaged in. Let me repeat the key contradiction in Sinn Féin's position at two different points in time. On 22 October 2024, First Minister Michelle O'Neill informed the Northern Ireland Assembly in the Chamber: "a Sinn Féin employee who worked in the Assembly made the party Chief Whip aware of their involvement in an incident regarding a portrait in Belfast City Hall. That took place on Saturday 19 October. The employee was immediately suspended, and we" — Sinn Féin — "notified the PSNI." — [Official Report (Hansard), 22 October 2024, p1, col1] You would think that that is pretty clear-cut. She also said that the employee had resigned from their employment and from party membership. However, in the statement from the Public Prosecution Service last week, in which it said that it would not be progressing the case due to lack of evidence, we are told: "A witness statement subsequently made in February 2025 by the Chief Whip, who had spoken directly to the individual on 21 October 2024, recorded that he had in fact made no admission to being at the event and had denied any knowledge of the damage." That is a total contradiction to what the First Minister said in the Assembly. She said that the Chief Whip had been informed by the individual of his involvement and that Sinn Féin had reported it to the police, but, in her statement, the Chief Whip then said that he had made no admission to being at the event and had denied any knowledge of the damage. As we said yesterday, either the First Minister misled the Assembly or the Chief Whip misled the PSNI. Sinn Féin needs to confirm which it is. Both are serious matters. The truth matters. The public expect those who make the rules to follow them. We will continue to expose the shameful cover-up. Proposed Ministerial Trade Mission to China Mr Dickson: I want to address the proposal for a ministerial trade mission to China and invite the Economy Minister to rethink it. I want to set out why it is not the right course of action at this time. As an Executive and legislature, we all recognise the importance of international trade in attracting investment and opening new markets for Northern Ireland. We all want our economy to grow, our innovators to thrive and our businesses to compete on the global stage. However, economic engagement cannot be detached from the principles on which this place is supposed to stand: human rights, democracy and respect for the rule of law. China is currently the subject of serious, credible and sustained allegations of human rights violations, including the mass detention and surveillance of the Uyghur community and other minority communities, the dismantling of democratic freedoms and civic space in Hong Kong and severe restrictions on the freedom of religion, association and expression across the country. There are well-documented concerns around forced labour in supply chains linked to key sectors, such as textiles, solar components and technology. In that context, a high-profile trade mission led by a Northern Ireland Minister risks being interpreted as indifference to those abuses. It risks being used by the Chinese state to project legitimacy and normalisation of its society. It risks placing commercial opportunity above universal human dignity. That is not the message that Northern Ireland should send out. We need to recognise the issue of consistency. If we take a strong stance on human rights in some parts of the world, we cannot adopt a different standard when it comes to others. Our approach must be principled, predictable and fair. Turning a blind eye to abuses in one country while condemning them in another weakens our credibility and undermines the very values that we claim to uphold. Consistency is not only morally necessary but essential to maintain trust in our international voice. We must acknowledge another concern, which is that the Executive Office already allocates significant public funds to support an overseas bureau in Beijing. At a time when resources are under intense pressure, public services are struggling and every pound spent has to be justified, many people will reasonably ask whether expanding engagement with China is appropriate, particularly in the absence of clear human rights safeguards and transparency objectives. Until there is demonstrable progress on human rights in China, the proposed mission should not proceed. Northern Ireland must show leadership by proving that prosperity and principle are not opposing forces but inseparable aims. I look forward to hearing the Economy Minister's future plans in respect of China. Newry, Mourne and Down District Council: Threats Ms Forsythe: The DUP unequivocally condemns all violence. We condemn threats of violence towards elected representatives. Last night, as has been mentioned, we saw a disturbing video appear online in which masked men made threatening comments towards local politicians in the Newry, Mourne and Down area. That is unacceptable. People who have stood up for the community and been democratically elected to those positions by the public should never be subjected to that. The PSNI has confirmed that it is investigating the video. We fully support the investigation to establish the identity of those involved, who that group is and the viability of the threat and the steps to ensure the safety of elected representatives as they go about their business. In this online world, such videos and threats are even more dangerous than they were when I was young because they are shared so widely. This morning, it was disturbing for me to face questions from my children, who asked, "Mummy, is the IRA back?". Growing up in the minority unionist community in South Down in the 1980s and 1990s, we were terrorised regularly. I do not want that for my children; they deserve better. That is a key reason why I stand in the House as an elected representative for South Down: to make this a better place for them and their future. It is imperative that the PSNI identifies who posted the video and their IP address. No matter what is discovered about the organisation, those who were involved in posting the video and the malicious communications need to be prosecuted. In this modern world, everyone who has a platform needs to take responsibility and be held to account for how it is used. It is difficult for those of us who stand as minorities in our constituencies, such as myself and the six unionist councillors — five of whom are from the DUP — in the Newry, Mourne and Down area. My colleague Willie Irwin in Newry and Armagh, my colleague Gary Middleton in Foyle and I suffer abuse and threatening behaviour regularly. It is not lost on us. That is unacceptable for every one of us. The video last night was unacceptable. Like the leader of the Opposition, I do not like to give it any further publicity, but it needs to be called out. The hypocrisy of the Sinn Féin MP for the area is also not lost on me. He spoke of "faceless thugs", but, when we think of the history of South Down, we think of the faceless thugs of the IRA who murdered William Heenan in Legananny and Alan Johnston in Kilkeel as he went about his work. We do not want to return to the days of the past. This is not the future that we want for our children. We deserve better in Northern Ireland. We stand with our elected representatives, and we support the police investigation. Katie Simpson Miss McAllister: Katie Simpson was murdered in August 2020. Her death and the failure to achieve justice for her is still felt today, but her legacy will live on. That legacy will be that this will never happen again. However, that legacy will be truly lived only if there is full transparency and accountability in respect of what happened. At the weekend, we saw the release of the second half of the BBC Sounds podcast 'Assume Nothing' about Katie's death and the subsequent investigation. I have known the details around the issues for some years and have brought them to the relevant authorities every time that new information has come to light. I have often been met with raised voices and patronising remarks, with people telling me to keep my questions private. I give credit to Tanya Fowles, a journalist who kept pressure on the police to ensure that the information came out to the public. The revelations about Katie's death and the subsequent investigation that finally came out at the weekend are so significant that attention must be drawn to them. Tanya Fowles has made it public that a staff member of an elected representative contacted her to tell her to back off and that there was nothing to see, using information that could have been gained only from inside the police. That is hugely significant, so I will say it again: political interference by a staff member of an elected representative with knowledge and information known only by the PSNI. Another element of the podcast is that it shines a light again on the resistance of many in the PSNI to investigating Katie's death, which many knew was a murder. The question of why her murderer's records were hidden from the internal PSNI systems has been made public again. That could not have been a mistake. The release of the episodes has brought a raft of new concerns into the public domain. I assure everyone who has listened and contacted me, Tanya and others that I remain committed to uncovering the full truth behind those events. I want to make sure that nothing like this ever happens again, and, for that, there must be accountability and transparency from everyone involved. Carrickmannon Primary School Miss McIlveen: On Saturday evening, I was delighted to host a gala ball in Parliament Buildings, bringing to an end a year of celebration for Carrickmannon Primary School as it marked its 200th anniversary. It is proudly Northern Ireland's oldest school. It began in 1825 in a one-room thatched-roof schoolhouse on the outskirts of Ballygowan, with a grant of £22, on land granted by Lord Dufferin. That little school witnessed the Industrial Revolution, the reign of Queen Victoria, the launch and sinking of the Titanic, and two world wars. Its influence can be traced through generations and through individuals whose contributions have shaped our cultural, academic and medical landscape. One of its earliest former pupils was James Munce, the renowned Ulster-Scots poet who produced a 400-page volume of poetry that continues to be recognised in Ulster-Scots literature. Sir John Henry Biggart, who started attending the school in 1911, became dean of the faculty of medicine at Queen's; a post that he held for an extraordinary 28 years. His leadership was instrumental in the development of the blood transfusion service, and he played a defining role in the evolution of the health service of Northern Ireland. Top 11.00 am The legacy of Carrickmannon Primary School is not confined to the achievements of individuals. It is also seen in how that small school has inspired collective action: action that changed healthcare in Northern Ireland. In the late 1980s, the Carrickmannon scanner appeal was launched. At that time, no MRI scanners existed anywhere in Northern Ireland or the Irish Republic. A local child's illness exposed the urgent need for one. Dr McKinstry, an early and passionate advocate for MRI technology, was invited to Carrickmannon to explain its potential. In a packed room, he described how the scanner could detect abnormalities as small as a grain of sand. The school's former principal Mrs Montgomery asked what could be done. His answer: £700,000 to secure Northern Ireland's first MRI scanner. What followed was extraordinary. A school that normally raised modest sums for annual charities became the heart of a Province-wide movement. Schools, churches, businesses and community groups rallied around Carrickmannon, organising countless fund-raising events. Driven by the commitment of staff, parents and local people, the target was reached and exceeded. The first MRI scanner in Northern Ireland was housed in a purpose-built facility, known appropriately as Carrickmannon House, at the Royal Victoria Hospital. It was transformative for healthcare in Northern Ireland. Carrickmannon is a family-oriented school with a big heart, welcoming pupils from the village and the rural community. It has been recognised for its exceptional pastoral care and academic achievements, and it is a shining example of what a small rural school can achieve. On its bicentenary, it is fitting that the Chamber recognises Carrickmannon Primary School's remarkable contribution to our society. Mr Speaker: I call Sinéad McLaughlin. Will you confine your statement to two minutes, please? Regional Balance Ms McLaughlin: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am in danger of having that one transferable speech, and it is about regional balance. I speak today about the challenges facing Derry and the wider north-west but also the reality shared by other areas right across Northern Ireland. Communities in places such as the Causeway Coast and Glens area, Fermanagh and Omagh lag behind the Northern Ireland average across a range of outcomes, from health and employment to education and connectivity. I will not go into any of the statistics at the moment, but they show real, damaging consequences for people's everyday lives. They are the workers who struggle to get to their jobs because of limited or unreliable transport options. They are the young people, from Derry to Ballymoney and Enniskillen, who feel that they must leave home to build a future. They are the children who are learning in classrooms — I am glad that the Education Minister is here — with fewer resources or in buildings that have seen better days. Many of them are in my constituency. Those gaps in opportunity shape a person's outcomes, their choices and their life chances. They are not the result of bad luck: they are the result of political ineptitude that has occurred in this place for decades. On that note, I want to say, "Thank you" to the Speaker, who wrote to me last week to give me permission to access drafting services for my Member's Bill that will seek to legislate on regional balance. I thank the Speaker for that, and I look forward to engaging with the Members' Bills development unit as I get on to the next stage of the process. Executive Committee Business General Teaching Council Bill: Second Stage Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): I beg to move That the Second Stage of the General Teaching Council Bill [NIA Bill 23/22-27] be agreed. Mr Speaker: In accordance with convention, the Business Committee has not allocated any time limits. I call on the Minister of Education to open the debate on the Bill. Mr Givan: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The General Teaching Council for Northern Ireland, commonly known as GTCNI, was established as a non-departmental public body (NDPB) under the Education (Northern Ireland) Order 1998. It was intended to be the professional body for our teachers, setting and maintaining professional standards, setting qualification requirements to teach in our schools and taking prompt action where a teacher's conduct or competence was unacceptable. It was also established to provide the Department with advice on teaching standards and teachers' professional development needs, helping us to better support our current teachers and future school leaders. Regrettably, GTCNI has consistently struggled to fulfil those goals. I begin by reminding Members of the breadth of the GTCNI's problems, doing so to illustrate why the Bill is needed at this time. GTCNI was established with a large 33-person leadership council, which was made up of 14 elected teachers, five teaching union representatives, 10 nominees from educational stakeholders and four departmental public appointees. That slant towards a representative membership was intended to ensure that GTCNI's decision-making was always well informed by a broad overview of the needs of the education system. In latter years, that approach proved problematic, since board members repeatedly struggled to separate their decision-making in council from the preferences of the bodies that they represented. That led to the pursuit of different agendas within the council and, over time, gave rise to entrenched positions being adopted. The election and nomination processes that were used also led to some members coming on to the council through their own self-assessment, with very limited understanding of public-sector governance and accountability standards or strategic leadership. Some also lacked any appreciation of their responsibility, as board members, to take decisions that were solely in the best interests of GTCNI. Relationships among council members deteriorated, with council and committee meetings becoming openly adversarial. Rather than seeking to build consensus, decision-making was characterised by partisan voting. Approval of the minutes of previous meetings often required hours of debate, leaving no time for the consideration of any other business. That led to essential operational decisions being left untaken, governance failures being left unaddressed, and GTCNI staff resources being squandered on internal, unproductive work that was of no value to teachers or the wider profession. It would not be unfair to say that, had it been a concerted strategy to render GTCNI ineffective and destroy teachers' confidence in the body, it scarcely could have been more successful. In trying to remedy matters, the Department placed the body into special measures on two occasions, offering additional support and oversight to try to stabilise the very troubled ship. Despite those efforts, by mid-2021, over one third of the council's membership had either resigned or been withdrawn by their nominating body, citing dysfunctionality, toxicity and unprofessional behaviour within the council as the reasons for their departure. In response, the Department commissioned an independent effectiveness review of GTCNI's council and committees, which reported in autumn 2021. It concluded that the leadership of the body was irredeemably divided, with such low levels of trust among its members that it could see no way for the body to be salvaged and brought back into compliance with normal governance requirements. Based on members' feedback, the consultants assessed the leadership council as being the worst-performing board that they had ever encountered. Given that assessment, the review recommended that GTCNI be dissolved and replaced, and that the Department should consult on what form a replacement body should take. It specifically recommended that if a new body were to be established, it should be overseen by a much smaller board, the members of which would all be selected on the basis of their skills and experience and chosen through a public appointments process. In December 2021, the then Education Minister, Michelle McIlveen, announced her acceptance of the recommendations of the review report and her decision, in line with those recommendations, to stand down GTCNI's leadership council with immediate effect. Teachers in any grant-aided school here are legally required to hold GTCNI teacher registration, and the then Minister also therefore decided that, pending the body's replacement, GTCNI staff would, operating under direct departmental oversight, continue to work to register new teachers. Since then, my officials have been working to follow through on those decisions. The Department has undertaken a public consultation and a teacher engagement exercise, seeking views on a GTCNI replacement and the roles and functions that it should deliver. In each case, a majority of respondents felt that all GTCNI's functions were important and that they should be retained, since they were regarded as directly supporting the quality of our teaching workforce. At the same time, under departmental oversight, the GTCNI staff team has managed to transform its operation. It has not simply been handling new teacher registrations; it has reduced application processing times and completed a major upgrade to its IT platform and critical teacher registration database. That replaced an obsolete system and was a critical upgrade that successive councils had failed to progress. Despite the uncertainty over its future, the GTCNI staff team has built a settled staffing structure, helping to protect the organisation's experience and expertise. It has enhanced all aspects of the body's information management processes, systematically resolving all the governance and accountability issues that it inherited from the old council, and it successfully exited special measures in December 2024. The scale of that transformation suggests that GTCNI's staff and structures were always fundamentally correct and that the leadership and operational difficulties identified in 2021 stemmed principally from the body's dysfunctional leadership council. Earlier this year, I received an options analysis and supporting business case that examined many potential methods for replacing GTCNI. Given GTCNI's recent strong performance, that included an option to retain and reform GTCNI rather than dissolve it. The analysis found that retaining and reforming GTCNI provided the quickest and most cost-effective way forward, delivering all the desired functions with the lowest associated risks while avoiding the time, costs and complexities involved in closing one non-departmental public body to establish an identical replacement. I accepted that assessment, so the Bill will now see GTCNI's retention, the reform of its board and the correction of legislative weaknesses that have to date prevented GTCNI from regulating the profession in the manner that was originally envisaged. I will move on to some of the policy changes that the Bill will deliver. I have set out the compelling need to reform GTCNI's board. The second core element will be to create a legally robust framework, allowing GTCNI to effectively investigate and, where necessary, take disciplinary action on allegations of unacceptable professional conduct or serious professional incompetence that it receives. GTCNI will convene independent investigatory and fitness-to-practise panels without board involvement or influence. It will be given a broad range of sanctions, from reprimands and conditional registration orders to suspension or prohibition orders. The Bill will require those facing allegations, and relevant witnesses, to participate in its investigation and fitness-to-practise proceedings and will place a duty on employing authorities and schools to share relevant information with GTCNI. The Bill will establish two new criminal offences covering individuals who falsely claim to hold GTCNI registration or who supply false information to secure GTCNI registration. While such cases are uncommon, a small number have arisen, so we will give GTCNI the ability to respond strongly, ensuring the safety of pupils and, in doing so, protecting the reputation of the wider profession. The Bill will see GTCNI continue to be funded through annual registration fees. Teacher registration and regulation safeguard the quality of our teaching workforce, and annual fees allow those things to be delivered without adding to the pressures on the education budget. Registration fees are charged by professional bodies and regulators throughout the United Kingdom, and it is hard to argue that teachers should pay nothing to belong to their professional body. However, it will be a matter for the GTCNI's new board to review its financial position and determine whether any future fee increase is required. In giving GTCNI greater autonomy over its financial future, the Department will no longer have any approval role in the setting of fees. When legislating, it is important that Departments plan for future needs where those can be reasonably anticipated. The Bill will therefore provide two powers that other teaching regulators already use and that could serve to strengthen the profession and the teaching workforce here. It will provide for a new class of provisional registration for teachers. It is envisaged that that would allow someone whose initial teaching qualification was judged to have minor deficits against GTCNI's qualification standards to be allowed to teach for a period, after which they would receive full registration, having addressed their deficits, or lose their provisional registration and be ineligible to continue to teach. Top 11.15 am Secondly, the Bill will permit GTCNI to require all teachers to periodically validate their registration again by demonstrating their continuing participation in professional learning. All student teachers learn the importance of reflecting on their classroom practice to identify specific learning needs and areas where their practice could be improved. Most regulated professions require their members to demonstrate that their knowledge and skills remain up to date if they wish to continue to practise in that field. Our intention is to give greater prominence to the importance of career-long teacher professional learning, raising teacher standards and, ultimately, improving learning outcomes for all our pupils. Rather than adding to teachers' existing workloads, we envisage that, by making those part of a formalised process, teachers will, in most cases, simply need to record the professional learning and development that they are undertaking. I recognise that those developments represent two significant changes and that each raises issues for teachers, trade unions and oversight bodies such as the Education Committee. The Department has therefore already offered a commitment that the powers will not be commenced immediately and that that will happen only after there have been suitable consultations. That summarises the Bill's key elements. Its intention is simple: to provide our teachers with the robust and effective professional body that they deserve while raising teacher standards without compromising the quality of the workforce. Our teachers enjoy a unique level of public trust. In return, they are expected to be technically excellent educators and to demonstrate characteristics such as honesty, integrity and trustworthiness. Those should inform their practice and be modelled for their pupils, which can help to shape the values that those pupils will, in turn, take forward into adulthood. Professionalism among our teachers is already the norm. The Bill seeks to support and strengthen that by ensuring that teachers have a professional body that sets, expects and guards the highest standards for all. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education): Successive Committees for Education have engaged in scrutiny of the General Teaching Council for over two mandates, and some of the issues highlighted by the Minister have been well rehearsed in that context. It is therefore welcome to see legislation coming forward that tries to address some of the issues that have been identified with the General Teaching Council over the past number of years. Some of my comments will reflect the broad chronology outlined by the Minister. As has been set out, the General Teaching Council for Northern Ireland is the professional body for teachers in Northern Ireland. It is one of the Department of Education's arm's-length bodies (ALBs) and is accountable to the Education Minister and the Northern Ireland Assembly. The GTCNI's council and board were stood down in December 2021 following an independent board effectiveness review that, as the Minister set out clearly, identified systemic failures in its leadership and recommended the dissolution of the organisation. At that stage, the Department judged that that step required legislative change. Officials have outlined to the Committee the interim leadership arrangements that have been in place since 2021, under which the GTCNI has reportedly made significant operational improvements, in particular on teacher registration and governance. In that interim period, consultations and engagement exercises have been undertaken that confirmed that all GTCNI's statutory functions, in the view of the stakeholders who engaged with those processes, play an important role in protecting the quality of our teaching workforce. The view that came through was that all those functions needed to be retained. I note both from the Committee evidence that we received from officials and from the explanatory and financial memorandum (EFM) that was provided by the Department and is supplementary to the Bill that not all those consultation exercises received particularly high levels of contact or engagement. From the Committee's perspective, it is essential that the Bill represent the culmination of work that has had the appropriate level of input from relevant stakeholders if it is to have the confidence of teachers and the wider public. I know that the Minister has referenced the need for further engagement on bringing forward some of the powers in the Bill, so perhaps he can speak directly today to what that engagement and consultation process may look like. As has been set out, General Teaching Council NI staff have continued to operate under Department of Education oversight. It is welcome that the Department has reported major improvements not only in its work on teacher registration and governance but in its governance structures and accountability requirements as an arm's-length body. The Committee is grateful to the officials who provided it with a pre-legislative brief in October. A range of questions was raised at that meeting about the GTCNI's role in respect of training, career development for teachers and the setting of standards rather than the Department setting them. Members were also concerned about how the proposed new board might be appointed, the role of teaching professionals on the board, the make-up of the six non-teaching members and how independence from the Department would be ensured. The Committee also asked questions about the annual fee, how it would be calculated, what feedback mechanisms there would be for teachers and the handling of disciplinary processes and sanctions. Officials were clear in their evidence in that session that some of those questions would be for the newly constituted council to address, once established. The legislation, in many ways, creates powers that the newly established body can develop in relation to the setting of fees, appointing committees and subcommittees and setting rules for the qualifications required to register, much of which was referenced in the Minister's opening remarks. However, the Committee will want to look at whether the appropriate balance is being struck between delegation of those powers to the GTCNI and the requirement for clear and robust departmental oversight. I note — no doubt, the Committee will want to look at it in detail — that the Bill makes provision for two criminal offences. It will make it an offence for a teacher or individual, with deliberate intent to deceive, to claim falsely to hold GTCNI registration or to provide false or misleading information to the GTCNI when seeking to obtain teacher registration. I have no doubt that the Committee will seek to scrutinise the balance between the importance of safeguarding and how that is weighed up against the criminal penalties being proposed. As we go through the Bill's Committee Stage, following today's debate, it is important that the Department sets out the clear rationale for the approach that is being adopted on the matter. Other issues that the Committee will, undoubtedly, scrutinise in more detail will include the reasons why there has been a departure from the previous Education Minister's position of winding up the GTCNI entirely and establishing a brand new body — the Minister referenced that briefly in his remarks — and why an appointment system is being adopted, rather than a system in which at least some elected members are appointed to the GTCNI's board. I am happy to stand corrected if I have misunderstood this, but I would like clarification of whether we are moving towards a 12-member board. I am not sure whether that is specifically referenced in the Bill, but it was recommended in the review and appears to be the direction of travel. It was clear from the Committee's pre-legislative briefing with officials that the GTCNI is often poorly understood by teaching professionals and the wider public — indeed, Committee members reported that their dealings with the body had been infrequent — and that there is a need to ensure that everybody clearly understands the precise functions of the GTCNI and exactly how the Bill will alter them. That is something that we will need to reflect on as the Bill goes through its legislative journey. It is important that we do not lose sight of the fact a body responsible for registering and regulating teachers in Northern Ireland carries out a critical function in our education system. In the past, the body has had its leadership and governance problems, but that does not detract from the importance of its function. It is right that we should want such a body to deliver effective regulation that will ensure appropriate and robust standards of registration and advise the Department effectively on the training and professional development of the teaching professionals who are paying into the system. It is also essential that we acknowledge that there were, undoubtedly, failings in the previous iteration of the GTCNI. Those failings were endemic and were in place for many years. In many regards, the Committee will need to judge the legislation on the basis of its assessment of the extent to which it can adequately redress the failings of the past. The GTCNI must have the confidence of stakeholders across the system. It must have the confidence of teachers but also of parents, who will want to be assured of the maintenance of the highest possible professional standards in our education system. I look forward to engaging with the Bill in more detail as it progresses through the Assembly, and I look forward to the more detailed scrutiny work that lies ahead. Mr O'Toole: I speak on behalf of my Education Committee colleague, Cara Hunter. She is unwell, so I am stepping in. That is the reason that she is not in the Chamber. Clearly, I am not on the Education Committee, so I was not involved in any of the pre-legislative scrutiny, but the Education Minister loves to debate with and hear from me, so I made a special effort to come to the Chamber today to talk to him. The General Teaching Council Bill is important legislation, and we want to hear more about it. It is not a Bill that we can endorse today, albeit we are not minded to divide on it. However, it is important that the Opposition put some robust questions and concerns on the record, and, assuming that the Bill proceeds through Second Reading to Committee Stage, those issues will need to be answered by the Committee. It is somewhat concerning that the Opposition have to set the concerns on the record now, but I trust that the Committee will engage on all the questions. The Committee Chair, Nick Mathison, mentioned that a couple of specific questions came up in the Committee's pre-legislative session. The SDLP Opposition and I also have those questions. The Minister touched on the first question in his opening remarks: why not do what his predecessor, his colleague Michelle McIlveen, who was just in the Chamber, had said would happen and wind up the General Teaching Council NI entirely and replace it with a new body? I understand, as the Minister said, that he received advice that suggested two things. First, it suggested that the culture, performance and staffing level of the GTCNI had improved radically over the past couple of years. That is good to hear, but I am sure that the Committee will want to understand, unpack and challenge that advice in detail to be persuaded of that. Secondly, he said that his approach is, effectively, a quicker and more cost-effective way to achieve the improvements covered by the Baker Tilly Mooney Moore — that is a bit of a mouthful — review. That may well be true, and, if anything can be done in a more cost-effective and straightforward way, why not do that? Indeed, that should be the priority. The review was robust and clear that the organisation, as the Minister acknowledged, had spent years in special measures and had never fulfilled in any real way the provisions that were given to it in the 1998 Order. The consultants' judgement was absolutely scathing: "It is our opinion that GTCNI is irretrievably broken and there is no prospect of recovery to any form of adequate performance" and that the Department of Education: "should move to dissolve GTCNI with immediate effect." That is a call not for restructuring or reform but for complete dissolution. Mr Martin: I very much thank the leader of the Opposition for accepting my intervention. He is right; I was in the Department when the report was provided. However, as the Minister outlined, the problems with GTC were not with the staff who inhabited the organisation. The Member may or may not be aware of that. There were specific problems identified in the report that he cited. The Minister used another quote, which the Member did not use. Baker Tilly Mooney Moore said that GTCNI was the "worst-performing board" that it had ever come across. Does the Member accept that the report might have been talking about the board rather than the actual GTCNI organisation and the staff who inhabited it? Mr O'Toole: I am reading from the report, and it says the: "General Teaching Council For Northern Ireland". Obviously, it had specific complaints about the board. On the face of it, we cannot support the Bill, but we acknowledge that it will go to the Committee, and the Committee should ask those questions. The purpose of the Second Stage debate is to indicate whether the Bill has the overarching support of the Assembly. We are indicating that we cannot give our overarching support at this point, but we recognise that the Bill will go to Committee Stage. I suggest that the Committee members need to ask those questions, because advice has gone to the Minister that said, "Be assured that performance has improved over the last couple of years, and we now advise you, Minister, that it is possible to make the requisite improvements by changing the structure of the board and inserting a public appointments process, rather than the election process" — the teaching unions are not thrilled about that — "and we are persuaded that that will deliver the changes we need to the General Teaching Council". We shall see. We should not simply wave the Bill through without interrogating that. The Bill will now go to Committee Stage, and it will be for the Committee to interrogate that. The Committee Chair wants to come in. Top 11.30 am Mr Mathison: I think the Member for giving way. I am not sure whether there was anything in my remarks to suggest that the Committee was not going to ask some of the questions that you have highlighted. In our discussion and our pre-legislative briefing, I do not think that I heard anything particularly clear coming through from the Opposition around any concerns with the Bill. However, will the Member agree that, if it is possible to deliver an effective, functioning GTCNI at a reduced cost through the reforms being proposed in the Bill, we will want to do that in the most cost-effective way, and, if it proves to be the case that that is not a viable proposal, we should keep other options on the table? Mr O'Toole: Yes, absolutely. Of course, that is what the Committee is there to do. I was not undercutting the Committee's work. I am simply saying that these are questions that need to be asked. There is no harm in putting them in Hansard in the Second Stage debate. I have no shyness about being an effective Opposition and putting these points on, because that is what we are supposed to do. That is literally the reason why the Assembly created an official Opposition, so I am afraid that there will be no apology from me in that regard. To go back to the point about the GTCNI and what changed, I do not have an ideological preference, and nor does the Opposition, for complete replacement if reform is possible. Yes, if reform is robust and comprehensive enough, with a smaller board, an appointments process and updated investigatory and enforcement powers that are adequate, that is OK, but we need to be assured of that. That needs to come out in the Committee process, because it is not just a change of emphasis; it is a change in policy. We have not seen the advice that the Minister has received from his officials. I am not aware of whether the Committee has seen that advice yet. We have the upshot of the recommendations, but we do not have the detail or the basis on which they were made, nor have we seen — I certainly have not seen, but it may have been in the Committee packs — the detailed analysis of how performance has improved at a staff level. I accept that the former special adviser in the Department, Mr Martin, has drawn a distinction between the staff and the board. That is fair enough. We just need to understand why a body that was described as being "beyond repair" is now repairable. Obviously, it is great if you bring your car to a mechanic, and the first time that he investigates, he says, "Scrap it. It is useless", and then you go back to see him a couple of weeks later, and he says "Well, actually, I can fix it if you give me this amount of money". Perhaps that is a slightly facetious analogy, but I use it to simply say that these are things that we need to investigate and check. I do not say this to be hyper-political, but the Minister has clearly undertaken a lot of initiatives in his Department. I do not think that I am being too churlish when I say that it is fair to say that not all those initiatives have been overwhelmingly welcomed by the teaching profession. I encourage them — the teaching unions, and teachers more broadly — to engage with the Bill in a constructive way and not simply in an oppositional way, though we are the Opposition. If they have robust concerns, they need to communicate them to all elected representatives. In relation to the public appointments process, some people will query the replacement of an elected system — perhaps people can see in a superficial way how having people appointed will create a slightly different dynamic from having people who are elected. Sometimes a public appointments process, with all its safeguards, is more appropriate than an elected process, but that is a fundamental change that needs to be understood. It is also true to say — I say this in the most constructive way possible — that there have been a couple of examples where the Minister has used — I will not say "abused" — the public appointments process in ways that have, to put it mildly, raised eyebrows. In the Education Authority, the chair and chief executive did not arrive in their current posts entirely without controversy and through a completely straightforward and unremarkable public appointments process. That will be a question that Committee members will want to interrogate, along with the potential consequences of having a public appointments process rather than an elected process for the GTCNI. If that is an improvement and if there can be safeguards, and if Committee members can be assured that that is the right way to go, that will be useful. We have concerns about the Bill, but we acknowledge that it will proceed today to Committee Stage. We will not divide the House on it. We want to see a robust Committee Stage in which those questions are asked. I will also make the point again, and that is why —. Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way? Mr O'Toole: I will happily give way to Mr Brooks. Mr Brooks: Is the Member making any specific allegations about whether there was any impropriety in those appointments, or is he just throwing muck and hoping that some sticks? Mr O'Toole: No, I am not throwing muck at all. The Member decided to intervene after I had moved on to another point, but since he raised it — I was not going to make a whole big deal out of it — an extraordinary process was used to appoint the chief executive of the Education Authority. There was a clear, very sharp division on the board of the Education Authority about whether that was appropriate. That was a controversial matter and was said to be so at the time. Subsequently, the chair of the Education Authority was appointed, and he was a serving DUP politician. He is a very personable man who is a committed public servant, but he is a serving DUP politician with very strong views, and he was inserted on to the board of the Education Authority as chair. Those were not uncontroversial things, to be clear, Mr Brooks. I am not throwing any muck at those individuals; I am simply saying that those were controversial things that were done by the Minister, OK? I have dealt with that. I do not want to get into a whole slanging match about it, but I will not back away from being honest about that. Mr Speaker: The Member is not going to get into a slanging match because —. Mr O'Toole: I will come back to the point about the Bill, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker: Order. Mr O'Toole: Yes. Mr Speaker: I am speaking. We are drifting from the debate in question, so we will not be getting into a slanging match on it. I ask you to return to the issue at hand. Mr O'Toole: Yes, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker: I did give you a fair degree of latitude because — Mr O'Toole: Yes, indeed. I was responding to an intervention. Mr Speaker: — you were talking about appointments, but come back to [Inaudible.] Mr O'Toole: I am happy to come back to the point. I was responding to an intervention. In conclusion, I say that we need to do our job as legislators really carefully and be mindful not just of the fact that this place is down nearly as much as it is functioning but of the fact that we have passed legislation here and then been scundered about it afterwards. We have been made to look like fools and not up to doing proper legislative scrutiny, so it is important that we are robust and put concerns on the record. I trust that, when the Bill goes to the Committee, it will be robust. I am not saying that it will not be; I am not prejudging the Committee process. I have no qualms about saying that there is a particular onus on the Assembly, given the abysmal levels of public trust in it. Public trust has already been referenced in relation to the teaching profession. We can only aspire to have the levels of trust that the teaching profession has. It is our job to scrutinise the Bill properly. We cannot endorse it at this point, although we will not divide the House on it. I look forward to hearing about the Committee's scrutiny. Mr Sheehan: It is worth reminding ourselves of how we got here. In 2021, in an independent board effectiveness review of GTCNI, the council was described as dysfunctional, ineffective and inefficient and operating with deep divisions and conflict among members to the extent that it could not provide effective leadership or governance. Ultimately, the then DUP Minister was advised to dissolve the body altogether. Yet, after all that, what we are presented with today is not a fresh start but a slightly reformed version of the same body. That is a bizarre position to arrive at, especially after so much time has passed and so many opportunities to do better have come and gone. We recognise the need for a regulatory body for teachers. It is absolutely necessary to maintain public confidence and professional standards. However, what is on offer here is something that the Minister has a long way to go in selling, not to us but to the teaching workforce, because, as things stand, teachers are not convinced, and who can blame them? There will be no elections to the new council, and clarity is needed on whether there will be a guaranteed majority of practising teachers on the board. The public appointments process, while welcome in principle, lacks any clear published competency framework or pathway to ensure that real classroom voices are heard. If the body is to work, it must reflect and represent the profession. It must be grounded in the realities of schools, not just the Minister's agenda. Teachers are under enormous pressure. The cost-of-living crisis is hitting them hard, and they have every right to ask what they will be paying for. What is the proposed fee? Will there be hardship exemptions or protections for early-career teachers? What added value will teachers see for their money? We also want to see joined-up thinking across these islands. We know of too many cases where teachers from the South face unnecessary bureaucracy when trying to register and work here. We need real alignment between our systems, and that is not just about fairness but about workforce planning, breaking down barriers and mutual recognition. If the new body is going to work, it needs to have the confidence of the workforce. That starts with listening, and I hope that the Minister is prepared to do that. Mr Brooks: I do not intend to speak for too long. It will not surprise those present in the Chamber that we support the general thrust and direction that the Minister has outlined. Like others, however, we look forward to grappling with the Bill at the Committee for Education and asking some of the difficult questions that the leader of the Opposition was talking about. We will not forgo our duty in that regard. It is clear that the GTC's existing format and governance arrangements were not working for anyone, least of all the teachers whom the body was intended to serve. It was underperforming and had significant issues at board level, as has been outlined. It is also clear, however, as the Minister said, that there has been significant improvement, and we heard at the Committee that the GTC has been operating under the Department's oversight. That has shown that, with the right structures in place, the body can have a future and serve its purpose. That avoids the problem of completely dismantling the existing organisation and, essentially, creating in its image a rebranded and reformed version of the same body. Doing that would take significantly more time and resource than it would to make the necessary reforms to the existing structures. I understand that previous Ministers and others looked at doing away with the GTC, and for good reason. Some of the people who continue to call for a new structure, and, in particular, want a significant stake in the leadership of that structure, probably contributed to some of the issues that brought about the necessity for reform. Therefore, to further the leader of the Opposition's car analogy, it would be insane to go to the effort of creating a new independent body and give the keys of the new vehicle to the same unreformed driver who drove the previous vehicle into a ditch. The reformed GTC must have the leadership experience, knowledge and skills that, we were told, had been absent from it previously, as well as board members who can fulfil their roles and understand the parameters of their work and their responsibilities. I am reassured by the use of the public appointments process, which will be beneficial in ensuring that those who are appointed have a better mix of skills, knowledge and experience, and that they will be chosen on that basis rather than the factionalism that contributed to the failures of the past. As I said, I look forward to grappling with the Bill at the Committee and, alongside other Committee members, growing my knowledge of the GTC's work and roles. It is right to say that our knowledge about a body that has such an important role in our education system is not as wide as it should be. I look forward to doing that in the Committee. Mr Burrows: I am glad to speak to the Second Stage of the General Teaching Council Bill. This is the first piece of legislation that I will be involved in end-to-end, so I look forward to providing some real scrutiny. I want to put some high-level points on the record, but there will be detailed scrutiny at the Bill's further stages. The first point is that it is right that there is a professional body that sets and uphold standards for teachers. Of course, that body must role-model those standards, which was not the previously the case. The second point is on the requirement for teachers to have ongoing training, which is in the Bill. It is important that the management of that is thought through for workloads and substitute teachers. There are a lot of substitute teachers working in our schools, and we need to make sure that they are catered for in that provision. It is right that teachers pay a fee to a body, but it must be set fairly and be value for money. Where I really want to bring some insight to the Bill, however, is on disciplinary procedures. I was previously involved in running what is, effectively, a regulated body for the police: the PSNI's professional standards department, That is a stand-alone, regulated professional body for the police. Disciplinary bodies can make many mistakes when they are first created. They tend to become slow and disproportionate; focus on finding blame instead of finding learning; and bring great stress to those who are investigated. Often, the investigators think that their job is to find fault, as opposed to the facts, and to exonerate the innocent as well as find the guilty. I wanted to put that on the record. Top 11.45 am There are some key points that we will need to focus on at the next stage. First, if the body is to deal with discipline, it will need, at an early stage of investigating an issue, to differentiate between issues of conduct that are about integrity and those that are about performance. Safeguarding and ethical issues need to be clearly separated from learning and competence issues. Those things must be dealt with in totally different ways: that is really important. The second point is that we must not get bogged down, with everything being dealt with in a centralised and slow way. It is important that, if the misconduct is minor at most, the teacher knows at the earliest stage that their career is not at threat and that the issue will be dealt with quickly, efficiently and locally. The centralised systems should kick in where there is high-level misconduct that could, if proven, result in someone losing their job. That is where you really need investigators to understand their job, which is to get inculpatory and exculpatory evidence that rules people in and out of an inquiry and to understand the rules of disclosure. The professional body that will adjudicate on guilt or innocence must also understand all those things, including disclosure and how to run a proper hearing, because someone's job is at risk. Unfortunately, a lot of those bodies cannot separate the wheat from the chaff. They end up so bogged down in so many minor cases that the real problem teacher slips through the net or, as I have seen in the police and other bodies, sits suspended for years on full pay. That is why, at the outset, you need to strip it down into two or three different lanes. Is it a matter of performance of learning? If it is, deal with it in that way, quickly. Is it misconduct? If it is proven and it is minor, let us get it dealt with quickly and locally. If it is the serious stuff, where someone's career is at risk, let us make sure that the teacher is properly represented; that whoever is running the investigation and the panel to decide on their future is properly trained and compliant with things such as civil disclosure regulations that will apply; that there is transparency and fairness; and that we do not end up bogged down for years, with teachers working under huge pressure and with huge workloads. It cannot be lost on us that there is a danger of getting a culture that does not obtain learning from that. When it comes to safeguarding, first, it is important for fitness-to-practise certificates to be properly policed. That will require good information sharing across every part of the two islands, effectively, so that we do not have teachers moving around and avoiding the fact that their fitness-to-practise certificate has been withdrawn. Secondly, we also need to be sure that there is clarity from the outset on issues such as allowing people to resign during an investigation. That has bedevilled many organisations: someone is under investigation, they ask to resign and the school allows them to do so. That needs to be sorted out up front, because it damages public confidence. It is also a safeguarding risk, because, when that person resigns and the school takes their resignation, three years later, they pop up in another school. It happens in my old job: people pop up in another police service. That has happened time and time again, and those things to be need sorted out at the start as opposed to being dealt with later on. Of course, there are tricky issues to discuss, because it could be that a teacher wants to resign and that it is better for the public purse for the school to let them resign rather than go through years of having to prove a case against them. In that situation, how do you update the system to make sure that they are not allowed to practise? Those are all the little things that need to be finely looked at in the scrutiny stage. Training, a fair fee system and getting the disciplinary processes and safeguarding processes right are really important issues that I look forward to contributing on in the scrutiny stage. We will not divide the House at this stage, and I am glad that there will be a professional body to set, uphold and role-model standards, as long as that is done properly. Mr Givan: I thank Members for their contributions to the debate. I will pick up on some of their questions at the end of my closing remarks. Mr Sheehan referred to wanting to make sure that the matter is taken forward based on what schools want, not the Minister's agenda. I am not quite clear where the conflict is between what I want and what schools want: our positions are the same. I want a General Teaching Council Bill that protects and strengthens the teaching profession in Northern Ireland. The Bill recognises the high standards that already exist while safeguarding them and demonstrating that the public trust in our teachers remains well founded. The quality of our teachers is the foundation on which our high educational standards are built, and the establishment of a strong and effective professional body will directly support the efforts of every teacher in that. I would be surprised if schools did not agree with my agenda on what I am trying to achieve in the Bill, so I do not think that there is a conflict between my agenda and what schools want. I fully recognise that a majority of teachers have come to see GTCNI as almost invisible, delivering little that is of value to them while demanding an annual fee. Members have touched on the fee issue. That perceived invisibility stems directly from the historical failure of those who were supposed to provide the body with leadership and direction. That is, to my mind, the most damning indictment of all against the old GTCNI. One Member said that opportunities for improvement from the report have come and gone over the past number of years. There has been significant improvement, and that is why GTCNI has been removed from special measures. I referenced in my opening comments the significant transformations that GTCNI staff have achieved under the supervision of the Department of Education. It is only right that we acknowledge the significant progress that those staff have been able to make. That quiet, behind-the-scenes progress that GTCNI staff have achieved over the past four years has convinced me that a renewed GTCNI is well placed to deliver the reforms. The leader of the Opposition and others quite rightly asked this legitimate question: why not dissolve, dismantle and create a new body? I would ask the Minister of Education that question if I were on the opposite Benches. I did ask that very same question, and I have no doubt that, as officials engage with the Committee, they will explain all the processes that have been followed to improve GTCNI and why the decision has been taken to reform it through this Bill. Fundamentally, you would be asking me to bring legislation to the Assembly to dissolve an NDPB and to then create an identical body with the same functions. The reform functions are in the Bill, and that is exactly what would be in a new body, were we to dissolve GTCNI. I asked whether we could we rename the body, because people will associate the name with their experience of the past and with the report on its dysfunctional nature. Having asked that question, I found that it is not straightforward to repeal in law the name that is associated with the General Teaching Council for Northern Ireland. That would have required more work and could have delayed the Bill. That is why we have proposed a much reformed GTCNI. Obviously, it will create challenges in repairing the reputational damage that is associated with the past GTCNI. I want to put my efforts into that, but, ultimately, it will be for the new board to repair that reputation and rebuild trust among the profession and the wider education sector. The Bill can address only the historical failures that undermined the work of GTCNI, correct the legislative weaknesses that hindered its work and ensure that there is timely, well-informed decision-making to support its operational effectiveness. Consensus, not conflict, must be the hallmark of its future leadership. Some have already expressed the view that the new board will not be sufficiently independent of the Department. My response to that suggestion is to repeat that the 2021 board effectiveness review, which was based on council members' feedback, found that GTCNI had the worst-performing board that its consultants had encountered, having undertaken 645 similar reviews. Therefore, I will not apologise for insisting that, in line with the review report's recommendations, a public appointments process will be used for all future board members. It would be a serious failure on my part if I did not use the Bill to ensure that a future board does not collapse into division and infighting once again. That having been said, I recognise that, in order for it to be effective, GTCNI's board will require the input of experienced teachers and an understanding of the realities of life in the classroom. That is why, in regulations to be brought forward in support of the Bill, the new board will consist of 12 people — the Chairman asked me to clarify that — and 50% of its members will be required to be GTCNI-registered teachers. As I said in my opening remarks, our teachers are highly educated, skilled and committed individuals, whose professionalism should be recognised and commended. Professionalism in any regulated field is a matter not only of a particular qualification but of a personal commitment to a set of standards and to being the very best practitioner that you can be. That holds true whether you are a doctor, a nurse, a social worker, an accountant, an engineer or a teacher. As a professional, you accept that you will be held to account if your practice becomes ineffective or if your actions fall below those standards that you and all your peers have promised to uphold. Professionalism is a commitment to the collective good rather than individual self-interest. A strong, effective professional body underpins that commitment. "What do I get for my fee?" will always remain a valid question. However, it is one that can be answered only in terms of the collective benefits that the new GTCNI will deliver for our teachers. Going forward, the new board will be responsible for fees and will wish to be transparent about how that money is being spent and the value for money that it delivers. Mr O'Toole: I appreciate the Minister's giving way. I have a specific question. Earlier, he referred to the options paper and business case that he got from officials. Is he willing to either publish that business case or, at least, share it with the Committee, so that it can be examined and unpacked by its members? Mr Givan: I will take that request away. Ultimately, when officials come before the Committee, in the advice that they give in responding to members' questions, they will not try to withhold information from the Committee about all the submissions processes that were followed. I do not think that it would be the norm to provide ministerial submissions to a Committee. However, I am quite happy for my officials, in engaging with the Committee, to provide information in response to any requests that it has in that respect. I will deal with a number of the questions that I picked up on. Given his experience with the police, Mr Burrows's input to the Committee will be very insightful. I have not spoken about it in this Second Stage debate, but it will be important that, when it deals with conduct issues, the body, in its reformed capacity, does so in the manner that Mr Burrows has articulated. We do not want spurious claims to be brought forward and for those to take considerable time to be investigated, to the individual's detriment. If someone can be dismissed, they should be dismissed rapidly. We live in a world where, at times, people, for whatever different reasons, will make spurious claims. For the individual concerned, it is unsatisfactory that there would be a protracted period of jeopardy when they have done nothing wrong. It is important that those issues can be expedited and filtered, and that, quite rightly, when people bring forward serious claims, there is appropriate investigation and support. Again, that needs to be conducted in a timely fashion. That will be helpful insight as the Committee deliberates on those issues. I agree with the sentiment that has been expressed. There is no doubt that the Committee will ask a number of questions. People have raised things at Second Stage. Having had experience of the Committee, I know that it will leave no stone unturned when it comes to delving into all those matters. That is to its credit, and it will be important in refining the legislation. I am not saying that the Bill, as presented at Second Stage, will not be subject to refinement or, indeed, improvement. I am happy to engage with the Committee. However, it is important that we retain the integrity of the Bill's fundamental principles and the reasons that we got to where we did throughout the various processes and in Members' consideration of amendments that may be proposed. Top 12.00 noon I will not labour this point, as it has been raised before, but it would be remiss of me not to correct some of Mr O'Toole's points about appointments. People have raised issues about the public appointments process for six of the 12 registered teachers. I appoint hundreds of boards of governors. I am the appointing authority for a considerable number of boards of governors. No one has ever challenged my appointment of those governors when I have approved them. I have appointed other people to senior positions through a public appointments process. The appointment of the EA chairman was carried out in line with all of the processes. It came through a process, and I then had to select the individual. It appears to me that some are contending that I should discriminate on the basis of someone's political opinion or identity. Would it be the same if a person from a different political party had been appointed? I suggest that it would not. Therefore, it is unfair to characterise that appointment in the way in which it has been characterised. The chief executive of the Education Authority was appointed by the head of the Civil Service. A permanent secretary was identified and brought forward. The appointment was ratified by the Education Authority board. The inferences that are being drawn about that process are unfair to the individual who is chief executive of the Education Authority. I appeal to Members to desist. I wanted to address that point without labouring it. Members have contributed to the debate on a Bill that will give teachers the professional body that they deserve. I commend the General Teaching Council Bill to the House. Question put and agreed to. Resolved: That the Second Stage of the General Teaching Council Bill [NIA Bill 23/22-27] be agreed. Mr Speaker: That concludes the Second Stage of the General Teaching Council Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Committee for Education. Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill: Final Stage Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): I beg to move That the Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill [NIA Bill 13/22-27] do now pass. Mr Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed that there will be no time limit on the debate. I call the Minister of Finance to open the debate. Mr O'Dowd: Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle. [Translation: Mr Speaker.] I am pleased that we have reached the Final Stage of the Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill. I am grateful to Members for the support that they have shown for the Bill to date and, in particular, for the positive comments from all sides in respect of the proposed baby loss certificate scheme. I also thank the Finance Committee for its detailed scrutiny of the Bill and the report that it provided. Members will be aware that the Bill started as legislation with a narrow focus. It was designed to place the temporary powers in the Coronavirus Act 2020 that enabled the remote registration of deaths and stillbirths and the electronic transfer of registration documents on a permanent footing. It was first expanded to remove differences in registration processes for same-sex couples. It was then rightly expanded to include provisions for a baby loss certificate scheme that would recognise the suffering of families who endure the pain of baby loss before the end of the twenty-fourth week of pregnancy. Although the Bill has widened from its original intent, I know that Members on all sides agree that the extensions have enabled us to address important registration issues and make new provisions for baby loss certificates that are required to take the scheme forward. The initial purpose of the Bill was to make permanent the temporary provisions made under the Coronavirus Act 2020. As Members will be aware, those temporary provisions were introduced at the beginning of the pandemic and have been in place for more than five years. It is clear to the Assembly why the provisions were important in the context of the pandemic: they reduced the need for face-to-face contact for grieving and, sometimes, vulnerable members of the public and for registration staff; and they enabled the registration system to continue to operate even when its services were, sadly, under significant pressure. In the five years that have passed since the start of the pandemic, those arrangements have become the normal means by which the vast majority of death registrations take place. Importantly, the provisions have eased the burden on grieving members of the public. They have helped the registration process be more efficient and more productive, and they carry the support of stakeholders, ensuring the smooth passing of important documents and enabling registration staff to handle any errors or omissions in advance. In short, although the powers were introduced as the pandemic took hold, they have become the established means by which deaths and stillbirths are registered, and they have helped the registration service become more empathetic, modern and efficient. Given the positive effect of the provisions, it is right that we put those temporary provisions on a solid statutory footing, providing permanent powers with sustained remote registration and electronic transfer of documents. The Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill will end the use of the Coronavirus Act 2020 powers in the context of the registration service, something that, I know, Members on all sides are keen to see. Secondly, the Bill will rectify differences in the registration process for some couples. Under the current law, different birth and stillbirth registration options exist for same-sex and heterosexual couples who are neither married nor in a civil partnership. Same-sex female couples in that position cannot jointly register a birth or a stillbirth in the way that heterosexual couples can. The provisions in the Bill will fix those disparities, ensuring that unmarried, non-civil-partnered couples have the same choices about how to register a birth or a stillbirth, regardless of whether they are same-sex or heterosexual couples. That change will remedy our legislation to ensure equality in the registration process. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Blair] in the Chair) Thirdly, the Bill will provide a statutory footing for a baby loss certificate scheme. As Members on all sides will testify, losses in early pregnancy have a real and lasting effect. The trauma of the loss is significant, heartfelt and, too often, borne in silence. Throughout the scrutiny of the Bill in Committee and in the Chamber, we have heard personal accounts of the impact that such losses have had on families. I commend the bravery of all those who have spoken out, either in this debate, through our recent consultation, in the course of their charity work or in correspondence. I also pay tribute to all the baby loss support organisations that have campaigned tirelessly for the baby loss certificate scheme. Today, we have a chance to act on the powerful testimonies that those families have given. Under the existing law, the registration service can only recognise losses during pregnancy that occur after 24 weeks. Losses after that point are treated as stillbirths. The Bill will change that and make provisions to recognise losses that occur earlier in pregnancy. The baby loss certificate scheme will offer the opportunity for those who have experienced a baby loss prior to the end of the twenty-fourth week of pregnancy to have their loss formally recognised. While no certificate can undo their pain and grief, the new scheme will help to support families at the most difficult and challenging times of their lives, providing a voluntary way of acknowledging and recognising their loss. It will confirm that their baby existed and can be used to start a conversation with siblings or other family members. Once the Bill receives Royal Assent, I intend to introduce regulations through the draft affirmative resolution process that will set down the detail of the baby loss certificate scheme. It is my intention that the scheme will become operational by the end of the financial year. As Members of the Legislative Assembly, our role is to shape legislation that makes a real difference in people's lives. The Bill covers three important issues that will impact on a large number of the people whom we are here to represent, often at some of the most challenging moments that they face. By working together, we have come together to agree and deliver changes that will have a real, lasting and positive impact on the lives of our constituents. Today is a powerful reminder of the good that we can achieve when we unite and work in partnership. I therefore commend the Bill to the Assembly. Mr O'Toole (The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance): I will speak on the Finance Committee's scrutiny of the Bill, but, first, I thank the Minister for his comments today. It is a really important and welcome day. One of the most important issues that the Committee considered in respect of the Bill was the immensely sensitive topics that it touches on: the registration of deaths and stillbirths and the introduction of baby loss certificates. The Committee requested evidence from a range of interested organisations and carried out a detailed online survey, to which it received 40 responses from individuals, organisations and representative bodies. The responses included highly emotive personal testimonies from individuals. The Committee carefully considered the views of all those who provided written evidence, and, on behalf of the Committee, I thank all those who took the time to provide detailed evidence to inform and support the Committee in its consideration of the Bill. That was especially important for this Bill, as its provisions had not previously been consulted on, and it was important that the Committee gave the time to ensure that the process was right. I also offer thanks on behalf of the Committee to the Department, which was constructive in its engagement and robust at times. That included the Registrar General and his team. The Forget-me-not Group and the National Association of Funeral Directors provided oral evidence to the Committee: their input was extremely useful and appreciated. I note that the Committee managed to complete the Bill's Committee Stage well in advance of the date outlined in the extension motion, which demonstrated that Committees can use extension motions not as targets, as they are sometimes accused of being, but rather as a limit to expedite thorough consideration. I will go through some of the broad issues that were considered during the Committee Stage. Clauses 2 to 10 relate to the recording of deaths and stillbirths and the repeal of the temporary provisions of the Coronavirus Act 2020. The Committee previously agreed a number of statutory rules (SRs) under the provisions of the Coronavirus Act 2020 that related to the recording of deaths and stillbirths. The changes allowed the registration of deaths and stillbirths by telephone without an informant's signature and the electronic transfer of registration documents between the parties in the process. The Chamber subsequently approved those regulations on a number of occasions. Members of the Committee were, therefore, well versed on the use of the clauses. The Committee's deliberations were, therefore, mostly of a technical nature to ensure the robustness of the primary legislation. During its evidence, the National Association of Funeral Directors outlined how the arrangements were working. It gave its support for the arrangements and was eager for them to continue in perpetuity. The Committee had no objections to that part of the Bill. Clause 11 gives the Department the power to introduce a baby loss certificate scheme. As Members will be aware, the House previously supported the introduction of baby loss certificates, and the Committee worked on a cross-party basis to ensure that the power to produce regulations to formally enact certificates was included in the Bill. There was not just consensus but unanimity in the Committee that such a scheme be introduced. The Committee's decisions were, therefore, mostly centred on some of the potential provisions, most of which will obviously come via regulations that will be brought at a later date to the Assembly. There were particular discussions around the potential for a monetary charge for supplementary baby loss certificates or, I suppose, any baby loss certificate. That is what we discussed and interrogated. The Department confirmed to the Committee that a charge could not and would not be introduced without the approval of the House. Any potential charge would have to be introduced via subordinate legislation through the draft affirmative procedure, allowing the statutory rule to be debated and amended in the Assembly. The Committee, therefore, agreed to proceed without its own amendment. There were, of course, other amendments proposed by Members who engaged with the Department. We noted the Minister's amendment, which was passed at Further Consideration Stage, albeit the Committee did not take a formal position on that amendment. I note the contributions of former and current members of the Committee in working with the Department to achieve a resolution. I thank them and acknowledge that. I also congratulate the Minister for introducing the Bill, and thank him for working and engaging with the Committee on it to, hopefully, get a piece of legislation that is robust and brings real change to interested parties and people, particularly those who have been affected by the traumatic event of baby loss. The passing of this legislation will be an example of parties working together to achieve change. Top 12.15 pm I pay tribute to all families that have suffered baby loss. The passing of the legislation will show that their loss will never be forgotten. Their voices have helped to shape a piece of legislation that has compassion and recognition at its heart. As I indicated at the previous stages, the Committee very much welcomed the Bill and the opportunity to work with the Department to scrutinise it and make our contribution. We gave a clear indication that we wanted to see a provision for baby loss certificates in the Bill, so we are delighted. I think that I can say that on behalf of the whole Committee as the Bill is moves through its Final Stage. I will say a few words in a party capacity, but I will largely echo what I said as Committee Chair, namely that this is very positive. In the Assembly, we often engage in contentious debate. Indeed, I often engage in contentious debate with the Minister because that is my job and his job, but it is also our job to, where we can, work together to pass legislation on a cross-party basis that will bring meaningful change for the people whom we serve. The Bill will bring meaningful change. In broad terms, the Bill will do two things. It will make permanent the provisions of the coronavirus laws that we debated here nearly six years ago and that created emergency changes, including the electronic registration of deaths and stillbirths. All the people who work in that area — funeral directors, in particular — were clear that it is much better for bereaved families, and indeed for them regarding speed of process, to make those powers permanent. They were very clear on that. However, the more novel and, in a sense, historic bit of today's legislation is the creation of the power to issue baby loss certificates, which will allow people who experience baby loss as a result of the ending of a pregnancy before 24 weeks to acknowledge that via a certificate. That is often one of the most traumatic things that happens in people's lives. They respond to it in a range of ways but, in many cases, they experience life-changing grief and sometimes on more than one occasion. They, via the Forget-me-not Group, gave the Committee extraordinarily poignant, thoughtful and brave evidence. We were pleased to be able to come together as a Committee and advocate strongly for the inclusion in the Bill of a provision on baby loss certificates. I am very pleased that the Minister and his officials acted on that, and that we have that provision in the Bill. We will, I hope, have regulations in the new year after Royal Assent that give effect to those certificates. The certificates will offer people a small but deeply meaningful acknowledgement of their loss; enable them to have conversations with other family members; and enable them to remember their loss but also remember something and someone very poignant for them. On behalf of my party, having already spoken on behalf of the Committee, I am pleased to mark the Bill's Final Stage. I thank the Minister and my Committee colleagues, and I thank the Assembly, which will pass the Bill. Miss Dolan: I am delighted to be able to speak in the Final Stage debate of the Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill. Being the first jurisdiction on these islands to introduce legislation that makes provision for a baby loss certificate scheme is an example of the positive change that we can make when we work in partnership, and I am proud to have played my small part in that through the Finance Committee. The legislation has compassion and equality at its core, helping to reduce stress for those who have suffered a bereavement by enabling the electronic transfer of documents, providing same-sex female couples with the same rights as others, and ensuring formal recognition for parents who have lost a baby prior to 24 weeks. Throughout the development of the Bill, we heard directly from parents who had suffered a heartbreaking loss, and their voices will continue to play a crucial role in the development of the regulations that will provide for the baby loss certificate scheme. I again acknowledge those parents who shared their stories with us and their role in shaping the legislation. I welcome a commitment from the Finance Minister to continue to engage with that group in shaping the regulations. Working together, we have been able to introduce compassionate legislation whilst modernising the registration process for deaths. That will have a real impact on people as they navigate extremely challenging times. I once again congratulate the Minister on bringing it forward. Ms Forsythe: I am also pleased to speak at the Bill's Final Stage today. The legislation will see compassion being written into the law in Northern Ireland through the registration of deaths process. As others have said, it is a great example of how we can deliver something really good here when everyone works together. When baby loss certificates were introduced in Great Britain, many people called for them here. The Health Minister and the Finance Minister shared a commitment to introducing them quickly, but I congratulate the Finance Minister on being the one to bring the scheme forward through the Bill. When the Committee moved to replace the COVID regulations, we recognised the opportunity for legislation to provide for baby loss certificates. We thank the officials for working at pace to develop that within the Bill. Working alongside the Minister, our Committee is really pleased to have been able to bring forward the scheme. The Committee heard evidence from members of the Forget-me-not Group who shared their powerful stories, and, in debating the Bill, Members bravely spoke of their experiences. During Baby Loss Awareness Week, Committee colleague Jemma Dolan had a ribbon display at the front of Stormont, where we welcomed some of those groups. It was a really powerful moment as we joined together to remember all the babies who had been lost. As the legislation has progressed, it has opened up conversations, and I am proud to have played a small part in that. So many people have reached out to me on baby loss in generations past. It is my understanding that the legislation will, through the guidelines that will be developed, have a retrospective element. For those who have lost a baby but have never spoken about it and who are starting to move forward in their grief, receiving a certificate will be powerful and important for them in that journey. Again, we think of all those who have experienced loss, and we remember all those babies. We are really pleased that, through the Bill's passage at Final Stage today, we are recognising the lives of all babies who have been lost in Northern Ireland. We welcome the legislation. Mr Tennyson: I, too, welcome the opportunity to contribute to the Final Stage debate on the Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill. Too often in our society, baby loss has been met with silence or stigma, and, for many parents, it is one of the most traumatic experiences of their life. Today is therefore a truly significant day, as the Assembly legislates for the first time to offer people voluntary and formal acknowledgement of the loss of a baby before 24 weeks. I pay tribute to the women, the bereaved parents and families, the charities and the organisations that have long campaigned for change and to those who bravely and courageously shared their personal testimony with the Committee and the Department during the scrutiny of the Bill. I pay particular tribute to Nikcollette and Louise from the Little Forget Me Nots Trust in my consistency whose insight was absolutely invaluable. I hope that today can be a first step, because, although acknowledgement is important, it was clear from speaking to bereaved parents that they also want to see improvements in women's health and maternal healthcare and to see us make progress on things such as a women's health strategy to ensure that bereaved parents are supported through every step of their journey. As other Members have said, throughout the scrutiny of the Bill, including Committee Stage, there was a perhaps unusual degree of political consensus and unanimity. Even where there were differences of opinion on things such as charging and cost, we were able to set aside the politics and find consensus and common ground. That is an example of how the Assembly ought to function at all times: parties come together and work together, focus on the common interest and the people whom we represent and find ways through our differences where they arise. As Members have also said, the Bill makes other important provisions that modernise the registration process. That will make a real, tangible difference to families in times, good and bad, when they have to visit a registration office to register a birth, a death or a stillbirth. The Bill includes a welcome provision that updates the Civil Registration Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 to enable a second female parent to register a stillbirth without the mother being present. That is a very small but, for those families, hugely significant act of equality. It is a signal of dignity, equality and fairness, and I am very proud that parties have been able to come together to get to this stage and to pass the Bill today. I close by paying tribute to and thanking the other members of the Finance Committee — we worked unusually well together on the Bill — and the Minister and his officials for their engagement. It was appreciated, and it aided the passage of the Bill, which I am really pleased to see here today, so thank you. Miss Hargey: I echo the sentiments of those Members who have spoken. It is great that we are at the Final Stage of this important piece of legislation. It has progressed at pace. The Bill makes temporary provisions permanent, which I know that Paul Frew will be delighted about, and it builds on those provisions to ensure that we have a progressive and, most importantly, as the Minister said, compassionate piece of legislation. We have all listened to the lived experiences of women in particular and to those of individual family members from whom we heard about the wider ripple effect that a loss can have. Good work has been done through listening to those people and making sure that we have legislation that is fit for purpose. Good work has also been done between the Minister and the Committee, as well as in the Chamber when the Bill was debated in each of its iterations. Importantly, the legislation recognises loss. That was one of the issues that we heard about from families, particularly the women who came forward. I can reflect on my family. My mother lost a baby 12 hours after he was born, and she has a baby loss certificate for him, but she does not have certificates for the miscarriages and losses that she had before the end of pregnancy. That is one illustration, and I am sure that there is not one individual in the Chamber and beyond who has not been touched by these issues. The legislation can make a huge difference across our communities. The introduction of the baby loss certificate scheme will be broadly welcomed. I recognise that the Minister said this morning that he is going to move at pace to ensure that he brings forward the necessary regulations and, importantly, that he is working with the baby loss organisations and others that support those organisations and families during their time of need. Again, I recognise the stage that we are at. I commend the work of every MLA in the Finance Committee, and, importantly, the Minister, who has brought the legislation to this stage. At the Bill's Further Consideration Stage, I reflected on the fact that we come from a history of women across this island who were stigmatised. Today is a good day for those women. We are starting to break down that stigma and meet their needs. Again, I commend the Bill at its Final Stage. Mr Frew: I welcome this day in the Chamber. It is a good news day, and that is for a number of reasons, not least because of the sensitivity of the Bill. It is a very heartfelt, sensitive Bill, and it proves that the House is listening to the people out there. The Bill started off as a very dry, mechanical Bill to move what was temporary legislation in the Coronavirus Act 2020 on to a permanent footing. That concerned the registration of deaths and births, which are very emotive, sensitive issues. It was basically a functional Bill to move good ideas from being temporary to permanent in order to lessen the burden on people who had to register deaths and births, as well as all the people who work in that field, such as undertakers and registrars. It is a very common-sense piece of legislation. The Minister and departmental officials will know that I badgered them to introduce the Bill as soon as possible. Of course, we kept getting the six-month extensions to the Coronavirus Act. Therefore, it is good news today that we have achieved a small victory with the repeal of a piece of the Coronavirus Act 2020, albeit one of the most positive pieces of that legislation. It proves that it can be done. Even though the Coronavirus Act apparatus is still in place and although the Assembly has removed the practices of the Act, it proves that we can repeal the Coronavirus Act and completely remove it from the statute book, even though most of it is now dormant. The Assembly should take up that cause. Top 12.30 pm The Committee and my party and I pushed for the baby loss certificates. It proves that the Department, the officials and the Minister are listening, and moves were made to add the baby loss certificate provisions to the Bill. It took time and effort to get clause 11 and everything that comes with it into the Bill. That is to be applauded, because the Assembly is here to pass legislation. It is not good enough just to pass legislation: the Assembly, the Committee and the Department, with the officials and the Minister, should aim to improve legislation. From the First Reading until the Final Stage of the Bill, our job is to make the legislation better as we go through the process. I am glad to say that the Bill has been improved because of pressure from the Committee and because the Department and the Minister listened and amendments were put down in the name of Eoin Tennyson and the DUP. The Minister listened and saw what we were trying to achieve, which was to ensure that parents would not pay a fee for a baby loss certificate. It is also commendable that this is the first place in the British Isles to legislate for a baby loss certificate, and we should be proud of that. If we compare it with the policies in other parts of GB, we have to afford the Department and the Minister the latitude to bring forward regulations under the provisions that will give the flexibility to ensure that the baby loss scheme is fit for purpose not only now but into the future. When you put something in statute, you have to allow flexibility, and that is what the regulations and parts of clause 11 will bring. I commend the Bill to the House. I am glad to see this day for a number of reasons, not least because it gives recognition to all parents who have lost a child, whether it was stillborn or did not make it through the pregnancy. The loss will be recognised — a loss that nobody has seen or held and one that even grandparents and other family members could not see. It is important to recognise the loss, even if it is just through a baby loss certificate. It will mean something, but it also means that the Assembly, the Minister, the Department and the Committee are listening to the people who have suffered loss, and we acknowledge and register it. It is a good day. I commend the Bill to the House. Ms Kimmins: I, too, welcome the passage of what, for me, is significant legislation. This will be a momentous day for the thousands of women across the North who have experienced the devastating loss of a baby at whatever stage of pregnancy. They will finally feel seen and heard, and we have acknowledged and recognised their loss as being as real as any loss in pregnancy. I thank my Sinn Féin colleague Caoimhe Archibald, who instigated the legislation, and the now Finance Minister, John O'Dowd, for bringing it through. We cannot overstate its importance. As others have said today, it is a proper reflection of what we can do in this place. Despite the challenges and the political differences that we may have, we can work together and deliver really important legislation that will have an impact on people's lives. When I proposed the original motion on the issue in April 2024, which asked the Finance Minister to bring forward a baby loss certificate scheme in the North, I started the debate by remembering a little baby who is very precious to me, baby Robyn Purvis, who was sadly born sleeping in April 2023. Her passing and the impact that was felt by her parents and, indeed, the wider family motivated me to look at how we can make a difference for families like Robyn's across the North. I will end my contribution to the debate by remembering baby Robyn and paying tribute to her amazing mummy, Jessica, who asked me what we could do here, because we had seen what happens in other jurisdictions. I feel that the family have ensured that Robyn's legacy will ease the pain and the deep loss felt by many parents and families across all our communities and recognise that loss not just now or in the time ahead but for many years, as others have so eloquently articulated here. I commend the Minister for showing such leadership, the Committee for its engagement and all the organisations that had an input into making and shaping the legislation. I take this moment to remember all those beautiful angels, who will now have a formal place, and everyone who has experienced a loss Mr Carroll: Like others, I hope that the Bill provides some solace and comfort as part of the healing process for people who been through bereavement, loss and tragedy. Some will want a certificate to recognise their loss, which is their right, and others may not. It is not for me or anybody else to dictate that. However, as Members have said, a certificate can be important for people to acknowledge their loss and give them that space. I genuinely hope that the Bill will have a positive impact and help people who have experienced that trauma and bereavement. Despite some criticisms and shortcomings, that is a genuine view that I and others have. I extend my sympathies to everybody in the House and on the Committee who shared their heartfelt trauma and stories and to my constituents who have been through baby loss, stillbirth or miscarriage. I can only imagine that it is traumatic to share that, but I commend them for doing so. I have two quick points. There are still some issues in the Bill that have not been addressed that I raised throughout the process. There are huge gaps in the existing bereavement services. I pay tribute to people who provide counselling and support services in the trusts and elsewhere, but such a small number of people do that. There is probably an expectation that, as a result of the Bill, more people will come forward to get a certificate, as is their right. They may be — I emphasise the words "may be" — traumatised or in need of more in-depth support and counselling services, and I fear that those services are not in place. I repeat the previous point that I made: the Finance Minister needs to work really robustly with the Health Minister to expand those services to make sure that they are in place not only as a general point but to protect those people and support them when they come forward. The other point that I want to make is that there has been some progress in the Bill on support for same-sex couples, which I welcome. That is a positive move, but there are gaps when it comes to same-sex couples who live in the North but go through IVF treatment in the South. The non-birth mother cannot be on the birth certificate, and that is an oversight and a missed opportunity. I would welcome the Minister's moving on that in some other capacity, but I fear that he might tell us that the time has gone. I hope not, but that is what I fear. That is a missed opportunity in an otherwise, for the most part, positive Bill. My final point is about payment. I welcome the fact that this was pushed by some members of the Finance Committee, and I recognise that there has been some movement from the Department. However, I reiterate the fact that, even if it is one person, a charge for the second or third copy in circumstances that we do not know about and that, frankly, are none of our business could create unintended consequences, to use the terminology of this place. I repeat my issue with that. That could be problematic, to put it mildly, for people going through a bereavement process. I will leave it there. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thanks to all Members who have spoken. That concludes the list, so I call on the Minister of Finance to conclude the Final Stage. Mr O'Dowd: Thank you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. [Translation: Mr Deputy Speaker.] I thank again all the Members of the House who have contributed to the heartfelt debates on the matter, who have corresponded with my office about the Bill or who have otherwise engaged meaningfully in helping to push this important Bill forward. I again record my thanks for the work of the Committee and the Committee staff, who have also been crucial in relation to the Bill. I also thank my staff in the Department, who have worked on the Bill, driven it forward and engaged with many Members of the House, not only in Committee but outside it, in a bid to get the Bill to where it needs to be. In relation to the elements of the Bill to establish a legal footing for a baby loss certificate scheme, I am grateful for the support received from across the House. It has been said time and time again that our ability to work in partnership on the issue has paved the way for, hopefully, a successful conclusion to the Bill process today. I remind Members of the Bill's aims. It is to ground in permanent legislation the remote registration practices for deaths and stillbirths that have become the normal way of operating. It also removes my need to present myself in front of Mr Frew for an extension to the Coronavirus Act 2020, which, we can say, is a blessing for us all. If there is one thing that you do not want to start Mr Frew on, it is the Coronavirus Act, and I have now removed my need to do that. The Bill removes inequalities in registration procedures for some couples, and that is an important step forward in the legislation. As has been said, the Bill provides for the establishment of a baby loss certificate scheme. I have had the privilege of bringing several pieces of legislation through the Assembly in different eras, all of which were important in their own right, but I can think of no other legislation that is more important or more meaningful than the legislation that I propose to the House today. It will, in many ways, offer a small candlelight of hope to many families who have gone through terrible times. Today, the Assembly has stepped forward, and I hope that the Bill offers them some light at the end of that very dark tunnel in that we are now recognising the loss of their baby through this scheme. Well done to you all, and well done to everyone who has been involved in the legislation. I commend the Bill to the Assembly. Question put and agreed to. Resolved: That the Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill [NIA Bill 13/22-27] do now pass. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members should take their ease for a moment before we move to the next item. Top 12.45 pm Committee Business Inquiry into Access to Palliative Care Services Mr McGuigan (The Chairperson of the Committee for Health): I beg to move That this Assembly approves the report of the Committee for Health on its inquiry into access to palliative care services [NIA 130/22-27]; and calls on the Minister of Health to implement the recommendations contained in the report. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to two hours for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other contributors to the debate will have five minutes. Mr McGuigan: As Chairperson of the Committee for Health, I welcome the opportunity to speak to the Committee's report on its inquiry into access to palliative care services in the North. I look forward to hearing the contributions to the debate. We also look forward to hearing from the Minister, and we will listen carefully to how he engages today on the report's findings and recommendations. I begin by acknowledging the presence in the Public Gallery of professionals from the palliative and end-of-life care sector, as well as those with experience of being a patient requiring palliative care and families and carers who have provided palliative care to loved ones. Later this afternoon, the Committee will host an event to thank the sector and those with lived experience who have contributed to the inquiry's findings. I hope that the event will be well attended. Those who attend the event will watch a video in which a family member of a patient describes the care that is given by the hospice as "beyond special". That was the experience of Committee members when we visited each of the hospices. The quality of care and the services that are provided by the sector, through patient and community services, is something that we should all be proud of. Early in the inquiry, the Committee learned that the sector has an exceptionally skilled workforce, in statutory and community settings across the North, who have a passion to keep improving access to high-quality care services for patients and families. Not only does the sector understand the challenges facing services, but it has many of the solutions to those challenges. It is, however, facing barriers to effecting the change that is needed and required. The Committee intends that its report will shine a spotlight on that area of the healthcare system and that it will, hopefully, greatly assist the Minister, the Department and the relevant arm's-length bodies in meeting our shared goals of high-quality care and outcomes for patients and their families and carers. The World Health Organization states: "Palliative care is explicitly recognized under the human right to health. It should be provided through person-centered and integrated health services that pay special attention to the specific needs and preferences of individuals." It states that palliative and end-of-life care: "is an approach that improves the quality of life of patients (adults and children) and their families who are facing problems associated with life-threatening illness." It is important to note that palliative care is not just for older people. Many of those who are terminally ill leave behind young families. Paediatric palliative care services see families from before the child's birth right up until they are 18 years of age. When a child and family receive that diagnosis, palliative care aims to improve quality of life, to support families emotionally and practically and to help children to live as well and for as long as possible. It is a long-term, holistic approach that is not just about the final stage. Nothing sums that up better than a quote from the evidence that the Committee heard when members were told: "To know that the person you love died peacefully with comfort and dignity and that you had the opportunity to tell them that you loved them and say goodbye properly helps to ease the rawness of bereavement". Good palliative care allows the bereaved to recover sooner and continue living their lives without crippling memories of unnecessary suffering. That is an important statement because, when there has been a gap in the patient's care or a barrier to accessing proper and timely palliative and end-of-life care, the effects are disastrous for the patient as well as for the families and the carers and key workers who were involved with the patient. Palliative care is unique. We have only one chance to get it right for a patient and their loved ones at a time in their life when they are at their most vulnerable. The Committee's 27 recommendations provide the overall steps that are required for us to get this vital service in our health service right. Palliative care is key to bringing about a more efficient and effective system for healthcare, and the Committee hopes that the Minister will today acknowledge the importance of prioritising palliative care services. We are already working to an underestimated need for palliative care. The Office for National Statistics projects that we will experience the largest proportional increase on these islands in the number of deaths that require palliative care, with a 32% rise expected between 2023 and 2048. That outlines the need to increase the focus that has been placed on palliative care and put the correct structures in place that will ensure that, as demand for palliative care increases, the systems are in place to be able to provide patients and families with the holistic care that is needed. I want to touch briefly on the key themes of the evidence that we heard and some of our recommendations. Universal access to palliative and end-of-life care is a recurring theme as is our call for a legal right to palliative care. It was acknowledged that legislation alone would not solve all challenges but would raise the profile of palliative care, ensure consistent commissioning across trusts and help to secure equitable access. Another constant theme was hospice funding. Our hospices face constant financial instability and risk, which prevents meaningful development and growth. Without multi-year budgets and long-term planning, meaningful service development is impossible, leaving clinical needs unmet and communities underserved. For inpatient services, we need an immediate move away from the long-standing practice of providing 50% funding on the basis of the cost of a general medical bed in a hospital. What hospices provide, in their inpatient services, is specialist multidisciplinary care, and we are doing staff and patients a disservice by continuing the current practice. In their evidence, departmental officials highlighted the fact that it is difficult to assess the cost of providing specialist care. However, the Committee did receive correspondence from the Department that provided information on the cost of providing specialist care in a fully funded trust service, which was significantly greater than the amounts that are provided for hospices and inpatient services. While we need to consolidate and build inpatient services, the Committee has significant concerns about community services that are provided through hospices and trusts. The Committee held an event in June with the Voices4Care group and other family members who had lost loved ones who had received palliative care. The Committee was concerned to hear the lived experience of families, who, at times, struggled to get support and were told to take their loved ones to emergency departments to wait for treatment. Those families had to drive for hours in their loved ones' last days to find urgent medication. We must do better. The sector is innovating, and the Committee saw some really good examples of community care, including out-of-hours nursing support, just-in-case boxes and 24/7 telephone support. However, such community care exists only in certain areas of the North, which results in inequity of access for patients and families. That inequity exists in rural areas in particular. The Committee believes that immediate investment in palliative and end-of-life care is necessary. There is a significant gap in out-of-hours palliative care services, particularly for symptom management. That lack of service can be a barrier to patients returning home, and the absence of 24-hour care makes it difficult for patients to receive timely support. Community and palliative pharmacy play a critical role in keeping the patient stabilised in their home and in the hospital setting, especially at the point of discharge. It is important that those functions are adequately resourced to support patients. General palliative care is provided predominantly by GPs and district nurses. That service is undervalued and under-resourced, and it is not meeting the public's expectations. Specialist palliative care by multidisciplinary teams is an essential healthcare service that should be fully funded through Health and Social Care. It has been underfunded for a prolonged period. There is a critical need for investment in the community specialist palliative care workforce. As more individuals choose to receive care at home, there is an urgent demand for a sustainable, multidisciplinary, community-based workforce. The current strategy for paediatric palliative care is not adequately funded. As I conclude, I place on record my thanks to those in the sector who so willingly engaged with the Committee, including the hospices in the North, Hospice UK and the All Ireland Institute of Hospice and Palliative Care. I thank all the organisations, health professionals and individuals who provided valuable evidence to the Committee as it considered this important issue. I thank the Committee Clerk and his staff for their valuable assistance and contribution throughout the inquiry process in organising and managing the sessions and, in particular, for collating the evidence and drafting and redrafting the report. I also thank my fellow Committee MLAs for their considerable and considerate consideration of the issue. I thank the Minister, permanent secretary and departmental officials for engaging with the Committee over the past year. Lastly, I pay tribute to those who shared their lived experience with the Committee, including individuals receiving palliative care and families who have lost loved ones. That cannot have been easy for them, but I want them to know how important their contribution and testimony was to the Committee: your experiences have, hopefully, shaped our inquiry report for the better. A report that hopefully, but — Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Your time is up. Mr McGuigan: — more importantly, can be a blueprint or a road map for doing things better. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Business Committee has agreed to meet at 1.00 pm. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The debate will continue after Question Time, when the first Member to be called will be Diane Dodds. The debate stood suspended. The sitting was suspended at 12.57 pm. On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) — Top 2.00 pm Oral Answers to Questions Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Mr Speaker: Question 8 has been withdrawn. Bovine TB: Intervention Criteria 1. Mr McAleer asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to outline the criteria that will be used by the bovine tuberculosis eradication transformation programme to determine whether existing powers under the Diseases of Animals (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 or licences issued under the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 are the most appropriate legislative route for implementing any preferred wildlife intervention. (AQO 2803/22-27) Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I was pleased to establish earlier this year a new stakeholder body, the TB partnership steering group, to help us address the challenges of getting bovine TB under control in Northern Ireland. That work led to the group's blueprint for eradication, which I endorsed and published in April this year. New departmental structures are now in place to implement the blueprint, and initial work is focused on five key areas, including preparations for a new consultation on the full range of potential wildlife intervention options that are available. The officials who are preparing the public consultation are exploring all legislative avenues that may form the basis of a future decision on wildlife interventions to ensure that they will be robust in the face of any future legal challenge. The options are expected to include the two that are in the Member's question; however, no decision has been made, given that advice on the matter has not yet been finalised. It is expected that final advice on the best legislative route for wildlife intervention will be presented for my consideration in advance of a wildlife intervention consultation being undertaken in the spring. Mr McAleer: I thank the Minister for his response. Minister, you will know the devastating impact of TB on herds and on farmers' health and their finances. We met a group of farmers earlier. Whilst any investment in eradicating TB is welcome, including the £6·4 million from the Shared Island programme, is there not a danger that, without a targeted badger cull strategy, the strategy may not be as effective as you want it to be? Mr Muir: I am acutely aware of the devastating impact that bovine TB is having on our farm families in Northern Ireland. That is why we set up the partnership group and designed the blueprint that we seek to deliver. It is based on three pillars: people; cattle; and wildlife. By making a collective effort in those three areas, we can move forward and reduce TB in Northern Ireland. We must do that, and we owe it to the farming community in Northern Ireland to achieve it. Wildlife intervention is a key part of that plan, which is why we will consult on wildlife intervention options in the spring of next year. It is important that we do that correctly. Alongside that, we are already working to increase testing and advise farmers on biosecurity. We have to work together on that, which I am committed to doing. Officials in my Department are actively engaging with stakeholders on that. Miss McIlveen: The regionalisation programme was meant to be a year-long short, sharp intervention. We now have the prospect of a five-year programme in an area of lower-than-average incidence. Is the Minister serious about wildlife intervention and eradicating TB, or is he in the business of kicking the can down the road and tying a future Minister's hands? Mr Muir: As I outlined in my previous answer, I am serious about the issue. We have three pillars: people; cattle; and wildlife. I have been clear previously and will be clear again today about the need for a wildlife intervention option, but it is important that that is done correctly. That is why we will consult on it in the spring of next year. A regionalised approach has been proven to be successful in other parts of Europe, and we are pursuing that as well. I am doing all that I can on this issue, which is challenging. I speak to many farmers who tell me that it has been an issue for many decades, and we are seeking to work together to address it. Mr McMurray: Minister, will you provide more detail on the recently announced cross-border bovine TB pilot, which comes under the Shared Island programme? Mr Muir: I am grateful to my Irish Government colleagues for working with me on that pilot, particularly the Taoiseach's office where the Shared Island funding for it is concerned. It is a regionalised approach that, as I said, has proven to be successful in other parts of the world. It is informed by the three pillars, particularly that on people, giving farmers practical biosecurity advice. Education and knowledge sharing will be a key part of the plan. It is also about those biosecurity measures that we can put in place, so several cattle-related measures will be considered, potentially on a voluntary basis, but we are looking to work with people on that. That will include testing all herds every six months, particularly in relation to risk-based trading, and considering what more we can do to assist farmers in that area. It also includes a wildlife measure: a two-year test, vaccinate and remove programme across the area. Mr Butler: The Minister referred to the three pillars of people, cattle and wildlife. The reality is that inaction, over several years, means that the pressure on people, cattle and wildlife has grown, and there is also a fourth pillar: the taxpayer. It is estimated that the bill for 2024-25 will be £75 million, which is a £10 million increase on the year before. Are we looking at another £10 million increase on that bill in 2025-26, as a result of further inaction? Mr Muir: The cost is unsustainable for my Department, and, most importantly, for the farming community. Whilst we cover 100% compensation for this, I fully recognise that that does not reflect the full cost to the farming community in Northern Ireland as a result of a herd breakdown and TB. I am conscious of a previous wildlife intervention having gone to judicial review in October 2023 and of that judicial review being successful. We need to learn from that and proceed in a way that is robust and enables us to deliver for people around those three pillars. That means delivering on wildlife, but also on people and cattle. I have put resources, by way of officials, on this, as well as the Department putting money into compensation and additional testing. It is important that we work together on this and understand that it is a complex problem. Collectively, we must deliver the blueprint, and I am committed to doing that. Apple Growing, County Armagh 2. Mr McNulty asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, pursuant to AQW 33105/22-27, to outline the schemes in the sustainable agriculture policy that can help the green growth of the apple-growing industry in County Armagh. (AQO 2804/22-27) Mr Muir: I am aware of the importance of the apple-growing industry in County Armagh and the positive impact that it delivers to the economy, the environment and the biodiversity of the region. I have seen that for myself, both as Minister and before I took up the role. The draft green growth strategy sets out our long-term vision and framework for a future in which Northern Ireland has transitioned from a high emissions society to a net zero emissions society and in which we can enjoy the longer-term economic, social, health and environmental benefits that that will bring. Growing the horticulture sector is vital to achieving that vision and a sustainable Northern Irish agri-food sector. My Department's sustainable agriculture programme provides options for all farm businesses in Northern Ireland, including apple growers, to secure and improve viability and environmental sustainability. The sustainable agriculture programme encompasses a wide range of schemes that will be available to apple growers in County Armagh. The horticulture pilot scheme comprises three sub-schemes: the sustainable sector growth groups pilot scheme, the growers' training and support pilot scheme and the innovation driver and support pilot scheme. The horticulture pilot scheme aims to increase cooperation, investment and growers' capabilities. The sustainable farming investment scheme will provide financial support for equipment and technology to improve environmental performance and business efficiency. In addition, schemes such as the farm sustainability payment, the Farming with Nature package, Farming for the Generations and the supply chain scheme are available to apple growers. Mr McNulty: I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, that was all, "Blah, blah, blah". You talk about all that, but we see our orchards being ripped up and grubbed out. That happens monthly across our "Orchard County". Despite Ireland being ideal for orchards, 90% of apples here are imported. The benefits of supporting the apple industry are enormous, environmentally, culturally and economically. What are you doing specifically to support the apple industry, especially in our "Orchard County"? Does the Minister see the merit, economically and environmentally, to the apple industry and producer organisations of supporting and promoting producer organisations such as those associated with NI horticulture? Minister, how do you like them apples? Mr Muir: I provided a detailed response to your original question, in which I outlined the schemes that are available to the horticulture sector, particularly in relation to apple growing. I have been down to visit producers and processors in Armagh. My Department is committed to supporting them. We should be very proud that we have that industry. I am happy to meet you, Justin, if you would like to go through some of the specific issues that are of concern to you. It is important that we support all the agriculture sector in Northern Ireland, which my Department is doing. Mr Boylan: Minister, what measures are in place to ensure that Armagh apple growers continue to benefit from their protected geographical indication (PGI) status, particularly in relation to EU market access post-Brexit? Mr Muir: Thank you, Cathal. I am very proud of our PGI status, and it is important that we continue to support it. We have a range schemes in place already. As I outlined, there are also horticulture pilot schemes to support the industry. If there are any other specific suggestions that people want me to take forward, I am happy to listen and engage. If you want me to meet some producers and processors in your constituency, I would be delighted to do so. Mr Irwin: The Minister may be aware that the Bramley apple industry in County Armagh is worth in the region of £20 million to the local economy. For growers, cold stores are vital to the protection and keeping of the apples. Most of those cold stores are now 30, 40 or 50 years old. Growers need help to replace and renew those stores. Will the Minister undertake to look at a plan to try to help? Mr Muir: I am very conscious of the infrastructure that is required for the apple industry. We will roll out the sustainable farming investment scheme next year. That will provide support for required equipment. I am happy to engage with officials on whether cold stores are within the scope of that scheme or whether we could work with the Department for the Economy on that matter. I understand how proud we all are, particularly those of us who, like you, represent the "Orchard County". We want to be able to support the industry in the time ahead through practical measures, such as the one that you described. Mr Donnelly: Will the Minister outline his plans for horticulture under the sustainable agriculture programme? Mr Muir: Thank you, Danny. It is really important that I outline what we are doing through the sustainable agriculture programme, because the horticulture sector is an important part of our wider agri-food industry, and I am keen to support it. The Department's sustainable agriculture programme provides options for all farm businesses in Northern Ireland, including horticulture businesses, to secure and improve their viability and environmental sustainability. The horticulture pilot scheme aims to increase cooperation, investment and growers' capabilities. It should be of real and practical benefit. I strongly encourage growers to consider applying. The horticulture pilot scheme comprises three sub-schemes: the sustainable sector growth groups pilot scheme; the growers' training and support pilot scheme; and the innovation driver and support pilot scheme. Applications for the sustainable sector growth groups pilot scheme and the growers' training and support pilot scheme are now open. Applications for the innovation driver and support pilot scheme will open next year. The sustainable farming investment scheme will provide financial support for the equipment and technology required by those in the industry. In addition, other wider schemes are available, such as Farming with Nature. I know that there is quite a lot of detail there. If people want more information, it is available on the departmental website. Coastal Resilience and Adaptation 3. Ms K Armstrong asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to outline how the recently reconvened coastal forum will help support greater coastal resilience and adaptation. (AQO 2805/22-27) Mr Muir: The coastal forum met on 19 November and provided a valuable opportunity to review progress that has been made on coastal management issues. I co-chaired the meeting with the Minister for Infrastructure. I am pleased to report that there has been significant progress in delivering the agreed work programme. A major achievement is the high-quality evidence base that is available from the Northern Ireland Coastal Observatory. That milestone follows investment of approximately £2·5 million by my Department and provides a platform that can be used for future policy development and decision-making. In particular, the coastal change information tool provides scientific interpretation of historical coastal change patterns and offers insights into how our coastline may respond to future challenges, such as sea-level rise and climate change. The coastal forum was provided with an update from Ulster University and the National Trust on how €9·6 million from the PEACE PLUS programme will be invested in coastal monitoring and adaptation planning. That funding will ensure that momentum is maintained, and it will provide opportunities for coastal communities to participate in climate change adaptation planning. The coastal forum working group will produce a stocktake report of the current work programme and make recommendations for the 2026-2031 work programme. That will provide an opportunity to set priorities for the next five years and consider new work areas, such as the potential role of blue carbon habitats as nature-based solutions for coastal resilience. Ms K Armstrong: I thank the Minister for his answer. I am delighted to hear that coastal communities will be able to have input into the forum. Minister, can you update the House on your work on marine protected areas (MPAs), such as Strangford lough in my constituency? Mr Muir: My Department consulted on the review of the Northern Ireland marine protected areas strategy in 2024 and has now produced an updated MPA strategy for 2025-2030. The strategy sets out the priorities for the next five years and will focus on ensuring that MPAs are managed effectively. My Department has recently received very encouraging updates from a pilot project at Strangford lough that demonstrates how damaged seagrass habitats can be restored using eco moorings. The updated strategy and synopsis of consultation responses have been shared with the AERA Committee. I intend to publish the strategy in January 2026. For those who want more information on the coastal forum, the minutes and detailed work programme will be published on the Northern Ireland Coastal Observatory website. Top 2.15 pm Ms Brownlee: I welcome the fact that the coastal forum is meeting, but how will it help to protect our critical infrastructure and work collaboratively with the Department for Infrastructure in East Antrim? We have concerns about the A2 corridor, the rail line and protecting our harbour assets from the increasing risk of coastal erosion and rising sea levels. Mr Muir: I am conscious of the concerns about that and the risks to infrastructure in Northern Ireland. Detailed and robust modelling work and scientific analysis is being done on where we are going in that regard. That helps to give us evidence for where we should intervene. Work is also being undertaken to explore any potential legislation on this. I am conscious that there is no lead Department with responsibility for this. In addition, I will send a climate adaptation plan to the Executive for agreement. It is important that we take action in the wide range of areas that are of concern to people in Northern Ireland, particularly in relation to your constituency. Agricultural Relief 4. Mrs Dillon asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to outline any engagement that he has had with the British Government in relation to the introduction of an agricultural relief mechanism, similar to that operated by Irish Revenue and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine in Dublin, in order to protect family farm succession. (AQO 2806/22-27) Mr Muir: I have written to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to highlight my concerns about the impact of limiting agriculture and business property reliefs pertaining to inheritance tax to £1 million on family farms and succession planning. I have put forward alternative mechanisms for consideration, including a clawback option with similarities to the relief available to farmers for capital acquisitions tax in the Republic of Ireland. Most recently, along with the First Minister, the deputy First Minister and the Finance Minister, I issued a letter to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 12 November, urging her to reconsider her approach to inheritance tax during the Budget process and asking that she give serious consideration to raising the agriculture and business property reliefs threshold from £1 million to £5 million and to making the allowance transferable between spouses. While it is a step in the right direction that the £1 million threshold will now be transferable between spouses and civil partners, that does not go far enough in protecting family farms. An analysis from my Department shows that a quarter of farms, accounting for 58% of the area farmed, have agriculture and business property values exceeding £2 million and will still be affected. The Farming for the Generations pilot scheme aims to raise awareness of the need for succession planning on farms. The pilot includes support for farm businesses to develop a succession plan, a farm business review and a personal development plan for the nominated successor. It is planned that a full programme will be rolled out next year. Mrs Dillon: I thank the Minister for his answer. To be fair, I have no doubt about the work that you, Minister, are doing in relation to this. However, farmers are really concerned. I met the Ulster Farmers' Union last week, and I know that there were meetings last week at which farmers raised their concerns about the issue. They are making comparisons with the South of Ireland. It is becoming more and more apparent that the British Government have absolutely no understanding of what it means to be a farmer or have a family farm in the North or anywhere on this island. Given the widening gap in the property relief thresholds, which is causing the agri-food industry grave concern, as, I am sure, you are well aware, and for the long-term sustainability of farming, does the Minister believe that the comparisons being drawn with the protections available in the South — has the Minister assessed how the North/South divide on this island and on inheritance tax is causing farmers to question where their long-term economic interests will be protected — Mr Speaker: Minister. Mrs Dillon: — along with the interests of family farming? Mr Muir: As Minister, I am aware that, since we left the EU, the disparity between North and South has become more acute. That is a result of Brexit and because of decisions by the UK Government, particularly on inheritance tax. That continues to cause real anxiety in the farming community, particularly in the run-up to April of next year. That is wrong, and we have made collective representations from the Chamber on the issue, particularly in relation to the disproportionate and detrimental impact that it has on Northern Ireland. I will continue to make those representations. I am conscious of the impact that it has on farmers in Northern Ireland, and I will continue to urge the UK Government to listen and act. That has been very much absent in recent times. Mr Clarke: One of the things that are particularly important for family farm succession is young farmers' schemes. It is disgraceful that no such scheme is planned. You said today, Minister, that there are no definitive plans for 2026. Your Department rolled out a pilot of the Farming for the Generations scheme, and that was a disaster. We are in December, Minister: will you give a clear indication today of whether you are introducing a scheme that will help to secure our young farmers, our future in farming? Mr Muir: My Department's sustainable agriculture programme contains the Farming for the Generations scheme. I thank everyone who has been taking that forward. It aims to raise awareness of the need for succession planning on farms and supports farm families through a three-phased approach: planning for succession, developing the successor and supporting the lead generation within the farm family. The scheme will also link farmers without a family successor to new entrants to provide access to land and other resources. As Minister, I am committed to supporting our farming families to ensure that succession planning can be a straightforward process and smooth transition. That will not happen overnight. I will continue to engage constructively with stakeholders to listen to what support they require and what my Department can do to assist them. Last autumn, I launched the Farming for the Generations pilot scheme to help farm families to develop succession plans. It is being supported by farm family mentors and professionals such as solicitors and accountants. The pilot is ongoing and will conclude in the spring of next year. Mr Dickson: Minister, will you give us an assessment of the UK's recent Budget and, in particular, its implications for the agriculture sector? Mr Muir: The Budget has had implications for the farming community because there was hope that the UK Government would rethink the inheritance tax. They have not done that. That is the major concern of the farming community in Northern Ireland. The Minister of Finance outlined more about that on Monday. The challenge ahead for the Executive is to agree a three-year resource budget and a four-year capital budget. I will play my part, and I am working extremely hard to ensure that I deliver a balanced budget this year. I am confident that I will do that, but it is important that other Ministers do the same. Mr O'Toole: Minister, it is clear that, in the UK Government, there just is not a basic understanding of how patterns of land ownership, multigenerational family farms and higher land values affect here differentially. You say that you have written to the NIO and DEFRA, and I appreciate that. Has a clear, worked example been given to the Treasury of how this place is fundamentally different? If they still do not listen, what consideration is being given to some kind of intervention in the multi-year Budget that allows you and other Ministers to respond to the clear frustration among farming families? Mr Muir: A worked example has been given. Representations have been made by the farming unions, by us and by many in Parliament, including the EFRA Committee, in relation to the suggestions from the Centre for the Analysis of Taxation (CenTax), which is a tax advisory body. It outlined practical suggestions on how we could realise the revenue that is desired so that we could tackle tax avoidance, which is what we want to be able to do, and protect farm families in Northern Ireland and across the UK. There are practical ways forward in that regard. My frustration has been the lack of proper engagement and, frankly, empathy, particularly from Treasury, on the matter. That is a concern for me. I have outlined what we as a Department are doing through Farming for the Generations, and it is important that we do that. Given the size of the issue in relation to the fiscal levers that we have in Northern Ireland, it is challenging for us. I am on record as saying that we should have more fiscal devolution in Northern Ireland so that we can have more autonomy around the matter, and I will support the Finance Minister in regard to that. Lough Neagh Fishermen: Support 5. Mr McGlone asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to outline a timeline for developing a business case to support fishermen on Lough Neagh whose livelihoods have been impacted by the continued occurrence of blue-green algae. (AQO 2807/22-27) Mr Muir: A business case for the scheme of financial assistance for commercial Lough Neagh fishermen due to the closure of the 2025 brown eel season has been completed. It is being quality-assured by my Department, before the proposal is submitted for my consideration later this week. Blue-green algae is a symptom of broader ecosystem issues. Whilst research is conducted to understand what impact ecosystem issues may have on brown eel stocks, support is being considered on the basis that they may have had an impact on marketability due to concerns around the quality of fish and the presence of toxins, despite the provision of Food Standards Agency assurance. The provision of financial assistance will be based on the income forgone by fishers from their landings of brown eels during the 2024 season. The support will provide some financial easement to enable fishers to consider the current challenges and to allow time for the implementation of operational and fishery management adaptations for the next season. Such challenges will include the identification of new, alternative markets for brown eels. The provision of support should help to address the challenges, with the aim of maintaining that historic fishery at a sustainable and viable level that contributes to the rural economy and employment around the lough. Mr McGlone: Thank you very much for that, Minister. You will appreciate that a number of people who fish on the lough have been out of pocket for some while now. I appreciate the efforts that have been put in by the Department, but will you indicate when payments will be made to those eligible under the scheme, please? Mr Muir: Thank you, Patsy. I am keen to get it on to my desk, so that I can consider it and give you a definitive answer. I know that time is of the essence in providing that support, and it is important that we do so. The serious impact on fishermen as a result of the ecological issues in Lough Neagh is something that weighs heavily on me. Fishing on the lough is part of our culture, tradition and heritage as well as people's employment. I am keen to support, in the here and now, those who fish there and provide a pathway for future resilience. Veterinary Medicine 6. Mrs Dodds asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to outline any representations that he has made to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on behalf of farmers and pet owners in relation to the veterinary medicine deadline of 1 January 2026. (AQO 2808/22-27) 15. Mr Burrows asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to outline any contingency plans in place for occasions where there is a reduction in the supply of veterinary medicines. (AQO 2817/22-27) Mr Muir: Mr Speaker, with your permission, I will group questions 6 and 15. Under the Windsor Framework (Implementation) Regulations 2024, the supply of veterinary medicines to Northern Ireland is a matter under the direction and control of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Since taking office, I have engaged regularly with the UK Government on future supply arrangements from 1 January 2026. I have raised concerns directly with successive Secretaries of State, including Steve Reed and Emma Reynolds, and maintain frequent bilateral meetings with Baroness Hayman where veterinary medicine supply is regularly discussed, with one taking place as recently as last week. I sit on the UK Government’s veterinary medicines working group jointly chaired by Baroness Hayman alongside veterinary experts, industry representatives and political stakeholders. That forum enables me to provide advice on measures to prevent disruption to supply. I welcome the UK Government’s protecting animal health policy, published in June 2025, and its two new support schemes designed to address supply challenges, including unforeseen issues. In the months ahead, I will continue working with the UK Government and the working group on governance and oversight to ensure that those schemes deliver their intended outcomes. Mrs Dodds: Minister, you have given us a long list of people with whom either you or your Department communicate. It seems, however, that you are not communicating with the industry. At a recent Committee meeting in Westminster on the Windsor framework, a representative of the Ulster Farmers' Union said that he was unsure of DAERA's position on veterinary medicines. Mark Little, who is the honorary secretary of the British Veterinary Association, said: "While DAERA participates in the Veterinary Medicine Working Group, no communications have been forthcoming". As well as giving a list of all of the people with whom you are communicating or with whom you sit on a working group, will you tell us the answers for 1 January, which is in a few weeks' time? Mr Muir: As I outlined at the beginning of my response to the substantive questions, the matter does not sit under my direction and control. I have made the case to the UK Government on a number of occasions about the importance of communication and clarity to the sector. I will continue to make that case to the UK Government. It does not sit under my direction and control as a result of legislation that the DUP asked for. Ms Finnegan: Does the Minister agree that a comprehensive veterinary agreement between the EU and the British Government would go a long way towards addressing the issue of veterinary medicine? Mr Muir: A comprehensive agreement between the UK and the EU would be a welcome development. I know that it was not part of the announcement on the sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) agri-food agreement in May, but there are ongoing discussions now. If it becomes part of that agreement, that will be welcome. The closer the cooperation between the UK and the EU, the more benefit there will be for all our citizens across the UK. Fireworks: Impact on Wildlife 7. Mr Robinson asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs for his assessment of the impact that fireworks are having on wildlife. (AQO 2809/22-27) Mr Muir: With fireworks being set off after dark, potential impacts are difficult to assess. My Department does not hold any data or evidence on their effect on wildlife. In common with domestic pets and farmed animals, possible impacts are likely to include fear, stress and disorientation, which may result in self-injury or abandonment of the young. Organisers of firework displays, whether public or domestic, should be aware of the possible risks to animals. Fireworks should not be set off near habitats where concentrations of wildlife are known to be present, such as woodlands and lakes, or known bird nesting sites during spring and summer. Mr Robinson: I thank the Minister for that response. What discussions has his Department had with the Department of Justice regarding the enforcement of firework regulations? Top 2.30 pm Mr Muir: My Department is conscious of its responsibilities for raising awareness of the matter, which we do every year in the run-up to Halloween. It is also aware of the responsibilities of the Department of Justice. I reached out to the Minister of Justice today in anticipation of such a question. The Minister is conscious of the impact that fireworks can have on wildlife. Her reminders always encourage the public to follow the law, keep fireworks safe and be considerate. Information on fireworks is available year round on the NI Direct website to remind people of the impact that fireworks can have on older or vulnerable people as well as on pets and farm animals. The information also highlights the availability of low-noise fireworks. Mr Speaker: We move to topical questions. Mobuoy Remediation Strategy T1. Mr Durkan asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs for an update on the Mobuoy remediation strategy and a timeline for the next steps. (AQT 1851/22-27) Mr Muir: Thank you, Mark. The public consultation on the draft remediation strategy closed on 2 October. In total, 26 responses were received. Those responses and the views of the consultees will be carefully considered in order to inform any necessary amendments to the draft remediation strategy. There will then be further significant decisions to be made. Any necessary updates to the strategy will be determined further to the assessment of the consultation responses. Our integrated consultancy team is progressing the technical review of the responses. Officials plan to present the report on the consultation to me by the end of January next year. If the necessary updates do not significantly alter the draft strategy — we have to keep an open mind on the consultation — it is envisaged that the revised strategy will be presented to me in February or March next year. An updated cost estimate for delivery of the strategy will follow in March or April. Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for his answer. We will have to wait until the consultation is assessed and the strategy finalised before costings can be arrived at, but how has the Minister's consideration of them informed any bids as part of the multi-year Budget process for the money — the resource — required to remediate Mobuoy? Mr Muir: As the Member rightly outlines, it is about resource rather than capital, which adds extreme complexity and challenge to the issue, particularly in relation to the potential cost. The process for agreeing that, getting Executive approval and then undertaking the work will take a number of years, and we will have to factor that into our Budget bids. How the situation came about in the first place has caused me great concern. That is why I believe, as the Member does, in an independent environmental protection agency and why I am seeking Executive agreement for such an agency. I am deeply disappointed that the DUP has decided to block it. Bluetongue Virus: Testing T2. Mr Kingston asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs whether testing following the identification of bluetongue virus has commenced on the 20 farms in the temporary control zone, how long such testing is likely to take and when the results will be made known. (AQT 1852/22-27) Mr Muir: Officials have started work on that; I would need to check whether they are on-farm today but I know that they want to have that testing completed this week. It is important that we do that for additional surveillance. Alongside the testing, midge traps have been set so that we can test those. There is also additional surveillance in abattoirs. We are doing all that we can on surveillance. We are looking to get out and get testing on those 20 large farms. We are engaging with the farmer whose herd has been affected and testing the entire herd. I believe that, collectively, we can move out of the restrictions. However, it is important that people understand them: there is to be no movement unless that is directly to slaughter, in which case a form to enable that should be downloaded from the departmental website. Mr Kingston: I thank the Minister for his answer. Given the widespread concern about the outbreak, will the Minister consider, as a belt-and-braces approach, restricting movements of animals from Europe? Mr Muir: We take a risk-based approach to that. There have been no movements from GB to NI for a significant period because England and Wales, unfortunately, have been affected by bluetongue. We will continue to take a risk-based approach. Essentially, Northern Ireland is in lockdown when it comes to bluetongue, and it is important that people observe the rules that are in place. Farm Sustainability Standards Regulations T3. Mr Harvey asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to outline the support that will be made available to those small and medium-sized farms that, following the launch of the farm sustainability standards regulations, are struggling to meet the new environmental and welfare compliance requirements. (AQT 1853/22-27) Mr Muir: I am very proud to be the only Minister in the UK to secure over £300 million in ring-fenced funding for agriculture, agrienvironment, fisheries and rural development. That is not the case in England, Scotland and Wales. We are determined to utilise that funding to support farm families in Northern Ireland. That is part of the sustainable agriculture programme. There are a range of measures in that programme, be they about advice or the investments that can be made on-farm. The sustainable farm investment scheme is a capital support scheme that will launch next year. It will offer a range of options to support farmers to take up the technology that they wish to use. It is important that we support farmers, which is what my Department is doing, and I thank officials for that. Mr Harvey: I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, how will the Department ensure that the new standards will be applied fairly and proportionately across all farm types? Mr Muir: Part of that involves the farm sustainability standards that the Committee agreed, and I thank the Committee for its engagement with officials on those. The farm sustainability standards are a balanced, proportionate and robust way forward that replace cross-compliance. Hopefully, people will get acquainted with the details of the standards, which are on the departmental website. Animal Health: Cost T4. Ms D Armstrong asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs whether, in light of the ongoing escalation of TB, which, as her colleague said, has cost £75 million this year and is likely to cost more by the end of this financial year, alongside an outbreak of avian flu and now the risk of bluetongue, his Department is financially resourced to deal with all those animal health issues. (AQT 1854/22-27) Mr Muir: Those are major challenges not only for my Department but for the farming community in Northern Ireland. We have the financial resources to deal with them in our current situation, but we cannot predict the future. That is the nature of animal disease. It is important that I reassure you that we have put resources into that and that we are compensating farmers under our statutory obligations. I am conscious that this is a very difficult time for the farming community, particularly those who are in the dairy sector because of the effect on milk prices. My Department is focused on delivering its vision of a thriving and resilient agri-food sector with an economically and environmentally sustainable future. We are determined to do that. Ms D Armstrong: I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, when will you get to grips with the TB situation and drive down TB costs? Mr Muir: As I outlined, we have agreed a blueprint and are focused on delivering that under its three pillars. We have made a bid for transformation funding from the Executive Office, we have Shared Island funding and we are pushing ahead with a regionalised approach. We are putting resources into the situation. I reassure people that I am committed to tackling it not because of the cost to my Department, which is an important consideration, but because of the cost to the farming community and the mental distress that it is causing. I am committed to doing that in a robust manner while respecting the science and evidence. Mr Speaker: Mr Carroll is not in his place. Just Transition Commission T6. Mr Blair asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs for an update on his efforts to establish a just transition commission. (AQT 1856/22-27) Mr Muir: Thank you, John. A just transition commission arises from the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022. It was the result of an amendment that the House agreed without Division. It is a very important commitment, because just transition runs throughout the climate change legislation. It is about ensuring a fair and balanced way forward and safeguarding everyone as we move towards decarbonisation. It is a legal obligation, and I am determined to deliver upon it. We consulted on the regulations, and I have sought Executive agreement on them. I have been seeking Executive agreement since September, and, hopefully, we can get agreement on the regulations so that we can set up a just transition commission to provide delivery on what is a key principle of the climate change legislation. Providing a fair and just way forward should be a key principle in all our policies. Mr Blair: The lack of progress, despite the Minister's efforts, is extremely concerning. Will the Minister outline what other papers continue to be delayed as they await Executive approval? Mr Muir: As Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, I am committed to power-sharing and to working with my Executive colleagues. However, I am finding the gridlock that we have in getting papers agreed by the Executive increasingly frustrating. The extent of that gridlock means that we now have to maintain a spreadsheet of the papers that we are looking to get agreement on. I am awaiting Executive agreement on six papers. I have been waiting for almost a year for agreement on one of the papers — the green growth strategy. We are also waiting for agreement on papers relating to an independent environmental protection agency, ways that we can improve our levels of recycling, a fisheries Bill and a water environment Bill, and we are awaiting agreement on a technical paper on sheep carcass classification. There has been engagement with the Executive Office regarding those, but it is important that we can progress those papers at the next Executive meeting. I am doing the work, and I need others to be able to support me and allow us to progress it. It is extremely frustrating that there is gridlock at the Executive due to one party — the DUP. Farm Sustainability Standards T7. Mr Donnelly asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs for his assessment of the new farm sustainability standards. (AQT 1857/22-27) Mr Muir: Farm sustainability standards are a modern, proportionate and simpler regime covering environmental, public and animal health and welfare issues in Northern Ireland. The majority of farmers care deeply for their livestock and want to protect the environment for future generations. The new penalty regime, which was developed in close collaboration with agriculture stakeholders, recognises the importance of education and understanding. Our goal is to help farmers meet those standards. I am fully committed to supporting farmers to remain compliant, avoid penalties and receive their full payments. Together, we are laying the groundwork for a thriving, resilient and sustainable agri-food sector that supports family farms and benefits our communities, climate and economy. Mr Donnelly: I thank the Minister for that response. How are the new standards an improvement in cross-compliance in environmental protection and animal welfare, and fairer for farmers? Mr Muir: These standards have been developed to meet the agricultural and environmental needs that are unique to Northern Ireland. Through them, we can take a more focused approach in helping to address current issues in water quality, for instance. The standards promote good farm management and responsible stewardship, which help to underpin the integrity of Northern Ireland's agri-food industry. Animal welfare is a concern to us all, and requirements for the welfare of birds have been added, along with requirements for the welfare of animal transportation regulations. New biosecurity requirements have also been introduced to reduce the risk and impact from animal diseases. The new penalty arrangements are more proportionate, fairer and easier to understand, and they reflect the severity of the impact of any breach of a standard. TB: Eradication Blueprint T8. Mrs Mason asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, after thanking him for the engagement that he has had with farmers in South Down, on whom he knows the impact that TB is having, for an update on the TB blueprint for eradication and what engagement he is having with the agriculture sector on the issue. (AQT 1858/22-27) Mr Muir: Engagement with the agriculture sector is a core part of the blueprint. That is why we have the stakeholder partnership and want to work together on it. We are keen to work with people on the issue, particularly in relation to the cattle interventions. We want to be able to understand if there are any concerns and how we can help drive the TB incidence down. Alongside that, we are moving forward with the regionalised approach. I fully acknowledge the need for a wildlife intervention in Northern Ireland, and the importance of its ability to withstand legal challenge. That is why we will be consulting on it next year. Be assured that we are putting resources to the issue. It is a priority for my Department. Collectively, we can move forward on it, but we also have to respect the science, evidence and law. Mrs Mason: I thank the Minister for his answer. In a previous answer on this issue, he mentioned an all-island approach. What would that be? What work has he undertaken with his counterpart in the South to try to tackle the issue? Mr Muir: Thank you. The funding that we have received from the Shared Island Fund for the regionalised cross-border approach is absolutely key. The island of Ireland is a single epidemiological area. That is why we want to work together on this. I thank my ministerial counterpart in the South, Martin Heydon, and the Department for Agriculture, Food and the Marine for the way in which they are working with us on the issue. This is something that does not respect borders, and something on which we need to work together. People need to understand that we are taking forward this initiative, which is based on wildlife intervention, people and cattle measures. Engagement is taking place, and, hopefully, everyone can get behind these positive interventions on a key issue in the agriculture community in Northern Ireland and the South of Ireland. Community Infrastructure Fund T9. Mr Allen asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs what engagement he has had in recent times with the Minister for Communities regarding the community infrastructure fund. (AQT 1859/22-27) Mr Muir: Thank you, Andy. I have received a letter from the Communities Minister asking whether I want to participate in it. I am waiting for advice from officials because we have to consider how we do it correctly. Once that advice comes back, I will write back to the Communities Minister. I see the benefits of the fund, but if I am to engage in it, I need to make sure that I do so correctly. Mr Allen: I thank the Minister for his answer. Does the Minister envisage that, with his current budget envelope, he will be in a position to provide further capital funding to allow that fund to reach more of the groups that are providing impactful work in communities daily? Mr Muir: Thank you, Andy. I would like to take part in the fund, but you have asked the key question of whether I have the budget envelope to do so. I do not want to write back to say yes and then not have the cash. I will get advice from officials, but there is a benefit to my Department working in conjunction with all Departments, including the Department for Communities. The Executive have to work together. They are our partners in government, and we are committed to doing that. Mr Speaker: That concludes questions to the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. Members should take their ease for a moment while we change the personnel at the Table. Top 2.45 pm (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Blair] in the Chair) Northern Ireland Assembly Commission Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Question 13 has been withdrawn. Committees: Public Information 1. Mr Durkan asked the Assembly Commission to outline the support that it can provide to improve public information about the work of Committees in the Assembly. (AQO 2818/22-27) Ms Ennis: I thank the Member for his question. The Assembly provides extensive information for the public about Committee business. Most Committees meet in open session, and the proceedings are broadcast live. Forward work programmes, agendas and minutes are published promptly online to ensure transparency. Our website offers details about Committees, their membership, their roles and how the public can engage through evidence sessions and consultations. The Communications Office supports the Committees with press releases, media notices, social media content and the handling of queries from the public, as well as by providing tailored assistance for inquiries and legislative scrutiny. The participation and outreach team delivers sessions in Parliament Buildings and constituencies, attends key events and helps Committees engage with people who have relevant experience. To broaden accessibility, we produced a glossary of parliamentary terms in British Sign Language and Irish Sign Language. That has been supported by signed summaries of evidence sessions as part of the Committee's scrutiny of the Sign Language Bill. Looking ahead, the clerking and member support team will publish clear explainers on the Assembly’s responsibilities, including the vital role of Committees. Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for her answer. I recognise and welcome the good progress that has been made, but will she outline whether the Assembly Commission will explore more accessible formats to help the public better understand the outcomes of Committees' work? Ms Ennis: The Assembly Commission is developing a new website to enhance navigation and the user experience and improve search functionality and accessibility. The new website will also facilitate the better integration of Committees' digital media content, and all those improvements will better promote their work. Social media is important when it comes promoting the work of Committees, and the Commission has recently enhanced its digital content resources to better support Committees with video and image-based content. Those focus on calls for evidence and consultations and on showcasing the engagement work of the Committees on external visits. The Assembly's social media channels support the work of the Committees on X, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and LinkedIn, and they cover a broad range of demographics. Parliament Buildings: Security Hut 2. Mrs Dillon asked the Assembly Commission to outline any plans that it has to replace the security hut at the visitors’ lower car park. (AQO 2819/22-27) Mr Clarke: I thank the Member for her question. The Assembly Commission has used the security hut in the lower east car park for a number of years. The hut was originally installed and maintained by the Department of Finance, although, recently, it has fallen into a state of significant disrepair and is now considered to be close to the end of its service life. The Department of Finance has indicated that it is not minded to replace the hut in the foreseeable future and has left it for the Assembly Commission to determine the way forward, since it is the primary user of the car park. Assembly Commission staff presently monitor and manage the lower east car park on the busiest days of the week, although plans are already well advanced to erect an automatic barrier at the car park entrance in early 2026. Once that work has been completed, those staff will be withdrawn, and, should occasional monitoring of the car park be required, it can be carried out from the existing search facility at the east glen. Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for the answer. Can he give us a timeline for when the automatic barrier might be put in place? This is an issue of staff welfare, and everybody should be able to come to a decent place of work. We all get to a come into a nice, warm building that might not be perfect, but it is certainly much better than what they have to tolerate down there. I do not think that any of our staff should have to work in facilities that are not fit for purpose. If we can get a timeline, that will be really good. Mr Clarke: I cannot give the Member a definite time frame, other than to say that it will be early 2026. A lot of consideration has gone into it in previous meetings, and that is why it is at an advanced stage. The Commission was very aware of the state of the current building and of all the factors that have been highlighted by you today. All Members are alive to the fact that the staff are working outside. That is part of the reasoning behind the automatic barrier. It would prevent them from having to be there, and occasional supervision of the car park could be carried out from the east glen. Interpretation and Translation Service: Costs 3. Mr Martin asked the Assembly Commission to outline the cost of the Official Report Interpretation and Translation Service in the past two years. (AQO 2820/22-27) Miss McAllister: I thank the Member for his question. Further to a direction from the Assembly in June 2021, the Assembly Commission provides a simultaneous and passive system for interpretation. That service is provided by the Interpretation and Translation Service, which has been operational and available to interpret from Irish to English since May 2022. The cost of providing the Interpretation and Translation Service, from Irish to English, over the two years from 1 October 2023 to 30 September 2025 has been £387,000. That cost reflects the salaries paid to one senior interpreter at Assembly grade 5 and two interpreters at Assembly grade 6. Sundry costs incurred by the Interpretation and Translation Service, including for learning and development and office equipment, have been absorbed by the budget allocated to the Office of the Official Report (Hansard). Mr Martin: I thank the Member for her reply. Have any efficiency savings been considered for translation services, particularly AI? Miss McAllister: I thank the Member for his question. The Assembly Commission is examining AI in its entirety. We have not yet discussed that particular issue, but it is something that I am more than happy to take back to the Assembly Commission, and, if the Member is content, provide him with a written answer. Ms Sheerin: Ba mhaith liom mo cheist a chur as Gaeilge. [Translation: I would like to ask my question in Irish.] An aontaíonn an Comhalta go léiríonn an ceart gnó an Tí seo a dhéanamh trí Ghaeilge aitheantas fíorthábhachtach ar chearta phobal na Gaeilge dul i mbun gnó i dteanga dhúchais na hÉireann? [Translation: Does the Member agree that the right to conduct the business of the House in Irish is a vital recognition of the rights of the Irish-speaking community to conduct business in the native language of Ireland?] Miss McAllister: It is very important to preserve any native language, no matter the jurisdiction. The Member will be aware that other jurisdictions across these islands — in particular, the Welsh Parliament — also offer simultaneous interpretation services. The protection of minority languages is particularly important, but so, also, is the welcoming of that language. It is important to ensure that the protection of a minority language is not about a minority language belonging to one single community. However, I agree that it is an important issue and one that should be debated in the House with care, being reflective of all jurisdictions across these islands. Mr Carroll: Ag leanúint as ceist Emma, [Translation: Following on from Emma's question,] does the Member agree that the DUP culture war, not wanting to see or hear Irish, needs to come to an end and that we owe a debt of gratitude to our interpreters who, while a small team, do exceptional work for me and other Members across the House? Also, can the Member outline whether the Commission has received any complaints or issues about Pi Comms, which does not employ our interpretation staff, but provides the facilities to allow us to record speeches and items in the Chamber? Miss McAllister: Unfortunately, I cannot provide that information to you today, but I can take it back to the Assembly Commission. I am not sure how long it might take to gather that information. If there are zero complaints, it will be quite quick, but I am sure that we can get back to you on it. The Member will understand that I am here today to reflect the overall Assembly Commission's position, so it is important that we do not engage in political content when we are answering questions. However, I hope that I can get the answer to your last question to you as quickly as possible. Parliament Buildings: Fire Evacuation Procedures 4. Mr Chambers asked the Assembly Commission to outline any review that has taken place on the outcome of the recent evacuation of Parliament Buildings as a result of the Building fire alarm being activated. (AQO 2821/22-27) Mr Allen: I thank the Member for his question. The Assembly Commission conducted a planned fire drill on Monday 29 September 2025. Building users evacuated the Building between 11.00 am and 11.09 am. All Building users were back in the Building by 11.16 am. While the drill was successful overall, as with every such exercise, a list of improvements requiring attention has been compiled, and those have been or are being implemented by the health and safety team in collaboration with colleagues across relevant business areas. It was the first such fire drill to be carried out on a sitting day, enabling the Assembly Commission to ensure the widest possible participation and to help familiarise all Building users with the evacuation procedures. Mr Chambers: I thank the Commission for that answer. I had never been involved in a full-scale evacuation in all the time that I have been here, but I want to offer a couple of observations that I hope will be seen as helpful. The process was that most people seemed to be coming out of the front of the Building and going down the steps. When they got to the bottom of the steps, there was only one gate to let people out, so it was a case of funnelling people into one exit to get them off the steps. In an orderly situation, that is fine, but, in a panicked situation, it really could be a poor outcome. The other thing was that I thought that —. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Conclude. I think that you have asked a question already, and questions should not be as long as that. Mr Chambers: OK. I will finish very quickly. I thought that the assembly of people outside was very poorly handled. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): OK. Thank you. I call Andy Allen to reply. Mr Allen: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I thank the Member for his follow-up question. Indeed, the purpose of the drill was exactly for the reason that he outlined: there were those who are frequently in the Building but may not have participated in a drill previously. Several issues — I appreciate that the Member raised some — were identified during the drill, including a shortage of fire wardens and staff trained to operate evacuation chairs, as well as uncertainty among some Members and staff about their designated muster points. Building users should proceed to the numbered marker on the front lawn that corresponds to the floor on which they work, such as the basement, the ground floor, the first floor and so on. I encourage the Member — indeed, any Member — to write to the Commission with further points, and we can take those points into consideration. Parliament Buildings: Accessibility 5. Mr Harvey asked the Assembly Commission to outline any steps that it is taking to improve accessibility in Parliament Buildings for visitors with disabilities. (AQO 2822/22-27) 12. Mr McGlone asked the Assembly Commission to outline any improvements being made to ensure that Parliament Buildings is fully accessible for all visitors, including those with disabilities, additional communication needs or mobility issues. (AQO 2829/22-27) Mr McGrath: With your permission, Deputy Speaker, I will group questions 5 and 12. I thank the Members for their questions. The Assembly Commission is committed to ensuring that Parliament Buildings is accessible to all. To that end, we have recently undertaken a Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) survey. That comprehensive assessment identified any areas where improvements could be made to enhance accessibility for all people with disabilities, additional communication needs or mobility issues. Now that the DDA survey is complete and the final report has been received, we will carefully consider its findings and develop a plan to implement necessary adaptations, where possible. Mr Harvey: Thank you for your answer. It is vital that everyone can access the estate. Does the Commission have any plans to assess whether the current number of disabled parking bays is adequate? Mr McGrath: I am not sure whether that is a consideration at the minute. However, without speaking out of turn — without the facts — I know that some new spaces have been provided in the upper car parks of late. I have seen those myself, but we can come back to you on the finer details of the question in a written answer. Mr McGlone: Can the Commission confirm whether a full accessibility audit has been completed and whether its findings will be published to ensure transparency on progress? Mr McGrath: I thank the Member for his supplementary question. The disability access audit provided a comprehensive assessment of accessibility across Parliament Buildings in accordance with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. It encompasses all key areas, including approaches and entrances, internal circulation routes, sanitary facilities, signage, general amenities and evacuation arrangements. Top 3.00 pm The report recognises the Building's grade A listed status, which places inherent constraints on the scope of physical adaptations that can be made to its historic fabric. Therefore, the recommendations seek to balance statutory and best-practice accessibility standards with the preservation of the Building's architectural and heritage significance. Where physical modifications are not feasible, the audit highlights the importance of operational adjustments and management strategies to ensure accessibility for all users. In total, 34 recommendations have been identified, such as automated doors, lift controls and toilet layouts. Officials are considering options to address the recommendations, and an update will be provided to the Assembly Commission. Parliament Buildings: Changing Places Facilities 6. Ms Mulholland asked the Assembly Commission for an update on the availability of Changing Places facilities in Parliament Buildings. (AQO 2823/22-27) Ms Ennis: I thank the Member for her question. The Assembly Commission installed a Changing Places facility in Parliament Buildings in 2011, with the official launch taking place on 5 October 2011. To mark the occasion, children from Glenveagh Special School enjoyed a tour of Parliament Buildings before visiting the new facility alongside representatives of Mencap. Standard accessible toilets do not meet the needs of many people, including those with profound and multiple learning disabilities. Our Changing Places facility is designed to address those needs and includes a height-adjustable changing bench, a ceiling-mounted hoist, an adjustable sink and ample floor space for carers and equipment. The facility is located on the ground floor, near the rear entrance to the Senate Chamber. No key or pass is required for access, but we respectfully ask all building users to keep the room available for those who require its full specialist features. To help ensure that people can easily find the facility, it is also listed on the Changing Places Toilets website. Ms Mulholland: Are there any plans to install additional Changing Places facilities in Parliament Buildings? Ms Ennis: I fully recognise that the Building must be accessible to all users, regardless of their disability. There are currently no plans to install additional Changing Places facilities, but we are more than happy to keep that under review. Mr Martin: What engagement is there between the Assembly Commission and Changing Places in order to assess the need for any additional places? Ms Ennis: I was not a Member when we installed the existing Changing Places facility. As I said in my previous answer, if we think that we require more facilities, as, I am sure, happened in 2011, we will, of course, do that in conjunction with Changing Places. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): David Brooks is not in his place. Parliament Buildings: Cybersecurity and Digital Resilience 8. Mrs Cameron asked the Assembly Commission to outline any measures being taken to strengthen the Assembly’s cybersecurity and digital resilience, particularly in light of the rise in cyberattacks on public bodies across the UK and Ireland. (AQO 2825/22-27) 15. Ms McLaughlin asked the Assembly Commission to outline any action that it is taking to improve the reliability of digital systems used by MLAs, with specific reference to cybersecurity. (AQO 2832/22-27) Miss McAllister: With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will group questions 8 and 15. I may require an additional minute for my answer, as there is quite a lot of detail. The Assembly Commission recognises the importance of ensuring that robust measures are taken to support and strengthen the Assembly’s cybersecurity and digital resilience. Across the world, cybersecurity risk has grown exponentially over the past number of years, and every high-profile organisation’s systems are under attack every day. The Assembly Commission is mindful that a range of states and rogue actors have an interest in obtaining information about organisations’ cybersecurity arrangements. In that context, just as the Assembly Commission would not discuss the details of physical security arrangements at the Assembly on the Floor of the House, it would not be wise to discuss the details of the Assembly Commission’s efforts relating to cybersecurity. I am happy to inform the House that an independent cybersecurity assurance review was carried out in June 2023 to ascertain the Assembly Commission’s cybersecurity position. That review was aligned to the good practice guidelines established by the National Cyber Security Centre’s '10 Steps to Cyber Security’ and the requirements of information security good practice guidance. The Assembly Commission has recruited an interim information technology security officer to support the head of IT in further enhancing cybersecurity. That role has a specific focus on ensuring that Members, their staff and Assembly Commission staff receive regular cyber-related training and that systems and applications are secure by design. Since March 2023, the Assembly Commission has invested in hardware and software to support the removal of outdated and vulnerable services, to improve the cybersecurity position and to ensure the reliability of digital systems used by Members with specific reference to cybersecurity. Further investment is planned, with the procurement of a security operations centre service, as recommended across the public sector. It will provide continuous monitoring, detection and response to cybersecurity threats. Mrs Cameron: I thank the Member for her comprehensive answer. Given that MLA constituency offices handle large volumes of highly sensitive personal information from constituents, can the Commission tell us whether anything further is being planned — I appreciate that there was a lot in the Member's answer and that a lot is being done — to ensure that data is fully protected from cyberattacks? Is any further investment and training required to strengthen those protections? Miss McAllister: I thank the Member for her question, some of which, I hope, I can answer. The Assembly Commission undertakes regular phishing awareness campaigns to support Members and their staff in identifying potential threats; you will see those in emails and circulars. The Commission also offers follow-up training and support. In addition, a personal cyber advisory scheme is being offered to support Members, their staff and Assembly Commission staff to stay safe. Perhaps it is not well known that that is available to Members' staff. We, as the Commission, can take that message away to ensure that, if possible, that is extended, given that so much of the training takes place in Parliament Buildings rather than in constituency offices. It is an important point that we could look to extend the training to constituency-based staff in particular. I hope that that is helpful. Mr McNulty: Further to the Member's question, can the Commission outline whether all MLAs and staff will receive updated cyber awareness training to ensure that internal capacity matches the scale of the threat? Miss McAllister: I thank the Member for his question. Training is available; the onus is on the individual MLA to ensure that they and their staff undertake it. I encourage anyone who has not yet done the training or met the team to do so urgently and as quickly as possible. We will take back to the Assembly Commission the message that we need to remind and encourage MLAs to participate. That can be done on a party-wide basis, but it is perhaps more beneficial to do it on an individual basis. Parliament Buildings: Defibrillators 9. Mrs Guy asked the Assembly Commission for an update on the registration of Parliament Buildings’ defibrillators to the network to ensure maximum effect when required. (AQO 2826/22-27) Mr Allen: The Assembly Commission currently has five defibrillators, all of which were registered with the British Heart Foundation’s national defibrillator network, The Circuit, on 19 September 2025. The devices are routinely checked and maintained to ensure that they are always ready for use. Mrs Guy: Thank you. What first aid training is provided to staff in Parliament Buildings, and does it include training on how to use defibrillators? Mr Allen: I do not have all the information to hand, but 52 members of staff are trained in first aid. The use of defibrillators does not require first aid training but is covered in the first aid training. The Assembly Commission will continually keep that under review. The Assembly Commission regularly — yearly, I believe — invites additional staff to undertake that training. MLA Staff: Pay and Grading 10. Mr Dickson asked the Assembly Commission, given that MLA remuneration is currently under independent review, whether it has any plans to review MLAs’ staff pay scales and grading structures. (AQO 2827/22-27) Ms Ennis: I thank the Member for his question. On 18 March 2020, the Assembly Commission agreed that determining MLA salaries and pensions should continue to be the role of an independent body but that the determination of allowances could be undertaken by the Assembly Commission. Powers to make determinations on allowances were conferred on the Assembly Commission by the Assembly on 30 June 2020. Those powers include determining matters relating to MLAs’ support staff salaries. On 27 August 2020, the Assembly Commission made the Assembly Members (Salaries and Expenses) (Amendment) Determination 2020. It introduced several changes relating to the terms and conditions of MLA support staff, including updated pay scales. That was in response to the ongoing concerns raised by MLAs regarding staff terms and conditions and the Assembly Commission's desire to ensure that the terms and conditions for support staff were fair and reasonable. At that time, the pay scales and grading structures were aligned to those of Assembly Commission staff, including a provision for annual indexation, which aligned to the rate used by the Assembly Commission each year. Pay scales for MLA staff and the associated grading structures are not dependent on MLA remuneration. Therefore, it is not necessary for reviews to be undertaken at the same time. A new determination was published in February 2025, and, while no changes were made to the pay scales or grading structures at that time, the Assembly Commission continues to keep the provisions under review. Mr Dickson: I thank the Commission member for her response. I am sure that she and all Members recognise the value of staff to Members. When will the next review of those salaries and pay scales be undertaken? Ms Ennis: I wholly concur: we could not do our jobs without the valuable support of our staff in our constituency offices and in Parliament Buildings. As set out in paragraph 1 of the determination, its purpose is to ensure that Members do not suffer financial detriment by reason of costs incurred in connection with the exercise of functions as Members. Therefore, the Assembly Commission is mindful of the need to ensure that the provisions of the determination fulfil that purpose and are set at an appropriate level. Indexation provisions were introduced in the 2020, as I said, in the determination in relation to the salaries of Members' staff, and further indexation was introduced in the 2025 determination in relation to constituency office operating costs. A further comprehensive review of the determination is therefore not scheduled. Typically, that would be undertaken in advance of a new mandate, and I hope that we would look at that in advance of the 2027 election. Parliament Buildings: Conduct and Behaviour of Visitors 11. Mr Robinson asked the Assembly Commission whether the conduct and behaviour of visitors in Parliament Buildings policy will be updated in light of an individual being removed from the Public Gallery on 10 November 2025. (AQO 2828/22-27) Mr Clarke: I thank the Member for his question. The Assembly Commission has a policy entitled 'Conduct and Behaviour of Visitors in Parliament Buildings', which can be found on the Assembly's website. The purpose of the policy is primarily to ensure that the Assembly's core business and other events, be they at Parliament Buildings or at an outside location, can proceed without interference from or disruption by visitors or any other persons. The policy is extensive and provides clear guidance on the general rules of entry and the behaviours expected at Assembly plenary sittings and Committee meetings. However, it is important to note that, under Standing Order 66, access to the Public Gallery is within the procedural responsibilities of the Speaker, including the ability to require someone to leave the Public Gallery if necessary to preserve good order. With regard to the incident on 10 November 2025, a member of the public was removed from the Public Gallery during plenary proceedings because they had risen from a sedentary position and begun shouting in the direction of the Floor. Usher Services staff who were nearby promptly intervened. The Speaker directed that the person be removed, and she was escorted from the Public Gallery. The incident lasted just over 20 seconds, and there was no further disruption to business. Section 7 of the policy deals with that type of incident and provides guidance on what will happen if a visitor interrupts or attempts to interrupt plenary proceedings. That policy was applied during the incident on 10 November. Mr Robinson: I thank the Member for his response. The behaviour that we saw in the Chamber on 10 November was unsavoury. Was it tasteless for MLAs in the Chamber to applaud such unsavoury behaviour? What advice will be given to Members going forward? Mr Clarke: As the Member knows, I am here as a Commission member and am not supposed to have a political view. However, those matters are all subject to different codes. If someone had a particular issue on that day, they should have raised a complaint through the normal procedures. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Question 13 has been withdrawn. Phillip Brett is not in his place. That concludes questions to the Assembly Commission. Members should take their ease for a moment. Top 3.15 pm Committee Business Inquiry into Access to Palliative Care Services Debate resumed on motion: That this Assembly approves the report of the Committee for Health on its inquiry into access to palliative care services [NIA 130/22-27]; and calls on the Minister of Health to implement the recommendations contained in the report. — [Mr McGuigan (The Chairperson of the Committee for Health).] Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): We return to the debate on the Committee for Health's motion on its inquiry into access to palliative care services. The next Member to speak will be Diane Dodds. Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): Hear, hear. Mrs Dodds: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I am glad to have the Health Minister's acclamation, completely. [Laughter.] It is a real privilege to discuss the report. The DUP is unashamedly a pro-life party. While we are debating having better and more palliative care services in Northern Ireland, MPs in Westminster are debating assisted suicide legislation. It has never been more important that we provide palliative care for everyone in Northern Ireland. I thank all who have contributed to the report, particularly those who have lived experience of palliative care who have spoken of their journey with their loved ones. I also thank the indomitable Christine Campbell, who makes the point that she is "living" while availing herself of palliative care. I know how difficult it is to speak of such issues, and we owe those people our thanks. Thanks are also due to the sector: the hospices, Marie Curie and all those too numerous to mention. I probably should not mention anyone, because I will always leave someone out. They go over and above to provide in times of need and at such a difficult time. Thanks also to our clinicians; to those who provide specialist palliative care; to GPs, who provide the huge bulk of the service at home, helping to fulfil the wishes of the vast majority to die at home in a familiar place, surrounded by their loved ones; and to district nurses and specialist palliative care nurses. We really appreciate your efforts. Committees write many reports, and many reports are just accepted by Ministers with a gracious thank-you but remain on a desk somewhere in a Department and are not actioned. We need this report to be different, Minister: we need this report to be actioned. I heard some conversation earlier about the fact that the report could prove to be a good pathway for palliative care in the future. We really need to see some progress on that. Some of the key issues that were apparent from evidence that the Committee heard were inconsistencies in provision across Northern Ireland; the need to appoint a clinical lead for palliative care, Northern Ireland being the only part of the UK without one; a sense from families of a lack of information and a need for improved communication; and a lack of out-of-hours support beyond 9 to 5, particularly when it comes to pharmacies and access to medicine and pain relief. I will focus first on the need for consistent and sufficient funding for palliative care services in Northern Ireland. Trevor McCartney from the Northern Ireland Hospice outlined the importance of that in his speech at our launch event today. Hospices are currently not funded for the specialist services that they provide. Beds in a hospice are not general medical beds but a specialised service to individuals who are at the most vulnerable time of their life. They are individuals with complex medical needs who can be cared for only in that setting. The importance of recommendations 1 to 3 in the report cannot be overemphasised. Our health service should provide, as a fundamental right, access to equitable palliative care services in Northern Ireland. That needs to be statutory commitment. Recommendation 3 is for 100% funding for all hospice services, with an initial 50% of the actual cost of care to be provided in 2026-27 and a sliding-scale increase over the next five years until that 100% funding has been reached, is important. We recognise the public's generosity towards local hospices and our volunteers' phenomenal fundraising, but that should be for top-ups and bringing in extra services, new initiatives, research and so on, rather than for the core service. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member's time is up. Mrs Dodds: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Miss McAllister: One of the few certainties in life is death. Unfortunately, everyone in the Chamber has likely experienced the loss of a loved one through the years. We will all be touched by that at some point in our life. That is why it is so important that we ensure that proper services are available to provide support through those tough and dark days. We in the Chamber greatly believe in an NHS that is free at the point of entry, from the cradle to the grave. It is important to highlight the significance and importance of palliative care. It means not only end-of-life care but care that is delivered by specialist healthcare workers to adults and, often, young children to ensure that their quality of life is enhanced. The Health Committee heard evidence throughout its inquiry from a significant number of palliative care providers and health bodies about the services that they provide and, crucially, what they believe the Department of Health and trusts need to put in place to ensure not only that services can continue but that they can be improved. I appreciate, as so many others in the Chamber do, that many of the recommendations in the report are resource-heavy and focus strongly on the need for increased funding. We are acutely aware of the challenges that the Minister faces with progressing the issue. However, I emphasise that much of the inquiry report can be progressed that will have a significant impact on the ability of trusts and charities to provide palliative and end-of-life care. I will shed some light on recommendation 9, which highlights the need to have a 24/7 central point of contact for palliative and end-of-life care. Families and individuals who need such care are at a time of great distress, and their priority is ensuring that family members are supported. It is essential, therefore, that we do anything that we can to make the process easier. A 24/7 central point of contact that consists of telephone or online services, or perhaps both, and provides crucial advice on referral pathways, emergency out-of-hours care and pre- and post-bereavement services could be crucial for every individual and family during that time. It would, of course, require resources, but progressing that recommendation would make a meaningful difference. During the inquiry, the Committee heard of the challenges that palliative care providers face with access to prescription medications, which recommendation 5 seeks to address. Multiple suggestions are made in that area, but I will point to some of the less cost-intensive aspects that would have a significant impact on service delivery. Those include a pathway to ensure that there is out-of-hours access to palliative care medicines. That could be done in tandem with establishing the central point of access that I mentioned. Recommendation 5 also includes pharmaceutical wholesalers keeping sufficient stocks of certain palliative medicines and the inclusion of palliative and end-of-life care in core training for undergraduate, foundation year and postgraduate pharmacists. Often, where palliative care is provided, time is of the essence. I urge the Department to look at the individual components of that recommendation and ensure that it speeds up any actions that it can take. Before I finish, I will focus on a number of the visits that we undertook as a Committee and as individual MLAs. As an MLA for North Belfast, I made sure to visit the Northern Ireland Children's Hospice. I also visited the Marie Curie Hospice. For me, one of the most important aspects of both visits was talking to the specialist healthcare providers and, most importantly, the patients and their families. During the Marie Curie visit, I talked to one gentleman, who, unfortunately, has now passed, about what being an inpatient in that unit meant to him. He told me that it was about being looked after by people with specialist practice who cared about his every need — not just his clinical needs but his personal needs. For families with children in the Northern Ireland Children's Hospice, it is about having access to the outdoors, respite, space to grieve and space to love and look after siblings in an environment that reminds them of home. I finish by thanking all those organisations that came to the Committee to provide evidence to the inquiry, and, most importantly, each and every one of the family members who provided evidence and allowed us into their homes or organisations to hear what the service means to them. Mr Chambers: I certainly welcome the opportunity to speak in this important debate. I am sure that there is political unanimity right across the Chamber on the desire for high-quality, dignified care from diagnosis through to the end of life. Through lived experience with friends and family, some of us have likely seen at first hand the importance of person-centred support at the most vulnerable points in life. Despite what many of us already knew about such care, the recent Health Committee inquiry has still provided an incredibly comprehensive examination of the palliative and end-of-life care that is undertaken in Northern Ireland. It was certainly an informative, and sometimes eye-opening, scrutiny of the issue. Palliative care in Northern Ireland has many strengths. Our hospices, community nursing teams, hospital specialists, GPs and pharmacists provide care that is marked by professionalism and humanity. That was remarked upon often throughout the inquiry. However, the inquiry also highlighted real challenges. Access remains uneven sometimes, particularly in rural and isolated areas, where travel distances and gaps in community provision can limit choice at the end of life. Workforce pressures can also impact on the consistency of care that people receive. As has been discussed before, hospices often rely on charitable fundraising to sustain the core services that the public rightly expect to be available. Various central departmental investments have been made in recent years, and I welcome those. Another theme that emerged clearly from the inquiry is the need for earlier identification of palliative needs and better planning. Too many people still associate palliative care only with the final days of life, when, in reality, its purpose is much broader: supporting quality of life, better management of symptoms and strengthening family resilience over a longer period. I look forward to the Minister's consideration of the Committee's findings. I trust that he and his officials will engage meaningfully on them. However, I am also conscious that, whilst some of the recommendations can be implemented quickly and at minimal or no cost, the report also calls for significant investment. As much as we may all support that, no one in the Chamber will be unaware of the wider budgetary reality that faces the Department. Ultimately, our goal must be a Northern Ireland where every person, regardless of diagnosis, home address or circumstances, can access timely and quality palliative care in the setting that best supports them and their loved ones. I hope that the inquiry will further help to deliver that. I take this opportunity to state my party's thanks and appreciation for the caring work that is carried out by everyone who works in that important and, at times, very demanding sector. Mr McGrath: We often say that how a society treats people at the end of life says everything about who we actually are. Today's motion asks us to confront that truth with honesty, compassion and unity of purpose. Across the Committee's work this year, through more than 350 written submissions, powerful evidence sessions and visits to hospices across the North, we heard again and again that palliative care in Northern Ireland is sustained by extraordinary people, but constrained by inconsistent structures. At the outset, I pay tribute to the dedicated and effective Health Committee staff, who waded through reams of notes, reports, evidence sessions and members' contributions, which were not always brief, to produce the report that we have before us. Top 3.30 pm In the course of our inquiry, families told us of communication failures, of support that disappeared at 5.00 pm, of their being unaware of services, and of their experiencing trauma that stayed with them long after their loved one had gone. Those conversations were not easy. I acknowledge the collegial spirit among Committee members throughout the inquiry. I appreciate that not everyone was able to attend every visit, and, naturally, we did not agree on every element, but the messages that we heard were consistent, and we were united in our determination to amplify the voice of patients and families. The findings were clear. There is no clinical lead for palliative care in the North. We are the only region in these islands without one. There is no adult palliative care strategy. Our outdated funding model forces hospices to raise huge sums of money just to keep essential services open. There are stark inequalities; where someone lives often determines the support that they receive. That is not good enough. The people whom we met deserve better. There is a human reality behind all of this. Many people across Northern Ireland were deeply moved by the recent BBC story of Anne Sheppard, a lady whose final days were marked not by comfort but by unnecessary suffering. Her family's courage in speaking out forces us to confront what happens when the system fails. Their experience is not isolated; it echoes too many others that we have heard about in our work. No family should ever have to face their loved one's being alone, unsupported or in fear in their final days. Today, we commit through the report to changing that. Palliative care is not about death; it is about how we honour life to the very last moment. That is at the heart of palliative care. As an MLA, I was profoundly moved to see the work that goes on in Life and Time in Rostrevor, which provides a life of care to people in South Down in their own homes. It does the work that we want the Department to do. We should have heard from it in the inquiry, but, sadly, we did not have time. End-of-life care is about dignity, presence, relief from pain, a hand held, a voice heard and a family supported. The report published today is not the end of the journey; rather, it is a stepping stone that leads us towards the next step in delivering palliative care that works. The report gives us a framework that is built from lived experience, but it will become meaningful only if the Executive pick it up, prioritise it and resource it. I say "the Executive" because I believe wholeheartedly that the Minister has a desire to commence that work, but that will need financial buy-in from his colleagues around the Executive table. I implore the Minister and the Executive to implement the report's recommendations; to fund the shift to 24/7 care and support; to deliver proper advance care planning; to move to true-cost funding for hospices and plan the pathway to 100%; to appoint a clinical lead; and to build a strategy that finally meets the needs of our people. Our job today is simple: it is to welcome the report, honour the lives of those who shaped it, and commit fully and urgently to building a palliative care system that is worthy of the people whom it serves. Mrs Dillon: I welcome the publication of the report. I commend all those who contributed to the inquiry — patients and their families, and staff in the statutory and voluntary sectors — and all those who took time to tell their stories. The evidence given to the Committee was powerful and often very emotional, particularly for those of us on the Committee who have been affected and understand this issue all too well, which was almost all of us. When people do not receive the palliative support that they need, it is not an inconvenience; it is a trauma. We heard at first hand about that trauma. It is suffering that is avoidable and unacceptable. Families told us of loved ones left without care packages; without help to eat or move; without proper symptom or pain management; and without access to medicines out of hours. They described the fear, exhaustion and guilt that is felt when the health system withdraws and the responsibility falls entirely on them and those who support them. That is harm, and it damages people long after those final days. One of the clearest messages in the report is that palliative care does not mean dying. It is not something that belongs only in the last hours of a person's life. Palliative care is about living with dignity. It is about pain control, nutrition, mobility supports, emotional and spiritual care, support for carers and families and enabling people, where possible, to remain at home if that is their wish. The report's recommendations on advance care planning, recording emotional and spiritual well-being through Encompass and supporting families though a 24/7 point of access all speak directly to that wider, holistic understanding of palliative care. The submissions from hospice groups and professionals made that crystal clear. Despite the dedication and compassion of staff, access to palliative care remains deeply unequal across the North. The report outlines long waits for services, workforce shortages, limited community provision and significant gaps in out-of-hours care. It highlights the particular challenges that are faced by people in rural and border areas, who cannot depend on timely or consistent support. For Sinn Féin, that reinforces the need for an all-island approach. Today, in the Long Gallery, we listened to Fintan Fagan, chair of the All Ireland Institute of Hospice and Palliative Care. He was very clear in how he wants to provide support. He was very good in coming to the Committee and assisting us, and he was very clear, Minister, that he will help your Department and your officials to set up an implementation framework. All of that is to be welcomed, because we understand that your Department and officials are under severe pressure. We want to see an all-island approach in which people living in border communities can access services seamlessly; expertise, specialist teams and data are shared; and palliative care is planned on the basis of need rather than geography. Recommendation 21c calls on the Minister to examine cross-border cooperation to make access easier for rural communities. We fully support that direction. The inquiry also highlighted something that we cannot ignore: the South has fully funded hospices, which has reduced the reliance on fundraising to deliver essential services. We need to move in that direction. I assure you that families in our community will continue to fundraise, which will allow our hospices to do what the likes of the St Francis Hospice have been able to do: improve their facilities where they have people —. Ms Ferguson: Will the Member take an intervention? Mrs Dillon: Absolutely. Ms Ferguson: As a Foyle MLA, I note our much-cherished Foyle Hospice, which has been operating in the city for over 40 years. It relies on the fundraising and goodwill of the people for 60% of its funding, and it is a much-loved organisation. Do you agree that the funding model is totally out of date and that we should move urgently to a 100% funding model, as has happened in the Twenty-six Counties? Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute. Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for the intervention. The report is explicit in recommendation 3: the Department must move to 100% funding for hospice services, standardised contracts and long-term financial certainty. That recommendation is welcome and long overdue. I understand that such action requires funding, but the people who are affected are ending up in our hospitals, where they should not be. The inquiry makes it absolutely clear that palliative care must be treated as core health care and be fully funded, fully staffed, coordinated across trusts and backed by legislation. It needs proper workforce planning; investment in community teams; improved access to medicines; a single, 24/7 point of contact for families; better training across the system; and a new regional strategy that finally meets the growing needs of our population. The report points towards that direction of travel, and we support that. We want to see a system that gives people comfort, dignity and choice rather than fear, delay and bureaucracy. I thank the Committee staff for all their work. Importantly, I also thank the families who shared their experiences with honesty and courage, and those who shared their lived experience, such as Christine Campbell, who was mentioned earlier in the debate. Their voices remind us that this is not an abstract policy debate: it is about people in their most vulnerable moments. As we reflect on what the report demands of us, I am reminded of the words of Ann Richardson, a writer whose work on hospice care captures the heart of the issue: "We cannot change the outcome, but we can affect the journey". That simple truth lies at the heart of the report. The responsibility on all of us is to ensure that every person's journey is shaped by dignity, compassion and proper support — not fear. I absolutely concur: all of the Executive — Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up. Mrs Dillon: — and all of us MLAs should support the Minister in implementing the recommendations. Mr Robinson: I very much welcome the opportunity to speak on such an important issue. The Committee did a lot of good work in its inquiry, in gathering evidence and hearing powerful testimonies from patients, families, providers and others across the public sector and the independent health sector. That work helped to identify areas that require greater focus and brought forth the recommendations in the report. We all very much hope that the Minister and his Department can translate those recommendations into changes for the better. Palliative care is an approach aimed at improving quality of life for patients, adults and children, as well as their families, who are dealing with life-threatening illnesses. It works to prevent suffering through early identification, proper assessment and treatment of pain and other issues, whether physical, emotional or spiritual. A key line is that it provides a support system to help patients live as fully and actively as possible until the end of life. The outcome of the inquiry reinforced our concern that the current system fails to support patients at the most vulnerable time in their lives. We are grateful for the evidence that we received from 37 organisations, 71 health professionals and academics, 221 individuals with lived experience, RaISe, the Department of Health and the independent hospice sector. We are also grateful for the warm welcome that we received on a number of visits. As other Members have said, it is really important to thank the Committee staff, who spent long hours bringing together the report and the 27 recommendations therein. Some of the recommendations are very powerful, and we will all have views on which is the most important, but the introduction of legislation to mandate the commissioning and funding of palliative end-of-life care is number one. That is to be underpinned by the appointment of an interim independent clinical lead, which should need no explanation: we are the only region across these isles that does not have such a post. The long-standing funding arrangements for hospices are not fit for purpose, relying heavily on charitable fundraising to support what are, in reality, core health services. Dependency on outsourcing essential healthcare to charity is wrong on so many levels. Just imagine intensive care services being dependent on cake sales or the selling of second-hand clothes and furniture. I will also mention recommendation 27, which calls for the introduction of a new palliative and end-of-life strategy. Having as a current strategy one from 2010, dating back 15 years, cannot serve a population marked by demographic change, medical advances and the mounting pressures across our health service. The inquiry report is a landmark moment; it lights a path forward. Our work highlighted so many challenges but provides so many opportunities. This cannot become another long-term aspiration for the Department: the Committee has done its job, and now it is time for the Department to urgently take up the baton and do its job. Early palliative care improves quality of life and reduces costs by avoiding unnecessary hospital admissions. Now is the time for the Department to truly shift left in its words and its actions. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call the Minister of Health to respond. Minister, you have up to 20 minutes. Mr Nesbitt: Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker. I will begin, as I must, by congratulating the Committee on its very detailed piece of work. I also congratulate it on the speed at which it got a debate in the Chamber. The debate was opened, I think, before the report was officially launched: that could be a first. Genuinely, I thank the members of the Committee for undertaking the inquiry. I am particularly aware of the personal insights that were provided by people with lived experience, and I am pleased to see them reflected throughout the report. The impact of those personal stories and experiences has been acknowledged by the Chair, and that chimes with my view that all healthcare is personal; in fact, it is as personal as life gets. I also express gratitude for the dedication of our palliative care workforce, who demonstrate professionalism and compassion: professionalism based on their training and experience and compassion based on their empathy and humanity. That is a wonderful combination. Top 3.45 pm My Department and I will wish to consider the report fully, and we will, of course, respond in detail to the Committee in the new year. In the meantime, I want to outline some of the work that is already under way, which, I hope, will fulfil some of the report's recommendations, including the ongoing scoping exercise. It is important to note, though, that some of the recommendations call for significant additional investment in palliative and end-of-life care services. Some are not costed, and that is fair enough, because the Committee does not have a full Department and its resources behind it. If I am being a bit cheeky but honest, however, I had a bit of a Victor Meldrew moment when I realised that Diane Dodds had signed up to uncosted recommendations. However, I recognise that she was called away for an unavoidable reason, so I will not take the hand on that any further. It was acknowledged in the debate that access to quality palliative and end-of-life care when it is needed is something that we all wish for those who are important to us and, indeed, for ourselves. Over recent years, we have seen significant improvement in palliative and end-of-life care. We have a partnership programme that is co-led by my Department's strategic planning and performance group (SPPG) and the Public Health Agency (PHA). Through a collaborative ethos in bringing together stakeholders, including service users, carers and Voices4Care, which the Chair mentioned, the partnership has been at the forefront of shaping holistic and person-centred palliative care services for adults at regional and local level. While we have undoubtedly seen progress, we cannot escape the fact that, as we look to the future, we need to ensure that we have in place the policies, the practice and the workforce that will allow us to respond to the projected growth in need. To do that, we have to have a fuller understanding of the palliative care landscape and the evidence base that will allow us to plan for where we need to be in the years to come. That is why, at my request, my Department is undertaking a baseline scoping exercise to consider existing services across the region and whether they meet the palliative and end-of-life care needs of the populations that they serve and those that they will need to be prepared to serve in the future. That extensive programme of work will include a population-based palliative and end-of-life care needs assessment, as well as engagement with service users and those important to them. I want to understand the experience and quality of palliative and end-of-life care. Our ultimate goal is that the outcomes of the exercise will better inform the future planning and commissioning of palliative and end-of-life care services and will have direct benefits for people with palliative care needs and those who are important to them. Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for taking an intervention. Will the scoping exercise replicate or duplicate the work that the Committee has already undertaken? I understand that there are methods that each Department has to adhere to, but there are clear recommendations in the inquiry report. Can the Department of Health use those recommendations instead of starting from scratch? Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for her point. Obviously, we are just very recently in receipt of an advance copy of the report. We will now see where there is an overlap so that we do not duplicate. The Member's point is acknowledged. I also acknowledge the concern expressed by the Committee about the pace of progress. I assure Members that that does not reflect a lack of focus or prioritisation on the part of my Department. This is a significant and complex project that involves working across our system. The outcomes will provide the robust evidence that we need to plan for, commission and deliver adult palliative care and end-of-life services into the future. To that end, good preparation is essential, and my officials have been taking time to engage with stakeholders. I want to ensure that we get the foundations right. Work is under way. The task and finish group is leading on the scoping of existing services, staffing and contracting of all providers. That will be part of a review at a workshop planned for next month. The Committee has stressed the importance of access to community-based palliative care services, including out-of-hours, and ensuring that services are rural-proofed. Those are all important issues. In September, as part of Palliative Care Week, I spoke at a Hospice UK event on the particular challenges of accessing care services in rural areas. Having access to those services is important for everybody. It is right, therefore, that people with palliative care needs who live in our rural communities should be able to expect to receive the care and support that they need. Access to services closer to home is very much in line with the vision that I set out in my recently published reset plan. That included a commitment to develop a model for primary, community and social care that will deliver greater levels of care for citizens in their communities, alongside a funding plan to support delivery, starting in April 2026. The model will see a range of stakeholders working closely together in formal partnership to provide integrated care. I hope that it will facilitate a preventative approach to healthcare and help manage demand more effectively. Officials have commenced work to develop the new neighbourhood model, which is an important enabler for the commitment to shifting left. Building a neighbourhood model will require providers from across Health and Social Care to work in new ways to deliver services to people. That will be an important cultural change, as well as a planning and commissioning challenge. Palliative and end-of-life care providers will play a key role in developing the new model; indeed, there was a lot of interest and engagement from the hospice sector at our recent stakeholder event with the voluntary, community and social enterprise sectors. A central principle of the neighbourhood model will be providing better care to people in their homes and communities, thereby reducing attendance at hospitals and emergency departments. It is important that people who have palliative care needs do not inappropriately have to attend an ED when their care is better supported at home or in the community. An example of palliative care support that is currently provided in the community is the community pharmacy palliative care service model. Under that model, a network of 60 pharmacies builds on the support offered by all pharmacies, providing advice and access to supplies from a regionally agreed list of specialist medicines that aims to ensure that the needs of vulnerable patients are met at the end of life. My Department's winter preparedness plan outlines how work is already under way to review and consolidate the model. My Department has worked in partnership with Community Pharmacy NI and the Pharmacy Forum NI to encourage community pharmacies to sign up to the Marie Curie Daffodil Standards for end-of-life care and to do so ahead of this winter. That will support pharmacy teams to build on existing palliative care provision and improve the care that is already provided to patients and their families. One of the best ways to prevent patients from needing to seek urgent access to medicines out of hours, in the evenings or at weekends is to further develop access to anticipatory prescribing so that patients have medicines at home when they need them. "Just in case" boxes have already improved access to anticipatory medicines in some areas. I am keen to see the learning from that pilot applied across the whole region. My Department is also actively progressing the scale-up of other areas of best practice, such as the roll-out of urgent community prescribing pathways for patients receiving care in the community from hospice providers. That builds on the successful pathfinder in Foyle Hospice that has had a positive impact in allowing patients' families and friends to be where they are needed most: with their loved ones. It has also afforded the additional benefit of reducing pressure on the healthcare system. I note that the Committee has called for increased funding for hospices, recommending that, over the next five years, my Department move to 100% funding for all hospice services, with the introduction of 50% funding for actual costs from 2026-27. That is a big challenge, but we all asked to be elected in order to overcome challenges, so let us face those challenges and not let them become insurmountable obstacles to progress. Mr McGrath: Will the Minister give way? Mr Nesbitt: Yes. Mr McGrath: On that theme, given that a model that funds our hospices 100% would alleviate pressures in other parts of the healthcare system such as emergency departments, will you undertake to apply to the Department of Finance's transformation fund to get funding for that? If you were to do that for one year, the savings that would be available in other parts of the service would make it cost-neutral. Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for the intervention. He understands that I do not make policy on the hoof in the Chamber, but that is certainly something that I will take away and consider. The Member will know that there are many moving parts. The "invest to save" rationale could be applied across the Health and Social Care system, but it is about finding that initial investment. The transformation fund could, perhaps, be a source in the area that he identified. Since I have taken up post, I have visited hospices and met representatives, service users and families. I fully recognise the role that hospices play in supporting people who are living with life-limiting conditions and the difference that they make to the quality of life not just for the patients but for the families and carers. I am also aware of the funding challenges that hospices face, so I acknowledge the Committee's desire to see changes in funding. My Department has undertaken work to ensure that current adult hospice funding is in line with existing commissioning arrangements to secure that 50:50 funding for hospice inpatient beds and commissioned community specialist palliative services for 2025-26. I acknowledge that the Committee's report states that that is not good enough. My Department has also engaged with the Northern Ireland Children's Hospice to understand the costs incurred in delivering procured services and to benchmark against similar services. I want to ensure that we get value for money and that the funding received is in line with the level of service provided. I anticipate that that work will conclude within the current financial year. The Committee has also highlighted the need to implement the advanced care planning policy as a matter of urgency. I assure the Chamber that implementation of that policy remains a strategic priority. The associated benefits are evident and understood across the HSC system. Importantly, that includes the adoption of the recommended summary plan for emergency care and treatment (ReSPECT), which will enable a standardised approach to recording all recommendations about a person's care and treatment, including "Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation" (DNACPR) orders. As further evidence of my commitment in the area, the policy has been included as one of the work streams for consideration under the HSC "Big Discussion" winter preparedness programme. It involves consideration of the short-term benefits that may impact winter pressures this year and the longer-term benefits from a system-wide roll-out. Those are important early steps and have helped build momentum. It is equally important that the wider implementation of advanced care planning is done in a coherent and managed way. That will require collaborative engagement across the system that involves multi-professional teams in all care settings for a sustained period. It will also require a societal shift to ensure that advanced care planning becomes a routine part of healthcare, with discussions becoming the norm rather than something that is often put off until later. There is common agreement that advanced care planning is the right thing to do, primarily for the individual but also for the wider system. I am confident that progressing implementation in that way represents the best chance of success. The Committee's recommendations reflect the breadth of its ambitions for palliative care in the immediate and longer term. I assure Members of my commitment and desire to ensure that quality palliative care services are available and accessible to people wherever they live in this country. That is a basic tenet of how, as a society, we value and care for people when they are often at their most vulnerable. I am aware of calls for new palliative and end-of-life care strategies. In a recent meeting with hospice representatives, my Department indicated that it would support a new palliative care strategy to replace Living Matters, Dying Matters. However, it is important to recognise, as reflected in the report, the wide-ranging aspects of palliative care that are not restricted to Health. In the context of increasing demand for palliative and end-of-life care, the Committee's report can provide a road map that will inform a strategic direction now and into the future. In looking to the future, the Finance Minister has indicated his intention to bring forward recommendations to the Executive for a multi-year Budget, as Members will be aware. I very much support and welcome that drive. A multi-year settlement would allow my Department to plan for the next three years, enabling us to prioritise spending, investment and workforce planning much more effectively. However, we will still be constrained by the funding allocation that we receive. While it will not be possible to provide a definitive assessment of our future funding position until that final budget settlement for future years has been reached, it is likely that we will not have all of the resources to do everything that we want to do or, indeed, everything that needs to be done. I am determined to drive forward the reform that we need for the medium-to-long term. I want to create, in the next three to five years, what I believe can be a world-leading health and social care system. To do so, I need the support of my Executive colleagues, I need the support of the Chamber and I need a multi-year budget that prioritises the health of the people of Northern Ireland. You have got to give me the capability to deliver. Top 4.00 pm I thank the Committee for its comprehensive inquiry report. I thank Members for the dignity and empathy with which the debate has been conducted. I will have to take time to carefully consider the Committee's findings and recommendations, and I will respond when I have done so. I guarantee that I will not leave the report on a shelf. Finally, I mentioned visiting the Children's Hospice. My first visit was a real surprise to me, because I discovered something that I did not expect to discover, and I saw it in the children, the parents and the staff. It was joy, and, to me, that is a motivation to do better in this area. Once again, I thank the Committee for putting it on my radar and giving me a focus. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Minister, thank you for the response. I call the Deputy Chairperson of the Health Committee, Danny Donnelly, to conclude and make a winding-up speech on the motion. Danny, you have up to 10 minutes. Mr Donnelly: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a privilege to make a winding-up speech on this debate as Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Health. I thank Members for their contributions on this important issue and the Minister for responding to the motion. I place on record my thanks to the sector and the healthcare professionals who so ably care for the most vulnerable in our communities and provide support to patients and their families in the most difficult of circumstances. We have heard many stories about the impact that your care has had on families for a long time after their loved ones have passed away. Over the past year, we have seen many projects providing much-needed support to patients and families. Last week, when the Committee visited the South West Acute Hospital, we called into the Cancer Focus hub in Enniskillen and heard about the great work that it is doing, including providing support for families. I also pay tribute to the businesses and the public who support our hospices through their donations. Without that support, some of those services would not exist. I also thank the patients and families who have shared with us throughout the process when we have visited hospices, in written submissions and through the lived experience event that we held. Your experiences have shaped the recommendations in the report. I also thank my fellow Committee members and the Committee staff for their work on the inquiry. The report has taken over a year to produce, and it outlines the priority that the Committee gives to the issue. Many issues have been covered in the debate, and I will comment on some of the contributions. The Committee Chair, Philip McGuigan, opened the debate. Diane Dodds noted the assisted dying Bill that is passing through Westminster and thanked the contributors with lived experience and the sector. She noted the inconsistencies in provision across Northern Ireland — something that we heard about time and again. Also, she noted the lack of out-of-hours support, which was also a constant theme in the evidence. She highlighted the fact that hospices are not fully funded to provide specialist services. She highlighted the importance of the recommendations, especially recommendations 1 to 5. My colleague Nuala McAllister noted that the Committee heard from services about how they could be improved, and she highlighted recommendation 9, which is the need for a 24/7 central point of contact, be that a telephone or online service, which would be crucial for families and would make a meaningful difference. She also highlighted the need for swift access to palliative care medications — again, something that was very common across a lot of the evidence. She mentioned speaking to patients and families with experience of palliative care. Alan Chambers spoke about the political unanimity on high-quality care at the end of life and highlighted the uneven access to palliative care, particularly in rural areas, which again was something that we heard about quite a few times. He also highlighted the fact that too many people still associate palliative care with the end of life and miss the fact that it improves the quality of life. Colin McGrath said that palliative care is sustained by extraordinary people but is constrained, and that there are communication issues, particularly due to the lack of support after 5.00 pm. Again, out-of-hours issues came up, as did the fact that the current system unfortunately provides trauma to people long after their loved ones have passed away. Colin highlighted the stark inequalities of support being different across Northern Ireland because of where you live. He highlighted the experience of Anne Sheppard and her husband, which was reported by the BBC today, and I do not think that any of us who heard that would not be moved. Linda Dillon talked to the evidence that was heard, stating that it was powerful and emotional. I agree with Linda. At times, it was very emotional in the Committee. She said that not receiving palliative care is a trauma in itself and that palliative care is not about dying; it is about living with dignity. I agree completely with Linda there. Alan Robinson highlighted a key line in the report and said that palliative care provides a support system for patients to live as fully and as actively as possible until the end of life. He highlighted the need for a clinical lead for palliative care and, in particular, highlighted recommendation 27, which is the need for a new palliative and end-of-life care strategy. He called the inquiry report "a landmark moment", which I agree with. The Minister responded to the debate and thanked the Committee for undertaking the inquiry and, in particular, for the personal testimonies, highlighting that all healthcare is personal and that it will affect many of us and many of the families that we are aware of. He thanked the palliative care workforce and committed to responding in detail in the new year. The Committee will look forward to that. Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. I will keep it brief. I agree with the Minister. When you visit the Children's Hospice, you see joy. It is not what you expect to see, but that is what it looks like when you get the very best. That is what we want for everybody. Mr Donnelly: Thank you, Linda. I agree with the Minister and with Linda. We had many visits to hospices, and we did see that. That is palliative care being done at its very best. The Minister also referred to the Department's ongoing scoping exercise and how that would work in parallel with the report. He highlighted the fact that some of the recommendations have not been costed and pointed out recent improvements in palliative care and end-of-life care. He highlighted the need to look to the future in order to plan for palliative care needs in years to come and reassured us that any concerns that we have about the pace of progress are not due to a lack of focus. The Minister said that a review at a workshop is planned for next month, which was very reassuring to hear. Again, he noted the discrepancy in access to palliative care in rural areas. Finally, the Minister highlighted his visit to the Children's Hospice, stating that he observed joy with the families and the patients in there at that time. I will highlight a couple of issues that could be introduced immediately with little resource. We have heard of the importance of having discussions with our family about our wishes when a terminal diagnosis is given, and we have heard from those with lived experience about the importance of advance care planning and how, at present, there is not enough communication of patients' wishes across the system. We have heard stories of patients having to share their wishes a number of times across different service providers. The Committee had been told that the bulk of the work on advance care planning has been completed, and I ask the Minister to implement that as soon as possible. We heard of the need for a clinical lead for palliative care in the system. The Committee believes that the Minister, the Department and the sector would benefit from the expertise of a clinical lead. That could increase the visibility of palliative care in the system and provide the necessary priority for the issue. The Minister can and should appoint an interim clinical lead as soon as possible. There has been no strategy for adult palliative care since the last strategy ended in 2015. The Department should use the scoping work that it is undertaking and the work of the inquiry to bring forward a cohesive strategy and implementation plan that takes into account the growing need for palliative care. My real concern is that, if we do not build sustainable community services now, in 10 years, we will not have improved access to palliative care services. We spend too much money on unplanned care in Northern Ireland. The Marie Curie report showed that, in 2022, in the last year of life, approximately £350 million is spent on palliative care. Of that £350 million, approximately £195 million is spent on emergency admissions. While I appreciate that patients should be treated in the best place for their care, I do not see how we cannot plan better to provide services in the community and prevent those emergency admissions. It is proven that, when we provide better services in the community, emergency admissions are greatly reduced. Palliative care should be one of the pillars of the Minister's shift-left agenda. Not only does it provide better services and support for patients and families but it is a prime example of providing funding in the community to reduce pressures on our hospitals. The important part is what we do now, and I make it clear to the sector and the Minister that access to palliative care services will remain a priority for the Committee. We are happy to work with Minister and the Department on taking forward the recommendations to achieve real progress for patients and families and to build a sustainable sector that is able to meet the needs of our communities. I commend the report to the House. Question put and agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly approves the report of the Committee for Health on its inquiry into access to palliative care services [NIA 130/22-27]; and calls on the Minister of Health to implement the recommendations contained in the report. Assembly Business Mr Brooks: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I apologise to the House for missing my question to the Assembly Commission during Question Time. I was feeling unwell at the time. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Brooks, that is noted and appreciated. Motion made: That the Assembly do now adjourn. — [Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair).] Adjournment Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): As you were advised earlier, the Speaker was notified that the proposer will not speak to the Adjournment topic in the Order Paper. Adjourned at 4.11 pm. Top
[ni-assembly-official-report][plenary_report] Official Reports https://aims.niassembly.gov.uk/officialreport/report.aspx?&eveDate=2025/12/01&docID=461171 Official Report: Monday 01 December 2025 Table of Contents Members Statements Turning Pain into Policy Conference Violence Against PSNI Officers World AIDS Day South West Acute Hospital: Emergency General Surgery Private Parking Companies International Day of Persons with Disabilities Asylum Accommodation: North Down Homelessness Awareness Week International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People Herzog Park, Dublin Homelessness Awareness Week North West Football Association Assembly Business Standing Orders 10(2) to 10(4): Suspension Ministerial Statements Autumn Budget North/South Ministerial Council: Transport Bluetongue Virus: Bangor Oral Answers to Questions Economy Justice Question for Urgent Oral Answer The Executive Office Ministerial Statements Bluetongue Virus: Bangor Executive Committee Business Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025 Private Members Business PSNI: Pressure due to Health System Failings Food Security The Assembly met at 12:00 pm (Mr Speaker in the Chair). Members observed two minutes' silence. Members' Statements Turning Pain into Policy Conference Ms Finnegan: Last month, I had the privilege of taking part as a panellist in the 'Turning pain into policy: united against gender-based violence' conference in Limerick hosted by Sinn Féin MEP Kathleen Funchion. It brought together survivors, front-line workers, academics and policymakers from across the island, all of whom were united in the same mission: ending violence against women and girls. The testimonies that were shared were courageous, heartbreaking and painfully familiar. They were a reminder that ending violence against women and girls is not an abstract policy theme; that violence is lived trauma, affecting women and children in every county, every class and every community. Their voices must shape every decision that we make in the Assembly. Throughout the discussion, several gaps came up time and again. The chronic lack of secure and affordable housing means that too many people are forced to leave their homes while the perpetrators remain undisturbed. That balance is not only unjust but dangerous. The barriers created by partition mean that women living on the border face inconsistent protections, fragmented services and gaps in justice between North and South. Abuse does not respect borders, but, too often, our systems still do. Last but by no means least, there was the urgent need to reform family courts. Outdated cultures and practices continue to allow courts to be used as weapons and tools for control, intimidation and re-traumatisation. The children's well-being must finally come first. Their voices must be heard, and their safety must be non-negotiable. Of course, there is also the response that victims receive when they first reach out for help, especially to the PSNI. Too often, the police respond to domestic abuse as single, isolated incidents, but coercive control is defined in the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act 2021 Act as a pattern of behaviour and a deliberate erosion of autonomy and safety. When agencies fail to look at the overall pattern, perpetrators simply continue their abuse, often using the very agencies that are meant to protect victims as new tools of harassment. We have many dedicated police officers who do exceptional work, and I acknowledge them, but they must be supported with trauma-informed, pattern-focused training, so that victims know that they will be believed, understood and protected. As we mark 16 Days of Activism against Gender-based Violence, we must be honest that gender-based violence is a societal crisis. It recognises no border and requires an all-island response, shared data, shared learning and shared will. The theme of the conference was turning pain into policy. Let us honour that by turning what we have heard into action — urgent, coordinated and sustained — until women and children across this island are safe. Violence Against PSNI Officers Ms Brownlee: I rise today to raise the issue of the horrific levels of violence being inflicted on our PSNI officers. Sadly, we are seeing a pattern of brutality that is becoming more frequent, more severe and more dangerous. Between October 2024 and September 2025, there were over 2,600 assaults on officers. They are not routine risks of the job. Officers are being kicked, bitten and spat at, and their vehicles are being rammed. One officer had blood sprayed in their face and eyes after a detainee ripped out a cannula and claimed to have HIV and hepatitis C. That is trauma that no one signs up for. A female officer was sexually assaulted during an arrest and was left with physical injuries and psychological scars. We have also seen more than 100 vehicle ramming incidents, with police cars being taken off the road and officers hurt. More recently, just last week in Londonderry, an officer was stabbed with a blade during a violent attack in the early hours of the morning. Attacks on our emergency services are completely unacceptable. Officers go out every day to keep our communities safe, and they should be able to do that without the fear of violence. It is criminal, and the DUP will never accept it as usual. When officers are hurt, vehicles are rammed and morale is shattered, it affects everyone in Northern Ireland. It means fewer officers on the streets, slower response times and the public being left less safe. The consequences ripple far beyond the incident. Our officers need greater protection, and I am pleased that my colleagues Philip Brett and the Chair of the Justice Committee, Paul Frew, continue to explore amendments to the Sentencing Bill to ensure that those who attack police officers face tougher and more meaningful penalties. If criminals know that there are no real consequences, the violence will only continue. We need sentencing that reflects the seriousness of the assaults, a justice system that stands firm with our officers and a political system that does not hesitate to say, "Enough is enough". World AIDS Day Ms Bradshaw: Today, we mark World AIDS Day, and this year's theme, "overcoming disruption and transforming the AIDS response", reminds us that, while much has been achieved, our work is far from over. Services remain under pressure, inequalities persist and many still face barriers with testing, treatment and support. At the heart of those barriers lies stigma. Too often, stigma dictates how we feel safe asking for help, who comes forward for testing and who remains silent. It remains one of the most damaging forces in our fight against HIV, preventing people from accessing the care that they deserve. I want to take a moment to thank Positive Life for the vital work that it does across the province to support people living with HIV and their families. It challenges stigma every day with compassion and courage and offers a safe and welcoming space for people who might otherwise feel overlooked or misunderstood. Its contribution to public health and the well-being of so many individuals cannot be overstated. Earlier this year, I submitted a question for written answer to the Health Minister about the long-acting, injectable, prevention treatment called cabotegravir (CAB-LA). The injection is administered every two months and offers a powerful alternative for people who struggle with daily pills or have difficulty accessing regular services. I am pleased that the Minister has written back to say that it has now been approved for use here as part of the roll-out of injectable pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). The Department of Health has also begun the process of formally endorsing the relevant guidance, so that eligible patients can soon start to receive the treatment. Over the past year, we have seen further encouraging developments. Global evidence continues to support injectable PrEP as a safe, effective prevention tool; more people are accessing testing; more countries are expanding prevention; and researchers are now working on even longer-acting options. However, none of those advances will reach their full potential while stigma remains. Too many people still hesitate to test, because they fear what others think. Today, on World AIDS Day, I make it absolutely clear that getting tested is normal and responsible and protects your health and the health of those whom you love. Testing is free, confidential and one of the most important things that anyone can do. There should be no shame, no fear and no silence around caring for your health. It is also crucial that people know this: when someone living with HIV is on effective treatment and has an undetectable viral load, they cannot pass the virus on. Undetectable equals untransmittable. That simple but powerful message saves lives. Our goal must be to bring an end to new HIV transmissions and an end to the stigma that has held so many people back for too long. South West Acute Hospital: Emergency General Surgery Ms D Armstrong: Last Thursday, the Health Committee met in the South West Acute Hospital (SWAH) in Enniskillen. Whilst Parliament Buildings is, no doubt, a hugely impressive location to work from, I have found, in my relatively short time as an MLA, that the opportunity to engage directly with organisations and to visit their premises is just as important. I am certain that the members of the Health Committee were hugely impressed with the size of the South West Acute Hospital and the many opportunities that exist there. It remains one of the best and most modern health facilities in Northern Ireland. I was alarmed, however, by the report, subsequent to the meeting with the Western Trust, that it had apparently told the Health Committee: "When a service is paused, there is an inevitability this won't be back." That was a shocking, sweeping statement, but it perhaps also revealed what many had long suspected was the belief of some. Equally galling was the trust's shirking of responsibility when, after being asked a fairly straightforward question by a journalist about emergency general surgery, its immediate reply was: "That's a decision for the Minister." To be clear, the review of general surgery set out the standards for emergency general surgery, but, importantly, it did not state which hospitals should and should not deliver it. No matter the reason behind that latest attempt at smoke and mirrors, it is for the Western Trust to determine how to configure its general surgical service to meet those standards. That is a matter of fact, and the trust needs to be careful in its noticeable efforts to rewrite that. After the shambles of its botched consultation process in July, I thought that the Western Trust would have learned some lessons, and, for a while, I thought that it had, when it issued an apology in October admitting its multitude of failings. Recent weeks, however, which have seen the trust enter into an unnecessary public spat about who should even have chaired an upcoming meeting, combined with last week's comments, have revealed a regression in the trust's approach and attitude. Earlier this year, the Minister took the highly unusual decision to publicly intervene, yet it appears that the trust is even now beginning to deviate from the clear instruction that it was given about coming up with a focused vision plan for the SWAH. Public confidence matters, and, regrettably, the Western Trust is still doing little to restore it. That urgently needs to change. Since becoming an MLA, my priority has always been to the people of Fermanagh and South Tyrone and their well-being. I will always seek to do what is right for my community and challenge what I see as failings. Private Parking Companies Mr McNulty: On Friday, a woman came into my office in Newry, bringing with her a letter containing a legal threat sent by a solicitor about her unpaid parking ticket. The letter said that she had two weeks in which to pay an incredibly expensive fine —£170 — but she received the letter only on the last day possible. Given the limited time constraints, we could not advise the lady, who was running from pillar to post in a distressed state and seeking advice and help, not to pay the fine and help her to appeal it. That woman is not alone. Literally hundreds of people have come through our doors, whom we have helped to successfully challenge many such fines with help from the Law Society and the Consumer Council. What is going on? Private parking companies now methodically adopt the calculatedly low tactic of sending frightening legal threats to individuals to siphon money out of them, taking advantage of people by threatening them into paying fines to avoid legal action. Those companies are a scourge on our society and a money-making racket. Their control over shoppers, business people and all motorists must end. The Department for Infrastructure must hold them to account and stop them harassing and threatening motorists by sending not just extortionate fines but extremely threatening solicitors' letters in the mail. It is unfair. It is unreasonable, and it is completely unregulated by the Department, which should put the clampers on such unscrupulous, exploitative companies. Top 12.15 pm International Day of Persons with Disabilities Mr McGuigan: I speak today in advance of the International Day of Persons with Disabilities on Wednesday 3 December, which is an important moment each year to recognise the rights, leadership and contribution of disabled people across our society. The day, which was established by the United Nations in 1992, asks us all to recommit ourselves to building a community rooted in equality, dignity and inclusion. Across the island, many people with disabilities unfortunately continue to face barriers. In the North, we have some of the highest levels of disability. We know that those living with disabilities experience poverty at disproportionate levels and face long waiting lists for assessments and support, and we are acutely aware of the challenges that they face when navigating the social security system. We also know that people with disabilities are more likely to encounter obstacles when entering, remaining in or progressing in their school or workplace. The obstacles and barriers faced by disabled people are not and should not be inevitable. We must continue to highlight the fact that having a disability does not limit a person's talent, ambition, creativity or desire to contribute meaningfully to society. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities places a clear responsibility on public authorities to remove those barriers and to uphold the rights, independence and participation of disabled people in every aspect of life. This year's theme, "Fostering disability inclusive societies for advancing social progress", speaks directly to the work that still needs to be done. That includes delivering properly resourced public services; ensuring timely access to therapies, aids and community-based supports; strengthening our disability and autism strategies; tackling the disability employment gap; and ensuring accessible, safe and reliable transport and public spaces. That work and any solutions must be designed in partnership with disabled people and their advocacy groups. Sinn Féin has consistently advocated a rights-based approach to public policy that is based on equality. Supporting disabled people properly is fundamental to building a fair, prosperous and equal society where everyone is valued and can participate fully. As we mark International Day of Persons with Disabilities, let us recommit to meaningful, practical action North and South, across all sectors and all communities, to remove the barriers that hold people back and to build a truly inclusive society. Asylum Accommodation: North Down Mr Dunne: I welcome the decision last week by the Home Office to end the use of the Marine Court Hotel in Bangor in my North Down consistency as asylum accommodation. That was the right move and was long overdue. It highlights the failure of successive UK Governments to properly manage immigration in a controlled and responsible way. For many years, the Marine Court Hotel was a premier venue in North Down and a landmark that supported Bangor's tourism sector and, indeed, the local economy. Instead, it has been closed to the public and used for asylum accommodation at a very significant cost, causing concern across the local community. My constituents regularly raise those concerns with me. They are reasonable and fair-minded people; they are not motivated by intolerance. They are worried about planning pressures, housing shortages, the strain on our public services and the lack of transparency in how such decisions are made. One of the biggest issues is how the Home Office has been able to operate outside the normal planning framework. Local residents and businesses must follow every rule, yet the UK Government can change the use of a major hotel without scrutiny. If a shop puts up the wrong style of sign, for example, enforcement is often swift, but a hotel can effectively become a large house in multiple occupation (HMO) with zero accountability. That is why many believe that there is one law for the public and another for the Home Office and the UK Government. Equality before the law matters, and public trust depends on it. The impact on our area has been clear. A hospitality venue sitting idle has had an adverse impact on our local economy, but the pressures and impact extend much wider. Our GP surgeries and the wider NHS are under severe pressures — we hear, see and feel that daily — and our housing system is already stretched, with more than 49,000 households on the waiting list and over 37,000 in housing stress across Northern Ireland in every town, village and city. A broken asylum system only adds to those pressures while taxpayers cover the excessive cost of hotel-based accommodation. As the Home Office moves away from hotels, many people are asking, "What happens next?" There is a risk that Mears and the UK Government will start buying or leasing homes in our communities, further reducing available housing and increasing already high rents. Such parties as the Alliance Party, the SDLP and Sinn Féin continue to defend the current approach to immigration and recently voted against a DUP motion aimed at addressing illegal and uncontrolled immigration. That position speaks for itself. We will keep pressing the Government to fix the system and ensure fairness for local communities. Homelessness Awareness Week Ms K Armstrong: Many of us and much of the public will be out and about in our towns and cities doing a bit of shopping before Christmas. How many times have any of us walked past someone who is sitting on a cold street? How often do we actually see that person? How did they end up there? Why are they there today? When was the last time that they sat on a comfortable seat or had something healthy to eat? When was the last time someone said a simple "Hello" to them? Today is the start of Homelessness Awareness Week. It runs every year from 1 December to 7 December. This year's theme is "See the person". I ask all MLAs this: when was the last time you saw a homeless person? Too often, homelessness is reduced to statistics, labels or stereotypes: they must be begging, or they must have something wrong. Often, that is completely incorrect. This year, I remind everyone that behind every figure and every headline is a person with hopes, struggles and potential. There is a programme of events on Homeless Connect's website. I encourage every MLA to take a look at the website and to take part in one of those events. I invite all MLAs to go along to an event in the Long Gallery at 1.30 pm today that is being operated by Homeless Connect. At that event, we will launch a major piece of research that has been completed by the Housing Executive on Housing First. The Housing First approach is one of the best-evidenced models from around the world for responding to chronic homelessness. We have chronic homelessness in Northern Ireland. We believe that the launch of that research fits well with this year's theme, because the approach is person-centred, designing and delivering tailored support to suit the individual needs of the person experiencing homelessness. Led by Fiona Boyle and co-authored by Imogen Blood and Nicholas Pleace, the research outlines what Housing First is and what it has done up until now and makes recommendations on how it could be further utilised to respond to chronic homelessness. Please come along to today's event to hear Fiona outline the findings of the research, alongside input from other voices in the homelessness sector. I thank all of the organisations that help people who are homeless every day. I especially thank the health inclusion nurses who work on the ground with so many on our streets. Homelessness can be resolved. Every person in Northern Ireland who does not have a suitable, safe home can have one if every Minister comes together and focuses on homelessness as a priority. It is a key issue in the Programme for Government, and I hope that we will see a commitment across Departments to end homelessness in the upcoming multi-year Budget. International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People Mr Baker: Saturday was International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People. Over 100,000 people marched in London, and there were large rallies in Belfast and Dublin. Yesterday, my friend Tuathlaith ran 52 miles and cycled a further 52 miles in an ultramarathon to raise money for mobile maternity units in Gaza. That is an unbelievable achievement, and much-needed money will go to the front line in Gaza. Unfortunately, because of Israeli bombs and genocide, children are being born not in hospitals but in tents with limited medical equipment and medicine. Imagine if your wife or partner had to bring your child into the world in that unsafe environment. Despite the ceasefire, over 400 Palestinians have been killed, and two children were murdered just the other day. Members and Ministers should remember that when they praise the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), take visits from the Israeli Government and justify visiting the occupied territories. It is absolutely shameful. Herzog Park, Dublin Mr Kingston: Dublin City Council was set to discuss this evening a proposal to rename Herzog Park in Rathgar in the latest demonstration of anti-Israel and antisemitic politics in the Irish Republic. The proposal was approved by a council committee last July, with only one councillor voting against, and it had been brought forward by a Sinn Féin councillor. Thankfully, the proposal has been removed from the order paper by the council's chief executive, due to legislation that is in progress. However, it is deeply concerning that the proposal could return. If approved, it would be an appalling example of a lack of tolerance and an attempt to expunge from history the contribution of the Jewish community. The park was renamed Herzog Park in 1995 in honour of Major General Chaim Herzog, a former president of Israel, who was born in Belfast in 1918. He grew up in Dublin, where his father, Yitzhak Herzog, served as the first Chief Rabbi of the Irish Free State from 1921 until 1936. Chaim Herzog served with distinction in the British Army during the Second World War, fighting against Nazism. He went on to serve as president of Israel from 1983 until 1993. Any country or city should take pride in people who have gone on to achieve great things on the international stage. Herzog Park is around only one acre in size and is located next to Stratford College, a multi-denominational school, which was established predominantly by people of the Jewish faith. Sinn Féin's intolerant proposal has rightly been met with condemnation from the prime minister of Ireland, Taoiseach Micheál Martin, and internationally from US Senator, Lindsey Graham, and the office of the current Israeli president, Isaac Herzog, who is the son of Chaim Herzog. Whatever way some may wish to present it, it is an attempt to remove a reference to a prominent Jewish figure and the son of a former Chief Rabbi of Ireland. It is symptomatic of the insular antisemitism and mean-spiritedness that is on display in the Republic of Ireland and of how certain minorities are treated in that state. It comes on the back of the hostility displayed towards Heather Humphreys because of her family background. We have seen such intolerance on display in Belfast through the removal of the blue plaque commemorating the birthplace of Chaim Herzog on Cliftonpark Avenue. It will not be lost on people that Dublin may be set to erase the family name of a Chief Rabbi, yet it retains a statue of Nazi collaborator, Seán Russell, who died on board a German U-boat on his way home in 1940. He was buried at sea with full German naval honours and wrapped in a swastika flag. Homelessness Awareness Week Ms Ferguson: Today marks the beginning of Homelessness Awareness Week 2025, the theme of which is "See the Person". We are well aware of the recent research by the Simon Community that revealed that childhood trauma plays a powerful role in the levels of homelessness here. Some 66% of those who reside in hostel-based homeless accommodation have had four or more adverse childhood experiences. To put that in context, that figure is four times higher than that for the general population. As we are well aware, behind those statistics are real people who have dreams and aspirations for their lives; people who have an equal right to a safe, secure place to call "home"; and people who evidently encountered far more difficulty in their childhood than should be expected of anyone at any point in their life. What does that mean if we strip it right back and see the person? It means that homelessness is never about personal failure. Homelessness across Irish society is our collective shame. Statistics evidence that, in each of the past 10 years, the number of homeless households here has consistently risen. Last week, sadly, we heard more of the same. We are creating a cycle of exclusion that is almost impossible to break. Top 12.30 pm The British Government's approach of recent days — keeping local housing allowance rates frozen and unable to keep pace with rising rents — is absolutely shameful. Homelessness is not inevitable, yet nothing changes if nothing changes. Unlike the British Government, we recognise that our response must focus on the entwined nature of poverty and homelessness. Today, we see in research that was published on the fundamental Housing First model evidence of high housing retention rates and how that model helps to resolve non-housing problems, including offending and re-offending rates and mental health issues. We need the Department for Communities and the Housing Executive to carry out a full, comprehensive review of our homelessness legislation here. Finally, and fundamentally, we must deliver never-before-seen levels of investment in social and affordable housing and the scaling up of the Housing First model in the North. Once again, I remind Members that there is a range of events in Derry, Armagh, Ballymena, Bangor, Belfast, Coleraine, Dungiven, Newry, Newtownabbey, Portrush and Strabane this week, and I encourage Members to attend their local events to honour Homelessness Awareness Week. Mr Speaker: I call Maurice Bradley. You have two minutes, Mr Bradley. North West Football Association Mr Bradley: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I place on record the outstanding contribution of the North West Football Association, which marked its 140th anniversary with a packed gala dinner at the White Horse Hotel on Friday evening. It was not simply a social occasion; it was a celebration of what is one of the oldest and most influential football bodies anywhere in Northern Ireland and an organisation that has quietly underpinned the game in the north-west for well over a century. The calibre of those in attendance spoke volumes. The Irish FA president, Conrad Kirkwood, led the delegation from Belfast, which was joined by former IFA presidents David Martin, Jim Shaw and Raymond Kennedy, who each have long-standing links to the North West FA council. They were joined by Gerard Lawlor, president of the Northern Ireland Football League (NIFL), Colin McKendry, vice-chairman of NIFL, and Gregory Campbell MP, underlining the association's political standing as well as its standing in sport. There was also genuine star power from the pitch. Former Northern Ireland internationals Tony O'Doherty and John O'Neill were present, representing the golden thread that runs from the streets and pitches of the north-west to the international stage. Apologies were received from fellow Northern Ireland greats Terry Harkin, Stephen Lomas and Dessie Dickson, whose names rightly drew warm appreciation in the room. The evening was expertly compèred by broadcaster Liam Beckett and featured a lively question-and-answer session with guest of honour, Gerry Armstrong, who will forever be remembered for his winning goal against hosts Spain in the 1982 World Cup. His memories of Spain '82 may have been light-hearted, but they reminded everyone present of the heights that players from this part of the world can reach. A particularly poignant moment came when special presentations were made for long and dedicated service to the North West FA, with many of the recipients also having served on the IFA council. Raymond Kennedy, Charlie Johnston, Jim McLaughlin, Billy Smallwood, Dessie Bradley, Jackie Morrison, Charlie Ferguson, Jerry Stewart, Trevor Hogg and Ken Lowry were all honoured by Gerry Armstrong, assisted by the north-west league secretary, Jonathan McCunn. Those are the kinds of volunteers and administrators without whom local football simply could not function. The north-west —. Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up. Mr Bradley: Sorry? What did you say? Mr Speaker: Your time is up. You had two minutes, not three. [Laughter.] Mr Bradley: Is that it? Assembly Business Mr Durkan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I rise to refer to correspondence that I received from you this morning on a remark that I made last week in reference to the Education Minister. I retract any term that I used that caused hurt, but I genuinely did not think that Minister Givan, who has casually called people in the Chamber "sectarian" and "antisemitic" — never mind that he praised the perpetrators of a genocide — would be so offended by a playground jibe. Perhaps Minister Givan will have the good grace to consider and to retract things that he has said and done that have caused considerable hurt. Mr Speaker: Now that the Member has raised it, I have a statement to make on the issue. Members know that I encourage robust debate and challenge. In particular, I want Ministers to be held to account vigorously. That is only right, as we are holding Departments to account. However, I also made clear that Members should focus on challenging issues and not persons, because that is what debate is about. We are here to challenge people on the issues that they represent, not the individuals themselves. Over the past few weeks, I have had to deal with a number of issues by reminding Members, whether that is in the Chamber or in writing, that it is not in order to accuse other Members of being an antisemite or homophobic. I pointed out to a Minister that they should not accuse a Member of asking a "stupid question". I made clear to a Member that they should not tell another Member to "Wind your neck in." Last week, during a debate, following an exchange between the Minister and Cara Hunter, Mr Durkan made this remark: "he is more interested in the toileting of my female colleague. What a weirdo." — [Official Report (Hansard), 25 November 2025, p44, col 1]. The import of that remark is really not on. There was exchange on issues, but your remark was a crude personal attack without an evidence base. Furthermore, given the fact that Members', particularly those who are women, being subject to abuse and unwanted attention is so serious, it was in poor taste to make that comment to another Member. Irrespective of who else was involved, that is an issue to reflect on. I have written to you, and you know where we stand on that. There have been a number of examples in the past. To be perfectly honest, I do not want to deal with those issues or comment on them. We should be capable of engaging in vigorous debate without playing the man or, as I probably should say in this instance, the woman. If we stick to playing the ball, we will all get on a lot better. I thank the Member for his apology. It is important that we clarify those matters. Standing Orders 10(2) to 10(4): Suspension Mr Butler: I beg to move That Standing Orders 10(2) to 10(4) be suspended for 1 December 2025. Mr Speaker: Before we proceed to the Question, I remind Members that the motion requires cross-community support. Question put and agreed to. Resolved (with cross-community support): That Standing Orders 10(2) to 10(4) be suspended for 1 December 2025. Ministerial Statements Autumn Budget Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of Finance that he wishes to make a statement. Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. [Translation: Thank you, Mr Speaker.] Thank you for the opportunity to update Members on the implications of last week's autumn Budget for our public finances and our society. I have been clear, inside and outside the House, that delivering quality public services and creating conditions for economic growth are key priorities for me. Ahead of the Chancellor's Budget, my consistent message to the Westminster Government was that we needed a Budget that supported workers, families and small- and medium-sized businesses. I welcome the removal of the two-child limit, which will help to lift thousands of children here out of poverty. That was the right, if not long overdue, decision to make. I also welcome the Chancellor's decision to increase both the minimum wage and the living wage. Those important steps will support our lowest-paid workers. However, the Chancellor's decision to freeze income thresholds will impose an additional tax burden on thousands of workers and their families. That will limit their ability to cope with the rising costs of living and reduce their spend in local businesses. I am disappointed that there was not more support in the Budget for businesses. That was a missed opportunity to allow us to grow and support our local economy. The Chancellor has neither gone far enough to invest in our stretched public services nor taken steps to support economic growth. I will outline today what the Budget means for our public finances, the impact of the tax measures that were announced and my next steps as Finance Minister to support our public finances and public services in the time ahead. First, I will turn to our public finances. While I welcome the additional £370 million of Barnett funding that was announced, the Chancellor could, and should, have gone further. The allocation provides some £240 million for day-to-day spending over the four years from 2025-26 to 2028-29 and £130 million for capital investment over four years from 2026-27 to 2029-2030. While that may sound like a substantial allocation, the reality is that, when taken over the four-year Budget period, it falls far short of what is needed. The additional funding that has been provided will not undo the damage that has been caused by years of British Government underfunding of our public services and is insufficient to plug current and future funding gaps. It is unquestionable that our public services are facing increased demand and increased pressures, with increased costs to deliver the services that people rely on. The announcement provides just £18·8 million in 2025-26. While I anticipate that Westminster’s spring Supplementary Estimates will provide some modest additional funding uplifts for 2025-26, the exact amount remains uncertain. What is clear, however, is that it will not come close to addressing the level of pressures that the Executive are facing this year. Each Minister must strive to improve efficiency in the delivery of our public services, ensuring that every pound of funding delivers maximum value. All Departments must continue to take all necessary actions to manage their overcommitments and to reduce any overspends in this financial year. The measures that have been announced will result in the British Government’s tax take rising to an all-time high. Yet, despite the Budget resulting in an additional £26 billion being raised by 2029-2030, it is extremely disappointing how little additional funding is being provided to the Executive. For public services to be delivered, you need tax income. I am not arguing against collecting tax revenue, but it must be done in a fair and equitable way. Those with the broadest shoulders should carry the biggest tax burden. I do not think that the Chancellor has got that right in this Budget. The Chancellor’s decision to freeze income tax and National Insurance contribution thresholds until 2030-31 represents a stealth tax, which will impact on workers and their families. Since income tax thresholds were first frozen in April 2021, thousands of low-paid workers have been dragged into paying tax for the first time, while others have been pulled into higher tax bands. As a result of the measures in the Budget, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that, in 2030-31, a basic-rate taxpayer will pay £220 more tax a year, while a higher-rate taxpayer will be charged £600 more a year. That freeze could also affect our pensioners. Pensioners who have income in addition to the state pension could pay more tax as a result of threshold freezes. The Westminster Government’s decision to cap National Insurance contributions on salary sacrifices into pension schemes will also hit workers. The Treasury’s own analysis shows that the cap is expected to affect more than a quarter of basic-rate taxpayers who are using the scheme. The Chancellor also made a number of changes across a suite of other taxes, including increasing tax rates on dividends, property and savings income; an increase in duties on gaming and betting; and a new electric vehicle excise duty, among other measures. Unfortunately, the Chancellor has missed the opportunity to improve the tax system through measures that had been called for locally and, in particular, by not changing the rate of VAT for our local hospitality sector. In the South, hospitality VAT is currently 13·5%, and the Irish Government have announced that, from July 2026, it will reduce to 9%. That will only increase the existing disparity that is already faced by our local sector. A reduction in the VAT rate is crucial so that hospitality businesses here can compete on a level playing field in the all-Ireland economy. The Westminster Government have also failed to make significant improvements to the application of inheritance tax on our local farming community. While the Chancellor has announced that the £1 million threshold for the family-farm tax will be transferable between spouses, that is, in my view, insufficient to protect our family-farming sector. Nor did the Chancellor take the opportunity of the Budget to address the lack of resource funding for the local growth fund, which enables the community and voluntary sector to support those who are furthest from the labour market to get back into work. That is a key barrier to economic growth here. I have consistently made the point to the Westminster Government that taxes should be fair, proportionate and progressive, with those with the broadest shoulders carrying the greatest burden. In my view, this Budget represents a missed opportunity to make the tax system more progressive, to significantly increase investment in public services and to deliver the stimulus that is necessary for our economy. Instead, it primarily feathers the nest for the headroom that, the Chancellor thinks, is needed within the fiscal rules that she set, all to appease the financial markets. Top 12.45 pm In my view, the Budget is another illustration of why we need greater powers locally to ensure that our tax system takes account of our circumstances. Having greater fiscal powers would allow us to make different choices, to change behaviours, to spur economic activity or to generate income for public services in a fairer and more progressive way. My Department will intensify work to progress a full fiscal framework that will include consideration of additional tax powers. I am fully aware that Members will have different views on that, but I believe that we can work together and use the evidence base provided by the independent Fiscal Commission to agree where greater control over fiscal powers could deliver real benefits. While I would have wanted a different outcome from the Budget, it gives us funding certainty. I will shortly bring forward a multi-year Budget for Executive agreement, one that will shape our public services for the years ahead. That will give Departments the certainty that they need to plan for the longer term and make much-needed transformational change in the delivery of our public services, despite the Chancellor's not providing the investment required to accelerate the pace of change. The multi-year Budget will, of course, present challenges, not least because the quantum of funding falls short of what we had hoped for. As I said last week, this is one of the biggest decisions that the Executive and the Assembly will make between now and the end of the mandate, and it is important that we get it right. We need to be realistic. There is not sufficient funding to do all that we would want to do or to provide any Department with the level of funding that it will have requested. Agreeing a multi-year Budget in a mandatory coalition will mean that there will have to be give and take on all sides. The statement has provided Members with an overview of the implications of the autumn Budget. While additional funding for public services is always welcome, it must be viewed in the context of a marginal increase only, with demand and the cost of delivering services exponentially rising. While there are elements in the Chancellor’s statement to be welcomed, the Chancellor has neither gone far enough to invest in public services nor helped to boost our economy. The autumn Budget falls far short of what is needed to support the delivery of front-line public services. While the autumn Budget presents challenges to us as an Executive, there is no doubt in my mind that, by working in partnership, we will be better placed to meet those challenges head-on. I stand ready to play my part in supporting workers, families and businesses, first and foremost by putting forward a multi-year Budget that is focused on doing what matters most. Mr O'Toole: Minister, I agree with some of your analysis of the Budget. There are good things, including getting rid of the two-child limit, several bad things and lots of incoherent things. However, we are, fundamentally, not here to debate what is happening at Westminster. You and I are supposed to agree that we want more power brought back here, but only two of the 12 pages of your statement are about things that you propose to do, and there is not that much detail on those. So, to be specific, when will we see a multi-year Budget? Are we to understand that the Executive have even discussed a multi-year Budget? Given everything that you and, indeed, the DUP have said about how awful the UK Government are and about how lots of what they are doing is wrong, will there be specific proposals on revenue raising and fiscal powers in that multi-year Budget, and when will it be published? Mr O'Dowd: The Member seems to have changed his tone since last Wednesday and Thursday. I listened to him and other SDLP representatives who were out on the airwaves welcoming the Budget and challenging the Executive, saying that everything and anything was the Executive's fault. It is good to hear, now that, over the weekend, you have had the chance to properly analyse the Budget, you taking the opportunity to say, "Hold on. The Budget is not that good. We should not have been out praising it, and we should not have been pointing the finger at the Executive for all the woes in this society". Mr O'Toole: No, do your job. Tell us what you are doing. Mr O'Dowd: I am about to tell you want I am doing, if you would — [Interruption.] Mr O'Dowd: Somebody said something from the Back Benches. I am not sure what it was. I will be bring a multi-year Budget to my Executive colleagues. Mr O'Toole: When? Mr O'Dowd: The Chancellor's Budget was last week, and the Executive have not met since then. I will bring a multi-year Budget once I have had the full opportunity to analyse the implications of the Budget and all the returns thus far from my Executive colleagues. I will bring that Budget to my Executive colleagues before the Christmas break. They will then have to decide whether they agree with the draft Budget, and it may require more analysis, because it is the most important decision that the Executive will take. The Member talks about revenue-raising measures. The Member keeps raising the matter, so which revenue-raising measures would he like to bring forward? Whom does he want to tax and how? Whom do you want to tax? [Interruption] Do you want to follow the example of [Interruption.] Do you want to follow the example of your sister party, the Labour Party, and tax low earners? That was the Budget that you welcomed last week. The Budget that you welcomed last week taxes low earners. Miss Dolan: I welcome the Minister's statement. Minister, will you outline your plans for progressive and fiscal devolution? Mr O'Dowd: Yes. I have already presented a paper to my Executive colleagues on that, and I intend to intensify engagement with the Treasury on it. If there is one thing that the Budget made clear to me it was that the Executive, the Assembly and this society will have to take greater control of their taxes. I will use the simple example of VAT. The rate of VAT has been set elsewhere; it does not meet the needs of the business community and workers in this society. For example, hospitality here will lose out as a result of the difference between a higher rate of VAT here and a lower rate across the road in the border communities. We will have to get serious about it. I have, as I said, brought a paper to my Executive colleagues, and my engagement with the Treasury will intensify. There are differences of opinion across the Floor on the issue, but we have to reach agreement on it. Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, we agree that that was a bad Budget for those who work. As we move to what you do next as the Northern Ireland Finance Minister, will you support the plans of Gordon Lyons, the Communities Minister, to recover from the Treasury some of the savings from tackling benefit fraud and error to reinvest in Northern Ireland? Mr O'Dowd: Some of us agree that it was a bad Budget for those who work. Others were out welcoming it last week, so they were. [Laughter.] There is a business case with the Treasury with regard to Minister Lyons's proposal. The Treasury has not yet agreed that business case. My officials will continue to work with Mr Lyons's officials and the Treasury on that. When the Treasury responds to the business case, I will respond in due course to Mr Lyons. Ms K Armstrong: Minister, you spoke about doing what matters most and about a draft Budget being put forward to the Executive. How will we reduce energy costs for households and businesses in Northern Ireland, given the extra help that people in GB will get as a result of the Budget? Mr O'Dowd: My understanding is that the Treasury has undertaken to work with the Executive, in particular the Department for the Economy, to see how it can support the Executive in relation to the scheme that was announced, which largely covers England and Wales. We have a different energy scheme here, so that is my understanding of it. There will be ongoing engagement between the Treasury and DFE on how we bring forward a support package, if one is available. Ms D Armstrong: Thank you, Minister, for your statement. I am pleased that you referred to the difficulties with VAT for the hospitality sector in particular. Moving ahead to the multi-year Budget, the hospitality industry and, indeed, retail are looking at a lean season post Christmas. What can you recommend post Christmas for the multi-year Budget to protect businesses that are at risk? Mr O'Dowd: I will bring proposals to the Executive in the near future on a multi-year Budget, setting out, primarily, the spending amounts for each Department. After that, it will be up to each Department how it uses those moneys to support the sectors within its areas of responsibility. A number of weeks ago, I made a statement to the Assembly about how we could support businesses further, and I intend to launch a consultation on that pre-Christmas. Mr Delargy: I thank the Minister for standing up for ordinary workers and families in the North. What impact, if any, will the so-called mansion tax have on people in the North? Mr O'Dowd: As the Member is aware, we are responsible for our own rating policy. If the proposals that were announced recently as part of the Chancellor's Budget were to apply here, they would apply to only about 19 properties. However, I have a paper that sets out how we should increase the cap in relation to rating policy and bring more and more people into a higher level where they pay more rates, particularly for properties over around £485,000. There is merit in what has happened in England, but it would affect only around 19 properties here, and I think that my proposal is a fair way forward. Mr Harvey: I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, can you provide some clarity on whether you are engaging with the Treasury on the design of a scheme to ensure that Northern Ireland households get the benefits of energy cost reductions? Mr O'Dowd: My understanding is that the Treasury has said that there will be a requirement for discussions with the Executive, primarily the Department for the Economy, though my Department is the conduit for discussions between the Executive and Treasury and vice versa. There has been a commitment to start those discussions. Ms Mulholland: Minister, is it still your intention to provide the Minister of Justice with first call at the next monitoring round in relation to the moneys that were hoped for for PSNI recruitment? Mr O'Dowd: Yes, that is a previous Executive commitment that I intend to honour when presenting my next monitoring round paper to the Executive. Mr Brett: Minister, you said that: "Having greater fiscal powers would allow us to make different choices ... to generate income for public services". As Minister of Finance, what are your preferred options for how we will generate additional income? Mr O'Dowd: I want to see the recommendations of the Fiscal Commission report as a starting base for discussions between the Executive and the Treasury on the matter. The Fiscal Commission recommended, as the most suitable for devolution, income tax partial, stamp duty land tax, air passenger duty, landfill tax and the apprenticeship levy, if income tax was devolved. That is a good starting base for the Executive and the devolved institutions here to work our way through. We have to approach this with our eyes wide open. There are challenges and opportunities with this. I am not saying for one second that it is a panacea for all our problems, but the Executive, the Assembly and this society will have to take the challenge on. Mr Speaker: I remind Members to keep standing if they wish to be called. Mr Martin: I will follow on from my colleague's question. The Minister just highlighted a range of fiscal powers that he would like to see, and he mentioned income tax as one of them. If income tax was devolved, what would he plan to do with that? Mr O'Dowd: First of all, we have to get it devolved, and then, at that moment in time, the Executive would collectively have to consider our economic position, understand the figures and decide what to do with it. There is no point in me standing here as Minister of Finance, perhaps a couple of years away from any of that being devolved, and saying, "We should do a, b and c", because that would be nonsensical. You would have to make decisions based on your economic position at that time, and that is when you would decide what to do with it. Mr McMurray: Thank you, Minister. Can the Minister update the House on when he next plans to engage with the UK Treasury, given that many measures in the Budget do not go far enough to help businesses, families or the NI Executive's finances? Mr O'Dowd: There is always ongoing engagement between my Department and the Treasury at an official level. The most recent correspondence that I have had with the Treasury in relation to the Budget was immediately after it to discuss the local growth fund. I am concerned that there has been a change to the Budget breakdown given to a number of local authorities in England in relation to the capital/resource split, and I have written to the Minister for Housing and the NIO to ask why the same provision was not offered to our local growth fund. Top 1.00 pm Miss Hargey: Minister, your statement outlines that Westminster does not serve the best interests of people here when you look at the breakdown of the Budget. When will the December monitoring round come forward? Mr O'Dowd: I have now received all the returns from my Executive colleagues. We now have the autumn Budget figures in front of us. I will bring a paper shortly to my Executive colleagues on the December monitoring round. Mr Butler: I thank the Minister for his statement. We all agree that funding is needed for transformational change, and that is in today's statement. We also know that our Departments need to be fiscally appropriate. Is the Minister content with the savings and efficiencies that are being found in each Department, given that the Minister of Health was able to find around £300 million of savings this year? Will he outline what that system looks like? Mr O'Dowd: I am not sure that you can ever satisfy a Finance Minister in that regard, and perhaps you should never be able to do so. I am on record as saying that all our Executive colleagues face significant challenges in the delivery of their mandate, whichever Department they are in. I have commented on the ongoing cooperation and work between me and the Health Minister and my Department and the Health Minister, and I urge other Ministers to show the same level of cooperation. Mr Durkan: It is safe to assume that all parties here welcome the removal of the two-child limit; at least, I hope that they do. Will the Minister confirm that the Executive will implement it here, and can he tell us when? Mr O'Dowd: It will be for the Department for Communities to bring forward a report to the Executive and, I assume, to the Assembly in regard to that. I can confirm to the Member only that I and my party colleagues support the removal of the two-child cap here. Mrs Cameron: I thank the Minister for his statement to the House. He noted that there was no announcement on the local growth fund in the Budget, but the cliff edge rapidly approaches for the voluntary and community sector. What is happening with that fund? Have discussions on revising the proposal for a 70% capital/30% revenue funding split, which will clearly be devastating for the sector, been looked at yet? Mr O'Dowd: I have raised that matter directly and in correspondence with the appropriate Ministries and made my views clear. I gave an update to my Executive colleagues as recently as last week in the Executive meeting. As I said to a Member who asked me a question previously, one of my first actions following the Budget was to write to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the NIO and the Treasury raising my concerns that changes have been made to the budget for a number of local authorities in England but have not been replicated here. Mr Mathison: Minister, you have been clear about the pressure facing all Departments. Will you provide detail on any engagement that you have had with the Education Minister on his plans to live within budget in this financial year and wider plans to transform how we deliver education in the most efficient and sustainable way possible? Mr O'Dowd: How education is delivered is a matter for the Minister of Education. In relation to his budget, I have met him, had significant correspondence with him and engaged with him at the Executive table. I remain open to further engagement with any Minister. As I said, the greater the cooperation between Ministers and me and at official level, the more effective the delivery of the Budget will be. I have always said that it is a hugely challenging task for all Ministers, but we have to work in partnership to achieve common goals. Mr Kingston: With the Budget providing just £18·8 million of additional revenue for Northern Ireland in this financial year, a significant shortfall remains. Minister, you said in your statement that: "Each Minister must strive to improve efficiency ... ensuring that every pound of funding delivers maximum value." What are you, as Finance Minister, doing to encourage, incentivise and lead that efficiency drive? Mr O'Dowd: My Department is not projecting an overspend. I lead by example in that regard. As I have said to a number of the Members who have asked me questions today, I will work with all Ministers to assist them in delivering their budget, and I recognise the challenges that they face. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of each Minister, but all Ministers must work with their Executive colleagues. If one Department overspends, that will impact on all Departments, because it will come off next year's Budget. Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Minister for his statement. Following on from Mr Kingston's question, Minister, will you provide an update on the exact overspend that the Executive face this year? Mr O'Dowd: The monthly out-turn from each Department will give us the latest figure, but the most recent returns gave a figure of around £440 million for the estimated overspend. Mr Speaker: That concludes questions to the Minister of Finance. North/South Ministerial Council: Transport Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure): In compliance with section 52 of the NI Act 1998, I wish to make a statement on the meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) in the transport sector, which was held on Thursday 23 October 2025. I chaired the meeting, which took place in the offices of the NSMC joint secretariat in Armagh. Minister Darragh O’Brien, the Minister for Transport, attended the meeting, and Mike Nesbitt MLA, Minister of Health, attended as the accompanying Minister. This statement has been agreed with Minister Nesbitt, and I make it on behalf of us both. Ministers welcomed the recent completion of the Carlingford lough greenway and acknowledged that there had been an official launch event on 12 September. The NSMC recognised the positive ongoing cross-border collaboration between officials and councils on various greenway projects, including an expert-led report on opportunities to support the development of cross-border greenways that is being reviewed by both Departments. The Council noted the Department for Infrastructure's decision to appeal the judgement against the A5 western transport corridor and the fact that the appeal is scheduled to be heard in December 2025. Ministers welcomed the setting up of a cross-border working group to ensure alignment of all aspects of the delivery of sections on both sides of the border and noted that the Donegal Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) and N2 road infrastructure projects continue to progress, with both Administrations working collaboratively on them. The NSMC noted that both Administrations are fully committed to the delivery of the A5 project. (Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair) Ministers welcomed progress on the development of a project prioritisation strategy for the all-island strategic rail review and the intention to publish that strategy later this year. Ministers noted the significant stakeholder engagement that has been undertaken by the Government of Ireland and the progression of the market-sounding exercise to support their Programme for Government commitment to: "establish air connectivity between Dublin and Derry City airports." The Council welcomed the collaboration that there had been on organising the transport biodiversity workshop, which involved stakeholders from various modes of transport, and the fact that a summary of the discussion and findings from the workshop will be provided at a future NSMC meeting. Ministers noted that engagements between officials on reducing emissions and mitigating the causes of climate change will continue and that a report will be provided at a future NSMC meeting. The NSMC noted that a panel of three operators has been appointed for the Shared Island sports club EV charging infrastructure scheme and that the panel is actively engaging with sports clubs. Ministers welcomed the collaboration on the procurement process for the new train sets for the Enterprise fleet. The Council noted collaboration between Departments in sharing best practice and advancements in transport policy, planning and modelling. Ministers noted that Departments have engaged and will continue to engage on the development of relevant plans and strategies such as the transport strategy 2035, the national sustainable mobility action plan and the Moving Together strategy. The NSMC noted that an information-sharing session had occurred in March 2025 between officials working in sustainable mobility and other climate-related areas. Ministers agreed that officials will continue to participate in further in-person information-sharing sessions. The Council noted the Departments’ engagement on research and innovation, with a specific focus on road safety and hydrogen refuelling. The Council meeting examined two areas on which research and innovation is ongoing: road safety and hydrogen refuelling. The NSMC welcomed the substantive engagement on road safety between officials in the Department of Infrastructure and the Department of Transport that there has been during 2025. Ministers noted that road safety officials have met twice since the previous sectoral meeting to discuss their road safety initiatives and that they have discussed areas in which further exploration and collaboration could take place as part of their commitment to enhancing their working relationship. The Council agreed that officials will exchange information papers outlining their respective experiences of setting speed limits and installing and operating road safety cameras. The NSMC welcomed the fact that the Departments will work together to explore the potential for a workshop on road safety communications. The Council welcomed the progress made on the Belfast-Dublin hydrogen refuelling study, which moved into phase 3 in August. The NSMC noted that the contract for the pre-procurement market engagement report and the business cases have been awarded and agreed that Ministers would return to the matter at the next sectoral meeting. The Council agreed to hold its next transport meeting in spring 2026. My officials and I look forward to working with the Minister for Transport and their officials in all areas of cooperation in the transport sector. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister. I call Justin McNulty to speak on behalf of the official Opposition. Mr McNulty: I thank the Minister for her statement. Legal challenges and judicial reviews (JRs) are causing huge delays to major infrastructure projects and housing developments North and South, including the A5, Casement Park and Metro North. Was that discussed at the North/South Ministerial Council meeting? Does the Minister agree that it would be prudent to bring forward a series of legal and regulatory reforms like those proposed by the Irish Government to accelerate the development of infrastructure and housing? Ms Kimmins: That was not specifically discussed at that meeting. However, I am aware of comments that have come from the Government in Dublin. I intend to watch that situation closely. When we talk about the A5 and look at the significant delays to what is a project to save lives, we see that it has been stopped time and time again by those objecting to it and JRs. As an Executive, we will need to monitor that closely. It is not specific to my Department to tackle the issue, because the use of JRs or, in some cases, the abuse of JRs to stop projects is important for everyone. We will watch what happens in the South closely. Mr Martin (The Chairperson of the Committee for Infrastructure): Minister, you referenced the A5 twice in your statement. In paragraph 200 of his judgement on the A5 appeal, Justice McAlinden said the following: "The DfI statement does not detail or contain any reference to any such evidence being provided by DAERA and, in contrast with the evidence provided by DfE at the hearing of this matter, nothing was forthcoming from DAERA". What did you ask for from the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs? Why did he not provide it to you? Ms Kimmins: As I was not in post at that time, I did not ask him for anything. That probably answers your question. Mr Boylan: I thank the Minister for her statement, which I welcome. The Minister is well aware that we have had a number of tragedies on our roads across the island. What work is she doing with her counterpart in Dublin to get people to think about road safety? Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for his question. Sadly, over the past week or so, we have seen a significant number of road deaths across the Six Counties. I attended the NI Road Safety Awards on Friday a week ago. Sadly, the figures that were quoted at that have increased dramatically in just about a week. That brings to 47 the number of people who have been killed in road traffic collisions this year. A total of 69 people lost their lives last year. It is almost an understatement to say that the devastation that road traffic collisions cause is huge not just for the people who are directly involved but in the ripple effect that it has across all our communities. That is why road safety is an issue for us all as a society. It is an absolute priority for me. The Member will be aware that my Department launched our road safety strategy in the North in 2024. Working with our road safety partners, we aim to reduce road deaths by 50% by 2030. The strategy is steered by the road safety strategic forum, which includes representatives from the PSNI, the Fire and Rescue Service, the Ambulance Service, DAERA, DOJ, DFE and the Public Health Agency (PHA). Road safety is a key measure in the Programme for Government, and, together with our partners across road safety, we are working on a strategic action plan to take us into 2027. A report on the progress of the 2024-25 action plan was published on 30 October. I approved an allocation of just under £2 million to road safety promotion for this financial year. In addition, the road safety partnership has allocated half a million pounds in sponsorship, bringing the total budget to almost £2·5 million. My officials have reinstated a full advertising programme. We have added to our "RoadWise Up" advertising campaign series and have included information on pedestrian safety, motorcyclist safety, drink-driving and a new point-of-danger radio campaign on the safety of children getting on and off school buses. In recent weeks, I have commissioned a new drug-driving campaign, and that will run from 20 November to the end of December. From January until the end of March, my Department will run campaigns that address careless, inattentive driving; mobile phone use; speeding; cyclist safety; and general driver behaviour and the impact of poor choices while driving. Top 1.15 pm The Member asked about the work that we are doing with partners in the South. I will soon announce a consultation on a review of speed limits. That will be of particular interest to most MLAs. We have been working closely at official level with our counterparts in the South to monitor the impact of the changes that have been made in the South and to monitor the progress that has been made. We are also looking at sharing research and knowledge on the use of speed cameras. I am doing a vast range of things in that regard in my role. I am also working collaboratively, because many of our roads cross the border. We share those roads every day. Those of us who represent border consistencies know that, essentially, there is no border because those roads are part and parcel of everyday life. Therefore, it is important that we work as closely as possible and align our key objectives. Mr McMurray: The statement refers to the sharing of information papers on speed limits: have there been any initial discussions about that? Has the Minister considered reducing speed limits in the North, given the recent changes in the Republic of Ireland, Wales and Scotland? Ms Kimmins: We have had those conversations already. As I have just said, I will soon launch a consultation on a review of speed limits. My Department is actively working on that. I hope to make that announcement fairly soon. Ms D Armstrong: Minister, thank you for your statement. I also reference the fatalities on the Derrylin Road in Fermanagh at the weekend. Having been out there, it was clear to me how that accident could have happened. I appeal to DFI to consider replenishing the road markings there — they are desperately in need of it — so that they are more emphatic for drivers. It is an extremely busy North/South road that is used every day by many vehicles, including goods lorries. Minister, was there any indication from the Irish Government of further funding for the A5? On a second matter, Fermanagh is absent from the all-Ireland rail review: was that absence highlighted again? Ms Kimmins: I think that there were three questions there. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Yes, there were three questions there, Minister. Ms Kimmins: The Irish Government have reiterated their commitment to funding the A5. There is no indication that there is any risk to that funding. I am grateful for their support, particularly given the uncertainty that we have experienced for some time. I hope that we will see a positive conclusion to the appeal. The all-island rail review is continually referenced and is very much kept on the agenda of every meeting that I have, whether it is the North/South Ministerial Council or any other engagement that I have as Minister. We will continue to monitor and assess that in the time ahead. Mr McHugh: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a ráiteas. [Translation: I thank the Minister for her statement.] What engagement has been had with the Irish Government in relation to the transport strategy and transport plans? Ms Kimmins: I usually have my iPad with me. Bear with me. On 18 November 2025, my officials hosted a knowledge-sharing workshop with officials from Dublin City Council, Transport Infrastructure Ireland and the National Transport Authority (NTA). That workshop had a transport planning and delivery focus. My officials organised and facilitated the session, including delivering a presentation on the approach and indicative timelines for the transport strategy and draft transport plans. That provided an opportunity to outline our methodology and strategic direction. The workshop also created a valuable forum for collaboration, enabling officials to share experiences, discuss what works well and what does not and to learn from delivery challenges faced by other organisations. My team led discussions on practical steps for organising data-sharing, modelling and the use of analytical tools. Those exchanges will help to ensure consistency, improve decision-making and strengthen the evidence base for our plans. On the basis of the success of the session, we have agreed to continue that style of engagement through 2026, providing regular opportunities for officials to collaborate, share knowledge and embed best practice. Mr Harvey: I welcome the statement by the Minister. Minister, you have elaborated about road safety, and I had the privilege of attending the launch of your drug-driving advertising campaign last week, which was also attended by Road Safe NI and The Road Ahead NI. On research and innovation, will you elaborate a wee bit more about hydrogen refuelling, please? Ms Kimmins: As the Member will be aware, hydrogen refuelling is being looked at globally now. There are really good opportunities to make the shift to using hydrogen refuelling methods, particularly when you look at HGVs and some of the options. Some major companies have already put that in place, so we are keen to look at that. In some of the other sectoral meetings, we have heard about how other areas of work, on a North/South basis, are exploring what solutions are out there and what the benefits of those will be. We are watching that continually to see how we can embed it into good practice across the island. Ms Mulholland: Thank you, Minister. You talked a wee bit about information-sharing and the sharing of knowledge. Has there been any discussion around the sharing of information on disqualified drivers? Ms Kimmins: That issue has been brought to my attention in recent months. We are looking at that with officials because we recognise that there have been specific cases, and some Members in the Chamber have raised it with me directly. My view is that there are potential discrepancies that need to be addressed, so, at this time, officials are working on it to see how we can address it and close that gap. Miss Hargey: Thank you, Minister. You rightly pointed to discussions around road safety, given recent events on our roads across the island. What other engagement is taking place with Irish government officials around other innovative technologies, particularly data-sharing? Ms Kimmins: DFI officials have been working closely with colleagues in the National Transport Authority (NTA) and Dublin City Council to explore how we can share information and approaches to transport planning. Those discussions have focused on practical ways to make data and tools easier to use across organisations and, in learning from one another's experiences, to improve how my Department can plan and deliver projects. An example of that working relationship is how my officials have recently collaborated on the introduction of smart-sensor technology in Belfast city centre. That technology was initially trialled in Dublin city centre, and my officials have engaged with NTA and Dublin City Council to understand which systems work best and how they can be used to monitor and evaluate transport activity. That partnership has helped my officials to ensure that we can make the most of those innovations in Belfast. In particular, those innovations are a key part of the announcements that I have made on traffic congestion alleviation measures leading up to the Christmas period: how we can tweak the measures that we are putting in place for this year, based on last year's experience. That means that, if those measures are not working as well as we hoped that they would, the sensors will allow us to pick that up in real time so that we can make adjustments where needed. Mr Brett: Minister, in your statement, you discuss how officials have been sharing best practice on how to advance transport policy. Does that extend to Hill Street in north Belfast? Your Department committed that the pedestrianisation of that street would be completed by November. It is now 1 December, and the street has still not been pedestrianised. Can you give us a date today for when the pedestrianisation of that street will be completed? Ms Kimmins: Despite its not being explicitly linked to the statement, I am happy to answer the Member's question. As he is aware, there have been delays beyond my control that meant that we were not able to get the pedestrianisation started on the date on which we had hoped that we would. Those were important issues that we needed to address. I am happy that we have overcome those issues and have found a solution, but it has resulted in needing some tweaks to be made to some of the signage. I hope that that will be imminent, and as soon as we have an update, I will make that announcement. However, at this point, the delays are out of my control. Please be assured that my officials have been working extremely hard to get the scheme up and running as soon as possible. Miss Dolan: I thank the Minister for her statement. Minister, what progress has been made on the Sligo-Enniskillen greenway? Ms Kimmins: The Sligo-Enniskillen greenway project is in development, as the Member will know. An early design and route selection phase for the greenway, including the 18-kilometre northern section between Enniskillen and Belcoo, is being led by Leitrim County Council, with funding provided by the Department of Transport. The preferred corridor was published in October 2025, and an appraisal of route options to determine a preferred route within that corridor will now commence. My Department has issued a letter of offer for 50% of the funding, which is £126,000, to Fermanagh and Omagh District Council to support geotechnical survey work to inform the design development process in the North. Subject to the completion of a procurement process, it is anticipated that works will commence in 2026. My officials are also engaged with all parties with regard to funding for the future stages of the project. Mr O'Toole: The Minister mentioned the all-Ireland strategic rail review. I am glad that it was discussed because we want to see progress on that. I understand that just one third of a full-time equivalent official is working on it in the Department. Has the Minister specifically requested from the Finance Minister a multi-year budget line — a capital allocation — to deliver the all-Ireland strategic rail review, so that people can see how progress will be funded? Ms Kimmins: As I said in a previous answer and in the statement, we are waiting on the outcome of the prioritisation, but we will be factoring that into any future budget discussions. Mr McAleer: I welcomed in the Minister's statement the reference to the setting up of the cross-border working group to ensure alignment of the A5. What conversations has her Department had with the working group about how the Donegal TEN-T and the N2 in Monaghan will link with the new A5? Ms Kimmins: I have had numerous engagements with the various committees and cross-border groups that are working on the A5/N2 project. The Member may be aware that work continues to address the Planning Appeals Commission recommendations for the remaining two sections of the scheme. Those recommendations will be subject to separate consultations and decisions in due course. The cross-border working group that has been established to reinforce collaboration on the continued development of the N2 from Clontibret to the border and phase 3 of the A5 from Ballygawley to the border is up and running. Both Administrations continue to collaborate closely on the A5/Donegal TEN-T project interface, including on the mitigation of impacts on the River Foyle floodplain. Regular meetings are taking place with Donegal County Council and the Office of Public Works. Mrs Cameron: I thank the Minister for her statement, in which she spoke of the significant stakeholder engagement undertaken by the Government of Ireland and the progression of the market-sounding exercise to support the Programme for Government commitment to establish air connectivity between Dublin and the City of Derry Airport. A few lines down in the statement, we heard of the engagement between officials in reducing emissions and mitigating the causes of climate change. Will the Minister explain how she manages those two contradictory subjects, which are just a few sentences apart? Ms Kimmins: There is a balance to be struck in all these things, including air connectivity and creating connectivity across the island, and other routes are already in use. Many people who are not using air connectivity are potentially driving up and down those routes, so if we are able to cut down on some of those emissions. However, with everything that we do, it does not mean that we absolutely eliminate; we have to look at things sensibly and try to create a balance with what else we are doing to reduce emissions while giving people a range of options. Mr Durkan: For decades in Derry, the roads in Donegal were the butt of jokes, but now, sadly, the shoe is on the other foot. Obviously, we are aware of collaboration with Dublin on the hopeful delivery of the A5, but has the Minister explored any potential for collaboration on other cross-border routes, specifically, the A2 Buncrana Road? Ms Kimmins: Anything that we can do collaboratively is good. As I said earlier, our roads do not stop at the border. You can see how we worked it out on the A5, and the various sections and the working group that has been set up to address that. There has to be collaboration on all schemes because we have to bring it to the point where we are fulfilling our responsibility and, likewise, where the roads meet. Where we have a joint or shared interest in something that serves our citizens right across the island, we will continue to work with the Southern Government. Mr Dunne: The statement referenced meetings about road safety initiatives. Can the Minister outline whether any of the initiatives discussed will be included in a road safety action plan for 2025-26? Can she also outline why there has been a delay in the publication of any plan, given that it was advised that it was expected in summer 2025? I thank the Minister for meeting the family of the late Jaidyn Rice, who was tragically killed in the summer, with us. That was a reminder for us all of the pain that can be inflicted on us by road safety tragedies. Top 1.30 pm Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for his comments. I also thank him and his colleague for facilitating the meeting with Jaidyn's grandmother. I pay tribute to the Rice family for the commitment and strength that they are showing to ensure that Jaidyn's life will not have been lost in vain. They are channelling their grief into making our roads safer for all road users. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to meet Mrs Rice. That ties into the Member's broader question. I am looking at everything that is available to me to see what we can do to make our roads safer. I mentioned the collaboration and shared working around reducing speed limits and having speed cameras on the roads. We discussed that as part of the engagement last week. Anything that I bring forward will inform future action plans to make sure that we continually narrow the gaps. That feeds into the broader piece around road safety advertising and campaigning to make sure that people realise that we all have a responsibility to play our part. As the House has heard me say before, over 95% of collisions are down to human error, so there are always things that we can do to ensure that, when we drive, we protect not just ourselves and the people with us but other road users, in line with anything else that we can do as a Department. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That concludes questions —. Mr Martin: On a point of order, Deputy Speaker. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Just let me finish this part first, Peter. That concludes questions on the statement from the Minister for Infrastructure. Mr Martin: Thank you very much, and apologies, Principal Deputy Speaker: I think that I called you "Deputy Speaker" at the start of my point of order. The Minister did not answer my question, because, she said, she was not in post at that time. I do not dispute that, but a colleague of hers, the current Finance Minister, was. The Minister took a line with me that —. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Peter, sit down. That is not a point of order. It is not. We have been through this repeatedly: if you are unhappy with the response that any Minister gives you, I advise you to write and put that on the record. Bluetongue Virus: Bangor Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members, as the statement on a suspected case of bluetongue virus was received by the Business Office at 1.10 pm, I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 1.40 pm. The business stood suspended. The sitting was suspended at 1.33 pm and resumed at 1.40 pm. Business resumed. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Speaker has received notice from the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs that he wishes to make a statement. Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that they must be concise in asking their question and that this is not an opportunity for long-winded introductions. Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to make a statement to the Assembly on the recent suspect case of the bluetongue virus (BTV) in Northern Ireland. I intend to use the statement to update Members on the current state of BTV incursion across the UK; the suspect case of BTV at a farm near Bangor, County Down; the immediate disease control actions that have been taken by my Department and next steps; and key measures for industry at this worrying time. Bluetongue is an insect-borne viral disease to which all species of ruminants are susceptible, although sheep are most severely affected. Often, cattle and goats that appear healthy can carry high levels of the virus and provide a source of further infection. The disease is caused by a virus that is transmitted by certain species of biting midges. Animal-to-animal transmission is not a significant method of spread, except through the transplacental route, and germ plasm is also involved in the spread. The species of midge that carries the infection is found in Northern Ireland. Bluetongue can reduce milk yield, cause sickness and reduce reproductive performance. While it can also have major trade impacts, it is a disease of animals, not humans, so there are no public health or food safety issues. As Members will be aware, there have been a significant number of BTV cases across England and Wales in recent years. The total number of cases since July 2025 is 228. There have been no cases in Scotland or the Republic of Ireland. As a result, direct movement of all live ruminants and camelids from Great Britain to Northern Ireland is still suspended. The use of approved unauthorised vaccines in England and Wales does not impact on that. In seeking to progress actions to protect Northern Ireland, I agreed in June of this year to publish DAERA's disease control framework for Northern Ireland for bluetongue virus BTV-3. The framework presents DAERA's surveillance in response to a heightened disease risk of BTV with respect to serotypes — otherwise known as "strain types" — without an approved vaccine and for those with vaccines that have been authorised by the EU in exceptional circumstances. Developed in close cooperation with industry, it details the range of existing and ongoing measures to prevent and detect early disease introduction. They include existing post-import testing for ruminant and camelid animals imported from mainland Europe, with one or more tests required, depending on origin and pregnancy status; midge surveillance carried out by the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) across seven Northern Ireland sites in spring and autumn to detect start and end of vector-active season; and horizon scanning of the mainland Europe, Great Britain and Republic of Ireland BTV disease picture to be aware of heightened risk, learn lessons from other authorities and tailor our approach, as required. The framework also outlined our surveillance-testing protocol, which was reinforced last year to include more comprehensive sampling, including EDTA sampling, to facilitate PCR testing of serology positives. In addition, as Members will be aware, I took the further decision in July of this year to permit the voluntary use of three bluetongue serotype 3 vaccines in Northern Ireland. I turn now to the suspect case. On Saturday 29 November, the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute indicated that two of three cattle samples submitted to the laboratory on 18 November were positive for bluetongue. Neither animal was vaccinated. The samples came from a cattle and sheep farm near Bangor, County Down. I take the opportunity to thank the affected farmer for his ongoing cooperation during such a difficult time. The suspect BTV positive was picked up because of the enhanced surveillance-testing protocol at all Northern Ireland abattoirs, which was introduced in June 2024. That, along with the actions that I have just mentioned, complement the immediate follow-up of any reported cases with veterinary investigation to negate concerns or declare a suspicion. Top 1.45 pm Due to those initial results, as outlined in the framework, a 20-kilometre temporary control zone (TCZ) was immediately introduced around the affected farm on the same day, Saturday 29 November. It should be noted that the samples are now subject to confirmatory testing at the Friedrich Loeffler Institute (FLI) in Germany, the EU reference laboratory and the UK national reference laboratory (NRL) at Pirbright before disease can be either confirmed or definitely ruled out. The immediate disease control restrictions that are now in place mean that moving susceptible species, such as cattle, sheep, goats, deer and llamas and alpacas, on or off premises in the zone and on the affected farm is now prohibited while officials carry out further investigations. Moves direct to slaughter are permitted under a general licence, which is available on my Department's website. It should be noted that such moves are, in part, being permitted as the advice indicates that the risk is minimal. That is because it is likely that we are nearly, if not already, in the vector low period, which means that midges cannot spread the disease in the colder weather. The further capture of midges will allow us to confirm that over the coming days. In addition, DAERA officials were on-site on Saturday morning and confirmed that there were no clinical signs in any of the remaining cattle or sheep on the farm, nor were there any clinical signs in the animals that were sampled at the abattoir. Officials are also tracing any animals that moved on or off the farm during the risk window from 1 October 2025. Any holdings that are identified as having received animals from the affected farm will be subject to surveillance and testing if required. The Department has issued a press release and updated the departmental website with further information on BTV, with specific information for farmers who are in the temporary control zone. The Chief Veterinary Officer (CVO) and officials met the Ulster Farmers' Union (UFU) last night to discuss the situation, and they are directly contacting all farmers in the area by text and email. Further communications will be considered in the coming days, and the most up-to-date information will be available on the DAERA website. As our BTV-free status has now been suspended, moves of live animals to the Republic of Ireland and the EU can be permitted only for direct slaughter. Breeding and production moves will not be permitted either from or to farms that are in the control zone. Animal moves to Great Britain are all suspended while immediate discussions are held between officials to agree on the requirements for moves for slaughter and breeding and production in line with those available to the rest of the UK. As Members will appreciate, this is a developing situation, and we expect clarity on those movements imminently after the necessary meetings take place today. Germ plasm movements out of the zone are not permitted unless they satisfy testing and biosecurity requirements. Furthermore, the effects on the movement of products of animal origin should be minimal. Some individual export certificates may be dependent on bluetongue freedom, but those will be limited in number. The suspected incursion is worrying, and I have outlined to officials my determination that all necessary steps are taken to mitigate any further risks and that all efforts are made to stamp out the disease. My Department will, therefore, immediately test all the remaining cattle and sheep on the affected farm. The results from that testing will further inform actions. In addition, a range of surveillance activities will be progressed in the temporary control zone and will include a ban on any moves except to slaughter. Twenty large farms, randomly spread across the area, will be tested to determine the extent of spread, if any, within the zone. It is important to note that only when further veterinary investigations take place, in addition to a further assessment of potential midge activity, can decisions be made about how long the temporary control zone will remain in place, how long trade restrictions may last, whether any further zones need to be established and how long the current ban on movements within the zone will last. Officials will, therefore, keep affected farmers and the wider industry regularly updated with timely communications. That will include convening a wider stakeholder and industry meeting later today to update them on the current situation. I have also had direct discussions with my counterpart in the South, Minister Heydon, and I plan to discuss the matter with DEFRA colleagues at the earliest opportunity. I will keep in close contact with colleagues in Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland. In the time ahead, I appeal to all farmers to immediately notify the Department of any suspicions of BTV so that appropriate action can be taken. A large range of material is available on the DAERA website, including pictures of the clinical signs and next steps if an incursion is suspected. I also remind the public that, while bluetongue is extremely serious for animal health and productivity, it is not zoonotic, and there are no public health or food concerns. I will ensure that updates are provided, as necessary, to my Executive colleagues and also, importantly, the AERA Committee in the first instance. I will be happy to return to the House if there are any further significant and serious developments in the time ahead. Mr Butler (The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I thank the Minister for his statement and for contacting me at the weekend in regard to the situation. Bluetongue is happening against the backdrop of avian flu and bovine tuberculosis, and the spectre of the veterinary medicines debacle is also hanging over farmers at the moment. Is there anything that we can do to give further confidence to farmers that vaccinations will be readily available post 1 January? Mr Muir: As Minister, I made a decision to allow farmers to have access to the vaccines. That is a decision for them. They are available, and farmers can take advice from their private veterinary practitioner in relation to their uptake. The focus now has to be on eradication. That is why we set up the temporary control zone and why movements are only permitted directly to slaughter, and there is a form available on the DAERA website to facilitate that. Additional testing is under way by the Department. Together, I think that we can stamp it out, but it is important that we all work collectively on the issue and stand united on one message that the temporary control zone and the understanding of it must be respected, and I am sure that it will be. My engagement with the Ulster Farmers' Union has shown that we are in this together, and we are going to work together on it. Mr McAleer: I thank the Minister for his statement and for his communication at the weekend with me, in my capacity as Deputy Chair of the AERA Committee. Minister, this issue is potentially devastating for the farm affected and potentially, but hopefully not, for any other farm that may be impacted on. I appreciate that it is the early days of your investigation, but has any consideration been given yet to compensating farmers who may be very heavily affected? Mr Muir: As Minister, I take the issue very seriously. When the positive test was confirmed on Saturday evening, the Department rolled into action in its response to it, and rightly so. I have also spoken to my counterpart in the South because we are one single epidemiological area, and that is why it is important that we work together on it. We have a policy in place in relation to compensation. It states: "This will be considered on a case-by-case basis, taking account of epidemiological investigation and veterinary risk assessment. However, due to the vector-borne nature of the disease, widespread slaughter is unlikely to be used to control bluetongue. If bluetongue positive animals are culled, compensation will be paid at 50% of market value. Any imported animals that are found to be infected with bluetongue during post-import checks will be culled, unfortunately, with no compensation payable. Compensation will not be payable in the following circumstances: where imported, infected or exposed animals are slaughtered on a discretionary basis as a disease risk, or seriously affected animals are destroyed for welfare reasons by the decision of the owner." Miss McIlveen: I thank the Minister for his statement. The issue is very worrying. I am conscious that it is still considered to be a suspected case, but, given the low temperatures over the past couple of weeks, is it likely that cattle may have been infected for a longer time? If that is the case, and further testing concludes that a number of herds have been infected, what will the next steps be? Will the Department work with industry to determine whether there will be a mass cull, or will there be an alternative plan that will help to build herd resilience? Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Minister, there are four questions there. Mr Muir: First, on how it came about, there are ongoing investigations. It is spread by midges, so it is a bit more difficult to totally ascertain. It is relatively cold weather now, but Members will probably remember that, a few weeks ago, it was relatively warm, so that risk has existed in Northern Ireland. On the risk of bluetongue going beyond that herd, the guide, which I have been going through all weekend, is the disease control framework, and we will work through that in our response. The most effective way to avoid it spreading is to set up control zones and to limit movements and for farmers to be vigilant. If they suspect bluetongue, it is important that they immediately report it and isolate any sick animals. The Department is taking a number of actions in its response. It is conducting additional blood samples of other herds and the affected herd. Traps for midges are being set, and we are going to be testing those. There is also additional abattoir surveillance. Hopefully, through those collective actions, we can progress to eradication. I am very conscious that it is a worrying time for the farming community in Northern Ireland. I did not want to have to come the Assembly about this, especially at this time of year, when we had hoped that we were out of the vector-borne season, but it is important that we respond collectively, and I think that we will. Mr Blair: I thank the Minister for the statement. Will the Minister provide information on any of his engagement with the Irish Government regarding the arrival of bluetongue on the island of Ireland? He touched a bit on that in his statement, but, for clarity, it would be useful to have more information, if he has it. Mr Muir: Thank you, John. I was immediately in contact with my counterpart in the South, Martin Heydon, when the results came through on Saturday evening. I spoke to him yesterday, and we will continue our engagement as Ministers. There is also significant engagement between veterinary service colleagues, North and South, on the issue. It is a threat to our agri-food industry in the island of Ireland, and it is important that we respond accordingly. That is what we are doing. Beyond that, we need to work together as politicians and with the farming community in Northern Ireland so that we have one collective and clear message that a control zone is in place and only moves direct to slaughter are permitted. A form for that is available from the DAERA website. People can download the form, and, if they bring it with their livestock to the abattoir, it should cover them. Mr McNulty: I thank the Minister for his statement. Does the Minister have any concerns about livestock prices at marts and factories and the implications of any drops for farmers and their families? Mr Muir: As Minister, my focus in the situation now has to be on dealing with the consequences of the positive samples that have come through. The best way that we can secure the future of the agri-food industry in Northern Ireland is by moving fast and hard in response to those samples. My officials have been doing that. They did it all day on Saturday and Sunday, until late last night, and again from first thing this morning. That is what we must do, and that is what will secure the future of the agri-food industry. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members will be aware that Question Time starts at 2.00 pm. Questions on the statement will continue after Question Time and the question for urgent oral answer. I suggest that the Assembly takes its ease until then. Thank you. The business stood suspended. (Mr Speaker in the Chair) Top 2.00 pm Oral Answers to Questions Economy Local Businesses: Financial Pressures 1. Mr Durkan asked the Minister for the Economy to outline her plans to ease the financial pressures on local businesses. (AQO 2775/22-27) Dr Archibald (The Minister for the Economy): The recent increase in employers’ National Insurance contributions, persistently high energy costs and the higher input costs driven by inflation are major components of the challenge. Many of the issues are outside my Department's remit, but support exists for businesses on a number of fronts, including support to invest in low-carbon energy to reduce energy costs. In addition, alongside its delivery partners, my Department provides a range of supports for businesses to help them to become more competitive through innovation, skills and support for exploring new markets. Ultimately, businesses will thrive when they have the support available to meet their full potential within the constraints in which they operate. My economic vision is geared towards driving the economic change that we need to ensure that people across the North are able to benefit from that transformation. Mr Durkan: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a freagra. [Translation: I thank the Minister for her answer.] Minister, this is an extremely challenging time for businesses. You outlined some of those challenges, another of which is the increase in the minimum wage, which your colleague welcomed earlier. That will put pressure on small businesses in particular and will, I fear, lead to more unemployment. I appreciate that some of those things are outside your gift, Minister, but are you committed to working with your colleagues to make things easier for the many businesses here that struggle? Numerous businesses closed last year, and it does not look good for many more going into the future. Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. I concur with a lot of what he said: it is a challenging environment for business for a range of reasons. There are lots of cost pressures. All of us will endorse the idea that the lowest paid should have their wages topped up annually, but, alongside other cumulatively increasing costs, that poses a challenge for businesses. I am absolutely committed to working with my Executive colleagues and the Finance Minister in particular to make representations to the British Government about the need for interventions that will support businesses to grow and thrive. Disappointingly, we did not see a great deal in last week's Budget that will deliver on that. When I was Finance Minister, I commissioned research on the cost of doing business that provided an evidence base for Treasury to look at some of the interventions where there are differential impacts in the North. It would have suited the Treasury better to do that, and it would be wise for it to consider that going forward. I am committed to working with all my colleagues to address the challenges that businesses face. I engage with businesses and their representatives regularly in order to understand the issues that have an impact on them. Mr Middleton: Minister, we all agree that all Ministers should work together to ease pressures on local businesses. Do you agree that the proposals in your 'good jobs' Bill will, in fact, increase financial pressures on local businesses? Dr Archibald: I do not agree with the Member in that regard. What we are trying to achieve with the 'good jobs' Bill is to ensure that workers have good terms and conditions and that businesses that are doing the right thing and implementing good policies and supporting their workers are not being undercut by those who are less scrupulous. Working with business organisations and the trade unions, we are charting a way forward with the 'good jobs' Bill that will adopt a balanced approach, benefiting employers and workers alike. Ms Nicholl: In my constituency of South Belfast and, indeed, all constituencies, Christmas is a particularly important time for businesses. What work will the Minister do, alongside her colleague in the Infrastructure Department, to monitor traffic issues, which could have a huge impact on businesses during that important time? Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. She will be aware of the measures that the Infrastructure Minister has taken in advance of the Christmas period to minimise traffic disruption. However, we want people to be out in the shops and on our high streets, spending money and supporting businesses in advance of Christmas, so a certain amount of traffic, which we want to see, is not within that control. I am committed to working with my ministerial colleague to ensure that the festive period is successful for businesses. I endorse the Retail Consortium campaign about being kind to our shopworkers over the Christmas period and not taking our frustrations out on people who are trying to help us. I will be more than happy to work with ministerial colleagues to get the best out of that time. Anaerobic Digestion 2. Mr Butler asked the Minister for the Economy for an update on her departmental scale of resource dedicated to anaerobic digestion as a source for sustainable energy security. (AQO 2776/22-27) Dr Archibald: The energy strategy aims to ensure a secure, affordable and clean energy system for current and future generations by reducing reliance on fossil fuels, increasing local renewable generation and creating a flexible, resilient and integrated energy system that closely monitors and enhances security of supply. Anaerobic digestion supports the energy strategy and the economic vision by enabling the decarbonisation of energy and promoting regional balance through economic activity in rural areas. The anaerobic digestion sector has also benefited from support through the Northern Ireland renewables obligation. The energy system is complex and interconnected, with policy officials being supported finance, analysis and legislation colleagues. It is therefore not possible to provide a precise breakdown of the scale of resource dedicated to anaerobic digestion. My Department, like all Departments, faces a constrained fiscal situation, but we are working hard to bring forward policies and programmes that will benefit the sector and the wider economy. That work includes advancing biomethane actions such as issuing a public consultation on the treatment of connection costs and gas quality standards in early 2026. My Department will continue to collaborate with DAERA, the Utility Regulator and other key stakeholders to support the development of a sustainable biomethane sector. Mr Butler: I thank the Minister for a fulsome and honest-sounding answer. I am glad to hear that the Minister recognises the value of anaerobic digestion and biomethane in particular. Can she outline any ways in which grid connections could be advanced more quickly by using the current legislation rather than waiting for a specific biomethane strategy? Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. It is important that we have the correct regulatory framework in place to support the sector's development and the use of biomethane more generally. As you would expect, we are working on that with colleagues across the energy sector, particularly the Utility Regulator. We are engaging with those who are already doing anaerobic digestion, and there is an opportunity for us, particularly in more rural areas, to better utilise that resource. I look forward to the consultation being published and to making progress in that area. Mr McAleer: Can the Minister indicate when she expects the biomethane policy to be published? Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. The re-formation of the interdepartmental methane group will enable my officials to work with DAERA and other key stakeholders to develop policy. My Department is already taking actions to support that work and is planning to issue a public consultation on the treatment of connection costs and gas quality standards in early 2026. Mr Brett: Minister, the Northern Ireland Audit Office published a damning report on the Department's energy strategy. We have already seen one delay to the renewable electricity price guarantee (REPG) scheme. When will you, as Minister, get to grips with the energy department in the Department for the Economy and deliver on the so-called targets that you are committed to achieving? Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. I am well on record as acknowledging the Audit Office report and indicating that we will implement its recommendations. The midterm review of the energy strategy is ongoing — I know that the Member is aware of that — and will be published in the next few weeks. It will set out the progress that we have achieved to date, which, in some respects, is considerable, and delivery milestones up to 2030 to provide the best opportunity for us to achieve what are ambitious but, of course, statutory targets that we have to achieve. I am committed to ensuring that we work towards that and towards an energy system that secures our energy future on the basis of renewables and of supporting people who live and work here, in particular protecting costs for consumers, which, I think, all of us seek to do. Mr Honeyford: Minister, you said that energy is a complex issue, and I appreciate that. We have had the Audit Office report as well. However, I have repeatedly asked for clarity on this: do you intend to produce a single, comprehensive master plan that will incorporate everything and sit above councils' local development plans, bringing our entire energy system together to allow strategies for biogas renewables and everything else to come together to give us a strategic direction? Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. I know that he has an interest in the area. He will know that we are pursuing a number of policies under the broad category of energy and are making good progress. I view the energy strategy as the plan. The midterm review provides us with an opportunity to set out a clear road map to 2030, bringing everything together. I look forward to sharing that with the Committee and more widely in the coming weeks. City of Derry Airport 3. Mr Delargy asked the Minister for the Economy to outline her Department's support for the City of Derry Airport. (AQO 2777/22-27) Dr Archibald: The City of Derry Airport is a critical gateway for the North, because it provides essential connectivity for the north-west region to London, Manchester, Glasgow and other key cities that support business connectivity and inbound tourism. I welcome the Irish Government's announcement that they will provide funding to support the restoration of the Dublin to Derry route. Promotion of that additional route will be important, and I have asked Tourism Ireland to identify options to best deliver it. On a wider point, to support the airport's long-term sustainability and to help maximise its economic potential, I have committed up to £12 million in investment. My Department is also funding 50% of the £4·6 million cost for the City of Derry to Heathrow route. It is estimated that the London Heathrow route alone delivers a minimum benefit of £15 million per year in GVA for the Derry city region. That highlights the airport's role in supporting productivity and wider regional development. It is an integral part of my wider plans to improve regional balance and ensure that the north-west shares in the economic and social benefits. Mr Delargy: I thank the Minister for her answer and for her and Minister Murphy's support for City of Derry Airport at over £3 million per year, which has allowed the sustainability to introduce the Dublin to Derry route. Minister, what engagement has your Department had with the Irish Government to ensure that that route is not only sustainable but successful? Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his comments and his question. My officials are engaged with their counterparts in the Irish Department of Transport, which is leading the preparatory work to re-establish the Derry to Dublin air service. That engagement has helped to inform a market-sounding exercise that transport officials will publish in due course. It will seek views on demand and specifications for the service and help to determine the best way to connect and support the north-west region. Further cross-government engagement and collaboration will continue as that work progresses. 'Good Jobs' Employment Rights Bill 4. Mr O'Toole asked the Minister for the Economy whether the 'good jobs' employment rights Bill has been drafted. (AQO 2778/22-27) Dr Archibald: My Department continues to work on drafting the employment rights Bill. That work is at an advanced stage and will deliver a substantial Bill that will be the most significant reform of employment law since devolution. Obviously, we have lost two years of this mandate, and I and my Executive colleagues are therefore working to a very condensed time frame. Despite that, my Department is working at pace to deliver a very considerable piece of legislation addressing many of the most complex and critical employment issues facing us, delivering a balanced package that will help prevent positive employers being undercut by competitors using unfair practices and ensuring that workers across the North can benefit from the most significant update of employment rights in a generation. It is important that we get this right, and, to that end, I and my Department are continuing to engage with employers, trade unions and other stakeholders. Top 2.15 pm Mr O'Toole: Thank you. Minister, given that you said that your Department is continuing to draft the Bill, I presume that it is not drafted yet. The 'good jobs' Bill was first trumpeted by your predecessor, Conor Murphy, way back in the early days after restoration in 2024, and you made an oral statement here in April of this year about the Bill progressing. Workers deserve clarity on the progressive legislation that they were and continue to be promised by you and your party. There is real concern that the Bill will either be watered down or timed out. Can you confirm that it will be introduced early in the new year, in time for it to be passed in this mandate? Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question, and I presume from his tone that he supports the principles of the 'good jobs' Bill. I can confirm that we are working at pace to ensure that the legislation is delivered to the Assembly as early as possible in the new year. The drafting is, as I said, at a very advanced stage. It is comprehensive and considerable legislation with many parts to it, and we have been working closely with the Office of the Legislative Counsel to ensure that the drafting is completed as quickly as possible. We will then bring it to the Executive for approval and introduction to the Assembly. Mr Kearney: Minister, can you outline for us how you envisage the 'good jobs' Bill improving the working lives of young people across our entire community, with particular reference to the proposal that tips earned should be held on to by those workers? Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. Many parts of the 'good jobs' Bill will be beneficial to young people. The one that the Member mentioned comes up regularly in the engagement that I have with young people, and, in my opinion, it is an unfairness that many of them face. We are seeking to address that. There are other aspects to the Bill, such as addressing zero-hours contracts and increased flexible working, that will benefit not only young people but people of all working ages. Of course, access to trade union representation will be of benefit to all workers but particularly to young people, many of whom, at times, feel that they cannot raise their voice in work settings. Therefore, that protection from trade unions is important. Also, many of the family supports that we are bringing in through the legislation, including access to carer's leave, neonatal care leave and other progressive measures, are really important and beneficial to young people. I am really keen that we make good progress and get the legislation through the Assembly at the earliest opportunity. Ms Forsythe: Minister, do you now accept that, despite public claims, the Bill will not be introduced to the Assembly in January 2026? Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. It is certainly my intention that the legislation will be introduced to the Assembly at the earliest opportunity in 2026. As I mentioned to Mr O'Toole, we have to ensure that it passes through the Executive, so I am sure that the Member will engage with her ministerial colleagues to make sure that that happens at the earliest opportunity. Mr Dickson: Minister, can you assure the House that there will be no watering down of rights, as the UK Government have proposed to do with Mr O'Toole's colleagues at Westminster? Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. I certainly want to see no watering down of rights. I intend that the Bill that I indicated I would draft will be introduced into the Assembly. Once it is in the Assembly, it is in the ownership of the Assembly, and it will be for the Assembly to finally determine what comes out at the other end. However, I know what I intend and what I want to see. Mr Carroll: Minister, I am sure that you are aware of the Unite the union's hospitality campaign — the 'Get me home safely' campaign — which includes employers getting hospitality workers home safely after they have worked until the late hours of the night and the morning, zero tolerance on harassment and other issues. Can you confirm whether aspects of that will be in the 'good jobs' Bill? Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. Some aspects of that may be covered by the legislation. I would need to look at the campaign in detail to understand all of the asks again. Certainly, I am open to looking at that. Ms D Armstrong: Minister, following the Labour Government's U-turn on their manifesto commitment to grant all workers first-day rights to claim unfair dismissal, will you also recommend the same measure in the 'good jobs' Bill in Northern Ireland? Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. Obviously, we have engaged with counterparts in the Department for Business and Trade as we and they progress our legislation. At times, there are unhelpful cross-references to such things, and I intend that my legislation, as I set out, will progress and be introduced to the Assembly. Domestic Abuse (Safe Leave) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 5. Ms Egan asked the Minister for the Economy for an update on the implementation of the Domestic Abuse (Safe Leave) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022. (AQO 2779/22-27) 9. Mr Brett asked the Minister for the Economy when the Domestic Abuse (Safe Leave) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 regulations will be published. (AQO 2783/22-27) Dr Archibald: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 5 and 9 together. I am fully committed to introducing the legislation to operationalise safe leave during this mandate. The workplace can provide a safe space, and staying in employment can help victims and survivors of domestic abuse to retain their financial independence. However, they may also need time off work to deal with issues connected to that domestic abuse. People in that situation should of course continue to be paid and should not suffer financially. My Department consulted on proposals to operationalise the safe leave Act last year. I hope to publish the findings of that as soon as possible. As well as introducing regulations, my Department will issue supporting guidance for employers and workers to help them navigate the new right. Developing the guidance will entail engaging with key stakeholders to ensure that it provides proper support to workers and employers so that this important right can be accessed by those who need it. I hope that access to paid safe leave from work will help victims and survivors of domestic abuse to access the vital support that they need. Ms Egan: Minister, the Act was passed in 2022 and the longer the delay in implementation, the more we let down victims and survivors. You said that you want to publish your consultation as soon as possible: can you give us any firmer timescales on that? When will victims and survivors who need it be able to take safe leave? Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. I am sure that she shares my frustration that we lost two years of the mandate and the ability to progress vital work like this. It was consulted on as early as possible once the Executive had returned. Obviously, we are progressing a number of important pieces of legislation, and this is one of them. My commitment is that it will be delivered as soon as possible and will be as effective as possible. I gave that commitment to the campaign that was here last week for the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women and Girls. It is important that we get it implemented and operationalised as quickly as possible so that people get that practical support. Mr Brett: This month marks two years since Sinn Féin took on ownership of the Department for the Economy. In that two years, the Act has not progressed one iota. Trade unions were forced to protest outside this Building at the delay. Will you please articulate to the House why, in two years, your Department has not been able to introduce the regulations? Mr Brett: I thank the Member for his question. I am sure that he will not mind me pointing out that his party kept the institutions down for two years and delayed us from taking forward any of the work needed to ensure that the Act is implemented. As I indicated in my response to Ms Egan, we are working at pace to deliver this as quickly as possible. The consultation has been completed since we took ownership of the Department, and I am committed to ensuring that this important legislation is operationalised as quickly as possible. Mrs Dillon: I thank the Minister for the work that she is doing on safe leave. It is important that we get the legislation right, not that we do it quickly. What are you doing, Minister, to work with advocates and the groups and organisations that represent people who have suffered domestic abuse to make sure that the regulations are right and that the guidelines are fitting for those whom they must serve? Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. That is exactly what we need to work towards. The legislation must be effective for those who require it. My Department will engage further with stakeholders, including support groups, employer representatives and trade unions, as it develops effective guidance for workers and employers. It is important that the guidance provide employers with easily accessible information that will assist them in meeting their responsibilities in a supportive manner. It is also important that it provide workers with the information that they need to help them to exercise their rights. The guidance will also include information on the requirement to treat any information provided by workers with sensitivity and due regard to confidentiality. Open Golf Championship 2025: Economic Benefits 6. Mr Robinson asked the Minister for the Economy for her assessment of the news that the 153rd Open at Royal Portrush generated more than £280 million of economic benefit to Northern Ireland. (AQO 2780/22-27) Dr Archibald: I very much welcome the news that the 153rd Open generated £280 million in economic benefit for the North. That figure comprises £89 million of economic impact and £191 million of media benefit. Of the £89 million of economic impact over £40 million was in the Causeway Coast and Glens area. The independent research undertaken points to an increase since the 2019 event of £44 million in economic impact from hosting the championship: nearly double the value of the previous time that it was hosted here. That increase has been attributed to a higher number of spectators, higher daily spending and more visitors staying in commercial accommodation. That was helped by the large proportion of spectators who extended their stay to enjoy the wonderful experiences that we have to offer. It boosted local businesses and provided a platform for building relationships with investors, including an event that I hosted in Derry to showcase the north-west as a location for international expansion. We once again demonstrated our ability to host major events, strengthening our reputation across the world, including generating new tourism opportunities, as our wonderful landscape was broadcast globally to over half a billion households. I look forward to the R&A returning for the next competition soon. Mr Robinson: I thank the Minister for that response. Minister, building on the success of the recent Open, how confident are you that the Open will return to Royal Portrush? What work is under way to ensure that that happens? Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. When the R&A first came here, it indicated that it would come for three competitions. Since then, that has been confirmed on a number of occasions by spokespersons for the R&A, the most recent of which was when the economic impact was announced just a couple of weeks ago. My Department is working with Tourism NI to ensure that that happens at the earliest opportunity. We can all see the clear impact that it has had from on the economy and on tourism, as well as in showcasing what we can do in hosting global events, which is another thing that I will seek to build on. Mr McGuigan: I welcome the work that the Minister is doing to enhance and capitalise on the North's tourism potential. Minister, will you provide an update on the extension of Fáilte Ireland's experience brands into the North? Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. Tourism NI has been working closely with Fáilte Ireland to secure agreement to license the use of the Ireland's Hidden Heartlands brand in the North. We anticipate an announcement in the near future that will enhance opportunities for businesses in the Fermanagh region and strengthen the Ireland's Hidden Heartlands brand. The Wild Atlantic Way and Causeway coastal route are being closely linked through an ongoing Shared Island project that is supporting research, a small capital grant scheme, marketing and shared signposting to bring the two iconic routes together. Tourism NI is playing a key role in that project in collaboration with Fáilte Ireland and Tourism Ireland. Fáilte Ireland is undertaking a review of Ireland's Ancient East and anticipates a brand refresh in the next year. An extension of that into the North could include County Armagh, County Down and County Antrim. Top 2.30 pm I am keen to incorporate parts of the North into all Fáilte Ireland's regional brands. However, Fáilte Ireland owns the brands, so it is ultimately for it to decide how parts of the North might be included. You can be assured that I will be vociferous in my lobbying of it. Mr Speaker: We move on to topical questions. Enhanced Investment Zone T1. Ms McLaughlin asked the Minister for the Economy, after noting that, although there have been two Budgets since the announcement of the enhanced investment zone, which the Chancellor referred to again last week, not a single pound has been released, we do not have a clue what projects will be funded from it and there has been no movement on it, what specific actions she is taking to ensure that that funding is unlocked. (AQT 1831/22-27) Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. I do not agree that no action has been taken. Considerable work has been done by my Department and Invest NI and through working in partnership with businesses across the North to advance propositions for inclusion in the enhanced investment zone. On 16 October, I brought a paper to the Executive, where constructive discussion took place. Further engagement is planned to address the comments that were received as part of that discussion. A revised paper for approval of proposed thematic spend has been submitted. I am hopeful that that will be tabled at the next Executive meeting. Subject to the Executive's approval of my paper, we are on track to secure the necessary approvals from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to enable spending on the programme to commence in this financial year. Ms McLaughlin: Minister, I welcome that news. It is really important that those decisions are made quickly in the Executive, because the Budget offered nothing meaningful for businesses. Firms here are crying out for support and help. Energy prices throughout Northern Ireland are — Mr Speaker: This is Question Time, Ms McLaughlin: it is not speech time. Please ask your question. Ms McLaughlin: — continuing to rise. What other actions are you taking to support businesses in their moment of need? Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. She is quite right: what was in the Budget was a restatement of what we already knew about the enhanced investment zone. It is designed to accelerate productivity and private-sector growth. Targeted interventions are intended to be made in business support, R&D, skills, local infrastructure and support for green industries. As I indicated, we are working to advance agreement as quickly as possible and to get the necessary approvals over the line. Some of the other programmes that involve the British Government have also had a convoluted process of approvals that have to be gone through. We are working as assiduously as possible to ensure that that is achieved. Grid Connections: Regional Balance T2. Ms Finnegan asked the Minister for the Economy, having welcomed her announcement that she will make grid connection charges fairer for rural communities, whether she agrees that that policy will help to promote a more regionally balanced economy. (AQT 1832/22-27) Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. I certainly agree. I am sure that no MLA who is from a rural constituency has not had that issue raised with them. It is simply unfair that many people in rural communities face additional reinforcement charges to connect to the grid. As well as being unfair, the high cost of grid connection is also a barrier to business investment in rural areas. When I visited FP McCann last week, I was told that investment in its plant in Magherafelt had been put on hold due to the cost of connection but that, thanks to the new policy, that investment will now go ahead. Fairer connection charges will also support people who live in rural areas to build homes locally and to stay there and invest in their communities. I have no doubt that, by unlocking that investment and supporting job creation in rural communities, that policy will help to promote a more regionally balanced economy. Mr Speaker: Question 3 has been withdrawn. Sorry: Ms Finnegan. Ms Finnegan: I thank the Minister for her answer. Can she provide detail on when the policy will come into effect? What arrangements are in place to advise people who are in the process of connecting to the grid? Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for that question. Following my decision, the Utility Regulator is working to modify NIE Networks' licence. A new statement of connection charges will be published in the new year. NIE Networks and the Utility Regulator are committed to working together at pace to bring that change through as quickly as possible. The change will take effect in the first half of 2026. You asked about those who have already submitted an application for connection to the grid. NIE will make contact with all existing applicants with reinforcement elements to discuss how the new policy affects them. It will work with those customers on a case-by-case basis to explain the cost and the process, which will enable the customer to make an informed decision on the approach to best suit their individual needs. Mr Speaker: Question 3 has been withdrawn. Good Jobs: Creation T4. Ms Ní Chuilín asked the Minister for the Economy, given that the Minister has put a real focus on creating good jobs in the economy, for an update on the number of good jobs that have been created this year to date. (AQT 1834/22-27) Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. The most recent official statistics show that 69% of jobs here in the North are good jobs that provide secure employment and a decent wage through permanent non-zero-hours contracts and paying at least the real living wage. That represents an increase in the good jobs rate over the year. In addition, the latest earnings statistics show that median-growth weekly wages have increased by 7·4% from 2024 and that the proportion of jobs paying at least the real living wage has increased from 80% to 83%. It is also encouraging that nearly 200 organisations across the North have committed to paying the real living wage, demonstrating their commitment to fair pay. There is therefore a strong foundation that we need to continue to build on to embed good jobs across all sectors of our economy. Ms Ní Chuilín: Minister, thank you for that response. You talked about "all sectors" across the economy, so how are you working with groups in the Irish language sector, such as GaelChúrsaí, to help Gaeilgeoirí [Translation: Irish speakers] achieve good jobs? If you do not have a response now, maybe you can get back to me with an update. Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. I have engaged with Forbairt Feirste on a number of occasions recently on the Irish-medium economy. We are looking at research to address some of the barriers that Irish-medium businesses might face. GaelChúrsaí is an organisation that supports young people who face barriers to employment and training. I visited it earlier this year. It was set up because a lot of young people who leave school after being educated their whole life through only Irish find that they have limited options to develop their skills as Gaeilge [Translation: in Irish.] GaelChúrsaí delivers vocational training as Gaeilge [Translation: in Irish.] I am pleased that it is now a delivery partner for my Department's ApprenticeshipsNI 2025 and Skills for Life and Work programmes. That will support Irish speakers to gain valuable learning and skills, enabling them to move closer to the labour market and open up support that was not previously available. I was delighted to see that its great work was recognised at last week's Aisling awards, at which it won an Irish language award. It clearly meant so much to it. That is recognition of the really important work on vocational training that it continues to do. North West Regional College T5. Mr Middleton asked the Minister for the Economy, given that she will be aware that, last week, North West Regional College (NWRC) was awarded the prestigious Queen Elizabeth prize for higher and further education — the highest national honour available in the sector — in recognition of its business support centre's work with 400 local businesses, and given the college's unique ability to bridge the gap between education and industry, whether she agrees that her Department should use North West Regional College as a blueprint to grow our economy across Northern Ireland. (AQT 1835/22-27) Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. I know that, like me, he will be well aware of the good work that goes on in North West Regional College and of some of the really positive and constructive relationships that it has with local employers. That is replicated across our colleges in different sectors. I certainly think that we can strengthen the knowledge and experience that our colleges have built up over many years through their engagement with businesses. They are close to the ground and are often able to provide that first level of support for local businesses. I am really keen to build on that further. Mr Middleton: I thank the Minister for her response. Although the FE sector is facing a difficult budgetary landscape, NWRC has been able to punch above its weight. Does the Minister acknowledge that that sector is not just a cost to be managed but an engine to be fuelled and that, if further support were provided to the like of North West Regional College, it could do much more than it currently does? Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. I say very often, when I am engaging with stakeholders across the Department's remit, that skills underpin everything that we are trying to achieve and that our further education colleges are absolutely crucial in delivering programmes of support, whether it is through training or with businesses. Since coming into this role, I have sought, as did Conor Murphy before me, to invest in our colleges. I managed to get some additional funding during this financial year, which has gone towards supporting our further and higher education institutions. Going forward, it is certainly something that I will continue to prioritise. Investment Slowdown and Productivity T6. Ms Bradshaw asked the Minister for the Economy what measures her Department has taken to address the increasing concerns from employers about the slowdown in business investment and the growing gap in productivity between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. (AQT 1836/22-27) Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. Businesses have faced a really challenging environment over the past number of years and again this year, when we had the threat of tariffs being imposed and the uncertainty that was created by that. Productivity is one of my four priorities in the economic vision. It is a complex issue to address, and we are seeking to do that through skills, support for innovation for businesses and investment in the type of business support that will make a difference to costs, for example, by reducing energy costs. Infrastructure also has a huge role to play, so it is one of those issues that we have to seek to address across the Executive, and I am certainly working with colleagues to try to do that. Ms Bradshaw: Thank you for your answer, Minister. How are smaller firms able to avail themselves of those interventions at the same rate as larger companies? Dr Archibald: I thank the Member again for her question. In working with Invest NI, we have tried to ensure that supports are available to businesses regardless of their size. Often, when businesses are at an early stage in their development, some of the first people with whom they engage will be through their local councils, so the support via Go Succeed has been really important, as has signposting businesses to the other types of support that is available to them. We continue to work on that to ensure that our SMEs and microbusinesses, which are the absolute backbone of our economy and make up the vast majority of our businesses, are getting access to the types of support that they need and that they know what support is available to them. That is work in progress, and we are committed to making sure that it achieves positive outcomes. Tourism in South Down: Shared Island Fund T7. Ms Ennis asked the Minister for the Economy how her Department can work more closely with the Shared Island initiative, Tourism NI and, of course, Newry, Mourne and Down District Council to ensure that any available funding can be strategically leveraged to boost tourism in South Down, given that the council recently received significant funding from the Shared Island Fund. (AQT 1837/22-27) Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. I welcome the significant investment in Newry, Mourne and Down District Council through the Shared Island Fund as part of the €23 million tourism shared destination programme. It is important that we continue to optimise that funding opportunity and collaboration across the North for tourism with our other priority sectors. My Department will continue to work closely with Tourism NI and Newry, Mourne and Down District Council to ensure strategic planning and guidance for the development of the tourist industry. It builds on the Carlingford lough review and master plan, including the potential for destination stewardship support, as outlined in my tourism vision and action plan. Tourism NI officials are working closely with Fáilte Ireland to ensure that tourism elements of the allocation, as part of that programme, complement one another on each side of the border, maximising the additional accessibility that the Narrow Water bridge will provide to the area. There are a number of key elements that the destination programme can support on the networks, trails and water access points. We can certainly maximise that to the benefit of the whole region. Ms Ennis: I thank the Minister for her response. Minister, you recently met the chief executive and senior officials from Newry, Mourne and Down District Council to discuss potential tourism projects in South Down that will, as you say, complement Narrow Water bridge when it is completed in 2027. Does the Minister agree that investment in Kilbroney Park, for example, and the restoration of Warrenpoint's iconic baths will be transformative, with the potential to boost cross-border visitor numbers and drive local economic growth? Dr Archibald: My Department continues to work closely with Newry, Mourne and Down District Council to develop projects that will complement the completion of Narrow Water bridge. The projects that the Member has spoken of — Kilbroney Park and Warrenpoint baths — could deliver significant cross-border benefits in terms of growth in our visitor numbers and wider economic benefits. We will be happy to continue to work to support those aims. Top 2.45 pm Justice Mr Speaker: Question 1 has been withdrawn. Northern Ireland Troubles Legacy 2. Mr McGlone asked the Minister of Justice whether she will bring forward a legislative consent motion for the UK Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. (AQO 2790/22-27) 7. Mr Tennyson asked the Minister of Justice for her assessment of funding provision from the UK Government for the legacy system in Northern Ireland. (AQO 2795/22-27) Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): With your permission, Mr Speaker, I propose to answer questions 2 and 7 together. Whilst I welcome progress on addressing legacy issues and firmly believe that victims are entitled to expect transparency, truth and justice via a process that does not introduce further delay, concerns remain about the feasibility of the current proposals with regard to the degree of legislative scrutiny afforded to the proposals and, crucially, how they will be funded. On 11 November, I laid a legislative consent memorandum (LCM) to advise the Assembly that I am not laying a legislative consent motion, at least at this time, as I cannot currently recommend that the Assembly provide consent for the transferred matters in the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. I did so on the basis that there has been a lack of meaningful engagement by the UK Government on the details. I do not have the departmental resources to implement a UK Government policy over which I have no control without abandoning our agreed legislative programme. I also cannot move an LCM without the consent of the Executive, which has not been achieved to date. However, the necessary engagement is under way. Furthermore and crucially, the UK Government have never adequately resourced legacy, and that has not changed with the introduction of the Bill. Indeed, there appears to be no additional UK Government funding proposed for the Northern Ireland Executive arising from the outworkings of the Bill, despite significant resource implications flowing from it. Given the potential implications for my Department and wider justice bodies and the fact that all Executive Departments are already under significant financial pressure, it is not reasonable to expect that additional costs can be met from existing Northern Ireland departmental allocations. I will, however, continue to engage constructively with the UK Government with a view to ensuring that the provisions in the Bill are workable in practice, properly funded and resourced and that victims’ needs and rights remain central in any future arrangements. Mr McGlone: I thank the Minister for her answer. I presume that it is not purely a resourcing issue. Does the Minister have any concerns, as the SDLP does, over elements of the proposal such as the retention of national security vetoes, disclosure to families, protection of hard-won inquests, human rights compliance, the strength of statutory oversight and the independence of the Legacy Commission and the legacy unit in an Garda Síochána? Mrs Long: There are issues on which I would express some concern and some agreement with the Member at a party political level. However, at a departmental level, my main concerns are interference with judicial independence, which, I think, the use of the Advocate General as a backstop will do. There are also issues with the direction on how a coroner should run an inquest, which, again, for me, is crossing into issues of judicial independence. I have concerns about a number of elements of this, but, fundamentally, there is no point in raising expectations when it comes to victims: they have been raised and dashed repeatedly over many years. The only way that this will work, if it is to work at all, is if it is properly funded and resourced so that people can get the answers to the questions that they seek within a reasonable time frame. To under-resource it from the outset will simply ensure that it will not work; it will not be a success. As the Member has rightly said, there are other issues around independence and the engagement of the Irish Government, but those are issues that we will raise at a party political level, . At a departmental level, I am focused on the issues that fall within my remit. Mr Tennyson: I thank the Minister for her answer. Does the Minister agree that some of the positive changes in the legacy Bill will be undermined if inadequate funding is provided? Mrs Long: I absolutely agree with the Member. Dealing with the legacy of the Troubles has never been properly funded by the UK Government. No dedicated funding has been provided to the Department of Justice for the implementation of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. No additional UK Government funding has been signalled to us either. It appears that the expectation of the Government is that any responsibilities falling to the DOJ, the PSNI, the Coroners Service or other devolved bodies should simply be met from existing budgets, which, as Members know, are under significant pressure. The absence of additional funding means that delivery would have to be prioritised against other statutory commitments and would inevitably affect the pace and scale of operational work, adding more distress and delay to victims wishing to avail themselves of the new arrangements and slowing down justice for the wider cohort. Mrs Dillon: Minister, do you agree that, in the absence of the Bill, there is absolutely no reason why the British Government cannot fund the Office of the Police Ombudsman (OPONI) and the PSNI for legacy cases, so that the cases could be dealt with right now? The PSNI does not have the resource to fund them. That happened whilst there was direct rule, and the Government should pay for it. Mrs Long: There is a significant issue with the remaining inquests, which do not fall within the scope of the legacy arrangements, and a significant burden that will be placed on OPONI and the PSNI to service the needs of the Legacy Commission. Whilst the Legacy Commission's costs will be met in full, the organisations that will need to adapt their practices in order to service that body will have no contribution made to their costs. That will come out of the same pot as all the other work that they do. That is not fair. Victims and survivors have already had to wait too long for answers. A lawful, workable legacy framework is essential. I welcome the efforts that have been made to improve on what the previous Government tried to introduce on information and accountability. However, I do not want further uncertainty around this, particularly when it comes to funding, nor do I want the police, OPONI, the Coroners Service and the courts castigated when they are unable to meet the expectations of people who are desperate for information and find that they do not have the funding to deliver. Mr Kingston: Minister, given your public utterances on innocent victims and your party colleagues' adopting language such as "non-combatants" to describe victims of terrorism, will you take the opportunity today to repair trust with the innocent victims? Mrs Long: Anybody who listened to exactly what I said about innocent victims will be well aware that I said that there is no equivalence between those who broke the law and those who were injured at the hands of those who broke the law; that having been a victim does not make you unaccountable for what you did; that you should still be held to account; and that it was not an excuse. Instead of twisting my words, the Member would do well to read the entire content of what I said in that interview. When it comes to repairing trust, I have already engaged with victims' organisations and individual victims. Much of the mischief-making that went on about that interview was wholly and utterly upsetting to those who were led to believe that I said things that I did not say. Domestic Homicide Review: Naming Protocol 3. Mr Beattie asked the Minister of Justice to outline the rationale for not naming a convicted murderer in a domestic homicide review if the family of the victim have waived their right to anonymity. (AQO 2791/22-27) Mrs Long: I understand the distress that families can feel when a pseudonym is used in a domestic homicide review (DHR) rather than the real name of the perpetrator who killed their loved one, particularly when the family of the victim have waived their right to anonymity. However, the fundamental purpose of a DHR is to learn from domestic abuse deaths so that agencies can strengthen their responses to domestic abuse victims and their children, thereby reducing the risk of future incidents. The DHR is not undertaken as a means to hold a perpetrator accountable; that is a matter for the courts, and there is no additional value to be derived in identifying learning in a DHR report by naming perpetrators. Domestic homicide reviews in Northern Ireland are established in statute and underpinned by the 'Multi-Agency Guidance for the Conduct of Domestic Homicide Reviews', which all participants are required to follow. The guidance makes it clear that reports must be anonymised as far as possible. Even where a family waives its right to anonymity and where the courts have found a perpetrator guilty, there is a legal obligation to balance the data protection rights of any living individual included in the DHR. The situation is similar in other jurisdictions. For example, in England and Wales, the vast majority of DHRs are pseudonymised, and, on occasions when families of victims have waived their right to anonymity, a pseudonym has still been used for the perpetrator. Mr Beattie: I thank the Minister for that answer. Domestic homicide reviews are a good thing, and I absolutely welcome them, but the Minister said that there is no benefit in naming the perpetrator when the victim's name is known. My argument is that, for public confidence, there is a reason why we should name the perpetrator in such a case. Will the Minister review that decision on the legislation? Mrs Long: I have looked at that because, unusually, a family waived their right to anonymity in a recent case, so the question arose of whether the perpetrator in the DHR would be offered anonymity when the victim was not exercising that right. However, having reviewed that, I believe that it adds nothing to the process. This is not about holding someone accountable or guilty; it is about finding out whether the services that were involved in the person's life before the homicide could and should have done better and what lessons can be learned as a result. Simply using the DHR to name a perpetrator will do nothing for public confidence. What will do something for public confidence is people seeing the lessons learned from DHRs implemented in practice and better outcomes for victims. Ms Egan: Minister, what work is your Department undertaking to address the learnings that emerge from domestic homicide reviews? Mrs Long: It is for each of the organisations involved to look at what it needs to implement as a result. We have regular check-ups to make sure that the learnings from one domestic homicide review will be carried forward and implemented. Some of those learnings will have already been addressed in the interim period through changes to, for example, procedures and practices in those organisations. Ultimately, it falls to each body, be it the trust, the PSNI or another body, to ensure that it implements the recommendations. As I said, the reviews are regularly discussed and updated. It is important that the overarching learning that comes from domestic homicide reviews is taken on board for future protection. Mr Speaker: Question 4 has been withdrawn. Harper’s Law: Sentencing Bill 5. Mr Brett asked the Minister of Justice to outline any further consideration that she has given to including Harper’s law in her forthcoming sentencing Bill. (AQO 2793/22-27) Mrs Long: In Northern Ireland, a life sentence is already mandatory in any murder case and, in circumstances considered appropriate by the court, can be imposed where a defendant, such as those in the Harper case, is found guilty of manslaughter. Current sentencing guidance also specifically addresses the aggravating effect of attacks on public servants where the victim is engaged in providing a service to the public, and sentences are expected to reflect that. My planned review of further sentencing issues will consider the need to make provision equivalent to Harper's law in Northern Ireland. I intend to commence that review before the end of the year. As we discussed when we met on the issue in the past number of months, I do not plan to include provisions equivalent to Harper's law in the forthcoming sentencing Bill. However, the Bill will create a new offence of assaulting a person providing services to the public, performing a public duty or providing a public service, which will serve as a deterrent to attacks on public-facing workers, including police officers. Mr Brett: I thank the Minister for her answer. Minister, I listened with interest to your interview today on 'The Nolan Show', in which you highlighted some of the barriers to police officers joining the force and how we need to make sure that our police service is reflective of all sections of our community. With that in mind, will you consider supporting an amendment in my name to your forthcoming Bill that would introduce Harper's law in Northern Ireland to ensure that police officers here have the same legal protections as their counterparts in the rest of the United Kingdom? Mrs Long: Whether the Member decides to table an amendment is purely a matter for him. I would have to consider the nature of that amendment. I am not opposed to Harper's law, as, I think, I discussed with you. The issue is this: it has not been used anywhere that it has been introduced, so, in effect, it puts on paper and in statute something that is not being operationalised in practice. My concern is that, if you make it mandatory, there might be situations in which people are charged with a lesser offence in order to avoid the mandatory sentence, which would potentially have a deleterious effect on prosecution. I am happy to continue to engage with the Member about it. I cannot say for sure that the law has not been used; I simply say that, to date, we have not seen any case in which it has been deployed in England and Wales. Thankfully, that may be as a result of there being few cases of manslaughter of a police officer. I am certainly happy to continue to engage with the Member on the sentencing Bill. If not through that engagement, the sentencing review, which should be launched later this month, will be a good vehicle for us to test opinion on the issue. Mr Burrows: In 2013, my officer and colleague Philippa Reynolds was killed by a career criminal, Shane Frane. He rammed her police car and was convicted of manslaughter. The sentence that he got was paltry: a minimum term of six years. He was out not long after that. Will you urgently review your thoughts on Harper's law and make it an absolute priority to protect our police officers from such paltry sentences? Top 3.00 pm Mrs Long: Ultimately, the sentencing that is available for manslaughter includes a life sentence, and the decision on what is handed down in any individual case is up to the judiciary, which is independent and has to assess all elements of a case, such as whether there was intent and whether the act actually took place. That decision will always have discretion. Even were we to introduce Harper's law, we would have to introduce it in a way that meant that it had exceptions, because it would still have to allow for judicial independence and discretion. That is the nature of the system, and it is important that we respect it. I am clear about this: no police officer doing any police work should face any assault when they are out helping the public. When you attack a police officer, you are attacking not just an individual but a whole community that is no longer able to be served by that officer. You are draining resources from the PSNI at a time when it needs them, and you are disrespecting someone who is putting themselves on the front line to keep other people safe. Mr McNulty: If the Minister is refusing to include Harper's law in her forthcoming sentencing Bill, what measures will she take to strengthen the sentencing guidelines for anyone who is convicted of the manslaughter of an emergency worker who is on duty, including police and prison officers, firefighters and paramedics, when carrying out another crime? Mrs Long: The first thing to say is that I am not refusing to include it. I would be unable to include it, because the Executive have already decided on and passed the sentencing Bill in its current form, and it is now in the late stages of drafting. I have indicated that I am happy to engage with the Member who raised the issue today, and, if a private Member's amendment on that were to come forward, I would discuss with him the limitations and give some suggestions about how that might be included. Sadly, however, that would deprive the Assembly of the right to fully scrutinise it and the public of the right to be consulted on it. We are all aware of how important that is. On the seriousness of the offences, I have mentioned that, as part of the sentencing Bill, we are looking at the introduction of an aggravated offence, which will focus on public-sector workers and those who are delivering a public duty or public service. That would be helpful. It is already an aggravating factor to attack a member of the emergency services, and that should be taken into account in sentencing. However, to be clear, sentencing guidance is not for the Department; it is for those in the Lady Chief Justice's sentencing group. They are the people who write the sentencing guidance based on case law and on the legislation that we pass, which usually sets a maxima. That allows them to interpret it for individual circumstances. Adult Restorative Justice 6. Ms Ferguson asked the Minister of Justice for an update on the new pyramid accreditation framework for adult restorative justice. (AQO 2794/22-27) Mrs Long: My Department published a new restorative justice practice standards and accreditation framework on 17 October 2025. That will govern the delivery of future restorative justice work for accredited organisations and practitioners. The framework development has been taken forward in partnership with our protocol lead and a restorative justice working group, with statutory, voluntary and community sector stakeholder representation, which considered and agreed the core elements of the new process. One of the key changes is the introduction of organisational-plus-practitioner accreditation, which was first outlined in the 2023 restorative justice protocol. The three practitioner accreditation tiers are level 1, which is foundation; level 2, which is intermediate; and level 3, which is advanced. Each level requires increasing levels of experience and training. Level 1 practitioners will undertake restorative work in response to incidents that fall beneath the criminal justice threshold but have the potential to escalate to the attention of the police. Level 2 practitioners will undertake restorative justice work relating to formal criminal justice cases, and level 3 practitioners will be accredited to facilitate restorative justice processes relating to sensitive, complex and serious crimes. The level that is awarded will be determined by the practice experience of those who apply. The accreditation application window opened on 17 October and closes this Friday. The protocol lead and an independent suitability panel will then assess the applications and make recommendations on the appropriate level of accreditation, which will be determined on an individual basis. A senior official in my Department will consider and sign off that recommendation. A register of accredited organisations and practitioners will be published on the Department of Justice website in 2026 once the current accreditation round is complete. Ms Ferguson: I thank the Minister for her answer. When NI Alternatives and Community Restorative Justice Ireland presented to the Committee recently, it felt as though they were being pushed to the periphery of the Department of Justice's new system, despite being accredited since 2007. Whether it is from a community or criminal justice perspective, could it be more beneficial to lean on their expertise, particularly for complex and sensitive cases? Mrs Long: We have leant very heavily on their expertise, and it is important to note that they were part of the panel that we engaged with when designing the system. Much of their work is the same as the work that they will do post-accreditation, but other organisations and individuals can offer restorative practice. There is also the opportunity for the organisations already engaged in restorative justice to upskill their workforce and individual practitioners and, hopefully, assist us in delivering restorative practice. Restorative justice will still be delivered by community-based, accredited practitioners using the same values, principles and practice standards that underpin it in the community. As evidenced by youth conferencing, however, the criminal justice system gives access to more victims of crime, who will be offered the opportunity to participate in restorative justice. That is in line with the directive on victims' rights, but it also requires us to ensure that there is a pathway, particularly for the most complex cases, which many restorative practitioners will not have had an opportunity to engage with. Mr Bradley: Minister, can you allay concerns on the ground that the new accreditation framework will lead to the accreditation of unprofessional and undesirable people, which will undermine the many years of hard work in that field? Mrs Long: The purpose of the accreditation process is to ensure that the people and organisations that say that they are accredited by the Department have a regular review of their practice standards, any new qualifications and learning, and are kept up to date with the latest practice. Those who decide to take the restorative route through the justice system must have as much confidence in that route as in any of the other routes through the justice system. It is important that those people are adequately accredited and inspected so that the public can have full confidence, and that is the purpose of our work. Mr Dickson: Will the Minister outline the benefits and the impact of restorative justice approaches and the evidence for that? Mrs Long: There is a wide range of benefits linked to the delivery of restorative justice. First, it is a victim-centred approach that allows the perpetrator to be held directly to account. Important questions can be asked, and the impact of the harm that has occurred to the victim can be shared with the perpetrator, and that can be a transformational experience on both sides. Victims can also witness direct accountability from the perpetrator and influence how the harm will be repaired, and, very often, that feels like a better process than one in which they may feel that the process has moved beyond their control or that they are a bit player in the justice system, and we will all be familiar with that complaint. Out-of-court disposals for suitable cases can reduce the victim's involvement in very lengthy and stressful court proceedings. It also better allows the perpetrators to understand how their actions have affected their victim, their community, themselves and those closest to them. The perpetrators also often appreciate the opportunity to meet their victim to actively participate, express remorse and try to make things right. It can help them to identify what they need to do to avoid further offending and get the support to do so. Our research shows that perpetrators generally have positive attitudes towards the police and law enforcement when they do a restorative justice intervention. Where the police are seen as the facilitators of justice and not just the enforcers, it can strengthen the relationships between the police and the community. Ending Violence Against Women and Girls: Progress 8. Ms McLaughlin asked the Minister of Justice whether her Department holds any data on progress being made on ending violence against women and girls. (AQO 2796/22-27) Mrs Long: Ending violence against women and girls is a cross-Executive priority led by the Executive Office. My Department, alongside the Department of Health, leads on the domestic and sexual abuse strategy, which is gender-inclusive and recognises that those harms can affect anyone. While my Department does not hold specific data on progress against the wider ending violence against women and girls strategic framework, we continue to work closely with the Executive Office to support the delivery of its objectives. However, it is important to recognise that violence against women and girls goes beyond domestic and sexual abuse and encompasses a broader spectrum of harms, which is why the Executive Office leads on that work and the associated data collection. Alongside the domestic and sexual abuse strategy, which was launched in September 2024, my Department has published a comprehensive performance framework to monitor progress for all victims of domestic and sexual abuse. Work is under way to agree the approach to identification of baseline data and data capture to inform future reporting cycles, which will enable us to measure how much we are doing and how well we are doing it on a consistent financial basis. However, the data collected under the domestic and sexual abuse strategy will relate to all victims of domestic and/or sexual abuse, regardless of gender. Ms McLaughlin: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. Ending violence against women and girls is, of course, a cross-government priority, but the PSNI launched the tackling violence against women and girls action plan in September 2022, and the Executive launched their strategic framework to end violence against women and girls in September 2024. Surely, it is really important that, if we know that the two action plans are working, we know the data and track it on a daily basis. Mrs Long: The data is being tracked. The PSNI tracks the data that it has. That is an operational matter that the Chief Constable is engaged in routinely and held to account for, I am sure, by the Policing Board. The Executive Office will track the data in relation to the strategy, which is Executive-wide. My Department clearly will have input into that monitoring, but we are not the sole repository of all actions around protecting women and girls or ending violence against women and girls. We will play our part, but every Department needs to look at those issues and feed into that overall reporting. We do not hold the data. TEO holds the data. Ms Bradshaw: Minister, can you please outline the work that your Department has undertaken to design and implement domestic abuse protection notices (DAPNs) and domestic abuse protection orders (DAPOs)? Mrs Long: On the request of the Assembly in the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act 2021, we have undertaken extensive preparatory work with the PSNI and voluntary sector partners to design a Northern Ireland-specific DAPO and DAPN model that will be both effective and operationally deliverable. Engagement has provided a very strong foundation, but we need to do further work with the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service and the judiciary around the operational processes and court handling arrangements. Cross-agency collaboration has ensured early identification of resolution of key operational IT procedural and safeguarding requirements. We have also learnt from other jurisdictions. There was a detailed fact-finding visit to the Croydon and greater Manchester pilot sites, as well as engagement with officials in Scotland. That insight has enabled officials to refine the model to a`frto3l nlesvoid the challenges that were experienced elsewhere and to ensure that it is tailored to local needs and understands the operational responsibilities around local structures. We hope to introduce necessary regulations in spring 2026 and, subject to Executive and Assembly approval, the preparatory work places us, I believe, in a strong position to begin piloting DAPOs and DAPNs in the second half of 2026 or early 2027. Domestic Violence Cases: Court Delays 9. Ms Sheerin asked the Minister of Justice for an update on her Department's actions to tackle delays in domestic violence cases going through the court system. (AQO 2797/22-27) Mrs Long: Tackling delay is one of the biggest challenges facing the criminal justice system and has been identified as a key priority by me, as Minister, and the Criminal Justice Board and justice agencies.? The speed with which domestic violence cases progress is of huge importance to victims, witnesses, the accused and, indeed, their families and the wider community.?The delivery of the speeding up justice programme is a Programme for Government commitment that supports its safer communities priority.? The programme is a joint cross-justice collaborative effort, under the direction of the Criminal Justice Board, upon which the senior leaders of the criminal justice system are represented, including me, the Lady Chief Justice, the Chief Constable, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the director of the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunal Service and a number of other senior officials, including the Victims' Commissioner. The programme takes a whole-system approach, focusing on reducing avoidable delay, reducing demand, freeing capacity and facilitating more proportionate and effective responses to offending behaviours. It is also aiming to take advantage of technological developments to improve operational processes and the communication between criminal justice organisations and the public.?Earlier this year, the Department secured £20·5 million of transformation funding to support delivery of the programme. The funding is already being used to accelerate ongoing work in the early engagement and out-of-court disposals projects and is a significant boost to progressing this very important programme of work. Ms Sheerin: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a freagraí. [Translation: I thank the Minister for her answers.] During the previous mandate, the sector welcomed the passing of the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act, but, as I understand it, not all elements of that have been implemented, particularly around coercive control and how incidents are often treated as single incidents, which is leading to a delay in perpetrators being brought to justice. Can you advise on what you are doing to implement all the elements of the Act? Top 3.15 pm Mrs Long: The major outstanding bit is the DAPOs and DAPNs because we were not prepared enough to be able to do the regulations in the time frame that the Committee set out in its amendment and there were serious concerns about their operation in other jurisdictions. The coercive control elements of the legislation are operable and are working at the moment. The question is, I suppose, whether people are adequately trained and supported to identify coercive control of all kinds. I will often feed back to colleagues in other parts of the justice system that victims have said to me that they felt that, for example, their financial coercive control was dismissed by the PSNI as simply a civil matter that they needed to take through the civil courts. More work can be done around training, but, as you know, annual training is part of the Act. Therefore, we have the opportunity to revisit that with colleagues on the operational side to make sure that, where, we feel, gaps or trends are emerging, we can close those gaps through training. Mr Speaker: We move to topical questions. PSNI Pay T1. Mr McGlone asked the Minister of Justice to update the House on the potential for a PSNI pay agreement. (AQT 1841/22-27) Mrs Long: Members will be well aware that there has been an ongoing debate on PSNI pay this year. There are two elements to PSNI pay. The first is the contractual element, which has been paid. It is a legal entitlement. The second element is the uplift advised by the Police Remuneration Review Body (PRRB). That uplift is technically a discretional input. However, from my perspective, it is essential that the PSNI's pay keeps pace with pay in other jurisdictions in the UK and that we are able to effect that pay increase as soon as possible. The PSNI currently indicates that it will have an overspend at the end of the year. It is a relatively modest overspend at this point, and it has been coming down steadily over recent months. I have worked with the Department of Finance on a number of issues, but I understand that, given last week's rather disastrous Budget in Northern Ireland terms, we will not have the amount of Barnett consequentials that we had hoped for. However, we have made other provision in the PSNI and my Department to wring out potential savings from the budget that we have at this point in the year. I am confident that we will be in a position to approve PSNI pay as affordable certainly before the end of the financial year and ideally before the end of the calendar year. There is, however, still significant work to be done, and I do not want to get ahead of myself before I go to the Executive and see what the December monitoring round might hold. If we get the money that, it was indicated to me, I would have first call on, which, I believe, is available, and if that promise is kept, I believe that we are in a very good position to do so. Mr McGlone: Thank you very much, Minister. I heard a number of caveats there. Can you guarantee that the uplift, as you referred to it, will be to the satisfaction of the PSNI officers who are waiting for it? Mrs Long: My duty is not to do it to the satisfaction of PSNI officers who are waiting; my duty is to implement the recommendations of the PRRB. I have no idea whether officers will be happy with what the PRRB asks for. My job is to meet that requirement, because that is what maintains broad alignment with forces across the UK. I cannot give a cast-iron guarantee. It would be foolish for any Minister to say that at this point in the year. I can say that the trajectory of the projected overspend by PSNI has decreased month on month. We have done some hard work in the Department and with the PSNI and other Justice arm's-length bodies to see whether more money can be freed up from work that we perhaps had intended to do but have not been able to take forward because of limited resources. I recognise that the PSNI does an incredible amount of work. PSNI officers deserve not just to be praised for what they do but to be paid for it. In conjunction with the Finance Minister and the rest of the Executive, I want to be able to tell them that the pay will come and that they will be paid. That is the most important thing that we can do. PSNI officers should not be at the end of the queue simply because they cannot take strike action. They deserve to be rewarded for their work and the sacrifices that they make. As Justice Minister, my objective has been to ensure that that happens. So far, we have never not paid what the PRRB has advised. Prison Leavers: Employability T2. Mr Honeyford asked the Minister of Justice to provide an overview of her Department's work to support the employability of those leaving the prison system. (AQT 1842/22-27) Mrs Long: A critical element of reducing reoffending is how offenders leaving prison can be stabilised in the community. That means making sure that somebody has secure accommodation, that they have family links where appropriate and that they have access to healthcare and, crucially, a job or education. Without those things, it can be difficult for people to reintegrate into the community. Having a job gives people more than a wage; it gives them purpose, identity and a sense of belonging. It allows people to be seen not just through the lens of their offending but of what they can contribute to society, which is hugely important for rehabilitation. We have invested in education provision and work opportunities in custody in order to increase the potential for employment on release. We also provide learning and skills qualifications through Belfast Met. Employability tutors are based in each establishment, and, through our voluntary and community sector partners, we make significant provision, including through the SkillSET programme, that supports people. We also have representation on the DFC regional labour market partnership, through which we work to ensure that the needs of those in the criminal justice system are considered. That is quite a lot of work, but, most important, in October 2024, we launched the business-led employers' forum for reducing offending. The forum will have its first official meeting on 2 December 2025, and it will be instrumental in business-to-business conversations about how people who have an offending background can be successfully employed. We were delighted that Lord Timpson was at the launch of the forum, because it will be a game changer. I can tell businesses that it will be fine to employ somebody who has an offence on their record, and they will nod and say, "Well, you would say that", but, if another business that has done that successfully can tell them so, it will be much more powerful. Mr Honeyford: I thank the Minister for her response. We have seen great stuff in hospitality with such initiatives. The Public Accounts Committee heard evidence that employability was a key factor in reducing adult reoffending, and security of funding was critical to that. Does the Minister share my concern that the UK Government's failure to adequately replace the Shared Prosperity Fund could have a detrimental impact on the wider efforts linked to the Programme for Government commitment to reduce adult offending and reoffending? Mrs Long: I share the Member's concern entirely. The lack of any clear replacement for the Shared Prosperity Fund risks undermining efforts to reduce offending and reoffending; in fact, the uncertainty about what will follow that programme puts at risk the delivery of programmes in prison. In the prison situation, where there is staff attrition as a result of being put on protective notice, you cannot simply bring in somebody new to take up a post the following week. Those individuals have to go through extensive clearance before they are able to work in prisons. That could create a huge gap in our service provision, particularly with the community and voluntary sector. I am concerned about that, and I have raised it with Executive colleagues. People in the UK Government do not understand just how important the Shared Prosperity Fund has been. We are engaging urgently across Departments to explore what mitigations we can put in place and to press for arrangements that better reflect local priorities. At the moment, however, it seems that the UK Government are absolutely determined to move forward with a process that does not serve this community well. Department of Justice: Capital Budget T3. Mr Dickson asked the Minister of Justice for an update on her Department's projected capital budget needs. (AQT 1843/22-27) Mrs Long: If people are not feeling depressed enough after listening to our revenue budget needs, I will depress them further by telling them about our capital budget needs. The justice system is currently delivered from facilities that are often antiquated and use outdated technology. I will give Members an example of the antiquation: people in Magilligan prison are still housed in Nissen huts that were put there to house Italian prisoners of war during the Second World War. If we are going to make progress, we will need significant capital investment in order to upgrade and modernise the ageing justice estate. Doing so will release savings, because we will have more efficient buildings, more heat and sound controls and other things, but that will require investment. Planned capital projects for the four years from 2026-27 to 2029-2030 will cost, on average, £270 million each year, which would require significant funding above the current £100 million capital budget of my Department. The figure reflects the costs of a number of key departmental projects for the police, the courts, the prisons and Forensic Science, many of which are included in the draft investment strategy. We have to invest in ambitious transformation programmes across the justice estate and to support and sustain investment in our estates, with a focus on rehabilitation and a clear opportunity, as I said, to invest to save. Mr Dickson: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. Will you take us through some of the potential consequences for the justice system if those capital funding projects are not funded? Mrs Long: Our five-year plan highlights the need to modernise an ageing estate. That is a critical element of making the system faster, more effective and more victim-focused. For example, we have courtrooms in which victims and witnesses cannot be separated from the accused, and that can create distress in some of those cases. We will not be able to adequately meet the needs of those engaging with the justice system if we are not able to carry out the required upgrades. It would also reduce the Department's ability to deliver future savings from the planned projects, including estates rationalisation and the use of energy-efficient systems. That capital investment will reduce the need for ever more urgent and expensive maintenance repairs as infrastructure is modernised and replaced. Those of you who watch the weather forecasts as avidly as I do during spells of bad weather will note how often the highest winds in Northern Ireland are at Magilligan Point. It is literally through hope and prayer that that building has held together during all those storms, given the battering that it takes regularly. We know already about some of the significant damage that was done in a previous storm when the wind demolished the walls of the boiler house. The funding that we have already secured from public-sector transformation is a positive step, and it will help us, but we need to do other things. We need new offices and laboratories at Forensic Science headquarters, which, in some places, is being held up internally with scaffolding. We need modular accommodation for the Prison Service, because our prison population is growing. We need to modernise the Magilligan and Hydebank prison estates. There is a new police college and modernisation of the wider police estate, IT transformation and modernisation projects for courts and the modernisation of the Royal Courts of Justice and Bishop Street courthouse, both of which are listed buildings and are heavily used. Out-of-Court Disposals: Consultation T4. Ms Bradshaw asked the Minister of Justice for an update on the public consultation on out-of-court disposals. (AQT 1844/22-27) Mrs Long: Officials are analysing responses to the out-of-court disposals consultation, which invited views on a number of the proposals aimed at tackling delays in the justice system. As is commonplace in the justice system, many of the offences put forward in the proposals are broad in nature and can cover a wide range of offending behaviour from the minor to the major. The broad nature of those cases is evidenced through the options available for dealing with a case, whether by prosecution in either the Magistrates' Court or the Crown Court, which can vary significantly in penalties. That is to be borne in mind, because it is has been raised a lot that penalty notices will in some way be a lighter-touch option. The PSNI will often not proceed with the cases for which we recommend that penalty notices may be of use because it lacks the capacity to prepare the files or because there is a lack of will, even, frankly, on the part of those who have been injured, to go through the hoops. It can often be the thing that gets dropped when the case goes to the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) because it does not think that there will be an opportunity to get a significant penalty at court. If a case makes it through all those hoops and gets to court, often it is dismissed with a fine anyway. We propose that, in cases in which a fine is the most likely outcome, we should simply allow the PSNI to issue a fine and cut out all that middle work, which is consuming resources and time for everyone concerned. Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Minister. Some parties in the Chamber have put into the public domain an extraordinary amount of misinformation about the consultation. Would you like to take the opportunity to set the record straight again on what the consultation actually proposed with regard to assaults on police, assault occasioning actual bodily harm and the PSNI's role in designing those proposals? Mrs Long: I will never shirk from an opportunity to provide clarity. The proposals were developed through a cross-justice working group led by PSNI, and they included measures to reduce pressure on the system through additional powers for police and prosecutors to deal with lower-level offences. That included expansion of the offences that the PSNI can deal with by way of a penalty notice, which it already does for many of the cases that are listed. I am disappointed that the people who wish to criticise the proposals are focusing solely on the more serious examples in the cohort of cases rather than looking at the cases that could fall within that definition albeit at the more minor end. Penalty notices are designed to target first-time or non-habitual offenders for a set number of offences. Once you have had a penalty notice, you have a criminal record. Therefore, you cannot get a penalty notice again, and the case has to go to court. Those notices are a criminal penalty. It is not, as some people were describing it, like getting fined for parking. Parking offences, of course, have been decriminalised; assault has not. It would affect only those cases that are at the lowest end of the scale. Most cases will continue to go through the courts, but one of the reasons why we are talking about the out-of-court disposal system is so that we can use the courts for the most serious cases and speed those up and so that we can ensure that people are punished for lighter offences, which very often get tossed out by the PPS or get a derisory fine from the courts at the end point anyway. To me, it seems much better to allow police officers to use their judgement. To be clear, it will be police officers who will make the judgement, and they will have to take into account the views of the victim of any crime before they-decide to dispose of it via a penalty notice. Top 3.30 pm Mr Speaker: That brings to a conclusion questions to the Minister of Justice. Question for Urgent Oral Answer The Executive Office Belfast City Hall: 19 October 2024 Mr Speaker: Phillip Brett has given notice of a question for urgent oral answer to the Executive Office. I remind Members who wish to ask a supplementary question that they should rise in their places. Mr Brett asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, given their departmental commitments to the elimination of prejudice, racism and hate crime, to confirm whether their office was represented at the event at Belfast City Hall on 19 October 2024 at which criminal damage to a portrait of a former Belfast Lord Mayor occurred. Mrs O'Neill (The First Minister): No. Mr Brett: Thank you, First Minister, for that fulsome answer. Institutional understanding of this place and public confidence in this place are based on the fact that statements made by Ministers in the House are true and accurate, so I will remind you what you said to the House. You stated, as First Minister, on 22 October 2024: "a Sinn Féin employee who worked in the Assembly made the party Chief Whip aware of their involvement in an incident regarding a portrait in Belfast City Hall." — [Official Report (Hansard), 22 October 2024, p1, col 1] You were then contradicted, First Minister, by your Chief Whip in her public statement to the Public Prosecution Service (PPS), when she stated that the individual responsible made no admission to being at the event or knowing about the damage. First Minister, either you misled the Assembly, or your Chief Whip misled the police. Both are very serious. Which one is it? Mrs O'Neill: There have been a number of inaccurate comments and claims made in relation to the events at Belfast City Hall on 19 October 2024, including at the Executive Office Committee last week. The junior Minister said at that Committee meeting that she attended the event as a West Belfast constituency MLA and, equally, as a Gaeilgeoir. She was very clear about that statement then, so let me also be very clear today. That invitation was not accepted in her role as junior Minister. As would be normal practice for all Ministers in TEO. Aisling Reilly forwarded the invitation to the private offices to ascertain whether she could attend in her role as junior Minister. That is the only reason why the invitation is held on file. To be clear, the total information held by the Executive Office is one email, an invitation to Aisling Reilly as a constituency MLA. Aisling Reilly and four other Sinn Féin representatives received the invitation. Aisling Reilly, as junior Minister, did not receive five complimentary tickets. The invitation was not fulfilled in the role as junior Minister. TEO had no further involvement beyond registering the case. TEO did not provide any advice in respect of the invitation. There was no briefing commissioned or compiled from officials, and, for absolute clarity, TEO does not hold any further information in relation to the events of 19 October. Aisling Reilly attended the event as a West Belfast constituency MLA and as a Gaeilgeoir, so, for the avoidance of doubt, the Executive Office was not represented at the event. I have signed off on a written departmental response to the Executive Office Committee, which will confirm all that. The question also refers to our commitments to the elimination of prejudice, racism and hate crime. Let me be clear: many forms of hate and prejudice, racism and sectarianism, antisemitism, homophobia, misogyny and sexism exist in our society. The Assembly can be fully confident that we all collectively have a role to say no to all that and to stand up collectively against any form of intolerance. That is the work that I am focused on getting on with. On what you asked, on 22 October, I did make a statement to the Assembly as Sinn Féin vice president, so you are incorrect in your statement. The events in Belfast City Hall on 19 October have been fully investigated by the PSNI and the PPS, and I said that in the Chamber last week. The PPS has made its decision, and that is the appropriate course of action. Given that there was a criminal investigation, I am confident that the action that Sinn Féin took was entirely appropriate. Mr Sheehan: Does the First Minister agree that we must confront hate and discrimination in all its forms? Mrs O'Neill: Yes, I do, and that is why I said that we collectively have a role, as elected representatives in the Chamber, to stand very firm against discrimination, hate, sectarianism, racism, homophobia, misogyny or anything that we see and to send a very clear collective message that there is no place for this in our society. We cannot — again, this is a collective endeavour — allow these incidents to happen. We cannot allow people to mark out territory or to attack homes. They must be dealt with with the full force of the law. We cannot allow any of those things to become normal behaviour, because, collectively, we are tasked with leadership in this Assembly to try to build an inclusive society. I am certainly committed to that, and I am sure that many others in the Chamber are also. Ms Bradshaw: From the Executive Office Committee's point of view, we are very concerned that we have not been given this information to date. Why has it taken over a year for us to be made aware that the junior Minister did not attend that event in that official capacity? It could have put to bed a lot of the confusion and mistrust that the situation has created. Mrs O'Neill: The question only arises at this moment in time out of political opportunism — not by you, of course, but by others who want to use this issue. The question arose in the Committee last week, and I can assure you, as the Chair of the Committee, that I have signed off on a response to you that will set out very clearly what I have said in the Chamber today. Hopefully that will clarify the matter for you. Mr Allen: Would the First Minister like to take this opportunity to encourage anyone in her party or otherwise to come forward with any information that they may have that may assist the police in their further investigations? Mrs O'Neill: That should not even be a question put to me. Absolutely, of course, all day long. Mr O'Toole: First Minister, with respect, I think that a lot of people will be a wee bit baffled that, a year ago, an individual whom you told us was suspended from party membership and resigned his employment here because of his involvement in an incident will now not face charges, but, more than that, your party appears to have changed its story. So often, there is a kind of omertà that exists with your party, where stories are changed and people get a bit lost. I am afraid that this is true. I think that lots of people will think that that person did face consequences, and that is fair enough. If that person had no involvement and if there are no issues at all, why did he have to resign from his post, why was he suspended from party membership, and will both those roles be restored? Mrs O'Neill: Again, given that there was a criminal investigation, we took appropriate action. I think that that is absolutely correct, and I am very confident to stand over the action that we took at that time. I am not getting into some of the commentary made by many others about an individual. It was the role of the PPS to do its work, and that is now complete. I am satisfied that we discharged our duty, and I am very confident to stand over it. Mr Carroll: I declare an interest as Glór na Móna is in my constituency and I regularly attend community events at the site. Minister, your Department is responsible for ending violence against women and girls, historical institutional abuse, the Programme for Government and leading the Executive response to all sorts of strategies. Do you agree that that is what Members should be focusing on? Do you agree that it is quite pathetic that people are trying to focus on a damaged picture? Despite attempts to try to make it so, there is no evidence of a damaged picture being about racism or antisemitism, and people to my right are grasping at straws. Mrs O'Neill: Yes, I agree with that. The Member will be aware, but I refer to the comment from the artist himself at that time on his view around all that. You are absolutely right that we have a serious problem with misogyny and violence against women and girls in our society. We have serious work to do in this institution, and I encourage Members to focus on the things that really need to be grappled with in our society: the problem with violence against women and girls and tackling the racism and the rise in hate crimes that we have seen, particularly over the past year. That is the business of the people elected to this Chamber, and that is where I am focused. Mrs Dillon: Minister, given the growing diverse and rich community that we are all part of and all live in, can you outline how the Executive Office racial equality strategy can help to confront racism in our society and stamp it out once and for all? Mrs O'Neill: I agree that it is our responsibility to stamp out and say no to racism and to face it down when we see it in our society. You referred to the racial equality strategy; that is a really important piece of work. The strategy is multifaceted, because there are many barriers that people in the ethnic minorities out there in society are facing. We all need to properly understand the data that is available to identify those barriers, if we are to tackle hate crimes, which, unfortunately, are on the rise. The strategy itself looks to how we can support community cohesion, and I am very pleased with the work that we have done, particularly since the summer, in supporting communities that face race-hate-fuelled incidents. It is important that, where those occur, we are able to respond immediately. I am pleased with the work that we have been able to do. All aspects of the strategy are important, but it starts here, with appropriate information, with facing down racism and with the language that is used even in the Chamber. It starts with honesty and taking to task people who peddle myths and create divisions in society and perceptions of divisions and the unequal nature of some things in society. If we work together on that, it will lead to a better and more inclusive society. Mrs Cameron: As a demonstration of commitment to transparency, will the First Minister publicly call on Glór na Móna to release the attendee list for the City Hall event in question? Mrs O'Neill: The Member knows that that is the role of the PSNI and the PPS. Some Members: No. [Inaudible.] Mrs O'Neill: Well, as a matter of fact, folks, it is. I have discharged my duty in my remit; my role as Sinn Féin vice president. Outside that, it is for the PPS, which has made its views known. Ms Sheerin: First Minister, do you agree that all elected reps have a responsibility to human rights and equality and that the language and tone that elected representatives use, in the Chamber and in the media, should be accurate and responsible in terms of human rights and equality, rather than promoting fear? Mrs O'Neill: I agree. I say it time and again, because it is important to underline it. Across the world, you can see how harmful disinformation and misinformation are, particularly in the world of social media where things can be said unchecked. Quite often, a lot of the big companies are not even taking those things on in a responsible way. People look towards us, as political leaders, for some guidance as to the misinformation that we see. Absolutely, we should all be about promoting inclusivity and tackling the hatred that we see sometimes. That is the huge responsibility that we all have as political leaders. The tone of some commentary that we have heard in recent weeks adds fuel to the fire. People elect us to speak up on their behalf and to lead society. We need to ensure that we call out the wrongdoing when we see it. Mr Frew: Minister, you failed to answer the questions from my colleague Phillip Brett and the leader of the Opposition. Will the First Minister explain why her party, Sinn Féin, moved to immediately suspend an employee from the Assembly who, if we are to believe the revised accounts provided by the Sinn Féin Chief Whip, made no admission of being present at or involved in the incident in the City Hall on the night in question? Why would you suspend someone in that regard? Or were you right the first time, when, on 22 October, you said: "a Sinn Féin employee who worked in the Assembly made the party Chief Whip aware of their involvement in an incident regarding a portrait in Belfast City Hall." — [Official Report (Hansard), 22 October 2024, p1, col 1]. Which one is right? Mrs O'Neill: On 22 October last year, I made a statement in the Assembly as Sinn Féin vice president. The events in Belfast City Hall on 19 October 2024 have been fully investigated by the PSNI. The PPS has made its decision, and that is the appropriate course of action. Given that there was a criminal investigation, the actions that I took were absolutely appropriate. I am confident in the action that I have taken. Miss Hargey: Obviously, Together: Building a United Community exists to promote inclusion and to help unite communities. How important do you feel that that policy is, despite attempts today to try to create division and political posturing? Mrs O'Neill: One of the areas that we can be so pleased with in the work on Together: Building a United Community has been how it has brought people together. It has had a really positive impact, and that is why we are now looking at future iterations of it. The good relations programme is match funded, delivering £2·8 million in funding in 2025-26. That supports good relations projects on the ground that we are all aware of in our constituencies. Even since this summer, we have had additional funding provided to fund projects that are about the promotion of integration, particularly given what we saw earlier in the year. I really believe that that will help us to improve community relations and to deliver a truly shared and inclusive society. Top 3.45 pm Ms Forsythe: Will the First Minister ask her party to publish the details of the findings of any internal investigation that was initiated after the former Sinn Féin employee came forward? Mrs O'Neill: As with many of the questions that have been asked today, that is not a matter for the Executive Office. There was no criminal investigation. The PPS and the PSNI did their job. Mr Clarke: While you may have been speaking as the vice president of Sinn Féin when you made the statement, you were still First Minister of the Assembly. In your capacity as First Minister of the Assembly, did you offer to give any information to the police? Did you give an interview to the police, or give them any information that you were in receipt of? Did you avoid all contact? Mrs O'Neill: I think that I have answered that question. I have made very clear the basis on which I — [Interruption.] You may not like it, but the answer is very factual, and I can stand over the position that I took. When I made the statement to the House on 22 October 2024, I did so as Sinn Féin vice president. There was a criminal investigation, and the action that I took was wholly appropriate in the context of that investigation. Mr Brooks: I will have another rattle and see whether we can get past the press office's prepared lines. As has been said, on 22 October, the Minister stated that a Sinn Féin employee had admitted involvement in the incident that led to the criminal damage of the portrait in Belfast City Hall. I am not asking about the PSNI or PPS investigation, but I am asking this: was a Sinn Féin employee involved, or did the First Minister mislead the House? Mrs O'Neill: I am confident in the action that I took. I have nothing to add to what I have said already, folks. Ms Brownlee: Will the First Minister commit to releasing any and all information held by the Executive Office, including any emails or briefings relating to an invitation to junior Minister Reilly to the Belfast City Hall event? Mrs O'Neill: In my initial answer, I stated that there is nothing to be seen and that we will write to the Committee. I have already signed off on the response that will go to the Committee, as I have just stated. That response will set out clearly that there was no briefing and no list of invitees. Junior Minister Reilly did not attend in her capacity as junior Minister, and you know that. Mr Kingston: First Minister, do you believe that it was appropriate that, at the Executive Office Committee meeting that you attended on 23 October 2024, when Harry Harvey and I raised the subject of the damage to the former Lord Mayor's portrait, Carál Ní Chuilín, who is a Committee member, did not recuse herself, given that she had failed to declare a clear conflict of interest, specifically that her son had let Sinn Féin know of his involvement in the damage to the portrait, which Sinn Féin had reported to the PSNI? Mrs O'Neill: Again, that has nothing to do with the Executive Office, and I believe that Ms Ní Chuilín answered that question in the Committee. Mr Bradley: Mr Speaker, I remind Members that any leader or deputy leader of a political party has no right to address the Assembly. The First Minister therefore addressed the Assembly as First Minister. May I ask the First Minister to provide a statement, including her recollection of the account given by the Sinn Féin Chief Whip to the PSNI or the PPS? If not, would she be willing to do so? Mrs O'Neill: I can point out as a matter of fact that I addressed the House from the Back Benches as Sinn Féin vice president, as the Member's party's Ministers do on occasion. I am confident in the actions that I took in the discharge of my duties. I have repeated that on numerous occasions today. Mr Speaker: That concludes questions to the Minister. We will now move —. Mr Brett: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I appreciate your accepting this question for urgent oral answer, but will you outline to the House what avenues are open to Members should a Member, whether speaking as First Minister or from the Back Benches, inadvertently or intentionally mislead the House? It is clear that the comments made by the First Minister on 22 October are in total defiance of the comments made by the Chief Whip in a statement to the Public Prosecution Service. Will you articulate to Members how we can ensure that we find out which Member of Sinn Féin misled the House? Mr Speaker: If the Member wishes to make that case, he should put it to me in writing, and I can then consider what is provided to me. Ministerial Statements Bluetongue Virus: Bangor Business resumed. Mr Speaker: We will now go back to the ministerial statement on the suspected case of bluetongue in Bangor. The next Member to ask a question is Aoife Finnegan. Ms Finnegan: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. [Translation: Thank you, Mr Speaker.] Are we good to go? I thank the Minister for his statement. Should farmers vaccinate their herds and flocks immediately to protect them against bluetongue? (Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair) Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): As I outlined in my statement, I made the decision to make the vaccines available in Northern Ireland. The decision is for individual farmers to take in conjunction with advice from their private veterinary practitioner, and I encourage them to do it. The most immediate focus has to be the eradication of the virus in Northern Ireland. Mr Dunne: I thank the Minister for his statement. Breeding and production moves will not be permitted to or from farms in the temporary control zone (TCZ). That has the potential to have serious consequences for some farms and, indeed, farmers' livelihoods, depending on how long it is in place. What more can be done to support the farmers and the farm businesses that are most impacted? Is there any indication of the length of time that the restrictions will be in place? Obviously, I appreciate that it is a live situation. Mr Muir: Thank you, Stephen. I am aware of the impact of the restrictions, which you outlined. There is the capacity for direct export to slaughter. A form is needed for that, and it is available on the DAERA website. The focus now has to be on vigilance. We in the Department are working on increased testing so that we can follow through on our framework in response to the situation, and then we can move out of the control zone. That is where our focus is at the moment. Let us hope that we are not in this situation for an extended period. That will rely on us all working together. I know the impact that this will have on the farming community. In order for us to best serve the farming community in Northern Ireland and ensure the ongoing success of our agri-food industry, we must be compliant with the regulations. It is absolutely key that we do that. The Department is supporting farmers through the work of the veterinary service. Additional information is on the DAERA website. Together, we will get through this over the time ahead. Ms Egan: Thank you for your statement, Minister. Will you give more details on the temporary control zone in the Bangor area and the rules associated with it? Mr Muir: Thank you, Connie. There is a map on the DAERA website detailing the temporary control zone. I encourage Members to view it and to make their constituents aware of it. It is a 20-kilometre control zone from a holding near the Bangor area. Those who view the map will see that it extends beyond County Down. For example, it goes into east Antrim and the Belfast area. It is important that people acquaint themselves with it. The Department is making contact with farmers in the area by email and text. The rules associated with this situation are pretty simple: there are no permitted moves except for those direct to slaughter. A form is available from the DAERA website that can be downloaded and brought to the abattoir when that slaughter is about to be undertaken. It is important that people are aware of the reasons for that. They are about being able to manage any potential spread of the virus, and that is a key part of our disease control framework in Northern Ireland. Ms Murphy: I thank the Minister for his statement on what is, no doubt, a deeply concerning and worrying time for many in our farming communities. Minister, in your statement, you said that officials will carry out further investigations as the days go on. Will you detail what exactly those further investigations will entail? Mr Muir: Further samples have been sent to UK and EU laboratories, so work will be undertaken on those. In addition, we have increased the amount of surveillance in our local abattoirs. We have set out traps for midges, which we will test. Extra blood samples are being taken not just from the herd in which the animals were detected but from the broader area. We are stepping up that surveillance. We are also asking for increased vigilance and for farmers, if they see anything of concern, to report it to us immediately. If there are any sick animals, they should isolate them immediately. Mr K Buchanan: Thank you for your statement, Minister. You said that the outbreak may have been the result of midges. We are speculating on that. There remains a risk from importing animals from other parts of Europe. Given that it appears that bluetongue is now a reality in Northern Ireland — hopefully, it is not, but let us say that it is — will you now look seriously at implementing restrictions on animal movements from Europe? Mr Muir: There are already restrictions on movements from GB to NI. Since I took up office in February of last year, there has been a request for us to ease those. I am not doing that, because I am aware of the risk to our agri-food sector in Northern Ireland. We have a risk-based approach to everything that we do. Movements into Northern Ireland are very limited and are even further limited within the temporary control zone. It is important that we comply with the restrictions. We will monitor the situation in the time ahead. We are coming towards the end of the vector-borne season — hopefully, the colder weather will help us — but that does not rule out further infection. That is why it is important that we abide by the restrictions put in place on Saturday evening. Ms D Armstrong: Minister, thank you for your statement. I commend you for the swift action that was taken at the weekend. You mentioned at least a couple of times in your statement the fact that there is no risk to public health. What measures are you taking to communicate the message more widely to consumers that meat and lamb are safe products to consume? Mr Muir: Thank you, Diana. That is a really important message. We trade on the basis of people's confidence in our agri-food industry. Bluetongue does not affect humans, so there are no human or public health implications. There is no risk of the disease being contracted or spread through meat or milk. Let me be very clear on that. Mr McGlone: Thank you, Minister, for the swift action by your Department and officials. You said that all animal movements to GB are suspended while immediate discussions are held between officials to agree the requirement for movements. If animals outside the control zone have already been vaccinated, does that make any difference to the restriction on their movement to GB? Mr Muir: Thank you, Patsy. That does not come into the decision-making because no moves to Great Britain can occur until the conditions for those moves are agreed with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and other UK authorities. My officials are in discussion with colleagues in Great Britain to enable those moves to restart as soon as possible. Potential exporters and private veterinary practitioners are encouraged to watch for further guidance from DAERA. That guidance may change as the situation develops. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That concludes questions on the statement. Members, we will take our ease; we are waiting for the Economy Minister for the next item of business. Executive Committee Business Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025 Dr Archibald (The Minister for the Economy): I beg to move That the draft Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025 be approved. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time limit on the debate. I call the Minister to open the debate on the motion. Dr Archibald: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle. [Translation: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.] Today, I seek the Assembly's approval of the draft Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025. As Members will be aware, my Department is progressing legislation to close the non-domestic RHI Scheme, in line with the New Decade, New Approach commitment and Executive approvals. The closure legislation includes a Bill to provide the Department with the powers to introduce closure regulations, and the closure regulations themselves. Top 4.00 pm The Bill was introduced to the Assembly on 6 October and is currently at Committee Stage. With respect to the closure regulations, a public consultation on the proposals for closure concluded on 24 November. A total of 216 responses were received, and I put on record my thanks to those who took the time to provide their views on the closure arrangements. My officials are working at pace to summarise the responses and prepare a consultation report as quickly as possible. I do not intend to go into detail on the proposals for closure today. That is a discussion to be had when the closure regulations are being considered. The draft legislation relates to an increase in tariffs for small and medium biomass installations to be implemented now, in advance of the finalisation of the closure legislation. The current tariffs for small and medium biomass were introduced in 2019 using the best information available at the time. However, substantial movements in fuel prices mean that it is appropriate to increase the tariff. The draft regulations therefore substitute a new schedule 5 into the principal regulations. Its effect will be to increase the tariffs for accredited biomass boilers falling within the small biomass, lower medium biomass and upper medium biomass bandings. The increased tariffs will apply from the day after the regulations are approved by the Assembly. Members will be aware that my Department brought regulations before the Assembly in 2024 to increase the tariff levels for small and medium biomass installations. The tariff levels set out in the regulations before us today have been developed following further analysis of fuel prices carried out by the Department during the course of this year and extensive engagement with stakeholders and independent experts. The draft Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025, which I bring before the Assembly today, are an important step to ensure fairness to participants while closure legislation is being progressed. I would welcome the Assembly's support. Mr Brett (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Economy): As Chair, I rise to support the regulations moved by the Minister. As the Minister has advised, the proposed rule will amend the Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012 to increase the tariff for support payments made under non-domestic RHI schemes to accredited small and medium biomass installations. The increases are for heat generated from December 2025 and are to be based upon readings recorded by Ofgem. The proposed rule is expected to fix the tariffs for those installations for heat generated up to the end of March 2026. The Department has advised that the winter uplift tariffs are essentially the same as the closure payment tariffs that are currently out to consultation. The increase in costs associated with these new tariffs is understood to be around £10 million for the period December 2025 to March 2026. The Department has advised that Treasury has agreed to the increase in costs for the non-domestic RHI scheme. The proposed regulations appear to have been designed following engagement with the Ulster Farmers' Union, the Renewable Heat Association Northern Ireland and the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB), and are in line with the cost models derived by Professor David Rooney at Queen's University Belfast. Officials advised that the new tariffs will generate an internal rate of return of over 12% and are compliant with state aid rules. Members noted that the cost of the new tariffs is well within the £33 million of annually managed expenditure (AME) that is ring-fenced for renewables. Thus, the Committee was assured that the proposed tariff increase will not lead to any increased liability against Northern Ireland's block grant. With that in mind, the Committee was content to support the regulations. I now make a few comments as DUP MLA for North Belfast. First, I thank the Minister and her departmental staff for their commitment to providing the Committee with the information to make this decision. We are in a much better position this time around than we were when previous uplifts were proposed, so from a party perspective and on behalf of the Committee, I am happy to recommend that the Assembly vote for the regulations as outlined by the Minister. Mr Delargy: I acknowledge the work of both Minister Archibald and Minister Murphy in dealing with the aftermath of RHI. From the moment that Minister Archibald took up office, she made it clear that closing the scheme was a necessity, and that builds on the clear commitment to close the scheme set out in New Decade, New Approach. This work ensures that a deeply flawed scheme can be closed while compensating those who entered in good faith and protecting the taxpayer and public services from excessive payouts. The Department has undertaken a rigorous review, corrected long-standing flaws, strengthened oversight and ensured that robust governance structures are now firmly in place. The amendment regulations represent another step towards the completion of that work. The Minister's leadership on the issue has been steady and responsible. Instead of allowing RHI to cast a shadow over the future of renewable energy support, she has made sure that the lessons of the past shape a better and more accountable system going forward. That is part of a wider agenda to build a clean, affordable and secure energy future, which matters to families, to businesses and to all those who want to see good government and good governance in action. I welcome the progress that the Minister has delivered and commend her for the work undertaken to bring us to this point. I support the motion. Mr Honeyford: I echo the comments made by the Chair of the Committee about the departmental staff and the Minister. This time has been a lot different from the previous time. The Committee appreciates the amount of information and the briefings that it has had. The Alliance Party will support the regulations. It is a necessary step in finally drawing a line under the RHI saga. As I have said before, the RHI scheme has been a stain on public confidence and on the credibility of the Assembly. To get it towards closure is of benefit to everybody. RHI has dragged us back for years and held up the kind of modern and ambitious energy strategy that we all need to deliver and that should have been delivered a long time ago. Energy security, as Pádraig has just said, is fundamental. Generating our own home-grown energy is fundamental to families and businesses across Northern Ireland in reducing the price of electricity and, for the wider public, in keeping more money in their pockets, rather than spending it and struggling. Every time that RHI comes back to the Chamber, we are reminded of that scandal, which should never have happened in the first place, and the damage that it has left behind. I see it all the time in the Public Accounts Committee. The shadow of RHI seems to dominate decision-making in the Department and causes fear, caution and hesitation at exactly a time when we need ambition, creativity and momentum to see that energy transition. We look forward to ending that chapter. Today's regulations amend the schedule, and, on paper, they are technical changes. Nothing with RHI is ever simply technical, so everything has to be viewed through the lens of trust, fairness and final closure. The fairness matters: we must be fair to the people who entered the scheme in good faith, invested properly and operated it as intended. It is also about fairness to the public at large, because we will not accept any system dragging us back to days when people were paid for heat that was never generated in the first place. I want to be absolutely clear that, as we move to closure, the Alliance Party will simply not rubber-stamp any repeat of that, and, when it comes to the next stage of closure, we will not give a blank cheque to payments that do not reflect real and genuine renewable heat. I put that on the record, because my concern is that what is presented and what has been presented at the Committee in the upcoming legislation will do that. Tariffs must support environmental transition. Closure must enable us to move forward at pace with renewable schemes but not recreate the mistakes of the past and compensate for failures of oversight. Moving to supervision, even though the rule deals only with tariffs, we cannot ignore the wider issues. We continue to hear suggestions around reducing checks and scaling back inspections, but, given the history here, the Department still has a long way to go to build that trust and credibility. The regulations are fine as far as they go; they make a sensible update and will help to move the scheme towards closure, but they will not and do not rebuild trust on their own. Trust will come only when we have full closure and when that package is fully transparent, fair and evidence-based and is clearly communicated. We support it for moving forward. We are moving forward in the right direction, but we will not support going forward unconditionally, and we will keep demanding accountability, keep pushing for proper oversight and keep insisting that renewable heat policy aligns with our climate objectives. The public deserve and absolutely demand confidence that, when we bring it to a close, lessons have been properly learned — it must be done properly; it has to be done openly — and that, never again, will what happened in the past be repeated in the Assembly. Ms D Armstrong: I thank the Minister for attending. Among my colleagues on the Committee for the Economy, there is unanimity in supporting the statutory regulations. We recognise that the RHI scheme must work towards its end point, which is necessary to allow other renewable energy schemes to come into play. However, as others have said, it is vital that the integrity and transparency of the process be assured. Given that the scheme has been plagued by scandal, mismanagement and a huge decline in public confidence, people today want us to focus on the implications of its closure for the public purse. At this stage, therefore, I support the statutory regulations. I welcome the move forward and the work that you and your Department have been doing, Minister, and I am happy to support the motion. Ms McLaughlin: From the outset, the SDLP has had profound concerns about the process that has led us to this point. The regulations set the tariffs only until March 2026, when the Department for the Economy will take responsibility for administering the RHI scheme. The tariffs that we are being asked to endorse are extremely similar — almost identical — to the tariffs on which the Department has just finished consulting as part of the proposed closure arrangements. In other words, the Assembly is being asked to vote in favour of a tariff structure that is being consulted on as we speak. That is not good practice. It undermines confidence in the consultation process and suggests that the Department has already settled on an outcome long before participants, stakeholders and the Assembly have had a meaningful chance to respond. However, that is only a symptom of a much wider and more deeply troubling pattern. We should never forget that we are here because the Department failed to act when Ofgem first indicated that it intended to hand back the administration of the scheme. The warning was given two years in advance. The Department had sufficient time to prepare a smooth and orderly transition; instead, it hesitated, delayed and allowed the situation to drift. The result is what we see before us: a rushed process, regulations being introduced at the last minute and an Assembly being given far too little time to scrutinise something that deserves the highest level of scrutiny. We are being asked to approve tariffs without having sight of the closure guidance; we are being asked to trust the Department to deliver the inspections needed to ensure that the scheme is not abused without being provided with a detailed plan for them; and we are being asked to accept administration costs that are more than 50% higher than Ofgem's, with no convincing justification. There are also serious questions about the banding scheme. Under these regulations, we could see boilers operating at 5% usage whilst getting payments for their operating at 50%. We understand the theory that the scheme is meant to nudge participants to use the higher usage bands, but we remain unconvinced that that will work in practice and that it represents a fair or an efficient approach. Serious doubt remains about how it can be monitored, verified and enforced. We recognise the wider context: Northern Ireland must continue to support the generation of renewable heat and to honour commitments to those who entered the scheme in good faith, including many in my constituency. The SDLP has always stood by that principle, and we will always stand by those people. Those who acted honestly deserve proper compensation. However, the truth is that, because of the Department's mishandling, delays, lack of planning and failure to act when action was needed, the Assembly has been backed into a corner. The options before us are so limited and so constrained that we have, in effect, been left with no choice but to support the regulations despite the many flaws in how we have arrived at this point. That should be a source of shame for the Department. No Minister, official or Department should take pride in forcing the Assembly into such a position. We will support the regulations because we refuse to punish those who entered the scheme in good faith, but let me be clear that — I hope that this is clearly understood — that support is not an endorsement of the Department's approach or the flawed process that has brought us to this point. Top 4.15 pm Miss Hargey: I thank the Minister for bringing the regulations forward. It is important that we are at the point of looking at the tariffs for the RHI scheme. The RHI scheme was flawed from day 1, resulting in incentivising more burning and in higher costs. In the clear mismanagement of the scheme, a further written assurance was given that tariffs would be guaranteed into the future. The scheme was fundamentally flawed from the very start. This Economy Minister has stepped in to clear up what was, undoubtedly, a mess and to deliver responsible action and finally close the failed scheme. Minister Archibald has brought forward clear legislation that is grounded in independent evidence from Professor David Rooney, ensuring that any tariff adjustment is fair and transparent, with the key point being that it is temporary. Those key aspects were missing from the original scheme. The temporary tariff uplift is exactly that — temporary — and forms a wider part of a carefully managed pathway to closure, not another delay or half measure. Keeping meters running or tinkering around the edges would only prolong a scandal that should have ended years ago. Real closure means ending the scheme outright, which the Economy Minister is committed to doing. The regulations before the Assembly today embed fairness and transparency and, importantly, deliver on the commitment in 'New Decade, New Approach'. I welcome this important next step. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call the Minister for the Economy to conclude and wind up the debate on the motion. Dr Archibald: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. [Translation: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.] I thank Members for their contributions to today's debate and for their support for the proposed regulations. I will pick up on a couple of Members' points. A number of Members referred to the principle of fairness. That is what we are trying to achieve. The regulations seek to address the level of the tariffs to make them fairer for participants and to protect taxpayers. Just to clarify, the £10 million figure is additional per annum, not just for the period between now and the end of March. Perhaps I picked the Committee Chair up wrong on that. David Honeyford and Sinéad McLaughlin highlighted issues with the closure scheme rather than with the tariffs regulations that we are debating. We have heard the Committee's views. The consultation has just closed, and the responses are being considered. The whole point of a consultation is to take views on board. We will seek to do that in the coming days and weeks. We will, hopefully, be in a position to inform the Committee of the outcome of that in January. Sinéad made a point about the tariff. Independent experts modelled the tariff to help support the Department to come to the figures that it has reached. The Department separately did its own analysis, which the expert input affirmed. We have had significant and extensive engagement with stakeholders, including participants and their representatives, to get to the position that we are at on the tariffs, which have broad support. I am content that we are moving in the right direction. The measure is a stopgap, if you like, between where we are and where we will be when the closure legislation progresses. It is about ensuring that participants receive a fair payment in the interim while we move towards closure. It is the right thing to do. I appreciate the support that Members have voiced in the Chamber today, and I commend the motion to the House. Question put and agreed to. Resolved: That the draft Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025 be approved. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members, take your ease while there is a change at the top Table. Thank you. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Blair] in the Chair) Private Members' Business PSNI: Pressure due to Health System Failings Miss McAllister: I beg to move That this Assembly expresses grave concern that failings in the health and social care (HSC) system are forcing the PSNI to act as the service of last resort for those facing mental ill health or other forms of health crisis; expresses further severe concern that the PSNI responds to over 100 concern for safety calls per day on average, with only 3% of those incidents linked to crime; agrees that having to make up for gaps in health and social services is having an unaffordable impact on policing resources and capacity; notes that that additional pressure is being put on policing despite the Department of Health receiving more than half of the Executive’s entire 2025-26 resource Budget; and calls on the Minister of Health to prioritise delivery of the mental health strategy 2021-2031, Health and Well-being 2026: Delivering Together and the Right Care, Right Person model in order to address the unsustainable burden that his Department is placing on police services. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer will have 10 minutes to propose the motion and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. As an amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List, the Business Committee has agreed that 15 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate. Please open the debate on the motion. Miss McAllister: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I rise as spokesperson for Alliance on the Health Committee and as a member of the Policing Board to propose the motion, which highlights the pressures faced by the PSNI due to health system failings around mental health crisis services and calls on the Health Minister to ensure that he plays a proactive role in the implementation of the Right Care, Right Person (RCRP) model. Under the Mental Health (NI) Order 1986, police officers have a power to enter private premises with a warrant and temporarily remove people to a place of safety and a power to remove persons from public places to a place of safety, provided that specified criteria are met. The powers that we are predominantly focusing on today are the powers under article 130, under which we see officers answer "concern for safety" calls and remain at emergency departments with people in mental health crisis. Before I get to the statistics that are outlined in the motion, I must seek clarity from the Health Minister regarding the full implementation of the Mental Capacity Act 2016 and when we might expect to see the safeguards in that legislation enacted. They may not always help in circumstances in which the police are the first responders for emergency deprivation of liberty, but, currently, when the police are the only body able to act on "concern for safety" calls and subsequent deprivation of liberty, it is clear that the Department needs to act on that 2016 legislation. It is no secret that Northern Ireland faces a substantial mental health crisis. Regardless of whether that is due to our unique history, levels of deprivation or many other factors, our rates of mental ill health are the highest on these islands. That has resulted in a specific strain on our health services due to the number of people at crisis point who are trying to access support or are calling for an urgent intervention for their loved ones in a crisis. However, as the motion states, that intervention, which should be a Health response, is, too often, falling to the police. As a result of the strain facing the police, the PSNI conducted a survey over four weeks last year to understand the impact on resources. During that period, at least 8,142 officer hours were spent on "concern for safety" calls, which include calls about people who have walked out of healthcare settings, mental health detention calls, the transportation of people who are in a health crisis and dealing with voluntary mental health patients, which means taking people to hospital who are going there voluntarily rather than detaining them because of concerns about their mental health. Over the course of a year, the 8,000 hours scale up to over 100,000 hours and £4 million of officer time. Of those hours, over 29,000 were spent waiting in emergency departments (EDs), and that location accounted for the highest percentage of the three-plus-hour waiting times at 38%. This is not a new issue; it has been discussed at length at the Policing Board, and colleagues from across the Chamber have joined with the PSNI to advocate about it. It was also discussed at a joint Justice and Health Committee meeting last November, and the PSNI made it clear that the pressure from dealing with mental health crisis calls was unsustainable. Policing has become very much baked into the everyday public sector response to unmet Health demand. As a member of the Policing Board, I have seen the Right Care, Right Person model from its inception in Humberside in 2021 to its replication in other forces. However, over the last four years, we have yet to see its implementation, and that is not for the want of trying on the part of the PSNI. Other forces in England and Wales are now following suit, and Northern Ireland must not be left behind. Unfortunately, I have also witnessed at first hand the detention of people in my constituency of North Belfast, and it is in no way an easy thing to do. A person who is in a mental health crisis is already going through a traumatic and difficult time, and the presence of the police can sometimes exacerbate that. Not only does it result in the unnecessary stigmatisation of those in crisis, who are potentially seen as criminals due to the presence of police officers in stab vests with sidearms, but it is not a therapeutic way of dealing with a mental health crisis. Furthermore, it leaves officers in the extremely difficult position of making potentially clinical decisions when they have no authority to do so. That has been advocated for and lobbied on by the senior leadership of the PSNI, not least due to the issues I have already highlighted around the Mental Health Order. The PSNI and the Department of Justice cannot be found lacking in trying to find solutions to the problem. They have taken a leadership role in implementing the Right Care, Right Person model, ensuring that individuals in mental health crisis can receive the right care from the right person at the right time. The PSNI leadership team has hosted cross-agency meetings with the trusts, the Department of Health and relevant health representative bodies to emphasise the opportunities that a collaborative approach through the model could create for everyone — the police, health workers and, most important, the individuals in need of care. However, despite that, the failings in the health sector limit the success of that approach. The police have been upfront that they cannot and will not leave a person in crisis unaccompanied, meaning that they still spend countless officer hours supporting people who need more appropriate support from healthcare professionals. Let me be clear: it is not the fault of the individual healthcare staff in our workforce. Many GPs, front-line hospital staff and approved social workers are doing everything they can with the resources available to them to support individuals facing a mental health crisis. I hope that we do not hear that the financial situation surrounding the Department of Health is a reason for not implementing Right Care, Right Person, because the resources are already spent. They are spent on the officers waiting in A&E for up to 14 hours a day, who have no choice but to respond to the "concern for safety" calls. They are spent in the community by the community and voluntary sector that picks up the pieces when our statutory services fail. They are spent on the health services when people's mental health is so badly affected that their care and the response to their care is so much more significant where there has been a failure to act early for each person. For what it is worth, I would prioritise spending on investment that would result in savings, either in the future or for another service. Delivering the mental health strategy is a perfect example of that, not least because it will reduce the burden on policing and free up officer time to deal with crime in our community, which is something that every MLA in the Chamber is vocal on, calling for more resource to deal with it. However, most importantly, it is about the individual and the care that they need at the right time. Top 4.30 pm The motion is not about policing stepping back from any and all responsibility in those crisis scenarios. The PSNI has been clear that it wants to fulfil its duties in that area. It is about pressing the Department of Health to ensure that the health sector can fulfil its responsibilities, rather than have the current unfair and unsustainable burden lying with the police, and, ultimately, to ensure that people in a mental health crisis get the right care, by the right people, at the right time. Mr K Buchanan: I beg to move the following amendment: Leave out all after "resource budget" and insert: "and the PSNI being in urgent need of additional funding, with staff and officer numbers at a critically low level; calls on the Minister of Health to prioritise delivery of the mental health strategy 2021-2031, including expediting the delivery of a new regional mental health crisis service, as well as Health and Well-being 2026: Delivering Together; and further calls on the Minister of Justice to work alongside the Minister of Health to implement the Right Care, Right Person model in order to address the unsustainable burden that the Department of Health is placing on police services." Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you. You will have 10 minutes to propose the amendment and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who speak will have five minutes. Mr Buchanan, please open the debate. Mr K Buchanan: Thank you. For the record, Mr Deputy Speaker, I declare that I am a member of the Northern Ireland Policing Board. We welcome the motion tabled by the Alliance Party. Nobody disputes that the issues that it raises are serious, unacceptable and must be addressed. Police officers are under immense pressure, and the public rightly expect us to act. Our amendment adds to the motion. It makes some small tweaks to add to it, but it does not take away from its importance or the motion more broadly. Underfunding has reduced our police service's capability in recent years. The public rightly expect their police service to focus on keeping communities safe, preventing crime and responding swiftly when danger arises. Yet, through no fault of their own, officers are being diverted into roles that they are neither trained for nor resourced to carry out. Every day, police officers are deployed to around 100 concern for safety calls. That is not the most appropriate use of policing resources. It is neither safe nor sustainable. The statistics provided by the PSNI are staggering. Officers spend an average of 14 hours in A&E waiting with individuals who require a mental health assessment. That is time taken off our streets when neighbourhood policing numbers are already critically low. Since 2010, spending on public safety has risen by just 8%, while the Health budget has increased by 88%. In that same period, the PSNI budget has fallen below £900 million. Our officers are being asked to do more than ever before, with fewer resources than ever before. In March 2024, the Chief Constable, Jon Boutcher, put it plainly when he said: "we are becoming the support function for health. ... perhaps if we changed the name to the Police and Health Service of Northern Ireland, we might get some wider budgets." It is unacceptable. During a briefing to the Policing Board, it was noted that the PSNI responded to around 500 ambulance calls when the Ambulance Service could not attend. In just three months, officers spent over 4,500 hours in hospitals supporting people in mental health crises. They dealt with more than 21,000 mental health-related calls. The PSNI is not only keeping our community safe, but it is increasingly acting as a substitute health service. That is not its role. Without proper funding, the PSNI will face impossible choices about what it can and cannot do. That means slower response times, fewer officers on the ground and communities left vulnerable. Policing is not optional; it is fundamental. If we continue to underfund the PSNI, we risk breaking the backbone of public safety in Northern Ireland. There must be a review of the PSNI budget. We must provide the resources that our officers need, and we debated that in the House last week. We must ensure that the police service remains a police service and not a stretched substitute for the health service. While I recognise that the Department of Justice and the Department of Health have acknowledged the overlap in responsibilities, acknowledgement is not enough. The Minister of Health and the Minister of Justice must move beyond discussion and deliver a properly resourced system in which health professionals lead in a health crisis and police officers can focus on keeping our communities safe. The crisis in mental health in Northern Ireland is deeply worrying. Rates of ill health continue to rise year-on-year, and mental health services are becoming ever more stretched. It is regrettable that Northern Ireland spends less per head on mental health services than the rest of the United Kingdom, despite its having some of the highest rates of mental health cases in the UK. It is imperative that the Health Minister works to prioritise funding for those vital services. Expediting a new regional mental health service would also support a more consistent approach to care across Northern Ireland. The Health Minister should continue to progress the mental health strategy. Progress has been made on a number of actions, but there is still more to do. As cases rise and services stall, the strategy needs to be accelerated. Let us be clear: as a party, we will support any measures that improve treatment and support for people who are experiencing mental health challenges. It is incumbent on us all to continue to press the Government for more funding so that we can tackle those serious issues. Without decisive intervention from both Ministers, public safety will suffer, and vulnerable people will not receive the specialist care that they deserve. Mrs Dillon: I thank the proposer of the motion. We will support the motion and the amendment. I begin by recognising the reality that faces the PSNI and, more importantly, the people who find themselves in deep distress or in crisis. Every day, police officers respond to more than 100 concern for safety calls, but only a tiny fraction of those situations involve any criminal activity. It is clear what that tells us: people who experience mental ill health, vulnerability or breakdowns in their well-being are not getting the response that they need from the health and social care system. The police are being forced to step into a space that was never meant to be theirs. That is neither fair nor sustainable, and it is certainly not fair on the person in crisis. Officers have told us time and again that they are being asked do work for which they are not trained or resourced and that, ultimately, cannot deliver the best outcome for individuals who need clinical and therapeutic support, not a policing intervention. This is not about criticising the PSNI — it is not about criticising the Health Minister and his Department either — which is doing the best that it can, but it is placed in impossible positions because of the failings elsewhere in the system. For Sinn Féin and me, the issue is fundamentally about outcomes for the person and ensuring that they receive the required care. When someone is in the midst of a mental health emergency or personal crisis, the question that we must ask is simple: who is the best person to help them? I disagree slightly with the previous contributor about the police being a health service. They absolutely cannot be that service, because they are not the right people. They are not able to help those people in crisis. The answer is simple: the best people to help are trained health and social care professionals, not the police. We need the right care to be delivered by the right person at the right time. I know that the Minister and his departmental officials have bought into that, but we need to accelerate it. I have said this in the Chamber before, and I will repeat it today, because it is the core of what needs to change. The Health Minister's Department has significant resources compared with the PSNI. Those resources need to be used to target the people who most need them. We need to find better pathways. It is about doing things differently. I accept that money is needed in every Department, but we need to do things differently. The gaps in mental health services, crisis response, community support and early intervention continue to grow. Police officers fill those gaps, often doing so late at night and alone in situations where they cannot provide what the person genuinely needs. That is unsustainable and unsafe, and it places enormous pressure on services and communities. We know that it is unsafe, because we see what happens when people do not get the right response. We saw what happened in the Cawdery case. In my area, I see people being repeatedly taken to A&E and ending up in prison because it is the only safe place to take them. That is not on. It cannot carry on in that way. The Right Care, Right Person model offers a clear and compassionate framework to address the issue. It is about ensuring that vulnerable people get expert assessment and support from those who are trained to give it, while freeing up our police to focus on keeping our communities safe. However, the model needs to be delivered with urgency. Alongside that, we need the full implementation of the mental health strategy and the 'Delivering Together' vision to build proper responsive community-based care that prevents crisis rather than just reacting to it. It is not about Departments passing responsibility from one to another; it is about a whole-system commitment to ensuring the right outcome for people who are struggling. People deserve dignity, safety and the right professional response. PSNI officers deserve to be able to focus on their core role, and our communities deserve a health system that is able to meet need rather than push it on to the police. I urge the Health Minister to take the lead on a cross-departmental effort to deliver the Right Care, Right Person approach. Our police cannot continue to be the service of last resort. Actually, it is not the last resort but the first resort: when somebody has a mental health crisis, people call the police before they call the health service. The Right Care, Right Person strategy is excellent. It is a good policy, but it needs to be implemented. We need to see that happen. As I said, I absolutely believe that the Minister and his officials have bought into that strategy, but we need action on it and we need to see it being moved on. I apologise; I should have declared that I am a member of the Policing Board. We on the Policing Board have heard repeatedly from the senior team about how not only could the Right Care, Right Person model deliver but how the pathways need to be in our health service. That is what we are asking for today. Mr Chambers: I declare an interest in that I am a member of the Northern Ireland Policing Board. Let me be absolutely clear about this: when a person or a loved one is facing a mental health crisis, the last thing that they need is for the issue to be politicised. Yet, regrettably, that is exactly what the motion appears to do. It wraps an incredibly sensitive subject in political language and pretends that system-wide pressures can be solved by pointing a finger. That is not leadership; it is opportunism wearing the clothes of compassion. Miss McAllister: Will the Member give way? Mr Chambers: No, I want to make progress. Let me say something important. Our police crews, paramedics, nurses, social workers and mental health professionals are the ones who are stepping up to make real changes. They make impossible judgement calls every single day. They do not need the Assembly to cast broad criticisms over their heads. They need us to back them fully and without political caveats. However, the motion is filled with caveats. It implies that Northern Ireland's health and social care system is failing in some collective, sweeping way. That casual disrespect might help some Members to land a political punch, but it does absolutely nothing to improve outcomes for the people who are in crisis. I acknowledge absolutely that officers are supporting too many people who are in a crisis situation. However, that is not because the health service is not doing its job; it is because it is struggling away. The issue is far bigger than just one Department. Exactly the same thing could be said about the sheer number of people who end up in our prisons with mental health distress. Instead of recognising that wider truth, however, the motion reduces everything to a simplistic political formula, which is that Health gets half the Budget and, therefore, Health must be blamed. That is not analysis; it is political opportunism from the Alliance Party disguised as scrutiny. It is disappointing to hear how, when speaking about Health getting half the total Budget, some people can make it sound as though they are doing the Health Department and, by extension, the Northern Ireland public some sort of favour by their generosity. Everyone here knows that the size of the Health budget is driven by need, not luxury. We have an ageing population, rising complexities in children's mental health and escalating pressures across learning disability and social care, as well as greater expectations in clinical standards. Those demands grow every year. We then come to the call to prioritise the mental health strategy. Of course, we all want that, but the real question is this: what do Members want the Minister to cut to achieve that? The motion is absolutely silent on the trade-offs. It demands a destination while refusing to engage with the journey. The practical and genuine alternative, of course, is for MLAs to join the Minister in the upcoming multi-year Budget discussions and to call for an allocation that is based on genuine objective need. I fully support the idea behind and the intention of Right Care, Right Person, and I hope that it will be implemented as soon as it is safe to do so. However, we cannot simply instruct police officers to step back unless there is someone else who is fully equipped to step forward. If we move too fast and create a gap, there is a risk that someone will fall through it. Responsible government requires care, sequencing and realism, not bulldozing your way towards an artificial deadline because it suits a particular political narrative that some are trying to paint. Let me end on this point: the motion simplifies an incredibly complex issue. If we are serious, let us work together honestly and responsibly. Let us stop using our health service as a platform for political posturing. People who are in crisis deserve better, and the system deserves far better. Once again, I will place on record my party's full support for and appreciation of the work of the police alongside all the staff who are working across the health and social care sector. We owe them all a huge debt. Mr Burrows: Hear, hear. Top 4.45 pm Mr McGrath: I welcome the debate, but I do so with a sense of deep concern, sympathy and frustration at the position in which the Executive continue to place our police officers and some of the most vulnerable members of society. It is simply astounding that, for example, the police respond to over 100 concern for safety calls every day, that more than 97% of those incidents have no link to a crime at all and that 1,600 a month have a mental health component. I will segue from that point by saying that I know that from being a member of the Policing Board, and I declare that as an interest. Every one of those calls takes time and resources, and they take officers off the streets and place them in situations that, essentially, they are not trained for and should never be expected to handle as primary responders. We are starting to get through some of the noise to hear agreement on that from everybody who has spoken so far. It is clear that it is not the police's fault. They are stepping into the breach because they care deeply about public safety, and they cannot, in good conscience, simply ignore somebody who is looking for help. It is an impossible position in which we place our police, because they should not be left to make clinical judgements at a roadside, and they should not have to sit for six, seven, eight or, as has been referenced, 14 hours in an emergency department, waiting for somebody in their care to have a mental health assessment. They should not be the first port of call for someone who is experiencing suicidal thoughts or an overdose or acute psychosis. That happens because there are gaps in other parts in the system, and they are being left to do it. It has not arisen because of a surge in crime, and it is not because of poor policing. It is because the health and social care system is under extreme strain, and vulnerable people are falling through the gaps. Those gaps have widened, and we have had many debates in recent months about the under-resourcing of our community mental health teams, delays to the implementation of the mental health strategy, inconsistent out-of-hours provision, the lack of crisis services that are available and the way in which we are removing funds from those who are providing alternatives to emergency departments. We have insufficient social care capacity, and we also have fragmented pathways between various agencies where people are looking for help. Because of all of those failings taken together, the police, already stretched to breaking point, are being asked to hold the system together. As is referenced in the motion, there is a solution, and it is not one that we need to invent. It is the Right Care, Right Person model. That model ensures that, when someone is in mental ill health, the responder is a mental health professional, not a police officer. It ensures that, when someone is experiencing a health emergency, the responder is in the health service and that, when somebody is in social distress, the responder is a social worker, not the police. That has been proven to work in other places, and it would be good to see whether we could get it to the stage of working here. However, for the model to work here, we need to see the Executive funding it and the responsible Ministers driving it, and we must see cross-departmental work between Justice and Health to address the issue. That is why we will be supporting the amendment to the motion. The old line that I have not trotted out in a while is not lost on me, so I will revisit it: we have a motion from one party in the Executive criticising another Executive party, with an amendment from another Executive party, all as part of a non-binding motion. We all agree on the fundamentals, so I would love to see the Executive going ahead and doing that. Miss McAllister: I thank the Member for giving me the time to make an intervention. It is important to acknowledge that, in a power-sharing Executive, we have to advocate and speak up for individual issues across each Department in the Executive. We have no problem with the DUP amendment and will also support it. You raise the issue that the Department of Justice and the PSNI have supported that model and have run with it, but it has taken years of trying to get everyone else on board. That is a realistic factor, and we need to achieve that. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute. Mr McGrath: Thank you very much. I appreciate that. As I said, it is the old line that I trot out, and it is not meant to be aimed at an individual party. It is the frustration that the public feel when they ask us to stop talking about things and get on with doing them. If we are raising awareness and are pushing the Executive towards some sort of delivery on that front, that has to be something that is positive. I have a number of other pages in my speech to talk about how, if we do not change this, we will simply push our police, especially, to burnout because they are undertaking roles that they feel they are not trained to do. It puts them under pressure. It is being done because the entire system is not being examined and dealt with properly. It is good that we have the model that is there. It would just be so good to see that model implemented, allowing our police to police and our medical staff to carry out their medical work. Fundamentally, if that was done and done properly, it would be for the good of the community as well, and that is what we would all like to see. Ms Flynn: As Sinn Féin spokesperson on mental health and as chairperson of the all-party group on suicide prevention, I start by saying plainly that it is not sustainable or acceptable that the police have become the default response to mental health crises in our society. That is not to pin blame specifically on the Minister of Health. We all understand that the issues cut across every Department and are the responsibility of every Department at some level, so we all have a role to play. The motion is fair in respect of what the police have to deal with and cope with at present. It is not fair on them as an organisation in terms of what duties they should be freed up to carry out. It is also not fair on the individual who is in that state of mental health crisis, psychosis or whatever the situation may be. It is not appropriate that that is being dealt with by a police officer as opposed to a healthcare clinician. Mrs Dillon: I appreciate the Member's taking an intervention. The previous Member said that Right Care, Right Person would be a good thing as soon as it was safe to do it. Do you agree that how we currently operate is unsafe and people are dying because of what happens at the moment? Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute. Ms Flynn: I thank the Member for her intervention. Sadly, that is the reality. Too many people are not receiving the appropriate care in time and are losing their lives as a result. Again, that is not to pin it all on whether they have been handled appropriately by the PSNI if officers had been dealing with them. It is not to pin it on emergency department waits or mental health waiting lists. This is a problem that we all need to take responsibility for. You cannot pin it on Health or Justice. Alan spoke passionately on behalf of his party. I am conscious that it is his colleague who holds the Health portfolio. We all understand where the Minister is coming from. He simply does not have enough money to put into crisis services or to put some of those models in place. What needs to come from the debate, however, is what can be done at whatever level, whether it is Executive level or different parties or Ministers coming together to see how we can make it work better and maybe speed up the Right Care, Right Person approach so that we are not losing lives in the meantime, as Linda pointed out. Colin said that the PSNI responded to over 100 "concern for safety" calls per day. Think about it: that is per day, so it is obviously taking up a massive amount of police time. Again, it comes back to whether the person who needs the help and support is receiving it regardless of how much police time is taken up. Probably not. Points were made about the strategy, and, again, it comes back to the funding. The Minister can fully implement the mental health strategy, Protect Life 2, only if his budget will allow him to do that. However, it still needs to be —. Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way? Ms Flynn: Yes, I will. Mr Burrows: Has the Member, as a mental health lead, spent any time on patrol with PSNI officers to see how they deal with mental health emergencies? Ms Flynn: I thank the Member for that intervention. I spent a bit of time with them when they were introducing the multi-agency triage teams, which have been fantastic, with police working alongside mental health practitioners and the Ambulance Service. I am also conscious of the successful custody suites pilot where a mental health practitioner assessed the prisoners coming in, as opposed to a forensic medical officer doing it. I was going to make that point. I am not sure if the custody suite pilot has since fallen because we could not get match funding. I am not sure that it was match funding, but Health and Justice were funding that together at one stage, so there are good examples and models of practice that we can look to. If we could expand those on a regional basis and if Health and Justice worked in tandem to do those things, that would have an impact on the person or patient in mental health distress. We can talk all night about things that might be holding the Minister back in moving forward with some of this stuff — funding is a problem — but how do we build on the good pilots that have already been in place? Just last week, the Health Committee visited the Mater Hospital and the path project. I know that we will write to the Minister about that anyway, but, again, that is another wonderful example of what is happening in the Mater Hospital when people have been assessed and are suffering with really poor mental health. That ward has been set up to take them out of the emergency department ward to a place where they are safe and have one-to-one care and treatment, and that frees up the police officers and the social workers, who do not need to stay with them. However, the path project is not being funded by the Department; the trust is managing that itself at the minute. If we can look at the good models and good examples that we can build on, that might ease a wee bit of pressure on both Health and Justice. Ms Brownlee: I declare an interest as a member of the Policing Board. The public rightly expect the PSNI to focus on keeping our community safe and responding to crime. However, it is through no fault of their own that officers are being diverted to roles that they are neither trained nor resourced to carry out. The PSNI has told the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee that officers are now responding to 107 "concern for safety" calls every day and that only 3% of those calls have anything to do with actual crime. Officers spend an average of 14 hours in A&E waiting for someone who needs a mental health assessment, and deploying police officers to hundreds of such incidents is not the most appropriate use of policing resources, nor is it safe or sustainable. At the Policing Board, all members have repeatedly raised concerns about the unsustainability of pressures on the front line, and we all know that the PSNI cannot continue to act as the service of last resort simply because other parts of the system are not functioning. It was during my time on the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) that we looked at the inquiry into mental health, and it highlighted that Northern Ireland spends less per head on mental health than any other part of the UK despite having some of the highest levels of need. It also exposed the fact that over 17,500 people are on a waiting list for their first appointment. The PAC described that as unacceptable and rightly so. However, those are not just numbers on a page; they are people who are struggling every day to access support. When a crisis worsens, that will, in some cases, fall at the door of the PSNI. The inquiry also highlighted a number of things about that provision, particularly around services for those who have had a dual diagnosis of mental health and addiction issues. Again, we have not really dealt with that effectively. As a result of a lack of crisis services, those in need are forced to attend emergency departments just to get basic help and support. More complex mental health needs are now presenting, and we are aware of the workforce challenges. Invest to save was the main message from the inquiry, and I know that the proposer of the motion detailed that today. All of this is happening at a time when officer numbers are at critically low levels and when officers are under extreme pressure from all angles. We cannot ignore the reality that police officers, however dedicated they are, are not trained clinical professionals. When they are sitting for hours in emergency departments with someone in distress, they cannot give that person the care that they need, and they are being dragged away from the core duties that the public expect them to carry out. We all know that the Health Minister must accelerate the delivery of the mental health strategy. I know the challenges that he continually faces, but we also know that we must work collaboratively, and that includes the Justice Minister. They must show leadership by ensuring that Right Care, Right Person is implemented properly and safely. We recognise that progress has been made, but, of course, the strategy must be accelerated. I recently received correspondence, which I welcome, in which it is said that both Health and the police are approaching the point when they are ready to launch the first stage of Right Care, Right Person. That is really welcome news. We want to see vulnerable people getting the right support at the right time and that being worked on collaboratively to ensure that people get the help that they need. We will, of course, support any measure that improves care for those experiencing mental ill health. People in crisis deserve clinical care, not a policing response by default, and, of course, our officers deserve to focus on the job that they were trained for. Ms Egan: I support our motion, which asks the Health Minister to address the undue pressures that gap filling for the health and social care system has placed on our police service and to ensure that every person across Northern Ireland who needs mental health support receives that care from the right person at the right time. Top 5.00 pm The motion from Alliance is not only resourcing pressures facing the PSNI alone; it is about ensuring that front-line workers, including police officers, are not left to do jobs that they do not feel they are the best fit for and that those who need care receive it from a healthcare professional who is adequately trained in intervention and support to deliver it. When we put the needs of vulnerable people at the centre, it is clear that action is needed. Members of the public have expectations as to the ideal use of police time that, for the most part, align with their responding to concerns about crime. As our motion notes, however, the PSNI responds to over 100 "concern for safety" calls per day on average, with only 3% of those incidents being linked to crime. Why has that happened? It is because the PSNI is time and again put into the position of acting as a service of last resort, gap-filling for our health system. There needs to be a joint, multi-agency approach to supporting those in mental health crisis. The PSNI can have a role in that, and their involvement is appropriate in some instances. What that looks like is this: police responding to calls where there seems to be an immediate risk to life or of serious harm of an individual, where a crime may take place or where the thresholds set out in the Mental Health Order 1986 are met and it is clear that the police should remove a vulnerable person from a private or public space to a "place of safety" for support and assessment. It does not look like PSNI officers sitting in emergency rooms for long periods because of the lack of resource to enable them to hand the person over to relevant personnel in A&E for triage. In the period from January to April 2023, more than 4,500 hours were logged by police officers as time on duty in hospitals whilst accompanying patients with mental health concerns. We now know that cases relating to mental health concerns take up, in total, over 100,000 hours of police time each year. To be clear, that situation is not the fault of the healthcare workers on the ground in our emergency departments or communities but comes from funding for mental health from the Department being lower than the actual need. That is why the Alliance motion calls for the urgent implementation of the Right Care, Right Person model, among the delivery of the Department of Health's other mental health strategies and programmes, to put in place the clear roles and responsibilities of the PSNI, trusts and other partners to ensure that vulnerable people receive the most effective and timely help possible. It is not about removing the PSNI from intervention in mental health crises; it is about formally addressing the inappropriate use of PSNI involvement. It can be part of helping people but cannot replace the help of healthcare professionals. There have always been clear intersections between the health system and the justice system, but both systems work only when all partners recognise one another's expertise. The Right Care, Right Person model is essential. It provides a framework in which the health service and the PSNI can work together and, crucially, puts the vulnerable person's needs at the heart of it. Mr Beattie: This is the eleventh motion or Matter of the Day in the past 12 months to call on the Health Minister to prioritise something. I will be interested to see what the priority of the priorities will be at the end of it all. That said, I agree with the intent of the motion regarding mental health. Absolutely, it needs to be funded — we need to find the money somewhere — because we have a societal problem that we are all dealing with: I agree with that. I also agree that we cannot tie up our police in doing what they do now in response to many mental health issues. Therefore, I agree with the motion but not with all the words in it. The health service is not failing, and those who work in it are not failing either. Absolutely not: they are working as best they can, to capacity. Miss McAllister: Will the Member give way? Mr Beattie: Just one minute. I will try to get you in. The DUP amendment adds value to the motion, and we will support it. It is a genuinely important motion. We are talking about a fundamental change, and, because it is such an important, fundamental change, I am surprised that the Justice Minister is not here to hear about it. I want to hear her view on Right Care, Right Person. I want to hear what she wants to do on that, so I am surprised that she is not here. Miss McAllister: I thank the Member for giving way. I note that you made that point almost to get back at us for using the words "failings in the health ... system". Those are not words that I alone use: they come from family members whose loved ones died by suicide because the system failed them. That does not mean one individual healthcare worker; it is a system failure. Whether we like it or not, families have had loved ones take their own life because they did not have the support that they needed. That is a fact. It comes not come from me but from the people who reach out to us to say, "I want my loved one to be here. They should have got the support that they needed". Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute. Mr Beattie: I thank the Member for that intervention. I have been touched by suicide on at least five occasions, so I know exactly where she is coming from. I am talking about a societal issue. This is a societal issue, not a structural issue. We need to tackle its cause at the root. I think that it was Desmond Tutu who said: "There comes a point where we need to stop just pulling people out of the river. We need to go upstream and find out why they're falling in." It is a societal issue, and we need to deal with it. The PSNI's Right Care, Right Person approach is, without a doubt, the right one to take. It will take time and will, clearly, need Justice and the police to work in partnership not only with the Health Department but with the Department of Education and the Department for Communities. It goes right across our Departments. The result will be a huge reduction in calls to the police, because they will not attend them. That will save them time and resources. The police will triage calls and decide whether they or their partners will attend a call. Let me give an example. A neighbour has not been seen recently; a call is made to the police; and the police triage that call and decide that they will not attend but that it will be for the adult safeguarding team, maybe local council services or a registered family member to attend instead. That makes perfect sense to me. I will give another example. A child could miss school; a call is made to the police; the Right Care, Right Person approach is taken; the call is triaged; and the Department of Education decides that it will look at it with education welfare services. You get the idea behind the system; it is pretty straightforward. The statistics are really stark. The police receive around 38,000 calls a year on concerns for safety. They attend about 28,000 of those calls, which is about 78%. However, under Right Care, Right Person, the police would attend about 13,000 calls, which is about 36%. That is a huge change in resources. The remaining calls would, obviously, go to other agencies. Some really good work is happening between the Department of Health and the Department of Justice. They need to work at this. However, it will take time. The motion rightly states that, on average, the police receive around: "100 concern for safety calls per day on average, with only 3% of those incidents linked to crime". However, the police also receive 400,000 phone calls to their 101 service, the majority of which are not crime-related. Without a shadow of a doubt, the reduced headcount in the police is having an effect. The call about the Budget is an absolute red herring, to be perfectly honest. I genuinely think that. The Department of Health is the largest Department. It has the most real estate, the most vehicles and the most people — 95,000 employees in the Department of Health. The Department of Education has about 45,000 people, and the Department of Justice has 14,000 people. We should remember that the Department of Health also looks after the Fire and Rescue Service. Many people forget that. We need a joined-up approach. We should also remember that the judiciary is putting people with mental health issues into prisons. There is an issue across the board, which is why I said that it is societal. We need to make sure that, when we implement Right Care, Right Person we do so at the right time, that it is staged right and that we do not just throw it in without making sure that it has been properly sequenced. If we need to see why we should not do that, we just need to look to what happened to the Cawdery family — Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up. Mr Beattie: — when something was rushed that should not have been. Mr Burrows: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion. It is a pity that it is a somewhat simplistic motion that fails to understand the true complexities within which the police operate and with which people present themselves to police, often in an emergency. It should be said at the outset that our Police Service has been under-supported, under-resourced, over-scrutinised and let down by the political class in general in Northern Ireland. It is important to understand that context, and I will explain it as I go through my remarks. Before I do so, I just want to explain the model of policing that we hold dear in this country. I will tell you why that is directly linked. It is not a paramilitary model of policing. When I say "paramilitary", I do not mean it in the sense of Northern Ireland's paramilitaries, but in the sense of "semi-military". It is not an auxiliary force. It is not a pure law-enforcement agency like the National Crime Agency. It is a police service. It has dealt and always will deal with more than simply crime. It is right that it deals with vulnerability and has that at the heart of everything that it does. Let me just divide two things, because they are entirely different matters. I spent thousands of hours in the police dealing with mental health issues and trying to solve the fact that my officers were spending huge amounts of time on mental health issues. Separate the "concern for safety" calls from the issue of spending too much time in emergency departments, effectively babysitting people whilst the health service get ready for them. We need to understand what police face when they respond to "concern for safety" calls. The first thing is that it is a whole-society and whole-Executive issue that people find themselves presenting in a moment of personal crisis. It might be someone standing on a bridge in Derry/Londonderry, where I used to work, ready to throw themselves off. Often, that is due to domestic violence, homelessness, a gambling addiction or some issue in their life that any number of Departments could be responsible for trying to fix. We have seen the statistics on male suicide. More than seven out of 10 suicides are men. They mostly do not self-harm; they go from nothing to personal crisis and suicide. Often, there is no warning sign. That is why the Police Service has to respond, often as the first emergency service that has vehicles out on the ground, to help someone in a moment of need. The second thing that people do not understand is that, often, when dealing with someone with mental health problems, the Ambulance Service needs the police because, whilst we might not like to say it, people with a mental health problem are often extremely violent. They spit. They have weapons. They have knives. They have flags against them that show that they have a propensity for violence. Often, the Police Service sends a resource to protect the people who are our front-line emergency services. It has the equipment, training, experience and vital police powers. A further issue is that, often, the police are the only people with the ability to force entry into a house or do emergency checks — for example, on someone's mobile phone — to determine their well-being. The next thing that we fail to acknowledge is that the reason why the police attend so many "concern for safety" calls is that their resources have been run down so badly that they do not have enough neighbourhood police to do proactive problem-solving. That is one reason why we have seen an increase in "concern for safety" calls. What used to happen was that your neighbourhood policing team would have looked at your profile of "concern for safety" calls and carried out a follow-up. It would have worked with multiple agencies, such as the Housing Executive and education service, to try to problem-solve a case so that the police did not get repeat "concern for safety" calls. Mrs Dillon: Will the Member take an intervention? Mr Burrows: I will not at this stage. There are lots of reasons why the Police Service deals with "concern for safety" calls. By the way, the police have skilled negotiators who sometimes have to spend eight hours talking someone off a bridge. Only the police have those skills. A separate issue is emergency departments. That is a killer for police morale and time. Here is a brutal fact: one of the reasons why the Police Service in this country does not feel able to say no at times or to take a measured risk and tell the security in a hospital, "Keep an eye on that individual. We got him in here safely. Give us a ring if he leaves" is this: if that person leaves and self-harms, we have an ombudsman who will punitively investigate the police officer and spend years trying to find fault, and we have politicians in this place who will call for the head of the police officer. My former colleagues will sometimes say, "It is easier just to stay in the ED because I do not want to risk my career". If you want to take the Right Care, Right Person approach, you need to put support round the Police Service so that, when it takes risk-based decisions, you will support it and not throw it under the bus. The fact that we are where we are is a reflection of society as a whole and of the Police Service that has, in fact, been created by the very people in the room who are now attacking the health service, which is disappointing. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): That concludes the list of Members who wish to speak. I will now call the Minister of Health to respond. Minister, you have up to 15 minutes. Top 5.15 pm Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): Thank you, Deputy Speaker. There is only one place where I feel comfortable beginning, which is by acknowledging as critical — I repeat: "critical" — the issue of the right person with the right skills responding to somebody in mental health crisis. When I say "critical", I mean "potentially life-saving". I hope that no Member has any doubt that I have a focus on the issue. In fact, when it comes to mental health, others in the House have acknowledged for some time that I was the first MLA to bring a focus to the issue of mental health, long before it was a popular talking point. I will not embarrass people by naming those who derided me and scoffed at me for trying to make it an issue all those years ago. Those names include not only political commentators; I am sorry to say that they also include elected representatives. I like to think that, today, everybody is on board. The motion is interesting. The first sentence expresses "grave concern" at "failings" in the system. Members should be well aware that, in my opinion, the HSC system is the workforce; the wonderful 70,000-odd people who deliver health and social care to a truly high standard daily. I make no apology for refusing to join the Alliance Party in claiming that the health service is broken. I saw a social media video to that effect yesterday. Pathways may be badly damaged, but, when you receive care, you get first-class treatment. The motion states that only 3% of the mental health calls that the police respond to are linked to crime. I do not dispute that, but the motion does not acknowledge the fact that the majority of all PSNI responses are not linked to crime. It is not helpful to isolate the mental health response in such a way as people may consider it as an outlier: it is not. We then get to the old trope: Health gets over half the Executive Budget. The motion refers to half the "entire" Budget. Is there a difference between half the Budget and half the "entire" Budget? There may be. The former is clearly a statement of fact; the latter may read like a party political statement. What happened to objective assessed need? Two Members who signed the motion are members of the Health Committee. Do they not care about the objective assessed needs of our people? I accept that Health needs to rationalise, stabilise, reform and deliver but not because of some random percentage; rather, because it is the right thing to do. It is the right thing to deliver better outcomes. The motion calls for the prioritisation of the mental health strategy, but it does not explain how I should go about doing that. Under section 29(1)(a)(ii) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, members of the Health Committee have a statutory obligation to "advise and assist" me when they call for the prioritisation of a specific health service. Is saying, "Prioritise mental health", without advising how to do it without damaging other services and service users, really advising and assisting? I will now focus on Right Care, Right Person. I was a member of the Policing Board when the current Chief Constable first mentioned it. I supported the intention. I accepted the Chief Constable's contention that his officers were not trained to respond. That said, I asked whether it would make more sense to fund the training of police officers to be those first responders, but that argument has been lost. When I took up my current role, not only was I aware of Right Care, Right Person; I wanted my officials to explore the possibilities as a matter of urgency. I will touch on the timeline, because some Members have given the impression that the approach has been in development for many years. As I said, I heard about it first when Jon Boutcher became Chief Constable in late October 2023, which is around two years ago. When I took up post at the end of May last year, I jointly chaired an initial meeting between my officials and Assistant Chief Constable Ryan Henderson, who is the lead officer on Right Care, Right Person for the PSNI. That meeting was held on 22 August. For the avoidance of doubt, it was not 22 August just gone; it was 22 August 2024. Within 10 or 11 weeks of taking up post, I was trying to implement the Right Care, Right Person model. In the meeting, I articulated but one concern: we should not move so quickly that we create a hiatus where the PSNI withdraws before HSC is ready to fill the void. Assistant Chief Constable Henderson agreed with me. Where are we now? First, we need a regional partnership agreement. The status of that is as follows. We have submitted our thoughts, suggestions and preferences to the PSNI, so the ball is in its court. In fairness, I expect the police to take whatever time they need to respond to our suggestions. Members will know that these matters tend to be iterative. They go back and forth in search of the best deliverable agreed outcomes, but do the Members who tabled the motion know that? Comments have been made suggesting that my Department is in some way at fault or that nothing is being done. Furthermore, for clarity — this is an important point on the partnership agreement — will the Justice Minister sign it? Will the Justice Minister sign that partnership agreement? Again, I say for clarity that we have established appropriate governance structures, with key stakeholders from across the relevant organisations, in order to ensure a coordinated approach to future implementation. That includes the establishment of a Right Care, Right Person strategic group that is co-chaired by the Department of Health and the Department of Justice. There is the silver operational group co-chaired by the Department of Health and the PSNI. There have been no fewer than 10 subgroups established, which report to the Right Care, Right Person silver operational group. Each subgroup has been tasked with considering the implications of and preparing for the introduction of RCRP. The subgroups include inter-agency working, the issues associated with walkout and missing from healthcare, restraint, acute care pressures, issues relating to places of safety, approved social workers, how medical assessments are carried out, evaluations and outcomes, Mental Capacity Act considerations and, importantly, training. Work is well advanced to develop and agree memoranda of understanding between agencies that set out clear roles and responsibilities for each agency in responding to emergency calls for assistance. I am grateful to HSC colleagues for rising to the challenge, and, again, I reject the accusation of failure. It is vital that we monitor the impact on HSC services when we begin to implement RCRP. We will do that on a phased basis, beginning with the response to calls relating to concern for welfare. I also appreciate that the PSNI has been working in partnership with us to agree a date to begin implementation of the policy based on the assessment of readiness. The motion also refers to the Department receiving more than half of the Executive's resource budget. The Health budget was 50·5% of the 2025-26 Northern Ireland block, but that, in fact, represents a small reduction in Health's relative share of the block grant from previous years. The level of additional spending on health over that in England is now projected to be at a 10-year low in 2025-26, well below the 4% to 7% that, the Fiscal Council reported, may be necessary to meet the additional health need in Northern Ireland. That includes maintaining services, meeting demographic growth and increasing clinical standards. While England is ramping up the capital investment in the NHS to stimulate productivity, our investment in that area is also lagging well behind. There is clear evidence in the HSC of further expected growth in demand in acute and community services associated with an ageing population and year-on-year increases in demand for mental health, learning disability and children's services. The 2025-26 Health budget was not sufficient to cover the significant increases in costs that we faced as a result of pay and price inflation, increased National Insurance contributions for GPs, pharmacists and social care providers, rising demand and the ring-fencing of waiting list funding, which left a significant shortfall of £615 million. Mrs Dillon: I thank the Minister for taking the intervention. Earlier today, I was on a panel with one of your party colleagues, and, when we were discussing PSNI resources, I was the only person on that panel who said that I agreed that the Health Department and Education Department should get the budget that they get. We do not want to see our children, young people or anybody in our community ending up having to come into contact with the police or our justice services because they are not getting the services that they need. That is why it is so important that we find a different way of spending the money that we have, because there is no more money in anybody's budget. There is no more money coming to anybody right now. We have a block grant, and that is where we are, so it is important to find different pathways and get the trusts to come together to see how we can best deliver a good service. Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for her intervention. Deputy Speaker, I do not wish to admonish the audiovisual team, but every time that the Member stands up, the microphone to her left comes on, but she faces right. I am sorry, but I find it very hard to hear. Maybe next time, the audiovisual team will switch on the microphone to the right. In July, I published a health and social care reset plan, which aims to address the funding that between establishing a neighbourhood-centred care system, driving significant efficiencies and focusing on the key themes of stabilisation, reform and delivery. To support stabilisation, my permanent secretary has established a systems financial management group, which is driving a series of efficiencies and savings and reducing the deficit as far as possible. The plan was to deliver some £300 million internally — an unprecedented amount — while seeking Executive support for the remaining £300 million, with a hope that it would secure the financial wherewithal to balance our budget and stabilise. To date, Health has received £25 million from June monitoring. It has identified saving plans of £300 million, but, despite that, it is unable to fully eliminate the overspend. While the Executive have approved my ministerial direction on HSC pay awards this year and agreed that Health will have the first call of up to £100 million in December monitoring, it will still leave a significant gap. However, I will continue to make every endeavour to reduce that figure further, through efficiencies and savings right across health and social care, but our assessment is clear: without further support, which is not currently expected, we will not be able to break even. Mental health services, in particular, have faced historic underinvestment over decades. The strategy identified an additional funding requirement of over £1·2 billion over the 10 years to effect the transformation needed. To date, only a fraction of that has been invested, and that resource has had to be found from within our existing budgets. Members of the Health Committee are free not only to advise me on how to prioritise the delivery of the strategy but to assist me in understanding how to do it without disadvantaging other areas of health and social care. In conclusion, I want to be clear: mental health will remain a priority, not because a motion instructs it but because it is the right thing to do. I will continue to drive reform and support the implementation of Right Care, Right Person in a safe and responsible manner, beginning with concern for welfare calls, following the walkouts and missing from healthcare facilities, the transportation of patients with mental health needs, and under article 130 of the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, those cases and voluntary mental health patients. If the House is willing to set aside the political rhetoric, we can work together to deliver the improvements that our citizens require and deserve. Some Members: Hear, hear. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I thank the Minister for his response. I now call Trevor Clarke to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. Mr Clarke, you have up to five minutes. Mr Clarke: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is not usual for me to commend the Minister, but I commend the Minister for the insight that he has given us today on where Right Care, Right Person is at. I should declare an interest as a member of the Policing Board. Indeed, when the Minister was a member, we sat beside each other. The only thing that I would say in criticism, not of the Minister but of his Department, is that it should have been happening much sooner, because it is not a new problem within Health or policing, as the Minister will know from his time on the Policing Board. He is right to put on record the work that ACC Henderson has done. Indeed, when he got a promotion to a different post, he continued to look after that particular piece because he saw it as his baby, and I commend him for the work that he has done with the Minister. If you look at our amendment, Minister, the reason that we want to amend the motion is to tie in the Justice Minister. Acknowledgement has been made that the Justice Minister is not here, but probably could have added to the debate, because we talk about a tripartite agreement within policing, and, obviously, the Justice Minister has a big part to play in the resolution of this within policing itself. That said, there is a problem with the policing budget, but that is not what today is about; we are talking about the Health element. I am in danger of repeating everything that has been said about numbers. You will know, Minister, because you were there when all the issues were discussed. Top 5.30 pm One thing strikes me that has not been touched on. To pick up on Jon's point about the police, some of us on the Policing Board have had the opportunity to do ride-alongs. On every ride-along that I have been on, when the police were asked about their job, they said that the bit that they hate most is the time that they spend waiting in A&E departments. They say, "We did not join the police to do mental health calls or health calls in general". One of the dangers is that, while the stats that we are talking about are purely for mental health calls, the calls, as you will know, Minister, are not only about mental health. Many of them are other health-related calls, such as for heart attacks or other reasons, when the Ambulance Service is unable to attend. I will give an example. There was an accident in my constituency on Saturday night, in which somebody was trapped in a car. It was classed as a category 3 incident. The Fire Service was asked to attend, but the police suggested that there was no rush for the Fire Service, because it was going to take 29 hours for an ambulance to arrive. That gives an indication of the waits that the police face. If the police had stayed with the injured party in that car, they would have been waiting for 29 hours. The other thing that all Members will be familiar with is that, when we attend A&E departments for whatever reason, there are always police cars there. No one can say that that is a good use of police resources, and no one has tried to do so today. Alan spoke defensively from the Minister's perspective, but I think that we all agree that the problem is within. However, I commend you, Minister. If you had not had the insight from having been on the Policing Board, seeing some of the numbers behind all this, things would never have changed. However, an opportunity was missed that could have come much sooner from previous Health Ministers. I am not pointing the finger at anyone in particular. I also commend the reference that was made to custody suites. The custody suite model is still in operation but is far from perfect. Again, on one of the ride-alongs, I saw the risk-averse nature of some of the health professionals who are in those suites. They do not divert as many calls to hospitals as they should. More of those cases need to be dealt with, and, in this part of the debate, I call on you, Minister, to take that back to your officials to do what can be done to make sure that more of those cases are dealt with. Miss McAllister: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. I neglected to mention in my speech that I also did a ride-along to a custody suite. There has been a media spotlight on young people who are not in a mental health crisis but are under the care of social services, who remain detained in custody suites because the health service cannot find a home for them. It is not just about Right Care, Right Person; it is much wider. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute. Mr Clarke: I get an extra minute. That is all right. There is clearly an issue with custody suites, but another key issue is funding, which was talked about today. It is my understanding that the PSNI is lifting that budget and that there is no assistance from the Department of Health. It is not a case of the PSNI asking Health to do everything; the PSNI is prepared to do something, but it seems to have been on a lonely path for some time. Living in the constituency that we do, Mr Deputy Speaker, you will be fully aware of the mental health crisis there, given that we have two establishments. We frequently hear people ask, "Why is the helicopter up in Antrim tonight?" The reason that the helicopter is up is that people have left those establishments. More needs to be done in those establishments to make sure that, when people are there, they are being cared for and looked after and that the police are not being called to them. Of course, there is then the case of Muckamore Abbey Hospital, with all the issues that have gone on there. Now, too frequently, staff default to calling in the police when issues happen in those establishments. Additional training needs to be given to people in those facilities to prevent them from calling, because the police are not trained to work in mental health crisis teams. As I said at the outset, Minister, I commend you for introducing the Right Care, Right Person model. We look forward to its implementation and to seeing those changes happen. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Danny Donnelly to conclude the debate and wind up on the motion. Mr Donnelly, you have up to 10 minutes. Mr Donnelly: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am not a member of the Policing Board, but I am an NHS nurse, so I declare an interest. I reassure the Minister and Members that this is not a "political punch" motion. It is disrespectful to people who have been in mental health crisis and have been harmed to suggest that it is. The heart of the motion is a straightforward point: when someone is in mental health crisis, they should be met by trained mental health professionals, not police officers who, through no fault of their own, are being sent to situations that require specialist clinical care. Right now, that is exactly what is happening. As Members have noted, the PSNI is taking more than 100 concern for safety calls every day, and almost none of those calls involves crime. They involve people who need mental health care, but instead of getting the mental health support that they need, they get a police response, because there is no one else available. I have seen many PSNI officers spend long periods in noisy A&E departments with people in crisis, and that is totally inappropriate. I agree with Trevor that that is the bit of the job that they do not feel that they should be doing, and it is not their favourite bit. I could have guessed what the Minister's response was going to be today to the calls to fund a mental health strategy: workforce shortages, funding pressures, competing priorities and no magic overnight fix. Yes, those are real issues, but they cannot be used as a catch-all forever. If workforce shortages is the point, we need to look honestly at the evidence. In 2013, the Northern Ireland Audit Office reported that mental health conditions were the leading cause of sickness absence across the entire public sector, including the trusts, and it warned that that long-term pattern was putting huge pressures on staffing levels. That was 12 years ago. We have not suddenly discovered that problem. Between 2018 and 2022, the Royal College of Nursing found exactly the same trend: mental health was the main reason for sickness absence. None of this is new. What is new is the scale of the crisis, and that is only going to continue to grow. On funding, as has been mentioned several times today, Health receives more than half the Executive's budget and is already £100 million into next year's allocation. I do not underestimate the challenges facing the Minister. Departments are already stretched to their limit, and we need joined-up working. One example of joined-up working that we on the Health Committee saw was when we visited the ambulance control centre. The South Eastern Trust and the Ambulance Service have worked together on a pilot scheme to redirect mental health calls in order to make sure that patients get the appropriate care that they need and talk to the appropriate person. That has reduced mental health admissions by 40%. We have a mental health strategy that could drive change and use early intervention to avoid crisis and that could be used to address one of the biggest workforce challenges that Northern Ireland faces, yet 80% of it remains shelved, and only 16% has been funded since 2021. That is just asking for the crisis to continue. Right Care, Right Person is not complicated. It is about providing appropriate care, and that means that the right professional responds to a right crisis. If we implemented it property, we could free up police time, with more than one million police hours saved per year, reducing risk for individuals and making the system safer and more humane for everybody involved. The motion is not about blaming anyone on the front line. It is about facing up to what is happening and accepting that we cannot continue like this. People in crisis deserve proper care. Police officers deserve to focus on policing, and the Department of Health needs to implement Right Care, Right Person. Nuala McAllister opened the debate and asked for clarity on the full implementation of the Mental Capacity Act 2016. She mentioned the four-week survey that highlighted the fact that 8,000 hours of PSNI time were spent on mental health calls, but she stated that that is not the fault of front-line healthcare staff. Keith Buchanan introduced the DUP amendment, which we support, with a few, small tweaks. He said that it was not an appropriate use of resources and highlighted the fact that waiting with a patient in A&E for 14 hours in order to get a mental health assessment was not a good use of police resources. He also said that Northern Ireland spends less per head on mental health services than anywhere else in the UK, despite having the highest levels of mental health illness. Linda Dillon said that PSNI officers are not trained or resourced to deal with mental health crises. She asked a question that I very much agree with: who is the right person to care for someone who is in a mental health crisis? That is the person who should respond. Linda also said that Right Care, Right Person is a clear and compassionate approach. Alan Chambers said that the Assembly was casting broad criticisms over healthcare workers' heads and that the motion was a "political punch". I disagree entirely with that. The motion is not about blaming Health. Alan also said that we brought forward the motion for political reasons. That is not the case at all. The issue has been talked about for years. The PSNI and the Policing Board have lobbied for the Right Care, Right Person model, and it is already functioning in other parts of the UK. Colin McGrath said that it was impossible to place the police in a situation when they are making clinical decisions at a roadside and that it existed because of gaps in the system at the minute. Pathways are fragmented for people in need. Right Care, Right Person does not need to be invented, because it already exists. Órlaithí Flynn said that it was not sustainable or acceptable that the PSNI had become the point of contact for people in mental health crisis. It is not fair on the PSNI, and it is not fair on the person who is in crisis. Cheryl Brownlee said that the PSNI cannot continue to act as a service of last resort. She referred to the PAC report on mental health in Northern Ireland, which stated that 17,500 people are on waiting lists, and said that that was unacceptable. People do not remain static on waiting lists, as I am sure that the Minister is aware. They tend to get worse when on a waiting list. While waiting for care, people tend to deteriorate and get sicker. We need to see vulnerable people getting the right care at the right time. Connie Egan said that this is not about removing the PSNI entirely from mental health calls but removing them from inappropriate calls. Vulnerable people need to be put first. Doug Beattie agreed with the approach but wanted to hear from the Minister of Justice on this. He said that he too had been touched by suicide — I am very sorry to hear that, Doug — and said that it is a societal issue. He also highlighted the need for a joined-up approach. Jon Burrows, previously a PSNI officer, said that the PSNI was under-resourced by the political class and that it was always dealing with vulnerability. He said that —. Mrs Dillon: Will the Member take an intervention? Mr Donnelly: Yes, certainly. Mrs Dillon: It has been said a number of times that we do not understand how the PSNI operates. A number of Members declared an interest as Policing Board members, so I think that we do have a fair understanding. I have been on it for eight years — I am happy to understand it less, any time Michelle O'Neill feels like it — but it is important. We actually do understand. That is why we are speaking to this today. It is a really important issue. We absolutely understand it from a PSNI perspective. As some of us are on the Health Committee, we also understand it from the Minister's perspective and that of the Health Department. That is why we want to discuss it. It is important that we have these conversations. Mr Donnelly: Thank you, Linda. I agree with that. I was struck by how many Members have served on the Health Committee and the Policing Board, and for how long. I think that the Minister has done both. I absolutely agree that there is a lot of experience here. Jon Burrows said that the concern for safety calls are a whole-society issue and that the PSNI is often sent to mental health patients because, at times, they can be violent. He also highlighted the fact that the PSNI is currently needed to force entry into houses and suggested that PSNI officers are negotiators who can talk someone off a bridge, sometimes by talking to them for up to eight hours. He said that the PSNI has those skills. I disagree slightly with that. It does not need to be a police officer. There are mental health professionals who are highly skilled in communicating with people in distress. We have seen that with the NIAS staff working with the South Eastern Trust. They are able to talk to people in distress, and they are able to de-escalate the situation. Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way? Mr Donnelly: Yes. Mr Burrows: Will he clarify how many critical, trained negotiators there are within the NHS in Northern Ireland? He says that they are able to deal with this. Mr Donnelly: I do not have that figure in front of me, but I am aware of the mental health professionals who are able to work and talk to people in mental health crisis and who are able to de-escalate the situation and assist the people who are in crisis. Mike Nesbitt responded to the debate. He said that it is critical that the right person responds to a person in a mental health crisis. He also said that he does not agree that the health service is broken. He said that the people receive treatment once they get into it, but that the pathways may be broken. He advised that the Health Committee should advise and assist the Minister. I do not believe that the Health Committee has received a full list of priorities —. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up. Mr Donnelly: Do I not get another minute? Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): No, not with a 10-minute limit. Question, That the amendment be made, put and agreed to. Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly expresses grave concern that failings in the health and social care (HSC) system are forcing the PSNI to act as the service of last resort for those facing mental ill health or other forms of health crisis; expresses further severe concern that the PSNI responds to over 100 concern for safety calls per day on average, with only 3% of those incidents linked to crime; agrees that having to make up for gaps in health and social services is having an unaffordable impact on policing resources and capacity; notes that that additional pressure is being put on policing despite the Department of Health receiving more than half of the Executive’s entire 2025-26 resource Budget and the PSNI being in urgent need of additional funding, with staff and officer numbers at a critically low level; calls on the Minister of Health to prioritise delivery of the mental health strategy 2021-2031, including expediting the delivery of a new regional mental health crisis service, as well as Health and Well-being 2026: Delivering Together; and further calls on the Minister of Justice to work alongside the Minister of Health to implement the Right Care, Right Person model in order to address the unsustainable burden that the Department of Health is placing on police services. Top 5.45 pm Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members may take a break while we change the personnel at the Table. (Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair) Food Security Miss McIlveen: I beg to move That this Assembly notes the importance of food security; believes that food production should be recognised as a strategic asset in Northern Ireland; further notes Northern Ireland’s role in feeding 10 million people; celebrates the food and drink sector generating £4.9 billion gross value added to Northern Ireland; stresses that investing in agriculture is essential for boosting productivity, job creation and delivering progress towards more environmentally sustainable practices; expresses grave concern that agri-food businesses face significant trading barriers as a result of the Windsor framework and the application of EU law; condemns, in particular, the ongoing threat to the critical supply of veterinary medicines from Great Britain from 1 January 2026, as well as uncertainty surrounding new EU rules on deforestation-free products; highlights that that could undermine animal welfare and the resilience of UK-wide food supply chains; notes that current, aspirational climate targets would see a reduction in livestock numbers; believes that perfection cannot prevent progress; calls on the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to urgently bring proposals to the Executive to reduce Northern Ireland’s interim 2030 and 2040 emissions reduction targets in the interests of protecting food security and a just transition for agriculture; and further calls on the Minister to unlock greater levels of on-farm investment and innovation by providing immediate clarity on ammonia controls within planning, in keeping with the Executive’s Programme for Government. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. An amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List, so the Business Committee has agreed that 15 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate. Michelle, please open the debate on the motion. Miss McIlveen: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Food security is not an optional extra for Northern Ireland; it is a fundamental responsibility to ensure that the people who live here and the millions in the rest of the UK who depend on what we produce have access to safe, affordable and high-quality food. However, national food reserves are low, with some suggesting that they could be as low as six days. There is no buffer for shocks, given our reliance on imported food. Northern Ireland feeds around 10 million people, which equates to around 25% of the UK's food production. That is remarkable for a region of its size. While we can be proud of that, it is something that we must protect. It depends on the health of our farms, the strength of our supply chains and the ability of our agri-food businesses to compete on a level playing field. At present, all those face very serious challenges. The Ernst and Young (EY) report, 'Food for thought', spells out clearly why the agri-food sector matters. It generates £4·9 billion in gross value added, and it supports 113,000 jobs. The Northern Ireland economy is three times more reliant on food and drink than the UK average, with 77% of everything that we produce being sold outside Northern Ireland. It is the backbone of Northern Ireland's economy: it sustains rural communities, drives exports and supports our ports, logistics sector, manufacturing base and hospitality industry. When something is that important, every sinew should be strained to allow it to grow, yet food producers find themselves battling red tape, getting conflicting planning advice and guidance and seeing a lack of joined-up thinking between Departments. Sadly, a lot of that rests at the feet of the Department. We hear time and again from poultry farmers who are stuck in planning limbo. The Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) gives one assessment and Shared Environmental Services (SES) gives another: nobody seems to be accountable for the delays. Those farmers are ready to invest and to improve their environmental performance, but they are blocked by a system that cannot provide clarity. We have raised issues with that system in the Chamber on several occasions, yet we are no further forward. That is neither sustainable nor fair, and it is certainly not consistent with the Programme for Government's commitment to supporting sustainable growth. The Minister needs to bring forward clear guidance on ammonia controls in planning: not aspirational statements or theoretical models, but clear, practical guidance that will allow investment to proceed, which is better for the environment. That is entirely achievable but long overdue. It is important to acknowledge the strengths that already exist in our agri-food industry. Take, for example, the internationally recognised Food Fortress scheme developed with Queen's University. That scheme increased testing for high-risk contaminants by over 500% at no extra cost to industry. It has helped to secure new markets in Southeast Asia and shows what can be achieved when government and industry work together rather than against each other. However, innovation can take us only so far when our trading relationship within the UK is undermined. The Windsor framework and the continued application of EU law in Northern Ireland create serious obstacles to food security and business confidence. The DUP will always support practical arrangements that genuinely ease trade, but it is clear that the framework has not solved the problems that businesses are living with day-to-day. The UK Government claim that the new sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) agreement with the EU has restored trust. If that is the case, why are "Not for EU" labels still due to be imposed on products moving within the United Kingdom? Why should taxpayers here keep footing the bill for trader support that would not be needed if we had unfettered access to our own internal market? Most concerning of all is the threat to veterinary medicines. From January 2026, when the grace period expires, anywhere between 10% and 40% of veterinary medicines currently supplied to Northern Ireland could be discontinued because Great Britain suppliers simply cannot justify the cost of meeting EU rules for such a small market. That affects farmers, feed manufacturers, pet owners, vets, processors and, in fact, everyone who depends on the health and welfare of animals. It has been suggested that the Government have decided to simply wait and see how serious the situation becomes before acting. That is not acceptable when animal health, food safety and public confidence are at stake, particularly when it is blindingly obvious how dire the situation will be. We need only consider feed producers who produce medicated feed for the pig sector on advice from vets. Those businesses will need to be informed of what veterinary medicines are available or what alternatives they should use. The absence of action is an abdication of responsibility. Certainty is needed now, and there need to be assurances that Northern Ireland will not be left at the bottom of the priority list for access to essential medicines. We also need the Government to take a genuinely radical approach to resolving the structural problems in the framework rather than tinkering around the edges. A further area of growing concern is the new EU deforestation regulation. The new due diligence requirements will impact on about 20% of the raw materials imported by the Northern Ireland Grain Trade Association, but there is no clarity on how Northern Ireland will be affected if Great Britain chooses not to align. It is not a stretch to presume that that could result in shortages that, in turn, would cause costs to rise for feed companies and, ultimately, consumers. Those are real risks for an industry that is already working on tight margins. What, if any, tangible steps has the Minister taken to press the UK Government on that? What mitigations has he sought to minimise the risk of disruption for inputs moving between GB and NI if the rest of the UK does not follow suit? Waiting to see what happens is not an option: the Minister needs to be ahead of that instead of reacting to it. The DUP fully supports the need to protect our environment, reduce emissions and encourage sustainable practices, but climate policy must be realistic, evidence-based and fair. The interim targets that were set last December were not realistic, costed or accompanied by the policies that would be required to deliver them. The net cost of carbon budgets up to 2037 is almost £479 million, and the estimated cost to meet the 2040 target is around £707 million. Those are enormous sums that will, ultimately, fall on businesses, farmers and consumers. As the DUP has pointed out, the Minister's nutrients action programme (NAP) proposals would have resulted in significant reductions in livestock numbers. That would have devastated the agri-food sector and undermined food security. The result would have been offshoring our emissions to countries with much lower welfare and environmental standards. Not only would that not protect the planet but it would damage our economy and hand an advantage to our competitors. A genuine just transition recognises that farmers manage 78% of Northern Ireland's land area, deliver high-quality, sustainable produce and have a vested interest in caring for the land. Where is the investment in advisory services? Far too often, farmers face complex schemes and regulations, with very little one-to-one support. The Department would be better spending money on providing expert guidance to those who actually manage the land rather than creating new climate bodies or consultancy groups. There is no shame in the Minister revisiting the interim 2030 and 2040 targets. It would be an act of honesty and responsibility. We see that in jurisdictions around the world where pragmatism is favoured over hubris. For obvious reasons, we will not support the Sinn Féin amendment. It fails to recognise the problems that the Windsor framework causes and, therefore, fails to seek to address those problems. It fails to recognise the damage that will be caused by strict adherence to unrealistic targets rather than revisiting them, as is happening in other jurisdictions. It does not address what our agri-food sector needs. Northern Ireland's agri-food sector is one of our greatest assets, and it should be cherished and protected. It is productive, innovative, resilient and respected globally, but it is also vulnerable. If we want to retain food security, the obstacles that prevent growth need to be removed, the lack of clarity on ammonia controls in planning needs to be addressed and the looming crisis in veterinary medicine and the regulatory divergence created by the Windsor framework all need to be addressed. However, we must also adopt realistic climate targets that protect the environment and the farms and businesses that feed us. Food security is not delivered by overburdening the very people who provide the food, and sustainability is not delivered by driving production elsewhere. Economic growth is not delivered by allowing bureaucracy, whether it is from London, Brussels or our own agencies, to choke off investment. Food security is an issue not just for DAERA; there must be an Executive-wide approach, and the Minister must, as a priority, establish formalised discussions with the Department for the Economy on the development of a food strategy that places food security at its heart. The motion recognises those realities and identifies the steps that are to be taken. It sends a message that the Assembly values our farmers, processors and the tens of thousands of families whose livelihoods depend on the agri-food sector. Mr McAleer: I beg to move the following amendment: Leave out all after "environmentally sustainable practices;" and insert: "recognises that Brexit has had a significant destabilising impact on our agriculture and agri-food sector, negatively affecting our farmers and rural communities; further recognises the all-island nature of the agri-food sector; acknowledges that the Windsor framework provides a pragmatic way to manage the new trading realities that now exist, preventing a hard border on the island of Ireland and securing dual market access for our food produce; understands that concerns exist for farmers regarding future access to veterinary medicines and the implementation of emerging regulatory requirements; believes that progress toward emissions reduction targets must promote food security, be fair, evidence-based, avoid culls, be consistent with a just transition for agriculture and avoid carbon leakage whereby higher emission food imports displace local production; and calls on the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to bring forward measures to unlock greater levels of on-farm investment and innovation, including providing clarity on ammonia controls within planning, in line with the Executive’s Programme for Government." Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Declan. You will have 10 minutes to propose the amendment and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other contributors will have five minutes. Declan, please open the debate on the amendment. Mr McAleer: I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of our amendment, which seeks to place clarity, balance and reality at the centre of our discussion on agriculture, food security, environmental sustainability and the future of our rural communities. It recognises not only the challenges but the enormous opportunities that lie ahead, should we choose to take them. The amendment begins by recognising environmentally sustainable practices, but it also sets out truths that can no longer be avoided. The first of those truths is: "Brexit has had a significant destabilising impact on our agriculture and agri-food sector" and, by extension, on our farmers, processors and the rural communities that rely on them. Our agri-food sector is one of the greatest economic success stories. It grew by 7% in 2018 alone, rising to over £5 billion in value. That figure makes it clear that agri-food is not just another part of our economy but a key catalyst for growth, manufacturing, logistics, hospitality, retail and exports. The sector does not operate in isolation; it is part of a finely balanced all-island system with supply chains, processing networks and labour flows that simply cannot be separated by lines on a map. Top 6.00 pm The free-trade agreements struck by the British Government with third countries and often negotiated without sufficient regard for the specific structure of our agri-food market pose real risks. Cheaper imports from countries with lower environmental and welfare standards have the potential to undercut our farmers, particularly in their major market: Britain. That is not scaremongering; it is already happening. Our farmers are competing with products from across the world that are produced at lower cost and, often, to lower standards. The loss of labour has been even more pressing. For decades, our food-processing plants, mushroom farms, dairy operations and horticulture businesses were able to rely on a steady stream of EU workers. Post Brexit, that workforce has drastically reduced, and COVID-19 only intensified the problem. The problem of labour shortage is far more acute in the North. That is because, just a few miles away, in the South of Ireland, firms continue to enjoy full access to EU labour and can operate a general employment permit scheme for third-country nationals. It is against that backdrop that our amendment emphasises the all-island nature of the agri-food sector. That is not a political statement but a statement of economic and agricultural reality. Livestock do not recognise when a field is cross-border. Raw milk does not require customs paperwork as it moves from processing. Our agri-food systems operate seamlessly across the island. Animals and raw ingredients move freely across the island because that is how the industry was designed to operate. Mr McGlone: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree that, but for that all-island economic approach to agri-food, the North would be a less successful place in terms of its productivity? Mr McAleer: Yes, I absolutely agree with you, Mr McGlone. One third of the milk that is produced by the industry in the North is exported across the border for further processing. If we did not have that seamless processing trade across the island, our dairy industry would collapse overnight. Recognising that reality does not undermine anyone's constitutional position; it simply means acknowledging how the sector works in practice. Our amendment makes it clear that the Windsor framework, whilst not perfect, provides a workable way of managing the new trading realities created by breakfast — Brexit. [Laughter.] It prevents the emergence of a hard border on this island, and it preserves dual market access for our produce. That dual access into the EU single market and the UK internal market is a competitive advantage that no other region in these islands enjoys. It is already opening doors for exporters, particularly in dairy and meat, and we should do everything that we can to maximise that opportunity. We must also acknowledge the serious concerns that exist, such as those among farmers about future access to veterinary medicines and the implementation of emerging regulatory requirements. At last week's AERA Committee, Committee members heard that the North of Ireland Veterinary Association has warned of serious pressures on the supply of veterinary medicines. Brexit has created significant uncertainty, and vets still have no official guidance on which products may be withdrawn, increasing the risk of shortages of essential treatments. Some supplies are now being routed through the South, which is helpful, but concerns remain about NI-only pack sizes becoming more expensive and hitting smaller farms hardest. We urgently need clear guidance on the veterinary medicine directive, proper communication from the British Government and a practical plan to avoid supply gaps. Importantly, we need to see continued constructive negotiations between the EU, the British Government and all stakeholders in order to secure a long-term, workable solution that protects animal health and our farming sector. Our amendment also places an emphasis on the path towards emissions reductions. Let us be clear: farmers understand the need to address climate change. They are very much part of the solution. New science, new technologies and new practices are emerging faster than ever. Our farmers are embracing soil testing, carbon surveys and a range of innovations that reduce emissions while improving efficiency. The North's farm support measures have been designed to encourage exactly that kind of progress. We must ensure that the transition is fair, evidence-based and consistent with the principle of just transition for agriculture. Absolutely central to that will be avoiding the kinds of blunt, damaging measures such as culls that would devastate family farms while doing little to address global emissions. Equally important is avoiding carbon leakage, where reducing local production results only in more imports, with higher emissions and lower welfare standards. That would be an environmental failure and an economic catastrophe. Food security is a priority. Insecurity in global supply chains, geopolitical instability and extreme weather have shown us that the ability to produce food locally is vital. Society needs farmers more today than ever, yet government policy, particularly at Westminster, has too often moved in the opposite direction. For example, the decision to remove agricultural property relief and business property relief will hit family farms the hardest. In the North of Ireland, where family farms dominate and land values are high, that will pose a serious threat. That is why our amendment supports the DUP's call for the Minister to bring in measures that will unlock greater on-farm investment and innovation. If we want farmers to meet environmental standards, improve productivity and maintain food production, they need certainty, support and the right tools. That includes providing long-overdue clarity on ammonia controls in the planning system. No farmer can be expected to invest in modern infrastructure if planning guidance is unclear, inconsistent or subject to sudden change. We need an approach that protects the environment while enabling farms to modernise, grow and become more efficient. That is fully consistent with the Executive's Programme for Government and is essential for the confidence of the sector. Our amendment acknowledges the challenges of Brexit, recognises the opportunities of the Windsor framework, defends the interests of farmers, promotes sustainability without sacrificing food security and calls for clear, practical action to support innovation and investment. I commend the amendment. Ms Mulholland: We are a region with a proud agricultural heritage, and I have such a deep respect for our farmers, who work every day in every season to feed the rest of us and the countries further afield where our food is exported. They deserve honesty, and the motion does not provide that. It reads like another attempt to undo the consequences of a future that the proposers helped to create. Food production is already recognised as a strategic asset through the food strategy framework, which links food to health, education, climate, sustainability and economic growth. The truth is that there are sectors in our agri-food industry that, without the Windsor framework, would simply collapse. If anything has held our agriculture back, it has been Brexit and bad trade deals that the DUP actively welcomed. The motion takes a real concern — food security — and uses it as a vehicle to roll back on climate ambition and to reopen political arguments about the Windsor framework, rather than genuinely addressing how we ensure that people here access good food in the years ahead. Scrapping the protocol would not be a solution but an act of self-harm. As agri-food leaders have said, Brexit created major frictions and challenges, most of which were resolved by the protocol, which now offers new opportunities. Another stakeholder put it plainly when I spoke to them, saying that their members benefit from unfettered trade to GB and onwards to the EU, and they want those benefits to be protected. It is not just trade: the DUP backed the UK Government's migration White Paper, despite years of warnings that the agri-food sector, including mushroom growers, need that access to labour. It is absolutely critical. It is deeply hypocritical to claim to be defending farmers whilst supporting policies that leave farms without workers on a seasonal basis. The architects of Brexit are now protesting the barriers that they helped to build. From my Communities perspective, I also put on record that, while we talk about food security from the point of view of production, it is also about the depth of poverty in this country. Food security is not only about what we produce but what people can afford to put on their plates. There are Ministers in the Executive from the DUP who have the power to ease food security more effectively than any change to climate targets or legislation. The Minister for Communities holds the pen on the anti-poverty strategy, and the Education Minister holds major responsibility for food security through free school meals and holiday hunger provision. Let us talk about food security, but let us talk about it honestly. It will not be secured by lowering our climate ambition, and it will not be secured by ripping up trade agreements. That is why I support the Minister's doing whatever he can to enable farmers to invest in technology and practices that future-proof agriculture but also future-proof our environment, rather than rolling back on our environmental ambition. Lowering emissions targets would undermine Northern Ireland's climate commitments and our global reputation. Progress has to be fair and evidence-based and to avoid carbon leakage. The Sinn Féin amendment reflects a more balanced approach, and we will support it. Ensuring food security and sustainability can go hand in hand. That is the reality, and that is why we will oppose the unamended motion and support the amendment. The motion looks at food security in the rear-view mirror, when what this region needs more than anything is a vision for the future. The Minister has clearly set out a vision, but he needs the support of all his Executive colleagues to make that vision a reality. Mr Butler: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion. I begin by acknowledging that the one thing that we will all agree on is that food security matters but that is where the similarities in the motion and the amendment end. In Northern Ireland, food security means more than a few lines on a page or a few words in a speech. Food security is our strategic asset. As was said, we feed around 10 million people across these islands, we sustain rural communities and our agri-food sector contributes around £5 billion in gross value added (GVA) to Northern Ireland's economy. When our farmers thrive, Northern Ireland thrives. I offer qualified support to the DUP motion. We will oppose the Sinn Féin amendment. The protection of our ability to produce our food, to invest in agriculture and to ensure that regulations enable rather than paralyse innovation is at the centre of our support. However, we must remain ambitious in our climate and environmental ambition, and pragmatism must prevail. Many of the challenges referenced in the motion, however, did not appear out of the blue, and nor were they created by the Windsor framework alone. As was picked out, they were and are the symptoms of a Brexit that was mis-sold; a Brexit that promised frictionless trade. It was a Brexit that insisted that there would be no borders on this island; nonetheless, there is one in the Irish Sea. It was a Brexit that was presented as cost-free for farmers, processors, the rural supply chain and industry. That Brexit never existed. Now, however, my ears have to listen to those who champion an internal regulatory border as if it was some kind of benefit to Northern Ireland. I am sorry but that stretches credibility beyond breaking point. The Windsor framework should never have been seen or sold as a prize. It was offered by some as damage limitation, constructed perhaps because of political dishonesty that left Northern Ireland without any alternative. It was sold as avoiding a hard border on the island. However, we ended up with one in the sea. The framework brought challenges, and we should acknowledge that, but to suggest that it was created in a vacuum or that we would have been better off is false, because there was always going to be some form of arrangement. However, we have to deal in facts and not fantasies. The reality is that our farmers face uncertainty over veterinary medicines from 2026, planning paralysis caused by years of unclear ammonia guidance, the prospect of more not fewer regulatory requirements from the UK and the EU and a global market that is becoming more competitive, more volatile and more influenced by climate risk. That is one that retailers and consumers are demanding action on. Those issues require clear, grown-up policymaking, not slogans, not wishful thinking and not pretending that rolling back on commitments alone will create progress. We should remain ambitious on emissions targets, but we have to tackle that with realism and fairness and by being pragmatic. Northern Ireland has committed itself to some of the most stretching emissions targets anywhere on these islands, but targets alone do not deliver progress. It is the approach that matters. I suggest that the approach to achieving those targets is where the failings have been evidenced so far. We see that being realised elsewhere, because new approaches and revised targets are not just within our purview here. Top 6.15 pm Just this year, the EU has signalled a more pragmatic approach to regionally significant sectors as it negotiates its own climate framework, and Scotland, faced with its ambitious but unrealistic pathway, adjusted its interim targets in recognition of the fact that progress must be fair, deliverable and rooted in evidence, not aspiration alone. That is not abandoning climate action; it is aligning ambition with reality. It is about ensuring that we do not force cuts in local production only to replace them with higher-carbon imports from elsewhere, and it is about protecting food security whilst moving forward. We must remain ambitious — absolutely — but we must also adopt a balanced, regionally appropriate path that recognises the unique structure of our agriculture sector and its essential role in feeding millions. I will finish with this: our agri-food sector does not sit in isolation. Regardless of the top-line figure, with the rural economy, whether it is about rural shops, engineering or schools, the whole economy is tied — Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up. Thank you. Mr Butler: — to our food security. Mr McGlone: A recent study by the UK bodies the Constitution Society and the Federal Trust indicated that the widely held opinion before the referendum that Brexit's economic impact would be negative and large has been borne out. The UK's GDP has reduced by about 4% compared with a Remain scenario, trade has reduced by about 15% and there has been a sizeable impact on investment. I will break that down. That is £92 billion per year in lost output. To break that down further, that is £1,350 per person per year. The 4% of GDP lost means that government collects £30 billion to £40 billion less in tax each year. The reality is this: the DUP campaigned for that Brexit and got what it asked for, and now everyone else has to pick up the pieces. The motion reads like a wish list of reactionary policies that the DUP cannot get through the Executive. The SDLP does not support the motion, but we will support the amendment. We agree that food security is important in the North and across these islands, and I emphasised earlier the importance of the agri-food sector in the entire 32-county context. That is how that economy works. That is how it has developed and evolved naturally on this island, and that is why it is so successful. We also celebrate and congratulate the food and drink sector on generating £4·9 billion of gross value added to Northern Ireland. Of course, we want to see more investment in agriculture to support improved productivity, job creation and more environmentally sustainable practices. However, the DUP wants to return to the failed policies of the past, whether they involve Brexit, agriculture or so many other issues. We are living with the implications of the intensification of farming without any environmental remediation. In my area, each year, Lough Neagh faces issues with blue-green algae. That has to be addressed by new farming practices. A strategy has caused damage to the environment and may cost us millions in remediation. The DUP motion also complains again about the current climate change targets set in legislation by the Assembly. Previously, the DUP kicked the can down the road in the hope that a technological solution would appear, and it still has its fingers crossed on that one. Mr Speaker — a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle; gabh mo leithscéal, a Carál [Translation: Madam Principal Deputy Speaker; apologies, Carál.] — in my previous role as the SDLP's AERA spokesperson, I highlighted the ongoing threat to the supply of veterinary medicines to the North: another unadvertised consequence of Brexit. That Brexit was promoted by the DUP and rejected by the majority of the people of the North. The risks to animal and human health will primarily affect the North and the island of Ireland, but the problems are not the result of a divergence in regulations between Britain and the EU on veterinary medicines; they are the result of a failure of negotiations. Who supported the people who were at that negotiating table? Who voted the procedures through Westminster? Join the dots. The solutions to the problems that we discussed in 2024 are still on the table. Those solutions will require compromise from either the EU or the British Government or both. It is, however, time for the Executive to step up on the issue and press the British Government for a solution. We can certainly agree that there is a need for clarity on ammonia controls in planning. The Department and the Executive cannot continue to delay a resolution to that issue. They must resolve it to address the threat of legal action from the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP) over the failure to adhere to the law on protecting the environment. That is also looming. It is the job of Governments and the Executive to consider, within the demands of the law, the demands of lobbyists, including us, when we are in the Chamber debating the issues. We in the SDLP believe that it is possible to improve productivity and job creation through more environmentally sustainable practices, which become a major selling point on the world stage. Having that product with those credentials is a bonus for any market into which we try to sell. That is what the public want to see an Executive deliver. Go raibh míle maith agat. [Translation: Thank you very much.] Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Fáilte romhat, a Patsy. [Translation: You are welcome, Patsy.] Mr Honeyford: We are approaching another Christmas when families across Northern Ireland are struggling with food prices, energy bills and the rising cost of living. Yes, the Assembly should talk about food security, because it goes to the heart of whether people can afford to heat their home and put food on the table. From the point of view of the Department for the Economy, it matters even more. The food and drink sector is one of our largest employers. It is one of our most stable industries and one of the few sectors in which we genuinely punch above our weight. It supports tens of thousands of jobs, as has been said, and it is essential for rural communities and regional balance. It is a hugely important industry in which there is real money, real jobs and real security. It is also about families in our community. Although we are having this debate after years of rising food prices, one of the biggest drivers of food prices is energy costs. Our bills are still tied to global gas prices, which are shaped by wars around the world and instability in international politics. Those shocks feed directly into farm and business costs and on to the price of goods on our supermarket shelves. We on this island have the ability to become self-sufficient in energy. That is the transition on which we need to be focused if we want long-term lower costs to deliver real energy security. Alongside food security, we need a proper master plan from the Department for the Economy on renewables, biogas and all those future technologies. That links in with the wider rural community. Once again in the Chamber we have the DUP tabling a motion that chooses division. Instead of focusing on what makes people's lives better, we are yet again dragged back into yet another debate in another week about the Windsor framework, which is a direct consequence of the very Brexit that the DUP championed. You cannot push for Brexit, create all the barriers and then act as though you are shocked when the consequences land, nor can you set fire to regulatory frameworks and then complain that there is smoke in the room. Businesses tell us all the time that they want stability and certainty and clear, easy access to information and support for investment. Our agri-food sector thrives because food can be moved seamlessly across the island. The final product can trade to the UK, the South and into EU markets. Again and again, through such negative motions, the DUP talks Northern Ireland down — every time. Fact is fact: dual market access is growing our economy. Our growth figures are different from those in the rest of the UK. We see that with real jobs and growth, and we see our economy starting to pick up and grow. We see jobs being created. Across the Chamber, I see that DUP Members are shaking their heads. They do not live in the same world as the rest of us and the community out there. People in my constituency have a job today because they have dual market access. Food producers are creating jobs today because they have dual market access. The facts are clear. You can shake your heads and bury them in the sand, but that is actual fact. Keeping our supply chains open in every direction strengthens food security. We should build on that advantage, not talk it down or try to tear it down. If we are serious about growth, the Department for the Economy needs to bring that master plan for energy through to allow investors and local communities in rural areas to have confidence not in a strategy but in a plan of action. Farmers need to be part of that solution. I see their commitment every day. I live in a rural community. I married a farmer's daughter, and my brother-in-law and wider family still farm. They are being badly let down, not only by the authors of the motion — it is another case of 'The Grand Old Duke of York', where everybody is marched to the top of the hill and then left lying — but also, to be frank, by the Ulster Farmers' Union, which continues to choose outrage over outcomes. Food security is important. It needs to be prioritised but not as a political stunt and not to raise stuff about the Windsor framework. Our people deserve better than division dressed up as debate. Mr Blair: Like my Alliance colleagues, I oppose the DUP motion. In our view, not only is it an attempt to shirk responsibility, it risks undermining crucial ambitions for climate and environmental progress — ambitions that are essential to safeguarding our farming community and food security. Despite the rhetoric in the motion, of which there is much, food security is already a key policy focus in Northern Ireland. The motion indicates how our agriculture sector is already seen as a strategic asset, employing thousands, adding £4·9 billion to gross value added and producing enough food for 10 million people, when there are only two million of us. Additionally, the motion fails — conveniently, perhaps — to acknowledge the fact that, in this mandate, the Minister has already secured significant support for the agriculture sector. For example, he has secured ring-fenced funding of over £300 million for the sector and £12·3 million for the just transition fund. He is progressing our sustainable agriculture programme and actively engaging with the Finance Minister to secure further support for the industry. The main challenge is ensuring the sustainability and resilience of our food system against threats such as climate change and the poor policy choices of the past. Instead of learning from mistakes, the motion seems intent on ignoring the impact of past choices. It was, after all, the DUP that championed Brexit, which brought UK trade deals with countries such as Australia and New Zealand, but it now raises alarm at the trading reality that those choices ushered in, including the very Windsor framework that it criticises in the motion. While concerns about regulatory changes to veterinary medicines and on-farm practices are real, let us not forget who helped to create those circumstances in the first place. I acknowledge the active engagement of the Alliance AERA Minister with the UK Government on regulatory clarity for veterinary medicines. Schemes have been developed to maintain access to critical products and to support farmers as they navigate changing requirements. I know that the Minister continues to push for greater clarity as the deadline approaches. Turning to environmental responsibilities, the motion refers to climate targets as being merely "aspirational", yet the targets are legally binding, having been set in law by a Minister who, if you do not mind, was from the very party that has tabled this anti-environment motion. Climate action and food security are not in conflict, and to suggest otherwise is simply wrong. Northern Irish farmers are some of the best custodians of the land. Many of them know too well the mounting risks that climate change brings, from extreme weather to threats to soil health and biodiversity. We cannot let short-term thinking jeopardise their future. Let us be clear: watering down climate targets will only harm our farmers in the long run, making us less, not more, food-secure. That is why the Alliance AERA Minister has launched schemes such as Farming with Nature and the bovine genetics project. Those are pioneering approaches that prove that agriculture and climate can and must work hand in hand. Only last week, the Office for Environmental Protection significantly announced an investigation of the handling of sewage discharges into Belfast lough — as if we needed another wake-up call. Minister Muir is working tirelessly to reverse the decline of our water quality, but meaningful change will require all Executive parties to step up, not step away. Inaction on polluters, lack of investment and denial of evidence from parties in this Chamber only perpetuates the problems. While the DUP motion appears to aim at preserving animal welfare standards, the pollution that results from inadequate climate action directly contradicts that goal. Ignoring pollution harms animal health and ecosystems as more species decline and our natural environment deteriorates even further. Yes, we must prioritise the welfare of livestock. However, equally, we must protect biodiversity to ensure its ongoing survival. To put it simply, there can be no farming without nature. Top 6.30 pm Continuing on that theme and the subject of pollution, the Minister has consistently proven how committed he is to delivering clarity on ammonia controls. I am hopeful that future imminent progress on air quality will help with that. Ammonia pollution has real and immediate impacts on public health and the environment. Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Will the Member give way? Mr Blair: Yes, of course. Mr Muir: Will the Member also acknowledge that the issue of ammonia is complex, and that the Office for Environmental Protection has set that out? Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute. Mr Blair: Absolutely; of course. That guidance is essential to the Minister, to his officials and to us, but those issues have been ignored for far too long by previous Ministers. Alliance is able to support the amendment, particularly its recognition of the destabilising impact of Brexit and the opportunities that dual market access offers. We agree that there must be no culls and that a just, evidenced-based transition is critical. Alliance cannot support a motion that is riddled with contradictions and blind to the reality that we face. Our climate and our agriculture are two sides of the same coin. Food security is not possible if we sacrifice one for the other. Our focus needs to be on solutions, not on scapegoats. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, John. The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs will respond to the debate. Minister, you have 15 minutes. Mr Muir: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. This DUP motion is perhaps one of the most bizarre that the Assembly has debated for a long while. It is riddled with contradictions and, as per usual, light on solutions. DUP Members bemoan the outworkings of Brexit, a cause that they championed, which has damaged the UK economy and resulted in appalling trade deals, negotiated by Boris Johnson and Liz Truss and endorsed by the DUP, that have thrown our farmers under the bus. They want to support the agri-food sector, but willingly pulled the rug from under it after gleefully supporting the White Paper on immigration and, indeed, calling for the UK Government to go much further, clear in the knowledge of the serious impact that that is having on the labour supply for local agri-food businesses. They complain about the climate change legislation that their own Minister progressed and which they all voted for at Final Stage. They call for a just transition, yet fail to acknowledge that it is their own party that is holding up moves to set up a just transition commission designed to ensure the very thing that they want. All of that is disingenuously framed within the issue of food security. I acknowledge the importance of food security. However, as we all know, it is a complex topic with a range of risk factors: most notably, geopolitical, as well as the very real impacts of climate change and biodiversity loss. While there are many definitions, the most widely used one is from the 1996 World Food Summit, which defined food security as: "when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life." There are many interacting factors that shape and determine the stable relationship between people and food that is at the core of that definition. Food security, therefore, cannot be reduced to a single metric or concept. It is complex and multifaceted. Northern Ireland's agri-food sector is indeed a strategic asset, employing around 80,000 people with a gross value added of around £2 billion per annum, accounting for 36% of total manufacturing sales. I have clearly set out my vision for the sector where financial and environmental sustainability go hand in hand. I reaffirm my commitment to building a thriving, resilient and environmentally sustainable future. We are a proud food-producing region, recognised internationally for our high-quality produce, most notably milk and meat products, which command a significant premium in export markets. However, we also rely heavily on importing significant quantities of other food products, such as fruits and vegetables, which is why I remain committed to expanding our horticulture sector. Farmers are central to our future food security, but food security is not just about farms; it includes our fisheries and aquaculture sectors. Foods from aquatic sources, both wild-caught and farmed, generally have a significantly lower carbon footprint than terrestrial animal-sourced foods, offering an opportunity to deliver low-carbon food security, support rural economies and contribute to Northern Ireland's decarbonisation commitments. My Department's marine environment and fisheries fund ensures that Northern Ireland's seafood sector remains strong and sustainable and that our fisheries and aquaculture sectors thrive while contributing to environmental targets and food security. At a national and global level, the risks to our food security are growing. Climate change, biodiversity loss, geopolitical instability and supply chain disruptions that increase costs to farmers, food producers and consumers are very real. I am also acutely aware that, at a household level, disposable incomes are lower in Northern Ireland than in other parts of the UK, which puts significant pressures on the affordability of food. I am therefore proud to have secured Executive agreement on the long-term Northern Ireland food strategy framework and its associated two-year action plan. A key focus on addressing food inequalities and developing a right-to-food culture while recognising the need for a more sustainable agri-food sector and utilising the necessary science, technology and skills to support that transition is absolutely fundamental. In January this year, via a written ministerial statement to the Northern Ireland Assembly, I provided an update on my Department's new programme of farm support, which was required as a result of EU exit. Through striving to achieve its four outcomes of improved environmental sustainability, enhanced productivity, stronger resilience and an effective, functioning supply chain, the sustainable agriculture programme has an important role in the delivery of DAERA's key priorities. I am extremely proud to be the only devolved Minister in the UK to have secured ring-fenced funding totalling £332 million for agriculture, agri-environment, fishery and rural development, which enables the sustainable agriculture programme to be delivered this year and in future years. Many strong and positive benefits from the sustainable agriculture programme are being delivered, most especially the bovine genetics scheme. That scheme is a no-brainer. The conditionality associated with the farm sustainability payment is proportionate and fair. However, without rhyme or reason, the DUP saw fit to vote against it. I am grateful that others saw sense, and I am glad that we are pushing forward and are able to realise the clear and real benefits for our farmers. In the run-up to the referendum in 2016, many warned about the implications of Brexit, with Northern Ireland's sharing a land border, involving over 200 crossing points, with an EU member state. Indeed, Tony Blair and John Major visited Derry/Londonderry to set out those issues. However, the DUP carelessly ploughed on regardless, mistakenly trusting charlatans such as Boris Johnson, just like it is doing now by putting its faith in Nigel Farage, despite all the warning signs. The Windsor framework is the outworking of Brexit. Although it is not perfect, it provides the best way forward, short of the UK's rejoining the single market and customs union, which it really should. The Windsor framework and the unique dual market access that Northern Ireland enjoys is a real economic benefit and a safeguard for many in the agri-food sector in Northern Ireland. Without the Windsor framework, the dairy industry, for example, would be sunk. The DUP knows that, but, as ever, it is prepared to play fast and loose with people's jobs. I am not prepared to do that; nor am I prepared to sit back and bemoan some of the issues encountered. That is why getting an agri-food SPS agreement between the UK and the EU has been a priority for me ever since the new UK Government came into power. I am pleased to report that negotiations commenced last month on the legal text of that agreement between the UK and the EU. That is a positive step forward. The agreement, once implemented, will provide greater certainty for businesses across the UK and will reduce the need for checks on goods moving between GB and NI. Differences in regulations related to trade will always bring about trade frictions and complications; hence I have been pressing the UK Government to seek the maximum possible dynamic alignment with the EU regulations as part of an agreement that creates practical and sustainable arrangements that can be implemented as soon as possible. The proposed simplifications and one-year delay to the application of the EU deforestation regulation (EUDR) will be welcomed by businesses. However, we still require urgent clarity on the extent to which the EU deforestation regulation will apply in Northern Ireland. I have repeatedly asked the UK Government, who lead on the EUDR, to communicate the relevant arrangements as soon as possible. While veterinary medicines are not under my direction and control, their continued supply has been a key issue for me. Whilst the most recent work by DEFRA and the Veterinary Medicines Directorate suggests that the situation may be less critical than initially feared, I understand the ongoing concerns about product availability. I welcome the introduction by DEFRA and the Veterinary Medicines Directorate of the veterinary medicine internal market scheme and the veterinary medicine health situation scheme from 1 January next year. The schemes are designed to be responsive, adaptable and capable of addressing anticipated and unforeseen supply issues. I will continue to work closely with the UK Government, whom I met again last week, and the veterinary medicines working group to ensure that the schemes are governed effectively and deliver the outcomes that we need. In responding to calls for clarity on ammonia controls, it is important that I first set out the context. The report by the Office for Environmental Protection on the issue, published in October 2024, is essential reading. Ammonia levels in Northern Ireland are shockingly high and must be reduced. The OEP report starkly sets it out that DAERA: "failed to comply with environmental law" on ammonia advice. The report states the cold, hard fact that the previous Minister just kept kicking the can down the road: "A letter sent from DAERA to the OEP on 7 August 2023 explained that direction was therefore sought from the DAERA Minister on three separate occasions between 21 May 2020 and February 2021. From the information we received during our investigation, it is clear that no ministerial direction was provided". The issue on which DAERA was acting unlawfully was rectified towards the end of 2023, after the OEP initiated legal action against the Department. The immense challenge is to reduce emissions whilst dealing with practical issues such replacement sheds. I am committed to finding a lawful way forward, and I look forward to a key meeting with stakeholders in the next few weeks, when we can hopefully set out a pathway ahead. I will move on to the call for me to urgently bring proposals to the Executive to reduce Northern Ireland's interim 2030 and 2040 emissions reduction targets and the nonsensical idea that those are aspirational goals. They are not; they are legal obligations, democratically set by the House. As ever, on the issue of climate action, the DUP is out of step with the world of business, just as it was on Brexit. Look at all the businesses that have signed up to the Business in the Community climate action pledge: companies such as APB Food Group, Almac, Belfast Harbour Commissioners, Danske Bank, Encirc, the Galgorm Group, GRAHAM, the Henry Group, Hughes Insurance, Northern Ireland Water, Translink, Wrightbus and more. They are leading the way, and I am determined that Northern Ireland will not be left as a laggard yet again, dragging our heels and refusing to grasp the real benefits of decarbonisation in creating the good, green jobs that the people of Northern Ireland deserve. For the avoidance of doubt on the matter, I will not consider or bring forward proposals to reduce the 2030 or 2040 emissions reduction targets. My focus remains on continuing to implement our existing legislative commitments, which were agreed by the Assembly. It is important that we provide our businesses and investors with certainty and confidence whilst ensuring that Northern Ireland realises the benefits associated with decarbonisation in a fair and balanced manner. We have seen at first hand the impact that severe weather events such as flooding and storms can have on our businesses, communities and environment. Just over a month ago, we debated a motion calling on the First Minister and deputy First Minister to strengthen infrastructure and emergency response systems due to concerns about the impact of the increasing frequency and severity of storms. As we all know, the DUP has a long history of climate scepticism and denial of science. Take, for example, Sammy Wilson, a man who has said that man-made climate change is a "gigantic con" and a "hysterical semi-religion". Those DUP views talk down the UK's role as an international, global leader and show the DUP to be a party that has learned nothing from Brexit and continues to be completely unable to comprehend consequences. Taking action to reduce our emissions is important to protect food production against the ever-worsening impacts of climate change. Alongside mitigation actions, my Department is leading the development of Northern Ireland's third climate change adaptation programme. The programme contains over 280 actions across all Departments, including 28 actions focused on building resilience to the impacts of climate change on our food supply system. Food security is one of our most immediate and economically significant reasons for maintaining strong climate ambition. Without emissions reductions and climate adaptation, we face a future in which we put our farming community at risk. The amendment to the motion calls for progress towards our emissions reduction targets to be: "consistent with a just transition for agriculture". I am committed to ensuring that there is a fair and just transition as we work towards reducing our emissions. A key part of that transition will be supporting sectors. I am pleased to have allocated funding to a dedicated just transition fund for agriculture, and I will continue to seek further funding for that. It is not about pitching climate against food production. Farmers are our greatest ally in tackling climate change, and many already play their part and should get credit for that. I have seen at first hand many examples of innovation and positive action and of farmers leading the way. In line with the just transition principles and the 11 objectives set out in the 2022 Act, my role is to help support them to do that, and I will continue to do so. Top 6.45 pm The amendment states: "emissions reduction targets must promote food security, be fair, evidence-based, avoid culls, be consistent with a just transition for agriculture and avoid carbon leakage". The 2022 Act has measures relating to carbon leakage, and I support those. I continue to seek Executive agreement to bring forward regulations to establish a just transition commission that will provide advice and hold all Departments, including mine, to account by ensuring that we have a just transition principle. That commission will be made up of independent experts and will have representation from the agriculture sector. If the DUP is serious about a just transition for agriculture, I ask it to please stop sitting on those regulations, which have been with the Executive since September. It should agree the paper and let me get on with the job. Holding up tangible ways to safeguard a just and fair transition for agriculture is unreasonable, irrational and disrespectful. We must address the issues that are in front of us, and we must do that together. I am committed to doing that. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister. I call Aoife Finnegan to make her winding-up speech on the amendment. Aoife, you have five minutes. Ms Finnegan: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle. [Translation: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.] I will speak in support of our amendment, which seeks to strengthen the motion by grounding it firmly in the lived experiences of our rural communities and the challenges that they face. The amendment rightly recognises that, while our farmers are the backbone of the North's economy, they operate in a landscape profoundly shaped by Brexit, as Ms Sian Mulholland discussed. Its destabilising impact on our agriculture and agri-food sector cannot be overstated. It has created new frictions, uncertainties and pressures on those who already work in the most demanding and essential of industries. That is especially important when we consider the economic profile of our rural areas. According to a recent analysis by DAERA, almost half — 46% — of businesses in rural areas more than an hour outside Belfast have engaged directly in agriculture, fishing and forestry. When combined with construction, those sectors account for 56% of rural enterprises. In 2024, agriculture alone represented 39% of rural businesses, with construction at 17%. Those figures demonstrate not only the dominance of agriculture in our rural economies but the extent to which rural livelihoods depend on stable, workable policy frameworks. The amendment acknowledges the vital reality that the agri-food sector is inherently all-island in nature. Supply chains, veterinary systems, animal movement and food standards operate seamlessly across the border. In that context and to address Mr Robbie Butler's comments, the Windsor framework offers a pragmatic way to manage new trading realities, avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland and, crucially, securing dual market access for our produce, giving it an economic advantage. The Assembly must recognise farmers' legitimate concerns. As other Members have highlighted, we heard in the Agriculture Committee last week directly from the North of Ireland Veterinary Association about the issues on future access to veterinary medicines after the grace period, as well as the burden that farmers see of emerging regulatory requirements. Those cannot be ignored. Our path towards emissions reduction must be fair, evidence-based and protective of food security. It must reject destructive measures, such as herd culls, and it must guard against carbon leakage, which would see local lower-emission produce being replaced with imports from higher-emission jurisdictions. For those reasons, the amendment calls for greater on-farm investment, clarity on ammonia controls in planning and support for innovation. That is not only reasonable but essential. Rural businesses need certainty, the tools to adapt and a Department that is willing to champion their contribution to our shared prosperity. I urge Members to support the amendment and to stand with our rural communities at this pivotal moment. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Keith Buchanan to conclude and wind up the debate on the motion. I advise you that you have 10 minutes. Mr K Buchanan: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Northern Ireland's agri-food sector is the backbone of our economy. It deserves clarity, support and respect, which I have not heard much of in here today, to be honest. Let us back our farmers, protect food security and ensure that that world-leading industry continues to thrive. It is estimated that Northern Ireland feeds approximately 10 million people. Food production is not just a business; it is a strategic asset. Our farmers are world leaders in many innovations. It was noted in a briefing by Invest NI that 35% of the businesses in the Mid Ulster council area, which is in my constituency, are agriculture. Having worked in the food processing sector for 22 and a half years — I will not go into the number of days, minutes and seconds, because that would bore people — I have seen exactly what farmers and food processors do daily. The Minister needs to work alongside the DUP — the DUP has been referenced a lot today — to establish realistic and achievable climate change targets that safeguard the future of our agriculture industry while ensuring environmental protection. I deal weekly with farmers and landowners who are stuck between Shared Environmental Services and the planning legislation. They are stuck in the middle of that, and they are not getting clarity either way. If they had clarity, at least they would know where to go. I appreciate that the Minister has already made his comments. Farmers are stuck between SES and the NIEA. They need some clarity on where to go. Farmers are trying to improve their business, but, as they cannot get any direction from either organisation, they are stuck. Mr Muir: Will the Member give way? Mr K Buchanan: Yes, go ahead. Mr Muir: On the issue of ammonia, we are, hopefully, acknowledging that it is complex and that we need to remain on the right side of the law. I have had sustained engagement with officials on that. There is a desire to look at whether we can give more advice to people, because they have to navigate the system. I acknowledge your point on that. Mr K Buchanan: Thank you. It is good to hear that, Minister. It is important to put yourself in the shoes of those farmers, because they are pulling their hair out — what is left of it. Ambition is important, but ambition without realism risks undermining our economy and our environment. Rural communities and major infrastructure projects cannot be sacrificed to satisfy the overly ambitious and impractical climate agenda that risks undermining economic growth and the livelihood of farmers. What is needed is a balanced approach. I do not think that you will get any argument about that from the farming sector. There needs to be a balanced approach that promotes sustainability without imposing disproportionate burdens on the rural community. The planning logjam from ammonia controls, as has been touched on, is strangling investment, especially in poultry. Farmers are willing to adapt, but they cannot do that if the Minister and his agencies contradict one another, and we have already covered that. We all want sustainability, but it cannot prevent progress. Current climate targets would slash livestock numbers. Looming over all those issues are other external threats. A farmer today, who is trying to make a living at the side of the A5 or, indeed, the A32 and who has had part of his land taken, leaving it in devastation, also has to deal with TB; bird flu; planning issues; bluetongue; inheritance tax; the weather; costs; negative press, with people who do not even know what they are talking about; veterinary medicines; and world trade prices. I declare an interest; I have two brothers who are farmers. Why would you ever want to be a farmer when that is looming over you every single day? To be fair, there is only so much that we in here and the Minister can do; I appreciate that. However, as we have heard, the world trade price of milk will have another detrimental impact on farming. We therefore have to try to do what we can here not to make it difficult for farmers, who are willing to work with us, as we have heard before. We cannot rely on complex fixes. We must restore certainty, fairness and unfettered access across the UK internal market. Northern Ireland deserves nothing less. Those are not abstract risks; they hit animal welfare, food security and consumer costs. This is not just a transition; it is a direct attack on food security. I will briefly go through some Members' comments, if I may. Michelle McIlveen, who moved the motion, talked about Northern Ireland producing 25% of the UK's food, which is an awful lot for a place the size of Northern Ireland, and said that 77% of the food produced here is sold outside Northern Ireland. She also talked about the veterinary medicine issue, which a lot of Members covered. Declan McAleer said that the agriculture sector is a growing part of our economy. He talked about other cheaper imports at lower standards. If our production in Northern Ireland is reduced, where will the produce come from, not necessarily to feed Northern Ireland but to feed the UK mainland? Where will that produce come from, and what standard are you going to get? He voted for "breakfast", not Brexit. I am not sure what he voted for or did not vote for. I will leave that there. He also talked about veterinary medicines. Sian Mulholland talked about food banks and their impact. Robbie talked about planning paralysis — everyone covered that more broadly. He also talked about the emission targets. Patsy wanted investment to improve productivity. That is fair enough. He talked about blue-green algae and new farming practices, but he did not mention the impact of NI Water. The impact that NI Water is having on Lough Neagh is widely known in the Chamber, but maybe some Committees do not really understand the impact. Maybe they need to own up to that. He also talked about veterinary medicines and planning issues. David Honeyford talked about food and drink and said that we punch above our weight here. He also said that energy costs here reflect directly on to business costs. That is a fair enough point. John Blair touched on the just transition fund, veterinary medicines and the sewage discharges into Belfast lough, not all of which, to be fair, point to the agriculture sector. I sometimes question the 62/24/12 figures and where they have come from. I think that some of them have been dreamed up, but I do not want a response on that one. Modelled is one thing, but actual is another. John Blair also said that climate and agriculture are two sides of the same coin. I do not really know what that meant, but I wrote it down anyway. John, thank you for that. Mr Blair: Will the Member give way? Mr K Buchanan: Yes. Mr Blair: It simply means that they are interdependent. Mr K Buchanan: Thank you. Finally, the Minister touched on the fact that the agriculture sector is a strategic asset. He talked about the import of fruit and veg into Northern Ireland, and veterinary medicines — something on which he is working with DEFRA. We will see where that goes. Obviously, time is running out on that. To be fair, he provided a degree of clarity on SES and NIEA issue more broadly for planning. I will leave it at that. Question put, That the amendment be made. The Assembly divided: Ayes 38; Noes 19 AYES Ms K Armstrong, Mr Baker, Mr Blair, Mr Boylan, Ms Bradshaw, Miss Brogan, Mr Delargy, Mr Dickson, Mrs Dillon, Miss Dolan, Mr Donnelly, Mr Durkan, Ms Egan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Finnegan, Mrs Guy, Miss Hargey, Mr Honeyford, Mr Kearney, Mr Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mr McAleer, Miss McAllister, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McMurray, Mrs Mason, Mr Mathison, Mr Muir, Ms Mulholland, Ms Murphy, Mrs O'Neill, Ms Reilly, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin Tellers for the Ayes: Ms Finnegan, Ms Murphy NOES Mr Bradley, Mr Brett, Mr Brooks, Ms Brownlee, Mr K Buchanan, Mr Burrows, Mr Butler, Mrs Cameron, Mr Chambers, Mr Clarke, Mrs Erskine, Mr Frew, Mr Harvey, Mr Kingston, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Martin, Mr Middleton, Mr Robinson Tellers for the Noes: Mr K Buchanan, Mr Harvey Ms Ennis acted as a proxy for Miss Brogan. Mr Clarke acted as a proxy for Mrs Erskine. Question accordingly agreed to. Main Question, as amended, put. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I have been advised by the party Whips that, in accordance with Standing Order 27(1A)(b), there is agreement that we can dispense with the three minutes and move straight to the Division. The Assembly divided: Ayes 38; Noes 19 AYES Ms K Armstrong, Mr Baker, Mr Blair, Mr Boylan, Ms Bradshaw, Miss Brogan, Mr Delargy, Mr Dickson, Mrs Dillon, Miss Dolan, Mr Donnelly, Mr Durkan, Ms Egan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Finnegan, Mrs Guy, Miss Hargey, Mr Honeyford, Mr Kearney, Mr Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mr McAleer, Miss McAllister, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McMurray, Mrs Mason, Mr Mathison, Mr Muir, Ms Mulholland, Ms Murphy, Mrs O'Neill, Ms Reilly, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin Tellers for the Ayes: Ms Finnegan, Ms Murphy NOES Mr Bradley, Mr Brett, Mr Brooks, Ms Brownlee, Mr K Buchanan, Mr Burrows, Mr Butler, Mrs Cameron, Mr Chambers, Mr Clarke, Mrs Erskine, Mr Frew, Mr Harvey, Mr Kingston, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Martin, Mr Middleton, Mr Robinson Tellers for the Noes: Mr K Buchanan, Mr Harvey Ms Ennis acted as a proxy for Miss Brogan. Mr Clarke acted as a proxy for Mrs Erskine. Main Question, as amended, accordingly agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly notes the importance of food security; believes that food production should be recognised as a strategic asset in Northern Ireland; further notes Northern Ireland’s role in feeding 10 million people; celebrates the food and drink sector generating £4.9 billion gross value added to Northern Ireland; stresses that investing in agriculture is essential for boosting productivity, job creation and delivering progress towards more environmentally sustainable practices; recognises that Brexit has had a significant destabilising impact on our agriculture and agri-food sector, negatively affecting our farmers and rural communities; further recognises the all-island nature of the agri-food sector; acknowledges that the Windsor framework provides a pragmatic way to manage the new trading realities that now exist, preventing a hard border on the island of Ireland and securing dual market access for our food produce; understands that concerns exist for farmers regarding future access to veterinary medicines and the implementation of emerging regulatory requirements; believes that progress toward emissions reduction targets must promote food security, be fair, evidence-based, avoid culls, be consistent with a just transition for agriculture and avoid carbon leakage whereby higher emission food imports displace local production; and calls on the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to bring forward measures to unlock greater levels of on-farm investment and innovation, including providing clarity on ammonia controls within planning, in line with the Executive’s Programme for Government. Adjourned at 7.18 pm. Top
[ni-assembly-official-report][plenary_report] Official Reports https://aims.niassembly.gov.uk/officialreport/report.aspx?&eveDate=2025/11/25&docID=459893 Official Report: Tuesday 25 November 2025 Table of Contents Assembly Business Committee Deputy Chairperson Appointments Members Statements International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women Portrait Damage at Belfast City Hall: PPS Decision 16 Days of Activism against Gender-based Violence Defending Ukraine Road Safety Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council: Homelessness Lord Mayor Portrait at Belfast City Hall International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women Halal Meat in Schools 16 Days of Activism against Gender-based Violence Lá Idirnáisiúnta um Dhlúthpháirtíocht le Muintir na Palaistíne International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People Opposition Business Multi-year Budget Free School Meals Provision Oral Answers to Questions Finance Opposition Business Free School Meals Provision Policing Resources Adjournment Traffic Flow in Newtownards The Assembly met at 10:30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair). Members observed two minutes' silence. Assembly Business Committee Deputy Chairperson Appointments Mr Speaker: I received notification yesterday from the nominating officer for Sinn Féin that Cathy Mason has replaced Nicola Brogan as Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Communities, and Emma Sheerin has replaced Deirdre Hargey as Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Justice with immediate effect. Members' Statements International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women Ms Sheerin: Tá Lá Idirnáisiúnta um Dhíothú an Fhoréigin in aghaidh na mBan ann inniu. Ar an drochuair, tá ár sáith taithí againn ar an fhoréigean in aghaidh na mban sa Tuaisceart. Tá an fhadhb chomh forleathan sin gurbh éigean lá aitheantais domhanda a thiomnú di. Rinne na Náisiúin Aontaithe amach díriú ar an fhoréigean in aghaidh na mban agus thug siad tiomantas deireadh a chur leis, agus aird ar leith á tabhairt acu ar mhí-úsáid dhigiteach, agus ba chóir dó sin uchtach a thabhairt dúinn uilig. Tá mé cinnte go dtig le gach duine sa tSeomra tacú leis sin. [Translation: Today is International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, something we in the North find ourselves faced with all too often. It is sobering that this phenomenon is so widespread that it justifies a worldwide day of acknowledgement. The decision by the UN to focus on it and its commitment to end it, with a particular reference to digital abuse, should be heartening for us all. It is something that, I am sure, all in the Chamber can get behind.] I am glad that the focus of this year's International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women is on online abuse. We will all agree that that conversation is needed. Social media has become a platform for torturing women. That causes emotional harm to every victim, but I argue that the lessons that it teaches our young people are even more harmful in the long term. It is not just on social media; it has been mainstreamed. We recently elected a new president in Ireland. In the days following her inauguration, the national broadcaster thought it appropriate to run a piece on what she was wearing. What does that teach the young girls of Ireland? You can literally become president, and, still, all that they will care about is what you look like. We are teaching our young women that they are lesser and that their value is measured by their appearance, and then online trolls and bullies attack women when they make an effort with their appearance. It is in that context that the abuse of women is allowed to flourish. Women are deemed to be subhuman, lesser, disposable and expendable. That mindset murders women. In the past five and half years, it has murdered 37 women here in the North. Most of those women met their deaths at the hands of someone that they knew, whether it was a partner or an ex-partner. None of those women sat down during a first or second date and accepted terms that would see them killed, but, going by the online commentary, you would think that they had. Victim blaming is rife on social media as well, and until we deal with that, we will see a continuation of the problem of online bullying, abuse targeted at women and the post-mortems that see them as being responsible for their own deaths. Until we deal with our words, we will keep losing women. That is something that we all need to address. Portrait Damage at Belfast City Hall: PPS Decision Mr Brett: The comments yesterday from the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) that it would not be bringing charges against a former Sinn Féin employee for an attack on a portrait at Belfast City Hall have all the hallmarks of yet another republican cover-up and raise serious questions about the accuracy of statements that were made in the House and by Sinn Féin to the Police Service of Northern Ireland. On 22 October 2024, the First Minister said: "a Sinn Féin employee who worked in the Assembly made the party Chief Whip aware of their involvement in an incident regarding a portrait in Belfast City Hall." — [Official Report (Hansard), 22 October 2024, p1, col 1]. The PPS has confirmed that, in an email received from the Sinn Féin Chief Whip, the PSNI was advised of the resignation of that employee as a result of the incident. However, come February 2025, Sinn Féin's rewriting of the past began. I will quote directly from the PPS statement: "A witness statement subsequently made in February 2025 by the Chief Whip, who had spoken directly to the individual on 21 October 2024, recorded that he had in fact made no admission to being at the event and had denied any knowledge of the damage." Within the space of six months, the Sinn Féin Chief Whip had confirmed that either they were not telling the truth or that the First Minister had misled the House. The PPS statement also says: "Attempts to obtain a list of attendees from the external group responsible for hosting the event were unsuccessful." When a group is in receipt of public funding, there is a moral and legal requirement that it cooperates fully with police investigations. It is a very serious matter that that group did not provide a list of attendees to the police. Today, I have tabled a number of questions to the First Minister and deputy First Minister and the Minister for Communities, seeking clarity on the public funding that that organisation has received. The statement went on to confirm: "Police were unable to identify any individual who had witnessed the relevant events." We know that Sinn Féin representatives have been unable to identify former employees that have been right in front of them before. They are now claiming that they were unable to identify one of their employees at an event at City Hall. There is an attempt here by Sinn Féin to cover up the fact that the son of one of its sitting MLAs attacked the portrait of a former Lord Mayor of the city, costing ratepayers of the city £2,500. The truth will come out, and we will ensure that it does. 16 Days of Activism against Gender-based Violence Ms Egan: 16 Days of Activism against Gender-based Violence begins today. Those 16 days are a reminder that we must maintain momentum in our collective fight to end violence against women and girls once and for all. The theme of the days for 2025 is "#NoExcuse for online abuse" and brings into focus the need for lawmakers, social media companies and other regulatory bodies, including Ofcom, to keep pace with our unwieldy and ever-evolving online world. The internet can be a fantastic tool for connection, curiosity and learning, but we cannot ignore the data in front of us about the real, tangible dangers that it poses. Research has found that, at a minimum, one in 10 women and girls in Northern Ireland have experienced online violence. Overall, between 2022 and 2023, the amount of deepfake pornography created increased by 464%. Online abuse is now so prevalent in the fabric of our society, and we must take action to prevent it. The dedication of vital charities and grassroots community groups to building a safer world for all, whether that be through teaching what healthy relationships look like, debunking myths about abuse itself or giving refuge to those in crisis, should be commended. That includes groups that are working in Northern Ireland, such as Nexus, the NSPCC, Hourglass, Women's Aid, the Men's Advisory Project and local women's centres, which are often at the coalface of the problem and see at first hand the needs of women in their communities. I think about where we were 18 months ago. We now have the strategic framework to coordinate a cross-government approach to gendered violence and a complementary domestic and sexual abuse strategy. Ending violence against women and girls is a key strand of our Programme for Government. We have new data and new funding, including the release of the local and regional change funds. We can still see, however, that Northern Ireland is one of the most dangerous places in western Europe to be a woman. Our femicide rate is deeply distressing, and my thoughts are with all the women who have lost their lives to gendered violence and with their families and loved ones. Since 2020, 28 women have been violently killed in Northern Ireland. On top of that, the PSNI has reported that there were 29,740 incidents of domestic abuse between 1 July 2024 and June 2025. The actions that I have outlined will have some impacts now, but we are also building towards the future. We cannot lose speed and focus on bringing about a future in which every woman and girl is safe online and in our society. Defending Ukraine Dr Aiken: It is now 11 years since the West first turned a blind eye to Putin's aggression against the Ukraine. In February and March 2014, his little green men invaded Crimea. In April of that year, Putin annexed Crimea and increased his military presence in the Donbas, again with minimal response from the West. We have talked of the parallels with the mid-1930s on both sides of the argument, from well-informed observers such as Timothy Snyder, who wrote the seminal history of eastern Europe — his aptly named book 'Bloodlands' — to the rather less informed musings of the current Irish president and of Sinn Féin MEPs such as Maria Walsh, whose Putinesque view of the world is mirrored only by fellow travellers in Iran, North Korea, China and that paragon of democracy, Venezuela. Either way, the full-scale war in Europe has now reached the point at which both sides have reached a bloodstained stalemate in the bloodlands. It is a war of ferocity and savagery that has received little coverage, as a world obsessed by 60-second storylines and deliberately distracted by antisemitic tropes and wokeism ignores the plight of the Ukraine. That is ironic, because the Ukraine is fighting our wars for us. If Ukraine is forced into capitulation, the Baltic states, Poland and other countries, including us, will be next. We know that because, just as he told us that he would take Ukraine, Putin has told us that he will take his Russia into Europe. An outright liar about many things, he takes a remarkably consistent approach to telling his truth about that. Right now, a "Peace for our time" moment is being confected. History tells us what happens when the aggressor is appeased. Let us hope that the supportive rhetoric from the vast majority of right-minded nations, particularly those in the European Union that are standing fast, such as the Republic of Ireland, is followed up with resolute action to defend the Ukraine and Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Failure to do so will be catastrophic not just for the citizens of Kyiv, Odesa, Kharkiv and Lviv but for all of us. Slava Ukraini. Road Safety Ms Hunter: I will talk about the importance of road safety and reflect on the tragedy of the passing of Katya Watson, one of my constituents, who was involved in a road traffic accident outside Ballymena and died on 13 December 2023. She was a beautiful and smart young lady with her whole life ahead of her. She is remembered lovingly by her friends and family. She was a beloved daughter of Eamon and Angelique and loving sister of Gabriella, Francesca and Aurora and twin sister of Lucia. Top 10.45 am In just the past number of days, we have, sadly, heard of many road traffic accidents and of pedestrians being killed by a car. I rise today to speak further on how the dangers of our roads cannot be overstated. For example, the A5, which is just one road, has claimed over 50 lives since 2006. In Northern Ireland, particularly in the winter months, we are short on daylight. Drivers navigate many hours in low-light conditions, yet too many travel without their lights on. That is a life-threatening risk. I ask today that the Minister for Infrastructure explores evidence from other jurisdictions that shows that requiring dipped headlights or daytime running lights can meaningfully reduce crashes and save lives. That is a simple, proven high-value safety measure that we should prioritise island-wide, and it is evidenced to save lives in other jurisdictions, such as those in Scandinavia. I ask the Minister for Infrastructure to liaise closely with our Education Minister to educate teenagers in schools. Crashes do not happen in a vacuum. Public behaviour matters, and we need an all-island road safety campaign pushed out on TV and online that is high-impact and notifies drivers of the importance of being safe on the roads. Locally, we know that we need to implement more speed indicator devices (SIDs). They show drivers their speed in real time and are so important. They are probably one of the most valued tools that we have. They are cheap and quick to deploy, and data from evaluations of them shows that they reduce average speeds and high-speed driving, particularly around schools and rural lanes, where many accidents happen. With Christmas approaching, there really is no time more urgent than now. Our roads are icy, and, paired with the glaring sun at this time in the season, that makes drivers nervous on the road. We can all speed unintentionally from time to time, and I urge everyone to think twice, particularly in the current weather conditions. I ask the Department for Infrastructure to do everything in its gift to end dangerous driving through speeding. Let us act urgently so that we can honestly say that we did all that we could to prevent another funeral and another family being destroyed and that lives have been saved not just through policy wins but through our shared responsibility. Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council: Homelessness Mr Boylan: I want to take my time today to highlight homelessness in the Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council area. Like the constituency offices of all MLAs, my office is often contacted by those who are most in need of housing but continue to find themselves grappling with the crisis of housing supply versus overall need. Every time that such a person comes through our office doors, we see the insecurity and indignity of becoming homeless, which is often not spoken about even though it can have a detrimental and traumatic effect on those who are impacted. The Housing Executive's 2025 update for the Armagh, Banbridge and Craigavon council area shows that, of a total of 4,148 applications for social housing, 2,760 were lodged by people who are in housing stress. The people who are on housing waiting lists deserve not only a home but the correct support in the here and now. Therefore, I welcome the work of my colleague Colm Gildernew, who intends to introduce a private Member's Bill on homelessness prevention. Extending the time for which the Housing Executive should support people is a positive move to ensure that those who are at most risk of becoming homeless are supported. Not just in Armagh but across the board, everyone recognises the need to build more social and affordable houses, increase the overall supply of homes and work towards tackling homelessness and supporting those who rely on temporary accommodation. As the Minister responsible for housing, the Communities Minister must step up to deliver more social and affordable homes. My party colleagues and I will continue to work with our local Housing Executive staff, housing associations, others across the Assembly and the Executive to ensure that we see the delivery of the housing supply that is needed, including in Newry and Armagh. Lord Mayor Portrait at Belfast City Hall Mr Kingston: Yesterday, the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) took the unusual step of issuing a lengthy statement explaining its decision not to proceed with the prosecution of the individual who was interviewed in connection with the damage to the portrait of former lord mayor Lord Browne at Belfast City Hall. Let us remind ourselves of the sequence of events. A Sinn Féin spokesperson said in October 2024: "Today, 21 October, a Sinn Féin employee who works in the Assembly made the party Chief Whip aware of their involvement in an incident regarding a portrait at Belfast City Hall that took place on Saturday 19 October. The employee was immediately suspended, and we have notified the PSNI today. The employee has now resigned from their employment and their party membership." The PPS statement issued yesterday reminds us that, also on 21 October: "First Minister Michelle O’Neill informed the Northern Ireland Assembly that a Sinn Féin employee made the party Chief Whip aware of their involvement in an incident regarding a portrait and that they had been suspended and then resigned" and that the PPS and the PSNI were working to establish the evidence of what occurred. The statement adds that, because of a lack of evidence, it did not progress to prosecution. There was no CCTV coverage of the attack on the portrait. We are told that the organising group, an Irish language group, failed to provide a list of attendees. There were no eyewitnesses, and the PPS statement states: "The email from the Chief Whip advising PSNI of the resignation stated that it had been tendered 'as a result of' the incident." It adds: "It is understandable that the suspension and resignation of a Sinn Féin member raised expectations that a prosecution would likely follow." However, there was not sufficient evidence. From time to time, events occur that remind us that Sinn Féin is not a normal political party. What other political party would have its member attend an event and engage in a hate crime, and then, when the person decides to say nothing to the police, the party engages in a cover-up? I see Sinn Féin Members smirking and smiling, but those events expose the reality of Sinn Féin. It does not respect the rule of law. It engaged in a cover-up, and that event, like previous events, will continue to haunt it and expose its lack of democracy. International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women Mr Burrows: On International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women I acknowledge some of the suffering of women across the globe before turning to what is happening in Northern Ireland. I want to touch on the treatment of Christians in Nigeria at the moment, which gets little news coverage because it does not satisfy an ideology, in contrast with things that happen in the Middle East. We saw, just last week, more than 300 schoolchildren taken hostage, a terrible reminder of the 276 schoolgirls taken hostage by Boko Haram in Chibok in 2014. One hundred of those girls are still missing, and every one of them will have been subjected to sexual violence or will be living in constant fear of it. We never hear of protests, flag waving or emotion here about the plight of women in those countries. In Afghanistan, there is now an elimination of women from public life. Women are banned from education. Girls over the age of 11 are banned from education. Women are not allowed to teach boys in school, which has resulted in primary-school girls being withdrawn. Some women are not even allowed to have their voices heard in public. There are no protests, no campaigns, no passion, no commentary. If the Afghan cricket team were to come here, there would be no calls for it to be boycotted. It is as if that violence against women and girls does not exist. In Northern Ireland, we suffer from extremely high levels of violence against women and girls. I heard Ms Egan outline the progress that has been made, but I just do not recognise that progress. We still have the slowest justice system in the UK, and that is the biggest enabler of domestic and sexual violence, because the perpetrators tactically delay their plea until the very last minute, hoping that the victim drops out because they do not have the emotional resilience to stay in a lengthy process that takes two or three years. However, there is no extra sentence at the end of it. We have the softest justice system. Only today it is in the news that a man who was convicted of three assaults on women in a park in Comber got a £100 fine for each assault. That is what you would get for a parking ticket. What motivation was there for the women to come forward, give evidence and take a day off work? We still have a criminal justice system that always seems to put the perpetrator first and the victim last, which has the greatest impact on our women. On International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, I acknowledge the suffering across the globe — Mr Speaker: Time is up. Mr Burrows: — and in Northern Ireland. Halal Meat in Schools Mr Gaston: Last week, a concerned parent shared with me their freedom of information response from the Education Authority (EA) on the use of halal meat in our schools. The FOI response shows that neither parents nor even schools have been told that meat served in school canteens may be halal-compliant. The EA admits that it has no tracking, no monitoring and no record-keeping of how much halal meat is being provided to our children. Parents can complain and request alternatives, but how are they meant to complain about something that they have never been told about? Halal meat may be served in our schools, but the EA does not know how much. It has carried out no consultation, and parents have received no guidance or even been given the courtesy of a warning. Remarkably, when asked what alternatives are available for families who do not accept that method of slaughter, the EA responded: "Where parents or pupils have specific dietary requirements or objections to halal food, schools can provide vegetarian or other suitable alternatives upon request". In other words, "If you do not like halal meat, no problem: there is the salad bar for you". That is simply not good enough. Traditional halal practices require the animal to be conscious at the moment of slaughter, so, beyond religious objections, there are perfectly legitimate ethical and animal welfare concerns held by many families. There are also those who believe, reasonably, that religious rituals of which they have no part should not determine how their food is prepared, especially in publicly funded schools. This is not a new dilemma. The apostle Paul addressed Christians in Corinth who were concerned about eating meat associated with religious practices that they rejected. The point that he made was simple: conscience matters, and people should not be forced into practices that violate it. However, there is a difference in this: the Corinthians knew what they were eating, but parents in Northern Ireland simply do not. That is the heart of the matter. Parents should not have to submit an FOI request to find out what their children are being fed. We need transparency, honesty and a system that respects parental choice rather than hiding behind market availability and supply chains. Therefore, I call on the Minister to instruct the EA to introduce clear labelling and full transparency in school menus and ensure that non-halal options are genuinely — Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up. Mr Gaston: — available to our children. 16 Days of Activism against Gender-based Violence Ms Forsythe: I rise today, on International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, to share the sentiments of others on this the first day of the global 16 Days of Activism, as we join right across the globe to call for the end to violence against women and girls everywhere. Throughout the campaign, the challenge for all of us is to remind people of the devastating truths of the world in which we live and the tragic real-life stories of victims and survivors, and to take the opportunity, with whatever platform we have, to raise awareness. These are all not just numbers; they are real lives and real families, and often, until it hits close to home, many of us do not appreciate the impact on real communities. Top 11.00 am I am chair of the Assembly all-party group on domestic and sexual violence, and we were proud to arrange an exhibition that features artwork created by survivors to support the 16 Days of Activism and is on display currently in the Long Gallery. The exhibition was coordinated by Women's Aid Northern Ireland, and it showcases the artwork of women, children and young people supported by Women's Aid Northern Ireland, reflecting their journeys as survivors and powerfully highlighting the ongoing reality of domestic abuse in Northern Ireland. It is really powerful. The aim of the artwork is to put the campaign here, in the heart of our Government Building, for the duration of that time to raise awareness and encourage all who take time to view it to be inspired to take action against gender-based violence. Today in the Long Gallery, the All-Ireland Mothers' Union also hosts its exhibition, 'The Souls of our Shoes'. I went this morning, and, again, it is extremely powerful to see the real shoes of real women laid out there, as donated by their families, for those who have suffered or died at the hands of their partners or ex-partners. Mr Speaker, I thank you also for recognising the importance of this day and hosting an event to further raise awareness. Ending violence against women and girls is emphasised as a key priority of the Executive, and, by working together, the framework is, thankfully, now in place. However, there is still a long way to go to seriously address the problems in our society. Too many women are being murdered. Today, we remember the victims of the violence. We think of the survivors and those who live with unreported abuse and work hard to cope, and we encourage them to come forward. As we enter the Christmas season, when tensions at home are often escalated for many, I remember my time working in Belfast and Lisburn Women's Aid and the 'Silent Night, Violent Night' campaigns. I think of all those people through this time and ask everyone to raise awareness, to look out for your neighbours and to stand together strong as women, alongside our male colleagues as a society, in calling for the end of gender-based violence. Mr Speaker: You have a couple of minutes, Mr Sheehan. Lá Idirnáisiúnta um Dhlúthpháirtíocht le Muintir na Palaistíne Mr Sheehan: An 29 Samhain, déanann na Náisiúin Aontaithe an Lá Idirnáisiúnta um Dhlúthpháirtíocht le Muintir na Palaistíne a chomóradh. Tugtar deis dúinn an lá sin ár machnamh a dhéanamh ar na huafáis laethúla atá muintir na Palaistíne a fhulaingt: cinedhíothú, glanadh eitneach, forghabháil neamhdhleathach, cinedheighilt, coinneáil agus léigear. Thug mo chomhghleacaithe i Sinn Féin, Emma Sheerin agus Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire, cuairt ar Ramallah le déanaí, áit ar bhuail siad agus ar éist siad le híospartaigh chóras leatromach Iosrael. Is léir dúinn gur tháinig Netanyahu agus a réimeas salach ar gach bunphrionsabal; tá a gcuid gníomhartha go dubh in éadan chearta an duine agus an dlí idirnáisiúnta. Le breis agus dhá bhliain, lena chogadh cinedhíothaithe i gcoinne mhuintir na Palaistíne, scrios Iosrael Stráice Gaza – áit a n-aithnítear anois mar reilig do leanaí agus don dlí idirnáisiúnta. Cuireann fírinne shaol na bPalaistíneach faoi leatrom Iosrael rogha shimplí roimh an phobal idirnáisiúnta: an seasann muid leis na daoine atá faoi chois nó leis an tíoránach? Anois, níos mó ná riamh, caithfidh feachtas dlúthpháirtíochta idirnáisiúnta maidir le baghcat, dífheistiú agus smachtbhannaí díriú go straitéiseach ar dheireadh a chur le córais leatromacha Iosrael. Agus muid ag déanamh ár machnaimh ar lá seo na dlúthpháirtíochta, tá focail Terence MacSwiney, iar-Ardmhéara Chathair Chorcaí, thar a bheith oiriúnach dúinn: "Ní acu sin is mó a dhéanas lot a bheas an bua ach acu sin is mó a bhfuil fulaingt iontu." International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People [Translation: The 29 November marks United Nations International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People. This is a time to reflect on the everyday horrors that the Palestinian people endure: genocide, ethnic cleansing, illegal occupation, apartheid, detention and siege. My party colleagues, Emma Sheerin and Donnchadh Ó Laoghaire, recently visited Ramallah to meet and listen to the victims of Israel's systems of oppression. Netanyahu and his regime have crossed every red line; their actions are anathema to human rights and international law. For two years, Israel has, through its genocidal war against the Palestinian people, obliterated the Gaza Strip – a place now known only as the graveyard of children and of international law. The reality of life for Palestinians under Israeli oppression presents the international community with a simple choice: do we stand with the oppressed or the oppressor? Now, more than ever, is the time for the international boycott, divestment and sanctions solidarity campaign to become more strategically focused on bringing an end to Israel’s systems of oppression. To mark this day of solidarity, the words of the late Mayor of Cork, Terence MacSwiney, are extremely poignant to reflect on: "It is not those who can inflict the most, but those who can suffer the most who will conquer."] Mr Speaker: That brings to a conclusion Members' statements. Mrs Dillon: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I appreciate your taking the point of order. During Dr Aiken's speech, he made reference to Maria Walsh as a Sinn Féin MEP. To correct the record: Maria Walsh is a Fine Gael MEP and has never represented Sinn Féin. I think that she would appreciate the record being corrected. Mr Speaker: Thank you for that. A number of references were made to ending violence against women. I encourage as many of you as possible to attend tomorrow's event. I thought that it was important that, in my role as Speaker, I do something to recognise the violence that there has been against women in our community. I am working with Women's Aid on tomorrow's event. I hope that it will be a significant event at which voices speak out clearly to say, "Enough is enough. We shouldn't tolerate what has been going on". I encourage as many Members as possible to attend that event. Members should take their ease while we change the Chair. (Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair) Opposition Business Multi-year Budget Mr O'Toole: I beg to move That this Assembly recognises the need for the first multi-year Budget in more than a decade, to support long-term planning, improve certainty on public service funding and public-sector pay and provide clarity on infrastructure investment; acknowledges that the forthcoming autumn Budget will impact on Executive plans; notes statements by Ministers on the insufficiency of funding and also the absence of any concrete plans by the Executive to better fund public services through existing revenue tools or new devolved fiscal powers; and calls on the Minister of Finance to bring forward a draft multi-year Budget that includes options for new devolved fiscal powers and other innovative means of funding public services in Northern Ireland, which is fully aligned to the priorities outlined in the Programme for Government, before 9 December 2025. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. An amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List so the Business Committee has agreed that 15 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate. Matthew , please open the debate. Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. This is the final Opposition day of 2025. It comes at a crucial moment, because, within the next 24 hours, the UK Chancellor will announce her Budget. The measures announced will have a huge impact on ordinary citizens, but also on the Executive as they plan for what we hope will be — we say, today, that it must be — the first multi-year Budget in a decade and a half to be released before the end of the year. We do not want to talk today about simply the dry process of Budget-setting but about why so little trust and faith are placed in our Executive, and in our politics in general, to deliver for people. The reason for that is the failure to take responsibility for making real changes to people's lives. We know — the Finance Minister and I agree on this — that too much power lies in London and that, all too often, that power is not used for the real benefit of people here. We know that the priorities of successive UK Governments have not been aligned to our needs and those of our citizens. We know that what we have in place now does not work. None of that, however, absolves us from using the power that is at our disposal to make real change or, perhaps more importantly, given the day that's in it, to seek new fiscal powers with which to deliver for our people. That has been the stated policy intent of Sinn Féin Finance Ministers for years: they even spent £0·5 million on a Fiscal Commission to make recommendations, but none of those recommendations has been implemented. We know that there was a discussion in the Executive on 6 November, at least, but the Minister and his colleagues have been pathologically cautious about doing anything at all, because it is easier to blame someone else. Last week, the Finance Minister told the Assembly — after his officials had already told the media — that he hoped to proceed, at some point, with reform of vacant property relief and with some reform of small business rates relief. There was an Opposition proposal on that more than a year ago. We support the Minister's intent, but he offered no detail on when it would happen or even on when the Executive would discuss it. It is well over a year since his predecessor, Caoimhe Archibald, said that she would remove both the cap on domestic rates and the early repayment discount. Again, not only have those things not happened, but they have not even been discussed by the Executive. No finger of blame can be pointed at others, as, under paragraph 24 of the 'Conduct of Executive Business', three Ministers can insist that an item be placed on the Executive agenda. Sinn Féin has four Ministers but, for whatever reason, it has chosen not to use that power. We do not yet know what will be in tomorrow's Budget. We do know, however, that the handling of the UK Budget has been chaotic. This may be the first time that a British Government have U-turned on a Budget before it was actually delivered. We know that much of that chaos has resulted from the fetishisation of arbitrary fiscal rules, with screeching policy adjustments being required to meet those rules and satisfy bond markets. Those may be dry spreadsheet exercises for officials, but they can have devastating consequences when they are translated into policies that affect benefits recipients or low-income families, who have to live with the reality of having their standard of living and quality of life squeezed in order to satisfy forces that are beyond their control. That is the immoral act of austerity that we talk about so much here. All Governments should practise responsible fiscal policy, but it is now widely held that making the less well off shoulder the burden of meeting arbitrary fiscal targets is not simply immoral but economically stupid. The term "austerity" has, shamefully, been turned into a cliché by politicians, particularly, it has to be said, by Sinn Féin Ministers, who have trivialised it by using it as an alibi for a bewildering array of delivery failures. That is especially true of the Minister's former Department: Infrastructure. According to responses to questions for written answer, since February 2024, austerity has been responsible for more than 200 small and medium-sized projects not proceeding. It has been responsible for, among other things, the failure to build a park-and-ride in Comber. That was austerity. There is no Ballykelly bypass. That is austerity. There has been no resurfacing of the Crawfordsburn Road in Bangor. That is austerity, too. The Dial-a-Lift community transport service is not working. That is austerity. Just before I got to my feet, I got an answer by email from the Infrastructure Department telling me that a street in Finaghy, which is in my constituency, is not being resurfaced due to — you guessed it — austerity. Apparently, those things are all victims of austerity rather than ministerial choices and priorities. Even amid such austerity, it has apparently still been possible to find well over £10 million since 2020 to subsidise non-existent long-haul flights via zero air passenger duty (APD); a Sammy Wilson policy that the Sinn Féin Economy Minister still stands over. In the past few days, the Infrastructure Minister has released a social media video, seeking credit for protecting households and workers from water charges. From whom was she protecting them? I am not aware of any party in the Assembly that is actively proposing domestic water charges. The only person who has the legal power to commence water charges is the Infrastructure Minister. Is she protecting households from herself? Of course, she and the Executive more widely are not doing anything on water, as we have seen in today's announcement that the Office for Environmental Protection is launching an investigation into the Minister and her colleague. Just look at what has not happened with fiscal devolution and the changes to the rating system. Look at the plans — the announced or mooted plans — for a developer levy to fund waste water investment. Nothing has happened. It has been mooted by the current Finance Minister, who was formerly the Infrastructure Minister, but there is no detail and no timescales — just sound bites — as our water system holds back the delivery of affordable homes and new jobs. Sinn Féin wants credit for not doing something that only it can do and is not on the agenda anyway. In reality, it is doing nothing. It is happy to let London or the DUP take the blame while this place struggles. Earlier this month, the Sinn Féin leader of the Opposition in Dáil Éireann said that the Irish Government were a "do-nothing Government". I hear you, Mary Lou. Just wait till you hear what is happening up here. You guessed it: nothing. Talk about it taking one to know one. Of course, the DUP is often cited as the reason for blocking fiscal devolution. There is no doubt that it has become deeply sceptical of anything that looks like more revenue-raising or fiscal power. To be honest, however, who knows what the DUP actually wants? It hated the previous Tory Government, who shafted it on the protocol after shafting everyone else here on Brexit. It now hates the Labour Government, too. Presumably, it is waiting on the next British Government so that it can hate them, too. It is not so much a case of 'Waiting for Godot' as it is waiting for Nigel, a leader who is so committed to the unionist cause that he will do you an "up the 'Ra" video for the price of a few pints. Apparently, we are content for those people to make decisions about our future. The case for raising more local revenue and taking more fiscal powers locally has been more than made: it is overwhelming. Apart from the Treasury, the biggest obstacle to doing that is cynicism from a public who have lost all faith in the ability or willingness of local leaders to take responsibility. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, can you blame them? It does not have to be that way, however. Despite what the Finance Minister sometimes says, as Opposition, we have published a range of proposals. Indeed, many of those proposals have later been embraced by him and his colleagues; they have just not been enacted. From curtailing vacant property relief to ending the early repayment discount, we proposed those measures and we would support them if they ever came to the Floor. We proposed a levy on big agri-food companies to help to fund the recovery of Lough Neagh and nature restoration. We have called for an innovative use of Executive borrowing powers to help pay for water investment. However, Minister, the clue is in the title: you are the Minister, and we are the Opposition. If you want us to do your job for you, we are happy to do it, but you will have to give us proper access to official costings. Minister, what powers do you want, and how do you want to take them? Do you agree with the Fiscal Commission that income tax powers should be devolved, as they are in Scotland? If so, do you think that we should have an intermediate tax rate and a higher personal allowance, as they do there? How do you propose to fund essential investment in waste water infrastructure? That is not an optional treat. A developer levy? Tell us more. An infrastructure bond? Tell us more. You are responsible for answering those questions. Top 11.15 am The first ever republican Finance Minister, Michael Collins, managed to raise a bond worth £20 million in today's money, and he did so while operating in secret. Minister, you have hundreds of civil servants working for you, so the questions that I ask are not unreasonable. They are pressing for two reasons. First, there is virtually unanimous agreement in the Chamber that the UK Government cannot be trusted to prioritise our interests. Secondly and more importantly, you and I represent parties that seek to build a new Ireland, which, at its core, is about building something new on the island. It is about taking the power into our own hands and not simply allowing London to do everything for us. It is about not simply blaming others, not demoralising and disempowering people and not insulting their intelligence with drivel and nonsense. It is about treating the people whom we serve with respect as we give them choices now and in the future. We need to empower our people to build something new in the North now and in the new Ireland that we seek to build in the future. Those are our plans, Minister: tell us yours. Ms Forsythe: I beg to move the following amendment: Leave out all after "insufficiency of funding" and insert: "; notes the overspend and delay on the delivery of major capital projects; believes that public-sector transformation is required to deliver clear value for money; and calls on the Minister of Finance to bring forward a draft multi-year Budget, which is fully aligned to the priorities outlined in the Programme for Government, as soon as possible." Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Diane, you have 10 minutes in which to propose the amendment and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes. Diane, please open the debate on the amendment. Ms Forsythe: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank the Opposition for tabling the motion. It highlights once again the importance of moving to multi-year Budgets in Northern Ireland. While the leader of the Opposition has put on his last show of 2025, it is a serious issue. The positive impact that multi-year Budgets can have on financial governance here is an important topic. As we have an agreed Programme for Government (PFG) with agreed shared priorities, it is important that our Budget is set to underpin those and enable the finances to flow in support of them. We all know that having to plan and manage one year at a time, with a hard cut-off at the end of the financial year, drives a different mindset and set of financial behaviours than a Budget spanning a number of years would. At present, Departments have to spend their budget by 31 March each year or lose it to another Department or back to the centre. There is often panicked year-end spending, which is not sensible and is unlikely to deliver the best value for money. It is also not sensible for a funded project to be at risk because of a slip in timing across the financial year for unforeseeable reasons. A one-year Budget does not provide the opportunity for strategic planning, and it creates undue pressure and uncertainty for many services, including our partners in the community and voluntary sector. A multi-year Budget will allow Departments to plan on a longer-term basis. For it to be successful, however, Departments need to transform and cut down on their waste, which is what our amendment emphasises. In order to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland, we need local Ministers to spend every pound and penny wisely. That can happen only when every Department cracks down on waste and when every party in the Executive avoids party political pet projects. That is what this party is about doing. It is not simply about getting more money but about using current resources better. Look at what Minister Lyons is doing in his Department to utilise financial transactions capital (FTC) for intermediate rent in particular. We need to see reform, transformation and efficiency. We in the DUP are focused on delivering the scrutiny and accountability that people deserve. As a party, we have long said that the Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS) is in serious need of reform. We have called for modernisation in order to improve public service delivery. There are many hard-working individuals throughout the service who contribute substantially every day to the organisation. There are, however, areas in which Departments lack the right people, skills, know-how and experience to deliver the transformation and major projects that our communities are crying out for. The DUP wants to get to grips with the opportunity to transform public services in order to deliver efficiencies and better value for money. We want to see a review of the high number of quangos and to see some efficiencies realised. We have highlighted in our amendment how the Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) report on the delivery of major capital projects shows that the Civil Service lacks the skills and expertise to deliver them. That is something that the NICS must urgently address, alongside developing capacity and capability to deliver major capital projects successfully, without undue delay or preventable soaring costs. With a projected overspend exceeding £3 billion and rising, the need for transformation is urgent. We can look at the eye-watering costs associated with the new regional maternity hospital. The original completion date was December 2015 at a cost of £57·2 million. Ten years later, we still have no new hospital, and the latest estimate for it is £97·1 million. It is appalling that large procurement projects are delivered late and cost so much more than expected. We should not be numb to such a damning indictment. As regards public procurement, each year in Northern Ireland around 5,000 contracts are awarded by public bodies that, together, are worth between £2 billion and £4 billion. The Northern Ireland Audit Office found that there is little evidence that the board has been effective in providing the strategic direction to ensure that procurement has operated effectively in Northern Ireland. With a history of recurring high-profile procurement failures that diminish stakeholder confidence in public bodies' ability to manage procurement, we need to take steps to ensure that all money spent in the public sector is spent wisely. Household budgets are managed closely to deliver value for money. We need to ensure that the up to £4 billion per year that is spent in the public sector is managed closely too. All Departments face a long list of issues to address, with limited resources and funding to do so. A multi-year Budget can help Departments make long-term plans for transformation. Finally, our amendment recognises that the UK Budget is due tomorrow. We await the news that will come from it. The multi-year Budgets, which are in draft and to which Departments have contributed, will need to reflect any significant outworkings. Our call is for the multi-year Budget to be delivered as soon as possible so that all that can be captured. Together, we face a significant challenge, and we really need to work together to deliver meaningful multi-year Budgets for the good of everyone who lives and works here. I commend the amendment to the House. Miss Dolan: It is certainly right that a multi-year Budget will enable better long-term planning and support the sustainability of our public services. While I share the call for it, it should be remembered that it is just one aspect of delivering better front-line services. For over a decade and a half, our public services have been stripped of resources by successive British Governments who have focused on austerity measures. The Labour Government who were elected last summer have failed to move away from that well-trodden Tory path. One example of that was when the British Chancellor chose in the spring to prioritise investing in militarisation rather than in public services, workers, families and local communities. The community and voluntary sector, which does tremendous work in assisting people to gain skills and enter the workplace, thereby supporting the local economy, was dealt a hammer blow with the loss of EU funding. The initial replacement scheme was, in fact, tens of millions of pounds short of replacing European funding. It has been succeeded by the local growth fund, which, again, fails to recognise our local circumstances, as it is focused more on capital investment than on resources, which are a lifeline for our community and voluntary sector. Treasury needs to listen to our local organisations and be more flexible to ensure that the funding adequately meets our needs. That is, of course, another unfortunate legacy of Brexit and a clear example of democratic deficit, as local Ministers are not deciding how the funds should be allocated. I acknowledge the work of the current Finance Minister and his predecessor, who, as a result of negotiations with the British Treasury, have secured an extra £1·3 billion for public services here. They have prioritised delivering more money directly from the Treasury for our public services, and they have delivered on that. That is also a recognition by the British Government that we have not been funded to the correct level of need, which has obviously had consequences for our public-service infrastructure. Putting an additional burden on those who can least afford to pay is not the appropriate way to address the current challenges in our public finances. Certainly, there may be other options that can be discussed and considered, but my party will not support measures that put those who are already struggling under even more financial pressure. As a local Assembly, in recent years we have managed to alleviate some of the harms caused by the British Government that would have worsened existing poverty levels through our welfare mitigation measures. However, due to the limitations of devolution, we continue to be negatively impacted by spending decisions taken in London. I suspect that that is likely to be the case again tomorrow in the autumn Budget. There are several measures that the British Chancellor could take to support our local economy and ordinary workers and families, such as a reduction in VAT. The disparity in VAT between the North and South is hitting the hospitality sector hard, particularly in border areas that rely on tourism, such as my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone. The ending of the two-child benefit cap and the extension of tax-free childcare are also significant interventions that could be made to ease the burden on so many families. As a republican who believes that political and economic decisions that affect us should be made solely by elected reps here, I also want to see maximum fiscal devolution, and I support the Finance Minister's work in exploring that. Additional powers would provide us with more fiscal levers to deal with economic challenges. However, the barriers posed by partition continue to act as an impediment to achieving our economic potential, which is why there is a growing appetite in all sectors of our communities for discussions about what a new Ireland will look like. Ms Bradshaw: The motion recognises something that has been obvious for far too long: Northern Ireland cannot continue to run public services on a one-year Budget. The last time we had an agreed multi-year Budget was in 2011-2015. Since then, instability, collapse and short-term allocations have trapped our system in crisis management. The result has been stalled reform of our public services, rising costs and a workforce and public left without certainty. A multi-year Budget is not a luxury; it is a basic foundation for credible planning, fair pay and long-term investment. If we are serious about long-term stability, we must also be serious about the evidence. Independent analysis from the Fiscal Council and Professor Holtham is unequivocal. Northern Ireland's relative funding is significantly higher than current allocations recognise. The Fiscal Council estimates need at 124%, and there are other estimates ranging from 126% to 132%, with a best estimate of 128%. Delivering on that evidence must be an urgent priority if the Executive are to put public finances on a stable footing. Securing a fiscal floor that reflects real need is not special pleading; it is evidence-based policy, and it strengthens our case for long-term funding certainty. However, we cannot ignore the reality that Treasury declined to engage with that evidence ahead of the recent spending review. That is disappointing, but it cannot be an excuse for inaction here. In fact, it underlines the need for the Executive to be proactive, and any future discussions must not be simply about asking for more but must demonstrate responsibility, reform and a credible multi-year plan. That brings me to a crucial point. We weaken our negotiating hand if we refuse to address the inefficiencies in how we spend our money. We cannot demand fair funding while continuing to pour resources into duplicated services, for example, in education, into services shaped around division and into structures that pull funding into parallel provision rather than shared outcomes. Transformation, particularly in health and education, is not optional; it is essential if we are to spend our money better. A multi-year Budget gives us the tools to do that, to shift investment towards prevention, to support service redesign and to move away from annual firefighting and short-term thinking. It also gives us the financial flexibility that has been missing for too long, and a greater ability to move capital and resource across financial years would allow us to respond to shocks more effectively. The motion also raises the question of revenue. The Alliance Party has been clear: we cannot continually demand better services while refusing even to explore how our services are funded. In principle, enhanced fiscal devolution can bring decisions closer to communities, incentivise growth and productivity and allow fiscal policy to align with the social, economic and environmental priorities that are set out in the Programme for Government. We must be honest about context. Households are under pressure; public services are under strain; and costly interventions, such as cutting corporation tax, are not palliative or prudent at this time. Any move towards greater fiscal powers must be grounded in local capacity and administrative readiness, not driven by the Treasury's preferred case. We will not support the DUP's amendment today, as we feel that removing any reference to devolved fiscal powers negates the need for us to have an honest conversation about how we fund our public services. That said, we fully acknowledge that fiscal powers work only if there is a functioning Executive to use them. Our institutions remain one political crisis from collapse. We cannot risk having a situation in which powers are devolved but no Government are in place to respond to a downturn. Stability is a precondition for long-term budgeting, not an afterthought. Top 11.30 am Any draft multi-year Budget must be a genuinely cross-Executive exercise. Fiscal strategy cannot sit in a departmental silo. Every Minister must contribute, every Department must align with the Programme for Government and every decision must be driven by outcomes, not carve-ups. Dr Aiken: First, I apologise and correct the record: in my remarks earlier, I should have referred to the Putin apologists Sinn Féin MEPs Lynn Boylan and Kathleen Funchion rather than Maria Walsh. Thank you very much indeed, Linda, for picking that up. I will contact Maria and point out my failure. The point remains, however. I thank the Finance Minister for his recent remarks about the Health Minister and how the Health Department has managed to find over £400 million of efficiencies. As the Finance Minister pointed out, that is an example to all Departments across Northern Ireland's government about their ability to find the necessary efficiencies that they have to in order to make sure that we have appropriate budgeting as we move forward. As well as setting an example, it delivers a message to other Departments: if our biggest-spending Department, and the one that the Executive and the Programme for Government clearly acknowledge has the most pressures, can achieve those sorts of efficiencies, what are the other Departments doing? Bearing in mind that we are looking at budgeting for what we plan to do over the next three years, it also shows that a degree of foresight and being able to look at your future budgeting plans and how you look towards those things is an appropriate level to do that. The Health Minister has made it clear that his priority is public-sector pay. Public-sector pay is important because, if you do not have any workers, you will not have a health service, a police service, a prison service or any teachers. It is important that the Health Minister has already identified that he wants to make an early representation of what the public-sector pay award is going to be in the three-year budgeting cycle. All Ministers should commit to doing that. Looking at that and putting public-sector pay first as a benchmark is something that our public-sector workers will think is important: the Northern Ireland Executive are putting them first. It also starts to put a strong fiscal framework on what we are looking at in the next three years. Having mentioned the fiscal framework, I will talk about the Fiscal Council. In the Minister's remarks when he considers this debate, I wonder whether, when we start looking at the future long-term programmes that there are going to be over the next three years, we can get the Fiscal Council, in some measure, to mark the homework of not just the Executive as a whole but the Departments. One of the things that we need to look at is measures of effectiveness. That is one of the reasons why we will be supporting the amendment. There is a very clear issue: are we getting value for money for public services from the money that we have? It is clear that we are not good at spending money in places. The A5 is an example. It is an absolute disgrace that that road has not already been built. We have spent close to £150 million, maybe more, on the A5 so far, yet not one square metre of tarmac has been laid. What do we say to the people whose friends and family members have lost their lives on that road because of our inefficiency in spending money and being able to do that? I will make a rather sad projection: we will spend much more on administration, legal fees, planning, replanning and judicial reviews before we get to the point of completing it. The cost will probably be closer to, God forbid, £175 million before we do. We have said this before: we need to spend the money that we have properly. Sooner or later, we will have to have the appropriate debate and come clean to the people of Northern Ireland that we have to raise revenue in some places. Before we do that, we are going to have to show that we can spend the money that we have properly. We need to be able to demonstrate that. That must be fundamental to the three-year budgeting process. Ministers need to say loudly and clearly what their measures of effectiveness will be and how they will determine whether the money is going to be spent effectively. We need to do that and demonstrate to the people of Northern Ireland that we have spent the money that we have properly. If we do not have the money, we need to be in a position where we can say how we will raise the extra revenue or how we will get better at spending the money that we have. That brings me to the end of my remarks. As a final point, the three-year budgeting process is where we need to be. We will find out a lot more tomorrow, and, hopefully, that will give us a framework to look forward to. Minister, thank you once again for your kind words about the Health Minister. I hope that you are able to say the same thing about other Ministers as we go forward. Miss Hargey: For too long, our public services have been forced to work within the limits of short-term, uncertain, one-year Budgets that have been handed down by various British Governments. That approach consistently undermines planning, delays essential projects and makes it harder to meet people's needs. Tomorrow, the British Chancellor will announce her autumn Budget, which will have a direct impact on the Executive's finances. The Finance Minister, John O'Dowd, has previously outlined his intention to bring a multi-annual Budget to the Executive after the autumn statement. The spending review that was announced in June set a three-year funding allocation and a four-year capital allocation. That provides us with an opportunity to set the first multi-annual Budget in over a decade. Sinn Féin has consistently championed multi-year budgeting, as we know that that can lead to better planning and better outcomes for people. Of course, that will still be challenging, as we continue to operate under significant pressures and demands and a legacy of policies at Westminster that drove austerity, divesting from public services, and, of course, Brexit, while offering bailouts to bankers and tax breaks for the super rich and, of course, continuously funding wars. Of course, the Opposition leader does not want us to focus on those, and maybe I would not either if I had worked for the Tory Government during that time. Notwithstanding those challenges and the policy and fiscal climate in which we operate, there is an opportunity with the introduction of multi-annual Budgets to prioritise, plan and, of course, deliver. Our Sinn Féin Executive team, working with partners, is focused on delivering real and meaningful change. We have blocked water charges, prevented unfair hikes in student fees and prioritised health and cutting waiting lists. Through the 'good jobs' Bill, we will strengthen workers' rights, end zero-hours contracts and deliver secure employment. We will bring forward legislation to help tackle holiday hunger and extend free school meals during the holiday period. In shaping a responsible, fair and long-term Budget, Sinn Féin has been clear: we need a Budget that supports workers and families, backs our small- and medium-sized businesses and ensures that, if we are ever to have tax increases, the burden should fall on those with the broadest shoulders. We will continue to do all that we can with our stretched Budget. Many of the financial pressures that, we know, people face here come from decisions taken at Westminster. Sinn Féin has been clear and consistent in calling for a reduction in VAT on domestic energy bills to help ease the cost-of-living burden; an end to the two-child tax limit, which pushes families and children into hardship; and a cut to insurance premium tax, which inflates home and car insurance costs. It is clear that, if we are to deliver the strong, fair and accessible public services that people in our communities rightly expect, the Executive must have the proper funding arrangements and the real fiscal levers to do so. Fiscal devolution has to be part of that. If we are serious about managing our finances in a sustainable and responsible way, we need the ability to make decisions here in the interests of the people. That builds on the positive work that Sinn Féin Ministers have delivered. We established the Fiscal Commission to bring forward key recommendations on fiscal devolution. Our previous Finance Minister, Caoimhe Archibald, brought forward the fiscal framework that, for the first time, recognised and, indeed, funded our Budget on the basis of need. Of course, there is more work to be done in that area. We will continue to stand for workers and families through this period. We will continue to stand for fiscal devolution so that we can do more whilst we plan for the change that is taking place on this island whereby the people here can determine their future. [Inaudible.] Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sorry? I call Harry Harvey. Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I thought that you were saying something. I was not sure. Go ahead. Mr O'Toole: It is not in Standing Orders, but I am sure that the Speaker's Office has a view on whether smearing civil servants, who work for every Minister, including the Finance Minister, is appropriate. However, I understand why Members want to do that — to deflect from their own record. A Member who was a Minister previously would not smear her civil servants in the Department for Communities, but she has just done it today. Pathetic. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: You know that that is not a point of order, Matthew, but you have got your concerns on the record. Mr O'Toole: No problem, yes. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: As with everything in this place, you can go and see the Speaker if you are not happy. I also remind Members that, during the cut and thrust of politics, you need to be respectful. You also need to be correct and accurate on all fronts. OK? Thank you. Without further ado, I return to Harry Harvey. Mr Harvey: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Multi-year budgeting has long been called for in the House. It would be difficult for anyone to deny the obvious benefits that it would bring to the functioning of government as a whole and of individual Departments. Many points have been eloquently made in the debate, but, for me, the focus must be on transformational reform. Whilst no one should be in any doubt as to the impact that multi-year budgeting would have, there is a tendency to frame the conversation in such a way as to present it as the silver bullet. The importance of other tools that, arguably, are more readily available should not be underestimated. It does not matter how long the budgetary period is if you fail to implement robust guard rails to ensure that you remain within it. If public procurement and the major capital schemes that have emanated from this place over the past decade can teach us anything, it is that fundamental reality. The York Street interchange, which remains on paper, and the Royal Victoria Hospital (RVH) maternity hospital, which is already 10 years late and some £40 million over budget, are just two examples of where the system is failing the people of Northern Ireland. Significantly delayed and over-budget capital projects should not be accepted as the norm. They — Mr Durkan: Will the Member give way? Mr Harvey: — should be the exception, not the rule. Mr Durkan: Will the Member give way? Mr Harvey: The fact that they are the rule points to a serious lack of capacity within our Civil Service. We, as a party, have continually highlighted and sought to address that in recent years. Mr Durkan: Will the Member give way? Mr Harvey: Inability and reluctance —. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Excuse me. Sorry, Harry. Mark, he has already indicated that he is not prepared to give way. [Inaudible.] Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I know. Please, be respectful; thank you. Go ahead. Mr Harvey: Inability and reluctance to avail ourselves of expertise within the Home Civil Service has hampered knowledge-sharing and skills transfer. Programmes within the 'Safeguarding the Union' Command Paper that are designed to facilitate better collaboration and exchange across the UK Civil Service will undoubtedly assist transformation, once implemented. The Procurement Board, which has been tasked with ensuring the effective operation of public procurement, has been unable to achieve what it was commissioned to do. The sheer scale of projects falling outside of their procured targets demonstrates that a rethink is required urgently, if stakeholder confidence is to be regained. The challenges are evident, and multi-year budgeting would undoubtedly play a part in addressing them. In the meantime, efficiencies through reform and transformation will remain our party's focus. Mr Chambers: The importance and undeniable benefits of moving to a multi-year funding position have often been discussed in the Chamber, and have always been supported by my party. No public service would benefit more from some degree of financial clarity and certainty than our health service. Over the past decade, this reality has become painfully clear: our health service cannot continue to function, never mind transform, under a cycle of short-term Budgets and political instability. If we genuinely want to provide the sustainable, high-quality care that the people of Northern Ireland deserve, the Assembly and the Executive must be prepared to take a long-overdue approach to budgeting. Year-to-year budgeting has forced the Department of Health and our trusts to operate in constant firefighting mode. Funding that arrives late in the financial year or that shifts unpredictably with each Budget settlement makes long-term workforce planning virtually impossible. Top 11.45 am When Departments find themselves in financial deficit, in-year savings plans are often more difficult and counter-strategic than they would have been had a multi-year approach been taken. Short-term budgeting not only slows progress, it actively costs money. When Departments cannot plan ahead, especially those of the scale and size of the Department of Health, they end up paying more for temporary solutions, such as expensive agency staff instead of permanent recruits, short-notice contracts instead of strategic investments and sticking-plaster fixes instead of long-term reform. The uncertainty created by year-to-year Budgets directly affects the patient experience. The projects that are designed to modernise care are unavoidably disrupted when the funding stops and starts, whether they are in mental health, where critical investment is needed for in-patient mental health facilities, elective surgery, primary care or digital innovation. Of course, staff morale suffers when they cannot see a reliable path forward for the services that they are trying to improve. The public lose confidence when announcements of progress are repeatedly followed by announcements of delay. We must also be honest with ourselves about the impact of political instability. The stop-start nature of the Assembly and Executive over the past decade due to collapses of the institutions — first by Sinn Féin and then by the DUP — has compounded every one of the challenges. When the institutions collapse, the strategic direction is in a vacuum, and there is zero accountability for the political governance. As we all know, health is the sector that suffers the most when our politics fail because it relies the most on continuity, long-term planning and stable decision-making. A multi-year Budget will not solve every problem in our health service, but it will provide the foundation on which real solutions can finally be built. Allowing the Department to plan workforce growth over several years instead of several months will let the trusts invest in improving services with the confidence that the funding will be there to complete the work. Crucially, it will help to ensure that money is spent wisely rather than reactively. As MLAs, we owe it to patients and the wider public to break the cycle of short-termism that is strangling our health service. Clarity in the budgeting process must go hand-in-hand with stable government. I hope that the Executive can come together in the coming weeks, especially after tomorrow's Budget statement, set their political differences to the side and act in the best interests of the people whom we are elected to serve. Having watched the political positioning of some parties over recent weeks, however, I am becoming increasingly concerned about whether the Executive have the political desire and bravery to fairly consider a multi-year deal. If the Executive Ministers are not able to set their political differences to the side and consider a draft multi-year settlement, it will be another catastrophic failure of this place. Mr Gaston: At first glance, the motion appears to be shrewd. It was delivered with great gusto by the star performer, Mr O'Toole. In any normal, functioning government, who could oppose long-term planning or financial certainty? All that we have to do, however, is look behind the words in the Order Paper. The real thrust of the motion is a demand that the Executive be armed with new devolved fiscal powers. Normally, Opposition parties highlight the failings of the Government and warn of the dangers of granting them more authority, but, oh no, not our Opposition; Not the SDLP, which yearns for the return of ministerial trappings and is so preoccupied with being constructive that it has still not grasped how to be an Opposition who will finally land a punch. How could anyone outside the Executive look at this failing, divided and self-interested Administration and think, "What those chancers really need is more power"? Mr O'Toole: I thank the Member for giving way. The upshot of the Member not wanting more devolution here is that he is happy for all that power to be held in London. I have not heard the TUV praise the British Government in a while. Can he tell me the last British Government that he supported or the kind of future British Government that he would support? I am at a loss. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute. Mr Gaston: I am looking forward to 2029 when we finally get rid of the Labour Party. I will not put all my trust in the next Government. I will have to wait to see what they deliver, but they cannot be any worse than what we have. Only the other week, the nationalist/republican/Alliance side of the Executive supported a motion of no confidence in the Minister of Education, yet the SDLP wants us to trust the Executive with new fiscal powers. They cannot manage the powers that they already have. Westminster is extraordinarily generous to Northern Ireland, with £1·24 spent here for every £1·00 that is spent in England, yet the Executive still cannot live within their means. Then, of course, the SDLP agrees with the serial wastage here. Oh yes, we needed a Climate Commissioner and an Irish Language Commissioner, with all the legislation and expense that goes with those roles. How did we get by before without either? We have Ministers who cannot live within the budgets that they have. They routinely overspend, send begging letters to London and blame everyone else but themselves for their failures. Do you know what? I have never heard the Opposition complain about that mentality. We cannot manage the money that we have been given, yet the SDLP is asking that the Executive be given the ability to take more from our hard-working households and businesses. That is some election pitch that the SDLP has made today, because it is essentially what the motion proposes. The TUV has been absolutely clear. We believe that Northern Ireland should be governed as fully and as integrally as possible within our United Kingdom. It should not be semi-detached, operating a separate economic model and drifting further down the colonial path imposed by the protocol and accepted by the Executive. The more that fiscal powers are devolved to Stormont, the more that Northern Ireland's economy and tax policy diverge from those of Great Britain. We already have to endure a border down the Irish Sea. We already suffer from having a different regulatory regime. Apparently, however, the solution is to give Stormont the ability to operate a different tax regime as well. As for the idea of having multi-year Budgets, surely evidence needs to be produced that devolution can operate for multi-year periods. I remind the SDLP that the Executive have not functioned for 40% of the time since the sacred text of the Belfast Agreement came down from Mount Sinai. Rather than push for more powers, it is time to recognise that this place is incapable of even existing for the multi-year periods for which the SDLP wants it to budget. Mr Carroll: It is clear that the current economic and political system is not broken but working exactly as intended. The economic system that we live under was never designed to tackle wealth inequality. It was never designed to tackle record levels of deprivation, which includes, disgracefully, one in three children in my constituency living in child poverty. The current system is unable and unwilling to tackle the ever-increasing cost of food, the price of which is shooting up year-on-year, making it unaffordable for people right across the North. The system that we live under refuses to tackle year-on-year increases in rent, with landlords ripping off tenants while the Executive say, "Fill your boots, lads". It is clear that we need a different path and a different system in order to meet the needs of not only my community but the wider constituency across the North. As a start, the Executive and the Finance Minister should refuse to engage in the groupthink that is Treasury economics, which considers fiscal prudence and being in the black to be more important than the social consequences of terrible economic decisions. In recent days, the Finance Minister has referred to the need for revenue raising. I agree with him but have one big caveat. The question that I want to ask him is this: from whom will you, Minister, and the Executive seek to raise money? If you are talking about ending the landlord allowance, which sees millions of pounds going into landlords' pockets every single year, I am with you. If you are talking about reallocating and stopping the £80 million or so for industrial derating, which is, to repeat, a handout to multinational corporations, I am with you. If you are talking about tackling, alongside the Minister for Communities, the hundreds of millions of pounds that are going to landlords to subsidise increased rents, because rents are not capped or reduced, I am with you. However, if you are talking about kicking working-class people again, we will part ways. I will say, "No, thank you", and we will fight any proposals that do that. Prescription charges are being touted again, and everybody in the House should resist that. Although this Minister has ruled them out, water charges are unconscionable, given that people have been paying for water for decades. That idea will not work, because it will punish people who have already paid for their water. There has been some suggestion about paying for GPs, which is another ludicrous idea that would put more barriers in place for people who are already struggling to get access to their GP to receive healthcare. The current Economy Minister maybe had some flirtation with the idea of increasing university fees, but, thankfully, she backed down after people opposed the idea. That would not only be unfair but would be totally counterproductive. As other Members said, a multi-year Budget could — I emphasise the word "could" — give some Departments the ability to plan ahead, but the devil will be in the detail of the Budget. If we have stringent single-year Budgets repeated over three or five years, they will still be insufficient. The Executive need to demand, with one voice, a wealth tax. A wealth tax on the richest 2% across these islands could, for a start, bring in £160 billion over several years. Corporation tax needs to be increased rather than reduced, as previous Executive parties agreed to do. If there has been a Damascene conversion on that, I would certainly welcome it, but the Executive need to demand that corporation tax be increased. We need to see an end to the drive to militarisation and the huge increase in spending on war. In closing, it is worth reminding ourselves that billionaire wealth across these islands has exploded over the past 35 years. In 1990, there were 15 billionaires in Britain, but there are now 156. In the South, we have seen billionaire wealth increase by €13 billion in the past year alone. That is obscene and totally grotesque, and we are long past the time to abolish billionaires. That should be the stated policy of the Executive and all Governments across these islands. Instead of being in awe of and beholden to people who are often described as wealth creators but who are inequality defenders, we need to tackle wealth and abolish billionaires in order to have some fairness and decency in our communities. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The next Member to speak is the Minister of Finance. Minister, you have 15 minutes to respond to the debate. Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle. [Translation: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.] I welcome the opportunity to respond to the motion. Since taking up post as Finance Minister, I have consistently outlined my intention to bring forward a multi-year Budget. As the motion rightly acknowledges, the Chancellor's autumn Budget may have an impact on the Executive's Budget. Therefore, it is only right and proper that I await its outcome before I bring the multi-year Budget to the Executive. The spending review that was announced in June set out our day-to-day funding for three years and capital allocations for four years, providing us with the opportunity to set the first multi-year Budget in a decade. Multi-year Budgets will shape the future of our public services for years to come. This will be one of the biggest decisions that the Executive and Assembly will make between now and the end of the mandate, and it is important that we get it right. Agreeing a multi-year Budget in a mandatory coalition will mean that there has to be give and take on all sides. The multi-year Budget will, of course, present challenges, not least because the quantum of funding falls short of what we had hoped for and, in my view, what is needed to provide the public services that our people deserve. We need to be realistic; there is not sufficient funding to do all that we want to do or to provide any Department with the level of funding that it has requested. However, we must also recognise that the multi-year Budget will present opportunities. It will provide Departments with funding certainty, allowing them to plan on a longer-term and more strategic basis, in turn creating the conditions to drive much-needed transformational change in the delivery of our public services. In working towards agreeing a multi-year Budget, we must be guided by our Programme for Government — 'Our Plan: Doing What Matters Most'. The Executive have shown their commitment to doing what matters most and are working in partnership to deliver for people. Since I took up the role of Finance Minister, my focus has been on securing a fairer funding model. The leader of the Opposition referred to the first republican Finance Minister, Michael Collins, raising £20 million in today's money: I would never compare myself to Michael Collins, but I can go one better. Between me and the previous Finance Minister, we have raised an additional £1·3 billion for public services here as a direct result of our engagement with the Treasury and our pursuit of a full fiscal framework. I think that the leader of the Opposition, even on this last Opposition day of the calendar year, will acknowledge that £1·3 billion does outmatch £20 million. Top 12.00 noon Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister — the Big Fella — for giving way. Can the Minister confirm whether the £1·3 billion that was, as he says, "raised" by him and his predecessor came from the source that is inflicting all this austerity on us? Mr O'Dowd: He is absolutely right: we managed to garner from those who have inflicted austerity — not just this Government but the previous Government — an additional £1·3 billion. I do not see what the problem is with that. Maybe the Member has an ideological opposition to that, and, if he wants to explain that, I am more than happy to listen. The record shows that, through our engagement along with the Executive, public services in this community are £1·3 billion better off. Through the 2025-26 Budget, the Executive have invested in waiting lists, enabling an additional 122,000 patient interventions to be delivered in the first six months of this financial year, surpassing the Programme for Government target of 70,000. The Executive have invested £55 million in early years and childcare, which includes funding to support families with childcare costs through the childcare subsidy scheme, and they have invested in waste water capacity, contributing to the unlocking of waste water capacity for over 5,000 properties across the North, supporting future housing and wider economic development. Those are just some examples of how the Executive are working together to make improvements to people's lives. The leader of the Opposition pointed to issues where DFI could not do the work that it wanted to do. Austerity is a real thing, and the reality is that you cannot do as much as you would like to do. However, the Member did not read out the list of programmes and investment that is going on across all Executive Departments and the differences that that makes to people's daily lives. Are we doing everything that we want to do? No, because we cannot. Are we making a difference? Yes, we are. Despite the financial constraints, much has been delivered, but there is still much to do. It is important that we are honest about the scale of challenges facing us. I have said that many times in the House and around the Executive table. Our finances are significantly constrained, particularly in 2026-27, as the biggest uplifts in day-to-day spending power occur in later years. With demand for services outpacing the funding available, continuing to do what we have always done is not an option. Transformation and innovation are essential to driving productivity and ensuring that public-sector pay remains affordable and sustainable throughout the Budget period. Each Minister must strive to improve efficiency in how our public services are delivered. I know that change is difficult, but we have to do things differently if we are to change our public services for the better. That means embracing technology, it means embracing new ideas and it means embracing looking at areas where we can raise additional finances. No, I am not promoting kicking the working class. I have been in the Executive in one form or another over the past 15 years, and nowhere in the decisions that I have made have I been accused of kicking the working class. Mr Carroll: I appreciate the Minister's giving way. I agree with him on water charges, but can he expand on other aspects of revenue raising? I think that he said in recent days that he would look at that again. What is he proposing that we do to raise revenue? Mr O'Dowd: It is worth noting that the Executive already raise somewhere in the region of £1·6 billion through their rates policy. All of the rates policies are open to review, including the one that the Member referred to: rates relief for manufacturing and for other types of businesses in that field. All of those will be reviewed in the next year or so, and Members will have an opportunity to contribute towards that. When I talk about revenue raising, I also add that that should be done in a fair and equitable way. Those with the broadest shoulders should bear the burden of any further increases across the board, particularly any announcements coming from Westminster on tax rises. Those with the broadest shoulders should bear that. There are other ways as well. Last week, I set out proposals in the House that have the power to raise an additional £9 million through the rating system. Those positive and progressive changes could see savings redirected to provide additional support to small and medium-sized businesses, which are the backbone of our economy. Those proposals are not seeking additional funding; instead, they are focused on better using what we have. I encourage other Ministers to do likewise. Mr Aiken referred to my comments about Mr Nesbitt. One of the difficulties of complimenting a Minister from a different party is that somebody will remind you about it. [Laughter.] However, when Ministers act cooperatively, particularly in engagement with me and my officials, that is worth acknowledging. All Ministers face challenges, but, if we work in a collaborative and partnership way, we will be able to move through those challenges and secure our front-line public services. That has to be done in cooperation. Turning to fiscal powers, it is vital that the Executive have the funding arrangements and fiscal levers necessary to deliver the public services that our citizens rightly expect and deserve. Mr O'Toole seems to believe that there is some sort of delay or stalling here, but there has been a programme of work to get us to the point where I want us to be and where I need to convince Executive colleagues that we need to travel to. Engagement with the Treasury thus far has been on our level of need. We have had success in relation to our level of need, and, as part of those negotiations, I got agreement from the British Government to continue discussions on a full fiscal framework. Part of that full fiscal framework is discussions around fiscal devolution. That engagement has started. It will intensify after the Chancellor announces the Budget. It would be fair to say that the Treasury goes into lockdown about six weeks before a Budget because of the intensity of the work involved, and I have to understand that. However, I have asked my officials, once the Budget is announced, to increase their engagement with officials in the Treasury on full fiscal devolution on the basis of the findings of the Fiscal Commission. My Department will lead those negotiations. I will have to go back to the Executive with recommendations, and that will require Executive engagement and discussion on the way forward. Progressing that important work will require the agreement of the Executive and the British Government. In Scotland and Wales, that process took a number of years to complete. We can learn valuable lessons from their experiences to help to expedite the process, but it will take time. I want to make progress as quickly as possible whilst ensuring that we get the approach that meets the needs of workers, families and businesses here. Following the Chancellor's autumn Budget tomorrow, I will put forward a multi-year Budget for consideration and agreement by the Executive early next month. Once agreed by the Executive, the multi-year Budget will go out to consultation. That will be an opportunity for everyone to have their say and help us to shape the final Budget and the future of our public services for years to come. As I outlined, the need for transformation and embracing new methods of service delivery has never been clearer. That will require a willingness from all of us across the Executive, the Assembly and society to embrace change. Like all of you, I want to see our funding used for what matters most. We must work together in true partnership to confront our challenges and seize the opportunity that a multi-year Budget gives to create lasting, positive change. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister. I call Brian Kingston to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. Brian, you have five minutes. Mr Kingston: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. In our amendment, we welcome the forthcoming multi-year Budget for the Northern Ireland Executive for three years and four years' capital. We await with great interest the Budget announcements by Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, tomorrow. The leader of the Opposition asked what the DUP wants: the DUP will stand up for the people of Northern Ireland. We will both work with and challenge every Government at Westminster in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland. Indeed, it was our party leader, Gavin Robinson, who led the challenge to increase the fiscal floor for Northern Ireland by an extra 24% for every pound spent in GB. Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way? Mr Kingston: Do I get an extra minute, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker? Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Yes. Mr Kingston: OK. I will give way. Mr O'Toole: Thank you for giving way, and well done for ensuring that you get the extra minute. The Member talks about challenging UK Governments and says that that is what your MP Gavin Robinson is doing, etc: fair enough. Does that not mean that, ergo, it would be better for us to take more power here? If London is not to be trusted and you need to stand up, why do we not just take more power here and do it ourselves? Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute. Mr Kingston: I will come on to what we can do here ourselves and how we can bring more efficiencies. Diane Forsythe, in proposing the DUP amendment, highlighted the importance of the Budget supporting the agreed Programme for Government and how, previously, with the 12-month Budgets, pressure to spend money within one financial year was hampering delivery and resulting in a rush to spend moneys at the end of the year. There will now be the ability to plan across multiple years, and that should improve efficiency and delivery. Our amendment focuses on the need for transformations. We think that the answer should not automatically be to tax people in Northern Ireland more and squeeze more money out of hard-pressed families and people who are struggling to make ends meet. We think that more can be done to bring about efficiencies, and the focus should be on reducing waste and carrying out reform that leads to efficiencies. Whilst there are many people working hard and efficiently in the Northern Ireland Civil Service, it has a poor record on major capital projects, and we have given examples of that. A 2024 Audit Office report said that only one out of seven flagship infrastructure projects identified in 2015 had been completed, and a second of the seven was completed by the time of the Public Accounts Committee report. That means that five were not completed. We note that the Northern Ireland Civil Service is different from its counterparts in Scotland and Wales. Whereas the Civil Services in Scotland and Wales remain part of the UK Home Civil Service, the Northern Ireland Civil Service is a stand-alone body and, as a result, has been unable and, at times, unwilling to benefit from economies of scale in terms of skills present in the public sector in Great Britain. The DUP sought to tackle that during our negotiations with the Government, and the 'Safeguarding the Union' Command Paper sets out a programme for skills exchange between the Northern Ireland Civil Service and the UK Home Civil Service. Encouraging those secondments and movements across all parts of the UK will boost capacity and help to bring specific expertise to projects, where necessary. The DUP will seek the faithful implementation of those schemes, the expansion of short-term placements and the recruitment of more external experts to achieve better outcomes in our Civil Service. Northern Ireland is well placed to benefit from greater integration with the Home Civil Service. Jemma Dolan and the Minister pointed to the extra £1·3 billion that, the Minister says, he has secured from His Majesty's Treasury. That highlights that our annual subvention from His Majesty's Treasury is over £19 billion, so, while Members rightly point out the effects of austerity, we would do well to remember that we benefit from being part of a country — the United Kingdom — that has the sixth-largest economy in the world. Our prosperity is based on that. Let us never forget that, but let us also remember that there is a national challenge to our country's finances. National debt is currently at around £2·6 trillion. A Member: Will the Member give way? Mr Kingston: No, I will not have time. That figure has increased under the current Labour Government. We cannot be blind to the wider financial realities, but we in the DUP will work with every Government. Our well-being is based on being a large economy, not on being a tax haven for wealthy multinationals. Steve Aiken showed how the Health Minister had found savings of hundreds of millions of pounds, not least by reducing the high spend on locum doctors. We recognise that that is an example of looking for savings, but, of course, the Minister's Department has shortcomings in capital projects, and, as my colleague Harry Harvey pointed out, the new regional maternity hospital is £40 million over budget and many years late. There is much more to be done. We thank the Members who have indicated support for our amendment and commend it to the House. Top 12.15 pm Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The last Member to speak is Sinéad McLaughlin, who will conclude and wind-up the debate. Sinéad, you have 10 minutes. Ms McLaughlin: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank all those who contributed to the debate. Northern Ireland deserves a Government who plan ahead, not one that stumbles from one financial year to the next. That is really what the motion is about. For far too long, our public services have been trapped in a system that offers no stability, no long-term direction and no sense of strategic purpose. When schools cannot plan their staffing, when health trusts do not know what they can afford beyond a few months and when universities warn of financial strain and uncertainty, it is obvious that the way in which we budget is part of the problem. Operating a single-year Budget process forces Departments into short-term thinking; prevents them from investing early in reforms that would save them money in the long run; limits their ability to redesign services in a way that works for people; and creates a culture of firefighting instead of planning. A multi-year Budget will not fix everything, certainly not overnight, but it will provide certainty that will allow Departments and the people who work in them to make sensible, responsible decisions. It will give space for innovation, forward planning, strategic investment and the reform that, we all know, this place desperately needs. We cannot talk about long-term planning without acknowledging the instability at the heart of the institutions. Budgets, strategies and priorities are meaningless if there is no functioning Executive in place to implement them. Our public services have endured repeated collapses of government, some lasting years. During those periods, nothing progresses, consequences pile up and problems deepen. Services do not pause because Stormont has paused. Children waiting for assessments do not pause. Families struggling with childcare costs do not pause. Hospitals, schools and community organisations do not pause. When the Executive collapse, the public — our people; our constituents — pay the price. If we want a system that is capable of delivering a multi-year Budget, we need institutions that cannot be switched off when political disagreements arise. The structures of government must be resilient enough to withstand political turbulence. That requires serious institutional reform, because reliable budgeting depends on reliable governance — without both, progress is impossible. A long-term Budget must also align with the Programme for Government. For too long, we have had promises on paper with no stable financial plan behind them. The result is predictable: ambitions fade when budgets tighten, and commitments fall away, because there was never any serious, realistic plan to fund them. Minister, I get really frustrated that, each time we ask about budgets, the response is the same: if the money is not there, it is because of the Brits, and, if the money is there, it is because of you, Minister, or Sinn Féin. I will give you an example. I recently asked the Infrastructure Minister about moss on pavements in my constituency. Her answer was that it was the fault of British austerity. That is just bonkers. It is childish. We cannot keep on doing that. We have responsibilities in government. Consider childcare. Northern Ireland has the highest childcare costs across these islands. Families feel that pressure every week. For years, the SDLP has called for proper investment to make childcare genuinely affordable. Yet, when childcare Barnett consequentials were available, they were not protected. That decision set us back significantly. Had those funds been ring-fenced, we would be building a childcare system that supports families; strengthens the economy; and helps to tackle poverty, including child poverty, in our constituencies. Instead, we remain playing catch-up, and families pay the price. That is why the SDLP has taken matters into its own hands. While the Executive have continued to drift from crisis to crisis, we have been doing the serious work on policy that they should be doing. We have published detailed papers on childcare, our future relationship with Europe, the reform of housing and the arts. We have even published an alternative Programme for Government. We are credibly outlining how we would do things differently. We are not just pointing out what is wrong; we are setting out fully formed proposals on how to fix things. We are not just sitting in the corner and getting clicks on TikTok like Mr Gaston. The higher education and skills sector faces the same short-term pressures. Universities and FE colleges have been pushed to their limits. Earlier this year, the possibility of increasing tuition fees emerged, a clear sign of how strained the system has become. We challenged that because pushing down on students would damage opportunity and our economic future. Without a stable, multi-year funding model, the underlying pressures will simply return again and again. Skills cannot be developed on guesswork; research cannot grow without certainty; and employers cannot plan when the pipeline of talent is at risk. Economic growth depends on having a skilled workforce, and that depends on sustained investment. Mr Kearney: Will the Member give way? Ms McLaughlin: Yes, go ahead. Mr Kearney: Does the Member recognise that British military expenditure, which is currently in excess of £60 billion and will rise to £73·5 billion by 2028, has direct repercussions for the ability to deliver services for workers and families across the British state and in the North? Ms McLaughlin: The Member knows where I stand on defence spending, particularly if state money in Northern Ireland is being spent on genocide and the weapons of genocide. I will leave it at that. Regional balance is another area where year-to-year budgeting does real harm. Communities in the north-west and other areas in which there are long-standing economic challenges know exactly what it feels like to be promised progress that never materialises. Investment comes in short bursts; projects start and stop; and long-term commitments evaporate when budgets tighten. A fair and balanced economic model requires sustained investment over many years, not one-off announcements or short-lived cycles. If we are prepared to press Westminster for needs-based funding for Northern Ireland, we must apply the same logic to our borders and invest in the regions that have been neglected. Regions that have been overlooked for decades deserve a long-term plan that does not shift with political tides or depend on the flavour of Minister. If we are to support better budgeting, we need better financial oversight. The SDLP has called consistently for the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council to be placed on a statutory footing. When oversight is optional, accountability is also optional, and it weakens. A statutory Fiscal Council would provide transparent, independent scrutiny to ensure that financial decisions are evidence-based, long-term and not driven by short-term politics. We must also be honest about revenue. Northern Ireland cannot expect its services to improve if it refuses to explore the fiscal tools available to other devolved Governments. Scotland and Wales have already taken on additional fiscal powers. Meanwhile, we continue to rely almost entirely on the block grant, even as demand rises and pressure intensifies. We constantly criticise Britain, but we do not put any other plans in place to take responsibility. We must, therefore, like the way in which Britain throws us the money. A multi-year Budget must at least open the conversation on new fiscal powers, not to raise taxes for the sake of it but to ensure that we have the tools to protect essential services. That is why we will vote against the DUP amendment. It would water down the intent of our motion and remove any reference to the need for a greater devolution of fiscal powers. If we are serious about building a sustainable future for Northern Ireland, we cannot simply avoid the difficult conversation. A motion about long-term budgeting means little if we strip out the tools that are required to make it work. Ultimately, the motion is about changing direction. Our public services cannot survive in a system defined by volatility, instability and short-term thinking. Let me be clear: if the Executive want credible scrutiny and credible alternatives, they must empower the Opposition to deliver them. The SDLP — Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Sinéad. Ms McLaughlin: — is doing the heavy lifting in opposition. We demand to have — Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up. Ms McLaughlin: — the same facilities as Sinn Féin receives in the Dáil. [Interruption.] Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The debate is over. Please behave yourselves. Thank you. Question put, That the amendment be made. The Assembly divided: Ayes 31; Noes 46 AYES Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Ms D Armstrong, Mr Beattie, Mr Bradley, Mr Brett, Mr Brooks, Ms Brownlee, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Ms Bunting, Mr Burrows, Mr Butler, Mr Chambers, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mrs Erskine, Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew, Mr Gaston, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Irwin, Mr Kingston, Mrs Little-Pengelly, Miss McIlveen, Mr Martin, Mr Middleton, Mr Robinson, Mr Stewart Tellers for the Ayes: Ms Forsythe, Mr Harvey NOES Dr Archibald, Ms K Armstrong, Mr Baker, Mr Boylan, Ms Bradshaw, Miss Brogan, Mr Carroll, Mr Delargy, Mr Dickson, Mrs Dillon, Miss Dolan, Mr Donnelly, Mr Durkan, Ms Egan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Finnegan, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Mrs Guy, Miss Hargey, Mr Honeyford, Ms Hunter, Mr Kearney, Mr Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mr McAleer, Miss McAllister, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McMurray, Mr McNulty, Mrs Mason, Mr Mathison, Mr Muir, Ms Murphy, Ms Nicholl, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs O'Neill, Mr O'Toole, Ms Reilly, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin Tellers for the Noes: Mr Durkan, Ms McLaughlin Mr Clarke acted as a proxy for Mrs Erskine. Ms Ennis acted as a proxy for Miss Brogan. Question accordingly negatived. Main Question put. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I have been advised by the party Whips that, in accordance with Standing Order 27(1A)(b), there is an agreement that we dispense with the three minutes and move straight to a Division. The Assembly divided: Ayes 53; Noes 23 AYES Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Ms D Armstrong, Ms K Armstrong, Mr Baker, Mr Beattie, Mr Boylan, Ms Bradshaw, Miss Brogan, Mr Burrows, Mr Butler, Mr Carroll, Mr Chambers, Mr Delargy, Mr Dickson, Mrs Dillon, Miss Dolan, Mr Donnelly, Mr Durkan, Ms Egan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Finnegan, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Mrs Guy, Miss Hargey, Mr Honeyford, Ms Hunter, Mr Kearney, Mr Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mr McAleer, Miss McAllister, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McMurray, Mr McNulty, Mrs Mason, Mr Mathison, Mr Muir, Ms Murphy, Ms Nicholl, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs O'Neill, Mr O'Toole, Ms Reilly, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Mr Stewart Tellers for the Ayes: Mr McGrath, Mr O'Toole NOES Mr Bradley, Mr Brett, Mr Brooks, Ms Brownlee, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Ms Bunting, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mrs Erskine, Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew, Mr Gaston, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Irwin, Mr Kingston, Mrs Little-Pengelly, Miss McIlveen, Mr Martin, Mr Middleton, Mr Robinson Tellers for the Noes: Mr Harvey, Mr Kingston Ms Ennis acted as a proxy for Miss Brogan. Mr Clarke acted as a proxy for Mrs Erskine. Resolved: That this Assembly recognises the need for the first multi-year Budget in more than a decade, to support long-term planning, improve certainty on public service funding and public-sector pay and provide clarity on infrastructure investment; acknowledges that the forthcoming autumn Budget will impact on Executive plans; notes statements by Ministers on the insufficiency of funding and also the absence of any concrete plans by the Executive to better fund public services through existing revenue tools or new devolved fiscal powers; and calls on the Minister of Finance to bring forward a draft multi-year Budget that includes options for new devolved fiscal powers and other innovative means of funding public services in Northern Ireland, which is fully aligned to the priorities outlined in the Programme for Government, before 9 December 2025. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members, please take your ease while we change the personnel at the Table for the next item of business. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Dr Aiken] in the Chair) Free School Meals Provision Ms Hunter: I beg to move That this Assembly recognises that providing free school meals in primary schools delivers multiple benefits, including improved nutrition, enhanced educational attainment and long-term economic returns; notes that, in Northern Ireland, an estimated 20% of children living in poverty are currently not eligible for free school meals; further notes that other jurisdictions across these islands are significantly expanding free school meal provision; regrets the decision to halt the school holiday food grant scheme, which provided vital support to low-income families during school holidays; believes that eligibility for free school meals should be significantly expanded, with the ambition of moving to universal access over time; and calls on the Minister of Education to work with the Minister of Finance to publish a funded plan, with timelines, to extend free school meals to all schoolchildren by 2030. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes. Ms Hunter: I welcome the opportunity to open the debate on this important motion. Simply put, we will be discussing the need to fill the tummies of children in our schools in order to empower and uplift them with at least one guaranteed meal a day. Hunger is recognised as a marker of an adverse childhood experience (ACE). Too often, children struggle with poverty and hunger in total silence, too pained to ask for lunch money when they know that their parents simply do not have it. This is not an issue in a faraway country; it is right here, at home, in Northern Ireland. Our children are literally starving in our classrooms, particularly those who have parents on low incomes. The Research and Information Service (RaISe) has revealed that, in my constituency, almost 50% of children in the Coleraine area benefit from free school meals. The need for more to have access to free school meals is evident. I know that more families really wish that they could benefit from them. Today, I urge the Minister to commit to a bold, transformative ambition: a serious expansion of free school meal provision across our schools, with a funded plan to deliver universal access by 2030. The proposal recognises that providing free school meals in primary schools and throughout the school system delivers multiple benefits: improved nutrition, enhanced educational outcomes and long-term economic returns for our society. Why does that matter? We know that families face growing pressures and struggles with food insecurity. We know that they are under immense pressure because of the cost-of-living crisis, with the ever-increasing price of food, energy and basic essentials. Many working families are stretched to breaking point. The number of children living in poverty in Northern Ireland remains alarmingly high. According to recent figures, around 26% of pupils are eligible for free school meals. That leaves a significant portion of children who live in poverty but who are not currently covered. Furthermore, we in the SDLP find the decision to halt the school holiday food grant scheme deeply regrettable. It previously provided vital support to low-income families during the school holidays, when children lose a daily meal at school and are at an increased risk of hunger. That policy change has definitely left a gap. There is clear evidence that children from low-income backgrounds and those who qualify for free school meals face an attainment gap in our schools. Providing free meals ensures that every child at school is nourished and ready to learn and reduces hunger or stress, which damages concentration in the classroom. Research makes it clear that free school meals improve pupils' nutrition, health, attendance, engagement, behaviour and, ultimately, educational attainment and long-term outcomes. Free school meals should be viewed not merely as a cost but as a long-term investment, with improved health, better progression, reduced inequalities and reduced costs elsewhere in the system. Studies in the UK have shown that universal or expanded provision can, most importantly, reduce stigma, drive up healthy eating and deliver returns in reduced child poverty and social mobility. Today, we call on the Minister to significantly expand eligibility for free school meals ahead of making them universal. We demand that the eligibility criteria be widened so that many more low-income families and children who are currently excluded can access free breakfast or lunch at school. It is not acceptable that nearly one in five children in poverty in Northern Ireland remains ineligible. That is a failure. We call for the reinstatement or a redesign of holiday provision. The previous school holiday food grant scheme provided essential support to children and families during breaks and ensured that our children did not go hungry when detached from school provision. That must be restored or reformed now. We ask that the Minister of Education, in collaboration with the Minister of Finance and the wider sector, commits to a clear, transparent, funded road map. That plan should include timelines, pilot schemes, phased universal access that will be extended to all children by 2030 and resource commitments to deliver it sustainably. What role can the Executive play? The Executive claim that they are serious about tackling poverty and inequality, yet it is clear that we are falling behind other jurisdictions across these islands when it comes to free school meal provision. Other Governments are expanding universal or nearly universal access, reducing stigma and closing gaps. Every day, families in Northern Ireland are being squeezed. School meal price increases and rising costs are really hitting families. It is time that we prioritise families. Children who should be protected are waking up hungry or skipping meals. That cannot continue; it cannot stay that way. Free school meals are not an optional cost; they really are an investment in the future of our children. They are a foundational building block for a child's well-being, learning outcomes and social mobility. If we are really serious about ensuring equality, tackling the attainment gap and lifting people out of poverty, we must act now. The motion is not just about providing meals or virtue signalling; it is about dignity, fairness, our children's futures and the importance of equal access to opportunity. It is about parents not having to make impossible choices and children not having to miss out on the simple right of a nutritious meal, allowing them to thrive in the classroom. We call on the Minister to recognise the evidence that we have discussed here today, commit to expanding free school meals, restore holiday food support and deliver a funded path to universal provision by 2030. We cannot leave our families and, most importantly, our children behind. I commend the motion to the House. Mr Baker: I thank the Member for proposing this very important motion. Sadly, we have debated this issue, and the relevant statistics, a lot in the near two years since we have been back. There is a lot of support around the House for addressing the issue. However, we have not had action. We cannot have any more missed opportunities. There are Ministers in post. We know that there are constraints because of the Budget, how we are set up and austerity, but Ministers have a budget, and they should be prioritising those who need it the most. We cannot have those missed opportunities. Families are feeling the cost of education. In the past number of weeks, the School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill completed its passage through the Assembly. Sadly, that will not go far enough: it will not bring down the cost of the average post-primary uniform. Far from it. We are going to face that challenge time and time again, rather than working together, listening to the evidence of those who are in the sector and delivering something tangible. I hope that, with a fair wind, my private Member's Bill will be before the House early in the new year. I hope that everyone will support it, because I want to end holiday hunger. The Bill will impact on 90,000 children. While it will not be the panacea for the problems that we have in this place or a silver bullet for tackling child poverty, it will go some way in doing that. It will be one piece of a very wide puzzle. We need Ministers to be in listening mode, particularly the Minister for Communities, His anti-poverty strategy does not go far enough. That has been well documented by those at the coalface. When we come back in the new year, I hope that we see a recommitment and desire to be partners and to work together to deliver for the people in all our communities who are suffering. I wanted to sponsor a private Member's Bill to end holiday hunger because of what I have seen in my volunteer youth work. We run a number of programmes throughout the summer months, when we see a rise in what would be described as, for want of a better term, antisocial behaviour. A lot of our children are crying out for attention and help, and it comes down to poverty. When we run the schemes — we run them in Lagmore, but I know that they are run in Monkstown and across the country — we see what the children face. In the summer, we had an eight-year-old wee lad who was filling his pockets with food to bring home to his sibling, because there was not enough food in the cupboards at home. If that eight-year-old is facing that challenge, how do we expect him to go to school and achieve what other children are achieving. It is not going to happen. We must work together across the Chamber to make sure that we prioritise our budgets. I hope that Members support me when I bring my Bill to the house. It will cost money to deliver on the Bill's provisions, but, with all due respect to the motions that come here for debate — they are important in highlighting issues — we need action. That is what families need and it is what children need to reach their full potential. In the remaining 18 months that we have in this place, I hope that we can deliver legislation that will help people. Then, in the next mandate, we can go even further. That is what we need to do. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The debate will continue after Question Time, when the first Member to be called will be Gary Middleton. The debate stood suspended. The sitting was suspended at 12.59 pm. On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) — Top 2.00 pm Oral Answers to Questions Finance Back in Business: Update 1. Mr Dunne asked the Minister of Finance for an update on the Back in Business rate relief scheme. (AQO 2760/22-27) Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): The Back in Business rate support scheme was reintroduced last year as part of my Department's efforts to encourage business ratepayers to occupy long-term vacant retail premises. The scheme provides a 50% rate reduction for up to two years once a retail premises that has been empty for 12 months or more becomes occupied. That provides vital support with operating costs during the challenging early stages of setting up. Our high streets and shops are vital to supporting the local economy and employment. For many, they are essential not only for getting daily supplies but for meeting and socialising with others and are at the heart of our local communities. The Back in Business scheme aims to help businesses establish themselves in or expand into previously vacant premises, breathing new life into those sites and revitalising our town centres. Since its reintroduction in April 2024, 79 businesses across all 11 district councils have benefited from a 50% reduction in their business rates through the scheme, amounting to almost half a million pounds in support. Mr Dunne: I thank the Minister for his answer. Businesses in Northern Ireland face some of the highest rates in the UK. When combined with rising energy and labour costs, significant pressure is being put on their ability to survive and grow. Given the urgency of the situation, how do you plan to ensure that your proposed rates reforms will provide meaningful and immediate relief for businesses, including those on our high streets? If you wait until the end of the 2027-28 rating year to do a full review, for some that will be too little, too late on your watch. Mr O'Dowd: The Member will, I hope, be aware of the statement that I made to the Chamber on, I think, this day last week on how I see future business rates support. My proposal is cost-neutral, because I am conscious that the Executive's Budget continues to face considerable constraints. I have proposed using money from other areas, which includes reducing benefits for those who can most afford to pay and using the savings to help our small and medium-sized businesses. On the basis of my original proposal, we could probably raise around £6·8 million, a significant proportion of which I would like to see being used to support our small and medium-sized businesses. Mr McGuigan: Minister, you said that the Back in Business scheme was introduced in 2024: are there plans to continue it next year? Over and above your proposals, what is currently being done under the current rating system to support our high-street businesses? Mr O'Dowd: Continuing the Back in Business scheme will require legislation, and officials are already preparing legislation to continue that programme and the support for our high-street businesses. We use the small business rate relief scheme, which is an effective support mechanism for our local businesses. As I said in my original answer, considerable support is being delivered to our business sector through the scheme, and I want to enhance that support from our current spending envelope. As Finance Minister, I have to tell other Ministers to look at what they have so that we can move forward, so I want to use the scheme as an example of how we can redirect spend to support our small and medium-sized businesses. Mr McGrath: Some towns have more vacant properties than others. Downpatrick in my constituency is particularly badly hit. The scheme, which provides support for two years, is welcome. As part of your considerations, however, is there the potential to extend the scheme beyond two years for some businesses, especially in areas that are particularly badly affected by vacant properties on the high street? Mr O'Dowd: The scheme, as it is currently mapped out for the two years, is the best that we can deliver at this stage. However, once a business moves off that programme, it will go into the small business rate relief scheme, which will also offer rate relief to the business if it falls into that category. As I said to the Members who spoke previously, I want to broaden that criteria and support more businesses through the small business rate relief scheme. The Member mentioned vacant properties. I have proposals for a gradual removal of the vacant non-domestic properties rate relief, moving to a 75% tariff and then to a 100% tariff to encourage the owners of vacant properties to put those properties into use. Small Business Rate Relief Scheme 2. Ms McLaughlin asked the Minister of Finance when the Assembly will receive proposals for reforming the small business rate relief scheme as part of his Department's strategic review of rating. (AQO 2761/22-27) 6. Mr Gildernew asked the Minister of Finance for an update on his Department's strategic review of rating, focusing on the small business rate relief scheme and non-domestic vacant rating. (AQO 2765/22-27) Mr O'Dowd: Mr Speaker, with your permission, I will group questions 2 and 6. In my statement to the Assembly last Tuesday, I outlined my plans to accelerate the strategic review of rates to secure positive and progressive changes to the business rates system: changes that would see enhanced support for small businesses, which are the backbone of our local economy; change that tackles the high level of vacancies in our towns and city centres; change that supports businesses that are starting out; and change that helps to accelerate business growth. The current small business rate relief scheme provides vital support to around 30,000 small businesses. The support delivered under the scheme has, however, remained unchanged since 2012. I want to create a fair environment for all businesses, and I plan to consult before the new year. That will give businesses the chance to share final views before changes are put to ministerial colleagues on enhancements to the support. In order to tackle the high prevalence of vacant units, work now needs to be undertaken to move the non-domestic rate from 50% to 75% and then to 100%. Given the Executive's Programme for Government commitments on housing and regeneration and the work on preventing dilapidation, there is a unique window of opportunity to maximise the impact of the change by working actively at a cross-departmental level. It is, however, a significant change that connects to many strands of policy across Departments. Therefore, Executive agreement will be required before the change can be implemented. I have instructed my officials to take forward the policy work required to secure Executive agreement. Ms McLaughlin: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. We appreciate what you want to do and what your predecessor wanted to do, but business owners are literally hanging on by their fingernails, and they really need support now. With four Executive Ministers, you can push it right on to the agenda and get it moving as soon as possible: when will you do that? Mr O'Dowd: Politics is the art of the possible. It is better for me to try to attain consensus on a policy around the Executive table rather than simply drive a policy through. There are instances when I will use the three-Minister rule and when it will be appropriate to use it, but we are not at that stage yet. We have to engage at political level and at ministerial level, and I want to seek consensus on the issue and get agreement. It might be a useful headline in which the Member can say, "Do this", "Do that" or "Do the other", but where will it bring you? Will it bring agreement? My strong view is that it will not bring agreement at this stage. My strategy is to seek consensus around the Executive table. Mr Gildernew: I thank the Minister for his answer. Traders and businesses in towns such as Dungannon will warmly welcome any support that is going into regeneration. Will you outline how what you said in your oral statement can contribute towards regeneration? Mr O'Dowd: As I said, it will progress and enhance support for small businesses. It will bring forward an increase in liability for vacant commercial units. It will develop a policy to help businesses to expand or renovate. That is a very important policy, because many businesses want to expand on their current site but are concerned that, if they do, they will immediately have a rates hike to their bill. I propose that we give them a holiday from that hike, which will allow them to bed the new expanded premises in and absorb the construction costs etc. That will be a benefit to businesses. The proposal will also benefit construction businesses and stimulate the construction industry further through renovations to properties. That is a win-win situation for everyone, and I want to see it move forward as quickly as possible. Mr McMurray: I thank the Minister. Politics is the art of the possible, but "the attainable" is the next part of that quotation. Is the Minister confident that that is attainable within the consultation period? The Minister referenced the move from 75% to 100%: is he able to provide clarity on that? I have been out across South Down and have been everywhere from Warrenpoint Chamber of Commerce and Newcastle Chamber of Commerce to Kilkeel Chamber of Commerce, and it is the rates that are prohibiting the return of bustling high streets in Northern Ireland. Mr O'Dowd: It is understandable that there is a focus on rates, as that is the Executive's only major tax-gathering power. Therefore, it is understandable that there is a focus on what businesses or homeowners pay in rates. It is also worth looking at the other side of that equation, however, which is the £1·6 billion that we bring in through the rates and that goes directly to the delivery and maintenance of front-line services. That, in turn, benefits businesses directly and indirectly, with public-sector workers doing business with their businesses. There is a circular economy around that. I have set out how, within our current funding envelope, we can reshape our support for small and medium-sized businesses without placing additional burdens on those who cannot afford to pay. It is about fairness and equity around the entire issue. Yes, there are pressures, but I have proposals in front of me and am confident that all the Executive parties want to support our small and medium-sized businesses; I have no doubt about that. There may be slight disagreements as to how and why we do that, but I have to engage with my Executive colleagues in order to seek agreement on it. If everybody approaches it with an open mind and the objective of supporting our small and medium-sized businesses, we will achieve consensus. Civil Service Recruitment: North-west 3. Mr McHugh asked the Minister of Finance for an update on interest registered in the pilot recruitment competition for vacancies in the north-west, launched in October 2025. (AQO 2762/22-27) Mr O'Dowd: On 28 October, I launched a new pilot recruitment initiative for administrative officers (AOs) in the north-west. That pilot marks a shift away from the traditional annual recruitment campaigns towards a more agile and dynamic approach. The response has been very encouraging, with over 4,500 individuals expressing an interest in the pilot competition. Following that, applicants were invited to complete a self-assessment of their skills and experience, and, from that process, 1,420 of the highest-scoring candidates were invited to submit an application. Just over 950 completed applications have been received, and those candidates have been invited to attend one of two recruitment days that are taking place this Wednesday and Thursday in Derry. Due to the unprecedented demand, my Department will be inviting further candidates to submit an application to attend a third recruitment event in the north-west. Planning for that is under way, and the next group of candidates will soon receive further details regarding their participation. At those events, applicants will have the chance to explore available vacancies, speak directly to departmental representatives and complete interviews on the day. Importantly, outcomes will be communicated within days, making it a faster and more candidate-friendly process. Mr McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a Aire, as do fhreagraí go dtí seo. [Translation: I thank the Minister for his answers so far.] Minister, are you able to outline the criteria that were used when people expressed an interest in jobs in the Civil Service? What criteria were used to select candidates for interview? Mr O'Dowd: Candidates who expressed an interest in Civil Service administrative officer posts in the north-west were requested to submit an expression of interest in order to assess whether they met the minimum eligibility criteria, including age, right to work and pre-agreed, preferred experience requirements for the role. That involved a self-assessment that asked candidates to rate their level of experience against a set of predefined administrative and organisational criteria that are relevant to AO duties. Each criterion carried a predetermined rating, reflecting its importance to the role. The candidate's total score was calculated by combining those responses across all seven criteria and meeting the minimum eligibility criteria. As I outlined in my initial answer, due to the unprecedented demand, my Department is planning a third recruitment event. Mr Durkan: Minister, it was welcomed or heralded as good news that, when we had over 900 vacancies in the Civil Service in the north-west, we were going to recruit 200 AOs. The feedback that I have been receiving from many applicants, however, shows that they are frustrated at what they perceive as a lack of fairness and transparency in the process. Can the Minister please explain why people have been told that they did not meet the experience threshold despite having worked in the role as an agency worker for years? Can he give us an assurance that this ineligibility was not down to other factors such as age or ability? Top 2.15 pm Mr O'Dowd: It is certainly not down to age, because that would be discriminatory under employment legislation. As I have set out, each candidate filled out an expression of interest setting out, in their words, how they believed they met the criteria. That was assessed, and, if they met the minimum standard and they fell within the highest-scoring 900, they were invited for interview. If they did not and remain on the list, they may be invited to the next application process, which will be announced in due course. All recruitment exercises have to be carried out with due regard to employment legislation and equality legislation. If the Member has evidence that somebody has been —. Mr Durkan: I asked for an assurance. Mr O'Dowd: Sorry, do you want to answer the question as well? [Laughter.] I was just checking to see whether the Member wanted to answer the question as well as ask it. He is seeking assurance. Perhaps, if he listened, he might have assurance. Maybe he will not, but that is up to him to decide. I am satisfied that I have not been presented with any evidence that suggests to me that the system that we are currently operating is anything other than fair and equitable. If you have substantive evidence, please share it with me. Departmental Discretionary Spend 4. Mr Frew asked the Minister of Finance to outline each Department's discretionary spend as a percentage of their overall budget for 2025-26. (AQO 2763/22-27) Mr O'Dowd: When setting a Budget, the Executive collectively agree a funding envelope for each Department, typically comprising baseline funding, earmarked funding and a general allocation. Earmarked funding must be utilised for a specific purpose, which, in some instances, may include statutory functions. Baseline and general allocations may be spent at the discretion of respective Ministers in line with their departmental priorities. Each Minister is responsible for ensuring that their Department’s statutory obligations are fulfilled within the funding envelope agreed for their Department by the Executive. It is important to note that there is often a degree of flexibility and scalability within statutory functions, and it is for each Department to determine the suitable level. Similarly, Departments should also consider whether improved outcomes could be delivered through legislative changes. In that context, it is not appropriate to put a percentage on the level of discretionary spend in a Department. Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for his answer. His answer contained everything but the terminology around discretionary spend, which our Ministers are increasingly using daily. When the Minister is deciding a Budget or considering a Budget, does he take discretionary spend into consideration before he allocates that funding? Mr O'Dowd: It is important to clarify that I do not decide a Budget, as much as, perhaps, I would like to on some days. I make recommendations to the Executive, I bring a draft Budget to the Executive, and the Executive either agree or disagree with the draft Budget. If they agree, that draft Budget goes out to consultation. I then bring the consultation report back to the Executive and seek agreement on a final Budget. If the Executive agree, it is brought to the House. I know that Mr Frew knows the process very well. The House passes the Budget Act. I am bound by the Budget Act, as is every Minister in the Executive. On discretionary spend, I cannot micromanage every Minister's Department. Ministers have policy decisions to make in their Departments. It is up to each Minister to decide whether the level of expenditure that they are giving to statutory spend will cover their statutory obligations. If they feel that they cannot cover their statutory obligations, they have to review that, in my opinion, or they have to make legislative changes to the statutory provision. That should be done, in my opinion, through the scope of whether any statutory changes will improve services rather than reduce services. Ms Ferguson: Minister, you mentioned the difference between baseline, earmarked and discretionary funding. Do you consider pay to be a discretionary cost? Mr O'Dowd: Public-sector pay should be decided at the start of the financial calendar year rather than midway through the calendar year. We did that in the Civil Service branch that I am responsible for. As part of the Budget process, I will bring recommendations to Executive colleagues for public-sector pay to be set in their Departments at the start of the year rather than waiting until mid-term or the end of the year in the hope that they may receive Barnett consequentials or whatever it may be. We cannot deliver public services without public-sector workers, and we should not leave them in a position where they are waiting or becoming frustrated because their pay settlement was not dealt with at the start of the budgetary year. Dr Aiken: Minister, one of the big issues about discretionary spending is that it tends to disappear into the arm's-length bodies (ALBs), and one of the biggest issues that we have is controlling and seeing what is in the ALBs. Has any progress been made on having more openness and transparency on ALBs? That would be a real issue to the Minister as well as to Ministers. Mr O'Dowd: All ALBs are answerable to their boards and their chief accounting officers. Under the legislative basis on which they were established, they are also answerable to their sponsoring Ministers. When I was in Departments that had ALBs, I had no difficulty in making enquiries and making sure that they were aware that a Minister was present and sought clarification and assurance on public spend. There are also the Committees, which do an excellent scrutiny job. They also have a responsibility to question ALBs on their expenditure. The Member raises a broader point, however, about the amount of public funds that go to ALBs. That has been debated and discussed many times, and Ministers have the authority to do that at this stage. There needs to be an urgent review of the number of ALBs, their functions and responsibilities, and whether those could be carried out in a more effective and efficient way that delivers the front-line public services that they have been mandated to deliver. Autumn Budget 2025 5. Mr Allen asked the Minister of Finance to outline any engagement that he has had with Treasury in relation to the Autumn Budget 2025. (AQO 2764/22-27) 8. Miss Hargey asked the Minister of Finance to outline his assessment of what the Executive requires from the upcoming Autumn Budget 2025. (AQO 2767/22-27) Mr O'Dowd: With the Speaker's permission, I intend to answer questions 5 and 8 together. The autumn Budget tomorrow must be used as an opportunity to support workers and families. I recognise the scale of the financial challenge that the Westminster Government are facing, but investment in public services is key to growing the economy. Economic growth and improved public services cannot be achieved without meaningful investment. The Chancellor has political choices to make. I would encourage the Chancellor to do the right thing and use the autumn Budget to help hard-working families by increasing the tax-free childcare threshold; reversing the two-child cap, recognising the harmful impact that it has on families and that it increases the level of child poverty; backing hospitality businesses by making changes to the VAT rate; and supporting the community and voluntary sector by changing the approach to the local growth fund. As the cost-of-living crisis continues, I have consistently urged the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to avoid further austerity measures that would place an unfair burden on people, businesses or public services. The Treasury has an ideal opportunity tomorrow to support public services, workers, families and small- and medium-sized businesses. I hope that it seizes that opportunity. Mr Allen: I thank the Minister for restating his press release, which I already read. The question that I asked was about what engagement he has had with the Treasury on the forthcoming Budget. If any measures are related directly to the cost of living, will the Minister give a guarantee that he will work with the Communities Minister to ensure that families and households here are supported? Mr O'Dowd: The Member can be assured that my press release states exactly what I have done, because it sets out what engagement I have had with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I hope that that satisfies the Member in that, when he reads the press release, he realises that the Minister is doing what he says that he is doing. As for working with the Communities Minister, I will work with all Ministers in supporting them to deliver effective and efficient front-line public services. What decisions individual Ministers make for their Departments are, by and large, for individual Ministers within their funding envelopes. When Ministers make decisions or choose to fund project a or project b, they have to be conscious that, if they fund project a or project b, they are not funding project c or d. Each time that a Minister makes an announcement about a project, it would be worthwhile for people to ask, "If you're funding that, what are you not funding?". That is not to criticise the Minister or to open the Minister up to ridicule. The reality is that, when you make a choice, there are two sides to that choice. Miss Hargey: Thank you, Minister. You are right: the British Government can make a political decision tomorrow to protect workers and families. To that end, will you outline the specifics of the other issues that you have raised with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury? Mr O'Dowd: I, along with the Finance Ministers from Wales and Scotland, attended the Finance: Interministerial Standing Committee (F:ISC) meeting in October. We had wide-ranging discussions about the Budget, how Westminster interacts with the devolved institutions and how, sometimes — quite often, it has to be said — decisions are made in Westminster that have no true reflection on the reality of life for people here and how we run public services. Two examples of that are the National Insurance hikes, which had a significant detrimental impact on Departments here and elsewhere; and the family farming inheritance tax issue, which was another decision made in Westminster that has significant impacts here, perhaps more so than in other places. As I said, I directly asked the Westminster Government about tax-free childcare. That is important in supporting hard-working families out there to help meet the costs of childcare. The two-child benefit cap has been raised time and time again. If the Government were to deal with that, they could lift millions of children across these islands out of poverty. Why would you not make that decision? That is my view on that. Another specific issue here is the local growth fund. There was a decision in England and Wales to use the local growth fund to regenerate town centres and villages. That is worthy in itself, and I have no difficulty with it, but we supported the previous Shared Prosperity Fund (SPF) through different schemes, largely resource, which mainly and strategically helped the people who were furthest away from the workplace to get back into work. I want to see the Treasury and the Government recognise that and give us the tools to do it. Ms Forsythe: Minister, with so many things going on side by side, it is important that we get clear and accurate numbers out to the public. The Finance Committee got the latest out-turn figures in our papers, and there was reference to the December monitoring round. The Budget will be announced tomorrow, and there may be subsequent Barnett consequentials. When do you think that you will be in a position to outline what exactly the Budget means for us in Northern Ireland and be able to present that to the House? Mr O'Dowd: I have to wait for the announcement tomorrow. There may be Barnett consequentials as a result of that announcement, although I am not expecting a significant amount of Barnett consequentials. Once that is announced and I have the information directly from the Treasury — I also require information from our own Departments — I will be in a position to present the Executive with a monitoring round paper. I want to do that as quickly as possible. That will be a separate paper from the Budget paper, but both are aligned and should be cognisant of each other. When I have all the data that I require, I will not waste any time in presenting that to the Executive for a decision. Ms Nicholl: The Minister mentioned that he raised the issue of the local growth fund with the UK Government. Has there been any discussion about a transitional arrangement as we move from the UK Shared Prosperity Fund to the local growth fund? Mr O'Dowd: Yes, there has been direct engagement about that. My officials, on behalf of other Departments and using information received from other Departments, are engaging with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the NIO about a transition. However, this has to be constantly recorded: as far as Whitehall officials are concerned, the SPF is finished and the transition was last year. They are now moving on to a different programme, so, as far as they are concerned, whatever happened in the past is in the past. Our view is that the SPF was quite successful here and achieved many of the goals that we wanted it to achieve and that there should at least be a transition from that to the new programme. Given the lateness of the engagement from the Whitehall Departments and the NIO, the responsibility for that transition rests with them. My officials are engaging with them, and there will be another meeting this Thursday. I updated the Executive this morning and I have committed to updating Executive colleagues following Thursday's meeting. Top 2.30 pm Mr O'Toole: Minister, lots of people will be sympathetic with the priorities that you have outlined. Certainly, the two-child limit is immoral: it should never have existed and it needs to go. Are we to understand that, if the UK Government do not act on any of the priorities that you outlined, you will seek either to have new fiscal powers devolved or to find revenue to do those things yourself locally? Mr O'Dowd: The Member is aware of my position on fiscal powers. I outlined it again this afternoon during a debate on the Budget. That is on record. The Executive's ability to continue to mitigate the impacts of decisions by the British Government is very restricted. It will obviously be a decision for the Executive when I bring my Budget proposals to them, but every pound that we spend on mitigating the British Government's detrimental decisions is a pound that we cannot spend elsewhere. Therefore, we have to balance all those decisions. The final decision on the way forward will be one for the Executive. Mr Speaker: We move to topical questions. Northern Ireland Water: Funding Plan T1. Mr O'Toole asked the Minister of Finance, after stating his acceptance that funding Northern Ireland Water cannot involve domestic water charges, to outline his alternative plan, be it a developer levy, bond funding or something else, in light of the fact that if the Minister looks out a window at his Department, he can see Belfast lough, which is a precious body of water that the Office for Environmental Protection says is experiencing serious degradation, leading to its investigating the Department for Infrastructure, which the Minister used to lead, and as Minister for Infrastructure and Minister of Finance, he has refused to set out a plan for the funding of Northern Ireland Water, which is leading to the degradation of our watercourses. (AQT 1821/22-27) Mr O'Dowd: The Member will be acutely aware that NI Water receives around half a billion pounds annually in public funds. That is stage 1 of the plan. Stage 2 is that we have seen significant additional investment in NI Water as a result of a strategic use of monitoring rounds. We have connected over 5,000 homes to waste water infrastructure in the past two years and have plans to move beyond that number. There is another part of the plan. The Member is aware that the Infrastructure Minister is bringing forward legislation on developer contributions. I believe that that legislation is at Second Stage. I thought that that Bill had had its First Reading and been introduced in the House, but maybe the consultation is coming to a close. The Infrastructure Minister will be able to confirm what progress there has been in that regard. I am open to suggestions from the Member. He has now ruled out water charges, which is good. If he has any other suggestions that do not involve water charges, I am happy to listen to them. The Member told me earlier this afternoon that he had produced a number of documents. Perhaps there is a suggestion in one of those. Mr O'Toole: Minister, to be absolutely clear, I have never advocated for water charges. That is a weird deflection from the fact that you and your party are doing nothing. In Dáil Éireann, Mary Lou McDonald said that the Irish Government are "a do-nothing Government". My God, it takes one to know one. Your plan is no plan at all. Social houses cannot be built, jobs cannot be created, factories cannot be built and our natural resources — Lough Neagh and Belfast lough — are falling into degradation because you will do nothing about the funding of NI Water. Is there any plan at all, or are you content to literally do nothing? Mr O'Dowd: If allocating half a billion pounds, connecting 5,000 properties to waste water treatment works and the Infrastructure Minister engaging in a legislative process on developer contributions amounts to doing nothing, I do not know what world the leader of the Opposition is living in. Again, if there is a suggestion in one of the quite thin documents that he produced that does not involve the introduction of domestic water charges or the privatisation of NI Water, I am happy to listen to it. Civil Service: Openness and Transparency T2. Dr Aiken asked the Minister of Finance, given that he has many broad responsibilities, some of which relate to Civil Service reform, for an update on what he expects the Civil Service to do about the fact that the two recent COVID-19 inquiry reports very clearly show that it does not seem to have learnt lessons about openness and transparency. (AQT 1822/22-27) Mr O'Dowd: There are a number of reports to be studied, the latest of which is the inquiry report. Its recommendations deserve to be studied closely, and I will play my part in responding to any recommendations that relate to the role of the Civil Service. There are lessons for us all to learn from the COVID experience, and I am committed to working with others to ensure that those lessons are learned. Dr Aiken: I know that it is not your particular responsibility, Minister, but, because you are looking at Civil Service reform, I will put this question to you. I have been waiting for well over a month for a response from the Senior Civil Service about how it sets its criteria for bonus payments, and I would like to know whether the terms of reference look at measures of effectiveness. It comes under your Department, so can you inform me whether there is any indication that the Senior Civil Service is progressing at pace towards providing an answer, or are we just allowing it to set the agenda? Mr O'Dowd: I am not aware of any bonus scheme for senior civil servants. I think that it came to an end a number of years ago. It is easy to take potshots at the Civil Service. It does make mistakes. There are errors made and lessons to be learned. Learning, skill sets and all those sorts of things need to be reviewed. At the end of the day, however, civil servants, 99·9% of the time, are out there delivering public services, engaging with Ministers and Committees and trying to do their best to improve the lives of all the people whom we serve. Do you know why they do that? It is because they are stakeholders. They live here. They use the services here. Their children use the services here. Their parents and grandparents use the services here. They are therefore stakeholders in our society. In my role as Minister with responsibility for the Civil Service, however, I will ensure that, where lessons need to be learned, they will be learned, and that, where we have to make improvements, improvements will be made. I have no qualms about doing that. As I said earlier, whether they are from the report on COVID or from the report on the renewable heat incentive scheme, we, collectively, have lessons to learn. A5: Land and Property Services' Valuation of Agricultural Land T3. Mr K Buchanan asked the Minister of Finance, using the A5 as an example, having acknowledged that there is an ongoing legal case concerning that road, what his Department can do to look at bridging the gap between the Land and Property Services (LPS) valuation figure per acre of agricultural land and the figure that it costs to replace the land, given that there is a big disparity. (AQT 1823/22-27) Mr O'Dowd: It is important that LPS remain independent in the matter and that there be no ministerial interference in setting land valuations. LPS plays an independent role. It engages with agents appointed by landowners. Understandably, there will be a negotiation in such scenarios to reach agreement on the price of land. There will be expectations on the side of the landowner and expectations on the side of the LPS, but, as Minister, I should not directly intervene. Mr K Buchanan: Thanks for that answer, Minister. I mentioned that there is a big disparity. Some of the farmers are being offered £16,000, £17,000 or £18,000 per acre, yet it costs close to £30,000 to replace that land. What would you therefore say to farmers or landowners in the A5 area? There are over 300 of them, and they have inheritance tax and the land take from the A5 looming over them. As I said, there is a massive disparity in the figures. Something has to be done, because it is not possible for them to run their business and also replace land, based on the figure that they might get to do so. Mr O'Dowd: The Member know my views on inheritance tax. It is an unfair taxation policy, particularly here. I do not want to interfere in individual cases, but I want to be assured that the policy and legislation are being adhered to fairly. As I have said, I deal with a number of Members' correspondence cases, some of which relate to historical land cases. My response to my officials is that they need to reassure me that everyone is being treated fairly. Ongoing engagement and negotiations should therefore continue, and the land agent appointed by the landowner should engage fully with LPS to try to reach a settlement that is agreeable to all sides. Departmental Estate Strategies T4. Mr Sheehan asked the Minister of Finance how important it is for each Department to have an estate strategy, given the ongoing budgetary constraints. (AQT 1824/22-27) Mr O'Dowd: It is vital. It is estimated that the Executive and their agencies own land that is comparable in size to County Armagh. We have to use a lot of that land and property for the delivery of required services, and it is used regularly. However, in that portfolio is land and property that, in my opinion, we should dispose of in a managed way and, when those capital receipts come back in to the Executive, we can reinvest them into modern infrastructure for the delivery of public services. It is vital that each Department has a strategic management plan. Mr Sheehan: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a fhreagraí go dtí seo. [Translation: I thank the Minister for his answers so far.] What steps has the Minister's Department taken to progress community asset transfers of unused or underused buildings that are in public ownership? Mr O'Dowd: We have progressed changes to the policy to try to make it simpler and easier for the community sector to access unused property that it believes can be brought back into community use for the benefit of the community. I continue to engage with elements of the community that raise questions with me and enquire about that. We are continually looking at how we can improve it. There is a piece of quite outdated legislation — I think that it dates back to 1931 or 1933 — that somewhat ties the Executive's hands in that the property has to be disposed of without any loss of benefit to the public finances, which, on the face of it, is sound. However, it is about how you measure loss to public finances. That legislation needs to be updated, and I have asked officials to look at it to see whether we can make meaningful progress in updating it, whether that is in this mandate or at the start of the next mandate. Shared Property Management T5. Mr Allen asked the Minister of Finance, on foot of his recent announcement on shared property management, when he anticipates the Department's being in a position to take forward any legislative reform that is required. (AQT 1825/22-27) Mr O'Dowd: Given that we are at the start of that process, I do not think that we will be able to change legislation in this mandate. However, I hope that we will leave the groundwork and a lot of preparatory work available for the next mandate so that legislation can move quite quickly. Mr Allen: I thank the Minister for that answer. Does he anticipate that that reform will include strengthened protections for homeowners who face unclear service charges, disputes or poor management? Mr O'Dowd: Yes. The requirement for a change in legislation or the introduction of legislation in that area is driven by that need. There is a feeling, which is coming through in some of the initial evidence reports that were done on the matter, that property owners in shared accommodation are at a disadvantage. They certainly feel as though they are at a disadvantage. In some cases, the evidence backs that up. If we are going to bring forward legislation that is aimed at protecting the rights of property owners or those who rent in shared property facilities, as with all things that relate to changes to legislation, we have to balance the rights of the other side of the equation. That legislation will be open to inquiry and debate in the Chamber and elsewhere. We want to bring forward a piece of legislation that is workable and that, in particular, protects the rights of those people who feel as though they have been disadvantaged thus far. Tax-free Childcare T6. Ms Nicholl asked the Minister of Finance, given that one thing that everyone in the House agrees about is the need for childcare to be treated as economic and social infrastructure, what engagement he has had with the Treasury on an increase from 20% to 30% in the tax-free childcare rate ahead of the Budget tomorrow. (AQT 1826/22-27) Mr O'Dowd: I have made representations in writing and verbally to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on that for the very reasons that the Member outlined. It is important that we support hard-working families with the cost of childcare. That is a way in which the Treasury can assist. As the Member will know, the Executive have invested quite significantly in that field. I would hope that that investment would continue through the multi-year Budget. Ms Nicholl: I thank the Minister for that answer. What further childcare support can the Executive give through the Education Department to support people with those astronomical costs? Top 2.45 pm Mr O'Dowd: The Education Minister delivers the childcare policy on behalf of the Executive. The Executive have, from almost a standstill start on that and other areas of child support, invested £55 million in the past financial year. I will make proposals to the Executive about increasing that over the next three-year budgetary period to assist in further support being delivered to hard-working families. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Dr Aiken] in the Chair) Opposition Business Free School Meals Provision Debate resumed on motion: That this Assembly recognises that providing free school meals in primary schools delivers multiple benefits, including improved nutrition, enhanced educational attainment and long-term economic returns; notes that, in Northern Ireland, an estimated 20% of children living in poverty are currently not eligible for free school meals; further notes that other jurisdictions across these islands are significantly expanding free school meal provision; regrets the decision to halt the school holiday food grant scheme, which provided vital support to low-income families during school holidays; believes that eligibility for free school meals should be significantly expanded, with the ambition of moving to universal access over time; and calls on the Minister of Education to work with the Minister of Finance to publish a funded plan, with timelines, to extend free school meals to all schoolchildren by 2030. — [Ms Hunter.] Mr Middleton: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion. I do not think that there is a single Member who does not want to see our children healthy, well fed and ready to learn. We all recognise the statistics before us: 13% of children live in food-insecure households. We understand that nutritious food is the fuel for educational attainment. However, although we share the compassion behind the motion, we must also share a commitment to reality. I begin by commending the Minister for the action that he has already taken. While others deal in unfunded wish lists, the Minister has dealt in action. He recently announced that, from the 2025-26 academic year, the eligibility threshold for free school meals and uniform grants will rise to £15,390. Crucially, he has also committed to linking future increases to inflation. That targeted, sustainable intervention is designed to support what many describe as the working poor; families who work hard but struggle to make ends meet. The Opposition's motion mentions comparisons with other jurisdictions, nothing that they are expanding universal provision. However, they are being selective. They fail to mention that, for families outside those specific age groups, the eligibility criteria in Great Britain are far less generous than our own. In England and Wales, the earnings threshold for families on universal credit is just £7,400. In Scotland, it is roughly £9,500. Compare that with Northern Ireland, where, under the Minister, the threshold is over £15,000. We are already casting a much wider net for low-income families than our counterparts across the water. Of course, we recognise that there is more to do, but we then come to the central issue: funding. The Education Authority faces an overcommitment of some £280 million. The Department is chronically underfunded. The independent report entitled 'Investing in a Better Future' made that clear. The motion calls for a road map to universal provision by 2030, but let us be clear about the price tag: extending universal free school meals to all pupils from nursery to year 14 would cost the public purse an additional £202 million every year. That figure does not even include the capital costs. We have over 1,100 schools, nearly 800 of which are primary schools. A massive expansion in meal numbers would require new kitchens, new dining halls and significant infrastructural upgrades. Where is the budget for that capital investment? We hear calls from the Benches opposite for subsidies and expansions, but we rarely hear where the money should come from. If we are to find the extra £202 million for this specific policy, which Department does the Opposition suggest that we take it from? Do we take it from Health or from Infrastructure, or should we further stretch the Education budget, which is already at breaking point? Poverty is a scourge, but it requires a whole-system approach. It is not the job solely of the Department of Education to solve those issues of inequality. That is why the Minister for Communities has stepped up, recently extending welfare mitigations to 2028, which will provide stability for families. We support the Education Minister in his fight for additional resources for education, but until that funding is secured from Treasury and allocated — Mr Allen: Will the Member give way? Mr Middleton: — by the Executive, we must be realistic; we cannot spend money that we do not have. I give way to Mr Allen. Mr Allen: The Member highlights the point about where we will take the money from to provide that required investment, but will he also acknowledge the importance of investing to save right across Departments — health inequalities, for example, can be tackled if we invest to save? Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Member has an extra minute. Mr Middleton: I do agree. We absolutely should invest to save. It is particularly relevant to the Department of Health. That being said, the scale of this particular initiative, whilst it would be a good one to do, is such that over £202 million would be required in additional resource each and every year. Those of us who sit — who have the privilege, if you like, of sitting — on the Education Committee know the challenges that exist in our education system, and those are not only to do additional things, which are all very worthwhile doing, but to even stand still . We are in a very dangerous situation when it comes to finances. In closing, I support the Education Minister's doing what he can, but we do need the wider Executive to provide that funding support to allow us to take forward all the initiatives that we want to see to improve the outcomes for our children. Mr Mathison: I support the motion. Notwithstanding a challenging Budget picture, which I have no doubt that the Minister will speak to, as has Gary Middleton, Alliance has long been supportive of wider provision of free school meals in Northern Ireland. We are happy to support the motion on that basis. Last year, I was pleased to sponsor the UNISON free school meals campaign event, which took place here in Parliament Buildings and recognised the work of that campaign, which began in 2021. In many ways, today's motion is very much indebted to that UNISON free school meals campaign. As everyone has highlighted already, we all know the importance of ensuring that children are in school, properly nourished and ready to learn. Unfortunately, that is not a reality that can be guaranteed for all children in our schools. Teachers will regularly speak of children whom they know will come into school not having had breakfast or who arrive at school without an adequate lunch having been provided. There is no doubt that that has a hugely detrimental effect on a child's ability to learn and to concentrate, and that is not an acceptable scenario that we want for any of our children. The system that we have in Northern Ireland for free school meal provision is not ideal either. Parents must reapply each year, even if their circumstances have not changed. Eligibility is based around the receipt of social security benefits and income thresholds that often do not reflect the true impact of the cost-of-living crisis. Nor, indeed, does it reach all those children who are most in need. A number of reports show that current provision for free school meals often does not get to the children who need it most, and the research commissioned by the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People set out the concerning fact that 41% of children in poverty are not, in fact, eligible for free school meals, and 66% of children who are eligible for free school meals are not, in fact, in poverty. That is not a picture that any of us should be relaxed about in 2025. Those are incredibly concerning statistics. Despite assurances from the Minister of Education and the Minister for Communities that work would be undertaken to properly scope out auto-enrolment for those who are eligible for free school meals — a practical intervention that could address some of the difficulties around the need to reapply every year — it is not clear how that has been progressed, if at all. I would welcome clarity from the Minister on whether there is any live work ongoing on that issue, because, while budgets are tight, practical and pragmatic interventions that can improve the picture are always welcome, and I do not think that data sharing or bureaucracy should be a barrier to getting free school meal provision to those children who need it most. It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the extremely challenging budgetary position that the Department is facing. Gary Middleton has already set that out. However, the Children's Commissioner's briefing on free school meal eligibility does set out some key recommendations on how we can begin to distribute provision on a phased basis, looking perhaps at interventions that could impact on younger children first, ensuring that the youngest children in our school system could receive at least one nutritious meal a day at school, and to help overcome the stigma associated with free school meals. That could then be expanded to older children as budget allows. I do not pretend that any of that can be delivered overnight. I do not think that anybody here believes that we are in a budgetary position where that sort of money is available. However, setting a direction of travel and planning to deliver over a planned phased period is work that we should, surely, all get behind. The financial challenge has already been raised by a Member. It is important that the Minister does not just set out the scale of the challenge in his budget but that we hear about his plans for transformation within the education system that would deliver savings and approaches to deliver our education system more effectively. It will come as no surprise to anybody that, in the Alliance Party, we consistently highlight the issues of a divided education system and of a school estate that, we know, simply has too many schools and schools that are not in the right place. We need to see an agenda for how we can run that system more efficiently. The issues around the Children's Services Co-operation Act (Northern Ireland) 2015 are also relevant. It is not simply a matter for the Education Minister, and I have no doubt that he will set that out in his remarks. It requires an approach across all Departments; in particular, I highlight Health and Communities. Andy Allen's intervention about taking an invest-to-save approach was very helpful. For me, this feels like one of those issues where that is entirely appropriate. I am happy to support today's motion, and I hope that it gets support across the House. I do not underestimate the scale of the budget challenges, but I ask that we look at ambitious plans for transformation within the education system and a planned, phased approach for delivering on the issue. Mr Burrows: It is an important motion, and not one that I will use in any way to score points over. It raises a real issue about how we can better support our young people. I agree that it cuts across many Departments: Education, Health, Communities and Justice. In the long-term aspiration, there is a real test as to whether, as an Executive and a body politic, we are committed to real prevention and to improving life, health and society outcomes and that we can commit to something that is really ambitious, even if the money is not obviously available right now. Let me just preface say that by saying that free school meals are very important. I have been going around schools in the past number of weeks, particularly primary schools so far, and it is very clear how important the free school meals are, but it is also clear that people who are just outside the eligibility suffer significantly. That is why I think that the argument to raise the eligibility for free school meals is important. Whilst dealing with the issue of free school meals, I want to touch on another issue, which is a very tangible thing, and perhaps the Minister could give it some thought. When I spoke to two principals, they told me that those who apply for free school meals have to wait six weeks or so for the checks to go through and to be told that they are eligible for the free school meal. In the intervening time, for parents who could not afford the meal, the schools were actually paying for it, but there is no mechanism to recoup that money. In the broad scale of things, it would not cost a significant amount to have a policy tweak that, if you apply for free school meals and are successful, any outlay in the intervening time, whether by the school or the parents, could be reimbursed. That is the way that it has been explained to me. It is a small thing, which would probably not be a huge cost, but that would certainly help. On the recent increase in the price of school meals, we are not a party that lives in a utopia of, "This is free; this should be free and that should be free". Inflation goes up, and food prices go up, and we understand that it puts pressure on school meal prices, but it should be the last thing to increase. In particular, a 20% increase is very difficult to budget for. I know that, probably because of the laudable effort of trying to avoid school meal price increases, we almost get to the point where we have to increase them by more than the cost of inflation. There is learning there in that, if we are going to increase them, it would actually be better and easier for families to budget if it were done incrementally and gradually, even if it came to the same amount. That said, I still think that the increase in school meal prices should be reviewed. The real ambition that I would love to get to is this. I spent some time with one union and several teachers, and we talked about the inequalities in our society: there are children who will live much longer than others, and there are children who will have much lower life opportunities. It may not be today, tomorrow or even for some time, but if, somehow, the Executive can take a leap of faith and have a real ambition to fund, through different Departments, the opportunity for children of all ages, particularly primary-school children, to sit down together and have a free school meal with different types of healthy food, I wonder whether that might have a transformational impact on outcomes in health, opportunities and reliance on benefits in 20, 30 or 40 years' time. That is why I look at the motion with ambition. It is not about hammering the Minister, who has a difficult job to do. The money is not immediately there to do this. There is an element of aspiration, however: if we can find a way to increase the provision of school meals, make them sociable and about learning and create a sense in children, away from screens, of sharing food together on a greater level, it will help not just nutrition but a range of social things. That would be really powerful. There are good things in the motion. It is fair to say that it is aspirational. We certainly do not expect the Minister to write a cheque for £200 million. Top 3.00 pm Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Will the Member draw his remarks to a close? Mr Burrows: That is me concluded. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much. Mrs Guy: I wish that we did not need the motion. Echoing the comments of others, I feel confident that no Member in the Chamber does not want to see universal free school meals. The issue goes right to the heart of the pressures facing families and the pressures facing the education system. From the start, it is important to recognise that free school meals are not simply a welfare intervention; they are an educational intervention. They improve nutrition, enhance attainment and deliver long-term social and economic benefits, yet, in Northern Ireland, around 20% of children living in poverty are not eligible for free school meals. It should be a cause for alarm for every one of us that one in five children from low-income families is deprived of that support. Every MLA hears the same stories from parents in their constituency: families are doing everything that they can to cope with the cost of living and are still falling behind. The Department is investing in curriculum reform, literacy and numeracy initiatives and new approaches to teacher training and professional development. Those are worthy and have value, but none of them will achieve its full potential if thousands of children sit in classrooms too hungry to learn. The Education Authority's plan to increase the cost of school meals by 20% is simply not sustainable for families who are already on the brink. Minister, I was disappointed in your response to my question for written answer asking about your assessment of the impact of those increases on children who are just outside the threshold for free school meals. Signposting struggling families to Public Health Agency (PHA) guidance entitled 'Are you packing a healthy lunch?' feeds into the stigma that struggling parents are simply making bad choices. We could argue that successive Education Ministers have been the ones making the bad choices by not reforming our education system to ensure that we do not duplicate resources. I have no doubt that cross-departmental working will be crucial to expand free school meals, given the health and economic benefits that that delivers alongside educational benefits. We know that the cost to implement free school meals for pupils from nursery to P7 would be over £100 million extra. I am not so naive as to think that a programme of transformation would result in freeing up that kind of money in the short term or even within the 2030 timeline proposed in the motion, but we could make progress. We could bring more children within the threshold of free school meals. That would bolster the impact of the reforms that the Minister is introducing. Without that investment, the risk is that we undermine their impact. The children whom we are talking about are not abstract statistics; they are children across Northern Ireland and in our Lagan Valley constituency. The organisations working on the front line understand that. Lisburn food bank, for example, provided insights for the debate. It sees the direct consequences of food insecurity daily. The food bank highlighted the predictable spike in need every school holiday, exactly the gap that the school holiday food grant once addressed, and expressed its deep regret that that scheme had ended. It told me of an eight-year-old girl who receives free school meals during term time. With her mum working part-time, the loss of the holiday payment means an additional £20 to £30 weekly food bill. The result is meal rationing and snacks being stopped. Atlas Women's Centre stressed that universal free school meals would ease pressures on families at a time when food banks are overwhelmed and community groups are stretched far beyond their capacity. It emphasised the need to reduce stigma and to ensure that no child is made to feel different because of their family's income. The evidence supports what those organisations have told us. The free school meals pilot in England showed significant improvements in attainment: the equivalent of four to eight additional weeks of progress at Key Stages 1 and 2. That must be one of the most cost-effective education interventions on these islands. Minister, if you are serious about raising standards, tackling underachievement and giving every child a fair start, universal free school meals must be part of that vision. The motion calls on the Minister to work with the Minister of Finance to develop and: "publish a funded plan, with timelines, to extend free school meals to all school children by 2030.". That is ambitious — perhaps too ambitious — but ambition is what our children need. Mr Carroll: Across the North, there are over 100,000 children living in poverty, and one third of the children in my constituency of West Belfast live in poverty. That is absolutely unacceptable and immoral. The proposed 20% increase to the cost of school meals will only harm the families in poverty and on low incomes who are not eligible for free school meals. As Members have stated, only 59% of children in poverty are eligible for free school meals. That means that 41% of children living in poverty are being denied free school meals simply because they do not count and do not matter. Alarmingly, the number of families eligible for free school meals and uniform grants over the past two years has fallen by 3,000. That has not only exacerbated the conditions faced by working-class families in my constituency and elsewhere but put immense pressure on food banks, which those families depend on more and more, year after year. The level of reliance on food banks to meet people's basic needs is totally immoral and unsustainable, and it cannot continue. The universal provision of free school meals would be a far more effective and efficient approach than means testing. It would alleviate the pressures on working-class families and provide a far broader group of children with a nutritious meal each day. That is the bare minimum of what is necessary for children to stay focused and learn. Alongside that, it would be beneficial — ideal, really — to introduce sustainably sourced school meals that support local food production and reduce food waste. Universal free school meal provision is entirely feasible. It has been introduced in Sweden and Wales. Until universal provision is achieved, there should, as a bare minimum, be a price cap on school meals to provide support to the children who need it most. In addition, the holiday hunger grant, which was first introduced in the North during the COVID pandemic, should be immediately reinstated. The Member for West Belfast Danny Baker is proposing to do that through a PMB that we will support. Over 100,000 children benefited from those payments. We cannot allow working-class children to go hungry over the holiday period, and we will not accept the excuse that the money simply is not there. To those who say that the money is not there or that it is utopian, I say the contrary. The wealth of the world's billionaires grew by $2 trillion — $5·7 billion per day — in 2024, and we have the cheek and the nerve to say that there is not money for free school meal provision. Pull the other one. We tell working-class families that they must pull themselves up by their bootstraps, as they struggle to choose between heating their homes and feeding their children. Poverty among children and pupils is a choice. The Executive must choose whether they will opt in or opt out. I support the motion. Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): First, I welcome the opportunity to respond to the motion on free school meals provision. I start by recognising that school meals play a vital role in supporting children and young people's learning and health. A nutritionally balanced and healthy lunch helps pupils to concentrate and be in the best position to learn. That, in turn, helps with their well-being, development and educational outcomes. However, let us be clear: the benefits of a nutritious school meal extend to all pupils, irrespective of whether it is free. Currently, around 90,000 pupils are able to access a free school meal each day. That support is targeted towards those who are most in need: children and young people from low-income families, to whom that support can make a real difference. Free school meal entitlement is largely based on households being in receipt of relevant benefits. The Education Authority actively continues to support families who choose to apply for those benefits through the free school meal application process to ensure that their children can access free school meals as easily as possible. Over the summer, my officials completed a review of the eligibility criteria for free school meals. I took the decision to raise the income threshold for those on universal credit to £15,390. For the first time, I have ensured that the threshold will automatically increase in future years in line with consumer price inflation. In making my decision, I recognised the importance of free school meals to many low-income families. I also took into account the views expressed during the public consultation, in which there was broad support for increasing access to free school meals, including universal provision. Of course, I would welcome the opportunity to introduce universal provision, but the budgetary constraints that my Department and the wider Executive face mean that that is not achievable at this stage. I listened to the Minister of Finance speak on Saturday. He talked about the Assembly and the Executive having to get real and take big decisions about raising finances. I say this to Members: while the motion, aspirational as it is in nature, no doubt has merit, Members need to get real. When Members table such a motion — a motion that would lead to costs well in excess of £150 million — it adds to the cynicism that the public have about the institutions. We know that it is not achievable — Ms Hunter: Will the Minister give way? Mr Givan: — in the short or medium term owing to the pressures that exist. I will give way to the Member: the very Member who proposed the motion but has been absent from the Chamber for the past half an hour. I will give way to her, despite her not having been in the Chamber for the past while. Ms Hunter: God forbid that a woman use the bathroom, Minister. I certainly was not gone for half an hour. It was a matter of minutes. Let me be clear: I am an SDLP MLA who has been elected to the House to advocate for children. I will be cold and dead in the ground before I do not use my platform to put to the House the right of children — Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Ms Hunter — Ms Hunter: — to be fed. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): — an intervention, please, not a polemic. Ms Hunter: That is my intervention. Minister, I understand that you face financial pressures, but it is our moral and professional duty to bring the issue to the House and to put it to you, as the Minister of Education, that starving children have the right to be heard and that under-pressure families have the right to be listened to. I categorically state that I was not gone for half an hour. Thank you. Mr Givan: The Member has given her explanation. In response to her points, I say this to the Opposition: if you are to be taken seriously, you have to table motions that are fully costed and that highlight to the public the services that you will cut to deliver what is proposed. What is in the motion outlines —. Ms Hunter: That is your job. Mr Givan: The Member says that that is my job. That is exactly the problem with the Opposition: they do not see it as their job to act responsibly. [Inaudible.] Mr Givan: Unfortunately or, indeed, fortunately —. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Members, there is to be no chuntering from a sedentary position. [Inaudible.] Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): We do not do that. Not when I am in the Chair. Over to you, Minister. Mr Givan: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Opposition need to bring forward fully costed proposals. They need to act responsibly and speak to the public about the real-world consequences of motions such as this, if its proposals were to be introduced. Universal provision would mean multimillionaires in our society getting free school meals for their children. If we were to take a universal approach, it would not be targeted at the most needy. If we were in a position to make universal provision available, who would not want to give everybody everything for free? Is the priority the universal provision of free school meals? That would mean multimillionaires' children getting a free school meal, as opposed to just the most vulnerable in our society, such as children who are struggling, working families who are struggling and children with special educational needs, for whom significant investment is required. I published a plan that requires £570 million over the next five years to help children with special additional needs. If your preference is universal provision for multimillionaires as opposed to those young people, I will say this to the Opposition: you have got your priorities completely wrong. Top 3.15 pm Mr O'Toole: Will the Minister give way? Mr Givan: I am not going to give way to the Member. I have given way to the Member twice. Ms Hunter: Will the Minister give way? Mr Givan: I have given way to the Member as well. I am not going to give way again. The Opposition have done enough damage with the position that they have outlined today. Let me make some more progress on outlining my response. What cuts to the heart of the issue is the value of school meals to children, and I agree with that. However, unlike the official Opposition and some other Members, I do not have the luxury of being able to virtue-signal on it. I deal with the financial realities of the world as it is, not the world as we would like it to be. My Department and the wider education sector are under severe financial strain and face a significant budget shortfall this year. I can only make affordable changes, and, unfortunately, a significant expansion of access to free school meals is not affordable and is unlikely to be so in the time ahead. We face unavoidable cost pressures and rising service demands that the current budget does not meet. It would, therefore, be irresponsible for me as a Minister to commit to expanding access to free school meals in that financial context. Mr Allen: Will the Minister give way? Mr Givan: I will give way, yes. Mr Allen: In his earlier remarks, the Minister highlighted the increase in the threshold from £15,000 to £15,390 for those in receipt of universal credit. Will he inform the House how he arrived at that increase? Mr Givan: The rise that we provided and that I took the decision on was based on the consumer price inflation index, and we linked that to the automatic increases that will take place. That is the rationale for our approach. We offer more support, rightly so, than other parts of the United Kingdom. They have indicated, however, that they wish to expand the support and, ultimately, try to get to universal provision. However, as it stands today in Northern Ireland, we provide levels of support that are not available elsewhere. I am, of course, concerned that, as other jurisdictions make progress on the issue, we will be left behind. I highlight to Members that, if we are going to do this, it will require additional resources, and that has implications for the current services that we provide. It is not unreasonable for me to ask those who advocate it this question: what would you do if you were in my position? What priority would you place on universal free school meals in comparison with the many other pressures that exist in the Department of Education? The official Opposition can, of course, table aspirational motions such as this, and we can all support and agree with the sentiment that is behind them, but, as Minister, I must ensure that any policy changes are financially sustainable and practically deliverable. Unfortunately, the proposals in the Opposition motion are neither. I am fully aware of the evolving nature of free school meal entitlement in England, Scotland and Wales, and I have spoken to the approach that they are taking and where I want us to get to. However, as other Members mentioned during the debate, the financial reality is stark. As a result of the Education Authority having an overcommitment in excess of £280 million this year on inescapable and pre-committed pressures, the resources are simply not available to me to expand access to free school meals. Today's motion and a number of Members referenced the school holiday food grant scheme, and, similarly, the issues that I have highlighted pertain to that. The motion asks the: "Minister of Education to work with the Minister of Finance" to develop the plan. I am happy to work with the Finance Minister. However, I will point colleagues, including those in his party, to the comments that the Finance Minister made only last weekend about the financial pressures that face the Executive. We should be honest with the public about the financial choices that need to be made and about the realities that we in the Department of Education have to deal with. I will continue to prioritise those who require support, but the first priority has always been children with special educational needs. They are my priority. Universal provision for multimillionaires' kids and families is not my priority. It may be the priority and aspiration for others in the House, but it is not mine. Mr Durkan: As we draw the debate to a close, I want to bring us back to the heart of what today is or should be about. It is about children and the basic right to food, not party interests, not posing or posturing, not budget spreadsheets but ensuring that children have access to a healthy, nutritious meal, if the Minister was listening. The sad reality is that far too many do not — he obviously is not. Welfare reform, designed by the Tories and delivered here by the DUP, Sinn Féin and Alliance, has seen a 143% increase in food bank usage in the past five years. The approach of the Christmas period now heralds food bank drives and collections for community fridges, demand for which has soared year-on-year. I have never seen so many people in need of the basics. As we have heard today, one in five children living in poverty in the North does not qualify for a free school meal. Twenty per cent of the poorest children here are excluded by policy design. Working families and low-income families were better off under the legacy tax credit system. They got a wee bit more bang for their buck in a system where the welfare safety net could catch them when they fell, when the cost of living was lower and when parents could access school meal support and uniform grants more readily. All that was stripped away almost overnight when people were moved on to universal credit. The entitlement threshold, as we have heard from the Minister — his colleagues congratulate him for it — is increasing from £15,000 to almost £15,400, but prior to that, it had been slashed from £16,000 to £14,000. How is anyone meant to square that? Mr Middleton: I thank the Member for giving way. The Member mentioned my comments and the Minister's comments. Will the Member agree that it would have been better for the proposer of the motion to have listened entirely to the Minister's response, rather than leaving the Chamber to do a media interview? Mr Durkan: Will the Member agree that neither he nor the Minister listened to the first 45 seconds of my speech? They seemed to be deeply engrossed. I do not know what their obsession is with what my colleague was doing, be she the proposer or otherwise. Mr Givan: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, is it in order for a Member to give one explanation as to why they were not in the Chamber, only for it to be found that they were actually conducting a media interview outside the Chamber? She did not give that as a reason. Is it in order for the Member to have said what she said in respect of that? Can she verify whether she was out of the Chamber doing media interviews? [Interruption.] Were you doing media interviews? [Interruption.] Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Will the Minister resume his seat? Your point has been made. It is there for the record. Mr Durkan, please resume your winding-up speech. Mr Durkan: It takes some brass neck for someone to question the reason that someone gives for being somewhere or not being somewhere, given the reasons that they gave for being in occupied territory recently against international law. [Interruption.] Sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.] Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Members, please. Let us not have chuntering from sedentary positions. I want to listen to what Mr Durkan is going to say. I was even going to admire his new Movember moustache. Mr Durkan, please continue with your winding-up speech. Other Members, please stop chuntering. Mr Durkan: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It shows the Minister's interest in hungry children when he clearly does not want to listen to what I have to say. It might not be that interesting, to be fair, but he is more interested in the toileting of my female colleague. What a weirdo. It is borne out by figures, Mr Deputy Speaker — Mr Givan: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr Durkan: — with 3,000 fewer children entitled to school meal support in just two years — Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Durkan, please resume your seat. Members, can we return to talking about the motion? [Interruption.] Mr Durkan, it is back to you. Mr Durkan: Now, where were we? That is borne out by the figures, with 3,000 fewer children entitled to school meals support than was the case just over two years ago. Frustratingly, the four-week assessment period for universal credit here means that people are ineligible one month and maybe eligible the next. On top of that, there has been a 20% increase in the cost of school meals. Families already wiped out by increasing household bills are now forced to pay more for the most basic ingredient of learning, which is a full stomach. The Minister has outlined the more generous eligibility criteria here but has acknowledged that this region will begin to lag behind other regions on these islands. Scotland has universal meals for primary-school children; Wales is rolling out universal provision; and England is expanding access to all universal credit claimants. Here, however, thresholds have tightened, despite the Minister's efforts and claims. Fewer children are being supported than was the case a couple of years ago, and meal costs are rising. Last week, during the cost-of-living debate, we raised a lot of similar talking points, such as poverty, food insecurity, holiday hunger and the plight of working families on universal credit. We talked about our underpaid public servants, including Education Authority staff, health workers and civil servants, whose delayed pay rises and back pay are pushing them into debt. That is money that they have earned but cannot access under the current welfare system. That is not a problem for a single Department; it is cross-departmental and requires cooperation. Yet, while the Finance Minister assured me in the Chamber last week that he would work with his Executive colleagues to find a solution, when I followed up in writing, his response was, "Not me, it is the Health Minister's responsibility." I wrote to the Health Minister, who cited a bad budget. Let me be clear: it appears that the Executive do not value their own workers — the poorest workers, at that — enough to even cooperate. That is an abdication of responsibility. This is a cross-cutting issue and will require collaboration, but how can we count on Ministers to do that, especially when the Education Minister does not even view other Ministers as partners? The people who are paying the price are the people who keep our schools running, our hospitals open and our communities going, the people who have been stripped of support under the new threshold for free school meals and will now be hit by a 20% increase. Mr Carroll: Will the Member give way? Mr Durkan: Certainly. Mr Carroll: Despite the Minister's attempt at deflection and all sorts of red herrings, does the Member agree that there is a cost to not implementing free school meals, insofar as there are financial as well as health, emotional, social and other impacts on children and young people? Mr Durkan: The cost of not doing this affects the more vulnerable children, not the children of multimillionaires. There are not too many of them. People do not have to opt in to this; they can make their own choices. There is a huge immeasurable cost. Where does the money come from for free school meals provision? That is the big question that the Minister and others have asked, and it is a fair question. This Minister, however, is not averse to coming here to outline ambitious and grandiose plans with absolutely no indication of where the money is coming from. The childcare strategy, anyone? The capital builds programme, announcing new schools that we will never see. The SEN programme, which is his priority — £1·5 billion. He is the Minister, and we are the Opposition, but he is raising expectations, including among families of children with special educational needs. In response to a recent question for oral answer, the Minister told my colleague, Daniel McCrossan, that he estimated a cost of £142 million for the introduction of universal free school meals. That had gone up by £60 million to £202 million by the time Mr Middleton spoke but went back down by the time the Minister spoke. He cannot accuse us of not doing costings when his costings are all over the place. We do not see this happening overnight. It is about setting out our stall and our direction of travel and taking a staggered approach. Let us start with the younger years — primary schools first — because early intervention is crucial, guaranteeing a healthy start and offering meals to those who need them, while recognising that not every family will want to take up the offer. The key is to make it an option and to remove any stigma early on. Top 3.30 pm I commend the motion. I regret very much how this has gone, but, as is the way with the Education Minister, he just cannot help himself, or anyone else. Question put and agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly recognises that providing free school meals in primary schools delivers multiple benefits, including improved nutrition, enhanced educational attainment and long-term economic returns; notes that, in Northern Ireland, an estimated 20% of children living in poverty are currently not eligible for free school meals; further notes that other jurisdictions across these islands are significantly expanding free school meal provision; regrets the decision to halt the school holiday food grant scheme, which provided vital support to low-income families during school holidays; believes that eligibility for free school meals should be significantly expanded, with the ambition of moving to universal access over time; and calls on the Minister of Education to work with the Minister of Finance to publish a funded plan, with timelines, to extend free school meals to all schoolchildren by 2030. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Members, please take your ease while we change the personnel at the top Table, before we move on to the next item. (Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair) Policing Resources Mr McGlone: Molaim an rún [Translation: I beg to move] That this Assembly notes the recent report from the Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland on the handling of a high-profile child sex offender case, which found that the PSNI did not have the capacity or capability to manage the risk posed; expresses grave concern about the implications of those findings for the protection of children and for wider ambitions to tackle violence against women and girls; regrets that police officer numbers continue to fall, even after the restoration of the Executive; expresses concern that sufficient funding has not yet been secured to support police recruitment and workforce recovery; and calls on the Minister of Justice to set out what steps she is taking to support recruitment and retention, including measures to ensure that the PSNI better reflects the society that it serves. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have five minutes to propose and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. Two amendments have been selected and are published on the Marshalled List, so the Business Committee has agreed that 16 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate. Patsy, please open the debate on the motion. Mr McGlone: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle. [Translation: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.] The SDLP has tabled the motion on policing resources because of our concerns about the impact of the consistent under-resourcing of policing. At the start of the debate, I wish to put on record my and my party's support for the police, and I thank those officers who work in often very difficult circumstances without the resources that they need and deserve to have available to them. In 1999, the Patten report stated that we needed a police service with 7,500 officers. At the start of October this year, almost 25 years since the establishment of the PSNI, there were only 6,223 full-time officers. In 2020, the parties in the Executive gave a commitment to increase the number of police officers to finally match the figure in that Patten report. However, sufficient additional funding was not provided to enable the target to be achieved, and, when numbers rose to a high of 7,100 officers, the additional funding that had been provided fell away and the additional police numbers fell away with it. It is not that efforts have not been made in the past; those efforts just have not been sustained. Overall, there has been long-term underfunding of the criminal justice system. That is the result of decisions made by successive DUP/Sinn Féin-led Executives over successive years, and, as a result of those decisions, the PSNI is under-resourced and the officers and staff are consistently under extraordinary pressure. Just over a year ago, the Assembly declared its support for the Chief Constable in his campaign to secure additional resources for the PSNI. The Assembly re-endorsed the recommendation in the Patten report that the number of full-time police officers should be 7,500, with the ambition of increasing that number. In January, the PSNI said that it needed £200 million over five years to increase its workforce to 7,000 officers from its current all-time low. That would still be 500 fewer than the Patten figure from 1999. To date, the Executive have given no firm commitments or guarantees that the required funding will be delivered or that the funding will be sustained over that five-year period. Indeed, funding has yet to be secured for the police pay award this year. The Treasury has repeatedly refused to pay the compensation bill for the PSNI officers who were affected by the major data breach in August 2023. We still await the legislative consent motion for the new legacy arrangement because of the additional cost to the Justice Minister's Department. While the Justice Minister has, unlike the Health Minister, ruled out overspending her budget, the Finance Minister predicted this week that the Executive will overspend their budget this year by £400 million. That is the background to the motion. Our motion also refers to the recent report from the Police Ombudsman on the handling of a high-profile child sex offender case. It is a disturbing report on a very disturbing case. The ombudsman's report found that the PSNI teams tasked with detecting and investigating online child sexual abuse were under-resourced and under pressure, which significantly compromised their ability to detect and prosecute offenders and keep children safe. In the case that was the subject of the ombudsman's report, the offender was first arrested in February 2016. He was interviewed by police and released on bail. It was more than two years later before he was interviewed again, in May 2018, about 1,100 indecent images of children being found on his phone and other devices, which had been seized in 2016. That delay was due to the time taken for the PSNI to produce evidential reports on the images. In those two years, he continued to engage in abusive online communications involving at least seven other children. He was on police bail throughout that time. He was arrested in March 2018, after the PSNI received information from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. By April 2019, he had been arrested for a third time, after Police Scotland alerted the PSNI to his consistent and continued offending. Reports on four devices seized in March 2018 had still not been completed when he was arrested for a fourth time, on 30 July 2019. Just five days before a police interview in May 2018, a 12-year-old girl whom he had targeted — Cimarron Thomas, from West Virginia in the United States — took her own life after he had contacted her. In January 2020, Cimarron's father, Benjamin Jay Thomas, also took his own life. Finally, in October 2024, the person responsible for those crimes was convicted and sentenced to a minimum of 20 years in prison. It is important to note that the ombudsman's investigation identified no misconduct whatsoever by any individual police officer. The ombudsman found that under-resourcing resulted in the delayed police enquiries and the ineffective management of the offender's bail conditions. The investigators found that there were significant pressures on the PSNI team responsible for investigating online offending involving children and indecent images. They found that sufficient investment was not allocated to reduce those investigative delays. Mr Beattie: I beg to move amendment No 1: Leave out all after "fall" and insert: "following the Chief Constable’s workforce recovery plan, endorsed by the Minister of Justice and the Executive; expresses concern that the agreed funding to increase the PSNI headcount to 7,000 officers has not been made available, resulting in the PSNI being dangerously understaffed at around 6,100 officers and an available deployable workforce sitting at just over 4,500 officers; and calls on the Minister of Justice to outline how she intends to address the crisis in Northern Ireland policing, to provide an immediate update on the viability of the workforce recovery plan targets and what measures she will take to ensure that the PSNI reflects the society that it serves, including the recruitment of officers from ethnic minority communities." Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Doug. You have five minutes in which to propose the amendment and three minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. Please open the debate on amendment No 1. Mr Beattie: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. The protection and safeguarding of our citizens must be the main priority for the police, the Assembly and the Department of Justice. The findings of the Police Ombudsman regarding Alexander McCartney's online child sex offences are concerning and outline grave failings. The motion is right to outline the lack of police capacity and capability in that area, and that is a resource issue. The report also found that there were serious delays in the investigation due to the backlog in the PSNI cybercrime centre, which is where the police forensically interrogate electronic devices. Again, that is due to a lack of resource — funding — and it creates a direct risk to victims. There were other issues, the first of which is bail. The bail conditions given to that individual were weak. That man was still allowed to go online even though that is where he carried out all his abuse. The police carried out cursory checks only. I have seen some bail conditions that are absolutely scandalous. That is an area that needs to be looked at. Allowing him to go online during the investigation is staggering. The second issue is prioritisation. In 2018, at the heart of the investigation, the priorities were paramilitarism and serious organised crime as opposed to online child exploitation. Of course, paramilitarism and organised crime are extremely serious, but to prioritise them over online child exploitation is difficult to stand over. Of course, that is an operational matter for the PSNI and the cybercrime unit, but the strategic oversight still sits with the Chief Constable and the Department of Justice, with the latter giving policy direction. The PSNI has now moved to a threat, harm, risk, investigation, vulnerability and engagement (THRIVE) model to rectify disproportionate prioritisation of paramilitarism over child exploitation, but, yet again, the PSNI is unable to do that fully unless it gets the resource. Again, resource means funding, and the Minister has said that many times. On the wider implications of violence against women and girls, I share the motion's concerns and have raised them on multiple occasions. Remember that politicians are the legislators, the police are the investigators, the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) is the prosecutor and the courts give the verdict and sentences. I have genuine concerns — I know that the Minister will disagree with me — about how, in order to speed up justice, cases are going to the Magistrates' Court instead of the Crown Court. That is a particular issue for non-fatal strangulation cases, where victims are predominantly women and girls. In 2023-24, there were 344 cases of non-fatal strangulation, of which 329 went to the Magistrates' Court and only 15 went to the Crown Court. Of the total cases, only 20% resulted in a custodial sentence. That is not an issue for the Minister but for the courts and the PPS. However, it is worthwhile mentioning that. Our amendment brings a bit of reality to the issue of police resourcing and asks important questions. First, the money has not been made available for the workforce recovery plan, which was first agreed in June 2025, having been submitted in January 2025. We are already behind with our workforce recovery. Bearing in mind that about 300 to 400 —. Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): Will the Member give way? Mr Beattie: I just do not have time, Minister. Sorry. Bearing in mind that about 300 to 400 officers leave the service each year, we are down to 6,200 officers. Listen and remember this figure: only about 4,500 officers are deployable. That is all: 4,500 officers are deployable. How have we allowed that to happen? A lack of funding, a lack of prioritisation, a lack of scrutiny and a lack of strategic questions and honest answers. Police numbers continue to fall, so the simple question for the Minister is this: is the three-year target achievable? Is it still viable? If the answer is yes, the Minister can give us achievable measures. When will we hit 6,500 officers? When will we hit 6,750 officers? Alternatively, if the answer is no, which it may be at the moment, not because of any fault on the Minister's part but because we have not provided the resource, what will we do about it? Those are important questions, which is why I have added them as an amendment to this very important motion. Mrs Dillon: I beg to move amendment No 2: After "the Executive;" insert: "recognises that whilst resourcing pressures have a significant impact on policing capacity, the way in which the PSNI determines investigative priorities must recognise, prioritise and more effectively tackle violence against women and girls;" Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Assembly should note that the amendments are mutually exclusive, so, if amendment No 1 is made, the Question will not be put on amendment No 2. Linda, you have five minutes to propose and three minutes to make a winding-up speech. I remind all other Members that they will have three minutes. Linda, proceed with your proposing of amendment No 2. Top 3.45 pm Mrs Dillon: Although resourcing pressures absolutely and undeniably affect policing capacity, the debate cannot simply be about the numbers of police and staff. It must also be about how priorities are set, how responsibilities are shared and how the wider system responds to vulnerability, risk and harm, as the Member who spoke previously outlined. The ombudsman's report on the handling of the case of the high-profile child sex offender Alexander McCartney was deeply alarming. Members have spoken about the fact that there were at least two deaths as a result of how the case was handled. Those are only the children and young people whom we know about, however. Many children and young people whom we will never know about were affected by the actions of Alexander McCartney. Our thoughts therefore need to be with all those families. That case highlighted not only the gaps in PSNI capacity but the consequences when risk is not managed effectively. There were serious delays in the case's being fully investigated, because the PSNI made choices about the use of resources, choosing to prioritise organised crime and paramilitarism over violence against women and children. The report's findings carry profound implications for the safeguarding of children and for our collective ambition to tackle violence against women and children. The PSNI had a strategy in place, so, in fairness to it, it was ahead of the curve. It had a strategy for tackling violence against women and girls before the Executive and the Assembly had one, but from such a strategy must flow the prioritisation of resources, and that is not what happened in that case. If we are serious about addressing the challenges, I recognise that we need to take a cross-departmental approach, because policing alone cannot solve societal failures. The PSNI cannot continue to pick up from the point at which other services have failed and be expected to respond to everything: people's mental health crises; children in care in distress; people with acute vulnerabilities; and gaps left by overstretched Departments and services. Although the PSNI must always be available to ensure that people are kept safe, the Right Care, Right Person approach must be fully implemented to ensure the best outcome for all our people. When they need help, the right person must respond to those individuals. The Right Care, Right Person model must ensure that the right professional, not just the available professional, responds to the issue in hand, and that places a responsibility on the Department of Health and the Department of Education. In fact, it places a responsibility on every one of our Departments. A child in a foster care placement who is struggling should be met first by a social worker, not by a police officer. A person who is in mental health distress should be met with clinical expertise, not with a uniform. Yes, it is about resources, but it is not only about resources. It is about how those resources are used and allocated. It is about ensuring that we do not default to the police when it is other agencies that should be leading. The Department of Justice must lead on a collective vision for policing and justice. That vision must recognise that harm occurs across systems, that responses must be joined up and that resourcing pressures are not limited to the PSNI. Given the rise in mental health-related cases, the rise in neurodiverse people coming into contact with the system and the rise in increasingly complex investigations, the Office of the Police Ombudsman also requires the capacity and specialist support to carry out its vital work. Proper oversight is not a luxury but an essential part of creating public confidence. Our amendment rebalances the conversation. It recognises that, although funding is crucial, we must work towards taking a smarter, more coordinated and more humane approach: one that keeps women and girls safe, supports vulnerable people and ensures that policing is focused on where it makes the greatest difference. We will not be supporting the UUP amendment, and not because there is anything wrong with it. It is a good amendment, with which we have no issue, but our amendment is important, as it is about accountability and how the finite resources that are available to the PSNI are used. During Members' statements this morning, Members across the Chamber talked about how today is International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. If they mean what they say, they should support our amendment. I ask that everybody in the House support it. Mr Clarke: I am not sure that I can add much to what has already been said. It sounds a bit like a rehearsal of the debate that we have been having over this past two to three years about resourcing issues for the police. I put on record, however, my recognition of the work that the Department of Justice, the Executive and others have done to recognise the underfunded position in which policing finds itself. In saying that, we are disappointed that the finances have not come from the Department of Finance. However, there is a commitment from the Executive to fund the police in the recovery plan. We do not know what that will look like in the next two to three years, but it will certainly be in the recovery plan for this year. The motion from the Opposition party is a wee bit opportunistic in the way that it has been drafted and in some of its content, because none of us needed to wait for a report from the ombudsman to see the state that policing is in. We all know from different areas in policing the pressures that it faces. It is interesting that we are focusing on one aspect of that today, but the one thing that we all see in our communities day and daily is front-line policing through neighbourhood policing, which is where we all want to see policing get to. We are, obviously, minded to support the Ulster Unionist Party amendment. We are not against the amendment in the names of Linda and others from Sinn Féin, but it is difficult in that it emphasises one part of policing without recognising all its parts. That is in the line that states that we must "prioritise" issues facing women and girls over everything else. How can we decide today which one area of policing is more important than others? Mrs Dillon: Will the Member take an intervention? Mr Clarke: I will. Mrs Dillon: The wording is "must ... prioritise ... more effectively". That should not, and we have never said that it should, be prioritised over organised crime and paramilitaries. It should be prioritised more effectively. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute. Mr Clarke: I accept that, and, for the record, I am happy to say that that is what the amendment says. However, it implies that we should look at one side of policing as opposed to all of it. As the Member for Upper Bann said, we have 4,500 police officers available on a daily basis, effectively, so how can we emphasise one area of policing without looking at it in its totality? I will go back to where I started this conversation. The pause on recruitment has been lifted. We need more responsible conversation from the Opposition and others. They come along with wonderful wish lists of everything that they want to do, but if there were a big case for funding for police today, would they get behind it? What would they substitute policing for so that there could be spending on policing that would allow us to get to the number that we require, which is 7,500? Always being left off that 7,500 is the provision of 2,500 Reserve officers, which was a Good Friday Agreement commitment. That would also help to address the overtime pressures that policing faces, because there would be flexibility to scale numbers up and down at short notice. As I said, we are minded to support amendment No 1. We have a less favourable view of amendment No 2, because of the prioritisation of that issue. Let me say this, however: we all need to be honest about and careful what we wish for. I have been defending policing for some time, and I will defend the current Chief Constable, as, indeed, I did the previous Chief Constable, making the calls for additional finance. While those conversations were going on, every other Department was putting pressure on Finance to get money. At some stage, we will have to be mature and say, "We need to give something up, because we recognise that policing numbers are at an all-time low". We will have to ask, "What will another Department go without?", and then offer that money to the Finance Department to allow policing to be resourced. Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for giving way. I agree with much of his contribution about the need for a whole-Executive approach. Does he believe that his colleague the Education Minister has been adopting that approach to his finances? Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Trevor, even with your extra minute. You are way over three minutes. Mr Clarke: Was that three minutes? Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Yes, and you got an extra minute. Just so others know, it is not fair to ask for interventions when time is so short. OK, Trevor? Sorry about that. I call Connie Egan. Mr Tennyson: Sorry, Trevor. Ms Egan: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I will be as quick as I can with the time that has been allocated. In speaking to the Opposition motion, I will give particular regard to the Police Ombudsman's investigation into the handling of the devastating child abuse case and the need for collaborative steps to be taken across the Chamber and by our Executive to support the full resourcing and recovery of our Police Service. The latter is vital to ensuring that the extreme harm that was endured by the estimated 3,500 children who were targeted by that predator is prevented from ever happening to another individual. That case could be progressed only due to the bravery of the young girls, whose testimonies made it possible. They are nothing short of inspirational. I think in particular of Cimarron Thomas, a young girl who died by suicide following contact with and subsequent abuse by that predator. The findings of the Police Ombudsman's investigation are extremely concerning, as is the growing proliferation of online sexual abuse. In February 2025, the NSPCC revealed that crimes involving images of child sexual abuse have risen by 98% over the past five years. Much of that illegal material is being repeatedly shared and viewed online. Online sexual abuse, particularly with regard to children, is a growing problem. The Alliance Party shares the concerns that are expressed in the motion about the need for greater funding to support police recruitment and workforce recovery. Those concerns have been echoed most vocally by our Justice Minister. I am sure that she will reflect on that in her comments. I know the work that she is doing to support recruitment and retention of police officers. That case is a grave reminder that crime that is committed on a device that is connected to the internet can just as easily create serious hurt across the world as it can to the person next door. The debate feels particularly relevant as, today, we mark International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, of which the theme is "#NoExcuse for online abuse". Ultimately, while that case may have opened in 2016, as the motion recognises, its lengthy timeline and shortcomings are still incredibly relevant learnings for today. I want us all to work towards a society where everyone is safe and respected, whether that is in public places, at home, in the community or online. Mr K Buchanan: We are united in our determination to build a Police Service of Northern Ireland that is open to every section of society. However, let us also be honest: the ombudsman's recent report makes harrowing reading. It lays bare the tragic consequences of under-resourcing our Police Service. A prolific abuser was able to operate online, and a young child lost her life. That failure must never be repeated. The PSNI cannot do that alone. It must work with the Executive, the Secretary of State, the National Crime Agency and others. However, collaboration without capacity is meaningless. Staffing remains a fundamental issue. Without sufficient officers and staff, the PSNI cannot meet public expectations. Recruitment must be based on merit. It must be based on ability, not religious background, gender or orientation. That principle is fundamental to fairness and public confidence. Whether it is for tackling violence against women and girls, as previously mentioned, and as stated in amendment No 2, safeguarding vulnerable people, fighting organised crime or maintaining community policing, we commend the Chief Constable's detailed workforce recovery plan for those things and others, but approval is not enough; funding must be delivered. Since the restoration of the Executive in 2024, police numbers have continued to decline. Chronic underfunding has real-world consequences. Crime becomes harder to tackle when officer numbers fall. The Chief Constable rightly took his concerns to the Prime Minister. As accounting officer, he is entitled — indeed, it could be argued that he is obliged — to seek resources at the highest level. The facts are stark. Between 2010 and 2022, police budgets in England and Wales rose by 20%. In Northern Ireland, the PSNI budget fell slightly and, in real terms, declined by 36% due to inflation. Despite the Northern Ireland block grant's growing since 2010, the police budget has dropped from £903 million to £892 million. That erosion of priority inevitably comes at a cost to services. The PSNI has statutory obligations to protect life and property, maintain law and order, prevent crime and bring offenders to justice. It also faces the ongoing threat from dissident republicans. Without adequate resources, those obligations cannot be met. We stand with the Chief Constable in his call for investment to rebuild officer numbers and secure a visible, accessible, community-focused service. Our officers put their lives at risk daily. They deserve not just gratitude but the resources to do their job properly. There is no time for delay. A fully staffed police force is in all our best interests. The Assembly must make that case with one voice. Miss McAllister: I thank the proposer of the motion. It is an opportunity to have a good debate in the Chamber. It is great to see that everyone is getting along so well. It is almost as though everyone had their Weetabix this morning and a good lunch. Funding and resourcing the police is an important issue because it is about the safety of our community and the people whom we all represent in the Chamber. I want to recognise the comments that were made by the proposer of the motion and, indeed, by other Members in the Chamber. The funding of the Department of Justice and, ultimately, the Police Service is inadequate. It is simply not good enough. That is not for want of trying by our Minister in the Executive or, to be honest, our Executive as a whole at this time with the UK Government. We need to reflect on the fact that this is on the UK Government as well. We also need to be realistic about the fact that the Department of Justice's entire budget has fallen while other Departments have seen an upward trajectory in theirs. Things have to change. Top 4.00 pm It is timely that we are having this discussion on the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, which marks the beginning of 16 Days of Activism. An important part of tackling violence against women and girls is ensuring that the community is safe and that, where that safety fails and crimes are committed, we have police action and an overall criminal justice system to take that action. I recognise the many steps that the Justice Minister took in the previous mandate to introduce new offences that became tools for the PSNI to use. I think, for example, of coercive or controlling behaviour, an offence introduced in the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act 2021. We have seen 747 recorded instances of that. In the same period, there have been 201 recorded instances of stalking, which is another offence introduced in the previous mandate, and 91 instances of image-based sexual abuse. Those are just a few of the tools that the police can use — Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way? Miss McAllister: There is not enough time. Sorry. — to tackle violence against women and girls. I turn to the case of Alexander McCartney. It is right to point out that there were failures because of policing resources, which led to the gaps between the first, second and third arrests, resulting in the death of young Cimarron. I convey my sympathies to her family. Online sex offences against children are scary, and we need to prioritise them. However, let us be honest: if resource is an issue, we have to have a serious conversation about the way in which the police use their resources in Northern Ireland. It is not their fault; it is the fault of many people in Northern Ireland. That is something that Alliance is serious about tackling and something that we all need to prioritise. Ms Brownlee: I support the motion. Grave concerns are felt on these Benches following the ombudsman's report. There are also concerns about police resourcing and the handling of one of the most horrific high-profile sex offender cases behind a computer screen that there has been in Northern Ireland. That sick man ruined countless people's lives. As we discuss this important matter today, my thoughts are with all those who are impacted by what we discuss and all those who have been impacted by that type of crime. The report's findings are stark, and the ombudsman has confirmed what many of us already knew: the PSNI simply did not have enough capability or capacity to manage the risk posed by a highly dangerous child sex offender. That failure has had devastating consequences for victims and their families. I am sure that there is no one in the House who is comfortable with that. What happened in that case was not just a procedural weakness; it was the fundamental collapse of a system that should exist first and foremost to protect the most vulnerable: our children. The PSNI has acknowledged those failures, but, of course, words of acknowledgement are not enough. The truth is that, for too long, the service has been under-resourced, understaffed and stretched beyond what is acceptable. It is good to get collaborative agreement today. Our Police Service is there to support and protect us, but it has not been funded in the way in which it should have been. Nowhere is that pressure more evident than in tackling online child exploitation and abuse. It was absolutely heartbreaking, as a parent, to read the story in the ombudsman's report. Nobody could read that and not be truly devastated that that happened in Northern Ireland. Recent reports have also reinforced the fact that crimes involving child sexual abuse have almost doubled in the past five years. Officers are now dealing with an explosion of online offending, with increasingly sophisticated digital platforms being used to target children. They are difficult for the PSNI to engage with and even get responses from in some cases. The dedicated teams dealing with those threats are working with limited manpower and specialist capability and with delays that are not compatible with protecting our children. To be absolutely clear, we support a proper, sustainable policing budget, not sticking plasters or one-off allocations. We cannot talk about protecting our young people in this complex and dangerous digital age if we do not —. Mr Clarke: I thank the Member for giving way. She talks about the systems that are there to protect those people, but does she agree that one thing that goes missing from those conversations is that there is no system to protect the officers who view that material daily and that an under-resourced police force makes it even worse for those men and women? Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute. Ms Brownlee: Thank you, and thank you to the Member. As members of the Policing Board, we visited and saw the environment that the officers were working in. Clearly, the PSNI is trying to support those officers as much as possible, but the images that they see daily are having an extremely negative effect on their mental well-being. It is extremely difficult for any officer to be in that environment, and we heard about the high staff sickness rates because of what people have to endure. Today's motion really matters, and I welcome it. It sends a clear message about safeguarding our children: it is not optional; it is our duty. It sends a message that we need to identify the gaps and prioritise with real investment and recruitment. On these Benches, we will continue to press the case in the House, with the Executive and, of course, with the UK Government and to support the Chief Constable in his pursuit, because no child in Northern Ireland should ever be at risk because the system meant to protect them simply does not have enough people or enough support. Mr Chambers: There is an old cautionary saying: you get what you pay for. The motion highlights the fact that the PSNI did not have the capacity or available resource to manage the risk posed by a child sex offender in a recent, high-profile case that had hundreds of victims across the world and led to a young girl in America tragically taking her own life due to the activities of a twisted and evil member of our society. We complain about the lack of police officers, and we watch as the Chief Constable tries his best to secure the budget that he needs to properly police Northern Ireland by breaking many established administrative conventions and processes to achieve his goal. I admire his tenacity but feel that the Assembly has failed him and his officers. As per my opening sentence, we are getting exactly what we have paid for: a police service that is so underfunded and, consequently, seriously under-resourced that many serious crimes will not be investigated or solved in the target timescale that the PSNI would like to meet. The Patten report on policing, written 25 years ago, recommended 7,500 full-time officers and 2,500 part-time and locally recruited reservists. The reserve element has just been ignored and is never mentioned in current debates. As a proud member of the part-time RUC Reserve, I saw at first hand the added value to local community policing provided by my Reserve colleagues. The current figure of 6,200 PSNI officers is an indictment of the House and the Executive: nothing more is being done to address the situation. Hollow words and empathy just do not cut it. Of those officers, 1,000 are on restricted duties and not on the front line, and between 500 and 800 are off duty due to sickness, injuries and stress on a daily basis. That leaves the Chief Constable with 4,500 officers available for duty, with shifts, rest days and leave reducing the number of officers on the ground even further. That is an appalling and unacceptable situation. The call in the motion and in my party's amendment for the Justice Minister to set out her plans to urgently address the resource shortfall are timely and entirely valid. Unless action is seen to be happening in that regard, retention figures will continue to fall. In relation to amendment No 2, I share Trevor Clarke's concern that it strays — at least, there is a perception of it straying — into operational matters. In the meantime, let the House and the Executive hold this thought: you get what you pay for. Mr Gaston: The ombudsman's report on the handling of the Alexander McCartney case concluded that the PSNI did not have capacity or capability to manage the risk posed by that offender, yet the motion before us somehow manages to take that difficulty and reduce it to a mixture of aspirations, vague comments and, regrettably, a suggestion that we should return to sectarianism in police recruitment. PSNI specialist teams were under-resourced, overwhelmed and unable to keep pace with the threat posed by high-risk offenders. The report does not say that the PSNI failed because it had too many officers who were Protestants. The motion rightly expresses concern about violence against women and girls, but the only meaningful protection is an effective and robust police force in which vacancies are filled on merit by people who can do the job. It does not need a headline-grabbing policy from the Executive Office that hands out money to councils, some of which literally do not know what to do with it. Instead, that money should be invested in policing numbers. You do not tackle this blight on society by handing some of the money earmarked for groups that deal with violence against women and girls to HERe NI, as happens in Belfast. That organisation, as it told my colleague Councillor Ron McDowell, includes trans women in the category of women. It is shameful that the Assembly and the Executive Office are using money that is supposed to combat violence against women and girls to fund groups that think men should have access to female-only spaces. The motion regrets the fall in police numbers. When the draft Programme for Government was published, the Police Federation described its policing commitments as "woolly" and containing "no cast-iron promises". On page 7 of 'New Decade, New Approach' (NDNA), the commitment is unequivocal: "The Executive will increase police numbers to 7,500." Six years later, where are we? The number stands at just 6,278, which means a deficit of 1,222. The motion calls for: "measures to ensure that the PSNI better reflects the society that it serves". We all know what that is code for: the return of a discriminatory, sectarian, anti-Protestant policy that denies young people career opportunities solely on the basis of religion. The PSNI will reflect society only when every candidate is free to join on merit and because of their capability and not because of sectarian engineering. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call the Minister of Justice to respond to the debate. Minister, you have 10 minutes. Mrs Long: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. It is not every debate in the Chamber that I wish could last longer. The issues that have been raised in the debate actually require more detailed interventions and expression, because they are really important. I apologise that I will not be able to respond to each Member's contribution, but I thank them because, on the whole, they were really helpful. I begin by acknowledging the serious findings of the Police Ombudsman on the PSNI's handling of the offending activities of Alexander McCartney between January 2016 and March 2019. His actions were abhorrent, and my thoughts and sympathies remain with the victims and their families, who have endured unimaginable trauma. I also acknowledge, however, the dedication and professionalism of the PSNI officers who pursued McCartney and pursue other predators, secure the evidence and ensure that those predators face justice for their despicable crimes. Those officers' work protects children, disrupts abusers and demonstrates the very best of policing, even under significant pressure. The ombudsman's report found failings that have to be addressed, but it did not find that police officers were failing. In fact, it concluded that no individual police officer engaged in any form of misconduct; rather, the failings arose from a significant deficit in capability and capacity in the PSNI cybercrime teams, as well as resourcing pressures that limited their ability to manage the risks that McCartney posed. It is important to highlight a number of details that are often missing from the public debate on the report. The ombudsman found that reduced capacity in the PSNI child protection team in 2016 was due to absences and other factors and was not a simple issue of wider police headcount. Secondly, the report found that the PSNI cybercrime centre used a prioritisation process in which terrorism and serious crime offences received priority and that that impacted the examination of devices submitted by the child internet protection team. There are lessons to be learnt about how we prioritise issues, but, as Members have rightly said, those are matters for the Chief Constable to reflect on as he responds. Taken together, they demonstrate that the challenges were much broader than recruitment, but I am in no denial about the issues that we face. We also have to recognise that, for much of the period examined, we did not have a Justice Minister or an Assembly. We were not here to do the work that needed to be done and hold people to account on the issues. The PSNI has accepted the findings and said that lessons will be learnt. I am confident that the Chief Constable is working swiftly to do so and that the Policing Board will support him and hold him to account. We have to protect the most vulnerable not only in our communities but globally who may be exposed to the actions of online predators. I think of Cimarron Thomas and her father when I talk about that. Top 4.15 pm When it comes to online safety, I am committed to doing everything that I can to keep children and young people safe from harm. Social media and online platforms are central to young people's lives, but they present serious risks. The McCartney case highlighted that criminal justice responses alone are not enough. Safeguarding children online requires a coordinated cross-government approach, and that is the basis of the Executive's online safety strategy. My Department plays an active role in the oversight and delivery of that. The Online Safety Act in Westminster was a marked step forward. Ofcom's regulatory role, including guidance on age assurance, represents progress. Strong age verification should not be optional; it is essential in order to keep young people safe. The responsibility for the Act is with the UK Government — responsibility for telecommunications legislation is not devolved — but I worked to influence its development, strengthen accountability and ensure that Northern Ireland's interests were represented. I have also engaged directly with Ofcom, which is the designated regulator when it comes to implementation of the Act's provisions. Members are aware of the significant legislative reforms that we introduced in the previous mandate, which included the new offences of upskirting, downblousing and cyber-flashing, and new grooming-related offences, unique to Northern Ireland and mainly perpetrated online, where an adult pretends to be a child for grooming purposes. We also strengthened the law on abuse of positions of trust to enhance protection for young people from inappropriate grooming in those areas. Those reforms have delivered tangible protections. We keep the situation under review. That is why I sought the Assembly's consent for extending a number of provisions of the Crime and Policing Bill to Northern Ireland and intend to seek consent for further provisions. Proposals include strengthening sex offender notification requirements, particularly around restrictions on the notification of a new name, and requiring child sex offenders to provide notification in advance that they are going to stay for 12 hours or more in a household where children are present. I also propose to extend the new offence to criminalise the creation of child sexual abuse image generators; introduce a new offence of pornography depicting strangulation and suffocation; and update the current offence of possession of a paedophile manual, in order to bring AI-generated imagery within scope. Further new reserved matters in that space include the new offence of online facilitation of child sexual exploitation and abuse and a new power to scan devices for child sexual abuse images at the UK border. Locally, I want to legislate to criminalise the creation and sharing of sexually explicit deepfake images, which I will do by tabling an amendment to the Justice Bill at Consideration Stage. Alongside that, we are leading a strategic approach in the Department and cross-departmentally to all forms of child exploitation. Safeguarding cannot sit in silos; it has to extend into homes, schools, communities and online spaces where young people spend their lives. Members have mentioned that today marks the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, so it is a timely opportunity for us to discuss those issues. The domestic and sexual abuse strategy, led by the Department of Justice and the Department of Health, and the Executive Office-led ending violence against women and girls strategy provide comprehensive coordinated frameworks for prevention, partnership and victim-centred support. When it comes to police numbers, which is the crux of the debate, I will focus on some of the issues around capacity and funding. Rebuilding policing capacity is my highest priority. That is why the PSNI's workforce recovery business case, developed by the service and submitted to my Department, was approved by me and the Minister of Finance. It sets out a clear plan to stabilise workforce numbers, recommence sustained recruitment and rebuild capability across the organisation. That process has already started, and the overspend that the PSNI projects accounts for the money that has been spent to deliver the first year of the plan. However, getting your business case approved does not mean that you have the cash to deliver it. Investment on the scale of the entire business plan over five years, which will be delivered in an annual tranche, cannot be done by Justice alone. It has to be prioritised at Executive level. I am optimistic that that will happen. We have first call on £7 million in the next monitoring round this year to support PSNI recruitment, a commitment that was reaffirmed in October. That £7 million will, I hope, materialise after the Budget statement tomorrow. Short-term funding injections can help restart recruitment, but they do not resolve the underlying workforce and business-as-usual pressures that the PSNI and my Department face. What we need is sustained, multi-year funding so that the service can plan, recruit, train and retain with confidence. The Finance Minister's recommendation that the remainder of the recovery plan be fully funded in the pending three-year Budget is a significant and welcome step, but it will be meaningful only if it is additional to the baselined amount for the PSNI in the Budget. If it is simply ring-fenced and taken from the Department of Justice's budget, it will be utterly meaningless for delivery. It is important that that be noted. Safer communities is also a cross-cutting priority in the Programme for Government, so, again, it is not only a priority for the Department of Justice. We need to work with other Departments to ensure that we can deliver on it. The scale of the challenge posed by my budget is huge. Police officer numbers during the period covered by the ombudsman's report were higher than the levels today. The collapse of the Executive led to that decline. When we had no Executive, the numbers fell. I came back into office and secured money for an additional 100 officers to take the numbers back up to 7,100. The Executive then collapsed again, which is why that figure was not sustained, as the Member mentioned. We got back up to 7,100, but we collapsed yet again. The Chief Constable then did not have the political cover and an assurance on funding to go ahead and continue recruitment, as he would otherwise have done. That led to the really dire situation that we faced upon coming back into office, and it now needs to be recovered. I have to say that that recovery is far more expensive to deal with than it would have been had we had measured amounts of recruitment during the period of suspension, but I understand the decisions that were taken at the time. My Department has had to take tough decisions in order to live within its budget. We are now at the point at which less than 0·5% of the DOJ budget is truly discretionary. We have not deprioritised the police within Justice. Sixty-five per cent of my budget goes to policing, while 35% of it goes to running the entirety of the criminal justice system outside policing, which covers probation, prisons, courts and everything else. It is therefore not just a policing issue. All justice organisations need to be properly funded if we are to do child protection properly, to have proper public protection sentences and interventions and to have a Police Service that is capable of dealing with the increasing complexity of online harms and of protecting us locally and those internationally whom predators here seek to damage. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I invite Deirdre Hargey to make a winding-up speech on amendment No 2. I advise you that you have three minutes. Miss Hargey: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. We debated earlier the importance of Budgets and the forthcoming multi-annual Budget. The multi-annual Budget is an important step for the Executive and, indeed, the Assembly. Of course, there will still be challenges, as our Budget does not meet all the identified needs and pressures, but it will bring into focus how such Budgets can provide longer-term certainty for planning. That will include how they are managed and how we work together in order to prioritise need. The multi-annual Budget will also present an opportunity to be more innovative and joined up in how we approach delivering public services to meet that need. That includes the policing budget, which is a sizeable part of the Justice budget, as the Minister outlined. Although work is ongoing to address the underlying issues with funding, recruitment and retention, the discussions must also point to budget management and prioritisation in policing. There is no doubt that the case mentioned in the motion is one of the most serious in recent times. It again shines a light on the need to tackle violence against women and girls and the direct impact that violence against women and girls has on victims, their families and, indeed, the wider community. It also demonstrates the importance of the Office of the Police Ombudsman, which highlighted some of the failings and shortcomings. Although resourcing pressures impact on policing capacity, as was highlighted in the ombudsman's recent report, we know that prioritisation and culture play key roles in tackling those issues consistently and systemically. Of course, a cultural shift is not only for policing but for society as a whole. Our key public bodies that lead on public safety should, however, be leading the way in that area of work. A recent Criminal Justice Inspection report highlighted the need for the criminal justice system to have a collective vision and shared priorities. The Executive in their Programme for Government prioritised tackling violence against women and girls. It is therefore important that that systemic issue be highlighted and reflected in the collective vision and shared priorities document. In turn, it must also be a priority for the PSNI, and that should be reflected in its work programme and budget. I know that that case was some time ago, and improvements have obviously been made, but we need to continue to do more. It is important that work be done to ensure that we break down the siloed approaches that can result in the delays that we know there to be in the justice system. It is also important that we are innovative, especially when it comes to looking at emerging technologies and AI, to ensure that we not only deal with the challenges of today but future-proof that work. We also believe that policing with the community is the foundation not only of the policing dispensation here, as it is often the early alert system for emerging issues and trends, but of the needs of and priorities in the issues that are to be dealt with. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up. Miss Hargey: Thank you. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Deirdre. I call Jon Burrows to make a winding-up speech on amendment No 1. Jon, you have three minutes. Mr Burrows: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Alexander McCartney was an evil and depraved man. He should never walk the streets again. I know a little bit about his offending. We talk about sextortion and blackmail. This was a man who got children to do things to themselves for his sexual gratification, and he tortured them and tortured them to keep doing those things, and sometimes that involved abusing their siblings. That is how evil this man was. He caused the death of Cimarron Thomas and her father, Benjamin. However, the scale of harm that he caused is unquantifiable. The reality is that, because of resources, the police in such cases get to a point where they identify enough victims to get a case across the line; someone makes a policy decision that they are going to have to stop; they go into safeguarding mode and try to identify vulnerable victims just so they can safeguard them; and then they come to the decision that there are thousands of victims whom they will not even try to trace, because policing has to go on and the suspect is in prison. Therefore, we do not know the scale of harm that that man caused. I pay tribute to the child abuse investigation unit that tracked him down. It was a global case; it was a threat on an industrial scale. I know one of the investigators. He does not mind me mentioning his name — Detective Sergeant Neil McGuinness — and I know the impact that it had on him. At least five officers have been medically retired as a result of the investigation — two from cybercrime and three from the child abuse investigation unit. They saw image after image and video after video of things that you never want to have in your brain. However, one of the problems is that this team is so small and under-resourced that the officers do not get sufficient breaks and cannot take a gap between viewing images. They are against a ticking clock. None of those officers on that investigation got to see the occupational health and well-being (OHW) department, even though there should be routine screening of the police officers who are watching that level of images. Those officers did not get to see the OHW at all. Therefore, resources are at the heart of the failure to catch McCartney, but they are also at the heart of our Police Service, which is suffering attrition rates of 300 officers a year. That is a problem. We talk about recruitment, but you can keep recruiting until you get to the stage where you do not get to retain your supporting officers. We also talk about prioritisation. Our police officers work in a job in which every decision has more consequences than you can possibly imagine. There could be three phones: if you do not examine one of them first, millions of pounds worth of drugs will flood our community; if you do not examine another, a police officer will be shot in the next six weeks; and if you do not examine the other, a child predator will continue to offend. That is the reality of policing. That is why we need resourcing, and it is why we should support our Police Service and remember that there are thousands more victims out there and that we need to get dealing with them and support our police. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Colin McGrath to conclude and wind on the motion. Colin, you have five minutes. Mr McGrath: Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Today's motion comes as a result one of the most disturbing policing failures in recent years. I welcome the contributions from across the House. A young girl, Cimarron Thomas, lost her life, and her father later took his life. Both deaths were linked directly to the actions of Alexander McCartney and to the delays that allowed him to keep offending while he was on PSNI bail. That is the essential point. It is not about every detail — it is just about the simple truth that a child was failed, a family was devastated and an offender was left free to harm others because the system could not keep pace. The ombudsman's investigation and report into the PSNI's handling of the case paint a stark picture. The report was published two weeks ago; I say that for Mr Clarke's benefit. Maybe if we changed the rules on when the Opposition have to give their notice of motions for Opposition day and bring it a little bit closer to the day, we would not have to pick something from two weeks ago to discuss. The report shows that there were serious delays, poor prioritisation and a failure in risk management and bail supervision. The key conclusion is unavoidable: it was not a failure of will, but a failure of capacity. Top 4.30 pm The PSNI has said outright that it simply did not have the resources needed to respond as victims rightly expect, and what we have is just not working. Let us be clear for the avoidance of doubt, police resources and funding levels are not an operational matter but a strategic decision for the Minister and the Executive, and the buck stops with the Minister and the Executive. People have been promised more by the Executive, and yet the Chief Constable has warned for over a year that police numbers are at a historic low and that public safety is at risk. His warnings are not vague. In March, he said that he was worried that it would: "take a 'catastrophic event' to wake people up". In July, he warned that, without £200 million, visible policing would disappear in some communities, and the murder investigation teams would fall below UK standards. In September, he said, bluntly: "we have, in effect, broken the workforce." The alarm bells are deafening, and yet the Executive have done nothing meaningful in response. Today is White Ribbon Day, as has been referenced. It is a day to highlight the impact of violence against women and girls and to recommit to ending the violence, and yet the Executive cannot even fund the Police Service to cover the basics. They are letting women and girls down in the worst way possible by not providing a viable, visible and properly funded police service. In June, after the racist riots in Ballymena, we heard big declarations that funding would be signed off, and that £200 million would be a game changer, and six months on, not a single pound has appeared, not one. Instead, the Executive mismanaged the data leak liabilities, ignored the inevitable cost and made it easy for the Treasury to turn down emergency reserve funding, which should be available for genuinely unforeseen and unavoidable pressures. The result is a workforce at breaking point, collapsing recruitment, communities left with fewer officers and an increased risk to the public. We cannot ignore the impact on representation. Catholic participation rose to almost 28% under the 50:50 policy on recruitment, which was a major achievement, but since the policy was scrapped, progress has stalled. The Chief Constable has said that headlines about legacy remain the biggest barrier for many young nationalists who might otherwise want to serve. Recruitment and legacy are intertwined, and pretending they are not is part of the problem, but it does not have to be that way. We can do so much better. Today, the SDLP has set out four clear actions for Stormont, London and Dublin. First, the Department of Justice must stop dodging the issue of officer numbers, and commit to 7,000 officers by 2028 and pursue the £230 million required for the data leak liabilities. Secondly, reintroduce the 50:50 policy on recruitment as part of rebuilding a representative and effective police service. Thirdly, begin a serious process to renew the rule of law, reviewing what has worked since 1998 and what now needs to be strengthened. Fourthly, let us get legacy right: truth is the only route to reconciliation, not avoidance or political theatre. The failures that contributed to Cimarron's death show the consequences of a system that has been weakened, underfunded and allowed to drift financially. If we are serious about public safety, the rule of law and protecting the vulnerable, let us finally face the reality of what policing needs and fund it accordingly. That is the House's responsibility, and we cannot afford to have it fail again. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: For clarification, on Opposition day, it is up to the Opposition to pick the motions that they wish to discuss and the time limit that is allotted for them. It is not up to the Business Committee. In fairness to the Business Committee, it is not its decision, it is your decision. Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. It is important because we have a live proposal to the Business Committee. The point that my colleague made was not about the selection of the motions, it was about the timing. We have to submit our motions two weeks in advance. In every other jurisdiction on these islands — Dáil Éireann, Westminster, the Scottish Parliament — it is one week. Other parties in the Chamber do not want the SDLP to operate as a proper Opposition. That is their business, not ours. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: OK, Matthew. First, you know that it is not a point of order, but you have put your point on the record. Secondly, it is not for the Business Committee to change the Standing Orders, it is for the Committee on Procedures. I thought that you would have known that. I am going to move on. Mr Clarke: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I am going to move on. Mr Clarke: It is further to that point of order. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: No, it is not further to that because that was not a point of order, so there is no further to it. I am going to press on. Before I put the Question on amendment No 1, I remind Members that, if it is made, I will not put the Question on amendment No 2. Question, That amendment No 1 be made, put and agreed to. Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly notes the recent report from the Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland on the handling of a high-profile child sex offender case, which found that the PSNI did not have the capacity or capability to manage the risk posed; expresses grave concern about the implications of those findings for the protection of children and for wider ambitions to tackle violence against women and girls; regrets that police officer numbers continue to fall following the Chief Constable's workforce recovery plan endorsed by the Minister of Justice and the Executive; expresses concern that the agreed funding to increase the PSNI headcount to 7,000 officers has not been made available, resulting in the PSNI being dangerously understaffed at around 6,100 officers and an available deployable workforce sitting at just over 4,500 officers; and calls on the Minister of Justice to outline how she intends to address this crisis in Northern Ireland policing, to provide an immediate update on the viability of the workforce recovery plan targets and what measures she will take to ensure the PSNI reflects the society it serves, including the recruitment of officers from ethnic minority communities. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members, please take your ease before the next debate. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Dr Aiken] in the Chair) Motion made: That the Assembly do now adjourn. — [Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken).] Adjournment Traffic Flow in Newtownards Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): In conjunction with the Business Committee, the Speaker has given leave to Michelle McIlveen to raise the matter of traffic flow in Newtownards. Michelle, you have up to 15 minutes. It is over to you. Miss McIlveen: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. First, I thank the Minister for attending this evening. In debates such as these, I do not like to just come to the Chamber with a list of problems to complain about. Where there are solutions, I want to outline them and hope that they can perhaps be taken forward. I put on record my appreciation to the Minister's predecessor for the action that he took as a result of my previous Adjournment debate on the dangers of the Portaferry Road. Where he could, he directed a number of key projects to be actioned. Those included safety measures and, importantly, the upgrading of the footpath between Teal Rocks and Old Shore Road. That is evidence that Adjournment debates such as these can deliver where there is a solution-based ask and a Minister willing to take the necessary action. I take this opportunity to highlight a number of pinch points in the town that are only going to worsen as Newtownards and Comber continue to expand. First and foremost, there is the congestion on the Comber Road and Messines Road as traffic tails back from the Comber Road roundabout in the town. Despite responses coming from the Minister regarding those issues, the traffic is constant at all times of the day, every day of the week. A Sunday afternoon could be as bad as a Monday afternoon. Peak times are even worse, with queues on the Comber Road and traffic at a standstill halfway down the dual carriageway. Queues on Messines Road stretch three quarters of the length of that road. Both roads meet at the Comber Road roundabout at Castlebawn. The impact is not just on waiting times for those commuting to or through Newtownards. Those living off Cambourne Road and Lansdowne Road and in the West Winds estate struggle to get in and out of where they live with the constant stream of traffic. It is a particular problem for parents dropping children off at West Winds Primary School in the morning. Lines of cars waiting to leave West Winds in the morning are commonplace at drop-off time. The requests by the school leadership for an alternative access point have fallen on deaf ears at DFI's southern division. I previously requested a meeting with departmental officials from the southern division, but that was refused because a review had been undertaken in 2021. A traffic survey that I requested for traffic lights at the junction with Blenheim Drive was to be carried out, but we are yet to find out whether that has taken place or what the results are. Certainly, West Winds residents have advised that they have seen no evidence of a survey taking place. I have asked the Minister a number of questions about traffic flow at that location, but, disappointingly, I was told that there were no plans. I have asked whether there are plans to widen the Messines Road, but, according to the Minister, there are no such plans. I have asked for traffic lights at the offending roundabout, but there are no plans to consider that either. There seems to be a belief that the traffic flow at that location is normal, but it is not. Anyone who is familiar with the area will know that it is not and that it has become a daily problem in the past few years. It appears that the Department is placing its trust in a partial dualling proposal that is attached to planning at the former Crepe Weavers site. Multiple grants of planning permission have been made since 2013, however, with no progress made on upgrading the road. The delay is reminiscent of how the Department was waiting for a developer to upgrade the path on the Portaferry Road. Eventually, the Department had to step in because the work was not happening. It would appear that the sums do not seem to be adding up for the developer in this case. Whether such a dualling would be of any real effect is arguable, anyway. It may be of assistance for those who are entering and leaving the site, but I do not see how it will improve the existing problems. We need to look at upgrading the roundabout. It is not just about road markings at the roundabout, because that has not solved the problem. There needs to be some real investment at the location. There are considerable problems coming down the road, if you will pardon the pun. The Department has passed planning for 1,000 homes at Enler Village in Comber, and it is not unreasonable to assume that a number of those residents will travel down the road to or through Newtownards to schools or to their jobs. If the former Crepe Weavers site is developed or the other areas along the Comber Road, which are zoned for development, are built out, that will compound the current difficulties. It is better to act now than wait for the inevitable. The alternative route, which more people are now taking because of the traffic problems, is along the Killynether Road and the Scrabo Road. Those roads are narrow and winding and are totally unsuitable for heavy traffic. The last thing that needs to happen is additional traffic being forced along those roads because nothing was done to address the problems on the Comber Road. We should also be considering where the traffic is coming from and where it is going to, if it is not going into Newtownards. We know that a significant portion of that traffic is going down the Ards peninsula. There are many cogent arguments for a bridge from Portaferry to Strangford, thereby diverting unnecessary traffic going through Newtownards. That is a factor that should be taken into consideration. Newtownards is the gateway to the Ards peninsula, and many people drive through the town in order to travel to the other side of Strangford lough rather than use the ferry. A bridge could remove that unnecessary traffic from the roads of Newtownards. I ask the Minister to look into the economic feasibility of such a scheme and potential sources of funding for it, which would not only benefit Newtownards but be transformational for the Ards peninsula by massively improving connectivity. There are a number of other pinch points around the town that need to be addressed, and I want to consider those next. The first is the Zion Place roundabouts and, in particular, the junction with Frances Street. Zion Place has been identified as a problem for some time. The eastern distributor road is being built by developers as part of the expansion of the town at Beverley Garden Village, Rivenwood and Ballyreagh. That scheme, it is hoped, will divert traffic away from the centre of Newtownards, and I will come back to that. The eastern distributor road is a number of years away from completion. In the meantime, traffic grinds to a halt from about 4.00 pm each day at the top of Frances Street, as cars try to exit on to Zion Place. That is a particular problem for buses, and I have spoken to Translink about it. It causes Translink real difficulties in providing reliable services. One solution that has been suggested is to widen the top of Frances Street to allow for a bus lane. That would result in the loss of a couple of parking spaces at the top of the road but could free up the movement of traffic at that location. I have raised that matter with DFI Roads, but it is not minded to look at it again, because, previously, it received some objections. The traffic, however, has worsened, and I respectfully ask the Minister to request that her officials look at that suggestion again as a means to improve public transport through the town. Top 4.45 pm Returning to the eastern distributor road, it is envisaged that the scheme will link the Bangor Road with the Donaghadee Road, the Movilla Road and, ultimately, the Portaferry Road. That will mean that traffic can avoid Newtownards town centre, however it will result in a significant increase in traffic on the Bangor Road in Newtownards. There will not just be the current level of traffic, because developers will be building in and around 1,200 new homes. If that increased traffic is going to end up on the Bangor Road, where will it go? The North Road in the town is already heavily congested in the mornings. This morning, for example, cars were nose to tail for over three quarters of its length. That is before any traffic has been diverted from the town centre. There needs to be an assessment of the potential impact on that road and what can be done to address the consequences of building the distributor road and that additional development. A further pinch point is the roundabout at the Portaferry Road and the stretch of the Portaferry Road that runs from that roundabout to the junction with New Road. Roundabouts appear to be continuing theme as either a symptom or a cause of problems for the town. We need an assessment of traffic flow in the town, with a range of solutions to improve that flow. There was a Newtownards town centre sustainable transport working group, which brought together a range of stakeholders with a view to a pilot scheme being adopted for the town around active travel and modal shift. That group considered a number of options that may have assisted in alleviating a number of the problems that I have raised, but, sadly, it stopped meeting in June 2022. The Minister has confirmed, in response to questions that I have asked, that there is no intention of reviving the group, as the Department has decided to work on a regional plan. However, the Department did not tell any of the stakeholders that that was its plan. That was a missed opportunity not just for Newtownards but for the Department to learn from a pilot scheme. I ask the Minister to revisit that decision. The final roads issue that I will raise is that of the Movilla Road. There is a recurrent issue with parking around Abbey Primary School. Cars park along both sides of the road and around the residential area. The cars parked there obscure the views of drivers as well as impact on traffic flow along the road. I have raised that with the local office and the divisional office. A scheme has been developed to include sight realignment of the road, the installation of parking bays and much-needed resurfacing. That needs to happen, but, given the funding calculations for my constituency, we are falling short of what we need, even for issues such as this, which involve the safety of schoolchildren going to and from school. I ask that that be looked at and that funding be made available for that important scheme. I am pleased that there has been progress on the Newtownards park-and-ride. That is an important piece of the transport jigsaw for the town. I and my brother, who is a councillor for the town, have worked alongside Translink on it for a number of years. I hope that, once the business case is with the Minister, we will see a quick funding decision and the project progress. Progress on the Comber park-and-ride would also greatly help. I appreciate that a site on Belfast Road has been identified, but progress seems to be slow on that. We need to offer alternatives to the car. Investment in public transport, as well as recurrent support for our public transport providers, is key to making it an attractive alternative. There are a number of key issues in Newtownards that need to be addressed. Newtownards and Comber are both expanding towns. That is causing traffic flow problems for Newtownards that will only worsen as more houses are built. We are already seeing problems at Comber Road, Frances Street, North Road, Portaferry Road and Zion Place. There needs to be a focused and coherent plan to address forthcoming issues as well as the current problem. I ask that the following be looked at again: re-establishment of the Newtownards town centre sustainable travel working group; swift progress on the Newtownards and Comber park-and-ride facilities; funding for the Movilla Road scheme; a focused, Department-led scheme to address the particular problems of Comber Road and Messines Road; a feasibility study on having a bridge between Portaferry and Strangford; assessment of the potential impact on North Road of the eastern distributor road and the development associated with that scheme; and, last but not least, a bus lane scheme for Frances Street. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response now that we have done a canter around Newtownards and to having the opportunity to meet officials to look at those options. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much, Michelle. All other Members who are called to speak will have approximately five minutes. I call Kellie Armstrong. Ms K Armstrong: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. My apologies to yourself and to Miss McIlveen for being late. Unfortunately, a group of children were talking to me about roads and public transport before I came here. I cannot disagree with anything that Miss McIlveen said. At times, the traffic around Newtownards has to be seen to be believed. I get stuck most evenings on my way home, regardless of whether I leave here late or whether I leave my office at an earlier time, particularly around the Portaferry Road. There is absolutely no consideration given to how many roundabouts are blocked by static cars that are trying to move into the town. The route to Bangor was not conceived appropriately. There is an issue with the amount of damage that the congestion is doing to businesses. My office is on South Street, one of the busier streets in Newtownards, and retailers in that area have commented on the difficulty that shoppers experience at times in getting in and out of the town, so something has to be done. When was the last time that Newtownards traffic was reviewed effectively? I have said on several occasions that I welcome park-and-rides. The planned park-and-ride in Newtownards is in the wrong place. It will increase traffic in the centre of Newtownards, which will decimate some of the routes through the town. There will be such an amount of traffic trying to use that park-and-ride, which is in the town centre, that we will see difficulties for retailers in the area. To be honest, we will be at a worse standstill when it opens. It should have been on the Scrabo High School site but we lost that site, so it is in the town instead of being outside the town. There is a junction close by that will not be able to cope with the amount of traffic. We have already heard from Miss McIlveen about how traffic flow has impacted on other parts of the town. There needs to be a review of the one-way system, and consideration given to the amount of pedestrianisation in the town. Is there another way of doing that to improve the flow through and around Newtownards and make it a more effective town for everyone who wants to use it? There absolutely should be more public transport options so that we can take people out of cars. If the first park-and-ride that you hit when travelling from Portaferry or Comber is in Dundonald, you are encouraging cars to go that far. The delay in the roll-out of park-and-rides is unbelievable: we need the next phase of park-and-rides to be realised. If cars do not have to go into Newtownards to use the park-and-ride there, that will take away some of the rural traffic. The one thing that I do not agree with is the idea of a bridge from Portaferry to Strangford because of the connectivity implications and the destructive impact that it would have on both villages. The villages would end overnight because the bridge would not be where the ferry currently crosses. We all know that taking a road away from those villages means that they will die on the vine as time moves on. I agree that we need to look at the roll-out of park-and-rides and why it is taking so long. There have been issues with the old Ards leisure centre site in Newtownards, with asbestos a consideration there. The planning permission for that site has progressed, so what is taking so long? That is a valuable piece of land and should have been used for much-needed social housing, but if it is going to be used for a park-and-ride, make it a park-and-ride, because when that is being planned, the road network in the area will need to be redesigned. If up to 400 or 500 cars are going to be going there every morning, on top of the issues that Miss McIlveen raised, we will be in trouble in Newtownards. Newtownards is a town that is growing. Comber is growing. There are villages down the Ards peninsula that are growing. A heck of a lot of people are transferring from those areas through Newtownards to Bangor or Belfast. What we are finding, however, are the standstills. I can leave my office and, in less than a mile, be sitting in a traffic jam for 45 minutes to move another mile. It is unbelievable. We need to give the issue consideration, Minister. I have a great working relationship with your team in the area. They work extremely hard and are flexible in their approach. Some of the ways in which they have managed to fund road repairs have been excellent, and I welcome them, but I wish that a town planner would have a look at the transport in Newtownards and the way that it works or, rather, does not work. The new roundabouts that were put in from Messines Road out to Portaferry have acted more as a blockage than an enabler of traffic. There are more people now driving through Newtownards to avoid the Messines Road, so it has not worked. The new road that Miss McIlveen talked about, which will connect the Movilla Road to the Portaferry Road, will, to be honest, have Nimbyism written all over it, because people who are buying houses there are not expecting the traffic flow that will hit the area, so I expect there to be a lot of objections. We therefore need to step in now and show leadership on the issue before it gets worse. Mr Harvey: I thank my party colleague and fellow Strangford MLA Michelle McIlveen for securing this important Adjournment debate. For many years, she has worked tirelessly to raise the issue of traffic flow across Newtownards, and I pay tribute to her for continuing to battle the Department on the matter. Anyone who lives and works in Newtownards, or, indeed, anyone who has had the pleasure of visiting that beautiful market town, will be aware of the traffic pressures being experienced at all times of the day but particularly at peak periods and on Saturdays. Over recent years, Newtownards has seen a huge increase in the number of chimney pots, with large numbers of out-of-town residential developments springing up. Although development is to be welcomed, and although the town has inevitably benefited economically from increased footfall, pressure on the town's infrastructure has continued to build, with little or no response from the Department. Residents find themselves in gridlock daily, spending unacceptable amounts of time sitting in bumper-to-bumper traffic merely to get around the town, let alone to go through it. The Comber Road and Castlebawn roundabouts have already been mentioned in the debate. It is not an exaggeration to say that that area of the town comes to a complete standstill every weekday, with queues along the Messines Road often tailing back to the main A20 dual carriageway. Journey times, particularly for those from Belfast coming to and from the peninsula, have continued to increase in recent years. Despite that, the Department has been unable to come up with any meaningful solutions to alleviate the traffic congestion that motorists experience daily. In her response to a question for written answer dated June of this year, the Minister stated: "My Department is aware that traffic can build up on the Messines Road, Newtownards for short periods at peak times which is consistent with traffic patterns and conditions in many of [sic] towns and cities across the North." Ms K Armstrong: Will the Member give way? Mr Harvey: Such a statement fails to appreciate the enormity of the congestion that manifests for significantly long periods, not "short periods at peak times". Yes, I am happy to give way to the Member. Ms K Armstrong: Thank you, Harry. I just want to say that, last Christmas, for a number of days on end, there was a two-hour traffic jam at the very place that you are talking about. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Member has an extra minute. Mr Harvey: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Member for her very useful intervention. It is not acceptable that the main arterial route to facilitate the bypassing of the town remains a single carriageway, with no traffic management solutions being proposed, despite the congestion that that is causing for the Newtownards community. Although we all appreciate the departmental budgeting constraints at this time and thus do not expect miracles, the Newtownards community does not find it acceptable that absolutely nothing has been achieved. Nothing has even been attempted by the Minister's Department to address the issues. In other parts of the town, road safety continues to be a concern for many. Along with colleagues in this place, I have, for several years, been highlighting the issue of pedestrian safety at Teal Rocks specifically and motorist safety along the Portaferry Road more generally. It is shameful that DFI officials have been unable to reduce the national speed limit along that section of road, which is used by schoolchildren to board school buses. I call again on the Minister to rethink the Department's position on that issue in particular. It is an issue that everyone in the Chamber and, indeed, every councillor has submitted a request about. Residents, traders and visitors are all calling on the Minister to intervene and to work with the local community to establish what can be done to ease an ever-increasing problem. The long-awaited park-and-ride facility will be of immense benefit, but it cannot be viewed as a silver bullet. We must see the road network improvements that will support transport resilience for the future, and I trust that the Minister will act for the benefit of Newtownards. I also look forward to her exploration of the idea of a Strangford/Portaferry bridge. Top 5.00 pm Mr Stewart: I thank the Member for Strangford for bringing the topic to the Chamber and for so eloquently setting out the position. My party colleague Mike Nesbitt, the Health Minister, had hoped to be here today, but he has a prior and unavoidable engagement with a constituent on a health matter. He sends his apologies. I will say a few words as Infrastructure spokesperson, if that is OK. Undoubtedly, many points have been made, but I am happy to share a few of his concerns and a few of mine. Newtownards is a successful market town that has grown substantially in recent years. It is not served by rail but is entirely dependent on the road network for residents of the town and those of the Ards peninsula, to which Newtownards acts as a gateway. I know from my colleagues in the area at council and Assembly level and from my experience that the traffic appears to have worsened significantly in the locality in recent years, partly due to the success of the town, which has won High Street of the Year on a number of occasions, and partly due to the growth in population, which is scheduled to continue, with Newtownards being the only significant area of housing growth in the Ards and North Down Borough Council area plan. There are particular issues at Messines Road and Comber Road, as has already been said, with substantial waits being a regular occurrence for drivers coming into the town from the Belfast and Comber directions. It affects commuters but also the residents of the many homes on the Comber Road who have to try to get into town during school runs, which all take much longer than would have been the case in the past. Members who spoke previously talked about two-hour waits at certain times of the year, and that is totally unacceptable. So far, the Department for Infrastructure appears unwilling to seriously review what can be done to alleviate the situation, which continues to get worse, year by year. We appeal to the Department today to take the matter seriously — we thank the Minister for coming along — and do all that it can to influence it. Other areas struggle due to the congestion in the town centre in general and in particular on the Bangor and Donaghadee Roads. A significant cause of many of the issues was the nature of the zoning in Newtownards in the 1980s and 1990s. The need for the town to have a ring road due to population and traffic growth was acknowledged and planned for. It provided the Government of the day with an opportunity to step in and build a ring road and charge each developer as they developed the housing area. Instead of that, it was left to each developer to build their own section of road as they built the homes. A number of developers, as Members will be aware, have done that and have built their sections to a high standard, but what good is just one section of the road if does not go anywhere? That is the scenario that Newtownards finds itself in, with an incomplete ring road with new homes being built on it year-on-year, but they are totally reliant on the same small infrastructure of the town centre. Sadly, as we are all aware, we cannot undo the errors of the past, but measures can be taken by the Minister and her Department in the interim. One such measure is the completion of the park-and-ride infrastructure at William Street and at the other locations that the proposer of the motion has already identified, which have been long promised but are, sadly, still undelivered. In fact, despite the Department having vested the site some years ago, it has yet to pay the council for the purchase of the site. I am not sure: maybe the Minister can update us as to where that is now. The new park-and-ride facility would have the potential to take so many cars off the road, supporting sustainable public transport and better linking Newtownards with the popular Glider network from Dundonald. The current inaction is simply not good enough, which is why I am happy to add my voice to that of my Ulster Unionist colleagues and Members in the Chamber who are vexed about this and rightly so. We call for the Department for Infrastructure to take the matter of congestion seriously, and the Minister should do all in her power to alleviate it. Mr McNulty: I thank the Member for bringing this important issue to the Assembly this evening. On the matter of traffic flow in Newtownards, I agree with the Members that traffic-flow issues are at a peak and are causing immense disruption, delay and danger to drivers, pedestrians and cyclists. I spoke to my colleague Joe Boyle, an SDLP councillor who, as everyone knows, is a hard-working, long-standing representative for Ards and the Strangford peninsula. Joe said to me, in his joyful and positive manner, that Newtownards and the Ards peninsula are victims of their own success. People — families and communities — get up in the morning, roll up their sleeves and go to work or school to study, shop, farm or fish. He described there being a mile-and-a-half tailback of traffic from the first roundabout going into Newtownards from the peninsula, starting at 7.00 am and remaining so for the next one to two hours, and the reverse of that in the evenings. He said that that traffic is the unfortunate result of the positive inputs of many people heading to work in Newtownards and Belfast — mostly in Belfast — and that schools also cause pinch points. As I said, the town of Newtownards is a victim of its own success. Great shopping, businesses and hospitality ensure that people want to go into the town. The lack of parking exacerbates the issue, with people having to circle round to look for parking spaces. That causes further pinch points and traffic congestion. I stress that the problems are not restricted or unique to Newtownards but are felt across the North. The current mess with traffic flow is the result of policy inaction from the Department for Infrastructure. The Minister often refers to "British austerity" — Sinn Féin's favourite term — binding her Department's capacity to undertake projects, but issues such as traffic flow and road safety are the direct responsibility of her Department. The responsibilities and failures of Departments in the North cannot continue to be blamed on Westminster, especially not by so-called republicans. The Assembly has a duty to serve the people who live here, ensuring that roads are built to make for safe and efficient communities. I urge the Minister for Infrastructure to take up her responsibility and explore traffic flow solutions such as having a fixed Strangford crossing to distribute traffic more evenly, instead of having the current, unsuitable bottleneck system. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Minister, you have about 10 minutes. Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure): Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. [Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.] I too thank Miss McIlveen for bringing the debate to the House. I thank all Members who contributed for their honesty. It is obvious that you are all working at the coalface in Newtownards. Although I live so far away from it, I worked in Newtownards for a while. I did my first social work placement there. Hearing of the town — the roads and the links in and out of it — has led to me reminisce. I often travelled that road from Comber to Newtownards. That was many years ago, but I am familiar with it, and that has been helpful in trying to get to grips with the issues that have been raised. I have listened to the issues raised by representatives of the constituency, and I hear those concerns. Officials have looked at this in the past, but it is evident that there is a rationale for us to look at it again. I have asked officials to closely monitor many of the issues that you raised, but I am happy for a meeting to take place with you, Michelle, to look at that in greater detail. A huge number of suggestions, challenges and issues have been identified here today, and I do not intend to go through every one of them. It is important, however, that we hear them. It reflects how the community feels, how local businesses feel and the real challenges that they face. I imagine that, as Ms Armstrong outlined, the Christmas period will have an impact on congestion. Investing in our roads is critical not only to ensuring the safe movement of people and goods but to allowing the growth or our economy, which is important. As others have said, towns such as Newtownards may be thriving, but we need to ensure that we enable the conditions for them to continue to do so. There is no doubt that there are funding challenges. The Member who secured the debate has been a Minister and will understand that. At this point, as Ministers, we have to take decisions that prioritise road safety and other critical things. There are so many competing priorities. I am not using that as an excuse: it is fair to say that the majority of Members here will recognise that that is a reality. Their colleagues who sit round the Executive table face similar challenges. However, I will never shirk my responsibilities. I will continue to do what I have been doing, which is to work with people, other MLAs and communities to find solutions and do the best that we can with what we have. Members have described clearly the impact of traffic congestion and how it can build up significantly in many of the areas that have been identified, particularly at peak times, whether it is in the morning, when people are going to and from work and school, or, likewise, in the evening. Ms Armstrong mentioned the importance of looking at some form of transport planning. That work is under way across all 11 councils, particularly in conjunction with the local development plans that councils are working on. My Department has the overarching transport strategy, for which the consultation closed at the end of September. We are also working on the transport plans for specific council areas, and Ards and North Down is one of those that are included. That is an important opportunity for all the issues to be fed in and for us to try to identify solutions. The solutions do not relate purely to roads; it is about providing other options that mean that people do not have to use their cars, be that active travel or park-and-ride. I really welcome the positive feedback on the Newtownards park-and-ride. I appreciate that we need to get further information on the other one, I am happy to respond to Members in writing on that. It is also about public transport. I am having those conversations with officials all the time. We are ambitious about what we want to achieve with transport planning. However, we have to ensure that, if we take steps to discourage the use of the private car, we have the options in place to enable people to make other choices, be it walking, wheeling, cycling or using our public transport. We are constantly grappling with those competing priorities. I am an eternal optimist, however, and I believe that none of that is unachievable. Local input and knowledge is invaluable. It is key that my officials and I hear what the realities of that are for people who live with it every day and that we can look at solutions. We can potentially take that away and come back or meet on-site, as I have suggested, on the back of your request, Michelle. With regard to some of the more specific points, Harry Harvey mentioned the national speed limit on a specific road. Apologies if I have missed that, but we are reviewing speed limits overall. I am looking at that. I have raised the issue of national speed limits, particularly on roads that are near schools in our rural communities, for many years, as well as looking at permanent 20 mph zones in more urban areas as well. I have made loads of notes here because many specific issues were raised. The bridge to Portaferry is not one that I am familiar with. There is obviously a difference of opinion on that, so we will leave that for another time. It is really good to have a debate in this tone, where we are not saying, "These are all the problems. Go away and sort them". Members are putting forward suggestions for what could work and are saying, "Let us test it, look at it and see whether it is an option". Miss McIlveen mentioned looking at things such as temporary traffic lights and other options, particularly at the roundabouts. I can maybe look at that again with officials to see whether there are opportunities. Movilla Road is another one that I am not familiar with specifically. I am happy to look at it with regard to parking on either side of the road. I am due to see the business case on the Newtownards park-and-ride, potentially in spring 2026. Translink is working on that. Hopefully, by then, I will know more about that and will be able to give a further update on where that is. I am generalising over a lot of things, but I am trying to remember some of the key points and what I can come back on. I am happy to take some of it away. There is a lot there that we need to look at. If I can come back on some key issues or we can arrange site meetings, I am happy to do that through you, Michelle. I want the message from here to be this: I hear you. I am listening to the issues, and I am keen to find solutions and see how we can improve things. It might not be what we think at the outset, but the Department is looking at lots of things consistently not just for Newtownards but across the board in all our transport planning and how we have to adapt to the future. Top 5.15 pm I was talking this morning about the estate that I am from: Barcroft in Newry. When I was growing up, I remember there being one car per house or maybe even one car per every two houses in that estate. When I pick up my kids in the evenings, I see that there are now perhaps three cars per house; you cannot get parked in that very small council estate. Society has changed drastically since a lot of the transport planning and local development plans for access to towns and cities across the North were originally done. We have to ask whether we should continue to build more roads to adapt to the ever-increasing number of cars, or whether we should provide people with options to enable them to get out of their cars and travel differently. There is a lot to work on in that regard. The key thing is that we are actively working on those things and developing a plan, which, I know, needs to be followed by action. Hopefully, through continued engagement with you all, we can do that in the not-too-distant future. I thank everybody for the nature of the debate. It has been really good. I offer my commitment to working with you all to find solutions. Hopefully, we will be able to alleviate some of the issues that have been identified this evening. Adjourned at 5.16 pm. Top
[ni-assembly-official-report][plenary_report] Official Reports https://aims.niassembly.gov.uk/officialreport/report.aspx?&eveDate=2025/11/24&docID=459892 Official Report: Monday 24 November 2025 Table of Contents Assembly Business Matter of the Day UK COVID-19 Inquiry Report Members Statements Breast Cancer Awareness Religious Education in Schools: Supreme Court Ruling St Patricks GAC, Lisburn: 60th anniversary Paul Costelloe Government Accountability: Minister of Education Inheritance Tax Windsor Framework Disabled Peoples Parliament Religious Education: Supreme Court Judgement Oifig Pasanna Éireannacha Irish Passport Office Ulster-Scots Leid Week 2025 Breast Cancer Waiting Times Assembly Business Committee Membership Executive Committee Business General Teaching Council Bill: First Stage Committee Business RHI (Closure of Non-Domestic Scheme) Bill: Extension of Committee Stage Curriculum Mainstreaming and Strategy for Outdoor Learning in Schools Private Members Business Ireland and Northern Ireland — A Joint Census Publication 2021-2022 Oral Answers to Questions The Executive Office Health Question for Urgent Oral Answer Education Private Members Business Ireland and Northern Ireland — A Joint Census Publication 2021-2022 The Assembly met at 12:00 pm (Mr Speaker in the Chair). Members observed two minutes' silence. Assembly Business Mr Speaker: I inform Members that I have received correspondence from the Minister for Communities to advise that he is unable to make a statement today on the launch of the public consultation on the Executive disability strategy, as he is unwell. Whilst we were having our moment of prayer, I was reflecting on the tragic loss of two people on a road in Glenavy so soon after the loss of five people in Louth just last week. It shows how dangerous a place our roads are. Indeed, on Saturday night, there was a crash close to my home that resulted in three adults and two children being taken to hospital. It is therefore incumbent on us all to keep getting out the message about road safety. Our thoughts and prayers at this time are with the bereaved families and with those who have been injured. Matter of the Day UK COVID-19 Inquiry Report Mr Speaker: Timothy Gaston has been given leave to make a statement on the UK COVID-19 inquiry report that fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24. If other Members wish to be called, they should indicate so by rising in their place. Each Member, including Mr Gaston, will have to up three minutes in which to speak. I will take no interventions and no points of order until the item of business has finished. Mr Gaston: Once again, we are confronted with the latest feeble finding about what was, by any objective measure, one of the greatest scandals of lockdown: the IRA Storey funeral. Let us remind ourselves of what happened. While ordinary people in Northern Ireland were being denied the right to stand at a graveside, being denied the right to comfort their loved ones and, in some cases, even being denied the right to say goodbye, thousands gathered on the streets of Belfast for a full-scale republican show of strength. It was not a spontaneous act of grief but a meticulously organised, tightly choreographed display of IRA power, with Sinn Féin figures at its centre, yet, time after time, in report after report, the establishment has twisted itself in knots to avoid the obvious, which is that the law was applied differently depending on whom people were. Republican leaders knew exactly what they were doing and that the authorities would not confront them. The latest findings simply continue the tired pattern of evasion. The truth is this: Sinn Féin was flagrantly hypocritical and at the heart of the breach, and everyone knows that. Michelle O'Neill did not merely attend: she led; she posed; she set an example that thousands followed; and then she claimed that she did nothing wrong. What was the response of officialdom? No accountability, just more excuses. The latest report tells us once again that no one can rely on people being held responsible. The public are not fools: they see what this is. They know exactly what it means when the law is flexible for some and rigid for others. They know what it means when senior republicans can breach restrictions with impunity while ordinary people are criminalised for far less. This is a scandal about two-tier policing. It is about rule makers who, in full view of the TV cameras, became rule breakers. It is about law-abiding citizens being denied a basic funeral while a blood-soaked terrorist was given a grand send-off. The fact that Lady Hallett joins a long list of figures in officialdom who cannot bring themselves to say so does her no credit; in fact, it does a gross disservice to ordinary people. Mr McGuigan: Our thoughts are very much with those who suffered or lost loved ones during the pandemic. I pay tribute to the dedicated Health and Social Care (HSC) workers who stepped forward during that extraordinary time to see us through it. The COVID pandemic was an unprecedented global emergency, the like of which no Administration, including the Executive, had ever faced. The inquiry into how the Executive and other Administrations navigated their way through the pandemic is clearly important and valuable work. I thank the inquiry team for its work, and I welcome the publication of its module 2 report. I acknowledge the inquiry and the important opportunity that it afforded to families and loved ones to come forward to tell their stories in order to ensure that their experience, grief and trauma were not and will not be forgotten. The report is an important landmark. It provides further lessons from that extraordinary time and the experience that we all went through, and it will help all of us, including the Executive, to learn lessons. It will also help in the long journey of recovery after the pain and trauma of the COVID pandemic and help to inform future preparedness for and response to any future pandemic or society-wide emergency. Mr Frew: My first thoughts are with the families who lost and suffered during the COVID years, when the Executive were making decisions on behalf of the people of this country. It is fair to say that the criticism from the Hallett report is damning, but it is also centred on decisions that Michelle O'Neill took in her time as deputy First Minister. It was Sinn Féin that first breached the Executive's collective responsibility when it came out in public utterance about the decision that the Executive had taken on school closures. That was only a day after that decision had been taken at an Executive meeting at which Michelle O'Neill had not raised it as an issue. That was diabolical — diabolical. Then, of course, there was the grandest breach of the rules: bringing thousands out on to the streets at a time of COVID restrictions to glorify a dead terrorist and, worse than that, to have a sham funeral oration in a graveyard in which the man was not even buried. What a disgrace. It is a disgrace for the people who could not attend the funerals of their loved ones and friends. The tragedy is that so many people died alone in care homes and hospitals without their families present; that is where the harm has been done. Michelle O'Neill and Sinn Féin enticed and encouraged thousands of people to breach the COVID restrictions, when people were being fined £250 for seeing their grandchildren: that is the level it went to. Of course, many people breached their own COVID rules and were heavily criticised or fined, but Sinn Féin walked away from that horrible episode without a touch on them. No fines were administered, whereas households in my constituency — grannies, grandas, mums and dads — were fined £250 each because they dared to go to their grandchild's first birthday party. That is the disgrace, and, given the number of people who suffered during that time, it is unforgivable. Ms Bradshaw: Once again, I express my deepest sympathies to the people who were bereaved during the pandemic. I am sure that reading Baroness Hallett's report was distressing and probably re-traumatising. The COVID inquiry has laid bare a simple but sobering truth: Northern Ireland's institutions were not equipped to deal with a crisis on that scale. The decision-making was fragmented and, in the words of the inquiry, "chaotic". Too often, politics trumped evidence, and the structures that we rely on to protect people simply did not function as they should have. Lives and livelihoods were put at greater risk because our system was slow, divided and reactive when it needed to be united, transparent and strategic. What needs to happen now is clear. First, we need a fundamental shift towards evidence-led, cross-departmental decision-making. The inquiry showed that too much responsibility fell on a single Department and that the operational independence of the Departments was a hindrance to cohesive decision-making, while other parts of government operated in silos. That cannot happen again. We need a standing emergency framework that brings every Department together, backed by strong scientific and public health capacity and led by clear, collective authority rather than competing political agendas. Secondly, we must rebuild public trust. The confused messages and blurred lines between guidance and the law, as well as the spectacle of leaks and political point-scoring, damaged confidence at the very moment when people needed clarity and leadership. We now need a commitment to honesty, accessible communication and full transparency in how decisions are recorded, scrutinised and explained. Trust is earned through behaviour, not rhetoric. Thirdly, the most significant lesson is that the failures were not just operational; they were institutional. Our power-sharing structures are too vulnerable to deadlock. The Executive struggled to act quickly because our system gives the two parties from the largest designations what is, in effect, a sectarian veto to block action but gives no one the authority to lead in an emergency. The inquiry is also right to highlight the risk of paralysis if the Government collapse during a crisis. That is why the Alliance Party has consistently called for institutional reform. It is not just a constitutional debate; it is a public safety requirement. The inquiry has given us the facts; we now need the courage to act. The Alliance Party stands ready to deliver reform, protect public health and build institutions that serve people not parties. Mr Burrows: COVID was, in many ways, a moment of truth for many in our political establishment, and the truth was that many of our political leaders were not up to the challenge. I will turn to the Bobby Storey funeral in a moment. First, I extend my sympathy to all those who lost loved ones during the pandemic and all those who never got a chance to say goodbye and who visited their loved ones in care homes through a glass window because they abided by the rules that were set down by people in this place. Then we had the flagrant breach of those rules by Sinn Féin. Yes, Baroness Hallett's report raised issues of competency and decision-making, but what stood out in Sinn Féin's misconduct was that it was a predetermined, pre-planned, calculated, flagrant breach of the rule of law. It was an affront to everybody who did the right thing. Top 12.15 pm The show of strength for Bobby Storey's funeral revealed what is wrong with the rule of law in Northern Ireland: the average citizen has to follow the rules on when they see, or do not see, their granny or granda, but, when it comes to a terrorist, different rules apply. That was a day of shame for Sinn Féin. There was much talk about the apology of the now First Minister for all. It took 1,414 days to apologise — that is not an apology at all — and Sinn Féin still boycotts 'The Nolan Show', because the BBC had the temerity to expose its duplicity. That is not genuine remorse. We focus on the Bobby Storey funeral, but there is a second chapter to Sinn Féin's conduct around COVID. That concerns 5 February 2021, when two young constables, one Protestant and one Catholic, had the temerity to try to give a ticket to a group of people who were breaching the COVID regulations. The result, after the constables were jostled and abused, was that Sinn Féin, at a senior level, interfered with policing. It demanded that a prisoner be released from the back of a police car. It petitioned the Chief Constable and threatened him until he suspended an innocent officer. I was proud to be part of the campaign to exonerate that police officer. Sinn Féin caused not only a crisis in confidence around the Bobby Storey funeral but a crisis in policing around its politicisation on the Ormeau Road. It has never apologised for that, but I know the truth, because I saw the minutes: I saw the disclosure. Yes, there are real lessons on competence, integrity and decision-making that we can learn from the report, but, when it comes to predetermined immorality, Sinn Féin showed its true colours, and it should still make a heartfelt apology for the damage that it did to this country during COVID. Mr Durkan: The report compels us to reflect honestly on how this region was led through an unprecedented global crisis. Around the world, Governments struggled under immense pressure, making agonising decisions, and no response was perfect. However, acknowledging international challenges does not diminish the specific failures that were identified in the North. The findings will be incredibly painful for the families who lost loved ones in the most difficult circumstances and for every person who quietly sacrificed to protect others. Our thoughts are with all those people. They deserved clear, consistent, united leadership, but they too often got the exact opposite. The inquiry makes it clear that political division here repeatedly hindered our response. Decisions were taken along party lines. Opportunities to act sooner were missed. Public health messaging was inconsistent and was dictated more by political calculation than scientific evidence. We cannot ignore the message that chaotic behaviours in the Executive caused to be sent out. Leaks to the media, sometimes even during meetings, undermined trust, destabilised public messaging and made it impossible to present a united front at a time when unity was essential. The public's confidence was further eroded by events such as the Bobby Storey funeral. When ordinary families were being denied the chance to say goodbye to their loved ones, senior Sinn Féin figures being seen attending a mass funeral sent the devastating message that there was one rule for leaders and another rule for everyone else. Then there was the deletion of WhatsApp messages, including those belonging to the current First Minister. Those messages could have helped the inquiry to build a fuller picture of what was happening behind the scenes; instead, they were wiped. The pandemic has passed, but, sadly, the attitudes that hindered our response have not. There remains a clear absence of leadership here, and too many continue to put party interests before the public good. The SDLP has consistently called for serious institutional reform to deliver better government. The findings make that case beyond doubt. Those criticised in the inquiry cannot simply dismiss it or deflect. They must accept responsibility and commit to change. If we are to honour those who were lost, and if we are to rebuild public trust, every lesson must be learned and acted upon. People deserve better. They deserve leadership that puts them first. Mr Brett: "Do as I say, not as I do" perfectly sums up the attitude of Sinn Féin during the COVID pandemic. At a time when people were dying alone, our older people were shielded in care homes, our front-line health workers risked their lives day and daily and businessmen and women watched what they had built over years disappear in front of their eyes, they saw laws made in this place that the now First Minister thought did not apply to her. We had a situation in which a Provo show of strength was put ahead of the safety of every person here in Northern Ireland. That was a shame then, and it is a shame today. It is telling that, in the remarks made by those on the Benches opposite, we have had no apology officially on the record of the House for the breaches that they and their colleagues incurred. There was a clear demonstration in the report that Ministers tried to use the pandemic as an opportunity to push forward an all-island agenda rather than the factual medical situation that pertained here to Northern Ireland. Who will forget the fake, phantom PPE order by Minister Conor Murphy, who proclaimed from the steps of the House that he had secured a historic medical order for the people of Northern Ireland? Little did he know that that Chinese equipment did not exist, and, when asked by his counterparts in the Republic of Ireland whether it existed, they said no. We will also not forget the actions of the Alliance Party, the SDLP and Sinn Féin, who, at the height of the pandemic, put forward their view that they should traipse down to Dublin to call for the rigorous implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol rather than continue to have a united message on health here in Northern Ireland. This party was a voice of reason during the COVID pandemic. When others tried to have draconian laws that, they believed, should not apply to them, this party proudly stood up and spoke up for citizens [Interruption] right across Northern Ireland. They may not like the truth now [Interruption] but they cannot shout us down. The SDLP, whose Members shout from the Opposition Benches, wanted to sack nurses because they did not want to comply with their draconian legislation. They were happy to traipse to Dublin to try to dismantle businesses further. This party will always be a party of reason and of freedom of expression. Mr Tennyson: First, I want to bring the debate back to those who should be at the heart of our considerations of the report, and that is the front-line workers who served across our public services, those who were not able to hold their loved one's hand in their final moments and all those in our society who had their lives and livelihoods upended by the coronavirus pandemic. It is shameful that Baroness Hallett has found that, even when our people and public services were on their knees and even in the context of a global emergency, the DUP and Sinn Féin could not set aside their party political interests to prioritise the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland. That should bring great shame on the House; be it the DUP abusing rules in the Executive to block public health measures or Sinn Féin breaking the rules that it made in the Executive, they ought to be hanging their heads in shame. The people of Northern Ireland deserve better. Today is not just about recrimination and blame, however. We have an opportunity to set aside that party political interest and deliver better for the people whom we represent. Baroness Hallett was clear that the power-sharing structures at Stormont undermined the Executive's ability to respond effectively to the pandemic, which resulted in chaotic and dysfunctional decision-making. People died as a result of the delays in decision-making in the Executive. The report is clear about that. Will we now set aside party political interests? Will the First Minister and the deputy First Minister call on the Secretary of State to convene a process to reform these institutions in order to ensure that never again is the Assembly paralysed when it ought to be planning for a pandemic and never again can any Executive measure or policy be held to ransom? That is the least that the people whom we represent deserve. Let us set aside the sham fight that is taking place across the Chamber between the two largest parties, and, for once in this Building, let us prioritise the people whom we all represent. Mr Speaker: Thank you. That concludes Members' contributions on the Matter of the Day. Members' Statements Breast Cancer Awareness Ms Finnegan: I pay tribute to two extraordinary young women from Silverbridge in south Armagh. Sisters Aisling Muckian and Áine Mallie were given a breast cancer diagnosis weeks apart. In May, during a routine self-check, Aisling discovered a lump, and Áine found herself facing the same devastating news shortly afterwards. The women are each mothers of two beautiful young children and have undergone single mastectomies and lymph node clearances. Both are now bravely undergoing chemotherapy. What has resonated so deeply with people across our community is the way in which the sisters are walking their journey together. They have spoken openly about the comfort and strength that they find in each other, acknowledging that, while they would never wish this on the other, facing it side by side has helped them to cope with the whirlwind of diagnosis and treatment. Their closeness, their humour in dark moments and the way in which they lift each other up are a powerful testament to the bond that they share. They have also been incredibly proactive in raising awareness, using their own experience to encourage self-checking at any age, challenging assumptions that breast cancer affects only older women and urging families to talk openly about medical history and the possibility of genetic risk. Their courage in turning personal hardship into purpose has already begun to change lives, with many people saying that they have checked themselves because of the sisters' story. I know both ladies, not simply as brave fighters but as my constituents, rooted in their community, loved by their neighbours, families and friends, and now inspiring people far beyond Silverbridge. Today, let their journey be a call to action. Let us promote regular check-ups for women and men, regardless of age, ensure that healthcare services listen and respond quickly when concerns are raised and improve access to information, support and genetic testing for families who need it. Aisling and Áine have shown extraordinary resilience, love and determination. On behalf of the community of Newry and Armagh and the Assembly, I send them our love, strength and solidarity. They are not walking this journey alone: we, too, are walking it with them. Religious Education in Schools: Supreme Court Ruling Mr Middleton: I rise this afternoon to address the recent court judgement on religious education in our schools. Whilst we must, of course, take time to properly review the legal ruling with due care, I know that many people from a faith background are particularly anxious about its potential consequences. For generations, Christian values have shaped the moral character of our school and education system, whether that be through assemblies, school activities or, indeed, the everyday life of the classroom. Those values have helped to shape and form the young people whom we have today. That heritage is not something that we apologise for, nor is it something that we are prepared to see diminished. When the Protestant Churches transferred their schools to the state, it was on the solemn understanding that a Christian ethos would be maintained not to indoctrinate but to guide our young people with values of love, integrity and service. To view that heritage as a source of bias or exclusion is to misunderstand the fabric of our community. Top 12.30 pm The court has called for education that is objective, critical and pluralistic. Let me be clear that we are not afraid of scrutiny or of our children understanding the world around them, but "pluralistic" must not become a byword for "secular". It must not be used as a tool to strip away the Christian character that so many parents actively choose for their children. We are glad that, at this time, we have a DUP Education Minister in place. He has already made it clear that, under his leadership, the Christian faith will continue to shape education in Northern Ireland. It is right that schools and governors have many questions about the ruling's implications and what they should do, and I welcome the fact that the Minister will, over the coming weeks, provide clear, legally sound guidance to schools in order to avoid confusion and to ensure a unified response. This party will not stand by and watch the ethos of many of our schools being dismantled. We will work to ensure that, in meeting our legal obligations, we do not abandon our moral ones. The Bible remains a book of wisdom, not unlawful harm. We will continue to stand up for an education system that reflects and respects all but apologises to none for its Christian roots. St Patrick's GAC, Lisburn: 60th anniversary Mr Honeyford: On Friday night, I had the absolute privilege of joining St Patrick's GAC in Lisburn as it celebrated its 60th anniversary. Listening to its story of the sectarian abuse that the club and its members have faced over the years was deeply moving. At the end of the 1990s, members were unable even to step on to their own pitch at a new facility that the club had built, so it made the difficult decision to walk away in order to protect its players. For some clubs, that could have been the end of the story but, thankfully, not for St Pat's. I pay tribute to Michael Lynch and others, who refused to give in. That quiet, determined spirit, rooted in the community, is what has carried St Pat's through six decades. What a contrast we see today, with a thriving club. Alongside its senior men's and ladies' teams, it has strong membership across every age group, a brilliant youth development structure and even a really vocal mothers and others' team, which I saw the other night. All of that has been built with a real sense of pride and belonging. The club is also looking forward with confidence. Having played for many years at the Ministry of Defence pitches at Kirkwoods Road, it is now finalising the purchase of that land. That is transformational and an opportunity to secure the club's future for generations to come. St Patrick's GAC is not only marking 60 years but celebrating the resilience of its founding members and the power of sport and our community to overcome even the toughest of times. We have so many brilliant sporting clubs in Lagan Valley, and St Pat's is a key part of the wider sporting family. I congratulate every person involved and wish the club every success in the future. Paul Costelloe Ms D Armstrong: It is with great sadness that, as the Ulster Unionist MLA for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, I pay tribute to the late Paul Costelloe, who passed away on Friday 21 November. He was a remarkable designer whose influence on fashion and connection to our part of the world will be remembered for generations. Paul Costelloe was a transformative figure in women's fashion. His designs were instantly recognisable, elegant and confident and crafted with a deep understanding of how women live and express themselves. For decades, he shaped the style of modern womenswear, producing collections that were admired on runways, embraced by customers and praised for their sophistication and originality. His work consistently celebrated women, blending practicality with beauty in a way that set him apart as a true leader in his field. The Paul Costelloe brand had a special connection to my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone. It placed significant elements of its production in the Strelitz factory in Moygashel, recognising and valuing the exceptional skills of local workers and the area's long-standing tradition of textile craft. At a time when such investment truly mattered, Paul Costelloe chose to anchor part of his global brand in a small village that he trusted to deliver excellence. That decision brought real economic benefit to Tyrone. His commitment provided employment and stability and brought pride to a community with deep manufacturing roots. He helped to ensure that Moygashel was known not only for its past but for the contemporary craftsmanship that contributed to one of the most respected fashion labels of our time. On the global stage, his name became synonymous with quality and creativity. His designs travelled from Moygashel to major fashion capitals, carrying with them the story of local skill and dedication. Today, as we reflect on his life and achievements, we extend our heartfelt sympathy to his wife, Anne, and their seven children, who have lost a beloved husband and father. May they find comfort in the knowledge that his contributions to fashion, to Moygashel, to Tyrone and to all who admired his work will endure long into the future. Government Accountability: Minister of Education Mr O'Toole: I associate myself with the previous remarks. I want to talk about accountability. Since we came into opposition, we have made a specific point of addressing what has been a crisis in accountability in our politics. When the public see what happens in the Assembly, they feel that there is a crisis in accountability, that people are not answerable for their actions and that nobody is answerable for the quality or lack thereof of public services. A fortnight ago, a motion of no confidence was tabled against the Education Minister. Per the provisions of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, that motion was not successful, so I do not propose to relitigate its terms. However, I want to draw attention to information that has come out subsequently about the Education Minister's trip to Israel and the occupied territories and, indeed, the response of the Senior Civil Service (SCS) in order to put it on the record and to be clear about accountability. Some said, erroneously and offensively, that holding the Minister and, indeed, the broader Executive to account over that episode was merely party politics and sectarianism, and, at worst, some even alleged antisemitism. Let us be clear about what has emerged since that day. The Education Minister has confirmed to me that his view and that of his permanent secretary, which we heard in evidence to the Education Committee, is that that meeting did not represent "an official meeting" and, therefore, did not engage the provisions of the Functioning of Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021. Subsequently, we have found out in answer to a question for written answer from Mr Carroll, that the meeting at the Ofek School in east Jerusalem was attended by a director and deputy director from the Israeli Ministry of Education. Therefore, an unofficial meeting at an Israeli government-run facility in occupied east Jerusalem, attended by two senior Israeli government officials, was not an official meeting: I merely place that on record. Others can judge whether they think that its unofficial status is credible. Subsequent to that, we have had confirmation that the Minister did not inform the UK Government of his decision to have a visit to a school in east Jerusalem that engaged his official responsibilities. Whether he or his permanent secretary deemed that to be official, he did not inform the UK Government. I am not an unionist and certainly do not think that the UK Government should have any ability to veto or say where devolved politicians visit overseas, but the Education Minister is a unionist. The UK Government's stated position for the past nearly 60 years has been that east Jerusalem is an occupied territory. It was confirmed to my colleague Colum Eastwood that no UK Minister would ever be advised to visit Israeli occupied territory. Those are important matters. Accountability matters. The Senior Civil Service should defend the integrity, objectivity and impartiality of the Civil Service. Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up. Mr O'Toole: I am concerned that those things not happening. Inheritance Tax Ms Murphy: As we approach the upcoming Budget, I want to speak to a pressing concern that many of our rural communities and farmers face: the British Government's proposed changes to inheritance tax. We in Sinn Féin have consistently voiced our concerns about the disproportionate impact that the changes will have on family farms here. DAERA's analysis paints an alarming picture. A large proportion of farms will be hit, and 49% of farms, representing around 80% of the land that is farmed, would fall within the scope of the proposals. Let me be clear: this is not about asking for a handout; it is about asking for fairness. It is about recognition from a Government who often see farm assets simply as revenue rather than as a living and essential part of our rural economy and social fabric. Farming's importance to rural communities cannot be overstated. The Executive have already written to the Chancellor to call for a higher threshold for the North, one that reflects the real value of land here. Without proper mitigations, families will be forced to sell off farmland just to meet tax bills. That would dismantle family farms and erode the heritage that has sustained rural communities for generations. Our farmers are custodians of the land and the backbone of our rural communities. They support local economies, protect our landscapes and hold rural life together. The British Government must reverse the tax changes before irreparable damage is done. Farming is not just an industry; it is a way of life and the foundation on which rural communities have grown and endured for generations. Windsor Framework Mr Brett: Last week, the House, led by the rigorous implementers, rejected our call for work to continue to sort out the impact of the Windsor framework and the failure of the UK Government to live up to the commitments that they made to the people of Northern Ireland. Despite that, today's announcement by the Treasury that it will invest yet another £16 million into trying to sort out the impact of the Windsor framework is yet again justification for the stance taken by all unionists on these Benches that the Windsor framework continues to damage all the people of Northern Ireland. No amount of funding from UK taxpayers will remove the continued imposition of EU law in Northern Ireland without the consent of the people or, indeed, the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland. Sixteen million pounds of funding will not remove the requirement for sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) checks, and £16 million of funding will not remove the ridiculous scenario that all goods moving from GB into Northern Ireland are automatically treated as "at risk". I welcome part of today's announcement by the Government, however: the part about funding for Intertrade UK. Intertrade UK was created outside the remit of both the protocol and the Windsor framework and was a result of the work and negotiations undertaken by this party. Some claimed that no such body could be created and that no such body would have any funding to deliver the requirement to strengthen and maintain the internal market of the United Kingdom. The announcement today by the Government that that body will receive the funding that it needs and deserves as it continues to expose the impact of the Windsor framework in Northern Ireland is hugely welcome. It shows what can happen if we continue to stand up and speak up not just for unionists but for businesses. Week after week, businesses come to the Committee for the Economy, where they receive tea and sympathy from the parties opposite, yet, when those parties have an opportunity in the House to send a clear and united message, they renege on that. The Government have shown the need to implement fully the requirements of the restoration of the Assembly. This party continues to hold the Government's feet to the fire to implement those requirements in full, because this party and no unionists will continue to allow an Irish Sea border to remain and go unchallenged. Disabled People's Parliament Mr Donnelly: I want to take a minute to mention a fantastic event that happened in the Chamber on Friday. I attended the Disabled People's Parliament with my colleague Kellie Armstrong, and I thank the organisers, the Assembly staff and all who spoke. The event was chaired by the Principal Deputy Speaker, and everybody involved heard a debate on the impact of laws and policies on deaf and disabled people in Northern Ireland, particularly the barriers that disabled people face, whether in education, employment, transport, health or anything else. A range of members representing multiple disabilities made very passionate speeches. I have no time to go into them all in detail, but they were really strong, and it was a fantastic event. The debate was responded to by two Ministers: the Minister of Health and the Minister for Communities. The whole event will have been recorded, and I encourage all Members to watch the recording. It lasts about two hours and is a very good debate. It will be followed by a report, which will have recommendations for us on the need to progress changes to our society to make it more open, accessible and inclusive. Top 12.45 pm Religious Education: Supreme Court Judgement Mr Gaston: The judgement by the Supreme Court was the final stage in a calculated assault on the foundations of the controlled sector of education. It is often forgotten that the controlled sector did not emerge out of thin air; it is the product of what used to be the school system run by Protestant Churches. That system was handed over to the state following Lord Londonderry's 1930 Education Act. Churches were promised that the schools would retain a broadly Christian ethos. Church and state recognised that there was a duty to, as scripture puts it: "Train up a child in the way he should go". Now that ethos has come under attack. However, it is vital to underline one critical fact that seems to have been lost in much of the commentary: the law has not changed. Article 21 of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 remains. It requires that religious education (RE) in controlled schools must be: "undenominational ... based upon the Holy Scriptures". The judgement did not strike down that legislation. The law still mandates that the foundation of RE in Northern Ireland is scriptural and Christian. That reflects the historic, cultural and moral foundations of our education system. Christian teaching has shaped our schools, our law and our society. It is no accident that the law requires RE to be firmly rooted in Holy Scripture. The Bible is not one optional voice among many but the bedrock of moral order. There is a misplaced notion that schools must move towards a neutral or multifaith model. Regrettably, that information has even come from some who claim to represent the interests of faith in society. There is no such thing as religious neutrality. Religious institutions that claim to take no view on the existence of God are in fact teaching that his existence is irrelevant. Our schools should always teach morality, right and wrong, but it is impossible to do so without acknowledging God as the source of that morality. If that happens, the moral framework is severed from its roots. The task now falls squarely to our Education Minister. He must reaffirm the statutory requirement that RE be taught on a scriptural basis and ensure that collective worship in schools retains its Christian character, as required by the law. Oifig Pasanna Éireannacha Mr Gildernew: D’fhoilsigh an Roinn Gnóthaí Eachtracha figiúirí lena léirítear go bhfuarthas breis agus 120,000 iarratas ar phasanna ón Tuaisceart anuraidh. Ní rud nua an líon mór iarratas sin, agus níor cheart go gcuirfeadh sé iontas ar aon duine sa Teach. Tá gach saoránach ar an oileán seo i dteideal pas Éireannach a fháil. Ar an drochuair, ainneoin gur léir go bhfuil ráchairt ar phasanna Éireannacha, níl oifig pasanna Éireannacha sa taobh seo d’Éirinn le freastal ar an ráchairt sin. An té a mbaineann moill nó míthapa dó pas a fháil ag an bhomaite dheireanach, caithfidh sé gabháil go Baile Átha Cliath nó Corcaigh le haghaidh coinní práinneacha. Is féidir go ndéanfaidh cailleadh do phas cúrsaí an-deacair costasach, mar shampla, is féidir go gcaillfidh daoine saoire atá beartaithe acu, tionól teaghlaigh nó imeachtaí tábhachtacha eile. Tá mé cinnte go bhfuil a dhála sin ag go leor againne. Dhéanfadh oifig pasanna sa Tuaisceart freastal ar na hiarratasóirí sin agus laghdódh sí an t-ualach oibre agus an riaráiste iarratas, chomh maith le fostaíocht a sholáthar do dhaoine sa Tuaisceart. Tá an easpa gnímh ó thaobh na Roinne Gnóthaí Eachtracha de doghlactha. Léiríonn an ráchairt atá ag fás léi ar shaoránacht Éireannach sa Tuaisceart an gá práinneach atá le hoifig pasanna a oscailt anseo. Tá sé in am ag Rialtas na hÉireann éisteacht le glaonna agus oifig pasanna Éireannacha a bhunú sa Tuaisceart gan mhoill. Irish Passport Office [Translation: The Department of Foreign Affairs has published figures showing that more than 120,000 passport applications were received from the North last year. That large volume of applications is not a new phenomenon, nor should it surprise anyone in the House. Every citizen on this island is entitled to receive an Irish passport. Unfortunately, despite the clear demand for Irish passports, an Irish passport office does not exist in this part of Ireland to serve that need. That means that those who have had last-minute issues or delays with their passport have to go to Dublin or Cork for urgent appointments. This can lead to really difficult and expensive outcomes such as people missing out on planned holidays, family gatherings and other significant events. I am sure that many of us have been in a similar situation. Having a passport office in the North would serve those applicants and reduce the workload and backlog of applications, as well as providing employment in the North. The inaction on the part of the Department of Foreign Affairs is unacceptable. The growing demand for Irish citizenship in the North points to the urgent need for a passport office here. It is time that the Irish Government listened to calls and established an Irish passport office in the North without delay.] Ulster-Scots Leid Week 2025 Ms Forsythe: I welcome Ulster-Scots Leid Week. As a proud Mourne Ulster Scot, I live and breathe this every day, but it is brilliant to join to mark this special time together and say, "Houl yer whisht, for we're still here". Ulster-Scots Leid Week 2025 runs from today and is set to be a vibrant celebration of our Ulster-Scots language, music and culture. Across Northern Ireland, our communities will join in a wide variety of activities, coordinated by the Ulster-Scots Agency. Many events are planned by local community groups and councils. The most recent census figures told us that, in Northern Ireland, over 190,000 people now have some ability in the Ulster-Scots language. That is an increase of 8·1% on the 2011 figures. However, Ulster Scots is far more than a language: it is our bands, our heritage, our identity and our people. As a proud Ulster Scot who lives in Mourne, which is an Ulster-Scots heartland, the Ulster-Scots language is integral to who I am and how I interact with my family, my community and all of you. I am delighted to see so many events planned for this week. In my home of Kilkeel, we have a strong Ulster-Scots organisation, the Schomberg Society, which is based at the heart of our local Ulster-Scots community. Through its Reivers House and Hairtlan Hub facilities, it provides a local base for many Ulster-Scots groups and activities. Today, in my constituency, the Schomberg Society will hold an Ulster-Scots guided tour for weans around Kilkeel, with an Ulster-Scots language event — "A Vision for the Future" — to be held this evening in Reivers House. On Saturday, Leid Week will finish with Belfast Tartan Day, which will see hundreds of pipers, drummers, drum majors and highland dancers parade from the Discover Ulster-Scots Centre to Belfast City Hall. Leid Week will, once again, be a great success in highlighting our community, which thrives all year round. Our local radio station, FUSE FM Mourne — For Ulster-Scots Enthusiasts — will start in a couple of weeks, on Monday 8 December, for the two-week Christmas broadcast. You can listen on the FUSE FM Mourne app, online or on 106·2 FM in the Mourne area. As a proud Mourne Ulster Scot, I will, as always, be a presenter on it. I invite you all to tune in as I say, "Fair fa' ye" to everyone. I wish everyone a great Ulster-Scots Leid week. Breast Cancer Waiting Times Miss McAllister: I will speak again about the unacceptable waiting times for breast cancer diagnosis and treatment. I made a similar statement on this issue in September, regarding specific constituents from North Belfast and beyond who had been in touch. Last week, we had GP practices and doctors speak out on the issue. Patients have been waiting up to seven, eight, nine or 10 weeks to see a specialist following an urgent referral, despite the Department's target being 14 days. It is deeply regretful that we need to stand here to advocate for those women again. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Dr Aiken] in the Chair) Last week, in my constituency of North Belfast, Dr Jilly O'Hagan, a GP in Notting Hill Medical Practice, spoke of specific women in our constituency. Some of those women had been waiting for over eight weeks to be seen by a consultant. Three of those women received a late breast cancer diagnosis. Dr O'Hagan also highlighted the fact that a number of women waited unacceptable times, which ended up in them receiving treatment too late. One in particular has waited for over 10 weeks and still has not seen a consultant. We heard from the Health Minister in the Chamber last week that, as of the beginning of this month, the waiting list had been reduced from a high of 10 weeks to seven weeks and two days. That contradicts medical people on the ground who say that their patients wait for 10 weeks. Which of those is right? It is not a race to have the best figures; it is a race for treatment and to save lives. The latest waiting time statistics released by the Department of Health show that just 6·6% of women were seen by specialists within 14 days of being urgently referred. I thank Dr O'Hagan for speaking out on the issue. We can stand in the Chamber and discuss statistics and figures, but if we only do that, nothing will change. Nothing better illustrates the crisis than the words of the women themselves, who are waiting, scared and worried. Assembly Business Committee Membership Resolved: That Mr Cathal Boylan replace Ms Emma Sheerin as a member of the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee; that Ms Emma Sheerin replace Miss Jemma Dolan as a member of the Audit Committee; that Ms Emma Sheerin replace Miss Jemma Dolan as a member of the Committee on Standards and Privileges; that Miss Jemma Dolan replace Ms Emma Sheerin as a member of the Committee for the Economy; that Mr Philip McGuigan replace Mr Maolíosa McHugh as a member of the Committee on Procedures; and that Mr Maolíosa McHugh replace Miss Nicola Brogan as a member of the Committee for Infrastructure. — [Ms Ennis.] Executive Committee Business General Teaching Council Bill: First Stage Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): I beg to introduce the General Teaching Council Bill [NIA 23/22-27], which is a Bill to make provision in relation to the General Teaching Council for Northern Ireland. Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed. Committee Business RHI (Closure of Non-Domestic Scheme) Bill: Extension of Committee Stage Mr Brett (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Economy): I beg to move That, in accordance with Standing Order 33(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 33(2) be extended to 27 February 2026, in relation to the Committee Stage of the RHI (Closure of Non-Domestic Scheme) Bill. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Business Committee has agreed that there will be no time limit on the debate. I call the Chairperson of the Committee for the Economy to open the debate on the motion. Mr Brett: As the House is aware, the call for evidence to the Committee Stage of the RHI (Closure of Non-Domestic Scheme) Bill has coincided with the departmental consultation on the regulations that are expected to be brought forward following the passage of the Bill. Consequently, and in order to allow time for members to consider the feedback to that consultation, the Committee agreed that it would seek an extension to the Committee Stage until the end of February 2026. The Committee was advised that a later passage of the Bill would not adversely impact on boiler owners as the related regulations will apply retrospectively from 1 April 2026. In any event, the Committee will endeavour to conclude its deliberations in advance of the date in the motion. On behalf of the Committee, I therefore commend the extension to the House. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): As no other Member has indicated that they wish to speak, I will put the Question. Question put and agreed to. Resolved: That, in accordance with Standing Order 33(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 33(2) be extended to 27 February 2026, in relation to the Committee Stage of the RHI (Closure of Non-Domestic Scheme) Bill. Curriculum Mainstreaming and Strategy for Outdoor Learning in Schools Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education): I beg to move That this Assembly commends the Committee for Education’s stakeholder engagement, partnership with the Northern Ireland Forest School Association and research into outdoor education in schools; recognises the many inclusive learning and development benefits of outdoor education; further recognises the urgent need for all schools to have the opportunity to realise these benefits; calls on the Minister of Education, by the end of 2026, to define and embed weekly, progressive and sustainable outdoor learning opportunities as a core component of the curriculum for pupils aged 3-18; and further calls on the Minister to develop, with the sector, an outdoor learning in schools strategy that regenerates that pedagogy by addressing systemic factors within the education system to do with leadership support, time, curriculum, policy and resourcing and to make it easy to go outdoors. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes. Nick, please open the debate on the motion. Top 1.00 pm Mr Mathison: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. When the institutions were restored in 2024, the Committee for Education identified a number of strategic priorities, one of which was outdoor education. As Chair of the Committee, I have tried to ensure that a focus on that priority is retained. We all know the competing priorities in education and the impact that constrained budgets have on the Department's work and priorities. I have, however, been clear and the Committee has been united in its view that outdoor education should not be seen as a "nice to do" or an optional extra to learning in our schools. Outdoor learning enhances and deepens children's engagement with the curriculum and is a key tool for promoting the health and well-being of the children and young people in our schools. That strategic priority built on a legacy commitment of the previous Committee to visit the Northern Ireland forest school. Earlier this term, the Committee went to the Northern Ireland Forest School Association (NIFSA) site hosted by the Dufferin Foundation at Clandeboye to hear from the forest school leaders and to carry out strategic planning for the mandate. I am sure that many Members have had the opportunity to visit the forest school and will concur with me about the brilliant work that is delivered there. The motion explicitly states the Committee's appreciation of the input of the Northern Ireland Forest School Association, which really has helped shape the Committee's thinking about and engagement with the policy area of outdoor learning. NIFSA worked with us to develop our Committee stakeholder event on the issue. It took place on 19 March 2025, when NIFSA representatives, plus representatives from Stranmillis University College, St Mary's University College Belfast, Ulster University, Queen's University Belfast, the Scottish Outdoor Learning Association (SOLA), Inspiring Scotland's Thrive Outdoors programme, Field Studies Ireland, the Irish schools inspectorate, Scouts Northern Ireland and Scouting Ireland, among others, gathered in the Long Gallery to discuss the role of outdoor education in our system. On other occasions, we have had valued input from Education Authority (EA) outdoor education settings; in particular, the Committee received detailed evidence and reflections from Magilligan Field Centre. At the stakeholder event, presenters were unanimous in commending the benefits of outdoor education for learning and development and brought with them many examples and outcomes that demonstrated why they were convinced of the need for it to be addressed more fully in our system in Northern Ireland. The Committee has undoubtedly heard evidence widely on the issue. I thank Gillian Kane and the Research and Information Service (RaISe) team for comprehensively collating all the material from the range of evidence sources that we received and from the literature more widely to help inform our thinking and today's motion and debate. The motion calls for the development of weekly outdoor learning opportunities for all learners aged three to 16 and for the Minister to develop, in partnership with the wider sector, an outdoor learning strategy. The strategy should address barriers to outdoor learning, be they resource, curricular, issues at school leadership level, teacher capacity and confidence or time available in the school day. The Committee has been clear — it has been really welcome to see an issue around which the Committee has united — that outdoor learning is real learning. It enhances access to the curriculum and should be embedded in a pupil's learning journey at all ages. There are many definitions of "outdoor learning", but one aspect is key: it is not a stand-alone subject on the curriculum but an experiential approach to education that takes the classroom and the curriculum outside. It should not need to be fitted in as an extra. Teachers in schools that have embraced outdoor learning highlight just how much it enhances the engagement that learners have with the curriculum. It is not something that we need to find time for when the real learning is done; it is real learning in its own right. Outdoor learning enhances physical and emotional well-being. It develops a love and respect for nature, promotes an inclusive approach that can be accessible to all learners and brings the curriculum to life outside of the constraints of the traditional classroom. We are all too familiar with issues around children's screen time and the real challenges with mental well-being. Outdoor learning is one of the simplest and easiest ways to address those in the context of the school day. I want to be clear that the Northern Ireland curriculum promotes outdoor learning. There are some excellent resources. I commend the work of the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) in that regard, especially in preschools and at Foundation Stage. As children move up into post-primary school, however, there are no bespoke resources delivered by CCEA. That, regrettably, sends a message that outdoor learning ends in primary school. That shouId absolutely not be the case, and we should look at this across the age ranges in our system. There is much good practice in the system. The Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI) review of outdoor learning in 2021 highlighted the amount of good practice that is out there, but it also identified some of the challenges, including inconsistency of provision; varying opportunities being made available to children on the basis of the outdoor space available in their school; and concerns about teacher capacity or confidence to deliver outdoor education. While we have seen brilliant examples of teachers who have really taken the lead on the issue — the Committee has heard from them — others remain lacking in the confidence to get the learning outside in the same way. It is also important to consider what happens in other jurisdictions. Evidence that has come through to the Committee about Scotland, Wales, England and the Republic of Ireland very much shows that Scotland appears to be the most significantly advanced in its approach to outdoor learning. They have developed a curriculum for excellence in outdoor education in 2010 and a national position statement on outdoor learning and play, which was published in 2018 and grounded in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). The Scottish curriculum for excellence sets out an enviable set of curriculum resources to support the teaching of any topic for any age group in an outdoor setting. It features local heritage examples, such as using local heritage landmarks and local literature to enhance that learning. It is not unreasonable to ask that a similar resource be created to reflect the Northern Ireland curriculum and the holistic arts and heritage that we have in our natural landscape. Right now, there are so many opportunities. The curriculum task force work is under way, and it would be fantastic if we could, on the back of the motion, begin to see outdoor learning emerging as a thread that runs through any revised curriculum that materialises, empowering and equipping teachers to deliver learning in an outdoor context. There are partnerships across the sector that the Department can tap into to enhance outdoor learning. NIFSA has already been highlighted. We have the EA outdoor education resources; the outdoor education facility at Stranmillis College; PlayBoard NI and its work in this field; and Field Studies Ireland. There are many more agencies, and they are all keen to promote outdoor learning and to work in partnership to do that. Recently, we saw the Minister's delivery of capital grants for outdoor play equipment. That interest in outdoor play was welcome. However, I emphasise — the Committee has heard it widely — that outdoor learning is about much more than the traditional view of outdoor play. It does not necessarily need big capital spend to work, so, when money such as that becomes available, I would love to see an emerging strategy give that flexibility to schools to use money and resources in ways that would work for them in their context, such as creating areas to rewild or grow vegetables, perhaps accessing training for teachers and creating storage areas for equipment. We should allow our schools to be creative in their approach. That is why a strategy is so important. It could bring together all the strands that are live in the issue: curriculum support; teacher continuing professional development (CPD); capital investment where it is needed; partnership working; initial teacher education (ITE); and real support and direction to ensure that all the learners in our schools, regardless of the size, location or setting of the school or the character of its current outdoor space, can access that vital outdoor learning. I hope that all Members, including the Education Minister, will get behind the call in the motion. It is not a call for funding, necessarily — investment will always help, of course — but it is a call to develop a strategy that sets out how the Department will promote, support and enhance outdoor learning in our schools. All pupils should be accessing it, regardless of age, school sector or setting. I hope that today is a step in a process that can get us to a point in Northern Ireland where learning outdoors is seen as being as much a part of education as what happens in the traditional classroom. Mr Brooks: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion and to acknowledge the contribution to our educational landscape that is made by outdoor learning and the providers that bring it to our schools and that bring our schools to their facilities. We have heard that, across Northern Ireland, the forest schools model has helped many of our young people connect with nature, develop confidence and strengthen teamwork and problem-solving skills. Teachers have consistently reported the positive impact that outdoor learning has on behaviour, well-being and engagement — benefits that extend far beyond any single lesson — and, at a time when concerns about children's mental health, physical activity levels and connection to the natural environment are well documented, the work of the Forest School Association, PlayBoard NI and some of the other organisations that the Chair mentioned provides creative and meaningful contributions to the development of young people. Outdoor play, in its various forms, is an important part of learning. The ETI has also acknowledged how outdoor learning improves health, well-being and progression in learning. It also helps young people to manage emotions, develop social skills and improve concentration after adventurous play. It is also helpful to children who have additional needs, which will be relevant to the Committee as it continues its special educational needs (SEN) inquiry. I do not think that anybody will say anything today that is not positive about outdoor learning, a strategy to look at the same or the work of providers. Like other Members, I have had the privilege of visiting the forest school in the Clandeboye estate and have seen the excellent environment, facilities and ethos that makes so many passionate about it and has seen so many kids benefit. All of us will have had opportunities to go to our local schools to hear from them about some of the opportunities that they have had and what it has meant to them and to see the excitement when the kids talk about it. I record my appreciation of the dedication of the educators, volunteers and the partner organisations that deliver the work, often with limited resources — I recognise that — and a great deal of personal commitment. Their contribution is undeniably valuable and enhances the educational experience for many of our pupils. While recognising all of those strengths and positives, we have to say a word about recognising the financial reality and the challenges under which the Department of Education is operating. The pressures on the Education budget are severe and well known to Members of the House and the Committee. Schools struggle to meet basic needs, and support services are stretched. Many statutory responsibilities are already competing for insufficient funding. Therefore, while I do not question the worth or impact of outdoor learning or the programmes that are being provided without it being mainstreamed, I must also be honest about what, I think, the Department can realistically support at the moment. If additional resources were to become available, as, we all hope, they will, there are, regrettably, more urgent and immediate priorities that must be addressed first, including safeguarding, essential front-line services, supporting children with special educational needs and ensuring that schools can simply keep the doors open and staffed. That is not to take away from this priority. As I said when we discussed it in Committee, it is a worthy issue, but it has to be set against the other issues that we face. It is not a reflection on providers or their merits; it reflects the difficult financial environment that we face. My position is not that we should close the door on future departmental support or that we should not work to develop a strategy; it is to recognise that mainstreaming and directly funding this work from the core budget is probably not feasible right now, without compromising other critical areas. In the meantime, I would continue collaboration with providers, schools, communities and other partners. I remain hopeful that, in the future, if we can navigate some of the challenges that we face now, we should continue to look at these issues. In closing, I reiterate my respect for our providers and the movement that they are a part of and my appreciation for their contribution to our young people. We will not oppose the motion, but it is worth noting that, while praising much of the work that is being done, we must also be realistic with people and not build false hope about the position that the Department is in. Ms Hunter: I thank the Chair of the Committee for tabling this important motion. It is really nice that we, as a Committee and as a collective, endorse and support it. From my school experience of outdoor learning, I vividly remember that, while attending Dominican College in Portstewart, which is based beside the sea, many moons ago, we had a biology class outdoors — going out and learning about plants and how they work. To this day, I remember everything that I learnt that day. Getting outside on such a sunny day in such a beautiful constituency was a unique experience, so I welcome the opportunity to discuss the importance of outdoor learning further today. Top 1.15 pm Over the past number of months at the Education Committee, we have heard from the experts — the Northern Ireland Forest School Association and the Magilligan Field Centre — and, of course, from wider contributors such as principals, teachers and pupils about the importance of outdoor learning and of seeing the outdoors, as the Chair rightly said, not as a reward but as a classroom itself. The message is clear that this kind of learning is not a luxury; it is core to how some children learn best. Evidence backs that up: studies across these islands show that regular, nature-based outdoor learning improves pupils' enjoyment of lessons and can improve their behaviour, social skills and even educational attainment. Time in nature is linked with better attendance, better concentration and teamwork, particularly for children who really struggle in traditional classroom settings or who have non-traditional needs. I think particularly of Rossmar School in Limavady in my constituency, which has a really strong focus on outdoor play and learning. It has a little forest school outside with a mud garden in which children with special educational needs can learn. It is fantastic. Wider forest school approaches have been shown specifically to improve confidence, independence, language and communication skills and emotional resilience. As an adult, I find that being in nature is so great for the head, and, of course, it gives young people important time away from screens. We know that children today spend less time outdoors than in previous generations. Recent UK research shows that one in three children does not play outside after school at all. It is crazy that, in one generation, children have changed from fighting to be out of the house until the street lights came on to now fighting to get back indoors to get access to iPads and screens. Outdoor education can be a really firm and strong step in changing that. As other Members have said, schools cannot solve that problem alone, but they can be part of the solution. Finding joy outside is just so important. Currently, provision of outdoor learning remains patchy and depends too often on the enthusiasm of individual teachers. It is not yet fully embedded systematically in the curriculum or in school planning. That must change. Mr McGrath: Will the Member give way? Ms Hunter: Yes. Mr McGrath: Does the Member agree that it is a bit difficult to listen to parts of this debate without reflecting on how the Education Authority totally changed the landscape by taking away places such as Ardnabannon outdoor education centre in Castlewellan and reprofiling the Killyleagh outdoor education centre so that it is no longer residential, and on how there is even a threat to the Tollymore national outdoor centre? Does she agree that, if we do not have such residential places, people will not be able to enjoy what she is suggesting? Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Member has an extra minute. Ms Hunter: Thank you. I thank the Member for his intervention and agree wholeheartedly. In my constituency, we have Woodhall outdoor learning centre in Kilrea. Given the benefits that it provides, particularly through a residential experience, it is absolutely necessary. I have no doubt that it is important for the Minister to listen to the need for investment in the Member's constituency. This motion recognises that inclusive outdoor learning is key to our young people's development from the age of three to 18. It is crucial that they have weekly, progressive and sustainable outdoor learning opportunities built into the curriculum by the end of 2026. That will require leadership, support, time, clear policy signals and resourcing. It will also require an outdoor learning strategy, co-designed with teachers, that removes practical barriers and makes it genuinely easier for our schools and pupils to go outside. That will lessen screen usage, get our children excited by nature, improve school attendance and improve our young people's mental health, equipping a generation with the skills, well-being and environmental awareness that they need for the future that lies ahead. The SDLP wholeheartedly supports the motion. Mr Middleton: I join others in welcoming the opportunity to speak on the motion and commend the work of all those involved in outdoor education, particularly the Northern Ireland Forest School Association. The sensible use of the resources around us is something that we can all support. As outlined by some contributors already, there is clear and substantial evidence of the benefits of outdoor learning. Being outdoors is, of course, a powerful antidote to the excessive screen time that is, sadly, becoming the norm for too many of our young people, given all the associated benefits for physical and mental health. When children and young people are engaged in outdoor learning, we see the improvements in social skills and cognitive development. I want to bring a local perspective to the Chamber, especially as the parent of a child who attends a rural school in Northern Ireland that values outdoor learning, with a sensory garden, daily mile walks and many lessons outdoors. The value of our natural surroundings is self-evident when our children can richly investigate plants, insects and the natural environment. We have seen first-hand how access to green spaces, fresh air and the natural world allows children and young people to flourish in ways that the four walls of a classroom cannot always accommodate. In my child's school, the teachers, through their dedication and willingness, have found innovative ways to integrate outdoor learning into the existing curriculum, from science and geography to simple literacy and numeracy skills, by observing nature and working together on projects. It is, of course, heartening to see new friendships form as children work together in different environments, building confidence and a sense of belonging in their community and the world around them. We have also seen how the outdoor approach has been successfully integrated into education systems in Scotland, Norway, Finland, the Republic of Ireland and, indeed, Wales. There is an opportunity for Northern Ireland to lead the way in this field. That having been said, as my colleague Mr Brooks said, we have to be mindful of the constraints on and the challenges that exist in the Department of Education at this time. Mr Mathison: I thank the Member for giving way. I am not going to downplay the resource challenges that we face, but does the Member agree that so much of what he highlighted about what schools can do on an innovative level does not require financial expenditure and that there are other levers at a policy level that the Department and the EA can implement to promote outdoor learning across all our schools? Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Member has an extra minute. Mr Middleton: Thanks, Mr Deputy Speaker. I concur. I was going to go on to say that, whilst we may not have a lot of financial resources, we have the natural environment and natural resources, and we have dedicated educators in the teaching workforce. We also have the willingness to embrace that. What we need is a consistent approach to ensure that it becomes very much a normalised part of education and not just a one-off, such as an educational field trip, or a nice-to-do activity. Early years educators report that this approach reduces stress among children. That is important information. In an increasingly fast-paced and, sometimes, overwhelming world for our young people, providing them with opportunities to connect with the outdoor world, move away from screens and exercise and engage in lifelong learning is not just a good idea but a necessity for mental and physical well-being. As I said, I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion. I look forward to working together to try to bring about a better system for all. Mrs Guy: Outdoor education is important, and I am pleased that we, as the Education Committee, have come together to support it. There are many challenges facing our education system, and there are many things that we worry about when it comes to our kids. However, outdoor education can help to meet those challenges in a strategic way. What things make us worry? The first is the physical and mental well-being of children and young people. Growing levels of mental health issues and reported levels of physical activity are really concerning, with only 21% of primary-school pupils and 16% of post-primary pupils meeting the recommended 60 minutes of activity a day. There is concern about how that will impact on our economy, society and health service in the long term. Outdoor education is proven to improve the physical and mental health of our children. We are also concerned about loneliness, social isolation and too much time being spent online. Outdoor education and instilling a love of the outdoors and physical activity from a young age improve children's social skills, build confidence and the ability to take risks and embed a love of nature and the outdoors that can last a lifetime. We also have major issues with attendance, which is a complicated issue, with individual circumstances behind each young person's not making it into school. Again, we have heard evidence of how outdoor learning improves young people's attendance rates. We also worry about some of our children being dysregulated in the classroom, or unable to learn due to their emotional state. Outdoor education supports that. The Independent Autism Reviewer, for example, provided a briefing for the Committee on the experience of autistic children with outdoor education. In that briefing, she highlighted the experience of Dara McAnulty, an award-winning naturalist and author. He spoke about liking school and desperately wanting to learn, but he found classrooms to be claustrophobic and distressing. The outdoors was where he could find peace and where his mind could focus. As we know, when environments are adapted to make them more accessible for one group, they often tend to become better for everyone. Outdoor education is not a novelty. It is a serious policy solution that could have major educational, health and societal benefits. It is about enhancing areas of the curriculum, including literacy, numeracy and STEM, by moving beyond the structured learning environment of the traditional classroom. It is an area that should have cross-departmental support. We know, however, that there are significant barriers for those who are trying to embrace more outdoor learning. Some schools have limited outdoor space or equipment and resources. So, too, do many wider communities. School staff and leadership need further support with training and guidance. There are also significant time pressures on staff. The benefits and challenges have been recognised by the Department and the Minister, and we know that the Minister has provided some capital for outdoor equipment. Some schools have, however, had issues with the conditions that have been placed on that funding. The question, then, is this: how much more focus will this area of the curriculum and policy get from the Department, especially in supporting its expansion beyond the early years and Foundation Stage of education? Outdoor education is proving to be so beneficial in the face of some of the most systemic issues that we face in education, and it deserves a lot more focus. A strategy would be helpful, but we should not miss out on making progress through the current curriculum review process. I have had contact from teachers who are keen to see that happening. They have bought into the great work of organisations such as NI Forest School Association and PlayBoard NI. I will end with two quotes from teachers in a report by Field Studies Ireland into the inclusion of outdoor education in primary schools here. One teacher said: "Outdoor education should not be seen as an extra. It should be a core teaching strategy". Another said: "We need to move beyond thinking of outdoor education as a one-off event. It needs to be woven into everyday teaching". Mr Burrows: I will cause a shock wave by saying that I agree entirely with the Alliance Party motion, and I am glad to support it. Outdoor learning, and the development of an outdoor learning strategy, is not a luxury. It is essential, more than ever, because we are seeing real challenges with mental health, addiction to screens, development, children being sociable with other young people and physical health. We have also seen the exponential rise in children with special educational needs. I read an article in yesterday's 'The Sunday Times' in which teachers talked about having children coming to their schools who can swipe a screen but cannot speak. Outdoor learning is, therefore, vital. Outdoor learning is also vital in helping us to change our perception of the education system. It is not just a conveyor belt of children with the grades to go on to university. It is about them developing life skills that will help them navigate the world personally, in their families and communities, as well as in the workforce. I will also link the issue to the recent shocking statistics around young men who are ending their lives in Northern Ireland. Suicide is the greatest cause of death amongst men under 50. It is vital that we learn how to interact with nature to deal with things like depression. Of course, there are challenges. We talk about money, capacity and capability, but those are things that you get over and sort out. They do not cost a lot of money. That is something that the Forest School Association was keen to say: you can do a lot with very little. We have a lot of natural resources. With regard to capacity, we have a workload review and a curriculum review, so there are opportunities to carve out more time for our teachers. There is a lot of bureaucracy. Teachers tell me about the various portals to which they have to log in. Those could be streamlined to create extra capacity for teachers to deliver outdoor learning. Top 1.30 pm I was particularly struck by an article in the paper at the weekend about the impact that opportunities for outdoor experiences and thus a more-rounded education have on academic ability. James Parkinson, the Pearson National Teaching Awards winner of the head teacher of the year in a primary school award, introduced a not dissimilar initiative in a struggling school to give children experiences in the outdoor world, and the school's results went from the bottom 10% nationally to the top 13%. Doing that did not cost money. Rather, it required a little bit of emphasis and focus. We therefore need to summon our inner MacGyver or Bear Grylls and put outdoor experiences at the heart of the curriculum so that our young people learn skills that will stand them in good stead for years. Our teachers yearn for that. I have met teachers and unions over the past number of weeks, and they are very keen on the idea. All the obstacles that we talk about, such as capability and capacity, are easily dealt with. We also need a healthier attitude to risk, and outdoor learning can help with that. We have become a society that worries about children bouldering on a river but that lets them go upstairs to be subjected to a world of, frankly, evil, often without any supervision. There is huge risk online. A healthier attitude to risk comes from learning how to do outdoor activities safely. Teachers also need to have a healthier attitude to risk. If they have support and training and know that someone will stand by them, they can enjoy outdoor activities safely and healthily. I support the motion. Outdoor learning is not a luxury but an essential that should be mainstreamed in our curriculum. The outworking of that will be healthier bodies and minds and more-rounded students, who will benefit Northern Ireland in the years to come. Mr McMurray: I have spent a lifetime in the outdoors. Recently, I reflected on the fact that getting psyched in the outdoors through doing activities such as climbing, mountain biking and mountaineering, in the company of like-minded friends and companions with a shared objective, might not have been the best grounding for a career in front-line Northern Irish politics, but the road less travelled and all that. Outdoor learning provides for inspirational experiences, challenging activities, excitement and fun, all of which contribute to a positive, lifelong educational impact. The Committee Chair is correct to say that outdoor learning is not just a nice thing to do. It is still a very nice thing to do, however. It has been proven that outdoor learning introduces energy into the classroom. Studies have shown that it can improve the academic potential of those who are exposed to it. Many other Members have acknowledged that fact, and it has been academically proven beyond what has been said in the Sunday papers. From anecdotal experience of outdoor education, I believe that it works for those who may not have the traditional academic strengths. Minister, Members and the Committee, do not underestimate the power of the outdoors and associated activities to change how individuals see themselves and how others see them. I have often witnessed a child who is not the most academic or confident in the classroom or who does not perform on the traditional sports pitch come into their own and exude confidence in an outdoor environment when put on the end of a rope to abseil down a cliff, in a wetsuit to jump into a plunge pool or in the forest with a map. It is not just about giving that individual confidence but about their getting acknowledgement from teachers and classmates, who now view them differently because they have a strength that they previously did not know that they possessed. That is the real magic of outdoor education. There are, however, challenges to any such strategy, and the Minister should note them. I am glad to see the will of the Committee to investigate the positive role that outdoor learning can have in formal and informal education settings, but there are a number of points on which the Committee and the Minister may wish to reflect. When we look at the policy, we do not always take into consideration the full range of outdoor learning centres that exist. Statutory, voluntary and private providers all play a role. We need to consider the curriculum topics that are in the syllabus for Key Stages 2, 3 and 4 and that outdoor learning centres already deliver. That learning takes place in formal education settings, but there are also informal, youth-work settings and the accreditations that those guys provide. Protection from further cuts is needed. The Minister previously referred to financial constraints. I appreciate that, as we all do, but, as we have said, outdoor learning should not be curtailed simply by the outdoor spaces that are available to schools. While it is great for outdoor learning to be acknowledged — it should be embedded in the curriculum — in reality, the number of schoolchildren who are exposed to outdoor learning, whether formal or informal, has drastically reduced over the years. The centres at Ardnabannon, Bushmills, Killowen, Killyleagh, Ebbitt and Cabra have been closed over the years, which has taken away the ability to provide an outdoor recreational learning setting. The Committee Chair and other Members have said that Scotland is an exemplar of outdoor learning. I certainly subscribe to that. Scotland and Wales are at different stages of legislating to make outdoor residential learning a requirement, which would be good to see here, given the wonderful outdoors that we have. At the beginning of my contribution, I made a quip about outdoor activities not being a good grounding for front-line Northern Ireland politics. However, the teamwork involved in canoeing, the resilience gained climbing a mountain, the trust required to hold a rope and to be held at the end of a rope all engender partnership working. It is never too late to work on those skills, so, if the Speaker or, indeed, the Minister or any members of the Executive want to take part in a few outdoor workshops to look at the matter, I would be happy to hook up with them to go for a dander or something like that. Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): I will see whether I can release my inner Bear Grylls or MacGyver in my contribution. Some Members have invited me to engage in a working group with the Committee and said that we can maybe abseil together. I would be quite happy to tie some of them up in rope if they wanted me to. Nevertheless, it has been an interesting and important debate. I share a lot of commonality on it with all the Members who have spoken. I will pick up on some of the issues that they raised. First, outdoor learning is not simply an enrichment activity. It is a vital part of how children develop resilience, creativity and well-being. It supports physical, emotional and cognitive development and helps pupils to build confidence and problem-solving and social interaction skills. Those experiences are particularly valuable in fostering curiosity and a lifelong love of learning. When I think about history and geography field trips, I reflect on how I have committed to my long-term memory some of the things that I learned on them. There are other things that I learned in the classroom that I certainly could not recite, but I recall going to Dundrum and learning about the Norman keep when we were considering the Norman invasion of Ireland. Yes, the Normans were here long before we Ulster Scots came during the plantation 400 years ago, so blame them. It was those interesting field trips that enhanced my curiosity about such subjects. I did not participate in the Duke of Edinburgh's Award scheme, but I know that many in my school benefited from that experience. Outdoor play is embedded in the Northern Ireland curriculum at Foundation Stage and Key Stage 1, specifically in the areas of learning the world around us and physical development and movement. However, implementation of those areas is at the discretion of individual schools, and, while many schools embrace outdoor learning, we recognise the need for a more consistent and progressive approach across all settings. One of the findings of the independent review indicated that there was inconsistency in that. Implementation should not be down to the experience of the school through teachers who have a particular interest and can then impart their knowledge to the pupils. Given the fact that some schools do not have teachers with such experiences, education on the world around us and physical development and movement was found not to be consistent across schools because of the way in which it operates. Significant steps are being taken to support learning in this area. In December 2024, I launched the curriculum-led capital investment programme, which prioritises investment in areas that enhance curriculum delivery. Under that programme, the outdoor learning project was introduced in early 2025. Through that initiative, £3 million was invested in outdoor play equipment. That benefited 93 nursery schools, 776 primary schools and 40 special schools. Funding allocations ranged from £3,500 to just over £6,000 per school, which was based on their enrolment numbers. That investment ensured that schools have the resources to create safe and stimulating outdoor environments. Evaluation of the project will take place during the autumn, and findings will inform our next steps. Beyond capital investment, the Education Authority continues to provide professional learning resources through its supporting learning website. Those include practical guidance and videos showcasing outdoor learning activities, primarily focused on early years but also relevant throughout primary education. That support helps teachers to embed outdoor approaches in their practice and ensures that outdoor learning is not an occasional activity but a planned and purposeful part of the curriculum. I pay tribute to some organisations that provide that outdoor opportunity for some schools, albeit in a limited fashion, and I know that schools would like to have more resources. However, during Open Farm Weekend, which is organised by the Ulster Farmers' Union, farms in constituencies are opened up, and they encourage schools to come in. Those young people get to see how a farm operates from the landscape and land utilisation, to animals and the way in which the feed operates and, ultimately, the production process and the end product and how you can sell that on to market. The young people in the schools that have been able to participate have benefited from that and have a much greater understanding of the agricultural way of life. I was a townie, but my grandfather had a farm, and I benefited from heading up to the farm every weekend to get enlightened as to how the culchies all lived. I had great experiences of being out on the farm in Dungannon in south Tyrone, which is where my family is all from. I remember those experiences out on the tractor and granda explaining to me what was happening with the cattle and the pigs. I was below the minimum age of criminal responsibility for some activities, but I fired my first shotgun and air rifle — all under very strict supervision — which is an experience that many townies, quite rightly, would never be able to benefit from. A lot of people do not have the same opportunity to benefit from that outdoor way of life. Therefore, although the Ulster Farmers' Union does not offer some of the extracurricular activities that my grandfather provided, it does provide a good demonstration of that outdoor way of life. The Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI) strongly endorses outdoor learning. Recent inspection findings highlight that outdoor learning improves children's health, well-being and progression in learning. It helps pupils to manage emotions and behaviours, develop social skills and demonstrate better concentration after engaging in adventurous physical play. The ETI reports that schools prioritising outdoor learning in their development plans see increased resilience, confidence and creativity among pupils. Outdoor learning is particularly effective when well planned and integrated across the curriculum, enabling children to make connections, apply knowledge and develop critical-thinking and problem-solving skills. The ETI also notes that growing interest in forest and beach schools and collaboration with organisations, such as the Northern Ireland Forest School Association and Eco-Schools, is building teacher confidence and enriching pupils' understanding of sustainability. I commend the work of the Northern Ireland Forest School Association and its efforts in promoting child-centred, nature-based learning. It has had a transformative impact on pupils' confidence, well-being and engagement, and I look forward to visiting its site at Clandeboye in due course to see at first-hand the positive differences that it is making for children and teachers across Northern Ireland. I thank Members for their contribution to this important discussion. By working collaboratively, we can embed outdoor learning as a meaningful component of learning and delivering positive change for children, families and the wider education sector. Outdoor learning is an investment in well-being, creativity and lifelong learning. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Cathy Mason to make a winding-up speech. Cathy, you have up to 10 minutes. Top 1.45 pm Mrs Mason: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. [Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.] I welcome the opportunity to make a winding-up speech on this motion from the Education Committee. I am not quite sure that I would have foreseen that we would be discussing the Norman invasion, culchies and townies, Bear Grylls and air rifles, but I suppose that that shows the impact that outdoor learning can have on a child's imagination. Earlier this year, I had the opportunity to attend a Playboard conference, entitled "School Age Childcare: The Journey — The Future". The conference brought together practitioners, educators, leaders and providers from across the play-based school-age sector, including the forest school leaders, who had us lighting fires, sawing pieces of wood and hammering nails. I am not quite sure that I channelled my inner Bear Grylls, but I certainly got my hands dirty. It really was a welcome step outside, offering a breath of fresh air. You can imagine the impact that that would have on children who are in a classroom all day. Part of the focus of that conference was on play-based learning, engaging with how a play-based curriculum can help raise children and young people's educational outcomes. The view amongst the sector that day was very clear: there is an overwhelming need for outdoor play-based learning in our education system. As we in the Committee have seen for ourselves, outdoor learning is great for children's mental health and well-being. Fresh air and natural sunlight; what more could you need? In that regard, Cara Hunter specifically mentioned resilience, school attendance and regulation. The freedom to move and explore stimulates curiosity and interest, allowing children and young people to explore, investigate and ask questions about the world around them. Colin McGrath, who is no longer in the Chamber, mentioned two great examples of that in my constituency. It is disheartening that we no longer have the Ardnabannon site and that the Tollymore centre is now under threat. Taking classroom learning to the outside world makes subjects that are normally found only in a textbook come to life. The learnings of science, maths or geography can come to life right in front of our eyes. Learning should be immersive and engaging and should, of course, stimulate curiosity and interest. Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. Does she agree that this is a great opportunity for schoolchildren to work with local community and voluntary groups? I have seen great examples of that in my area, where the Lough Neagh Partnership has worked closely with St John's Primary School, Kingsisland. These are real opportunities for children to learn about the place that they live in and want to grow up in and love. Mrs Mason: Absolutely, I agree with that. We have so many community and voluntary organisations that are willing to step in and help to aid young people's education, and that is really important. Outdoor play and learning introduces new challenges that encourage risk-taking in safe ways and supports independent play, whilst also prompting classmates to collaborate, explore together, share ideas and knowledge, and enhance their social skills, as Michelle Guy mentioned. When students have the ability to work through obstacles, they strengthen their independence and resilience, and that lays the groundwork for the confidence that is needed in order to handle tough situations later in life. We have seen great examples of that in many of our schools, and Gary Middleton mentioned the great example in his children's school. Children need physical space, however, but they also need the time to enjoy it. Jon Burrows mentioned that the ongoing curriculum review presents an opportunity to allow that to happen, but schools need the resources to do that. We must now see the development of an outdoor learning in schools strategy in conjunction with the sector in order to give our children and young people the very best start to their educational pathway. There is a broad consensus. David Brooks mentioned the Department of Education's financial pressures, as did the Minister, but it is very important to take into consideration that we are not solely talking about financial aid here. We are talking about the Department having the will to put a focus on this. Across the board, we heard about the importance of children getting outside and learning. I thank everyone for their contributions to the debate. Question put and agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly commends the Committee for Education’s stakeholder engagement, partnership with the Northern Ireland Forest School Association and research into outdoor education in schools; recognises the many inclusive learning and development benefits of outdoor education; further recognises the urgent need for all schools to have the opportunity to realise these benefits; calls on the Minister of Education, by the end of 2026, to define and embed weekly, progressive and sustainable outdoor learning opportunities as a core component of the curriculum for pupils aged 3-18; and further calls on the Minister to develop, with the sector, an outdoor learning in schools strategy that regenerates that pedagogy by addressing systemic factors within the education system to do with leadership support, time, curriculum, policy and resourcing and to make it easy to go outdoors. Private Members' Business Ireland and Northern Ireland — A Joint Census Publication 2021-2022 Ms Sheerin: Molaim an rún [Translation: I beg to move] That this Assembly welcomes the Ireland and Northern Ireland: A joint census publication 2021-2022, which provides analysis across a range of topics in areas such as demographics, households, religion, ethnicity, place of birth, health, economic status, education and housing; notes that, according to the joint census publication, the island's population, while growing to 7·1 million, the largest level since 1851, remains below pre-famine population levels; further notes the findings in relation to the all-island economy, whereby over 18,000 workers travel both ways across the border for work on a daily basis; recognises that joint census publications can help to identify shared challenges and opportunities for policy and decision-making; and calls on Departments to take stock of those findings. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. Two amendments have been selected and are published on the Marshalled List so the Business Committee has agreed that 30 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate. Emma, please open the debate on the motion. Ms Sheerin: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. [Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.] We tabled today's motion to bring focus to another example of cross-border collaboration, which is so important for the trajectory that we find ourselves on in the North of Ireland, with people feeling passionately, as I do, about the concept of Irish unity coming towards us. We know that that conversation is alive and is finding its way into more homes and spaces daily. To make preparations for a new and united Ireland, we have to have an understanding of the situation that we are currently in and the facts and figures. The joint census went an awful distance in doing that. There is a common misconception that those of us who advocate for a new and united Ireland would just like to rub away the border, join the two states and leave it at that, going home to put our feet up. However, any of us who are involved in the conversation in a real way know that that is not what we want. From our perspective in Sinn Féin, we have many issues and concerns about how both states and jurisdictions have been run since partition was implemented in this country. The joint census goes some way in highlighting that there are problems north of the border and that there are also problems south of the border and that there are things that we are doing really well in the North and things that are being done better in the Twenty-six Counties. We would like collaboration and joint working to learn from each other and to make both states better in the here and now and, obviously, for future planning. One of the key statistics that jumps out from the 2021-22 joint census is the increase from the previous census in cross-border workers. Over 4,000 people have begun working cross-border since the previous census was carried out, and we can see, particularly in the border region, that people go north and south daily for their work. That, again, speaks to one of the misconceptions about Irish unity. We hear a lot of scaremongering about what a potential united Ireland could mean for our health system. Obviously, people hold the NHS very dearly, but, when you look at the cohort of workers that is crossing the border for work, you see that the majority of people coming from the South to the North are working in health and social care settings. That indicates the strength of feeling in the Twenty-six Counties around the NHS and that there is not a reticence amongst our friends and colleagues in the South about public services. I think that that is heartening and is something that we should look at and draw attention to. To make progress on anything, you have to have the information available to you, and we in the North know how damaging partition was. We know that it was particularly impactful on the border areas. That is seen very clearly through the fact that, to this day, unemployment figures are highest in the border regions of Louth in the Twenty-six Counties and Derry and Strabane in the North. That shows once again the impact and the consequences of that border infrastructure and how disruptive and damaging it has been for the communities living beside it. We can point to many reasons for our problems in the North, including the fact that we do not have a sovereign Parliament, are still at the behest of the British Government and have had Tory austerity for the past 14 years, which has caused innumerable problems for and damage to our public services. Still and all, our people have the determination, spirit and grit to excel beyond what has been set out for them. My constituency, which has the lowest unemployment rate in the North, is a shining example of that. Infrastructure was not widely available and we did not see investment in our roads and electricity network, yet we have the most successful engineering sector in Ireland and produce well above our means in that area. I commend the motion to the House and hope that it passes. Other parties have tabled amendments: one could be seen as being slightly constructive, while the other, unfortunately, has probably missed the point. I welcome the debate. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you. I call Matthew O'Toole to move amendment No 1. Mr O'Toole: I beg to move amendment No 1: Leave out all after "housing;" and insert: "notes with concern that Northern Ireland lags behind the Republic of Ireland in several key areas, including lower population growth, poorer reported health outcomes and a significantly higher burden of unpaid care; believes that those disparities are in large part caused by the failure of the Executive to deliver better economic, health and social outcomes; acknowledges that addressing those gaps can be helped through strengthened cooperation with the Irish Government; and calls on all Departments to take stock of those findings and to work in structured partnership with counterparts in the Irish Government to produce and implement clear plans that help close the gaps between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland in key areas." I am pleased to move amendment No 1. Now, this motion was —. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Matthew, all you have to do is —. Mr O'Toole: I said "move". I knew that. I do not understand why I am standing here talking. [Laughter.] [Inaudible.] Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): We are about to suspend the sitting before Question Time. The next Member to speak when we resume after the question for urgent oral answer will be you, Matthew. The debate stood suspended. The sitting was suspended at 1.56 pm and resumed at 2.00 pm. (Mr Speaker in the Chair) Oral Answers to Questions The Executive Office Mr Speaker: Question 3 has been withdrawn. Office of Identity and Cultural Expression: Work Programme 1. Mr Honeyford asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the work programme of the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression (OICE), including any initiatives planned to promote cultural understanding and inclusion over the next 12 months. (AQO 2730/22-27) Mrs O'Neill (The First Minister): We are delighted that Dr Katy Radford formally started in her role as director of the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression on 13 November. Other members of the board are due to take up post on 3 December. Over the coming months, the office will seek to develop a work programme in line with the aims and functions set out in the Identity and Language Act 2022. The aim will be the promotion of cultural pluralism, respect for diversity, social cohesion and reconciliation and to support and promote the celebration of our cultural and linguistic heritage. We are confident that we have the right people in place to deliver those objectives and are committed to supporting the office in its efforts. We will be able to provide further details to Members on the work of the office as it progresses. Mr Honeyford: Will the First Minister outline how her office will ensure that the work on identity and culture will not just be symbolic but will genuinely support our young people, sports clubs and community groups across all traditions to build relationships and share understanding? How will progress be measured and reported to the Assembly? Mrs O'Neill: I agree with the Member: it has to be much more than symbolism. This is a crucial juncture at which we can have a new departure, particularly in relation to social cohesion and the problems that we have witnessed across society, especially in the past year. It is an opportunity not to be missed, and we need to measure progress as we go. We are committed to working with Katy and the board team on that. The clear aims of the office are set out in the legislation, but, for me, it is about how the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression and the other two offices can work in a complementary fashion but also distinctly. There is a real opportunity for the office to be shaped to promote respect, inclusion, social cohesion and reconciliation among all our national and cultural identities. Mr Brett: First Minister, one of the greatest examples of initiatives to promote cultural understanding is the wide range of portraits of Lord Mayors in Belfast City Hall. A member and employee of your party was forced to resign after attacking one of those portraits. Given that you are required to uphold the rule of law under the ministerial code, will you take the opportunity to name that former employee and state to which member of your party and Member of the House that individual is related? Mrs O'Neill: If only your question was genuinely about respect, but, of course, it is not. The Public Prosecution Service (PPS) has made its views known, and I respect its position. Ms Ennis: As the First Minister outlined, there is amazing work going on in our communities to promote inclusion and cultural understanding. Does she agree that there is now an opportunity for the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression, as well as the offices of the Irish Language Commissioner and the Ulster-Scots Commissioner, to build on that work and help further promote a society that is built on respect and mutual understanding of identity and culture? Mrs O'Neill: Yes. As I referenced in my answer to the original question, so much incredible work happens out there. We all see it in our backyards and in our constituencies. Such a huge amount of work is being done to promote inclusion and social cohesion at grassroots level. We need to draw all of that out. We need to focus on the positivity and build on it, be that in community centres, sports clubs, sports spaces or other places where people come together to share experiences. We have a richness of diversity, and we need to get to a position in which we talk about how we celebrate our diversity and respect our differences. The Office of Identity and Cultural Expression will create the opportunity to build on what is there through focusing on new work programmes, but it will also genuinely help build the new society that we all desperately want to achieve together. With the director and the two commissioners now in place, the work that they can do together will bear fruit in the years to come. Mr McGlone: A Chéad-Aire, an dtig leat insint dúinn cad chuige nach raibh cumas sa teanga Ghaeilge ar na critéir do na ceapacháin don bhord? [Translation: First Minister, can you tell us why a knowledge of the Irish language was not one of the criteria for appointments to the board?] Mrs O'Neill: Sorry, my translation thing was not working. We wanted to give Katy a chance to bed in before putting in place the other board members. They will take up their roles in the next number of weeks. I am looking for their names. Brian Dougherty, Ellen Finlay, Stephen Moore, Dr Callie Persic and Dr Jacqueline Witherow have all been appointed and will assume their roles on 3 December, which is just around the corner. They will very much add to the director, who is now in post. It is important that she gets a chance to put her feet under the table and then welcome the new board members. Together they will design the programme of work. Mr Gaston: Does the First Minister think that a fanatic who believes that the Irish language legislation does not go far enough and is or, at least, was a card-carrying member of Sinn Féin is the right person to hold the post of Irish Language Commissioner? How can someone with that record enjoy unionist support? Mrs O'Neill: I am sure that the commissioner will have something to say about your commentary. I very much welcome the commissioner to his post and wish him well in it. Ádh mór [Translation: Good luck] to Pól Deeds as he takes up his role. We should all get behind him and stop skirting around the issues and being so divisive. Try to think about it from an inclusive point of view. This is a promotion of the Irish language, and it is a positive thing. You should not be frightened. Executive Office in Brussels: Capacity 2. Mr Brooks asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on any plans to strengthen the capacity of the Office of the Northern Ireland Executive in Brussels in light of the independent review of the Windsor framework by the Rt Hon Lord Murphy. (AQO 2731/22-27) 13. Dr Aiken asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister how they propose to implement the recommendations outlined in the independent review of the Windsor framework by the Rt Hon Lord Murphy. (AQO 2742/22-27) Mrs O'Neill: With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle [Translation: Mr Speaker] , I will answer questions 2 and 13 together. The independent review carries a range of recommendations and suggestions on the functioning of the Windsor framework. Many of the recommendations concern areas of responsibility for the British Government, and our officials are engaging with the Cabinet Office and the Northern Ireland Office on the areas that touch on the Executive's responsibilities. We also held a very useful discussion with the Minister for the Cabinet Office, Nick Thomas-Symonds, on 13 November at which we outlined the importance of working together to ensure a pragmatic approach to addressing the issues raised in the report. One of the recommendations is that further staff be seconded or added to the Executive office in Brussels, and we welcome the recognition of the important role that that office has to play in providing information and upstream engagement on EU legislation. We also advocated for support for our local businesses and therefore welcome the commitment made by the British Government today. Our officials are working to understand the details of that funding package and how it will be implemented. Mr Brooks: I thank the First Minister for her answer. The office has an important role in not only influencing in Europe but being the canary in the mine that will warn us of any serious difficulties that may come from European legislation. One of the current difficulties is veterinary medicines. Has the First Minister had any conversations on that, or has she any update for us on the real threat that that poses to our veterinary sector and animal health in Northern Ireland and on what can be done as the end of the grace period looms? Mrs O'Neill: I assure you that that is raised at all our engagements. Obviously, we welcome the fact that there will be an sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) agreement, because it will iron out a lot of the issues that have developed to this point. However, we need to have a particular approach to veterinary medicines, and that is raised at every engagement. We are hopeful that we will continue to make progress. Mr Speaker: I call Dr Aiken. Dr Aiken: My apologies, Mr Speaker. I did not think that I was down for a question. Mr Speaker: The questions are grouped. Dr Aiken: Sorry. In that case, I do not have a question for you, First Minister. [Laughter.] Mrs O'Neill: Thank you. Mr Kearney: First Minister, you will be aware that the Murphy report states that one of the most obvious benefits attributed to the Windsor framework is dual market access and that there is a need to highlight and publicise that fact. Do you agree that we need to do more to maximise dual market access? Mrs O'Neill: Yes. The Member has raised this question with me on a number of occasions. I absolutely concur with that. We have seen the Murphy report, which is his own report, and we await the British Government's response to it. That will come in January, which is just two months away. It focused on a number of areas, not least the fact that we need to lean more heavily into dual market access. I absolutely agree that we need to continue to do that. This is a real opportunity for us to grow our economy. When you look at the growth of our export market over the past years — since we have had the Windsor framework introduced — you see that our exports have increased by 2%. That is in direct comparison with a 9% drop in Britain, so that tells you how unique our status is and how we have to maximise that advantage to grow our economy, create jobs and reach for that market. I commend the work of Caoimhe Archibald, the Economy Minister, in continuing to look towards those opportunities, promote the unique selling point that we have in our dual market access and send the message that we are open for business and want to grow our economy and attract what investment we can with that unique selling point. Mr Dickson: First Minister, will you join me in being relentlessly positive about Northern Ireland's dual access opportunities? With the expansion of the Brussels office in particular, will you ensure that our small to medium-sized enterprises are given a real opportunity to market Northern Ireland across the EU? Mrs O'Neill: Yes, I will join you in your relentless positivity. There is a good-news story to tell, and we very much promote the message that we are open for business. The fact that we have dual market access makes us the envy of many other economies and is something that we must maximise. That is why what happens in our Brussels office is important. There are resource implications for that. We also face post-Brexit realities and challenges that need to be mitigated. I welcome all the advocating that we have done collectively on behalf of local businesses about the need to have some support for businesses to enable them to overcome some of those challenges and opportunities. It has been mooted that that will be part of the Budget this week. We need to see more of the detail of that, but we should always be positive about anything that helps to remove barriers to businesses getting opportunities. Ms McLaughlin: First Minister, do you accept that strengthening our presence in Brussels is a two-way process and that the effectiveness of our work there would be significantly enhanced if we had a European Commission office based in Belfast? Mrs O'Neill: That is my view. I am not sure that that view is shared across the office, but it is certainly my view that we should have a Commission office based in Belfast. You are absolutely right that it is a two-way street. I welcome the progress that we have made in our office in Brussels and look forward to visiting it at some stage in the near future, but, as we reach into the opportunities, those are things that would make good, common, practical sense to help businesses to understand and navigate the sometimes complex trading world in which we now live. Mr Speaker: Question 3 has been withdrawn. I call Paula Bradshaw. Historical Clerical Child Abuse: Next Steps 4. Ms Bradshaw asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to outline the next steps for their Department following receipt of research into historical clerical child abuse. (AQO 2733/22-27) Mrs O'Neill: With your permission, Mr Speaker, junior Minister Reilly will answer this question. Ms Reilly (Junior Minister, The Executive Office): Clerical child abuse has had a devastating impact. I express our deepest sympathies to and solidarity with all victims and survivors of that terrible abuse. Throughout the process, previous junior Minister Cameron and I have engaged with victims and survivors to hear their stories and their views on what is needed. Junior Minister Bunting and I will continue to do that. We are very grateful to all those who participated in the process and shared their experiences. Work has been completed on three separate pieces of research: one of which examined records held by faith organisations and statutory agencies; one recorded experiences and expectations of victims and survivors; and one examined the safeguarding policies and practices of faith groups. We have received the research reports and are giving them careful consideration. On 10 November, the First Minister and deputy First Minister met Lisa Caldwell, the independent chair of the interdepartmental working group (IDWG), to discuss the reports and the IDWG recommendations. Officials continue to engage with victims and survivors, whose views we will take into account as we move forward. Our deliberations on the reports continue, and no decisions on next steps have been made. The research has highlighted the importance of current-day safeguarding practice. We note that the PSNI has announced that it has launched a criminal investigation and established a dedicated team following safeguarding concerns at the Presbyterian Church in Ireland. As it is a live investigation, we would not want to say anything that might prejudice it. However, we reiterate the PSNI's appeal for any victims and survivors to come forward, and we trust that everyone will cooperate fully with the investigation. Ms Bradshaw: Thank you for that update, junior Minister. Things are moving on, and a growing body of campaigners is looking for a public inquiry. The victims and survivors of institutional abuse in mother-and-baby homes campaigned for a public inquiry for over 10 years. I greatly fear that this group of survivors will also have to campaign for 10 years. When will you make the decision on the recommendations put forward in the research? Ms Reilly: My thoughts are with every person who has lived through clerical child abuse. What they faced was horrific. The impact of that does not just disappear; it is with them every day. They should never have been put into that position or have faced that horrific abuse. As I said, I have had the chance to sit down with some of the victims and survivors, and I will be honest: the conversations were emotional and, at times, difficult, but I am grateful for their trust and for the time that they took to speak with me. When you hear directly from victims and survivors, it reiterates the importance of how we handle this work going forward. As I said in my original answer, we are considering our next steps. We are still working our way through the reports with officials, and we will continue to engage with victims and survivors. Of course, we will bring any updates to Members. Top 2.15 pm Mrs Dillon: Junior Minister, you mentioned that, on 12 November, the Presbyterian Church in Ireland issued a press release acknowledging previous safeguarding failures. Our thoughts are with anybody who was impacted on by that. I absolutely concur with everything that you said about victims and survivors. Do you agree that the latest revelations reinforce the point that lessons must be learned and highlight the need for a renewed focus on safeguarding, so that all bodies can be fully aware of, and honour, their obligations? Ms Reilly: I associate myself with your comments on that. The recent revelations, alongside those of a historical nature that the research on clerical abuse speaks to, are a stark reminder of the need for a consistent and sustained focus on safeguarding. No longer can there be situations where warning signs are missed, organisations fail to act or investigations are not prioritised when concerns are raised. Safeguarding requires constant improvement and vigilance. That means adherence to robust procedures, clear mandatory reporting, proper records, accountability and a culture where the protection of children and vulnerable people comes first. It is only by making sure that those systems are strong, independently scrutinised and continually reviewed that we can demonstrate a commitment to learning from the past and preventing failures in the future. Asylum Policy Reforms 5. Mr K Buchanan asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for their assessment of the recent asylum policy reforms announced by the Prime Minister in October 2025. (AQO 2734/22-27) Mrs O'Neill: Immigration is an excepted matter, and the Executive have no decision-making powers in respect of the movement of people and migration flows. We believe that the asylum system should be fair and balanced and offer protection to people who are in genuine need. We recognise the positive contribution of migration to our society, including in the delivery of our essential services — particularly our health and social care sector — and to our economy. On 12 November, we attended the inter-ministerial group for safety, security and migration, at which the intention on reforms was highlighted. Now that we have received the published asylum policy statement, we are reviewing the proposals and will continue to engage with the Home Office at ministerial and official level on implementation and local impacts. Mr K Buchanan: First Minister, in the period between 2011 and 2015, 150,000 people claimed to be asylum seekers. In the period from 2021 to 2025, there were 400,000 such claimants, which is a massive increase. In your opinion, as First Minister for this region of the United Kingdom, is there a problem? Mrs O'Neill: The question that you ask relates to what is being proposed in Britain. I have set out very clearly our role in immigration: we do not control migration flows. What I can say about your initial question is that what was published by the Labour Government last week provides us only with a high-level overview; we still do not understand what that means for the practical outworkings of the asylum reforms that the Home Office plans to implement. The detail of all those reforms will still have to be worked through. Unfortunately, the reality is that many of those figures are overinflated, particularly by some people in your own party. We depend very much on migration right across our health and social care system. Quite a high number of people migrate here to work and to provide our public services. We need to put things in perspective. When it comes to asylum seekers — people who seek support at times when they have had to flee war, persecution or genocide — we should all be open to that. I am absolutely open to the idea of a managed immigration system that provides support for those who actually need it and is fair, accountable, human rights-compliant and compassionate. That is the least that we can all do. We need to keep in perspective the actual numbers that we have here of people who seek asylum and of those who come here as economic migrants. Mr Gildernew: First Minister, you will know that recent data from the PSNI has indicated that racist crimes here are at very worrying levels. Do you agree that there can be no tolerance for racism and that we must all work together to end that scourge? Mrs O'Neill: Thank you for that question. We must work together. This is about our home, our society, good relations, social cohesion and integration. We all have a role to play in tackling racism and calling it out where we see it. We should not have any acceptable level of tolerance for racism when we see it. The PSNI data that you referred to shows that the levels of racist hate crime have risen. That should concern every single person who is elected to this Chamber. We should never forget the real human impact at the core of all that. As I said, there should be no tolerance of hatred or racism. No one should be targeted because of their race, religion, nationality, disability or sexual orientation. It is so important that we create a welcoming and inclusive society that celebrates and champions diversity. We need to ensure that members of our minority ethnic community here, who, as I said in a previous answer, play a crucial role in the delivery of our public services, know that they are valued and that they feel part of our society and feel safe. We all have to play our part in that regard. Ms Nicholl: Asylum policy is reserved, but integration is devolved. What is the First Minister's assessment of the impact that negative rhetoric about migrants is having on the Assembly's ability to bring forward integration and the impact that it has on not just human beings but the economy? People in our society are feeling very fearful right now, and the rhetoric from politicians is not helping. Mrs O'Neill: I agree: some of the rhetoric is so toxic. It also puts people from a black and minority ethnic community in particular in a position in which they do not feel safe to walk the street. I know people working in our hospitals who are afraid to go to their workplace. How anybody thinks that that is an acceptable position is beyond me. We have a role to play in how we shape this place through the language that we use when speaking about such things. We also have a role to play through the policies that we develop, not least our refugee integration strategy and our racial equality strategy. In addition, it is about updating our race relations laws, our funding to support minority ethnic development, the work that we do with councils, and good relations funding. There are so many layers of different work, but it needs to be joined up in a way that makes a meaningful difference. I concur with the Member about how dangerous language is and how important it is for us, as political leaders, to set the tone. Mr Burrows: Does the First Minister agree that, although we should celebrate lawful migration, any foreign national who commits sexual violence against our women here in Northern Ireland should be swiftly deported from the country? Mrs O'Neill: Anybody who commits a crime should be dealt with accordingly. That is common sense and should be the norm in any society. However, it is back to the previous commentary about the importance of language and how we describe things: it is very easy to characterise all sexual crimes against women as being committed by people from a particular community. That is not the case. It does not stack up from a policing perspective, given the stats. It does not stack up when it comes to the stats from the Office for National Statistics. Do your homework very carefully. Home Displacement: Children 6. Mr Mathison asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to outline any support being provided to children who have been displaced from their homes as a result of racial attacks and intimidation. (AQO 2735/22-27) Mrs O'Neill: With your permission, Mr Speaker, junior Minister Reilly will answer the question. Ms Reilly: We, along with our Executive colleagues, have made it very clear that all acts of violence and intimidation are abhorrent and have no place in our society. Everyone, regardless of race, religion or background, is entitled to feel safe and be safe, free from threat or intimidation. The Executive Office provides funding of over £7 million to local organisations and councils to support cohesion and integration and to address good relations issues. An additional allocation of £220,000 was distributed to councils to address issues around racial and social cohesion. In parallel, work has progressed on the Executive Office crisis fund, which could be used to support those at risk of destitution or homelessness. Enhancing community cohesion is very much a cross-cutting issue that requires a collective and joined-up approach. In recognition of that, the Executive Office is leading a dedicated community cohesion group. It is working collaboratively across Departments, sectors and communities to bring people together to create safer and more supportive environments. The Education Authority (EA) has also provided a range of support for children impacted on, including supporting children in Ballymena to return to school. In addition, it is working with Belfast City Council to bring together 14 schools affected by the unrest across Belfast for cluster working and racial literacy training for teachers. A follow-up good relations programme is also planned with the EA and Mid and East Antrim Borough Council in the spring and summer to help to address misinformation and race-related incidents. Mr Mathison: I thank the junior Minister for that answer. Junior Minister, you stated in your answer that children displaced from their home in that way see a significant disruption to their education. Will you provide more detail on the Executive Office's engagement with the Education Minister about how that impact can be better mitigated? Ms Reilly: As I mentioned, it is a cross-cutting issue. We need to continue working with all Ministers across the Executive. Families came here hoping that this place would finally be somewhere that they could build a stable and peaceful life. We can never lose sight of the fact that they are human beings who are looking for nothing more than what any of us would want for our families. Our Department and officials have been working hard to support communities so that people feel welcome and safe. As I mentioned, that is done by providing funding to local councils and community organisations specifically to strengthen cohesion, integration and good relations. However, funding alone is not enough. It is important that we constantly look for new avenues and new partnerships so that we can keep working together across government, councils, voluntary groups and communities to make sure that those who want to call this place home feel safe, supported and valued. We all share a responsibility to make that possible. Mrs Mason: What work is being done by the Executive Office to help build a society that is free from the scourge of sectarianism, racism and intolerance? Ms Reilly: As I have mentioned, the Executive Office and the wider Executive have made it very clear that everyone is entitled to feel safe and be safe in our society. Racism and sectarianism have absolutely no place in our communities. There are no excuses for it, and we, as political leaders, have a responsibility to show leadership, call out racism and stand with victims of intimidation, discrimination and violence, and we will continue to do that. The Executive Office has a number of programmes to help support that work. Over £500,000 in additional funding has been provided since the summer to fund projects that promote inclusion and integration. We also have the Executive Office's minority ethnic development fund, which is approximately £1 million per annum; the planned interventions programme; and a range of other programmes, including Together: Building a United Community (T:BUC), that provide funding to promote inclusion and integration. There is also the central good relations fund and the Communities in Transition programme, which, with a budget of £2·9 million, is delivering 35 projects that are focused on resilience and tackling paramilitarism. Mr O'Toole: I, like others in the Chamber, represent probably the most diverse constituency in the North. I have to say, and I am not spoofing, that most BAME individuals and communities are underwhelmed by the Executive's response to the race riots. One element of that is the criminal justice response. Is the Executive Office engaged with the Justice Minister on the sentencing Bill, and when will we finally get hate-crime provisions in law? Ms Reilly: As I have said, the Executive Office constantly engages across the Executive with other Departments and Ministers. However, the issues that the Member raised are specifically within the Justice Minister's remit. Language Commissioners/OICE Appointments 7. Mr Sheehan asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for their assessment of whether the appointments of the Irish Language Commissioner, the Commissioner for the Ulster Scots and the Ulster British Tradition and the director of the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression represent a milestone in building a shared, inclusive and respectful society. (AQO 2736/22-27) Mrs O'Neill: The director of the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression, the Irish Language Commissioner and the Commissioner for the Ulster Scots and the Ulster British Tradition took up their posts on 13 November. Those appointments are a significant step forward as we continue to build a shared, inclusive and respectful society by recognising and celebrating our rich cultural diversity of identities, languages and traditions. We wish them all every success in their new roles and look forward to working with them. Mr Sheehan: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Chéad-Aire as a freagraí go dtí seo. [Translation: I thank the First Minister for her answers so far.] The Minister will be aware that there is a thriving Irish language community in my constituency of West Belfast. We have the Gaeltacht Quarter, and many children are educated in Irish-medium schools. Does the First Minister believe that the appointment of the Irish Language Commissioner will be extremely important in improving the visibility and use of an Ghaeilge [Translation: the Irish language] among public authorities? Mrs O'Neill: Yes. As I said, I very much welcome the fact that the Irish Language Commissioner is in post and that the other commissioner and director are also in post. The appointment is an extremely important milestone for us. It is a step forward in building a society that is respectful and inclusive, and it is a real sign of inclusion, equality and representation that the Irish language and culture are now properly reflected in society. Part of the role of the commissioner is to ensure, enhance and protect the use of an Ghaeilge [Translation: the Irish language] across public authorities here and to devise and develop best-practice standards for that purpose. I concur with you on the number of children who are being educated through the medium of Irish. That shows the growth of the language and the growth in the number of parents who want to educate their children through Irish-medium education. The strength of the Irish language in the arts, music and culture in recent years is something to be very much celebrated. It is positive and vibrant, and it is a living language. All people in society should see themselves, their culture and their identity reflected in public services. Top 2.30 pm Mr Kingston: Many in the unionist community feel as though their British culture and identity have been undermined and not treated fairly. Will the First Minister confirm today that the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression will actively work to promote cultural understanding of the British identity, will not be biased towards one identity over the other and will be fairly funded across identities? Mrs O'Neill: Yes, a fair funding model is in place, and I wish the commissioners and the director the very best. Their role covers inclusion, mutual respect, creating a better society and respect for cultural difference. That is crucial. The remit of the three new offices can be really pivotal in shaping the narrative in our society and in creating the space in which everybody can be comfortable in their Irishness, Britishness or Ulster Britishness: whatever they identify with. We need to create space for one another, and the commissioners and the director have a role to play in helping create that dynamic in society. Mr Speaker: That ends the period for listed questions. We now move on to 15 minutes of topical questions. COVID-19 Inquiry Report T1. Mr O'Toole asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister whether they accept the COVID-19 inquiry's findings that Sinn Féin and the DUP failed in leadership and the report, which was clear and damning that the Executive's response to the pandemic was marred because Ministers, specifically Ministers from Sinn Féin and the DUP, put party politics ahead of the public good during the biggest public health emergency in our lifetimes, stating that Executive powers were abused and that Ministers, including the current First Minister, undermined public health messaging not just through the Bobby Storey funeral but through incidents such as the failure or refusal to agree a statement with other devolved Administrations ahead of Christmas 2020. (AQT 1801/22-27) Mrs O'Neill: First, as I said last week, I very much recognise that the report is another difficult moment on the recovery journey for all the families that the pandemic impacted on. We need to be mindful of them. From my experience of engaging with all those families, I believe that they want us to learn lessons, and that is very much what I am committed to doing. I thank the chair of the inquiry for her work. It marks a major milestone in our learning from and preparedness for a future pandemic, which we will inevitably face. We have to reflect on all of the report and all of its findings. I do not think that any of us has anything to gain from dissecting it or going over ground that we have gone over before. I will, however, absolutely take on board the learning from the report. We have already put some things in train, and we will do much more in the time ahead. Mr O'Toole: First Minister, I am afraid that many of the people who lost loved ones in the pandemic will be frustrated with your answer, which is long on generic platitudes. We all can learn lessons, of course, but you were the deputy First Minister then and are the First Minister now. You are personally responsible, not simply in a generic way. It is clear that one of the lessons to be learned concerns the toxicity and dysfunctionality of our political institutions. Do you agree with that, and will you commit to endorsing a programme of reform of Stormont before the end of the mandate? Please, First Minister, do not simply refer it to the Assembly and Executive Review Committee (AERC), on which I sit. We all know about the Committee. Do you endorse a programme of reform as a specific lesson arising out of the public inquiry? Mrs O'Neill: You do not seem to be able to hear me when I tell you each time you ask me the same question that I am up for the issue of reform being dealt with. The place on which to have that conversation is at the AERC, of which you are a member. I absolutely embrace the issue of reform, and I tell you that time after time. Maybe you do not want to hear it, but it is a fact. On the inquiry, it is important that the public understand that we are taking on board the lessons to be learned. We were faced with an unprecedented global pandemic. All four parties on the Executive, I believe, worked really hard to get people through it. Was what we did perfect? Far from it. Did we get everything right? Absolutely not. That is where the lessons need to come from. I will advise the House on the progress that we have been able to make. Our office has established a cross-departmental steering group to consider all the recommendations, not just from this module but from all modules of the public inquiry. We are absolutely committed to building a more resilient civil contingencies system so that we can respond to all emergencies. Significant progress has been made on improving preparedness, response and recovery, which has included the appointment of a Chief Scientific and Technology Adviser. I certainly felt, the whole way through the pandemic, that that was something that we, as an Executive, were missing, so we now have it in place. We have expanded the Executive Office's civil contingencies division. We have established cross-government civil contingencies structures. We have developed and enhanced the civil contingencies risk register. We will do a further review in 2026 of the framework. We are already taking part in an exercise named "Pegasus", which is about future planning for any potential catastrophe or pandemic. We are putting lessons in train and putting them into action. I want the public to know that that is what is already being embraced. We are not waiting until the end of the public inquiry but are doing things as we go, just as we did the whole way through the pandemic and have done in the years since. COVID-19 Inquiry: Public Health Messaging T2. Mr Bradley asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister whether, in light of the recent findings of the COVID-19 inquiry, the First Minister will now take the opportunity to apologise to the House for undermining public health messaging at that time. (AQT 1802/22-27) Mrs O'Neill: The Member will, of course, be aware that I have addressed that question in the House on numerous occasions, as well as in the public inquiry. Through my actions, I never set out to deliberately further hurt families who had lost loved ones throughout the pandemic. I have also made that clear directly to the families. Mr Bradley: I thank the First Minister for her answer. Does a Minister who undermines public health messaging in the middle of a pandemic meet the standards of accountability and leadership that the public are entitled to expect. If so, how? Mrs O'Neill: I am not sure that I understand the question, but I can tell the Member that I have made my views known on any damage that I caused to public health messaging and have taken every opportunity to do so. I led us the whole way through that pandemic, and I continue to lead us. Faced with it again tomorrow, I would do likewise, but I would have the added advantage of all the lessons that have been learned, some of which I have already reflected. School Inspections: Industrial Action T3. Mr Sheehan asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister whether they share his concern and those of many teachers who have contacted him with serious worries about the Minister of Education's proposals to criminalise teachers who refuse to cooperate with inspections in what is a routine part of trade union industrial action. (AQT 1803/22-27) Mrs O'Neill: Yes, I do. I, too, have been contacted by those teachers. I absolutely will work with you and other Members who are opposed to criminalising our teachers just for taking industrial action. We need to strengthen workers' rights, not take away from them. I give an unwavering commitment to every teacher that I will not endorse or stand over proposals that criminalise them for taking industrial action in order to seek better conditions for themselves and their colleagues. Mr Sheehan: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Chéad-Aire as ucht an fhreagra sin. [Translation: I thank the First Minister for that answer.] Does the First Minister believe that, rather than undermining workers' rights, we should work to support workers and avoid circumstances in which teachers and others feel the need to engage in industrial action? Mrs O'Neill: Yes, I do. Instead of criminalising workers, including teachers, as mentioned in the previous question, we need to do all that we can to support them to do the incredible job that they do. That is why I very much welcome the protection for workers' rights that the Economy Minister will introduce shortly in legislation that we will all have a chance to debate, discuss and, hopefully, agree on. That will be the most progressive workers' rights legislation that we have ever seen. It will be an opportunity for us to put money into workers' pockets by giving them protection in law for the conditions under which they work. It is very much about supporting workers' families and protecting the rights of trade unions to support those workers. That is an incredible opportunity and something that we can do in a real, practical sense to make a difference to people. I encourage all parties in the Assembly to engage in and be part of shaping what could be the most progressive legislation. We could see an end to exploitative zero-hours contracts, and, among other progressive measures, we could see stronger rights for trade unions and paid leave for neonatal care. We should all work together on that, because it will really make a difference to people's lives. Budget: Artificial Intelligence T4. Ms Nicholl asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister whether, in the context of discussions about the upcoming UK Budget, they have had any briefings on a proposed artificial intelligence goods and regulatory adviser role for Northern Ireland, which has been discussed, and whether they can provide any clarity on it. (AQT 1804/22-27) Mrs O'Neill: I am sorry: I cannot. I am happy to talk to officials in case there has been official-level engagement on that, but it has not been brought to our attention. Given the enhanced role of AI in everything that we do in life, we need to have the right protections and the right regulatory framework around it, so we would obviously have something to say about that. We will see what comes later in the week with the Budget, in which, I hope, there will be more support for workers and families. I hope that there will be more support for childcare and that inheritance tax will be dealt with. As we await Wednesday's outcome, we have made our views known on the Budget, but we do not have the detail on the regulatory framework yet. Ms Nicholl: I thank the First Minister. On the theme of the Budget and AI, Helen McCarthy is leading some really great work. There is a view that Northern Ireland could be world-leading in the ethical use of AI, but a strategy needs to be brought forward with speed. Have you given any further consideration to increasing the Budget allocation to your Department, given the importance of AI to our economy? Mrs O'Neill: We have to wait until our three-year Budget is set later this year. Then we will know what departmental budget we are playing with. Yes, we have identified the need for an AI strategy, and that is being actively developed. I concur with you on the role of our new Chief Scientific and Technology Adviser, Helen McCarthy, and the work that she is doing. A wide-ranging team is helping her to develop that strategy, and we hope to bring it to the Assembly in the near future. However, the strategy needs to be backed up by resource to make it practical. We will definitely have that conversation as part of the budget discussions. European Parliament: Observer Status T5. Ms Ferguson asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister whether, in light of the fact that 14 MEPs wrote to the president of the European Parliament last week to call for observer status for political representatives in the North, they will join her in supporting that call. (AQT 1805/22-27) Mrs O'Neill: Yes, I will. Again, there probably is not an agreed position on that in our office, but, from my perspective, I absolutely agree with the initiative that was taken. There is no escaping the reality that Brexit has been disastrous for us. All that we have faced from that time has been uncertainty, economic challenge, mitigation and further mitigation. Even today, we are talking about more mitigation through financial support to businesses. It has been a hugely uncertain and challenging time. Many of us have worked to mitigate the worst excesses of Brexit. Without those efforts and mitigations, we would be much worse off. Our unique position in having access to both markets demands that we have direct access at an EU level. I therefore support that initiative and hope that we can continue to make the case for having our voice heard in the European Parliament. Ms Ferguson: Thank you, First Minister. The letter also noted that, in the event of Irish unity, the North will automatically rejoin the EU. Does the First Minister believe that granting observer status would help us to better plan and prepare for the future? Mrs O'Neill: Yes. Everything that I do every day is about trying to make people's lives better. There is a much brighter and better future ahead for us all if we can only grasp that opportunity together. We have so much untapped potential across the island that can best be unlocked through constitutional change. Of course, I see no contradiction in delivering good public services and working together in this institution every day while having equally legitimate political aspirations for where we see ourselves in the future. I really want us to embrace that, but we need to carefully plan for change. It is important that people have the facts and the information and that everybody knows that every vote will have equal value. The discussions on and preparations for constitutional change need to be had now. Those discussions need to be had with the Irish Government, the British Government and at EU level. That is important. Observer status for Northern representatives would certainly assist in all the planning and preparation and, as I said, in having our voices heard in Europe. We know that rejoining the EU through constitutional change would open up many more doors for all our people and could attract more investment, create more jobs, boost tourism and truly seize our potential. We need to keep our eyes focused on an outward-looking, inclusive and better future. Having our voice heard at a European level would be crucial in shaping that narrative. Lord Mayor Portrait: Police Investigation T6. Mr Kingston asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, after stating that it is astonishing that the Public Prosecution Service has said that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute the Sinn Féin employee who resigned from his employment with the Assembly after the damage caused to the portrait of former lord mayor Lord Browne at Belfast City Hall last November, whether the First Minister, in the interests of good relations, urged Sinn Féin MLAs who had knowledge of that event to cooperate with the police investigation. (AQT 1806/22-27) Mrs O'Neill: The matter that the Member refers to is for the PPS to decide. I discharged my duties as responsibly as I always should. That was an issue for the PPS. It has made its final view known. You may not like the outcome, but the outcome is the outcome. Mr Kingston: First Minister, I think that there is a good relations angle to and consequence from it. Indeed, the junior Minister was present at the event. Given that the Sinn Féin chief whip is quoted in a witness statement as saying that the employee made: "no admission of being at the event", and given that there were a large number of Sinn Féin members in attendance, including, as I say, the junior Minister, surely it is not credible for Sinn Féin to claim once again that it did not notice its former employee present there. Mrs O'Neill: Mr Speaker, I am sure that we are not going to start dissecting the outworkings of all decisions taken by the PPS in all cases. It has made its view known. I have nothing to add to it. Top 2.45 pm Health Mr Speaker: Question 1 has been withdrawn. I call Mr Frew. Delirium Beds 2. Mr Frew asked the Minister of Health to outline the number of delirium beds in each health and social care trust, including the setting in which they are placed. (AQO 2746/22-27) Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): Each trust will have its own operating model for how it manages patients with delirium, be that in the hospital, independent sector or intermediate care. That means that trusts may not have specific designated delirium beds, but all will manage delirium patients or other patients with challenging behaviours. The Belfast, South Eastern and Northern trusts have confirmed that they have specific delirium beds. The Belfast Trust has a contract for 12, all of which are allocated within an independent sector care home. They provide essential support for patients who require specialist care in a non-acute setting. The South Eastern Trust has 10 block-booked delirium beds, which are also situated in an independent sector care home within its area. Those beds are currently fully occupied, which reflects the high demand. The Northern Trust has six beds at residential level. They are located in the Roddens residential unit, which is a statutory facility. That ensures continuity of care for patients closer to home. The Southern Trust and Western Trust have advised that they have no specific designated ring-fenced delirium beds. However, they manage delirium patients within their bed cohort. Mr Frew: I thank the Health Minister for answering a question that was submitted as a question for written answer, and which was to be answered on 14 April 2025. That in itself is a question. There could be hundreds of people a year contracting delirium. How does the fact that there are only 28 beds — only six within the NHS — impact on waiting times in other wards? How can the Minister be sure that people are being diagnosed correctly and receiving the appropriate pathway to care in respect of delirium or some of the other long-term conditions, such as Alzheimer's and the like? Mr Nesbitt: I apologise to Mr Frew for the fact that the question was not answered in a timely manner. It is a fact that my Department conducts something like 30% of all communications for all the Departments, so there is a lot of pressure on it, and mistakes may be made. That might explain, but it certainly does not excuse. I have every confidence in the clinicians, specialists and workforce who are conducting the diagnoses of these patients. The shortage of beds is, of course, a concern to me, but that plays into the wider concern about the capacity gap compared with the demand for health and social care (HSC) services. Mr Donnelly: Has the Department assessed whether the current delirium provision meets the projected demand for an ageing population? What changes are planned to address any gaps? Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for the question. Work is always ongoing in trying not only to assess current demand but to predict how that demand is going to go. The answer tends to be that it is going to go up. Delirium is in with a broader area of mental health challenges. As, I am sure that the Member is aware, delirium is a specific disturbance of brain function. It is a state of sudden confusion and change in a person's behaviour and alertness that poses particular risks not only for the patient but, perhaps, for those around them. I assure the Member that it is very much on our list of areas to be mindful of, and that, as we plan for capacity in the future, it is in the mix. Ms D Armstrong: How does the Department ensure quality of care in the independent sector where delirium beds are contracted to? Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for her question. Obviously, that is an area of concern, particularly for the loved ones of people who are suffering from delirium. They might well have a preference for their loved one to be treated in HSC rather than the independent sector. However, I reassure the Member that the Department requires very strict adherence to contractual standards. That includes compliance with the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA). It sets guidelines and has regular audits and monitoring. Patient safety and continuity of care remain absolutely paramount. Mr McGlone: Given that delirium is often found in patients aged 65-plus, has the Minister considered extending the mental health liaison service to that age group in trust areas in which the service is available only to those aged 18 to 64? Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his question. I was aware that age is a factor in the prevalence of delirium: his exact request is one that I am more than happy to take away. Mr Gaston: Minister, workers on the front line tell me that the number of delirium beds is not adequate to meet need: there are only six such beds in the Northern Trust. People have to wait in acute hospitals for a considerable length of time before they get a bed that is appropriate to meet their needs. As our population ages, the pressures on that area will continue to grow. Minister, does the current number of beds meet the current patient need? If not, what will you do in the short term to address that? Mr Nesbitt: The short answer is no: the number of beds is not sufficient to meet demand. I respectfully say to the Member that that is likely to be the case for acute beds across our health and social care trusts. The pressure has been on for a considerable length of time, and it remains on 24/7/365. It gets worse — it gets steeper and deeper — and the demands on the workforce continue to rise. I am concerned about all those things, but there is only so much that we can do because there is a finite budget. It is a very large budget. As Executive members tell me all the time, I have just over 50% of the entire Executive Budget. However, I would prefer to look at those things in terms of objective, assessed need. If we did so, we would say that we need more delirium beds and more members of the workforce who can specialise in that area. Mr Speaker: Mr Kingston is not in his place. Dementia Diagnosis: Waiting Lists 4. Miss McIlveen asked the Minister of Health, given the benefits of early diagnosis of dementia, to outline any steps that he is taking to address waiting lists for dementia diagnosis across Northern Ireland. (AQO 2748/22-27) Mr Nesbitt: I agree that there is great benefit to early diagnosis of dementia. My Department has been leading on work that aims to reduce the waiting lists. We have identified a number of system-wide measures that could help to reduce delays. Each trust has sought to improve the position through initiatives such as extra memory clinics and by completing clinical validation exercises to ensure that the current waiting lists are as accurate as possible. In addition, there has been a sharpened focus on the education of advanced practitioners and on their recruitment into memory services in order to develop a multidisciplinary team approach, which, it has been evidenced, aids diagnosis. The Western Trust and the Northern Trust have employed an advanced nurse practitioner in their memory services. Furthermore, my officials advise that active recruitment is being undertaken by the trusts that face particular challenges, especially vacant posts in old age psychiatry, that contribute to a capacity gap between the number of people on the waiting lists and the number who can be seen at clinics. Miss McIlveen: I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he commit to the gathering of sufficient data on dementia diagnosis rates at a local level to enable comparison of dementia diagnosis across the United Kingdom as a first step towards an action plan to address what has become a postcode lottery for diagnosis in Northern Ireland and in an attempt to improve our estimated diagnosis rate, which is around 55%? Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member. The regional dementia care pathway sets out a vision for high-quality dementia services in a standardised, regionalised manner, emphasising early diagnosis. Through the development and introduction of resources, including easy-read guides and the Apps4Dementia library for self-care and daily living support, we have also sought to augment and support the guidance on offer to people with dementia and their families. The introduction of Encompass, which, as the Member knows, is live in all five geographic trusts as of 8 May 2025, means that our ability to trap data that will allow for population-level health interventions is unprecedented. I very much look forward to tapping into that resource for the benefit of that cohort. Ms Sheerin: Minister, will you outline how the winter preparedness plan ensures that people who live with dementia have a clear pathway to avoid unnecessary hospital placements? Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for her question. There is huge concern, not least in the House, about winter preparedness and the additional winter demands on Health and Social Care. My primary concern, and where I have asked for focus, is on when people with dementia present at emergency departments. As the Member will be aware, emergency departments are very bright and they can be very noisy, so they can be very disconcerting for somebody who is suffering that sort of mental, rapid condition. As I said, it comes on very rapidly, and that is not an ideal environment for them. I assure the Member that the workforce is very aware of those issues and will find whatever workaround it possibly can to deal with them. Ms Hunter: Minister, given the clear benefits of early diagnosis, will you commit to setting a target of 12 weeks by which no patient will wait longer for a dementia assessment? Will you detail further some of the current waiting times in Northern Ireland? Mr Nesbitt: The current national target rate for the diagnosis of dementia is 66·7%. Northern Ireland currently has a rate of 62%, so we reckon that there are about 25,000 people living with dementia in Northern Ireland. In 2024, it was reported by the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) that 13,900 people had a diagnosis. The regional ministerial target for memory services is that individuals should have access to the service within nine weeks of their referral. That does not include the waiting time for diagnosis. The regional dementia Encompass group is validating the data for that ministerial target under the systems management oversight group. The key objective is to focus on how to standardise and streamline data reporting across the region because that is the way to shape service improvements and assist with future commissioning. Within that context, a priority will be assigned to reporting on the waiting times that people are having to endure before they are seen. Transformation Plans 5. Mr Beattie asked the Minister of Health how his Department will ensure that transformation plans focus on prevention and community care rather than just managing hospital pressures. (AQO 2749/22-27) Mr Nesbitt: The reset plan that was published on 9 July is very clear. Transformation cannot simply be expanding hospital capacity; it has to mean changing how we deliver care, keeping people well for longer and supporting them in their own communities. In other words, getting health and social care services as close to people's front doors as possible. Prevention and community care are at the heart of the reset plan. Two of the seven strategic priorities are prevention and seeing the citizen as an asset; and investing in primary, community and social care. We are taking a whole-system approach, by which I mean that we are working with the housing, education and voluntary sectors to tackle wider health determinants, not just the symptoms that appear in hospitals. Prevention strategies, such as Live Better, will enable people to take charge of their own well-being, and we are exploring a new initiative, which we are calling "This is our health". In that, we want to create a public dialogue to encourage and empower the public to work with us as partners in managing their own health. By March of next year, we will have developed a neighbourhood model for primary, community and social care. We hope to start that on 1 April, but I emphasise that it will be a five- to 10-year plan. Mr Beattie: I thank the Minister for his answer. It is good to hear that you are talking a whole-system approach. Community care is a critical component of our wider health and social care system. How are you seeking to ensure that social care will be better integrated to support people in their homes? Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his question. I want to put an emphasis on community-based social care, which has to be a core pillar of the neighbourhood model. That will ensure that people can live independently in their own homes for as long as possible. To do that, we have to tailor support to their needs. Social care teams will work with GPs, mental health services and the voluntary and community sector to enable care partnerships to be built and reduce avoidable admissions to hospitals and the need for longer-term care. My Department is taking a range of steps to ensure that social care has the capacity that it needs. The neighbourhood model will directly support social care by embedding it within local multidisciplinary teams and through shared planning and better coordination between the health and social care professions. The reset plan commits to improving information sharing, aligning care pathways and strengthening local partnerships so that people experience a seamless service. Mr McHugh: Minister, how will you address the crisis in recruitment and retention in the independent community care sector in areas such as my constituency of West Tyrone, which is highly rural in nature? Top 3.00 pm Mr Nesbitt: To make the profession more attractive, we need to pay people the right salary. Again, I regret that I am not in a position to move as quickly to paying the real living wage as I wanted to. It is, however, also about the conditions in which people are working and the respect that we show them, as well as about the idea that there is career progression for those who want it. My Department is in the process of finalising a 10-year strategic plan and an associated three-year delivery plan, drawing heavily on the recommendations in the 'Power to People' report, which was published back in 2017, and the subsequent consultation on the reform of adult social care, which took place in January 2022. The plans will prioritise a preventative approach to care and support, and the aim will be to improve individual well-being, thus reducing the need for formal care, but also to utilise community assets in order to achieve a more person-centred, sustainable social care system. The hope is that that will be a much more satisfying way of doing business for the workforce. Mrs Dodds: We had a very helpful session on that matter with you at the Health Committee last week. You are aware, however, that transformation is also about the transformation of hospitals. You launched the hospital network consultation in October 2024, but, so far, we have not heard the outcome of it. When will we hear about the outcome? Can you perhaps give us a taster of some of the actions that may come from it? Mr Nesbitt: That is a two-part question. The second part is certainly the part that I would have asked about if I were her but not the part that I would answer if I were me, and I am me. [Laughter.] We have been taking a degree of time to think about that concept, and we have been right to do so, because it is, as I have said often in the House, a very radical proposal in its own right. I am as guilty as anybody of wishing that my local health and social care facility could provide every service and procedure that I might wish to avail myself of as a patient or service user. That is simply not going to be possible, however. We cannot have an acute hospital at the end of every street. I say once again that it is about convincing the public of the concept that, if they need a procedure, even if their local facility can do it, there may be somewhere else some distance away that has become a specialist facility for that procedure, meaning that it is absolutely in their best interests to travel for it. I know that the process has been slow, and I could, I guess, share the Member's frustration, but it is really important that we bring people with us. I suggest to the Member that she will see real movement in the calendar year 2026. Mr Mathison: What performance indicators will the Department adopt in order to demonstrate how the transformation work is delivering tangible change rather than just stabilising a crisis? Mr Nesbitt: I presume that the Member is talking about tangible measures that show how transformation works. We already do that. We have done quite a bit of transformation in primary care. Multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) are being rolled out, and I am very grateful to the Executive and the public-sector transformation board for the £61 million received, which will enable phase 2 to happen over the next four years. There are measures in there, based on the number of people who have accessed MDTs. We have introduced rapid diagnostic centres for vague symptoms of cancer at Whiteabbey Hospital and at the South Tyrone Hospital in Dungannon. Again, the statistics come through for the number of patients who go through those processes. We have elective overnight-stay centres, and the stats are there for them, and we have day procedure centres in places such as Lagan Valley Hospital, for which , once again, the stats are there. I do not want to be judged on my saying, "We have introduced rapid diagnostic centres, so that is a tick in a box". Rather, it is a question of my saying, "We have introduced rapid diagnostic centres, and the outcomes have been x, y and z". Those outcomes are there to be assessed. Mr O'Toole: Further to that, Minister, and, indeed, further to a lot of what has been talked about today, we have had the worst time recently with planning. We all want to see staff be paid more, but we now have an overspend going into next year. This year, we will have, we hope, a multi-year Budget, which will mean an almost once-in-a-generation opportunity to plan and budget for change. Am I to understand that you are working with the Finance Minister so that we will have a multi-year Budget next to health transformation? Will the public be able to see, by the end of this year, the type of resource that you and the Finance Minister will devote to sorting out our health system? Mr Nesbitt: First, I did not see or hear the Finance Minister on the BBC at the weekend, but I am very grateful for his comments on the savings that my Department has managed to achieve. As I have said before, they are unprecedented. I very much look forward to having a multi-year Budget not just because it would provide a degree of certainty, as the Member will be aware, but because that certainty could be used to be transformative in its own right. That is where my focus is at the moment. For clarity, once we know what our budget is for next year, the first action will be to ring-fence for pay, because I do not want what happened this year, last year and in previous years to ever, ever happen again. I believe that, if I do that this year and, if God spares me, I do it this time next year, I will have set a precedent that no future Health Minister will feel other than compelled to follow into future years. Mr Speaker: I call Sinéad McLaughlin. Mr Nesbitt: After the pay, comes the transformation, because you can spend money on waiting lists — it is right that we are, and we are bringing them down — but, if that is all that you do, once the money is spent, the lists go back up again. So, we have to do the transformation in tandem with tackling the lists. Mr Speaker: As a friend of mine says, that was a comma, not a full stop. Social Services: Review 6. Ms McLaughlin asked the Minister of Health whether he will commit to launching a review into the work of social services, including their engagement with the family court system. (AQO 2750/22-27) Mr Nesbitt: Thank you, Mr Speaker. An independent review of children's social care services was completed by Professor Ray Jones in June 2023, and it included commentary on family courts and social workers' engagements with those courts. Work is being undertaken to address the issues that were identified in the independent review and to respond to the recommendations that Ray Jones made. The management and determination of individual cases that are brought before the family court system is primarily a matter for the judiciary, because, of course, it is completely independent of government. However, I have recently received correspondence from and met individuals who have drawn to my attention issues and concerns that are related to their reported experience of engagements with social workers and court guardians who provide reports to the family court system to assist the judiciary with their deliberations. The Member is aware of that, because she was in the room, and we have action points arising. Ms McLaughlin: Thank you, Minister. Thank you, again, for taking the time to meet my constituents and to hear just how serious and distressing their experiences with social services have been. Given the gravity of what you heard and your confirmation today that a review will now take place, will you outline when you expect that review to begin, what timeline you envisage for its completion and, more importantly, when families can expect to see meaningful change as a result? Mr Nesbitt: I hope that the Member is aware from recent comments that I have made in the Chamber that I am reluctant to start providing timelines, because it seems to me that we are not world leaders in this Department in matching up to the timelines that we set. It was very useful to me to meet those individuals with the lived experiences of private law proceedings and to hear about their engagements with social workers and court guardians. Some of it was not easy to listen to, but it is a lot easier to listen to it than to experience and go through it. Therefore, I have asked officials to provide me with advice, and I have asked for some options on how we can deal with those concerns. Once I get that advice, I will think about how best to improve the reports to family courts — I believe now that they do need to be improved — and how the experiences of the sorts of people whom I met along with the Member and the involvement of court guardians in such court proceedings can also be improved. I will stop short of saying that it will happen by such-and-such a month, but it is on the radar, and I will not let it drop off. Mrs Dillon: Minister, on that specific issue of the reports, what engagement have you had with the Justice Minister on conversations with the judiciary? Very often, the judiciary is directing social workers to look at only one element of a child's life. That is not satisfactory in determining a child's entire future and the future of that child's family. Mr Nesbitt: That was the first time that the issue was put firmly on my radar, so step 1 was to have the meeting and listen to the lived experiences. I just outlined that step 2 is to ask officials to take a look and come to me with options. Once I have those, that would be the appropriate time to reach out to the Minister of Justice, because this is very much in that Minister's bailiwick. Ministers and Departments work collaboratively all the time, which is the right thing to do. As I often say, there is very little that one Minister can achieve that the Assembly and Executive want to achieve, so I will be reaching out the Justice Minister once I have the options paper from my officials. Miss McAllister: It is important to have that review and options for people who have had a negative experience. Sitting alongside that family court system and the issue of social workers is the gateway team, and there is disparity across trusts between transfer from the gateway team to the day-to-day children and family social services. Is there going to be an increase in the next year in the number of social workers or in the members of the multidisciplinary teams for which Professor Ray Jones advocated so that we can see the waiting times go down? Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for her question. The majority of the recommendations in the Ray Jones report have been or are being implemented. Some are cross-cutting, not least his proposal for an arm's-length body. I think that the report's preference was to include the Department of Education. That is not going to happen, certainly not in the foreseeable future, so the Minister of Justice and I are pressing ahead. I cannot make specific promises or commitments to increase capacity at this stage because I do not yet know what my budget for next year is going to be. I have outlined the top two priorities. Once we know what the budget will be and what we need to commit to those top two priorities, we will look at everything else. I hope that the Member recognises that it is the only sensible way to proceed. MRI Scanner: Downe Hospital 7. Mr McGrath asked the Minister of Health for an update on delivering an MRI scanner at the Downe Hospital. (AQO 2751/22-27) Mr Nesbitt: The South Eastern Trust remains fully committed to the installation of a new MRI scanner at Downe Hospital. That continues to be regarded as a capital priority for the organisation. A scanner would significantly improve diagnostic capacity and ensure timely access to high-quality imaging services for patients in that area. In preparation, the trust has commenced work on a detailed business case that includes initial design work to enable rapid progress once funding is confirmed. I am committed to progressing work across imaging services as soon as is possible in the current financial climate. I would like an imaging academy. In December 2024, I published a three-year plan that recognised that diagnostic capacity was a fundamental enabler of the three pillars of HSC, namely stabilisation, transformation and delivery. Mr McGrath: I appreciate what the Minister said about the development of that plan. It will save people from having to travel great distances, especially if their condition means that travelling is difficult. There is a need for that service, but we have been hearing about it for years and years. Do you have a timescale for that capital investment being made so that the people of the east coast of Down and the Lecale area can have that service and not have to travel for it? Mr Nesbitt: I understand that you have been hearing about it and hearing about it. A few days ago, I was in Coleraine to officially open an MRI scanner in the Causeway Hospital, so sometimes things that have been talked about and talked about actually happen. That is great and people will not now have to travel from Coleraine to Antrim to get their MRI scans. Capital projects of that scale and complexity require extensive planning, detailed design work and multiple layers of approval before implementation can begin. All I can say to you is that I will try to deliver it for you as soon as I can. Mr McGuigan: I hope that the people of South Down do eventually get the good news that the people in the Northern Trust got just recently. I was going to highlight the fact, Minister, that you opened the new scanner in Causeway Hospital. I think that it will stop 655 patients per year having to go to Antrim. Earlier in the year, the Comptroller and Auditor General produced a devastating report on the state of CT scans, MRI scanners and scanning equipment in general across the North. Can you provide any update on investment in scans in hospitals across the North? Top 3.15 pm Mr Nesbitt: I can say to the Member that this issue is relatively fresh to me and of real concern, because, if the equipment is not there, we have a serious issue. From 2021-22 until the current year, more than £40 million of capital funding was prioritised for the replacement of imaging and diagnostics equipment and related enabling works across the whole HSC sector. Additional projects identified by the capital subgroup of the regional medical imaging board have been bid for as part of the Budget 2026 process, and that includes the MRI scanner for the Downe Hospital. Mr Speaker: We will move to topical questions. Budget: Health and Social Care Pay Award T1. Mr McGrath asked the Minister of Health, given that all eyes will be on this week's Budget in London and considering that over half of the Budget here is spent on health and that we already see that £100 million has to be taken from next year's budget to pay our beleaguered staff what they are owed, what the Minister will have to cut to pay for that. (AQT 1811/22-27) Mr Nesbitt: I understand the Member's question, but, first of all, we do not know what is in the Budget. We will find out on Wednesday, and we will then move rapidly, led by the Minister of Finance, to assess the implications of the Budget for the Northern Ireland Executive. The Member asked about pay pressures and next year's budget. To be clear, I have not asked the Executive to overspend and dip into next year's Budget; I have asked them to endorse the ministerial direction that I gave some months ago to pay the health workforce. That is happening, but it creates a pressure of, I believe, £208·7 million — let us call it £209 million. I am being promised up to £100 million from December monitoring — "up to". That leaves potentially at least £109 million to be found. We have not finished trying to find savings this year. We will continue to try to find savings until 31 March, but it is reasonable to assume that, when we get to 31 March, we will not have balanced our budget. That is a serious thing. I never wanted to stand here as a Minister and preside over a budget that is broken. However, it is better that we pay the doctors, nurses and the allied health professionals in our workforce, and that is what we are doing. Mr McGrath: Thank you. Absolutely, we need to pay our staff, but, if the budget books are not balanced, if we have had to slash the money that was being made available for waiting lists to deal with that and if we go into next year's budget with trusts that are pared back to the bone and will probably struggle to find any more savings, how perilous will our health service be? Mr Nesbitt: It will be perilous if we do not reform, but the permanent secretary and I are determined to finally begin that long-awaited, almost fabled shift left. We are now engaging with stakeholders. Earlier today, I met the Eastern GP Federation Support Unit, which, as you know, is a group that oversees a large number of GP practices. That is the third such meeting that I have had. There is an appetite there to go to that neighbourhood model, and, if you go to the neighbourhood model, you will put a focus on prevention to keep people healthy and early intervention when they start to get sick. If you can do that effectively, the number of high-cost procedures being carried out in our acute hospitals should start to come down, and, as they come down, that will release money and start a flow. I share the Member's concern about next year's budget, but we do not yet know where we will end up this year, we do not yet know what next year's budget will be and we do not yet know how quickly we will be able to roll out the neighbourhood model. I hope that everybody is on the starting line for 1 April. For some processes, it will be a 100-metre sprint, but others will be doing a 5K or a 10K. Who knows? Some might even be doing the marathon to get there. Domiciliary Care: Living Wage T2. Miss McAllister asked the Minister of Health for clarity on the number or percentage of independent home care providers who will not receive the living wage, given that he said in his previous answer that healthcare staff are important and named nurses, doctors and healthcare workers but it is the case that domiciliary care workers and home care providers are also essential to the running of our health service, as he would agree, and he made the decision not to give them a living wage. (AQT 1812/22-27) Mr Nesbitt: I have said that I am no longer able to fulfil my commitment to provide a real living wage from 1 September last. I remain committed to providing it as soon as possible. There is no point in me saying, "Here is a new date", because who would believe it when the last date was broken? I have had several briefings and have heard Ms Shepherd from the Independent Health and Care Providers contest what I told the Committee last week. Therefore, I have asked for a solid report on that. I have also invited Pauline Shepherd to discuss it with me, and that meeting will happen on Wednesday. Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for being transparent, and I welcome the fact that he has asked for a report on the issue. Minister, last week, at the Health Committee, you said that 70% were already in receipt of the real living wage. We have now heard through the media that over 80% are not in receipt of it. The question now is this: did you make the decision on the basis of knowledge of those facts? Given what you said at the Committee last week, were you not aware that 70% were not getting the living wage when you made the decision not to pursue the living wage from September? Mr Nesbitt: I made the decision to offer the real living wage from 1 September some months ago. It was on foot of discussions with officials. It is so long ago that Peter May was permanent secretary; it was a while ago. I wanted to do it, and I was told at the time that it was possible. At that time, I think, we were projecting pay awards of 2·8%: they turned out to be 3·6% and 4%, and that played into the unaffordability of going for the real living wage from 1 September. At the time that I committed to the real living wage, I was unaware of what percentage, if any, of social care staff were being paid the real living wage by their employers. Cancer Waiting Times T4. Mr K Buchanan asked the Minister of Health, given that only 33% of cancer patients have their treatment started within the 62-day target, whether he will produce a specific action plan designed to stabilise cancer waiting times. (AQT 1814/22-27) Mr Nesbitt: The short answer to that is yes. It is a matter of huge regret to me that this is happening, because it obviously impacts on outcomes for patients. When I first stood in the House as Minister, I said that cancer, along with mental health and a couple of other issues, would be my main areas of focus during my time as Minister. The Member will know that we have moved to a regional booking slot for assessments that introduces a regional standardised service. It is far too slow. That point is made forcefully by Members of the House, and I accept it. However, we are bringing down waiting times, and we will continue to do so. The next phase is about diagnosis and treatment and trying to get a lot closer to the 62-day target. I am talking to experts in that field, and they are coming up with really interesting and solid ideas. Mr K Buchanan: I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, in May 2025, you initiated the regional breast cancer assessment system to reduce times. When do you envisage that that will meet the 14-day target? Mr Nesbitt: I understand why the Member wants a date, but I cannot give him one, because such things depend on a huge number of factors. When I say that they depend on the workforce, it is not about productivity; it is about the workforce staying healthy and, perhaps, going off on maternity leave. There are, therefore, factors that are beyond the control of the Department or any of the five geographically defined health and social care trusts. Let me assure the Member, however, that there is no lack of effort from the workforce, no lack of focus from the trusts and no lack of determination from the Minister. Redwood Children's Home T5. Mr Mathison asked the Minister of Health to provide an update on the repurposing of Redwood Children's Home for longer-term placements for young people with learning disabilities? (AQT 1815/22-27) Mr Nesbitt: The Member can keep me right on this, but, as I understand it, the issue at Redwood was with a staircase. I am not aware of whether the works there have been completed. To make a general point, I am sure that the Member is aware that the use of such institutions and buildings is really fragile. If one young person with severe learning difficulties appears unexpectedly and in a way that is, from our point of view, unplanned, it can have a profound effect on our ability to provide residential and short-break care across the piece. Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for his answer. I do not dispute the fragility of those services. My understanding is that Redwood was due to be ready for use in September. That was the target that the Department suggested. Does the Minister agree that, when families who desperately need such provision see those deadlines pass, it erodes trust and hope? What commitment can he give to the Assembly that the repurposing will be delivered without further delay? Mr Nesbitt: I certainly agree with the first half: I have met some of the mothers on a not infrequent basis — certainly more than once — and I get it. I also get their frustration that, although there is money available for short breaks, it is in our resource budget and cannot be used for capital. Quite rightly, they do not understand that, because they are mums who are running households. They have money, and they make choices with that money. They may decide that they are not going to spend so much on food in a particular week because they need the money for their children's clothing or school uniforms. They do not have the solid walls between their budgets for food, electricity, heating, clothing and transport that we tend to have between capital and resource. That is very much part of the frustration that I have discussed with them in some detail. Ovarian Cancer: Awareness T6. Mr Martin asked the Minister of Health what his Department is doing to raise awareness of ovarian cancer and support earlier presentation by women who are at risk of the disease. (AQT 1816/22-27) Mr Nesbitt: That falls to the Public Health Agency (PHA). I assure the Member that it is particularly aware of the issue and the fact that there is a false belief among many that a test for cervical cancer will reveal ovarian cancer: it will not. The one thing that the PHA is not doing is paid-for advertising, which is a reflection of the tightness of the Department of Health's budget. Mr Martin: I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, tragically, my constituent Stephen McCormick lost his beloved wife, Julie, to ovarian cancer. It took two and a half years to diagnose that that is what her symptoms were due to, and she died within one year of diagnosis. However, once she had been diagnosed, the service was exceptional. Ovarian cancer charities and survivors have highlighted the delays in diagnosis and the limited public awareness that exists. Minister, what consideration have you given to shortening the diagnostic pathway for ovarian cancer in order to address delays? Mr Nesbitt: As a general rule, I ask officials to shorten every pathway to diagnosis and treatment. I pay tribute to Mr McCormick, who is on my social media daily. He is welcome to use my social media to raise awareness. I am very sorry that he lost his wife. It is a common theme that, once they get into the health and social care system, people say that they receive first-class treatment, so please do not say that the system is broken. What is badly damaged, however, are the pathways by which people access that world-class treatment. Addressing that issue will remain a focus of mine until I am no longer the Minister of Health. Top 3.30 pm Question for Urgent Oral Answer Education Supreme Court Judgement on Christian Religious Education and Collective Worship Mr Speaker: Timothy Gaston has given notice of a question for urgent oral answer to the Minister of Education. Mr Gaston asked the Minister of Education, in light of the Supreme Court judgement in the matter of an application by JR87 and another for judicial review (appellant), to outline the action that he will take to protect the Christian ethos of schools and ensure that every child continues to receive instruction rooted in the Christian faith. Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): Last week, the UK Supreme Court delivered a significant legal decision on religious education and collective worship in Northern Ireland. I will consider the judgement in full before determining any essential remedies that respect the law and safeguard the role of religion in education. The judgement focuses on religious education that is taught as part of the school curriculum and on collective worship that is held in schools, mainly through assemblies and services. The court held that arrangements for religious education and collective worship in this case breached rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. It further determined that the core syllabus for religious education does not provide teaching in an objective, critical and pluralist manner and that collective worship is similarly not conveyed in such a way. The court did not strike down the existing legislation, however. Religious education and collective worship can therefore continue in schools, and they are legally required to. Indeed, there is a legal obligation that they must continue. Article 21(2) of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 provides: "In a controlled school, other than a controlled integrated school, the religious education required by paragraph (1) shall be undenominational religious education, that is to say, education based upon the Holy Scriptures according to some authoritative version or versions thereof but excluding education as to any tenet distinctive of any particular religious denomination and the collective worship required by paragraph (1) in any such school shall not be distinctive of any particular religious denomination." The case is not about whether Christianity should be the main or primary faith that pupils learn about in schools in Northern Ireland. Historically and today, Christianity is the main religion in Northern Ireland. Furthermore, the court has explained that it is within the Department's margin of appreciation in planning and setting the curriculum for the greater part of religious education to focus on knowledge of Christianity. This is a complex judgement that cannot be ignored. It is important, however, to understand fully the issues before acting. I have requested further legal advice in order to understand the judgement's full implications and will issue comprehensive guidance to schools on both issues in the coming weeks to ensure consistency and legal compliance. I will write to schools within the next few days on the matter. Mr Gaston: I thank the Minister for his clear answer to the House. Minister, do you agree that the judgement is a clear case of judicial overreach and that there are numerous countries that have signed up to the ECHR whose RE curriculum is expressly Christian, such as Poland? Regardless of precedents, does the Minister also agree that this is another good reason for the whole of the UK to quit the ECHR? Mr Givan: I will respect the decision that the UK Supreme Court has taken. A different decision was taken by the Court of Appeal, but the Supreme Court is exactly that: the supreme court in the land. The Member rightly makes a point about the wider European Convention on Human Rights and its implications. It would be interesting to see what the outcome would have been if the case had gone to the European Court of Human Rights. Having looked at some other European countries and the way in which they operate, I think that we can draw parallels with other European countries that would be in defence of the system that we have in Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, I will work through what is a complex judgement. I have clearly articulated that the underpinning legislation was not struck down as a result of the judgement. I have outlined the basis on which the law exists in Northern Ireland, and I will seek to provide a remedy to the court judgement that is in line with the law. It is important to state that it is as a result of devolution that I am able to deal with the issue — imagine if it had been a direct rule Minister or a Minister from another political party in the Chamber. However, it is not; it is a Minister from the Democratic Unionist Party who will respond to the judgement and ensure that our Christian ethos in our schools is maintained. Some Members: Hear, hear. Mr Burrows: I will raise an issue that is difficult, but I will try to do so in a sensitive way. This is in no way prejudicial to the vast majority of people who follow Islam, but there have been examples of Islamic preachers who have preached hatred and extremism or for the subservience of women under men. Will any steps be taken to ensure that any religion that is coming into our schools and being preached by someone or explained to our pupils is not inconsistent with our values, which are that women are not subservient to men and have full equal rights in our society? Mr Givan: Our approach will involve the responsibility of looking at the core syllabus on religious education in the curriculum. The responsibility rests with me to establish the appropriate panel on which there are persons of interest related to religious education. That, historically, has meant people from the four main denominations: three Protestant; and one Catholic. I will get advice from my Department in due course and move forward with appointing an appropriate body that will look at the curriculum. That will then be subject to public consultation, and I will lay an order on the process for what the curriculum looks like. Where collective worship is concerned, it is clear from the judgement that Christianity can, and will, continue to be the primary religion that shapes the ethos of our schools. There is a valid issue for the inspectorate when it comes to how we inspect what is being taught in the curriculum and how collective worship operates. Again, I will take advice from officials on how we can seek to enhance the inspection process. I cannot envisage how the example that the Member highlighted could happen in Northern Ireland. It is certainly not something that I would support, nor do I think that there are schools that would support it. The judgement does not create the opportunity for it. It is important to state that there are those who have sought to frame the judgement in a way that suits their own particular objective, which often comes from an overtly hostile position towards the Christian ethos. Miss McIlveen: Parents, teachers and governors are, naturally, concerned by the judgement and by the contribution from the Alliance Party's Chair of the Education Committee, who seemed to suggest that witchcraft and paganism could be taught in our schools. That was very unhelpful. I ask the Minister for his thoughts on that and to outline the Department's role in the creation of a new curriculum. Mr Givan: The Member is right. Hopefully, no one in the Chamber will seek to cast a spell on me. I have the quotes of what was said on 'The Nolan Show', and I may refer to them in these exchanges. When the Chairman of the Education Committee was asked about the teaching of witchcraft and paganism, he did not rule it out. Mr Tennyson: Catch yourself on. Mr Givan: I understand why the deputy leader of the Alliance Party wants to laugh that off. It is no laughing matter for a lot of parents in Northern Ireland that the Alliance Party is not able to rule that out. It demonstrates the underlying hostility that exists towards the Christian ethos in our schools. The role of the Department in the creation of the curriculum is set out clearly in article 11(1) of the Education (Northern Ireland) Order 2006, which states: "Subject to paragraph (2), the Department may by order specify a core syllabus for the teaching of religious education in grant-aided schools". However, article 11(2) includes a requirement that the syllabus: "was prepared by a group of persons ... appearing to the Department to be persons having an interest in the teaching of religious education in grant-aided schools". Therefore, I will have to sign off on any syllabus before it becomes law. I will appoint the appropriate persons, who have an interest in the teaching of religious education. They will carry out the work of reviewing the curriculum, and that will then be subject to a public consultation. Mr Mathison: For anybody who has been kept awake at night worrying about whether the Alliance Party supports the teaching of witchcraft in RE or, indeed, in collective worship: if that has been something that has been causing you concern, I can clearly put it on the record that it does not. [Interruption.] On the issue at hand, the Minister has already highlighted the role of the inspectorate in RE and that it does not have a formal role in Northern Ireland. Given the attention now being placed on those issues, will the Minister commit to reviewing that anomaly and move us into a space where RE can be formally and routinely inspected in our schools? Mr Givan: It is helpful that we have been able to shine a light on what the initial response of Alliance was to the judgement. The Chairperson of the Education Committee has now helpfully clarified that he does not want to have witchcraft or paganism being taught in our schools. I wish he had done so when asked by Stephen Nolan: "Do you think witchcraft should be taught in a school or not?", Mr Mathison replied: "I am not speaking to you as a theologian, nor do I have any strongly held views around paganism or witchcraft". Well, I am glad now that he has expressed a view that is strong: he does not support witchcraft or paganism. We could have avoided some of the commentary that took place afterwards had he been clearer on that particular programme. On the substantive point, when it comes to the inspectorate, as the law currently pertains, the four main Churches are involved in setting the curriculum under the law. They are also responsible for carrying out inspections when it comes to the teaching of religious education in our schools. I am not convinced that that has been carried out effectively over the years, and the court has drawn upon the area of a more effective inspection process. I would need to engage on what that would look like, because, obviously, where the four main Churches have a role in the curriculum, and will continue to do so, there needs to be a role in how that inspection process will be carried out. I do not have a predetermined view as to how ETI, for example, could incorporate that work within its functions. I will have to look at that because the legislation currently does not allow for the ETI to carry out inspection of religious education because of the distinct way in which the law is framed in respect of the Churches and their role in forming the curriculum and then inspecting on it. That is something that I will certainly look at over the course of the next weeks and months. Mrs Mason: Minister, there has obviously been a lot of coverage of this, but there has been no guidance from your Department for schools and boards of governors. Will you give them the guidance that they need to ensure that they are compliant with the legal ruling and give them the confidence that they are doing things right? Mr Givan: Yes, I will. I intend to write to school leaders in the next number of days on the next steps. The courts will be understanding that it will be reasonable for us to be able to fully assess how we can comply with and provide a remedy to that judgement. I have sought further legal advice on that, and we are working through the various remedies that may be reflective of the changes that could be necessary. I have made it clear that the law has not been struck down: it is still there. That pertains to the current teaching of the curriculum and collective worship. Indeed, it would be unlawful for any school to stop collective worship as a result of that UK Supreme Court judgement, because the law has not been struck down. Therefore, schools should continue with their current practice, but, obviously, we will work through the various outworkings of the judgement, and I will provide guidance to schools within a number of weeks. I intend to give them a clear view on it in within the next number of days, and that will be followed by guidance. Top 3.45 pm When it comes to the broader piece around the curriculum, I intend to take forward a review of the curriculum in line with the judgement when it comes to RE. It will take a number of months to set up the body, carry out the work of the review and put in place a framework for religious education in the curriculum. Then we will want to carry out a public consultation to seek the views of everyone in society, including those who are hostile to religious education. Those people should be able to engage in that public consultation. The responses will, ultimately, come to the Department before I sign off on the legislative approach, by way of an order, around the syllabus. Ms Hunter: Minister, I have engaged with parents with a faith and without faith, and it is clear that it is not impossible to ensure that our curriculum provides a balanced and inclusive education for all our children, while also allowing schools to fulfil their Christian ethos where they have one. Will the Minister commit, today and henceforth, to approaching the issue with pragmatism and with the common good in mind for all our children? Mr Givan: Pragmatism and common good, yes, very much so. I have listened to the voices that have been expressed over the past week on the issue. I understand that the judgement related to one specific school and the approach that it had taken, by way of the ability to opt out and withdraw. We need to look at what a meaningful withdrawal is if parents choose that they do not want their children to participate in collective worship. How do you ensure that there is an effective withdrawal process? What the judgement does not say is that you need to change the Christian approach to collective worship. It does not say that. We will look through all of this with a pragmatic view to the approach, but I also say to Members that a lot of the religious denominations have not reacted negatively, per se, to the judgement. They welcome the opportunity to look at the curriculum. Indeed, in its intervention to the UK Supreme Court, the Transferor Representatives’ Council (TRC), which is the representative body for a lot of the Protestant denominations, said that it would welcome the opportunity to review the curriculum. I have listened to the Catholic Church, which has said that it welcomes the opportunity to engage in the process, including in the 'Irish News' today, saying that the Catholic Church has a very clear position that it believes that its cultural Christian Catholic ethos should be retained, protected and promoted within the Catholic maintained sector. I can understand that approach. It is in line with the convention rights for parents to bring their children up within the ethos of the school that they wish. All those things are complex, but they need to be handled sensitively, and I will certainly do that. Mr Martin: I thank the Minister for making clear that he will protect the Christian ethos of our schools in Northern Ireland, which, in my view, is a strength of our schools and not a weakness. He will know that a number of principals are concerned about JR87. He has referenced the guidance that his Department is going to issue. Will the Minister advise whether that guidance will cover the curriculum and collective worship aspects? Mr Givan: It will. I will write to schools within the next number of days — my sign-off on the letter to schools is imminent. We will provide guidance. My intention is to do that before the end of this calendar year, by way of interim guidance as to the approaches that we should seek to take, but there is more work to be done on the wider core syllabus when it comes to the curriculum around religious education. That will take more time to do with the processes that need to be set up. Mrs Guy: Minister, in your initial response to the judgement, for some reason, you thought to define the Alliance Party's view instead of just focusing on the impact on schools. For accuracy, my party is made up of people of deep faith and those without, which is reflective of wider society in Northern Ireland today. We believe that Christianity and religious education absolutely have a role in schools, but as the judgement says —. Mr Speaker: Mrs Guy, this is an opportunity for questions, not statements. Mrs Guy: My question is coming now. As the judgement says, it needs to be objective, critical and pluralistic, essentially welcoming to all children. Is that a vision for education in schools that the Minister disagrees with? Mr Givan: I have outlined the approach that we will take, and I think that it is important again to make clear that the judgement did not say that there should not be a Christian ethos within our schools. Indeed, it said that that can and should continue to be the primary ethos in our schools. That has been misrepresented by other organisations. Mrs Guy: Not by us. Mr Givan: Well, I am pleased that the Alliance Party now wants to clarify its position. It should not have taken the confusion around witchcraft and paganism for the party to have to do so today. Others will be able to draw their own conclusions about the Alliance Party's social policies and approaches to education. I know where Alliance is on those issues, and the vast majority of people know where it sits on them. That is why, in public commentary, different views are expressed by MLAs who want to be able to withdraw and give parents the right to withdraw from those activities. Michelle Guy has made her point, and I have outlined how we will comply with the Supreme Court judgement in respect of the points that have been made. It will be complied with in line with the legislation. The legislation was not struck down as a result of the court judgement. Mr Harvey: Minister, in recent days, some schools have been unsure about whether they have been acting lawfully by continuing with school assemblies. Can you confirm that teachers can continue with assemblies and that they are within the law in doing so? Mr Givan: I very much confirm that schools can continue with their collective worship and assemblies. Indeed, it would be unlawful for schools to stop collective worship and assemblies from taking place, because the law has not been struck down. If any school has been contemplating doing that, they should not, because that would be unlawful and would rightly be challenged by any parent of that school. In the controlled sector in particular, there is legislative underpinning for collective worship, and there are distinct legal approaches around it. When it comes to the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS), boards of governors have greater responsibility for such matters, but, for controlled schools, it is the legislation, not boards of governors, that underpins collective worship. Governors have to comply with the law in that respect. Now that the matter has been given greater public awareness, some parents will ask how often collective worship takes place in their school, what its nature is and whether it reflects the legislative underpinning that states that it ought to be from a Christian ethos. The issues are being debated much more widely among the public, and there will be much greater interest in the way in which schools operate. As Education Minister, I say to all our schools that they should comply with the law, and the law is that collective worship should continue. Miss McAllister: Minister, I welcomed the judgement. My child's rights are of equal value to your child's rights or anyone else's. Many faith groups have welcomed the judgement, and so have those of no faith. Now that the judgement has been made, will you confirm whether you will meet groups such as Parents for Inclusive Education NI to discuss and lay out a way forward for those voices to be included in the new guidance? Will the interim guidance also include the issue of opting out not being sufficient for children, on which the judgement focused heavily? Mr Givan: A parent's right to opt their child out of collective worship should not, nor will it, trump the rights of the overwhelming majority of parents to have their children engage in collective worship in a Christian ethos. Members and parents are entitled to their individual position on the matter, but the judgement does not require that one parent's right to opt out their child should mean that there is no form of collective worship from a Christian perspective in a school. As I take forward the approach on this, it will be for me to appoint persons of interest who will look at the issue and review the curriculum. They will carry out their work, and there will then be an opportunity by way of public consultation for everybody, including atheists, humanists and those who have a different approach, to feed into that process. They will be able to do that through the public consultation, and I will welcome their input to it. That will be reflected on and considered. The curriculum will then be finalised, and we will follow due process when it comes to my responsibilities on the matter. Mr Chambers: The legal challenge has been ongoing for a number of years. Will the Minister confirm that his Department has had to detail considerable resource and funding to the case that could have been better deployed elsewhere? Mr Givan: Yes, the process has been going on for a number of years, at considerable expense to the taxpayer. The costs have not yet been finalised, but the Department has had to set aside a significant amount of money — hundreds of thousands of pounds — for the legal costs associated with the case. That is funding that will be spent not on parts of our education sector but on meeting those legal costs. The final figure is yet to crystallise. Mr O'Toole: Minister, with respect, there appears to be a bit of a Jekyll and Hyde thing going on with you today. There is a bit of a devil on your shoulder. On one shoulder, there is a Minister who wants to respond pragmatically and sensitively to a judgement, and, on the other shoulder, there is a person who wants to talk about witchcraft and bait people from different perspectives. In proceeding, for once and genuinely with goodwill, can you not listen to the devil on your shoulder and instead listen to whomever is residing on the other shoulder? Mr Givan: I will respond to Members when they put forward their positions, but when one's position on the matter is confused — I am not yet clear on the SDLP's position — it is only right that we try to get some clarity. I do not think that anybody will be able to second-guess the approach that I will take on this matter. However, when other Members are not able to answer very basic questions about paganism and witchcraft, we should ask those questions. Alliance has now provided clarity and said that it does not regard those as belief systems that should be taught in our education system. The whole situation could have been avoided entirely had it answered those questions only last week. Mr Middleton: I thank the Minister for his response and his intention to write to schools over the coming days. There are also many parents who would like clarity. Minister, what reassurance can you give to parents from faith backgrounds who fear that the judgement will dilute the Christian ethos in our schools? Mr Givan: I thank the Member for his question. The case was, very clearly, not about secularism in our education system. The court has clearly stated that religious education may be provided in schools. Nor was the case about whether Christianity should be the main or primary faith that pupils learn about in schools in Northern Ireland. The court has explained that the greater part of religious education may focus on knowledge of Christianity and that the Department retains responsibility for setting and planning the curriculum for religious education. We will continue to comply with the law, but we will do so in a way that preserves the values that have underpinned our education system for many years. Mr Tennyson: I am resisting the urge to cast a spell across the Chamber. I know that the Minister is very keen to bait the Alliance Party, but the wee graphic that was floating around of me dressed as Harry Potter made me laugh. That is probably the best thing that the DUP has done for the Alliance Party in quite a long time. On the matter at hand, given the strength of the views that the Minister and members of his party have expressed on the issue, does he regard it as being significant and controversial? Mr Givan: We will comply with the law in that respect. The legal framework that exists around this is very simple for Members to follow. The process that we have to take forward sits entirely with the Department, so I will continue to take that forward. My view that the Christian ethos is the primary faith that should be reflected in our education system is not an outlier. My thinking is entirely representative of mainstream thinking in Northern Ireland on that. It is Mr Tennyson's party that is out of step with where people in Northern Ireland are on such issues, not me. Mr Kingston: Will the Minister confirm that schools should continue to plan for and hold nativity plays, as many do at this time of year? Top 4.00 pm Mr Givan: Yes, they absolutely should. I heard a bit of chuckling at the question. We have parents contacting schools and demanding that nativity plays be cancelled, not just in light of the Supreme Court judgement. It has been happening for years. There are parents who are vocal and active about saying that we should not have things as minimal as nativity plays in schools. The Member asks a valid question and one on which principals have reached out to my Department and other organisations for advice. I can give him a categorical answer: nativity plays can continue to take place in our schools. Mr Speaker: That brings the item of business to a conclusion. I ask Members to take their ease while we change the top Table. (Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair) Private Members' Business Ireland and Northern Ireland — A Joint Census Publication 2021-2022 Debate resumed on amendment No 1 to motion: That this Assembly welcomes the Ireland and Northern Ireland: A joint census publication 2021-2022, which provides analysis across a range of topics in areas such as demographics, households, religion, ethnicity, place of birth, health, economic status, education and housing; notes that, according to the joint census publication, the island's population, while growing to 7·1 million, the largest level since 1851, remains below pre-famine population levels; further notes the findings in relation to the all-island economy, whereby over 18,000 workers travel both ways across the border for work on a daily basis; recognises that joint census publications can help to identify shared challenges and opportunities for policy and decision-making; and calls on Departments to take stock of those findings. — [Ms Sheerin.] Which amendment was: Leave out all after "housing;" and insert: "notes with concern that Northern Ireland lags behind the Republic of Ireland in several key areas, including lower population growth, poorer reported health outcomes and a significantly higher burden of unpaid care; believes that those disparities are in large part caused by the failure of the Executive to deliver better economic, health and social outcomes; acknowledges that addressing those gaps can be helped through strengthened cooperation with the Irish Government; and calls on all Departments to take stock of those findings and to work in structured partnership with counterparts in the Irish Government to produce and implement clear plans that help close the gaps between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland in key areas." — [Mr O'Toole.] Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Matthew O'Toole. Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Do I have five or 10 minutes? Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: You have 10 minutes. Mr O'Toole: God or, in light of the previous business, whatever entity one refers to help all of you. I will not take all 10 minutes. This is an interesting subject for debate. There is a new census publication that looks at demographics on a cross-border basis. It is hugely useful, and it is important. It comes at the same time as a number of organisations are looking academically at the ways in which there is potential for greater economic growth, partnership and interdependence across the island of Ireland, as well as at the ways in which public services can be better and more appropriately delivered on a cross-border basis. We can all list examples of where the existence of the border, at least in a hard sense, is a distortion of the delivery of public services. One obvious way relates to healthcare. For example, we have a brilliant and still relatively new healthcare facility in the form of the South West Acute Hospital (SWAH) in Enniskillen. It is criminally underused, however, despite the huge public investment that went into it and the state-of-the-art theatres that are sitting there. Part of the reason for that is that, in large measure, citizens who live in Leitrim, Cavan, Monaghan, south Donegal and north Sligo are not using its facilities, except in unusual circumstances, because they cannot. That is one of the distortions created by the border. It is therefore welcome that we are looking at the joint census publication. Even if you are not a designated nationalist or someone who believes in constitutional change, it is important that we understand the ways in which the different outcomes are being looked at in the joint census. If you are as geeky as I am and are interested in demography or genealogy, you can, of course, go online to the Irish public records office and look at the census records for 1901 and 1911. They are among the greatest historical records that exist for pre-partition Ireland. You can find your family entry. It is broken down by townland, and it is all-island, so it is 32-county. In one sense, all that we are doing is rediscovering and recapturing the kind of data gathering that happened on the island before partition. Whether or not you have a view on the constitution that relates to reunifying the island, that is a positive step. Our amendment seeks to be more specific than the motion's theoretical positivity about simply gathering the data, so it looks with more focus at why you would want to gather it. Part of the reason why you would want to gather the data is not mentioned in the motion, and that is the fact that outcomes in most areas are so much better in the South than in the North. That is also one of the sharpest and most important reasons why, bluntly, many people are considering constitutional change and a new Ireland that is back inside the European Union. My party and I are completely unabashed in talking about that in the most optimistic and inclusive way that we can, because we think that the huge project for this generation and the next is to build a more empowered, inclusive, post-sectarian new Ireland. Our amendment makes it clear not just that gathering the data is a good thing but that Northern Ireland lags behind the Republic in the most critical areas. The North now lags several years behind the South not just in health outcomes but in life expectancy. We know that, when Ireland was partitioned, this was the most industrialised and richest part of the island. That was one of the reasons for the momentum behind the anti-home rule movement and the movement to create what became Northern Ireland. Since then, however, and certainly in the past few decades, we have completely changed positions. The South has raced ahead of us in economic performance, education and life expectancy. I do not say that to carp or crow but simply to say that those are the facts. Gathering the census data will demonstrate the many ways in which the gap in performance between the two parts of the island has widened. It is also true, as, I think, Emma Sheerin said in proposing the motion, that performance, whether it is measured in economic, employment or educational outcomes, tends to be worse in the areas that are closest to the border. The border counties have historically been the slowest-growing parts of both jurisdictions. That is one reason why, whatever your view on the constitutional future, those areas should continue to be primary and priority recipients of Peace funding. We do not want the census document just to be noted; as per our amendment, we want Departments to take active and proactive steps to use the information to find ways in which greater cross-border collaboration can be used to improve outcomes for the people who send us here. Once again, I say that without prejudice to the constitutional future. My party and I are clear that the best possible future for Northern Ireland and the whole island of Ireland is in a new Ireland without a border. However, I recognise that people have an equally legitimate aspiration to maintain the status quo. I want those people to embrace the potential for greater cross-border cooperation to drive better outcomes for people in the same way as I will champion and work in east-west and, as it were, UK and islands-wide collaboration that drives better outcomes for our people, regardless of the fact that I have a different constitutional aspiration. We cannot avoid the clear fact that is before us, which is that the South has raced ahead of the North on performance. I will give one reason why, perhaps, that is not in the motion. It is sometimes respectfully put to me that my party is not a 32-county party in the same way as Sinn Féin is. That is fine; it is a legitimate point. Sinn Féin has a particular analysis of many of the flaws of the Government in the South — there are many legitimate criticisms of them — but it is important that we acknowledge and say here that the Republic of Ireland has been, in broad terms, an astonishing success story since the 1980s. There are real challenges, particularly the distribution of wealth and the housing crisis, but, as advocates of a new Ireland, we would be kidding ourselves if we did not point to the many ways in which the South has transformed itself. It has gone from being probably western Europe's poorest country to being, per head of population, its richest. The next step, of course, is the need for it to become rich not only in theoretical terms or GDP statistics but in broader-based and more sustainable growth throughout the island and all the communities on it. I hope that, at some point, that will include people in this jurisdiction, as we choose a new future. However, in the meantime, we want all Executive Departments not just to note the census data but to work with it to actively find ways that they can use it to drive better performance. I mentioned health. I agree with the Education Minister on very little — I put my name to a no-confidence motion in him a fortnight ago, so I can hardly be said to be at the top of his Christmas card list — but I acknowledge that he is working with the Shared Island unit to drive better outcomes for working-class kids in the North. That is one of the areas for which he is drawing down funding. That is an example of cross-border collaboration. I welcome that, and it does not threaten his constitutional perspective. My gosh, if ever there were an area where we need more cross-border collaboration, it is in relation to the environment, not just because we share an ecosystem on the island but because of the protocol, the Windsor framework and the fact that we have an all-island animal health system. We share waterways, so the zebra mussels that are invasive and are damaging Lough Neagh have come up via the Shannon and the Erne, and our model of land ownership and small farming is cross-border because it predates partition. All those things inform the way in which we make public policy. Our amendment to today's motion is a constructive one. I am sometimes accused of not being constructive. I am never accused of being concise, but I have tried my best today, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Our amendment today is constructive. It is about acknowledging that the South has outperformed us, bluntly, in innumerable ways over the past decade or two. It is about mandating Executive Ministers to look positively at ways in which they can embrace cross-border collaboration and the information that will be in the joint census without prejudice to their constitutional view to build a better future for all of us in this society, whatever our constitutional view or identity, and to move beyond the barriers of partition, even if we do not share that constitutional aspiration. Mr Beattie: I beg to move amendment No 2: Leave out all after "population levels" and insert: "but well above the lowest ever population levels that were recorded in 1961, which were only lower than the all-island low of 1926; further notes the findings in relation to the all-island economy whereby over 18,000 workers travel both ways across the border and a further 6,000 travel to Great Britain for work on a weekly and daily basis; recognises that joint census publications can help identify shared challenges and opportunities for policy and decision-making on these islands; and calls on the Minister for the Economy to take stock of how the flow of workers throughout these islands can benefit Northern Ireland’s economy." Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Assembly should note that the amendments are mutually exclusive, so, if amendment No 1 is made, the Question on amendment No 2 will not be put. Doug, you have 10 minutes to propose amendment No 2 and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes. Please open the debate on amendment No 2. Mr Beattie: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I will start by apologising for missing the very start of the debate and the moving of the motion and the contribution from Sinn Féin. It was just tardiness on my part. If I can be honest about it, having read the initial motion on the census, I genuinely struggled to see the point of it. Indeed, the SDLP amendment added some flesh to the bones of the motion, as did the contribution from Mr O'Toole, including an understanding of the east-west dimension, which I will mention. There is a bit of casual Brit-bashing in the middle of the motion, as if the whole issue of population decline were due to the famine. It was a time of great hardship, when all communities suffered, and those who represented these islands did not do their best to safeguard the people in Ireland. It is a period to be remembered and for the suffering to be understood, not minimised. I think that the motion minimises it, in truth. However, you can see from our amendment that the population of Ireland shrank even lower than the post-famine levels 100 years later: who or what was to blame for that? Research will tell you that it was due to mass migration in the 1950s. The population dropped to its lowest level ever in 1961. It was nothing to do with the famine. The migration was due to economic stagnation, lack of jobs in Ireland, the economic boom in post-war Great Britain and increased opportunities in the US and Canada. The population in Northern Ireland dropped as well, as the linen business and the shipyards contracted and people left the island to find work. The reality is that population ebbs and flows for many reasons, in the same way as it grew due to the Celtic tiger, for example, but it will drop for other reasons. I am not sure that looking back 150 years is helpful. It is lazy just to say that it was due to the famine. The movement of citizens on both sides of the border, and across the border, is positive for me and for everybody who lives and works on this island; nobody should see it as otherwise. Two jurisdictions, one island. It does not hamper the free movement of individuals each way, and nor does it hamper movement across all these islands. Top 4.15 pm Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way? Mr Beattie: Yes. Mr O'Toole: For the purposes of being constructive, there is now this thing called the electronic travel authorisation (ETA), which does hamper people, and 70% of the people who come to Northern Ireland arrive via Dublin airport, whether we like it or not. Mr Beattie: That will hamper our tourism, and we have talked about that. However, the Member has made a fair point, and it is a point that gets kicked up. It is bad decision-making, as far as I am concerned. There is a real positive from the common travel area, and it is something that we should all look at and support. The real positive in these British Isles is the trade with the United Kingdom, the largest single export market for Ireland, and Ireland is one of the UK's top six export destinations. I know that some will not like me calling it the British Isles, and I get that, but I have not moved to the Trumpian way of renaming places. It is still the Gulf of Mexico to me, not the Gulf of America, and we still live in the British Isles. The interchangeable agri-food industry, pharmaceuticals and tech are embedded in each other's supply chains, but, of course, Brexit has hampered that. We stood up against Brexit. We did not support it — it was a bad idea — but that is democracy for you, and we have to work through it. However, half a million Irish-born individuals now live in Great Britain. Over 100,000 British people live in the Irish Republic. It makes me wonder why they ever left the Union in the first place. Can we learn from that? Absolutely. Should we learn from it? Yes, of course. These islands are in an incredible position, given their geographical and, in large parts, common economic and cultural alignment. Ireland also benefits from the UK on defence and security, and it is not given begrudgingly; we work together right across these islands. It helps the United Kingdom to look after the western approaches and add a bit of support to Ireland's defence and security. It is not done selfishly; it benefits the UK, and we all need to understand that. On the SDLP amendment, sure: population growth, poor reported health outcomes and a significantly higher burden of unpaid care are all factual, but they are a snapshot in time. It was not like that 15 years ago; it may not be like that in 15 years. We need to keep working across these islands, east and west, north and south. Is it all the Executive's fault? If you want to go down the line of saying that everything that is wrong with this place is the Executive's fault, that did not just happen yesterday. That has been happening over many years, and the SDLP was part of the Executive for many years, so it cannot wash its hands and say it is all our fault and not take any responsibility. The issues that affect us on this island — north and south, east and west — whether you call yourself British or Irish, are caused by many things, including the geopolitical situation. World events, such as COVID and the collapse of our Government, have a real impact on this place. There are many reasons why Northern Ireland is in this situation, and there are many reasons why the Republic of Ireland is having a boom, but it never stays like that, because these things ebb and flow. The census is one great snapshot in time, but it does not give us all the answers; we need to keep working at it. I am happy to learn from the census data and work together to come up with something that is good for Northern Ireland to make it a better place for all its people, to allow the free movement, north and south, east and west. We must remember that, on a daily and weekly basis, about 6,000 people go from the island of Ireland to Great Britain, and that is the beauty of the common travel area that we have on these islands where we all live. All that we have to do now is harness that information and find out what is best for our people. For us, of course, when we look at it constitutionally, we want to stay in the United Kingdom. I wish that the Twenty-six would join us, but I understand that they do not want to, and that is fine. We can, however, look forward, in order to get through the harder times, to better times on the horizon. Ms Forsythe: As an accountant, I am well used to numbers and statistics. I fully appreciate the value of interrogating and using them in order to inform analysis and to strategise to make Northern Ireland achieve the best. As a representative of South Down, I understand the importance of gathering data on the economic behaviours of people in the border constituencies. The Belfast and St Andrews Agreements provided the appropriate political framework for cross-border relationships, enabling practical cooperation where it is mutually beneficial to our citizens, whilst respecting the principle of consent. Nothing in those provisions mandates or even leans towards the idea of a joint census publication. As unionists, however, we do not fear current demographics or data. The facts on the ground are that the communities that we represent and throughout Northern Ireland are unionist. The core purpose of any census is to harness population data in order to assist in the planning of future public services. The design, delivery and cost of those services to ordinary citizens in Northern Ireland is hugely different from those in the Irish Republic. The release of headline population statistics, even jointly, does not tell the full story. Numbers without full context can be misrepresented and sometimes dangerous. We would query whether the Department of Finance and the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) are going to show the same level of endeavour when it comes to comparing Northern Ireland's census data with other UK regions, particularly in our social and economic interconnectedness. Why would we want to obscure an understanding of Northern Ireland's specific needs and circumstances within the United Kingdom or the enormous contribution that the NHS and other UK-funded services make to the lives of our citizens by blending our census data with that of the Irish Republic? Ultimately, by consolidating data across both jurisdictions, the census could be manipulated to suggest trends or patterns that support the aspiration of breaking up the United Kingdom. It is time that Sinn Féin and the other parties on the opposite Benches began to focus their attention on dealing with the issues that face people in Northern Ireland, which they are elected here to do. The Sinn Féin Economy Minister stated that her priority was to protect the all-island economy, yet that is not her remit. Her responsibility should be to champion the interests of Northern Ireland's economy and its business community above all else. The motion appears to completely ignore the risks that are posed by an all-island economy. The Republic of Ireland is facing 20% tariffs, double the 10% tariffs facing the United Kingdom, but, because of the Northern Ireland protocol, which Sinn Féin championed, we risk being caught in the crossfire of a trade dispute between the EU and the United States. The work of the Assembly should be focused on tackling waiting lists, addressing the pressures that are facing our public services and delivering for the people of Northern Ireland. Instead, once again, we are spending our time dealing with this political point-scoring by Sinn Féin. Our economic prosperity is clearly overwhelmingly linked to our links to the UK internal market. That must remain the primary context for interpreting labour market and mobility statistics. Sinn Féin may view joint census publications as a Trojan horse for advancing all-island integration, but, in truth, the motion smacks of desperation. It is on the road to nowhere. Ms K Armstrong: OK, let us get back to what we are talking about here. Population statistics are not just things on a page; they are the story of who we are, how we live and how we plan for the future. The census is more than just numbers; it is the evidence that is supposed to guide our decisions on health, education, infrastructure and the environment. Without that, we would be navigating blind. So, those who say that they represent a point in time need to talk to the statisticians in our Departments who use those figures for 10 years. The census allows us to consider our labour force. The working-age population defines our productivity capacity, and participation rates shape our economic strength. Skills distribution reveals the gaps that we must fill. When we understand those dynamics, we can act to reduce unemployment, address shortages and strengthen productivity. Knowledge is power, and the census gives us that power. The motion welcomes the census as a tool, and, rightly so. The census tells us about the £12·5 billion in all-island trade. It talks about the fact that commuting has gone up 25% since COVID, which you would expect because nobody could move around during COVID. It talks about shared infrastructure — the single electricity market is one issue that needs to be sorted out for the future of housing — and the Windsor framework and the common travel area. It also talks about joint initiatives such as enterprise schemes, trade missions, tourism collaboration and so on. The message is clear: our island is growing, ageing and becoming ever more interconnected. The census confirms that. The evidence is there, and the challenge is ours. Northern Ireland must not be left behind. We need to make this place work. I have to be absolutely clear: accuracy matters. The census, whether we have it alongside an Irish census or a GB census, must reflect today's realities, not yesterday's divisions. When was the last time that we looked at our census and the questions in it? I know that the motion is for all the Executive Ministers, but I specifically ask the Minister of Finance what comparisons have been made with other censuses across these islands and whether questions will be updated to ensure alignment and that we have the evidence that we need to plan better for Northern Ireland's future? Finally, I must raise a point of frustration. The second religion question, which asks not only current affiliation but upbringing, is outdated. It is unnecessary, and it is misleading. It has been removed in England and Wales and Scotland, and it was removed in Ireland in 2016. It is an optional question and is, therefore, unreliable. If we are to be serious about fact-based evidence, let us remove questions that distort the picture of who we really are and put in questions that tell us more about the economy and the economic movements that we need in this place. The census is our mirror: it must show us clearly, not through the lens of the past. Let us use it to build policy on truth, not tradition; on evidence, not assumption; and on the future, not the Troubles. Therefore, will the Executive, particularly the Minister of Finance, because the census sits with him, remove the second religion question from the 2031 census? Let us be the same as all other parts of these islands. Mr Delargy: I welcome the motion and the joint census publication, because that work offers a clear and honest picture of Ireland as it is today. People, services and opportunities flow across our island every single day. The census shows the scale of that reality because, every day, 18,000 people move between the North and the South for work, to study and as part of their daily lives. Nowhere is that more evident than in my constituency in Derry and, indeed, right across the north-west, where people quite often move for employment and for study. Those people form the backbone of our healthcare service. I know that many healthcare workers come from Donegal to the North to work every day, particularly in Altnagelvin, and vice versa. Similarly, that is the case for teachers and other professions that are the backbone of our economy. Indeed, we rely on staff from Donegal communities such as Inishowen and Letterkenny, and those communities also depend on workers who travel from Derry and Tyrone. We are one labour market and one region, and we are one interconnected community. However, that cooperation goes far beyond employment. In further and higher education across the north-west, there are huge opportunities that are already being acted on by Ulster University, North West Regional College, Atlantic Technical University (ATU) and Donegal Education and Training Board (ETB) to address a lot of the skills deficits that we see, particularly in the census data, and to increase employability opportunities across our island. Together, they are building pathways that our region needs, not looking at the lines that are drawn on a map. I am working with my Sinn Féin colleagues in the South to try to promote that, because, as has been mentioned by most Members who have spoken, when we work better together, we can do so much more across our island. Top 4.30 pm The joint census tells us another story. It is a story that my generation and, indeed, the generations before know only too well: emigration. It is a story in which our young people are still packing their bags for Australia, Doha and Canada and taking with them their skills and the opportunities that they could create in our society. I have had many conversations with people in my constituency and beyond who will have an empty seat at the dinner table this Christmas. Our economy will be missing their skills. There are opportunities across the piece for them to be here to contribute to our society, our economy and, most important, our communities. Mr Beattie: I thank the Member for giving way. I agree with him on migration and people leaving these shores. Sometimes, though, it is a good thing that people leave to experience other countries and cultures and to get other skills. Does the Member agree that the issue is that we need to provide the opportunities to bring them back? Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute. Mr Delargy: The Member will be keen to hear the next paragraph or two of my speech, because they are about just that. So many young people go away for a short time to seek skills, to travel and to do other things. What I am most concerned about, however, is young people going away because they feel that there are no opportunities for them here, so I concur absolutely with what the Member said. My generation refused to consign themselves to the fate of previous generations, in which the census told the story that Ireland's biggest export was our people. My generation has not accepted that and will not accept it, so we need the skills and talents that those young people bring and the opportunities for them here in Ireland. Sinn Féin has a clear and concise plan for building that future and for building an economy with good jobs, fair pay and affordable housing and a society of equal rights and equal opportunities for people across Ireland. The joint census publication gives us the information that we need to plan for that future. It strengthens the work of cross-border bodies and supports smarter decisions in skills, healthcare, transport and economic development. It must be the beginning of regular coordinated data collection across Ireland. When we understand the reality of people's lives, we can better shape policies that meet that reality North and South, especially in the communities that bridge both. I commend the teams in the Central Statistics Office (CSO) and NISRA for their work. I fully support the motion, because it represents the cooperation that delivers for people today while helping build a better future. Mr Gaston: What we have before us is not an innocent or technical motion about census data but yet another example of the steady and relentless attempt to normalise an all-island policy framework within the workings of the devolved institutions. Let me be clear from the outset that the TUV will oppose the motion and the two amendments. The motion takes a joint census publication and turns it into a political manifesto. Rather than ground Northern Ireland's future in the United Kingdom, in our internal market, in our democratic structures and in our constitutional guarantee, the motion invites Departments "to take stock" of an all-island framing of social and economic life. Workers crossing the border is not a mandate for constitutional re-engineering. Commuter flows are not a justification for policy harmonisation. A spreadsheet should not be used as a stepping stone to the break-up of the Union, yet that is precisely how the motion seeks to deploy and use the data. Everywhere else in the motion we find the same coded language: "shared challenges", "all-island economy" and "joint census publications". It is not a statistical analysis but a political positioning designed to shift the centre of gravity away from the United Kingdom towards Dublin. We then come to the SDLP amendment, which frames Northern Ireland as lagging behind the Irish Republic. It invites "structured partnership" between Stormont Departments and the Government of a foreign state. It casts the Republic as the model and Northern Ireland as the poor relation that must catch up. It is not about economic fairness or balanced comparison; it is simply the latest repetition of the nationalist argument that the answer to everything is more alignment with Dublin. By the way, that does not say a great deal for these institutions, which, the SDLP says, it was so pivotal in delivering, does it? Why does the SDLP not look at the comparisons with England? In England, the median wait for referral for treatment across cancer pathways is 14·8 weeks. In the Irish Republic, however, studies have shown that there are postcode lottery variations, signalling longer and more uneven delays. It is not the Republic that we need to look to but the rest of the UK. If Northern Ireland is as bad as the SDLP says it is, it is because of these failing institutions, not the Union. Northern Ireland is not a province of the Irish Republic, and TUV will not support any amendment that suggests that it should be. The UUP amendment may use softer language, but it operates on exactly the same assumption. It still places Northern Ireland inside an all-island economic frame, and it still invites the Minister for the Economy to shape strategy around the dynamics of an all-island situation rather than the realities of the United Kingdom internal market. Neither amendment acknowledges the real barrier to our economic development: the fact that Northern Ireland is segregated and separated from its biggest market by a border within our own country. Neither amendment mentions the democratic affront of being subject to laws that we do not make and cannot change. Instead, the focus is on shaping Northern Ireland around the needs, ambitions and preferences of an all-island agenda. TUV has been consistent and unapologetic in telling the truth: Northern Ireland's prosperity will not be secured through deeper integration with the Republic. Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. It should be acknowledged today when we are having a debate about the census, that, not so long ago, Sinn Féin claimed that the census was a British tool for spying on nationalist areas of Northern Ireland. That was at the time when they murdered Joanne Mathers, a lady of 29 years of age who was collecting census data. That should be acknowledged here today. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute. Mr Gaston: I thank the Member for his intervention. It is, indeed, timely to put that on the record during the debate. Northern Ireland's integration and place in the Union will be secured only by restoring our full and equal place in the United Kingdom economically, constitutionally and democratically. Our future must be tied to the UK internal market, not to a political project that uses data to blur constitutional lines. I will finish by referring to Ms Armstrong's comment that the census is the "story of who we are". Are we part of the UK, or are we part of an all-Ireland? A joint census says an all-Ireland, so I look forward to seeing how the parties vote today. The Alliance Party always tries to distance itself from being a nationalist party, so I will look at how it and, indeed, the other unionist parties vote on the motion. Mr Honeyford: I do not know how to follow that, to be honest, but I will set out our place in sharing this island without the belief that we live in Kent or somewhere else. The joint census is about facts and giving us data to help us make better decisions for people's lives, our economy and our future. It is important data to help focus policy, and it shows that the island is more interconnected today than at any point in our recent history. However, it is still nowhere near as interconnected as it could be. Yes, over 18,000 people cross the border every day, but it has not been mentioned that, when you set that beside the fact that a population of 7·1 million people live on the island, it focuses on the work that is needed, because the potential for mobility and collaboration and shared economic opportunity is still massively underutilised. That figure of 18,000 is growing as the opportunities grow, but that growth is still far too slow. It is growing only because of businesses and workers and because families act in their own best interests. Our job as policymakers — this is also for the Executive — is to remove the barriers and to stop leaving people to navigate the issues on their own. Alliance believes that unlocking that potential requires constant attention, and that means breaking down obstacles, improving the infrastructure, aligning skills and qualifications and making it easier for people and businesses to operate across the island. It also means delivering on the full potential of dual market access and that bridge into European markets. For us in Northern Ireland, this is not something to fear. We have just heard five minutes of fear. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Six. Mr Honeyford: Six minutes of fear. It is not something to fear. I appreciate that Emma and Sinn Féin have framed the motion in terms of constitutional change and that that is what their party exists for. However, for me and Alliance, this is about building better opportunities for people now: building a shared future and sharing the island in a practical, economic and inclusive way. Sharing the island is something that we should use to create better opportunities for everybody through increased trade, better job opportunities and stronger skills, and it should be outside of any constitutional debate. An all-island labour market gives us access to skills that we do not have enough of and opportunities for our young people that we must keep improving. That includes better student mobility, whether that is going to university in the South or movement from the South to the North; apprenticeships, where people living on either side are able to have apprenticeships that link together; and the scale required to attract investment for advanced manufacturing or for an all-island energy system to drive down the cost of energy for people and local families or for tourism, agri-food or across services. If we want our people to have higher wages, stronger productivity and real growth, collaboration North and South is not optional; it is practical economic sense. The census also highlights shared challenges such as housing pressures, better health outcomes, the ageing population, poor care and regional imbalance. None of those issues stop at the border, and joint evidence helps us to understand them better and design solutions that work for everyone. The motion calls on the Executive and asks how we use the strengths of each part of the island to deliver better outcomes for people here. Sharing the island must weave through every Department, not as a constitutional debate and not as that zero-sum game from either side of the Chamber that cannot be allowed to hold back the change that is needed. Sharing the island is practical policy to improve lives, drive growth and ensure that we do not fall further behind. At a time of intense global competition, smaller regions such as Northern Ireland, with our economy, cannot afford to work in a silo. Working together gives us more opportunity, greater investment and greater prosperity North and South, alongside the ability to continue to work and trade east-west and into and with the EU. The census simply confirms what people, workers, businesses, companies and the self-employed already know: we are better when we work together, sharing this place. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Diana Armstrong to make a winding-up speech on amendment No 2. You have five minutes. Ms D Armstrong: I have taken a few notes on what Members have said, and I will see whether I can read them. I thank the proposer of the motion, and I will make a few comments on what has been said. I listened to Matthew O'Toole, and I was pleased that he mentioned the South West Acute Hospital in County Fermanagh as being "criminally underused" and the potential there for cross-border usage. He said that the facility has not been used due to "distortions created by the border". He also paid tribute to and understood the east-west dimension: that was important. My colleague, Doug Beattie, expressed his struggle to see the validity of the motion and pointed out that population ebbs and flows in many ways, and we see that in the movement of people North/South and east-west. Diane Forsythe talked about the economic behaviours of people in her border county and said that the work of the Assembly should focus on public services, waiting lists etc instead of political point-scoring by Sinn Féin. Kellie Armstrong said that accuracy mattered in the sense that it must reflect today's realities, not yesterday's divisions. Pádraig Delargy also mentioned the movement of people and the opportunities that cross-border movement allows for using universities, and he acknowledged emigration and how we need to not lose young people from our society to opportunities overseas. Timothy Gaston said that this turns consensus into a political manifesto, and, in wrapping up, David Honeyford said that using facts makes for better decisions for our lives and builds better opportunities for all. Top 4.45 pm I will make my own comments on the amendments. The Ulster Unionist Party welcomes the opportunity to discuss the Ireland and Northern Ireland joint census publication and the value that it offers in providing an understanding of the demographic and economic trends across the island. The motion rightly notes the scale of population change. It is important to recognise that the publication highlights the long-term historical context. The census confirms that, while the island's population has reached 7·1 million, that figure remains below pre-famine levels and reflects a profound demographic shift that has taken place over many generations. It is also important to note that the population of the South has not always been at its current level. For example, census records show that the Republic of Ireland's population in 1961 was under 3 million. That is significantly lower than today and illustrates how recent growth is a relatively modern development rather than being part of a continuous historical trend. The UUP recognises the importance of data to cross-border and east-west labour mobility. According to the publication, more than 18,000 people travel across the border daily for work, with 10,500 commuting southwards and 7,777 travelling northwards. Those flows demonstrate the interconnected nature of our labour markets, not only North/South but as part of broader patterns of movement across the UK and these islands in general. The existence of such mobility does not in itself define or predetermine constitutional outcomes. Rather, it reflects the practical realities of a modern, flexible workforce that is shaped by geography, opportunity and the common travel area. The motion notes: "joint census publications can help to identify shared challenges and opportunities". The UUP agrees with that. Reliable, jointly presented data helps all Administrations — Stormont, Dublin and Westminster — to better understand pressures on housing, healthcare, skills, transport and public services. It is clear that many of the issues highlighted in the publication, such as age demographics, workforce participation, housing pressures and regional disparities, are not unique to either jurisdiction and require serious, evidence-based policy responses rather than ideological framing. For those reasons, the UUP supports ongoing statistical cooperation between NISRA and the CSO. We must, however, emphasise that such collaboration should inform practical policymaking within the settled constitutional framework, respecting the principle of consent and ensuring that Northern Ireland's place in the United Kingdom remains fully recognised in an all-island analysis. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Matthew O'Toole to wind up on amendment No 1. Matthew, you have five minutes. Mr O'Toole: Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to be able to wind up on this amendment, having chatted to my colleague Colin McGrath about some of the points that we wish to make. Part of the challenge with the debate, initially, is that the motion is almost banal. I mean no offence to those who tabled it, because it is important stuff, but it is anodyne. It is almost just a description of something that is, theoretically, good. We have tried to put a bit of forward-based intent and policy direction into it through our amendment. It is a banal motion, although it notes something really important in more cross-border data-gathering, but it has to be said that we have seen a remarkable overreaction to it from some unionist politicians — not all of them. I exclude from that the Ulster Unionists, who tabled an amendment from their constitutional perspective with which I do not entirely agree. I do not agree with everything that the previous Member who spoke said, but at least they engaged with the need for more cross-border data-gathering and put their own perspective on it. From the DUP and TUV, we heard almost a long march of hostility to the idea of talking about greater cross-border data-gathering. That is genuinely a tragedy, not just for the people of the North of the island but for unionism. I am one of the people who Pádraig Delargy talked about. Almost exactly 24 years ago, I left this island to go to university across the water and did not come back for basically another 20 years. When I did, I did so to become a politician here. I would not necessarily recommend that as a career move for which to come back to the island of Ireland, if any impressionable 20-something Irish people out there are listening. Having said that, I did come back. One reason why some do not come back, if they are from the North, is that when they turn on their TV — or, more likely, their devices — and look at politics, they hear statements — I mean this with the greatest respect to Mr Gaston, who put his point across with some passion, and Members of the DUP — talking about, my God, the idea of framing cross-border data-gathering as something with a kind of hex that has to be guarded against because there demons lie and we are on a slippery slope to a united Ireland if we even talk about cross-border data-gathering. If the motion were about east-west data gathering, I, as someone who spent most of my career working in London as a civil servant in the UK Government, would not be saying, "No, we cannot possibly gather that data or look at UK-wide statistics, because that threatens my aspiration for a new Ireland". I do not think that. Even after we have a new Ireland and are back inside the European Union, we will have to work really closely on these islands for all the reasons why the Good Friday Agreement enshrines partnership across these islands. It enshrines the British identity on this island. We are also neighbours. Our services and lives will still be entwined in many ways. I have no difficulty in acknowledging that. It is a tragedy for unionism that, in the current constitutional set-up, some unionists cannot do that. Of course, I do not mean all unionists in the Chamber, because the Ulster Unionists tabled a very constructive amendment. I may not necessarily agree with it, but it at least endeavours to engage with the debate. I genuinely believe that, whether or not we have a new Ireland — I believe that we are moving in that direction — it is important that we maximise every opportunity to improve services on a cross-border basis. Frontier workers are not a threat. Those frontier workers are a real, everyday fact of life on the island. They are not just in Newry and Derry but in Belfast. My brother is a frontier worker. He works for a bank that is headquartered in Dublin, and he travels up and down and works remotely. That is a fact of life. He has to navigate all the bureaucratic complexities that that involves. We have talked about public services and public policy challenges. It is vital that we get that right, whatever the constitutional future is. I also say this, however: Ministers here, including Ministers from the party that tabled the motion, need to take responsibility for driving those things forward. The motion does not call on a Minister. The Minister with responsibility for the census is, of course, John O'Dowd, the Finance Minister, who will be in front of us tomorrow for questions. He, or, indeed, the First Minister and deputy First Minister, would be best placed to answer questions on how the Executive could make use of that census. Rather than having a general debate that takes note of its existence, we need to see responsibility-taking in the Executive for driving that agenda forward, particularly from those parties who say that they are committed to it. That brings me on to my next point. Without prejudice to the constitutional future — I say that as a new Irelander — I also say this: the census, by itself, will not get us to a new Ireland. We will have to persuade people and lead that debate. We will have to explain it to people who are — I heard Members from the Alliance Party talk about them — open-minded, unconvinced and persuadable on the subject. They want to hear about the benefits of change. They do not just want to hear about the fact that it will inevitably happen. We need to sell it. Even if we are not selling it, and we want to maintain the constitutional status quo, we should all be able to embrace the huge potential of greater cross-border working. I commend my party's amendment and, indeed, the motion. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Philip McGuigan to make the winding-up speech and conclude the debate on the motion. I advise you that you have 10 minutes, Philip. Mr McGuigan: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle. [Translation: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.] It was clear from listening to the debate that, through the publication of the joint census, we now have a better all-island statistical picture. The joint census provides a coherent view of our population and allows us to compare social, demographic and economic trends on either side of the border. One of the most used words by almost everyone during the debate was "interconnectedness". I do not think that any of us could disagree that, on this island, there is a serious amount of growing interconnectedness. Members talked about various policy areas, such as the environment, education, animal health, the economy, tourism, trade, agri-food, regions and the north-west, and interconnectedness, particularly along border areas. That is why the debate is important. The use of the statistics that we have now is vital. I disagreed with Doug Beattie to a degree when he said that the census was just a "snapshot". Obviously, it presents a picture of the here and now. However, the purpose of census data is to allow policymakers and politicians to look at trends, predict into the future and prepare good policy and legislation that is based on good, appropriate, factual data. It is true to say that there were different levels of enthusiasm in the Chamber on how best we could use the data. There were probably different levels of common sense applied to arguments against the motion. Some people see data and facts as a Trojan Horse for constitutional change. Some, including the DUP, think that we should ignore the data and what it tells us and try to make the North work better. Both miss the point, which is that, by using the data to make proper policy, we will represent people much better in the North. Matthew O'Toole said that he left the North for 20 years and came back to be a politician. I stayed and had no intention of becoming a politician; I see myself as a reluctant politician. I got involved in republican struggle for the simple reason that I wanted to improve people's lives. The DUP continually misunderstands what we are about. Sinn Féin and Irish republicanism is about improving people's lives. We see that through the prism of using data to provide services to the seven million people of the island. We think that, by doing that, we will improve the lives of everybody in the North, whether they vote for Sinn Féin or not. Timothy Gaston spent a good three or four minutes of his contribution talking about policies and decisions that were made by the British Government. Clearly, the British Government do not give a hoot about Timothy Gaston, the TUV, the DUP or Sinn Féin. They care not a hoot about the people on this island. We will probably see that again in the decisions that they take this Thursday in the Budget. That is why we should work together in the Chamber and across this island to make decisions about the people of this island. I am my party's health spokesperson, so I want concentrate on health for most of my contribution. As Matthew O'Toole said, it is becoming increasingly clear that the economics of this island are on a certain trajectory, regardless of the decisions that made here, quite frankly. Business people who are looking at what is happening across the island are not waiting for politicians to tell them about the direction of travel; they are making judgements and decisions in their best interests. Health is a particularly important area that people rightly want to see improvement in to improve their lives, but it will help with the argument about our constitutional trajectory. There is no area in which we can do more to improve people's lives by moving to an all-Ireland basis than we can through health. My party colleague Conor Murphy said the other day that lives can be saved and economic development created through the all-Ireland coordination of healthcare: I cannot argue with that. He made those comments after presentations in the Oireachtas by the All-Island Cancer Research Institute and the All-Island Congenital Heart Disease Network, neither of which involves any aspects of republicanism; they involve people who are promoting health policy and are trying to save people's lives and do the best for citizens. Those organisations and other groups are, by and large, increasingly coming to see the benefits of working together to improve things on an all-Ireland basis. The North/South-US cancer consortium, which was established in the aftermath of the Good Friday Agreement, has enabled over 40,000 patients to participate in clinical trials and has saved lives. The All-Island Cancer Research Institute has brought together 10 universities on this island to build a shared framework for cancer research that will save lives. The cross-border radiotherapy service at the North West Cancer Centre at Altnagelvin again demonstrates how shared services can meet the needs of the local population more effectively. As I said, the All-Island Congenital Heart Disease Network enables children across the island to receive world-class specialist cardiac care in a single centre while keeping diagnostics and follow-ups close to home. Those issues, on an island with seven million people, are examples of how we can provide the critical mass required for world-class research and pioneering medical techniques to be developed. The health information captured in the joint census publication gives us, for the first time in many years, a genuinely all-island view of population health. It allows us to understand patterns of illness, disability, chronic conditions, caring responsibilities and age-related health pressures in a way that transcends any border. Top 5.00 pm The publication identifies challenges. My colleague Emma Sheerin said that we are talking not just about pinning the North's health service on to the Twenty-six Counties but about creating a genuinely improved all-island health service, just as we are talking about improving education, the economy, the environment and all other aspects. Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for giving way. That is an important point, because nobody is saying that the health service in the South is perfect or that the health service in the North is anywhere near perfect. I can tell Members that both jurisdictions are failing women, day and daily, so we have an opportunity to create a genuinely better health service that delivers better for all our people, particularly children with cancer, because, in order to have real specialisms, we need to have demographics. We need to have enough people in order to create specialists. Mr McGuigan: I absolutely agree with those comments. Both health systems need to be improved, but it is clear, as was pointed out, that the South is currently ahead of us. It is ahead of us in life expectancy. Who does not want to live longer? It is ahead of us in addressing health inequalities and tackling waiting lists. Who does not want those particular problems to be solved? We know that we have particular challenges here. As my colleague said, the issues are not confined to one jurisdiction. The data that we have in front of us reflects the lived experience of people across this island, so it is not just about joining two systems together but about creating a better system. We had a Matter of the Day earlier about the Executive's response to COVID. Our Executive could have had a much better response to COVID if we on this island had worked on an island-wide basis. That would be the case with any global pandemic. Working as such would certainly strengthen the island's ability to respond to future public health scenarios. There was a lot of talk in the debate about the workforce and about the transient nature of people crossing the border in either direction. The data is extremely useful for giving us a clearer insight into workforce planning and how we can use it when making future policy decisions. On healthcare, for example, the data gives crucial insights into how to plan staffing needs for primary care in hospitals, mental health services and community care. I am a politician who wants to make decisions that improve people's lives. Evidence-based policymaking is clearly what we should all be looking to do, and the joint health data equips policymakers and politicians with the evidence that is needed to design better, targeted — Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Your time is up, Philip. Mr McGuigan: — and collaborative health interventions. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Before I put the Question on amendment No 1, I remind Members that if it is made, I will not put the Question on amendment No 2. Question put, That amendment No 1 be made. The Assembly divided: Ayes 35; Noes 23 AYES Ms K Armstrong, Mr Baker, Mr Boylan, Ms Bradshaw, Mr Delargy, Mr Dickson, Mrs Dillon, Mr Donnelly, Ms Egan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Finnegan, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Mrs Guy, Miss Hargey, Mr Honeyford, Ms Hunter, Ms Kimmins, Mr McAleer, Miss McAllister, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McMurray, Mrs Mason, Mr Mathison, Ms Murphy, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs O'Neill, Mr O'Toole, Ms Reilly, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Mr Tennyson Tellers for the Ayes: Mr McGrath, Mr O'Toole NOES Ms D Armstrong, Mr Beattie, Mr Bradley, Mr Brooks, Ms Brownlee, Mr K Buchanan, Ms Bunting, Mr Butler, Mr Chambers, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mrs Erskine, Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew, Mr Gaston, Mr Harvey, Mr Kingston, Mrs Little-Pengelly, Miss McIlveen, Mr Martin, Mr Middleton, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Robinson Tellers for the Noes: Mr Harvey, Mr Kingston Mr Clarke acted as a proxy for Mrs Erskine. Question accordingly agreed to. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: As amendment No 1 has been made, I will not put the Question on amendment No 2. Main Question, as amended, put. The Assembly divided: Ayes 36; Noes 23 AYES Ms K Armstrong, Mr Baker, Mr Boylan, Ms Bradshaw, Miss Brogan, Mr Delargy, Mr Dickson, Mrs Dillon, Mr Donnelly, Ms Egan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Finnegan, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Mrs Guy, Miss Hargey, Mr Honeyford, Ms Hunter, Ms Kimmins, Mr McAleer, Miss McAllister, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McMurray, Mrs Mason, Mr Mathison, Ms Murphy, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs O'Neill, Mr O'Toole, Ms Reilly, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Mr Tennyson Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Boylan, Ms Sheerin NOES Ms D Armstrong, Mr Beattie, Mr Bradley, Mr Brooks, Ms Brownlee, Mr K Buchanan, Ms Bunting, Mr Butler, Mr Chambers, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mrs Erskine, Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew, Mr Gaston, Mr Harvey, Mr Kingston, Mrs Little-Pengelly, Miss McIlveen, Mr Martin, Mr Middleton, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Robinson Tellers for the Noes: Ms Forsythe, Mr Martin Ms Ennis acted as a proxy for Miss Brogan. Mr Clarke acted as a proxy for Mrs Erskine. Main Question, as amended, accordingly agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly welcomes the Ireland and Northern Ireland: A joint census publication 2021-2022, which provides analysis across a range of topics in areas such as demographics, households, religion, ethnicity, place of birth, health, economic status, education and housing; notes with concern that Northern Ireland lags behind the Republic of Ireland in several key areas, including lower population growth, poorer reported health outcomes and a significantly higher burden of unpaid care; believes that those disparities are in large part caused by the failure of the Executive to deliver better economic, health and social outcomes; acknowledges that addressing those gaps can be helped through strengthened cooperation with the Irish Government; and calls on all Departments to take stock of those findings and to work in structured partnership with counterparts in the Irish Government to produce and implement clear plans that help close the gaps between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland in key areas. Adjourned at 5.24 pm. Top
[ni-assembly-official-report][plenary_report] Official Reports https://aims.niassembly.gov.uk/officialreport/report.aspx?&eveDate=2025/11/18&docID=458630 Official Report: Tuesday 18 November 2025 Table of Contents Members Statements Schools Meals: Price Increase Mens Alliance NI: Friends and Family March Antrim Coast Dance Academy: World Irish Dance Championships Feachtas A5 A5 Campaign Minister for the Economy: Referral of Ministerial Decision Drivers: Medical Conditions Fishing Industry Speech and Language Support West Bank: Current Situation Road Safety Week 2025 Hospital Care: Patient Dignity Domestic Abuse (Safe Leave) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 Assembly Business Ministerial Statements Rating Policy: Strategic Road Map Social Housing: Funding Executive Committee Business Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill: Further Consideration Stage Farm Sustainability Payment Scheme (Eligibility etc) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025 Oral Answers to Questions Education Executive Committee Business Farm Sustainability Payment Scheme (Eligibility etc) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025 Pension Schemes Bill: Legislative Consent Motion Ministerial Statement Independent Review of the Liquor Licensing System, including the Surrender Principle Private Members Business Fireworks Legislation Assembly Business Standing Order 19(5): Ministerial Answers Private Members Business Cancer Services and Outcomes Adjournment Birch Hill Centre for Mental Health The Assembly met at 10:30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair). Members observed two minutes' silence. Members' Statements Schools Meals: Price Increase Mr Delargy: Last week's news that the price of school meals will increase is another blow for hard-working parents. The extra £10 a month per child will push many families further into food poverty. Let me be abundantly clear: hiking the price of school meals is a political choice to shift the Department's budgetary pressures on to the shoulders of ordinary, hard-working families. For years, Audit Office reports have highlighted inefficiencies and waste in the Education Authority (EA) and the Department of Education, yet no action has been taken. Ordinary families are now picking up the bill for years of poor financial management by successive DUP Ministers of Education. As a teacher, I know that many hard-pressed families work hard to make ends meet. It is not a luxury to provide a hot dinner at lunchtime but a necessity. In addition, the Minister has rolled back on making school uniforms more affordable, is considering hiking the fees for music tuition in schools further and has failed to roll out an affordable childcare strategy in full. Is it any wonder that ordinary families are struggling? This is about cutting services for those families who can least afford them. The Minister can reverse the policies. He can show children and families that he is serious about creating an education system that provides equal opportunities and that allows children to flourish, regardless of their socio-economic background. The Minister needs to listen to parents. He needs to listen to parents in Derry, to parents in his constituency and to parents right across the North. Men's Alliance NI: Friends and Family March Mr Clarke: Like many in the Chamber, I was invited to the Men's Alliance NI domestic violence event that was held on Saturday in Writers' Square in Belfast. It is very disappointing that Members across the Chamber did not support that event. Many have much to say about domestic violence, but one could be forgiven for thinking that, because it was a men's event, they decided not to attend. Thirty-five per cent of reported cases of domestic violence are suffered by men. That is a startling statistic. It is difficult for all those who suffer from domestic violence to come forward, but most Members would accept that it is more so for men because of pride. When I attended the event, I was surprised, because it was led by women. There is nothing more powerful than women walking down the street in Belfast with a loud message about domestic violence. To be fair to them, they are against domestic violence against all. I met two young girls who lost their father through domestic violence. They spoke of an incident in which he had been publicly attacked by his ex-partner on a bus service in Belfast. He was too shy to come forward or make a complaint. Unfortunately, that man paid with his life: he was stabbed to death in his bed. In that case, thankfully, someone was brought to justice and will serve 14 years in prison. I am sure that, if that man is looking down on his daughters, he is proud of them for leading the Men's Alliance event in Belfast on Saturday. They carried that banner not only in memory of their father but for all the other men and others who suffer from domestic violence. I spoke to others at the event who described themselves as feminists but put the issue of domestic violence at the forefront. One of their banners stated: "We recognise all victims of domestic violence". Another banner called for more support services for men, and I agree with that. We have not got the services that we really need in Northern Ireland, and it is only through the efforts of the Men's Alliance in raising awareness that we know that. We need more support services for men, and we need shelters for men as much as we need them for women. It would be great if, some day, we could talk in the Chamber about there being no domestic violence because we had got rid of it. Unfortunately, that is not the case: it is here, and it looks as though it is here to stay. We have to do more for all victims: be they men or women, we need to do more. Antrim Coast Dance Academy: World Irish Dance Championships Mr Donnelly: I recognise the success of Antrim Coast Dance Academy in Larne at the recent World Irish Dance Championships in Salthill, Galway. The academy brought 27 dancers to the event, and every one of them placed in the top 10 in their category. That alone says a lot about the hard work and commitment of those young people and the support that they receive from their families and teachers. Seven dancers from the academy came home as world title winners. Eva Quinlan became the under-9s intermediate world champion. Bailey Smith won the under-11s primary world title. Lacey Mitchell took the under-11s intermediate title after only one year of dancing, which is an incredible achievement for anyone who is starting out. Grace McKeown became the under-14s intermediate world champion. Grace lives with mild learning disabilities and had struggled to find her place until she discovered dance, which makes her success all the more meaningful. Erin Millar won the under-14s open world title. Melissa Galway became the under-16s open champion, winning her second world title. She also achieved nine GCSE A* grades at St Killian's College, Carnlough, this year. Jodi McCourt won the under-21 ladies' open title and has not been beaten in any competition in the past three years. The academy has been running for 10 years and is led by two dedicated teachers. It has about 30 dancers aged between three and 21. What they have built gives children and young people the space to grow in confidence and talent, and their results in Galway show how far that has taken them. I offer my warmest congratulations to every dancer who was involved and to the teachers and parents who give so much time and care to help them thrive. Feachtas A5 Mr McHugh: Tá na dálaí tiomána ag gabháil in olcas de réir mar atáimid ag druidim le tréimhse na Nollag: tá an lá ag cailleadh, bíonn na bealaí fliuch, bíonn sioc agus oighear orthu agus bíonn níos mó tráchta ar na bealaí mar gheall ar dhaoine ag déanamh shiopadóireacht na Nollag nó ag gabháil ag amharc ar a ndaoine muinteartha. Ba mhaith liom aird a tharraignt ar an tsábháilteacht ar bhóithre inniu i gcomhar le Lá Domhanda i gCuimhne ar Dhaoine a d’Fhulaing de dheasca Timpistí ar Bhóithre. Ardaím an t-ábhar sin, ní hé amháin le cuimhneamh ar dhaoine a d’fhulaing de dheasca timpistí ar bhóithre ach le húsáideoirí bóithre a spreagadh le bheith ar a seacht n-airdeall thar thréimhse na Nollag. Fuair muid scéala uafásach, ag deireadh na seachtaine, go bhfuair cúigear daoine faoi 25 bliana d’aois bás i dtimpiste i gcontae Lú. Gabhaim mo chomhbhrón lena muintir agus guím ar son na ndaoine a tugadh chuig an ospidéal i ndiaidh an teagmhais. Go ndéana Dia trócaire ar a n-anam. An té atá ag gabháil an bóthar, ba chóir dó ceann cúrsa a bhaint amach, pé acu coisí, rothaí, tiománaí nó paisinéir é. Cé go spreagaimid úsáideoirí bóithre le céimeanna riachtanacha a ghlacadh, ní mór dúinn, sa Teach seo, céimeanna riachtanacha a ghlacadh fosta lenár n-úsáideoirí bóithre a chosaint, go háirithe i gcás Bhóthar A5. De réir an fheachtais Is Leor Sin, fuair 57 nduine bás ó cuireadh tús ar fheachtas Bhóthar A5. Sin 57 nduine nár bhain ceann cúrsa amach. Is minic agus is rómhinic a tharla tubaiste agus crá croí ar Bhóthar A5, rud a d’fhág teaghlaigh ar fud an oileáin faoi choscairt. Caithfidh gach duine againn bheith ag tacú leis an phobal agus leis na daoine sin a chaill daoine muinteartha agus bheith ag obair le chéile lena chinntiú go ndéanfar an bóthar sin. Sábhálfaidh an feachtas sin beatha daoine. Leanfaidh Sinn Féin de bheith ag obair le feachtasóirí, le páirtithe eile agus leis an Aire Bonneagair lena chinntiú go gcuirfear an tionscadal ríthábhachtach sin i gcrích. Abraimis ar lá seo an chuimhneacháin go ndéanfaimid ár seacht ndícheall leis an fheachtas sin a chur i gcrích. A5 Campaign [Translation: Driving conditions are worsening as we come into the festive period: the days are getting shorter, the roads are wetter, there is frost and ice on them and there is an increase in traffic with people doing their Christmas shopping or visiting loved ones. I want to raise the issue of road safety today in conjunction with the World Day of Remembrance for Road Traffic Victims. I raise that in order to remember the victims of road traffic incidents and, I hope, to encourage road users to be particularly careful this festive period. Over the weekend, we learned of a tragic incident in Louth, when five people under the age of 25 lost their lives. I send my condolences to their families and my prayers to those who were taken to hospital after the incident. May they rest in peace. Everyone travelling on our roads should make it to their destination, be they pedestrians, cyclists, drivers or passengers. Although we encourage road users to take necessary steps, we in the House must also take the necessary steps to protect our road users, and no more so than in the case of the A5. According to the Enough is Enough campaign, 57 people have lost their lives since the A5 campaign began. That is 57 people who never made it to their destination. The A5 has been the scene of heartbreak and tragedy far too often, leaving families across the island devastated. We must all rally behind the community and those who have lost loved ones and work together to deliver that road. Completing that campaign will save lives. Sinn Féin will continue to work with campaigners, other parties and the Infrastructure Minister to ensure that this vital project is delivered. Let this day of remembrance be used to recommit ourselves to completing this campaign.] Minister for the Economy: Referral of Ministerial Decision Mr Brett: On 16 October, when the Minister for the Economy issued her politically charged ministerial statement attacking the state of Israel and undermining the aerospace, defence and space sector in Northern Ireland, this party made it clear that we would challenge that decision at every possible turn. That is why, jointly with the Ulster Unionist Party and Traditional Unionist Voice, this party tabled a call-in petition to the Business Office in relation to that decision. We warmly welcome the fact that a ruling has been made that that decision must now come before the Executive. As we made clear at the time, the attempted decision by the Minister for the Economy was controversial and significant. For the avoidance of doubt, Sinn Féin does not and will not ever set UK trade policy. That is a reserved matter for His Majesty's Government, and the DUP call-in justifies that decision. The value of the aerospace, defence and space sector in Northern Ireland is £2·2 billion a year, and it employs 10,000 people. The Minister for the Economy is entitled to her personal views on that industry, but she is not entitled to use her office to undermine those jobs and investments. In every corner of Northern Ireland, people from all backgrounds, traditions and none work in that sector. We will not allow their jobs to be put at risk by a Minister who fears more from attack from parties to my left than from delivering in her role as Minister for the Economy. While others may talk Northern Ireland down, try to cost us jobs and not welcome investment, this party will proudly take every opportunity to speak up for the people of Northern Ireland and ensure that our economy continues to flourish. Drivers: Medical Conditions Ms Nicholl: People come to us MLAs with a number of matters, including potholes in their street and issues with housing, health and education. It is a privilege to represent them, but, every so often, you get a case that really stays with you. About 11 months ago, I met an extraordinary woman whose husband was tragically killed while cycling. When you speak to her, you can feel the grief and the love that she had for her husband, and the gap that he left in their family is much felt. The trauma of his death, however, was compounded by the fact that the person who was driving and who killed him was not meant to be on the road. He had been told that he could not drive any more. It is clear that there is a gap in the system. In some cases, medical professionals will report drivers to the Driver and Vehicle Agency (DVA) if they suspect that that they will not give up their licence themselves. In most cases, however, it is left to the individual to contact the DVA. We know enough about human nature and how people behave to know that they will do the easiest thing. In this case, the man was told that he was not allowed to drive because of a medical condition, but he continued to drive. As a result, a family lost a cherished father, husband and friend. Top 10.45 am About 11 months ago, I made a Member's statement in the House about this matter, about how there is a gap and how, by closing it, we can help to save lives. Since then, along with my constituent, we have made steady progress, having spoken to the Infrastructure Minister, who was deeply sympathetic and empathetic, as well as the BMA and the Courts and Tribunals Service. We have written to the Department of Health, and I understand that the Health and Infrastructure Ministers have discussed the matter. We need to keep it on the agenda, however, because the situation needs to stop. There must be other people in our society who have been affected in the same way, and I would love for them to reach out to me so that we can build more of a campaign around the issue. There is no reason why medical professionals cannot report directly to the DVA because they already do it in some instances. Let us make it the rule instead of the exception. This woman, who is my constituent, is extraordinary and is so dedicated to changing the law so that no one else has to go through the pain that she did. I hope that as Members, we can work together to help save lives as a result. Fishing Industry Mr Gaston: Northern Ireland's fishing industry is standing on the edge of a cliff. Unless there is a swift and decisive intervention, we may soon witness the collapse of one of our oldest and proudest but most vulnerable industries. Last week, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea issued its latest scientific advice. It proposes a staggering 70% reduction in the total allowable catch of mackerel in the north-east Atlantic in 2026. At the same time, when it comes to nephrops in the Irish Sea's functional unit 15, which are the lifeblood of our small and medium-sized vessels, the advice is for a 35% cut from just over 10,000 tonnes to 6,493 tonnes. Those are not minor adjustments, but seismic shocks that hit two species on which Northern Ireland's fleet most depends. Those cuts mean something very simple for crews in Kilkeel, Ardglass and Portavogie. They mean that boats are tied up, income is slashed and processors are running idle. Once a vessel is sold off, a processor closes its doors or a skilled team is broken up, the industry cannot simply be switched back on again when the science changes. The capacity is gone, the skills are gone and the supply chain is gone, and the fishing community is left hollowed out. This crisis has been compounded by a legacy of disadvantage. Vessels cannot simply stream to alternative grounds. Fuel costs, long transits, crewing pressures and the realities of the Irish Sea make that impossible. Add to that the continued regulatory constraints of the protocol and the Windsor framework and you have a fleet that is exposed on every side, scientifically, economically and politically. We need to know what assessment Mr Muir has made of the combined impact of those cuts. What defence of Northern Ireland's share has been mounted? Let us be clear, Mr Muir: if those proposals proceed unchallenged, and if your Department fails to act, the devastation for the fishing industry will be real and unrepairable. Speech and Language Support Mr Carroll: It has been well documented how important speech and language assistance and support can be for children and young people who have additional communication needs. There is no doubt that investment in speech and language provision through well-paid staff and appropriate support can and does have transformative and life-changing impacts for those young people. We often hear in this Building about the need for early intervention and preventative work to take place. Sometimes it does happen, but quite often it does not. Parents and carers often face barriers to securing the appropriate setting and support, including community support, for their children with additional communication needs. I do not think that it has to be like that. Today, I pay tribute to all the people working and delivering speech and language units and supports in other settings and to all the young people who avail themselves of those very important services. Disgracefully, only four speech and language-specific units exist across Belfast, and, today, I speak to the issue of pupils in St Teresa's Primary School. I know that the parents and carers are watching this morning. St Teresa's is an excellent mainstream school in west Belfast that provides a speech and language unit to children who need that support and assistance. Shockingly, the support and service stop when the children and young people finish primary 4. There has been no explanation or rationale for why that important and crucial service stops at some arbitrary, plucked-out-of-the-sky date. As things stand, come June next year, 12 pupils will have no idea of where they will go. They will have to leave St Teresa's Primary School with no idea of what support will be in place. For some, that will be their third school in four years, which is totally unacceptable. St Teresa's Primary School supports the call for speech and language provision to remain on site for young people up until primary 7. Nobody, especially children with additional communication needs, deserves to be uprooted and removed from an educational setting just to save pennies and pounds. A small investment in staff at the school for services to be extended for another three years would be absolutely transformative for the pupils, their families and, obviously, the wider community. This morning, I call on the Department of Education, the Education Authority and the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust to urgently intervene and work together to provide some clarity and assurances for those families and the wider community to make sure that those services exist for another three years up until primary 7. They say, if it is not broke, do not try to fix it. This service certainly is not broken. It is working and it needs to be extended, and clarity and security needs to be provided. If Departments do not respond, we are getting ready — Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up. Mr Carroll: — to march, to fight and to kick up a fuss about this. West Bank: Current Situation Ms Sheerin: Last week, I visited the West Bank as part of an international delegation to discuss what is happening in Palestine. The West Bank is often referred to as the "normal" part of Palestine. Of course, there is nothing normal about a place where the Israeli settlers grade people as if they were meat. There is nothing normal about a system that determines your value on your identity. Even before we got there, in Jordan, I met Palestinians who had never been in their own country because they are not allowed. From my experience of the Jordanian border crossing, unpleasant as that was, it is not the hostility of the Israeli officials that I will remember, and not the dry heat, but the warmth and kindness and spirit of young Palestinians who went out of their way to make our experience easier, lifting our suitcases, pointing us in the right direction and trying to ease my obvious apprehension at being faced with a border crossing that I had no knowledge of prior to going through it. We then got into Ramallah and were told, "It's not that bad here". How twisted a world we live in when the barometer for suffering is babies starving to death in a place where the water is turned on once a week, where you can only go to work through border checkpoints and where you cannot leave the country. I met families who have never left the country because they are not allowed to. We then got to the university where we were having our congress, and I heard from students who had already been arrested and detained without trial, because getting educated in the West Bank is an act of resistance. I heard that they had buried five students from their one university in the past four years. Again, they said, "It is not that bad here". In Gaza, they knocked all their schools and universities to the ground, and yet such was the determination of those people that they walked for miles, set up school camps and educated their young people in the face of a genocide. We spoke to young people who told us how planting crops, as the Israelis steal the land from under them, is an act of resistance. I will carry those stories with me and continue to be a voice for the Palestinian people who seemingly cannot be heard by the rest of the Western world. Road Safety Week 2025 Mr Kingston: This week is Road Safety Week, which is held annually across the United Kingdom on the third week of November. The annual campaign, organised by the road safety charity Brake, focuses on raising awareness and promoting life-saving messages to reduce casualties on our roads. Our thoughts and prayers remain very much with all those affected by the shocking tragedy that occurred on Saturday, when five young adults, aged between 21 and 23, lost their lives in a road traffic accident near Dundalk. On behalf of the Democratic Unionist Party, I express our deepest sympathies and condolences to their families and friends. The scale of that tragedy is chilling. We do not know the circumstances, which are under investigation, but the devastating outcome is a reminder to us all of the dangers, particularly when travelling at speed, and the need for concentration and caution when driving, because lives can be suddenly and utterly changed or ended. The theme of Road Safety Week changes each year, but it often focuses on critical areas, such as the devastating consequences of speeding; vehicle safety and checking that vehicles are roadworthy; using modern safety technology; and the personal responsibility of every road user when it comes to their safety and that of others with whom they share the road. We are told that 1,671 people died on UK roads last year, which is between four and five people every day. Nearly 29,000 people suffered serious life-changing injuries last year, which is almost 80 people every day. The theme for 2025 is "Safe vehicles save lives". It highlights the importance of maintaining vehicles to ensure that they are roadworthy and utilising modern technology, such as automated driver assistance systems, to prevent collisions. I expect that all drivers have had the experience of someone driving behind them, particularly on country roads, and causing them to feel under pressure to drive that bit faster. This week is a reminder to us all never to be pressured into driving at a higher speed that would cause us to feel not in control or unsafe and never to be the one who pressures another driver for the sake of arriving a few seconds or minutes earlier. It is better to arrive a bit later but to do so safely. Hospital Care: Patient Dignity Mr McNulty: I will speak about a deeply troubling story that appears today on the front page of 'The Irish News' and that strikes at the heart of what our health service is supposed to represent: dignity, care and compassion. According to the report, a man who was gravely ill with cancer and connected to an IV drip was forced to lie on the floor at Altnagelvin Area Hospital for over 50 hours simply because there were no available beds. That is not a statistic; it is a vulnerable, frightened human being who was without even the most basic comfort of a bed. He was given a blanket and a pillow, but that does not erase the indignity of being made to wait on the floor in a hospital, a place where we entrust our life to others and expect to be treated with care. The Western Health and Social Care Trust acknowledged that its hospitals are under extreme pressure and operating far beyond their funded capacity. However, it is not just an operational issue; it is a profound moral failing. Top 11.00 am Reports from oversight bodies warn of systemic problems: patients forced to wait in corridors or in chairs for days; insufficient beds; and a lack of basic dignity. When a health system allows someone in their darkest hour to lie on a hospital floor, we must ask this: have we lost sight of what care truly means? We cannot let that become a new normal. Hospital care in corridors has become too commonplace in Daisy Hill, Craigavon and hospitals across the North. We must demand urgent concrete action, more capacity, better funding, improved infrastructure and, most important, respect for the dignity of every patient. Domestic Abuse (Safe Leave) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 Mr Frew: The Northern Ireland Assembly passed the Domestic Abuse (Safe Leave) Act in 2022. It was a private Member's Bill, but it was fully supported by the Minister for the Economy and the Economy Department, yet we still do not have it enacted. Why is the Minister for the Economy dragging her heels on that important issue? The Domestic Abuse (Safe Leave) Act creates a right of 10 days' paid leave for all victims of domestic and sexual violence. It was good enough to be voted for and passed in the House, yet the Department for the Economy drags its heels. It was the first legislation of its kind to be passed in the British Isles, yet the Department for the Economy is now failing victims of domestic and sexual violence. Why is that? Regulations should be made immediately to protect victims and survivors of domestic violence, to keep them in work and ensure that their workplace is a safe place for them. That is a noble cause, and I will continue to press the Department for the Economy on it. Mr Speaker: Thank you. That brings to a conclusion Members' statements. Assembly Business Mr Gaston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Further to your ruling yesterday that the Economy Minister's decision was significant and controversial, I wish to draw to the Assembly's attention an important clarification letter. Jim Allister MP has received a letter from the Secretary of State in which Mr Benn makes it explicitly clear that international relations are a reserved matter and that negotiations on trade with Israel are conducted by the UK Government on behalf of all parts of the UK. The subject on which the Minister purported to act therefore lies outside her legal competence. In light of that clarification, will you consider the procedural implications for ministerial authority and whether the Assembly was misled as to the scope of devolved powers in that area? Will you also outline what safeguards exist to prevent ministerial overreach when issuing directions to bodies such as Invest NI? Mr Speaker: In the first instance, I am not sure that that is a point of order. Secondly, I need to clarify that I did not make a ruling that the decision was significant or controversial, because I was not asked to make that ruling. I was asked to make a ruling on whether it was an issue of public importance, and I outlined the reasons why we arrived at that conclusion. It is now a matter for the Northern Ireland Executive, and it will be left with them to make a decision on how to take it forward after the decision that was made yesterday. Ministerial Statements Rating Policy: Strategic Road Map Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of Finance that he wishes to make a statement. Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): I wish to provide Members with an update on the progress made on the review of the rating system and my intended steps over the coming weeks. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Blair] in the Chair) Less than a year ago, it was announced that my Department would undertake a systematic review of all rates supports. Substantial progress has been made to date, with four policy reviews completed. I am accelerating the review process and can confirm today that every rate support will have been reviewed by the end of the 2027-28 rating year. The remaining policy areas will be front-loaded in order of strategic importance within the remaining time frame. The aim of the process has been and remains to secure positive and progressive changes to the rating system. That need has been echoed strongly by interested parties through the course of significant engagement with my officials. Today, I will outline how I intend to bring about change that will see enhanced support for small businesses, which are the backbone of our local economy; change that tackles the high level of vacancies in our town and city centres; change that supports businesses that are starting out; and change that helps accelerate business growth. I cannot do that in isolation, and I have spoken many times in the House and around the Executive table of the constrained financial environment within which we operate. In terms of how we deliver rating change in such a context, the interlinked nature of rating policy, both domestic and non-domestic, is critical. That is particularly the case as we aim to improve the system with limited resources. Where changes to make the system more progressive can act to deliver change in one area, those savings can then allow us to ease the tax burden on others. Following the public consultation on increasing the maximum capital value and reducing the early payment discount, which concluded in April, responses were assessed and proposals put forward to the Executive in June for a decision. Those proposals have the potential to unlock £9 million of government spending power. To illustrate the significance of that in rating terms, that £9 million being diverted to the small business rate scheme enhances an existing scheme that costs £22 million and already supports 30,000 ratepayers. Many in the Chamber have called for additional support for small businesses since the Executive returned last year. The proposals that I am bringing forward pave the way for that while recognising the financial realities within which we are operating. It would be easy for me to set out my policy aims and seek additional funding to support them: that is not what I am doing. Operating a responsive and progressive rating system cannot mean layering additional supports at the cost of other Executive priorities. Instead, we must carefully consider how best the limited support levers available can be applied in the current operating context to best effect. I am not seeking additional funding to enhance support for businesses; instead, I am asking for support to deliver changes in one part of the rating system that allow additional support in another, with the two adjustments operating on a cost-neutral basis. I want to see extra help going to small business properties that provide vital employment and support workers, families and communities. Today's proposals, which stem from the discussions with businesses, align with my desire to deliver positive change for businesses and boost economic growth. First, I will talk about the small business rate relief scheme. It was clear from the strategic review of that area that there was an appetite among representative bodies, industry and local government for enhanced support to be delivered to small businesses. Our local economy is overwhelmingly made up of SME businesses, and around 90% of them are classified as microbusinesses with fewer than 10 employees. I fully endorse such an approach. A sustainable small business sector is at the heart of a thriving economy. It comes as no surprise that other jurisdictions are also supporting that ambition through their own policy proposals. The analysis from my Department concurred that there was a need to enhance support aimed at bolstering businesses in smaller properties. While the approach taken in other jurisdictions has been to cherry-pick specific sectors, that is often done on the basis of legacy support put in place during the pandemic. I have listened to the views provided and am instead in favour of taking a sector-neutral approach to any enhancement of small business rate support. I want to create an environment that brings businesses into town and city centres. However, I want that to be an environment that creates a level playing field for all types of businesses by enhancing support across business types. I see no hierarchy in need. I want to encourage business start-ups of any type and to do what we can by lowering operating costs for businesses in that category. There are two methods by which I can deliver an enhancement to the current small business rate relief scheme. The first method is to increase the amount of reductions delivered under the scheme. The current reduction levels of 20%, 25% and 50% have remained static since the scheme was last reviewed in 2012. It is my preference to increase those reduction levels. The second method of enhancement is to increase the upper valuation threshold that applies in the scheme. Again, that upper valuation level has not been increased since 2012 and needs adjusted to modern rental values. Given that Reval2026 will be the fourth revaluation process in 11 years, it is my preference to raise the rental value thresholds so that they are broadly in line with valuation list growth. I will consult in the next few weeks on both methods in order to continue to allow changes to be made for the next rating year. The scalability pertaining to both forms of enhancement is critical and forms a key part of the discussion. It is no secret that the Executive's finances are under significant pressure at present. I have brought forward proposals on two policy areas that would raise £9 million. Likewise, lowering operating costs through rate support will in itself have the potential to grow the tax base by bringing more businesses into the rating system and generating more revenue in overall terms. Those two factors, plus the fact that changes can be made alongside doing the revaluation exercise, give us an opportunity to make important changes while maintaining the overall level of rating revenue generated through the broader rating system. I am also willing to consider all ideas on co-funding models from Departments and councils to enhance small business rate relief support. Supporting small businesses should be high on all our agendas, and working in partnership to optimise joint efforts is my preferred approach. My officials are working at pace to put out proposals for consultation between now and the new year in order to get the views of businesses before final proposals are submitted to Executive colleagues for decision. The progress made on taking forward policy considerations on rate relief demonstrates my commitment to delivering positive change. To be clear, in order to translate policy into action, Members must understand that progressive rating does not mean considering policy proposals in isolation but as a whole. On the second area for review, I have already stated in the Chamber and at the Finance Committee that I want to increase the level of liability for non-domestic vacant rating. Admittedly, the views on that policy varied in the review feedback. The case for increasing liability was clear-cut for commercially attractive areas and for areas where there is clear regeneration potential. Support for increasing liability was understandably weaker for less commercially viable areas, where owners can struggle to let properties, despite taking active steps to do so. On balance, however, I take the view that, in order to tackle the high prevalence of vacant units, I now need to move the non-domestic vacant rate from 50% to 75% and then to 100%. When fully implemented, it is estimated that the changes have the potential to unlock a further £20 million of revenue between central and local government. Given the Executive's Programme for Government (PFG) commitments on housing and regeneration and the work being done on preventing dilapidation, there is a unique window of opportunity to maximise the impact of the changes through working actively across Departments. It is, however, a significant change, connecting so many strands of Executive policy, so Executive agreement will be required before the change can be implemented. I have instructed my officials to take forward the policy work that is required to secure Executive agreement. I also appreciate that, in order to respond to the concerns expressed during the review, there will need to be sufficient lead-in time for any change to allow owners to respond to that future shift in policy direction. As I have stated, engagement with stakeholders over the summer was extensive. One of the discussion points was this: what can be done through the rating system to encourage business expansion? When a business makes a decision to expand, its rates liability will usually increase immediately after the work is completed. In turn, that additional rates liability creates more revenue for public services. I recognise, however, that the initial outlay, coupled with the associated increased rates liability, can be off-putting for some businesses that are waiting to take steps towards expansion. To that end, I want to progress rating policy so that the additional rates liability incurred is staggered. That may mean the difference between a business deciding to expand and deciding not to. I am happy to announce that my Department will undertake a consultation process in the new year to progress development of the business growth accelerator policy. The consultation will seek views on policy options for using the rating system to aid business expansion rather than inhibit it, while also unlocking future increased rates income for local and central government. That unlocking of future tax-base growth will operate alongside initiatives that have been brought in since the restoration of the Executive last year, such as the Back in Business scheme. Top 11.15 am As part of the review, we worked closely with the hospitality sector. Since the Executive returned, a central ask from that sector has been for an assessment of the valuation methodology for the receipts and expenditure method of valuation, where that is used for pubs and hospitality. Similar sentiments have been expressed in Scotland and England, and both jurisdictions have announced that they will review how the methodology is used there. I am pleased to confirm that we will take account of any findings of those review processes in order to assess any implications that they may have for our local valuation processes. My Department has done significant work over a period of less than a year since the strategic review of rates was announced. We remain on track to facilitate changes for businesses by April 2026, provided that political agreement can be achieved to do so. I recognise that change is hard, but, if we keep doing the same thing, we will keep getting the same outcomes. People elected us to serve and deliver, and I want to deliver positive change, but that will require buy-in and partnership working. Mr O'Toole: I support a more progressive rating system, and I support more support for small businesses. To be clear, however, the Minister is not announcing either of those things today; he is announcing more reviews. If I were to list the consultations on and reviews of the rating system that have taken place since last February, the Deputy Speaker would intervene on me — I know that he likes to do that, but I will not test his patience — because it would take a very long time. To small businesses and others who are interested in a more progressive rating system, the strategic road map appears to be a road to nowhere. So that I can be clear, Minister, do you have any intention of changing the rating system before the end of the mandate, considering that, so far, nothing has happened? Mr O'Dowd: One criticism that I recall hearing from the Member is that we have not progressed reviews quickly enough. He now criticises me for progressing reviews too quickly. As the Member will be aware, the fact of the matter is that to change policy and legislation, there has to be a review framework. and there has to be consultation and engagement with the sector. Following that, we can come forward with either a policy change or legislative change. In my statement, I set out a number of areas in which, I believe, both policy change and legislative change will benefit our business sector, and I set a time frame within which I wish to make those changes. I assure the Member that I am dedicated to driving that agenda forward. I concluded my remarks by saying that partnership working in the Chamber and around the Executive table will be required if the changes are to be delivered. I believe that, when Members have had the opportunity to scrutinise what I am proposing, they will see the benefit to the business sector and the fact that it is the proper and right way to move forward. If we keep that in mind, progress can be made quickly. Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for his statement. I also place on record my thanks to his officials and particularly to Andrew McAvoy, who gives us regular updates on policy in the area. It is welcome that, having initially been announced as a 10-year process, the review is being brought down to two years, which is something that we discussed at Committee. Non-domestic vacant rating is raised regularly with me by businesses that are struggling to pay their rates when a dilapidated building next door to them is not paying rates. Minister, you said that there is potential to unlock a further £20 million of revenue. That is huge potential, which the Communities Minister also referenced yesterday with regard to housing. I welcome your mention of the need for a cross-departmental approach. What is the estimated time frame for seeing this make a difference to dilapidated buildings in our towns for businesses and housing? Mr O'Dowd: It will require cross-departmental working. I am conscious of the AERA Minister's Dilapidation Bill. Through the rates process here, we can assist in regenerating our town centres. Centrally, that is the Communities Minister's role, although the AERA Minister is playing a role, and I can play a role as Finance Minister. With a fair wind, we can complete some of the work within the mandate. That will require some legislative changes to be made, and I have asked officials to start work on those immediately to see how quickly we can progress the matter. Mr McGuigan: I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, what engagement has your Department had with the Commissioner for Older People on changes to the early payment discount and maximum capital? Mr O'Dowd: There has been engagement on that through a previous review. While the Older People's Commissioner can obviously speak for herself, the commission is on record as saying that the review and proposals that we have brought forward are workable. Protections are in place for the most vulnerable in our society, and older people will come under those protections if the changes that we propose bring them into a category for that. That engagement has proven worthwhile, both to the commission, hopefully, and to my officials for planning a way forward on the proposal. As I said in my statement, change is difficult, but we have to do things differently and, as an Executive, look at areas where we can raise additional finances. I believe that the changes that I have proposed are fair and equitable and have protections in place for the vulnerable. Mr Tennyson: I thank the Minister for his statement. I welcome compressing the timetable from 10 years to two years and the intent to support small businesses and tackle vacant property. Minister, will the changes that you are proposing for supporting small businesses be possible without raising money elsewhere in the rating system? Why have we not seen the changes to the early payment discount or maximum capital value emerge from the Executive? Mr O'Dowd: Some of the changes are possible with the non-domestic vacant rating policy. We have to identify finances to go towards more support for small businesses through the small business rate relief scheme. I could come to the Chamber and say, "I want to do this, but I need more money", I could look at myself and say, "Can you give me more money?", or I could bring forward proposals that identify from where within the current system we could raise finances that are fair and equitable and put protections in place, and we could then move forward in that direction. We have not yet had discussion or agreement at the Executive on the proposals. I continue to hope that that paper will be presented and that we can have discussion and make progress on it. I think that it is fair and equitable. If others have alternative proposals, I am open to hearing those as well. Ms D Armstrong: Minister, thank you for the statement. I welcome the indication that the business growth accelerator will be looked at as a means of staggering rates for businesses in expansion. However, like other Members, I want to ask about timelines. Given the ongoing review of the valuation methodology for pubs and hospitality businesses, what tangible impact do you expect that to have on the hospitality sector by the end of the mandate? I am talking about real on-the-ground support rather than further data collection or consultations. Mr O'Dowd: It is worth noting that 75% of our small businesses receive support through the rates system. It costs the Executive somewhere in the region of, I think, a quarter of a billion pounds annually. That includes pubs and the hospitality sector, so quite a significant support package is in place. However, I thought that it was only right and proper that, given that Scotland and England are going through a process and will garner data and information that is similar to what we require for our system, we await their review. There is no point in my duplicating work that is going on elsewhere at this stage. Work is about to start, I understand. We will garner the information and challenges from that and see how we can support our business or what changes need to be made through that. I can understand some of the frustration that is in sectors out there about this, but we have to work our way through those processes and be mindful that significant supports are already in place. Miss Dolan: Minister, I welcome the statement. Will you provide more detail on the business growth accelerator that you mentioned? Mr O'Dowd: That is a very innovative way to move forward and encourage our businesses that want to expand to do so. Quite understandably, when a business owner is looking at their future business plans and to expand, they will have to take into account whether their rates will go up as a result of that and whether, while they are establishing that expansion of their business, they will be able to afford it. If the proposal goes through, we will say to businesses, "Yes, move ahead with that expansion and create a larger premises. We will support you, at least in the first year of that expansion, in relation to your rates. We won't charge you for the additional space that you have". That will allow them time to develop that expansion of their business. If we can encourage more businesses to expand physically, that will be good news for our construction sector and our economy in general. I am delighted to be able to bring forward the proposal, and I hope that it will move forward quite quickly. Mr Kingston: I welcome that the Minister is investigating tackling blight and increasing funds for public services by increasing the level of liability for non-domestic vacant premises. The Minister will be aware of the need to disincentivise domestic properties — houses — being left vacant with reduced rates liability in certain circumstances. Does he have any intention of reviewing the removal of rates liability for domestic properties that are vacant and causing blight? Mr O'Dowd: Taxation has a number of policy intentions. One is, obviously, to raise revenue. Another is to support habits that a Government want to progress. The revitalisation of our town centres, city centres and villages is important. Non-domestic properties lying vacant is a blight. The proposal fits in with work that other Ministers are doing. As I said in my statement, all rating policies will be reviewed over the next number of years. That review will include whatever support or lack of support is in place at that stage. We want to see properties being brought back into use. The Communities Minister is facing challenges with social housing and housing. If I can assist in a way that brings properties back into use, whether for housing, commercial use or something else, I will do so. Mr Honeyford: I thank the Minister. It is good to see a progressive rating system being brought in. We have called for that for some time, particularly for small businesses; we want to see the regeneration of our town centres. Minister, you said that the changes are cost-neutral to the Department, but you also talked about an additional £9 million coming in. In addition, you talked about bringing businesses into the rating system. Will you outline what they are, what sectors you are thinking of, and what type of premises will see an increase in rates? Mr O'Dowd: I am not exactly sure of the point that the Member is making. Apologies. All businesses pay some form of rates, with the exception of charity shops. My intention through the small business rate relief scheme is to support more businesses by looking at support from 20% up to 50% and looking at what categories those fall into. Non-domestic vacant rating is currently sitting at 50%. I want to see that rise over a number of years up to 75%, and then up to 100%. When that is fully operational, it will bring us in around £20 million extra. I will provide further clarity to the Member if I have not correctly understood the point that he made. My understanding is that all businesses are involved in the payment of rates of some kind. This is about how we support small businesses, enhance our town centres and city centres and move away from the blight of vacant properties. Mr McMurray: I thank the Minister. It is no surprise that the rating system is seen by many businesses as a barrier to their development and something that precludes a bustling high street. The statement referenced rental values. For some, the barrier is not the rental price but the rates payment on top of it. How will the proposals help those who wish to establish a business on the high street? Mr O'Dowd: Rent levels are driven by the market and what people are prepared to pay, and I have limited ability to change that. However, if we support more businesses through the small business rate relief scheme, the burden of the rent that is placed on them will be lessened, because their rates will be reduced. If they are prepared to expand, we will also support them through that proposal. There is a balance to be achieved in all of those things, but looking to expand the small business rate relief scheme is a good way forward. Top 11.30 am Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for the statement. It is certainly nice to hear some of the positive proposals in the statement. Businesses will be glad to hear them. They will be even gladder to see them. It would be nice if we could get some indication of when that might be. Given that previous proposals have been sat at the Executive for nearly six months now without even making it on to the agenda, have the Minister and his colleagues considered invoking the three-meeting rule? Mr O'Dowd: Across a wide range of topics, challenges and opportunities facing the Assembly and the Executive, we need to work in partnership with one another. Doing so will mean that there has to be give and take on all sides and being open to ideas and discussions around proposals on all of these things. The reality is that no one is expecting the Chancellor to announce a Budget that will alleviate the pressures that our public services, business communities and workers and families are under. Therefore, the Executive have to look at new and imaginative ways in which we can help ourselves. I believe that the proposals that I have outlined today and the proposals in the previous paper that I put before the Executive are imaginative and assist the Executive to meet their challenges and opportunities moving forward. Mr Gaston: Minister, under your vacant rating plan, you say that your policy could raise £20 million. How much of the £20 million, do you estimate, will be net after administration and enforcement costs? Will that figure simply be added to the uncollected rates debt? Mr O'Dowd: As the Member knows from a previous debate here, the rates debt has reduced by 20%. We continue to take action on the rates debt. I want to see further reduction in that, but, when you are collecting the scale of revenue that we are collecting, there will be a certain amount of debt because of factors including representations from MLAs to my Department around trying to assist ratepayers who find themselves facing genuine challenges, so there is a balance to be got in all of those things. However, there are also those who will not pay or refuse to pay, and they will be pursued vigorously through the courts. As for the estimated £20 million in revenue collection, at this stage, I am not sure what percentage will be used for what the Member has outlined. However, if we are bringing in significant extra revenue, there is a cost associated with collecting that revenue, but, as long as we collect more revenue in a fair and equitable way, the Member will, I think, accept that there are costs associated with that. Mr Carroll: Minister, you talk about a more progressive system and fairer ideas. I want to expand on a previous point: what plans do you have to reform the rates system to disincentivise and financially penalise the people who are leaving tens of thousands of properties empty across the North? It should be illegal to allow properties to lie empty when around 50,000 people are on housing waiting lists. That could address the housing crisis and bring in large amounts of revenue. What plans does your Department have to tackle the issue? Mr O'Dowd: The non-domestic vacant rating policy that I am announcing today and the proposals for it will encourage property owners to make those properties usable again, whether that is by reletting it to a business or a business entering it because of the other small business rate relief enhancements that we want to do or because of the expansion of businesses or whether it is driven through the fact that a property owner may say to himself, "Well, if I continue to leave this former business property empty, I will have to pay increased rates on it. Why do I not use it for housing? Why do I not convert it into property?". Will it be more attractive when they put it on the market and housing associations perhaps purchase those properties moving forward? The proposals that I put before us today open up the property market to a challenge and an opportunity that, thus far, is only lying vacant and empty. Miss Hargey: Thanks very much, Minister, for your statement. It shows that you are a Minister who is listening and is willing to take action. How will other rate reliefs, particularly those for people on low incomes, sit alongside any increase to the maximum capital value? Mr O'Dowd: Those protections remain in place and will continue to protect those people. If people find themselves having to pay a greater percentage of rates, because the maximum capital value rises, and if their income qualifies them for protections, those protections will continue. The Older People's Commissioner recognised that protections are in place in his response to the consultation. Both the proposals that the Member refers to and the proposals that I am announcing today are fair and equitable and protect the most vulnerable in our society. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, that concludes questions —. Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I want some advice — it may not be for today — on the appropriateness of making oral ministerial statements on proposals that are not practical proposals in the sense that they are only ideas. I say that because, a year ago, an oral ministerial statement was made by the previous Finance Minister about changes to the domestic rating system that still have not happened; one week later, we got a written ministerial statement on the 2025-26 Budget. Will the Speaker's Office give us advice on the appropriateness of making an oral statement on proposals that are not happening and then making extremely substantive statements via a written statement? Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr O'Toole, in the first instance, it is up to a Minister what they make a statement on and what they wish to make a statement on. However, the comments that you have made will be brought to the Speaker's Office for consideration. Mr O'Dowd: Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, what would be the appropriateness of the Opposition coming forward with any proposals or any idea? [Interruption.] Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, we are straying somewhat from actual points of order. I will move on to the next item. Social Housing: Funding Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Speaker has received notice from the Minister for Communities that he wishes to make a statement. Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that they should be concise in asking their questions and that there should not be long introductions. Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): I wish to make a statement to the Assembly on the funding and development of new social homes across Northern Ireland. I begin by recognising the efforts of our key partners in delivering new social homes via the new-build programme in times of constraint and uncertainty. The solid partnership arrangements between my Department, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE) and housing associations ensure that there is a steady and increasing supply of new social homes for people on the waiting list. I am grateful for their steadfast commitment to delivering the programme. However, the Department and the sector face many challenges in relation to the budget required to support that work. Despite my efforts to secure an adequate budget allocation to meet the need for new social homes and my intention to continue to maximise delivery, I, along with the sector, have not received sufficient capital allocations in any budget rounds. Every party in the Chamber talks of their passion for housing and support for more social homes. At the Executive, we agreed a housing supply strategy with clear targets for housebuilding. In the Programme for Government (PFG), one of the few targets agreed was on social housing, yet I continue to receive insufficient capital funding. I cannot be the only one to make the case for housing. Today, I have taken the decision to review the funding allocation to housing associations to ensure that we get the most out of every pound that we spend. This is an opportunity to look at the programme afresh and identify opportunities to be creative. We need to do more with less, collectively working to address the barriers to finance and social housing supply. I met the Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations (NIFHA), housing association representatives and the Northern Ireland Housing Executive in late October to give them advance notice of the changes that I have announced. At that meeting, I advised the sector of the new indicative costs and grant rates for new build social homes that will be effective from 1 December 2025 to the end of March 2027. New social homes are funded through a combination of grant from my Department and borrowing by the developing housing association, creating a match funding-style arrangement that gives value for the public money invested. Following careful consideration, I have decided to increase the benchmark costs — the assumed cost of building a new social home — by 13·7%, from an average of £181,164 to an average of £206,100. That reflects the increased costs to the sector due to inflationary increases, new building regulations and increases in Northern Ireland Electricity (NIE) connection charges, among other things. It is an acknowledgement that relevant costs have increased since the benchmark costs and grant rates were last changed, in 2023. However, while construction costs have increased, rents have also increased. As a result and in the interest of securing the maximum possible number of new social homes from the Department's budget, the proportion of grant paid by the Department for Communities for new social housing starts will decrease from an average of 54·2% to an average of 46·52%. To give certainty to the sector, those new benchmark costs and grant rates will be kept in place until the end of the 2026-27 financial year, unless there are very exceptional circumstances that require a change to the rates. I have set out to the housing association sector my expectation that it, like the public sector, must deliver in challenging financial circumstances and strive for efficiencies. It will be for each individual housing association to decide how much private finance it can borrow and how much risk it can take on. The impact of that will be to make my budget allocation stretch further and enable us to build more homes with the funding that is available. I am asking housing associations to do more: drive innovation, find efficiencies and increase private financing to make up the small shortfall. However, let me be clear: I am not cutting funding to the programme. I am making changes to ensure that the £177·5 million allocated from my budget that will be spent this year on new social homes and the funds spent next year go as far as possible. Every new home matters. I have listened to the housing association sector. That is why I have also announced reviews, which have been called for by the associations, of how we subsidise new-build social housing and the standards to which that housing is built. Our ambition is that at least some of the value-increasing measures that those reviews propose may be introduced to the development programme in the next financial year and that all the reviews are completed by September 2026. Achieving the Programme for Government target of 5,850 social housing starts within this mandate will be extremely challenging, given the constrained budgets. Changes must be made. We must achieve more with less. I am fully committed to delivering on the PFG target and realising the longer-term ambition of the housing supply strategy to deliver at least 100,000 homes, of which one third will be social. Achieving those will require innovation and creativity and, ultimately, at the outset, adequate funding allocations. Earlier this year, I chaired a housing round-table meeting that brought together key stakeholders to share knowledge on how to increase social housing delivery in the current challenging environment. My officials are taking forward work with the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and the wider sector on proposals aimed at increasing or improving delivery of the new-build programme in future years. As previously advised, I am bringing a proposal to the Executive to make better use of public land in a way that can act in lieu of grant and support the delivery of more affordable homes. We must maximise supply with the resources that we have. The whole-system issues, such as waste water capacity, planning and land availability, must be addressed to unlock the homes that we need. My housing supply strategy provides the framework for how we can do that, and, collectively, the Executive have committed to it. The quality of actions to implement it will determine our success in delivering the strategy vision. I require an action plan that demonstrates real intent to remove barriers. Therefore, as it moves closer to being finalised, I have written to my ministerial colleagues to challenge them to propose actions that will genuinely deliver progress in meeting the significant challenges that we face. I have also written to the other Ministers in the Executive to seek their support for a sufficient budget allocation to the social housing development programme to enable delivery against our commitments. I unashamedly make that case again today. Top 11.45 am I can assure the House that I am committed to delivering value for money in the social housing development programme and to doing everything in my power to ensure that a sufficient budget allocation is made to enable delivery of our PFG target. However, the House should take note that I am not prepared to keep doing things the way that we have always done them. I will always seek to be innovative and to try new things to maximise delivery. That is what I have been doing since I took up post. I have used more financial transactions capital (FTC) for homes with cheaper rents; used the Northern Ireland Housing Executive's reserves to reduce temporary accommodation costs; done away with intimidation points to create a level playing field; and found new ways to subsidise public housing. Those are changes that we needed, and I will continue to bring in changes so that we can deliver more for the people of Northern Ireland. I have played my part. Now it is time for the House and my Executive colleagues to rise to the challenge and take the decisive action that is needed to ensure that our shared ambition truly meets the needs of the people of Northern Ireland. I commend the statement to the House. Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for his statement. The reduction of the housing association grant in other areas has either contributed to or coincided with a reduction in the number of homes delivered, although I appreciate that there will have been multiple factors at play. Come 2027, how will the success or otherwise of the Minister's decision be measured? Does he expect it to have any impact on rental costs for housing association tenants? Mr Lyons: Rents have already gone up, which is one of the reasons why I am taking action today. Ultimately, success will be measured by the number of additional homes that would not otherwise have been delivered if we had stuck with the status quo. I am not cutting the funding for housing associations. [Inaudible.] Mr Lyons: The Member has already has his opportunity to ask the question. I am not cutting the money that is going to housing associations; the £177·5 million is still there. I am cutting the amount per unit, so that other sources of private funding can be looked at. The Member seems to be annoyed about what I am doing, but it is quite clear that if I stuck with the status quo, not only would we not be building more homes, we would be building fewer homes because the costs have gone up. Those costs cannot be left in their entirety for the Department to shoulder. What I am proposing is fair and will enable more homes to be built and more investment in public housing. Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): I thank the Minister for the statement. Minister, the Committee has asked in writing for further information on the change, given that it was announced during recess, which was more than two weeks ago. We look forward to receiving that information. Who will carry the financial risk that is created by the reduced grant rate? I am particularly concerned about smaller housing associations in that regard. What assessment has your Department made of its borrowing capacity under the new arrangements? Mr Lyons: I am confident that the borrowing capacity exists for housing associations to continue doing their work and, through the changes, make sure that we are building more homes. It is right that we share the burden, and I commend housing associations for the work that they have done, often in challenging circumstances. However, we all need to do more, which is why I have asked housing associations to shoulder more as we move forward. Of course, in return, there will be additional benefits for them. We are looking more widely at the design guides, including Secured by Design, and are providing housing associations with the stability of knowing what is coming. Altogether, there is a package of measures that, along with the changes that I have outlined, will have a net benefit and allow us to build more social homes, which is what it is all about. We have a target, and I am determined that we do everything in our power to meet it. Some of that is outside my control, but I will play my part, and today is another example of how I am working to achieve that. Mr Kingston: I thank the Minister for his statement, particularly his commitment to being innovative and trying new things to maximise delivery. Does he have any figures on the economic value that building social housing brings to Northern Ireland? Mr Lyons: There is huge value from homebuilding for those who get the houses. That is why I have placed such emphasis on making sure that we have houses. I have said time and again in the Chamber that someone having a safe and warm home in which to live and grow up helps their life chances, and it takes pressure off other Departments. Huge economic value also comes from housebuilding in Northern Ireland. In 2024-25, the estimated economic impact of the social housing development programme was over £1 billion. It needs to be kept in mind that we are not just providing additional homes for people but creating economic benefit. Ms K Armstrong: I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, I appreciate that your budget for new builds has been extremely testing, and I support your comments about housing associations, but there is a risk in your proposals, and it concerns how much the housing associations will be able to borrow in order to deliver the new homes. Are you satisfied that they have the capacity for the increased borrowing that they will have to take on? Will you clarify whether the new rate will affect houses that are in the process of being built or apply only to future applications? Mr Lyons: The new rate will take effect from 1 December, so it will not affect houses that are already under construction or that begin construction before that date. Yes, the housing associations have the capacity. The borrowing facility is there, and the banks are satisfied that they will be able to provide the money. The Member talks about risk, but the bigger risk is in doing nothing, because that will result in fewer homes being built. Time and again in the House, Members call for action — for things to happen — and action is what I am taking today. I am taking action to make sure that we build more social homes. Mr Allen: The Minister advised my Committee colleague on the other side of the House that housing association rents have already gone up. Can he guarantee the House that rents will not go up further as a result of the change? If I am not taking liberties by asking, what co-design approach — we often hear about such an approach — was undertaken with housing associations to arrive at the new rate? Mr Lyons: I am happy to confirm that there is, as the Member would expect, regular engagement with housing associations. We hold quarterly meetings at official level, and I meet housing associations individually and collectively. The matter has been on the radar, and the housing associations have for some time been aware of the options that were in front of me. I met them a few weeks ago to outline the rationale behind what I am doing and the justification for it. I will continue to work with them. It will ultimately be for them to decide where they put their funding and where they build. They have the capacity to do that, however. The private finance is available that will allow us to do what this is ultimately all about, which is building more social homes. Mrs Mason: Minister, you said that you intend to bring proposals to the Executive on greater utilisation of public land. Have you carried out any analysis of the amount of land that could be used for housing? Which Departments or other bodies will provide the bulk of that land? Mr Lyons: I have been engaging with the Department of Finance on the matter. It is complex, but we are getting to a good spot. I have not been directly involved in identifying such land, but the Housing Executive has some information. Moreover, the Department of Finance and, in particular, Land and Property Services (LPS) have information about where that land would be. As time goes on, we will be able to identify land that would make good sites for social housing. Ultimately, we need public subsidy in order to build social housing. If Executive colleagues say that they do not have any capital or cannot give up any in order for us to build, I will lean on them and say, "There's a site that you have" or, "Here's another way in which you can help". We will explore every option, as we are not yet at the stage of identifying sites, but that new and innovative way of doing things could go a long way to contributing to the proportion of the cost that would fall to government. It will enable us to build more homes. That is being discussed, and I hope that it can be progressed soon. Mr Middleton: Minister, I welcome your statement and the new initiatives that you are bringing forward to deliver more housing. If you had not made this intervention, what would the overall impact have been on social housing development? Mr Lyons: If we had maintained the grant rate where it was, we would be building fewer homes, and that would not be good value for money. That is why we have brought forward these measures today. Maintaining the grant rate would have meant fewer homes. The changes mean that we will not only keep up with what we have done in the past but be able to build more homes. We are also looking at the design guides and standards. That is important. Housing associations have told me that the guides require many things that are not really necessary or value for money. That is why I want to work with them. If they say that they can build more homes at better value and that not all homes need to be built to the same specification, I want to help them with that. I am not always looking for more money; I am also looking for ways in which we can reduce costs. That is why today's announcement is so important. Mr McMurray: I thank the Minister for his statement. The average grant rate is 46·5%. In Scotland, it is 55%, and in Wales, it is 67%. How did the Department arrive at 46·5%? What calculation was that based on? Mr Lyons: It is complex. In essence, there are total cost indicators (TCIs) and the housing association grant (HAG). The HAG reflects the uplifts that are identified by the Central Procurement Directorate's housing advisory unit. The HAG rate reflects the 30th percentile of rents and the average borrowing rate of 3·5%. Those are the benchmarks that are used to determine what is required, taking rental figures into consideration. I am happy to provide the Member with more detailed information on that. It is not straightforward for those who are not involved in it every day, but it can be clearly set out. I will be happy to provide that to the Member, as I will to the Committee. I will perhaps also put it in the Assembly Library. Mr McHugh: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a ráiteas. [Translation: I thank the Minister for his statement.] Minister, you referenced reviews of the design standards to which social housing must be built. Can you confirm what the scope of those reviews will be? Will you continue to ensure that homes are built to a high energy efficiency rating and that they are suitable for people with disabilities? Mr Lyons: Yes. I do not intend to change the energy efficiency standards of social homes. We want to make sure that our homes are as energy efficient as possible. However, some additional measures have been put in, for example, around lifetime homes. I want to make sure that we have provision for disabled people in Northern Ireland, but it does not make sense to ensure that every home is built to that standard when doing so could add considerable cost to a home that, over its lifetime, may never be used for that purpose. We need to be smarter in how we build our homes and how we allocate them. If we can build more homes that are appropriate for people, we should do so, rather than have a one-size-fits-all model that ends up being more expensive. I absolutely believe that we should have homes that can be adapted and used for people who have additional needs, but there is no point in building them all to that standard if doing so results in fewer homes overall. Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for his statement and for his move towards sensible and pragmatic approaches to the budget situation. Minister, can you confirm that, at every possible opportunity in Budget and monitoring rounds, you have bid for the equivalent capital required to meet the housebuilding target that was agreed in your housing supply strategy and in the Programme for Government? Mr Lyons: The Finance Minister has just walked in. He could answer that question as well. [Laughter.] He will be able to confirm that, at every possible opportunity, I have bid for the capital that I have required to build homes. I will continue to do that. Last year, we bid for £230 million, and, in total, we have received £177·5 million with, I hope, some additional money to come this year in monitoring rounds. Top 12.00 noon Ultimately, however, we need to make sure that we meet our targets. The Programme for Government had a clear target for housing. The actions that I am taking today are my attempt to make sure that we do everything that we can to increase the number of builds with the money that we have. We need more money, however. We need to increase that in order for us to meet that target. I have no doubt that the Finance Minister wants to make sure that we meet our social housing targets. The sector is watching, as are the construction industry and, most important, our constituents, so we need to make sure that a Budget is brought forward that gives us the capital that we need so that we can meet our targets. This is not just about somebody having a home but about all the other things that come from that. I have spoken in the House again and again about the importance of housing and how a good, warm home can take pressures off elsewhere. We need to realise not just that this is about helping people to find somewhere to live but that it is an investment, so we need the money for that. Mr Clarke: I thank the Minister for his statement. I am sure, Minister, that you are similar to all of us in the Chamber in finding that the lack of housing is one of the things that keep us busiest in our offices. We welcome the announcement. Some will be envious of the fact that it will cost £206,000 to build a social home given the quality of those houses, which should be lost on no one. That said, Minister, housing association rents are considerably dearer, which another Member remarked on. Is there any danger that those costs will increase, and, if so, do you have a mechanism to prevent that? If I may add this, to be cheeky: how are we coming along on the funding for the Housing Executive, which can deliver at a much reduced cost? Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Minister, you can answer all or some of those questions. Mr Lyons: Those are the costs that have been provided as our estimates for building a social home. Many people will be surprised at their cost, which is why I want to make sure that we look at how we can make it cheaper to build social homes. The housing associations need to build those homes to a certain standard. I want to make sure that everything that we build is necessary. We will look at the design guide and at Secured by Design so that we can bring in additional certainty and do everything that we can to bring that cost down. We are also looking at how we can use land, because that is a massive part of the cost of housing overall. We are looking at all the elements of that. Rent is up to the housing associations, but I will take rents into consideration, as well as the return that housing associations get for their properties, when I am determining the housing association grant in future. The Member mentioned the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. I want to see that revitalisation take place, and I am glad that that is now part of the fiscal framework discussions. We need to see that accelerated and delivered, however, because we are losing money every month by not proceeding with it and by not having the powers to invest in our stock and to build new stock. Mr Dickson: I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, you indicated that you are prepared to undertake a review, which housing associations have welcomed. Who will carry out the review, which is to be completed by September 2026, and will it be co-designed with housing associations and tenants? Mr Lyons: It absolutely will include housing associations. I am more than happy to bring other voices into that review. The housing associations asked for a review, and I am keen that it is done as soon as possible. I was encouraged by my conversations with them, and I think that they want to move even more quickly on it. It is to their benefit and ours to make sure that it is done as quickly as possible. We will, of course, listen to others who may have something to bring to the table. Ms Mulholland: Thank you, Minister, for coming to the House today with the statement. We know that housing associations are independent businesses in their own right that and that it is up to their boards to determine whether, with such a significant change, they can afford to continue to deliver new homes. Minister, will you give us a wee bit of insight into your basis for saying that you do not think that this will impact on the number of new homes that will be started? Mr Lyons: The number of new homes that we could start would have been impacted if we had done nothing, because our budget is not increasing in line with the cost of building homes. We either build fewer homes, or we increase the funding that is available. In the absence of that funding being available from the Executive at this time, we are looking to housing associations and the private finance that they can draw on and that we are unable to draw on. I have consulted housing associations; I have had conversations with banks; and I have had conversations with the Housing Executive. We do not believe that this will have a net negative impact; in fact, we believe that it will help us to build more homes, and I hope that the Member will be supportive of that. I thought that the Member was chuntering during my speech, but I think that it turned out to be a sneeze on her part [Laughter.] I hope that it was not negative noises coming from the bottom of the Chamber, and I hope that she is actually in support. Mr Robinson: I thank the Minister for his comments and his statement. Will the reduction in the grant for housing associations impact on the viability of some schemes? If so, what will be the overall impact on the programme? Mr Lyons: Ultimately, it will be for each housing association to determine and assess the viability of each of the schemes, but reviewing the grant levels will also come with a review on standards, so it is important that we ensure that the ecosystem for housing drives efficiency and innovation. In my conversations, I have been encouraged to hear that we are in a healthy lending environment. Housing associations have the ability to borrow, and that leverages the capital that we can invest in the programme. Hopefully, housing associations will understand that, first, I am providing certainty over a long period and, secondly, I am reviewing the design guides and the standards to see how homes can be built more cheaply, ensuring that we can, therefore, build more homes. That is what I am trying to do, and it is a positive measure. The alternative would mean fewer homes. What I am doing today not only maintains the current trajectory that we are on but will mean that we can build more homes. Mr Gaston: Minister, picking up on your proposal to the Executive to make better use of public land, I note that a recent planning application for a new build for Slemish College in Ballymena had to be withdrawn, as neither the Education Department nor the Infrastructure Department would pay for the new road to open up land. If you take the lead on the project to develop public land, will you take the view that interested Departments need to share the infrastructure costs to open up land to ensure that it can be developed for housing, schools and regeneration projects and ensure that sites such as that at Ballee Road West will not lie dormant due to the Executive continuing to work in silos? Mr Lyons: That is exactly why I brought forward a housing supply strategy that commits all Executive Departments to working towards the goal on the number of homes that we want to build and ensures that we work together to achieve that as soon as possible. Absolutely, there is a responsibility and an onus on everybody to make sure that they play their part, and I will not be found wanting in making sure that other Departments play the roles that they need to play. I want other Departments to give me the funding that is necessary, and I want other Departments to help on issues such as waste water and other infrastructure. I will play my part, and I hope that others will play theirs. Mr Carroll: You say that you have listened to the housing associations and the sector, but NIFHA has said that the proposals have been developed without consultation with the sector and that their full impact has not been assessed. Minister, the statement will mean, despite what you have said, that funding from your Department to housing associations will be cut. What assessment have you made of the impact that that will have on rent increases for people who are struggling already and living in housing association properties? Mr Lyons: I repeat the point that doing nothing would result in fewer homes being built. I do not know whether that is the Member's position, but it certainly sounds like it. I want to build more social homes, in contrast to the Member. It is right that we take this step, because the alternative would mean that you would, potentially, push more people into the private rented sector and the rents that many people face there. I make no apology for doing what I can to build more homes. The Member has opposed me on nearly every move that I have made to increase housing supply, which makes me think that I am doing something right. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, that concludes questions on the statement. Please take your ease before we move on to the next item in the Order Paper. (Mr Speaker in the Chair) Executive Committee Business Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill: Further Consideration Stage Mr Speaker: I call the Minister of Finance, John O'Dowd, to move the Further Consideration Stage of the Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill. Moved. — [Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance).] Mr Speaker: Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments detailing the single amendment for debate. The amendment will be debated under the group heading: "Fees for Certificates of Baby Loss". I remind Members that, once the debate on the amendment is completed, the Question on the amendment will be taken. If that is clear, we shall proceed. Clause 11 (Certificates of baby loss) Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): I beg to move the following amendment: In page 6, line 5, leave out paragraph (e) and insert— "(e) the charging of fees for— (i) any copies of a certificate other than the original and the first copy of it (but not for an amended certificate or any copies of it); (ii) the issue of any certificate (or copy) by an expedited service." Members will recall from the Consideration Stage debate two weeks ago that the Bill will do three important things. First, it will place the temporary power contained in the Coronavirus Act 2020 that enables the remote registration of deaths and stillbirths and the electronic transfer of registration documents on a permanent footing. Secondly, it will rectify differences in the birth and stillbirth registration processes for some opposite-sex and same-sex female parents. Thirdly, it will enable the making of secondary legislation for the introduction of a baby loss certificate scheme. I am grateful to Members for the support that they have shown for the Bill to date and, in particular, for the favourable comments from all sides on the proposed baby loss certificate scheme. I draw Members' attention to the report on our recent public consultation on the details of the baby loss certificate scheme that was published last week. The report sets out the views and opinions of the 1,182 people and organisations that responded to the consultation on a wide range of matters, including eligibility criteria, certificate content and changes. I am grateful to all those who took the time to contribute to the consultation, and I am sure that it was difficult for many contributors as they reflected on their personal sad experiences. The consultation will help to shape the scheme around the needs and expectations of families. I turn to the amendment. It has always been my intention that the baby loss certificate scheme should be a compassionate service open to anyone who has suffered a loss early in pregnancy. Although a certificate cannot undo the pain of their experience, it can provide families with a formal recognition of their loss and validate their grief. For that reason, it has always been my view that there should be no charge when someone applies for a baby loss certificate. At Consideration Stage, two amendments were tabled on the matter of charges for baby loss certificates. Neither amendment was moved at Consideration Stage after I suggested that the Department would work with Members to agree a consensus amendment that would ensure that no family would be charged for the first two baby loss certificates. I thank Mr Frew, Ms Forsythe and Mr Tennyson for working with my officials to draft and provisionally agree the language of the amendment that I propose today. The amendment is narrowly drawn. It states that the regulations may provide for there to be no fees for a first baby loss certificate and a first duplicate of that certificate and no charges for amended certificates. It makes arrangements for baby loss certificates that are similar to those for other life events in that it allows for the possibility of charges for subsequent copies of certificates and charges for an expedited delivery service, subject — this is the important part — to the agreement of the Assembly. The amendment will mean that a family applying for a first baby loss certificate will not be charged for it and that, if they require a duplicate copy for any reason, they will not be charged for that either. If the family discover an error in a baby loss certificate or want to add information to it, such as the name or sex of the baby, they will also be able to do that free of charge. No fee will be applied in respect of amended certificates. That is consistent with the compassionate service that we are seeking to provide. Top 12.15 pm The proposed amendment will give the Department the flexibility to charge fees in the future, again subject to the agreement of the Assembly, for subsequent copies of the baby loss certificate when first and second copies have been issued. The amendment will also enable a fee to be applied, subject to the view of the Assembly, for the provision of a faster delivery service for a baby loss certificate. Although an option will be retained for a free standard delivery service, a faster service will enable an application for a baby loss certificate to be accepted and processed within one hour at General Register Office (GRO) public counters or issued on the same day for online or postal applications. Those arrangements will be in line with the faster services options offered for other life event certificates. Using the faster service would not affect a person's entitlement to get their free first certificate and duplicate certificate. Any changes levied would be for the faster service not the certificate. Charges in those two circumstances for the faster delivery service and for a third subsequent certificate can be introduced only with the approval of the Assembly. As clause 11(5) sets out, the regulations will specify the detail of the scheme and follow the draft affirmative process, whereby Members will be given the opportunity to consider and debate any changes proposed. It is important to me that the proposal is closely aligned with the findings of the public consultation on the details of the baby loss certificate scheme that the Department conducted over the summer. That told us that the public overwhelmingly favoured baby loss certificates being free and believed that amendments to certificates should also be free but that it was reasonable to charge for duplicate certificates. Although the public were narrowly split on the question of a charge for a faster delivery service, the amendment also seeks the power to charge for that service. We will bring specific proposals on that matter to the Assembly for consideration through the regulations. One of the unfortunate aspects of making legislation is that we have to discuss matters such as fees. I appreciate that Members will remain focused on the purpose of the legislation and the purpose of the baby loss certificates. As legislators, we have to create legislation that is workable and future-proofed as best we can, and sometimes you have to get into areas that are unsavoury, for want of a better word, but those are the things that we as legislators have to do. However, I am sure that Members are focused on the purpose of what we are about today. Mr Speaker: Thank you, Minister. Mr O'Toole (The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance): I will speak to the Finance Committee's scrutiny of the Bill as Chair of the Committee and to the one amendment on the Marshalled List. Clause 11 gives the Department the power to introduce a baby loss certificate scheme. The House previously supported the introduction of baby loss certificates, and it was the Finance Committee that ensured that those were included in the Bill. I am really proud of the work of the Committee on a cross-party basis and the constructive work that took place with the Minister and his Department. There was unanimity on the Committee that such a scheme be introduced. Committee discussions were, therefore, centred mostly around the potential in the future for a monetary charge. The Department confirmed to the Committee that a charge could not and would not be introduced without the approval of the House, and that is an important point. Even following the passing, I assume, of the amendment, that measure would have to come forward via a draft affirmative resolution in the future. As I said, the Department confirmed to the Committee that a charge could not and would not be introduced without the approval of the House. Any potential charge would have to be introduced via subordination legislation through the draft affirmative process, allowing the statutory rule to be debated and amended. The Committee agreed, therefore, to proceed without its own amendment on the issue, although individual Members submitted their own amendments, as the Minister said. During Consideration Stage, the Committee was aware of those amendments submitted regarding the potential for charging for a certificate but did not take a specific view on them. I note that the amendments were not moved in order to allow the Department the space to develop its own amendment that clarified the position on the potential for charging for a certificate. The Minister has now submitted his amendment on the issue, and I state for the record that the Committee has not discussed the amendment and, therefore, has not taken a position on it. I further note that current and former members of the Committee who submitted the previous amendments worked with the Department to bring a resolution to the issue, and I thank them for that work. I reiterate to the Chamber the Committee's unanimous support for the Bill. The ability to register deaths, in general, electronically and putting that into permanent legislation is an important consolidation of a change that happened during COVID. That will now be put on the statute book. Also, the ability to create a baby loss certificate is a really important opportunity for bereaved parents, as we have discussed and, I am sure, will discuss again at Final Stage. As I indicated, the Committee welcomes the Bill. We were critical to the introduction of the baby loss certificate provision. We undertook our scrutiny, and we are fully supportive of the process to move the Bill to Final Stage. I will briefly say one or two sentences in a party capacity. I acknowledge that the Minister has worked constructively on this. It is an important example of how the legislative process should work. Obviously, it helps when there is an issue on which there is a degree of unanimity around the outcome, but it is important — I acknowledge the position that the Minister made clear — to say that this is not a desire to impose a charge willy-nilly at some point in the future. It is about designing legislation that is completely robust and can be operational when the secondary legislation enacting the scheme is finally brought forward. As a party, we are supportive of the position today and look forward to the Bill moving to Final Stage and then being enacted. Miss Dolan: I welcome the continued progress of the Bill, which modernises our process for registering deaths and stillbirths and introduces a baby loss certificate scheme. It is important legislation with compassion and equality at its core. It will help to reduce stress for those who have suffered a bereavement by enabling the electronic transfer of documents, providing the same rights as others for same-sex female couples and ensuring formal recognition for parents who have lost a baby prior to 24 weeks. During the Committee Stage, it was extremely poignant to hear directly from parents who have had a heartbreaking loss, and I welcome the Finance Minister's commitment to engage with parents to help shape the development of the baby loss certificate scheme. I again acknowledge those parents who shared their stories with us and thank them for their role in shaping the legislation. One significant aspect of their contributions was that we ensure that the scheme is as accessible as possible. I share the desire that I have heard from others in the Chamber that there should be no unnecessary barriers to people accessing a certificate during a time of immense loss, and I will therefore support the amendment, which prohibits charging for either the original certificate or its copy. While our different political views are often on display here, this legislation is an example of positive changes that, by working together in partnership, this Assembly can provide for people in emotionally challenging circumstances. Ms Forsythe: I am pleased to speak at the Further Consideration Stage of the Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill. As I have previously stated, I am pleased that the House has worked together with a clear voice to agree this legislation, which embeds compassion into modernising the legislative process of registering deaths in Northern Ireland. I am also pleased that, through this new law, here in Northern Ireland, we are clearly recognising the precious life of every single unborn baby from the moment that they are formed within the womb. No longer will those babies who are heartbreakingly lost prior to 24 weeks of pregnancy be without formal recognition of their life. The legislation introduces baby loss certificates. In the Finance Committee, we ensured that those were included in the Bill. It is really good to see that work delivered through the legislation. A key principle of the baby loss certificates was that they should be free of charge. The Department had advised that, as this was coming forward in legislation rather than policy in Northern Ireland, a safeguard provision to charge should be included. My colleague Paul Frew and I felt that that was not clear in stating the intention that a certificate and copy should be guaranteed as free, so we drafted an amendment. We are pleased to have worked with the Department on the wording of the amendment, and we support the Minister's amendment today, which encapsulates our intention. I am pleased to speak in support of the Bill and to have played a small part in delivering this legislation. The ability to register death and stillbirths without having to attend a registration office in person is to be welcomed. The opportunity for bereaved parents to obtain a baby loss certificate is hugely significant. Having a new law in Northern Ireland that recognises that every life matters is something that we, as an Assembly and a society, should be proud of. I express sympathy to all who have lost loved ones and are affected by this legislation. I hope that the process to deliver guidelines and practicalities progresses efficiently, with compassion remaining at the heart of the process. The DUP supports the Bill. Ms K Armstrong: Thank you, Minister, for bringing the Further Consideration Stage today. On behalf of the Alliance Party, I am pleased to confirm our support for the Minister's amendment. The registration of deaths and stillbirths, including the provision, now, of baby loss certificates, is extremely important to the many of us in the House who will have to go through registering one or more of them. A compromise arrangement has been agreed. The Minister's original proposal will be changed by the amendment thanks to the input of the DUP, which suggested the compromise of free certificates. Thank you for that, and thank you to all who worked together on it. This process is an example of how we can be a compassionate House. Through compromise, careful negotiation and debate, we have come to the stage at which we will have, at long last, baby loss certificates, and I thank you all for that. I look forward to seeing the regulations that are published when the Bill is finally passed. It is key that they are as flexible as possible in the area of baby loss certificates to ensure that those who may not know the gender of their baby, or those for whom the date may be difficult to determine and so on, will have an opportunity to register their baby in a way that suits them. I do not sit on the Finance Committee and I am not in the Department of Finance. It has been a difficult debate for me to take part in the debates on the Bill, so I thank all those who have taken evidence and been so careful with it. I worked for many years as a bereavement counsellor for people who had suffered miscarriages, and I have not been behind the door in telling everyone about my losses. However, today is an important day. I cannot make that more clear. Having baby loss certificates will be of value to parents, and it is important that we recognise that the difficult work that has been done. It has been difficult to hear the evidence. It is a very emotive issue, but today we in this House can congratulate ourselves on doing something that is compassionate and has been needed for a long time. Thank you, Minister, and thank you to your Department. Mr Frew: I will limit my remarks to the amendment. The debate is welcome, and the amendment brought forward by the Minister is very much welcome. The Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill is a very important piece of legislation for a number of reasons, one of which is that it deals with death. It is important, therefore, that we treat it with respect and sensitivity. Throughout the Bill's passage, we have done that in both the Chamber and the Committee for Finance. I commend the work of the Committee for Finance, which I have now left. I took great interest in the Bill from the start and pushed the Department to bring it forward as quickly as possible and include baby loss certificates. That brings me to the amendment. I place on record my thanks to the departmental officials, the Department and the Minister for listening and working with Members to get the best possible legislation. On this side of the House, we recognise that the Department, because it was making provision for baby loss certificates through legislation, needed to ensure that there were parameters in the regulations to which it would otherwise not have wished to stretch. However, it needed that cover in legislation in case something arose in the future. With that knowledge, we proceeded down the route of a compromise amendment to send to the Minister and ascertain his thoughts on it. We did not move it at Consideration Stage because we felt that there had been good engagement from the Department and the Minister. We took the Minister at his word at Consideration Stage, and we have been delighted with the engagement since then. This is an example of the House operating in the best way possible. When we work constructively together, we should acknowledge it. Therefore, I thank the Minister and the Department and its officials for the work they undertook, with not only us — myself and Diane Forsythe from the DUP — but also Eóin Tennyson of the Alliance Party, to ensure that the amendment was tabled today and the House, including the two parties involved, was content and supportive of its wording. That has come to pass. Today is a really good day for the Assembly, and it is a better day for all those who have been and those who will be bereaved, especially those mourning the loss of a baby before 24 weeks. My heart goes out to those who have suffered in that way, but at least they know that the Assembly and the Department are listening. Top 12.30 pm Mr Carroll: I will briefly speak against the amendment. I have said previously that such an amendment goes against the spirit of the Bill and even against what the Minister said at the Bill's earlier stages. It also goes against the heartfelt and emotional evidence that we received at the Finance Committee. It is unlikely that people will ever request more than one copy of a certificate. If they do, we should presume that it is for a valid, humane and possibly emotionally charged reason. Imposing a charge is unnecessary, and no rationale has been provided for it, apart from the possibility of a situation arising in the future. Even then, that could be traumatic and upsetting for people who have suffered a stillbirth, baby loss or other tragedy. For that reason, I oppose the amendment. I appreciate that I may be in an opposition of one, but I am happy to put my position on the record. Mr Speaker: I call the Minister of Finance to make a winding-up speech. Mr O'Dowd: I thank all the Members who contributed to the heartfelt debates on the matter, who corresponded with my office and who otherwise engaged meaningfully to help push forward this important Bill. I am grateful for the support from across the House for the element of the Bill that establishes a legal footing for a baby loss certificate scheme. I particularly thank the Members who spoke so sensitively on the matter and those who worked with my officials to draft and provisionally agree the language of today's amendment. I also express my gratitude to the Committee for its work on the legislation. I tabled an amendment that will ensure that the vast majority of families will never face a charge for a baby loss certificate. It will happen only in exceptional circumstances, if that is the will of the Assembly. I urge Members to continue to support the passage of the Bill and to support the amendment in order to ground in permanent legislation the remote registration practice for deaths and stillbirths, to remove inequalities in registration procedures and to provide for the establishment of a baby loss certificate. Each of those important steps will contribute to the building of a more equal, empathetic and efficient registration service for people at key points in their lives. I commend the amendment to the House. Amendment agreed to. Mr Speaker: That concludes the Further Consideration Stage of the Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker. I thank Members for the way in which they have conducted themselves throughout the debates on the Bill thus far. The Assembly is to be commended for its work on the Bill. Members should take their ease for a moment while a change is made to the Chair. (Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair) Farm Sustainability Payment Scheme (Eligibility etc) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025 Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I beg to move That the draft Farm Sustainability Payment Scheme (Eligibility etc) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025 be approved. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time limit on the debate. Mr Muir: I am grateful for the opportunity to propose the motion. By way of background, the sustainable agriculture programme (SAP) represents a bespoke programme of farm support that is targeted to meet the needs of Northern Ireland and seeks to implement policies and strategies that benefit the environment and support our economically significant agri-food sector. The sustainable agriculture programme has been developed with a range of agriculture and environment stakeholders, including the agricultural policy stakeholder group (APSG), which has brought robustness to the development process. As part of the roll-out of the sustainable agriculture programme, the farm sustainability payment (FSP) scheme is planned for introduction in 2026 and will replace the current farm sustainability transition payment (FSTP). The FSP, which is expected to attract approximately 22,000 applications annually, will act as a balance between providing a safety net that will help a farm business to withstand shocks that are beyond its ability to manage effectively and encouraging farm businesses to become more environmentally sustainable, efficient and resilient. The introduction of FSP will see the roll-out of the following key policy changes: implementation of the historical years exercise; progressive capping; new land eligibility rules; new farm sustainability standards to replace cross-compliance; and the introduction of conditionalities. The Farm Sustainability Payment Scheme (Eligibility etc) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025 will give my Department the legal powers to introduce the farm sustainability payment and the various elements outlined with effect from 1 January 2026. By way of background, a consultation exercise on the proposed farm sustainability payment scheme, along with other elements of future agricultural policy, was undertaken in late 2021, and the responses informed policy decisions that were announced by my predecessor in March 2022. Any decisions that I have taken subsequently in relation to scheme requirements are intended to have a positive impact on FSP applicants and the wider agricultural community. For example, one decision had been to increase the minimum claim size for FSP from three hectares to five hectares. Following further consultation with the AERA Committee and stakeholders, I decided that the minimum claim size for FSP will remain at three hectares. Applicants to the FSP scheme in 2026 will therefore need to activate three entitlements on three hectares of eligible land to meet FSP requirements. The historical years requirement was included in the Farm Sustainability (Transitional Provisions) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025, which were made earlier this year. The regulations being debated today amend the transitional regulations and clarify that businesses that do not meet the historical years requirement will not be eligible for the FSP scheme in 2026 only and that their entitlements may be transferred only to an existing eligible farm business. The Farm Sustainability Payment Scheme (Eligibility etc) Regulations introduce progressive capping of the FSP payments, phased in over two-year period, for payments over £60,000, with capping levels increasing in bands based on the size of payments. As I stated, the policy intent of FSP is to provide agricultural support to act as a balance between providing a safety net that will help a farm business to withstand shocks that are beyond its ability to manage effectively and encouraging farm businesses to become more environmentally sustainable, efficient and resilient. High support payments can encourage unwarranted risk-taking and reduce the incentive to manage risk within a farm business. By introducing progressive capping, my intention is to strike a balance between providing a safety net that helps a farm business to withstand shocks that are beyond its ability to manage risk effectively and dampening the incentive to be efficient and competitive and to manage risk proactively. The decision to introduce progressive capping of FSP payments was announced in 2022, giving businesses time to adjust. In addition, progressive capping is being introduced over two years, with 50% of final capping deductions being introduced in the first year and full implementation in the second year. Phasing that in over two years will allow farm businesses time to adapt. The regulations also introduce simplified land eligibility rules for the FSP scheme compared with those that were in place previously. The objective of the revised rules is to establish practical land eligibility rules that complement the FSP scheme's objectives and that can be easily understood and efficiently and effectively controlled. The regulations include a list of features and land use types that will be ineligible for the FSP scheme, such as building sites, public and private gardens, public parks, golf courses and airstrips. To support the simplified land eligibility rules and mitigate any unintended consequences, the regulations amend the eligibility requirements for the FSP scheme to state that only active farmers undertaking agricultural activity are eligible to apply. They must also have management control of the land used to activate the entitlements. Consequently, the regulations require applicants to the FSP scheme to carry out agricultural activity on at least 3 hectares of land used to activate entitlements. However, where an applicant submits a claim for fewer than 5 hectares, they must carry out agricultural activity on at least 2 hectares of land. To ensure equality across schemes, the land eligibility rules introduced by the regulations will also apply to environmental farming scheme (EFS) higher agreements made by my Department before the date on which the regulations come into operation. The regulations legislate that, in order to receive their full payment and to ensure that farm businesses gain the maximum benefit from the schemes, applicants to the FSP scheme will be required to meet the following conditionalities to drive the uptake of data schemes that are critical for soil health, carbon management and genetic improvement. The conditionalities will be phased in. The first conditionality is participation in the soil nutrient health scheme (SNHS). That scheme has been developed to assist farm businesses in planning their farm nutrient management more effectively. It will help to facilitate improvements to our water environment and future platform for carbon measures. The information provided by the scheme will allow farm businesses to better target the application of crop nutrients, reduce nutrient waste and help to increase farm profitability. To meet the conditionality, farm businesses must have registered for the soil nutrient health scheme and completed the training offered to them by the close of the single application form window on 15 May 2027. For farm businesses that are not compliant at that stage, the regulations legislate that a 10% reduction will be applied to their farm sustainability payment in 2027. That reduction will be increased to 15% for continued non-compliance in 2028 and will continue to be applied at 15% until the conditionality has been met. The second planned conditionality is participation in the bovine genetics project (BGP). The bovine genetics project is of significant interest to industry and government due to the benefits of breeding animals with improved health and welfare, enhanced production and efficiency, a lower carbon footprint and lower pollution potential. Genetic improvement is identified as a key measure in the bovine tuberculosis Northern Ireland blueprint for eradication. It is also one of the measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the draft climate action plan 2023-27 and is one of the mitigations identified in the draft ammonia strategy. My Department is delivering the project in partnership with the agri-food industry through a not-for-profit company called Sustainable Ruminant Genetics Limited (SRG). SRG is providing industry leadership and is working with my Department to deliver several key functions, including the supply of industry data and the promotion and marketing of the project to producers and other stakeholders. The bovine genetics conditionality requires farm businesses with bovine animals to register for the project and complete the training offered to them by the close of the single application form window on 15 May 2028. As with the soil nutrient health scheme, there is conditionality for farm businesses that are not compliant at that stage. The regulations legislate that a 10% reduction will be applied to their farm sustainability payment in 2028. That reduction will be increased to 15% for continued non-compliance in 2029 and will continue to be applied at 15% until the conditionality has been met. The regulations also legislate that penalties for failure to meet FSP scheme conditionalities should be applied concurrently. A third conditionality of participation in the carbon footprinting project is also planned. That conditionality is not included in the regulations as the timeline for roll-out of the project has still to be set. The regulations reset the two-year entitlement confiscation rule from the commencement of the scheme, meaning that no entitlements will be confiscated for non-activation in 2026 because the FSTP and the FSP schemes are being treated as two separate schemes Top 12.45 pm The technical changes included in the regulations define the order in which my Department will apply scheme penalties, as follows: first, the over-declaration penalty, which includes duplicate fields; then, the late claim penalty; then, conditionality reductions; and, finally, farm sustainability standards (FSS) penalties. Under-declaration and late fee penalties have been removed, and the penalty for over-declaration of land has been increased from 1·5 times the difference found to twice the difference found. Preliminary checks will no longer be mandatory. My Department retains the authority to implement other checks, as required. The mandatory, on-the-spot checks inspection rate has been removed and replaced with a requirement for my Department to define the rate, as land eligibility controls will be carried out using remote sensing techniques, thereby completely removing that requirement. The regulations remove penalties that exceed 100% of the payment due in respect of what were previously area-based payments under pillar 2 of the common agricultural policy, chiefly, agrienvironment and forestry payments. Those penalties apply to a very small number of businesses and were complicated to administer, as they involved a deduction to payments in following years. Finally, the regulations simplify the requirements regarding control reports for farm sustainability standard checks. That concludes my overview of the Farm Sustainability Payment Scheme (Eligibility etc) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025. I thank the officials who have engaged with the Committee to date on what is a complicated area of legislation, and I am happy to answer any questions that may arise as a result of the debate. Mr Butler (The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I apologise for not being in my seat at the start of the debate, as proceedings have moved rather quickly today. The Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs has been scrutinising the draft regulations over a number of meetings. I rise to represent the view of the Committee, and, at the end, if I have a few moments, I will share that of the Ulster Unionist Party. The Committee is unable to support the motion unanimously, having voted four members for and four against. In its consideration, the Committee engaged substantively with the Department, having received initial oral briefings on the scheme from officials on 26 June. If we track the regulations back to the Department's consultation on sustainable agriculture programme proposals and the ambition for a resilience payment in 2021, it was at least heartening to hear that the Department is now seeking to make regulations that are planned to take effect on 1 January 2026. On 9 October, the Committee received an oral briefing from officials on the SL1 for these draft regulations, and, for the record, the Examiner of Statutory Rules advised that the SR was not drawn to the special attention of the Assembly. The stated ambition of the Department was that the farm sustainability payment should provide a balance between providing a safety net for those financial shocks, to which the Minister referred, that farm businesses cannot be expected to manage. It is also about encouraging farm businesses to become more environmentally sustainable, efficient and resilient. The regulations do indeed help to bring those key policy changes to the fore. Regarding the implementation of the historical years exercise, there are new, simplified land eligibility rules, new farm sustainability standards to replace cross-compliance and progressive capping for payments above £60,000. To qualify, applicants will also have to fulfil certain conditionality requirements, such as participating in a particular scheme or project. Non-compliance will lead to penalties that will see a reduction in the FSP until that conditionality has been met or restored. It is apparent from the recap that there was plenty for the Committee to consider. I will make some points on the Committee's agreed position, but I am confident that Committee members in the Chamber will add their particular positions articulately and clearly as the debate progresses. Concerns were raised, particularly in placing the phased-in conditionality on payments. That was viewed by some members as a further imposition on farmers without sufficient clear incentives, and some members questioned whether enough work had been done to gain the confidence of farmers. The Department has told us that it does not want farm businesses to receive penalties for non-participation in the bovine genetics project and the soil nutrient health scheme but, instead, wishes farm businesses to participate in the schemes to gain the benefits that they will deliver. You will understand that the Committee was not able to agree that there was the required level of assurance for farmers that the conditionality aspect was clear and did not penalise non-participants unduly. Further concern was raised that some farmers who may not be fully aware of the conditionalities would see a penalty being imposed and that the risk of additional compliance requirements on an already heavily scrutinised sector perhaps adds its own risk, and certainly causes concern, for farming families. The Committee was pleased to note that the College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise (CAFRE) is planning communication, promotions, training and awareness events on aspects of the conditionality for farmers, agents and other agriprofessionals to ensure that farmers can avoid finding themselves in a position where a penalty would be applied. However, the Committee does not agree that the carrot and the stick are balanced in that case. On the matter of progressive capping, officials advised that that feature will be introduced, as it is believed that high support payments can encourage unwarranted risk-taking and reduce the incentive to manage risk within the farm business. Concerns were expressed that that would be viewed as a disincentive to progress for larger farms with no alternative income sources, which may require higher levels of investment and therefore carry a greater risk of debt, given their size, and that it may also place a brake on entrepreneurism in that vital sector. I hope that I have reflected the concerns raised by the Committee about the regulations. In short, those opposed to them, including me at that point, were really concerned about the balance between incentives and capping, penalties and conditionalities. As I mentioned earlier, Committee members will, I am sure, add their own thoughts and considerations. In conclusion, before I add my own words, the Committee was unable to recommend that the draft Farm Sustainability Payment Scheme (Eligibility etc) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025 be approved by the Assembly, but Committee members will get their chance to vote on the regulations and speak in the debate. On behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the draft Farm Sustainability Payment Scheme (Eligibility etc) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025. I do so in a spirit that is firm, constructive and rooted in the Ulster Unionist Party's unwavering support for our farming families, our agri-food sector and the future resilience of Northern Ireland. At the outset, it is right to recognise that the scheme was not created overnight. It is the culmination of a suite of support consultations launched by the then Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, Edwin Poots, back in 2021. It is equally right to acknowledge that the conditionalities that were proposed at that time, which are perhaps the most difficult part of the regulations, have been the most technically challenging to get our heads around. That would secure assurances, clarity and workable timetables. It has taken the Department time to develop that and to provide confidence not just to us as legislators but to the farming and agri-food sector. However, that is the reality of trying to strike a balance between providing a dependable basic payment that protects farm viability and driving the broader ambition for a better environmental stewardship programme, improved soil health, lower carbon emissions and long-term farm sustainability. I am sure that most Members recognise that reconciling all those aims is difficult, but it is necessary if we are serious about the future of Northern Ireland and food production here. A key part of that in the presentations must be the bovine genetics programme. It is here that some of the greatest long-tail benefits can be realised, and we should be very confident and clear when we speak about it. Better genetics mean more efficient livestock, improved fertility, reduced methane intensity and stronger disease resistance. That includes, importantly, helping to reduce the spread and impact of bovine TB, which we have talked about many, many times in the Chamber. Fewer sick animals, lower losses and a lower carbon footprint are wins not simply for farm families but for the economy and the environment that we share. I appreciate that conditionality has raised concerns, and it should. I have consistently made it clear that any new requirements must be introduced fairly, proportionately and with proper support. Farmers must know what is expected of them and have access to the training and tools that are needed to meet those expectations. We welcome CAFRE's commitment to communication, training and awareness events, because no farmer should ever fall into penalty through confusion or lack of information. There are, however, areas where the Minister has listened, and that listening matters. The reduction in the minimum land size requirement from 5 hectares to 3 hectares is a victory for common sense and fairness, and we thank the Minister for that. It ensures that smaller family farms — the backbone of our rural economy — are not pushed out or penalised simply because of scale. Likewise, the Minister's assurances to the hundreds of farmers who have been caught in the historical years issue will offer some confidence. I assume that that will only apply in 2026 and that, going forward, the scheme will operate annually, with the ability to buy and sell and purchase entitlements, therefore restoring eligibility. The Ulster Unionist Party supports the scheme because it supports farm families. However, our support comes with a long-term vision: food security, energy security, climate responsibility and economic opportunity all working together for our rural areas. We cannot pit one against the other. Northern Ireland has the opportunity to lead the way: from better genetics to better soils; from sustainable livestock to the development of anaerobic digestion technologies, biogas capacity and decarbonised rural energy settings; and in systems that complement, not compete with, food production. Our farming future must be one of resilience, innovation and fairness. The scheme is not perfect — no scheme ever is — but it is a step towards equipping our agri-food sector for the challenges and opportunities for the next generation. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, with those comments, I confirm that the Ulster Unionist Party will support the regulations and our ongoing commitment to Northern Ireland's farming families, our countryside and our shared future. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Robbie. Given the time and the fact that the Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm, I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The debate will continue at 2.45 pm after Question Time, and Patsy McGlone will be the first Member to be called to speak. The debate stood suspended. The sitting was suspended at 12.56 pm. On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) — Top 2.00 pm Oral Answers to Questions Education Mr Speaker: Questions 4 and 6 have been withdrawn. Causeway Academy: Capital Funding 1. Ms Hunter asked the Minister of Education why capital funding was not secured for a new, purpose-built site as part of the development plan for the new Causeway Academy. (AQO 2715/22-27) Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): The Education Authority (EA), as the proposer of the development proposal to establish the new Causeway Academy, is proceeding with its implementation. The new Causeway Academy will open in September 2026 and will operate across the three existing sites. The EA is working with the school’s principal designate on the configuration of the three sites. The approach will be student-centred with the objective of minimising movement for students throughout their post-primary career. It will maximise the educational experience and achievement of all students, whilst allowing exam year groups to complete their education on their current sites. Students will also benefit from a familiar environment and understanding the established routines, relationships and support systems on their current site. A communications plan is in place to provide updates to current and prospective pupils, parents, staff, governors and the wider school community at key times. While there was support among stakeholders for a single-site solution for the new school, the cost of approximately £20 million that was presented to me was simply not affordable within my Department’s current capital budget envelope. The costs to support the outworking of an approved development proposal are usually modest, connected with rebranding, signage, toilets and modest additional accommodation. Whilst it is not ideal, newly amalgamated schools will, in the main, operate on a split-site basis until they secure a place to advance in planning under the major capital works programme, following a call for applications. The £20 million costs were not expected or anticipated when the development proposal was approved. My Department has never had such significant day-1 costs arising from a development proposal or committed to such significant day-1 works without the full rigors of a major capital works call for projects. Ms Hunter: Thank you, Minister. At the time of the proposed amalgamation, the school was described as a flagship school for the whole island, yet we have had delay after delay, the interim board of governors resigning and three school communities feeling abandoned. I have spoken to their prinicipals. When will we get funding for a single-site campus? When will the plans begin? Mr Givan: I understand the frustration but also the ambition for the school to be delivered in a new-build setting. As I outlined, when the development proposal was approved, it was not anticipated that there would be a £20 million capital requirement for a day-1 solution to provide a single-site facility. The Department faces considerable financial challenges with a significant number of major new capital builds and school enhancement programmes, as well as the special needs provision that has to be given first call on expenditure. I will continue to make the case to my Executive colleagues for funding for capital expenditure. I want to make sure that the work continues — that is happening with the current arrangements of an interim board of governors and a principal designate — to provide the best possible opportunity for the school to operate on three sites. I share the ambition for a future single-site solution, but we are somewhat constrained by those significant financial challenges. Mr Bradley: Can the Minister detail the communications strategy that is in place for the three-school campus model? Mr Givan: I thank the Member for the question. Mr Bradley has been a vociferous campaigner for the three schools concerned and clearly wants the single-site solution. He has made that clear to me on a number of occasions when he has made representations on behalf of his constituency. I know that he will continue to unapologetically advocate on behalf of the schools to get the single-site solution up and running. We will continue to engage with the Education Authority on the communications approach. The EA proposed the development proposal for the new school, and it is taking forward that approach. A Causeway Academy newsletter has been issued to staff and parents that provides milestone updates on the new Causeway Academy. A plan is in place to provide further updates to current and prospective pupils, parents, staff, governors and the wider school community at key times. The EA will continue to work with the principal designate on the configuration of the sites for the opening of the new school on 1 September 2026. When that has been confirmed, the principal designate will issue the relevant communications via newsletter and social media. I commend Mr Bradley for the work that he continues to do. He has expressed to me his concern and his understanding of the reasons for the withdrawal from the interim board of governors by governors from one of the schools. I want all the stakeholders to be able to engage on this, and we will continue to work towards that. Mr Gaston: Minister, the EA's handling of the amalgamation of the three existing schools to form Causeway Academy has been extremely poor. What commitment will you give to finding a permanent single-site solution for the school? Will you commit to attending a cross-party meeting with the principal designate and local MLAs to try to resolve the list of outstanding issues ahead of its opening in 2026? Mr Givan: I have engaged on the issue not just in my Department but with the Education Authority as the proposer of the new school and as the body responsible for taking forward the capital requirement of £20 million that was indicated for the day-1 costs associated with the single site. I will continue to engage on the issue. When the decision was taken, the decision maker at the time — it was not me — did not anticipate such a cost being associated with finding a single site for day 1. Other schools operate on split-site solutions, so it is not unusual to do so as we continue to work towards providing a single-site facility. If we really want to address capital needs, we should not look just at those of the proposed new Causeway Academy. I have 114 projects in the major capital programme. Of those, 42 have been completed; six are on-site; 14 are at the technical design stage; 14 are at the early design stage; and 38 are either at the feasibility stage or on hold. The projected time frame to complete that list runs to decades, and that is before we add Causeway Academy. If Members are serious about providing solutions, as, I believe, they are, we need an Executive that will allocate capital funds on the basis of their priorities so that I can take forward the demands that Members rightly make on behalf of their constituents. We cannot do that if funding does not follow what people articulate in the Chamber. Schools: Curriculum-led Capital Investment Programme 2. Ms Flynn asked the Minister of Education for an update on the schools that have been selected as part of the curriculum-led capital investment programme pilot scheme for covered sports areas. (AQO 2716/22-27) Mr Givan: Officials are working through the necessary checks on the schools that have self-nominated, and I will make an announcement soon. It is my intention then to issue a written statement detailing the primary schools that will participate in the pilot exercise for covered outdoor sports space provision. Ms Flynn: Minister, you will remember our conversation at Bunscoil Phobal Feirste about the lack of outdoor space and, in particular, the high number of special educational needs (SEN) pupils at that school, which is the case at many of our schools. Feedback from the EA suggests that Health does not seem to be at the table when it comes more broadly to special educational needs support and specialised services in our schools. Are you aware of those issues? What is being done to support our SEN pupils? Mr Givan: I am aware of those issues, and they are a cause of deep frustration to me; indeed, I am concerned that the increased financial pressures on my Department are a result of the withdrawal of services by some of our health trusts and the Department of Health as it seeks to mitigate its projected overcommitment. Schools are having to pick up the pieces, but, where we have children who require additional support, that cannot fall on the shoulders of just the Department of Education and our school leaders. We need our health professionals to be empowered by the trusts and the Department of Health to support those children. Schools are there to provide an education, but, where pupils have increasing medical needs and complexities, we need the Department of Health to step up. My fear is that the Department is stepping back, and a number of principals have raised the same concern. That is a retrograde measure about which I have raised concerns. Mr Robinson: What criteria were applied to applications for the pilot exercise for the provision of outdoor covered sports spaces? Mr Givan: I hope to make an announcement about that soon. A call for applications was issued in August. It went to all primary schools seeking to be considered for the pilot exercise. Some 213 schools responded for inclusion in the pilot exercise. That indicates the level of demand and need, but, in order to have an effective pilot scheme, we will be able to take forward only about 10% of applications. My officials have advised schools that the initial pilot for the 20 successful applications will be drawn up using an element of random selection. I want to ensure that there is a mix of school sectors represented. That mix will include urban and rural schools and will be based on school enrolment figures. My officials are working through the necessary checks of how the criteria will be applied through the process, but, as I said, I hope to make an announcement shortly. Mr McNulty: The recent Ulster University study 'Sport is NOT a luxury' revealed that 85% of parents believe that sport helps children to manage stress, yet, sadly, cost prevents many children from participating. Will you commit to introducing a statutory minimum of 120 minutes of physical education a week in all schools in order to support children's mental health, reduce inequalities and allow every child to have the opportunity to be part of a team? Mr Givan: I will do my best to link my answer to the question. Physical literacy is an important aspect of the school curriculum. Principals have raised issues about the lack of facilities to enable pupils to get 120 minutes of physical education, particularly outdoor activity, a week. The pilot scheme is therefore designed to provide what, for some, may be a covered outdoor area that can be protected from the elements, meaning that some physical activities can take place. The Member's view is one that I share. It is hugely important for our young people to be engaged in sport not just for its physical benefit but for its benefits for overall well-being. Sport creates great opportunities for social interaction and developing leadership skills. It creates a wider network of friendships and peers in a school setting. All of that helps children feel part of a whole-school community, which then benefits their academic attainment in a classroom setting. The Member is right to highlight the issue, and I make common cause with him. The pilot scheme and the other work that I am taking forward in the area, as well the provision of synthetic football-type pitches for the post-primary sector, is being done to try to provide the appropriate school estate for the physical education curriculum to be delivered more effectively. School Uniforms: Guidelines 3. Ms Egan asked the Minister of Education for an update on the publication of new guidelines on school uniforms. (AQO 2717/22-27) Mr Givan: The guidelines on school uniforms follow the provisions in the School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill, which passed its Final Stage in the Assembly on 13 October. The legislation will come into operation on the day after the Bill gains Royal Assent, at which time the duty on the Department of Education to issue the guidelines and lay them in the Assembly, as well as the duty on schools to adhere to them, will go live. While the Bill awaits Royal Assent, I instructed my officials to issue a copy of the guidelines to schools to assist them in making sure that their uniform policies are compliant for the 2026-27 school year. The school uniforms guidelines were therefore issued to schools on 12 November. I also instructed my officials to provide a copy to the Education Committee on that day. Ms Egan: Thank you, Minister. In the guidelines, the definition of "excessive costs" is: "higher costs than lower income households can reasonably be expected to afford". What do you think is reasonable for a low-income household to pay for a child's post-primary school uniform? Top 2.15 pm Mr Givan: There are two points to consider. The first is that we are consulting on a cap. We made provision in the legislation that we could introduce a cap. The cap could be made up of two component parts: either a financial limit or a limit on the number of items that pertain to a school's uniform provision. Alternatively, it could be a hybrid model, using both. We will consult on what that would look like. We were prudent, however, and we put the powers in primary legislation so that, were we to introduce a cap, having carried out our proper due diligence, we would be in a place to do that. The Bill that was passed by the Assembly gives legislative underpinning to the guidance, which we have enhanced. The guidance was already there, and schools were aware of what they should be doing, but now they have to do it, because of the legislation that was passed. Affordability is at the very core of that legislation. That was the number-one issue that came out when we consulted with our stakeholders. It was all about affordability. That was the key aspect, which now has to be central for schools as they develop their school uniform policies, carry out their reviews and consult with parents, pupils and stakeholders. The transparency that is associated with that must demonstrate how schools have taken the underpinning principles around affordability into account. Mr Frew: How have legal advice and the views of schools informed the guidelines? Mr Givan: We sought legal advice on the draft guidelines throughout the process. The guidelines were tested for their workability through focus groups that we conducted with teachers and parents in June. That highlighted the need for further legal advice at that time to ensure that there was clarity and that the guidelines would be workable and would deliver for parents and schools. The legal advice resulted in the updated guidelines, which were set out clearly. Feedback on the guidelines has been provided by principals recently, and the guidelines have been updated where that was appropriate. Ultimately, the guidelines must follow the Bill's requirements; they follow the legislation that was passed. I assure the Member that legal advice was sought throughout the process, and that has informed the way in which the guidelines have been produced. Mr Burrows: Does the Minister agree that it is frustrating that some parents report that schools do not permit children to wear coats to school, nor do they provide somewhere for coats to be stored? That is a practical concern, coming into winter. Mr Givan: Constituents have raised that issue with me. When it comes to pupils wearing coats to school, it seems that schools give priority to having the school uniform and emblem on display, even when children and young people need protection from inclement weather. Schools need to reflect on that. It is important that our young people can get to school and are comfortable when they are in school. They will not be comfortable if their uniform is saturated as a result of the weather. If schools prohibit their young people from wearing an overcoat and insist that they should wear only a school blazer, meaning that they are not protected from the elements, that is wrong, and they should put that right. Independent Review of Teacher Workload 5. Ms D Armstrong asked the Minister of Education when the report on the independent review of teacher workload will be published. (AQO 2719/22-27) 8. Mr McHugh asked the Minister of Education for an update on the independent review of teacher workload that was undertaken following negotiations with teaching unions. (AQO 2722/22-27) Mr Givan: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 5 and 8 together. Since the independent review of teacher workload panel was appointed in May 2025, it has undertaken a structured programme of work with the aim of submitting a final report by the end of November. That has included a review of existing reports and work streams that was taken forward by the Teachers' Negotiating Committee, as well as direct engagement with a range of stakeholders. The panel has also conducted benchmarking exercises with officials in neighbouring jurisdictions in order to assess comparative approaches to teacher workload management. In order to gain a comprehensive understanding of the key workload issues and, more importantly, the steps that could be taken to address them, the panel wrote to boards of governors to seek written submissions on the workload position in their schools. In addition, it issued an engagement questionnaire to all teachers and school leaders in Northern Ireland. Over 7,500 responses to that questionnaire were received. The independent panel is finalising its report, and I look forward to receiving it in the next few weeks. Ms D Armstrong: Thank you, Minister, for the answer to question 5. Can you give me an assurance that you are committed to delivering the panel's recommendations in their entirety? Mr Givan: I cannot, obviously, prejudge the report's recommendations. I am looking forward to receiving the report. It was at my request that the panel was established. It came about as a result of the discussions to resolve industrial relations on teachers' pay last year and the connected issues on workload. In order to find a way through, I recommended that we set up that panel. Given that I commissioned that work and that I have secured the involvement of the key stakeholders, particularly the trade unions, I look forward to receiving the report. I very much want to take forward the report's recommendations, but I cannot prejudge what it will say. Obviously, we will need to review what the recommendations actually say. I certainly want to implement them. That is the direction of travel, but I need to await what is in the recommendations. Mr McHugh: Minister, the workload agreement that will be delivered will have the confidence of teachers and of unions. With that in mind, Minister, are you in a position yet to provide an update on teachers' pay talks for the forthcoming year? Mr Givan: I can update the House on that. The financial year for teachers is different to that for, for example, health workers. It runs not from April to April but from September to September. Therefore, the point at which such matters crystallise is not the same as in some of the other public-sector organisations that we have to deal with. The workload aspect was one part of the agreement from the previous set of discussions, and it is an important part of getting that received so that we can look at what measures could be taken forward. I also want to move to a position in which we can make a pay offer to teachers. I have already had work carried out not only in my Department but in the Executive so that the financial requirement for teaching staff, which we have costed to be in the region of £37 million, will be made available from funding from the Executive. As the monitoring round will follow the Chancellor's statement next Wednesday, I trust that the Finance Minister will bring a paper to the Executive. I expect an allocation to be in that that relates to teachers' pay. That is the case that I have made, and that would then allow me to move forward in making, through the appropriate structures, a formal offer. I want to get a resolution to the matter before the end of January, which is the cut-off point for these discussions. If I can move earlier and get it resolved before Christmas, that is my intention and the basis on which I am operating. However, we need that monitoring round to provide the funding, because there are significant and well-documented financial pressures in the Department and in EA, but that should not come at the detriment of teachers getting an appropriate pay increase. Mr McGlone: Minister, Stranmillis University College's centre for research in educational underachievement found that teachers in the Irish-medium sector are working far in excess of agreed limits, largely driven by the constant need to create and adapt resources in the absence of sufficient and suitable Irish language materials, so what new actions can you take, and will you take, to ensure manageable workloads? Mr Givan: We are taking forward a bespoke Irish-medium strategy, and in that will be an element related to workforce. The report that Stranmillis produced will inform the workings of that strategy document. Those issues will be considered. I am not in a position to outline to the Member today what the outworkings of that will be, but the centre has made the case about the needs of the workforce. I am taking that forward by looking at it through the Irish-medium education strategy, which I hope to publish in due course. Miss McAllister: Teachers' workload is, of course, a very important issue, because it has an effect on their private and family life. The issue of workload is also an important one for children. Will the Minister's Department seek to review the workload, particularly homework, for very young children now or in the future? There is a disparity across schools in Northern Ireland, and it has an effect on children and family life. Mr Givan: The Member highlights the disparity and differences that exist between some schools, and that is right. Different schools take different approaches to the amount of homework that they issue. As part of the TransformED NI work, we are reviewing issues around the curriculum. I have indicated that that work will provide a narrower curriculum that allows much greater depth and understanding to be achieved. One issue that our young people are really struggling with is a broad curriculum that only skims the surface of the subject matter, which means that they then have to catch up and that a lot more work is needed. Reviewing the curriculum and taking the approach recommended by experts in that area will have a knock-on benefit for young people when it comes to pressure and workload. The work on qualifications is aligned with that. As I have said before in the House, we test our young people in what is, in old money for me, fourth year, fifth year, lower sixth and upper sixth. For four years, significant examinations are required. That puts additional workload on them because of revision, practice, mock preparation and examinations. As part of looking at the qualifications, we need to ask questions about the relevancy of what those qualifications might look like when aligned to a reviewed curriculum and how it impacts on the amount of work that our young people have to deal with. The Member raises an important question. The answer to it is multifaceted, and no single answer will resolve it. Our direction of travel with TransformED will benefit our young people and teachers. Early Learning and Childcare Strategy: Update 7. Ms McLaughlin asked the Minister of Education for an update on the publication of the early learning and childcare strategy. (AQO 2721/22-27) Mr Givan: I thank the Member for her question. I have issued the draft early learning and childcare strategy to my Executive colleagues for consideration. Once agreed, it will be published for public consultation. The strategy will build on the significant investment of £80 million that has already been allocated by the Executive over the past two years, which is already making a positive difference for thousands of children, families and providers. One of the most successful initiatives has been the establishment of the Northern Ireland childcare subsidy scheme. The scheme has resulted in real savings for parents, with a 15% reduction in registered childcare costs and potential savings of up to 32% when that is combined with tax-free childcare. Eligible working parents have saved almost £18 million since the launch of the scheme in September 2024, and, when that is combined with the savings from tax-free childcare, parents in Northern Ireland have saved an estimated £38 million. I have funded the increase of 2,500 more pre-school places to full-time sessions with the provision of a free school meal for eligible children, and further increases are planned for next September. Additional funding has also been provided to support children who face disadvantage and to a range of programmes to support children with additional needs or disabilities. Those initial actions are an integral part of the strategy and provide the foundation for further progress to support our children, families and the early learning and childcare sector. I encourage stakeholders to respond to the consultation once it is issued. Their comments will be used to inform the final version of the strategy and delivery plan. Ms McLaughlin: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. I am delighted to hear that the draft strategy has gone to the Executive. You promised to meet the deadline of autumn; that is about to pass, and families are still waiting for that support. Given the fact that consultation on the strategy will take at least 12 weeks, it could be April before we see a real start. Will you explain why the Executive are not moving more quickly on that? How quickly will you overcome some potential areas of disagreement in order to get the consultation out and start supporting families? Top 2.30 pm Mr Speaker: A very brief answer, please, Minister. Mr Givan: I thank the Member for the question. The Member and her party leader met me before the schemes were developed. That helped to inform the process that we were following. It was a manifesto commitment by my party, but it is not exclusive to my party. It is being delivered through the Executive, and I put on record my appreciation for the Member's work in this area. Aligned with developing the strategy — and it is now submitted to the Executive. We have an Executive meeting on Thursday, so I hope that it will be on the agenda to allow it to get it out for public consultation and get feedback. I will then turn it around very quickly in order for it to align with the Budget process. Some of the proposals in the strategy require additional finance. Therefore, that needs to be informed by the Budget-making process within the Executive to allow for an allocation to be made to give effect to some of the recommendations that I want to see taken forward. Mr Speaker: We now move to topical questions. Schools: Resilience and Self-worth T1. Ms Hunter asked the Minister of Education, noting that we live in a changing world, where many young people have unfiltered access to smartphones and social media, and that, inside and outside the classroom, they are exposed to never-ending content of unrealistic beauty standards, and that she recently wrote to the Minister asking whether he would consider implementing resilience and self-worth programmes in schools, to which he replied that he had no plans to do so, whether he would reconsider that and move forward with a mandatory curriculum subject, perhaps through the learning for life and work (LLW) module, to improve pupil well-being. (AQT 1791/22-27) Mr Givan: The Member highlights the challenges of mobile phone devices in our schools. That is why, last summer, I produced clear departmental guidance that primary schools should not even have phones coming in, and, in post-primary, phones should not be used between the hours of 9.00 am and 3.00 pm, when pupils have left the school. That is why I have taken forward a pilot scheme in nine schools. I was in St Ronan's College, Lurgan, one of the largest schools in Northern Ireland with 1,600 pupils, and the feedback that the school provided to me was appreciation for the opportunity to have magnetic sealed pouches. It has been the single most transformative act that the school has taken to address issues around behaviour, concentration and the well-being of young people. When we get the evaluation, which is being carried out independently by King's College London, and if my instincts are right and the initial feedback is reflected in that report, it will demonstrate that that is something that we will need to take very seriously because the benefits that will come from minimising mobile phone usage in schools will be transformative, particularly when it comes to the well-being of children and young people. Ms Hunter: We do not agree on much, Minister, but I am glad that we agree that smartphones do not belong in schools, so I welcome that. Referring to my initial point about instilling confidence in young people, there are school projects in the South that teach 11- to 17-year-olds how to be critical about media influence and build self-resilience and self-worth. In the North, there is nothing mandatory on the curriculum on that issue. There is no class or compulsory module for every school to provide that education. Does that concern you, and, if so, will you consider changing that, reviewing that or looking at it further? Mr Givan: The Member raises an important point. This morning, I met three dads whose daughters committed suicide — took their own lives. The challenge that they presented to me was what was being done in schools to talk about those serious issues when it comes to mental health and well-being but also addressing suicidal ideation. I was very much struck by the testimony of those three dads, who spoke about their three daughters who tragically lost their lives due to suicide. During the meeting, I was able to relay some of the work that we do carry out in Education and Health. There is a framework in place, and support is available. The Member rightly highlights the fact that the learning for life and work aspect of the curriculum does not provide the necessary support for young people. That is why Lucy Crehan, in her independent review of our curriculum, found that it was not effective and recommended that it should be broken up and that there should be a clearer way in the curriculum to provide support in a number of areas that LLW had addressed, including the well-being of young people. I gave an assurance to those three dads this morning about what I very much want to happen. As part of the review of that subject, there is a subject working group, as is the case with all subjects. As part of the curriculum review that is being established, practitioners are being appointed to provide support across every subject, including LLW. Mental health, well-being and suicide should be part of the work of the subgroup that is looking at that aspect of our curriculum, because I believe that we need to do more in that area. I will give close attention to that. Fort Hill Integrated College T2. Mr Honeyford asked the Minister of Education, having noted that, less than a year ago, the Member was in Fort Hill Integrated College in their constituency, senior Education Authority (EA) officials have since been out and the Minister has visited the school, whether, following the recent inspection from the Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI) that confirmed what parents, staff and pupils all know, namely that there is a fantastic school community but the buildings are not fit for purpose, and identified serious health and safety risks for pupils, the Minister can set out clearly what immediate actions his Department, working with EA, is taking to ensure that pupil and staff safety has not been compromised. (AQT 1792/22-27) Mr Givan: The Member is right. I know the school well, and I have visited the school. I know that it was subject to an inspection and that a number of action points, not just related to the physical capacity and build, need to be taken forward as a result of that inspection. We will continue to monitor that. The Member rightly raises the poor condition of the college. It requires work, and, when I visited the school, I gave an assurance that the Education Authority would look at the various measures that need to be taken to address a number of the deficits associated with it. I will follow up with the Member on where that work currently is and what is needed. Fort Hill college is one of countless schools that are facing chronic maintenance backlogs, as I relayed earlier. Hundreds of millions of pounds is needed to address schools that successive reports have said are crumbling, and that has a negative impact on the delivery of the curriculum in those school settings. Fort Hill, like other schools, needs support. However, I can provide that support only when the appropriate financial resources are provided. I will continue to make the case for that funding, and I would appreciate colleagues supporting me in securing that resource. Mr Honeyford: Thank you, Minister. The costs are high, and the Public Accounts Committee recently did a report on that. The neglect over the years has been phenomenal. The Minister will be well aware that Fort Hill was promised a new school building for more than a decade, and, at his direction, that Fresh Start funding was removed as soon as the Assembly returned. Minister, given the severe budgetary situation that you have just talked about, can your Department now confirm whether any of the current pupils at that school will see the new building during their time there? Mr Givan: I cannot. Just to correct the Member: I did not take away Fresh Start funding from schools. When it came to Fresh Start, the United Kingdom Government identified £500 million, and they carried out a process for integrated schools to be identified for new builds. That funding was then allocated to the Strule Shared Education Campus project, delivering for 4,000 pupils. What was my response? When schools such as Fort Hill and others were left high and dry by the UK Government, I brought them into my Department's conventional capital programme, and it is my Department that continues to take forward that work. Therefore, far from what the Member alleges, which is that I took money away, I actually stepped in to protect schools such as Fort Hill. That was the action that I carried out, and I will continue to make the case. However, when the Alliance Party and others are around the Executive table, will you prioritise prisons and prisoners and provide things such as a canteen in Magilligan, or will you prioritise pupils? I say this to the Alliance Party: give the priority to our pupils. I look forward to your ministerial colleagues in the Executive supporting me when it comes to our schools. Classroom Assistants: Temporary Arrangements T3. Mr Butler asked the Minister of Education whether the Department has carried out an audit to measure the extent of the hiring of classroom assistants on temporary engagement forms rather than permanent contracts, as there are concerns, of which the Minister will be aware, that the practice carries significant risk in that many classroom assistants on temporary arrangements have not completed the necessary AccessNI checks. (AQT 1793/22-27) Mr Givan: I thank the Member for raising this issue, because it gives me an opportunity to put on record the current position. Misinformation has been provided and reported on. Just to make it clear, the figures that were recently issued to Unite the union in response to its freedom of information request related to temporary school support staff across the whole education system. In addition to classroom assistants, they included figures for a range of other staff groups: for example, admin staff, cleaners, catering staff, instrumental tutors and EA headquarters staff. Unite the union wrongly claimed that the total relates solely to special school support staff. At best, that represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the information. The union then compared the overall, system-wide figure to an earlier figure from January, which related only to special schools, and falsely claimed that there had been a 200% increase. That was another basic inaccuracy. Whatever the reason for that misrepresentation, it risks spreading unfounded fear among parents. To be clear, the figures cited by the union in January related to 108 classroom assistants in special schools who were awaiting clearance. Today, that figure stands at 14. Unite has therefore presented an 81% reduction as a 200% increase. The average turnaround time for the issuing of AccessNI certificates is five working days from presentation of all the relevant paperwork. The number of staff who are employed through a temporary engagement form will constantly change. As of today, the total number of such staff across the education system is 173. That reflects the reality that any large workforce will require some temporary staff. I thank the Member for allowing me to correct the record on that issue. Mr Butler: I thank the Minister for his answer and for bringing accuracy to the issue. The last thing that we want to do is cause undue alarm. However, the fact that the temporary engagement form regime still exists leaves some risk. Is the Minister content that that is a manageable risk, or will he take steps to change the process so that no one is working in schools without the requisite AccessNI clearance? Mr Givan: The issues around AccessNI were well documented a number of months ago. At that point, I took action. I engaged with the Education Authority in respect of the alarming figures. EA then engaged very robustly with schools, because it is schools, as the employer, that bring in temporary staff. Schools have a requirement to ensure that the appropriate AccessNI arrangements are in place. EA also made it clear that no member of staff who had not been AccessNI cleared would be paid, in order to ensure that priority was given to the issue. That addressed a significant backlog of hundreds of staff who had not been AccessNI cleared — some for an unacceptably long period. In the cases of the very small number of people who are engaged in emergency cover and whose application to AccessNI has not been processed, there must be direct supervision by appropriate staff who have been Access NI cleared. That should occur only in cases of extremity. Significant work has been done to address that issue with the AccessNI clearing system. Concessionary Travel Passes: Policy on Removal T4. Mr McGuigan asked the Minister of Education whether there is a defined policy on the removal of concessionary passes in scenarios where the bus has the capacity, given that his office has worked on behalf of a number of parents of schoolchildren from St Patrick's Primary School in Rasharkin who recently lost their concessionary travel passes, despite their having been able to avail themselves of such passes in previous years. (AQT 1794/22-27) Mr Givan: I am not aware of that particular case, but I am happy to come back to the Member in more detail on the question. Mr McGuigan: I appreciate that. I will forward the information to the Minister. In a similar vein, the EA has resisted parents' request for the bus, on its same route home, to stop at childminders' premises. The EA insists on the bus stopping at parental homes, despite the fact that parents are working and homes are empty. What is the defined policy in that scenario? Mr Givan: I will look into that for the Member. At times, bus routes have fixed locations at which buses have to stop. The ability to accommodate a different drop-off point may be impacted on by other issues: for example, the need to ensure that it is safe. Again, I do not know, but, if the Member wants to write to me with the details, I will be happy to come back to him. Top 2.45 pm Mr Speaker: That brings to a conclusion questions to the Minister of Education. Mr McNulty: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. According to Standing Order 19(1)(a), a Member may ask written questions of any Minister: "on matters relating to the Minister’s official responsibilities". It is clear that some Ministers are in breach of that rule, as they answer questions on certain issues that fall within their official purview by saying that are on "operational matters" or should be redirected to statutory bodies within their Department in order to: "make best use of limited public resources." I ask the Minister for a ruling —. Some Members: The Speaker. Mr McNulty: Sorry, I ask the Speaker for a ruling that will stop Ministers trying to deflect and exonerate themselves from their ministerial responsibility to answer questions from Members, who seek only to represent their constituents. Mr Speaker: There already is a ruling. Ministers are expected to answer questions. I say that as a former Health Minister who, at one stage, had, I think, six or seven times more questions to answer than any other Minister and got through them. I have no truck with Ministers who say that they are busy and all of that. If you take on the job, you take on the responsibility and answer the questions. It is clear that Ministers are accountable to the House, and the House is accountable to the people of Northern Ireland. Get on with the job and answer the questions. In a small number of cases, there are questions that refer to operational matters, particularly for the Justice Minister, which means that they have to go through the Policing Board and so forth. Let me be clear, however, that that happens only in a small number of cases. Ministers should not farm questions out to arm's-length bodies to answer on their behalf. Members should take their ease while we change the Table. (Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair) Executive Committee Business Farm Sustainability Payment Scheme (Eligibility etc) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025 Debate resumed on motion: That the draft Farm Sustainability Payment Scheme (Eligibility etc) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025 be approved. — [Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs).] Mr McGlone: I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of the Farm Sustainability Payment Scheme Regulations. The proposals represent a significant and necessary step towards a more resilient, productive and environmentally sustainable agriculture sector that can do well economically while meeting our environmental obligations and some of the other challenges that can no longer be ignored. What sets the regulations apart is the clear and constructive link between public investment and meaningful environmental action, which is important. The conditionality built into the scheme should be viewed not as a burden but as an opportunity. It ensures that the substantial public funding that goes into agriculture will help farmers to build long-term resilience financially and environmentally. By supporting improvements to soil health, the scheme encourages the practices that can build genuine sustainability. Healthy soils mean improved grass growth and reduced reliance on costly inputs. Those are practical, proven steps that strengthen farm businesses while enhancing the natural capital on which agriculture ultimately depends. The same is true of the incentives on livestock genetics. I have spoken to a number of people involved in that sector. Better genetics mean more productive and healthier animals, improved animal welfare and reduced emissions per unit of output. It is about future-proofing our livestock sector to ensure that Northern Ireland remains competitive while lowering its environmental footprint. When it comes to reducing emissions, agriculture must play its part along with the rest of us. The regulations support farmers to make those changes in a planned and supported way that works with the sector rather than against it. It is important to recognise that the regulations are not a sudden departure, nor are they an invention of the current Minister. They implement the policy intent set out by a previous AERA Minister, a DUP Minister, who, if I recall correctly, consulted on future agriculture policy proposals in 2022. What we see today is the continuation of a direction of travel that has already been endorsed across multiple Administrations and political leaderships. It is not a particularly partisan project, nor should it be. It is a long-term reform programme that recognises the need to link public funding to resilience, sustainability and productivity. It is important to highlight a particularly positive element of the regulations, which is the removal of the old in-field eligibility requirements. For years, those rules had the unintended effect of discouraging farmers from retaining or enhancing features such as hedgerows, scrub and other semi-natural habitats, despite their being some of the most valuable areas on farms for encouraging and supporting biodiversity, carbon storage and, indeed, water management. Their removal is a welcome correction, as it ensures that farmers are no longer penalised for protecting the very features that we now recognise as essential to a healthy landscape. Crucially, none of this is being rushed, nor would any of us wish it to be. The lead-in times for participation are reasonable and deliberately paced to give businesses time to prepare and adapt. Many farmers are already in the soil nutrient health scheme, which has already mapped the soil on a large proportion of many of our farms. Farmers' willingness to engage in that initiative shows that the sector understands the need for change and adaptability and is prepared to work with government to deliver it. Those steps will make a real difference to addressing some of the most serious environmental challenges, including the one at my back door: Lough Neagh. Better nutrient management, improved soil testing and more efficient use of slurry and fertiliser are exactly the kinds of measures that can reduce nutrient run-off while keeping farms productive and profitable. They demonstrate that environmental restoration and agriculture viability can and must go hand in hand. Yes, some people say that the stick is needed — there are circumstances in which that is the case — but let us not forget that the most successful instances are when people cooperate and are incentivised to do so. Throughout, farmers will continue to have an economic safety net. The scheme maintains the principle that public investment in agriculture is essential for food production, for rural communities and for the other services that farmers uniquely deliver. We must acknowledge the challenge ahead, however. If we want agriculture to deliver improved soil health, lower emissions, better water quality, restored habitats and a resilient food system, it must be funded at a sufficient scale to meet those ambitions. The regulations set the right direction, but they must be backed up by the right resources to support transition and change on farms. That is why having a multi-year agriculture budget is so crucial. Farmers cannot plan on one-year cycles. Environmental improvements cannot be delivered on one-year cycles. Long-term investment in genetics, technology, slurry storage and nutrient management requires long-term certainty for financial planning and business planning. A multi-year budget would give the sector the stability and confidence that it needs to plan, invest and innovate. The regulations respond to the pressures that farmers face and help address the environmental crisis that is before us. They help set agriculture in Northern Ireland on a path towards a more productive, sustainable and resilient future. The SDLP is pleased to support them. Ms Murphy: The statutory rule (SR) will give legal effect to the new farm sustainability payment (FSP), which will replace the farm sustainability transition payment (FSTP) on 1 January 2026. The scheme is expected to attract around 22,000 applications each year and marks an important shift in how we support active farm businesses. The regulations introduce progressive capping of payments above £60,000, which will be phased in over two years. They also simplify land eligibility rules, allowing certain land features and areas of woodland to qualify, as set out in legislation. The FSP is restricted to active farmers who have management control of the land and carry out agricultural activity on at least 3 hectares. The rules will also apply to environmental farming scheme (EFS) higher-level agreements that are already in place. The regulations also reset the two-year entitlement confiscation rule, meaning that no entitlements will be lost for non-activation in 2026. That reflects the fact that the FSTP and the FSP are being treated as separate schemes. The order of penalties under the scheme is clearly defined in legislation. Participation in the soil nutrient health scheme and the bovine genetics programme will be mandatory for applicants. In Committee, I sought clarity on farmers' concerns around conditionality, particularly regarding genotyping becoming mandatory in the future. Last week, the Department confirmed in writing that the bovine genetics genotyping scheme will remain voluntary, although participation in the education programme will be compulsory. The regulations also clarify that businesses that do not meet the historical years test will not be eligible for the FSP in 2026. They may qualify in later years but only by acquiring FSP entitlements on the market and meeting all other requirements. A restriction is also placed on transferring entitlements from ineligible businesses to new businesses established after the regulations are made in order to prevent circumvention. I restate Sinn Féin's concerns regarding entrants and those who began farming after 2021. Unlike in the South of Ireland, where young farmers can benefit from the national reserve and enhanced entitlements, new entrants here have no such support. In conclusion, I will be crystal clear: the entire policy redesign was triggered by Brexit. Farmers now have to navigate more complex and uncertain landscapes due to Brexit. The SR establishes the legal footing for the next phase of support, but it also highlights the gaps and vulnerabilities created by the loss of EU funding streams for our farming community. Miss McIlveen: The Democratic Unionist Party has concerns about the proposals for progressive capping and conditionalities in respect of the farm sustainability payment. We voted against laying the rule in Committee for that reason. I am conscious of the comments of Members who have spoken previously. The context today is somewhat different from when those measures were consulted on over four years ago, not least because climate targets have primacy, a fact that has created a variety of additional burdens for farm businesses. There is very much a sense that agriculture is being subjected to death by a thousand cuts. The vote of no confidence in the Department by the Ulster Farmers' Union (UFU) reinforces that point. That is not to say that we do not support the objective of encouraging more sustainable environmental practices on farms or that we oppose ensuring that payments to larger businesses represent value for money. We absolutely want to encourage entry into excellent schemes, such as the bovine genetics programme, which, ironically — the Alliance Party may not wish to acknowledge this — was an action of the much-maligned Going for Growth strategy. However, does handing down financial penalties on an indefinite basis really incentivise that or encourage those taking part to do so with the right mindset? The rather singular focus of the regulations on conditionalities, capping and penalties cannot be viewed in isolation from an assessment of barriers to profitability and productivity in agriculture. In many cases, barriers such as the impact of ammonia controls on planning, the scourge of TB and slow progress on a just transition fund for agriculture are not being satisfactorily addressed by the Minister. We need all the challenges and opportunities facing primary production to be dealt with in the round. Will progressive capping stifle investment, growth and entrepreneurship? Will some larger businesses limit their sustainability ambitions as a result? Could it encourage smaller farm units? Are the running costs for larger businesses any less demanding or proportionate than those for smaller businesses? Will the proposed timescale for registration and training for the various schemes give businesses enough time, given everything else that they have to grapple with each day? Those are all legitimate questions. While the issue of conditionality will, of course, be downplayed by the Minister and others in the Chamber, we are setting a precedent that I am not comfortable with and will not support. Mr Blair: I rise as a member of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to express my support and that of the Alliance Party for the farm sustainability payment scheme regulations. As stated today and on previous occasions, the regulations are a result of our need to transition away from EU agricultural policy. Top 3.00 pm Before I continue, I express my thanks to the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and his departmental officials for their work in navigating the complexities of transitioning between schemes and for their efforts in keeping Committee members updated. During briefings that my fellow Committee members and I received on the regulations, it was emphasised that, at the core of the regulations, is a strong commitment to create a more sustainable future for agriculture in Northern Ireland. While the payments might seem to some to be simple financial support, they represent crucial investment in the agriculture sector's future. By encouraging farmers to adopt sustainable practices through initiatives such as Farming with Nature, the soil nutrient health scheme and the beef carbon reduction scheme, the industry can move towards becoming more resilient and environmentally responsible. Schemes such as those are essential for reaching our climate change targets. They are also absolutely essential for securing better environmental outcomes. Collaborating with the farming community to promote practices that restore ecosystems, enhance soil health and lower greenhouse gas emissions helps us to protect Northern Ireland's natural beauty and preserve our valuable environment. I recognise that some Members have voiced legitimate concerns about aspects of the regulations. However, I urge them to see the bigger picture, which is the potential benefits that those measures hold for our natural environment, local economy and food security. Now more than ever, we must prioritise policies that balance those three pillars, ensuring that each supports and strengthens the other. The Alliance Party remains steadfast in advocating policies that align our environmental ambitions with economic viability and the ongoing security of our food supply. We believe that progress in one area must not come at the expense of the others. Therefore, I, alongside my colleagues in Alliance, am pleased to offer our full support to the regulations. We hope that Members will join us in allowing Northern Ireland's farming community to move forward with confidence towards a more sustainable and prosperous future. If I may, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I would like to leave Members with this thought: there has been mention today, which I have heard before, of carrots and sticks. I hear it at the Committee on a regular basis. If we do not support this Minister in bringing forward the necessary regulations to the legislation for that sustainable future, there will be no carrots for the sticks, because we will have destroyed the ground that they grow in. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, John. I call the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to conclude and wind up the debate on the motion. Mr Muir: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank everyone for the debate on the regulations. As I said at the outset, these regulations are essential to ensuring that I can deliver for our farming community by opening the farm sustainability payment as planned on 2 March 2026. They deliver on policy proposals that were consulted on and decisions that were announced in 2022. Some may look back at Hansard to see those announcements and reacquaint themselves with them. Failure to approve the regulations does not mean that I can revert to the FSTP scheme that was delivered in 2025. Considerable work will be necessary, which will inevitably result in a delay in opening the scheme in 2026, with unavoidable delays in payments to farm businesses in 2026. It will also impact on officials' ability to take forward work on future support for the sheep sector and on the continued development and delivery of other key sustainable agricultural programme schemes, such as Farming with Nature. In conclusion, I highlight a point that was raised in the debate: the work that my Department continues to do on agriculture often relates to Brexit. The requirement to have this debate and to put the regulations in place is a direct outworking of Brexit. I will continue to focus on solutions and deliver for the farming community of Northern Ireland. I commend the regulations to the House. Question put. The Assembly divided: Ayes 54; Noes 21 AYES Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Dr Archibald, Ms D Armstrong, Ms K Armstrong, Mr Baker, Mr Beattie, Mr Blair, Mr Boylan, Ms Bradshaw, Miss Brogan, Mr Burrows, Mr Butler, Mr Chambers, Mr Delargy, Mr Dickson, Mrs Dillon, Miss Dolan, Mr Donnelly, Mr Durkan, Ms Egan, Ms Ennis, Ms Finnegan, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Mrs Guy, Miss Hargey, Mr Honeyford, Ms Hunter, Mr Kearney, Mr Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mr McAleer, Miss McAllister, Mr McGlone, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McMurray, Mr McNulty, Mrs Mason, Mr Mathison, Mr Muir, Ms Mulholland, Ms Murphy, Mr Nesbitt, Ms Nicholl, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs O'Neill, Mr O'Toole, Ms Reilly, Ms Sheerin, Mr Stewart, Mr Tennyson Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Donnelly, Mr McMurray NOES Mr Bradley, Mr Brett, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mrs Erskine, Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew, Mr Gaston, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Irwin, Mr Kingston, Mrs Little-Pengelly, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Martin, Mr Middleton, Mr Robinson Tellers for the Noes: Mr Bradley, Mr T Buchanan Ms Ennis acted as a proxy for Miss Brogan. Mr Clarke acted as a proxy for Mrs Erskine. Question accordingly agreed to. Resolved: That the draft Farm Sustainability Payment Scheme (Eligibility etc) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025 be approved. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I ask Members who are leaving the Chamber to do so in an orderly fashion. Pension Schemes Bill: Legislative Consent Motion Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): I beg to move That this Assembly agrees, in line with section 87 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, to the principle of the extension to Northern Ireland of the provisions of the Pension Schemes Bill, relating to terminal illness, alienation or forfeiture of occupational pension, validity of certain alterations to salary-related, contracted-out pension schemes, pensions dashboard and contractual override, which was introduced in the House of Commons on 5 June 2025. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time limit on the debate. Mr Lyons: The Pension Schemes Bill intends to strengthen pension investment by supporting over 15 million people who save in private-sector pension schemes to get better outcomes from their pension assets and to support the UK Government's mission to deliver growth. The Bill seeks to create a private pensions market that encourages consolidation and focuses on value and outcomes for members, enabling people to have security in retirement and pension schemes to invest in a wider range of assets, driving growth. I will give a brief overview of each clause that extends to Northern Ireland. Clause 48 relates to contractual override and makes provision for pension scheme providers to transfer a member's contract to another provider or vary contractual terms without the need for individual consent where that is in the member's best interests. Clauses 104 to 107 relate to the contracting-out regime that applied between 1997 and its abolition in 2016. The clauses seek to restore certainty about scheme liabilities and funding by allowing schemes to retrospectively obtain actuarial confirmation that benefit changes made during that period meet the reference scheme test even if written confirmation was not obtained at the time. Clause 108 seeks to restore the Pensions Ombudsman's original 1993 role by reaffirming its status as a competent court. That change will remove the need for schemes to seek court enforcement, reducing costs and delays for courts, schemes and members and ensuring an efficient, accessible way of resolving pension disputes. Clause 109 seeks to extend the terminal illness definition from six months to 12 months for individuals who are entitled to compensation payments from the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) and the financial assistance scheme (FAS), bringing it into line with similar provisions in social security and tax legislation. The Assembly previously approved that measure through a legislative consent motion (LCM) for its inclusion in a Westminster private Member's Bill; however, that Bill fell at the dissolution of Parliament for the 2024 general election. Clause 111 allows the Money and Pensions Service (MaPS) to include on its dashboard information relating to the Pension Protection Fund and the financial assistance scheme, including individual-level data. At present, the Pension Protection Fund and financial assistance scheme are excluded from dashboards because they are classified as compensation schemes rather than traditional pension schemes. However, many individuals rely on those payments as part of their retirement income, and their inclusion would significantly enhance the effectiveness and completeness of the service for members of those schemes. The provisions enacted by the clauses listed in the legislative consent motion are intended to become operational shortly after the Bill receives Royal Assent. That means that it will not be possible for an Executive Bill to be passed to meet the same operational date as the Westminster Bill for those measures unless the accelerated passage procedure is used. Agreement that clauses 48, 104 to 109 and 111 should extend here will allow those important provisions to be enacted across all jurisdictions at the same time. Whilst I seek to avoid using the legislative consent motion process where possible, it seemed sensible to secure the pension scheme benefits afforded by those provisions for Northern Ireland members by agreeing to an LCM in respect of the clauses listed. The intention is to introduce in the Assembly a parity Bill for all remaining clauses in the Westminster Bill. I am aware of the importance of the Assembly's role in considering legislation and, in particular, of the value of the Committee's scrutiny role. I am grateful to the Communities Committee for the time that it has taken to consider the measures in such a short timescale. Its report is thorough, and I appreciate its noting that, while it: "would prefer to see legislation originating in the Assembly", it is content with the LCM and recognises, based on the evidence received by the Committee, that the changes are beneficial to people in Northern Ireland. I look forward to a robust and thrilling debate on those issues. Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): I thank the Minister for his statement. As Chair of the Committee for Communities, I will contribute to the debate on the legislative consent motion for the Pension Schemes Bill. The Committee for Communities undertook its scrutiny of the LCM over the full 15 days that were afforded to the Committee under Standing Order 42A(7). We initially received a detailed briefing from departmental officials and then immediately sought written evidence from key stakeholders, including the Association of British Insurers and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU). Following that scrutiny, the Committee published a comprehensive report. That has been laid in the Business Office and the Assembly Library, so all Members have the opportunity to review it. Having completed that work, the Committee for Communities is content to support the motion. The Committee is strongly of the opinion that, as the Minister stated, legislation on devolved matters should originate in the Assembly. However, pensions policy, while devolved, effectively operates as a single system across Britain and the North, as Members will be aware. The Department also advised us that the Westminster Bill is expected to be operative by spring 2026 and that it would not be practically possible for a separate Assembly parity Bill to complete its passage in time to meet that date. Therefore, in this case, the Committee accepts the Department's rationale for using an LCM. To do otherwise could create a situation in which people here in the North are treated less favourably than those in Britain, delaying their access to entirely beneficial changes. We also note that the LCM covers only five specific measures that are deemed to be time critical. A separate Executive Bill will be progressed for the remaining provisions in the Westminster Bill. The Committee welcomed assurances from officials that proceeding with the LCM will mean operational alignment with the British implementation timeline, thereby avoiding any gaps in provision here. I will not go into detail and summarise the provisions. The Minister has very helpfully set those out, so I will not reiterate them. I will move instead to outline the Committee's scrutiny and key considerations. During the evidence sessions, the Committee received vital clarification on two important points. First, residents in the South of Ireland who hold UK-based pensions will receive all the benefits of the changes in the legislation. Secondly, the Department does not believe that there is any diminution of members' rights as a result of those changes. However, our stakeholders raised several important points of concern. The Committee shares those points of concern and has detailed them in its report. The contractual override provision rightly received the most scrutiny. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions expressed valid concerns about enabling providers to vary contracts without individual consent and urged that those powers be tightly constrained with robust safeguards and independent oversight. Furthermore, the Association of British Insurers stressed to us that the sequencing of the reforms is crucial. It argued that the contractual override power must be implemented before the new value-for-money framework and before any UK ministerial review of market fragmentation in order to enable providers to consolidate low-value schemes first. The Committee agrees that that sequencing appears logical and efficient. Regarding the so-called Virgin Media provision, the Committee shares ICTU's view that robust safeguards must be in place to ensure that retrospective validation does not disadvantage any member or diminish their accrued benefits. Finally, the Committee noted stakeholder calls for adequate resourcing of the Pensions Ombudsman so that it is able to efficiently handle any caseload and for a comprehensive communication strategy to be developed and implemented in relation to the pensions dashboard. The Committee queried the Department's description of the changes as being "largely beneficial" rather than entirely so. Officials clarified that the wording reflects that some measures are technical fixes that are not necessarily advantageous, but are not disadvantageous, to individuals. Having read the evidence, the Committee accepts that position. Top 3.30 pm Overall, the Committee for Communities is content with the legislative consent motion. We recognise that the changes, which are based on the evidence that was received, are beneficial to people in the North and accept that the motion is an appropriate route towards ensuring parity and timely access to pension benefits. In closing, I thank the departmental officials for assisting and advising the Committee on the LCM. Mrs Dillon: We support the legislative consent motion on the Pension Schemes Bill, in particular the provisions that relate to terminal illness. We raised that matter with the Minister previously, and I appreciate that the LCM has come forward now. We also welcome the provisions on pension protection and the wider reforms that will extend important protections to people in the North. Marie Curie's report 'Dying in Poverty 2024' laid bare the reality that, every year, thousands of people across the North spend their final months in poverty. One in four terminally ill people of working age dies below the poverty line. Those are not abstract statistics but, rather, mothers, fathers, partners and friends. They are human beings, many of whom have worked all their life and paid into the system. They have raised a family and contributed to society, yet they are told that they must wait until pensionable age to access the very support that they themselves funded. That is indefensible. Some months ago, I attended a meeting of the all-party group (APG) on cancer. I thank Marie Curie for its work and for using the opportunity at the APG meeting to raise the issue of early access to their pension for people who have been diagnosed with a terminal illness. It was on the back of Marie Curie's presentation that I tabled a motion that called for legislation to ensure that people with a terminal illness can get early access to their pension. There was unanimous support from all parties for the motion, which called on the British Government to allow those with a terminal diagnosis early access to the state pension and further called on the Minister for Communities to engage with the Department for Work and Pensions to make the necessary legislative and administrative changes a reality. The message from the Assembly then was unambiguous. It was that compassion must shape policy. Financial security in the final months of life is a matter of dignity, fairness and humanity. The LCM aligns with that principle and reflects progress. The Pension Schemes Bill will ensure that those who belong to the Pension Protection Fund and are in the financial assistance scheme who are diagnosed with a terminal illness and given one year to live can access an early payout. The increase from six months is a step forward that is long overdue. Again, I acknowledge the work of Marie Curie to lobby and campaign on the issue in the Assembly and in the other legislatures. For too long, people have received the worst possible news while also facing the cruel and unnecessary burden of navigating complex systems, financial insecurity and delays that robs them of peace of mind in their final months. The legislation will begin to correct that injustice. It is a step in the right direction and reflects what Sinn Féin has consistently argued for, which is that it is unfair and inhumane to expect people who are living with a terminal illness to wait for the support that they may never live to receive. Let me be equally clear, however, that our work here is not finished. We want the protections to be extended further. We want all those who are facing incurable illnesses to have the ability to access their pension early so that they and their families can, in the time remaining to them, live their life with dignity and without fear of hardship or being forced into painful financial choices during a period that is already filled with enough heartbreak. The LCM ensures that the positive changes that will be made at Westminster will apply here and that people in the North are not left behind. It reinforces the direction that the Assembly set earlier this year, which is that compassion must be embedded in how we legislate, particularly for those who need it most. I therefore support the motion and welcome the fact that this is the second time today that we have debated legislation that is compassionate. I hope that the motion will be supported. I am sure that it will. It is something to be able to say that, twice in one day, we were able to debate compassionate legislation that everybody in the House supported. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: No other Members have indicated that they wish to speak. I therefore call the Minister for Communities to conclude and make a winding-up speech on the motion. Mr Lyons: I thank the Members who contributed to the debate. I thank the Chair of the Committee for Communities and Committee members for their support for the LCM. The Chair raised a number of issues but specifically that of contractual override. I understand the concerns that have been expressed, but we want to make sure that people who are in pension schemes have the best return. We want to make sure that poor value and poor outcomes are not being delivered. There is sometimes a lack of engagement from pension scheme members, and there is often little that providers can do to address that. The measure is intended to enable pension providers to transfer a saver's pension to another arrangement or provider without their consent but when it is in their best interests. I understand the concern about who decides whether something is in their best interests, but, as the regulator responsible, the Financial Conduct Authority will have supervisory oversight of contractual overrides and will be notified about proposed transfers. It will also oversee a range of safeguards and procedures that must be followed before a variation or transfer can occur. I assure the Committee Chair that strong consumer safeguards and consumer protections will be in place in the new regime. Contractual overrides will be permitted only when they are in savers' best interests. I thank him for his comments and for the Committee's support. I am also grateful to Linda Dillon for her comments. We have a common position on that issue. It has been debated in the House, and she will be aware of the correspondence that I have had with the UK Government on it. It is likely that that provision will impact on only a small number of people. Around 10 to 15 members across the UK will benefit from it as a result of being members of the PPF or the FAS, but, if just one person benefits, it is worth our doing it. I am pleased to have her support, and I expect the support of the whole Chamber today. I thank officials for the work that they have done on the LCM to make sure that we are all kept right, and I echo the comments of the Member who spoke previously. Although the changes are small, this is a good day and is indicative of the work that we can do to improve people's lives. Question put and agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly agrees, in line with section 87 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, to the principle of the extension to Northern Ireland of the provisions of the Pension Schemes Bill, relating to terminal illness, alienation or forfeiture of occupational pension, validity of certain alterations to salary-related, contracted-out pension schemes, pensions dashboard and contractual override, which was introduced in the House of Commons on 5 June 2025. Ministerial Statement Independent Review of the Liquor Licensing System, including the Surrender Principle Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Speaker has received notice from the Minister for Communities that he wishes to make a statement. As usual, I remind Members that they must be concise in asking their question. This is not an opportunity for debate or for long introductions. Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): During the passage of the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2021, the House approved an amendment placing a statutory duty on my Department to appoint an independent person to undertake a review of the liquor licensing system, including the surrender principle. In fulfilment of that duty, my Department appointed a consortium, led by the University of Stirling, to undertake the review. The resulting report, published on 21 February 2025, contained 26 wide-ranging recommendations covering the operation and administration of the regime; its impact on public health and the economy; and its responsiveness to consumer and community needs. The recommendations are publicly available, and I encourage Members to read them. The Act also required my Department to produce and publish a plan setting out how it proposes to respond to the report. My officials have considered each of the 26 recommendations faithfully and in detail, and a comprehensive response to each can be found in the document published this morning. In some circumstances, my Department's response is to definitively accept or not accept the author's recommendation. Other recommendations require a more nuanced approach. That includes where the Department partially accepts the recommendation or where the underlying objective is already satisfied in the current regime. In providing this update to fellow Members, let me reaffirm a core and guiding principle: alcohol is not an ordinary commodity. Its sale is, rightly, subject to the regulation of a licensing regime that dictates who can sell alcohol, where, when and in what circumstances. The purpose of the controls is to ensure that the right balance is struck between facilitating the responsible sale and consumption of alcohol and protecting public health, public safety and public order. In that way, the licensing regime also plays a role in assisting our hospitality sector in its sustainability and attractiveness to customers. Our licensed premises are vital for the Northern Ireland economy. They support tourism, provide employment and serve as important social spaces in our communities. That is why I have decided not to accept the authors' recommendation for targeted reform of the surrender principle. The Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2021 delivered the most significant reform of our licensing system in over 25 years. It modernised a regime that had remained largely unchanged since 1996 by introducing extended opening hours, removing outdated restrictions and creating new licence categories to reflect changing consumer habits and support local producers. Those reforms were evidence-based, phased and carefully calibrated to support both the public interest and sector sustainability. Any further reform must be held to the same standard. The recommendation to reform the surrender principle and the authors' other recommendations were not impact assessed or costed, and I am not persuaded that the authors have made a compelling case for such a fundamental change, which could have significant and unintended consequences for the economic viability of our hospitality sector at a time when many are operating below viability thresholds. I understand that recent figures from Hospitality Ulster highlight the fact that 27% of operators are now operating at a loss and that another 20% are just breaking even. That is not a rejection of progress. The report also provided my Department with the opportunity to consider how the regime can be further improved and modernised. I have directed my officials to explore how the current licensing regime has contributed to the growth in off-sales and the relative decline in pub licences, as well as to explore the policy options that are available to us to effectively address any corresponding growth in alcohol-related harms. The role that a licensing regime can play in supporting market diversity and innovation will also inform my Department's response to recommendations on local producers' licences, which were introduced in 2022. Those recommendations will be taken forward following the completion of a statutory review and will be accompanied by direct and meaningful engagement between my Department and representatives from the sector. The action that my Department takes in response to all those recommendations reflects my priority, which is to ensure that the licensing regime is as effective as possible in addressing alcohol-related harm. That includes clear commitments to work with our delivery partners, such as those in the Department of Health, to explore how best to reflect public health concerns in the administration of the licensing regime, including via the application of the adequacy principle, which ensures that a licence will not be granted if an adequate number of licensed premises are already in the vicinity. I will also take action in a number of other areas. For example, community input into licensing decisions will be strengthened by reviewing the objections process. Transparency and accessibility will be enhanced. I am not taking forward the recommendation to establish a new licensing authority; however, I have asked my officials to work with their delivery partners to make the system easier for applicants and stakeholders to navigate. A number of the authors' recommendations fall within the responsibility of the Department of Justice and its agencies. I will write to my Executive colleague the Minister of Justice to bring those recommendations to her attention and seek her views. The review provided a valuable opportunity to reflect on how our licensing regime can evolve, but reform must be proportionate, evidence-led and aligned with the needs of our communities and economy. I am committed to working with delivery partners, stakeholders and industry representatives to ensure that any changes are consulted on, fully impact assessed and subject to meaningful engagement. In the meantime, we will focus on what can be done now in the existing regime to improve awareness, accessibility and responsiveness. That includes ensuring that public health concerns are not just acknowledged but actively addressed. I commend the statement to the House. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister. I call Colm Gildernew. Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): Go raibh maith agat —. [Translation: Thank you —.] Mr O'Toole: I —. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sorry, Matthew nearly had a stroke there. You are right, Matthew. I call Matthew O'Toole. Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. It was a bit like last orders there as I shouted to get my spake in first. Minister, I am disappointed in that response, to say the least. I grew up, as it were, in pubs, having had pubs in my family and having worked in them. I care about protecting small and rural pubs. This, I am afraid, does nothing to protect them. It simply furthers the situation whereby they close. As for public health, when rural pubs close, off-sales open, where people buy 10 cans that they drink at home rather than two pints in the local pub. Top 3.45 pm To look on the bright side, since you said that you will bring forward other proposals for reform or will examine reform, when will we have those proposals? I think that lots of people looking at our system, with all the vexatious legislation and all the public health harms and the fact that rural pubs are shutting — we have the lowest number of pubs in the UK or Ireland — will be asking, "When will we have your proposals for reform?". Lots of people will be disappointed in the response today. Mr Lyons: To answer the last question, I will bring those proposals forward as soon as possible. I do not have a definitive timescale for the Member, but I will bring forward proposals that are costed and have had their impact assessed. Frankly, the Member is responsible for me standing here today by bringing the amendment and report through. Mr O'Toole: You voted for it. Mr Lyons: Yes, but it was the Member's initiative that brought that forward. Frankly, I am a little surprised that he has not realised or mentioned the other consequences that it will have. He wants me to move in one direction, but he fails to recognise or understand that there are consequences of every action that we take in that area. Therefore, moving away on the surrender principle or some of those other issues that he might want us to move on will have direct and real consequences for other people. Unfortunately, that was not noted in the report that was produced, and it is disappointing that those issues were not taken into consideration. Another point to raise with the Member is that it is not the licensing regime in itself or the licensing regime alone that is contributing to some of the issues that we see in society. Over recent months, in GB alone, which has a different licensing regime, we saw more than 200 pubs close, so it is wrong to say that licensing is a major or the only factor that is contributing to that. Also, multiple issues contribute to the wider health issues that he mentions. It is important that when we consider time, we do not come with half-baked ideas but take time to consider all the implications and not how it will affect just one group of people. Mr Gildernew: I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, the number of pubs in the North is decreasing at an alarming rate, and the surrender principle has been highlighted as a key factor in the sector's rapid decline. Many hospitality businesses will be frustrated to hear that you have decided not to introduce any reforms to the surrender principle, despite the independent review recommending changes. What advice did your officials provide to you in relation to reform of the surrender principle, and did you accept that advice? Mr Lyons: Let me make it clear that I am the person who is sitting in this chair, and I am the one who makes the decisions. I am fed up with people coming to the House and asking, "Well, what did officials say on this?". Officials are not elected. Officials are not held accountable: I am, though I am happy to confirm to the Member that there was no disagreement on the issue with officials because we have a team in the Department that is very aware of the issues and knowledgeable on what is going on. I understand that there will be disappointment for some who might say that we do not have changes in place. It is not that there will be no changes. Some reform will take place, and reviews of existing legislation will be under way at the start of next year. We have to understand, however, that what may be a positive consequence for one person might have a detrimental or, in some cases, devastating impact on other people, and those all need to be taken into consideration. That is why I think that we are taking the right approach, which is making sure that we cost proposals, that we impact-assess proposals and that we make sure that they contribute to the overall goals that we have. That is what I am committed to doing. Mr Bradley: Minister, you highlight the value that the hospitality sector adds to the economy. What is that value in real terms? Mr Lyons: The Member is right to highlight the value of the hospitality sector to the economy more widely. The report states that around 6,000 people are directly employed in the pub sector and the wider licensed trade, excluding grocers and supermarkets, and that it directly employs an estimated 27,500 people and sustains 36,000 jobs overall. The report also quotes an independent report commissioned by Hospitality Ulster that states that, in 2017, hospitality provided 8·7% of jobs in Northern Ireland, contributed £1·6 billion to the Northern Ireland economy and generated £88·4 million in tax revenue. That indicates just how important the hospitality sector is to the economy in Northern Ireland and why we need to be careful about making significant changes without having them properly costed or impact-assessed. I would reiterate that point to Mr O'Toole, who took great interest in the subject but seems to have left the Chamber already. Ms Mulholland: Thank you, Minister, for your statement. I understand that recommendations 25 and 26 in the response talk about some changes relating to smaller venues and creative spaces and things like that. How does the Department intend to ensure that smaller arts and cultural venues, which often rely on occasional alcohol sales to sustain their programming, are not disadvantaged by any current legislation and by the licensing regime, given that there is no provision for them to really feed in to that? What engagement, if any — Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Kellie —. Ms Mulholland: — was had during the review process? Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sorry, I meant "Sian", not "Kellie". Thank you. Mr Lyons: I thank the Member for her question. I have spoken directly to organisations that are affected by this. Although the Department did not accept the author's recommendation to introduce a new category of licence, I recognise the role that the licensing regime plays when it comes to the issues that the Member raised. I have asked my officials to explore the current regime, which provides 13 categories of licence, to see how we can support this and provide potential solutions, if those are required, which they are. Mr Allen: The Minister's statement rightly highlights the balance between the sale and consumption of alcohol and public health. He will recall that minimum unit pricing featured heavily in the debates during the passage of the legislation. What is the Minister's view on that policy? What engagement has he had with the Health Minister in that regard? Mr Lyons: My views on the issue will be led by the evidence. I am not convinced on that; I speak from personal opinion. I want to deal with alcohol-related harm, and there are different tools at our disposal to do that. There is some contradictory evidence coming from Scotland on that, and I have asked for more information to help better inform those discussions. I have no objection in principle to these things, but I want to make sure that we have a robust evidence base so that any changes that we bring in will be effective in dealing with the problem and will lead to improved health outcomes. Mr McHugh: Minister, you do not accept the recommendation to establish a new licensing authority, so how will you ensure that the current licensing regime is reformed to increase accessibility and consistency in the sector? Mr Lyons: We certainly want to make sure that the necessary licensing regime and the enforcement of that are in place, but the cost of doing that would have been prohibitive. It is not a priority for us at this time, but, of course, the issues will be kept under review. I do not think that the report went into the detail that we needed on that issue. Mr Brett: It is hugely discourteous that the leader of the Opposition asked his question and then walked out of the Chamber. Minister, there will be genuine relief among many owners of licensed premises that you have not given in on the surrender principle. Those people have spent hundreds of thousands of pounds and risked their houses, and they would have disappeared overnight had the change been introduced. Will the Minister agree that the amendment passed by the leader of the Opposition, which cost £500,000 according to the report, would have been better used to support the night-time economy across Northern Ireland? Mr Lyons: Yes, of course. I would have loved the money to have been spent in other ways, although we have got some useful information and data from it. I certainly agree that I would like to see the night-time economy being supported. The Member has been vocal in ensuring that contributions have been made from Departments, including mine, to make sure that that money can be used for the night-time economy. It shows the need for us to recognise the constraints on Departments and the requirement to sometimes outsource some of the work. It is something that we should all be careful of when passing legislation. Ms K Armstrong: The independent review concluded that: "The retail market for beer is dominated by a small number of non-NI based producers who often establish restrictive supply agreements." Under the response to recommendation 20, the Department confirmed that opportunity for growth for the independent and locally produced products will fall to the Department for the Economy and Invest NI. If those organisations confirm that the licensing arrangements for our independent producers are not working to enable them to take the opportunities, is the Minister open to reviewing that part of the licence? Mr Lyons: I am sorry to repeat what is already in the report, but those are matters for the Department for the Economy. However, I would certainly be supportive of that. Mrs Mason: Minister, in the absence of any substantial reforms in today's statement, what immediate actions will you take to ensure that there is support for small businesses such as the independent brewers and micro-pubs? Mr Lyons: That is an area of concern. It will be looked at as part of the three-year review that follows the legislation being passed in 2022, and that will begin next year. We will look at suggested reforms of the producer's licence at that time. Mr Martin: I will pick up on the question that my colleague across the way asked. Minister, can you elaborate on why you did not take forward the suggested reforms specifically around the producer's licence, including extended opening hours for taprooms? I think in particular of microbreweries. Mr Lyons: We have not rejected outright the authors' recommendations on the producer's licence. The reforms were introduced by the Department to modernise the liquor licensing regime. That followed extensive consultation with the industry representatives, and it came into force only in 2022. The number of local producers' licences granted by a court has grown from seven in 2022 to 15 in 2023 and 20 in 2024. We are under a statutory obligation to review those provisions three years after they came into force. I anticipate that the review of the provisions on the producer's licence will be launched early next year, and the need for further reform will be considered in the context of the responses to that wider review. I have asked officials to undertake proactive and meaningful engagement with the sector throughout the process, because it is important that we help where we can. Ms D Armstrong: Minister, I welcome your comments on concern for the economic viability of the hospitality sector. Do you accept that now is not the time to shake up the hospitality industry and put more pressure on a sector that is struggling? Mr Lyons: Absolutely. I agree, and I highlighted that in my speech. There are many that are under pressure and many that are just about keeping their head above water. This would be a seismic change and not one that has been properly costed or its impact properly assessed. It is important that that is all kept at the forefront of people's minds. It is easy to come to the House and say, "Minister, we should change x or y", but that can have direct consequences for other people and that needs to be kept in mind. We must put in place reforms that are fair and proportionate, and changes to the surrender principle in the way suggested would not have fulfilled that. Mr Harvey: Minister, you note that the authors did not cost the impact of their proposed reform of the surrender principle. Is it possible to advise how much it would cost? Mr Lyons: Although we do not have those figures ourselves, figures have been provided by Hospitality Ulster. It has suggested that the cost of reform of the surrender principle, when you factor in loss of trading value, could be up to £313·7 million. That is why we do not take such decisions lightly. We have to take into consideration the impact that it would have. Unfortunately, as the Member noted, the authors did not cost the impact of their proposed reform, which is why it would be irresponsible of me to take that forward. Top 4.00 pm Mr Honeyford: Minister, you said that you will not reform the surrender principle. Maybe this is the question to ask: has your Department made any attempt to estimate the cost, or are outside bodies telling you the cost? Mr Lyons: Hospitality Ulster provided us with those figures. The authors of the report echoed the findings of a 2007 Grant Thornton report on the surrender principle, which was commissioned by what was then the Department for Social Development. It said that it would be challenging to calculate the cost of reform with any degree of certainty. That is why it is important that we also listen to the evidence that others bring forward. Costs of reform to the surrender principle need to take into account the impact on licensed premises, potential changes in job numbers and the impact on the profitability of the sector as a whole. That is why it is good to listen to those on the ground — those with lived experience, shall we say, about whom we are often keen to talk in this place. Hospitality Ulster did that when it took all those impacts into consideration, and it is useful for us to listen to that. Mr Durkan: I declare an interest: my family owns licensed premises. Recommendation 6, which is: "to introduce an administrative process by which licences can be reviewed on the basis of serious and/or multiple breaches of conditions", has been rejected because a system is already in place. How many licences have been suspended or rejected in, say, the past five years? Mr Lyons: I apologise to the House, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, because I do not have that information to hand, but I will be happy to provide it to the Member directly in writing. Mr McMurray: Minister, do you believe that the social well-being aspect of licensed premises — both as community hubs and as more regulated spaces — should be prioritised ahead of cheap alcohol from supermarket off-licences? Mr Lyons: That is important and should be taken into consideration when we look at the licensing regime. Mr Gaston: Minister, in dealing with the licence acquisition process, paragraph 4.2 of the review report recounts multiple reports from interviewees, which are sufficient in number and diversity as to make it credible, that dealing with objections often involved, to put it in simple terms, paying off objectors with cash. Will the Minister undertake to investigate the allegations made in the report? Mr Lyons: I am certainly happy to look at those allegations and get more information, if necessary. I will come back to the Member in writing, once that has been carried out. Mr Carroll: Thank you, Minister. I take your point about the dangers of alcohol — I know about them all too well — but I hope that you will take my point that people are being ripped off in most places when they buy a pint or a glass of wine. That is connected to the surrender principle but also to naked profiteering. What consideration have you given to Unite the union's Get Me Home Safely campaign, which places duties on employers that are connected to the granting of licences to ensure that staff — the 6,000 that you mentioned — get home safely, that taxis are paid for by employers and that there is zero tolerance of sexual harassment in the workplace. Are you open to supporting that campaign? Mr Lyons: There is certainly no room for any harassment whatsoever of employees or anyone in any position. However, it is important that we look at the impacts of the decisions that we make here. If we were to bring in a regime that required businesses to pay for their staff's travel home, it would add significant costs to —. The Member shakes his head, but he has complained about the cost of drinks. Where does that cost come from? It comes from the fact that there are overheads, staffing costs and other issues. He is saying that cost should be added to — Mr Carroll: Safety. Mr Lyons: — which would put —. Mr Carroll: Safety. Mr Lyons: This is ridiculous stuff, Gerry. Mr Carroll: No, you are ridiculous. [Inaudible.] Mr Lyons: It is ridiculous stuff. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr Lyons: You do not understand —. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr Lyons: You have no idea and no understanding —. Mr Carroll: Its a question. Will you answer it? Mr Lyons: It is a stupid question at that. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr Lyons: You have no idea whatsoever how business works — Mr Carroll: You are a disgrace. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr Lyons: — and you just expect that money will magically appear to do whatever it is that you think needs to be done. Mr Carroll: Wind your neck in. Mr Lyons: It is the Member who needs to wise up. I think that I have spent enough time answering his question. Ms Bradshaw: I apologise that I missed the start of your statement, Minister. Yesterday, I raised with the Economy Minister the difficulty that independent businesses have in competing with multinationals. With regard to your statement, I am wondering about the multinational brewing businesses that have a stranglehold due to the surrender principle and their use of restrictive supply agreements, which the review referenced. Will you ask the Competition and Markets Authority to investigate the beer and pubs market here? Mr Lyons: I certainly recognise that issue. It has been raised with me, and it is one of the reasons why we took seriously the recommendation that the provision of a guest tap, featuring a local producer's product, could be part of getting a licence. That would be very important for our local producers. We do not have the power to require pubs to provide a guest beer tap on their premises. However, I will refer that to the Department for the Economy and Invest NI. I would support such a move. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That concludes questions on the statement. Members may take their ease before we move to the next item of business. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Dr Aiken] in the Chair) Private Members' Business Fireworks Legislation Mr Butler: I beg to move That this Assembly recognises the widespread distress and disruption caused by the misuse of fireworks across Northern Ireland; acknowledges the serious impact on animals, wildlife and people, including those living with trauma or heightened sensitivity to noise; notes that the Explosives (Fireworks) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 have not kept pace with modern availability and usage; and calls on the Minister of Justice to commission an urgent and comprehensive review of fireworks legislation to ensure that it provides appropriate safeguards, promotes responsible celebration and better protects the welfare of people, animals and communities. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. An amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List, so the Business Committee has agreed that 15 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate. Mr Butler: I rise to propose the motion to the House. Whilst I welcome the sentiment behind the amendment, I fear that I may not be able to support it because at this point — we have a debate to come — it falls short of what our constituents expect of us, what our animal welfare organisations are pleading for and what our communities clearly need. The amendment narrows the debate to one issue: penalties. It proposes that we: "consider changes to the penalties available for the illegal use and sale of fireworks in the pending review of sentencing issues". That is not a strategy or a programme of reform. It is certainly not the comprehensive response that I believe that the people who have contacted me are looking for. It is, at best, a tiny slice of the answer. I will, however, listen to the debate to learn more about the amendment. The truth is that we cannot simply enforce our way out of the problem. Rather, we have to engage properly with the problem and be properly educated about it, and we are not properly regulating in 2025 if we are using legislation from 2002. If Members think back to a couple of weeks ago, they will realise that it was a Halloween like no other. I know that because I was out with my own children during the celebrations, and there were extreme explosions in the urban area that I was in. The noise was disconcerting even for my children. The next day, my inbox, phone and social media were overwhelmed. I had never before witnessed the scale of concern from across Northern Ireland emanate from a Halloween celebration. The power, volume and frequency of fireworks set off in back gardens and on street corners was unlike anything that I had experienced before. Households that had never previously purchased fireworks suddenly seemed to have access to powerful, high-noise devices that, frankly, did not look or sound like the types of garden fireworks that are normally available. That is exactly why constituents have told me that they know that there is an issue. One lady who wrote to me after watching a video that I had posted on social media said: "My dog shook so badly I thought he'd had a heart attack. Fireworks used to be loud, but this year they were like bombs." Another person — a parent — wrote to me to say: "My wee one hasn't slept since Saturday night. Every time he hears something drop on the floor, he jumps. He's terrified." Many of us will have read the recent report in 'The Irish News' about Rosie, the much-loved dog from Ballyclare, whose owner said that she suffered a stroke that was brought on by sheer terror after a night of intense fireworks. The family described Rosie as shaking uncontrollably and panicking and said that she never recovered from the ordeal. Their vet confirmed that the stress that Rosie endured was consistent with the kind of anxiety-induced collapse that the family had witnessed. Those fireworks were therefore not a celebration but a harm. We are certainly not trying to be the fun police. Fireworks used appropriately in the right environment can be something to enjoy, but we cannot ignore the inescapable truth, which is that their impact is real, widespread and, in many cases, severe. Who is affected? The victims of the irresponsible use of unregulated fireworks are not a small or niche group. They include pets, especially cats and dogs, whose hearing is multiple times more sensitive than our own; farm animals, which are already stressed by unpredictable weather and farming pressures and can become agitated, leading to milk production going down and, at certain times of the year, dangers in pregnancies; wildlife, for which the bursts of light and noise are disorientating and sometimes fatal; older people, particularly those living alone, who experience fireworks as fear rather than as festivity; babies and young people, whose developing nervous systems are sensitive to loud, unexpected and, this year, concerted high noise levels; and people living with PTSD, including former or serving members of our security forces, for whom the sound of explosive bangs is not entertainment and could be re-traumatising. There are then, of course, our ordinary neighbours, who simply want peace in their home. Those are not isolated incidents or rare events but predictable outcomes of a system that allows the widespread private use of powerful fireworks —. Mr Allen: Will the Member give way? Mr Butler: Yes, I will. Mr Allen: Does the Member acknowledge that many of our young people are unaware of the dangers of fireworks and that, when they fall into their hands, their safety is jeopardised? Mr Butler: I absolutely concur with the Member. That is one of the reasons that I am looking to hear more about the amendment. The legislation at the moment does not lean towards engagement and education, which is where, if we see change, the real benefits will materialise in the future. The Explosives (Fireworks) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2002 are now 23 years old, which is older than many of the young people who are setting off fireworks. The regulations were written in a world in which the retail market was entirely different. Online sales were not a factor, cross-border flows were smaller and the range of available fireworks was much less powerful. Our legislation is being outpaced by how fireworks are being marketed, sold and used. Top 4.15 pm To those supporting the amendment, which says that fireworks regulation in Northern Ireland is: "among the most robust in these islands", I say that "robust" does not mean "effective", and it certainly does not mean "adequate". We have robust rules on paper, yet little public awareness of them; we have robust penalties, yet little enforcement of them; and we have robust licensing requirements, yet an explosion, literally, of unlicensed fireworks in our communities this year. A system that is robust but ineffective is not a system worth defending. The evidence is clear: the public want change. A number of pet advocacy groups have contacted me. Dogs Trust commissioned a UK-wide YouGov poll in October 2025. The results for Northern Ireland could not be clearer: 95% of respondents want fireworks to be restricted to licensed displays; 93% want limits on dates and times; 83% say that fireworks have a negative impact on their lives due to their pets' distress; 83% want more regulation; 76% feel unsafe during private, unregulated displays; 70% support the sale of low-noise fireworks only; and 31% support a complete ban. When 95% of people in Northern Ireland agree on anything, the Assembly should sit up and listen. Cats Protection also calls for restricting the use of fireworks to licensed public events at set times of the year; ensuring that local authorities consider the proximity of rehoming centres, farms and rescue centres; reducing the maximum permitted noise levels to 90 decibels; restricting online sales; and supporting alternative displays, such as drones and low-noise options. Arguably, those are practical, proportionate and enforceable measures for some, and they come from respected charities. They are not radical proposals, and they are not necessarily what we propose. What we are saying is that the call today is backed by animal advocacy groups and they are coming up with solutions. The amendment focuses on punishment, whereas our motion calls for prevention, which is always a better strategy. We need a strategy that, first, engages with communities, retailers, young people and online platforms. We want to see a strategy that educates people about safe use, the law and the impact of fireworks on animals and vulnerable groups. We can then move to enforcement with targeted campaigns, better reporting mechanisms and intelligence-led policing. Right now, we do very little of the first two and little of the third. Mr Mathison: I thank the Member for giving way. I appreciate his tabling this important motion. I just want to get clarity. The motion calls specifically for a legislation review, but a lot of his comments have centred on education, a strategy and better enforcement. Which is it? Is the legislation not right, or is he looking for better practice in enforcing it? Mr Butler: I thank the Member for that point. The legislation should mandate education and engagement. My party colleagues —. Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): Will the Member give way? Mr Butler: I will not. I have only one minute left, Minister. My two party colleagues will engage more on the legislative side and point out, perhaps, the flaws and shortfalls in that. I am building the public case for change, which is why we are here. Right now, we have very little of the first two and little of the third, but we will get to the facts and figures of that afterwards. Prevention is always better than prosecution. The motion asks for "an urgent and comprehensive review": nothing more but, certainly, nothing less. Our constituents expect leadership, not lip service; they want safety, not stress; and they want celebration, not chaos. As I said, the amendment, whilst well intentioned, diminishes the scope and ambition of what we need to do to achieve change, so I urge Members listening to the debate to support the motion. Ms Egan: I beg to move the following amendment: Leave out all after "noise;" and insert: "notes that firework regulation in Northern Ireland is among the most robust in these islands; and calls on the Minister of Justice to consider changes to the penalties available for the illegal use and sale of fireworks in the pending review of sentencing issues, to ensure appropriate safeguards, responsible celebration and better protection for people, animals and communities in the use of fireworks." Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Connie, you will have 10 minutes in which to propose and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes. Ms Egan: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I propose the Alliance Party amendment to the motion on the misuse of fireworks across Northern Ireland and record our position on suitable and appropriate next steps to make real, tangible progress on the issue. I really welcome the chance to speak on the topic, on which many of my North Down constituents have written to me with concerns, particularly about animal welfare during the recent Halloween period. To be clear, the illegal purchasing and use of fireworks can cause serious harm and create real danger not just for those igniting the fuse of those fireworks without the appropriate knowledge or safety equipment but for our wider communities. As the motion notes, the misuse of fireworks can lead to huge distress to: "animals, wildlife and people, including those living with trauma or heightened sensitivity to noise". It is so important that we strike the balance between those who enjoy fireworks safely and considerately and those who do not. Fireworks, when licensed and used appropriately with notification, are meant to be about celebration and excitement and not about creating fear and anxiety. Too often, however, that is what we see in our communities. Our existing regulatory frameworks require display operators to have a licence when igniting fireworks. It does not matter whether the application is for residential use by a member of the public or for professional displays by community groups, councils or private venues: it is essential to have a licence for legal use in Northern Ireland. Those licences, where appropriate, can have conditions to notify neighbours and animal owners, including farmers, in advance of the use of fireworks to ensure responsible and considerate displays. The usage of fireworks becomes an issue when those processes and conditions are not adhered to. We saw that in particular at the end of October this year, when fireworks that were often procured without a licence were used unexpectedly in parks, gardens, alleys, residential streets and other places in our communities. Sudden and unpredicted loud noises can create great fear and challenge for those who are nearby. I think particularly of those with sensory processing issues, those with trauma and PTSD and, of course, beloved pets, who are often left terrified and panicked in their homes. The licensing process for firework displays and the conditions that are set are the powers that we have as that intervention point and to prevent harms coming to people and animals. To note, Northern Ireland is the only region across these islands where that regulation is in place. The legal frameworks governing fireworks in our Explosive (Fireworks) Regulations 2002 are some of the most robust that exist. Given what we can control and set the direction for, there is no evidence to suggest that the issues that we seek to deal with lie within our existing legal frameworks. The Alliance amendment seeks to reflect that. Prioritising an extensive and urgent review of the regulations will not solve the problems at hand but will instead incur potentially lofty costs to the public purse in an already challenging financial landscape. Alliance believes that that approach is not the best use of our limited public funds. More important, it will not produce the results that everybody across the Chamber wants to see. Instead, we call on our Justice Minister to consider changes to the penalties available for the illegal use and sale of fireworks in the pending review of sentencing issues. That approach, which focuses on the enforcement of legislation, explores potentially different and harsher penalties than those that already exist. Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way? Ms Egan: Yes, I am happy to give way. Mr Burrows: The Justice Minister is proposing a consultation on lowering the penalty for offences such as assault occasioning actual bodily harm and assault on police from a prosecution to a ticket. Are we really suggesting that we increase penalties for children who have fireworks while we give a ticket to someone who has assaulted someone else and left them with an injury? Ms Egan: I thank the Member for his intervention. The Justice Minister has raised and addressed that point with you before. I will get back to the response that the Justice Minister gave to me when I raised it with her. However, I would like to make progress on the issue at hand. The current licensing system supports the PSNI and other partners to identify unlicensed and illegal firework use. A review of the penalties in the sentencing review could better support and equip them to deal with misuse and create improved, long-lasting outcomes, effectively giving them better tools. With the time that we have left in the mandate and in the financial context, we believe that the pending sentencing review is the most appropriate vehicle through which to achieve progress. I welcome that Minister Long has already committed to that in a response to a question that I submitted this week. Alliance is committed to the fair and safe use of fireworks. It is pertinent to state for clarity that noise limits for fireworks are a reserved matter for the UK Government, rather than being the responsibility of any devolved Department. Many people, including concerned North Down residents, have reached out to my office on the topic of noise as its relates to the regulation of fireworks and bangers, highlighting the distress caused to animals and the loss of local beloved pets due to the stress and vulnerability that it inflicts. Whilst, at a devolved level, we are restricted in what can be progressed regarding the noise of fireworks, specifically, my colleague Andrew Muir, the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, is taking steps to engage on the animal welfare concerns. Fireworks, when used legally and safely, can be exciting displays of celebration to mark special occasions, but the misuse of fireworks can present serious dangers and potential harm to animals, vulnerable individuals and communities, as well as those using them. The Alliance amendment sets out what, we believe, are the best and most tangible next steps to progress further minimalisation of the distress that fireworks can cause. I urge all in the Chamber — Mr Allen: Will the Member give way? Ms Egan: I am just wrapping up; thank you. I urge all in the Chamber to support the Alliance amendment and let us tackle the misuse of fireworks. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Deirdre Hargey. Deirdre, you have up to five minutes. Over to you. Miss Hargey: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. Thanks to those who tabled the motion and the amendment. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the issue. It is an issue that affects many communities across the North, particularly at key times of the year, as has been outlined, so it is right that we look at the current system and the areas that are working and those that are not working. Fireworks, when used responsibly, safely and in an organised way, can be a source of joy and can bring our communities together at different times of the year. Many of us will know the positive and inclusive atmosphere around Halloween events, for instance, community festivals and seasonal celebrations. I saw it recently over the Halloween period with Féile an Phobail in west Belfast, when we saw thousands of children, young people and adults dressed up for the Halloween festivities and going to the Falls Park in an organised way. The main event there was a fireworks display that the community in west Belfast put on. There are good examples of how such things can be organised in a controlled environment, where it can be done safely and, of course, where much of the community supports those activities. Equally, there is another side to the story. That is the story of serious injuries, burns, lifelong scarring and trauma, as has been mentioned, which can be caused by fireworks, particularly when they are misused or obtained illegally. Every year, our emergency departments report cases that could have been avoided. We want to make sure that we avoid such incidents. Mrs Long: Will the Member give way? Miss Hargey: Yes, of course. Mrs Long: Does the Member agree that it is encouraging that the Department of Health has stopped reporting the number of injuries due to fireworks? They have fallen to such a low level in the past number of years that the Department does not produce an annual report in the way that it used to. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Member has an extra minute. Miss Hargey: Thank you. Yes, that is a welcome step. It shows that the more controlled events we have, the more we can look at health and safety, hold the events in a managed way and people can get enjoyment from them, if that is what they want. We know that a section of our community — particularly older residents, children, maybe those with sensory needs and, of course, our beloved pets, which are part of the family — does not always take joy from fireworks. It can be distressing when fireworks are set off, particularly when it is not done in a controlled way and when due regard is not shown for how it might have an impact. We must always look at those issues. We need a system that balances community celebration with the community safety aspects and supports well-run public displays, while cracking down on illegal supply, the antisocial behaviour that raises its head and, importantly, unsafe use. When we look at tackling the issues, whether through legislation or ongoing improvements in prevention and education, it is crucial that we do so in a coordinated way. That is one of the key issues. Are all of the agencies working in a coordinated fashion? Are they speaking to one another, particularly around prevention and not just when something goes wrong? That is important. We must always look at it from a preventative and proactive perspective rather than wait until something goes wrong. Of course, engagement with local communities is also key to getting a balance between all of the rights: how people can celebrate and how we mitigate the worst excesses. A joined-up, cross-departmental approach is important for the agencies that need to be there. Of course, I agree that prevention is the best cure, but where there is a need for enforcement, that can be looked at in the forthcoming sentencing Bill, which would be a good way to provide clear guidance to tackle the issue. I welcome the debate, and I have listened intently. I look forward to hearing the rest of the speeches. Top 4.30 pm Mr Frew: I see merit in the motion and the amendment, and it is a pity that we cannot splurge the two together because, if the amendment passes, we lose something from the motion, but if the amendment is not made, we lose something by not having the amendment. It is a pity that the two cannot be splurged together. They are coterminous, because we need a comprehensive review of fireworks legislation to ensure that it provides the appropriate safeguards; promotes responsible celebration; and better protects the welfare of people, including veterans, and animals, including pets and wildlife; and, of course, victims of terrorism and antisocial behaviour. The comprehensive review may then feed into the pending sentencing Bill, and the two may be coterminous in some way. If the Minister and the Assembly have the will, it could be achievable in the not-too-distant future. One thing I am sure of is that, when people are preyed on by antisocial behaviour, the use of fireworks takes it to a new level. When people are the victims of antisocial behaviour, they are traumatised, they cannot get a break, they cannot get a rest and they are worried in their homes, and if fireworks are fired at your property and, on some occasions, at your person, put through letter boxes or banged against windows when you are trying to sleep, it can have a devastating effect on people's lives. That is where we need to target any real change in sentencing. We also have the issue of the overall control of licensed fireworks and how we can change behaviours and raise awareness of the potential damage that large-scale firework displays can have on people's pets. It amazes me that we always talk about pets, and the Ulster Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (USPCA) say that 80% of pet owners report that pets were distressed or frightened as a result of fireworks. I suspect that figure is replicated for wildlife in the environment. For every display we have or bang that goes off, even if it is a domestic thing such as a family having a fireworks display, the wildlife could be devastated, and we do not know that that is taking place when we decide to have a fireworks display. When I was growing up, we did not have fireworks displays. You had what was classified as indoor fireworks — these silly things coming out of sheets of paper — and that was all that we had when I was young. [Laughter.] I am showing my age, Minister. I know you are laughing. Mrs Long: That is because I remember them too. Mr Frew: We have come a long way, and we are in a better and safer environment, where we can have controlled fireworks displays. However, that has a downside, too. This debate is relevant, because it is time to take stock. Mr Bradley: I thank the Member for giving way. I want to draw on a personal experience that happened 35 years ago. I was working on a newspaper, and we always worked late. I got home late one Halloween night — too late for the dog — and I was met by a terrified golden retriever that was shaking like a leaf. It had gouged big claw marks down the door frame and the door, and his front paws were cut to ribbons and he needed to visit the vet. That was before we had the powerful fireworks of today, so I have absolutely no doubt that the legislation needs to be changed. It is out of date. It is not only about pets but livestock, and not only livestock but horses —. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Maurice. An intervention should be short. If you want to make a speech, there is stacks of room on the list to add you. Mr Bradley: I apologise. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Please come and add your name to the list; I would be more than happy to add you. Please keep your interventions short. Mr Frew, you will get only an extra minute and no more. Mr Frew: I think, Mr Deputy Speaker, that that merits a 10-minute extension for me. The Member makes a valid point. Imagine that you are a veteran who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and that you happen to have a pet for company. Imagine the devastation in that one household. Based on that alone, the matter merits consideration. We need to take stock of it and use the opportunities that come before the end of this Assembly term to change the law to protect the most vulnerable in society: people, pets and, of course, wildlife. We owe it to people and to society. It is not about ruining anybody's fun. It is not about taking away fireworks displays, although the modifications to them that involve drones produce sophisticated displays that can be just as incredibly entertaining as fireworks going up. When I see a fireworks display, my first question on leaving it is always, "How much did that cost?". Drones that could be used year in, year out could be of great benefit with regard to financial constraints. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Could the Member bring his droning to an end, please? Mr Frew: I will. I thought that I was getting an extra 10 minutes, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr McGlone: The SDLP welcomes and, indeed, supports the motion. The legislation that regulates the use of fireworks is almost a quarter of a century old and needs to be modernised. Every year, the same warnings are issued. The public are reminded that they need a licence to use fireworks and that it is an offence to buy, possess and use certain types of fireworks without a licence. Every year, however, a significant number of people ignore those warnings, and, every year, unnecessary injuries, stress and anxiety are caused by people using fireworks incorrectly. Fireworks are not toys, as we are repeatedly reminded: they are explosive devices. We know that sudden, loud explosions from traditional fireworks can cause significant stress and anxiety for people, pets and wildlife. Animals will often experience intense panic. Dogs and cats may suffer heightened anxiety, disorientation and, in some of the more vicious cases, injuries. Wildlife is similarly affected. People with conditions such as PTSD, young people with autism and other neurodiverse people can experience heightened anxiety and panic during fireworks displays. The Minister has said in response to questions for written answer that she is not considering a review of the legal framework for the buying and selling of fireworks here. She said that she has: "no plans for an assessment of the existing fireworks licensing arrangements" — that is the important bit that needs to be done — and: "Any concerns about the misuse of fireworks should be reported to the PSNI." Over 1,000 fireworks incidents were reported to the PSNI in each of the past four years, and almost 2,000 such incidents were reported in 2020, yet the PSNI does not appear to know whether the fireworks in those incidents were possessed legally. How can the legislation be enforced if that is not known? Mrs Long: Will the Member give way? Mr McGlone: Yes, certainly. Mrs Long: Every firework incident that someone reports could be part of a licensed display or the result of somebody letting off a firework in their garden. The source of the noise that is heard will not necessarily be known, which is why the PSNI cannot verify on all occasions whether a firework was part of a licensed display. It is not about the regulations not working; it is simply about the verification of where the item was let off. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Member has an extra minute. Mr McGlone: Thank you very much indeed. I thank the Minister for that clarification. It would be useful to know, however, how many cases were actively pursued by the police and in how many such cases the location was identified and the perpetrators, if they were perpetrators, were cautioned or the police took other measures. In the Assembly last week, the Minister said that she was "not entirely sure" that a review of the legislation would be appropriate, given the limited resources available to the Department. At the same time, the Minister suggested that she might do something around penalties and enforcement, and we see that in the amendment today. That would, of course, require the PSNI to identify those in breach of the legislation, which is the very point that the Minister made. The Minister should look at strengthening penalties and enforcement for breaches of the firework legislation, if the evidence supports it. The best way to get that evidence would be to review the effectiveness of the legislation. However, that was, at least, a tacit acknowledgement by the Minister that the current regulations are not as effective or as robust as they should be. The Minister has also claimed that the reduction in the number of firework licences being granted by the Department indicates that people are moving to other kinds of celebratory displays. The reality is that responsible, organised events, which might, in previous years, have involved traditional fireworks displays, are, increasingly, moving to safer methods of celebration, which is good. We have seen how those celebratory events attract young people and families, such as the one at the marina in Ballyronan, which is not that far from my home. Such celebrations better protect the welfare of people, animals and communities and demonstrate a better understanding of the responsibility of living in a shared environment. However, generally, it is not the responsible, organised events that cause the problems, as we well know. A reduction in the number of licences being granted could just as easily mean that, overall, fewer people are applying for those licences, not that more people are moving away from the use of fireworks. The SDLP is certainly not calling for a complete ban on the sale of fireworks here, and neither is the motion. A review would ensure that the legislation provides appropriate safeguards, promotes responsible celebration and better protects the welfare of people, animals and communities. That is what we believe the public wants to see, and it is why we support the motion. Mr Kingston: Like most dog owners, I had the experience of seeing my dog distressed by the sound of fireworks, particularly the loudest ones, a few weeks ago at Halloween. I am aware that fireworks can also be very distressing for elderly and vulnerable people. Therefore, we support calls for the Justice Minister to engage with the Government around the possibility of reducing maximum noise levels for all types of fireworks. It should be recognised that most fireworks displays are safe and well managed. They are a source of enjoyment and wonder, and they contribute to national, community and family events across the country. However, as others have said, fireworks can also be misused in manners that are dangerous, inconsiderate and malicious. As my colleague referenced, a report by the USPCA in 2024 showed that 80% of pet owners said that their dogs had been distressed or frightened by fireworks. Every year, we hear heartbreaking stories of pets that run away and become lost after being frightened by fireworks. As well as looking at reducing noise levels, the Minister should consider an enhanced public awareness campaign that relates specifically to animals and pet owners and focuses on the Halloween and New Year periods. The regulations for manufacturing fireworks, particularly in respect of maximum permitted noise levels, remain a UK Government competence, but, regrettably, successive Governments have ensured that Northern Ireland slavishly follows EU rules on the matter, which is a nonsense. We want to make it clear that if, at any stage, the UK Government bring forward proposals to increase protections against the negative impacts of fireworks, such changes must be applicable throughout the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. The licensing system in Northern Ireland, which is one of the most robust, makes it possible for authorities to identify illegal firework use and supply. However, the current system is not perfect. The Minister should consider further measures to tackle the illegal supply of fireworks. The main fireworks legislation here was created in 2002. It has not had any substantive reviews or changes in over 20 years. Legislation needs to keep pace with technological advancements and tackle the problems with enforcement in the modern day. We thank the Ulster Unionist Party for tabling the motion. We will support it and the Alliance Party's amendment. Top 4.45 pm Mr Burrows: It is refreshing to again be talking about issues that are kitchen-table politics. Last night, the issue was the cost of living, and, today, it is one that affects our constituents up and down the length of our country. Pet owners and farmers in particular talk frequently about the impact on their animals when fireworks are set off. We need to listen to that loud and clear call from across communities. This is a cross-community issue that should unite us. Something needs to change fundamentally around fireworks legislation. There are two key problems, if you want to distil them. One is that there is an unpredictability with fireworks. When are they going to go off? The other problem is the loud noise that they make. All the enforcement in the world will not change those two things; only fresh laws can. Mr Mathison: Will the Member give way? Mr Burrows: I will give way towards the end. I want to outline some testimony that I have heard from pet owners. I have surveyed some people and asked them to give me their personal examples. In my constituency, Jeffrey, a giant rabbit, died of a stroke this Halloween. Buddy the dachshund is still missing in Northern Ireland after bolting when a rocket exploded without notice. A sighthound called Rosie had a fatal stroke after fireworks were set off. A red panda in Edinburgh, which was up a tree in a zoo, had a stroke when it heard a firework and fell down. Its orphaned baby died a few weeks later. This is serious stuff, and it needs to be taken seriously. We also have issues with livestock up and down the country. For what? To have bangs — unpredictable noises that people cannot manage — during the week of Halloween? That can be changed, but laws are needed. I find it incongruous that the Alliance Party's amendment is about toughening up existing legislation for fireworks. As I said in my earlier intervention, that party — certainly the Justice Minister — has proposed a consultation on downgrading penalties for crimes such as burglary, fraud, antisocial behaviour and assault of police officers to a ticket. Mrs Long: Will the Member give way? Mr Burrows: I will not give way at the moment. I will come back in a second. Mrs Long: No, I am not surprised. Mr Burrows: OK, thank you. What sort of society do we live in when we want to throw a heavier book at those who have fireworks instead of changing the law, but give a slap on the wrist to those who assault our police officers — Mrs Long: Nonsense. Mr Burrows: — commit burglary or fraud — Mrs Long: Nonsense. Mr Burrows: — or who commit assault occasioning actual bodily harm? Mrs Long: Nonsense. Mr Burrows: The detail is in the consultation document that you issued. Mrs Long: Nonsense. A Member: Will the Member give way? Mr Burrows: I will give way in a second. There is an incongruous thing there. The Alliance Party also proposes to reduce the age of criminal responsibility. There is, perhaps, merit in that, but many —. Mrs Long: Any chance of the motion? Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I ask the Member to concentrate on the issue of fireworks. Mr Burrows: Yes, but this is about enforcement, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I will come to that. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Please do. Mr Burrows: It is very difficult to enforce legislation when, outside of the main events, the people who have the bangers and fireworks that cause the problems are mostly children. They generally fall outside typical prosecutions and tend to get diversions and cautions. So, enforcement is not the answer. The answer is a change to the legislation that allows for noise reduction and specific time periods in which fireworks can be used Mr Mathison: Will the Member give way? Mr Burrows: I will give way in literally 30 seconds. That will allow pet owners to plan accordingly. I declare an interest — I am going to give way in 10 seconds — in that my dog, Nancy, suffers very significantly from anxiety. I see it myself: we cannot cope over the two weeks of Halloween because we do not know when the fireworks are going to go off. Mr Mathison: I thank the Member for giving way. He made repeated references to noise levels of fireworks. Does he concede that we do not have jurisdiction over that in Northern Ireland because it is a reserved matter? We should not pretend to the public that a review will result in a change in that. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Member has an extra minute. Mr Burrows: The point of the motion is to highlight the fact that this is a significant issue that we need to address. [Laughter.] I know that some people find it funny, but many people up and down the country —. [Interruption.] Allow me to speak. Many people up and down the country do not find it amusing. We need to impress on Westminster that there are issues and that we need support in order to address them. Fireworks here have got out of control. They are being set off right throughout the year, while the PSNI's resources are entirely stretched. It therefore comes down to the enforcement point. Only this week, it has emerged that, on the issue of cybercrime, for one of the most dangerous predators that we have ever seen, the police did not have the resources to triage in order to deal with his phone quickly enough. It is being suggested that the police will drop things to do more enforcement of fireworks laws, but we need to live on planet reality. We need an acceptance right across the House —. Mrs Long: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Member is referring to an ombudsman's report and is doing so in a way that misrepresents its content. First, the actions that were looked at occurred between 2016 and 2019, when the PSNI was fully staffed. Secondly, the responsibility for resourcing within the PSNI and the allocation of resources is what was actually criticised in the ombudsman's report. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Minister has made her remarks for the record, and they will remain on the record. Mr Burrows, you do not get any extra time. You have 30 seconds left. Mr Burrows: It is a matter of record that the PSNI could not get those things examined. There is a backlog of devices owned by people who were abusing children and by people who were involved in domestic violence. Anyone who thinks that the PSNI will drop all of that to deal with the enforcement of fireworks laws is wrong. The answer is to change the law, make representations to Westminster, deal with the noise and deal with the unpredictability of fireworks legislation. All that needs to be done for pet owners and farmers — Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I ask the Member to draw his remarks to a close. Mr Burrows: — up and down the country. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Maurice Bradley, I get to call you now. Mr Bradley: I am not prepared for making a speech. [Laughter.] Mrs Long: You do not have to, Maurice. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Speak. Mr Bradley: I will find something. [Laughter.] Apologies, folks. I will start with the PSNI's response to an FOI request in 2019, which showed an upward trend in the offences of buying, possessing or using fireworks without a licence. In 2019-2020, there were over 1,400 incidents of antisocial behaviour involving fireworks, on top of a similar number of incidents the year before, and that is before we take under-reporting into account. My take is that the legislation, as Patsy McGlone said, is nearly a quarter of a century out of date. It was introduced to deal with a situation that is completely different from the situation now, considering the price and ferocity of fireworks today. The legislation therefore needs to be updated. EU rules as they apply under the Windsor framework allow fireworks of up to 120 decibels. That is far too loud. In my day, the decibel limit was much lower: at least half of that. We also have to deal with antisocial behaviour of young people running around letting off fireworks in people's entries and at their front doors, which is a real nuisance. Again, most of that behaviour goes unreported. People just put up with it. In an intervention earlier, I highlighted the effect of fireworks on pets. I can still vividly see what my pet went through that particular night. Its paws were stripped from gouging a door. It was unbelievable. Fireworks affect not just pets but livestock. When fireworks go off in a rural area, cattle will stampede. Horses in a field will stampede at great speed. Clydesdales will run through anything, and when it is dark, they cannot see where they are running. There is therefore a danger to farm animals as well. No offence, Minister, but the legislation is out of date. Mr Stewart: I thank the Member for giving way. He makes some very valid points, particularly about the under-reporting of firework incidents. Much of the public have given up all hope of anything being done, so most incidents are not reported. He rightly talks about the need for a review of the legislation. Unfortunately, the Alliance amendment removes the call for a review of the legislation. Supporting the amendment would therefore rule out a review. Does he agree that the legislation should be looked at again? Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Member has an extra minute. Mr Bradley: I will not need it, but thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I agree with the Member, and I thank him for his intervention. I will be supporting the motion and not the amendment. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Minister, you have up to 15 minutes. Mrs Long: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and thank you to all Members who engaged in the debate. My Department is the relevant authority in respect of explosives licensing, and it grants licences for the storage, possession, selling or legal use of fireworks. The setting of decibel noise limits on the fireworks available to consumers is a reserved matter and is the UK Government's responsibility as a trading standards issue. Whilst I cannot mandate low-noise fireworks, I can, nevertheless, promote and encourage their use in my communications, as I do, and ensure that information on them is available year round on nidirect. At the conclusion of the debate, I would be happy to raise that issue with ministerial colleagues in Westminster. Members should note, however, that they have, to date, refused to undertake a review of their fireworks licensing, which is much more lax than ours. I recognise that, following a number of serious concerns being raised over the Halloween period, the current Northern Ireland fireworks licensing controls have been brought into focus, and questions have arisen over whether the regulations and controls are sufficient. Fireworks regulation in Northern Ireland is among the most robust and effective in the United Kingdom, and this is the only jurisdiction in the UK where a fireworks licence is required for members of the public and professional displays. Furthermore, display-type fireworks in Northern Ireland are limited to professional use, unlike in other jurisdictions. Fireworks licences are issued by the Department only when it is safe to do so. They are restricted to one date, with an approved location and a list of fireworks appended, and will generally not be issued past 11.00 pm, with the exception of special occasions such as New Year's Eve. The purchase of fireworks online in NI is not lawful, as a licence for their use will not be granted. When you apply for a licence, you have to list in the schedule your supplier and the reference numbers for the fireworks that you intend to use, or you will not get a licence. Fireworks are safely enjoyed by many through private and publicly organised events. I have always said that there is a balance to be struck between those who enjoy fireworks and those who do not. I am mindful of the number of businesses that rely on income from fireworks displays. Under the current licensing arrangements, it is illegal for a registered or licensed retailer to sell fireworks to anyone under the age of 18 — making the discussions around the minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR) somewhat of a diversion — with the exception of sparklers, or to anyone who does not hold a valid fireworks licence issued by the Department of Justice. There is an important distinction to be made between licensed displays, where the appropriate checks have been carried out, and fireworks that are sold and used illegally, which is, ultimately, a matter of enforcement. Illegal fireworks are unsafe, and users are unlikely to comply with the restrictions that are placed on a licensed display, such as noise abatement hours, unsafe locations and the use of display fireworks, which should be used only by trained professional display operators. Such behaviour is as reckless as it is antisocial, placing those who use such fireworks at risk of serious injury and causing distress to others, given the unpredictability of when they will be used. However, that must be balanced against the facts, and a number of Members raised the issue of the number of reported fireworks incidents. In 2020, 1,949 fireworks incidents were reported; in 2024, at year end,1,033 were reported; and up until 16 October, which precludes the Halloween period, 563 incidents were reported. On accidents involving fireworks resulting in injury, there was one in 2020 and one in 2025. That number rose to a peak in 2022 with four injuries. The firearms and explosives branch in my Department processes applications all year round. Annually, the team generally receives over 500 applications for various types of events, with Halloween being the busiest time of year. I am conscious of the impact that fireworks can have on the elderly, those with noise sensitivity and more vulnerable members of the community, including those with PTSD, as well as on domestic and wild animals and livestock. As a dog owner and animal lover, I am conscious of the unintentional impact that fireworks can have on animals, particularly where they are used unpredictably. For community events, a fireworks licence may be issued with a condition that local residents have to be informed in advance of the fireworks display to allow them to take such precautions as may be necessary. Again, licensed displays are appropriately checked, and, through advertisements, local residents are aware of when they will take place to enable them to take appropriate measures to mitigate distress to humans and animals who do not enjoy fireworks and find them distressing. Top 5.00 pm When it comes to calls for a public awareness campaign and an education campaign, each year, as Halloween approaches, I issue reminders to the public that it is an offence to buy or be in possession of fireworks without a valid licence and urge the public to comply with the law. I also advise that fireworks bought from illegal sources may not be safe and may result in prosecution. Through my messaging and reminders, I continue to ask the public to be considerate of others, especially vulnerable people and animals. I will also continue to promote low-noise fireworks, which are available to purchase. Making those simple changes could help make Halloween and other events more enjoyable and reduce the distress caused. Mr Burrows: Will the Minister give way? Mrs Long: No. The Member did not offer me the courtesy when I asked. I also note that other agencies, such as the PSNI, the Fire and Rescue Service, DAERA and local councils promoted similar Halloween firework safety messages via their social media platforms. I encourage and will continue to encourage the public and councils to consider low-noise alternatives, such as drone displays, when celebrating seasonal events. I note, for example, that Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council held a low-noise display followed by a traditional fireworks display to provide options for those who enjoy fireworks with less noise. I will now turn to enforcement. Some Members seem to be under the illusion that better legislation would solve the problem, but, of course, legislation is not worth the paper that it is written on unless it is enforced. Enforcement is, perhaps, the key to this, because the legislation is quite robust. My officials work closely with relevant agencies to ensure that fireworks licences are issued only when it is deemed safe to do so and that any concerns or breaches of the legislation are reported to PSNI. Since 2016 — I believe that it was Patsy McGlone who asked — over 1,000 prosecutions for possession of unlicensed fireworks have taken place, averaging around 100 per year by PSNI. The PSNI will also deal with other, less serious incidents by way of other disposals out of court. My Department regularly arranges health and safety inspections of firework retailers and wholesalers and frequently checks records of sales to ensure compliance with the regulations on selling fireworks, because it can be cross-referenced with the fireworks licence to check that they were purchased and used as intended. My Department has also refused and revoked licences to store and sell fireworks on the ground of fitness. I am focused on the safe and responsible use of fireworks. Information on fireworks safety and the availability of low-noise fireworks is available all year round on nidirect. The web page also has the application form and a list of registered retailers, as well as the fireworks helpline. We want to encourage and make it easy for the public to follow the law and obtain a fireworks licence along with everything that goes with it. The price for a licence remains unchanged at £30 for small private displays, and work is under way to bring that application process online. There is no short-term solution to tackling antisocial behaviour that engages the use of fireworks. It requires concerted and sustained effort, and it is vital that the public play an active role in reporting any concerns regarding the misuse or illegal selling of fireworks or other fireworks infractions to PSNI so that the appropriate actions can be taken. Policing and community safety partnerships (PCSPs), which are funded by my Department, and the Northern Ireland Policing Board play a key role in the Department's operational response to community safety concerns at a local level. Tackling antisocial behaviour is a key strategic priority for PCSPs, which engage with local communities, statutory agencies and the community and voluntary sector to develop planned, purposeful, structured interventions to address issues in each council area. They also support — A Member: Will the Minister give way? Mrs Long: I will not at this point. They also support partner messaging on social media, such as the PSNI Halloween safety campaign — another element of education. Therefore, I am not currently considering either a review of the legal framework or a ban on fireworks. Members will be well aware of the limited resources available to my Department and the challenges that I have faced in ensuring that sufficient resourcing is available for critical public safety issues, including adequate support for front-line services. The Member for North Antrim raised the issue of the challenges that the police face from cybercrime, yet we spend this afternoon discussing fireworks. I cannot do everything, so I am prioritising the things that are most important, as you would expect me to. A full-scale review of the legislative framework would require me to take resources away from other parts of Justice to do that work. Reviewing regulations that already do many of the things that Members have called for would not be an effective use of my resources, and I continue to prioritise the areas that will make the biggest impact on public safety and access to justice within the constraints of my budget. To the Members who insist that I launch a review, particularly the party that moved the motion today, I say this: what other part of the justice system should I defund and deprioritise in order to deliver this? Would you have me take resources away from front-line policing, child protection, victim services? Where is the resource to come from? We do not have it in the Department of Justice. Should we take it from Prison Service and reduce our opportunities to deal with reoffending? Furthermore, even an outright ban is not guaranteed to stop the misuse of fireworks and could, in fact, have unintended consequences, including a possible increase in the illegal sale of dangerous fireworks with greater potential to cause injury. For example, in Ireland, the sale of most fireworks to the public is illegal. Nevertheless, their use in recent public disorder indicates that they are still available illegally. The current regulations provide a robust and effective framework that seeks to ensure that fireworks are sold and bought through a licensing system for responsible use. It aids partners, including PSNI, to identify unlicensed and illegal fireworks and bear down on that problem. The fact that we have seen a decrease in complaints evidences the fact that there has been some improvement. However, in recognition of the genuine public concern around the misuse of fireworks, I have instructed my officials to examine penalties and enforcement concerning the illegal use or sale of fireworks in the pending review of sentencing issues that we intend to launch before the end of the year. That will provide an opportunity to consider the associated penalties for breaching the existing regulations and may act as a further deterrent. Mr Butler said at the beginning that he would not support the amendment because it falls short of what his constituents want, but I have in front of me the emails that were sent from the social media petition in this regard, and it says: "I respectfully urge you to consider the following reforms". The first is: "Mandate silent or low-noise fireworks for all private and community use." Well, I cannot do that. I can write to colleagues in London, but it is a reserved matter, so I cannot do it. The second thing is: "Enforce existing laws on sales and licences." We do; in fact, I am suggesting improving enforcement. The third thing is: "Restrict times and locations for setting off fireworks to better protect pets, wildlife, and vulnerable people." We do. We say where they can be used and when they can be used. Mr Butler: You can change it. Mrs Long: There is no point in changing it when the problem is those who do not measure their behaviour in line with the law. The problem that we have is illegal fireworks, and it is on those that we need to bear down. The licensing system is fit for purpose. It would be a diversion from enforcement of the licensing for us to spend money on this. [Interruption.] The Member may well chunter and say, "No, of course, it wouldn't", but he does not sit on a daily basis and face the challenges that I face in managing my budget and my resources in a Department that has been drained of resources over 10 years. I have to prioritise carefully what I do in order that I have the most impact on public safety, and a review of what is already robust legislation will not make any difference to the people who breach it. What will matter is enforcement of it to ensure that it is taken seriously by everyone. That will bring about the safe and considerate use that, we all say, we want. I encourage people to support the amendment, because it is the most effective way to deliver what constituents have asked for. Mr Mathison: I rise to wind on the Alliance amendment. In the main, there is an awful lot that we agree on in the Chamber on the issue. We all need to acknowledge that, and it would be a shame if something positive did not come through because of minor differences on the right way to approach things. A lot of what people have been speaking about is the need for a better strategy for tackling the illegal use of fireworks, the need for better education, the need for engagement with PCSPs at local level and the need for the PSNI to take on proactive education programmes. There is a role for neighbourhood policing there. There is a lot of stuff that does not require legislation. We need to acknowledge that we probably agree on the vast majority of the issues being discussed. Mrs Dillon: Will the Member take an intervention? Mr Mathison: Briefly. I do not get any extra time, so I cannot guarantee that I will take any others. Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. Does he agree that it is exactly when such things happen that we do not have the problems? I give an example of one Halloween in Coalisland when there was no fireworks display and £140,000 of damage was done. With investment from the PCSP and others, £5,000 was all it cost to put on a fireworks display, and not one penny of damage was done that Halloween. Mr Mathison: I thank the Member for that intervention. That is exactly my point: local solutions would be far more effective than a costly review of legislation. I thank the Members who tabled the motion. We may disagree on the right approach to deal with this, but we all agree that the irresponsible use and, particularly, the illegal use of fireworks causes huge distress and is a massive issue of animal welfare in particular. I was keen to speak to the motion because I am the owner of a very anxious dog. Dexter came to us as a foster dog a number of years ago. On the first Halloween after we got Dexter, he escaped in absolute distress. I had a night that I do not want to repeat, running around the streets of Newtownards in the darkness trying to find a dog. Thankfully, he is white — he is a little West Highland terrier — which made it easier, as he stood out very obviously against the dark night. He was utterly distraught, and it has become worse year-on-year. It is so upsetting to see the distress that is caused by fireworks. To be clear, as an animal lover and a dog owner, I completely understand the concerns and have been contacted by constituents about them. Illegal and irresponsible firework use can be problematic and distressing, but the key problems that have been highlighted are noise and illegal and antisocial use. The Minister has been clear that we do not have the legal power here to deal with the decibel levels of fireworks. Let us not pretend to the public that we can do something about that with a legislative review; let us focus on what we can do to tackle the irresponsible use of fireworks. That is where the review of sentencing provisions is relevant. It is welcome that the Minister set out clearly the intentions to address the issue in the upcoming sentencing review by including penalties for the illegal use and sale of fireworks. That feels like the appropriate targeted and proportionate response. As I said, as a dog owner who fully understands the impact of fireworks and the distress that they cause, I am clear that a review of legislation would not reduce those noise levels or stop those who are engaged in antisocial behaviour at 2.00 am, setting off fireworks that they have acquired illegally. That, clearly, is a matter of enforcement. Mr Butler: Will the Member give way? Mr Mathison: I will give way if I have time. Let me just finish some of my remarks. The effective intervention in this space is much more likely to be tougher penalties that could result in more effective prosecutions. I have referenced the local interventions that are likely to be relevant, such as neighbourhood police teams proactively engaging on the ground during October. All of us have a responsibility to engage with our local PSNI teams on those issues and to look at what PCSPs can do. Those creative local solutions have been referenced already, and I would like to see all of us in the Chamber getting around to constructively support them. I thank the Members who tabled the motion. I will give way to Mr Butler, and then I will conclude my remarks. Mr Butler: I will try to keep this brief. We did not mention a ban, but we suggested a review that would look at things such as notification requirements and zoning around areas such as animal sanctuaries. A review could, hopefully, pick such things out. We are trying to look at other areas and not just at taking draconian measures. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Member has an extra minute. Mr Mathison: I thank the Member — Mrs Long: Will the Member give way? Mr Mathison: — for that intervention. I was going to say that some of the licensing provisions cover that, but the Minister can speak to that more effectively than I could. Mrs Long: First, I will clarify that it is already possible to identify whether animal sanctuaries would be an appropriate location. There is also the opportunity to specify times, dates and all the other things. If people were to read the fireworks regulations, it would help to inform the debate. Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for that helpful intervention. I am conscious that I am running out of time. I commend the Alliance amendment to the House. I think that we agree on more than we disagree on in the debate. Whatever comes out of the debate, it would be good if a clear message went out to people across Northern Ireland that the Assembly is united on this as a serious issue that causes real distress, that it is not inconsequential and that we should make a proportionate and effective response. I will finish my remarks by saying, Mr Frew, that I recall indoor firework displays. They were the highlight of many's the Halloween in my granny's house in Monkstown, so thank you for reminding me of that. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much indeed, Nick. I call Doug Beattie to make a winding-up speech. Doug, you have 10 minutes. Over to you. Mr Beattie: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will reflect on those indoor fireworks. I thought that they were absolutely fantastic, and they are still out there. You can still buy them, so, if any Members want a bit of nostalgia, they should get online and buy themselves a set of indoor fireworks. I remember speaking to some of my friends in England and telling them about that. They thought that I was joking when I told them that there were indoor fireworks. They could not believe it. Top 5.15 pm The motion is clear and simple: it is about future-proofing our legislation on the use of fireworks; nothing more. The argument that we have the most robust legislation on these islands, which is what it says in the amendment, is subjective, because Ireland has a near total ban on fireworks. The legislation covers well fireworks that are used correctly, including at organised events. The problem is the proliferation of fireworks and the misuse and illegal use of them, which is having a major impact. Things have changed in the past 20 years. That is just fact. I will reflect on areas of the current legislation and examine the effectiveness that we talk about. The first thing that I have to be clear on is that we want everybody to adhere to the law on fireworks. The Minister summed it up really well: a lot of what we are talking about is illegal use of fireworks, which is a criminal justice issue. However, there are loopholes in there that we have to try to close. The age for purchase of fireworks is 18, but we all know that companies out there will sell fireworks to people who are under 18. They will not ask for proof of age or whether somebody has a licence. About an hour before the debate started, I checked that myself. Mrs Long: Will the Member give way? Mr Beattie: Just let me get through my remarks a bit. In fact, go ahead. Mrs Long: Without being rude, the Member does look considerably over 18. [Interruption.] In fairness, if you sell fireworks to people who are under 18, that is one reason why you would be considered unfit to hold a fireworks sale licence, and that licence would be removed. There are cases where people were sold fireworks without having a certificate for a fireworks display, and those salespeople's licences were removed. Mr Beattie: You are absolutely right, Minister, but here is part of the problem: those fireworks are not coming from within the United Kingdom or these islands; a lot of them are coming from international suppliers and shippers. We have a problem there. Fireworks licensing — both year-round licensing and temporary licensing — is done by the Department of Justice. I think that there are around 500 permanent licences out there, give or take 50 or so, and I am not sure how many temporary licences are out there — I could not get a hold of those figures — yet the smuggling of fireworks across the border has increased, as have online sales. Fireworks are now far more available than they were 20 years ago. That is just a simple fact. Given that fact alone, the legislation should be reviewed. Indeed, as I have mentioned, many online sales go unchallenged. The legislation also talks about a curfew on the use of fireworks, which is between 11.00 pm and 7.00 am, as it is for most things. That is pretty normal. However, some fireworks are sold as having added noise. That is how they are sold: with added noise. That is not like the continuous humming of machinery; it is loud bangs — added noise — of up to 120 decibels. That is well beyond what is acceptable at 11.00 pm for many people. The World Health Organization, for example, says that 85 decibels risks hearing damage, yet we have 120-decibel fireworks. I will touch on that in a minute. The Minister is right to say that we do not have a say in that, because it is not a devolved matter. We have sales periods from 15 October to 10 November and 12 December to 31 December, and for various cultural events, such as the Chinese New Year and Diwali. I think that sales begin two days before the start of each of those events and go on until just afterwards. However, there remains concern about year-round online sales that can circumvent those time periods. Mrs Long: Will the Member give way? Mr Beattie: I will just get on, Minister, because you are probably going back to the exact same thing. Mrs Long: I am not. Mr Beattie: I will come to you if I have time, if you do not mind. Northern Ireland follows the rules of the EU due to the Windsor framework, which means that it diverges from the UKCA marking. Indeed, it retains the EU laws that set the decibel limit at 120. How do you get round that? You do it by having rules that reduce the explosive content in fireworks and not letting other ones in. I think that, at present, the maximum here is 1·3 grams. If you made it 1 gram, you would reduce the decibel level. It is simple fact — simple maths. We can do that by saying that we do not allow fireworks to come in that have over 1 gram of explosive content. If you break the rules — for example, if you were to sell outside permitted periods without a licence — the penalties are pretty hefty already: up to six months' imprisonment and/or a £5,000 fine. We had one such case just last year in Bellaghy, where an individual was arrested for selling thousands of illegal fireworks. There has been no outcome of that — certainly not that I know of — but there was an arrest. We have had no bang to that particular issue. If you are under 18, possessing fireworks, throwing fireworks or breaching the fireworks curfew could get you a fine of up to £5,000. That is pretty hefty. I have seen far less for other offences. We all know that under-18s do it: we know that it happens this time of the year, and we know about antisocial behaviour. Yet, very few under-18s are arrested for possession of fireworks. Why? The police confiscate the fireworks and send the young people on their way. That is what they do, whether we believe it or not. They want to deal with things quickly and get the fireworks off the street. I will give way to the Minister if she still wants to intervene. Mrs Long: Imports and exports are, again, a reserved matter, so that is not something that we can control. However, we monitor imports, including where they are delivered to, in order to avoid things being brought either across the border or into Northern Ireland ports that do not meet our requirements. When it comes to trading standards, which govern the strength of the fireworks, the responsibility does not fall to us. Mr Beattie: There are many things that we are talking about. If we review the legislation, we can try to close some of the loopholes. The problem with the Alliance Party's amendment is that all that it wants to do is increase the sentences. It does not want to review. I absolutely get what the Minister said about resources — I do not envy her — but the legislation needs to be reviewed because we need to see how things have changed in the past 20 years. Mr Mathison: Will the Member give way? Mr Beattie: I will see whether I can give you a bit of time. There are things that we can look at. I will just fire them out. Let us increase awareness of the misuse and the effect of fireworks. It is about education. Let us reduce the explosive content of fireworks and create low-noise options. We can do that. Let us have fireworks exclusion zones around hospitals, farms and animal rehoming centres. Let us ban for life any businesses from selling fireworks if they are caught selling outside dedicated times, selling to under-18s or importing illegally. Let us have a mandatory legal duty on all organisations that conduct fireworks displays to inform homes that may be affected. I give way. Mr Mathison: I thank the Member for giving way. I will be very brief. Much of what you have said has referenced how robust our regime is. Would we not, therefore, be better focusing on effective but cheaper local solutions to deal with issues as they arise? Mr Beattie: First, you need to understand the problem. You cannot understand the problem unless you grab hold of the legislation and say, "I'm going to go through this. I'm going to review this. I'm going to see where the loopholes are". You are absolutely right: some solutions could be delivered at a local level, but some of them will need something else or something higher. Somebody might need something that closes a loophole that we identified because we reviewed the legislation. Let us stop all fireworks in residential areas, unless they are licensed public displays. Let us reduce the curfew from 11.00 pm to 10.00 pm because of older people. Let us proactively tackle the antisocial behaviour that is linked to fireworks. Let us deal with the online sale of fireworks to give legal clarity. Let us review the legislation, as per the motion that was moved by my colleague Robbie Butler. Question put, That the amendment be made. The Assembly divided: Ayes 52; Noes 13 AYES Ms K Armstrong, Mr Baker, Mr Blair, Mr Boylan, Mr Bradley, Ms Bradshaw, Mr Brett, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Mr Clarke, Mr Delargy, Mr Dickson, Mrs Dillon, Mrs Dodds, Miss Dolan, Mr Donnelly, Ms Egan, Ms Ennis, Mrs Erskine, Ms Finnegan, Ms Flynn, Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew, Mr Gaston, Mr Gildernew, Mrs Guy, Miss Hargey, Mr Honeyford, Mr Kearney, Mr Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mr Kingston, Mrs Little-Pengelly, Mrs Long, Mr Lyons, Mr McAleer, Miss McAllister, Mr McGuigan, Miss McIlveen, Mr McMurray, Mr Martin, Mrs Mason, Mr Mathison, Mr Middleton, Mr Muir, Ms Mulholland, Ms Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Ms Reilly, Mr Robinson, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Dickson, Mr McMurray NOES Mr Allen, Mr Beattie, Mr Burrows, Mr Butler, Mr Carroll, Mr Chambers, Mr Durkan, Ms Hunter, Mr McGlone, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McNulty, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Stewart Tellers for the Noes: Mr Beattie, Mr Burrows Mr Clarke acted as a proxy for Mrs Erskine. Question accordingly agreed to. Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly recognises the widespread distress and disruption caused by the misuse of fireworks across Northern Ireland; acknowledges the serious impact on animals, wildlife and people, including those living with trauma or heightened sensitivity to noise; notes that firework regulation in Northern Ireland is among the most robust in these islands; and calls on the Minister of Justice to consider changes to the penalties available for the illegal use and sale of fireworks in the pending review of sentencing issues, to ensure appropriate safeguards, responsible celebration and better protection for people, animals and communities in the use of fireworks. Assembly Business Standing Order 19(5): Ministerial Answers Mr Carroll: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. During the debate on the independent review of liquor licensing, the Minister for Communities dismissed my entirely reasonable question about Unite the union's Get me Home Safely campaign as a "stupid question". Leaving aside the arrogance, Mr Deputy Speaker, Standing Order 19(5) states: "A question must be answered as clearly and as fully as possible." Does the Minister's dismissal of my question mean a breach of Standing Orders? [Interruption.] Have there been previous rulings against Ministers — I will not be shouted down — dismissing valid questions as "stupid questions"? Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): We will refer your question to the Speaker's Office, and then we will refer back to you. Ladies and gentlemen, take your ease while we switch over the top Table for the next item of business. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Blair] in the Chair) Private Members' Business Cancer Services and Outcomes Mrs Dodds: I beg to move That this Assembly deplores current waiting times for patients accessing cancer services in Northern Ireland; notes with concern recent analysis by Cancer Research UK that indicates that the percentage of local patients with urgent, suspected cancer who start treatment within 62 days is much lower than England and Scotland; further notes with concern that Northern Ireland has the lowest one-year survival rate in the United Kingdom for both pancreatic and ovarian cancer, and that the proportion of cancer patients diagnosed at an early stage has not improved in the past 10 years; expresses alarm that studies have shown that a four-week delay in cancer treatment increases the risk of death by between 6% and 8%; calls on the Minister of Health to make a concerted effort to drive down wait times, including through the delivery of additional capacity in health and social care trusts and the ambitious implementation of the elective care framework; and further calls on the Minister to expedite the delivery of a cancer research strategy for Northern Ireland. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. An amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List, so the Business Committee has agreed that 15 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate. Mrs Dodds: In introducing the debate today, I am aware that this is a sensitive issue. A cancer diagnosis is life-altering for both the patient and their family. Life is changed in that instant of diagnosis. I know that the House will treat the debate with sensitivity and compassion. The motion is not meant to diminish the incredible work of the clinicians and all those who work to provide care and support for those on a cancer journey. We know that patients who are receiving cancer care feel well supported by staff, and I put on record our thanks for their incredible work. All that being said, in the hope that we will make diagnoses, treatment and outcomes better for cancer patients, we should not shy away from hard facts. We all know that cancer does not wait. Every day, 28 people are diagnosed with cancer in Northern Ireland. While patients are waiting, they may lose curative options or become too sick to withstand treatment, and that is a harsh reality for too many. Cancer statistics in Northern Ireland are startling, but, in every statistic, there is a person — a mother, a daughter, a father, a son or grandparents — who are thrown into the scary world of cancer diagnosis and treatment. In the words of one woman who was diagnosed with cervical cancer and who campaigns here regularly, "cancer changes you". Top 5.45 pm As I open the debate, I want the House to hear about one woman's cancer journey. She is not a statistic but a wife and a mother of young children. She is 41 years old. In January this year, she had a mammogram, and all was clear. In June, she found a lump under her arm, had to wait to see her GP and was red-flagged on 5 July. In week eight of her journey, after multiple phone calls, she received an outpatient appointment and had a mammogram, ultrasound and biopsy. In week nine, on 28 August, she had a diagnosis of stage 2-3 cancer. In week 10, she received a CT and an MRI. In week 12, a PET scan confirmed a metastatic diagnosis: her cancer was now stage 4 and had spread to her lungs. In week 15, in October, she started treatment. She had to wait 112 days in total from her red-flag referral to treatment. The target set by the Department is 62 days. That, unfortunately, is not the only story of its kind. It represents the devastating impact that delays to treatment can have. In the quarter to June 2025, 840 patients — more than two thirds — waited longer than 62 days to start treatment. For comparison, 69% of patients in England and 70% of patients in Scotland were seen within 62 days. Our outcomes for two cancers are particularly startling. Of women diagnosed with ovarian cancer in Northern Ireland, 31% will not survive one year after diagnosis. For patients with pancreatic cancer, outcomes are worrying, with the majority of patients being diagnosed at stage 4. Too many cancers are diagnosed late and through emergency admissions: 31·4% of stage 4 breast cancers are diagnosed via emergency admissions, and 56·7% of stage 4 lung cancers and 48·9% of stage 4 colorectal cancers are diagnosed too late. I am conscious of the fact that cancer diagnoses in Northern Ireland are rising, but that is also the case in England and Scotland. Minister, I suggest that we are suffering from a long-term failure to plan for the predicted rise and that, as a consequence, the wait for diagnosis and treatment has become longer and the outcomes for patients poorer. The 'British Medical Journal' records: "Even a four week delay of cancer treatment is associated with increased mortality across surgical, systemic treatment, and radiotherapy indications for seven cancers" and advises: "Policies focused on minimising system level delays to cancer treatment initiation could improve population level survival outcomes." It also records that, for 1,000 women with breast cancer, surgery delayed for four weeks would result in 10 additional deaths. An eight-week delay would equate to 20 additional deaths, and 12 weeks would see an additional 31 deaths. In light of the delay in regional breast cancer lists, Minister, and when it is crystallised in that way by clinicians who operate in the field, that is a serious issue. Minister, your budget contains a ring-fenced budget of £215 million for waiting lists. The House needs to hear how that is being managed. How has the £85 million set aside for red-flag cases been allocated? What is being done to identify the patients most at risk due to long waits and to prioritise them for diagnosis and treatment? What transformation resource is being deployed in the trusts to support waiting-time recovery? How are trust chief executives being held to account for trust performance? We need to see every patient's cancer journey tracked and the most urgent cases prioritised. Is there an official in your Department who has responsibility for those things? Of the rest of the £215 million, Minister, I know that £40 million was set aside for those who have been waiting for a procedure for more than four years. However, I have also been informed that £73·5 million has been taken away from waiting list initiatives and allocated to the deficit: is that accurate? The House deserves a straight answer on that important question. It is incredible that money designed to tackle the most appalling waiting lists could be used in that way. I say that with full acknowledgement that the Health budget is in significant difficulty. Taking £73·5 million away from waiting lists would be a serious breach with the people of Northern Ireland. I hope that you can clarify that for me, Minister, and that you will respond specifically to it in your remarks. Cancer waiting times such as we have in Northern Ireland would not be tolerated in England, and they should not be tolerated here. Sadly, I sometimes think that we have become numbed by waiting lists; the difficulty in getting the right and timely diagnosis; and all the hurdles that health bureaucracy seems to put in our way. We need to see system improvements here. Many patients whom I talk to are grateful for the care that they receive when they get into the system, but, as the debate shows, the real difficulty is with initial diagnosis and treatment. What is the plan, Minister? It would be morally indefensible to go on as we are. Will you complete a demand and capacity analysis so that money can be properly directed? Will you demand that trusts submit improvement plans for backlog clearance and show their plans to deal with future demand? Will you ensure that the long-term sustainability of cancer services is a priority on the agenda of the Health Department? Everyone in the Chamber wants to see better services for cancer patients. Cancer can touch all our lives. However, too many people struggle to access services, and waiting lists are, as Mark Taylor suggested when he took up his new post, a national scandal. Minister, it is time for action and system reform. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you. I call Philip McGuigan to move the amendment. Mr McGuigan: I beg to move the following amendment: At end insert: " and to maximise the potential for cross-border cancer care collaboration to improve clinical trial access, diagnostic capacity, research outcomes and integrated treatment pathways." Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): You have 10 minutes to propose the amendment and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who speak will have five minutes. Please open the debate on the amendment. Mr McGuigan: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. [Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.] I thank the Members opposite for tabling the motion. We had a similar discussion on cancer waiting times in May, but this is such an important issue that it is right that we keep a focus on it until such times as the shocking figures improve and cancer patients in the North get better outcomes. The statistics and impacts for cancer patients in the North are truly shocking and are well outside clinically safe standards. I do not want to use all of my 10 minutes reeling off statistics, but some are worth highlighting. In the quarter from April to June 2025, 67% of patients waited longer than the desired 62 days to start treatment for cancer following an urgent GP referral for suspected cancer. That is two out of every three patients waiting longer than they should. While performance on the 31-days-to-treatment target appears better, I am mindful that that is 31 days not from diagnosis but from the decision to treat. More imaging, biopsies etc may need to be completed before a decision to treat is made, and it is important to understand whether there are additional delays at that point. In the quarter ending June 2025, 1,947 patients were seen by a breast cancer specialist following an urgent referral for suspected breast cancer in the Belfast, Northern and South Eastern Trusts. Of those, only 6·6 patients were seen within 14 days of their urgent referral for breast cancer. That is a truly shocking figure. As I have said in similar debates, the statistics are shocking, but they account for real people: our friends and family members. The delays that those people face, either for diagnosis or treatment, impact directly on their outcomes, their quality of life and, indeed, their chances of survival. Whilst the information that we have available paints a dire picture, what we do not know might make it worse. For example, we do not know how much longer than 62 days patients ended up waiting for treatment. Additionally, the 62-day target measures red-flag referrals, but not all patients are diagnosed via that route. Some come through A&E; some come through screening; and others come through secondary care appointments. How long are they waiting for treatment, and why are they not counted? Additional data is required, and further questions need to be asked. I completely concur with the questions that Diane has asked. The Minister may not be able to provide answers this evening, but, further to those questions, I ask whether the size of the backlog in each trust for each speciality could be published, as well as the average and longest waiting time. I also want to ask whether a region- and trust-specific demand/capacity analysis has been done in order to understand the extent of the problem. With regard to the amendment, we feel that, while tackling capacity and reforming elective care are essential to addressing the waiting times crisis, we must also fully harness the potential for cross-border cancer care collaboration. Doing so can expand access to clinical trials, strengthen diagnostic capacity, enhance research quality and innovation and create more integrated treatment pathways, all of which can contribute directly to improved patient outcomes and survival rates. The Good Friday Agreement recognised that cancer is a shared challenge. The memorandum of understanding on cancer research and cancer care between the North, the South and the US National Cancer Institute, which was agreed a year after the signing of the agreement, has led not only to greater and more impactful collaboration on the quantity and quality of research outputs but to over 40,000 patients being involved in cancer clinical trials, potentially saving thousands of lives. Building on that consortium, the All-Island Cancer Research Institute has brought together 10 universities on the island of Ireland to work together to develop a framework for cancer research and share expertise across the island. Given our small population, the case for working collaboratively on an all-Ireland basis is clear. Many clinical trials require large numbers of eligible patients, so that is particularly important for people with rare cancers. Joint infrastructure reduces duplication, cuts costs and allows for the more effective use of resources. Shared training opportunities and access to specialist expertise could strengthen capacity across the system. We have already seen the success of cross-border radiotherapy provision in the North West Cancer Centre at Altnagelvin Hospital, where patients from Donegal have been receiving timely treatment close to home. Access to life-saving healthcare should not be determined by the boundaries of the system; patients should be able to access their closest facility. I commend Cancer Research and all the other cancer organisations for their ongoing efforts to highlight the impact of delays in cancer diagnosis and treatment. As I said, it is important to remember, in this debate and in all debates, that the figures that we are discussing are not just statistics but equate to real people whose lives are placed at greater risk because our system is failing to treat cancer with the urgency that it demands. Any delay in diagnosis or treatment has the potential to impact on physical and mental health. We are acutely aware of the importance of catching and treating cancer earlier in order to improve outcomes. Awareness-raising campaigns that encourage us all to be alert to early indications of certain types of cancer have been effective, and opportunities for screening people without symptoms continue to grow. There is no doubt that they have helped to save lives, so it is important that they are followed up with timely intervention. We are now into the third year of a 10-year cancer strategy. Progress is happening, but it is nowhere near fast enough. We need to see the Minister building on the recommendations in that strategy, which has a key role in improving diagnostics, treatment options and, ultimately, patient outcomes. We also need to see the publication of the cancer research strategy. In his response, the Minister will hopefully advise us on where that is at. We need a dynamic, responsive cancer research strategy. It is essential if we are to reverse the trends that we are confronted with today. Top 6.00 pm It is important that the issues identified in the Comptroller and Auditor General's report about the condition of imaging equipment, including MRI and CT scanners, be fully resolved. Reliable, modern imaging systems are a critical component of any effective diagnostic pathway. Where improvements in reducing waiting times are being made, however, they should be acknowledged. Progress is being made as a result of the rapid diagnostic centre and the mega-clinics. I welcome the additional £10 million that has been allocated to mega-clinics and the commitment to invest in red-flag and time-critical services, in capacity building and in clearing the backlog. There is still a long way to go, however, and patients cannot continue to be failed. Miss McAllister: I thank the Members who tabled the motion. It is important that we keep our eye on the issue. When the waiting list statistics for cancer come out every quarter, it is often important to raise them in the Chamber and in the Health Committee. We will support the motion and the amendment. I think that we all agree that waiting times are a national shame, and that is no better evidenced than through the impact that they have on the lives of individuals. It is very important to highlight, as Members who have spoken previously did, the hard work that health service workers do and the compassion that they show to those who have been diagnosed with cancer and to those who are waiting on a diagnosis. Treatment is essential, but so is research, and I pay tribute to the many hard-working individuals who have the innovative skills to work in what is a difficult climate in Northern Ireland. They are competing with the rest of the world to ensure that Northern Ireland has a firm footing in clinical trials now and into the future. We have a target here of at least 98% of patients who are diagnosed with cancer receiving their first definitive treatment within 31 days of a decision to treat. In the quarter from April until June of this year, only 87% of patients began their treatment within that 31-day period. The 31-day period is not the only significant target. Where a patient has suspected cancer, we also have the 62-day target from referral by a GP to beginning their first definitive treatment. Only 32% of patients began their treatment within that period. England and Scotland sit at 67% and 69% respectively, so it is evident that we are falling behind, and that is not acceptable. As if that were not concerning enough on its own, Cancer Research UK highlights the fact that we do not know the true scale of the problem, because the statistics from the Department of Health do not tell us how many patients are waiting beyond the 62-day period, nor do they tell us exactly how many patients are still waiting. An issue that we have raised many times in the Chamber concerns the impact that the roll-out of Encompass has had on statistical analysis. We often wait for the publication of statistics from many trusts, only to hear that there are issues with the roll-out of the system. I would appreciate it if the Minister could provide us with an update on when we can expect all trusts to have completed the full roll-out of Encompass so that we no longer have to wait to receive the full statistics. Although we are talking about the importance of collecting and analysing data so that we in the Assembly can then scrutinise it, data is also important for clinicians and academics who work in the field of research. As members of the Health Committee, my colleagues and I have been approached by many organisations about the use of secondary data and what they can do to process it. Often, they cannot get their hands on it. I appreciate that there are privacy and confidentiality issues involved in data sharing, and I also appreciate that there are issues with sharing data with external providers, but I hope that we can move towards having a system through which data can be shared appropriately in order to enable and encourage that innovation. We all know the impact that delays in receiving treatment can have on cancer patients. The proposer of the motion spoke about her constituent's breast cancer referral, and many of us in the Chamber will share the sense of sadness and frustration, knowing the impact that that can have on someone's private and family life. We need to get to a position in which those who are waiting receive communication, because we all understand that the health service is under pressure. However, when you are waiting for a yes or no diagnosis and do not know what your future looks like, silence is worse than waiting. It is important that we up our game when it comes to communication. I also want to focus on research. The Minister, in responding to the previous motion on waiting lists, which was in May, focused on the progress that we have made, and it is important for all of us across the Chamber to point to the North West Cancer Centre at Altnagelvin Hospital, the Shared Island Fund being its main promoter. It is important that the amendment focuses on cross-border collaboration, which is why we will support it, because health does not know borders. We must also pay tribute to the Patrick G Johnston Centre for Cancer Research, which works with Queen's University and Cancer Research UK. Without those people and the clinicians doing that work, we would not have the better outcomes for clinicians and medical practitioners to deliver treatment. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up. Mr Chambers: Few issues that are brought before the House carry the same priority or urgency as cancer care. Cancer is a disease that can thrive in a vacuum. That is why every possible step should be taken to stamp down on avoidable delays in diagnosis. As has been said, every postponed treatment represents not just a statistic but a person, so it is for them that we must approach this discussion with the seriousness and focus that it deserves. I acknowledge the work that is under way not just in the Department but across the senior clinical leadership on not just sustaining but improving cancer services. The cancer strategy is something that every Member should get behind. No matter where patients may live in Northern Ireland, they should have equitable and timely access to world-class cancer referral, diagnosis, treatment and person-centred care. That is not an aspiration; it is a necessity. As has so often been discussed in the Chamber, however, we must also be honest with ourselves. The gap between the strategy's ambition and the available resources is significant. The strategy anticipated recurring funding approaching £55 million by year 4 and rising further over the decade. Today, the Minister is working with just over £10 million. It is a credit to our healthcare staff that good progress has been made in such trying circumstances. Cancer waiting times in particular must be addressed with a renewed sense of urgency. The Minister has often acknowledged, and will likely and rightly do so again today, that too many people are waiting beyond the targets and far beyond what any of us would be willing to tolerate. Whilst that is undoubtedly the case, it is important that we look at the broader data. Thankfully, our outcomes suggest that, on the whole, patients still receive the high quality of care and treatments that they require. That is important for us to emphasise, because patients and their families deserve encouragement and hope. Of course, every delay is one too many, not least because early treatment saves lives, as does early diagnosis. Removing avoidable delays can literally save lives. I very much welcome the elective care framework and the implementation plan that has directed substantial funding of £85 million into red-flag and time-critical care. That is evidence of a system that is trying within its constraints to do what is right. The targeted investments in endoscopy, diagnostics, systemic anti-cancer therapy and cancer nursing capacity are all steps in the right direction. As the most recent published reports show, those focused investments are beginning to have a real impact. Waiting lists for endoscopy have been reduced dramatically. Rapid diagnostic centres (RDCs) are streamlining care for patients whose symptoms do not point clearly to one cancer type but whose need for swift assessment is no less urgent. The expansion of CT and MRI capacity, not just at the RDCs but at other acute sites, is also helping to reduce some of the longest waits on record. There was a decision earlier this year to move to a regional breast assessment list. Whilst it was never going to be easy, it was still the right thing to do. Waiting times for breast assessment, which rightly concerned us at the end of the summer, are now beginning to show significant improvement. Importantly, the new approach has ended the wholly intolerable postcode lottery for patients, including for my constituents in the South Eastern Trust area, who had previously faced some of the longest waits. The motion understandably references the cancer research strategy. The idea was to publish it earlier this year, but, as the Minister has rightly said, he wanted much more than a plan for a plan's sake, so it was the right thing to do to take time to get it right and, importantly, to gain support from the wider research community. This is an important debate on an important issue. Progress is being made, but we can all see that there is still much to do. I place on record our appreciation and thanks to all the medical staff who provide care and comfort to people who are suffering from this insidious disease. Ms McLaughlin: I speak to today's motion with a deep sense of empathy for every family across the North who has faced the fear, the uncertainty and the anguish that a cancer diagnosis brings. I am thinking, in particular, of one family who just got bad news yesterday. Behind every statistic in the debate is a person who is waiting for news, family and friends who are pacing corridors and communities that are holding their breath, and it is for them that the Assembly must act with urgency and unity. The motion outlines what we already know to be true: our waiting times are unacceptable and are costing lives. Mr McNulty: I thank the Member for giving way. It is obviously a very emotional issue for you, given the news that you have just heard. We in the SDLP are fully behind the motion and want to see the elimination of delays when it comes to accessing cancer services, and fundamental to that is the adoption of an all-island approach. Just last week, a constituent of mine, Fergal Sherry, bravely went on BBC radio and told the story of his wife Catherine contracting cancer and getting the diagnosis and how they told their three young sons. It was blood cancer, and the treatment that was necessary was chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy. The Minister knows all about that. The family was forced to travel to London to get access to treatment, and it would have been so much easier if the treatment had been available in Dublin. We have pressed the Minister on multiple occasions on how an all-island approach to cancer care must be adopted. That would be better for everybody involved. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute. Ms McLaughlin: Only around one third of patients who are urgently referred with suspected cancer begin treatment within the 62-day target. For breast cancer, in the most recent quarter, just 6·6% of urgent referrals were seen within 14 days. Since regional transformation of the services has taken place, the Western Trust referrals waiting list time has increased quite significantly, which is devastating news for my constituents. We have the lowest one-year survival rates for ovarian and pancreatic cancer anywhere on these islands. Those delays mean later diagnosis, more invasive treatment, poor outcomes and, tragically, lives lost that could have been saved. We cannot allow that to continue. While we confront the scale of the problem, we must also acknowledge that solutions exist, if we choose to grasp them. Cancer does not recognise borders, and neither should the response. Each day, people from Derry, Fermanagh and Newry go across the border, into the Republic, for treatment, and they do so because they cannot wait and because cooperation works. We have already seen the success of the North West Cancer Centre. It is truly first in its class. It treats patients from Donegal and demonstrates that shared services improve outcomes for everyone. We should be expanding that collaborative model, including through shared diagnostic capacity, cross-border workforce planning and joint investment in specialist services, and we should be fully utilising the EU-UK pathways that still allow structured health cooperation on this island. When the nearest radiologist, the fastest diagnostic slot or the most appropriate surgeon is 20 minutes across the border, the question should never be: is this jurisdictionally tidy? The question should be, "Is this in the best interest of the patient?", because patients deserve a system that meets them with compassion, not complexity. To the Minister I say that the cancer strategy sets the right direction but, without sustained funding, workforce planning and radical reform of diagnostic services, it will remain a plan on a page. We need rapid diagnostic centres operating at full capacity, meaningful investment in imaging and a real strategy for recruitment and retention, including cooperation with our neighbours, who face many of the same challenges. This is not at all an attack on the Minister, because we know that he works under a constrained budget, but we need the culture in the Executive to reflect the desire for meaningful change for the better. Top 6.15 pm Colleagues, cancer is a disease that demands urgency. The studies tell us that a four-week delay in treatment increases the risk of death by up to 8%. Every additional week is a week too long. It is our task to meet this moment with empathy, ambition and partnership North/South and east-west. The people we serve deserve nothing less. I support the motion and the amendment. Ms Flynn: I also welcome the chance to speak on this important issue. As has been said, cancer impacts on every one of us, those in the Chamber and the families that we represent in our constituencies. I reiterate that cancer waiting times are not an abstract policy issue; they are sleepless nights and anxious weeks, while patients and their loved ones are left wondering whether they will live or die. Nuala talked about the silence when people are waiting and the unknown future. I am sorry to see Sinéad get upset from whatever she is going through at the moment. When we last debated the issue of cancer in the Assembly, in late May or early June, I was unable to take part in the debate because my mother was just going through a breast cancer diagnosis and treatment. I get that it is personal to every one of us in one way or another. It also is for all the families and individuals whom we represent. It is a very current, raw and difficult issue to deal with and even to talk about. Thanks to the DUP for tabling the motion in the first instance. Hopefully, the amendment will get some cross-party support as well, to make some improvements. Across the North, we are simply not seeing people quickly enough, although many families are lucky enough to receive the gold-standard, life-saving care and make it through to the other side. People are grateful for that. However, Diane spoke about one of her constituents, and, sadly, we are not catching everyone. There are still people waiting outside those timelines, where their diagnosis and treatment should have started much more quickly. That might have saved their lives. The international evidence has been mentioned. Even a four-week delay in treatment can increase the risk of death by between 6% and 8%. In the breakdown of the numbers that Diane provided, every one of those figures represents someone who has lost their life who potentially might not have been in that situation. It was powerful just to listen to that breakdown. That is what we are dealing with. I will bring us back to my constituency, West Belfast. We have held meetings on something more specific: the screening for human papillomavirus (HPV) in particular and the vaccinations. All of us try to give that plug to every one of our constituents. Where vaccines are available that can help prevent cancers or pick them up earlier, please get them. It is the right thing to do. Then, hopefully, you will not be in that situation at the other end of the health service where you are requiring treatment to treat your cancer. In the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, the HPV uptake for girls sits at only 72%. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that 90% of 15-year-olds should have received that vaccination. There are ways in which we are falling behind. We could be getting more people vaccinated and screened at an earlier point, and that would mean that they were not coming into the system with the diagnosis of cancer further down the line. I will push that vaccine and promote it in West Belfast to try to get an increase in uptake. We know that the prevention stuff alone will not fix the problem. We need to put in place a series of measures. My party's amendment speaks about an all-island approach. There was discussion about that at last week's meeting of the North/South Inter-Parliamentary Association here in Stormont; Linda might give us a bit of an update on that. The all-island stuff speaks for itself: if it is the right thing to do, let us do it. If it will save a life, let us do it. Philip mentioned some of the good practice in the North West Cancer Centre at Altnagelvin. If we can build on any of that, please let us do that. I know that it is not just as simple as that and that it all takes funding, collaboration and hard work, but, hopefully, following the debate on today's motion, we can move closer to that point. Ms Forsythe: Sadly, cancer touches the lives of most people in Northern Ireland in some form. One in two of us will have cancer in our lifetime. Cancer services are essential. There are many amazing healthcare staff and voluntary and community sector organisations that provide a range of care and support. The excellent work that is going on does not, however, hide the fact that we must see transformation in cancer outcomes and stabilisation in cancer waiting times. The people who are waiting for cancer referrals and treatment are people we know, anxiously waiting for answers and clarity on what is happening to their body. The issues span a wide range. We do not have a high enough awareness of various types of cancers and their symptoms, of what to look out for or of what screening is available. Our motion highlights the fact that, in Northern Ireland, we have the lowest one-year pancreatic and ovarian cancer survival rate in the UK, which is horrifying. A former colleague of mine, Stephen McCormick, recently lost his wife, Julie, to ovarian cancer. Ever since then, he has campaigned tirelessly, in memory of his Julie, to raise awareness among others of the symptoms. Often, as with many women's health issues, the concerns are not well known, and the issues are cast aside, put down to other things and not taken seriously. It is so important to raise awareness in order to help to increase early detection and to improve outcomes for patients. It is truly horrifying that 31% of women in Northern Ireland who are diagnosed with ovarian cancer will not survive a year. Awareness of breast cancer is also somewhat lacking. As screening is not in place in the NHS for women until they are 50, it is a common misconception that it is a disease of older women. That is completely wrong, and awareness of how to check for lumps needs to be increased. My colleague Joanne Bunting MLA has spoken out strongly and shared her experience to raise awareness and encourage women to check. A neighbour of mine, in my constituency, Natalie Charleton, spoke out so bravely about her experiences this year. As a young mum of two in her mid-30s, she had a shock breast cancer diagnosis this year, resulting in surgery and treatment. Natalie has been a huge factor in raising awareness of breast cancer in the Mournes area. She had the Action Cancer Big Bus out to Ballymartin today, such is her dedication to raising awareness and helping others. She is truly inspiring. We hear so many stories of individuals raising awareness through their experiences and of local charities from throughout the voluntary and community sector providing many of the services and support. That is all so welcome, but we need to see more from our central Department of Health in leading the way. As well as increasing awareness, we need to acknowledge some of the barriers to accessing GPs in Northern Ireland, which the Audit Office has reported on. We have a live inquiry in the Public Accounts Committee in which there has been huge public interest. People cannot access their GP to raise their concerns and symptoms. They cannot get into the system to begin with to even get a diagnosis or an initial referral. Some will give up trying to get that appointment, and those who do face further delays. As Diane Dodds outlined, the Department of Health has set a target that at least 95% of patients with an urgent referral for suspicion of cancer must start treatment within 62 days. That 62-days-to-treatment target has never been met, and performance continues to decline. That is terrible. Constituents regularly get in touch with me in absolute despair about that. A four-week delay in cancer treatment is associated with increased mortality, and every four-week delay in surgery results in a 6% to 8% increased risk of death. The numbers are horrific. As it has been said, they are not just numbers; they are people's lives. They are people whom we know and love. Sometimes, they are even ourselves. Northern Ireland lags behind other nations. Are we now so numb to such shocking statistics that they pass us by, or have we decided that that is just the way it is? Too many patients wait too long for diagnosis and treatment. The Assembly must do better. We need to hear answers from the Minister on how he will proceed. Northern Ireland needs cancer waiting times stabilisation and a recovery plan that learns from what other regions of the United Kingdom have done to turn this around. Everyone in the Chamber will be united in wanting all cancer patients in Northern Ireland to have the highest quality of treatment and outcomes. Cancer services in Northern Ireland need to improve. People deserve better. Mr Donnelly: In 2008, the Department of Health set a target that 95% of patients must begin treatment within 62 days of an urgent GP referral for suspected cancer. In June 2008, we were close, achieving an 88% compliance rate. By June 2025, that figure had collapsed to just 33%. In 2008, the target was that 100% of breast cancer patients would be seen within 14 days following an urgent referral. In June 2008, it was delivered for 99% of patients. By December 2024, that promise was broken for the majority of patients, with only 30% being seen within the target time. We have heard of the risks of delayed diagnosis. Those are not just statistics but stark evidence of almost 20 years of systemic failure. The people who are affected are our friends, family members and neighbours. Recently, I spoke to a constituent who is a young mum. She had been red-flagged by her GP and told that she would have a 10-week wait for an urgent breast assessment. Imagine the stress of that 10 weeks, knowing that the target is two weeks. Often, we hear the phrase, "Change does not happen overnight", but neither does that kind of neglect and dilapidation. It is a pattern of continually losing sight of real priorities. The evidence is unambiguous. The question now is not whether the system is failing but what we intend to do about it. What we need now is focus — focus on early diagnosis, focus on shortening treatment waits, focus on building the workforce that we require and focus on ensuring that investment is aligned with need. Delivering better cancer outcomes is achievable. Embracing an all-Ireland approach offers the opportunity to improve the availability of services. Recently, I attended the North/South Inter-Parliamentary Association plenary session, where one of the topics under discussion was cross-border cancer care. We heard that, while our regions operate distinct systems, our progress and challenges in cancer care are strikingly similar. Crucially, cross-border collaboration is not a theory but a proven model. Existing successes, including the North West Cancer Centre at Altnagelvin, radiotherapy sharing, joint research and integrated care pathways, demonstrate that cooperation is a feasible and essential path to building resilient cancer services for all citizens on this island. Previously, we heard in the Chamber about the sad death of young mum Catherine Sherry, who was severely immunocompromised, after travelling to London for treatment that is available in Dublin. Reports of the All-Island Cancer Research Institute and a cancer summit endorse the plan, highlighting the unique potential to leverage health data to save lives, drive innovation and become a global leader in oncology research. We must seize opportunities that allow us to move away from the two decades of failure and give us the chance to provide better services, better outcomes and a system that the people of Northern Ireland can rely on in their time of need. That must go hand in hand with addressing the dignity of survivors. We must also ensure that a person who has survived cancer is not discriminated against by other systems. I refer specifically to the right to be forgotten, which was highlighted recently at the all-party group on cancer, chaired by Stewart Dickson. That principle ensures that cancer survivors can return to a productive life without facing financial discrimination just because they have been through a serious illness. Research suggests that that should be after five years. There is so much work to be done to restore faith in our systems and deliver for those who have faced or are facing cancer. We need to start somewhere. This is our opportunity to stop managing decline and start building something that works. Top 6.30 pm Mr Dickson: As chair of the all-party group on cancer, and as a cancer survivor, I welcome the debate this evening. For all our political differences in this place, cancer is not a party political issue; it is about people. People are waiting, worried and often afraid to ask how long they can afford to wait. Today, I ask that the political will of the Chamber be brought to bear on the Minister and the Department. Whatever it takes — north, south, east or west — cancer simply cannot wait. I have brought people who are affected by cancer to the Assembly, including Isla Gear from Scotland, who presented her pancreatic cancer petition in memory of her late brother, and a constituent of mine whose niece has terminal brain cancer. Time is everything. Evidence shows that, for many cancers, a delay of just four weeks in starting treatment increases the risk of death by 6% to 8%. Behind every percentage point in those statistics are lives shortened, families changed and opportunities for cure lost. Shamefully, Northern Ireland has one of the worst cancer waiting times in the United Kingdom. We are not diagnosing quickly enough, and we are not treating soon enough. Cancer Research UK estimates that, between July 2024 and June 2025, for red-flag referrals alone, which account for one third of cancer cases, 35,000 people in Northern Ireland did not start their treatment on time. With regards to targets, we do not really know the true scale of the backlog, or, more importantly, the human cost. That is simply unacceptable. Cancer also remains the largest killer by disease of children and young people in Northern Ireland. Our one-year survival rates are also the lowest in the United Kingdom for pancreatic and ovarian cancers. The proportion of people diagnosed at an early stage has not improved for over 10 years. For too many families, the tragic fact is that the first certainty that they get is that it is already too late. Our clinicians work tirelessly. I can certainly attest to that, having seen the nurses, doctors and oncologists who looked after me. However, they are operating in a system that was built for a population that no longer exists. There are many bottlenecks because of imaging and endoscopy capacity and overstretched pathology services. There are serious gaps in our workforce, including in oncology, radiology and specialist nursing. Many of our imaging systems are, quite simply, clapped out. Sixteen per cent of scanners are already obsolete, and that number is rising. Some of the machines that are diagnosing cancer today in Northern Ireland have been in service since before some of our doctors left secondary school. The Department allocates only £3 million a year for equipment, even though there is a real need for replacement, the cost of which is somewhere near £25 million. That is not just an inefficiency; it is unsafe and unfair. We also hear about the postponed Northern Ireland imaging academy being a permanent solution, but there is no confirmation, no funding and no timetable. Without investment in scanners, training and workforce development, we cannot fix waiting times. All of that must be treated as a core part of our cancer strategy rather than as an afterthought. There has been progress. The opening of rapid diagnostic centres at Whiteabbey Hospital and South Tyrone Hospital are welcome. The new regional breast cancer service, which pools resources across trusts, shows how joined-up care can work, but pilots and patches to the system cannot repair it; it is in firefighting rather than delivery mode. Cancer Research UK is clear that improvement is possible. With a focus on clinical safety, in addition to a whole-system approach that stabilises services and strategic investment in capacity, the situation can be turned around. A coordinated path with clear governance and realistic future funding is essential. Ultimately, the Health Minister must commit to substantial improvement to overall cancer waiting times and put in place a road map to achieve that. Cancer cannot wait. The situation is fixable if the Minister has the will to fix it and the Assembly and Executive are behind him in delivering that. It is time for us all to stand up to cancer. Mr Carroll: I acknowledge the significance of Members' speeches. I pay tribute to Sinéad, and I wish her friend or family member the best. I am glad to hear that Órlaithí's mother has received good news. Although I do not know him, it would also be remiss of me not to mention Ernie Irvine from Fermanagh, who was on the front page of 'The Irish News' today. He was forced to wait for 50 hours in Altnagelvin Hospital's ED at the weekend, despite his having cancer. That is completely unacceptable. Our best wishes go to him also. Our cancer waiting times, as Members have said, are by far the worst across these islands, and they are getting worse by the day. Prevention, early diagnosis and fast treatment are life-saving measures and are literally a matter of life and death, as Members have indicated. The longer that people wait for a diagnosis and for treatment, the more that opportunities for treatment are missed. The 'British Medical Journal' estimates that a four-week delay results in a 6% to 8% increased risk of death. Not to be dramatic or flippant about it, but that can be a death sentence for so many people. Cancer Research tells us that, in the past year, 3,500 people with a red-flag referral did not get their treatment on time. Members have already said that, but it is worth repeating that shocking statistic. Those are people with the most serious and urgent cases of suspected cancer, and the 62-day target from referral to first treatment has never been met in full since it was introduced in 2008. Right now, less than a third of patients in the North are being treated within 62 days. In England and Scotland, around 70% are being treated, so we are way behind. Missing the 62-day target is just the tip of the iceberg, as that includes only GP red-flag referrals. It does not include screening, non-urgent referrals or emergency department presentations, so we do not have access to some very basic but important information, including on how long people are waiting from diagnosis to treatment. I was made aware of the case of a man who was red-flagged for prostate cancer in January. He started his treatment only this month, in November, and it seems that he will now need treatment for a year. How different would his outcome be had he been treated in time? At the bare minimum, the Department should regularly publish more comprehensive data on waiting times — I do not know anyone who could disagree with that — as well as the disaggregated data on children, young people and women within broader cancer statistics. That is crucial in order to understand the reasons behind delays and what is being done to fix them. Children and young people also need to be mentioned in the debate, given that 125 children and young people, all under the age of 25, are diagnosed with cancer each year in the North. Young Lives Vs Cancer reports that most young people do not tend to wait a long time from diagnosis to treatment, but there are significant delays in their even getting a diagnosis after first presenting to health services. Too many children and young people, and, indeed, people of all ages, face an uphill battle for their health concerns to be treated seriously enough for them to get a referral or a diagnosis. Too many cancers are diagnosed in an emergency setting, and only 42% of people diagnosed with cancer in emergency departments survive beyond a year. They should obviously not be diagnosed there. We need quicker access to high-quality cancer services and a better experience of diagnosis. We need wrap-around support for people who are facing a cancer diagnosis, including counselling and access to mental health services, as well as financial support. The cost of practical but essential things such as travel and accommodation should never be a barrier to getting cancer treatment, but, unfortunately, it is. Children and young people travel around twice as far and spend twice as much as older adults with cancer, with there being just one principal treatment centre in the North, which is in Belfast. Only 8% of families receive support with their travel costs. That is simply not good enough and puts additional strain on low-income families, who are already dealing with a devastating cancer diagnosis. Cancer affects us all, rich or poor, but the burden is not distributed evenly. Shockingly, death rates from cancer are 60% higher for people living in the most deprived areas. That is certainly the case in the UK, and it is probably the case across these islands. There are 78 extra cancer deaths as a result of deprivation each and every day. Nobody should face a greater risk of death from cancer simply because of where they live. We therefore need the Department to work with local communities to prevent the causes of cancer and to spot signs at the earliest possible stages. Interventions such as smoking-cessation clinics and targeted lung-screening programmes will help, but, ultimately, we need to deal with health inequalities and the gross wealth inequality to which the Minister has alluded. Action needs to be taken to eliminate health inequalities and treat cancer. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, before we move on, I pay tribute to those who, in the course of their work representing others, shared their experiences and, indeed, their feelings during the debate. I call the Minister of Health to respond. Minister, you have up to 15 minutes. Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I begin by echoing your sentiments of thanks to all Members who have spoken, but particularly those who shared highly personal experiences. I often say that all healthcare is personal, but that is particularly so when it comes to such a condition as cancer. I am heartened, because I get a sense that nobody thinks that the health and social care workforce is anything other than fully focused, committed and dedicated to doing better on timely outcomes. However, let me cut to the chase: it always comes back to funding. We have a cancer strategy, and since the 2024-25 financial year, £10·6 million has been invested, recurrently, into the implementation of that strategy. That is not an insignificant sum of money, but it is when one considers that the strategy funding plan assumed a recurrent investment of £55·7 million by year 4 and of £145 million by year 10, the final year. Therefore, gently, I say this to Members: if you accept the validity of the strategy, and you support it, can you accept that the budget for Health should be based on objective need and not on a crude percentage of the Executive pot? There is a significant gap in available funding, and that stands up against what is required to ensure the implementation of the strategy. It is simply not possible to deliver all the activity that is envisaged under the strategy with the £10·6 million that is allocated. I have said on the record that this area, along with other key areas of health and social care, requires substantial additional investment. Mr Dickson mentioned some of the capital costs for machinery. Some of that machinery is really creaking; in fact, one machine, in a very important area, needs replaced urgently. In that context, of course I acknowledge that cancer patients are waiting far too long. Nobody in the Department takes that lightly. The performance on waiting times is clearly unacceptable. I will not rehearse the figures; many Members have. Starting treatment within a targeted time frame from diagnosis is so important in delivering the best outcomes and increasing the likelihood of a successful treatment. Yes, I want to reduce waiting times across the system, and I want to embed the changes that will lead to those better outcomes. As part of that, a revised elective care framework (ECF) was published in May of last year. It set out a five-year road map to reduce waiting times. If fully funded, the actions will help close the demand-capacity gap and tackle the long waiting lists. In line with the Programme for Government, the Executive earmarked funding in the Department's 2025-26 budget to support waiting list activities. Mrs Dodds mentioned the breakdown. I will get into more detail on that. She said that the Executive ring-fenced £215 million. In fact, if you check the paperwork, particularly that coming out of the Department of Finance, you will see that it was "up to" £215 million. It was broken down into three pots: £85 million for red-flag and urgent cases; £80 million to build capacity; and £50 million to tackle the waiting lists. Only that £50 million was new: the other money was ring-fenced. The Department of Finance made it clear from the get-go that the £80 million for building capacity was not ring-fenced and that the Department would look at alternative uses for it if we did not feel that we could spend it in a timely manner in this financial year, or if there was something even more significant to be done. The significant thing, as the Member will know, is the existing gap, which we have brought down from £600 million to a lot lower. However, I still have a real concern that we will not balance the budget by 31 March. She is right to say that over £70 million of that £80 million is going against the deficit. The elective care framework implementation plan, which was published in May of this year, details how the money will be spent. There is £85 million for red-flag cancer. That funding is not new, as I said, and it has to be redirected from other areas of healthcare. Top 6.45 pm The ECF plan describes a combination of measures to tackle our waiting lists, including maximising the existing infrastructure, the expansion of core capacity in a range of specialties and partnership working with the independent sector. Notably, there has been investment in cancer services. To answer Mrs Dodd's question, £13 million has been devoted to endoscopy, and that should resource sessions to cover all uncommissioned sessions by March 2026, followed by subsequent expansion into evening and weekend working thereafter. Some £12 million has gone on diagnostics, which will potentially deliver continuous multi-annual expansion of CT and MRI sessions until March 2029. Multiple specialties, including urology, breast, dermatology and gynaecology, will receive investment to reduce waiting times for red-flag and time-critical patients. Systemic anti-cancer therapy (SACT) funding will close the long-standing 20% gap against haematology and oncology stabilisation plans and support improved performance against the 62-day target. We are also increasing the number of cancer nurse specialists (CNSs), and those posts are absolutely essential to supporting patients and ensuring that every individual receives expert guidance and continuity of care throughout their journey. Recognising the need to make services more accessible, we are funding the expansion of phlebotomy hubs across Northern Ireland to allow patients to receive essential blood work closer to home, help reduce pressure on cancer centres and streamline access to SACT clinics. In this financial year, £1 million has been allocated to the third sector for a new cancer charity grant scheme. Mr Dickson: I thank the Minister for giving way. I very much appreciate his comment about the improvement and the additional number of cancer nurse specialists who will come online. While I appreciate that the Department is funding those posts, does the Minister recognise that, without support from charitable sector organisations, such as Action Cancer and the Friends of the Cancer Centre at Belfast City Hospital, we would not have as many CNSs as we do? Mr Nesbitt: I absolutely recognise that. It is not just nurses but the entire gamut of work provided by the charities. I was in Enniskillen for the opening of Cancer Focus's new drop-in centre, which has proved at least as successful as it had imagined. When I was first briefed about the centre, I thought, "Are they being ambitious?". No, they were not. Cancer Focus knew its market. Cancer charities know their market, whom they serve and what they need. Since April of this year, more than 122,000 red-flag or time-critical patients have been seen, diagnosed or treated across the trusts and through partnerships with the independent sector. On the basis of current plans, the figure is expected to rise to around 226,725 patients. It demonstrates the scale and ambition of our response to ensuring quicker access for those requiring time-critical care. It does not solve the problem, but a quarter of a million patients is something to be acknowledged. Earlier this year, as Members will know, we moved to the regional list for breast assessment. I believe now, as much as I did at the time, that it was the right thing to do. However, it is about doing two things: first, removing the postcode lottery, where, depending on which trust you reported to, there was a significant variation in waiting times; and, secondly, getting the waiting lists down across Northern Ireland. Through further focus and prioritisation, additional breast assessment clinics last month delivered 374 appointments. That saw the waiting times on the regional list reduce from the high of 10 weeks, which was absolutely unacceptable, to a less unacceptable seven weeks and two days. That was on 7 November of this year. We have gone quite rapidly from 10 weeks to 7 weeks and two days. As long as we continue that journey, I will remain convinced that the regional list was the right thing to do. Reducing the waiting lists demands long-term, collective responses from across government. It requires sustained and substantial investment through multi-year budgets, workforce development and system-wide transformation. Work has been taken forward under the elective care framework to reform and improve the efficiency of Health and Social Care (HSC) here. Notable progress related to cancer includes the regional endoscopy centres established as part of the wider reform. They play a significant role in tackling lengthy waiting times. Focused work in that area is delivering results. In August, waiting lists were 62% lower, which represents 24,410 fewer patients than were on them at their peak. Patients also benefit from that regional service. They can undergo their diagnostic endoscopy procedures sooner than in their local trust. Those centres have carried out 17,025 procedures since their inception. Members mentioned the two rapid diagnostic centres delivering a streamlined regional vague symptom pathway for patients with complex, non-specific symptoms who would not otherwise be eligible for a red-flag referral. I have visited both the RDCs. Within hours of checking in, you will have your diagnosis and your result. If the result is bad news, you will immediately be put on a pathway. The RDCs have created additional CT and MRI imaging capacity. In this financial year, that is expected to provide an additional 8,973 CT scans and 4,913 MRI scans, targeting patients who have been waiting longest following red-flag and urgent referrals. I have visited the mega-clinics, and they are really efficient. They are a key component of transformation. They offer significant benefits to the HSC, alleviating pressures across the system by targeting large cohorts of patients in a one-stop shop. When I went to see one earlier this year, people who had been on a waiting list for a long time were coming in. They were validated, and, if they still needed the procedure, they were put on a list to be seen — at the Mater Hospital, as it happened — within a couple of weeks. Those are really efficient, transformative procedures, but we need to continue to be proactive. We need to be ambitious in delivering the equitable, resilient cancer services that our people deserve. By the way, mega-clinics have maximised patient input: they saw 22,866 patients between January 2021 and September of this year. Transformation is key: it is happening, but we have a long way to go. In that context, early prevention and detection are more important than ever, and our aim is to improve the health and well-being of our citizens while reducing the pressures that our Health and Social Care services face. That is especially true of rare cancers, such as pancreatic and ovarian cancer, because the symptoms are non-specific, often appearing only in the advanced stages, when the cancer has spread. Early detection is crucial for survival as it increases treatment options and leads to better patient outcomes. The Public Health Agency works closely with the Department, trusts and other partners to support a range of activities to raise awareness of cancer symptoms and routes to earlier diagnosis. I accept, however, that we no longer spend money on paid advertising. The effect of that is certainly questionable, and, at times, I wonder whether it is a false economy. In my remaining time, I will touch on the cancer research strategic framework. Members have said that it is overdue. I accept that it is a day late, but it is not a dollar shy. It was delayed because, when I was presented with the draft for publication, which would then have been in a timely manner, I was made aware that key stakeholders were not happy. I did not see the point of publishing a strategy that the key stakeholders could not properly buy into, so we have done a lot of work on it. Officials have done a lot of work with the key stakeholders — you will know people such as Mark Lawlor and Cancer Research UK — and I am told that they are now broadly happy and are willing to endorse it. We will publish the cancer research strategic framework on Thursday. I will finish on one other thing. Mr McNulty mentioned CAR T-cell treatment in the Republic of Ireland. That treatment is available in the Republic of Ireland but not to us. We have asked, and we were told that they have no capacity for us. By developing the new haematology ward at the City Hospital, we will have that capacity before the Republic can build it, so let us not keep talking about — Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Minister, your time is up. Mr Nesbitt: — Dublin as an option this year. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Linda Dillon to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. You have up to five minutes. Mrs Dillon: Thank you very much. I thank the Minister for his remarks, and I thank the Members who tabled the motion. I honestly think that we could talk about the issue for 50 minutes and still not cover what has been said in the Chamber today. However, everything that we have heard confirms what we already know, which is that cancer waiting times in the North are no longer just a performance issue; they are a patient safety emergency. Delays here cost people life-saving treatment. They cost lives. We are now the worst-performing region on these islands for cancer waiting times, and that gap is widening. That is a result of more than a decade of chronic underfunding by the British Government, combined with a deliberate political project to run health services down and push more care into the private sector. We have been left carrying the consequences of decisions that were not made here, by people here or for people here. I turn specifically to the price that women pay, because that is where the delay becomes especially dangerous. Survival rates in the North for ovarian cancer are among the worst on these islands. Ovarian cancer is often diagnosed late, and survival drops sharply with every week of delay. Breast cancer waiting times, which we have already referenced, have deteriorated even in the absence of rising demand. Women are being diagnosed later and treated later, and, far too often, the window of curative treatment is narrowing when it does not need to. I attended the North/South Inter-Parliamentary Association meeting last Friday, and one of the plenary sessions focused on cancer services North and South. The presentations were outstanding. The speakers talked about the research and the work that has gone on, but we need to understand whether that research is being used. I am hopeful that we will see really good stuff in the strategy. Is it being used to direct where we put the resources that, as the Minister rightly points out, are limited? Are they being put where they need to be? Are those resources being used in the best possible way to ensure that we save as many lives as we can with the limited resources that we have? We also had presentations from the North West Cancer Centre. They said that they had the staff and the people ready to go and could provide stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) to prostate and lung cancer patients in the North West Cancer Centre, but they are currently the only radiotherapy department not providing that on these islands. We need to understand why that is and why we cannot look at that seriously. Mr Carroll made a comment in relation to the distance that children have to travel. As a rural representative, I absolutely, hand on heart, feel for anyone who has to travel for treatment, but, in those presentations, we were told by the national cancer control programme that combining four centres for children into one has had outstanding consequences for improved treatment and outcomes for children. It is about getting those children access and making sure that they are comfortably brought to where they need to be and kept where they need to be, if that is necessary, with family members. Mr Carroll: I thank the Member for giving way. I agree with that. Does she agree that there is a lack of financial support for rural families and children and young people who are being forced to travel? That gap really needs to be closed, and the Minister needs to address that point as well. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute. Mrs Dillon: Thank you. I absolutely agree with the Member. That is my next point. I want to highlight the rural dimension. For women and men in rural communities, including Mid Ulster, the system is even harder to navigate, with longer travel, limited public transport and fewer diagnostic hubs all contributing to later presentation and poorer outcomes. That is exactly why cross-border cancer care is not an optional extra but a necessity. The evidence is already clear. Cooperation through the North/South US National Cancer Institute partnership has delivered major benefits from shared trials and training to Altnagelvin's cross-border cancer centre, which is now European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) accredited. An all-island approach can expand access to clinical trials, accelerate diagnosis, share specialist capacity and attract major investment through initiatives, such as the proposed all-island oncology innovation cluster. Rural patients should not have worse chances simply because of where they live. Strengthening cross-border links ensures that they can access the right care in the right place, including services just across the border in Donegal or Dublin. The Department has spent hundreds of millions of pounds on the Encompass system across the North. That level of investment must deliver more than new IT infrastructure; it must deliver real-world improvements for patients. That means integrating primary care, including GP care, into Encompass so that we have a single, accurate view of every patient's journey. Without that, we cannot track patients properly, identify the highest-risk cases or manage backlogs safely. Top 7.00 pm Encompass should already be giving us live information on delays, diagnostics, treatment stages and bottlenecks. If we are not seeing that yet, we need answers on when we will and why we are not. Transparency and real-time data — many Members have referred to the data — are the only way to protect patient safety and rebuild trust. It is not just about collecting data but about how we use it to achieve real-life improvements for people. Turnaround requires robust tracking of every patient, active prioritisation of those who are at the highest risk and firm accountability in each trust. That type of management is standard elsewhere, and it must become the standard here. That will only happen, however, with transparency, urgency and political will. I want to say to Sinéad McLaughlin that we are thinking of you and your family, and we sincerely hope that you will have the best possible outcome. I will give you a quick example. When I was 19 years old, I discovered a lump on a Sunday night; I saw my GP on the Monday morning; I was in Daisy Hill Hospital on the Wednesday; and I had the lump removed on the Friday. My mother, who never went to hospital, although she worked in the health service all her life, repeatedly went to her GP and the ED, but she died of stomach cancer, because she was not diagnosed until a nurse told her to sit in an emergency department until she saw the consultant who she needed to see. That is the difference that we can make if we get this right. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up. I call Alan Robinson to conclude and make a winding-up speech on the motion. You have up to 10 minutes. Mr Robinson: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank everyone who spoke in the debate. Many spoke of their personal experience. As I have said many times, we always value that because it breathes life into what can, sometimes, be stale debates in the Chamber. I also thank the Health Minister for his input. We all recognise that he has an incredibly challenging and difficult role, and we should not lose sight of that. I certainly will not stand here and try to play politics with such an important topic. I do not think that anyone has done that this evening. Every day in this Province, 28 people get the news that none of us ever wants to hear: that they have cancer. Cancer is the leading cause of death here, even greater than heart disease, and we are in one hell of a battle against time. Our health system must work in the most efficient way, but the evidence is that we are simply not diagnosing or treating it quickly enough. In treating cancer, timing really matters. Indeed, we are the worst in the UK in that regard, and the gap is widening. That is certainly not a record that any of us want to crow about. As was mentioned, the latest figures, which were published in October for the quarter ending June 2025, show that, of those who a GP referred urgently with suspected cancer, only 32·5% began treatment within 62 days. That figure is far below the target of at least 95%. It is a scandal. As others also mentioned, only one third of patients were treated within the 62-day period. In Scotland, the figure stands at 69·9%, and, in England, it is 69·1%. It is worth repeating the fact that two thirds of those urgent patients were waiting beyond what is judged to be acceptable. It is wholly unacceptable that all trusts missed that target. Indeed, they were the third-worst figures since 2008. Those patients include people with blood cancer and breast cancer. Worse still, almost nine out of 10 people with lower gastrointestinal (GI) cancers waited more than 62 days to start treatment. It is also worth highlighting that the Department does not publish the numbers of people who waited beyond that 62-day period or the length of time that they had to wait to be treated. The Minister needs to publish regular- and long-wait data. Turning to survival and treatment outcomes, figures for the period 2012 to 2016 show that the one-year net survival rate after a cancer diagnosis stood at approximately 73% and that the five-year net survival rate was 57%. It would be interesting to access the most recent figures. For some cancers, the position was more bleak. For instance, pancreatic cancer in Northern Ireland had a one-year survival rate of just 25·9% and a five-year survival rate of 6·2%. A major international benchmarking study found that cancer patients in Northern Ireland received less chemotherapy over a five-year period than cancer patients in comparable countries. In Norway, the percentage was 39·1%; in Canada, it was 38·5%; and in Australia, it was 42·1%. In Northern Ireland, the wait to start chemotherapy was, on average, 57 days versus 48 days in England and 39 days in Norway. That study highlights unfortunate missed opportunities for patients in the UK to receive life-prolonging treatment. Furthermore, the proportion of patients being diagnosed at the latest stage is troubling. Between 2018 and 2022, the rate of diagnosis of pancreatic cancer at stage 4 was 51·2% in Northern Ireland. As has been said, international research shows that a delay of four weeks in starting cancer treatment can increase the risk of death by between 6% and 8%. All that paints a really poor picture of patients waiting far too long, and it proves that outcomes are unacceptable when compared with all other nations. Given how far we are from the target of 95% of urgent referrals beginning treatment within 62 days, the Minister and his Department must focus on clearing those backlogs, and the patients who are most at risk must be given priority. He should set incremental but firm milestones — for example, reaching 50%, then 65% and then 80% — and report publicly each quarter. I am not one who favours a plan on top of another plan; we have seen much of that in the past. However, we do need a cancer waiting stabilisation recovery plan that learns from what other regions of the UK have done to turn things around. Regardless of whether you call it a waiting list turnaround programme or something else, we must do better. Everyone in the Chamber is united in wanting all cancer patients to have the highest quality of treatment and outcomes. Every week that a patient waits is a week in which their prognosis worsens and translates into real consequences. Sometimes, those consequences are deadly. Northern Ireland's performance is not just lacking: in some respects, it is among the worst in comparable jurisdictions, which is simply unacceptable for our people. Again, this is not in any way an attack on you, Minister. All of us in this House want to support you, but we cannot shy away from holding you and the Department to account when the statistics before us remain so stubbornly poor. As I said, studies show that even a four-week delay in starting cancer treatment can increase the risk of death by between 6% and 8%. Four weeks may seem a short time in policy discussions, but, to a patient who is waiting for chemotherapy, surgery or radiotherapy, it is an eternity. It can be the difference between a cure and, sadly, palliative care. Question, That the amendment be made, put and agreed to. Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly deplores current waiting times for patients accessing cancer services in Northern Ireland; notes with concern recent analysis by Cancer Research UK that indicates that the percentage of local patients with urgent, suspected cancer who start treatment within 62 days is much lower than England and Scotland; further notes with concern that Northern Ireland has the lowest one-year survival rate in the United Kingdom for both pancreatic and ovarian cancer, and that the proportion of cancer patients diagnosed at an early stage has not improved in the past 10 years; expresses alarm that studies have shown that a four-week delay in cancer treatment increases the risk of death by between 6% and 8%; calls on the Minister of Health to make a concerted effort to drive down wait times, including through the delivery of additional capacity in health and social care trusts and the ambitious implementation of the elective care framework; and further calls on the Minister to expedite the delivery of a cancer research strategy for Northern Ireland and to maximise the potential for cross-border cancer care collaboration to improve clinical trial access, diagnostic capacity, research outcomes and integrated treatment pathways. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I ask Members to take their ease before we move to the next item of business. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Dr Aiken] in the Chair) Motion made: That the Assembly do now adjourn. — [Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken).] Adjournment Birch Hill Centre for Mental Health Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): In conjunction with the Business Committee, the Speaker has given leave to Declan Kearney to raise the matter of the urgency of delivering the Birch Hill Centre for Mental Health. Declan, you have up to 15 minutes. Mr Kearney: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. [Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.] The North has the highest incidence of mental health illness on these islands. That reality stems from a number of factors: the legacy of our conflict; high levels of poverty; and other socio-economic factors. The provision of high-quality mental health care, however, is a critical priority for our community. The main mental health care facility for the Northern Health and Social Care Trust area is currently based at Holywell Hospital in Antrim town in my South Antrim constituency. Earlier this year, during a visit to the site, it was absolutely clear from the outset that that 19th-century built environment is now totally unfit to serve as a modern mental health care facility. The conditions in which the staff are managing everyday care for patients are now untenable. Despite the deep passion and commitment of all staff members, Holywell is no longer a medical centre that is conducive to the delivery of good mental health care provision. It was absolutely shocking to see how the facilities are rapidly deteriorating. Walls throughout are literally crumbling in plain sight. Some buildings are literally sinking into the ground and are being held in place by external supports. During sustained rainfall, buckets are required to gather water that is leaking through ceilings. The serious physical dilapidation throughout the hospital makes it a depressing and repressive environment for staff and patients. The social and recreation space that is available to patients and their visitors can only appropriately be described as oppressive. The facilities are not fit for purpose. Frankly, they owe more to the Victorian era. They do not meet the standard for a modern-day mental health care setting for patients. It is an absolutely unacceptable working environment for nurses, doctors and other clinicians. Unsurprisingly, there is an enormous and constant drain on recurrent funding to meet the cost of the ongoing repairs, and that is just to stand still. That makes no economic sense when the premises are clearly beyond physical redemption. The Birch Hill Centre for Mental Health, which is proposed to be built on the Antrim Area Hospital site, was approved in a Northern Trust outline business case in 2020. It was granted planning permission in 2024. The new complex would centralise the trust's inpatient mental health services in state-of-the-art, purpose-built accommodation. It would replace the current provision at Holywell Hospital and at the Ross Thomson unit at Causeway Hospital. The Birch Hill plan sets out a strategic vision that is aimed at optimising patient assessment, treatment and recovery. That ambition was formulated through a comprehensive process of co-design and with the unique and exceptional compassion of the mental health management and staff in the Northern Trust. Their commitment to achieving something new, whilst doing their best to provide high-quality care in the intolerable existing conditions, is inspirational. The Birch Hill Centre is about securing a proper standard of care and support for patients and carers into the future. It is essential in order to provide staff with the capacity to maximise the standards of therapeutic care that they want to deliver. I have previously recorded my concerns with the Minister of Health through questions for written answer and correspondence. Regrettably, the responses to date have lacked the clarification needed to provide reassurance to the staff, patients, carers and families who depend on the implementation of the Birch Hill Centre for Mental Health. Top 7.15 pm The care facilities at Holywell Hospital are now at breaking point. The status quo is unsustainable. Urgent decisions are needed. I welcome the Minister's presence, and, this evening, I again appeal to him to do two things: first, to expedite approval of the required funding; and, secondly, to confirm a clear time frame that allows the construction of the Birch Hill Centre for Mental Health to proceed. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Trevor Clarke. Trevor, you have up to five minutes, as will all other Members who wish to speak. Mr Clarke: Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker. I am not sure that I will need five minutes, because everything that needs to be said was said by the Member who just spoke. For the benefit of those who do not know the history, some of which has been mentioned, the site was picked in 1891, and construction started in 1894, with the first patients coming in 1899 or 1900. The facility was for 400 patients. That outlines the age of the site, and the Member alluded to that. The original name would not be acceptable in today's language: it was called the County Antrim Lunatic Asylum. Thankfully, language moved on, and it was aptly named the Holywell Hospital some years later. That gives you the history and outlines the length of time that the facility has been in being. The previous contributor said that he visited the site. I visited it a number of years ago with a former director, and, even at that point, a case was being made to replace it. It is disappointing, therefore, to hear how slowly things have gone ever since. The Member referred to the business case in 2020 and the planning permission in 2024. If things had gone as planned, we would have been welcoming that site by 2028-29. Some of us have had to visit the site to see some of the patients there, at the request of their families. Anyone who takes the opportunity to visit it will see the intolerable conditions that those individuals are in, as has been said. The site is not fit for purpose, but, for me, it is more the case that we cannot afford to do nothing. The Member mentioned the cost of repairs. I submitted a question for written answer to the Minister to get an estimate of all the costs. The question was due to be answered in October, but it remains unanswered. I suspect that the figure is scary. This is about essential maintenance; it is not wish list stuff. Mr Kearney talked about buckets catching water and walls crumbling: those are all essential repairs. The estimated cost of the site is £143 million. You will not have to purchase land, because you own the other site, but, when you vacate the Holywell site, you will have a 140-acre site that could go to market, sitting right within the development zone of Antrim town. We cannot afford to wait, and the families who use the facility cannot afford to wait. The business case would be supported simply by the disposal of that site once the new facility is built. As I said — I keep repeating myself — we cannot afford to wait. It is costing us time and will cost us additional money. We all know how procurement has worked in Northern Ireland for years. If the cost is £143 million now, it will be £200 million in five years' time, but the money raised by the disposal of land will not rise at the same pace as the price that developers will charge for the construction of that site. I urge the Minister to look again at this case and to look at all the options. I also ask him to put pressure on his Department to release the figures on what it will cost to bring the site up to an acceptable standard, one that we would wish for our family members if they required it, so that they would get the service that they deserve, delivered in a fit-for-purpose facility. When you see those figures, Minister, you will see for yourself that the business case is there and that you need to exert more pressure to find the £143 million to deliver the site. Mr Blair: I start by thanking Declan Kearney for securing this vital debate and also for the detailed case for mental health provision in South Antrim that he so clearly laid out. The entire issue concerns the urgent need to deliver the Birch Hill Centre for Mental Health, which is planned to be established at the Antrim Area Hospital site in my constituency, South Antrim, which I share with you, Deputy Speaker, and those who have spoken previously. The project is significant not only for South Antrim residents but for the broader Northern Health and Social Care Trust area, as it will deliver a purpose-built, modern facility that will serve also as a vital resource. Indeed, Northern Ireland has some of the highest rates of mental health problems in the UK. According to a report by the Mental Health Foundation, roughly one in five adults in Northern Ireland has a diagnosable mental health condition, a rate that is higher than that in any other UK region. Furthermore, the Health and Social Care Board has reported that Northern Ireland has one of the highest suicide rates in the whole of the United Kingdom. The proposed Birch Hill centre will therefore enable access to quality care for those who are struggling. For many residents in South Antrim and beyond, having the centre will mean receiving the support that they need, and need now, closer to home and in an environment that is designed for recovery. The Health Minister has previously given assurances that the trust expects the new facility to be open to patients by winter 2027. However, we must ensure that, despite the financial constraints that we often hear about and the uncertainties around capital budgets, the project remains a top priority. Continued delays could have devastating effects on individuals and their families. The condition of existing facilities at Holywell has already been made clear in the debate. As a society, we must treat mental health and mental health problems with the same urgency and importance as physical health. The cost of inaction is profound, and it not only has an impact on individual well-being but causes significant repercussions in our communities, such as reduced productivity and less capacity to support others in need. I urge the Minister to do everything possible to secure the swift delivery and full funding of the Birch Hill Centre for Mental Health. He must show that he takes mental health seriously also, and I know that he does. I look forward to hearing his update on this matter shortly. Mr Chambers: There is no doubt that the proposals for the Birch Hill mental health inpatient centre are ambitious, but they are also undoubtedly necessary. Whilst the staff working from the Holywell Hospital and the Ross Thomson unit continue to provide a brilliant service, they do so from facilities that, frankly, have not kept pace with modern requirements. We have heard some of the problems articulated tonight. The scheme proposed for Birch Hill, a new 134-bed unit serving needs ranging from acute mental illness to dementia care and psychiatric intensive care, would also really helpfully bring together a range of services that has long been stretched across ageing facilities. I suspect that there will be political unanimity this evening on the call for the scheme to be progressed. However, we also need to recognise that the expected costs of the scheme are now significantly greater than they once were, and right across the health service and every Department, capital demands exceed the budget envelope available. Since coming into office, the Minister has repeatedly urged the Executive and his MLA colleagues to consider the consequences of their repeatedly allocating below-need levels of funding for the health service. Whilst the Minister, I am sure, will continue to do all that he can to deliver investment and modern facilities right across the Health estate, including the essential Birch Hill centre, regrettably the funding that is needed is simply not being provided to the level that patients and staff require. Members from across the House, if we want Birch Hill to happen, and I believe that most of us do, it cannot rest solely on the shoulders of the Health Minister or the Department of Health. It will take a collective decision by the Executive to prioritise and provide the capital allocations required. Words of support are welcome, but budget decisions are what make buildings rise from the ground. That is why the upcoming Budget from the Department of Finance will be so important. For the sake of patients and staff, I hope that the commitment will be there to allow critical projects such as the Birch Hill Centre for Mental Health to proceed. My colleague Trevor Clarke put forward an interesting solution to the problem of raising the capital needed to build a new facility there. I have to confess, however, to not understanding fully how these things work or what revenue would be raised from the sale of that property. Perhaps the Minister could provide some clarity on whether, if such a sale were to take place, it would be possible to ring-fence the money specifically for providing the new mental health facility, or whether it would simply go into a pot somewhere. Ms Hunter: I thank Declan for raising this. I did not intend to speak today, as it is not my constituency; I just wanted to listen in. It is important, however, to be here to contribute to any debate on the expansion of our mental health services in the trust area. I, too, am very concerned about the lack of clarity on this important project and echo the concerns that have been expressed by Members today. It would be welcome if the Minister could provide a timeline, as well as an update on whether he will expedite the approval and some clarity on any financial constraints that he is facing. I echo other Members' comments in noting, with extreme concern, the prevalence of suicide and mental illness in the North. Of anywhere across these islands, it is most common here, and we must ensure that we do everything that we can about suicide prevention and invest, wherever possible, in helping people. Recently, SOS Causeway met the Northern Trust to ask for clearer communication about the potential closure of the Ross Thomson unit in Coleraine. That is seen as being a cornerstone of mental health provision in East Derry. Many people feel that there is just not enough communication with the public or the voluntary and community associations and organisations in my constituency. Campaigners have highlighted the need for improved communication, meaningful involvement with them and transparent planning of future mental health provision for East Derry constituents. Any clarification or increased communication that you can offer my constituents, Minister, would be most welcome. I again thank the Member for raising this. Any opportunity to discuss important topics such as mental illness, mental health as a whole and suicide prevention is most welcome. Mr McGuigan: I thank Declan for bringing the debate to the Chamber and affording us the opportunity to discuss the issue. I welcome the opportunity to speak and add my voice to the call on the Minister to confirm the necessary funding to progress the construction of the Birch Hill centre in Antrim town. As Declan outlined, he and I visited Holywell Hospital during the summer. The building dates back to the 19th century. Declan went into a lot of detail about it. What I saw was deeply concerning: serious physical dilapidation throughout the hospital and a layout that simply is not fit for purpose when it comes to the delivery of modern mental health care. Staff and patients are being asked to provide and receive care in an environment that belongs to another era. The case for a new facility to replace Holywell is clear to all those who have seen the existing conditions and has been well made. What is less clear, however, is when the new complex will happen. It was anticipated that its completion would be in the latter part of 2028, but that date has moved to 2029. Now, with the Department's review of capital projects across all trusts, further uncertainty prevails. Each delay not only undermines confidence but drives up costs, as we know from experience with other capital projects and as has been outlined by a number of Members. Substantial sums of money are being — I use this word deliberately — wasted while the project is delayed. We are throwing good money after bad. In the meantime, patients and staff continue to be let down. They deserve and need so much better. They deserve facilities that reflect the important role that the environment has to play in mental health care. The mental health strategy promises parity of esteem, early intervention and better outcomes, yet, without proper infrastructure, those ambitions will remain unrealised. Despite a slight increase in per capita spend on mental health in the past five years, the spend in the North remains the lowest across these islands; a level of underinvestment that undermines the very parity that the strategy proclaims. Top 7.30 pm We cannot continue to speak of transformation while asking patients to endure outdated wards and staff to work in crumbling buildings. The Birch Hill hospital complex is not a "nice to have"; it is a necessity. If we are serious about tackling the North's unenviable position of having the highest suicide rates on these islands, modern, fit-for-purpose facilities are essential to prevention and care. Like other Members, I urge the Minister to provide clarity and, perhaps, hope. Let us move beyond uncertainty and commit to delivering the modern mental health service that people in the Northern Trust area need and deserve. Ms Mulholland: I thank Mr Kearney for bringing this issue to the Floor. I echo the comments made by my colleague John Blair, who has long championed the need for safe, modern and accessible mental health services across our shared trust area. It speaks volumes when you have representatives from three constituencies who are all invested in the issue. I want to talk about the pressure and uncertainty that my constituents face with the delay in delivering Birch Hill and from the proposed closure of the Ross Thomson unit at Causeway Hospital, which affects people right the way from Ballycastle and the glens over to Ballymoney. Mental health services in the Northern Trust area are already under strain. That pressure will only grow. The pressure on Causeway and, in particular, the Ross Thomson unit is growing. Staff work in an overstretched environment. Patients already wait far too long for specialist care. There is anxiety about what happens next, because, whilst there are plans for the Ross Thomson unit to close, there is no publicly confirmed date or any guarantee that I know of that it will remain open until the replacement capacity at Birch Hill is fully operational. That is causing an awful lot of anxiety among staff who work in the Ross Thomson unit, families and, as Ms Hunter mentioned, the community and voluntary organisations and other stakeholders. At the minute, they feel as though they are being asked to prepare for a future that they cannot see. That is not the transformation that Northern Ireland so badly needs. When we hear about the conditions in Holywell, as the alternative, and at the Ross Thomson unit, I think that the safety of patients and staff is at risk. If the Ross Thomson unit were to close prematurely and the date was before any proposed timeline for Birch Hill, the pressure would shift immediately to Holywell and to Antrim Area Hospital. Beds would become scarcer and admissions so much more complex. We know the practical outworkings of that. It means that patients in mental health crisis and acute distress wait longer in EDs and are placed on general wards where the environment is not appropriate to their needs. That affects everyone, whether they are in mental health crisis or waiting for physical healthcare, emergency care or elective procedures. Minister, to echo those who have spoken before me, I ask you this: are you prepared to commit to ensuring that Birch Hill is prioritised in your request for the capital investment plan? Will you provide a public timeline with milestones so that staff and families can plan with confidence? With regard to the northern half of the Northern Trust area, will you guarantee that there will be no closure or scaling back of the Ross Thomson unit until replacement capacity is fully funded and operational? Will communication improve with stakeholders from the Causeway area? Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Minister, it is your turn. You have up to 10 minutes. Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Thank you to everybody who contributed, particularly Mr Kearney. The debate reminded me of one that we had in early October when Sinn Féin tabled a motion on the mother-and-baby unit. Believe me: my approach to Birch Hill and the mother-and-baby unit is the same. I want them — I want them tomorrow — but I also want the imaging academy that Mr Dickson referred to in the previous debate, plus a host of other capital projects. We have 14 so-called partially committed capital projects on the books. I cannot commit to any of them at the moment. I will come back to that. Mr Kearney knows that I had no prior sight of his speech. I listened to it intently. I could have delivered just about every word of it myself. I visited Holywell with the fabulous Petra Corr, the Northern Trust's mental health director, who showed me round. As well as visiting the current facility, I saw in Holywell — I am sure that Members are aware of this — two-dimensional designs for Birch Hill, as well as a mock-up of a bedroom. They are absolutely gold-plated. The design, which will put Birch Hill within the confines of Antrim Area Hospital, is magnificent and is so in keeping with the modern way that we are talking about. The proposals for Birch Hill include 134 inpatient beds, 72 acute beds across four wards and a 20-bed inpatient frail or mentally infirm ward. The proposals are even future-proofed: if there is an excess of demand for beds on an ad hoc basis, the second lounge is designed in such a way that it can be turned into a short-term bedroom space. More important than the physical is the ethos. It has changed so much. It will focus on the ethos of a recovery-orientated approach in keeping with the mental health strategy. The model adopts a more holistic approach, with principles centred on empowering the individual to take as much responsibility as possible for their own well-being. It will be trauma-informed, recognising the individual's life experiences and the consequent impact on them. There is a purposeful inpatient approach. It is a model that will continue to be developed and embedded throughout the existing wards, ensuring that a patient's admission is appropriate, purposeful, therapeutic and safe. My point is that Holywell is not just falling apart physically — we never really see the benefit of expenditure on repairs because, once we have done one repair, we go on to the next one, as though we are painting the Forth Bridge — but it is out of date. As Mr Clarke said, it used to be called something else; a term for the inpatients that I would not dare to use in 2025. It was built at a time when the societal and governmental attitude to people with mental health or neurodevelopmental issues was, "Get them out of sight, lock them away and forget about them". We would not even dream of doing that today. What I like about it is not just the modern design; it is the fact that the ethos is about a model that allows teams to focus on engaging the patient meaningfully and engaging the family, the key stakeholders, the GP and community mental health teams, which are so important, and communicating expected dates of discharge and ongoing treatment. As part of the service model review and development, the trust has started to engage in accreditation to the Royal College of Psychiatrists quality network standards for each service type to ensure that Birch Hill will have its care and service provision benchmarked against the best in the UK. That will enable the medical staff to deliver care that is high-quality and time-bound. Adopting that proactive model of care will help to reduce the length of stays through maximising clinical efficiency, optimising health outcomes and effective utilisation of resources. In short, it will ensure that a patient's stay on any ward is meaningful and adds value to them and their future. Mr Kearney seeks clarity from me. This is the one area where I diverge a little. You are asking the wrong Minister. If you want clarity, you should ask the Minister of Finance. Following the announcement of the outcome of the UK-wide 2025 spending review, which happened in June, the Department of Finance commissioned a Budget exercise to determine the capital budget for Northern Ireland's Departments for the years 2026-27 to 2029-2030. It is not possible for me to commit, as Members have asked me to do, to funding for any new capital projects today, because that is dependent on my capital allocation from the Budget process and the identification of sufficient additional recurrent funding to meet any additional resource costs associated with those projects. The trusts and other Department of Health arm's-length bodies (ALBs) have identified capital funding requirements of around £3 billion over the next four years. That is more than £1 billion higher than what I should expect the level of capital funding to become. On that basis, inescapable pressures tend to take priority. As I said, Birch Hill is one of the partially committed projects, but there are 14 such projects. I assure Members that I have looked at the list of 14, and Birch Hill, the mother-and-baby unit and the imaging academy are all at the top of it. Mr Clarke: Will the Minister give way? Mr Nesbitt: Yes. Mr Clarke: I appreciate what you say about the financing, Minister. However, during your time on the Policing Board, there was a review of the police estate: have your officials carried out a review of the Health estate? I ask because, while you were speaking, I looked up Knockbracken and read that it has 270 acres. There are other sites across the estate that are not being utilised. Has any rationalisation of the estate been done, particularly of the sites that are not being used and will bring in revenue or capital? Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for the intervention. The short answer is yes. We are looking at repurposing or divesting ourselves of property, as appropriate. That process is under way. Mr Clarke said that he had submitted a question for written answer in September. I have already emailed my private office to say that I would like that expedited. Sometimes, it takes longer than anticipated to get the answers to certain questions, but, when we have reached the point at which we should have responded, we should at least say, "We are sorry that we have not responded, and here is why". That is something that we, as a Department, need to take on board. As to the value of the sale of Holywell, I do not know the answer. Mr Clarke may be more familiar with the price of property in South Antrim. Again, I will ask the question and revert to him on that. I would just caution one thing, because he mentioned the sale of Holywell. The Member may remember that, some years ago, the Ministry of Defence "gifted" the Executive some former military bases on the basis that we were getting the land for free. Well, we did not get it for free. There was a lot of work, not least decontamination, that needed to be done, so I question whether it is as straightforward as decanting to Birch Hill, selling Holywell and recouping its full value. I do not know. Mr Kearney opened by throwing it to me, so I will finish by throwing it back to him. If he can have influence with the Finance Minister and the Finance Minister can ring-fence the money required for Birch Hill, we will proceed, because I want it built. Mr Kearney: Will the Minister give way? Mr Nesbitt: Yes. Mr Kearney: That is an unfair attempt to push that back on to me. It is a cop-out. The reality is that you are the Minister of Health. Our family members are patients in Holywell. Our family members and our neighbours are the doctors and the nurses who try to provide care there. The reality in Holywell at this point in time — I do not doubt for a moment that you are committed to the ethos of —. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Declan, it is an intervention. Mr Kearney: Yes. I do not doubt that you are committed to the ethos of good mental health care, but that cannot be delivered in circumstances in which there are no wards or rooms. Minister, have you looked at the facilities — Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Declan, take your seat. Mr Kearney: — in which the staff work? Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Declan, take your seat. That was supposed to be an intervention. You know the rules as well as anybody else. Minister, you have three seconds to respond. Mr Nesbitt: I started by agreeing with the Member, but now I fundamentally disagree with him. I need the money. I do not have the money. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Ladies and gentlemen, that completes the Adjournment debate. Thank you. Adjourned at 7.44 pm. Top
[ni-assembly-official-report][plenary_report] Official Reports https://aims.niassembly.gov.uk/officialreport/report.aspx?&eveDate=2025/11/17&docID=458629 Official Report: Monday 17 November 2025 Table of Contents Members Statements Irish Athletic Boxing Association and Ulster Boxing Council: Equality Commission Review Social Care Workers: Pay Rises Presbyterian Church in Ireland: Safeguarding Failings Paris Attacks: 10th Anniversary Road Traffic Accident in County Louth Road Traffic Accident in County Louth Illegal Immigration Down Recorder: Closure Education Minister: Return Visit to Israel Anglo-Irish Agreement: 40th Anniversary Anglo-Irish Agreement: 40th Anniversary Independent-sector Care Workers: Pay Assembly Business Ministerial Statement North/South Ministerial Council: Institutional and Plenary Meetings Private Members Business Windsor Framework: Ongoing Harm Oral Answers to Questions Communities Economy Private Members Business Windsor Framework: Ongoing Harm Cost-of-living Increase: Impact The Assembly met at 12:00 pm (Mr Speaker in the Chair). Members observed two minutes' silence. Members' Statements Irish Athletic Boxing Association and Ulster Boxing Council: Equality Commission Review Ms Ní Chuilín: I want to challenge some of the narrative and, frankly, the mistruths that were spoken here regarding the Irish Athletic Boxing Association (IABA) and the Ulster Boxing Council. The IABA is reaffirming its alignment with the work of the Equality Commission and the importance placed by the association on the publication of the commission's review of the Ulster Boxing Council in light of comments made by the Communities Minister and others last week. The IABA acknowledges that the Minister, in a statement to the Assembly, shared his personal view. That view is not supported by the findings in the Equality Commission report or its recommendations. The Equality Commission's report does not make any findings of discrimination. On that basis, the IABA strongly and unequivocally refutes any suggestion that discrimination on religious or community grounds has taken place within the IABA or, for that matter, the Ulster Boxing Council. The IABA and the Ulster Boxing Council have engaged, and will continue to engage, fully and constructively with the Equality Commission. The report makes a number of recommendations to strengthen governance, clarify selection processes and further embed good relations practices within boxing structures. In addition, it highlights areas for continuous improvement in governance and communication. In my experience, the IABA is well advanced in implementing those recommendations. The IABA and, indeed, the Ulster Boxing Council emphasise their work on equality, diversity and inclusion in boxing. That is a proud tradition. That commitment to equality and inclusion throughout Ulster and Ireland has long been a proud tradition and has brought people together across community lines. Clubs are inclusive and community-based and welcome everyone, regardless of their background, faith or belief. I welcome the opportunity to directly challenge some of the narrative from last week, and I appeal to all Members to ensure that there is constructive engagement and cooperation, which should remain central to ensuring public confidence and achieving the shared goal of making boxing a truly inclusive sport for all. Social Care Workers: Pay Rises Mrs Dodds: I rise this afternoon to talk about the issue of pay rises for social care workers in the independent sector. First, before we get into the meat of the subject, I want to reflect on something. I dare say that there is not a family represented in the Chamber at this time that is not grateful for the work of those care workers, who go in and care for elderly or disabled loved ones at a time when we cannot do it for them ourselves. We owe them a debt of gratitude, and it is right and proper that we put that on the record this afternoon. The Minister of Health did the right thing when, earlier this year, he promised to provide those workers with the real living wage. The permanent secretary doubled down on that at the Health Committee and indicated that that would happen, perhaps even by September. However, we now find that, given the issues with the budget, the Minister has moved to a position where he is saying that he is still committed to that but only when it is more affordable — perhaps next year. Providing the real living wage is the right thing to do. In fact, it is the only thing to do. Let us think for a moment about the position that the Minister has got himself into with his budget. There are already huge pressures on next year's budget. We are talking about the potential of him carrying an overspend into next year. He also promised last week in the House that he would prioritise pay for healthcare workers and, indeed, provide an upfront payment earlier in the year, even ahead of the pay review body settlements, and he has now promised that he will push the issue of the real living wage into next year as well. We are entitled to ask this: what is the Minister's financial plan for healthcare? It seems that we are kind of making it up as we go along, and that is simply not good enough. This year's pressures translated into next year's will create massive pressures on the healthcare budget. Furthermore, we will not relieve the winter pressures and take people out of hospital if we do not have a sustainable social care workforce, and the Minister needs to plan for that much more carefully than he has done heretofore. Presbyterian Church in Ireland: Safeguarding Failings Ms Egan: I rise today to speak with grave concern about the recent news regarding the confirmed serious and significant failings in the central safeguarding functions of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland in the period from 2009 to 2022. That announcement arrives following a report on allegations of bullying and harassment that was commissioned by Lord John Alderdice, who was a member of the Presbyterian Church until 2018. Lord Alderdice commissioned that report, and it was submitted to the Charity Commission. It outlined allegations of members being shunned and gaslit by Church leadership and the mental health concerns among ministers across the Church. Yesterday, a statement was read out to Presbyterian congregations across this island that informed Church members of an investigation and review of previous handling of safeguarding issues at an Assembly Buildings level. The results of that review are highly concerning. It found failures to make referrals to statutory authorities; inadequate responses to concerns expressed about individuals and congregations; and ineffective monitoring of offenders who sought to return to worship at church. The statement also contained an apology for the betrayal of trust and the hurt caused by the failure to take action. The statement followed the resignation of Presbyterian moderator, Rev Trevor Gribben, last week. He is the first moderator to have stepped down in the Church's history. It has been greatly disappointing to discover the failings. In any organisation, safeguarding concerns must be treated with the utmost seriousness. In considering this specific case, places of religious worship and faith are where so many seek comfort and support, particularly those who are vulnerable. For so many, that trust has now been put into question — for some, it has been broken. It is essential that, in any future process, victims are protected and at the heart of any decisions. I hope that all organisations across our society, whether religious, community, sporting or other, reflect on their own policies and safeguards. My thoughts are, of course, with the victims. I encourage anybody who wishes to make a disclosure to come forward and contact the police or Victim Support NI. Paris Attacks: 10th Anniversary Mr Beattie: Ten years ago, we were coming to terms with the aftermath of the Paris terrorist attacks. Those attacks, on 13 November 2015, left 130 people dead and nearly 400 injured. France was left in a state of emergency for nearly two years such were the attacks. Who can forget the scenes of the aftermath of the Bataclan massacre? Ninety people were killed in that venue alone. It was truly devastating. The attacks started with a series of suicide bombs. As somebody who has been directly involved in three suicide bomb attacks, I know just how devastating suicide bombings are and the injuries that they cause. Paris has come through a lot, because that particularly fateful day cost Paris a lot. Absolutely nobody in this Chamber would refer to those ISIS perpetrators as "combatants". Nobody would do anything other than refer to those who were killed and injured as "victims". The perpetrators were not victims. Why on earth do we, in this place and throughout Northern Ireland, bend ourselves out of shape so as not to point the finger at the people who perpetrated atrocities and say, "You are the terrorist, and you terrorised", and point at the victims and say, "You are the victims. We will make sure that we look after you and refer to you as 'victims'. We will not group you with the very people who made you victims"? The Ulster Unionist Party is a party of the rule of law. It does not matter who you are — soldier, policeman, civilian or politician — if you break the law, you should face the law. We will stand up for that. The British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference will meet on legacy very shortly. Our party is clear on two things for now. First, we will argue that the term "victim" refers only to those who were killed or injured through no fault of their own. We will also make sure that sexual crimes are added to the list of serious harm, because rape was used as a weapon of war during our Troubles. Paris is healing and, in some cases, has healed, because it confronted the truth. The French did not hide away from direct language; they used direct language. Terrorists are terrorists: they terrorise. Victims are the innocent people who were made victims by terrorists. Let us get back to clear speaking, and maybe we will sort this mess out. Top 12.15 pm Road Traffic Accident in County Louth Mr Boylan: On behalf of Sinn Féin, I send our deepest condolences to the families and friends of the five young people who lost their lives on Saturday evening in a road tragedy in County Louth. The tragic deaths of Chloe Hipson, Alan McCluskey, Shay Duffy, Chloe McGee and Dylan Commins are dreadful and have stunned County Louth, County Monaghan and the wider area. The tributes that are being paid online and in the media show that all five young people were popular and had bright futures ahead of them. Their loss has cast a dark shadow over the community. I also think of the emergency services personnel who attended the scene on Saturday evening. Having to take the injured to hospital and call to the homes of the five families of those who lost their lives is devastating. I hope that those people will receive the support that they need. There are difficult and dark days ahead for the families in Monaghan and Louth, and we will continue to think of them as they face up to what is an unimaginable tragedy. Road Traffic Accident in County Louth Mr McNulty: A sense of shock and sadness is consuming communities in Louth, Monaghan and Meath. On Saturday night, five young friends were heading for a night out. We can all identify with the sense of joy, excitement and fun that they were experiencing. That was turned on its head in an instant. My heart goes out to the families of Chloe McGee from Carrickmacross, Alan McCluskey from Drumconrath, Dylan Commins from Ardee, Shay Duffy from Carrickmacross and Chloe Hipson from Lanarkshire. We offer them our sincerest condolences and pay tribute to the emergency services personnel who attended the scene. Our thoughts are with the families of the deceased, their communities and their colleagues. I measc na naomh go raibh siad. [Translation: May they be numbered among the saints.] Illegal Immigration Mr Buckley: At the outset, on behalf of the Democratic Unionist Party, I convey our deepest sympathies to the families who lost loved ones just outside Dundalk on Saturday. The pain and grief that those families and school communities are facing at the moment must be unbearable. "Illegal immigration is tearing the UK apart" and: "Illegal migrants and foreign criminals are exploiting our human rights laws." Those are not my words but those of the Home Secretary of the United Kingdom as she announced the most significant changes to our asylum system in over a decade. That very point should be one of eternal shame to the Conservative Government who previously held power for 14 years and presided over such significant issues in our asylum system. Our communities know only too well the difficulties caused by illegal immigration. They have been talking about them for years. A year ago, a Labour politician would have attempted to lock people up for making a statement such as the one that the Home Secretary made. The fact remains that the political classes seem to be going through the stages of political grief. First, they ignore you, then they laugh at, sneer at and ridicule you, then they fight you, and then they claim your viewpoint as their own. That is what has been happening in the United Kingdom. The measures that the Home Secretary has outlined are, I believe, common sense. They will not solve illegal immigration in its totality, but they will help. There are to be visa bans for countries that do not take back their citizens who have arrived on the UK's shores illegally: that is common sense. There are to be restrictions on the ability of those who arrive here illegally to claim benefits: that is common sense. There are to be restrictions on endless appeals by illegal immigrants against their removal: that is common sense. We have only to look at the legal aid bill to see that it is costing the country a fortune to deport those who should not be here in the first place. Then there are reforms to prevent immigration judges from putting European Convention on Human Rights laws above the rights of the citizens of the United Kingdom to control our borders and keep our people safe. Those are all common-sense measures, and it is high time that the Government — Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up. Mr Buckley: — got on with dealing with the issue. 'Down Recorder': Closure Mr McMurray: I acknowledge and, in many ways, lament the closure of the 'Down Recorder', the local newspaper that has served Downpatrick, Ardglass, Killough and many other areas of South Down. At over 189 years of age, it was one of the oldest papers on the island of Ireland. My thoughts are, first and foremost, with the staff at the paper — the journalists, editors, production staff and other workers — as they face into this uncertain period. Those staff were always proud to work for what was known as "the campaigning paper", highlighting local issues and championing the communities that they served. In an era of social media and fake news, it is sobering to see local papers such as the 'Down Recorder', which are so diligent in their journalism and hold to the values of the profession, ceasing production. On the community aspect, I am sure that there are parents, and perhaps even grandparents, here who have seen the confidence that is inspired in our young people, from P1 and up, when they see themselves in the local newspaper at sports days and all sorts. That inspiration goes right the way through to helping journalists and other people who are involved in the media with their first tentative footsteps into the industry. My final point is on the local economy. The 'Down Recorder' created jobs, supported local businesses and promoted community and cultural events. Its closure will be well felt, and I hope that some solution can be found. Education Minister: Return Visit to Israel Mr Sheehan: Israel is a rogue state. It is a terrorist state and a genocidal state. Its leaders are wanted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity. In the Gaza Strip, 65,000 people have been confirmed as having been killed by the Israeli military, and it is reckoned that tens of thousands more bodies are still buried under the rubble. Of those who are dead, 20,000 are children and 500 are teachers. Of the schools in Gaza, 95% have been destroyed, and every university has been destroyed. There has been systematic destruction and obliteration of the education system in Gaza, which the UN describes as "scholasticide". Recently, the Minister of Education thought that it was a good idea to visit Israel and engage in a propaganda exercise for the genocidal Israeli regime. While he was there, he visited a school in illegally occupied territory. When the permanent secretary appeared before the Education Committee last week, he said that, at the time, he did not know that that school was in illegally occupied territory. At that meeting, Committee members drew from the permanent secretary that another invitation for a trip to Israel in the near future has already landed on the Minister's desk. His recent trip caused palpable anger among teachers' unions, parents and students; led to the majority of Members in the Assembly voting for a no-confidence motion in him; and, similarly, the Education Committee holding a vote of no confidence in him. It would be a huge mistake for the Education Minister to go back to Israel, particularly in his capacity as Education Minister. I call on the Minister to state publicly that he has no intention of going back to Israel. Anglo-Irish Agreement: 40th Anniversary Miss McIlveen: The 40th anniversary of the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement by Margaret Thatcher and Garret FitzGerald was marked on 15 November. That agreement was the beginning of my personal journey into politics as a teenager. It sparked something in me that led me to where I am today. The agreement remains a historic reminder of what happens when political change is imposed upon the people of Northern Ireland without their consent. Delivered over our heads and devoid of democratic legitimacy, it sowed deep mistrust that continues to have ramifications to this day. In recent years, the same disregard for democracy was repeated when the Northern Ireland protocol was imposed by the United Kingdom Government. Again, it was rejected by unionists and forced through without our consent. The Anglo-Irish Agreement struck at the heart of what it meant to be a unionist. It was not just a constitutional issue; it was personal. It was a document on how the future of Northern Ireland could be shaped about us, but not with us; a document that allowed a state that housed training camps, safe houses, supply routes and bomb factories for the IRA to have a say in our affairs — a state that was perceived as not doing its part to combat the evils of terrorism that resulted in the deaths of thousands of men, women and children in Northern Ireland, who were betrayed by a Prime Minister who had famously said "Out ... out ... out" to the proposals of the New Ireland Forum and had now let Dublin in. Mrs Thatcher, once considered a steadfast defender of the Union, had signed an agreement where the will of the people was not just ignored but was not even sought. It was done without our consultation or consent. In later years, she would express regret and admit to underestimating the depth of unionist anger across the UK and the damage that the agreement would do to trust in the Government. Such regrets do not, however, change the past. While the agreement would be superseded, it marked a dark day in Northern Ireland's history when terrorist violence was rewarded. Anglo-Irish Agreement: 40th Anniversary Mr Burrows: In a similar vein, I want to mark the 40th anniversary of the Anglo-Irish Agreement that, on Saturday, was gushingly referred to by the Northern Ireland Office in a press release as having paved the way for the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. As members of a party that, before I was in it, was one of the architects of that agreement, we cannot recognise or agree with that tone-deaf statement. The Anglo-Irish Agreement is an example of how not to do peace-building or agreements in Northern Ireland. It was imposed on the people of Northern Ireland without consent or consultation. It was negotiated in secret, certainly from unionism. As ever, it was negotiated with the aim of securing from the Irish Republic something that should be the basic duty of a normal democracy: cooperation in the fight against terrorism. It was George Santayana who said that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. It is worth reminding ourselves of those fundamental failures, because we have seen them time and time again. Negotiating things in secret, like the on-the-run letters, has massively damaged relationships in Northern Ireland. Some people would still try to impose things without consent in Northern Ireland. We are seeing our own Government, again, with regard to legacy, making the mistake of trying to secure the cooperation of the Irish Republic by passing new legacy laws and creating new bodies. As ever, the British Government jump and expect the Irish Government to follow. That is why my party believes that there should have been parallel legislation that meant that the Irish Government were committed to doing the things that the British Government were doing. It is worth reflecting that the NIO and the British Government can sometimes bend the knee to those who would use or threaten violence. That is why we must be eternally vigilant to their manoeuvres. It is also why devolution is so important, and why my party will never stand for collapsing Stormont: never has and never will. It places power in the hands of the people of Northern Ireland, which is where it belongs. The Assembly exercises the democratic wishes of the people here. Top 12.30 pm Northern Ireland had a great year in 1985: Barry McGuigan was the champion of the world in boxing; Dennis Taylor was the world snooker champion; and Northern Ireland qualified for the World Cup the following year. However, it was not a good year due to the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which is a stain on the otherwise proud history of Margaret Thatcher. Independent-sector Care Workers: Pay Mr Donnelly: I, too, wish to raise serious concerns about the decision to exclude independent-sector care workers from the latest pay uplift and, equally, about the way in which the entire package has been managed. The Minister has confirmed that £209 million has been allocated to pay uplifts following the recommendations of the review bodies, but, to deliver that package, he has already committed £100 million from next year's budget. That is a significant decision to plug an immediate gap. Despite that extraordinary step, the award excludes the independent-sector workforce, which provides essential home care and social care services on behalf of the system. We are now in a position in which next year's Health budget has been compromised in advance, but care workers, who provide daily front-line support to many vulnerable people in our communities, have been left out. That raises clear questions: how can we justify spending next year's money on this year's pay deal while telling an essential part of the workforce that there is nothing for it, and why were pay uplifts not a priority for the Minister from the very beginning? The Department has said that funding to support the real living wage this year is not being made available. That contradicts commitments to stabilise the sector and to shift left, and it flies in the face of the repeated warnings from unions and providers about low pay driving chronic staffing shortages. By refusing to fund proper pay for those workers, the Minister is, effectively, undermining the very reforms that he keeps talking about. The whole idea of "shift left" is to invest in community support so that fewer people end up in hospital. However, if care workers continue to leave the sector because the pay does not match the responsibility, capacity in the community will fall even further. That means more delayed discharges, more pressure on acute beds and more avoidable admissions. We are witnessing a fragmented approach to pay, poor planning and a refusal to address part of the workforce, which will have huge impacts elsewhere on the system. Calling that "unprepared" would be generous; it is a repeated cycle of stopping one crisis while creating another. It is not credible to ask our hard-working care workers to accept that outcome while expecting to reduce waiting times and relieve winter pressures. Those workers are vital to keeping people independent, preventing hospital admissions and easing pressure on acute care. Excluding them is not just unfair; it is strategically unsound. Assembly Business Mr Speaker: Members will be aware that a valid petition was tabled under section 28B of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 on 21 October 2025. The petition, which was signed by 31 Members, expressed concern that a decision taken by the Minister for the Economy may have been taken in contravention of section 28A(1) of the 1998 Act, and that it related to a matter of public importance. The petition related to a decision taken by the Minister to instruct officials to prepare additional measures to eliminate any risk of public funds being used to support the manufacture of components that are used for genocide. The decision was communicated to the Assembly by means of a written ministerial statement on 16 October 2025. In line with the requirements of Standing Order 29 and the 1998 Act, I have now undertaken the duties placed on me to reach a decision on the matter. The procedure is rarely used, and this is the first such valid petition to be received in more than 10 years. Therefore, it is worth briefly recording some key points for the benefit of the House. The fact that the petition was supported by more than 30 Members did not, in itself, refer the matter to the Executive; rather, the receipt of 30 signatures required me to do two things. The first was to consult the political parties in the Assembly. Secondly, it was then for me to decide only whether the decision referenced in the petition was of public importance, in which case it is required to be referred to the Executive. I confirm to the House that I wrote to all of the parties and independent Members in the Assembly, seeking their views on whether the subject of the petition was one of public importance. I am placing those responses in the Library. Two parties did not provide a response, but among the contributions that were received there was a range of opinions. However, I need to record that many of those contributions focused on the views of the parties on whether the Minister had power to make the decision herself rather than on whether the decision related to a matter of public importance. I state to the House again that the Act is clear: the only matter for me to consider is whether the Minister's decision relates to a matter of public importance. Whether that was something that should have been decided by the Executive is not a matter for me to take into account. Over the past few weeks, I have given the matter detailed consideration, and I thank Assembly officials for the work that they have done to provide me with advice. In considering the matter, I reviewed the background to the matter and the responses from the parties. I have also considered the frequency with which Members have raised in the Assembly matters regarding relations with Israel. Finally, I have also taken legal advice. Having taken account of all of those different elements, I have concluded that the only credible position for me to take is that the Minister's decision did relate to a matter of public importance. I have therefore written to the First Minister and the deputy First Minister today to refer the matter to the Executive. The next steps are therefore now for the Executive and not for me. At the beginning of my remarks, I reminded the House that this is a procedure that is rarely used. However, it is clear that there are some aspects of the procedure that would benefit from greater clarification, particularly in relation to timelines. Therefore, I intend to make a ruling on the operation of the procedure in the next few weeks. I do not intend to take any points of order on the matter, as I have set out my decision and it is now for the Executive to consider and to inform the Assembly of the outcome within seven sitting days. Let us move on. Ministerial Statement North/South Ministerial Council: Institutional and Plenary Meetings Mrs O'Neill (The First Minister): In compliance with section 52C(2) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, I make the following statement on the fourteenth institutional meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) and the thirtieth plenary meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council, both of which were held at Farmleigh House in Dublin on 17 October 2025. The deputy First Minister and I agreed that I would provide the report. I begin with the institutional meeting. The deputy First Minister and I represented the Executive and chaired the institutional meeting. Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade Simon Harris TD represented the Irish Government. The first item of business was an update from the joint secretaries on actions since the last meeting, and the Council welcomed the engagement that continues across all NSMC sectors on areas of importance to both Administrations. Ministers noted that work is under way across the North/South bodies and their sponsor Departments to develop three-year corporate plans that will set the strategic direction of the bodies over the years ahead. The NSMC welcomed the fact that the next all-island disaster risk reduction conference will take place in early 2026 and practitioners from both jurisdictions will attend and participate. Ministers welcomed the continuing opportunities for developing mutually beneficial cooperation, including through the PEACE PLUS programme and work to develop a successor programme and through the Shared Island initiative. The Council then considered matters relating to the North/South implementation bodies and noted that the freedom of information code of practice is in the process of being reviewed to ensure that it remains aligned with principles regarding access to information across both jurisdictions. Ministers also agreed that an exercise be undertaken to collectively review the grading of the CEO posts of the North/South bodies. The Council then discussed developments in the wider policy environment. The NSMC noted the progress on the strategic partnership between the British Government and the European Union that sets out a joint commitment to deepen cooperation. Ministers noted that cooperation between the jurisdictions will continue in the context of the evolving nature of relations and will be monitored to keep the NSMC apprised of relevant developments. The Council recognised the importance of continued investment in the PEACE PLUS programme and welcomed the PEACE PLUS project, Developing Irish Sea Cooperation, known as "DISC", being delivered with partners in both jurisdictions. The next item was a technical matter relating to the pensions for those employed in the North/South bodies. The NSMC approved amendments to the pension schemes that will apply to the North/South implementation bodies and Tourism Ireland. The Council then approved the appointment of four directors to the board of Tourism Ireland. The meeting closed with the NSMC agreeing to meet again in institutional format in spring 2026. Following the institutional meeting, the thirtieth plenary meeting of the NSMC took place. The deputy First Minister and I again led the Executive delegation, and Taoiseach Micheál Martin led the Irish Government delegation and chaired the meeting. The first item on the agenda related to business and trade matters. The Council had an exchange of views on international and domestic business and trade developments since the previous plenary meeting, including on the UK-US and EU-US trade deals. Ministers recalled that, in what remains an evolving international trading environment, the two Administrations will remain engaged with one another on business and trade matters. The Council also recalled that, where appropriate, the NSMC sectors should continue to consider how agreed collaborative approaches can contribute to the promotion of economic growth. Ministers noted that the most recent combined figures for trade in goods and services between the two jurisdictions showed a total value of £12·4 billion or €14·3 billion. The Council welcomed the hosting of the twenty-eighth TCI global conference on 14 to 16 October by InterTradeIreland in partnership with Invest NI and Enterprise Ireland. The next topic of discussion was emergency planning and preparedness. The NSMC welcomed the regular and ongoing collaboration between officials in both jurisdictions on civil contingencies, resilience and emergency preparedness. The Council agreed to enhance strategic cooperation between the office of emergency planning in the Department of Defence and the civil contingencies division in the Executive Office. Ministers welcomed the developing collaboration between the National Directorate for Fire and Emergency Management and the Fire and Rescue Service, including on investment, cooperation and collaboration on the training facilities and capacity of both services. The Council welcomed the ongoing engagement between system operators to coordinate mitigations and supports in the event of power-system emergencies in the single electricity market. The NSMC agreed that both Administrations will remain in close contact during the upcoming winter storm season, given the significant impact that both jurisdictions experienced during storm Éowyn and the support that was provided on a cross-jurisdictional basis. The Council then received a progress report from the joint secretaries. It noted that engagement on a wide range of policy areas continued across all NSMC areas of cooperation and that NSMC meetings continued across all sectors and were in the process of being arranged for the autumn/winter period. The Council further noted that Ministers at the relevant sectoral meetings have discussed climate change and loss of biodiversity. We then discussed infrastructure and investment cooperation and noted the decision of the Department for Infrastructure to appeal the judgement against the A5 western transport corridor, with the appeal scheduled to be heard in December. Ministers noted that Waterways Ireland continues to progress phase 3 of the Ulster canal restoration project and that the Narrow Water bridge main construction project is proceeding to schedule. The NSMC noted the continued collaboration to progress the all-Ireland strategic rail review's recommendations and welcomed the increase in passenger numbers through the hourly service introduced on the Belfast to Dublin corridor. Ministers noted the progress that has been made on the Ulster University Magee expansion project and welcomed the submission of the formal planning application for the construction of a new teaching block. The Council welcomed the progress that has been made on the delivery of collaborative research and innovation programmes. The NSMC welcomed the official opening of the Carlingford lough greenway, noted the progression to phase 3 for the Sligo to Enniskillen greenway and recognised the continued cross-border collaboration on other greenway projects, including the Ulster canal greenway. Ministers welcomed the significant stakeholder engagement undertaken by the Government of Ireland to aid the advancement of their Programme for Government commitment to establish air connectivity between Dublin Airport and City of Derry Airport, with a view to publishing a market-sounding exercise this year and having ongoing interaction with their Executive counterparts on the approach. The Council welcomed the progress on the implementation of the PEACE PLUS programme and the discussions with relevant stakeholders on a successor to the current PEACE PLUS programme. We then moved on to have a very good discussion on ending violence against women and girls, recognising the unacceptably high levels of gender-based violence and violence against women and girls that are prevalent across both jurisdictions. The Council agreed that there is an opportunity for more potential collaboration on initiatives with a protection focus, including child protection in the context of gender-based violence. Ministers also agreed that there is an opportunity for joint working on prevention-focused interventions through all-island awareness-raising initiatives. The Council recognised that human trafficking for sexual exploitation is a significant issue in both jurisdictions and that it also has a cross-border dimension and agreed that there is opportunity for cooperation in that area. Top 12.45 pm Ministers then approved an indicative schedule for future NSMC sectoral meetings, meetings in institutional format and the next plenary meeting in June 2026. Ms McLaughlin: Thank you, First Minister. The statement is littered with instances of the Council simply noting issues rather than actively engaging on them. It is genuinely underwhelming. Strand two of the Good Friday Agreement was a landmark for all of us who wanted to build a new Ireland, yet, under your watch, it has been allowed to drift into near irrelevance. That was never the plan. It does not have to be like this. We need to build something new. Is that not precisely why reform is essential to the institutions, particularly those under strand two — so that they are effective and have real teeth? Mrs O'Neill: In the paper, I set out updates on where we are across a wide range of areas of cooperation. The many varied areas of cooperation continue to go from strength to strength and include issues that we are looking at on a practical basis, be that the strategic railway review; the A5; mother-and-baby institutions; or working on ending violence against women and girls. I set out, clearly, the wide range of areas of cooperation, and I genuinely believe that there is a strong appetite among Ministers to continue to build on that into the future. I have no doubt that they will continue to do so. Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, First Minister, for your statement. I will focus on the new three-year corporate plans for the North/South bodies. I am conscious of the fact, but not yet concerned, that there may be some duplication and overlap of work between the language commissioners. What transparency will there be around those corporate plans so that we can ensure that they all work within their own swimming lanes? Mrs O'Neill: It is important that every organisation has its corporate plan, but also that that plan is laid out publicly so that everybody has a chance to scrutinise it, and that the organisation can stand over it. Openness and transparency is key. I have no doubt that all the reports that we discussed at the meeting will be public for everybody to scrutinise, be that on the Loughs Agency website or that of an Foras Teanga or any of the other bodies. Mr Buckley: When addressing business and trade matters, the First Minister indicated that there were talks around the UK-US and the EU-US trade deals. The First Minister will be aware that President Trump issued significantly higher tariffs on EU exports than on UK exports. As First Minister for Northern Ireland, did you advocate the desire that Northern Ireland exports fall under UK tariff rates, which would mean a lower rate than that of the EU? Mrs O'Neill: We had a good discussion about growing our economy. That included discussing the opportunities that we have but also the challenges, not least those that exist due to the fact that we are caught in the middle of a trade war. Regardless of whether the tariffs are at a UK level or EU level, my interest is in ensuring that we grow our economy. We have huge opportunity to grow our all-island economy. I touched briefly in the statement on the figures from which you can see the economic growth and the value of all-island trade. That will continue to grow, so it is important that we fight our corner. I do so at every turn. Ms Ennis: I thank the First Minister for her statement. She will, no doubt, be aware of the figures that have been released by the Department of Foreign Affairs that show that more than 120,000 applications for a new Irish passport were made by people in the North in 2024. Does she agree that the sheer volume of applications speaks to the need for an Irish passport office here in the North? Would she be supportive of that? Mrs O'Neill: Yes, I noted those figures, which were released towards the end of last week. They are a strong, positive endorsement and show that there is a huge demand from Irish citizens who live in the North for access to an Irish passport office. The figures further underline the case that I would make personally — a view shared by many — for the need to have an Irish passport office here in the North. I ask the Irish Government to take heed of the fact that so many people want to have an Irish passport and to provide that service. I continue to raise that issue at every turn with the Irish Government. Dr Aiken: I thank the First Minister for her remarks so far. When addressing emergency planning preparedness — paragraph 23 of her statement — she talked about the ongoing engagement between the system operators, particularly when it comes to the all-island single electricity market and dealing with emergencies. Obviously, one of the biggest problems is the fact that there is no physical connection between North and South — indeed, unless the North/South interconnector is built, there never will be. Was there any discussion about the impediments to building the North/South interconnector? If there was, what are we going to do about it? Mrs O'Neill: As the Member knows, that is an issue that has been going on for some time, and we want to get a resolution. We need to get the interconnector built. That has always been our view. We know the challenges, including the legal challenges, that have occurred along that journey. We continue to discuss the issue at North/South Ministerial Council level. The Member referred to the paragraph in the statement in which I mention how we discussed emergency planning, not least for storms. There are lots of opportunities for cooperation in that way, and we will continue to pursue them. Mr McAleer: I thank the Minister for her statement. I am glad to note that the A5 was discussed at the recent NSMC meeting. Minister, you will be aware that the A5 has been the scene of unbelievable and heartbreaking tragedies that have devastated families. Can you reassure me that the A5 dual carriageway project remains a priority for the Executive and the NSMC? Mrs O'Neill: I thank the Member for his question. I absolutely concur that the A5 remains an Executive priority. We must see the A5 built. We know that we have faced legal challenges and setbacks, but, given the number of lives lost on that road, building it is a safety issue. Think about what happened over the weekend on another stretch of road, where there was the tragedy of five young people losing their lives. We therefore have to get the A5 built. The Minister for Infrastructure is absolutely determined to see it built, and she is going through the appeal process now. I hope that the appeal will be successful. We have to build the A5, however, and we are not going to let up. The situation has been going on for far too long. The A5 is a strategic project for the Executive. It must be built, because of what it will mean for improving safety, regional balance, connectivity and our communities in rural areas. Mr Brett: First Minister, when it comes to the North/South interconnector, Sinn Féin has a partitionist policy. Here in Northern Ireland, you support overground cables, while, in the Irish Republic, you say that they will have to be underground. When representing the Northern Ireland Executive in discussions about the North/South interconnector, which wing of your partitionist policy did you advocate? Mrs O'Neill: Very good. I can absolutely assure the Member that, unfortunately, the reality, for now, is that we have two jurisdictions on the island. That is something that I hope to change, however. I hope that others, perhaps those on this side of the House, will assist us in doing that. We have been very clear that it is preferable for the cables for the North/South interconnector to be underground. We have gone through all the legal processes in the North, but there are two jurisdictions, and that has led to two different scenarios. The situation is not of our making. Unfortunately, it is the political reality for now, but I hope to change that. Mr McMurray: The First Minister, in her statement, said that four directors have been appointed to the board of Tourism Ireland. Can she outline the criteria and process for making the appointments? Can she also outline how those directors may assist and strengthen North/South cooperation in the tourism sector? Mrs O'Neill: That is their very role. I can write to the Member to provide him with the detail on how the process was conducted. I do not have that information here with me. The Irish Government nominated the four directors, because there were vacancies to fill. They are Ruth Andrews, Stephen McNally, Des Annett and Pat O'Leary. Full details about those individuals and their appointment are all on the website. Ms Ní Chuilín: I thank the First Minister for her statement. As she knows, and it is referenced in the statement, there is an unacceptable level of violence and abuse towards women and girls across this island and beyond, so the issue is relevant to the NSMC. Can the First Minister provide an assurance that ending violence against women and girls will remain a key priority of the NSMC? Mrs O'Neill: Yes, I can give the Member that assurance. We introduced the issue on to the agenda of the North/South Ministerial Council some time ago. We are committed to collaboration, and we all recognise that we have a similar problem right across the island. The preventative work is absolutely necessary, however. I genuinely believe that there is a great willingness to cooperate. The relevant Ministers have been tasked with working together to look at potential initiatives, not least by looking at the Shared Island unit for a funding model that will allow us to explore a coordinated approach to dealing with some of the preventative work. Our officials, working alongside officials in Dublin, will explore the issue further and hopefully make even more progress in the time ahead. Mr Kearney: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Chéad-Aire as ucht a ráitis. [Translation: I thank the First Minister for her statement.] Minister, you say in your statement: "the NSMC noted the progress on the Strategic Partnership between the United Kingdom (UK) and the European Union (EU) which sets out a joint commitment to deepen cooperation." With the all-Ireland economy thriving and our exports to Europe increasing, do you agree that we need to maximise our potential for dual market access? Mrs O'Neill: Yes, I absolutely do. We talk about the many challenges that we have in our economy, but, equally, we have many opportunities. Dual market access is one such opportunity. The fact that it gives us access to more than 500 million customers and a market worth almost £6 trillion shows us that we must reach for and grab it. It will benefit our domestic exporters. It will also be a unique selling point, which is certainly the message that we give when we engage with ambassadors and international visitors and companies. When we meet them, we talk about the fact that we have dual market access, and we continue to highlight that as our unique selling point. More people will be more interested in investing in this place as a direct result of it. Mr Dickson: Thank you for your statement, First Minister. How will you ensure that Northern Ireland is best positioned to benefit fully from continued investment in the PEACE PLUS programme? How will the Executive contribute to the work that is being undertaken to develop a successor programme? Mrs O'Neill: The potential for a successor programme to PEACE PLUS was discussed at the meeting and at the summit between the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister in March. They publicly said that they had agreed in principle to a successor programme, but I agree with the Member that we need to influence how that is shaped. We discussed that at the meeting. It will be a matter for ongoing engagement between the Department of Finance and its counterpart in the Twenty-six Counties. There is a lot of work to be done on translating what is, at the moment, a somewhat high-level agreement into detail. We may have a road to travel in shaping that, but we want to make sure that it delivers maximum benefit for people here and that we see the excellent work that went into the previous programme continue. Mr O'Toole: Minister, I agree with my colleague Sinéad McLaughlin that, sadly, 40 years on from the Anglo-Irish Agreement and 60 years on from Paisley throwing snowballs at Lemass outside this Building, the NSMC has become a bit of a dusty irrelevance. The statement is full of "noting" this and "technical updates" on that. I will ask you specifically about the North/South interconnector, as it has come up today. Sinn Féin's position on that appears to be a bit like that of 'The Wombles' — underground, overground — and who knows whether it will ever be built? You are the First Minister in this jurisdiction, but yours is an all-Ireland party and you guys make great play of that. Do you support the North/South interconnector being built overground if needs be? When will it be constructed? Mrs O'Neill: You will know a lot about the North/South interconnector, given that your Minister took the decision when she was in post. Let us not play games; let us be serious about growing areas of North/South cooperation. What I highlighted in my report reflects the high-level engagement that we had, but, underneath the layer of the North/South institutional plenary meeting, there are so many levels of work across each sector — health, education and infrastructure — that are all reported on in the Chamber, and everybody has a chance to discuss them. We can see real progress in areas of North/South cooperation. There is an awful lot more on which we can engage, and there is willingness to do so. Ms Murphy: I thank the Minister for her statement. Minister, how can the Executive build on the work of the NSMC in order to deepen all-Ireland cooperation in the likes of health, infrastructure and the economy to ensure that that benefits all our people North and South? Mrs O'Neill: Thank you. That is on the point that I am underlining. Underneath the plenary meeting, across the sectoral meetings, such a large volume of work is happening, whether that be on ending violence against women and girls, infrastructure investment or business and trade — all the areas of cooperation — for the benefit of people here. We need to continue to grow that, because we live on a small island, and we have so many synergies across those areas. We have two health services and two education systems back to back: let us do something better for people. We can do that through more cooperation and by joining up our services. Mr Gildernew: I thank the First Minister for her statement. It was encouraging and reassuring to hear her set out areas of strategic cooperation and collaboration between Departments on emergency planning and preparedness issues. Does the First Minister agree that, where it makes sense for us to cooperate on issues that matter to us all, we should absolutely do that? Mrs O'Neill: Yes, it is just good sense. It is just common sense for us to cooperate where we can. When we look at our public services in the North, which have been starved for so many years because of austerity decisions taken in London and are on their knees, we see that we need to continue to do what we can to improve things. There are many practical areas as well. During storm Éowyn, we needed to lean into each other to support each other through that. Undoubtedly, those are areas where we can practically work together. It is also about having the vision to do more. I think that that is what all our Ministers are there trying to do. Across all the areas where we have been able to cooperate — health issues, infrastructure issues — it leads to improvements in people's lives. Ultimately, that is what it is all about. Top 1.00 pm Mr Delargy: The First Minister will be aware that, in Derry, the North West Cancer Centre serves over 500,000 people. It is hugely important in our area. Does she recognise that there is an opportunity here to develop more all-Ireland services and to recognise the importance of the service for the people of the north-west? Mrs O'Neill: Thank you for that. I know that healthcare is of enormous importance for the wider north-west because of the distance from so many other services. At the end of last month, the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement continued to roll with the theme of all-island healthcare, which is very welcome, and Professor Heenan stated that cooperation was not enough and we needed a collaboration of resources and agreed outcomes. I absolutely concur with that statement. How we can work together and deliver better outcomes for people is a challenge for everybody. We should not limit our ambitions when it comes to improving people's lives. With regard to healthcare more generally, an all-island model of healthcare would absolutely lead to better outcomes for individuals. Mr McNulty: First Minister, your statement references how engagement continues across all North/South Ministerial Council sectors on areas of importance to both Administrations. If all-island healthcare is so important, why is there no mention of it in your statement? In an Assembly question to your office, I asked the TEO to outline whether all-island CAR-T therapy was discussed at the most recent North/South Ministerial Council meeting, and your response was that Ministers provide updates on a wide range of collaboration, including healthcare issues. Can the First Minister detail whether the important issue relating to all-island CAR-T therapy for cancer treatment was discussed? Mrs O'Neill: I know that the Member has taken a particular interest in that. I, too, would like to see a service across the island because there is a dearth of services North and South. Unfortunately, some people have to travel to England to get treatment, so it makes good common sense. I have no doubt that it was discussed within the health remit. There are sectoral meetings for each area, whether it be health, infrastructure, education, agriculture or food, so I have no doubt that it was discussed in that meeting. Mr Baker: I thank the Minister for her statement. Investing in infrastructure, Casement Park and our people is to be welcomed and supported. Can the First Minister provide an update on the Shared Ireland initiative? Mrs O'Neill: The Taoiseach advised us that he is keen to work with us to identify and develop other areas that fall under the remit of the Shared Island initiative. As the Member will know, there have been a lot of really positive developments. Casement Park was one of the projects that have benefited. We have also seen cooperation across a raft of areas, whether it be in education, agriculture, bioeconomy demonstrations and cooperation between our enterprise agencies. I spoke at the TCI global conference, which involved Enterprise Ireland, Invest NI and InterTradeIreland coming together and looking towards collaboration and growing our economy. Those are really positive developments, and I want to see a lot more of them. Mr Sheehan: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Chéad-Aire as ucht a freagraí. [Translation: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the First Minister for her answers.] It is evident from what the First Minister has been saying here today that cooperation and collaboration on an all-island basis is delivering positive outcomes for all our people, yet much more can and should be done. Does the First Minister agree that now is the time for the British Government to clarify the parameters and the date for a border poll, as set out in the Good Friday Agreement? Mrs O'Neill: Thank you for that. Over the weekend, at the Irish Labour Party conference, Ivana Bacik spoke about the need for clarification and for the Irish Government to prepare. There is an exciting and energetic debate under way, and more people are offering up their view. That is a good thing and a healthy thing, and I absolutely encourage it. The practicalities of all-island cooperation and the North/South Ministerial Council demonstrate how we can practically improve people's lives by working together. As we approach the 30th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement, now is the time for clarification to be provided so that we know the parameters within which we will be working. Mr Gaston: Paragraph 7 of your statement deals with matters that relate to the freedom of information code of practice. Currently, it is not possible to FOI the North/South Ministerial Council, yet we pay millions of pounds each year for it and its tentacles. What steps are being taken to open that body to scrutiny in order to permit questions to be asked and answered through FOI? Mrs O'Neill: You are right: whilst the North/South bodies are not currently subject to freedom of information legislation in either jurisdiction, they follow a code of practice that reflects similar principles regarding access to information. The code is undergoing a review in order to ensure that it remains up to date, particularly given changes to legislation. We will have to come back to that and consider the outcome of the review at a future meeting. Mr Speaker: That concludes questions to the First Minister. I invite Members to take their ease for a moment while we change the Table before moving to the next item of business. (Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair) Private Members' Business Windsor Framework: Ongoing Harm Mr Brett: I beg to move That this Assembly notes the findings of the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee’s inquiry on strengthening Northern Ireland’s voice in the context of the Windsor framework; agrees that the UK Government must work urgently to address the democratic deficit created by the Windsor framework, as well as the overwhelming complexity of the present arrangements; is alarmed that 3,500 products supplied by Marks and Spencer require daily checks when moving to Northern Ireland, as well as 300 pages of paperwork per lorry; stresses that such barriers are leading to added cost and delay for businesses, reducing consumer choice and causing the diversion of trade outside the UK internal market; believes that mere tinkering at the edges of a fundamentally harmful system will not suffice; condemns the failure of successive Governments to implement pre-existing agreements and honour commitments to restoring Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom; and calls on the UK Government to bring forward solutions that challenge the flawed foundational assumption at the heart of the Windsor framework that the direct application of EU law in Northern Ireland is necessary. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other contributors will have five minutes. Mr Brett: I am pleased to move the motion in my name and those of my colleagues. We can come to the debate and attempt to refight, as some parties seem to want to do, the old wounds of the Brexit years. They can call out the democratic decision of the United Kingdom to leave the European Union. I can respond by challenging Members' views on the rigorous implementation of the protocol, and we can have back and forth on those issues. From my perspective, however, that does not move the discussion or the debate forward by one iota. Every week at the Committee for the Economy, my colleagues and I hear from a wide range of people with diverse perspectives who are concerned about the ongoing impact that the Windsor framework is having on them. They do not come to have a discussion of the constitutional consequences of it. My colleague Mr Buckley will continue to set out our party's constitutional objections to the Windsor framework. That is why we, as a party, have on two separate occasions voted down the Northern Ireland protocol in the House of Commons and opposed the Windsor framework in the House of Commons and the House of Lords. This debate is an important opportunity for all Members of the House to stand together and state that the current operation of the Windsor framework is not ideal by any stretch of the imagination and that its impact on consumers, businesses and communities across Northern Ireland is clear. Some statements that were issued by political spokespeople in advance of the debate have set it out that they wish to re-fight the Brexit wars. However, at this stage, I will be happy to give way to any Member who wishes to articulate any objection to what we have set out in our motion. The motion makes clear the impact on our businesses and communities. I will read some of those impacts into the record. Just two weeks ago, the Road Haulage Association (RHA) came before the Committee for the Economy, and members of all political parties were united in supporting the views that they made clear, which I will read into the record. We heard from a businessman from south Antrim who has operated a logistics company in Northern Ireland for the past 30 years. He operates all over the world, but he stated that the border in the Irish Sea is: "the most complex border in the world" when it comes to moving goods, and that is within the internal market of the United Kingdom. That company alone is being billed a quarter of a million pounds as a result of paperwork, additional administration and the need to take on additional staff as a result of the Windsor framework. As a UK-wide representative, he made it clear that 450 haulage firms across the United Kingdom had closed in the past three years. The evidence that the Road Haulage Association submitted in advance of the meeting clearly spelled out the impact of the framework. Goods sales from Great Britain to Northern Ireland dropped by 2·4% last year, and there has been a 30% drop in goods moved from Great Britain into Northern Ireland since 2002. That is not just a unionist issue; it impacts on every community across Northern Ireland, as they have less choice and higher bills and, come 1 January, will face even more difficulties. The Road Haulage Association made it clear that, as a result of the Windsor framework, the majority of businesses that source or transport their goods from Great Britain have additional costs and that delays have been created. Let us not just take the RHA's word for it; let us turn to the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB). Week after week, Members from all sides of the House stand to praise the work of our small businesses, because they recognise that over 90% of our businesses in Northern Ireland are microbusinesses or small businesses and that they are proudly the backbone of our economy. The FSB set out a report in the summer which highlighted the implications of the Windsor framework for its members. Trade disruption is widespread. Of the businesses that responded to its survey, 58% of those that trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland report significant challenges in operating across the UK internal market. Over one third have already ceased trade rather than deal with new compliance demands. Strategic confidence is plummeting, with 50% of affected firms not confident in planning for the year ahead. Do not take my word for it; take it from the FSB. I will move on to the National Franchised Dealers Association (NFDA), representatives of which appeared before the Committee six weeks ago. They made it clear that, from 1 January, vehicles registered in Northern Ireland must have EU type approval, while cars registered in Great Britain will follow rules under the UK Government. As a result, consumers will have less choice; car sales in Northern Ireland will plummet; and taxes on consumers will be increased. Top 1.15 pm Do not take my word for it. Let us take the word of the Member for Lagan Valley, who sits on the Committee for the Economy and made it clear that those regulations were "a nonsense" and that for car traders in Northern Ireland: "it's the worst of every world for you". Some Members: Hear, hear. Mr Brett: With that, I assume that the Alliance Party will support our motion. However, the words at the Committee will be very different, no doubt, from its members' words in the House today, because they will want to turn the debate into a constitutional one, rather than send a clear view from the House that businesses are being negatively impacted on by that. The Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee and Lord Murphy produced reports in recent weeks, and I want to read some of the content of those into the record. The Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee is made up of members who supported the United Kingdom leaving the European Union and those who did not. It concluded: "The current arrangements have created a complex and opaque structure difficult for business and civil society stakeholders to navigate." The Chair of the Committee said: "We strongly support proposals to enhance Northern Ireland's voice early in the EU legislative process". He also said: "It was clear from the concerns raised by businesses, civil society and political representatives" — through formal and informal evidence — "that the democratic deficit in Northern Ireland remains unresolved." That is what is clear in our motion. We make no attempt in the motion other than to reinforce the words of the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee. I want to turn Lord Murphy's report. Lord Murphy, who came to our Committee just two weeks ago, recognised the challenges that the Windsor framework represented for businesses and communities across Northern Ireland. Despite his terms of reference requiring him to have cross-community support for any changes, he still set out a list of changes that needed to be made to the current Windsor framework. UK veterinary medicines was a huge issue, and he highlighted that, on 1 January, up to 40% of those may no longer be available. That point was reinforced by the former leader of the SDLP who now sits in the House of Lords, Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick, who made it clear that the current position on veterinary medicines under the Windsor framework was intolerable. We have on the record the Federation of Small Businesses, the Road Haulage Association, the National Franchised Dealers Association, the Member for Lagan Valley Mr Honeyford and the former leader of the SDLP all criticising the current Windsor framework arrangements. The House has an opportunity not just to sit in Committee and support businesses when they come here but to send a clear message today that it wants to see the Government deliver on their commitments to the people of Northern Ireland and that the border in the Irish Sea be removed for the benefit of all people in all communities across Northern Ireland. Some Members: Hear, hear. Mr Kearney: Just a few weeks ago, the DUP brought a variation on today's motion to the Chamber for discussion, so I find it difficult not to think that Groundhog Day is beginning to be played out once again. In the meantime, workers and families continue to face an ongoing and relentless cost-of-living crisis. Our schools are crumbling, the health service is under constant pressure and we face an unprecedented ecological crisis in our waterways and lakes. Instead, the DUP chooses to fixate on and rehearse the fallout from the Brexit calamity — the mess that the DUP helped to bring about. Once again, the Assembly is subject to another DUP revisionist sham fight, and it is all to save its blushes from the ongoing onslaught and attrition from the TUV. In a similar debate only weeks ago, I predicted that we would see a lot more of this type of negative politicking in the time ahead, and here we go again. We might as well all strap ourselves in between now and the next Assembly and council elections, because DUP race-to-the-bottom politics will become the constant order of the day, and all to shore up an electoral base that is now under pressure from the TUV. Ten years ago, the DUP was in the vanguard of the Brexit campaign. At that time, its representatives told us on the airwaves that they did not care about the consequences of Brexit so long as we left the European Union. On those same airwaves, I and others warned the DUP that that was a wrong-headed agenda, but, like lemmings and following their hero Boris Johnson, the DUP representatives quipped that really nothing else mattered. Mr Brett: Will the Member give way? Mr Kearney: Not at the moment. It was a case of right-wing, zero-sum politics, and, since then, the DUP has thwarted and opposed every effort to find solutions to the Brexit debacle. However, while the DUP was cheerleading for the hardest, most destructive exit from the European Union, others were, thankfully, working to minimise the impact. Then, in another British Government sop to assuage DUP anxieties, the Windsor framework was brought forward. Brexit inevitably created a whole new economic and trading context. The Windsor framework is not a panacea, but it has mitigated many of the challenges that we have had to contend with. All the experts on business and trade say that it is protecting us from the worst effects of Brexit. Business exports are up 7% in the North. At the same time, other regions caught up in the Brexit headwinds have experienced significant declines. According to NISRA, sales from the North to Britain increased by over 12% between 2022 and 2023. Cross-border trade continues to flourish. Yes, our businesses need support to help them navigate the new trading realities, and Sinn Féin firmly believes that whatever is needed should be provided. At no time in the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee or other Committee meetings have business groups challenged the potential of the Windsor framework to drive economic growth. The DUP knows that, because you sit on the same Committees as I and others do. Friends, the framework is here to stay, and our focus needs to be on how we can refine its further implementation. This afternoon, I say this to my colleagues in the DUP: stop wasting our and your time. Deal with your TUV problems away from the Assembly, and start to work with the rest of us to maximise opportunities for our businesses by building the regional and all-Ireland economies. Mr Tennyson: I, too, have a sense of déjà vu coming to the Chamber once again to rehearse the damage of Brexit. It was interesting that Mr Brett said that that was not his intention, because that is what he proceeded to do. He was keen to use not his own words but the words of businesses. I say gently to the Member that, if only he had listened to the voices of the FSB and other business organisations during the referendum, we may not have found ourselves in this position, for the consequences that he listed were entirely predictable and inevitable. It has been fascinating to watch as those who tabled the motion have slowly come to terms with the consequences of their actions, as they seek to rewrite history and blame everybody else for the Brexit that they campaigned for. You won, guys: own it. Alliance warned that there was no such thing as a good or sensible Brexit and that leaving the EU would inevitably mean increased borders, barriers and friction. The only question was about where that friction would occur, not whether it would occur. We said clearly that that was much more likely to happen at ports and airports than at a porous 300-mile land border, not because we wanted to see those checks happen there but because logic necessitated that that is where they would happen. Of course, logic was a concept that the DUP never applied during the Brexit process; indeed, the DUP dismissed such concerns, telling those of us who warned of red tape and food supply chain issues that we could, "Go to the chippy". Its former leader said that he could live with 40,000 job losses as the cost of Brexit freedom. The DUP was out of touch then, and it is just as out of touch today. The motion spells out the gulf between those on the DUP Benches who are lamenting the price of food in Marks and Spencer (M&S) and those whom we represent who rely on food banks and expect us to be in the Chamber debating the cost of living and how we tackle poverty in our society. M&S has been mentioned in the motion, so I will say that supermarkets have a choice either to go through the red lane or to use the retail movement scheme, which is also known as the "green lane". The reason that some supermarkets cannot avail themselves of that scheme is that they supply Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. M&S relies on being able to supply the Republic of Ireland through ports, including Belfast, and, because its loads are mixed, the system is bureaucratic and complicated. That is true. From my perspective, the way to address that is through a comprehensive veterinary agreement, for which the Alliance Party campaigned and to which the Government have committed. I hope that the Government will move forward at pace with that agreement. That will require building trust —. Mr Brett: Will the Member give way? Mr Tennyson: No, I will not, because we heard enough from the Member in his opening contribution. Alliance called for a veterinary agreement during the Brexit process, but Arlene Foster and the DUP dismissed our call. I am grateful that the DUP has undertaken probably the longest U-turn in history and got to a better position, but had it listened to those of us who warned of such issues at the time, our businesses would now be in a better place. The Windsor framework is far from perfect, but it is a function of Brexit. It is intended to insulate us from its worst excesses. It has contributed to a situation in which Northern Ireland's economy has outperformed that of the rest of the UK. In 2024, economic output in Northern Ireland grew at a rate of 3·6%, compared with just 1·4% in the UK as a whole. To be blunt, the framework is also the only game in town. The Government have made that clear. My hope is that, over time, as issues arise, the framework can change, evolve and become less bureaucratic. The Lords Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee's report and Lord Murphy's review can inform that process, but the framework itself is going nowhere. It will be the starting point. Alliance supports the framework not because it is seamless or perfect but because it is the better option when faced with a choice between a hard border and a soft border, a choice between friction and facilitation and between stability and chaos. The Members who have railed loudest against the framework, including in today's debate, have provided no credible alternative over the past eight years. We have set out our proposals and clear asks for how the framework could be improved in order to ease the burden on businesses, including the provision of enhanced support and advice, the promotion of dual market access and the relaxation of the at-risk category. Only a full reversal of Brexit, however, can undo all the tensions and contradictions that the framework poses. We have a choice about how we present Northern Ireland to the world. Will we continue to pick at old wounds and create uncertainty and instability or embrace the opportunities of dual market access and send a signal that we are open for business and are serious about doing business? I hope that Members choose the second option. Dr Aiken: I declare an interest, both as a member of the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee and as someone opposed to then Prime Minister Rishi Sunak's official recommendations, which evolved into the so-called Stormont brake. It is just a pity that Rishi Sunak and the Prime Minister after him did not listen to the rest of our party's advice. For the avoidance of doubt to some, our party supported Remain. We voted Remain precisely because we envisaged the chaos and damage to our economy that has occurred. We pointed out time and again that Brexit was never the best of both worlds; rather, it was the worst of both systems on steroids. That is also why the UUP opposed the protocol and then the Windsor framework when it was imposed. We did so because they were deeply flawed instruments that were drafted to solve UK and EU dilemmas rather than problems with Northern Ireland trade. Northern Ireland was and remains a bargaining chip in UK-EU relations. The words "faithful implementation" are the genesis of the problem that we now face, which is the rigorous implementation of the entire acquis communautaire of the European Journal's rule book that applies, in its broadest interpretation, to Northern Ireland. It is the implementation of rules that many EU members, including our Irish neighbours, do not even bother to implement rigorously unless they are forced to. Those rules, which spread well beyond trade issues, impact on everyday life here. There is a huge democratic deficit in which, despite all the Windsor framework spin, our Assembly has absolutely no say. Safeguards, such as our ability to pray against legislative consent motions pertaining to EU regulations, do not work, because we are not even informed of them in time, never mind the fact that our vote counts for nothing. The Stormont brake and the grossly misnamed Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee have failed. Lord Murphy's view on membership of the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee, which he gave to the Economy Committee, is well worth a read. I encourage everybody here to read it. Top 1.30 pm We have been told that many of our problems will be settled by the UK-EU reset, but, despite the hype last week that sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) talks were commencing, some Ministers have made it clear that it will be 2027 at the earliest before any agreement can be made. Anyone with even the faintest understanding of EU's relations with other countries will know that that is a highly ambitious timescale. What is to be done? If the Government believe that they have been a faithful throughout, it is time to use the provisions in the protocol to stop any further damage. If our Government really believe that the EU is a faithful and not a traitor, they should activate article 16 of the protocol to protect article 6(2) on protecting our internal UK market. If there really is faith between the UK and the European Union and if the protection of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement really is central to those relations, pausing the implementation of further provisions of the EU acquis until all is solved by the UK-EU reset and the SPS community should be straightforward. The evidence of hard damage to companies —. Mrs Dodds: Thank you for giving way. This is really important. Part of the issue is the Labour Government's inability to do or simply not doing the diligence that is needed to improve things. There is no greater testament to that than the issue of veterinary medicines. From 1 January, we will see a significant problem with veterinary medicines, even those that have never been opened in Great Britain but need to come to Northern Ireland, yet, last week, the House of Lords Committee said that the Government were saying, "We are doing nothing about it". Worse still — Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sorry. Member's interventions —. Mrs Dodds: — DAERA is not intervening. Does the Member agree that it is important to make some progress? Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute for that minute and a half. Dr Aiken: I definitely agree, and I thank the Member very much for reading the last part of my speech. Principal Deputy Speaker, you will be glad to know that I will not repeat it. There is a key point: we are fewer than 50 days from there being real problems for our agriculture sector. Our party has pointed that out for the past year, yet we have still not reached a resolution on it. Government Ministers have basically said, "Suck it up", because they want to be seen as being faithful implementers, even though it will do real damage to the Northern Ireland agriculture sector. That is unacceptable. The evidence of hard damage being done to our companies and to the UK internal market from divergence in trade is abundantly clear. We need our Government to have the will to act, because, frankly, the Europeans do not really care about Northern Ireland. They want to see agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union about things such as defence. We have an opportunity to solve the problem, and we have, in the protocol, the processes to do so. I therefore call on Labour and the Secretary of State to get off their proverbials and do something. Let them do it. More important, we support the motion. Mr O'Toole: Bob Dylan is playing in Belfast on Wednesday night. [Interruption.] Somebody asked who Bob Dylan is: he is a famous musician from the United States. The debate is almost like a greatest hits, except that it is not as great that as those that Dylan will be playing, we hope, on Wednesday night. It is the same old stuff that we have heard before. In many ways, I am happy to play those tunes. I came into the Assembly because of Brexit. I literally would not have been here without it. I have talked many times in the Chamber about my personal and professional experience. I could rehearse that and give you guys all the gory details of how the interests of this island, including those of the North and of unionists, were ignored systematically throughout the Brexit process, but I will not do that, because I have only five minutes. We have talked about it before and will talk about it again. We will not support the motion. To be substantive, however, I will go through the various bits of the motion in good faith in order to explain why we will not support it. First are the practical disruptions that are felt by sectors of our economy, specifically east-west, that exist. We have never trivialised them and have always sought practical solutions to them. There are small retailers who need to move partials and who now face new barriers because of that. That is a fact. Clearly, there are questions around veterinary medicine. That is a fact, too, and we do not diminish it. We have never diminished any of the consequences of Brexit, and those are both consequences of Brexit. The electronic travel authorisation (ETA), which is now required for the 70% of tourists who come to Northern Ireland via Dublin, is another consequence of Brexit. That would not have happened had the UK not left the EU. Those are all practical consequences that we need to resolve. How we do that is the next question, and that will happen via a number of means. None of those has been outlined in the DUP motion or in the remarks that we just heard from Dr Aiken. They are just saying, "Turn the table over, because we are angry about all this". I am angry about Brexit. I do not like the constitutional disruption of Brexit, and neither do lots of the people who vote for my party. However, it is about practical solutions. I will list a few, none of which are mentioned in the motion. Number one relates to most of the checks on food and veterinary medicine. Mr Tennyson mentioned the comprehensive veterinary agreement, which we had called for for ages. That is a critical part of softening the burdens. Let us be absolutely clear: it is not possible, in practical terms, for England or GB to be outside the EU's SPS rules and for Northern Ireland to follow. Why is that? It is not because the SDLP, Sinn Féin, the Irish Government, the Alliance Party or some inchoate mass of liberals are trying to do down unionism; it is because there are cattle that graze in both Cavan and Fermanagh. That is how our agriculture works, so we have to have an integrated SPS zone on the island. Our food production is integrated. Cattle that produce milk in Donegal are processed in County Tyrone. That is literally the way in which our agriculture system works. That covers the comprehensive veterinary agreement. Number two is about how we interact with the EU. That is mentioned in the motion. I totally agree that we need better mechanisms. Lots of this was talked about in Lord Murphy's report. I am unabashed about saying that we are the most pro-EU party in this place. We want to be back in the European Union, although I think that that will happen only via a new Ireland, if we are honest with ourselves. In the meantime, I want to have representation for Northern Ireland in the European Parliament so that unionists, nationalists, the left and others can make representations there on behalf of our constituents and businesses. We should also have an EU Commission office in Belfast. Why not? That would not change the constitutional position, given that we had an EU Commissioner — [Interruption.] I can see Mrs Dodds complaining vociferously about all the evil EU things. Why not bring the EU Commission to Belfast? It could set up an office. I will give way to the Member. Will you make it relatively concise, so that I can have a bit of time left in which to respond? Mrs Dodds: I will indeed. When the Member reiterates this nonsense, I often wonder why he does not want to do his own job, which is making laws that are for Northern Ireland in Northern Ireland. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute. Mr O'Toole: I would love to do that in Northern Ireland, Brussels or Dublin. Any of those would be great to me. I wish, however, that the Member would face up to the consequences of the Brexit that she challenges. She is a former MEP, so she knows these things all too well. That is all set out in our policy paper. More representation for the North in the here and now and for its businesses and workers who face those EU rules can, and should, happen. There is a range of other practical consequences of Brexit. The consequences for traders and people who use veterinary medicine need to be examined, but so, too, do the consequences for the all-island economy. As Mr Kearney rightly said, the all-island economy is growing. Northern Ireland has massively outperformed Britain in economic growth. Many economists think that that is to do with us being shielded from a significant number of the consequences of Brexit. That is a reality with which the DUP will not engage. Why has Northern Ireland grown faster than every other part of the UK over the past number of years? That is a remarkable thing. We should also deal with the disruption to people moving across the island of Ireland, whether they are French students who are backpacking in Galway but cannot now easily come to Derry or tourists on coach trips to the Giant's Causeway. Those are all consequences of Brexit. One way to deal with that, rather than taking Dr Aiken's nuclear option of using article 16, is very simple, and it is to use article 14 of the original protocol, now the Windsor framework. That allows the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) to raise specific concerns to the Joint Committee on the operation of the protocol. The deputy First Minister was not even here. Dr Aiken: Will the Member give way? Mr O'Toole: I will not give way, because I will not get another minute, but I am happy to debate it in another place. I have not heard anything about article 14 being triggered by the Executive. The First Minister was here earlier. Are the Executive doing anything via the NSMC to raise those issues? There are practical solutions to these problems. The ultimate one is, of course, to rejoin the EU via a new Ireland, but, in the meantime, let us get real about solutions. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up. Thank you, Matthew. Ms Sheerin: I laughed at Mr O'Toole's comments, comparing the debate to a Bob Dylan record. Now, I would not insult Bob Dylan with that particular analogy, but I see the Member's point, and I have to agree with it. The proposer's premise was that he did not want the debate to be a rehashing of the benefits or negatives of Brexit but that he wants to have a conversation about the part of it that he does not like. Look, we all make mistakes. You made a mistake, and we are where we are now. There are parts of it that you do not like. That is fair enough. However, we have to be realistic and pragmatic in how we deal with the problems that some businesses are encountering. People have referred to the FSB report. I sat through Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee and Economy Committee sessions where we dealt with that sector. Of course, we want to do anything that we can to aid those businesses to secure their recommendations on the easing of paperwork, bureaucracy and burdens. However, the proportion of businesses that are affected by that is the 100 respondents to the survey out of 130,000 businesses across the North. To present that in a way that suggests that it is a massive problem for the vast majority of our business sector is being disingenuous. It is not a massive problem. The motion refers to Marks and Spencer. In bringing the motion to the Chamber, the Members have displayed just how out of touch they are at a time when most of our constituents are in a cost-of-living crisis, and some are relying on food banks. As we come towards Christmas, we have people across our communities who are in genuine hardship and face real difficulties. They do not want to hear another debate in this place on why the DUP did not get the Brexit that it wanted, which is due to its following the TUV and being afraid of that party in the polls. That is what this is about. We have to be realistic when we have conversations like this. We are here to govern and to work for all people across the North. I am really sorry that the British Government have let you down again, but that is where we are at. Mr Martin: I want to pick up on a few points that have been made already, particularly by Mr Kearney and Mr Tennyson. Mr Tennyson used the phrase "pick at old wounds". Two thirds of their speeches did not address the motion but simply attacked my party. Now, we have different positions, but their speeches did not actually address the motion. Mr Honeyford finds it very funny, but, actually, what we are discussing are the impacts on customers and businesses, which affect people's real lives. To be fair to the leader of the Opposition, while I did not agree with what he said, at least he addressed the motion at hand. Hopefully, with the Bob Dylan reference, he was not suggesting that anyone was 'Knockin' on Heaven's Door'. If he has not got the album 'Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid', I very much recommend it to him as it is one of Dylan's finest. I will pick up on the issue of veterinary medicines, which has been touched on already, because, over the past week, a number of constituents have contacted me about it, and when I told them about the debate, they asked me to raise the issue. As some Members have already reflected, the grace period for veterinary medicines comes to an end on 31 December. Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. He points to the DUP's reason and motivation for tabling the motion, which is simply because we have been contacted by people, consumers and small businesses in our constituencies. It seems that the only MLAs who are being contacted about those issues are Members on this side of the House. Top 1.45 pm Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute. Mr Martin: Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I agree with my colleague. I can only reflect the correspondence that we get. People have concerns. This is affecting people out there, and it is our job to raise such things in this place and to find solutions to them. That is the most important thing in the debate. Some Members have referred to the evidence received last week by the Scrutiny Committee. My colleague, in opening the debate, reflected the fact that up to 40% of medicines could be discontinued from 1 January 2026. Some reference was made to colleagues who sit on that Committee. In fact, Baroness Ritchie said that it was more or less her view that the Government had, essentially, decided to do nothing until they see how serious the situation becomes in 2026. Baroness Foster, picking up on comments from my colleague to my left, usefully pointed out that article 16 of the protocol allows His Majesty's Government to take unilateral action to resolve problems if they see a diversion of trade. Surely that should happen. The Committee heard that over 90% of medicines currently supplied are likely to be diverted to Northern Ireland via Dublin rather than GB. It sounds as though the Government are suggesting that they will wait to see how bad this gets before they decide to do something. That is an atrocious position when it comes to animal health. It is also deeply worrying for businesses and pet owners. The Government have to urgently address it. Pet owners are receiving notifications about important medications that they purchase online from GB firms, such as eye gels and ointments, being discontinued. Are we seriously expected to believe that those products represent a clear and present danger to the EU single market? Such a position is ridiculous. I have been contacted by constituents involved in supplier-to-customer relationships who say that they will simply not be able to get those medicines from 31 December. That is unacceptable. They want some answers. I spoke to two veterinary medicine firms in GB — one on Friday and one this morning — about the issue. The Government must acknowledge that the trade diversion, including veterinary meds, needs to be sorted out. I thank my colleague Carla Lockhart, who has raised the issue at Westminster. In addition, last week, my colleague the deputy First Minister Emma Little-Pengelly met Nick Thomas–Symonds, who leads on the issue for the Government, and directly raised with him the provision of veterinary medicines to Northern Ireland. His Majesty's Government's Ministers need to stand up for the integrity of the UK internal market and the United Kingdom as a whole. I encourage anyone who is watching the debate and is concerned about the impacts of the framework or the workings of the protocol, be they businesses or customers who are simply buying products from GB, to contact us. Members on these Benches will be more than happy to raise those concerns on their behalf. The Government will not be able to resolve the challenges through the full-throated implementation of EU customs. I simply say this: whether it is on customs, food labelling, veterinary meds or the movement of goods, inflicting more EU law on trade flows within the market will simply damage it. I encourage all Members to support our motion this afternoon. Mr Honeyford: I am feeling really special today about the call-outs and the constructive debates that we are having, yet we spend all of the time focused on ourselves. I repeat what I said in Committee: I was not the one who brought this situation about. I did not want any barriers to trade. I will continue to look at how we can simplify this. Unfortunately, here we go again with the DUP. We have not heard from the TUV yet, but it will say exactly the same, as will the Ulster Unionists. They continue to talk Northern Ireland down and look to promote problems, rather than to deliver anything. They want everybody else to come up with solutions; they do not have any thinking or thought for them. A Member: Will the Member give way? Mr Honeyford: No, I will not give way to you. The values behind the slogan, "Making Northern Ireland Work", have not changed since the 1960s. It simply means, "Make Northern Ireland work for us". That attitude can be seen with the Irish language, the GAA, Casement Park, hosting the Euros in west Belfast or simply letting our kids share a classroom, and it all reinforces the default entitlement —. Mr Martin: Will the Member give way? Mr Honeyford: No, I am not giving way to you. I have heard enough of you, Peter, to be honest. It is the default entitlement that we see and hear about again and again. When we look at the motion, we need to be honest about the facts and not inflate the problems for clips that are simply for TikTok and Instagram reels: facts such as that Marks and Spencer describes itself as viewing its entire store network on the island of Ireland, North and South, as one and, therefore, does not use the green lane. Sadly, the DUP leaves that bit out, but facts matter. The Member referenced one of the trade guys and mentioned the problems that they have, and they have a lot of problems. I asked them a simple question about why there were no problems coming into Dublin, and they said it was because there was one thing. The Member needs to be careful about moving stuff that is trying to make Northern Ireland work to another constitutional difference. I say that because that was the alternative that that same person said. Again, the Member left that part out. Ultimately, Alliance wants to be back as members of the EU, but what we have is the best that we are getting. We need to get on with delivering for the people, using the advantages to deliver growth. Northern Ireland's ability to sell into the UK internal market and the EU single market is a huge opportunity. It is a unique opportunity that differentiates us from others, and, unfortunately, the positives are what the DUP is pushing against. In fact, the DUP, alongside the Ulster Unionist Party and the TUV, goes out of its way to talk that advantage down and to dismiss it, and we hear it again and again. However, the fact is that dual market access is already starting to drive investment, jobs, expansion and decisions to manufacture here. There are multiple examples in my area, such as PRM, with 1,000 lines of Marks and Spencer products from Europe, based in Lisburn and tripling its plant with major expansion. Leprino Foods, formerly Glanbia, moved its production to Magheralin and is expanding and growing due to dual market access. Last week, Coca-Cola announced another expansion, having extended before, with Monster drinks, to ship to the all-island economy and to GB. The Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), the Federation of Small Businesses and individual business leaders do not want the framework to be scrapped; they want stability, and they want the issues to be ironed out. Each of them is calling for the highlight to be the EU access advantages. Even in the FSB report, 71% of 700 businesses across the whole of the UK said that dual market access is an advantage, not a barrier, and that they wanted it to be sold. Businesses want certainty, not constitutional fear dressed up as economics, poking everybody else in the eye just for the video clips that MLAs can post on TikTok and Instagram. I will be gutted if I am not in today's. Alliance will continue to promote this region as a place to do business, to grow your business and to attract inward investment, because here are the facts: Northern Ireland has been in deficit since the 1930s, almost 100 years. Regardless of your constitutional position and regardless of the constitutional future of this place, that is not sustainable. It must change now. That is our focus, and we need to drive that across the House in order to deliver growth: putting people front and centre, having jobs, skills and opportunities to live in a place that is affordable for everybody and collaborating across the island to deliver better for everyone. Alliance is focused on delivering the improvements that business asks for, not re-fighting Brexit. We will all succeed when we do not turn it into an identity battle and instead start acting like a modern economy. I will not support the motion. Mr McAleer: In 2016, the people of the North voted decisively to remain in the European Union. That democratic expression still resonates today, and many of us continue to believe that our long-term future will be best served by eventually rejoining the EU. We note with interest and encouragement that EU leaders have given firm assurances that, in the event of Irish unity, the North of Ireland would resume full EU membership automatically. In the meantime, the Windsor framework has provided us with a means to deal with the trading realities created by Brexit, prevented the re-emergence of a hard border on the island of Ireland, safeguarded the integrity of the Good Friday Agreement and, crucially, preserved dual market access for businesses operating in this region. Dual access is a unique economic advantage that we must protect and maximise. From an agriculture point of view, for example, we export a third of the milk that we produce in the North to the South of Ireland for processing. That is 800 million litres a year. It is important to acknowledge that the earlier backstop arrangement that was negotiated by former Prime Minister Theresa May would have prevented many of the trade divergences that we now face. Unfortunately, MPs opted for a harder Brexit. As a result, we are dealing with challenges today, including those relating to veterinary medicines, that could otherwise have been avoided. We recognise that Brexit continues to present significant challenges in relation to trade agreements. Those are not abstract concerns; they affect farmers, manufacturers, hauliers, pharmacists and families in every community. Throughout the process, we have consistently urged the British Government and the European Union to find practical, long-term solutions that do not undermine the essential mitigations currently in place to reduce the negative impacts of Brexit. Many of those challenges could be eliminated if the British Government were willing to make a political decision to align with EU rules and regulations. Such alignment would reduce trade friction and bring clarity and stability to our business sectors. The EU-UK Joint Committee remains a vital mechanism, especially for agriculture and agri-food trade. Its work has been instrumental in identifying and adopting solutions that strengthen food security and support rural communities. We acknowledge its importance and encourage its continued use. We know that an EU-UK veterinary agreement would significantly ease pressures, yet the British Government continue to oppose such an arrangement. That is disappointing, but it should not deter us from pressing for progress. There has been some improvement in the risk of medicines being discontinued, with supply lines now able to reroute through the South rather than Britain. That is welcome, but challenges remain, including concerns about certain vaccines such as the botulism vaccine. It is important that the EU and the British Government continue negotiations so that the disruptions are further reduced and possibly eliminated. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: This debate will continue after Question Time, when Paul Frew will be the next Member to speak. The next item of business is Question Time. I propose therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The debate stood suspended. The sitting was suspended at 1.57 pm and resumed at 2.00 pm. (Mr Speaker in the Chair) Oral Answers to Questions Communities Mr Speaker: It is time for questions to the Minister for Communities. We will start with listed questions. Questions 2 and 8 have been withdrawn. House Purchases: Temporary Accommodation 1. Mr McHugh asked the Minister for Communities for an update on the planned purchase of up to 600 homes to be used as temporary accommodation. (AQO 2685/22-27) Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): The Housing Executive has indicated that an estimated 25 properties will be purchased in the current financial year. That will be followed by 125 properties next year, 225 properties in 2027-28 and 225 properties in 2028-29. Mr McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a Aire, as an fhreagra sin. [Translation: Thank you, Minister, for that answer.] The Minister will know that a very large percentage of those who require temporary accommodation are single males, who often find it difficult, even in the private market, to find accommodation that is suited to their needs. How will he ensure that the purchase of those 600 homes is completed in a strategic way in order to meet the needs of that demographic? Mr Lyons: We are taking a holistic approach. First and foremost, I am trying to deal with the cost of temporary accommodation. By allowing reserves to be used in that way, we will save significant sums of money that would otherwise be spent on hotels and B&Bs. The nature of the temporary accommodation client groups, such as single persons, will be taken into consideration. Mr Kingston: Will the Minister tell us more about how much savings the purchase of those homes will generate? Mr Lyons: It is rare that Ministers bring forward proposals that will save money in the long run, but that is exactly what we are doing through the scheme. It will save £75 million over the next seven years. It is important that we do not lose sight of that, because in these times of financial constraint, we need to demonstrate ways in which we can protect taxpayers' money and look for further ways in which to do that. That is exactly what I am doing through the work on fraud and error legislation, which is another way in which we can save tens of millions of pounds every year. I look forward to receiving Executive support for taking that work forward. Ms K Armstrong: I appreciate that the 600 new homes to be used for temporary accommodation will go some way towards dealing with our housing crisis. Are there any plans for the Housing Executive to look at derelict properties across Northern Ireland to see whether they can be added to the total? Mr Lyons: We will want to make sure that we buy properties that are fit for purpose. I share the Member's concern, however, about the extensive number of derelict properties in Northern Ireland. I see them in my constituency, and I am sure that the Member sees them in hers. I hope that her party colleague's Dilapidation Bill will help in some way. We are going through a housing crisis, so it is difficult to see the many derelict homes that there are. Some of them will obviously require work, but we need to weigh up the costs of such work, because it is simply not right that we are spending so much money on hotels and bed and breakfasts when other housing opportunities are available. Of course, we are doing everything that we can to look at all options. Mr Allen: Will the Minister expand on the information that the Housing Executive will use to determine where the properties will be located? Mr Lyons: The Housing Executive has said that the principal considerations for the geographical distribution of the units will include the geographical areas where exposure to high-cost temporary accommodation is most prevalent; the nature of the temporary accommodation client groups, such as single persons, couples or families; and the availability of suitable properties in areas that are available to purchase and that align with the criteria. Value for money will also be taken into account. Mr O'Toole: Ultimately, the need to purchase those homes is a failure of policy, particularly a result of the failure to build more social homes. Minister, you have cut the housing association grant. You have pledged to build just under 6,000 social homes by the end of the mandate, but it looks as though that target is not going to be met. Do you accept that it will not be met? Do you accept that the need to buy temporary accommodation is a consequence of the failure to build enough social homes? Mr Lyons: First, the Member misunderstands exactly what I am trying to do with the housing association grant. I am not cutting the funding for social housing. First and foremost, that needs to be made clear. I am cutting the amount of money that is available per unit so that the slack can be taken up by housing associations through the private finance that they are able to access but we are not. It makes sense to do that and make sure that the money that we have goes further, because I am not happy with the status quo. The status quo is not appropriate, which is why I have been trying to do new and innovative things since I came into office. The Member is right: we do not have the number of social homes that we need. We do not have homes across all tenures, and I am trying to do something about that. That is why I am trying to get Executive agreement on a proposal to get easier access to public-sector land; I have brought forward the intermediate rent scheme, which will provide some relief for those who need it; and I have done more than any other Minister to put the revitalisation of the Housing Executive on the agenda. Those are all the new actions that I am taking, but, of course, I will continue to ask for more funding to make sure that we can build more social homes. However, ultimately, we are spending huge sums of money on temporary accommodation every year. Therefore, I have taken this step to ensure that we use Housing Executive reserves, which will save over £75 million over the next seven years. Mr Gaston: I welcome the Minister's proposals to generate savings on the amount that is spent on emergency accommodation. I am mindful of the neighbours who live beside the houses used for emergency accommodation. The issue of tenants causing problems comes up time and time again, and, if concerns about tenants of the units are raised, will they be moved on from the emergency accommodation so that new and deserving people can go into them? Mr Lyons: First, I am a Minister who takes antisocial behaviour seriously. I understand that it is a curse for many good and decent people who just want to live their lives but are plagued by others who, quite frankly, make their lives a misery. I am putting stronger powers in place so that we can deal with antisocial behaviour and hold those people to account. I want to make sure that that happens, which is why we are taking those actions. Housing Developments: Infrastructure 3. Mr McNulty asked the Minister for Communities to what extent the construction of new housing developments has stalled due to insufficient water and drainage infrastructure. (AQO 2687/22-27) Mr Lyons: My Department does not hold data on the developments that are impacted on by waste water infrastructure limitations. However, it is clear from discussions with the sector that waste water capacity constraint is having a significant impact on housebuilding. Mr McNulty: I thank the Minister for his answer. I find it extraordinary that the Minister for the Economy does not know the level of economic stoppages. Mr Brett: Wrong Minister. Mr McNulty: No drains, no cranes. To what extent has the construction of new housing developments stalled due to insufficient water and drainage infrastructure? Mr Lyons: First, to clarify, I am the Minister for Communities; I am not the Minister for the Economy any longer. The Member asked the same question twice. I do not hold that data, but, as I have said, the problem has had a significant impact. We need to make sure that we have sufficient infrastructure in place. We need to look at the areas in which sufficient infrastructure exists to make the best use of the public land that is available. I have a paper that, I hope, will get Executive agreement, which will mean that we can build more homes where there is capacity and make sure that we put in place the infrastructure where it is needed. Mr McMurray: Minister, are you having any conversations with your counterpart in the Infrastructure Department and with the construction industry to ensure that you can start new builds in the social housing sector? Mr Lyons: Yes. I have met, and recently wrote to, the Infrastructure Minister to press for the need to identify substantive actions that will begin to resolve the issue. We are already seeing better collaboration between the Departments as a result of the housing supply strategy and the common thread of wanting to build more homes that runs through it. Ultimately, we need to make sure that that continues because it is having an impact, and we need to do something about it. Mr K Buchanan: The Infrastructure Minister previously blamed the issue with waste water capacity on Tory austerity, and now she is blaming it on British Government austerity — there has been a change in the line there. Does the Minister agree with the assessment that it is the Government's fault? Mr Lyons: My party has long made the case for fair-funding models for Northern Ireland, but we have Ministers in post for a reason. Although we want to see more funding, and believe that we are entitled to it, we have to take decisions ourselves. We have to decide on our priorities. It is for each Minister to decide how they prioritise their budget and take their own decisions, even if they are unpopular or difficult. I hope that housing is a priority for the Infrastructure Minister and for Sinn Féin and that it is backed up with sufficient funding for the social housing development programme and investment in waste water infrastructure. We need to get real. This is a serious issue, and we need to make sure that we do something about it. I am playing my role by bringing forward proposals to save money, meaning that we can redirect funding that we would otherwise spend on hotels and bed and breakfasts to help people to stay out of homelessness. It is also up to other Ministers to make sure that they allocate funding to where it needs to go. Ms D Armstrong: Minister, what impact does the matter have on the process that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE) uses to determine where homes are built? Mr Lyons: It has an impact, of course. The Housing Executive manages the day-to-day operation of the social housing development programme and regularly engages with Northern Ireland Water. It has provided Northern Ireland Water with a list of social housing developments that will potentially require a connection to the public waste water system in the next few years. NI Water reviews each development site for a potential connection. An assessment of waste water treatment and network capacity will have to be made, and that will be put into the risk assessment for the programme. That is why it is so important that we get this right. Poverty: North Down 4. Ms Egan asked the Minister for Communities to outline how his Department is addressing poverty in North Down. (AQO 2688/22-27) Mr Lyons: The issues that people in North Down face with poverty are similar to those that people throughout Northern Ireland face. I am working to address those issues through the development of the anti-poverty strategy and interventions such as the extension of welfare mitigations; the adoption of the new housing supply strategy; the provision of inclusive pathways to work for everyone in Northern Ireland; work on fuel poverty; and the development of a new People and Place strategic framework. In the Ards and North Down Borough Council area, my Make the Call outreach team supported over 1,200 people to access just under £7 million in additional benefits last year. Between 1 February 2024 and 30 June this year, the Housing Executive funded private-sector grants, including affordable warmth, totalling over £3 million. That funding supported 91 home improvement grants and helped 155 homes through the affordable warmth scheme. In this financial year, the neighbourhood renewal programme has invested almost half a million pounds in 13 projects. I have also provided half a million pounds to the independent advice and debt sector and social supermarkets. All that plays a critical role in addressing poverty. Ms Egan: Thank you, Minister. Community organisations in North Down that deal directly with individuals who live in hardship and poverty feel the loss of your Department's hardship fund. Will you consider reintroducing that fund or introducing a similar fund to support organisations that deal with individuals who are living in poverty? Mr Lyons: I am aware of the impact that that has had, and the Member will be aware of the genesis of it and of how the funding for us to continue it is no longer in place. We will assess the implications of that and, as part of our wider anti-poverty work, take whatever steps we need to in order to make sure that we make the best use of the resources that we have for maximum impact. Ms Forsythe: The Minister will be aware that home heating costs are particularly challenging for those who feel the cost-of-living pressures. Will he give an update on the fuel poverty strategy? Mr Lyons: I have said that I will present the fuel poverty strategy by the end of the year, and that is still my intention. We know that, as we head into the winter, the issues become more pressing for people. I am well aware of the costs and difficulties that many people face. I will have the strategy before the Executive by the end of the year, but let us not forget that a strategy by itself does not heat people's homes. That is why, as part of the strategy, I will announce interventions that will help us as we seek to eradicate fuel poverty in Northern Ireland. Olympic Legacy Fund: Applications 5. Mr Martin asked the Minister for Communities for an update on the number of applications to the Olympic legacy fund. (AQO 2689/22-27) Mr Lyons: Sport NI has advised me that it has received 44 applications to date: 16 projects have been approved; three applications have been declined on grounds of project ineligibility; and 25 projects remain under review. Mr Martin: I thank the Minister for his answer. I also thank him for coming to see Bangor Cricket Club juniors, who are interested in that funding. How will Sport NI ensure that Olympic legacy funding will be equitably split? Will that split be geographical, be done by region or will it be done by sport? Top 2.15 pm Mr Lyons: The issue has been addressed by Sport NI on its web page that advertises the fund. It is not a competitive grant, and I acknowledge that not all clubs or sports may have the same capacity to access the fund. I knew that it would be popular, and I am pleased to see a big uptake, so, to ensure a fair distribution of funding by sport or geographical area, Sport NI may apply a cap in the programme. Applications impacted by a cap, should it be implemented, will be deferred to future investment rounds, subject to eligibility criteria and funding being made available. Mr Honeyford: A lot of sports clubs here will not be ready for this round of funding. In the next financial year, will it reopen, and, if so, is the budget likely to increase? Mr Lyons: It is certainly my intention for it to be in place again in the next financial year. The number of applications that we have received so far indicate the need that exists in sport in Northern Ireland. I want to see that continue. I hope that we can have the same budget or an increased budget again because it makes a difference. I was delighted to have been invited to Larne Leisure Centre on Saturday to visit Larne Swimming Club, which was very pleased with the Olympic legacy fund being open. It was delighted that it now has a way through because a lot of clubs do not always have those funding opportunities. I thank the club for making me so welcome and for welcoming the fact that the fund is in place. I want to help more clubs like that to ensure that they can have the equipment that they need. We have the right approach with the crowdfunder element that is needed. It is bringing communities together and ensuring that they are part of that and that there is buy-in there. That is welcome, and I hope that it can continue. Walled City Public Realm Scheme 6. Mr Durkan asked the Minister for Communities when the Walled City public realm scheme will be completed. (AQO 2690/22-27) Mr Lyons: It will be the summer of 2026. Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for his unusually and mercifully brief answer. While we all welcome any investment in the city, people in Derry will be glad to see the work finished and roads restored. Does the Department have any further public realm plans for Derry city centre? Will the Minister encourage collaboration with DFI to identify and address flaws in a previous scheme at Newmarket Street that has left a particularly perilous pavement that poses a real risk to pedestrians? Mr Lyons: I am sure that the Member will understand that I cannot comment on that because of ongoing legal issues. However, it is always a good thing if we can learn from previous schemes and any issues or difficulties that arise, and there will certainly be a willingness by my Department to do that. The Member will be aware of the significant investment coming through for the north-west, particularly through the regeneration fund. There will be other opportunities for that fund to be used for regeneration purposes. Anti-poverty Strategy: Timeline 7. Ms Flynn asked the Minister for Communities for an update on the timeline for delivering a final draft of the anti-poverty strategy. (AQO 2691/22-27) Mr Lyons: There is currently no set date for the publication of the Executive’s anti-poverty strategy. However, work remains ongoing at pace in the Department to drive forward that vital work. The public consultation on the draft anti-poverty strategy ran from June to September, and input was received from a wide range of stakeholders. Officials are currently analysing all responses received throughout the process. That analysis will be shared with all Departments and Executive colleagues. The Executive will then give direction on any further development required on the strategy, including any changes deemed appropriate. Ms Flynn: I thank the Minister for his response. I am conscious that the strategy has not been fully launched or implemented yet, but will any immediate actions flow from the strategy that might help to offset some of the real, harsh impacts of the cost-of-living crisis that people are feeling at the minute? Can any immediate, short-term actions be delivered on that issue? Mr Lyons: The Executive have taken some moves already. We have not waited until full publication of the strategy to move forward. We have included — we have been criticised for it — some of the work that we are already doing. Good progress has been made on the implementation of some of those issues. The Department for Communities has been running the discretionary support fund for some time, and that is continuing, as are other actions. It is important that we do not wait for the final publication of the strategy before we help and provide support in different ways. The Member will be aware that we are always willing to look at how we can help outside the timelines for the strategies as well. Take, for example, the action that was taken after the Labour Government took the callous decision to remove the winter fuel payment. I was able to bid for funding from the Department of Finance and get Executive agreement so that we could put that measure in place. That is something that we will always look at, depending on the circumstances that arise. From the Executive's point of view, however, we want to make sure that the anti-poverty strategy is fit for purpose, makes a real difference, has long-lasting impacts and, importantly, tackles the root causes of poverty. Ms Mulholland: It is a wee bit disappointing that we still do not have a timeline. I feel that we waited quite a long time until the draft strategy was initially released, and now it feels like we are back in a holding pattern. Will the Department publish the responses that were received from the stakeholders, and is the Minister able to indicate whether those responses were supportive of the current draft document? When we will hear about the sector's responses? Mr Lyons: We certainly have not been in a holding pattern. We had a 14-week consultation period to give people the opportunity and the time to have their say. It has been less than two months since that consultation closed, and, in that period, we have been looking at the responses, analysing them and taking them forward. I am keen to share those responses with the public. The responses will inform Executive conversations as well. We will release that information in the normal way, and I look forward to that happening so that people can understand what the public have had to say. We will present all of that information to the Executive so that they can make their final decision on how we take the strategy forward and get it ready for publication. Arts Sector: Strategy 9. Ms Ní Chuilín asked the Minister for Communities for an update on whether his Department will publish a strategy for the arts sector. (AQO 2693/22-27) Mr Lyons: In July 2024 I established the heritage, culture and creativity programme, through which I will fill the void created by the absence of an Executive policy for the arts and for the historic environment. I look forward to bringing that forward soon. Ms Ní Chuilín: I thank the Minister for his response. The question was about the publication of a strategy for the arts. Can he ensure that that publication happens? I am sure that he will appreciate the economic and health and well-being benefits that the arts sector contributes to the economy and, indeed, to all our lives. Mr Lyons: I will just repeat my answer: through that programme, I will fill the void created by the absence of an Executive policy for the arts. That means that I will be bringing forward that policy. Mr Brett: The Minister has done an important job in ensuring that the Arts Council and the arts sector are now more reflective of working-class communities across Northern Ireland. Will he commit to continuing to ensure that all communities benefit from arts funding, not just one section of society? Mr Lyons: Absolutely. The Member will be aware that I have set that trajectory already. I have sent a letter of expectation to the Arts Council, outlining some of the issues that the Member has raised. I have also had the privilege of welcoming Nora Douds as the new chair of the Arts Council, along with new board members. I am absolutely delighted that she is in post. I have been reassured by the Arts Council's response, and I will continue to work with it to ensure that the arts are for everyone, regardless of class, religion, geography or background. The arts are not just for the few, the elite or the privileged. Mr Donnelly: Minister, you have just said that the arts sector is not reflective: what support are you giving to ensure that it is reflective? Mr Lyons: I am not sure whether the Member is aware of the feeling, but I have received many letters from constituents and had meetings with people who feel that the support has not been there for them. Many people outside of Belfast and Londonderry do not feel that there has been enough funding for the arts and for their organisations. There are some small groups and some groups that are doing great work in disadvantaged areas. Some great groups in the arts, particularly amateur dramatics groups, feel that they have not had support. They often feel that no one is interested in them. That is a common and recurrent theme: they feel that no one is interested in what they do. I am surprised that the Member has not received some of that feedback. I want everyone to have confidence that they can apply for funding and that it will be there on a fair and equitable basis. The big challenge for the Arts Council is that it does not have enough funding, but I want to make sure that we get extra funding and that people feel that it is for everybody. Renters’ Rights 10. Mr Gildernew asked the Minister for Communities whether he will bring forward any proposals to strengthen renters’ rights. (AQO 2694/22-27) Mr Lyons: My programme of private rented sector reform is focused on addressing the key issues of affordability, security and quality in a way that balances the rights and responsibilities of landlords and tenants. The key actions that I have already delivered are improving safety for tenants by setting minimum standards for fire and electrical safety; transferring the landlord registration scheme to councils to help to increase landlords' knowledge of their duties and responsibilities; and restricting the frequency of rent increases to once in every 12 months with a three-month written notice. The remaining actions that I will deliver in this mandate are introducing much longer notice to quit periods; amending landlord registration regulations to make the scheme a more meaningful tool in raising property standards; and exploring minimum energy efficiency standards for the private rented sector. Mr Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat. [Translation: Thank you.] I thank the Minister for his answer. Westminster recently passed its Renters' Rights Act 2025, which has ushered in a significant number of reforms to private tenancies in England, such as a ban on no-fault evictions, the abolition of fixed-term tenancy contracts and increased rights for pet owners. Will the Minister commit to bringing forward legislative reforms to strengthen renters' rights before the end of the mandate? Mr Lyons: All that will be kept under review. If we need to bring in additional measures and legislation is required, we will do that. I note what the Member said about banning no-fault evictions, but, of course, that is not watertight. There are always reasons why people can be evicted; in fact, in Scotland, there are 18 reasons and exemptions. In all those things, it is about getting the right balance. I am progressing measures to which the Assembly agreed in the previous mandate. I am always happy to keep some of those other issues under review, but we also need to be aware of the unintended consequences that might come from those. Mr Harvey: Minister, do rent controls work? Mr Lyons: I go by the evidence. The evidence indicates that they do not work; in fact, all the evidence demonstrates that. For some, the solution to affordability is introducing regulation on rent controls, such as freezes or reductions. However, the independent research highlights the potential unintended consequences of such actions, including landlords exiting the private rental market, resulting in a greater shortage of properties in an already stretched market. I have previously discussed and debated the issue with Members in the House. I am glad to see Mr Carroll in his place: just over a year ago, I asked him to bring evidence on rent controls to me, if he had it, but, unfortunately, we have —. Mr Carroll: It is coming. Mr Lyons: Oh, it is coming. It has taken him only 11 months, but it is on its way. I look forward to seeing that research. I will be guided by the research on this one. Gambling Industry Levy 11. Ms Murphy asked the Minister for Communities for an update on the proposed introduction of a gambling industry levy. (AQO 2695/22-27) Mr Lyons: My officials are undertaking a scoping exercise on the feasibility and sustainability of a Northern Ireland industry levy that is anticipated to be completed by the end of the financial year. The outworkings of that exercise will be used to help inform decisions on a way forward. Ms Murphy: I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, my question is on the work that you have done to date. What discussions have you had with counterparts in other jurisdictions? Mr Lyons: Clearly, there has been engagement with the relevant UK Departments on the issue. There has also been significant cooperation in Northern Ireland. In my correspondence with the UK Government, we have written jointly, because gambling is an issue that does not affect the Department for Communities alone. I have worked closely with the Minister of Health and the Minister of Education, and we have made a joint representation on the wider issue. I look forward to working with others, because it is important that we have this in place and use the funding that is there for the right purposes. Top 2.30 pm Mr Frew: Will the Minister explain and describe the engagement with the Department of Health on this serious issue? Mr Lyons: We have been engaging with the Department of Health at official level on our correspondence with the UK Government and to make sure that other Departments are aware of their responsibilities. As the Member will be aware, the purpose of the levy is to tackle gambling harm, for which the Department of Health has a responsibility. Therefore, it has an important role to play in advising my officials on gambling harm. It should also be advising on the types of projects and services that a levy could support. Mr Speaker: We now move to topical questions. UEFA Euro 2028 T1. Mr Durkan asked the Minister for Communities, noting that sport can be a roller coaster, with the highs of victory that supporters of both our international football teams on this island have enjoyed recently, the lows of defeat and draws that sometimes feel like a win and sometimes like a defeat, how he feels about the draw for the European Championships 2028 that Belfast will host. (AQT 1771/22-27) Mr Lyons: First and foremost, I am disappointed that we will not host any matches in Belfast. I would have very much appreciated the opportunity for that to happen, but we know why it will not. In the absence of hosting matches, it is incumbent on all of us to look at the ways that we might still benefit from the Euros being hosted by the UK and Ireland. That is why I am glad of that first step of ensuring that the draw will take place here. We will have representatives of 54 nations and many journalists coming for the draw. Obviously, that is no substitute for holding matches here, but we should be in the mindset of doing everything that we can to promote Northern Ireland and ensure that we play whatever role we can. That is the first of what, I hope, will be more announcements. What is more important will be the legacy that comes from the tournament as a whole. I am delighted that the Irish Football Association (IFA) has already signalled its intention to put a significant amount of money into that. I look forward to Executive colleagues also providing support so that we can build a sporting legacy from the tournament. Mr Durkan: While we host the draw for that prestigious competition, Dublin will host seven matches and generate hundreds of millions of pounds. Does the Minister have no regrets that the Executive did not do more to secure the investment needed in Casement Park to allow Northern Ireland to play a proper role in hosting and benefiting from one of the biggest sporting tournaments in the world? Will steps be taken to ensure that we do not miss out on similar opportunities in future? Mr Lyons: My goodness, the Member is brave in asking the question that he has just asked. He is wondering why we are not able to host any games here. We know that Windsor Park does not have the required capacity. He has mentioned Casement Park in the past. We all know that to have built Casement Park in time for the Euros required cash and lots of it. My skills and abilities do not extend to magicking £300 million-plus out of nowhere. Yes, I am disappointed that we did not get matches, but maybe the Member would, for once, like to consider the role that he played in all of that. If he really wants, we can go back to the original planning application in 2014. Why did the original planning application fall at judicial review in 2014? It was because of the Member: a judge ruled that he acted unlawfully in granting planning permission. He did not take into consideration all the relevant factors. The judge said that the decision was "irretrievably flawed". There is more blame to go on Mark Durkan than on anybody else in the House. It was Mark Durkan who unlawfully approved the original planning application. That is why we are in the situation that we are in today. I would rather that all those projects had been completed in 2011. If they had, we would not face the cost that we face now. If the Member wants to blame someone, maybe he should look in the mirror. Budget: Two-child Benefit Cap T2. Mr Carroll asked the Minister for Communities, noting that he hopes that the Budget to be announced at Westminster in the coming days will retract the cruel, Victorian and deeply damaging two-child benefit cap, to give an update on any discussions that he and his officials have had with the British Government on reversing the decision on that cap. (AQT 1772/22-27) Mr Lyons: The Member should not be surprised to hear that the UK Government have not provided us with information on their intentions. I am not sure how much use any information would be anyway, because it would probably change within a few hours. Mr Carroll: Thank you, Minister, sort of. If they do decide to scrap the policy, presumably there will be a financial benefit, with extra money coming here to cover the cost. If not, will you give a commitment that your Department will cover it? Mr Lyons: The difficulty is that there is a huge cost involved in our doing that on our own. I hope that the Government do the right thing and reverse the policy. That has been the united position of the Assembly, but, as we finalise the anti-poverty strategy, we will look at all options in order to ensure that we provide help where it is needed most. America250 T3. Ms Forsythe asked the Minister for Communities, after stating that it is great to see his work and engagement to realise the full potential of the America250 celebrations in Northern Ireland, why some Members have voiced their opposition to his attempts to increase awareness, knowledge and understanding of Northern Ireland in the United States, which she has been disappointed to hear. (AQT 1773/22-27) Mr Lyons: I heard some of the comments from the Chair of the Communities Committee at the Public Accounts Committee last week. He was very negative about what we are trying to do on our connections with the United States. I do not know whether that is because of his distaste for Ulster-Scots culture or because Northern Ireland will have special status in next year's celebrations. The celebrations here are important, however, because of the benefits that they can bring to Northern Ireland, including tourism, investment and greater understanding in the United States of who we are. My goal is clear: to promote Northern Ireland, who we are, what we have done in the past and what positively lies ahead for us in the future. Ms Forsythe: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. You know that I am passionate about Ulster-Scots culture, and I look forward to welcoming you to some more events in the Mournes. Can you outline some of the tangible outcomes that you foresee from the investment resulting from the America250 celebrations? Mr Lyons: We will stand out on the international stage next year at the special event that the US is organising. We also have the memorandum of understanding, which contains key benefits for Northern Ireland. We are also raising the cultural connections, which I would have thought the Chairman of the Communities Committee would welcome. We will also host our own event in the US next year that will give us the opportunity to tell people about Northern Ireland. Through the United States Semiquincentennial Commission, we are getting some significant players in the room with us, and that should be welcomed by all. Christmas Lights Funding T4. Mr Kearney asked the Minister for Communities, given that it is not lost on the public that, of all the towns in the North, the three to which the Minister awarded a total of £150,000 for Christmas lights were either in his constituency or in the wider Mid and East Antrim Borough Council area, why he deemed Larne, Ballymena and Carrick to be the only towns deserving of that significant financial uplift. (AQT 1774/22-27) Mr Lyons: It is up to individual councils to identify their priorities for regeneration funding. My Department applies a consistent approach that is based on the applications and priorities, and it is great to see towns taking the initiative to apply for funding to deliver projects that enhance their town centre. Funding for festive investments has also been provided to four other council areas in the current year and in recent years: Ards and North Down; Lisburn and Castlereagh; Armagh, Banbridge and Craigavon; and Newry, Mourne and Down. Mr Kearney: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a fhreagra. [Translation: I thank the Minister for that answer.] I am sure that the Minister will agree that many councils are now struggling with the effect that the slashing of the rate support grant has had on their financial management arrangements. Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council, which is in my constituency, faces the invidious challenge this year of trying to work out which towns will get Christmas lights and which will not. Minister, are you saying that Mid and East Antrim Borough Council's was the only application that you received for financial support to invest in Christmas lights this year? Mr Lyons: I will confirm that for the Member, but the information that I have is that applications are open to everyone and everyone can apply on the same basis. It is up to councils to decide how they allocate their regeneration funding. Let me cut to the chase: you think that something untoward has gone on and that I am prioritising my constituency. I will always want to stand up for my constituents, but I assure you that this is available on the same basis for everybody. The Member is barking up the wrong tree. Community Infrastructure Fund T5. Mr Bradley asked the Minister for Communities for an update on the community infrastructure fund and whether there is any scope for it to receive additional funding from any other Department. (AQT 1775/22-27) Mr Lyons: Yes. I am pleased to confirm that the fund has received over 800 applications. I am also encouraged by the fact that we have had interest from a wide range of sectors, spread across every council area in Northern Ireland. That is a clear indication that we have a great need for the fund, and my officials are working to ensure that it becomes a rolling programme of support, which is much needed by the voluntary and community sector. Mr Bradley: I thank the Minister for his answer. Will the scheme and its positive impact on communities be evaluated, and will it be rolled out year-on-year? Mr Lyons: Yes, there certainly will be an evaluation. I hope that the scheme can be funded again next year. I apologise that I did not answer the second part of the Member's first question, which was about funding from other Departments. I have had correspondence and discussions with the AERA Minister, and I will write to him formally to request his support for the fund because the majority of the applications come from rural communities. As the Member knows, the primary responsibility for policy in the area falls to DAERA. I hope that we can work together on the fund, because there is huge demand and it will have a hugely positive impact. Local Growth Fund: Redundancy Notices T6. Mrs Guy asked the Minister for Communities what actions his Department is taking to support the organisations that will put 650 staff on redundancy notice at the end of the calendar year due to uncertainty around the local growth fund. (AQT 1776/22-27) Mr Lyons: That is an issue about which we will all have been contacted. I am concerned about it because so many really good organisations that do brilliant work have had uncertainty for some time. There does not seem to be any clarification coming their way. The Executive, with the Finance Minister taking the lead, will continue to make those representations. Those organisations do brilliant work and deserve to have long-term certainty, which they do not have right now. Mrs Guy: I thank the Minister for his answer. What exactly have you done to put pressure on Westminster to provide the support that we need for those organisations? Mr Lyons: Obviously, all work with the Treasury goes through the Department of Finance. That is how the Executive operate. I assure the Member that there has been strong support from across the Executive, including me, for the issues that the Finance Minister is raising. I know that that does not bring much comfort to the organisations that are so badly affected, but it is clear that we need answers on the matter and very soon. I will play whatever role I can in that. Casement Park and Northern Ireland Football Fund: Funding T7. Mr Honeyford asked the Minister for Communities whether the Casement Park and Northern Ireland Football Fund allocations, which were set in 2011, should increase in line with inflation and the rise in construction costs given that their value has been significantly eroded. (AQT 1777/22-27) Mr Lyons: It absolutely is the case that the funding is not worth as much as it was in 2011. That was the commitment that was made at that time, and I am disappointed that progress has not been made. In the case of the football fund, Ministers did not take it forward when they should have, and, in the case of Casement Park, Mr Durkan acted unlawfully and the project was held up for that reason. Obviously, any further allocations would be subject to Executive agreement, and we have to balance those against other pressures. Mr Honeyford: The question is whether you agree that the value of those projects should be increased in line with inflation. As Minister, will you argue on the Executive that those two figures are increased to the value of what they were in 2011? Mr Lyons: Of course I want to see more money for sport and sporting infrastructure. However, I am aware that there are other pressures in my Department and across the Executive. Do I want to see more money for sport in Northern Ireland? Absolutely. Should it be allocated on a fair and equitable basis? Absolutely. However, there is a huge financial requirement on us right now. Those increases in and of themselves will not meet some of that need. Those things have to be weighed up together. Top 2.45 pm Mr Speaker: It is time to move on to questions to the Minister for the Economy. Economy Tourism: Rural Areas 1. Mr Harvey asked the Minister for the Economy to outline any plans her Department has to further develop tourism in rural areas. (AQO 2700/22-27) Dr Archibald (The Minister for the Economy): Regional balance is a key priority of my tourism vision and action plan, and rural tourism presents a valuable opportunity to support regional balance and promote the sustainable development of our rural communities. We know that visitors, particularly those from international markets, come to experience our amazing landscapes and scenery. Whether they are our coasts, lakes, countryside or parklands, our rural areas have them in abundance. Tourism NI will continue to work directly with tourism businesses in rural areas as well as in collaboration with local councils. That focus on business development supports and promotes their authentic and unique appeal across all regions to develop their profitability, innovation, visitor appeal and long-term sustainability. The work will be further enhanced by an upcoming destination stewardship approach that will focus on achieving regional balance in rural and urban areas through carefully designed sustainability and regenerative plans. Mr Harvey: I thank the Minister for her answer. Minister, our local councils play a vital role in the promotion of many of our rural tourist sites. However, success varies from one local authority to the next. What can the Department do to ensure that best practice models and ideas are shared across Northern Ireland? Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. Some of our council areas, including mine and the Member's, have a particularly strong focus on tourism and will have strong tourism development departments. Working alongside Tourism NI, there is an opportunity for them to share best practice. Through the tourism vision and action plan, I encourage that and will continue to encourage Tourism NI to play that important role. Through the local economic partnerships (LEPs) that we recently established, there is an opportunity for each council to design its own economic plan and, where it is relevant and council members feel that it is appropriate to do so, ensure that tourism is appropriately represented in it. Again, I actively encourage councils to do that. Mr McMurray: Minister, what representation are you making to your counterparts in the Republic of Ireland to ensure that all-island branding, such as Ireland's Ancient East, is extended into Northern Ireland, as doing so would benefit many in the tourism industry, not least in South Down? Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question, and I completely agree with him. Work is ongoing with Tourism NI, Tourism Ireland and Fáilte Ireland to bridge those visitor experiences across the island. For example, the Causeway coastal route and the Wild Atlantic Way have a Shared Island project fund of some £7·6 million to do that. A review of the current Causeway coastal route visitor offering has been completed, following consultation with public and industry stakeholders and having gathered insights to shape an infrastructure strategy. That has the potential to develop things along the route such as the discovery points that are similar to those along the Wild Atlantic Way. That project also includes the delivery of a small capital investment scheme to improve interpretation, provision and the visitor experience. Recognising the brands that Fáilte Ireland owns, Tourism NI is in final discussions with Fáilte Ireland on licensing the use of Ireland's Hidden Heartlands to the Fermanagh region, and I hope to be in a position to welcome progress on that in the very near future. I have previously updated Members on Ireland's Ancient East. Fáilte Ireland is evaluating that brand's effectiveness and considering the next steps. I am keen for the North to be represented in any discussions on that, and I will continue to make that case to Fáilte Ireland and Tourism Ireland. Ms Hunter: Minister, we share the beautiful constituency of East Derry. It has areas of outstanding natural beauty and a stunning coast. What developments do you have in mind to expand rural tourism in our constituency? Dr Archibald: I completely agree with the Member. We are blessed with significant and important tourism areas and landscapes and a number of hugely important visitor attractions. Our council does a very good job of promoting our tourism offering. As recently as today, we have seen the success of the Open, which was hosted in the Causeway Coast and Glens area. That council area has shown that we have the ability to host that type of major sporting event and other major events. We can continue to build on that. Similarly, as I said to Mr Harvey, there is a real opportunity for our LEP to look towards tourism as part of its plans. Working alongside Tourism Ireland, Tourism NI and our councils, I will, of course, continue to promote the best that we have to offer. Invest NI: Israel Policy Position 2. Mr Brett asked the Minister for the Economy whether she received Executive approval for the content of her written ministerial statement on the Invest NI review of investments on 16 October 2025. (AQO 2701/22-27) 5. Mr Gaston asked the Minister for the Economy to outline the evidence used in deciding that Invest NI should adopt a unique policy position toward Israel. (AQO 2704/22-27) Dr Archibald: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 2 and 5 together. My written ministerial statement of 16 October concerns matters that are within the statutory responsibility of my Department. The measures that are outlined in that statement are driven by the clear moral case for action. Insofar as my statement outlined that the North would not participate in the British Government's trade talks with Israel, which are currently paused, I do not consider it to be controversial. In its report, published on 16 September, the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Including East Jerusalem, found that Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. Genocide is not only abhorrent but illegal under international law. In addition, the International Court of Justice's advisory opinion of last July was that Israel’s continued occupation of Palestinian territory is unlawful, and that states have an obligation not to recognise or assist in maintaining that situation. That position is reinforced by the UN General Assembly's resolution of 18 September 2024, which called on all states to cease trade or investment relations that assist in maintaining Israel’s unlawful occupation. That resolution reflects a broad international consensus that states should not facilitate violations of international law. In relation to the other measures that are designed to provide reassurance and eliminate any risk of public funds being used to support the manufacture of arms or components that will be used for genocide, I have outlined my intention and will provide further information, once those steps have been progressed. My decision does not represent a policy that is unique with regard to Israel; it is based on the principle that public funds must not support the manufacture of arms or components that will be used for genocide. That approach will be country-neutral, principles-based and grounded in the UN's 'Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights'. The measures that I announced will apply consistently to any country that is found to be committing genocide and are designed to align our economic development policies with human rights obligations and ethical investment principles. I do not consider that to be a controversial position to adopt to ensure that public funding is not associated — Mr Speaker: Minister, your time is up. Dr Archibald: — with the genocide of any population. Mr Brett: Minister, you described genocide as "abhorrent". Last week, as Economy Minister, you met representatives of the Chinese Communist Party. Will you outline to the House what discussions you had with them in relation to genocide, or do you have a hypocritical approach when it comes to the issue of Israel? Dr Archibald: I note the Member's attempt to deflect from his party's position on the genocide that is being committed by Israel in Gaza. There are issues in relation to China's human rights: I have highlighted and will continue to highlight those concerns. I also emphasise that one of the measures that is being taken as part of my announcement is the development of an ethical investment framework that will apply consistently across the board. Mr Gaston: Minister, given Sinn Féin's well-documented historical links to paramilitary and international terrorist organisations, will you share with the House the specific evidence that you relied on when deciding that your Department of all Departments is in a position to lecture anyone on ethical international engagement? Dr Archibald: As I clearly outlined in my opening answer, I did not decide that. It was set out by the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Including East Jerusalem, which found that Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, and by the International Court of Justice, which found the Palestinian occupation to be unlawful. What I announced upholds international law. It is a basic moral position that has been adopted in order not to associate ourselves with public funding that is going to the manufacture of arms or components that will be used for genocide. As I have said very clearly on a number of occasions, I do not consider that position to be controversial in any way whatsoever. Mr McGuigan: I agree that the Minister's announcement was not controversial, thank her for her clarification of international law and agree that public funds from the North should not be used to support genocide in, in this instance, Gaza. The Minister mentioned an ethical investment framework. Will she update us on the development of that framework? Dr Archibald: As part of the measures that I announced on 16 October, my officials are developing an ethical investment framework. The initial scoping for the framework will be based on the UN's 'Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights', which are the three principles of protect, respect and remedy. It will also be informed by a variety of stakeholders, including arm's-length bodies of the Department as well as the business and human rights sectors. There will be a formal consultation period and an opportunity for members of the public to input their views. It will be completed before the end of the mandate. Mr Carroll: Minister, you will be aware that unionist parties are trying to compare your action, like for like, to what the Education Minister did in recent weeks. Do you agree that doing all that we can, including ministerial directions, against a state that is involved in apartheid, and trying to isolate it, is not the same as a Minister's engaging in a propaganda trip to a rogue genocidal apartheid state? Dr Archibald: I completely agree with what the Member has set out. What is controversial is the Education Minister's trip and his cheerleading for a state that has perpetrated the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent civilians, has created more child amputees per capita in Gaza than in any other place in the world, is responsible for the initialism WCNSF — wounded child, no surviving family — has destroyed civilian infrastructure and is enforcing starvation on a population. The measures that I have announced have absolutely nothing to do with the perpetrators of such abhorrent actions and are in no way controversial in my opinion. Dr Aiken: Minister, why are you breaching your obligations under annex 2 of the Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol, which your party chairman, Declan Kearney, was praising earlier this afternoon, on the Euro-Mediterranean agreement on trade between the EU, the single market and Israel? Dr Archibald: I do not agree with the Member that that is the case. In fact, I do not believe that my announcements breach the Windsor framework agreement in any way. Independent Review of Invest NI 3. Ms Sheerin asked the Minister for the Economy for an update on the independent review of Invest NI. (AQO 2702/22-27) Dr Archibald: The independent review of Invest NI, commissioned to assess the organisation's efficiency and effectiveness, identified significant challenges and called for profound transformation. In response, my Department, working closely with Invest NI and key stakeholders, published a comprehensive action plan comprising 35 strategic actions to drive meaningful change and align the agency with my economic vision. To date, 28 of those actions have been fully implemented, delivering improvements in leadership, organisational structure and operational delivery. The remaining seven actions are on track for completion by December 2026. Through that collaborative effort, I am committed to ensuring that Invest NI is better equipped to support businesses, foster regional balance and drive sustainable economic growth across the North. Ms Sheerin: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a freagra. [Translation: I thank the Minister for her answer.] Minister, will you provide an update on the new leadership team? Dr Archibald: The independent review of Invest NI made clear that there was a need for a refreshed and dynamic leadership team to drive that organisation forward. I am pleased to report that decisive steps have been taken to implement that recommendation with the appointment of Anne Beggs as chief commercial officer, Kathryn Hill as chief operating officer and Alison Currie as chief development officer. Those appointments reflect a commitment to strong, inclusive leadership and bring a wealth of experience and expertise to Invest NI at a pivotal time for our economy. I commend Kieran Donoghue for his decisive leadership in ensuring that the organisation is well positioned to meet the challenges and opportunities ahead. I look forward to working closely with the new leadership team as we continue our shared mission to foster innovation, attract investment and deliver prosperity for communities right across the North. Mr Buckley: Invest NI is crucial to ensuring that our businesses reach their full potential right across the world. With that in mind, the Minister will be aware that, recently, Invest NI talked about the importance of the defence sector to the Northern Ireland economy, representing some 10,000 jobs and £2 billion in output. Does the Minister agree with that statement? Top 3.00 pm Dr Archibald: The Member will be well aware of my position on the funding of the British Government's militarisation agenda in favour of public services, infrastructure and things that would be beneficial to the population. The Member will also be well aware that advanced manufacturing and engineering is one of the priority sectors of our economy and, accordingly, attracts support from the Department and Invest NI. There are other initiatives that are funded and supported by the British Government that businesses here have the opportunity to avail themselves of directly by engaging with the British Government. Mr McNulty: Historically, Invest NI has made a ridiculously low number of FDI visits to my constituency of Newry and Armagh. Can the Minister say with any degree of confidence that Invest NI support reflects regional balance across all of the North, including Newry and Armagh? Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. I am sure that he will be aware of the subregional economic plan that was published last year, which put a new focus on regional development, including by Invest NI. It included a target for investment outside of the Belfast metropolitan area of 65% over the three-year business period. In the first year, that increased to 59%, so we can point to some success in the short space of time in which that and the subregional economic plan have been in place. Regional balance is increasingly important. I have put a particular focus on it; it is one of my four priorities under the economic vision. I will certainly encourage Invest NI to look at regions right across the North. Just last week, I was in Boston, supporting a delegation from the north-west to attract investment and trade opportunities. I will look for further opportunities to do so for regions right across the North. EP Ballylumford Limited: Licence Obligations 4. Mr Frew asked the Minister for the Economy for an update on the Utility Regulator's investigation into whether the electricity generation company EP Ballylumford Limited has failed to meet the obligations of its licence to generate electricity. (AQO 2703/22-27) Dr Archibald: The Utility Regulator (UR) announced on 30 October 2025 that it has launched a formal investigation into the matter. The investigation is being carried out in accordance with the UR's enforcement procedure. The details of the investigation are confidential while it is ongoing in order to allow for due process. Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for her answer. Given her worrying differences with Invest NI, and given the fact that the Utility Regulator has had to step in on EP Ballylumford Limited, can she assure the House that she is fully across her brief and is ensuring that her Department's energy branch is protecting the consumers of Northern Ireland? Dr Archibald: The Member is well aware that I am across my brief. I do not have differences with Invest NI, so I am not sure what he is talking about in that regard. What the Utility Regulator is doing for Kilroot is part of its job. I assure you that energy branch in my Department is fully engaged in ensuring that our consumers are protected and that all the appropriate functions are being carried out. Mr O'Toole: Minister, on the subject of electricity generation, critical to meeting our targets and reducing consumer bills is the North/South interconnector. When I asked your colleague the First Minister earlier about the North/South interconnector, she did not answer the question. It is going to be delayed for several years. Do you accept that it is critical that it is delivered? Do you accept that the North/South interconnector cannot be undergrounded because of cost? Do you want it to be delivered, and do you accept that it has to be delivered overground? Please be clear. Dr Archibald: I am not sure why the Member thinks that I have not been clear on the issue. The North/South interconnector is critical infrastructure. It is really unfortunate that it will be delayed; some of the issues that we have been dealing with recently in relation to the security of supply would not be happening if we had the North/South interconnector. The Member is well aware of my party's long-stated policy in respect of the interconnector's being overground or underground. We also have a planning application that has been approved. Departments have to ensure that that is progressed and implemented as set out. Ms Finnegan: What measures are in place to safeguard security of supply for winter 2025? Dr Archibald: As a mitigation to meet security of supply for demand until the run-hours reset on 1 January 2026, my departmental officials have been engaging with the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, providing evidence that, under the circumstances, it is necessary to increase the running hours at Kilroot. That has happened because of unexpected issues with Coolkeeragh, which was taken out for repair and has not yet come back on. Therefore, to ensure security of supply, we have increased the number of run hours that are permitted at Kilroot. Those will be reset on 1 January, and that has obtained the agreement of the Executive. Mr Speaker: Question 6 has been withdrawn. Mr McGlone is not in his place. I call Nick Mathison. 16-18 Legislation: Education Proposals 8. Mr Mathison asked the Minister for the Economy to outline any engagement she has had with the Minister of Education in relation to his proposals for 16-18 legislation. (AQO 2707/22-27) Dr Archibald: The Minister of Education and I met in May to discuss his proposals for 16-18 legislation. We will meet again at the end of this month to continue that discussion, alongside other cross-cutting issues relating to 14-19 education. My officials have maintained ongoing engagement with the Department of Education on those matters through the established 14-19 structures. I note that it is vital that that work is underpinned by strong interdepartmental collaboration, clear operational planning and meaningful engagement with young people themselves. Legislation alone will not be enough; it must be matched by adequate funding and a whole-systems approach to ensure equity and meaningful change for every young person. Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for that answer. As the Minister with responsibility for further education, how will you ensure that, when the legislation is delivered, our young people, regardless of what school or school sector they are in, are given the full suite of options and pathways available to ensure that access to further education pathways or apprenticeships are promoted to all our young people, and that we do not end up, by virtue of that legislation, locking them into pathways that are not right for them? Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. Certainly, I support the broad intention of the legislation to ensure that all our young people have opportunities. Currently, there is a lack of sufficient detail to properly comment on the specifics. As I mentioned, we need to see all pathways appropriately funded to ensure that they deliver. It is important that we work together to avoid duplication and make the best use of our combined resources. I believe that we have world-class further education facilities. Over the past year, I have had the opportunity to open two of our new campuses, which are fantastic. There is a real opportunity for us to be world-leading in the type of initiatives and programmes that we put in place for our young people, particularly across the remit of apprenticeships. Certainly, I will engage closely with the Education Minister to ensure that our priorities align — they do, generally, in what we are trying to achieve for young people — to make sure that we are working together and have a whole suite of options that young people can pursue, regardless of where they come from or their aspirations. Mr Delargy: I thank the Minister for her commitment to this topic and broad area of work. Minister, you mentioned duplication. Will you talk more to exactly what you will do to ensure that there is no duplication and how you will continue to support our further education colleges, which, we know, do brilliant work in my area and across the board? Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. We are all aware of the financial pressures that the Department of Education is under. Putting increasing student numbers into its remit may further stretch that available funding. My Department is also under funding pressure. I have tried very hard to prioritise skills within my funding envelope, but, certainly, with more funding, we could do an awful lot more. That is why it is more important than ever that we work together to avoid duplication and make the best use of our combined resources. As I said, I am absolutely committed to collaborating closely with the Education Minister to ensure that our facilities are properly utilised. If we align our planning and delivery, and have appropriate sharing of data and coordination of different programmes, we can provide learners with the best possible opportunities while also ensuring value for money. Our focus therefore needs to be on delivering a joined-up offer that meets the needs of all young people and avoids unnecessary overlap in order to maximise the impact of every pound that we spend. Electricity Distribution Network 9. Mr K Buchanan asked the Minister for the Economy for an update in relation to increased socialisation of connection costs in the electricity distribution network. (AQO 2708/22-27) Dr Archibald: A review of grid connection charges here remains a priority for me. I intend to publish a decision paper later this year, with implementation planned for 2026. My Department has consulted on the options for transitioning to a more socialised grid connection charging policy. Greater socialisation of grid connection costs will make it easier for individuals, businesses and communities to connect to the electricity network. That is particularly important for our rural communities. Those of us who represent rural constituencies will no doubt have had constituents raise the issue with them on many occasions. It is also important for enabling the roll-out of low-carbon technologies and electric vehicles in order to meet our objectives in the transition to net zero. Mr K Buchanan: Thank you for your answer, Minister. You indicated that you will make some form of decision at the back end of this year. When will the implementation of that decision be rolled out? What is the timeline for people on the ground seeing a cost reduction? A bit of a process is involved. When therefore will increased socialisation of connection costs hit the ground so that people can see savings? Dr Archibald: As I indicated, it is my intention to publish the decision before the end of the year. Its implementation will progress during 2026. As I said in my initial answer, I know that rural constituents in particular have lobbied for greater socialisation of grid connection costs for a long time. I have to consider the options in front of me and the consultation responses. I am keen to progress implementation as soon as possible, however. Mr Durkan: Minister, the Audit Office recently found that your Department had achieved just 1% of progress on the energy strategy, despite spending over £100 million. Given that record, how can the public have confidence in your Department's ability to deliver lower costs and renewable energy at pace? Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question, as it gives me the opportunity to address the issue. The Audit Office reported on three targets and found that progress was being made on two of them. For the third target — energy efficiency — the issue was with data, and we, as a Department, need to resolve that. Of the funding that has been utilised to date, over £70 million has gone to invest-to-save projects across public services. Those projects are saving in the region of £8 million or £9 million annually. The investment that has been made is therefore saving the public purse money. That is to be welcomed. It shows public-sector leadership. We will take on board the recommendations in the Audit Office report, one of which is to do a mid-strategy review, which we intend to publish before the end of the year. Ms D Armstrong: Minister, will you provide an update on the smart meter programme? Dr Archibald: Yes, although I am not sure that I have the full details in front of me. The consultation has completed, and we will publish information on the way forward in the very near future. If the Member wishes to write to me, I will furnish her with her further details, but that is the gist of it. Air Passenger Duty: Economic Impact 10. Mr Sheehan asked the Minister for the Economy for her assessment of the economic impact of air passenger duty (APD). (AQO 2709/22-27) Dr Archibald: The setting of air passenger duty is a reserved matter that is legislated for by the Treasury, which then collects APD. I consider APD to be an unfair tax that continues to have a significant detrimental impact on domestic aviation, as was acknowledged by Sir Peter Hendy in the Union connectivity review. The British Government need to address that. As an island, we rely heavily on air travel. The current rate of air passenger duty set by the British Government is the highest in Europe. Adding an extra cost burden thus has a disproportionate impact on us that undermines our competitiveness and accessibility. That impact is heightened when we look at the South, where APD was abolished in 2014. Since 2012, the Executive have had the delegated authority to set the APD rate for long-haul flights. As part of our efforts to encourage more flights, the rate has been set at zero. Any change, however, to the rate of short-haul APD here must be weighed against the financial consequences. I believe that the British Government should bear the responsibility for those financial consequences, in recognition of our status as an island and the requirement for air travel. Top 3.15 pm While there have been no recent studies on APD's economic impact on the local economy, I have asked my officials to examine a number of policy options, including potential APD reform. Officials recently met key aviation stakeholders and are preparing a consultation document that is to be issued in the coming months. Mr Speaker: We move to topical questions. 'Good Jobs' Bill Ms McLaughlin: Minister, you promised a 'good jobs' Bill by the end of the mandate, but time is running out. You say that it will be introduced in January, but we have not even seen a draft. This afternoon, your party will move a motion on the cost of living, but it is hard to take that seriously when Sinn Féin has not delivered the workers' rights Bill that you promised. T1. Ms McLaughlin asked the Minister for the Economy how confident she is that the Bill can be delivered in time and, given that workers deserve delivery, not motions, whether she can guarantee that the Bill will be passed in full before the end of the mandate and that she will not just build up hope and then break the promise to workers. (AQT 1781/22-27) Dr Archibald: The good jobs agenda is about putting more money in workers' pockets, prosperity and ensuring that people have access to a good job, a good work-life balance and good working conditions. I am a little bemused by the question, because, in April, when I announced the way forward, I indicated that it would be January before the legislation was introduced. Therefore, I do not see that there has been any delay. Ms McLaughlin: Minister, we have had no clarity on the contents of the Bill. There is great concern about that, even in the Economy Committee. What does it look like? It will be a complex Bill with lots of elements. Is the Minister guaranteeing that it will be introduced in January and delivered before the end of the mandate? Dr Archibald: When I set out the way forward on the 'good jobs' Bill in April, I set out what would be contained in the Bill. Drafters are progressing the legislation. I do not see why you would anticipate seeing the contents of the Bill before it has been introduced in the Assembly. As I said, I view it as being on track. Retail and Hospitality Businesses T2. Ms Bradshaw asked the Minister for the Economy, after noting the high street task force's report highlighted the need for a coordinated, place-based support to sustain local retail and hospitality businesses, how her Department is using the recommendations in the report to support independent traders in the run-up to Christmas. (AQT 1782/22-27) Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. The report by the high street task force had a number of recommendations. My Department has taken forward those that fall within my responsibility. On place-based regeneration, it is worth saying that, with the Communities Minister, I recently announced funding for community wealth-building pilot projects in the north-west and Larne. Those are good initiatives that give communities the power to design the support that they want to see in their area and initiatives that will support their area. I am more than happy to work with Executive colleagues to ensure that our high streets are vibrant places. Most of the responsibility sits directly with the Communities Minister and, to some extent, the Finance Minister, but I am open to any initiatives that can support our high streets. Recently, the Infrastructure Minister and I, along with a number of Executive colleagues, brought forward the night-time economy initiative, which is aimed expressly at getting footfall back into our city centre at night. That is a pilot for this year, but, hopefully, we can build on it in the coming years. Ms Bradshaw: Thank you for your answer, Minister. I was on Botanic Avenue last night. It is wonderful that there are so many independent hospitality businesses there, but I know from speaking to many of their owners that they find it difficult to expand because they are outbid by multinational and multi-chain restaurants. The Republic of Ireland has put in place a cap on the number of such restaurants: is that something that the Minister's Department would consider to allow independent hospitality businesses to flourish? Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. I am not aware of that initiative, but I am happy to look into it and for my officials to evaluate its objectives and outworkings. I, too, am lobbied by hospitality businesses that find things challenging in the current circumstances, and we all know that last year's Budget from the Chancellor had measures that were damaging to small businesses in particular. Hopefully, in the coming Budget, we will see a reversal of some of those measures. We also know that, comparatively speaking, the level of VAT in the South impacts on hospitality businesses in the North, and, along with the Finance Minister, I continue to make the case that we act as a pilot in the reduction of VAT for the hospitality sector. Again, that is something that we will continue to pursue. Regional Balance T3. Mr Donnelly asked the Minister for the Economy, who, last Monday, along with the Member, attended the North West and Larne Community Wealth Building Partnerships event in the Long Gallery, about the importance of alignment between locally designed initiatives and local economic partnerships in addressing regional balance. (AQT 1783/22-27) Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. I certainly see a strong synergy between the initiatives that are being taken forward under the community wealth-building pilot projects and what can be done with our local economic partnerships. The intent behind the local economic partnerships was to democratise power back to local areas so that they could design the projects that best meet their needs. I strongly encourage the tie-in with community, voluntary and other third-sector organisations to ensure that there is a place-based approach to economic development that meets the needs of everybody across our communities. There is a real opportunity there for our local economic partnerships and such initiatives to make a real difference in communities. Mr Donnelly: I thank the Minister for that answer. What long-term impact might those projects have on those areas? Dr Archibald: I do not have a crystal ball to help me understand what the impacts might be, but I expect there to be robust evaluations of the initiatives' achievements. I expect them to be successful and to have positive outcomes, because, when there is community buy-in and something is built from the ground up, it will meet the needs of those whom you are trying to serve. Certainly, the intent behind the community wealth-building partnerships is to leverage local assets for the benefit of the community, and I fully anticipate that they will be positive. We have two pilot schemes that could be rolled out across the board to support other communities to do likewise. Employment: Disadvantaged Areas T4. Mr Bradley asked the Minister for the Economy, in light of the ongoing cost-of-living pressures and persistent skills gaps across key sectors, what immediate action she is taking to attract higher-value jobs to disadvantaged and deprived areas and to ensure that people from low-income households can access employment through apprenticeships, retraining and upskilling programmes. (AQT 1784/22-27) Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. Skills are the top priority for me, as Minister, because they underpin everything else that we are trying to achieve across the four priorities of the economic vision. We need people with the appropriate skills to fill the good jobs that we are trying to create in regions across the North. When I engage with businesses, I find that skills is the top issue that they raise. We are ensuring that there are pathways that have been designed in partnership with industry through our sectoral partnerships so that the programmes, traineeships, apprenticeships and other programmes meet the needs of the businesses that are trying to grow and expand. If we are thinking about how we take that regional approach, as I mentioned, we now have the subregional economic plan to guide us, and that is showing success. The local economic partnerships, working alongside the labour market partnerships that are under the remit of the Department for Communities, can make sure that there is better alignment in local areas to ensure that the skills meet the business needs. Mr Bradley: I thank the Minister for her answer. What specific targets has she put in place to ensure that people from the most deprived communities benefit from higher-value jobs? Will she commit to publishing area-based data on those programmes? Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. I agree that data is really important in evidencing progress, and, in the Department, we are looking at using that to ensure that the objectives that we set ourselves under the departmental plan are met and to measure how we perform against those objectives. Invest NI has subregional targets on jobs and job creation across council areas that it will progress under its business plan. In our regional focus, we will work closely alongside Invest NI. Through local economic partnerships in particular, there is an opportunity to ensure that the skills needs in each area are met. I very much encourage that collaborative approach. Our regional colleges are represented on all the partnerships, so there is a real opportunity for effective tie-in. Apprenticeships T5. Mr Irwin asked the Minister for the Economy whether she plans to take further action to support an increase in the availability of apprenticeship opportunities. (AQT 1785/22-27) Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. We recently published the apprenticeship action plan. The plan is about ensuring that apprenticeships are readily available and accessible and that they meet the needs of business while being person-centred and meeting the needs of our young people and, increasingly, people of all ages. A number of the initiatives under the apprenticeship action plan are about ensuring that businesses have the capability and support in place to offer apprenticeships, which is certainly really important. I have had significant correspondence from MLAs and others in recent weeks about the challenges that young people face in obtaining apprenticeships. The number of people in apprenticeships has increased significantly over the past number of years, which is a sign of success, but we have still more young people who would take up the opportunity if they had an employer to offer it. My work is now very much about encouraging more employers to offer such opportunities and ensuring that they have the appropriate support to do so. Mr Irwin: I thank the Minister for her response. Does she agree that there is a scarcity of tradesmen in our workforce in Northern Ireland and that it is therefore vital to encourage as many as possible into apprenticeships? Dr Archibald: I agree. It can be challenging to find a tradesperson to do a job for you, because they are so busy. You will probably be surprised to hear that the most popular apprenticeships are those in construction trades. We need to put a focus on that, because we need tradespeople in those areas, be they construction workers, electricians or plumbers. We need the appropriate labour to support us in our initiatives in relation to meeting our net zero targets, for example, and our housebuilding targets. It is critical for us to ensure that people come through into our construction trades. Boston Visit T6. Ms Flynn asked the Minister for the Economy for a read-out of her recent trip to Boston. (AQT 1786/22-27) Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. I was in Boston for two days at the end of last week on a trip that was specifically about promoting the north-west as a leading location for investment and trade. On Thursday, hosted by Tourism NI, I had the opportunity to meet representatives of the American travel trade. I delivered a keynote address at the Golden Bridges conference, which highlights the best of the north-west to an influential Irish-American business audience. I met former US envoy Joe Kennedy to discuss building on the momentum that he had created and strengthening transatlantic economic ties with US companies. I also had the opportunity to meet one of our current investors, who is planning further investment here. That was on Thursday. On Friday, I attended a business leaders' event organised by Invest NI, which had a particular focus on the north-west. I then had the opportunity to attend the signing of a memorandum of understanding between Ulster University and the University of Massachusetts. There is a huge amount of positive economic news coming out of the north-west, with recent investments and announcements, and I was delighted to take that message to the business community in the States. Top 3.30 pm Mr Speaker: That brings to a conclusion questions to the Minister for the Economy. Mr McGlone: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise for not being in my place for my question. Mr Speaker: Thank you, Mr McGlone. Members may take their ease for a moment before we return to the previous debate. (Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair) Mr Martin: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. In the debate before Question Time, some interventions were called but none was taken. I sometimes heard more debate in my old Bangor Grammar School debating society. Do you have a view on Members not taking interventions? Otherwise, we could just come to the Chamber and read out speeches, and there would be no debating at all. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I do have a view, but, at the end of the day, it is down to Members whether they accept interventions. There is nothing in Standing Orders about it. OK, Peter? Mr Gildernew: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. In Question Time, the Minister for Communities asserted that, in my role as Chair of the Committee for Communities, I had a distaste for Ulster-Scots culture. That is simply not true. The Minister may not be comfortable with the scrutiny, but it is not appropriate for him to make untrue inferences or assertions in light of that. Will the Speaker's Office review his remarks? Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I can certainly ask the Speaker's Office to review his remarks. Ministers can respond in any way that they like, but it is normally in a cordial fashion. Private Members' Business Windsor Framework: Ongoing Harm Debate resumed on motion: That this Assembly notes the findings of the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee’s inquiry on strengthening Northern Ireland’s voice in the context of the Windsor framework; agrees that the UK Government must work urgently to address the democratic deficit created by the Windsor framework, as well as the overwhelming complexity of the present arrangements; is alarmed that 3,500 products supplied by Marks and Spencer require daily checks when moving to Northern Ireland, as well as 300 pages of paperwork per lorry; stresses that such barriers are leading to added cost and delay for businesses, reducing consumer choice and causing the diversion of trade outside the UK internal market; believes that mere tinkering at the edges of a fundamentally harmful system will not suffice; condemns the failure of successive Governments to implement pre-existing agreements and honour commitments to restoring Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom; and calls on the UK Government to bring forward solutions that challenge the flawed foundational assumption at the heart of the Windsor framework that the direct application of EU law in Northern Ireland is necessary. — [Mr Brett.] Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: As I said before the debate was suspended, the next Member to speak will be Paul Frew. Mr Frew: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I support the motion. It is a very topical, serious issue for many of our constituents and businesses, small and large, and it is a big issue for many consumers who are trying to buy their wares from GB companies and are finding it increasingly difficult. I know from my mailbag and my email lists the amount of concern out there. We, as a party, have a very good sense of organisation. When we get emails regarding the protocol, we pass them to the central party, and it engages for us, on our behalf, with the relevant departments in Westminster. It has proven to be a very good way of getting information down to constituents. However, it seems to me, from listening to the debate, that Sinn Féin, the SDLP and the Alliance Party have no concerns about those issues and no complaints from their constituents. Going by the level and tone of their debate, it seems that, if they do, they basically reply, "Suck it up, buttercup. You should have listened to us during the Brexit debate". That is simply not good enough. The Brexit debate and referendum were run nearly 10 years ago. It is time for the parties here to get over themselves, get over the result and move on. I know that they are angry, and I know that they love to be EU fanatics. Well, most of the parties do. Sinn Féin has only really adopted that policy in the past 10 years because, before that, it was Eurosceptic. In effect, it was probably the most militant party against the EU on this island. It changed tack, but it did so because it saw a point of division that it could exploit. Boy, has it tried to do that. Sinn Féin is not trying to resolve the issues; it is just trying to divide. Of course, all the other parties are aligned with that. The "suck it up, buttercup" mentality, however, will not work in North Antrim, Lagan Valley or Upper Bann, where so many people voted for Brexit but then experienced the ill effects of the protocol. That is where the violence was done. The violence was done by the protocol. The Windsor framework was labelled as some sort of remedy when we knew that it was not. It was this party that said that it was not. It was this party that fought against the worst excesses of the protocol and fought against the Windsor framework in order to make it better for all our people. Yet, those parties cannot get over themselves about the decision that was taken by UK citizens nearly 10 years ago. We are where we are. The practicalities of the protocol and the Windsor framework are upon us, so it is incumbent on all of us in the Chamber to make sure that the people whom we represent, no matter what church they go to or what their political philosophy is, are not damaged and that their trading relationships and consumer practices are not damaged by the protocol and the Windsor framework. We are facing a really serious issue with regard to veterinary medicines. We have tabled the motion so that we can air those concerns. Instead of having the concerns of our people echoed across the Chamber, however, they are thrown back not just in our faces but in the faces of the people whom we represent. This issue affects everybody, no matter who they vote for. Once again, it is the DUP that is stepping up and raising the legitimate concerns of our people, while the other parties are very flippant about it. Members on the other side of the House can laugh about that, but we will continue to fight for our people in order to ensure that those barriers are removed. Ms Nicholl: When I came back, I was determined that my contributions were going to be positive and that I would not be snarky. I am going to try so hard, but oh, my goodness. I suppose that there is comfort to be taken in the fact that we know exactly what the arguments are going to be, because we have rehearsed them so many times. One positive thing that I will say for the DUP motion is that it calls on the UK Government to find solutions and work through issues with the EU. The responsibility is with the UK Government, and we are grateful that the DUP now acknowledges that. It would have been nice to have had that before the Assembly collapsed. The "suck it up, buttercup" mentality is a difficult one for me to listen to. We know that the Windsor framework is not perfect. I listened to the people who came to the Economy Committee and articulated the problems that they were having, and I sympathised and empathised with them. Of course, we need to find solutions. The one thing that I took from Lord Murphy's contribution when he came to the Committee two weeks ago was that we need to work together in order to find practical solutions. I may have laughed, but I was not being flippant. It is not that I do not appreciate the magnitude of the problems that exist. The issue is that, when the referendum happened, we said, "These are the bad things about Brexit". You said that you wanted to have Brexit, but now you are saying, "These are the bad things about Brexit". We are in a state of disbelief sometimes, because those were the things that we were worried about. We live in a complex place, and there are significant sensitivities that have to be managed. The reality is that none of us is ever going to get the perfect post-Brexit landscape. We are not going to get everything that we want, but we have to move on and work together. What people want is an Assembly and a Government that are focused on solutions, problem-solving and making things better. We need to talk about how we can do more upstream. We see that problem at the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee. We talk about there being a democratic deficit; of course there is. We left, and that is the reality of it. We are not able to influence things further upstream, which is a pity. We should do more to see how we could do that. Good relationships with the EU and our European neighbours are so important and should be welcomed. The UK Government's attempt to reset relations has been a welcome relief from the chaos and division that characterised the previous Government's engagement with Europe. That reset presents a window of opportunity to implement an ambitious sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) agreement, which the UK Government are taking forward with the EU. My colleague David Honeyford, who is such a fierce champion for dual market access, talked about the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) report, which found that 71% of businesses want us to talk about it more. Our Executive need to speak with one voice on that matter and ensure that there are opportunities for people to invest in Northern Ireland and that it is properly marketed. We are not doing that. Let us sell it. Let us sell Northern Ireland. There are so many wonderful things about this place. Our business landscape is amazing. Look at what is happening in tech. We should be selling the opportunities in Northern Ireland, not focusing on the negatives. We want to focus on solutions, not just on diagnosing problems. Our economy really needs stability, certainty and clarity. There are issues to be worked through. It is not that we are oblivious to those or that we have not been listening about them. However, the constant negativity undermines the very stability that businesses crave. Brexit put up barriers to building more positive relationships, and, as Northern Ireland's cross-community party, Alliance remains completely committed to making sure that the connections and collaboration across and beyond jurisdictions deliver the opportunities and benefits that communities deserve. In the spirit of what Lord Murphy said, let us work together, look at the practical solutions and try to move on. Ms McLaughlin: When I first read the motion, I was surprised at how much I agreed with parts of it, particularly the recognition of the real challenges that businesses face under the current trading arrangements, but, as ever in this Chamber, the motion ends on a note of political point-scoring. Those who tabled the motion could not resist turning what should be an economic discussion into another constitutional crusade. I find that deeply regrettable. It is equally regrettable that they failed to acknowledge their role in creating the mess. It was their relentless demand for the hardest possible Brexit that led us here. Let us be clear: the debate is not about identity. It is about economic survival, especially for small businesses across the North, particularly those in my constituency of Foyle. Those businesses face real difficulties. As one businesswoman said, it is a cliff edge for her. Businesses are trying desperately to keep their heads above water, knowing that, without support, they will soon drown. Just last week, I met a number of business owners in Derry, and, to be honest, I left those meetings shaken by how serious things have become and by the fact that time is running out for some of them. For example, Michael, who owns Angry Cherry, a small independent shop in Foyleside that sells memorabilia, music and comics, told me about the nightmare of getting deliveries from UPS. Before the full implementation of the Windsor framework, he followed every bit of guidance published by the UK Government and submitted all the necessary paperwork. Yet, by April this year, he was hit with duty demands on almost every order. Despite doing everything right, he is now paying import fees of up to 10% per order on top of delivery charges and admin costs. His experience is not unique. A large part of the problem lies with courier firms, particularly, but not exclusively, UPS and DHL. Their systems and customer support have been nothing short of disastrous. However, the blame does not stop there. That is kind of the point that those who tabled the motion are missing. There can be two truths. Small businesses can be affected. Brexit is a disaster, but the Windsor framework is there to protect the all-island economy, and the DUP forgot about that in its motion. Top 3.45 pm I hate to go on about it — although it goes on a wee bit about it as well — but the DUP did champion Brexit. It was Boris Johnson who pursued the hardest possible withdrawal, no matter what the cost, and we now know that there has been a significant cost to the UK economy. The Windsor framework is not perfect, and I have made that clear, but it is essential for shielding Northern Ireland from the worst impacts of Brexit. It safeguards our all-island economy, prevents a hard border and provides unique protections for people and businesses here. Those who want to dismantle it without offering any credible alternative are now acting recklessly again. Will they ever learn? Putting stability and prosperity at risk once again is not what small businesses that I talk to in my constituency need. Rather, they want practical solutions. We welcome many of Lord Murphy's review report recommendations, including the proposals to strengthen the Assembly's scrutiny role and to increase resources for doing that. It is vital that those recommendations be adopted by Westminster and that support be given to the Executive to support in turn our small businesses to overcome the barriers to east-west trade. The work of the review, however, missed a key opportunity to explore deeper North/South cooperation that could provide growth and uphold the Good Friday Agreement. Meanwhile, small traders are paying the price for dysfunction between London and Brussels. Many are turning away from GB suppliers and instead sourcing entirely from the EU because the red tape has simply become unbearable. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Sinéad. Ms McLaughlin: We will not be supporting the motion. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: OK. Thank you, Sinéad. Mr Gaston: At the outset, I put on record that I will be voting for the motion, just in case that message gets lost during my remarks. The motion admits that the Windsor framework is fundamentally harmful, burdens business, diverts trade and creates a democratic deficit and that tinkering at the edges will not fix it. All of that is correct, and I agree with the wording of the motion. What is astonishing, however, is that the Members whose names appear under the motion in the Order Paper are in a party that is implementing all of that through the Executive every single day. I remind Members from the party to my right that they won their seats on the basis of a manifesto that rejected devolution under the protocol. An non-binding motion here today and the videos that will be produced from the debate do not absolve them from the lies that their party told. The system is unbearably complex. The framework imposes costs and delays. The democratic deficit remains. EU law still applies. The DUP, however, told the public that the arguments on those issues had been transformed. Anyone who said anything or who dissented from that message was simply dismissed as a dead-end unionist. Let me remind the House what was said about the deal. Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, then leader of the Democratic Unionist Party, told the public that the proposals removed the border, that there would be: "zero checks and zero customs paperwork" and that our place in the UK internal market was restored. Today, as the motion rightly outlines and reminds us, Marks and Spencer tells us that 3,500 products require daily checks, accompanied by paperwork thick enough to choke a horse. The FSB tells us that small firms are drowning. The House of Lords Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee tells us that the so-called democratic safeguards were oversold. That is a polite way of saying to the public that they were lied to. My goodness, who lied to the public? However, nothing captures the contradiction more starkly than the DUP's Gordon Lyons, who said this in a DUP statement that is on its website to this very day: "If there is a choice between remaining in office or implementing the protocol in its present form, then the only option for any unionist Minister would be to cease to hold such office." The Windsor framework is the protocol. EU law still governs vast areas of life here, and the Irish Sea border still operates every day, yet the DUP Ministers sit in office and implement precisely what, they once said, no unionist could touch. The motion is not bold. It is not radical. Mr Brett: Will the Member give way? Mr Gaston: The motion is not a challenge to the foundations of the framework. It is more political theatre, condemning with one hand but complying with the other. I am happy to give way, Mr Brett. Mr Brett: I appreciate Mr Gaston giving way; he is always up for debate. I know that he will probably come on to the rest of our motion, including where it calls on the UK Government to honour the commitments that they made to the people of Northern Ireland, but I want Mr Gaston to put his view on the record. Is it his view that the Assembly should be collapsed and that we should hand power for this place over to Keir Starmer, the very man who continues to implement the Windsor framework? Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute. Mr Gaston: We have the bogeyman once again: Keir Starmer. I hope that, come 2029, Keir Starmer will not be in office. I am clear, Mr Brett, Mr Buckley and Mr Martin, that, if it is a choice between the protocol and being ruled from London, this place should not exist. If you have no leverage — you might shake your head and think that you have got material for a TikTok video — very good; that is grand — but, my goodness, you are sitting with Sinn Féin/IRA and trying to say "Starmer or Stormont". That does not wash, because, come 2029, Labour will be nowhere near 10 Downing Street. Unionism needs more than rhetoric, but it is rhetoric that we hear. It needs unionists who really mean it when they say that they will not administer the Irish Sea border. It needs unionists who will not operate EU law. It needs unionists who refuse to implement North/South institutions as normal while our east-west institutions and our links are being absolutely trashed day by day. It needs unionists who do not go into government with IRA/Sinn Féin after winning seats on the basis of a —. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Gaston, stop using that term: it is "Sinn Féin". If you use that term again, you will not be called. Mr Gaston: Well, Principal Deputy Speaker, you will be very well apt to tell me whether the right term is "Sinn Féin/IRA" or "IRA/Sinn Féin" — Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Right, sit down. Mr Gaston: — on that basis. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Gaston, take your seat. I call Jonathan Buckley to conclude and make a winding-up speech on the motion. Jonathan, you have 10 minutes. Mr Buckley: Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. Who would have thought that a debate on challenging the harm posed by the Windsor framework would cause such a debate or lack of it in some instances? It is fair to say that a lot of political parties have been on a journey when it comes to the Windsor framework. I genuinely believe that, today, all parties are now in a position where they, perhaps to varying degrees, understand that harm is being caused to some aspects of business in Northern Ireland because of the Windsor framework's outputs. Northern Ireland's economy is largely made up of small businesses, and that is largely on whom the major weight of trouble has fallen. I say gently to Members, although we will always have robust conversation in the Chamber, that it is incumbent on us, as elected Members of the Assembly, to speak up when harm is caused. Often, what has happened in this place is that businesses that have been impacted by the Windsor framework and, indeed, other provisions from the Brexit process — from the withdrawal agreement right through — have felt that they needed to keep their head down rather than speak up on the issues that affect them, their business, their employees and the Northern Ireland consumer. Just at a time when some of them go on the record to talk about their concerns from a business perspective, they are shot down. Some Members shot down the FSB report, saying that the examples that it gave were not relevant and represented too small a proportion. M&S is shot down because it is M&S. The RHA is shot down because it does not represent a wider section of those who are impacted. That is deeply disingenuous for the businesses that have felt the need to speak up on the impact that the arrangements are having on their respective industries. Some parties have reiterated old ground. Sinn Féin talked about the need for a cost-of-living strategy. The Member for South Antrim and chairman of Sinn Féin, Mr Kearney, said that we should stop wasting time. He failed to say that his party has probably tabled more motions about Gaza than about the cost-of-living crisis since it came back to this place. It is a bit rich for those champagne socialists to talk about cost-of-living strategies when it is now the richest party in these islands, with assets estimated to have a net value of over €8 million. When we talk about the cost-of-living crisis, as the Member mentioned —. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Buckley, I know that you are enjoying yourself, but can you return to the substance of the motion, please? Mr Buckley: I will indeed. As the Member who is winding up on the motion, I think that it is important that I capture the totality of the debate. Imagine being in such a wealthy position that you do not even know how many properties you own. I will give way to a Member of Sinn Féin if one of them wants to tell us that. No? I suspected that they did not. We can look at the Alliance Party's contribution to the debate. We had the student union debater-in-chief, Mr Tennyson, telling us that it is our fault. He said, "You should have listened to us." Had we listened to them, we would have had the rigorous implementation of the very protocol that preceded the Windsor framework, which would have caused even more catastrophic difficulties for our businesses. We had the SDLP talk about article 14 of the agreement, which would enable the EU to have direct conversations with business representatives and Northern Ireland stakeholders about the impact and — Dr Aiken: Will the Member give way? Mr Buckley: I will, just briefly. Dr Aiken: One of the problems with the article that the SDLP pointed out is that that has been tried but the EU Joint Committee refused to engage. Mr Buckley: That is exactly the point that I am coming to. The Member for South Belfast also talked about good relations with the European Union. Members, be under no illusions about this: the EU has played a blinder. It hoodwinked the United Kingdom in the Brexit negotiations. Why do I say that? Let us look at Lord Murphy's review. We can point out its clear limitations, but one of the most startling aspects of his evidence to the Economy Committee just a couple of weeks prior to this debate was the fact that, despite him reaching out in good faith to the European Union, it would not even afford him the courtesy of a meeting. What does that say? Are the parties opposite so blinded by the needs and wants of the European Union that they close their eyes and cover their ears to the genuine concerns of the businesses that are represented in the motion? We have already heard about M&S and the challenges that it faces. Let us look at some of the evidence in the independent report. Products are being delisted locally because GB businesses, particularly micro and small businesses, are choosing not to supply Northern Ireland. Supermarkets feel that the Government's push for 100% compliance with the Windsor framework is unnecessarily disrupting trade to Northern Ireland. That goes to the heart of the matter. The UK's insistence on 100% compliance is not being met with any form of goodwill from the European Union. It is being met with meek responses and disengagement from the very organisation that could unlock the solutions to a lot of the problems. We talk about the democratic deficit, and, at the start of his contribution, Mr Gaston talked about how the motion contains the wrongs of the Windsor framework. I have always held that position, and I always will. The Windsor framework's root problem, as with the agreements subsequent to it, is that EU law still applies. Whilst EU law still applies in Northern Ireland, we will still have those major issues affecting large swathes of our economy. Top 4.00 pm When we talk about the democratic deficit, Members across the Floor talk keenly about the need for an Assembly to debate the issues. However, pre-Christmas 2024, after a six-hour debate on articles 5 to 10 of the Windsor framework, the Assembly sent over 300 areas of law, controlling large swathes of our economy, back to Europe. It therefore could have no democratic say on the laws that affect our people, our businesses and our consumers. The laws covered everything from agriculture, the environment and electricity to state aid, VAT and duties, goods and customs. They covered large sections of our economy, yet, whilst we in the House recognise that the Windsor framework presents difficulties to some of our businesses, whether they are small, medium or, in some cases, large, in essence, we voted against the ability to take decisions to benefit those businesses. That is a great shame on the Members who, at the behest of the European Union, sent those laws there. The Road Haulage Association captured some of the issues facing the haulage sector well. Members may want to go on the record to rubbish what M&S said, but the Road Haulage Association identified that, as long as it remains the position that all goods are classified as "at risk" unless it can be proved otherwise, large swathes of checks are placed on those businesses and that trade in particular. At the point of sale, the end destination is known, so why not change the rule so that goods are deemed not to be at risk? By doing so, we would save our businesses from vast swathes of paperwork that is destroying them economically. The motion mentions bureaucracy: 300 pages of paperwork per lorry is simply ridiculous and will only increase as time goes on, unless Members are prepared to open their eyes to the challenges and stand up to the European Union. I would love to know why Members are so compelled to believe that the European Union has Northern Ireland businesses' interests at heart more than the democratically elected Members of this House. I do not see it. I just hope that Members understand that. My colleague Mr Martin mentioned how we are going down the road towards an incredibly difficult position on veterinary medicines, and that will affect not just farmers but owners of domestic pets. Over 40% of pet medicines in Northern Ireland could be discontinued by January. The UK Government and Europe's burying their heads in the sand tells me that there is little genuine interest in dealing with the issues affecting Northern Ireland. This House is the best place in which to determine those laws. I ask Members to reconsider their opposition to the motion and ensure that we can have a democratic input into the laws that affect this place. Question put. The Assembly divided: Ayes 27; Noes 44 AYES Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Ms D Armstrong, Mr Beattie, Mr Bradley, Mr Brett, Ms Brownlee, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mr Burrows, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mrs Erskine, Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew, Mr Gaston, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Irwin, Mr Kingston, Mrs Little-Pengelly, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Martin, Mr Robinson Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Buckley, Mr Martin NOES Dr Archibald, Ms K Armstrong, Mr Baker, Mr Blair, Mr Boylan, Ms Bradshaw, Mr Carroll, Mr Delargy, Mr Dickson, Miss Dolan, Mr Donnelly, Mr Durkan, Ms Egan, Ms Ennis, Ms Finnegan, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Mrs Guy, Miss Hargey, Mr Honeyford, Ms Hunter, Mr Kearney, Ms Kimmins, Mr McAleer, Miss McAllister, Mr McGlone, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McMurray, Mr McNulty, Mrs Mason, Mr Mathison, Mr Muir, Ms Mulholland, Ms Murphy, Ms Nicholl, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs O'Neill, Mr O'Toole, Ms Reilly, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Mr Tennyson Tellers for the Noes: Miss Dolan, Mr McMurray Mr Clarke acted as a proxy for Mrs Erskine. Question accordingly negatived. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members should take their ease before we move on to the next item of business. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Dr Aiken] in the Chair) Cost-of-living Increase: Impact Mr Gildernew: I beg to move That this Assembly notes that, according to data published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) on 22 October 2025, the inflation rate is at 3·8%, which is higher than the EU average; further notes that that rate of inflation is nearly double the Bank of England's 2% target; is deeply concerned about the persistent rise in the cost of living and the impact that it is having on workers, families and communities; commends the Executive on their firm refusal to impose unfair taxes and charges on already struggling workers and families; recognises that many will face increased financial pressure in the weeks leading up to Christmas and throughout the winter; further recognises the vital work that is being carried out by voluntary and community sector organisations in supporting vulnerable groups who are disproportionately affected by the rise in the cost of living; acknowledges the ongoing concerns expressed by the sector with regards to the shortcomings of the draft anti-poverty strategy published by the Minister for Communities; and calls on the Minister for Communities to revise his draft anti-poverty strategy to set out what actions he will take to support and equip those organisations and communities dealing with the increased cost-of-living challenges. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. An amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List, so the Business Committee has agreed that 15 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate. Colm, please open the debate on the motion. Mr Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. [Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.] Christmas is only a few short weeks away, and I am sure that most of us are looking forward to taking some time off to relax and spend time with our family. For many of us, the next few weeks will be full of festive spirit as we make plans, put up decorations and buy gifts for friends and family. Unfortunately, far too many families are facing the Christmas period feeling anxious about all the extra costs that come with celebrating Christmas. Recent statistics show that families in the North spend, on average, £850 more during the month of December on things such as gifts, food, nights out and travel, which comes on top of all the usual heating and other bills that many people are already struggling to pay. As our motion highlights, the current rate of inflation is 3·8%, which is significantly higher than what it was this time last year, when it was only 2·5%. In practice, that means rising costs for basic necessities such as food and fuel for already hard-pressed families. We have to understand that the cost-of-living crisis is very much still with us and that it continues to wreak havoc on the least well-off in our society. This morning, I held a round-table discussion with some of the organisations that are on the ground tackling poverty every single day. They painted a picture of a worsening situation and were very clear that more needs to be done to help those in need. They spoke of a feeling of hopelessness amongst many of the people whom they assist and of a belief that no one is listening to their very real concerns. Research carried out by the Trussell Trust in 2024 showed that 21% of households in the North were experiencing food insecurity, which was a dramatic increase from 2022, when the figure was only 16%. Its research also showed that 77,000 emergency food parcels were delivered to households facing hardship in 2024-25, including to over 31,000 children. That is an increase of 71% over the past five years. The most recent poverty and income inequality report for the North, which was released in March this year, shows that the rate of poverty here has been rising steadily over the past five years and that 18% of adults are currently living in relative poverty, with 15% living in absolute poverty. The same report also revealed that 23% of children, or almost one in four, are currently living in relative poverty, with 17% living in absolute poverty. Those figures are shocking, and they underline the urgent need for more ambitious measures to tackle poverty. We must also recognise that British austerity and underfunding must shoulder much of the blame for the growing levels of poverty in our society. Policies such as the two-child limit have pushed thousands of children into poverty, stealing from them many of the life chances that they need in order to live fulfilling and prosperous lives as adults. So far, this British Government have taken the winter fuel payment from pensioners and attacked the sick and disabled. Just last week, they threatened to raise taxes for the least well-off. It is no wonder that Keir Starmer is the most unpopular Prime Minister in living memory. Some media reports have suggested that they may remove the two-child limit. Although that has not been confirmed yet, it is absolutely essential that the British Government fully scrap that disgraceful policy once and for all in the upcoming Budget. We must ensure that we do everything in our power to alleviate the worst impacts of poverty in the North. Earlier this year, the Minister for Communities published the first draft of the anti-poverty strategy. To say that people were underwhelmed is an understatement. The strategy was weak in both substance and ambition. Indeed, many anti-poverty organisations stated that the strategy was not fit for purpose, including many of the organisations that helped to co-design it. The draft anti-poverty strategy does not contain any targets or measurable outcomes. That is despite the fact that a recent report on child poverty by the Public Accounts Committee, which I also sit on, made a recommendation that targets and outcomes should be included in the strategy. The absence of targets and outcomes renders the strategy largely meaningless. It leaves it reading more like a stocktake document that lists a range of departmental actions that are linked to poverty, with many of those actions already enacted or currently in operation. The strategy does not give any clear indication of what level of funding will be forthcoming to support its implementation, nor does it state how it will obtain that funding. Sinn Féin understands that the Executive are in a difficult position financially, but it is vital that the anti-poverty strategy provides costed proposals so that we have a full understanding of how much finance is needed to fund actions that could reduce poverty and deliver prosperity. Another key criticism of the current strategy, which I heard from the sector again today, is that it does not follow a life-cycle approach. That means that it does not take into account how poverty can affect people differently at different stages of their lives. We need to see the adoption of a life-cycle approach that recognises the unique causes of poverty and barriers to exiting it at each life stage and ensures that actions are tailored accordingly. Fuel poverty is another huge issue that affects many families across the North, with recent figures suggesting that it has also significantly increased in recent years. National Energy Action (NEA) carried out a survey in September 2024 that found that nearly 40% of households in the North were experiencing fuel poverty. Fuel poverty often results in people cutting back on the amount of money that they spend on essential items such as food or clothing so that they may be able to afford to heat their home. Those figures bring into sharp focus the urgent need for a modern, fit-for-purpose fuel poverty strategy that will make a meaningful impact on reducing fuel poverty. The Minister needs to urgently bring forward a final draft of the fuel poverty strategy. Indeed, it would be helpful if the Minister could update the House on when that is likely to happen. It is also important to mention some of the steps that the Executive have taken to alleviate poverty in recent years. Welfare mitigations were initially secured in 2016 in order to protect the most vulnerable here against Tory austerity. Welfare supplementary payments were automatically paid to anyone who would otherwise have been impacted on by cruel welfare changes such as the bedroom tax, the benefit cap or the roll-out of the personal independence payment (PIP). The Welfare Supplementary Payments (Amendment) Act 2022 that was brought forward by the previous Communities Minister, Deirdre Hargey, extended most of the mitigations until March 2025, with the bedroom tax mitigation being extended indefinitely, ensuring that over 37,000 social housing tenants are permanently protected. In this year's Budget, the Executive allocated £47·3 million to welfare mitigations, signalling their continued commitment to funding those mitigations in full whilst extending them until March 2028. Those mitigations are vital for so many people in our society. In many cases, they are the difference between having enough food to eat and going to bed hungry. The Executive have also protected households from unfair taxes, such as domestic water charges, that would disproportionately impact on those who can least afford to pay. Another huge step forward was the work done by Sinn Féin Ministers in the Finance Department to secure an agreement with the British Treasury that the North's funding will be increased to more accurately relate to levels of need. Although it is important that we recognise the important steps that the Executive have taken, it is clear that more needs to be done. Tackling poverty and supporting people during the cost-of-living crisis need to be the number-one priority of every one of us here today. Far too often, the issues that have been debated in the Chamber have only served as distractions from the very real suffering that people endure every day. We have a duty to do all that we can to come to their aid and to return a sense of hope that things can be better for them and their families. Top 4.30 pm Mr Allen: I beg to move the following amendment: Leave out all after ‘published by the Minister for Communities;’ and insert: ‘notes with concern that food prices have risen sharply in recent years, contributing to increasing levels of food insecurity and worsening health inequalities across Northern Ireland; further notes the recent announcement by the Education Authority regarding the increase to the cost of school meals, which will add further pressure on already stretched household budgets; recognises that affordable access to food, including school meals, is vital in tackling child poverty and reducing health inequalities; believes that departmental and arm’s-length body decisions must align with the objectives of the Executive’s anti-poverty strategy; calls on the Minister of Education to review the Education Authority’s decision, to increase the eligibility threshold for free school meals, and to work with the Minister for Communities to ensure a coordinated approach to supporting low-income families; and further calls on the Minister for Communities to strengthen the draft anti-poverty strategy to include measurable poverty reduction targets and clear actions to address food and fuel poverty.’ Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): You will have 10 minutes to propose and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes. Andy, please open the debate on the amendment. Mr Allen: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Our amendment is offered in a constructive spirit. The motion rightly highlights the pressures that households face, and we support its intention. The amendment would complement it by adding a particular focus on an issue that is becoming increasingly urgent: the rising cost of food and growing food insecurity. Headline inflation may have eased somewhat, but, for many families, the pressure has not. The essential items that people rely on week in, week out have not returned to previous prices. Food costs remain significantly higher, and, while some products appear unchanged, the reality of shrinkflation means that households get less for the same money or, in many cases, pay more for less. Those changes may appear minor in isolation, but, for families who are already stretched to the limit, the cumulative impact is substantial. That is why we have also highlighted the recent decision by the Education Authority (EA) to increase the cost of school meals. A 50p rise — an increase of around 20% — may not seem significant to some, but, for many families who are already under pressure, it will hit hard. Some will point to the fact that school meal prices have not risen since 2017. I commend all involved for keeping costs down for so long, but we will hear throughout today's debate why increasing them now, against the backdrop of severe cost-of-living pressures, is the wrong approach and one that sits uneasily with the aims of an anti-poverty strategy. Mr Deputy Speaker, I, perhaps, should have declared an interest as a father with three school-age children. Balancing the books on the backs of those who are already struggling is not a sustainable or fair way of tackling poverty. There is a crossover from the previous debate. When products become more expensive to move, the pressures show up in the cost and availability of those everyday products. Those costs do not fall evenly across society; low-income households feel them most. The evidence is stark. Around 520,000 people, including 130,000 children, in Northern Ireland are in food insecurity. In the past year, as we have heard from the Communities Committee Chair, 77,000 emergency food parcels were issued. Those referred to food banks were living on an average of £171 a week after housing costs, which is roughly 30% of an ordinary household's income, and most had no savings. The overwhelming majority were already in debt or arrears. Those are not exceptional cases. They reflect the everyday reality of too many people across Northern Ireland. At the human level, we all know what that looks like. A recent BBC report featured a working mother who said that she regularly skips meals so that her daughter has enough to eat. She summed it up simply by saying, "My daughter comes first". That sentiment is familiar to many parents who are quietly making sacrifices not because of poor choices but because the cost of feeding a family has outpaced their income. Those pressures are especially visible in our schools. For many children, the school meal may be the most reliable and nutritious meal of their day. When the cost of school meals increases, families who are already struggling face even greater difficulty. Hunger affects behaviour, concentration and learning, and it can affect the entire classroom environment. That is why our amendment emphasises the importance of: "affordable access to food, including school meals" as a central part of: "tackling child poverty and reducing health inequalities". The Programme for Government acknowledges the clear link between poverty, education and long-term health. Alongside that, we call on the Minister of Education to review the recent increase in school meal costs and consider whether the current eligibility threshold for free school meals remains appropriate. Many families sit just above the threshold but cannot absorb the rising costs of food. Supporting those families would be a fair and practical step that directly benefits children. Food pressures are part of a wider picture, and fuel poverty remains a major concern. As we have already heard, National Energy Action NI has reported that nearly half of households are worried about their energy bills this winter; 39% are already in fuel poverty; and one in five households have gone without heat or power at least once in the last two years because they could not afford it. A quarter of households say that rising energy costs are harming their health and well-being, and those figures underline why robust anti-poverty and fuel poverty strategies with clear, measurable and time-bound targets are not just helpful but necessary. I acknowledge the work that the Minister has taken forward. He has moved the strategy further than many of his predecessors — it is fair to say that — and he has made progress in other areas, such as fuel poverty. That should be recognised and commended, but the scale and seriousness of the challenges mean that the final strategies must be as robust and ambitious as possible. There must be clear outcomes and measurable targets to give the strategies structure, direction, credibility and transparency. Families and organisations need to see where progress is made and where further action is required. The voluntary and community sector also deserves recognition, and I declare an interest as a charity trustee. They are often the first to see the pressures facing families, and they support thousands of people every week. They contribute an estimated £1·71 in value for every pound that is invested, yet the sector reports rising demand, recruitment difficulties and burnout among its staff. If we want to properly support the voluntary and community sector, we must address the pressures that drive people to its doors, including food and fuel insecurity, and our amendment reinforces that link. I acknowledge the pressures on unpaid carers. Northern Ireland has around 220,000 unpaid carers who provide support that saves the Executive an estimated £5·8 billion per year, yet they are among the groups most affected by rising costs. One in four carers lives in poverty, and, of those who receive carer's allowance, the number rises to almost half. Many carers are cutting back on the essentials, including food and heating. The anti-poverty strategy is important work, but, to meet the scale of the challenges that we face, it needs firm, measurable, cross-departmental targets, particularly on food and fuel poverty, that are time-bound, transparent and informed by data and lived experience. That will help ensure that the strategy makes an impact rather than becoming a document filled with aspirations but lacking in delivery. The amendment strengthens the motion by highlighting one of the most fundamental pressures that households face: the ability to afford food. It aligns with the motion's recognition of the vital work of the voluntary and community sector; it supports the call for a revised anti-poverty strategy; and it identifies practical, realistic actions that can be taken now to help families, particularly through the school system. The cost-of-living crisis is not experienced through statistics alone; it is felt in households making choices that no one should have to make, parents skipping meals, children arriving at school hungry and families rationing heat and power. While we cannot control every global event, we can take decisions here that improve the circumstances of those who rely on us, and that is the purpose of the amendment. In that spirit, I commend the amendment to the Assembly. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): All other Members will have five minutes. Mr Bradley: In considering the motion and the amendment, we can agree that the cost-of-living crisis is still real for workers and families across Northern Ireland. Inflation may have fallen from its peak, but, at 3·8%, it remains higher than the EU average and is almost double the target set by the Bank of England. Families do not need those statistics to tell them what they already know; they see it in their grocery bill, their heating oil delivery and now, potentially, in the cost of school meals. For us, the key question is not just how we help people cope with rising prices but how we help them move beyond long-term reliance on benefits. We have heard stark figures about poverty from the proposer of the motion, Mr Gildernew, and the proposer of the amendment, Mr Allen. The best long-term defence against poverty is meaningful, fairly paid employment, supported by a strong safety net for those who cannot work or face additional barriers. Work, when it pays, changes lives. A secure job gives parents the ability to plan ahead, manage their bills and provide stability for their children. That is why we welcome the focus on getting more less able people into better jobs and reducing the disability pay gap. It is why we have supported measures such as the childcare subsidy scheme, intermediate rent, co-ownership and investment in skills and apprenticeships, all of which help people get into work and stay in employment. Employment alone is not enough, however. The amendment rightly highlights the sharp rise in food prices and the importance of: "affordable access to food, including school meals" in tackling child poverty and health inequalities. Any increase in the cost of school meals would be deeply worrying for already stretched families. That is why we agree that decisions by Departments and arm's-length bodies (ALBs), including the Education Authority, must align with the Executive's anti-poverty strategy and why the Minister of Education and the Minister for Communities must take a coordinated approach to supporting those on low incomes. At the same time, we cannot ignore the reality of constrained budgets and statutory duties. Difficult choices are having to be made across our public services. That is why it is essential that every pound spent is clearly focused on reducing poverty, supporting families and enabling people to move into and progress in work. We also recognise the crucial role of the voluntary and community sector, which is often on the front line of the crisis, reaching people in places where government alone does not. The anti-poverty strategy must set out not only high-level ambitions but measurable targets and clear actions on employment, on food and fuel poverty and on supporting the organisations that work directly with vulnerable households. Our approach is clear: help as many people as possible into good, sustainable employment; maintain a strong, targeted safety net that includes welfare mitigations; and ensure a coordinated, Executive-wide strategy that turns warm words into real, practical help for families. If we get that right, we will not only help people through this winter and this cost-of-living crisis but give families across Northern Ireland a realistic route out of poverty and away from long-term dependence on benefits. I am happy to support the motion or the motion as amended. Ms Mulholland: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on the motion. I thank the Members who brought the issue to the Floor. The anti-poverty strategy consultation may be over, but poverty is not pausing. Poverty is tightening its grip on such a wide swathe of households, but it is the depth of poverty that should trouble every one of us in the Chamber. At a recent Joseph Rowntree Foundation (JRF) round table that we attended, Baroness Lister of Burtersett, one of the UK's leading social policy thinkers, set out with absolute clarity what an effective anti-poverty strategy must look like: "It must work with the grain of everyday life. It has to start with the lived realities of the families who experience poverty not in abstract policy documents but in the heating that they cannot afford, the food that runs out and the impossible choices that they make week after week." She reminded us: "lived experience cannot be a token exercise. It has to shape the design, the delivery and the accountability of that strategy" and: "Without clear targets, independent monitoring and a rights-based framework that treats poverty as a breach of dignity and equality, any strategy loses legitimacy and impact." Her message to us was powerful: "Income matters, accountability matters and political will matters." Do we have all three of those in the House? Unless people living in poverty can see their fingerprints on the solutions, they will not have those people's trust. That brings me to a point that the motion implicitly recognises: it is not about how many people are struggling — we know the numbers all too well; we have heard them many times in debating many other motions — but about how deep the struggle has become. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation shows us not only that poverty is widespread across the UK but that it is deepening. Hardship is intensifying and becoming even more entrenched in Northern Ireland. The Trussell Trust's 'Cost of Hunger and Hardship' report estimates that 200,000 people, including 62,000 children, which is roughly one in seven, face hunger and hardship. Those people are experiencing and managing the deepest and most damaging forms of hardship — severe food insecurity, destitution and hunger and hardship — that go far beyond what the headline poverty rates capture. In Northern Ireland, the persistence and depth of poverty and the poverty gap are not routinely measured. We rely entirely on absolute and relative poverty rates despite all the evidence that those headline figures no longer capture the severity of the hardship. The draft anti-poverty strategy contains no targets or indicators, so I ask for them to be included. We cannot continue with a broad-brush approach when the evidence shows that hardship is concentrated, severe and worsening. Top 4.45 pm I come now to the UUP amendment. We welcome it and share the concerns that it raises. Rising food costs have placed significant strain on households across Northern Ireland. They have deepened food insecurity and widened health inequalities. We are concerned that the Education Authority's recent increase in the cost of school meals will only add to those pressures, particularly for families who are already struggling to make ends meet. Access to affordable food, including school meals, is essential in tackling child poverty and improving health outcomes, so we will support the amendment. It is vital that decisions by all Departments and all arm's-length bodies align with what is, as we are constantly reminded, an Executive anti-poverty strategy. Therefore, we urge the Minister of Education to review the decision, raise the eligibility threshold for free school meals and work closely with his colleague the Minister for Communities to deliver a coordinated response. The Communities Minister tends to bristle a bit when I use Scotland as a benchmark, so we will look instead at the Republic of Ireland. That jurisdiction has placed a real emphasis on measuring the depth and level of deprivation. It measures "at risk of poverty", "enforced deprivation" and "consistent poverty". Recent Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) work identifies children who are deprived even when their parents' income sits just above the poverty line. Child benefit, the working family payment and free school meals and schoolbooks have lifted 150,000 children out of income poverty and 94,000 out of consistent poverty. That is what happens when depth and deprivation are taken seriously. We need targeted interventions that shift the outcomes. Above all, we need an anti-poverty strategy that is worthy of the name, grounded in objective need, framed in a life-cycle approach — Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Will the Member draw her remarks to a close, please? Ms Mulholland: — and shaped by lived experience. A strategy without delivery is not a strategy at all. Mr Durkan: The cost-of-living crisis is a term that has slipped from our daily lexicon not because it has gone away but because people have become so accustomed to hardship that it no longer shocks in the way that it did and still should. I remember looking on in horror as welfare reform was rolled out across the water and warning here that it would drive families to food banks. Today, food banks are no longer a rarity but a staple in all our town centres. Trussell's work tells us what that means in human terms. Some 520,000 people across the North are food insecure, including 130,000 children. The arithmetic of everyday life is now almost surreal. A block of cheese costs a fiver, and a bottle of red sauce costs about £6. Even small, formerly cheap and cheerful family treats are beyond affordability for many. That is the small, humiliating cruelty of the crisis: the things that used to bring comfort are now priced out of reach. Mr Allen: Will the Member give way? Mr Durkan: Certainly. Mr Allen: Will the Member also recognise, when highlighting those products that have increased in price, that, as I said in my remarks, many have increased in size, so they do not last as long or go as far for families? Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Member has an extra minute. Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for his intervention. I think that he means "decreased in size", but, yes, I see the role that shrinkflation plays. Food just does not go as far. The motion also: "commends the Executive on their firm refusal to impose unfair taxes and charges on ... workers and families". You what? Rates have increased, with no effort being made to cushion our poorest councils and, by extension, poor families from those costs. Public transport fares have increased three times in a 15-month period. Then, let us look at our public-sector workers: our poorest staff are being penalised by Executive decisions or, in many cases, Executive indecision. We have heard today of the thousands of care workers, who are the backbone of the social care system, being locked out of a pay award that would deliver a real, living wage. From EA support staff to health workers, thousands of workers in receipt of universal credit (UC) will not benefit from a backdated pay award. In fact, they will be worse off, left for one or maybe two months without a UC payment. My pleas to all Ministers to fix that oversight — it can be done, because a mechanism was found to do it for COVID payments — remain unheeded. Meanwhile, staff continue to be penalised for being poor. Band 2 healthcare staff received an additional 8p uplift this year to bring them up to the minimum wage, but that money is now going to be absorbed into the upcoming pay award. In other words, the uplift that was designed to correct low pay will disappear once the new award lands. That is not progress but stagnation. On the subject of disappearing, the First Minister happily stood alongside the Communities Minister to welcome the draft anti-poverty strategy but disappeared when the fallout from it came. I fear that the motion is another attempt to deflect responsibility. Every Executive party signed off on the strategy. Disappearing when the going gets tough is not leadership, however. To the party with the Finance and Economy portfolios and the top office, my question is this: what are you doing to tackle the crisis? At least that party sees the glaring flaws in the draft strategy, however. "Gaslighting" Gordon says that it is grand. Community and voluntary organisations, as the motion correctly identifies, remain an absolute lifeline, and they have my deepest gratitude, but they are tired. I spoke to representatives of the Focus Project in Creggan recently. They are under unbearable pressure as they try to meet soaring demand in a community in which thousands of households would now be considered vulnerable, working families included. Poverty is a political choice. The irony of the motion's calling for action while Executive parties continue to implement policies that deepen poverty is not lost on anyone. This week, the cost of school meals increased by 20%, which will primarily have an impact on the working poor. That decision was taken alongside the failure to raise the threshold for school meals support. A decade ago, the criteria were more generous than they are today, which is utterly preposterous in the context of soaring inflation. Some 3,000 fewer children receive support now than did in 2023. That is not an accident but, rather, the consequence of bad decisions by the Government. The motion delivers motherhood and apple pie but not bread and butter. Poverty is not just for Christmas, and it is frankly insulting to see such a motion tabled by the party with the most power to change things. The reality is that the Executive need a Scrooge-like epiphany. They hold the purse strings and the power, but they continue to deliver a bad deal for all the Bob Cratchits: the underpaid and undervalued workers. It does not have to be that way, however. If we spend less time arguing about the past and more time in the present delivering positive policy rather than debating meaningless motions, we can change the future. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I hate to be the Ghost of Christmas Present, Mark, but I ask you to bring your remarks to a close. Mrs Mason: The cost of living continues to rise, and families across the North are feeling it every single day. Inflation sits at 3·8% higher than the EU average and nearly double the Bank of England's target. What does that mean exactly? It means that families are afraid to turn on their heating, that food costs are rising week after week and that the cost of school uniforms is pushing parents into debt. In the middle of all that pressure, as the amendment alludes to, the Education Authority has increased the price of school meals to £3·10 a day. That is a decision that will hit already stretched households hard. That equates to £20 a month extra for each child's school meals. For many families, that is simply not within their budget. Let me be very clear about how that has come about. It has come about as a result of years of chronic underfunding by the British Government, along with years of poor decisions in the Department of Education and a complete lack of leadership from the current Minister. Families simply cannot take another blow, yet, under this Education Minister, the blows seem to keep coming. The cost of school meals is up, while uniform costs are still sky high. Childcare pressures are rising, and more and more parents are now being asked for so-called voluntary school contributions. That is what happens when a Department fails to plan, fails to prioritise and fails to protect families. Of course, it is not solely about what is happening in education. Across our communities, food prices have soared, fuel poverty is deepening, and more families are turning to food banks, including many who never imagined that they would need that help. Our voluntary and community organisations, a number of which we met this morning, are holding the line and stepping in where immediate support is needed. They do incredible work, but they do it with such limited resources and rising demand. That is why the anti-poverty strategy really matters. However, the draft that was published by the Minister for Communities simply does not match the scale of the crisis. It lacks measurable targets, clear actions and the urgency that families are crying out for. It needs to make urgent interventions so that organisations on the ground are properly supported and low-income families are not left to shoulder the crisis alone. Families are not asking for the earth. Every weak decision, delay and missed opportunity by the Department lands directly on a family's kitchen table when it comes to the food that they struggle to afford, the school meals that they now cannot pay for, the heating that they ration and the childcare bill that wipes out their wages. Workers and families deserve better than the draft anti-poverty strategy. That is why we tabled the motion and support the amendment, which we feel adds to the motion. The cost-of-living crisis is real and urgent. The Department of Education and the Department for Communities need to step up, strengthen their plans and start putting families first. Workers and families need action, not excuses; leadership, not deflection; and real support, not weak draft strategies. People need hope, and they need it now. Mr Kingston: The Democratic Unionist Party is dedicated to providing opportunity and support for all families across Northern Ireland, many of whom are feeling the squeeze on their finances. It was the DUP Minister for Communities, Gordon Lyons, who led engagement with other Departments and Ministers to create and publish a draft anti-poverty strategy for Northern Ireland this year, some 19 years after the previous anti-poverty strategy was published in 2006. The new strategy sets out a long-term approach to addressing poverty by minimising risks and impacts and helping people to exit poverty. On 5 December last year, Minister Lyons took the decision to announce that all existing welfare mitigations would be extended to March 2028. That should help to give stability to families. For all the proposals to address poverty, these are the critical questions: how will they be funded, and what is the evidence that they will make a real difference? The answers to those two questions are often lacking. The DUP is committed to ending the two-child limit on universal credit payments, and we will strongly support such a move if it is announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in her Budget speech next week. Indeed, I joined a number of charities and other MLAs for a campaign photo at the front of Stormont in support of such a move. We placed our hands on a sign to make handprints, and I still have the paint under my nails to show for it, as others may also do. Creating opportunities for those from disadvantaged backgrounds, be it through greater educational attainment, training or employment, is crucial to breaking the cycle of poverty and dependency for many. Minister Lyons announced a new strategy that aims to provide more for disabled people to help them to get better jobs and reduce the disability pay gap. The local growth fund is being created by the Labour Government to replace the Shared Prosperity Fund, which replaced the European social fund. However, many voluntary sector groups, which do tremendous front-line work to assist people who are considered to be economically inactive into employment and vocational training, have no certainty about their funding beyond the end of this financial year. The UK Government have a responsibility to provide clarity on the future of the local growth fund without delay. Over the course of the past three years, the DUP has repeatedly sought clarity on when the funding will be available, how it will be administered and the degree of input that local Ministers will be afforded, but the responses have been lacking in information. Top 5.00 pm I turn to the Ulster Unionist Party's amendment. The Education Minister has made it clear that Education has been and remains significantly underfunded. Currently, the EA faces an overcommitment of £280 million. As a result, the EA board, on which all parties sit, has had to make difficult decisions. In its statement, the Education Authority said that the price charged for school meals had not increased since 2017-18, as has been acknowledged, and will remain well below the cost of producing the meal. The amendment calls on the Education Minister: "to increase the eligibility threshold for free school meals", something that he has already done. In July, the Education Minister announced an increase in the income threshold for free school meals and the school uniform grant, committing to link future increases to the rate of consumer price inflation. That support will keep pace with the cost of living. Mr Allen: Will the Member give way? Mr Kingston: Yes, I will. Mr Allen: Does the Member have to hand the figure for the Education Minister's increase to the free school meals eligibility threshold? Mr Kingston: No, I do not have that information to hand, but I will get it for the Member. The UUP calls for a coordinated approach between the Minister of Education and the Minister for Communities. All Ministers should work in a coordinated way to support low-income families, whether that be the Education Minister supporting educational attainment, the Health Minister addressing health inequalities or the Economy Minister supporting skills growth and good employment opportunities. The anti-poverty strategy is a full-Executive strategy, with responsibilities for all Ministers. Ms K Armstrong: As my colleague Sian Mulholland said, Alliance will support the Sinn Féin motion and the Ulster Unionist amendment. The motion highlights the stark reality that inflation in the UK stands at 3·8%, nearly double the Bank of England's target and higher than the EU average. That is not an abstract figure; it is a daily burden on workers, families, carers and the wider community. The amendment adds an equally urgent dimension: the sharp rise in food prices, growing levels of food insecurity and the unacceptable pressures being placed on household budgets by increases in, for instance, the cost of school meals and the cost to heat a home. It is becoming more difficult, given that you need to have a smartphone to access benefit apps and online portals. It is all costs. The motion and the amendment recognise the vital role of voluntary and community organisations and call for stronger and more coordinated action from Ministers. We just heard Mr Kingston say that the anti-poverty strategy is an Executive strategy, so we should be seeing something in that from all Ministers, but we do not. How many times must the Assembly debate poverty and the cost of living before we see a completed anti-poverty strategy and that strategy being put into action? How many speeches must we give before families see relief in their bills, children are guaranteed access to affordable food and communities feel the impact of a plan that is not just drafted but delivered? Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way? Ms K Armstrong: I will. Mr O'Toole: I could not agree more with Ms Armstrong. Does she agree that more important than the motion from Sinn Féin is that, in addition to the Communities Minister putting meat on the bone of the anti-poverty strategy, the multi-year Budget published, we hope, by the Finance Minister before the end of the year puts in place a multi-year strategy for poverty reduction? Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Member has an extra minute. Ms K Armstrong: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Hopefully, I will not need that. I agree: the two must go hand in hand. In the past, for instance, the House agreed to mitigations to protect people, but mitigations alone are not a strategy. I acknowledge the draft anti-poverty strategy and its limitations, but I also acknowledge that it alone is not an action plan. Families cannot heat their homes with words; children cannot be nourished by debates; and communities cannot be sustained by motions alone. The amendment is right to call for "measurable poverty reduction targets". That is what we need to see for the multi-year Budget. We need to see a clean Programme for Government with clear objectives, and one of those would be to reduce poverty. The motion is right to demand a revision of the draft anti-poverty strategy. No more Ministers should be making decisions that exacerbate the effects of poverty. For example, others have mentioned the Minister of Education, but the cut in holiday hunger support is the type of action that is contrary to ending poverty. What we need now is urgency, clarity and delivery. We need Ministers to work together — the Communities, Education, Finance, Health and Economy Ministers have all been mentioned today — to align decisions with the objectives of a strengthened cross-Executive anti-poverty strategy. We need timelines and accountability, and we need to know when households will feel the difference. I support the motion and the amendment because they reflect the real concerns of our constituents. Recently, as many of you have done, I have been working through the energy scheme. The vouchers allocated to me were gone in a day. That is how much pressure we face in our constituency offices, and the community and voluntary sector and advice sector face that all the time. Unless we move beyond speeches to strategies and from those strategies to implementation and from implementation to measurable outcomes, we will be back here in a few weeks talking about the families who continue to struggle. I hope that this will be the last debate that we will have in the House without an anti-poverty strategy. Let this be the moment when we stop talking about poverty and start tackling it. Ms Murphy: I will highlight the rising cost of living and its devastating impact on workers, families and, in particular, our rural communities. The cost of living has risen everywhere, but, in rural areas, the pain is more acute. With higher fuel costs, higher heating bills and barriers to accessing services, those communities are always asked to do more with less. For many, a car is not a choice but a necessity, yet the cost of filling the tank and the steep rise in insurance premiums, especially for younger motorists, make it nearly impossible for many families to get from A to B. Food prices have also surged. In rural areas, food banks report unprecedented demand. Community groups and charities are stretched to breaking point, yet those groups do extraordinary work. They run warm hubs, deliver food parcels and support isolated older people, but they cannot carry this alone. They need clarity, sustained support and proper funding. Last week at the AERA Committee, we received an update on the new rural policy framework from officials that highlighted many of those areas, but even the Department has admitted that it will take months for support to get out at grassroots level. The draft anti-poverty strategy needs clear goals and firm action to tackle food and fuel poverty, the issues that hit rural families hardest. We need policies that do not just sound good on paper but deliver real help on the ground. Rural families are hard-working, resilient and resourceful. They should not be punished by geography. They deserve a fair chance and to be protected from a crisis that they did not create. Yes, we cannot control every global force driving inflation and, yes, we are subject to the decisions of yet another British Government who prioritise everyone but workers, from proposing inheritance tax on family farms to cutting support for the most vulnerable in our communities, but we can choose how we respond. We can strengthen welfare mitigations, oppose water charges and invest in the community organisations that hold our rural areas together. I urge Members to support the motion. Let us act now to protect families, support workers and strengthen our rural communities. Ms D Armstrong: At the outset, I thank the proposer of the motion. I will speak principally on the amendment tabled by my colleagues and me. The rising cost of food in Northern Ireland is one of the most pressing issues facing households here, and it is having a devastating impact on families, especially children. As others have said, in the run-up to Christmas, many families will feel an even greater burden as the cost of Christmas presents and food stacks up. Recent statistics from the Trussell Trust are startling, to say the least. In the last five years, food prices have increased by 37%, while the cost of a frozen turkey has risen by 41%. The reality is that families may not even be able to afford a frozen turkey. The average cost of a Christmas dinner for four people has increased by around 15% as of 2024. As my colleague Andy Allen said, in 2024, the charity found that 520,000 people across Northern Ireland were food-insecure. To put the figures into perspective, that is almost one in four people in Northern Ireland, and, even more worryingly, 130,000 of that number were children. Furthermore, National Energy Action found that, in 2024, 40% of adults were experiencing food poverty and spent more than 10% of their salary on household energy costs. The rising cost of living is pushing more families into poverty and deepening health inequalities. Parents are being forced to choose between heating their home and putting food on the table. Members, we are failing in our duty to protect the most vulnerable. The recent 50% hike in the cost of school meals by the Education Authority adds yet another layer of pressure on already stretched household budgets. Fifty pence might not seem like much, but, when you factor in five school days, alongside multiple children in a family, the cost quickly adds up. For many children, the school dinner is the most substantial meal that they receive in a day and making those meals less affordable risks worsening child health and child poverty. Our party's amendment aptly calls for departmental decisions to "align with the objectives of the Executive's anti-poverty strategy" and develop practical measures to reduce poverty. Making important decisions on school meal pricing and increasing the eligibility threshold for free school meals would go a long way in reflecting those commitments. Ms K Armstrong: I thank the Member for giving way. I was surprised when I learned through a question for written answer that the Minister of Education confirmed that nutritional standards for school meals were considered and reviewed in 2021, but, because he does not have enough money, none of those nutritional standards has been put into practice. Does the Member agree that we should push, as part of the anti-poverty strategy, to make sure that, where and when we feed children, they get the best nutrition possible? Ms D Armstrong: I thank the Member for her intervention. Yes, that is critical. In many cases, that is the principal meal of the day for a child, and so the nutritional elements in it need to be considered. As I said, making important decisions on school meal prices and increasing the eligibility threshold for school meals are important first steps that would make a real difference for low-income families. Beyond those simple measures, the draft anti-poverty strategy must be strengthened to include ambitious but achievable poverty reduction targets with clear actions to address food and fuel poverty. I urge Members to back the amendment and the motion and send a message to the Education and Communities Ministers and indeed to the Executive that they must help to ensure that no child goes hungry this winter. Mr Carroll: As other Members have indicated, the cost-of-living crisis does not make as many headlines these days, but it is still very much with us. Just because prices are not rising by as much as they were maybe two or three years ago, it does not mean that they are not rising or that they have come down. That is felt most acutely by working-class communities and families struggling to feed their children, especially now that the cost of school meals has been hiked. It is felt by low-paid and minimum-wage workers who are denied the bare minimum of pay increases and by unpaid carers, one in four of whom lives in poverty, who save the Executive £16 million per day in care costs. One in three children in my constituency of West Belfast, disgracefully, lives in poverty, and the two-child benefit cap is a key reason for that shameful statistic. I hope that the Chancellor does the right thing and scraps that cruel and nonsensical policy in the upcoming Budget. However, it is hard to remember the last time that the Labour Government made any decision that benefited rather than hurt working-class communities. I am unclear from the answer that the Minister for Communities gave to my question earlier what his plan of action or intention is. One in five households here has not been able to afford heat or power at least once in the past two years. That is 20% of the population living in misery in cold, dark homes. Since 2019, the number of people using food banks here has increased by 93%. That is a shameful statistic and an indictment of the powerful parties here and at Westminster, who are content to let the rich get richer while the rest of us are condemned to a life of poverty. Make no mistake about it: failure to tackle the cost of living is a political choice. The spiralling cost of living is a crisis for some people, but it is a bonanza for others. Maybe it is best to call it a "record profiteering crisis". For example, the 500 richest people in the world have net worth of more than £8 trillion. Those are the people — billionaires and trillionaires — who are destroying our climate and exploiting workers while our Governments cosy up to them. There is more than enough wealth in our society, but it is in the wrong hands. Top 5.15 pm Locally, the Executive could do plenty of things to reduce costs for people who are struggling to get by. In the past, families living in the North were protected from the harshest impacts of poverty by relatively low housing costs, but, since COVID, housing costs have risen through the roof. Rents here are rising faster than anywhere in Britain, including London. Our wages are stagnating, and workers in the public sector have seen their wages fall in real terms. The poorest quarter of tenants living in the lowest-quality housing in Belfast spend 50% of their monthly income on rent: a huge figure. Private rents continue to rise while inflation soars and wages stagnate. Our poverty levels will skyrocket. It is entirely within the Executive's remit to introduce rent controls to stop landlords from rent gouging and exploiting their tenants, but the Minister refuses to act. He continues to parrot landlord propaganda. The state subsidises private landlords to the tune of £300 million each year in the form of housing benefits and universal credit housing costs, but we do not hear a lot about those massive handouts; we focus only on so-called benefit scroungers. Look at unpaid carers. According to economic analysis by Trussell, as others have said, protecting people from hunger and hardship would benefit the economy and public finances by over £2 billion each year, as well as delivering an additional £360 million of savings in public service costs. Tackling poverty makes economic sense, but, more important, it is the correct moral and political choice. Poverty is cruel, but it also costs money and costs lives. Tackling poverty requires a strong, ambitious anti-poverty strategy with measurable, time-bound targets. It should be a fully funded strategy that puts money in people's pockets. Instead, we have an unresourced strategy that features reheated actions, strategies that were already in development and next to no concrete actions by the Minister to increase people's income in the face of an unending cost-of-living crisis. It is an insult to the expert panel whose work the Minister binned and ignored. It is a slap in the face of the working-class communities that have been destroyed by poverty and deprivation under the Executive and on the Minister's watch. He should go back to the drawing board, listen to the experts, including experts by experience, and implement a proper anti-poverty strategy and fuel poverty strategy. Mr O'Toole: I am pleased to speak towards the end of the debate to give my thoughts on the motion. Over the past number of years — in many ways, the past decade and a half but particularly since 2022 — we have been living through an extraordinary spike in the pressures facing ordinary working families and the most destitute. Costs have increased exponentially. We support the motion; we also support the useful amendment. For some time, ordinary working families here have had the lowest disposable income, certainly, in the UK and in these islands in general. As we know, we have the highest levels of economic inactivity, child poverty and precarity. All those things are a shame on our society, and they have got worse over the past number of years. They have got worse, yes, as a long-term consequence of some of the decisions made by UK Governments to squeeze spending — austerity, as it is often called — and, yes, as a result of international pressures, including the invasion of Ukraine by Russia and price gouging by lots of big companies. All those things have international consequences and broader challenges. The key thing, as multiple Members have said today, is not that we come to the Chamber and complain about that but that we take practical measures to help the people who sent us here — the people whom we promised to help and who, as many Members said, face real hardship this winter. Whether they are elderly people struggling to heat their home; working families or, indeed, families in which someone is out of work thinking about how they will pay for Christmas gifts; or parents having to go without in order to feed their child or get them an extra treat at Christmas, all those things should pinch at our conscience and be at the front of our mind every day. We need practical measures, not gesture motions. While we support the motion and the amendment, therefore, it is important that I say, further to what my colleague Mark H Durkan said, that the motion is problematic for a number of reasons, particularly because it is the lead party in government putting forward a list of complaints about policies that it has overseen in a Government in which it is the biggest party. When our politics is defined by a lack of responsibility, that is a problem. It is true that successive British Governments have made appalling decisions. The two-child limit is appalling, indefensible and immoral, and I hope that it will be reversed in full. Sinn Féin cannot, however, take credit for some welfare mitigations while avoiding responsibility for the Executive's failure to mitigate the two-child limit, for which the SDLP put forward a practical proposal last year. We said how we would pay for it. We said that we would change how vacant property relief works and use the rates revenue from that. Our proposal arose not as a result of what is in the Sinn Féin motion today but as a result of a Sinn Féin Minister putting up a tax that, despite what is stated in the motion, impinged on working families. We said, "Use some of it to mitigate the two-child limit". The Sinn Féin Finance Minister could have chosen to do that, but it was not done. Do not come to the Chamber today as if you have no responsibility and as if the only people who are ever responsible for bad things are the Brits or the DUP. Yes, they are responsible for bad things, but, if you seek office, you have to be accountable for the decisions that you do and do not take. There is a problem when we are presented with such a motion, and it is particularly disappointing to hear people talk about how awful it is to raise revenue in any circumstances and their refusal to do so. If a party is on the left, as mine is, it has to be honest about the decisions that it wants to take. As Mr Carroll said, those who have broader shoulders should pay more in order to help those who have less. Sinn Féin has not made that decision, despite having had the Finance Ministry for the past half decade and on another occasion before that. How is that the case? We had an indication from a previous Sinn Féin Finance Minister that they would abolish the domestic rates cap. That would be a small increase for people with more expensive homes, but we have had no indication of whether or when that will happen. Earlier today, we heard Sinn Féin's Economy Minister lambast air passenger duty, which is a tax that, I imagine, is paid largely by people who fly a lot, who, by definition, are people who can afford to fly. It is a small tax that is critical to getting people to reduce how often they fly, yet it is apparently an awful thing that must be abolished. I say to those who tabled the motion to take responsibility. Do not gaslight people who face real pressures in their everyday lives. Do not table meaningless motions when you hold the posts of First Minister, Economy Minister, Finance Minister and Infrastructure Minister, which are positions that can take real steps. Take responsibility. Use the power that you have rather than simply transfer the blame to others at every opportunity. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call the Minister for Communities. Minister, you have up to 15 minutes. Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): Thank you very much indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to respond to the debate. First, it is clear to everyone in the Chamber that we all care about the issue; of course we do. I certainly do not question anybody's determination or ambition to tackle it. We have deep care and compassion for those who suffer most, because we all, I hope, got into politics because we wanted to make people's lives better. That is certainly where I am coming from. I want to enhance and uplift our communities and make Northern Ireland the best possible place for people to live and bring up their families. I do not doubt the sincerity and commitment of others in the Chamber, and I trust that they do not doubt mine. We all know, as I certainly do from the contact that I have had with my constituents and with community and voluntary organisations, how deeply the increase in the cost of living is affecting everyone across Northern Ireland. Financial pressures are particularly acute as the winter weather sets in and as we find ourselves in the run-up to Christmas. The whole Executive, including Ministers from the party opposite, which tabled the motion, must recognise that. I have said this before, but I find myself having to repeat it: my Department alone cannot tackle poverty and socio-economic disadvantage. The motion mentions my anti-poverty strategy, but let me again remind Members — the SDLP did so, as did Kellie Armstrong — that all parties in the Executive have collective responsibility for the strategy. We all signed up to its publication and its going out to consultation. I asked all Executive parties whether they wanted further strategic actions to be included. No further actions were added to it, and Ministers agreed that the strategy be published and go out for consultation. It is important that we recognise that it is not the strategy of one Minister alone. I am more than happy to take forward our proposal and stand in this place answering questions on it. Mr Allen: Will the Minister give way? Mr Lyons: I will give way. Mr Allen: Does the Minister acknowledge that my party's amendment highlights the fact that the anti-poverty strategy is an Executive strategy? Mr Lyons: I do. I am grateful to the Member for doing that. Maybe it highlights the fact that it is only Sinn Féin that is unaware, or unwilling to admit, that it is an Executive strategy. I had to laugh when Mr Gildernew was speaking, actually, because he exposed that. When something good happens, the Executive can take the responsibility. When something bad happens, it is all down to me. He said that, in 2022, Deirdre Hargey brought forward welfare mitigations. However, last year, when I brought forward welfare mitigations, it was the Executive who did that. That exposes where he is coming from. Fair enough that he wants to highlight that, but the important —. Mr Gildernew: Will the Minister give way? Mr Lyons: I am more than happy to give way. Mr Gildernew: I said that the Executive had allocated the money for it — Mr Lyons: Ah, the Executive allocated the money. Mr Gildernew: — which is true. Mr Lyons: It is true. It is also true that I was the one who brought forward the paper and secured that funding. Look, I am happy to work with others to ensure that that is the case. It is, however, important to remember that we all have to tackle poverty together. Even if we do that as an Executive, we alone cannot tackle it. It has been said in the Chamber that poverty is a political choice. With the best will in the world, and even with all the money that they have, the Executive are not going to be able to tackle poverty alone. It will require everybody working together; not just the Executive and voluntary and community organisations but the people who are affected. Many people out there are struggling with poverty, and there are things that we need them to do. We need them to come forward and use the Make the Call service to ensure that they get the support that they need. We need them to look at the opportunities that can be presented to them. I will talk a bit more about the anti-poverty strategy shortly, but I want to first address some of the work that my Department is taking forward. Work on a fuel poverty strategy is well under way and due with the Executive before Christmas. Mr Gildernew, in particular, asked about that. That will contain a brand new energy efficiency scheme for low-income households. As I have said before, we cannot tackle poverty if we are not tackling fuel poverty. Fuel is one of the things that we spend most of our incomes on, so it is important that we tackle fuel poverty and bring that support forward. Since its launch in 2015, the affordable warmth scheme has supported over 30,000 households, with more than £136 million invested to date. The discretionary support scheme delivers tens of millions of pounds of emergency financial assistance year after year. In 2025-26, £2·8 million was allocated to support social supermarket projects in every council area. There was a £100 winter fuel payment for every pensioner household in Northern Ireland after the SDLP's sister party decided to cut that support. That kind of support plays a vital role in safeguarding the well-being and dignity of people who are in financial distress, especially amid the ongoing cost-of-living crisis. I ask everyone in the Chamber to remember the Make the Call service when they are speaking to constituents who are struggling. It is one of the most effective ways in which to ensure that we get support to those who need it most. Make the Call generated £62·1 million extra of annualised benefits for 12,025 people in 2023-24. Vital work is being carried out by voluntary and community organisations. Once again, I express my gratitude to those from that sector who continue to provide support and advice, which supplements what government can deliver. Finally, one of the most important things that my Department does is help people to ensure that they have a safe and secure home to live in. Good housing is fundamental to the health and well-being of any society. Consistently, it seems as though I am the only one who is talking about that. I want to ensure that we have sufficient money for the social housing development programme. Again, I appeal to the Finance Minister and other Ministers to ensure that we have the money that we need to deliver properly on our housing targets. Mr O'Toole: I thank the Minister for giving way. On that issue, is he having conversations with the Finance Minister about a multi-year Budget? Obviously, his Department will have put in a return, or it will be in the process of doing so. Is there a specific amount that you have asked for as a settlement from the multi-year Budget, and what is the upshot of those conversations? Top 5.30 pm Mr Lyons: I have had conversations at ministerial level to highlight the demand that we have and make sure that that is met. Returns are also submitted to make sure that we can achieve our housing targets. More than that, I am not just saying, "Give me more money"; I am saying, "What are the other ways in which we can subsidise housing? How can other Departments help, maybe with public land?" If they are not able to give up cash, perhaps we can look at the transfer of public land. I hope that that will get Executive approval. Look at what we are doing to utilise financial transactions capital for intermediate rent in particular — a new programme has been brought in — and at what I am doing to revitalise the Housing Executive. I will do everything that I can on the issue because, if you get housing right and people have warm homes to live in, that will deal with so many of the other issues that we are facing. We need to make sure that we have a strong and growing economy that provides well-paid jobs. Only a few Members touched on that issue during the debate. Maurice Bradley put it best when he said that we need to make sure that jobs are available to people and that there is a safety net if people cannot work. Working is the game changer. We have heard a bit about Tory austerity and the austerity from the current UK Government. We are in the difficulty that we are in right now because growth has been so low and because there are so many people who have not been helped and supported into work. We talk about the tens of millions of pounds — sometimes, the hundreds of millions of pounds — that we need to deal with some of the issues that we are facing. Look at the disability and work strategy, and the plan that we have: if we can get the number of disabled people in work from 40% up to 50%, that will generate savings of £750 million a year. That is massive. One reason why we are in the position that we are in and do not have enough money to do all the other things that we want to do is that we have to support so many people who, although they can and, often, want to work, have not been given the help and support that they need. That is why I extended the JobStart programme this year. We know how effective it has been: over 80% of people on it either stay in employment or go into further education or training. That has the potential to be a real game changer, never mind others who could work but are not working. We need to do something about that issue. Not only does that help our economic return but it is better for people in the long run to be in employment — it is good for their health, including their mental health, and well-being. The stats are astounding. There is an exceptionally strong correlation between the number of people who are unemployed or not working and deprivation in certain areas. We see that in our constituencies. We know that the most deprived constituencies are often those that have the highest levels of economic inactivity, so let us do something about that. That will release the funds to do some of the other things that we want to do. I will address some of the concerns and the comments that were made about the anti-poverty strategy, although I sometimes question whether I should; I feel that, given that I have said it so many times in the House, Members are not listening any more. Of course, there will be measurable targets and outcomes in the final anti-poverty strategy and/or action plan. I am more than happy to make sure that we are held to account on those issues. The Executive are not responsible overall for poverty, because it is not only the Executive who tackle those issues; there will be other worldwide factors outside our control. However, we should be held to account, and there should be objective measures and targets, which need to be recognised and implemented. I have no issue whatsoever with those being included; they need to be. That is the right thing to do. However, there will be more changes to come, because it was a genuine consultation; it was not the final product. We, as an Executive, said, "This is what we are able to do. This is what is funded. This is what we're putting forward. It's over to you — the public, and voluntary and community organisations — to have your say and tell us what you think". I look forward to the feedback's being published when it comes to support for the policies that we have set out. Of course, we will consider and analyse different recommendations that come forward and see what is doable and what will make a change. I look forward to that as well. I am very keen that we do not simply put together a list of policies that might sit on the shelf, not be funded and not make a difference to people at all. We could have developed a strategy that was a wish list with no recognition of reality. I could have made vague promises for action five or 10 years from now that no one would hold me to. I am not here to make empty promises. I want to make promises that I can deliver on. That is also why we will have an action plan that will be a living document that changes and develops as our evidence base evolves and, importantly, as resources become available. I encourage all Members in the Chamber to join in that work so that we can make a real difference. I will make a couple of comments on some of the issues that were raised. I am very keen to make sure that we put in place those things that actually make a difference. Sian Mulholland raised that: she talked about the lived realities. Absolutely that has been taken on board. She is right to highlight some of the issues that she has. I have no issue whatsoever; I do not bristle whenever she mentions Scotland. I am dealing with the basis of reality and the evidence that has been presented. That has not been overwhelming, nor is it a long-term solution. Our energies and our focuses, first and foremost, should be put on where we can tackle those root causes. That is why the strategy is formatted in the way that it is as well. I was also very taken by the comments made by Maurice Bradley, as I have already outlined. It is important that we support people into work. I have mentioned that already. I thank Andy Allen for recognising that work has been done and that it has been taken forward further than it ever has been before. I have already addressed the issue of clear outcomes and measured targets, and I understand that in relation, in particular, to food and fuel poverty, which he raised as well. I also associate myself with his remarks in relation to unpaid carers. My time is coming to a close. I finish with the hypocrisy of Mr O'Toole, who complains about air passenger duty, yet his own party members support flights between the City of Derry and Dublin. Perhaps we can have more consistency from the Member. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Minister. I call Jon Burrows to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. Jon, you have five minutes. Mr Burrows: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. I will say at the outset that it is refreshing to be discussing issues that really are kitchen-table politics — issues that are directly relevant to our constituents up and down the country. As my colleague who proposed the amendment said, it really strengthens the motion and is a constructive amendment. I begin by making a couple of points about the rate of inflation. Inflation is one of those things that is of great interest to economists, but the figure of 3·8% is, of course, in many ways irrelevant to those who are in the real economy, because inflation affects different people in different ways. Food inflation, as my colleague Ms Diana Armstrong said, is actually running at 11%, and over the past four years, it has been 37%. It far outstrips the overall rate of aggregate inflation — and that is what really hits working families most. You will hear from people when they go to do their shop: they know that the things that they put in their trolley have got so much more expensive. That hits working families because, first, they have more mouths to feed — hungry children and teenagers playing sport — and second, because it is a non-discretionary spend. The inflation rate also includes other things, like new cars or holidays and all kinds of other things. They are often discretionary, but the food increase is non-discretionary. That is why the amendment is right to link food security and school meals to the motion. I will come on to school meals, because we have opposed the 20% increase in school meal costs. That increase outstrips inflation. Yes, there has not been an increase since 2017. The difficulty with that is that it will make it more difficult for parents to manage the jump. In hindsight, if you are going to do it, it would be better to spread the increase incrementally year by year and achieve the 20% at the end of that period, as opposed to holding off and jumping by 20%. It will potentially be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Food prices have increased, and that puts pressure on the cost of producing school meals. I accept that. One of the things that we as a party have been very clear about is that the price of school meals should be the last thing that is increased. There are savings to be had in how procurement is done. Ask any schoolteacher and they will tell you that it is cheaper to go out and buy printer paper directly than to get it through procurement. Those are ways in which you can save money, if they are done properly, as opposed to front-loading the cost on to schools. My colleagues and many others — I will not summarise what everyone else said — were quite right to say that school meals are critical, particularly for those whose families can just about afford them and who are ineligible for free school meals, because, with the rise in food prices, they are guaranteed to get that square meal. It is therefore vital that we do not increase the price. That is why we have also called for the threshold for eligibility for free school meals to rise. The last time that it rose, it rose by £390. However, that figure, and what families can afford, is more than wiped out by the increase in inflation. Mr Durkan: Will the Member give way? Mr Burrows: I will give way. Mr Durkan: Does the Member acknowledge that it was not a hugely significant amount and that it was even less significant given that the threshold had fallen significantly with the migration of so many people to universal credit? Mr Burrows: Yes, that really compounds it. To make the point really clearly, the threshold to qualify for free school meals was an income of up to £15,000. It then went up to £15,390, which reflects about a 3% rise in inflation. However, the real inflation felt by working families who have children and have to pay those non-discretionary inflationary rates that run at 11% a year wipes out —. Ms K Armstrong: Will the Member give way? Mr Burrows: I will give way very briefly. Ms K Armstrong: The cost to the Northern Ireland Government of increasing school meal costs is a cost to the Department of Education itself, because it is the Department of Education that pays the Education Authority for school meals. Therefore, on the one hand, we have working families who are going to be in trouble, and, on the other hand, we have the Department of Education, which is already in trouble with its budget, now facing higher costs to provide those meals. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Member has an extra minute. Mr Burrows: That is a valid point. There is consensus emerging that the increase in school meal prices should be reviewed. There is a side issue that I will not explore in detail now, but it is the fact that there is a lot of wastage in school meals at primary-school level, because schools have insufficient ability to tailor the menu to the needs of the children. The menu is overly prescriptive. I did a little bit of touring around different schools, and, from the figures, I found that there is up to 40% wastage in primary-school meals. The catering department says, "Look, we know what the children will eat, and we are unable to tailor the offering". Why is that relevant? It is relevant because, if you were running a commercial setting and people were not eating half the food that you were supplying, you certainly would not get away with increasing the price. Food banks are a significant feature in our society. I used to volunteer at one before I came to this place, and it was a heartbreaking experience to see people wait for a delivery of food so that they could feed their children. One of the particular difficulties, of course, is —. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Will the Member draw his remarks to a close? Mr Burrows: I will. I commend the amendment. It strengthens the motion and is constructive, and I encourage Members to support it. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Emma Sheerin to make a winding-up speech on the motion. Emma, you have up to 10 minutes. Ms Sheerin: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. [Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.] I am glad to hear a somewhat united voice in response to the motion that we tabled, because we want everyone to work together in support of the workers and families whom we all represent. As has been said by others throughout the debate, poverty is, indeed, a political choice. At the heart of my politics and the reason for my getting involved in political life is my rejection of the fact that we in the North are forever at the whim of whatever British Government are in office, and, as a result of their decisions, the people whom we represent often suffer. We call on the Minister to work with colleagues in order to mitigate the worst impacts of the latest British Government and the decisions that they make. Top 5.45 pm We see the impact of our having been pulled out of the EU and the loss of all the EU funding from which we were able to benefit previously, particularly in such areas as mine in Mid Ulster. There has been the loss of CAP funding, which supported working farmers and their families, and the rural development programme, which has had an impact on our local community groups and small communities across the North. We have also seen the cliff edge that has come about due to the replacement of the European social fund and the European regional development fund, which helped local groups and people who needed support to get into the workplace; the pressure that has been heaped upon working people by the threat of the inheritance tax on our farming families, which compounds the pressures that they are already under; and the planned rise to the pension age, which has seen the elderly and most vulnerable worrying about how they are going to fund the last years of their life. At the same time, there is always money to fund billionaires' interests; there is always money for capitalist projects. That is what we object to. We watch as the British Government tell us, very proudly, that they are increasing their defence spending, year-on-year, and that they aim to spend 2·5% of GDP on defence by 2027. How disgusting is that? Today, we had DUP Member after DUP Member question a Minister who attempts to prevent public funding going towards the creation of Israeli genocidal war weapons — Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Emma, can you keep your remarks to the motion, please? Ms Sheerin: — in this jurisdiction — something that I object to. The British Government have shown us that they will always prioritise weapons over workers. They prioritise warfare — not in any of our names. They contribute to famine in a foreign land, as opposed to contributing to families here at home. We want to see a common voice coming from the Assembly, and we want to work together to mitigate those worst impacts and support the families and workers whom we all represent. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. Question, That the amendment be made, put and agreed to. Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly notes that, according to data published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) on 22 October 2025, the inflation rate is at 3·8%, which is higher than the EU average; further notes that that rate of inflation is nearly double the Bank of England's 2% target; is deeply concerned about the persistent rise in the cost of living and the impact that it is having on workers, families and communities; commends the Executive on their firm refusal to impose unfair taxes and charges on already struggling workers and families; recognises that many will face increased financial pressure in the weeks leading up to Christmas and throughout the winter; further recognises the vital work that is being carried out by voluntary and community sector organisations in supporting vulnerable groups who are disproportionately affected by the rise in the cost of living; acknowledges the ongoing concerns expressed by the sector with regards to the shortcomings of the draft anti-poverty strategy published by the Minister for Communities; notes with concern that food prices have risen sharply in recent years, contributing to increasing levels of food insecurity and worsening health inequalities across Northern Ireland; further notes the recent announcement by the Education Authority regarding the increase to the cost of school meals, which will add further pressure on already stretched household budgets; recognises that affordable access to food, including school meals, is vital in tackling child poverty and reducing health inequalities; believes that departmental and arm’s-length body decisions must align with the objectives of the Executive’s anti-poverty strategy; calls on the Minister of Education to review the Education Authority’s decision, to increase the eligibility threshold for free school meals, and to work with the Minister for Communities to ensure a coordinated approach to supporting low-income families; and further calls on the Minister for Communities to strengthen the draft anti-poverty strategy to include measurable poverty reduction targets and clear actions to address food and fuel poverty. Adjourned at 5.47 pm. Top
[ni-assembly-official-report][plenary_report] Official Reports https://aims.niassembly.gov.uk/officialreport/report.aspx?&eveDate=2025/11/11&docID=457576 Official Report: Tuesday 11 November 2025 Table of Contents Matter of the Day Michael D Higgins: Tribute Members Statements Armistice Day Uachtarán na hÉireann: Oirniú President of Ireland: Inauguration Armistice Day Anti-migrant Attitudes Mabel Hetherington: My Perspective Photography Competition Sudan: Conflict An Coinbhinsiún Eorpach um Chearta an Duine: Comóradh 75 bliana European Convention on Human Rights: 75th Anniversary Anti-Bullying Week Women s Sport: Transgender Ban School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill: New Guidelines Second World War: Northern Irelands Contribution Bann Bridge Closure Assembly Business 10 November 2025 Assembly Commission Budget for 2026-2030 Ministerial Statement Ulster Boxing Council: Equality Commission Review Oral Answers to Questions Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Ministerial Statement Ulster Boxing Council: Equality Commission Review Executive Committee Business Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill: Legislative Consent Motion Private Members Business Digital ID Scheme: Opposition Audit and Re-imaging of Memorials Adjournment On-street Parking Charges in Lisburn The Assembly met at 11:30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair). Members observed two minutes' silence. Matter of the Day Michael D Higgins: Tribute Mr Speaker: Sinéad Ennis has been given leave to make a statement in tribute to the outgoing president of Ireland, Michael D Higgins, which fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24. If other Members wish to speak, they may indicate to do so in the usual manner. Ms Ennis: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. [Translation: Thank you, Mr Speaker.] Today marks a moment of renewal and gratitude for the Irish nation. As Uachtarán [Translation: President] Catherine Connolly takes her solemn pledge to serve the people of Ireland, we reflect with deep appreciation on the leadership of Uachtarán [Translation: President] Michael D Higgins. President Higgins has led Ireland with integrity, courage and compassion. Throughout his public life, he has championed social justice, community, Ireland's neutrality and the Irish language. He placed deep value on our peace process, reaching out to all who call this island home. He has been a unifying voice for equality, inclusion and respect, which are qualities that defined his presidency and his vision for Ireland. On the international stage, he showed unwavering moral courage, speaking out against injustice and oppression, including the Israeli genocide in Gaza. While others remained silent, he gave voice to Ireland's proud tradition of standing for peace and human rights. Beyond politics, President Higgins made an immeasurable contribution to the arts as a poet, cultural advocate and lifelong champion of creativity. His work reminded us that the arts are central to who we are as a people and a source of empathy, reflection and national pride. As his presidency concludes, we also honour Sabina Higgins for her intellect, warmth and steadfast support. For people in the North, the presidency has always represented belonging beyond borders, yet this must be the last election in which Irish citizens in the North cannot vote for our president. Ireland is changing rapidly. This is a moment in which to embrace opportunity and to build a shared, peaceful future that is based on dialogue, generosity and vision. Relationships across this island have never mattered more. Together, we are shaping a new chapter of our national story: one of inclusion, cooperation and hope for all who call this place home. The presidency of Ireland is a noble office that stands for the values, ideals and hopes of the Irish nation. Today, Catherine Connolly will become uachtarán na hÉireann [Translation: president of Ireland] , with a positive vision to champion the Irish language, neutrality and unity and to be a voice for the people. I believe that she will safeguard those values, ideals and hopes with courage as a president who represents all of Ireland with integrity, honour and wisdom. Go raibh míle maith agaibh [Translation: Thank you very much] , President Higgins and Sabina, for your years of service, and comhghairdeas [Translation: congratulations] to President Connolly on her inauguration. It is an important moment for our nation. I close by sharing some remarks from President Higgins that should be heard and reflected on by people inside and outside the Chamber: "I am convinced ... that ... there remains within the Irish people a profound and unyielding commitment to seeing beyond the self, to seeing the other as a friend, the principles of generosity, decency and care for one another". Ms Mulholland: It is an honour to have the opportunity to pay tribute to President Michael D Higgins, a man whose contribution to public life, the arts and the Irish language has left an indelible mark on the island of Ireland. His lifelong commitment to the revival and celebration of the Irish language has been a source of inspiration. He has reminded us that the language is not only a means of communication but a vessel of identity, culture, belonging and literature. Through his words and example, he has shown that the Irish language lives not just in classrooms or Gaeltacht areas but in the hearts of all who cherish it. Equally, his steadfast advocacy for the arts —an area that I am incredibly passionate about — including poets, musicians, storytellers, playwrights and dreamers, has enriched our shared cultural life. During his presidency, he reminded us again and again that the arts help us to see not just ourselves but one another more clearly. Of course, we cannot speak of his presidency without mentioning his faithful companions: first, Shadow, then Síoda, Bród and, of course, the remaining pup, Misneach [Translation: Courage] , all of whom so often stole the show at Áras an Uachtaráin. They reflected the warmth, gentleness and humanity that he brought to the role. Has there ever been a more wholesome image of a world leader than that of President Higgins with his dogs nuzzling at his legs, looking for a wee pet on the head, in the midst of press conference? After 14 years of service as uachtarán na hÉireann [Translation: president of Ireland] , President Higgins leaves a legacy of compassion, intellect and deep cultural pride. On behalf of those who have admired his leadership, I offer heartfelt thanks for his service to people across this island and beyond in his international role. As his tenure comes to a close, we extend our warmest wishes to Catherine Connolly as she begins her term in Áras an Uachtaráin. I hope that her service will continue the spirit of empathy, equality and imagination that President Higgins so beautifully embodied. Go raibh míle maith agat, a Uachtaráin, as gach a ndearna tú ar son mhuintir na hÉireann. [Translation: Thank you very much, President, for all you have done for the people of Ireland.] Mr Butler: Evidently, I come from a very different background, culturally and politically, to Michael D Higgins, but I have always admired his boundless energy, his undoubtable wit and the warmth of his unique personality. His deep humanity has left an indelible imprint far beyond the confines of Áras an Uachtaráin and was in evidence, not least, as has been pointed out, when we saw him in the company of his beloved Bernese mountain dogs. As a fellow dog lover, I often think that Minnie, my St Bernard, might well have liked to meet some of his companions. As we know, public service, and the glare that comes with it, is unrelenting, but there is no doubt that Michael D Higgins, towards the latter part of his career, found some energy when it came to his political views, and he was not afraid to share them. The latter part of his career was indelibly different from the start of it, but that is OK; it is always well and good to share our differences. He always did so with grace, intellect and a poet's heart. One of the things that I will remember from his tenure happened when Robin Swann was the Health Minister, and it always makes me smile when I think about it. Robin quipped that he was finally glad to meet a man whom he could look in the eye. Perhaps that is proof that, even in politics, humour can bridge any height divide or political divide. I wish him well in his retirement. Mr Kingston: We recognise that this is an important day for the people of the Republic of Ireland, with the inauguration of the new president of Ireland, Catherine Connolly. This is an opportunity to pay tribute to the terms of service of Michael D Higgins in that important head of state role. From the perspective of the unionist community in Northern Ireland, we have to say that there were occasions of missed opportunity during that service, such as the centenary of Northern Ireland in 2021, but that is a matter for another time, and it will be reflected on. However, we recognise his service. I remember meeting him when Michael Longley received the freedom of the city of Belfast. As a fellow poet, Michael D Higgins attended that event. That was a special occasion in the Ulster Hall. We acknowledge his service to the Republic of Ireland, to the people of Ireland and to all who look to Ireland for their identity. We wish him well in his retirement and many years of happiness to come. Mr O'Toole: I thank Sinéad, who submitted the Matter of the Day, and thank you, Mr Speaker, for accepting it. I am really pleased that, today in the Assembly, we are able to give thanks to the outgoing uachtarán [Translation: president] , Michael D Higgins, and to say, "Go raibh míle maith agat" [Translation: Thank you very much] for an extraordinary near decade and a half of service to the people of Ireland. I mean "Ireland" in the truest and broadest sense of the word — this whole island and all who feel an affinity with it, both here and abroad. Michael D Higgins has been an extraordinary representative of the Republic. It has already been said and said persuasively that he was committed to social justice, the arts, an Ghaeilge [Translation: the Irish language] and to championing the rights of new and marginalised communities on the island. All those things are true. Michael D Higgins has also been an extraordinary voice for intellectual challenge and debate, and I want to reflect on that today, in addition to all his other qualities, including his ownership of the wonderful Bernese mountain dogs. Before and even after becoming a politician, he was a public intellectual and someone who was not afraid to engage in public debate and challenge. He often said that one of the gifts of being a democracy and being a republic is the challenge and gift of democratic debate, which is something that is to be constantly renewed and invested in. He used Áras an Uachtaráin to do that, including through the many events that he staged around the decade of centenaries, the Machnamh 100 events and seminars that got academics, thinkers and writers from all over the island to reflect on our history. He was an extraordinary convener of ideas. Michael D Higgins's love of the arts is particularly to his credit. I am grateful that Brian also mentioned the fact that he came to Belfast for the awarding of the freedom of the city of Belfast to Michael Longley, a close friend of Michael D Higgins who recently passed. Michael D Higgins represented the love of the arts that is such a distinctive part of the soul of our nation on this island — all of this island. Michael D Higgins proudly represented that. He also welcomed not just the artistic contribution but the intellectual contribution of people from the whole island, including those from a Protestant, unionist, British tradition in this part of the island. We owe him a great deal. We also owe his wife, Sabina, an immense debt. She has been an extraordinary servant alongside him. Spouses of people who are elected to office are not always given that credit. Michael D Higgins continued the work of Presidents McAleese and Robinson in building bridges across the island. I hope and expect that President Connolly will continue that, and we wish her warm congratulations today. Comhghairdeas [Translation: Congratulations] on her election, and we hope to hear more about her plans for the whole island. This is an important day for all of us. Thank you, President Higgins, and thank you, Sabina. Mr Speaker: Your time is up. Mr Gaston: It is, of course, a matter for the Irish Republic who its president is. In many respects, who holds that office or what they say during their tenure is a matter of indifference to most unionists. However, since the matter has been raised in the House, I will reflect on the legacy of President Michael D Higgins. President Higgins will be remembered as the president who used a Holocaust memorial event to attack the world's only Jewish state, prompting a walkout by members of that minority community. He will be remembered for refusing to confront the antisemitic undercurrent in his own state and for attacking those who dared to raise it. He will be remembered for boycotting a service in Armagh marking the centenary of Northern Ireland because the invitation correctly described him as: "President of the Republic of Ireland". He will be remembered for fostering what Professor Liam Kennedy of Queen's University Belfast famously called the "MOPE mentality" — the belief that the Irish are the most oppressed people ever. In that work, Professor Kennedy demolished the nationalist myth that Irish history has been a history of unique and unrelenting suffering. Top 11.45 am President Higgins's legacy is one of grievance, politicisation of what should have been an apolitical office and needless offence. Sadly, nothing that we have seen from his successor suggests that she will be anything other than a continuation of that toxic legacy for unionism. Mr Carroll: I thank the Member for raising the Matter of the Day. Given how turbulent the world has been over the last 14 or so years, it has been really important to have a figurehead in the Irish state who has stood tall with principles that have helped us carve out a better, fairer and more just world. Given that the familial head of state in Britain has been mired in scandal, controversy and crisis over recent years and weeks, it has been essential to have a figurehead who has stood on the right side of history and stands on the right side in the present. On homelessness, Michael D Higgins understood that there is a crisis in housing that has been caused by government policy and a lack of action in the South. He used his last Christmas message to refer to that. He talked about Christmas being an important time for people and the fact that a lot of people do not have a home to live in or go to and that many have been forced to travel and leave the South because of the crisis. Uachtarán [Translation: President] Higgins has also been a clear stalwart of Palestine. Despite the misrepresentation of his position, he has lambasted those who have remained silent. He said that, if we ignored and remained silent on Gaza, it would be a moral failure. Some Members in the House would do well to listen to his lesson on that. Crucially, while the war drums are banged in Germany and across Europe, in Britain and by some in the South, including columnists who will not don military fatigues themselves but want working-class kids to kill and to be killed in the scramble for war, Michael D Higgins has been an important, sensible and sane voice for peace. Míle buíochas le Micheál agus lena bhean chéile, Sabina. [Translation: A thousand thanks to Michael and his wife, Sabina.] I thank them for their time and work in the position. Catherine Connolly is very much her own person. Despite similarities in viewpoints and geographical location — they are both Galwegian Gaeilgeoirí — I doubt that Michael D Higgins can add keepy-up champion to his long list of incredible achievements and accomplishments. Despite all the propaganda against Catherine, she is a person of conviction and principle who cannot be bought and sold, and people do not like that. She will be a crucial voice for peace and justice and in welcoming all who live here, North and South. Whilst disturbing news has emerged in recent days about individuals plotting to bomb a mosque in Galway, Catherine will be a voice for rejecting such hate in Galway, Dublin, Belfast, Derry or elsewhere. Go n-éirí an bóthar leat, a Catherine. [Translation: May the road rise up to meet you, Catherine.] Mr McNulty: I thank the Member for bringing to the House the Matter of the Day. As Michael D Higgins concludes his two terms in presidential office, I take the opportunity to warmly recognise a record of service that has been defined by intellect, integrity and imagination. Since his election in 2011, President Higgins has used his office not just to represent Ireland but to reflect on what kind of society it aspires to be. A man of depth and curiosity, he placed the arts, culture and civic participation at the heart of our national life, opening Áras an Uachtaráin to community groups, writers and musicians and making culture central to citizenship. In his speech, 'Toward an Ethical Economy', he argued that societies must rediscover a moral purpose in their economic life that values care, community and human flourishing as much as growth or productivity. He reminded us that the work of sustaining families, friendships and communities is every bit as vital as what happens in markets or boardrooms. The insistence that ethics and empathy belong at the centre of public policy has been a constant theme of his presidency. In 2014, President Higgins became the first Irish president to make a state visit to the United Kingdom, at the invitation of Queen Elizabeth II. It was a landmark moment in Anglo-Irish relations — a powerful symbol of reconciliation, mutual respect and diplomatic maturity. Through his Machnamh 100 series, President Higgins invited people to reflect with honesty and empathy on Ireland's complex history during the decade of commemorations. Such actions are not unique. Throughout his presidency, he upheld inclusion, equality and dialogue as cornerstones of a healthy democracy. Through all of that, Michael D Higgins carried the presidency with warmth and humility. He reminded people that public life can be thoughtful as well as practical and that the language of politics can still be rich in empathy, tolerance, culture and imagination. He leaves office having strengthened the sense of dignity and depth of the role of president and having shown that leadership can be wise, humane and profoundly decent. In that, there are lessons for all of us — especially here — to carry forward his example of thoughtfulness, curiosity, tolerance and belief in the power of ideas to serve the common good. Go raibh míle maith agaibh, a Mhicheáil D agus a Sabina. [Translation: Thank you very much, Michael D and Sabina.] Is ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine. [Translation: We live in one another’s shadow.] As the presidency comes to an end, I wish comhghairdeas agus ádh mór [Translation: congratulations and good luck] to our incoming uachtarán, [Translation: president] , Catherine Connolly. My hope is that she moves us positively towards a new dispensation on the island. Members' Statements Armistice Day Mr Harvey: On the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month, the guns of the Great War fell silent. It was the war to end all wars, but, sadly, the intervening years have seen many bloody conflicts, with millions of lives lost to war. On this Armistice Day, we are reminded of all those who gave their tomorrows for our today: those who fought for freedom in Flanders; those who stormed the beaches of Normandy and the shores of Sicily; and those who fell in the defence of Northern Ireland in recent conflicts. Today is a day for reflection and thankfulness for their sacrifice. In schools, shops and workplaces across the nation, the public will have paused in silent reflection this morning to honour their memory, lest we should ever forget. I pay tribute to the Royal British Legion and all the organisations that play such an instrumental role in leading our cities, towns and villages in the acts of remembrance each year. I always view it as a great honour to attend events in my constituency over Remembrance Weekend and to see each community come together to pay their respects. Remembrance is not only about the past; it is a call to us in the present to prepare for the future, to reflect, to learn and to build on our common humanity for the good of all. We are reminded in the Book of Ecclesiastes that: "To every thing there is a season ... a time of war, and a time of peace." May we be ever thankful for those who gave their all to afford us the peace that we enjoy in this part of the world today, and may we continually pray for an end to conflict throughout the globe. Uachtarán na hÉireann: Oirniú Mr McHugh: Déanfar Catherine Connolly a oirniú ina huachtarán nua ar Éirinn inniu. Ar dtús – gabhaim mo bhuíochas leis an Uachtarán Micheál D Ó hUigínn agus le Saidhbhín Uí Uigínn as a seirbhís. Is gradamach, cneasta mar a rinne an tUachtarán Ó hUigínn ionadaíocht dár dtír. Bhí sé go mór i bhfách le gnéithe is fearr na hÉireann a chur chun cinn: muintir na hÉireann, cruthaitheacht na nÉireannach, cultúr, agus luachanna daonlathacha na hÉireann. Ní dheachaigh sé ar chúl scéithe leis nuair a chonacthas dó an éagothroime, an leithcheal nó an éagóir bheith ar bun. Creidim go mbeidh Catherine Connolly ar aon dul leis an traidisiún sin agus í ina huachtarán. Chuaigh Catherine i gceann feachtas toghchánaíochta a raibh meas, dínit agus aontacht ina chroílár, feachtas ina raibh tacaíocht aici ó chomhghuaillíocht leathan páirtithe polaitíochta ar chlé, lena n-áirítear Sinn Féin, an páirtí is mó ar an oileán seo. Is amhlaidh a fuair sí an líon is mó vótaí d’aon uachtarán riamh ar Éirinn. Rinne Catherine príomhthéamaí den Ghaeilge, d’Aontacht na hÉireann agus de chosaint neodracht na hÉireann ina feachtas toghchánaíochta. I ndiaidh di an toghchán a bhaint, thug sí cuairt ar Oireachtas na Samhna a bhí ar cois i mBéal Feirste - ag tarraingt le chéile beirt de na téamaí sin. Is geal liom go bhfuil rún aici teanga oibre Áras an Uachtaráin a dhéanamh den Ghaeilge agus an Ghaeilge a chur chun cinn agus í ina huachtarán. Is cuid dár n-oidhreacht chomhchoiteann í an Ghaeilge. Chaith Catherine tráth ag cur feabhas ar a cuid Gaeilge agus í ina duine fásta. Tuigeann sí a dheacra atá sí, mar Ghaeilge agus, ar an ábhar sin dhearbhaigh sí nach gcuirfeadh sí trom ar an té nach labharfadh í ach go spreagfadh sí é lena labhairt. Aithníonn sí an luach agus an léargas ar leith a thugann an Ghaeilge dúinn. Creidim go gcuirfidh Catherine an chomhbhá, an dlúthpháirtíocht, ceartas sóisialta, an tsíocháin agus an comhionannas chun cinn agus í ina huachtarán - ní hé amháin dár muintir féin ar an oileán seo ach ar son ceartas agus síocháin dhomhanda. Go n-éirí leat, a Catherine. President of Ireland: Inauguration [Translation: Today sees Catherine Connolly inaugurated as the new Irish president. First, I thank President Michael D Higgins and Sabina Higgins for their service. President Higgins has served our country with distinction and integrity. He has been committed to promoting the best of Ireland, our people, our creativity and culture, and our democratic values. Where he saw unfairness, inequality and injustice he called it out. I believe that Catherine Connolly will be a president in that tradition. Catherine fought a respectful, dignified and unifying election campaign endorsed by a broad left coalition of parties, including Sinn Féin as the largest party on this island. She received a larger vote than any president of Ireland before her. Catherine made the Irish language, Irish unity and protecting our neutrality key themes of her election campaign. After her successful election she visited Oireachtas na Samhna when it was hosted in Belfast, in a sense bringing those two themes together. I welcome her intention to make Irish the working language of Áras an Uachtaráin and to move the Irish language to the fore in her presidency. The Irish language is part of the heritage of all of us. Catherine went back to improve her Irish as an adult. Understanding how difficult it is, she affirmed that she would not judge anyone for not speaking Irish but would rather encourage them to do the same, acknowledging the value and unique world view that it provides. I believe that Catherine's presidency will promote compassion, solidarity, social justice, peace and equality, not just for all our people on this island but for global justice and peace. Good luck, Catherine.] Armistice Day Miss McIlveen: We have just marked the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month. We pause to remember those who gave their all for the freedoms that are all too easily taken for granted. Armistice Day is not merely a date in the calendar for the people of Northern Ireland; the importance of remembrance runs deep. Throughout our cities, towns and villages, memorials are etched with the names of those who answered the call when tyranny threatened the world. They were men from every trade and background who stood shoulder to shoulder on the fields of France and Flanders, and who never returned home. Their sacrifice helped to shape the liberty that we enjoy. Armistice Day reminds us that our freedom comes at a price. It was bought with sacrifice and bravery, and it must be guarded with gratitude and respect. When we pause for remembrance, we honour not only those who fell in the Great War, but all who have served since, through the Second World War, in Korea, in Afghanistan, and those who defended democracy and law and order in our Province during the dark days of terrorism. When we wear our poppy with pride, it is not a political emblem. It is a symbol of remembrance and respect. It is a symbol that unites generations in quiet reflection to cherish peace, while never forgetting the price that was paid to secure it. Remembrance is not about glorifying war; it is about honouring those who serve and remembering those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedoms. As the clock struck 11.00 am today, we stood together in silence, and we recalled the words of John Maxwell Edmonds: "When you go home, Tell them of us and say, For your tomorrow, We gave our today" We will remember them. Anti-migrant Attitudes Ms Nicholl: There is an article in the newspapers today about an all-female, far right group giving out pink knuckledusters at an anti-migrant protest. We need to change how we talk about migration, not just on the human level, but to give the economic perspective. If you set aside the cruelty of this, and the fact that you will be arrested if you are caught with a knuckleduster, anti-migrant protests make no economic sense. We need to talk about the economic aspect more in the Chamber. We are approaching a full labour market, and we have many skills gaps. If you speak to any business, they will say that they are desperate to recruit because it is hard to fill the skills gaps in Northern Ireland. So, we need foreigners. If we want people to look after us when we are old, we need foreigners to come into our economy. When I post about this subject on social media, people say, "Oh, this is what Kate always says. Liberal Kate. It is about illegal migrants." Tell me what the distinction is, because when vigilantes in east Belfast knock on the doors of people with a different skin colour, they are not checking on their migration status, and it is creating a chill factor in our society. People from different backgrounds already feel fearful. We have seen over the past couple of summers just how much fear there is in society. Top 12.00 noon As politicians, we have to talk about the economic realities. If we cannot agree, on the human level, that these are human beings and that they need to be treated with dignity, humanity and kindness, let us talk about the economic side of things. The unemployment rate in Northern Ireland is at an all-time low, and we have a weak labour supply. Growth in the working-age population is weak and will be negative from 2029 onwards. That poses serious challenges for our economy when it comes to skills. Whether it is from the chamber, the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses and other organisations, we keep hearing that skills are an issue. Between 2001 and 2023, 293,000 long-term international migrants arrived, but 231,000 people left, so net migration flow was 62,000 people. If we do not have the people and skills to fill our vacancies, how will we grow the economy? We have in Northern Ireland some of the most amazing businesses. Our amazing screen industry is growing, and we have tech: we have so much opportunity. Where we fall down and let people down, however, is in our rhetoric. We demonise outsiders when we need to encourage foreigners and migrants to come here. We can deal with asylum by speeding up claims, dealing quickly with false claims and creating safe and legal routes, but we need to be really careful not to conflate the issues. Our economy needs foreigners to come here, and we need to be very careful in how we talk about that. Mabel Hetherington: My Perspective Photography Competition Ms D Armstrong: I commend the achievement of a young pupil at Irvinestown Primary School, Mabel Hetherington, who last week was crowned winner of the people's choice award in the child category of the Down's Syndrome Association's 2025 My Perspective photo competition. My Perspective is an international photo competition for people with Down's syndrome that provides a unique opportunity to show the world through their perspective, using a photographic lens. Eight-year-old Mabel was shortlisted in the child category this year for her photo 'My Happy Mummy' that she took of her mum on a sunny day on Rossnowlagh beach in County Donegal, which, she says, is their favourite happy place. Mabel emerged as the people's choice award winner, competing against photographers from Australia, the USA and Canada amongst others. This year, 250 entries were submitted, so for Mabel to have won the award against stiff competition is such a remarkable achievement. Last Thursday, Mabel had a wonderful night in London with her mother, Elaine, and father, Gary, at the My Perspective final. The night was made all the more memorable when she took the award home. I speak for everyone here when I say that we in Northern Ireland, especially in Mabel's home county of Fermanagh, are all immensely proud of her. Mabel is a member of the Fermanagh Down Syndrome Support Group. The support group does amazing work in helping families across the county. Mabel's mum, Elaine, is its chairperson, and I thank her sincerely for all her work and vital support for all those who have Down's syndrome and their families. On behalf of the Assembly, I extend our heartfelt congratulations to Mabel and her family. Mabel, you are one of our brightest stars, and your skill in photography inspires us all. You are a little superstar with the biggest smile, and I know that you will go on to do even greater things. You have done Northern Ireland and your family proud. Sudan: Conflict Ms McLaughlin: What is happening today in Sudan is one of the gravest humanitarian and moral crises of our time, yet it remains largely invisible on the world stage. The people of Sudan are enduring atrocities that would shock the conscience of every Government and international institution. In el-Fasher and across North Kordofan, the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) are carrying out systematic killings, torture and sexual violence. They are targeting civilians because of who they are and where they live. Communities are being starved as a weapon of war. Hospitals, markets and even places of worship have been bombed. In one city, as many as 7,000 people were massacred last year, and the violence has only deepened since. It is not chaos without cause; it is a campaign of terror that is financed, armed and enabled by powerful international actors. Evidence shows that the United Arab Emirates has supplied weapons, drones and funding for the RSF, funnelling support through private military networks, mercenary contractors and others. In return, the RSF provides access to Sudan's gold and other natural resources. It is a trade in blood and suffering. Meanwhile, the international community has stood by. The United Nations Security Council has failed to act decisively, and the United Kingdom, despite its historical role in Sudan and its position as a UN penholder, has not matched its words with actions. Governments who claim to stand for international law have allowed impunity to prevail, because accountability would mean confronting their own economic interests. We cannot call for peace in one part of the world and turn away from a genocide in another. Sudan's conflict is destabilising an entire region from Sahel to the Red Sea. Its implications for global security, migration and human rights are absolutely immense. Immediate actions are needed. The United Arab Emirates must be held accountable for arming and financing the atrocities. The Rapid Support Forces should be designated as a terrorist organisation under international law. Arms sales to states that are fuelling the conflict must stop, and humanitarian access to the people of el-Fasher and Darfur must be secured without delay. Later this month, as chair of the all-party group (APG) on UNSCR 1325, women, peace and security, I will be hosting a number of women from Sudan who will give direct evidence of their first-hand experiences. It is a terrible atrocity happening in plain sight, and it is going unnoticed by the world. I beg Members to come and join me to hear that evidence at the APG. An Coinbhinsiún Eorpach um Chearta an Duine: Comóradh 75 bliana Mr Gildernew: Comóradh 75 bliana ó bunaíodh an Coinbhinsiún Eorpach um Chearta an Duine (ECHR) an tseachtain seo caite. Tá ról ríthábhachtach ag an choinbhinsiún maidir le síocháin agus cobhsaíocht a chothú anseo in Éirinn. I ndiaidh blianta fada coimhlinte, bunaíodh creat do shochaí chomhchoitianta shíochánta le Comhaontú Aoine an Chéasta 1998 — próiseas atá ar siúl go dtí an lá inniu. Mhol Páirtí Coimeádach na Breataine agus Reform, gur chóir tarraingt siar as an Choinbhinsiún Eorpach um Chearta an Duine. Dá mbeadh an Bhreatain leis an Choinbhinsiún Eorpach um Chearta an Duine a fhágáil, rachadh sin i bhfeidhm go mór ar an chomhoibriú trasteorann ar fhiosrúcháin choiriúla agus ar chásanna eiseachadta, agus chuirfeadh sé le costais riaracháin trádála agus gnó. Dá mbeadh an Bhreatain leis an Choinbhinsiún Eorpach um Chearta an Duine a fhágáil, rachadh sin go mór faoi chreat Windsor agus faoin Chomhaontú Trádála agus Comhair. Shílfeadh an tAontas Eorpach gur claonbheart a bhí á imirt orthu, agus d’fhéadfadh cliseadh ar na caibidlí dá dheasca. D’fhéadfadh sé gabháil faoin chomhoibriú taidhleoireachta fosta. Leagadh amach san Acht um Chearta an Duine 1998, a chuimsíonn an Coinbhinsiún Eorpach um Chearta an Duine, leagadh amach ann sin sraith de luachanna coiteanna a sháraíonn deighiltí polaitíochta agus deighiltí seicteacha. Tugadh dearbhú ann do náisiúnaithe nach mbeadh cearta ag brath ar cheannasacht na Breataine amháin ach go mbeadh siad faoi chosaint ag institiúidí Eorpacha. Daingníodh d’aontachtaithe go mbeadh riail an dlí ann taobh istigh de chreat daonlathach atá ag cur le traidisiúin dhlíthiúla na Breataine. Cuireadh síos dúshraith atá bunaithe ar chearta leis an chairt, dúshraith a thacaigh leis an chómhuinín agus a laghdaigh an eagla roimh leithcheal ná ceannas. Sa deireadh, bhí an Coinbhinsiún Eorpach um Chearta an Duine riachtanach ní hé amháin le daoine aonair a chosaint ach leis an phróiseas síochána a chothabháil. Trí chearta uilíocha agus an comhionannas a fhí sa dlí, leanann sé de bheith mar bhonn taca don athmhuintearas agus don chobhsaíocht dhaonlathach. European Convention on Human Rights: 75th Anniversary [Translation: Last week saw the 75th anniversary of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The convention has played a crucial role in supporting peace and stability here in Ireland. Following decades of conflict, the Good Friday Agreement 1998 established a framework for a shared and peaceful society — in a process that continues to this day. The British Conservative Party and the Reform party have publicly advocated withdrawing from the ECHR. British withdrawal from the ECHR would impact upon cross-border collaboration in criminal investigations and extradition cases and increase administrative costs for trade and business. British withdrawal from the ECHR would significantly undermine both the Windsor framework and the Trade and Cooperation Agreement, and would thus likely be seen by the EU as an act of bad faith, which could lead to a breakdown in negotiations on new agreements and/or a reduction in diplomatic cooperation. The Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporates the ECHR, provided a common set of values that transcend political and sectarian divides. For nationalists, it has offered reassurance that rights would not depend on British sovereignty alone but would be protected by European institutions. For unionists, it reaffirmed the rule of law within a democratic framework that is consistent with the United Kingdom’s legal traditions. In this way, the charter created a rights-based foundation that supports mutual trust and reduces fears of discrimination or domination. Ultimately, the European Convention on Human Rights has been essential not only for protecting individuals but for maintaining the peace process. By embedding universal rights and equality in law, it continues to underpin reconciliation and democratic stability.] Anti-Bullying Week Mrs Guy: This week is Anti-Bullying Week, and its theme is "Power for Good". That is a challenge to us to act, so do not be a bystander in the face of bullying. Be the hero. Be the person who acts. I cannot stress enough the impact that the small act of kindness of reaching out to someone who feels isolated, hurt or damaged by bullying behaviours can have. Parents and teachers need to nurture that in our children, but they should also be an example to them. Those who are in leadership roles in particular have to walk the walk, not just talk the talk. Our schools should be inclusive and welcoming to all children, whose uniqueness should be celebrated. It may be hard to end bullying completely, because it is a complex area. Equally, however, we should not simply accept that it happens. I know from talking to experts that if we focus on embedding best practice in preventative work and on taking swift, decisive action when bullying incidents occur, we can really make a difference to young people's lives. Children and young people will look to see what action is taken if they are facing bullying. They will look to see whether there are signals that people are there to help them or whether they are on their own. Many schools are leading the way on that, but the Minister of Education and the Department can and should do more. They should use the theme "Power for Good" and act. We need an evaluation of the implementation of the Addressing Bullying in Schools Act (Northern Ireland) 2016 since its commencement in 2021. The Department needs to centralise and report, at a system level, the data that is being captured through bullying concern assessment forms in order to analyse trends and then respond with interventions. What good is capturing data if we are not going to do anything with it? We need investment in high-quality research in order to provide an accurate baseline assessment of the nature and extent of bullying in our schools. We need to ensure that schools have a dedicated and trained anti-bullying lead and that they have adequate protected time to dedicate to that important role. We need to ensure that all initial teacher-training education programmes include evidence-based content on addressing bullying in schools and that such content becomes a mandatory part of any future core content framework that is proposed through the TransformED Northern Ireland programme. I ask children and young people who are facing bullying please to speak up. I ask their friends who witness bullying please to speak up. I ask teachers, youth workers, parents and families, when children are reporting bullying, please to take them seriously. My message to the Education Minister is that more can and needs to be done to support our schools to deal with bullying. I am up for working together to do that. Women' s Sport: Transgender Ban Ms Forsythe: It was great to see a strong move for common sense in the world of women's sport this week. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has moved a step closer to introducing a blanket ban on transgender women from female categories across all sports. The IOC president, Kirsty Coventry, vowed to bring in the policy as part of her election campaign and subsequently set up a working group on the protection of women's sport. After a presentation by the IOC's medical chief, sources have said that a ban is likely to be introduced in 2026. The initial findings of the IOC's science-based review suggested that athletes who were born male retain physiological advantages even after reducing their testosterone levels. I would say that that is and always has been common sense. It is simple biology, and the fact that there has been such a debate about it shows how far our society has gone to appease the woke agenda. I am pleased to see that positive progress for women in sport. Women's rights have been hard fought for across many domains, including sport. We are still not on an equal footing, but we have made significant progress. The recent compromising of women's rights through some attempt to be politically correct is unfair and wrong. I unashamedly stand up for the rights of women: the rights of biological women and of all women and girls from the moment that they are formed in the womb. I feel so strongly about the inequalities that women and girls face in sport that I have brought forward proposals for a private Member's Bill in order to address the issues in Northern Ireland. I thank all those who have engaged with and completed the consultation on the proposed Bill. Some of the key points that I want to address about women and girls' sport are to do with equality, safety and fairness. On equality, I want to remove barriers for women and girls who wish to access sport. I want to improve safety in sport through having safeguarding processes in place and securing single-space changing facilities for women and girls. I want us to ensure fair competition in sports between biological women and girls. Together, we can make a difference for all women and girls in sports in Northern Ireland. As I said at the start of my remarks, this is a good day for women's rights, a good day for women's sports and a good day for common sense. Top 12.15 pm School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill: New Guidelines Mr Mathison: I rise to highlight the need for the provision of new guidelines arising from the School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill. We heard repeatedly how important it was to deliver the Bill quickly to enable schools to reflect the new guidelines in their prospectuses for the 2026-27 academic year. I declare an interest as a governor of a local primary school. In an answer to a recent question that I asked on the issue, the Minister stated that primary schools needed to have their prospectuses published by 26 November, and post-primaries by 16 December. There was some suggestion that there could be flexibility, but the clock is most definitely ticking. Any school that needs to change its policy will need to have that written in now. If anything is changing in a school's policy, it will need to have consulted its pupils and parents and it will certainly need to have let suppliers know. Surely we want schools to be reflecting the new guidelines in their policies, but it now seems that no matter how quickly they appear, they will simply not have the time to reflect them in their new policies. For a start, I do not think that suppliers will be able to deliver that, and the cut-off dates for prospectuses are fast approaching. Writing a new uniform policy is not something that can be done on the back of an envelope. Aside from consultation and supplier engagement, boards of governors need to meet to scrutinise and approve new policies. I think that we in the Chamber are all in agreement that we want the cost of uniforms to come down, but it looks as if we are heading into a scenario in which policies will be retained or revised before the guidelines can be reflected. Time is simply running out. I am speaking in my capacity as a private Member, but I was clear when I argued for a longer Committee Stage that it was always better to take the time to get the Bill right rather than to rush it and end up in the strange grey area that we now exist in. Schools are being asked to reflect guidelines that they have not seen or, at best, will see very late, and then reflect them in policies before the Bill even has Royal Assent. That feels like uncertainty rather than clarity. Parents, schools and suppliers need clarity, but, with the prospectus deadlines nearly upon us, I am struggling to see how that can be provided. If we were going to see schools act on the cost of uniforms, draft guidelines should have been provided months ago. Right now, we know as little about the impact of the Bill as we did when it was introduced. Let us not miss the boat on delivering and get the guidelines out so that schools can update their policies and make the changes that parents need. Second World War: Northern Ireland's Contribution Mr Gaston: The date of 11 November reminds us why we can sit here as the elected representatives of the people of this part of the United Kingdom and openly debate and decide on the laws that govern us. We are here because of the courage of former generations. This year, we remember in particular the end of the Second World War 80 years ago, when democracy, after six long and bloody years of struggle, triumphed over the forces of Nazi tyranny. I proudly reflect on the contribution of Northern Ireland to that struggle. As King George VI stated during a visit to Belfast in 1942: "I know full well the contribution which Northern Ireland is making to the common cause. Your industries, your farmers and, above all, your men and women in the forces, have played a noble part. You have stood fast and loyal". As Churchill noted: "Only the loyalty of Northern Ireland kept our communications open between the United States and ourselves in those dark days when Éire stood neutral". Shamefully, throughout the war years, Nazi Germany was able to operate an embassy in Dublin. Whilst the rest of the world celebrated the death of a tyrant, Éamon de Valera, the Irish Prime Minister, conveyed his condolences to Nazi Germany on the death of Hitler. The statue of Seán Russell, the infamous IRA chief of staff who died en route back to Ireland on a U-boat in 1940, makes Dublin the only city in Europe to have a statue to a Nazi collaborator. When that statue was vandalised in 2009, Sinn Féin called for it to be restored, describing Seán Russell as a patriot who died on active service. Of course, in 1987, republicans desecrated Remembrance Sunday by bombing Enniskillen. For as long as republicans defend Nazi collaborators and bomb remembrance services, their attendance at 11 November events will be treated with contempt by many unionists. However, I say to those who sincerely mean it: when it comes to 11 November, we will remember them. Bann Bridge Closure Mr Robinson: I want to say a few words about the Bann bridge in Kilrea, County Londonderry, which, due to safety reasons, was closed to all traffic on 20 September this year. The issue was extensive cracking on the retaining wall that is located at the south-west end of the single-lane bridge that connects Kilrea to County Antrim. The closure of the bridge is having a huge impact on the business community in that town. Indeed, reports in the media suggest that a drop in footfall has led to a 50% decrease in sales since the bridge's closure almost eight weeks ago. Staff are also being affected, with some having to travel an extra hour to get to their place of work. The closure has seen the town, which sits close to the edge of County Londonderry, cut off from County Antrim. One of the biggest criticisms from traders is what they have described as a lack of definitive information from the Department for Infrastructure. Businesses have said that they have been "hung out to dry", and they say that, had this happened in Belfast, things would have moved much faster. Initially, traders were told that a specialist contractor had been appointed, and work to repair the bridge was to start yesterday. That work would involve a 14-week scheme, meaning that restoring vehicle access over the bridge would be as far away as mid-February. Following further pressure from traders and elected representatives, there will now be an interim solution to install temporary tie bars to provide temporary restraints to the walls while the main repairs are carried out. Only then is the Department optimistic that that work will allow the road to reopen to cars and light vehicles in early December. Even then, that work is subject to suitable weather conditions. With Christmas fast approaching and traders pleading for support from the Assembly, and given the passing weeks, every piece of armoury must be thrown at the project to ensure that a speedy but safe repair is carried out. No one should underestimate the importance of getting it right and getting the job done. Whilst a longer-term project is being considered to address the single-lane arrangements of a listed bridge that was built 241 years ago, a fully accessible bridge is simply a lifeline to the survival of the town of Kilrea. Assembly Business 10 November 2025 Miss McIlveen: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During yesterday's debate on an independent environment agency, when I was explaining the risks of independent bodies having complete control over enforcement policy, I used the example of the Equality Commission pursuing Ashers bakery in a case that ultimately cost the public purse over £250,000, which could have been more if Ashers had pursued the Equality Commission for costs. That example was completely relevant to the risks of establishing an unelected quango with independent enforcement powers. However, Mr Tennyson interrupted to make a spurious point of order and accused me of engaging in a "homophobic dog whistle". That is a grossly defamatory comment. It was clear from my contribution that that was not the case, and to interrupt in that way and make such an offensive and scurrilous accusation was wholly inappropriate. I ask that Mr Tennyson withdraw his disgraceful and inappropriate comments and offer a full apology for the accusation. I am happy to leave that with you, Mr Speaker, for a ruling. Thank you. Mr Speaker: Thank you for drawing the matter to my attention. We will look at it and come back to the Assembly on the matter. Members, take your ease before we move to the next item of business. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Blair] in the Chair) Assembly Commission Budget for 2026-2030 Mr Clarke: I beg to move That this Assembly notes that the Assembly Commission presented its budget for 2026-2030 to the Audit Committee on 17 September 2025; further notes the report of the Audit Committee on the scrutiny of the Assembly Commission's budget for 2026-2030, laid in the Assembly on 23 October 2025 [NIA 115/22-27]; and agrees the Assembly Commission's budget for 2026-2030, as set out in the Audit Committee report. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour for the debate. The proposer will have up to 10 minutes to propose the motion and up to 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes. Mr Clarke: The Assembly Commission has a duty under section 40 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to: "provide the Assembly, or ensure that the Assembly is provided, with the property, staff and services required for the Assembly’s purposes." It is on the basis of the Assembly's requirements that the Assembly Commission develops its draft budget. The draft budget is scrutinised by the Audit Committee, with input from the Department of Finance to help inform the Committee's scrutiny. The Commission presented its 2026-2030 draft budget to the Audit Committee on 17 September 2025 and provided further clarification to the Committee on 24 September 2025, responding to the issues raised by the Department. Following that scrutiny of the Commission budget, the Audit Committee produced its report and laid it in the Assembly on 23 October 2025. The Commission thanks the Audit Committee and its officials for its work and scrutiny. Agreement of the motion will enable the Assembly to determine the resources that the Commission will be given to support the Assembly in carrying out its legislative functions. Once agreed, the budget will be notified to the Department of Finance for inclusion in the three-year Budget to be presented to the Minister of Finance. The budget will ensure that the Assembly can carry on its core functions and continue the programme of investment in key areas such as IT, building maintenance and staffing. When the Assembly was not sitting, the Commission had limited investment in those areas, and that underinvestment now needs to be addressed. In line with what was being requested of the Departments, the Commission has prepared a multi-year budget to cover the financial periods of 2026-29 for resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL) and 2026-2030 for capital DEL. The total resource DEL budget for 2026-29 for each of the three years is £67·36 million, £71·07 million and £69·06 million. The capital DEL budget for 2026-2030 for each of the four years is £1·32 million, £2·45 million, £1·79 million and £1·52 million. There are also costs associated with the operation of the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee, but those costs are funded directly by Her Majesty's Treasury, and, while those figures were reported to the Audit Committee for completeness, the Assembly is not being asked to consider or approve those figures today. The first category in the Commission's budget is income, and the Commission expects to receive just over £0·6 million each year. Substantially all that relates to the recovery of ministerial salaries from Departments. The second category relates to the salaries and allowances paid to Members and those incurred by Members in establishing and running constituency offices. The total budget for Member-related costs for the three years from 2026-29 is £21·43 million, £23·75 million and £22 39 million. Within that, the budget for Members and officeholders' salaries over the same period is £7·2 million, £7·1 million and £7·3 million. Top 12.30 pm Members' salaries continue to be provided under Part 1 of the Assembly Members (Salaries and Expenses) Determination (Northern Ireland) 2016. However, the responsibility for determining Members' salaries and pensions will fall to the new Independent Remuneration Board that is currently being established. It is not possible to anticipate whether the board will introduce any changes to Members and officeholders' salaries or pensions or the scale of the changes, if it makes changes. Therefore, the budget is based on the rates that are set out in the current determination, allowing for a small prescribed annual below-inflation increase of £500. The reduction in the Members' salary for 2027-28 reflects the financial impact of the dissolution of the Assembly and the subsequent election of the new Assembly. Members may recover the costs of establishing and running a constituency office, including the purchasing of equipment, utility costs, rent, rates and support staff salaries. The amount required for the three years is £13·6 million, £15·3 million and £14·5 million. The budget is based on the current rates of allowances, and the key driver for the increase in 2027-28 is the financial impact of the Assembly election in May 2027. Members' annual travel allowances, which assist with the cost of business travel, are forecast to be just under £0·4 million each year. Members' other costs include security measures, disability allowances, ill-health retirement and resettlement allowances. The third major category in the budget covers salary payments for Commission staff and the administrative costs incurred in delivering the full range of services that are needed by the Assembly. The Commission's staff salary costs for the three years are budgeted at £28·9 million, £29·7 million and £30·5 million. Those costs provide for a net increase of eight staff in the first two years, falling to seven in the final year of the budget period. Those staff will support the delivery of the Commission's public engagement strategy, project delivery and business improvements. The 'Assembly Commission Corporate Strategy 2023-2028' contains several objectives that relate to the modernisation of IT hardware and software systems, the website and corporate systems. Those activities help to ensure that the Assembly operates in a modern and secure environment that is effective, fit for purpose and secure from the increasing risk of cyberattacks. Administrative costs for the three years are budgeted at £11·3 million, £11·7 million and £10·7 million. Administration costs cover a wide range of expenditure incurred in supporting Assembly and Committee business and operating Parliament Buildings. As Members will be aware, there are a number of issues with water ingress in Parliament Buildings related to the roof replacement project, which was completed in 2015. Construction and Procurement Delivery (CPD) is overseeing that work on behalf of the Assembly Commission, and the work is taking place in two phases. The first phase is to fix the rear parapet and the three internal courtyards. It has been subject to considerable delay for a range of reasons. However, it is anticipated that the work will commence in this financial year, with the second phase concluding in 2027-28. The timing and costs, however, will be subject to final scoping and tender. The next category is payments to parties under the financial assistance for political parties scheme (FAPP) 2024. The budget for the FAPP scheme costs £1·1 million each year. The penultimate category relates to depreciation charges, which have been budgeted for the three years at £5·3 million, £5·6 million and £4·9 million. That is mostly due to the estimated depreciation of the annual valuation of Parliament Buildings. However, it also reflects the level of expenditure on other assets in the preceding years. The Commission has budgeted capital DEL of £1·32 million, £2·45 million and £1·7 million over the three-year period. For capital only, the Department of Finance has requested an estimate for 2029-2030, which is budgeted at £1·52 million. The capital budget includes expenditure on the IT modernisation project, which, once complete, will have migrated all existing on-premises infrastructure and IT applications to a secure cloud-based platform. That will also provide for a new website, content management system and electronic records and document management system. The Commission continues with its programme of improvement to the space of Parliament Buildings, which will include the upgrading of the Long Gallery, education rooms and shared spaces, as well as three major projects to refresh security measures, including the replacement of the east and west security huts. The Commission's budget includes a diverse range of activities that reflect all the work on the Building to support Members, and I know that Members will join me in paying tribute to the Commission staff who deliver that work. I commend the 2026-2030 budget proposals to the House. Mr Chambers (The Chairperson of the Audit Committee): To reflect the Assembly's constitutional independence from the Executive, the Audit Committee has a role in the scrutiny of the Commission's draft budget, an informal methodology that was introduced in 2016 similar to that adopted by the Audit Committee in agreeing the Estimates for the Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) and Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman (NIPSO). It will be important for the Committee to review how the informal arrangements relating to the Commission's budget are working so that they may be updated and formalised before the end of the mandate. As Members will be aware, the Commission has a legal requirement to meet Members' costs, including salaries, allowances, expenses, Members' staffing costs and pension contributions. Those budget elements are determination-driven and are not under the Commission's control. The Committee therefore agreed that it was content with the proposed costs for Members but noted that they may be subject to change when the new Independent Remuneration Board reports. The Committee also noted that there is a degree of uncertainty around the Commission's forecasts for Members' pensions due to factors outside its control. During the recent evidence sessions with Commission officials, the Committee covered all aspects of the proposed budget for the period. However, certain issues were explored in more detail. They included the Department of Finance's comments on how critical it was to create eight additional secretariat posts. The Committee considered the proposed new posts carefully, noted the analysis provided by the Commission that compared Assembly staff numbers with those of other legislatures and was content with the proposals. Overall, the Committee was content that the proposed total staff and administration costs were appropriate and critical to the delivery of the Commission's corporate strategy. I will move on to ring-fenced funding for costs associated with the operation of the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee. The Audit Committee adjusted the proposed figures down slightly, on the advice of the Department of Finance, to reflect what has been confirmed by His Majesty's Treasury in relation to those costs. The Committee emphasises, however, that, in the unlikely event that a bid to Treasury to cover the shortfall is not met, a solution will need to be found. It will be essential to ensure that that Committee has the resources that it needs to perform its functions effectively. The Committee was content with the proposed capital expenditure plans. It noted the Department of Finance's comments around the expected costs and timing and will monitor those closely as part of its normal financial scrutiny process. The figures agreed by the Audit Committee and set out at page 12 of its report have been submitted to the Department of Finance for inclusion in the Executive's draft Budget for 2026 to 2029-2030. Before closing, I record the Committee's appreciation of the Assembly staff throughout the Building. They all make a significant contribution to the democratic process, and I am sure that all Members will agree with me when I say that we value their commitment and support. In coming to its conclusions, the Committee was mindful not only of the difficult wider public expenditure position but of the need for a sufficiently resourced Assembly. The Committee was therefore content to agree the Commission's proposed budget with only minor changes, as I have outlined. The Committee looks forward to working with the Commission on its expenditure against plans for the remainder of the mandate. Mr Carroll: I will make a few brief comments. The irony should be lost on nobody that health and social care (HSC) workers had to fight tooth and nail for pay parity just to secure a below-inflation pay increase of 3·6%. By contrast, the Independent Remuneration Board will likely recommend a pay increase of much more than that for MLAs. Criminal barristers are considering taking industrial action, as are Translink workers and teachers, potentially, while waiting for their pay award. That is not to mention the hundreds of thousands of people working in low- and minimum-wage jobs in the private sector, retail and elsewhere. Will politicians be left waiting for the Department of Finance to find the cash for what is set to be an astronomical pay rise? Will MLAs be forced to use food banks, get into debt or take on second jobs to pay their rent, mortgage or bills? I would hazard a guess and say that the answer is no. I put on record again my opposition to a lucrative hike in MLAs' pay. The annual Assembly Commission budget offers a chance to look at whom the Commission does business with. I have raised the issue of Hewlett-Packard (HP) devices in these Buildings multiple times. HP is a company that is complicit in genocide and supporting Israel, and it actively administers the digital infrastructure for Israeli apartheid. It is involved in supplying the computer hardware for the Israeli occupation forces, the Israel Police and many others. It is a moderate demand to say that we should not do business with it and should stop spending hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money on its equipment. It has been described as the "Polaroid of our times". Polaroid was a company that was marred in controversy because it continued to trade with the apartheid system in South Africa in the 70s and afterwards. We should also turn our attention to companies, such as Pi Comms and Aramark, that operate in this Building and have a public record of mistreating their workers. In the case of Aramark, it was completely discredited as it was directly involved in the administration of direct provision in the South. Workers in this Building from both organisations have raised serious concerns about those companies. The Commission has been silent. It has closed its ears to those matters. I welcome any information on any work that has been commissioned by the Commission to re-examine those contracts and look again at the huge spend of public money and the practices of those organisations. Commercial sensitivity simply will not cut it. The final point that I want to raise is about a question for written answer that I submitted to the Commission earlier this year. The answer stated: "As at 1 September 2025, there were 2 staff members on a fixed term contract under the IS Scholarship scheme, and 41 Agency Workers placed on assignment with the Assembly Commission." It is my understanding — I am happy to be corrected — that, in this Building, there are at least 41 staff who are on agency contracts. That is shocking and completely unacceptable. The Assembly needs to lead by example. In respect of what the Chair of the Audit Committee said, I say that workers do not want thanks or to be patronised; they want decent terms and conditions, and that has to mean proper permanent contracts. I urge the Assembly Commission to get on with that really important work. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Colin McGrath to conclude the debate and make a winding-up speech on the motion on behalf of the Assembly Commission. Mr McGrath: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Members who have contributed to the debate. The Assembly Commission recognises the wider financial pressures in the public sector and has carefully considered that context when drafting the budget requirement for the next three to four years, while seeking to balance the need to ensure that sufficient resources are available to meet its statutory obligations of providing the necessary services to the Assembly and its Members. The Assembly Commission has considered its requirements for 2026 to 2030, recognising that a significant element of the budget is not discretionary and relates to payments to Members, Members' consistency offices and staffing costs, as set out in the relevant determinations. The Assembly Commission considers the resource DEL budgets for the next three years and the capital DEL budgets for the next four years to be reasonable estimates of the financial requirements to effectively and efficiently support the Assembly and to deliver the required services to Members. The budget proposals presented today embody the Assembly Commission's continuing commitment to ensuring that the Assembly is fully supported with robust, innovative and secure systems in a modern working environment. The budget not only meets the costs that will arise in the provision of services to the Assembly in terms of staff and running and maintaining the Building but ensures that Members have the resources that they require to deliver effective constituency services for our community. I thank Alan Chambers, who spoke on behalf of the Audit Committee, for the work that that Committee does in scrutinising the Assembly Commission's budget. Top 12.45 pm I end the debate by joining Trevor Clarke and the other Members who took the opportunity to formally record their thanks to the Assembly Commission staff, who continue to support the work of the Assembly with commitment and dedication. Question put and agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly notes that the Assembly Commission presented its budget for 2026-2030 to the Audit Committee on 17 September 2025; further notes the report of the Audit Committee on the scrutiny of the Assembly Commission's budget for 2026-2030, laid in the Assembly on 23 October 2025 [NIA 115/22-27]; and agrees the Assembly Commission's budget for 2026-2030, as set out in the Audit Committee report. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members should take their ease for a moment, before the ministerial statement. Ministerial Statement Ulster Boxing Council: Equality Commission Review Ms K Armstrong: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In today's agenda, the Minister is due to speak after Question Time. As it happens, the House has moved through its business a lot quicker than scheduled. Members only received the statement at 12.30 pm, giving them very little time to review it. Could we have time to review the Minister's statement by pushing that item of business back until after Question Time? Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I tried to get my statement out to Members as quickly as possible, but the timings moved forward. I believe that it was sent out at only around 12.30 pm. I would be more than happy to postpone the statement until after Question Time, if that is what the House wishes. Mr McGrath: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I suggest that, to help the timings of the day, we could take the statement now, and then break. Members would then have their lunchtime to assess the statement. That would be helpful, because there is a lot of business scheduled, which will take us into quite late this evening. If the statement were to be made now, we would have lunchtime in which to consider it and could ask questions on it later. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I will respond to all those points of order. I had been going to make the point about the timing of the statement, but Members and the Minister have addressed that. Before calling the Minister to make the statement, I will say that, bearing in mind the timing issues that have been raised, there is merit in taking the statement now and taking questions after lunch and Question Time. I remind the Minister, however, that Standing Order 18A(2) requires him to make written copies of his statements available to Members at least half an hour before delivering them in the Chamber. The Speaker has received notice from the Minister for Communities that he wishes to make a statement. I remind Members that, when we come to questions on the statement, they should be concise in asking their questions. We will deal with those after lunch. Mr Lyons: My statement is about the outcome of the recent Equality Commission review of the Ulster Boxing Council (UBC). Members will be aware that Daryl Clarke took a case against the Ulster Boxing Council, alleging discrimination on religious grounds, when he was not selected to represent Northern Ireland at the 2022 Commonwealth Games. While the case was settled without admission of liability, part of the settlement was that the Irish Athletic Boxing Association (IABA) and the Ulster Boxing Council would commit to a comprehensive review, by the Equality Commission, of the governance, practices and procedures that are applicable to them in order to ensure that they comply with the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 and any relevant codes of practice. A number of details are now clear to me. First, it is my view that Daryl Clarke was discriminated against because he is a Protestant. Secondly, many of the recommendations of Professor Duncan Morrow's 2013 independent working group on boxing have not been completed or fully implemented. Thirdly, the recommendations made by the Equality Commission must be implemented in order to restore confidence and ensure that Ulster Boxing's practices, as well as those of IABA, not only are fair but are seen to be fair. The status quo cannot continue. No one should have to think that they will not be able to progress in boxing or any other sport based on their religion or community background. Sport is too important for that; we know how it can change lives. Through some of Northern Ireland's darkest days, boxing was a sport that broke through divides and brought people together. It has played an important role and done much for community relations in many working-class communities. We have proudly produced several world champions, who have used their platform to demonstrate that neither religion nor background has to play a role in determining success. I recently had the privilege of visiting Monkstown Boxing Club as it marked the return of 10 young people who had taken part in a leadership exchange programme in South Africa. I was fascinated to learn about the impact of their visit on the communities that hosted them and the impact on the young people themselves. Monkstown is also Daryl Clarke's home club, where he is now project coordinator. I thank him for standing up for himself and for many others like him. It was not the easiest thing to do, which would have been to do nothing. He persevered, however, not just for his own sake but for the sake of those who come after him. We now have a review report from the Equality Commission that contains clear recommendations. The commission's findings echo Professor Duncan Morrow's 2013 report, which gathered dust while the old guard clung to control. The implementation of his recommendations was never completed. Many were simply ignored. Today, that ignorance ends. I will take the opportunity to outline some of the recommendations and the next steps that I will take. First, the report recommends that there be transparent pathways, published standards and selection processes. That guidance must be clearly communicated and will be based on objective measures and the principle of merit. Secondly, the report rightly calls for a code of conduct that includes the displaying of emblems and flags and other displays of identity. Safe venues for boxers should be non-negotiable for all inter-club and championship events. The report also highlights the long-overdue social media policy, which was drafted in response to the independent working group but, again, not implemented. Finally, the report makes clear that Protestants are under-represented on county boards, UBC committees and IABA structures. In order for decision-making to reflect properly the respect and balance that is required for all communities in Northern Ireland, it is recommended that there be co-option of new members and capacity-building in order to ensure that that important balance is struck. Today, I am announcing a new oversight panel for that process. The panel will be established under my direct control and will be complete within 18 months. I will ensure that it properly holds the IABA and the UBC to account through public progress reports. Let me remind the House that those organisations receive public funding through arm's-length bodies of my Department. Any further slippage will not be tolerated. The commission has also undertaken to engage further with the IABA and the UBC to ensure that next steps are implemented with rigour and in a timely fashion. I put on record my thanks to its chief commissioner, Geraldine McGahey, and its chief executive, Louise Conlon, for their work on the report and for the briefing that they provided to me when we met last month. My hope is that, if they are fully implemented as the commission intends, those measures will have the effect of increasing confidence in boxing as an inclusive sport for all communities across Northern Ireland. Let me send a message to all our young sporting hopefuls: I want you to fulfil your aspirations. I want you to be able to compete and not have to worry about the impact that your faith or community background will have on your ability to progress. Merit, not identity, must be the determining factor. I will do all in my power to ensure that the recommendations are implemented. If they are not, those responsible will be held to account. There must be no going back. There must be no acceptance of the status quo. Change is needed, and it must be delivered. I will ensure that that happens. There is too much at stake to do nothing. To Daryl and others like him, I say this: I am sorry for the barriers that you have faced and for the opportunities that have been lost. That is not your fault. We must ensure that it does not happen again. I commend the statement to the House. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you for your statement, Minister. Members, I have taken note of the points of order that were made earlier. The Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. Questions on the statement will begin following Question Time, when the first Member to be called will be Mark Durkan. The sitting is, by leave, suspended. The business stood suspended. The sitting was suspended at 12.54 pm. On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) — Top 2.00 pm Oral Answers to Questions Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Mr Speaker: Questions 2 and 13 have been withdrawn. Environmental Governance 1. Mr Carroll asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs whether he will legislate for an independent environmental protection agency (EPA) before the end of the 2022-27 Assembly mandate. (AQO 2670/22-27) 7. Mr Donnelly asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs for his assessment of the independent review of environmental governance in Northern Ireland. (AQO 2676/22-27) 12. Mr McNulty asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs for his assessment of recommendation 2 of the independent review of environmental governance in Northern Ireland, stating that his Department's website should offer a clear list of environmental legislation in force in Northern Ireland, including whether it has been commenced or not. (AQO 2681/22-27) Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 1, 7 and 12 together. First, I put on record my thanks to the independent panel for carrying out its extensive review of environmental governance, and I welcome the findings. The panel has made 32 recommendations that, taken together, aim to deliver a governance system that it considers to be robust, trustworthy and capable of meeting Northern Ireland's environmental obligations whilst restoring public confidence. Recommendation 2 states that the DAERA website should offer a clear list of environmental legislation in Northern Ireland, including information on whether it has commenced. Sources of environmental law are complex, and I agree that we should provide greater clarity and transparency in that area to improve confidence and trust in the system. I also fully support the independent panel's recommendation to establish an independent environmental protection agency in Northern Ireland as a non-departmental public body (NDPB). It would have functions that would include the oversight of air and water quality, waste management, nature and biodiversity and the marine environment. I am seeking the support of my Executive colleagues to agree, in principle, to the establishment of an independent environmental protection agency in Northern Ireland as a non-departmental public body of DAERA. That agreement would allow us to move swiftly to look in greater detail at the powers, functions and funding of the new body. Following public consultation, firm policy proposals would be brought back to the Executive to enable my Department to draft and implement the legislation that is needed to set up the body. The costs of inaction are simply too great. I am fully committed to strengthening environmental governance, improving public confidence in our arrangements and, ultimately, reducing environmental degradation, and I will seek the support of the Executive and the Assembly in doing so. Mr Carroll: Thank you, Minister. Support for something is one thing; concrete action is another. Minister, you will know that there is growing frustration at the snail's pace at which movement on an EPA's being established is happening. Will you give a guarantee to the House, environmentalists and people who are interested in Lough Neagh and all the other environmental disasters that are out there that an independent EPA will be legislated for before the end of the mandate? Mr Muir: Thank you, Gerry. My passion for and commitment to environmental protection and setting up an independent environmental protection agency are on the record, and I restate them here today. I would like to see an agency legislated for in this mandate. I am extremely disappointed in the outcome of the vote last night, when some of my DUP Executive colleagues voted against the motion to set up an independent environmental protection agency. That is extremely disappointing and is yet another example of our need to reform these institutions so that they can deliver for all the people in Northern Ireland. Mr Donnelly: I thank the Minister. Minister, could I ask you for a bit more of your reaction to how the DUP, including the deputy First Minister, voted against yesterday's motion on an independent environmental protection agency? Mr Muir: We all know about the environmental challenges that we have in Northern Ireland. There are the situations with waste crime, Mobuoy and Lough Neagh, and the list continues. The case for an independent environmental protection agency is clear. It really frustrates and disappoints me that the DUP is taking the approach that it is. Its lack of care for the environment and consideration of the need for us to take further action to better protect it for future generations is deeply disappointing, but I will continue the work that I do because it is important that we look after our environment for everyone in Northern Ireland. Mr Speaker: Justin McNulty. Mr McNulty: Question 3. Mr Speaker: You should ask a supplementary question, Mr McNulty. Your question is grouped on the independent EPA. We will move on. Ms Finnegan: How will the independent EPA work collaboratively through cross-border mechanisms to address pollution and environmental challenges, given that pollution recognises no borders? Mr Muir: Thank you, Aoife. The review that was undertaken by the independent panel — I again put on record my thanks to it — recommended a range of actions, one of which is about how we can work better together. Another recommendation was about the need for memorandums of understanding between bodies, and I will seek to take that forward, because it will be really beneficial for us. I recognise, as you said, that environmental challenges do not respect borders, and we need to work together on that. We are ready to do that at official and ministerial level, and I am committed to addressing those issues head-on. Miss McIlveen: It is true that the old adage, "Where there's a will, there's a way" applies. Will the Minister apply the same determination and enthusiasm to bringing forward legislation on a wildlife intervention, as requested by the Ulster Farmers' Union (UFU), to deal with bovine TB in this mandate? Mr Muir: Given the challenges that we face from TB, I am very grateful that all the stakeholders around the table agreed a blueprint for the way forward, and I am committed to delivering the actions arising from that. The blueprint is based on three pillars: people, cattle and wildlife. I have been very clear that there has to be a wildlife intervention in order to allow us to deal with the challenges of TB and how they affect family farms in Northern Ireland. We will consult on the wildlife intervention in spring next year. It is important that everyone comes back and gives their responses to that. Once we have considered the responses, we will set out the way forward, and that will include legislation. Mr Speaker: Question 2 has been withdrawn. Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 3. Mr Brett asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs whether he is considering reviewing the legal targets set in the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022. (AQO 2672/22-27) Mr Muir: The 2030 and 2050 emissions reductions targets in the Act were agreed by the Northern Ireland Assembly unanimously at the Bill's Third, and final, Reading in 2022. Subsequently, the 2040 target and the first three carbon budgets were approved by the Assembly in December 2024. My Department's focus is on delivering on those targets and the other requirements in the Act that, whilst challenging, are achievable. Therefore, I have no plans to review the legal targets that the Assembly has previously agreed. Mr Brett: Minister, since the passing of that legislation, at three meetings in the past two months, the Executive have had to approve additional run hours at Kilroot power station. The Utility Regulator and the chief executive of Northern Ireland Electricity (NIE) Networks have said that the 2030 targets will not be met. Why do you know better than those experts? Mr Muir: As the Member will be aware, legal proceedings are under way, and if there is litigation in relation to a case, I am limited in what I can say. However, the Economy Minister has provided written ministerial statements on the issue, and I refer the Member to those. Ms Murphy: Minister, can you detail what specific actions DAERA is taking to embed just transition principles in its agricultural policy? Mr Muir: A just transition is absolutely key. It is embedded in the legislation and in my Department. We have a just transition fund for agriculture. We secured that as part of the budget for this year. We are bidding for additional funding for next year and the years beyond, because it is important that we give that support to agriculture. In addition, I am looking to set up a just transition commission for Northern Ireland. I am seeking Executive approval so that we can make those regulations and appoint people to a commission. It is important that we have a commission and the funding in place. It is a commitment not only for me but for my Department and, hopefully, the Executive. Mr Speaker: John Blair. Mr Butler: On the Climate Change Act and its ambitions, the Minister will be aware that the EU has moved in that space to recognise that flexibility and pragmatism may be required for a much more regional approach. Is the Minister not going to respond to that? Mr Muir: I am very conscious of the developments across the world. The EU has very strong ambitions on climate action. Discussions are ongoing within the European Union. I welcome the fact that the European Union is committed to climate action, and it is important that we do that here as well. It is a reality that is affecting us in Northern Ireland. There are opportunities for economic development, and we should grasp those. Mr Speaker: Stand up, the real John Blair. Mr Blair: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your patience. I am, of course, well known for mine. Does the Minister agree that parties that are now reneging, and that are seeking others to renege, on those climate commitments undermine confidence in Northern Ireland and risk people here missing out on the benefits of climate action? Mr Muir: It is very disappointing that, just three years after passing the legislation, some parties are calling for the Act to be scrapped. Businesses need certainty. There are economic opportunities from decarbonisation in Northern Ireland, and it is really important that we grasp those. We in Northern Ireland need to be ambitious for our citizens in delivering economic growth and the benefits of decarbonisation, be it in relation to warm homes, cheaper energy bills, green jobs, innovation, improved health and well-being or a cleaner environment. It is something that I am determined to do. I will be powering on in relation to climate action, because it is the challenge of our generation, and it is important that we deliver for everyone. Mr Gaston: The 2030 climate change targets commit to a reduction in livestock of 22% in dairy cattle, 17% in beef cattle and 18% in sheep, pigs and poultry. When will the Minister start standing up for the agriculture industry, of which he is meant to be Minister? Mr Muir: I am proud to serve as Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. Just recently, we consulted on the climate action plan for 2023-27. In that, there are no proposals for herd reduction. We seek to work with the farming community to deliver productivity and efficiency on the ground. We are doing that through the sustainable agriculture programme. We are considering the responses to the climate action plan, and I will seek Executive approval so that we can deliver the just transition and support to everyone in Northern Ireland. Veterinary Medicines: Supply 4. Mr Kingston asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs for an update on the supply of veterinary medicines from Great Britain after the end of the grace period on 31 December 2025. (AQO 2673/22-27) 9. Mr T Buchanan asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs for his assessment of any issues arising from the implementation of the Windsor framework in relation to the supply of veterinary products from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. (AQO 2678/22-27) Mr Muir: Mr Speaker, with your permission, I will group questions 4 and 9. Under the Windsor Framework (Implementation) Regulations 2024, the supply of veterinary medicines to Northern Ireland is a matter under the direction and control of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Nevertheless, I remain committed to doing all that I can to ensure the continued supply of veterinary medicines into Northern Ireland, including those from Great Britain. I welcome the publication of the UK Government's new protecting animal health policy in June 2025 and the practical solutions that it provides to ensure the continued supply of veterinary medicines in Northern Ireland. The policy supports the roll-out of two new schemes that are designed to provide a responsive, adaptable and flexible means of addressing supply issues that arise with veterinary medicines, including unforeseen issues. I believe that the new schemes offer sustainable solutions and represent a significant step forward in securing the future of our local veterinary medicines supply. Over the time ahead, I will continue to engage with the UK Government and the veterinary medicines working group on the important detail, governance and oversight arrangements to ensure that the schemes deliver the outcomes that they are designed to achieve. Mr Kingston: I thank the Minister for that answer. Can I push the Minister to ask him what discussions he had to ensure that clear, Northern Ireland-specific advice and guidance on the two new schemes — the veterinary medicine health situation scheme and the internal market scheme — will be published before January 2026 for practising vets and farmers? Will it cover at-risk categories, how the two schemes will operate in practice and contingency arrangements? Mr Muir: The Member makes legitimate points with regard to communication and clarity for the industry. Those are the points that I have been making to the UK Government and will make again today to the Minister of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. It is important that there is clarity around the issue and that people understand how to navigate the schemes, because that is probably the key message that has come back to me, alongside other issues, such as suitably qualified persons (SQPs), for example. Mr T Buchanan: I thank the Minister for his response. Has an assessment been done of the potential cost implications for Northern Ireland practices and farm businesses? Has consideration been given to potential mitigating measures? Mr Muir: As the matter does not sit under my direction and control — it sits under the direction and control of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) — I will refer your question to DEFRA and make sure that it is able to respond to the questions that you have raised. I understand the concerns, and I have been continuing to engage with the UK Government to find a way forward. That is why those schemes have been announced. We have to be clear that the schemes that have been announced will not resolve everything, but I have been very clear in my engagement with the UK Government of the need to ensure that there is a focus on the issue, particularly in relation to communication, SQPs and online sales. Angling Sites: Stocking Protocol 5. Ms Brownlee asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to outline the progress made in developing a stocking protocol for public angling sites such as Woodburn Dams, Carrickfergus. (AQO 2674/22-27) Mr Muir: DAERA and the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) are developing a stocking protocol to ensure compliance with the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 and prevent the spread of zebra mussels. Results from water sampling at the Department's fish farm at Movanagher have been assessed for the presence or absence of live zebra mussels. That has provided understanding of the level of zebra mussel reproduction across the entire year and identified periods that would permit stocking. Therefore, as a precautionary measure at this time, stocking has taken place only when there has been no live reproduction present and the water temperature has been below 10°C. That stocking approach has allowed a limited stocking of the public angling estate (PAE) waters, which is part of the usual annual stocking programme. That has allowed around 29,500 brown trout to be stocked out over a number of weeks up to 26 March 2025. The Carrickfergus dams were stocked at that time. The window for stocking the PAE from Movanagher closed when water temperatures rose to 10°C. The stocking of fish to the PAE waters is planned for the autumn and winter period of 2025-26, when conditions allow compliance with the Wildlife Order. Only 27 of the 89 PAE waters are normally stocked. Despite the reduced stocking, the waters still contain wild fish suitable for anglers. Therefore, a wide variety of wild fisheries and angling opportunities are available to PAE permit holders. Top 2.15 pm Ms Brownlee: I thank the Minister for his answer. There is extreme concern about this in East Antrim, and I understand the issues involved. However, as only 27 of the 89 estates have been stocked, has any consideration been given to reassessing the cost of the rod licensing fee to reflect the affected areas or, potentially, to reduced or limited stocking in the future? Mr Muir: We keep the fees under review. I am keen to ensure that there is restocking, but we do not want to enable the spread of zebra mussels. It is about striking a balance, and it is something that is on my radar. I have visited Movanagher and seen the work that is done there, and we are trying to strike a balance between restocking and preventing the spread of zebra mussels, because we can see the impact they have had, for example, in Lough Neagh. Ms Bradshaw: Can the Minister provide an update on his Department's review of the public angling estate? Mr Muir: Following the strategic insight light lab held on 17 June, my Department received a final report from Innovation and Consultancy Services (ICS) in August. The report identified 16 key outputs that have since been refined into six strategic recommendations. On 24 October, I approved the recommendations and a plan with 10 objectives to guide the development of the future delivery of the public angling estate. Officials will now engage with stakeholders to explore the implementation options. All relevant documents have been shared with the participants in the June events, and further updates will be provided at key milestones. Forest Service: Community Engagement 6. Mrs Dillon asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to outline how the Forest Service is working and engaging with local communities to support community-led initiatives and development within forested areas. (AQO 2675/22-27) Mr Muir: My Department’s Forest Service works in partnership with local councils, commercial entities and interest groups to facilitate forest-based recreational and environmental projects for local communities across Northern Ireland. The partnerships have proven successful in facilitating numerous development projects across the forest estate and a wide range of community-led events. My Department is committed to increasing woodlands in Northern Ireland, and I have recently announced the development of a tree-planting action plan to be co-designed with key stakeholders. New diverse woodlands support many community interests, including health and well-being, and a wide range of flora and fauna, birds, insects, mammals and their habitats. My Department's Forest Service manages the forest estate to provide a wide range of benefits for our citizens and to ensure its long-term sustainability for future generations. That includes ongoing engagement with a wide range of stakeholders and local community groups in reviewing and developing forest management plans that include the full consideration of societal interests. Mrs Dillon: I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, I have worked closely with the Cappagh Village Regeneration Group. It has really good plans to regenerate the village, and the forest is a major part of that. Will your officials meet me and my colleague from West Tyrone, Declan McAleer, to discuss how we can further the conversations between councils and Forest Service officials to make the most of the potential of Altmore Forest? Mr Muir: I am delighted to agree to that. It is a good example of bringing communities together to enjoy the benefits of forestation and tree planting for the local area. I am keen for officials to engage with you on the matter and give any assistance that we can. Mr K Buchanan: In the COVID times, we saw the benefits of forests, and many people went to them. Obviously, that is still developing, because more and more people are going to them. Can you provide an update on what your Department is doing to put right the devastating damage caused by the storms at the start of the year? I appreciate that trees do not grow overnight, but what work is going on to put that back the way it was? Mr Muir: The storm at the beginning of the year had a devastating impact, and I have seen that on the ground in many places. There have been a lot of clearances and then tree planting in response to that. I can understand the concerns from some communities who have seen forests being cleared as a result of the damage that has been inflicted on them, but it is important for the Department to give grant support for the planting of trees more broadly in Northern Ireland, and we should take a more strategic approach to redoubling our efforts. That is why we have announced the tree-planting action plan and, in conjunction with stakeholders, we are getting everyone around the table to focus on the actions to ensure that, despite the storm, we can increase tree cover in Northern Ireland. Mr McMurray: Will the Minister give an update on the Forest Service's work in Donard Forest, given the flooding in Newcastle that was caused by storm Amy? Mr Muir: Forest Service staff were in Donard Forest recently to monitor the functioning of the forest drainage system during storm Amy. High rainfall resulted in extremely large volumes of water running off the hillside that exceeded the capacity of the drainage infrastructure, including the outflow from the forest. In the immediate aftermath of the flooding, the extent of the damage caused to the drainage channels and culverts was inspected. Works are ongoing to repair the damage, and the necessary installation work will be done to increase the flow capacity of culverts to accommodate greater flows with lower risk of impediment. The Forest Service has agreed to meet relevant agencies and residents to consider what more can be done to help lower the risk of flooding in the area. I was grateful for the opportunity to meet local residents that you facilitated, Andrew. The impact of that event was significant, and I am keen that the Forest Service works in conjunction with local people to address any issues in the forest. Belfast Lough: Pollution 8. Mr Chambers asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs whether the area of Belfast lough that is recognised as having unacceptable levels of pollution has moved closer to the open sea during the past two years. (AQO 2677/22-27) Mr Muir: For the purpose of monitoring and reporting, Belfast lough is divided into three discrete water bodies: Belfast harbour, Belfast lough inner and Belfast lough outer. The water bodies in Belfast lough are failing to meet environmental standards for nutrients and/or the presence of chemical substances. Nutrient monitoring data shows a gradient of very high levels in the inner part of Belfast lough, which is Belfast harbour, that decrease towards the outer lough. Nutrient levels in Belfast lough outer currently meet the standard for high status. However, evidence suggests that nutrient levels in the whole lough are increasing, and that is a cause for concern. Nutrient inputs to Belfast lough come from urban sources, namely waste water discharges and combined sewer overflows, and from agricultural sources, such as fertiliser and agricultural run-off. Water quality monitoring has also shown an increase in the number of chemical substances, such as pesticides and herbicides, as well as legacy chemicals, in the water. That apparent increase is due in part to improved monitoring and laboratory analytical techniques resulting in the detection of more chemical substances. Furthermore, new substances are being added to the list of chemical pollutants for monitoring and reporting. The environmental quality standards for many of those chemicals are extremely stringent, and failures across Northern Ireland, the UK and Europe are, sadly, common. Mr Chambers: I know that the Minister shares my concern that Belfast lough has the potential to become the new Lough Neagh in the next 10 years. What is the Minister doing to ensure that the Executive take measures to avoid an environmental disaster similar to that in Lough Neagh? Mr Muir: The actions that fall to me are in regulation and enforcement. I have been on the record as saying and will repeat today that I want to strengthen regulation and enforcement on sewage pollution in Northern Ireland. There is a separate regime for Northern Ireland Water; I do not think that that is sustainable, and I will bring a paper on that issue to the Executive soon. I will continue to engage with my Executive colleagues, and I will soon have a meeting with the Infrastructure Minister on the actions that we need to take on waste water infrastructure. It is important that we do that. We also need to support our farmers in a just transition as part of the way forward on improving water quality. I am committed to doing that. We will also do further reviews of bathing water. Surveying and reporting on that is important, because people entering bathing waters need have confidence in and know the quality of the water. Mr Dickson: Minister, have you been able to identify the sources of pollution in Belfast lough? What action have you taken in respect of those who caused the pollution? Mr Muir: Modelling studies have indicated that urban and diffuse agricultural discharges account for, respectively, 53% and 47% of the pollution in Belfast lough. Improvements in water quality are being sought through Northern Ireland Water's investment in waste water treatment upgrades, sewer misconnections work and improvements in storm water overflows. Agricultural inputs of nutrients will be managed through our approach in the nutrients action programme. It will require full implementation of all those measures to deliver water quality improvements in Belfast lough. Mr Buckley: Given the ongoing delays in the upgrade of the Kinnegar waste water treatment plant, will the Minister's discussions with the Infrastructure Minister include aspects of the living with water programme and, indeed, how that programme will improve water quality? Is there a risk that the Northern Ireland Environment Agency will find that Kinnegar is non-compliant from 2027? Mr Muir: The discussion with the Infrastructure Minister will be at a strategic level and will be around the need to have stronger regulation and enforcement. The responsibilities around that sit with me. The investment responsibilities sit with the Minister for Infrastructure. I am concerned to see the lack of investment in the living with water programme in the Belfast area. That is contributing to the situation that is unfolding on Belfast lough, which is of great concern to me. It is affecting the day-to-day lives of people who want to engage in sports activities on the lough. The scale and development of the pollution is also of great concern, and it is important that we take action on it. I will do what I can, and I will seek to work with the Infrastructure Minister on it. Pollution Prevention and Control Permits 10. Mr McGrath asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to outline the verification steps that the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) carries out before issuing or varying a pollution prevention and control permit. (AQO 2679/22-27) Mr Muir: On receipt of an application for a new or varied pollution prevention and control (PPC) permit, NIEA officials will initially confirm that the application can be considered "duly made" under the regulations, including that all the information set out in Part 1 of schedule 4 or schedule 7 to the PPC regulations has been provided and the application is accompanied by the appropriate fee. For applications for specified waste management activities, that stage will include checking whether planning permission is in place. An assessment will also be carried out to determine whether the operator can be considered a "fit and proper" person". Those checks are not required for non-waste PPC permits. Once an application is considered "duly made", it is made available for public consultation via newspaper advertisements and placed on NIEA’s online public registers. All statutory consultees are notified, including the relevant district council where the installation will be operated, the Public Health Agency and other relevant consultees as appropriate to the application. Responses from the consultees or other third parties are considered in the determination of the application. There is a requirement for all applicants to evaluate the environmental impact of their proposed processes. That will include an assessment of the impacts in respect of air emissions; odour; noise; emissions to water or groundwater; energy use; raw materials to be used; waste generated; and sensitive habitats. The NIEA’s determination will include an assessment of whether the installation will be able to comply with the best available techniques for the sector. All decisions are recorded in a decision document. Once the determination is complete, a draft permit will be prepared, and, on completion, a further consultation with the public will be carried out prior to issue. Mr McGrath: Thank you very much, Minister. That is at the application stage. Will you confirm whether, if what happens on the ground varies from the planning application, and the planning permission therefore comes under question, NIEA can go back and retrospectively remove the permit that was given? Mr Muir: If there is a variance from the planning permission, that is primarily a matter for the district council that issued the planning permission. If there are concerns about a variance from a planning application, the Member should raise those with the district council. If there are specific allegations in relation to a specific site, the Member should raise those through the appropriate channels. Wildfires in Northern Ireland Strategic Framework 2025-2030 11. Mrs Guy asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs for an update on the implementation of the wildfires in Northern Ireland strategic framework 2025-2030. (AQO 2680/22-27) Mr Muir: The Northern Ireland wildfires strategic framework was agreed by the Executive on 4 September and published on 8 October. Publication of the strategic framework will enable the development of an associated wildfire action plan by March 2026. Since publication, my officials have sought feedback from members of the strategic wildfire group and the wildfire stakeholder forum regarding actions that they are currently undertaking or planning that would assist with the implementation of the strategic framework. That will enable collation of actions already being undertaken and the development of new actions where gaps are identified. A series of strategic and stakeholder group meetings will take place over the coming months to help draft the wildfire action plan, which will form the basis for the implementation of the framework. I thank all the stakeholders who are working with us on that. The only way to deal with it is by working together. Mrs Guy: Thank you for that answer, Minister. What role will communications and education play? Mr Muir: Communications and education are key elements of the wildfire strategic framework. Communications and education will make the public and landowners more aware of the conditions that cause wildfires and the adverse impacts that they can have on human health, the environment, society and the economy. Education and awareness will help to ensure that those engaging with the countryside are better informed and will promote responsible use. A better informed public are more likely to be vigilant of wildfire risks and to assist in the prevention and reporting of fires. They will be more informed about the unacceptability of lighting such fires and may be more willing to provide information to the authorities about who is starting the fires. That will be highly beneficial to ensuring successful prosecution of rural arsonists. A series of communications will be issued to alert the public to the risk of wildfires prior to the next wildfire season. Top 2.30 pm Mr McAleer: With their huge amount of local knowledge, community groups, farmers and landowners are able to assist the emergency services in dealing with wildfires. Will the Minister give an assurance that such groups will be involved in the new framework? Mr Muir: Yes. The wildfire stakeholder forum forms one part of the strategic framework. The forum includes representation from the farming sector, other key land managers, environmental NGOs, government and council agencies and the Met Office. An official from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine sits on the forum as an observer in order to ensure cross-border knowledge exchange and awareness. It is important that we bring people together to work collectively on the matter, as that is the way forward. Mr Speaker: We now move on to topical questions. Independent Environmental Regulator T1. Mr McCrossan asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to explain why, after more than a decade of warnings, collapsing water quality and repeated commitments from his Department, Northern Ireland still has no independent environmental regulator and why, given the scale of failures at Lough Neagh, the spiralling ammonia crisis and the repeated breaches of basic environmental standards, the public should believe that his Department is capable of fixing the mess, particularly in light of the fractious relationships in this disastrous Executive. (AQT 1761/22-27) Mr Muir: I come here to account for my job as Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, and I am happy to do that. Last night's debate on an independent environmental protection agency was constructive, and many Members were on the same page about the importance of setting up such an agency. I said earlier in Question Time and will say again that I am deeply disappointed by the position that the DUP, including some of my Executive colleagues, took last night when they voted against setting up an independent environmental protection agency. I believe in power-sharing and in working with people; it is what these institutions are based on. I will continue to do that and continue to push for an independent environmental protection agency, despite the illogical objections of others. Mr McCrossan: I thank the Minister for his answer. What is the real barrier to establishing an independent EPA? Is it an overly bureaucratic Department, obstructive and divided DUP Ministers or a Minister who simply cannot get the job done? Crucially, what steps are you taking to confront the obstacles and finally deliver the independent regulator that Northern Ireland needs? Mr Muir: My record of standing up for the environment is there to be seen. I believe in it and am prepared to take the difficult decisions. The opposition comes from the DUP, and that is why I believe in reform of the institutions. The majority in the Assembly have voted for an independent environmental protection agency. The institutions therefore need to be reformed so that we can take decisions and end the cycle of stop-go government that has really damaged the environment. We need to fix the situation in order to ensure that, if one party leaves, the show continues. There is no rhyme or reason to the objections to an environmental protection agency other than not caring about the environment. Farming with Nature T2. Mr Mathison asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to outline his plans for the Farming with Nature package. (AQT 1762/22-27) Mr Muir: Thank you, Nick. The commencement of the Farming with Nature package was a key priority for me this year. I am encouraged by the good uptake of the first strand of the package, which is the Farming with Nature transition scheme. It has demonstrated that demand exists in the farming community to do more for nature. It is planned to build on the first strand of Farming with Nature through an expanded transition scheme with more actions available. It will open for applications in 2026. My officials are working at pace to develop future strands of the Farming with Nature package to open in 2026, such as focused support for designated areas and priority habitats and a strand that will allow collaboration among farmers on a landscape scale to deliver environmental outcomes. Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for his work in that area. Following on from that answer, what support can he offer to farmers who are on the higher level of the environmental farming scheme (EFS), which is due to close in December 2025? Mr Muir: The issues with Farming with Nature and the EFS are to do with the outworkings of Brexit. I am, however, determined to make progress on supporting the agrienvironment. It is planned that the existing EFS agreement holders will be eligible for future strands of the Farming with Nature package. The prioritisation of EFS agreements that are due to expire at the end of this year is being considered. Bovine Tuberculosis T3. Mr Kearney asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs what he and his officials doing to address the bovine TB emergency, specifically the financial hardship and mental stress being experienced by farming families and the overall cost to the public purse, in light of the fact that bovine TB infection levels are out of control in the North. (AQT 1763/22-27) Mr Muir: Thank you, Declan. The rates of TB in Northern Ireland are far too high, and we need to act to reduce them. I have kept in place the 100% compensation rate, which the Secretary of State wanted to remove when the institutions were down. I recognise, however, that the full cost to farm families is way beyond what we provide in compensation, and it is important that we take action on that. I thank the stakeholders who came together and agreed a blueprint for eradication based on the pillars of people, cattle and wildlife. I have put additional funding in place for testing to help farmers to identify TB. Also, I have worked with my partners in the South and agreed with them a new cross-border initiative, funded through the Shared Island Fund, that takes a regionalised approach to tackling bovine TB. I will continue to work on that, and we will consult on a wildlife intervention next spring. It is important that we act on the issue, and I am committed to doing so. Mr Kearney: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht an fhreagra sin. [Translation: I thank the Minister for that answer.] I am pleased to hear about the Minister's engagement with his counterpart in the Twenty-six Counties. However, infection levels here are twice the level in the South, so what action is being taken to adopt an all-island approach to the emergency? Mr Muir: I recognise that the island of Ireland is a single epidemiological area, and that is why it is important that we work together on issues of animal health. My officials are working with officials in the South on that regionalised approach, and, following engagement with stakeholders, I will make further announcements because it is important that we do that. It is important that we are able to do something collaboratively with our partners, as we do already on many other issues, such as avian influenza. I thank officials in my Department and in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine for the work that they are doing together to address that issue. We face animal health challenges on the island of Ireland, and I commend the partnership work that has taken place. I wish to redouble that, and it is important that we do so. Avian Influenza: RSPCA T4. Mr Gaston asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, after noting that avian influenza is, worryingly, on the rise in Northern Ireland, with control zones in place and non-essential vehicles not allowed to enter biosecure areas of poultry sites, to comment on the RSPCA's insistence that it will still go to poultry sites to carry out audits and welfare checks on birds that are housed, which are, surely, non-essential visits and put biosecurity at risk. (AQT 1764/22-27) Mr Muir: Avian influenza is a challenge and is developing across the island of Ireland. It has also occurred in England and Wales. The Department has taken action in response to that: we have made biosecurity measures mandatory and introduced a housing order. We are working North and South on the issue. Of late, we have had three cases in Northern Ireland and four in the Republic of Ireland. In response, officials from my Department have been assisting my colleagues in the South, because it is important that we work together. I would need to get more detail from you, Mr Gaston, about your concerns. I am happy to discuss those with you afterwards or you can engage with officials on them. It is important that we heed the need for biosecurity and the housing order measures. We are working closely with stakeholders on those matters. I commend the poultry industry for its partnership working with my Department. It is important that we work together so that we can address the challenge, which is of real concern to me. Mr Gaston: The 2016 avian disease control strategy on the DAERA website states that gassing birds is the preferred option. Will you give the industry an assurance that enough gas is available in Northern Ireland to ensure that there will be no delays in culling future infected birds? Is the Department considering other methods of culling large flocks? Mr Muir: The culling of flocks is difficult for the farmer and for the officials who have to undertake the task, and I commend everyone for the work that they do on that. The preferred method is gassing, and we will continue to seek to secure supplies of gas to effect that. The situation is extremely challenging for officials North and South, and I commend them for their work from a senior level to those who are on the ground assisting farmers, in response to it. We will continue with that work. Bathing Water Quality: South Down T5. Mr McMurray asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, after noting that it was good to see that all bathing waters in South Down achieved excellent water quality status, to outline what more could be done to improve water quality for the benefit of sea swimmers and water sports participants. (AQT 1765/22-27) Mr Muir: Water quality is a priority for me and my Department. I expanded the bathing water programme this year, including seven new sites, which brought the number of identified bathing waters to 33. I also launched the bathing water platform, which has been well received. The Department works in partnership with stakeholders to manage bathing waters and improve water quality at identified bathing water sites through the bathing water action plan. Beyond bathing waters, improvement to water quality is required through stronger regulation, the enforcement of sewage pollution measures, investment in waste water infrastructure and the implementation of the nutrients action programme. Mr McMurray: Thank you, Minister. Will your Department engage with councils ahead of the upcoming review of bathing waters to encourage the designation of more sites in Northern Ireland? Mr Muir: Officials from my Department hosted a bathing water review meeting for councils on Monday 3 November. That meeting was designed to prepare non-bathing water operator councils for the upcoming review by sharing information on bathing waters and bathing water operator responsibilities. All councils are invited to the bathing water review stakeholder workshop this month being hosted by Innovation and Consultancy Services. That workshop will bring together a range of stakeholder voices to discuss key bathing water topics in order to inform a public consultation. Climate Crisis: COP30 T6. Mr Blair asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs whether, given that world leaders have gathered in Brazil for COP30 and the stark warnings from the UN that world pledges are failing to keep global warming below 1·5°C, he agrees with the Prime Minister and Taoiseach that we must have leadership on the climate crisis. (AQT 1766/22-27) Mr Muir: Thank you, John. I commend the Prime Minister, the Taoiseach, the Prince of Wales and many others for their leadership on the issue. My Department will continue to engage with and support the UK Government on their engagement in COP30. The big focus of COP30 is climate action and rightly so, and it is about achieving the goal that was set out in the Paris agreement. Before the Paris agreement, the world was on track for warming of 4°C. Continued action on that has brought us down, but we are not on course to meet the target. Global clean energy investment is, however, set to reach $2·2 trillion in 2025, which is double that of fossil fuels. Whilst Northern Ireland is only a small contributor to wider global emissions, it is vital that we all play our part and do not miss out on the economic, environmental and biodiversity opportunities provided by addressing climate change. For some countries and nations, particularly those in the Global South, tackling climate change is about their very existence. I will continue to take action on the matter and engage with my partners in the UK and Irish Governments. Climate change is the defining issue of our generation, and it is important that we take action on it. Mr Blair: I thank the Minister for that reply. Further to the previous question, will the Minister outline why climate action is vital for our economy? Mr Muir: When I consider climate change, I look to experts, particularly Lord Stern, who produced seminal work back in 2006 and recently published a publication on the issue. In that, he recognises that climate action boosts living standards and prosperity, improves air quality and reduces poverty. He challenges the misconception that China and India are doing nothing and that the UK should not bother. We know that the reality is very different. In a recent article, Lord Stern stressed the need for political leadership and stated: "When some step back, others can step forward. The arc of history will be with them." I believe in taking action on the matter. I understand and respect the importance of science and evidence, and it is important that Northern Ireland is not left behind when the opportunities for decarbonisation arise. Climate Resilience: Flooding T8. Ms Bradshaw asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to outline what work he is doing to build climate resilience to avoid future impacts of flooding, given that he will have seen the heavy flooding at the end of October in constituencies such as hers. (AQT 1768/22-27) Mr Muir: As Minister, I am committed to improving our resilience to climate change. I will shortly bring Northern Ireland's third climate adaptation programme to the Executive for their agreement to publish. The programme sets out the details of over 250 actions that Departments and key stakeholders are to deliver over the coming five years. Whilst the lead departmental responsibility for flooding sits with my colleague in the Department for Infrastructure, my Department is leading on a number of significant areas to help alleviate flooding. They include the restoration of peatlands, planting new forests and the sustainable management of our soils. It is important that we adapt and improve resilience to the impacts of climate change in Northern Ireland. Top 2.45 pm Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he please outline what he feels will be the impact if we continue to dither and delay on climate action? Mr Muir: We need to take action to address the impacts of climate change. Doing nothing is not an option. The cost of inaction, economically, socially and environmentally, is significant, Northern Ireland is already experiencing the effects of climate change: the rise in temperatures, increased rainfall, more frequent flooding and biodiversity loss. These trends are projected to intensify, threatening food security, public health and the resilience of our rural and urban communities. It is important that we take action, and that is what I seek to do. Mr Speaker: That concludes questions to the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. Members should take their ease for a moment whilst we change the Table for the next item of business. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Blair] in the Chair) Ministerial Statement Ulster Boxing Council: Equality Commission Review Business resumed. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): We return to the statement from the Minister for Communities. We will take questions in response to that statement, and the first is from Mark Durkan. Mr Durkan: Discrimination has no place in sport or in society. It is worth noting that the Irish Athletic Boxing Association (IABA) rejects any form of discrimination or sectarianism. We welcome the Minister's recognition of the recommendations from the Equality Commission and look forward to him being as welcoming of its recommendations elsewhere. Minister, you say that you are announcing a new oversight panel. How will that look and be made up, and how will you ensure that the panel, to ensure balance, is, itself, balanced? Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): That is still to be determined, but I will be very clear with the Member and the House: I want to see action being taken, and that is what is going to drive me on this. For over 12 years, we have been waiting for action to be taken, and too many of the recommendations made in the report in 2013 have not been implemented. Therefore, I do not believe that this should take a long time, but I will consider how and when to set up that panel. Let me be very clear: speed is of the essence because this should not be allowed to continue for a moment longer. Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): Following from that, Minister, given that you have stated that you are taking ministerial control of this process and that you are the Minister responsible for allocating funding to lots of sports, how can people be assured of its independence? Mr Lyons: There is a requirement on me to make sure that public funding goes to organisations that uphold the law and demonstrate high levels of governance and a commitment to good relations. The recommendations are very clear on what needs to happen. They were clear in 2013, of course, but they were not implemented. Therefore, my involvement will be to make sure that there is faithful implementation of those recommendations, and no one should be fearful of that. Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for his statement. It is quite shocking that, in 2025, we are presented with those facts and that case of discrimination against a Protestant boxer. Daryl Clarke is to be commended for taking forward his case. In the face of difficult circumstances and that type of discrimination, what sort of support is available for those brave individuals who come forward to take discrimination cases in sports, which are under the remit of your Department? Mr Lyons: The Member is right to highlight the bravery of those who have been prepared to stand up, speak out and take action. It is not the easiest thing to do. As I said in my statement, the easiest thing is to stay quiet and say nothing at all. However, I commend Daryl and others who came forward and made their case, because they did so not only for themselves but for those who come after. It is a difficult thing to do, and they should be praised for that. I will send this clear message: I will not tolerate discrimination in any shape or form. This should not come into sport at all. I hope that that is an encouragement to everyone that they can step forward and that they will have support from me and my Department in making sure that we have policies and procedures in place that are fair to everybody. Ms Mulholland: Thank you so much for bringing the statement to the House, Minister. I absolutely agree with some of your points about how there should be no discrimination in any sport, regardless of a person's background or perceived background. I welcome the fact that the review took place, and I welcome its recommendations. Minister, will you give us a wee bit more detail about why you believe that the Department did not follow through on the recommendations in the 2013 Morrow report and about how the recommendations on the code of conduct and social media policy will flow through via an arm's-length body? Mr Lyons: The Member highlights one of the issues that existed in the first place, which was that it was not for the Department to take those recommendations forward. That is why I want to make sure that there is a role for me in this matter so that there can be oversight and that progress reports can be provided. Perhaps one of the other reasons why some of the recommendations were not taken forward was that there was a reluctance on the part of those who were involved to do so because it would have upset the status quo. There can be no room for the status quo when that does not lead to fair and equitable outcomes for everybody. That is why I am determined that there will be progress. People are long past fed up with how long it has taken for some of those issues to be resolved. The same applies to the recommendations on social media policies and other policies that will need to be put in place. Mr Allen: I thank the Minister for his statement and the actions contained therein. Will the Minister advise on whether his Department has carried out any analysis to make sure that similar issues are not present in other sports bodies across Northern Ireland? Mr Lyons: The Member will be aware that reviews of governance procedures always take place in different organisations. I can certainly provide him with information on those. I am more than happy to use whatever powers I have to step in where we need to take action to ensure that everybody is treated equally, because what happened was outrageous. No one should feel that they cannot progress in any sport because of their background, the community that they come from or their faith. I hope that we can stand united on that around the Chamber. Mr McHugh: Minister, as a member of the Communities Committee, I am well aware of the fact that many other strategies have not come to fruition during your time in office. I think particularly of the Irish language strategy. How confident can we be about that, when you are now, seemingly, having the time to take on an interest in issues in boxing? Mr Lyons: The Member conflates different issues. The Irish language strategy, along with the Ulster-Scots strategy, is being developed in coordination with other Departments. A lot of that is outside my control. What we are dealing with here are allegations of discrimination and practices that have been going on for far too long that should not have gone on. We are trying to right a wrong. We are trying to make sure that what happened in the past cannot happen again in the future. We are talking about the real impact that such practices have had on people. Those people have not progressed. Imagine being at the top of your sport but not being chosen to take part in the Commonwealth Games, not because of your talent, ability or skill but because of other reasons. That is scandalous and wrong. It is right that we put the pressure on to make sure that those recommendations are implemented. I will do that as soon as I can. Mr Kingston: Minister, you will also be aware of the previous case of Lewis Crocker, who, in similar circumstances, experienced religious bias in selection. In that case, he was excluded from the Northern Ireland squad for the Commonwealth Youth Games in 2015, despite the head coach's recommending him for selection. He subsequently won a settlement of £8,500 from the Ulster Boxing Council under fair employment law. Despite that setback, and to his huge credit, he went on to become the International Boxing Federation (IBF) welterweight world champion just two months ago and is the pride of Sandy Row. Are you now satisfied that the culture of discrimination against Protestants in boxing has ended with the case of Daryl Clarke from Monkstown Amateur Boxing Club? Mr Lyons: No, I am not satisfied that it has ended, but I am satisfied that I will do everything that I can to make sure that it does end and that we are not in this situation again. The Member is absolutely right to mention Lewis. I am sure that the whole House will join me in congratulating him on his outstanding achievements, which are of particular note considering what he has had to go through and the barriers that were put in his way. That should not happen to anybody again. It is only because of his perseverance that he got to that stage, but no one else should have to go through that to achieve in that way. There is still much work for the organisations to do in order to rebuild trust with all sections of the community, and I hope that my oversight of the panel will ensure that the matter is dealt with as soon as possible. Ms K Armstrong: Minister, I join you in condemning any sectarianism towards any person involved in sport who is prevented from taking part or progressing purely because of their religion or cultural background. I thank you for your statement today. You say that you are taking "direct control" of an oversight panel. That is an unusual step for a Minister to take. Why do you, rather than one of your arm's-length bodies, need to do that, given the fact that you are so busy with matters of poverty, homelessness and lack of social strategies? Will you clarify why the Department needs to do this? Mr Lyons: I thank the Member for her question. I am glad that she said that it is an unusual step to take. I am happy to step out of the status quo and what is normal in order to get things done. Sometimes things move slowly, and you need to get in there, be prepared to put your shoulder to the wheel and do the work yourself. I am happy to do that. I want to have control over this to make sure that I push it forward and it is not left. In the past, in 2013, it was left, and recommendations were not implemented, so I hope that I can bring the weight of ministerial office to the process and make sure that we get on with it and get it done. I have emphasised again and again today that this is unacceptable. If it is unacceptable, we must do everything that we can to make sure that it does not happen again. I assure the Member that I will continue to deliver on all other areas in my Department, but I can still give this the time that it needs in order to get it sorted once and for all. In doing so, I hope that it will never be on any other Minister's plate in the future. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, I clarify that, normally, Members not present during a Minister's statement would not be called to ask a question. However, given the circumstances and the limited time to consider the statement prior to suspension, I will call Members on this occasion, but I ask Members, when they are called, to refer to the earlier announcement from the Chair stating that questions should be brief and that long introductions should be non-existent. Mrs Cameron: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker; I will be brief. I very much welcome the Minister's statement and the clarity around the shocking case of discrimination against Daryl Clarke. Does the Minister agree that the onus is now fully on the Ulster Boxing Council and the IABA to regain their reputation and the trust of the boxing community, and is he assured that they will now do that in light of the Equality Commission report? Mr Lyons: Sport should be inclusive of all communities. This case is an example of how we could be dragged into the past, but I will not allow that to happen. That is why I have decided to intervene. The review panel will report regularly to me, and I hope that I and others in the House will be satisfied by the progress that it makes. The Member referred specifically to the IABA and the Ulster Boxing Council. I hope that they realise that there is a responsibility on their part to ensure that change takes place so that we can move forward, and I look forward to them playing their part and making the change that is long overdue. Top 3.00 pm Mr McMurray: Does the willingness to step outside and take control demonstrate a lack of confidence in Sport NI, Minister? Mr Lyons: No, absolutely not. Perhaps it shows some confidence in me instead. It is not a reflection on Sport NI at all. It is about bringing the weight of my ministerial office to making sure that it is done. It needs to be a priority, because I believe that what happened was egregious. It should never have happened and should never happen again. We are doing everything in our power to make sure that it does not. Ms Brownlee: Minister, I absolutely love this statement, and it comes not a moment too soon. Public money demands public accountability, and, without real consequences, nothing will change. Will the Minister detail what the consequences will be for the IABA and the Ulster Boxing Council if they do not engage and show sufficient progress? Mr Lyons: It is the same for any organisation that receives money from Sport NI or indeed from any arm's-length body of my Department. It is a requirement for them to demonstrate high levels of governance and a commitment to good relations. If that is missing in any way, of course there will be consequences. It would be unfathomable for me or my officials to endorse a funding relationship in its current form if that issue has not been dealt with. Mr McNulty: Minister, discrimination of any form has no place in sport. Boxing on this island, however, has a proud tradition and has produced multiple world-class fighters and champions. Further to previous questions with regard to fairness, you [Inaudible] objective measuring and the principle of merit. Is it not below the belt for you to take direct control of the establishment of an oversight panel? Mr Lyons: No. Some Members: Hear, hear. Mr Brett: The boxer's name is Daryl Clarke. I know that Members on the other side of the House have not bothered to mention his name. The Equality Commission did a report on his case, which the IABA settled on anti-Protestant discrimination. The Equality Commission reported —. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Is this a question, Mr Brett — Mr Brett: It is, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): — or a statement? Could you get to your question? Mr Brett: It is a serious issue in which I have been heavily involved. I was shouted down when I raised it before. I have been threatened with legal action outside the Chamber, but I have been justified in the actions that I have taken. Minister, do you agree that, despite what others may say, the days of discriminating against Protestants are now over? Some Members: Hear, hear. Mr Lyons: First, I pay tribute to Phillip Brett and Cheryl Brownlee for the work that they have done in bringing this issue to the fore and drawing attention to the matter, because there are many who would have liked to see it brushed under the carpet. Many people would have liked to pretend that it was not happening and that it was not a serious issue. I am absolutely delighted that they have taken the stand that they have taken. They have been determined in bringing it forward. I know that Mr Brett, in particular, has brought it to the Floor many times, and it is right that that is acknowledged and that his work on the issue is recognised, because it should not be acceptable any more. It should not be something that we can just turn a blind eye to. I certainly hope that this is starting a journey down a road, because it has gone on for far too long. It is not acceptable. The Member is absolutely right to mention Daryl by name. It is absolutely unacceptable that someone was not able to progress, when they had the skill, talent and ability to do so, because of their community background or perceived religion. That is wrong. That needs to stop, and I can assure the Member that I will do everything in my power to make sure that this is the end of it. Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Minister, for your statement. I remember having conversations many years ago with Ian McSorley from Sandy Row Boxing Club about this very issue, so I am delighted to hear that the Minister is taking firm action today. I share his encouragement and congratulations to Lewis Crocker from my constituency. The code of conduct is not just needed for boxing and could possibly be replicated in other sports. Is that something that the Minister is minded to do if it proves to be successful? Mr Lyons: It should ultimately be for sports to bring forward their own policies. It is not necessarily the right way forward to lift something from one sport and put it in place for everybody. The issue has been highlighted because of how the problems that already existed have come to the fore. We are always willing to look at issues to make sure that everything that can be done is being done so that people can operate in a fair and equitable way. I thank the Member for welcoming the statement; everyone in the House should welcome it. Everybody, together, should want to make sure that the work is completed as quickly as possible so that this is not an issue for anybody in the future. Mr Clarke: I am sure that the Minister agrees that it is disappointing that many Members from those Benches would have more to say if Daryl Clarke came from a different community background. Whilst they often cling on to the Equality Commission as being their saviour, it is not lost on anyone on the Benches on this side of the Chamber that, in your statement, you said that the 2013 report: "gathered dust while the old guard clung to control." You went on to say that the "ignorance" will end. Clearly, Minister, there is an issue in the organisation. Do the recommendations go far enough? Is there any form of sanction that you could apply in the short term until we make sure that those recommendations are followed? Mr Lyons: I want to see the recommendations implemented. It is right that we pick up on what some of those recommendations are. One is: "decision-making needs to better reflect the communities in Northern Ireland". That shows that it does not currently reflect the communities in Northern Ireland. Another recommendation is that we need to see: "fair participation of club officers from each community". Again, I believe that that is indicative of that not being in place at the minute. I will read some of the other things that the report says, because it is important to highlight them. It says: "All parties need to fully commit to the principle of equal opportunity ... Steps are necessary to actively ensure fair participation from both main communities ... The 2013 recommendations required a cultural shift and an ongoing commitment to equality. That demonstrates that equality was not there. Issues highlighted in that report are still live". That all indicates that there is a real problem, especially with governance. I will repeat what I have said to the House previously: it is a requirement for any sports governing body that is recognised by Sport NI to demonstrate high levels of governance and a commitment to good relations. That is lacking right now, and the situation needs to change. There will be consequences if there is not that change. Mr Gaston: Minister, your statement on the treatment of Daryl Clarke is welcome. However, in 2013, the Assembly made an amendment, tabled by my predecessor, Jim Allister, which called for the formation of a Northern Ireland boxing association. There was no path for people from Northern Ireland to box for the UK in the Olympics at that time, and that remains the case. In your statement, you said nothing about that issue. What are you doing to address that? Mr Lyons: I have raised that issue. We need to do a number of things to make sure that that happens. One of those is to get the sports councils of the UK to look at the issue. I am pleased to announce to the House, if it is not already aware of it, that they are undertaking a review of the recognition policy. I look forward to learning of any proposed changes arising from that review and to understanding those changes' implications for sports that are seeking to establish a governing body in Northern Ireland. I have also written to international governing bodies in support of organisations that wish to become the national governing body for their sport in Northern Ireland. I have to recognise that all sports are self-governing, and that World Boxing, as the recognised international governing body, has the ultimate authority to decide how boxing is organised in Northern Ireland. I do not believe, however, that what we currently have in place fulfils the promise in the Good Friday Agreement about people being able to compete under their own identity. Change is needed. Our particular circumstances need to be accounted for. I took this issue on when I came into office, and I assure the House that I will continue to press on it until we get the changes that are so desperately required. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): That concludes questions on the statement. Executive Committee Business Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill: Legislative Consent Motion Dr Archibald (The Minister for the Economy): I beg to move That this Assembly endorses the principle of the extension to Northern Ireland of the provisions of the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill, as introduced in the House of Commons on 14 May 2025, dealing with the establishment of a revenue certainty mechanism that supports the production of sustainable aviation fuel as contained in clauses 1 to 5 and 10 to 15 of the Bill. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time limit on the debate. I call the Minister to open the debate on the motion. Dr Archibald: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. [Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.] Decarbonisation is one of my four key objectives. Reaching net zero requires action across every sector of our economy, including the aviation sector. Sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) is designed to reduce the environmental impact of air travel. It is produced from renewable or waste-based sources and can be used in existing aircraft engines and infrastructure with little or no modification. Compared with conventional jet fuel, it can reduce life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions by up to 70%. Sustainable aviation fuel production has the potential to generate hundreds of skilled jobs in engineering, logistics and research as the industry grows. There are also potential benefits for our agri-food and waste sectors from providing feedstock sources for sustainable aviation fuel production. The Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on 14 May 2025. The Bill establishes a revenue certainty mechanism, which provides producers with a guaranteed price for their fuel, thereby reducing investment risk and encouraging market growth. The Bill also establishes a framework for further regulations and mechanisms to follow in support of the sustainable aviation fuel industry. The Bill contains 19 clauses, 11 of which would apply here. The proposal is that they be extended to this jurisdiction via a legislative consent motion (LCM). I will turn briefly to the specific clauses in the Bill that require legislative consent. Clauses 1 to 5 establish the legal framework for revenue certainty contracts. They also allow the British Secretary of State for Transport to direct a designated government-owned counterparty to offer guaranteed price contracts to sustainable aviation fuel producers. The clauses also provide for the publication and registration of contracts, the designation of the government-owned counterparty and the ability to transfer responsibilities between entities. The clauses ensure transparency, flexibility and investment confidence in the sector. Clause 10 ensures that any surplus funds that are collected through the levy that are not needed to support revenue certainty contracts are returned to levy payers. The levy itself will be imposed on aviation fuel suppliers and will remain a reserved matter. Clause 11 allows for financial penalties to be imposed for failing to comply with regulations on the levy, which is considered to be reserved, and for failing to comply with regulations on surplus, which is considered to be devolved. Penalties are intended to ensure compliance and to maintain the integrity of the revenue certainty mechanism. Initially, the Bill omitted the North from the recovery provisions. That was addressed at Committee Stage in the House of Commons through an amendment to ensure that unpaid penalties are recoverable here, thus aligning with procedures in England and Wales. Clause 12 enables the British Secretary of State for Transport to direct the government-owned counterparty on the exercise of any of its functions. That intersects with the devolved responsibilities if the direction concerns the revenue certainty contracts. The same applies to clause 13 on information and advice. Clause 14 relates to funding the counterparty only to enable it to fulfil its liabilities under the contracts, which is considered to be a devolved issue. Clause 15 sets out how regulations under the Bill will be made. It intersects with devolved responsibilities if they relate to non-levy regulations. The Bill can help support the establishment of a world-leading sustainable aviation fuel industry, reducing reliance on imported fuels and boosting energy security. The Bill cuts across economic development, environmental matters and the application of financial penalties here. My Department has consulted the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and the Department of Justice. I acknowledge the positive responses received from the respective Ministers, who indicated their support for the LCM. They also acknowledged the potential environmental and economic benefits of applying the Bill's provisions here and that the financial penalty provisions in clause 11 are necessary, proportionate and unlikely to have a detrimental impact on the justice system here. Top 3.15 pm I thank my Executive colleagues, who have given their support to consent to the Bill. I also thank the Committee for its engagement on the matter and for the report that it produced. I commend the motion to the Assembly and thank Members for their support. Mr Brett (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Economy): I rise on behalf of the Committee to support the LCM tabled by the Minister. I thank her and her officials for the usual courtesy that they have shown the Committee in ensuring that we could deliberate on the matter. Sustainable aviation fuel is described as a cleaner alternative to traditional jet fuel and is part of the process of reducing carbon emissions from air travel. The Bill is described as aiming to boost SAF production through the establishment of revenue certainty mechanisms to encourage investment and support the production of SAF across this United Kingdom. The Bill will allow the Government to impose a levy on suppliers of aviation fuel in the UK who are subject to renewable fuel obligations. That levy will then be used to support the revenue certainty mechanism and thus help producers. The Department advised the Committee at its meeting on 24 September 2025 of a number of producers in Northern Ireland and the potential for economic spin-offs from related technology. Officials advised that, if the provisions of the Bill were not extended to Northern Ireland from the start, that would lead to uncertainty for our producers. The Committee noted the potential benefits of the new fuel and the important role that it would likely play in reaching climate change targets. Thus, it afforded me this opportunity to say that we support the LCM. Mr Delargy: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the sustainable aviation legislation that has been brought forward at Westminster and to acknowledge the constructive engagement that our Sinn Féin Minister for the Economy has had in that important area. The Bill is a step towards addressing one of the major challenges facing our economy: how we continue to connect people and places while reducing our impact on the environment. Aviation remains vital to our all-Ireland economy. It supports tourism, trade, inward investment and access to global markets. However, it is also a significant contributor to carbon emissions, and tackling that requires long-term strategic planning. Sinn Féin's policy of decarbonisation is a key pillar of our tenure in the Department for the Economy, and the Minister's focus on exploring sustainable aviation fuels and green innovation shows forward thinking. By supporting R&D across our universities and industry, we can ensure that we are at the cutting edge of skills and opportunities that are part of a lower-carbon future. That approach recognises that sustainability and economic growth go hand in hand. The development of cleaner aviation technologies has the potential not only to reduce emissions but to create new high-quality jobs and position our economy as part of a growing global sector. While the legislative process sits at Westminster, it is essential that the voices and the priorities of people in the North are represented and that any policy that is developed works for our needs to support connectivity, protect jobs, align with our commitments under the Climate Change Act 2022 and protect our broader economic vision. It is about planning responsibly for the future and ensuring that aviation remains viable and sustainable for future generations. I commend the Minister for continuing to champion long-term practical solutions and for ensuring that our region plays its part in a cleaner and fairer economy. Mr Honeyford: I thank the Minister for moving the LCM. On behalf of the Alliance Party, I am pleased to support it. It is about three things: decarbonising aviation; backing innovation and creating jobs and skills; and making sure that this region is not left on the sidelines while the rest of these islands move ahead. The Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill sets up a UK-wide system for sustainable aviation fuel. After the Bill is passed, our focus must be on how we make the most of it and grow our economy. We need to provide investors with confidence to base themselves in Northern Ireland, grow our economy and create jobs here for local people. It may be a small area — a niche area, if you like — but Alliance still sees the opportunity for growth, innovation and clean industry. That is exactly the kind of industry and space that we want this place to lead in. We are well placed to take advantage of it, and we already have work on it going on, with a world-class agri-food sector, a heritage of innovation that is core to the people here and innovation and technology companies. Excellent research is already being done throughout our universities; our airports and ports are well located; and, uniquely, for us, there is dual market access to the UK internal market and the EU single market. With the right framework, this can bring us another opportunity to turn waste and landfill gas into high-value jet fuel instead of into more methane emissions and could create skilled jobs in engineering, logistics and operations that are based here in the emerging industry. The independent analysis of the UK Government shows that a mature SAF and low-carbon fuel sector could supply thousands of jobs and billions of pounds to UK GVA by 2050. We have to make sure that we have more than our fair share of that and do not watch it happen elsewhere while we miss out. It fits directly with our Climate Change Act, green growth strategy and Alliance's long-standing belief that climate, energy security and economic growth go hand in hand. Finally, we have to be honest and highlight this point: we in Northern Ireland were forgotten about from the start. That is not acceptable — absolutely not acceptable — and needs to be put on the record. The UK Government's failure to properly follow protocol and notify the Executive on a devolved issue cannot be allowed to become a habit. From now on and as we move forward, cross-departmental working should be done, alongside work in the Economy Committee. I appreciate the Minister's work with the AERA Minister and the Justice Minister to bring the matter to the House today. We are where we are, but it has to be noted that that failure cannot become a habit. Alliance supports the LCM in order to provide green investment, jobs, skills and connectivity. We will always choose opportunity alongside climate responsibility. Ms D Armstrong: I, too, support the legislative consent motion. It offers an important opportunity to help Northern Ireland become a hub for sustainable aviation fuel innovation and development, building on work that is already under way here. I join David Honeyford, our colleague on the Economy Committee, in mentioning the fact that Northern Ireland, as a devolved part of the UK, was left out of the consideration. That is not acceptable, given that it posed a risk that we would be left out of line with GB, robbing us of the potential benefits of developing further investment in sustainable aviation fuel. Thankfully, that has been rectified, and the Ulster Unionist Party is content to support the Minister's request for legislative consent. The Bill offers economic opportunity and strategic foresight to help harness the vast developing changes in an industry that is so vital for our connectivity and commerce. The industry is also one of the fastest-growing sources of carbon emissions. With the Bill, more investment can be attracted, more green jobs created and waste from agri-foods and forestry can be turned into wealth, transforming landfill gas and agricultural residues into clean jet fuel. As I read, in July this year it was announced that 17 companies in the UK that are developing the fuels will receive shares of a new £63 million funding boost, which will support around 1,400 jobs. It has been warned that, if the Bill is not extended to Northern Ireland, it may lead to revenue uncertainty for producers of SAF. When we see the benefits of the investment in SAF in Great Britain, we find that it makes little sense for Northern Ireland to neglect such opportunities. Environmentally sustainable aviation fuel aligns with Invest NI's green economy strategy and has the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in aviation by up to 80% when compared with standard jet fuel. It can also support our Climate Change Act targets as a cornerstone of the local net zero transition. The legislation, once enacted, will guarantee sustainable aviation fuel producers a revenue certainty mechanism to support the production of sustainable aviation fuel. It will remove the financial uncertainty that hinders investment, provide a guaranteed price for fuel and help future-proof the developing sector, all while making progress towards our green energy goals. I am happy to endorse the extension of the Bill to ensure that Northern Ireland is not left behind on clean aviation fuel. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): There being no further speakers listed, I call on the Minister for the Economy to conclude the debate and make a winding-up speech on the motion. Dr Archibald: I thank Members for their contributions to today's debate and the interest that they have shown in this important issue. I thank again the Economy Committee and its Chair for their support and engagement. I will pick up briefly on a couple of the points that Members made. I agree that we have a real opportunity here for job creation and innovation and supporting businesses. There are already a couple of businesses here that are engaged in sustainable aviation fuel production. There is clearly an opportunity to be grasped. It very much links with some of the strategies that have been mentioned and the forthcoming circular economy strategy that we intend to bring forward in the near future. I will pick up again on the point about the lack of engagement on LCMs on some occasions. It is not always the case. There are Ministers and Departments that engage early and well on potential legislative consent motions, but, on a number of occasions, that has not happened, and it is across all Departments here. The First Minister and deputy First Minister have raised that on a number of occasions and have again committed to raising it as a machinery-of-government issue. I thank Members for their engagement in today's debate. I look forward to working with them to ensure that we play a leading role in the transition to cleaner aviation. I therefore recommend that the Assembly agree the motion. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Minister, thank you for concluding the debate. Question put and agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly endorses the principle of the extension to Northern Ireland of the provisions of the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill, as introduced in the House of Commons on 14 May 2025, dealing with the establishment of a revenue certainty mechanism that supports the production of sustainable aviation fuel as contained in clauses 1 to 5 and 10 to 15 of the Bill. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, I ask that you take your ease before we move to the next item in the Order Paper. Private Members' Business Digital ID Scheme: Opposition Mr Gildernew: Molaim an rún. I beg to move That this Assembly is united in its opposition to the proposal from the British Government to introduce mandatory digital ID for people here; expresses concern that that flawed proposal could result in the squandering of millions of pounds of public money at a time when public services are increasingly stretched; and calls for an exemption to be put in place so that citizens here are not included, if the British Government proceed with their ill-considered digital ID scheme. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes in which to propose and 10 minutes in which make a winding-up speech. As an amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List, the Business Committee has agreed that 15 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate. Mr Gildernew, please open the debate on the motion. Mr Gildernew: A number of weeks ago, the British Government announced that they will bring forward a new form of mandatory digital ID that we all know as the "BritCard" The reaction to the BritCard has been, it is fair to say, universally negative, both here and, ironically enough, even in Britain, with all parties in the North in agreement that the BritCard should not apply here. Sinn Féin is resolutely opposed to the BritCard or any such mandatory ID scheme. The motion today will send a clear message to the British Government that the scheme is not wanted by the majority of people here and that they need to reflect on that hare-brained scheme. Top 3.30 pm First and foremost, it is an attack on the Good Friday Agreement. The Good Friday Agreement makes it explicitly clear that citizens in the North have the right — the right — to identify as Irish or British or, indeed, both, as they so choose. The idea that Irish nationalists living in the North, who carry Irish passports as a proud birthright, would accept a mandatory form of ID that forces them to identify as British is absolutely ludicrous. We all know that people here feel strongly in their sense of identity, as is their right, and any attempts to coerce people to accept an identity that is not theirs is doomed to fail from the outset. The Good Friday Agreement was designed in such a way to allow people to express their identity in whatever way they wanted, with a recognition that identity does not remain static and can change over time. Crucially, it also afforded equality to those of us who choose to identify as Irish. The so-called BritCard would drive a horse and cart through that inclusive and equal recognition of our many complex identities. Mr Brett: I appreciate the Member's giving way. As the Member talks about the Belfast Agreement, will he say why he called for a carveout of the scheme here in Northern Ireland but not to scrap it across the United Kingdom? For those of us who proudly identify as British and whose allegiance is to the United Kingdom, surely, calling for it to be removed across the UK would have gone better with what the Member has just articulated. Mr Gildernew: Very simply, we believe that if they decide to go ahead with it across the water, it should not take place here. We will not be supporting the amendment as we feel that it weakens our motion in that sense. Thank you for that. Workers here are already required to show various forms of ID when searching for employment, and we already have government ID, such as passports and driving licences, which most people are able to produce when asked. In the North, we also have electoral ID cards, which are available to any citizen who is registered to vote, completely free of charge. The BritCard is simply another layer of bureaucracy that duplicates what already exists, and it will only serve to confuse and disorient those who are seeking employment. I also have concerns about the digital aspect of the ID. As we all know, many people in the North are not IT literate and have no means of accessing internet platforms. Are we seriously suggesting that people who may not know how to use a mobile phone, or, worse again, people who cannot even afford a mobile phone should be excluded from gaining employment? There is also a lack of clarity on what it would mean for the thousands of cross-border workers who live and work here, particularly along border regions. The constituency that I represent includes one of those regions. Many people cross the border for work daily. The question is this: will Irish citizens who live in the South but work in the North — many of them valued workers in our health service and many other places — be required to carry a BritCard? That is another gaping hole in what is a daft idea. Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Member for giving way. I brought this issue as a Matter of the Day about a month ago, and I referred to it as the "BritCard". I did not really think that that would cause offence, but, that day, it was clear that it does cause offence to some Members. Did you not reflect on that after that Matter of the Day and consider that you could have tempered the way that you term the digital ID scheme to reflect greater cooperation in the Chamber? Mr Gildernew: I have not heard it referred to as anything other than "BritCard". I did not hear the Matter of the Day, due to other business, but that is the only term that I have heard used, and I think that it is widely used. It is widely in circulation, even yet; it is not simply me who is using it. The scheme has the real potential to block thousands of workers from contributing to our economy by placing unnecessary barriers in front of people who are trying to make a living. The more that we look at the scheme, the more that it becomes obvious that we in the North were not factored into the decision whatsoever. Frankly, that is nothing new, and that is a problem in itself. The British economy is in free fall, largely as a result of Brexit, it must be said, and there are unprecedented labour shortages across all sections of the economy. It smacks of political desperation to make such a proposal. At a time of continuing British austerity, when we have seen pensioners lose their winter fuel payment, sick and disabled people lose their benefits and now more unfair taxes being proposed against the least well-off, the British Government are proposing to spend £400 million on this folly. It beggars belief. The proposal shows how out of touch with reality the British Government are. Trust in the British Government is at an all-time low. Keir Starmer is the most unpopular British Prime Minister in living memory, and now he wants to force citizens to hand over their personal data to his Government: a recipe for disaster. Anyone and everyone that I have spoken to about this scheme has said that they do not trust the British Government to responsibly handle their personal data, and, to be clear, neither do I. We live in an age when hackers can access vast quantities of personal data and use it for criminal purposes, and Governments around the world seem to be completely inept at protecting their citizens' data. That is why I believe that the digital ID scheme will never be accepted by people here. Keir Starmer can dance to the Reform tune as much as he wants, but people here refuse to get caught up in these Westminster games and distractions. We have had enough of the bad decisions that come from Westminster, which have had a disproportionate impact on the people who live here. It is time that the British Government took their heads out of the clouds and started listening to the people on the ground. Mr Frew: I beg to move the following amendment: Leave out all after "stretched;" and insert: "stresses that these plans would also jeopardise personal privacy and create the potential for misuse of citizens’ personal data; and calls on the Prime Minister to immediately withdraw plans for an ill-considered digital ID scheme in all parts of the United Kingdom." Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): You have 10 minutes to propose the amendment and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members will have five minutes. Mr Frew: Sinn Féin is so wrong-headed on this subject, it is crazy. The reason why it is so wrong-headed on this is that it is hung up on the nickname "BritCard". If this was brought in in the Republic of Ireland, or if it was brought in in the EU, which there are plans to do, Sinn Féin members would lap it up. They would all sign up for their digital ID cards. Mr Delargy: Will the Member give way? Mr Frew: I will. Mr Delargy: Will the Member acknowledge the fact that Sinn Féin MEPs have consistently challenged any mandatory introduction of the card, and Sinn Féin's position on this has been absolutely clear? We have opposed any mandatory introduction of cards in Europe. Mr Frew: I thank the Member for his contribution and his Eurosceptic tendencies. However, there is one weakness in the motion: what about the workers from the Republic of Ireland who work in GB? They will get the digital ID card — or the BritCard, if they call it that. Sinn Féin has completely failed and discarded the people of the Republic of Ireland in its motion, whereas we are fighting for all the people who work in the United Kingdom, even citizens of the Republic of Ireland. Sinn Féin has completely forgotten about the Irish people, and that is because it is so hung up on this. It is the most British thing to do to oppose digital ID. It is the most British thing to do to oppose mandatory ID of any form, because the British people have never suffered or accepted it, and nor should they ever accept it. This scheme is a so-called solution that is trying to find a problem, and the Government just happened to select the number-one issue that has vexed so many British minds of late: immigration. Do not be fooled: illegal immigration and illegal working are totally unacceptable, and the issues need to be resolved immediately. They need to be resolved across the UK, and that includes Northern Ireland, but this scheme will not do that. It is not even designed to do that. The scheme is state overreach, and, as is always the case, it is about making people a lot of money. We do not need to give over 70 million people a digital ID to stop 0·05% of that number from arriving illegally. We already have a visa system that displays people's right to work, but it is not even enforced. If employers do not check visas, why would they check digital ID? A digital form of ID is not a harmless card in your hip pocket that can be shown to a person in authority. The British people have baulked at such a proposition, even in the worst of times. Such measures can and have been used, even in recent history, to coerce people into a position that they did not wish to be in. They enable the Government to widen the scope to cover all other matters and control what people can and cannot do. That is what vaccine certification did during the pandemic. It is worth noting that the motion has been tabled by Sinn Féin, the party that, along with the Alliance Party, the SDLP and the UUP, was a passionate advocate for digital certification for COVID vaccinations. It did not care about personal rights or privacy then, so what has changed? I warned at the time that that was a precursor to digital ID, and I am glad that all the other parties have rowed in behind me on that serious matter. The Government could easily change the scope and conditions of every sphere of life because of the digital nature of the ID, and we would have no say in it and no choice but to comply. They have already done exactly that, as the Prime Minister stated on his social media page. That shows footage of him talking about digital ID to customers in Barclays bank, of all places. He tells them that the digital ID will contain their basic information. He then says a peculiar thing: "For everything other than proving you've got a right to work, it won't be mandatory." Really? Does he think that we are stupid? Needing it in order to work is a pretty big deal, so, if digital ID is mandatory for that, it is, basically, mandatory for everyone of working age. He goes on: "You don't have to have it, but ... You can use it for anything that requires identification, and there are lots of things. If you want to rent, for example, if you want to apply for a mortgage. If you want to get your child into primary school, and there is a catchment area, and you've got to show where you live, proving who you are, what your date of birth is, it will just be able to be done with digital ID." He then looks towards the camera — a bit like Big Brother, just softer and gentler — and says: "They're really up for it, I think once you understand just how much easier it'll make life, so many more people will be too." Enforcing a digital ID scheme raises serious concerns about the protection of an individual's private data in a world where cybersecurity is becoming ever more threatened. Forcing people to store personal information, all in one place, in the form of a digital ID would be deeply unwise. The first question in the debate should not be what it is called — BritCard or otherwise — but why the state is making it mandatory. Why are they enforcing it? If it is such a great idea, make it voluntary. The state should not force people to do anything that could put them and their private information in jeopardy. I hear people out there say, "But I have a digital wallet for all sorts of services on my phone: I hand over personal information all the time, and it makes my life so handy". We give data to private organisations, but they cannot compel us to do so: we have a choice. We can choose whom we give our personal data to, whether that be an organisation, a business or a private entity. Only the Government of the day can pass laws to control people's lives and actions and use a digital ID to make us comply. It is worth noting that many Members on the other side of the Chamber were happy to cheer the arrival of the new Labour Government. As a party, we will always stand up for the rights of people in Northern Ireland. Whether that be through our Minister rightly restoring the winter fuel payment to our pensioners or our principled stand against the unfair tax on family farms, the DUP will continue to fight on issues relating to schemes such as the digital ID that are not in the best interests of people in Northern Ireland or across the UK. Included in that are the Irish people from the Republic of Ireland who go to GB to work whom Sinn Féin has forgotten about. We will not forget about those people; we will fight for those people. It is not right for the British Government or any Government or state to impose digital ID on any one of their citizens, no matter who they are. This is fascinating: I have spoken about digital wallets and other such things, and you would think that young people would be OK with this. However, it is very clear from the LucidTalk poll that 80% of people aged between 18 and 34 — I fall just outside that bracket — are totally opposed to digital ID. Surely that speaks volumes. In my age range, which is 45 to 54 — I fall just inside that category — it is also 80%. I am proud to say that those are the two groups that have highest resistance to digital ID. It is a non-runner. It is an absolute no-brainer to resist digital ID, given all the dangers that it would bring not only to our freedoms but to our personal information, which could fall into the hands of all sorts of unscrupulous people, including the current Prime Minister. Top 3.45 pm Ms Bradshaw: I thank Sinn Féin for tabling the motion for debate. As I said to a previous contributor, I raised the issue as a Matter of the Day in the Chamber when the UK Government first announced it, and I have not seen any evidence since that dissuades me from thinking that it is the wrong approach. The proposal will try to fix a problem that does not exist. There is no evidence of widespread identity fraud or any system failure that would justify something so intrusive, expensive and complex. It feels less like a genuine solution and more like a political exercise. Meanwhile, people here are dealing with far more pressing issues, such as the cost-of-living crisis, access to healthcare and pressures on our public services. Against that reality, spending millions of pounds on a national digital ID scheme seems, at best, misguided. Beyond the politics, there are real concerns about fairness and accessibility. Not everyone has a smartphone or feels confident with technology. For older people, those on lower incomes and those without digital access, the scheme could become another barrier — another way of their being excluded from services that belong to us all. There is also the issue of trust, which is the most fundamental of all and something that the Alliance Party cares deeply about. Placing everyone's personal data into a single, centralised system is a huge risk. Who controls that data? Who uses it? How secure is it? Governments around the world have learned the hard way that even the most advanced systems can fail. In India, the digital ID scheme has seen repeated breaches. Databases have been exposed online, and personal information has been sold illegally. In Estonia, which is often held up as the model of digital government, a flaw in the national ID cards' encryption left citizens' data vulnerable and forced a national recall. Singapore's Singpass system has seen thousands of compromised accounts appear on the Dark Web. In Ukraine, the platform that digitised identity and public services has been repeatedly targeted during the war, proving that centralised data systems can become key targets in times of crisis. Therefore, when UK Government Ministers tell us that the technology is safe, we have every reason to be sceptical. No system up to now has proven that it is unhackable, and, once trust in government data handling is lost, it is almost impossible to rebuild. For Northern Ireland, the concerns are amplified. Our constitutional and social landscape is complex and sensitive. People here have the right to identify as British, Irish or both. That is part of the Good Friday Agreement, and it matters deeply to us all. Any digital identity scheme must represent that pluralism, not undermine it. A one-size-fits-all digital identity scheme from Westminster risks cutting across the delicate balance that has helped to sustain peace and stability here. Then, there is the simple, practical reality of life on this island where thousands of people cross the border every day for work, study and family reasons. A UK-wide system that ignores that fluidity risks creating confusion and potentially unnecessary bureaucracy. Once again, Northern Ireland seems to have been treated as an afterthought. I share the intention behind the motion, but I think that we need to go further. The issue is not whether Northern Ireland should be exempted from the proposed scheme; it is that the scheme itself is fundamentally flawed. It is unnecessary, unworkable and unlikely to deliver the security and efficiency that it promises. Ultimately, the debate is not about technology but about rights, privacy and respect. People deserve to know how their personal information will be used, that their identity will not become political property and that their privacy will not be treated as expendable. For those reasons, I will support the motion and the DUP amendment. The amendment recognises that the scheme cannot simply be tweaked or improved and therefore needs to be binned entirely. Some Members: Hear, hear. Ms Bradshaw: We feel that the amendment acknowledges the broader risks not just to Northern Ireland, given our unique circumstances, but to personal privacy and public trust across the UK. This is not about constitutional identity, nor is it about party politics. Rather, it is about practicality, proportionality and protecting everyone's rights. Mr Butler: I firmly support the motion, but only if it is amended. The Sinn Féin motion is obviously a very unsubtle attempt to separate Northern Ireland from its rightful place within the United Kingdom. I commend the Member on his speech. He got in as many "Brits" as he could. [Inaudible] Mr Gildernew: the next time. Mr Butler: The ambition is OK, but it is never going to happen. We will support the motion as amended. The Assembly must send a clear and united message, however, that our freedom is not a barcode to be scanned, stored or sold. The Government's plan, as outlined in the Westminster research briefing paper 'Digital ID in the UK', claims to offer efficiency and security. We know that history tells us a different story, however. From the abandoned ID card scheme of the early 2000s to costly IT failures across Departments, grand projects too often drained public coffers and delivered little of value, if any at all. At a time that health waiting lists are growing and schools fight for resources, spending millions — the proposer of the motion mentioned a figure of £400 million, but I suggest that it would go way over that, perhaps into the billions — on an untested national ID system is not reform. Rather, it is reckless. The Assembly knows better than most what happens when citizens lose faith in how their data is handled. Northern Ireland's people have lived through decades in which identity was a political currency, particularly for our security forces, where trust, privacy and personal safety were never guaranteed. To many here, the notion that a government database could hold and track their personal information is not reassurance. We need only look at recent data leaks, about which we are all very concerned, in many different fields, such as the recent Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) data leak. I did not mean that as a pun. I reiterate that our freedom is not a barcode to be scanned, stored or sold. The Ulster Unionist Party has been clear and consistent that the proposal is intrusive, unnecessary and ill-considered. In the House of Lords, Lord Empey rightly said: "liberty must not be traded for administrative convenience." Steve Aiken MLA warned that citizens should not be forced to hand over their privacy in the name of digital efficiency. Both are correct. The amendment is welcome, as it strengthens the motion by recognising that such a scheme will jeopardise personal privacy and open the door to the misuse of data, and we know that once that door is opened, it is rarely closed again. (Mr Speaker in the Chair) Let us also remember, as has been talked about in the debate already, that not everyone is digitally equipped, or even able, to participate in such a system. Many older people, particularly those who live in rural areas, and those with limited access to broadband could be left behind or excluded from essential services. The digital divide would deepen, and the people who are in need of support would, once again, be those most at risk of being forgotten. If Westminster insists on pressing ahead with this ill-conceived policy, we must be resolute at Westminster and in the Assembly in saying that it is not acceptable. We will not allow another top-down mandate to override local realities, local rights and local voices. Let us therefore make it plain today that we support progress but not at the cost of privacy, that we embrace technology but not at the expense of trust and that we defend security but not at the cost of freedom. At the heart of this lies a simple truth that should guide every Government decision: our freedom is not a barcode to be scanned, stored or sold. We will support the motion if it is amended. Ms Hunter: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the motion and thank the Members to my left for tabling it. The SDLP will support the motion and the amendment. I firmly reject any form of digital ID. The debate is about freedom and its importance, and it is about the right of every citizen to exist without being monitored, logged and tracked by their own Government. I fiercely condemn the proposed introduction of the so-called BritCard, a digital ID scheme that has no place in a free society and certainly has no mandate or want from the people of Northern Ireland. Every citizen has the right to exist outside digital infrastructure or entirely off the grid if they wish. They have a right to personal liberty. The principles of autonomy and the right to privacy are sacred. Yet, under the guise of modernisation, the British Government now want to bring in a digital ID that could link your identity, finances, health, travel and, eventually, freedom into one state-controlled system. Mr Frew: Will the Member give way? Ms Hunter: No, thank you. I have a lot to get through. That, in many ways, feels reminiscent of '1984' or, more modernly, a 'Black Mirror' episode. The BritCard is not about convenience; it is very much about control. To many, a digital ID can sound harmless — to some, it may even sound helpful — but when the Government hold a single key to your data and identity, they hold the power to decide eventually who you are and what you can access. We in Northern Ireland reject that wholeheartedly. We have seen the trajectory in other countries and how digital IDs can become a precondition for opening a bank account, seeing a doctor or accessing public services. Sadly, we have seen that, once implemented, those systems do not stop expanding. They grow quietly and incrementally until surveillance becomes normal and privacy becomes suspicious. This Government have no right. Not only will the scheme be incredibly costly, as other Members have mentioned, but this Government cannot be trusted with that power and with the data of our people. In the Northern Irish context, the language is inherently divisive. Having something called a BritCard imposed here would be divisive by design and would undermine the delicate trust that has been built through decades of peace and shared institutions and the right to identity. Our history tells us that, when the Government seek to know everything about everyone, freedom is always the first casualty. This is about rights, democracy and the right to choose what you want. It is about the right to privacy, which is not a luxury but the foundation of freedom of thought, speech and conscience. Without privacy, there is no real democracy. The European Convention on Human Rights recognises that, as do international law and our moral conscience. When people fear that their data, associations or movements are being monitored, they self-censor and withdraw and democracy decays from the inside out. Freedom is messy and inconvenient. Sometimes, it means that Government do not know everything about everyone but that is a good thing. A truly democratic Government should trust their citizens more than their want to control them. The digital ID proposal flips that principle on its head. It says, "We own your identity, not you". That is why today is so important: it means that we can have a vote to reject and resist this. The debate has been interesting and eye-opening. I welcome the fact that every party, despite their beliefs, background or views of London, is standing together to reject what is a violation of privacy for our citizens here. Today, it is digital ID, but, tomorrow, it could be something a lot more sinister such as facial recognition, databases, movement scoring or technology-driven profiling. We say no to that: it is Government overreach. We must say no now and say no later — Mr Frew: Will the Member give way? Ms Hunter: No, thank you. I am almost done. Once we accept the premise, the technology has the potential to invade our lives and individual freedoms even more. The mark of a free society is not how efficiently it monitors its citizens but how fiercely it protects their right to live unmonitored. The BritCard is not the future, but it is a warning that our privacy, autonomy and very humanity are being traded. The people of Northern Ireland value their freedom more than a digital footprint. Let us lead by example, stand for liberty and say with one voice that we are citizens. As Robbie Butler rightly said, we are not barcodes. We reject the idea of a digital ID, and we will defend the right of our citizens to freedom and privacy without Government oversight. Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up. Top 4.00 pm Ms Finnegan: Let me begin by saying that I am not a British citizen. I never have been, and I never will be. The proposal for a so-called BritCard is not just unnecessary but deeply offensive to the principles of the Good Friday Agreement, which guarantees the right of the people in the North to be Irish, British and, indeed, both. The scheme, by its very nature, assumes that we are all British, and that cannot and will not be accepted. Beyond the fundamental issues of identity and equality, there are real practical and economic reasons why the proposal should be rejected. First, it is an outrageous waste of public money. The administration of the scheme will cost upwards of £400 million at a time when our health service is under immense pressure, our education system is crying out for resources and our working families face rising costs. How can Keir Starmer justify spending hundreds of millions on pointless bureaucracy when people are waiting months for hospital appointments and our community services are being cut? The British Government talk about fiscal responsibility and belt-tightening, yet they are willing to pour money down the drain on a vanity project that nobody asked for and nobody needs. Secondly, the scheme risks creating barriers between workers on this island. Many people from the South, including members of my family and my constituents in south Armagh — my constituency borders County Monaghan and County Louth — cross the border every day for work. It is part of natural everyday living on this island. If employers in the North are forced to administer a Brit ID system, that additional layer of red tape could deter them from hiring workers from the South. It sends entirely the wrong message. Rather than building cooperation and economic opportunity on an all-island basis, the scheme risks creating new divisions and new barriers. A Member: Will the Member give way? Ms Finnegan: I have a lot to get through. It also duplicates the identification process that already exists. Workers already have to have a National Insurance number and valid work documentation. The scheme would add nothing but red tape. The people of this island deserve better than gimmicks and political gestures. They deserve investment in health, education, jobs and their communities. This BritCard proposal disrespects our identities, wastes public money and risks dividing our workforce. This ludicrous proposal should be scrapped. If the British Government insist on proceeding, we in the North must be exempt. Sinn Féin will continue to stand for the rights of everyone here — Irish, British or otherwise — to live freely, equally and without bureaucratic or political interference in who we are. Mr Brett: To follow on from the contributor who just spoke, I was born a British citizen, I am a British citizen and I always will be a British citizen. That is why I support the amendment tabled in my name and the names of my colleagues. I do so not just with my voice but with the voices of over 5,000 of my constituents in North Belfast: 5,000 people who are unionist, nationalist or have no constitutional view. They also do not have a voice in our national Parliament to make their view clear. Although my Member of Parliament would rather spend his time earning money from legal aid than representing those whom he was elected to serve, I will stand here today and speak on behalf of the 5,000 people of North Belfast who have signed that petition. They, like me, see the policy for what it is: a dead cat policy. The most unpopular Prime Minister in the history of the United Kingdom claims that a digital ID card will stop illegal immigration. That is because he has failed in the first duty of any Government, which is to protect the borders of the country that he serves. Is he seriously telling the people of the United Kingdom that those who enter the country via small boats will be put off because they do not have a digital ID card or that those who enter Northern Ireland through the international border with the Irish Republic, where there are no checks, and are then able to reside in the United Kingdom illegally will stop doing so because Keir Starmer has introduced a digital ID card? That is for the clouds. We are told that we should trust Keir Starmer. Look at what he promised the people of the United Kingdom and what he has delivered. He promised working people that he would never increase their taxes, but, at the end of this month, the Chancellor will increase taxes on hard-working families. The Labour Party pledged that they would never increase the tax burden on businesses, but they have already increased the rate of National Insurance contributions. They promised pensioners across this United Kingdom that they would protect the winter fuel payment, but their first act was to grab that from pensioners across the UK. They told us that they would protect our veterans, but one of their first acts was to placate nationalism and not move forward with the protection of veterans in Northern Ireland. They told us that they would protect innocent victims in Northern Ireland, but, yesterday, the Defence Minister was unable to say that an IRA terrorist could not serve on a panel that would decide who would and would not be entitled to immunity. Forgive me and the Members on these Benches if we do not trust the words of Keir Starmer. In our amendment, we recognise — not just as a unionist party — that those from all backgrounds in Northern Ireland who work in other parts of the United Kingdom and travel daily and/or weekly to other parts of the United Kingdom would be impacted by this. That is why we call for the full removal of the scheme. I thank the SDLP, the Alliance Party, the Ulster Unionists and the Members yet to speak who support our amendment. The proposer of the motion says that this has always been called "a digital BritCard" and he has never heard it called anything else. I encourage him to read the motion that purports to be in his name, because the word "BritCard" is not included in it. Perhaps he did not read what he was asked to sign by Connolly House before coming here. The Democratic Unionist Party will always be proud of its unionist credentials. However, we propose the amendment not just in that spirit but as people who will continue to stand up for liberty and freedom. We look forward to the settled will of the Assembly being that a UK-wide, mandatory digital ID scheme needs to go straight into the bin. Mr Gaston: I support the DUP amendment, which puts the emphasis exactly where the fight against digital IDs must be. The amendment strengthens the motion, and Sinn Féin, deep down, would recognise that, but only if its members removed their anti-British balaclavas. The amendment does not tinker around the edges or ask for a Northern Ireland opt-out. It says plainly that the scheme is wrong, full stop, and that it should be scrapped for everyone in every corner of this United Kingdom. This is not a narrow regional issue, nor is it simply a question of cost. It goes to the heart of the kind of country that we want to live in. It is about freedom, privacy and whether government still knows where its boundaries lie. The motion refers to the potential waste of millions of pounds, but even if the digital ID scheme cost nothing, it would still be wrong. ID cards were tolerated during the war because of the exceptional circumstances of that time, but, in peacetime, the British people rightly tore them up. We have always believed that a free citizen should not have to prove who he or she is in order to live freely in their own country. That belief runs deep in the British character: the conviction that government should serve its people, not watch over them. Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. He alludes to the British character in not accepting ID, and so we should not. The debate has been illuminating for a number of reasons. The Member was not here, but his colleague was when the DUP and the TUV opposed vaccine certification. It has been illuminating to see that Alliance, the SDLP and the UUP have moved away from digital ID and to see that Sinn Féin has completely forgotten about workers from the Republic of Ireland. Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute. Mr Gaston: I thank the Member for his intervention. I am always happy to take an intervention, even though it seems to be a common theme that Members on the other side of the House shy away from taking interventions. Mr Sheehan did that yesterday, and nationalist Members have done so today. Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Member for giving way. I remind Mr Frew, who was here at the time, that every time that I spoke on the COVID regulations, I said that, as a liberal party, we supported them with a very heavy heart. Mr Gaston: "A very heavy heart": that is an admission that there is a change in policy by the Alliance Party. I go back to the British character. A mandatory ID scheme changes that. It is not simply about convenience; it is a database of identities. Once built, it becomes an instrument that future Governments could use in ways that we cannot foresee. If history and experience teach us anything, it is that such tools are rarely left unused. George Orwell wrote 'Nineteen Eighty-four'' not as a prophecy but as a warning to us all about what happens when the state knows everything about its citizens. No one is suggesting that the UK has become Orwell's dystopia, but, when government starts to build the machinery that makes such control possible, even in the name of efficiency, that is precisely when we must stand up and speak out. The amendment recognises that risk. It warns of the misuse of citizens' personal data and defends the principle that privacy is not a privilege granted by government but an inherent right of free men and women. That point is entirely missing from the motion, and I think that we all know why. The original motion was not motivated by a defence of personal liberty. When has Sinn Féin ever shown genuine concern for human rights? Its motion is about something else. It is about advancing a narrow nationalist agenda and forcing yet more divergence between Northern Ireland and the rest of our United Kingdom. Freedom is not something to be carved up or confined by region. If digital ID cards are wrong for Belfast, they are equally wrong for Birmingham. Freedom does not stop at Larne. That is why the amendment calls on the Prime Minister to withdraw the plans entirely. Protect the rights and privacy of every citizen of the United Kingdom. That is not about right or left. It is about a fundamental principle of British identity: that the state's power must always be limited and that the individual must always be free. Let the Assembly send a clear and united message to London, Belfast and every corner of our United Kingdom that we reject the digital ID scheme and we reject the creeping hand of state intrusion. Mindful of Orwell's warning, we say with quiet resolve that we will not allow our society to drift inch by inch towards a world where movement is logged and every life is watched. We stand today for freedom, and I trust that all Members will get behind the amendment and back it. Mr Carroll: I support the motion, and, surprising as it may sound, I support the amendment. Some Members: Hear, hear. Mr Carroll: Do not get carried away. I have not spoken yet. [Laughter.] George Orwell was referenced. Members would do well to read 'Homage to Catalonia', because there are a few lessons in that book for some in the House. The digital ID scheme was proposed by the British Government in a supposed attempt to curb illegal immigration, although no human can be classed as "illegal" in any humane society. The proposers of the scheme claim that preventing asylum seeks from accessing work, housing and other public services will deter others from entering the country, as they say, illegally. Not only does that show a lack of understanding of why people migrate but it is completely false. It will not deter people from migrating or seeking asylum, something that is as old as time itself. It will not make some migrants leave; it will simply make their lives more difficult by forcing them into exploitative off-the-books work and unsafe housing, further marginalising them. The introduction of digital IDs in France and Belgium has not prevented unauthorised migrants from working or living there; rather, it has led to more scapegoating of them. Top 4.15 pm This is not going to be effective. It is simply an attempt by Labour to look tough on immigration. It is all about the optics and about chasing Reform. The only tangible impact that it will have is on our privacy. The introduction of digital IDs is just another attempt to expand digital infrastructure for a surveillance state. I welcome the new-found scepticism, especially to my right, of big capital and the surveillance state, and I hope that Members will take the logical conclusions from that. Mr Frew: What about big pharma? Mr Carroll: Indeed, what about big pharma? Do you want to talk about big pharma? Mr Frew: And Moy Park? Mr Carroll: Yes, indeed: what about Moy Park? The list goes on, Mr Frew. There are huge privacy issues in relation to the proposed scheme. It is not clear what data would be shared with government bodies or private companies or whether discredited companies such as Fujitsu would be lined up for contracts. I hope that the Member to my right will also oppose that company's getting further contracts. A digital ID system would risk excessive data disclosure and data sharing if there were to be long interactions between individuals and services. Moreover, the One Login system that will manage the IDs is reportedly not secure and is vulnerable to cybersecurity attacks. The ID scheme that was proposed under Blair's Government suffered a major data breach, so how can we expect people to support this ID scheme, knowing that the Government are incapable of protecting our data? Just this year, the Legal Aid Agency suffered a cyberattack that led to a breach of legal aid applicants' data, including their contact details, dates of birth and criminal history. As has been mentioned, the digital ID schemes in Norway, Estonia, Poland and India have all been subject to cyberattacks that have put people at risk. Crucially, excessive monitoring and surveillance would give the state the ability to suppress and censor political dissent with ease, and we know whom it would come after, because it comes after people already. In addition, it is likely that people of colour and those of migrant backgrounds would be subject to a disproportionate level of ID checks, which would create a further hostile environment for racial minorities. The existing eVisa digital ID scheme has been flagged for giving an inaccurate record of people's IDs and how it operates. The British Government claim that they are simply playing catch-up with other countries that have adopted digital IDs, but that is nothing to boast about. Alarmingly, it was reported that authorities in Egypt and Indonesia require religious minorities to renounce their faith in order to obtain an ID card, and the picture being painted in the US is even more bleak. The introduction of digital IDs will make the lives of older people, in addition to ethnic minorities, significantly more difficult if they are unable or unwilling to access digital services. That could seriously impede their ability to participate in public life and access vital public services. The scheme is based entirely on exclusion and discrimination. It is designed to assess who may have access to our public services and who may not. Those in the conservative camp will decry the scheme for its threat to our privacy, but they will fail to recognise that that is exactly where those hateful, exclusionary, anti-immigrant sentiments and ideas lead. We reject both the rhetoric being pushed by the right and the pandering of the British Government to that anti-immigrant narrative. Mr Speaker: I call Jonathan Buckley to wind on the amendment. Mr Buckley: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This debate gives me much joy and much hope, for two reasons. First, if I were to close my eyes in the Chamber, I would almost think that every party had found its inner Paul Frew. [Laughter.] Let freedom ring; liberty for all. It truly is breathtaking and shows such a journey from some difficult and dark years. The second reason is that it is a genuine sign of cross-community working that ultimately leads to better results. A Member: Will the Member take a point? Mr Buckley: In a moment. I do not think that I will have an extra minute, because I am winding up. This motion, when amended, shows those of a British identity and those of an Irish identity working together to show Keir Starmer and the Labour Government that digital IDs will not stand in Northern Ireland, England, Scotland or Wales. We stand united in this place to send a clear message to the UK Government: no to digital IDs. That is quite an achievement. It may not have been the intention of the Members who tabled the motion, but, ultimately, it can and will be the conclusion. Members, we have to remember the origins of digital ID. It is the same bucket of cold sick that Tony Blair tried to foist upon the people. It would have been a different excuse but the very same concept. Digital ID introduced under the banner of reducing and curbing illegal immigration really is quite something. The cats and the dogs on the street know that there is not one chance that such a scheme would have an impact on those arriving daily on our shores, illegally and undocumented. I could not be clearer: I would not trust this Labour Government to take my bin to the end of the lane, never mind to store my personal data under the banner of a digital ID. Let us look at their legacy when it comes to illegal immigration. Apparently, one of the most secure places on earth for citizens who are under supervision and under watch is where? Our prisons. Has anybody watched the chaos in the United Kingdom of prisoners, asylum seekers and those with sexual convictions being released? What about the policy of one in, one out in controlling illegal immigration, only for them to return on the very next boat? It is a case of absolute gaslighting to the people who have serious concerns. The Government tell us that digital ID will be the authoritative proof of identity and residency, containing our name, date of birth, nationality, residency status and even biometric data. That is not convenience: that is control. It is a step towards population-wide surveillance, and one that jeopardises privacy and trust in the use of private data. This Government have shown their record when it comes to storing personal data. There have been several cases of cyberattacks and the release of information pertaining to private citizens. I do not trust this scheme: I never have, and I never will. It is important that the House is united. I will say this: we have the chance in the Chamber to do something great today. If amended, the motion will send a united, clear message that the scheme should not apply right across the United Kingdom. Every party, with the exception of Sinn Féin, has accepted the amendment. It will pass. Will Sinn Féin make it a full house and ensure that we speak as one voice in saying to the UK Government, "No to digital ID"? I await the vote. Mr Speaker: I call Pádraig Delargy to make a winding-up speech on the motion. Mr Delargy: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. [Translation: Thank you, Mr Speaker.] I stand here today as an Irish citizen: I always have been, and I always will be. Neither Keir Starmer nor any British Government can take that away from me, change that or impose their BritCard on the people here in the North. The scheme is absurd. It is an insult to our people, and it is an affront to the Good Friday Agreement. The Good Friday Agreement was signed when I was two years old. It promised a better future, and it promised to enshrine my rights as an Irish citizen. The British Government today seek to roll back on that, but, as Irish citizens, it is our right, and no Government in London will ever take that away from us. Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. I hear what the Member said about identity, and that is fine. However, does he realise that, if he were to change job or any of his family members were to go to GB to work, they would have to have the digital ID? Call it what you will, but they would have to have that ID, so why did he have that exclusion in his motion? Mr Delargy: I thank Mr Frew for his intervention and for earlier misrepresenting Sinn Féin's position on a number of fronts, which I will go through. My first point is about the fact that you implied that Sinn Féin supports a mandatory ID across the board. That is not true. As I mentioned to you earlier — you chose to ignore Mr Gildernew's speech, Ms Finnegan's speech and my speech — Sinn Féin has consistently opposed the introduction of any mandatory IDs. Our MEPs proudly stood up against mandatory IDs, and we will continue to do so. I am not sure whether you were not able to hear that or chose not to hear it, but please listen and try to understand that point. The reception to the BritCard has been universally negative in the House. That is for various reasons, and Members have emphasised different points, but there is unanimity of purpose on the objective. Paula Bradshaw noted the identity risks in other countries. That is very important. We have to look at examples of good practice, as well as examples of practice that has not been so good but where there are opportunities to learn. This has certainly not been without difficulties in other parts of Europe and, indeed, across the world. The issue of the cost of the scheme has been emphasised across the Chamber, particularly because of this being a time when public services are on their knees. As we have seen, the British Government have continuously cut public services, have taken away the winter fuel payment for pensioners and have been on an austerity agenda that they promised to reverse but continue to impose on ordinary people. The scheme would have been bad at any time, but it is particularly bad at a time when the British Government are challenging and putting pressure on ordinary households across the North and in England, Scotland and Wales. The scheme has practical implications as well. Across the Chamber, we talked about duplication: the scheme duplicates passports, identity cards, driving licences and other forms of ID; it is another layer of bureaucracy. A key point to address is that the people who will be most excluded — the people who will feel the impact of the scheme most acutely — are our older people and those who are locked out of digital access through poverty and other means. As Gerry Carroll mentioned, ethnic minorities will be disproportionately affected by what amounts to a racist scheme and an opportunity that the British Government are trying to use to tackle — or apparently tackle — what they consider to be illegal immigration. This cannot be dressed up in any other way: it is racism; it is bigotry; and it is xenophobia; that is what the card is about. The issue of cross-border workers has been brought up across the Chamber. Others may choose to deny this, but the all-Ireland economy is booming. People in my constituency, elsewhere in Derry, in Donegal and across our country have the opportunity to move between the North and the South for employment. As Mr Gildernew mentioned, healthcare workers are the backbone of our economy. The scheme will present yet another barrier to the all-Ireland economy at a time when they are the backbone, driving the country forward. Border communities such as mine will feel the effects most acutely. We have to look at collaboration and cooperation, not at introducing barriers that will reduce opportunities for people to work across the country. I am glad that Mr Frew made the point about exclusion, because I have not been able to get clarity from his party or from the UUP about their view on our calling for people from the North to be exempt from the scheme. You did your survey, Mr Frew; regardless of whether you want England, Scotland and Wales to be exempt from this, surely people replied to that to tell you that the North should be exempt. Would any of those Members care to explain whether they will support the North being exempt from the proposal? Mr Brett: I am happy to. Mr Delargy: I will give way to Mr Brett. Mr Brett: As our amendment makes clear, and as the House will make clear by voting down your motion, we all support the scrapping of the scheme across the entirety of the United Kingdom. Mr Delargy: You did not answer my question. I will be happy to give way again. We want the scheme to be scrapped. I am asking whether anybody in the DUP or the UUP will support people in the North being exempt from the scheme. Mr Frew: Will the Member give way? Mr Delargy: I will. Mr Frew: There is a very simple answer: do not comply. I will never have a digital ID. If everyone across the United Kingdom were to take that approach, the scheme could not be implemented. That is the exclusion that he is talking about. You do not need to create a differential between GB and here in order to create that exclusion; just do not have a digital ID. Top 4.30 pm Mr Delargy: Mr Frew, I am sure that people will listen very carefully to your advice. You still have not answered my question, however. Will you support the fact that people in the North should be exempt, irrespective of what happens in England, Scotland and Wales? [Inaudible.] Mr Delargy: OK, but do you agree that people in the North should be exempt? Again, there is no answer from the unionist Benches. It is extremely important that, in the North, we can have our Irish identity respected, just as you can have your British identity, any other identity or both a British identity and an Irish identity respected. I commend the motion to the House. Question, That the amendment be made, put and agreed to. Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly is united in its opposition to the proposal from the British Government to introduce mandatory digital ID for people here; expresses concern that that flawed proposal could result in the squandering of millions of pounds of public money at a time when public services are increasingly stretched; stresses that these plans would also jeopardise personal privacy and creates the potential for misuse of citizens' personal data; and calls on the Prime Minister to immediately withdraw plans for an ill-considered digital ID scheme in all parts of the United Kingdom. Audit and Re-imaging of Memorials Ms Bradshaw: I beg to move That this Assembly recognises that people should have the right to remember the dead in a respectful, sensitive and dignified manner; acknowledges that that should also be done in a way that avoids causing pain or hurt to others; expresses concern that there are memorials on public land that were erected without lawful authority and include imagery and emblems that can be seen as marking territory and glorifying terrorism; and calls on the First Minister and deputy First Minister, in partnership with other Ministers and the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, to conduct an audit to assess the number of memorials on public land, to lead a programme of supporting communities to re-image these memorials by removing paramilitary imagery and emblems and references to acts of violence or events that caused pain and misery, and to develop guidance to ensure that future memorials expressly require planning permission and are displayed in accordance with agreed standards. Mr Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. Two amendments have been selected and are published on the Marshalled List. The Business Committee has agreed that 30 minutes can be added to the total time for the debate. Please open the debate on the motion. Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Honouring our dead is one of the most profound things that we will do as human beings. It speaks to love, vulnerability and our shared capacity for grief. Across cultures and generations, people carve stones, plant trees and light candles. Those are small gestures that say something very big, which is that we value life and memories and that we have compassion. That need to remember is universal, but it carries particular weight here in Northern Ireland for a society that has known far too much loss. Remembrance is not a luxury but essential. It allows us to acknowledge pain, recognise the humanity of others and begin the slow work of reconciliation. The motion seeks to uphold that right — the right to remember — while ensuring that it is exercised in a way that is respectful, lawful and inclusive. We must be honest about the challenges that are in front of us, however. As the Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition (FICT) made clear in its 2021 report, memorials are amongst the most sensitive expressions of identity in post-conflict Northern Ireland. The commission recognised the right to remember but warned that, in practice, remembrance too often becomes a source of division rather than reflection. The report's recommendations called for an audit of memorials, a protocol for respectful commemoration and guidance on future memorials, all of which are echoed in the motion. The commission also highlighted where challenges remain. Those challenges include how to handle unauthorised memorials, how to deal with paramilitary imagery and how to ensure that public remembrance does not glorify violence. Those are precisely the issues that the motion seeks to address. Public memorials can powerfully shape the stories that we tell the people around us. When remembrance slips into glorification of organisations, acts of violence or the conflict/Troubles itself, however, it reopens wounds instead of helping them heal. It creates fear, not reflection, and sends a message that some lives matter more than others and that violence is still to be celebrated. Academic research reinforces that point. Studies by Professor Dominic Bryan and Dr Neil Jarman have documented how memorials, flags and murals can function as territorial markers in contested areas. Rather than being static relics of the past, they actively define boundaries and signal exclusion. As Professor Bryan wrote: "remembrance becomes political when space itself becomes claimed." That is why we must find ways to commemorate that are not just about who we are but who we want to be. Public land belongs to all of us, and its use must be shared, lawful and welcoming. Under the Planning Act 2011, any permanent structure, including a memorial, requires express planning permission unless it has an exemption. If it is on public land, it also requires the consent of the landowner, such as the Housing Executive or the local council. Together, those requirements constitute lawful authority. When memorials are erected without that authority, they are, by definition, unauthorised structures. This is not about politics; it is a matter of legality and equality before the law. The Northern Ireland Housing Executive has confirmed that more than 100 memorials are on its land without planning permission, many of which display paramilitary emblems or references to violence. That is not acceptable in 2025. The motion calls for three practical steps: an audit of memorials on public land to establish a clear and transparent record of what exists, where they are, what is contained on the memorials and under what authority they were erected; a re-imaging programme to support communities to look at replacing violent and exclusive imagery with designs that are creative, inclusive, lawful and dignified; and the development of clear guidance in partnership with the various agencies to ensure that future memorials meet planning law and good relations standards. We know from experience that that approach to working with communities works. The Arts Council's Building Peace Through the Arts initiative has proved that contentious murals can be transformed through dialogue and creativity. Over the course of a decade, more than 90 projects involving some 20,000 people across Northern Ireland showed that, when communities are supported rather than dictated to, they can lead the change themselves. I saw that locally when I worked in the Village area of South Belfast: we successfully re-imaged a series of murals with strong local input and ownership. For example, the poppy trail along the Donegall Road honours loss across both world wars and is a shared story of service and sacrifice that unites rather than offends. As I said, at the heart of the motion is community ownership. The slow and patient work of dialogue is, in fact, the quickest route to lasting change. Communities that feel respected will lead transformation. Communities that feel targeted will resist it. Some may say that that risks erasing history or culture. It does not. History and culture live on in our museums, archives, classrooms and family stories. What we are talking about is our shared public space, where children play, neighbours meet and visitors form their first impressions of who we are. We cannot tell our children that peace means leaving the symbols of war or terrorism untouched. We cannot expect reconciliation to flourish if the landscape around us still romanticises violence. Mr Brett: I appreciate the Member's giving way and recognise the vital work that she carried out in South Belfast when she worked in another capacity. I seek some clarity on the motion's reference to: "acts of violence or events that caused pain and misery". You talked about war. In North Belfast — I am sure that it is the same in South Belfast — we have a proud tradition of commemorating war heroes. Does she include that in the reference from the motion? Obviously, war causes misery and pain. Does she accept that those memorials should stay, or is she calling for their removal? Ms Bradshaw: I welcome the opportunity to clarify that. That is exactly what I am talking about. If you go along the Donegall Road from the RAF mural just outside Belfast City Hospital, you will see that there is a series of them. Today is a very important day for many who commemorate the world wars and subsequent wars. This is not about trying to eradicate their history; it is about presenting what happened in a way that is respectful and dignified. There was some criticism of some of the work that we did to re-image murals. One was a huge mural of King William of Orange. Some people asked why public money was used for it. I said, "Well, look, we replaced a mural of paramilitary figures holding guns and wearing balaclavas". The imagery that replaced that may not have been to everybody's taste or reflect their cultural heritage, but this is about the transition process, in which we can have respectful expressions of our cultural heritage or history that do not offend. To move on — and to speak to Mr Brett's comments — we can and should honour bravery, loss and sacrifice, but we must do it in a way that upholds dignity, legality and values of shared future. The 'Good Relations Indicators 2024 Report' found that more than 80% of people in Northern Ireland want shared spaces to be welcoming to all. The Commission for Victims and Survivors, likewise, found strong public support for respectful, community-led remembrance. This is not about removing memory, but it is about re-imaging it with the communities where that is needed. Of course, that work must be done sensitively. Mistakes have been made in the past, such as the removal of Somme plaques by the Housing Executive without consultation. That shows the importance of proper process, engagement and respect. They are all essential if a programme of work such as this is to succeed. If we get it right, Northern Ireland can provide a model for other post-conflict societies, showing that remembrance can become a bridge, not a barrier. We will support the DUP's amendment. We recognise that there are structures there. This is a strange day for the Alliance Party in the Chamber, but we do recognise that there is some really good work going on through the Communities in Transition (CIT) programme and structures. That is probably the best way that that work can be continued. We will not support the UUP amendment because it reframes our motion into a criminal justice issue, and that risks turning what should really be a partnership approach into a punitive one. The law already prohibits the glorification of terrorism. The motion is about managing our shared space constructively and inclusively. It is not about punishment but about partnership; not about erasing the past but about building a shared future. The best way to honour the dead is by creating spaces that the living can share, spaces defined by respect not rivalry, by memories that heal not hurt, by remembrance that unites not divides. That vision is at the heart of the motion and is the vision that the Alliance Party will always support. Mrs Cameron: I beg to move amendment No 1: Leave out all after "in a way that" and insert: "upholds the rule of law and avoids causing pain or hurt to others, including innocent victims; expresses concern that there are memorials on public land that were erected without lawful authority and include imagery and emblems that can be seen as marking territory and glorifying terrorism; calls on the Executive, in consultation with the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, to determine the need for an audit to assess the number of memorials on public land, and to promote a consistent approach to enforcement where planning permission is not sought; and further calls on the First Minister and deputy First Minister, building on work to date through the Communities in Transition programme, to support communities to re-image these memorials, including by removing paramilitary imagery and emblems and references to criminal acts of violence." Mr Speaker: Mrs Cameron, you have up to 10 minutes. Please proceed. Mrs Cameron: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak, and I thank the Alliance Party for tabling the motion. At the heart of the debate lies a question of principle: how do we remember our past and the values that those acts of remembrance represent? For the Democratic Unionist Party, that principle is clear and firm: permanent acts of remembrance and memorialisation must always respect the rule of law and must never commemorate wrongdoing. Everyone in Northern Ireland, from every tradition, should have the right to remember their dead in a respectful, dignified and sensitive manner, but that right must never be misused to glorify violence, terrorism or criminality. Crucially, in all that we do, we must ensure that innocent victims are never forgotten and are remembered with dignity, compassion and respect. That is the foundation of the DUP amendment in my name and that of Mr Phillip Brett. Our amendment makes it absolutely clear that the glorification of terrorism is hurtful, shameful and wrong. It is hurtful to innocent victims who continue to live with the trauma of loss. It is shameful because it attempts to rewrite history and justify the unjustifiable. It is wrong — legally, morally and socially — because it undermines everything that we have worked for in building a peaceful and democratic society. Such displays retraumatise victims and send the wrong message to our young people. At the same time, we will resist any attempt to erase or restrict the lawful commemoration of those who served with honour in our armed forces, our police or other services, or of those who gave their lives in defence of peace and order. Respectful remembrance of courage and sacrifice is not the same as celebrating terror, and we must never blur that line. Although I acknowledge the intentions behind the Alliance motion and appreciate the tabling of it, the wording is, for us, just a little too broad and too vague, so we would welcome support for the amendment. The phrase "references to acts of violence" risks capturing legitimate memorials, including those marking world war service or honouring members of the security forces who were murdered while upholding law and order. We also remain concerned that some memorials are used to mark territory rather than commemorate respectfully. That is unacceptable and contributes to division rather than reconciliation. Clarity matters, and principle matters. We must not allow any process to undermine lawful remembrance or to disrespect the innocent victims whose pain remains so real. Top 4.45 pm The DUP recognises the importance of ensuring that any memorials on public land comply with the law. That is why we support determining the need for an audit, not to impose unnecessary bureaucracy but to understand the scale of the issue and to ensure that enforcement is consistent and fair where planning permission has not been sought. We know from experience that legacy memorials exist in many communities and that enforcement has often been inconsistent or delayed. A targeted audit would allow Departments and local authorities to take proportionate and coordinated action while continuing to respect community consultation and grassroots initiatives such as Communities in Transition. That approach balances the need for lawful compliance with the reality that community-led solutions remain the most effective way to remove harmful imagery and to reimagine public spaces positively. A word on planning. Northern Ireland's planning system is, of course, under significant strain. We all know that housing, infrastructure and health projects already face unacceptable delays. While planning law must be applied consistently, we must ensure that the appropriate priority is given to what truly matters. Creating new layers of bureaucracy for a small number of memorials would not be an effective or proportionate use of resources. Our amendment promotes a balanced approach, combining compliance with the law and practical, realistic enforcement. One of the most effective ways in which we have been tackling harmful memorials and murals has been through the Communities in Transition programme. CIT works directly with communities, engaging residents, schools, sports clubs and cultural organisations to reimagine walls, spaces and memorials in ways that celebrate shared heritage, pride and creativity while removing paramilitary imagery and messages of division. CIT's work is careful, thoughtful and inclusive. It does not impose solutions from above; instead, it brings communities together to consult, negotiate and decide collectively how their public spaces should reflect their values. The positive results speak for themselves. In my consistency of South Antrim, the Ballyduff Community Redevelopment Group led a re-imaging project that replaced previous paramilitary imagery with a multi-panel remembrance mural honouring the Somme. As another example, in Monkstown, a paramilitary badge was removed and the 18th Newtownabbey Football Club mural was put in its place, which transformed it as a mural with vibrant artwork, celebrating teamwork, local identity and inclusion. The project was delivered in partnership with the Monkstown Community Association, the Housing Executive, Clanmil and the PSNI. The final example is the Airtastic mural project in Bawnmore, north Belfast that brought together schools, GAA clubs and local residents to capture history, culture, music and community pride in a positive and lasting way. Those are just a few examples. Those transformations happened not because the Department ordered them but because the community chose them. Across Northern Ireland, CIT has helped communities move away from threatening or paramilitary imagery, giving young people safe, positive role models and stories to look up to. Those examples show that bottom-up, grassroots initiatives work far more effectively than top-down, regulatory schemes. CIT has delivered measurable improvements in community cohesion, the visual environment and cultural pride. It is precisely that approach that the DUP seeks to build on, not replace. The DUP's amendment is grounded in balance, fairness and respect. It upholds the rule of law, ensures that innocent victims are remembered with dignity, rejects the glorification of terrorism and builds on the proven success of the Communities in Transition programme. CIT has shown that community-led consultative approaches are the best way to remove harmful imagery while celebrating culture, history and shared identity. Our amendment ensures that those programmes are supported and extended rather than undermined by unnecessary top-down interventions. We want a Northern Ireland where remembrance unites rather than divides, where public art and memorials reflect pride and positivity and where innocent victims and respect for the law remain central. Progress is not imposed: it is built, and communities are actively building it. Thank you, and I hope that we can get support for our amendment. Mr Beattie: I beg to move amendment No 2: Leave out all after "glorifying terrorism;" and insert: "calls on the Minister of Justice to acknowledge that glorifying terrorism is a crime, which retraumatises innocent victims, and to ensure that the criminal justice system is configured to address that with the powers to take affirmative action; and further calls on the First Minister and deputy First Minister, and all statutory agencies, to conduct and publish an audit of all harmful and illegal memorials glorifying terrorism, give support to the Minister of Justice in delivering a criminal justice response to illegal imagery and memorials glorifying terrorism, give further support to the Minister for Infrastructure for the removal of illegal memorials that contravene planning permission, align with the Minister for Communities to lead a programme to support communities to re-image these memorials by removing all imagery and emblems that glorify terrorism and reference acts of violence or events that caused pain and misery, and to develop guidance to ensure that memorials glorifying terrorism are not erected in the future." Mr Speaker: Mr Beattie, you have up to 10 minutes. Please proceed. Mr Beattie: Thank you, Mr Speaker. We have no issue with the motion or with the DUP amendment, and we will not force a Division on either. However, if I may, I will be a bit more direct with regard to memorialisation. Here is a simple truth about Northern Ireland: there are more memorials in Northern Ireland to the perpetrators than to the victims. It is a sad indictment of our society that that is the case. Everyone has a right to remember their dead — it is easily said; we say it all the time, and I am saying it now — but that cannot be at the expense of the victims. Let us be honest: victims are impacted when they see perpetrators being venerated online, at memorials, in murals, in stone monuments or in words. What we see continually is terrorism and terrorists being glorified daily, while the innocent victims find themselves forgotten, marginalised and isolated. Thomas McElwee was a terrorist. He burned a young mother to death in Ballymena. Her name was Yvonne Dunlop. Every year, the glorifying of McElwee in words, deeds and memorials brings renewed grief to her family — every year. Thomas Begley was a mass murderer, yet he has a memorial that celebrates his active service in murdering 10 people, including children. Why, as a society, do we think that that is right? Why do we think that remembering your dead cannot be done without climbing all over the victims? The murder of the members of the Miami Showband was an appalling atrocity, and it was perpetrated by those who showed no regard for life. Every year, there is a parade to remember one of the murderers: Wesley Somerville. That has a direct and negative effect on those who survived that atrocity and on their families. It glorifies terrorism, and it is illegal. Brian Robinson murdered an innocent Catholic and was then shot by undercover soldiers. Again, a memorial and a parade that celebrates his action is allowed to take place each year. Imagine what it is like to be the family of the man who was murdered when they see the man who murdered their loved one being venerated in that manner. I am conscious that they had families and that those families still grieve their loss — we must always be mindful of that — but, for me, it is the victims whom we should focus our attention on. To that end, our amendment asks the Justice Minister to ensure that the criminal justice system is configured to take affirmative action, as laid out in the Terrorism Act 2006, against those who directly and indirectly glorify terrorism. We also propose that other Ministers work in collaboration. This cannot be one Minister alone. The Infrastructure Minister should take direct action to remove illegal memorials that contravene planning permission. The Minister for Communities should lead a programme to support the re-imaging of memorials: "by removing all imagery and emblems that glorify terrorism and reference acts of violence" — very close to what is in the motion. The Executive Office should give support in coordinating those efforts and conducting an audit of said memorials in line with the original motion. This can be fixed if we take direct action against those who are unwilling to make the change that is needed to end the glorification of violence. A criminal justice and police intervention; a Communities and Housing Executive intervention; an Infrastructure and planning enforcement intervention —. Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Member for giving way. He knows that I am bringing forward a private Member's Bill. When I have raised the issue of flags in the Chamber, he has said that we cannot have statutory agencies coming in and doing exactly what he has just said about removing flags. He said that communities had to be involved. Why is he now putting this at the Justice Department, as opposed to Communities? Mr Beattie: I thank the Member for her intervention. If she had listened to my words, she would have heard that I did not put it all on to Justice; quite the opposite. I literally just mentioned Infrastructure, TEO and Communities. It needs a multi-agency, multifaceted approach, and criminal justice is part of that. We cannot ignore what is illegal. Glorifying terrorism is illegal, and I am saying, "Let us stop the illegality". We are not far apart, but that is where I am. Have we seen change previously? Yes, we have: many murals have been re-imaged. There was a mural depicting Billy Wright, not far from where I live in Portadown, and it was just outside a school. It was re-imaged into George Best, and now it has been re-imaged into Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. That is positive, and the community was involved in that, which is the point that the Member makes and makes well. In many ways, the military and the police have led on it. Some of you will know that the military took the vast majority of its memorials, including those to the construction workers who were murdered because they worked in military bases during the Troubles, and centralised them in Palace Barracks. If you go to Palace Barracks, you will see a memorial garden with memorials from across Northern Ireland. The garden is private, and people can go there to have a look at the memorials. The police did the same. Controversially, the police removed memorials from the public view, but they are still there for the police to see. Of course, there is the RUC memorial garden, which you can visit, but it is not in your face. There are things that we can do. Is there an opportunity for a single memorial for all victims? Not just yet. We can look at that and strive for it in the future, but we are not there yet, and that is a reality. I spent three years on FICT, and I know what it did and talked about. I know where the conflict was in FICT: memorialisation was a huge conflict, and nothing was agreed. The FICT report clearly states: "the Commission explored a number of aspects related to memorialization, remembrance and commemoration, but was unable to reach agreement". That does not matter, because that was the FICT report. We can make an agreement. We can decide which way to go forward. We can go forward with the motion and the amendment. Our amendment is a little stronger, but I will not divide on it. We need to go forward, and we need to change. We simply cannot have a situation where we walk down the street and see memorials to terrorists popping up all over the place and victims having to walk past them every day. We spend a lot of time talking about flags, and I understand the private Member's Bill about flags, but flags can be taken down. Some of the hard memorials are seriously large structures that cannot be taken down, and the victims are traumatised by them every day. I say that the FICT commission did not come up with recommendations: it did come up with them, but they were not agreed by any of the political parties or anyone on the commission. Again, that does not matter: we can make that decision. I am clear, as is the Ulster Unionist Party, that, if something is illegal, the criminal justice system has to act. If something has been built on private land that does not have planning permission and contravenes our laws, we have to act. If that has to be through the criminal justice system, it is through the criminal justice system; if it has to be through the Department for Infrastructure, it is through the Department for Infrastructure; if it has to be through the Department for Communities, that is where it is through. The Departments have to work together, but we cannot allow those people to illegally do as they wish and take no action. We are direct, and I make no apologies for being direct about the issue. I hope that the House does not divide. It is a good motion, and the DUP amendment is good. We will certainly not push for a Division. Top 5.00 pm Ms Ferguson: All people should have the right to remember their dead in a respectful, sensitive and dignified manner. I welcome the recognition of that fundamental point in the motion. The importance of providing places where individuals, families and communities can gather to reflect, reminisce and remember their loved ones, their history and their stories should not be undermined. As outlined in the Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition report: "Remembering the dead is a human and sensitive process that all communities have in common." Equality should be central to our vision for society: a society underpinned by fairness and respect. That should also be a society where we are able to deal with difference in a positive and constructive manner; demonstrate openness; and show maturity and respect to all people regardless of any identity factors. In truth, as outlined by the Ulster University lecturer Eilish Rooney: "Social identity discourses in diverse conflicted societies are integral to local and global histories of nation-state formation and the acquisition of power over political and material resources involved." To that end, I support the view that we should not advocate removing existing places that provide a sense of acknowledgement or peaceful closure for communities who have experienced significant ramifications of our recent conflict. However, we should work to deliver community cohesion, inclusion and equality. We support the adoption of a day of reflection, as referenced in the FICT report, to be held on 21 June each year. We also emphasise the need for an audit of all memorials across the Six Counties rather than a selective audit that focuses on some political identities whilst ignoring others. Reconciliation must reflect and recognise equally the experience of all in our society. There should be a particular focus on reflecting the stories of women, which are often invisible or largely unexamined in our history. The steps by Belfast City Council in recent years to erect statues in honour of Mary Ann McCracken and Winifred Carney are welcome attempts to address that imbalance. There is no denying that, if an audit were carried out on memorials, it would reveal that there is a disproportionate number of unionist and state memorials in the form of cenotaphs, statues and plaques. Many of those monuments were erected during the time of an inbuilt unionist majority that was created as a result of partition, when consensus on such memorials was not reached or even sought. Their presence should be examined in our changed political dynamics, which have seen the unionist majority come to an end in successive elections and the election of a nationalist First Minister. I do not want to labour the point, but I emphasise the fact that there is room in both those realities to apply a concept of additionality and work collectively to provide a truly shared space for all our citizens. It is notable that the motion is silent on the imagery and actions of British state forces and on the pain and misery that their actions inflicted on many in our society. That is a glaring omission in a conversation such as this. We must instead create opportunities for all sections of society to tell their story in their own words and have those reflected to provide a more accurate perspective. Let us work collectively to listen to all others and their stories without judgement; recognise different rationales and the pain that people carry; and, fundamentally, deliver a real process of reconciliation and build a better future for all. Ms McLaughlin: As Members have mentioned, many people in our society feel a deep need to remember those who have died. Memorials can play an important part in that, as a way for families and communities to pay tribute, reflect and remember, but how we remember matters. In a society that is still carrying the legacy of conflict, remembrance must be done in a way that is respectful, lawful and sensitive to others. What may bring comfort to one family can, for another, reopen wounds that are never truly healed. This is not about one community or another but about how we collectively choose to live together after conflict. If we are honest, we all know that there are memorials and murals across Northern Ireland that would cause deep unease if they were to be placed in a different area. For too long, the approach to the issues has lacked direction and political courage. There has been no clear process, no consistent standard and, far too often, no consultation with the people who must live beside such displays. Many memorials are erected without any lawful authority, appearing overnight in shared or residential areas, with no engagement and no planning. That is not how remembrance should be done in a democratic society. Communities deserve to have a say in what stands in their streets and in their public places. We also have to recognise that some of the displays are not about remembrance at all but about control. They are designed to mark territory, to intimidate and to signal who is in charge. The law is clear on it. Under the Terrorism Act 2000, it can be an offence to invite support for a proscribed organisation. Murals that glorify violence, display weapons or depict masked men can easily cross that line. They are not expressions of culture but hate expressions in a public space, and they provide a basis for police action. That is why my colleagues and I tabled an amendment to the motion, but, unfortunately, it was not accepted. It would have asked the Justice Minister to examine whether the PSNI's existing powers are being properly used to prosecute those who erect and maintain such murals and whether additional powers are needed. The PSNI has a role here not simply to observe but to enforce the law where it is being broken. I also acknowledge the work of the Executive's programme for tackling paramilitary activity and organised crime. A comprehensive review was carried out in 2020, which led to phase 2 of the programme beginning in 2021. The Executive agreed only recently to extend the programme until March 2027, after which it is expected to close. The Ending the Harm campaign has helped raise awareness of what paramilitaries do, but awareness alone will not end their activities. It has now been five years since the most recent review, and I believe that another should be undertaken to test whether the current approach is truly reducing the grip that paramilitaries still hold in some areas, because we all know that that grip still exists. Too many people still live under coercive control, where illegal organisations dictate who can speak, who can paint a wall and who can take down a mural. There are, however, reasons for hope. Across Northern Ireland, we have seen many paramilitary-style murals replaced with images of cultural, sporting or historical figures, often supported by the Arts Council. That is a positive example of re-imaging, where communities have been able to celebrate their identity in ways that are inclusive and non-threatening. It shows that change is possible when people are supported to take ownership of their spaces. What we need now is the political will to build on that. We need to make sure that remembrance is done lawfully, is dignified and is respectful and that the law is upheld when it is not. We have no issue with people celebrating their culture, but culture and commemoration can never be an excuse for glorifying violence or causing hurt. As we look ahead, we should support communities that want to re-image their areas, that want to move on from intimidation and fear — Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up. Ms McLaughlin: — and that want to live side by side with dignity. Miss Hargey: These are important issues that we are discussing here today. The FICT report states: "The process of remembering can be a crucial part of people's culture and identity. Social groups draw upon the past to tell them who they are." The motion rightly acknowledges that people should have the right to remember the dead. That approach was recognised in the FICT report, which stated: "Remembering the dead is a human and sensitive process that all communities have in common." We see that across our society, whether it is in memorial gardens or on plaques or cenotaphs that are in public spaces, government buildings or our communities. In republican areas, as in others, there are memorial gardens located in communities that have an emotional attachment to, and acceptance of, them, as those who are being remembered were often from those very communities. Those areas provide a space for remembrance and reflection, particularly for relatives, friends and the local community. They are often community initiatives that are financed, constructed and maintained by the community. Of course, that act of remembrance and reflection takes place right across our community, and those spaces often provide a sense of acknowledgement and reflection to those communities that have been impacted on by our recent conflict. As I said, those spaces can take many forms, such as gardens, cenotaphs, statues and plaques. They are located across all our neighbourhoods. They also reflect the diverse narratives around the cause of, and factors that sustained, our conflict. They are a recognition that we have a contested past that emanates from that conflict. People who have been impacted on by the conflict can often have different, as well as shared, lived experiences. We may not agree with each other on the narratives and perspectives, but we can listen and understand others' narratives and the impact of the conflict as we attempt the process of understanding and reconciliation. I will give the example of City Hall in Belfast, which Ciara Ferguson touched on. I was directly involved in looking at the memorabilia in that building, which, because of the building's history, came from a predominantly unionist perspective. The DUP, UUP, Alliance, the SDLP and Sinn Féin all sat in on that process. We had a historic centenaries working group, and work was done on the display of memorabilia. I was directly involved in each of those groups. Through that work, we came up with a set of principles and an agreement, which the five political parties signed up to, to recognise the different narratives that pertained to the conflict and the impact that it had on our history. That meant that we could mark those occasions, and when we looked at the decade of centenaries — from 2010 to 2020 — we did so in an inclusive manner that respected all the different perspectives and traditions. That did not mean that you had to agree with a perspective that you found difficult, but that perspective had a place and it was represented, and the approach was inclusive. I believe that that can be done now. All the parties in Belfast City Hall marked key occasions, including the centenaries of the signing of the Ulster covenant, the First World War, the Battle of the Somme and the 1916 Easter Rising. Do you know what, folks? The sky did not fall in. People came together and marked those occasions, and then we moved on to the next process, which was about re-imaging. Mr Brett: Will the Member give way? Miss Hargey: I will, if I have time at the end, Phillip, no problem. I am just conscious of my time. The need for inclusivity, and to rebalance and represent, can be satisfied. The Housing Executive's re-imaging scheme has been mentioned, and it was successful. It was involved in my community, and the re-imaged murals that depict the history of the Market are still there today. That scheme assisted many communities. What made it work and what was unique about it was that it was a voluntary process that engaged communities and built capacity at that level. It was not imposed on the communities that it was trying to work with. Those are important points to make. There was further talk of a day of reflection. The FICT report mentioned the need for that. I know that Healing Through Remembering has a day of reflection on 21 June each year. When we are looking at these issues, we should engage in a way that is inclusive and has communities at its heart. Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up. Miss Hargey: Belfast City Hall is a prime example of that. Mr McMurray: I thank my colleagues for tabling the motion. Ms Bradshaw has already spoken about it in quite a bit of detail, but I want to focus on a few points that stand out for me. Top 5.15 pm Let me say at the outset that the Alliance Party is committed to respecting people's right to remember their dead. There can be no doubt about that. Remembrance is important, and it can certainly have a positive impact in a society such as our own. We have to accept, however, that we are becoming increasingly aware of the harms that can be done through memorialisation. Turning to the matter of planning, our motion calls for: "guidance to ensure that future memorials expressly require planning permission". The DUP amendment calls for: "a consistent approach to enforcement where planning permission is not sought". Those two things argue the same point. It is my understanding that many memorials, depending on their nature, size and scale, implicitly require planning permission. Others, such as murals and plaques, would be considered as permitted development and would not normally require express planning permission. I believe that, on that point and the other proposals from my colleague Ms Bradshaw, when a formal process is applied to a matter such as this, it helps that a certain amount of toleration and acceptance is built in. The fact that a large number of memorials exist without planning permission shows that the current approach is not working. Planning permission for memorials is important for a host of reasons, one of which is their contentious nature, and the consultation requirements in the planning process can help with that. There are also reasons for rules on the safety of physical structures in the public space, and it is in everyone's interest to ensure that memorials do not pose a hazard to people's health. Guidance to make those requirements more explicit would be helpful. Enforcement of planning breaches would be a matter for councils, and that remains a sensible approach. However, councils need clear policy to work under. It has been my experience that, when issues are brought to councils' structures, on-the-ground solutions, much like those that Ms Hargey spoke about, can be worked out and agreed upon. Yes, we can sometimes get things right in this place. However, Northern Ireland goes a wee bit beyond the sterile lab conditions of a policy document. I was struck by the words of Farida Shaheed, a UN special rapporteur in the field of cultural rights, who said: "In some cases, memory, especially if presented in the form of irreconcilable versions of the past, might hurt rather than help a society." She further said: "Memorialisations must not obscure a contemporary change." Ms Ferguson made a point about it being a predominantly unionist/British thing. I turned 40, and the border turned 100, so I took a wee cycle around the border, and, according to my observations, it is not a one-sided issue. There are many contentious memorials from the other side, too. I will leave it at that. Our challenge is to build a society where we can work together to build a better Northern Ireland where everyone can thrive and where reconciliation and toleration are continually built and worked upon. Indeed, "reconciliation" and "toleration" are doing words, led by actions and not by way of saying the right thing. That is why I am involved in politics. Many of the memorials that we see in Northern Ireland are firmly holding on to the irreconcilable and antagonistic versions of our past. What vision of the future are we looking to provide for our children? What kind of attitude towards their fellow citizen are we fostering in them? Respectful memorials or the perpetuation of past hurts and glorified wrongs? I was watching one commentator yesterday, who asked whether our politicians were beacons of hope for the future, and they answered their own question with "No". We certainly cannot be beacons of hope for the future if we continually glorify the wrongs of our past and antagonise each other in the process. This is about finding a way to remember that helps our society to come together a little bit more and builds something new and hopeful that helps future generations to thrive. The process that we are envisaging is one that supports communities to re-image memorials. That approach builds on the successful experience of working with communities to re-image their murals. It has been a collaborative process, carried out in partnership with the communities in which the murals are located. There has been a lot of references to "community". We have to bring communities along because that is the only way that these things work. The Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition recommended that all those involved with memorialising the conflict reflected in a spirit of generosity, reconciliation, respect and accommodation on how they did so. That requires a good deal of good will, openness and emotional effort on all sides. For my part and my party's part, we want to play a positive role in that. Ms K Armstrong: It is lovely to be in the House today when we are hearing Members speak with one voice in agreement that this issue is something that we do need to work on across Northern Ireland. What we are talking about today is a step towards healing and progress in this place. I completely support re-imaging our communities. If I was to stand here in front of you and point a gun image at any of you, it would be disgusting, yet I have that in my constituency on the corners of houses. It is time that we recognise that those symbols, while rooted in history, often perpetuate division, fear and territorialism. If we are to build an inclusive, welcoming place for all, we must be brave enough to reshape the visual landscape of our neighbourhoods. The Housing Executive has already begun that journey. As a housing spokesperson, you can understand why I will focus on that. In west Belfast, the Housing Executive partnered with the Falls Community Council and the Upper Springfield Development Trust to remove the controversial Bobby Sands funeral mural. With £5,000 in funding and support from the Ulster Museum, the mural was carefully taken down and preserved, demonstrating a respectful yet forward-looking approach. This is not about erasing history. It is about relocating it to places of education and reflection, just not in our daily lives. In my constituency, there are housing estates that are very uncomfortable to be in because they have paramilitary-themed murals on the walls. In fact, in 2021-22, when the review was done, it confirmed that there were 31 political murals on Housing Executive properties in one of the council areas that I represent. Those images of men — it is always men — wearing balaclavas and holding guns as if they are waiting to ambush or get ready to shoot are being replaced with panels that include local historical information, and I can honestly say that the relief in the area is tangible. Many people have said to me that that change sends out a clear image that the gun and the threat of violence no longer control their community. The pressure of the boot on the neck of the community is being lifted. Billy Sproule of the West Winds Development Association said: "This initiative marks a significant moment of progress for the West Winds Estate, emphasising the values of collaboration, cultural renewal and peacebuilding." That is an area that very often gets vilified as being unpleasant. People say, "It is very loyalist. Nobody wants to go in there. It is dangerous". The change for that community is incredibly positive, so we must support the Housing Executive's community cohesion teams to work with communities, not against them. The Housing Executive's re-imaging project showed that collaboration can lead to transformation, but we must go further. Any future memorials or murals in Northern Ireland should require formal planning permission. That would ensure public accountability, community consultation and alignment with shared values, and it would prevent the unchecked rise of divisive imagery and promote art that reflects unity, diversity and hope. I do not think that we need to be held hostage by the past any more. We should honour it in museums and classrooms and through respectful dialogue, like we are doing today, but not on the walls of our homes and streets. The future of Northern Ireland depends on our ability to imagine something better today. We all know that, too often, you ask the authorities to take something down or remove something because you have been asked to do so by residents, and the authorities say no because they are afraid of the attacks that they may face. Today, in the House, given the support for the motion, we have to say this to all our public authorities: it is public land and public buildings. We are behind you. We want these things removed or re-imaged so that we can have a better Northern Ireland for all. Mr O'Toole: I will not speak for very long, but I am pleased to speak on today's motion, I thank Ms Bradshaw of the Alliance Party for moving it. We broadly support the motion. I have certain concerns about both amendments, particularly the DUP one, which removes and softens the requirement to audit memorials on public land and talks about considering an audit. I do not know why that needs to be softened, but there may be broad consensus on that. If our party had drafted the motion or the amendments, we would not have used that precise language, but that is the nature of these things. Lots of what I will say has been said very eloquently already by my colleague Sinéad McLaughlin. I also agree with things that have been said by many Members who have spoken. Nearly everybody has talked about the need, and indeed, the solemn onus on all of us to respect communities' and families' right to remember their dead. Remembering our own loved ones is profoundly personal. It is very distinctively Irish and of this island, and when I say "Irish and of this island", I mean that it stretches through all our communities, including British unionist communities. We take it very seriously on this island in all our traditions. It is important to say a couple of things, though. In this debate, we often conflate the public and the private. When it comes to commemorating and remembering our dead — people that we have personally lost or we have lost in a close communal sense — it is not the same thing, in my view, as broader society being willing to tolerate any form of commemoration of organisations that those individuals were part of or, indeed, acts that were committed by those organisations. I recognise that, by definition, the people who suffered the most in the conflict in Northern Ireland were in working-class communities. Almost inevitably, those communities were also the people from whom paramilitary organisations drew their membership, whether it was the Provisional IRA, the INLA or loyalist groups. That is true, but it is also true that those communities suffered most at the hands of those organisations. When we talk about these things and use words like "communities", we should not assume that all the people in those working-class communities were supporters of the IRA, the UVF or the UDA, because, in many cases, those were people who suffered at the hands of those organisations. When we make these broad statements about remembering our dead, we should be careful that we do not simply conflate communities with individuals. All individuals, whatever organisations they were involved in, whatever path they took in life, whatever reason they died or however they died, their family and those immediately around them and who cared about them deserve to remember them in a solemn and respectful way. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Blair] in the Chair) We then come on to the question of public memorials. We have a contested history: that was said by Deirdre Hargey, and she is correct. We do have a contested history. There is however an onus on all of us, as public representatives, to create structures that enable us to move on from that history. There is a famous Brian Friel play about memory, identity, language and history. It is called 'Translations', and many Members will be familiar with it. In it, there is a famous line where a character says: "To remember everything is a form of madness." It is said in a slightly trivial way: I do not think that people should be prevented from remembering or reminiscing about things that they or their community experienced. Indeed, real, bitter pain and loss needs to be remembered. However, it is also the case that we cannot have a situation where we legitimise past deeds at the risk of the future. For example, in talking about the future, it is important for unionist politicians that those who speak on Armistice Day are able to remember people whom they lost in that context. However, I do not think that it is legitimate to put up the insignia of the Parachute Regiment, which was done by some DUP politicians, when the Bloody Sunday families, who were innocent victims, were hearing the judgements at the High Court in Belfast. As someone who wants to build a new Ireland, I am not willing to trade off a conversation about a new Ireland at the price of IRA memorials, because that is the past. Though that past exists, and it needs to be understood and talked about sensitively, the conversation that I am most interested in is about the future and moving on from that difficult past. The past should be understood, and people who suffered need to be able to remember that suffering — Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up, Mr O'Toole. Mr O'Toole: — but that cannot be at the cost of our future. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): OK. Thank you. We now move to the winding-up speech on amendment No 2. Mr Burrows: We are guided by three key principles when we deal with issues of legacy. They are that innocent victims have their integrity and dignity preserved, we do not allow history to be rewritten and we uphold the rule of law. That is the lettering that runs through the stick of rock in our amendment. Top 5.30 pm When it comes to innocent victims, it is entirely wrong that people in our society worry about opening a newspaper, watching TV or listening to the radio in case they hear about the commemoration of ghouls such as Brian Robinson. He was loyal to no one but a small group of gangsters, just as republican terrorists were evil people, loyal only to themselves. That is why it is so important that our amendment says that we need to acknowledge that victims are re-traumatised by those memorials, by loose language and by dealing with the people who inflicted loss on them, be it the loss of a loved one, one of their limbs or their mental well-being, as anything other than criminals. I do not use the term "ex-combatants"; they were terrorists. Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Member for giving way. Not for the first time in the Chamber, he has demonstrated that he does not do detail. Had he looked at any of the academic research on memorials, he would know that the word "combatants" is used as a collective noun. It was from there that I took that word. The debate has been respectful this afternoon, but, as usual, the Member has tried to use it for political point-scoring. He should be ashamed of himself. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute. Mr Burrows: I generously gave way to the Member. I hope that my tone has been respectful. Certainly, anyone who listens to my contribution or reads it in Hansard will see that I have been disrespectful to no one. That is another attack on my integrity, despite the fact that I have just called out, as clearly as could be, loyalist and republican terrorism. I will move on. Our amendment strengthens the motion, because it ensures that we do not allow history to be rewritten. We need to deal with the elephant in the room. Those who were victims or those in uniform who tried to uphold the law are entirely different from those who were terrorists, loyalist and republican alike. We cannot allow that truth to ever be blurred. That is why I say that the motion is good, but our amendment strengthens it. The Shankill bomber was wrong. The Shankill butcher was wrong. There can be no equivalence between them and people who tried to do their job. If a police officer did something wrong, like those who got involved in the Glenanne gang with UDR members, I would see them as a traitor to their uniform. They should be given an additional sentence for that breach of trust. I have never justified any criminality by anyone who wears uniform. Let me say this: those who murdered people at Greysteel were wrong. It can never be right or complex: that can never be the narrative. Yes, academics will look at such things from an academic point of view, but those people were wrong. They went into a bar, shouted, "Trick or treat" and sprayed the pub with bullets. They do not deserve any memorialisation. [Interruption.] I will not give way any more. If they are on an illegal memorial, it should be taken down. This is where I come to the rule of law. We have allowed the rule of law in Northern Ireland to be sacrificed to the path of least resistance. Our amendment strengthens it again. Farmers in my constituency cannot get a farmhouse or henhouse through planning and will not build it until they get planning permission, yet people build memorials to terrorists with impunity. How can that be right? How have we got ourselves into that position? How can people on the other side of the House justify that? If the memorials are illegal, bring them down. Do not let them be built again. That is why our amendment says that an audit should not only be taken but published. Let us be clear about how many memorials in our country are illegal by virtue of having no planning permission and by virtue of what is on them. Let us see that in black and white. The memorials to British servicemen that the Member on the Benches opposite talked about are not built without planning permission and are not breaking any law. They commemorate servicemen just as an Garda Síochána and the Irish Army commemorate their dead. I would never tolerate a memorial to a loyalist involved in the Dublin and Monaghan bombings being placed alongside a memorial to an Garda Síochána and being called the same thing. That is not a new Ireland to which unionists can subscribe. Those are truths, and that is why our amendment is strong. Miss Hargey: Will the Member give way? Mr Burrows: I will not give way, because I am just finishing up. Right and wrong are important. We will speak for them. Our amendment strengthens the motion, and I commend it to everyone. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Phillip Brett to wind on amendment No 1. You have up to five minutes. Mr Brett: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It has been a useful discussion, in which a lot of commonality and common ground has been found. I have the privilege of representing North Belfast, and the issue of memorials is evident across our constituency. I pay tribute to the work of and leadership shown by community organisations across the board that have devoted time and, sometimes in difficult circumstances, put their heads above the parapet to try to remove unwanted murals and insignia. I thank Queens Park Women's Group, Rathcoole CREW Women's Group, Tiger's Bay Community Group and to the bands in Rathcoole that have, on every occasion, stepped forward to work with the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to have memorials to terrorists and recruitment posters for illegal paramilitary organisations removed. They have done so not for thanks or praise from me in the House but because that is what the local community wanted and they knew that it was the right thing to do. I am slightly disappointed that no representative from the Executive Office is here, because I had hoped that someone would come forward. There is some good news in that the Communities in Transition programme may be extended to other parts of my constituency. It does excellent work, but the false barriers that it has created make no sense. For example, CIT operates and does great work in the New Lodge, but, over the peace wall beside it, Tiger's Bay is excluded from that work. Those communities come together daily to work to overcome the issues, but they are unable to benefit from that scheme. Although we have come a long way in North Belfast, we still have a long way to go. As other Members have articulated, we have the unwanted annual Brian Robinson parade on the Shankill Road, which commemorates someone who killed an innocent person. I can stand here without fear or favour and say that that is completely wrong and should not take place. I just wish that others in the Chamber could get up and say that the memorial on the other side of the road to Thomas Begley, who blew up 10 of my constituents — men, women and children — should also be removed. It is important to focus on the progress that has been made here today. Ms Bradshaw, who opened the debate, brought personal experience, which is important in such issues. People such as Ms Bradshaw in her previous role play a vital role in communities. It is the community development workers who listen to the community and are able to bring fresh ideas, bring partners together and source the funding that is required to replace the murals. It is through leadership — through the role that Ms Bradshaw and others have played — that we have seen the work that has taken place across South Belfast. Ms Hargey highlighted the really important work that was done at Belfast City Hall. That was through agreement between the five political parties, but the key to it was additionality rather than removal. That is an important principle that we should all strive to uphold: rather than seeking to remove someone's history or something that they hold dear and that is legally in place, we should add to it to ensure that it reflects all parts of Northern Ireland. On this rare occasion, I will make no party political statements. I thank everyone here for their contributions to the debate. It has set a useful template that there is political consensus that Northern Ireland will no longer be held to ransom by the men and women of violence. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Stewart Dickson to conclude the debate and wind up on the motion. Mr Dickson, you have up to 10 minutes. Mr Dickson: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. First, I record my thanks and those of Paula Bradshaw to every Member who contributed to the debate. It has been a respectful debate. It has been a conversation and one, indeed, that we may not have been able to have a few years ago in this place or in Northern Ireland. We are on a journey. Phillip said that we should focus on progress, and that, by and large, is what the debate has been about. That journey continues. I thank everyone who contributed to the debate. I thank Paula Bradshaw for proposing the motion; Pam Cameron; Doug Beattie, who told us that he will not oppose the motion, which is welcome; Ciara Ferguson; Sinéad McLaughlin; Deirdre Hargey; Andrew McMurray; Kellie Armstrong; and Matthew O'Toole. In every community, there are people who still carry the pain from the loss of a loved one, and the right to remember those who have died is something that we should all respect. It is deeply personal, as some described, and it needs to be treated with sensitivity and dignity. The motion is about how we do that well. It is about ensuring that remembrance takes place in a way that brings comfort while not hurting the grieving. Our public spaces are spaces for everyone, and they should not be exploited by the symbols of division or control. It is a sensitive issue. Memorials take many forms. Some are roadside tributes to sudden loss, while others are long-standing monuments to events that have shaped our history. Across our towns and estates, there are memorials that mean different things to different people. There are, however, also those that were placed without permission or that carry imagery that others find painful or disputed in their content or context. The aim of the motion, which, I think, has been embraced in the Chamber, is not to erase anyone's memory or to rewrite history but to bring about fairness and transparency and, above all, to care about how we mark the past. In the first instance, the motion is a call to deliver an audit, which will help us understand what exists and under what authority, if any. That will then allow us to take another step in the conversation. It is about guidance that will help us understand and ensure that anything that is created in the future is lawful, respectful and agreed. It is about a re-imaging programme that will support communities that want to make positive changes themselves. Many in the Chamber have spoken about real and positive re-imaging programmes that have taken place. I have seen them in East Antrim and in my home town of Carrickfergus. We have seen how they can work. We have seen peacebuilding through the arts and the Re-imaging Communities programme funded by the Arts Council. The Special EU Programmes Body and others have shown what can be achieved when communities take the lead: not when they are being led, but when they take the lead. Across Northern Ireland, we have seen gable walls that once carried divisive symbols being transformed into public art in order to tell a different story: a story that shares our history. That takes a lot of hard work and determination, and some communities take steps forward to re-imagine and replace murals on walls. Sometimes, they are stopped, but they have the tenacity to keep going. It takes a lot of trust between local residents, community leaders and public authorities, but it demonstrates that progress is possible, not impossible. To be clear, the motion is not about forgetting the past but about looking to the future. When communities are supported to reclaim their spaces and to express pride in a way that excludes no one, it strengthens the sense of belonging for everyone who lives there. We have examples from councils that have already developed clear and fair policies for memorials. Their experience can guide the Executive as they develop a consistent approach across Northern Ireland. That is the leadership that we are looking for in the debate. That consistency will protect communities, give clarity to public bodies and ensure that what stands in our shared spaces reflects the values of all of us. I again genuinely thank the Members who contributed to the debate this evening. Many spoke with understanding and compassion but, at the same time, withheld their views. We may view aspects of the issue differently, but I trust that we all share the same goal, which is to make remembrance something that helps heal rather than divide. If we can get it right, we can give people confidence that their history is respected and their pain understood and that the places that we share are truly open to all. Let the work be guided by respect, partnership and hope, and let remembrance be a bridge between the past and the future, not a wall between neighbours. Top 5.45 pm Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Before I put the Question on amendment No 1, I remind Members that, if amendment No 1 is made, I will not put the Question on amendment No 2. Question, That amendment No 1 be made, put and agreed to. Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly recognises that people should have the right to remember the dead in a respectful, sensitive and dignified manner; acknowledges that that should also be done in a way that upholds the rule of law and avoids causing pain or hurt to others, including innocent victims; expresses concern that there are memorials on public land that were erected without lawful authority and include imagery and emblems that can be seen as marking territory and glorifying terrorism; calls on the Executive, in consultation with the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, to determine the need for an audit to assess the number of memorials on public land, and to promote a consistent approach to enforcement where planning permission is not sought; and further calls on the First Minister and deputy First Minister, building on work to date through the Communities in Transition programme, to support communities to re-image these memorials, including by removing paramilitary imagery and emblems and references to criminal acts of violence. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): As we move on to the next item of business, I ask that those who are leaving the Chamber to do so quietly. Mr Butler is waiting eagerly in anticipation. Motion made: That the Assembly do now adjourn. — [Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair).] Adjournment On-street Parking Charges in Lisburn Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): In conjunction with the Business Committee, the Speaker has given leave to Robbie Butler to raise the matter of on-street parking in Lisburn. Mr Butler, you have up to 15 minutes. Mr Butler: I beg to move the motion, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not need to move the motion — I have not done one of these in a long time. I will strike that from the video later, Mr Honeyford. I thank the Deputy Speaker for indulging me and hope that the Minister will attend the debate. Lisburn remains one of only two towns in Northern Ireland where on-street parking charges still apply. That creates an unfair disadvantage for local businesses and visitors. The policy is, quite simply, archaic, undermining the vitality of high streets, pushing shoppers to out-of-town centres that offer free parking and contradicting the "Town centre first" approach. A fair and consistent policy is needed in which either all towns charge or none charge. I propose a first-hour-free system as a practical first step to support trade, footfall and fairness. Across Northern Ireland from Bangor to Banbridge and from Carrickfergus to Derry/Londonderry, people can pull up, park and pop into their local town without paying a penny for the privilege — that was a lot Ps — yet in Lisburn we are expected to treat as a luxury something that is free everywhere else. The debate is not about opposing the fair management of our roads; it is about consistency and fairness. If charging for on-street parking truly is best practice, why are Lisburn and Newry the only places where it applies. Within a 20-mile radius of Lisburn, not one of the following towns charge for on-street parking: Antrim, Banbridge, Bangor, Comber, Carrickfergus, Downpatrick, Lurgan, Moira and Portadown. Not even our larger regional cities, such as Derry/Londonderry and Armagh, charge for on-street parking. That inequality has a real cost. It costs local traders footfall; it costs families convenience; and it costs Lisburn a competitive edge. I had better make a declaration, in case the Minister declares it, that I have fallen foul of the redcoats in Lisburn far too many times. However, the purpose of the debate is not for me; it is for the shops and the high street. During the 2020-21 Chamber of Commerce and Industry campaign, Lisburn Chamber of Commerce, alongside its compatriot in Newry, secured support from Liz Kimmins MLA, who now serves as the Infrastructure Minister, for the removal of on-street parking charges. At that time, she recognised the unfairness of the system. Now, perhaps, she has the authority to finally deliver on that pressure. We are not asking for special treatment; we are asking for equal treatment: either all towns are charged or none. The rules must apply equally across Northern Ireland. The high street faces its most difficult decade in living memory. Sadly, retail habits have shifted online. Energy and wage costs for businesses are up, and margins are thin. Every decision that makes it harder for people to come into our towns pushes them further into decline. We are told that we must adopt a "Town centre first" approach, yet we see the opposite from DFI, with talk of increasing parking charges and removing spaces to discourage car use as part of an eastern transport plan. That approach might make sense in a city like Belfast, where public transport options are abundant. However, in Lisburn, which people come to from surrounding villages and rural communities and, often, have to carry their shopping or their children or accompany elderly relatives, car access is essential. The operators of out-of-town shopping centres know that. They offer free, unlimited parking and easy access. Where do people go? They go where it is convenient. Rather than supporting local businesses, they go where parking does not feel like a penalty. We need to make visiting Lisburn as frictionless as possible. Every barrier, whether it is a meter, a confusing app, an overly strict time limit or the anxiety, which I feel, about whether the app is working and whether I have got a ticket, discourages people from coming into my city centre. Often, one hour's parking is not enough to allow a visitor to do their messages, meet a friend for a coffee or browse our independent shops. People should not have to rush back to their car mid-conversation, mid-meal or mid-purchase. However, we have to be realistic about what we can do here. We have created a system that favours the quick errand, not the lingering visit, and it is the lingering visit that sustains our high street. For around 60 years, since the Lisburn Chamber of Commerce's earliest meetings, parking has been one of the retailers' greatest concerns. Decades later, the same issues persist. We are still talking about lost trade and frustrated shoppers in streets that are empty earlier than they should be. Many years ago, I was a butcher in Lisburn. I worked six days a week. I suppose that I have romantic memories of walking around the town carrying meat parcels into shops and round restaurants when the high street thrived — and it did. Sadly, we have lost that. We are talking about lost trade and a frustrating disconnect with the people who call Lisburn "home". Without meaningful action from DFI, Lisburn, like Newry, risks losing the commercial heart that has sustained it for generations. What do we propose? At the very least, there should be a free first hour of on-street parking. That is a balanced, common-sense reform. It would encourage people to get back into the city, take their time, support local traders and get to know one another once again. It would not remove enforcement altogether, but it would restore fairness and flexibility. It would send a clear signal that Lisburn is open, welcoming and ready to compete. Such a change would be simple to implement and widely supported. Public engagement has shown overwhelming public support for a better solution for parking in Lisburn. People want to shop local and support small businesses. They just need a system that makes that possible. As I said, before Minister Kimmins was a Minister, she stood with the campaign to remove the charges. I hope that, now, as Minister, she can complete that journey. Lisburn is not asking for charity; we are asking for fairness. The city has one of the most vibrant communities in Northern Ireland. It is consistently rated as one of the best places to live in Northern Ireland. That reputation should be reflected in the vitality of our city centre offering. We should make it easier, not harder, for people to come to, shop in and belong to Lisburn. Our high street is not just an economic engine; it is part of Lisburn's identity. It is the heartbeat of the community. Every small retailer, every café and, on a Tuesday, every market stall contributes to that heartbeat, and every empty parking bay represents a lost opportunity to keep that heart beating strongly. Let us act. Let us end the outdated, unfair policy that singles out Lisburn and Newry. Let us adopt a fair and consistent approach across Northern Ireland. As a minimum and as a first step, let us introduce a free first hour of on-street parking. It is a simple change that would make a world of difference because, when Lisburn thrives, Lagan Valley thrives and Northern Ireland benefits. A fair parking policy is not a small matter but a signal of how we value our towns, traders and people. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Paul Givan. You have approximately six minutes in which to speak in the debate. Mr Givan: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and thanks to my friend and colleague Robbie Butler for securing the Adjournment debate. I know that the Chair of the Infrastructure Committee will also make some comments in his role. I will not elaborate on some of the points that Mr Butler has made. I agree with a lot of what he has said about the importance of our on-street car parking. The issue has been raised on countless occasions. He rightly highlighted the fact that there was a time when the current Minister actively campaigned for these things to be dealt with. She now holds an important role in our Executive and has an opportunity to do something about the very issues on which she campaigned as an MLA. That is the benefit of being able to move from the Back Benches into ministerial office. I look forward to positive announcements during the Adjournment debate. One of the issues that has been raised in the past is the time at which enforcement comes into operation. Mr Butler referenced the one-hour-free aspect to encourage people. Enforcement practices also take place when there is ample car parking; the times at which it starts in the morning and concludes in the evening are not at peak periods. I think that we can all agree that, during those peak hours, when people come into Lisburn to go to coffee shops and retail centres, we want to have a flow of traffic. We do not want a scenario in which people park on street all day in close proximity to retail areas. That is not conducive to our local economy. However, I question why enforcement takes place at certain hours of the day when there is no need for it because there is often ample parking opportunity. I want to bring a connected issue to the Assembly this evening: the abuse of blue badges. An increasing number of complaints come to me in Lisburn, particularly from elderly people, who are rightly entitled to a blue badge for accessible parking on single yellow lines yet are not able to access it because so many other vehicles are also able to avail themselves of it. I question, first, how some people seem to be able to access a blue badge and, secondly, how robust the test is when it comes to mobility. I also believe that there are people who are placing the blue badge of a family member in their vehicle and then leaving it. It is difficult to enforce that and police it because you need to be able to check the person's vehicle and the blue badge. Enforcement people have told me that, when they say to people, "Can you turn round the badge so that we can see the image on it?", they refuse to do so. That is a real challenge that we need to understand. Anecdotally, it appears that there is abuse. It is right that the blue badge scheme is there for people who are entitled to accessible car parking, but the integrity of that scheme needs to be protected. I have real concerns that it is being undermined. I would like to hear more about that from the Department for Infrastructure. The Minister may not be able to provide that information to me today — it is not specific to the Adjournment debate — but I would certainly appreciate a written response as a follow-up. I very much support the endeavours that have been made by my colleague in the area. They build on previous representations that a number of us have made. I think that all of us in the Lagan Valley constituency would support progress being made on the issue. Mr Honeyford: I am really delighted to speak on the issue today. I thank my colleague and friend Robbie from Lagan Valley for securing the Adjournment debate. I also thank the Minister for being with us to listen. Parking might seem like a small issue on the surface, but, in Lisburn, it is tied to the life of our city centre, how people use it and whether businesses thrive or survive. I am deeply passionate about the regeneration of our city. I have talked about it regularly in the Chamber and in Committee. I continue to look at how we can repurpose and revitalise the Bow Street and Market Square area to bring it into 2025 and think about what it will look like in 2035 and 2045. In my discussions, parking in the city centre is something that is raised time and again. Over the past year, I have been asking people for their views on the city centre, and parking has always been part of the discussion. I continue to engage with people and listen to their opinions. I am currently carrying out a survey on the topic. Surveys are often carried out: for example, the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) came to the Economy Committee with a survey about British businesses and the Windsor framework. Four times as many people have responded to my survey than responded to the FSB survey. That is the level of engagement that we have had: responses from people who live, work and shop in Lisburn, who come from our city and who visit our city regularly. Those are the voices of people who actually use the place. They are not views or opinions but real experiences, and their voice is what I want to highlight tonight. Top 6.00 pm Robbie dealt really well with the issues. I just want to put some substance to that, because the message that came back was really clear, and I want to highlight a few of those points. First, it was around cost. At the moment, it costs £1 an hour to park on the street. We asked what people thought of that. Two thirds — 67% — of the people who responded said that it was not good value. A lot of the comments were not just about the price but about the principle, with people feeling that they were being charged simply to try to keep their local city centre alive. They pointed out that neighbouring towns — Robbie referenced this — are either cheaper or do not charge for parking. We are seeing footfall drop and flow to those towns instead, and we all know what happens: when the footfall goes, the businesses and everything else go too. The second issue, which has also been raised, is the one-hour limit. That really hit a nerve when the question was asked: 90% of people who responded said that one hour was not long enough. It makes absolute sense, and I declare an interest as well. I have regularly got one of those yellow stickers on my car — once for a stay of one hour and six minutes, when I had nipped into the office and got on to a phone call. I paid, and that is fine, but an hour does not let you go to the shop. It does not allow you to meet friends, to go for a coffee, to grab lunch. One person in the survey said, "You go in looking at the time rather than enjoying what you are in the town for." That tells the entire story. When we asked the obvious follow-up questions: "Would two hours work better? Would two hours of free on-street parking make you more likely to shop in Lisburn?", the answer came back, and 82% said yes; 82% of everybody who posted said, "That would make a difference". Most of those people said that they would be much more likely to use their town centre, so it is not a marginal preference. It is a clear ask from local people for something practical that would help. Finally, I want to highlight another issue that has been raised. Actually, Paul raised it. It is not about being anti-regulation or anti-enforcement. I have just told you that I got a ticket for parking for an hour and six minutes. People understand that there have to be rules, but what came through really strongly is the tone of the enforcement. Many people described it as "really too heavy-handed", the kind of approach that makes you think twice about even getting out of the car. If the experience makes people feel stressed, they will simply choose to go elsewhere. As Paul was speaking, I was reminded of an elderly gentleman who came into my office in the past month. He had a blue badge and was parked just outside. He had left his grandkids in the car to go to the bank. When he came back, he saw that his grandkids had lifted the badge to look at his picture and had turned it upside down — the same way up, but upside down. He got a ticket because the badge was not sitting clearly for people to see. That is the kind of tone that we need to call out and change. We ask the Department to review on-street parking for a couple of issues. I genuinely thank the Minister for joining us and listening to all of us as we raise these issues. I would say that we need two hours' free on-street parking and, at the very least, the maximum stay should be extended to two hours. Those are things that we absolutely need in Lisburn. Secondly, it is that piece: we all understand that there needs to be enforcement. Paul referenced it, and I agree. We need people to move on and to keep that flow of people coming through the city, but we need to ensure that enforcement supports our town. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up. Mr Boylan: I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate, and I realise that the Minister, who is my constituency colleague, is well familiar with Newry. It does not surprise me that Mr Honeyford stayed for one hour and six minutes and got a fine. I speak today as my party's spokesperson on transport and as a constituency MLA who fully recognises the issues that the debate sponsor has raised. It is clear to us all that our town centres and high streets are very different places from what they were when the original restrictions on parking were developed. With greater consumer use of online shopping, our high streets face challenges in attracting people to retail units and shops. It is therefore welcome that we are having this Adjournment debate today to put a focus on exploring ways in which to encourage people to visit our towns and high streets, not deter them from doing so. Having spoken to the Minister about the topic, and knowing how aware she is of the issues facing constituencies such as Lagan Valley and her own, I am certain that she is keen to play her part to create a busier shopping culture for businesses not just in Lisburn but in Newry and right across the North. A certain degree of flexibility on parking restrictions is needed around the time that people can spend parked in the one spot to help attract them to nearby businesses. We must ensure, however, that any future flexibility is not at the detriment of those same businesses, given that long-stay parking, quite possibly for a full day, as many other Members mentioned, also creates challenges for our town centres and high streets. I welcome the opportunity to speak today on this important topic. I hope that the Minister can, in the future, work to ensure that her Department supports our town centres and high streets to flourish. Mr McNulty: I thank the Member for Lagan Valley for securing this important topic for debate. My colleague Pat Catney, who has campaigned relentlessly on the issue for many years, will be pleased that it is being discussed as it relates to Lisburn in Lagan Valley. I rise to speak on the matter of on-street parking charges. The issue not only plagues Lisburn but impacts on people in Newry. The people of Newry are required from the outset to pay for on-street parking. Between January 2024 and June 2025, there were 372 parking tickets issued for every 1,000 residents in Newry — the highest number of tickets issued per capita in the North. That over-enforcement is rooted in Newry's controlled parking zone status. That is unfair; plain and simple. Why should people in Newry be subjected to heavy-handed enforcement? Between 2023 and 2025, 763 penalty charge notices were successfully appealed in the Newry, Mourne and Down District Council area. The fact that such a large number of tickets was successfully overturned further emphasises just how excessively such charges are meted out. It should not be the responsibility of the people of Newry or Lisburn to appeal those baseless tickets in order to avoid fines. It is the responsibility of the Minister for Infrastructure to ensure that people are not taken advantage of by overzealous enforcement. In 2021, Liz Kimmins MLA — I thank the Minister for being present here today to hear this important debate — called on the then Minister for Infrastructure, Nichola Mallon, to address the issue. Ms Kimmins stated: "I believe that allowing for a trial for one hour free on street car parking would be a happy medium between supporting our businesses and enforcing parking. This would provide a more level playing field and support our local businesses who have been hard hit as a result of the covid pandemic, by encouraging increased footfall in our city centre. Newry BID have felt that their views and the views of local traders are being ignored by the Department for Infrastructure as no time-framed review has been agreed to." Ms Kimmins, the now Minister, said that in 2021. I submitted a question for written answer on the issue. In the answer that was provided on 7 October, the Minister for Infrastructure, Ms Kimmins, stated of the controlled parking zone in Newry: "I currently have no plans to consider its removal. There are no plans to commence a trial for one hour free on-street parking". Minister, why the sudden change of heart? Why the volte-face? Why the U-turn? Why change your stance on the issue when you have the power of your ministerial post — Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr McNulty. Mr McNulty: — to implement trial parking? Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr McNulty, one second. I do not want to rise, given the constructive tone of the debate, but I remind you that we are speaking about on-street parking charges in Lisburn. It is courteous to remember that the Member was granted the Adjournment debate to discuss that topic. Mr McNulty: The one-hour parking zone in Lisburn is exactly the same as the one-hour parking zone in Newry. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Except that one is in Lisburn and one is in Newry [Laughter.] Mr McNulty: Yes, it is the same principle. As the Minister believed in 2021, before she was Minister, we should be trying to uplift local businesses by encouraging people to visit the city centre, not punishing those who do with undue charges. Traders and businesses in Newry are angry about the parking regimes in our city and in Lisburn, which discourage shoppers from coming into those city centres, sending them to other places where parking is more accessible. The Minister is yet to respond to my question for written answer in which I have asked for: "a breakdown of the total revenue received by her Department, for every one pound spent by consumers on parking, using third-party apps and booking platforms". Without that transparency, it is hard for people to trust the merits of the parking charges against the cost that is borne by consumers. I call upon the Minister for Infrastructure to stick to her words and to reconsider the controlled parking zone status of Newry and Lisburn. I strongly urge the Minister to support the trial, which she suggested, of one-hour free parking in Newry, Lisburn and other controlled parking areas to achieve the goal of better parking turnover and sharing of urban spaces while allowing people sufficient time to park and enjoy our cities, without charge. Lisburn residents, Newry residents, shoppers, traders and visitors are not asking for anything special; they are asking for fairness. They are asking the Minister to let them compete on a level playing field, with a fair parking policy and one-hour free parking. Minister, be true to your word and introduce one-hour free parking. That is all that we are asking for. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Peter Martin. Although he is not speaking in this capacity, he is the Chair of the Infrastructure Committee. Mr Martin: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am speaking in my capacity as a DUP MLA who leads on infrastructure. I have learned a lot from the debate this evening. I learned a lot about Lisburn and Newry, and I am worried that I will incur your wrath, Mr Deputy Speaker, if I use the word "Bangor" as much as my colleague across the way said "Newry". I will be cognisant of that. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): A precedent has been set. Mr Martin: I do not think that I will make that bar, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am aware of the situation in Lisburn, and I will make some general comments around it. As I approached the debate, I learned that there were 240 on-street car parking spaces within the controlled zone that Mr McNulty referenced. I, too, have fallen victim to that — not in Lisburn, and certainly not in Newry, but in Bangor, where my office is located just across the way from an on-street car park. I have to admit that I have got a ticket, twice. The challenge for me was how I would manage to pay the fines without my wife finding out about them. I had to be expeditious in that regard. We are incredibly fortunate in Bangor in that we have free parking in those areas. It does not affect our residents in the same way that it does in Newry or Lisburn. The impact of that is that it encourages people to come into the shopping areas to shop, which is what we all want. As has been reflected in the debate, keeping the traffic flowing through a town is incredibly important in helping to keep the high street open. There is a wide range of views, and Mr Honeyford reflected some of them. We have to be cognisant of the need, from a business perspective, to ensure that that throughput is maintained. If we transferred all that car parking and said, "You can park here for four hours, free", businesses would come back and say, "That's too long, because those spaces need to be freed up so that other people can come in and shop in the area". Let us bear it in mind that local businesses are competing with large out-of-town shopping centres that offer free car parking. While the signs may say that it is four hours, it is for as long as people want it to be. Top 6.15 pm I also have a question for the Minister. I am cognisant of the fact that she may not know the answer, so I am more than happy for her to get back to me in writing. Minister, last month, you signalled that a new parking enforcement contract was coming into effect. I quote: "It will enhance the overall user experience of car parking in Northern Ireland." Are you willing and able to outline what the strategy will achieve? The Committee may have a look at the matter. There are definitely areas of compromise, and I agree with my colleague and others in the Chamber that the idea of one hour of free car parking is where we should land. We know that our high streets are under enormous pressure from internet shopping and, to a degree, out-of-town shopping. Whatever else we take away from this evening's debate, we have to listen to the traders in our town centres about how we can support them, but we also have to facilitate for them the best shopping experience that we can. We are all aware of the concept of shop local — sometimes it is #shoplocal — and that is important for towns such as Lisburn and Bangor. With that slogan in our mind, we also have to keep the focus on how we best facilitate our constituents who want to shop local and go into town to buy a coffee, a bun or some produce. The concept that Mr Butler mentioned of an hour's free parking at the start of the period would be one way of achieving that. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I thank all Members who have spoken in the debate. I call the Minister of Infrastructure to respond. Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure): Mr Deputy Speaker, how long do I have? Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): You have 10 minutes. Ms Kimmins: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. [Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.] I thank Robbie Butler for securing the Adjournment debate. It may come as a surprise to Members that I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak about car parking. I have raised the issue for many years. I work extremely closely with businesses, particularly those in my constituency, and I have done so consistently throughout my time not just as an MLA but as a councillor. I have also worked in the health centre in Lisburn, and I have told some of my Lagan Valley colleagues that I too have fallen foul of the wardens, having come out of my work as a social worker to find a lovely ticket on my windscreen. I have a note in front of me, but I will probably go way off it, because everything that has been said this evening is absolutely where my head is and where it has been for some time. I tried to research how controlled parking zones came in. They were introduced in 2008 at the request of local businesses, because there was significant parking congestion at that time, particularly in Belfast, Lisburn and Newry. A consultation process took place, and other procedures had to be followed. Controlled parking zones were then introduced in an effort to support businesses. Up until the early 2010s, they worked well. Since then, however, we have seen dramatic changes in our town centres and in the ways in which people shop. We are now very much in a space in which people do not have the same incentives to go into our town centres. The nature of how we shop has changed, because we have moved online or to out-of-town options, which, given the busy lives that we all lead, can seem more attractive to many people. Our "Town centre first" approach has been strong across the North. We have to look at the changes that have occurred over the years. My constituency colleague Mr McNulty was vociferous in his advocacy of the removal of parking charges or of one hour of free parking. I am delighted that he has been able to find the quotes, because, unlike some, I am consistent in what I say. Back in 2021, when I raised it with his colleague, the then SDLP Minister for Infrastructure, I asked for a trial of one hour of free parking in response to the ask from local businesses. That trial never came in the time that she was in post; in fact, I did not get the support of my constituency colleague for that demand. I will quote him. When I raised it with the Minister on one of many occasions, all of which are on the record, the Member said, in asking a supplementary question, that he welcomed the: "road map for the resolution of this matter." — four years later, we have not seen that road map — "Parking is an issue for some traders and businesses, but there are other issues."— [Official Report (Hansard), 22 November 2021, p34, col 1]. Mr McNulty: Of course there are other issues. Ms Kimmins: When you checked my quote, you should have checked your own. Mr Butler: She has officials to do it for her. Ms Kimmins: They did not. I did that myself. I am not being facetious when I say that, when I commit to something, I absolutely commit to it. I listen to businesses and have been doing so for a long time. When I came into my post nine months ago, I asked for a meeting with officials at the first opportunity to look at the available options. It is not as straightforward as lifting the regulations tomorrow. There is a legislative process. I have gone back and forward — my officials will attest to this — to look at what we can do. We also have to strike a balance, and some Members have articulated that well today. I know from my conversations with businesses in recent weeks that they do not want a free-for-all either, because that is not conducive to keeping trade moving. Mr McNulty: There is no problem. Ms Kimmins: No. I am not saying that anyone is saying that. We need to look at how we can test the change. I am looking at that. I said that there were no plans because I do not have a plan at present. We are working through options because we want to find the best way of testing the change so that we can reflect in it the needs of businesses and shoppers and other people who want to come into our town centres. My office, like Mr McNulty's, is on one of the main streets in Newry. We get — Cathal will attest to this from the times that he comes in for meetings — a lot of people in our office who probably come straight from their car to see whether we can help them appeal a ticket. That has been happening for many years. I am acutely aware of the real concerns for businesses and traders at a time when they have suffered blow after blow, from being hit with COVID to the cost-of-living crisis and the growth of online shopping and out-of-town retail. That has all had an impact. I want to look at that, but I want to do so sensibly so that we can test it. I am looking at something that we could do over the festive period. The point about the difference between Belfast and Lisburn and Newry is very pertinent. Belfast has the Glider and other public transport options, so, generally, people do not even want to travel in by car because they like that flexibility. There is good public transport, and we recently introduced late-night transport, so there are many more options. For people in the likes of Lisburn and Newry, however, that is not always the case. We do not want people to feel under pressure. Members can disagree with me on this point if they feel that it is wrong, but most people do not mind paying for parking. It is more about the pressure of having to rush back to your car if there is a £45 or, indeed, a £90 fine. Mr McNulty: Will the Minister give way? Ms Kimmins: I have a lot to get through, and I want to finish, because I am tight for time. I am acutely aware that we need to do something. I have some options to look at, and we are going back and forth on them. We will try to do something around the Christmas period if possible. It would obviously be something that does not require us to change legislation, because that is a lengthy process. It is important to reflect on why the charges came into place. There was a need for them, but we are now in a different space, and I recognise the need to review how beneficial they are. I will reflect on some of the questions that were asked. Paul Givan raised the abuse of blue badges. I agree that it is difficult to police that. Traffic attendants are trained to identify the misuse of a blue badge, and they take enforcement measures where they are able to; in fact, there is a full-time traffic attendant in Belfast who deals specifically with the fraudulent use of blue badges. I recognise that it is difficult to challenge someone about that. However, if an individual is using it in place of the badge-owner, who is not with them, the owner's photograph is on the badge, so I imagine that that is the key to determining what is going on. The new contract for the app started on 1 November. People can use it to buy time, rather than having the app running indefinitely and overpaying because they forget to switch it off. Hopefully, that will be beneficial, but there is a balance to be struck. Mr Butler: Will the Minister give way? Ms Kimmins: I have already said — very quickly. Mr Butler: I appreciate that, because you have used up all your time on Newry. I have two questions about what you are hoping to do. Will it be for the forthcoming festive period, and would you be open to looking at the fines? Rather than a £45 fine, would you consider a £5 per hour fine that is added every hour that someone is late but does not discourage people from staying in the space, even for an hour, so that they can continue shopping? Ms Kimmins: That is a good suggestion. It is something that we can take away. I am keen to have an initiative during the festive period, and I am working out what that would look like. We are restricted by the time frames and what can be done without legislation. If I am able to do so, I intend to take something forward that will allow us to test flexibility around parking. We need to see whether it will work. If it results in absolute chaos and the traders come back and say that it is not working, so be it. We have to find a way to test it. The other side of that — I am sure that the Minister on the Benches opposite will empathise with me on this — is that, at a time when public funds are limited, it would take out revenue that we probably have accounted for. We have to balance that. We have figures on what the impact would be. I would, however, argue that it would increase the numbers of people coming in to the towns, who will be paying for parking. I am not an accountant, but that is why we have to test it and get a real sense of the implications. My commitment to Members today is that I absolutely hear what everyone has said. As I said, I have advocated strongly for a solution for many years, and I still hold that position. I recognise that we need to listen to traders and the wider community. We need to see what we can do to give people a leg up, essentially. We need to revitalise our town centres, bring people in and show them that we are open for business and that they do not need to go out of town. We need to bring our town centres back to life. I will keep Members updated as I progress through the options that I am looking at. Adjourned at 6.28 pm. Top
[ni-assembly-official-report][plenary_report] Official Reports https://aims.niassembly.gov.uk/officialreport/report.aspx?&eveDate=2025/11/10&docID=457575 Official Report: Monday 10 November 2025 Table of Contents Assembly Business Standing Orders 10(2) to 10(4): Suspension Exclusion of the Minister of Education from Office Oral Answers to Questions The Executive Office Justice Assembly Business Questions for Urgent Oral Answer Education Finance Members Statements Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council: Loyalist Intimidation BBC Bias COP30: Brazil Prisoner Release Victim Information Scheme: Ministerial Response WEST Project Carrickfergus: US Rangers Mural Minister of Education Healthcare Workers: Pay Rise Translink School Bus Pick-up Points: Ballyclare President Michael D Higgins BBC Bias Colum Eastwood: Court Decision Opposition Business Holding Ministers to Account Independent Environmental Protection Agency: Establishment Winter Preparedness Plan The Assembly met at 12:00 pm (Mr Speaker in the Chair). Members observed two minutes' silence. Assembly Business Standing Orders 10(2) to 10(4): Suspension Mr Butler: I beg to move That Standing Orders 10(2) to 10(4) be suspended for 10 November 2025. Mr Speaker: Before we proceed to the Question, I remind Members that the motion requires cross-community support. Question put and agreed to. Resolved (with cross-community support): That Standing Orders 10(2) to 10(4) be suspended for 10 November 2025. Mr Speaker: As the motion has been agreed, the Assembly can sit beyond 7.00 pm, if required. Exclusion of the Minister of Education from Office Mr Speaker: The next item of business is a motion, signed by at least 30 Members under section 30 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, on the exclusion of the Minister of Education from office. Mr Carroll: I beg to move That this Assembly, under section 30(1)(b) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, resolves that, further to his recent visit to Israel, the Minister of Education no longer enjoys the confidence of the Assembly, because of his failure to observe paragraphs (cd) and (ce) of the Pledge of Office, relating to his duty to uphold and support the rule of law; and his failure to observe paragraph (g) relating to his duty to comply with the ministerial code of conduct; and that he should be excluded from holding office as a Minister or junior Minister for a period of 12 months. Mr Speaker: Before I call Gerry Carroll to speak, I want to make a few remarks. I am conscious that we had heated exchanges during the question for urgent oral answer on these matters last week. I understand there are strong feelings throughout the House on these matters. Members know that I will uphold everyone's right to scrutinise Ministers and hold them to account, and I welcome robust debate. I remind Members, however, of our standards of debate of good temper, moderation, courtesy and respect. Robust arguments can be made on the issues in a respectful way without being disorderly. I also remind Members that, if there are lots of points of order during the debate, I will hold them all until the end of the debate, as they will interfere with the running of matters. Mr Carroll: It is clear that the Minister of Education has lost the confidence of the majority of parties and MLAs in the House. I thank the parties who have supported the motion today — Sinn Féin, the SDLP and Alliance, as well as the independent MLA, Claire Sugden. The Minister has lost the support of tens of thousands of people outside this Building, including the teaching unions and many who work in education. He has brought his Department into disrepute, failed to uphold the Pledge of Office and failed to comply with the ministerial code of conduct. I wish to set out with the utmost clarity the case for Paul Givan to resign as Minister of Education. Paul Givan stated that he travelled to Israel in his capacity as an individual MLA. That was found to be untrue. He later admitted that it was his idea and decision to make the trip relevant to his role as Education Minister. Minister Givan claimed that the trip came at no cost to the public purse. That was also untrue. The visit to the school was publicised using departmental resources. In the House last week, the Minister stated that he had meetings with his officials in the Department to discuss the trip. That also has a cost attached to it. The Functioning of Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021 states that a Minister who holds an official meeting must ensure that a civil servant is present. That did not happen, even though Paul Givan said explicitly that the school visit was directly relevant to his ministerial portfolio. Despite the Minister's bluster and mudslinging, there is no doubt that those meetings were official meetings. Paul Givan said that the parts of his visit pertaining to his role as Minister were totally non-political. That, again, is not true. He visited the Israeli Parliament, where he was listed not as an individual MLA but as the Minister of Education. He shared an overtly political social media post about the event, insinuating that Israeli parliamentarians think that the North should remain a part of the UK. Paul Givan claims that his trip to Israel was an objective, fact-finding mission. Indeed, the principle of integrity in the ministerial code of conduct states that those in public office should not have financial or other obligations to outside organisations that could influence their official duties. That rule was clearly flouted. The visit was a propaganda junket funded by the Israeli state. There can be no other way to describe it, hence the huge outcry from a huge number of the public. In this Chamber, a matter of days before the trip, Paul Givan expressed his thanks to the Israeli Defence Forces, as he calls them. I wonder whether that was before he had his ticket booked to Jerusalem. In response to incredibly serious questions about his decision-making in office, Minister Givan has refused to acknowledge or apologise for breaking the rules of his office. Instead, he has sought to deflect, obfuscate and sling offensive, inaccurate slurs. Had he not been so offensive and arrogant, this matter might have blown over. The Minister has levelled a charge of antisemitism against me in particular and other Members of this Chamber who asked questions about his recent trip to Israel. I wish to refute that in the strongest possible terms and to condemn the Minister for diminishing the truly horrific and deeply serious reality of antisemitism by flinging it at his critics like a get-out-of-jail-free card. I would also like to remind him of the great replacement-type conspiracy theories that have been repeated by his party colleagues almost every single week, which have their roots in antisemitic hatred. It is his party that peddles far right rhetoric in an attempt to deflect and blame minorities and migrants for society's ills. The Minister should be ashamed and apologetic, but then he is not known for his honesty or his humility. As I have just set out, the case for the Minister to resign is strong before we even consider that he made an official visit to a state that is carrying out an active genocide against the people of Palestine, while Ministers here have a duty to prevent genocide at all costs. For the record, I believe that the Minister's travelling to Israel during this genocide is reason enough to question his fitness for ministerial office. Israel has openly defied international law time and again, inflicting maximum suffering on civilians. That is not just my view or the view of other parties in the House but the words of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. The International Court of Justice has recognised the unlawfulness of Israel's ongoing presence in the occupied Palestinian territories. Paul Givan chose to visit a school in those occupied territories. Bizarrely, he patted himself on the back for visiting a school in illegally occupied territory because it was integrated. The irony of that statement should not be lost, given his party's role in preventing integration at home on every step of the way. The Minister repeated lies about the education that Palestinians receive. He claimed, last week, that they are told to hate the Jews. That is completely false and inaccurate, is deeply racist towards Arabs and ignores the hatred that is taught in the Israeli education system —. Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way? Mr Carroll: In a second, maybe. In that state, "Death to the Arabs" is regularly chanted in the streets by settlers, with absolutely no repercussions. Days before the Minister smiled for pictures in the Knesset, that same body voted to annex the West Bank — a decision that would further breach international law and that was criticised heavily by US Vice-President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, those well-known members of that left-wing cabal. Millions of us have been forced to watch the death, torture, bloodshed and suffering of Palestinian people at the hands of the Israeli state. I cannot fathom how anyone could see children with missing limbs and lifeless bodies being pulled out of rubble and then accept an invitation from the people who are directly responsible for that mass slaughter. The Minister and his party made a fundamental mistake in writing off the anger of the Palestine Solidarity Movement and people across communities in the North as antisemitic, sectarian or terrorist sympathising. That is not just a cynical deflection tactic; the DUP accuses its critics of being antisemitic or sectarian because it so desperately wants that to be the truth. Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way? Mr Carroll: Maybe in a second. The DUP fears the power of the local and global Palestine Solidarity Movement, which is cross-community, diverse and filled with millions of people of all ages, religions and backgrounds. In response to the motion, some people talked about the need to focus on issues at home, but I say, "Look at home. Look at the state of our schools". A total of 84 schools across the North are suffering from black mould, and six of those are in the Minister's constituency. That is the context in which he chose to travel to Israel for six days to visit one school and to smile alongside the Israeli Government. The Education Authority (EA) told principals recently: "to take any and all actions possible to reduce expenditure" to fill a £300 million black hole in the budget. That is austerity on steroids. The Minister ordered the removal from the EA website of guidance and support for trans pupils, trying to further kick, marginalise and attack a community that is already under huge repression and attacks. His Department published plans to criminalise teachers for not taking part in school inspections while taking legal industrial action. Just last week, the EA announced that it was hiking the price of school meals and cutting overtime payments and school music programmes. A few days ago, I was contacted by an education other than at school (EOTAS) teacher who works with marginalised and vulnerable young people. Disgracefully, the EA had told them that referrals to that provision were being suspended. As you can imagine, the staff are demoralised and furious about the lack of communication and transparency. I could go on and on, but it is a long list that I do not have the time to go through. Paul Givan's tenure as Education Minister was marred with controversy and failings long before this scandal. He has failed education workers, schools and some of the most vulnerable and marginalised in our communities. He has ducked and weaved in and out of the truth in order to justify a trip to Israel as it actively continues to commit genocide against Palestinians. While in Israel, he failed to uphold his Pledge of Office and to comply with the ministerial code of conduct. He has made deeply offensive and unfounded accusations of antisemitism, because he is in a tailspin. I am sure that many of the same slanderous remarks will be recycled in the debate, as the DUP is not renowned for its creativity. Those accusations should be utterly rejected and condemned by all. It is an embarrassment to the institutions that big parties here claim that they want to protect at all costs Minister Givan continuing in his role as Minister of Education. I appeal to the Minister to do the right thing, make his apologies, accept that he is not fit to hold the post of Minister of Education, and step aside. Mr Speaker: Declan Kearney. Mr Kearney: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. [Translation: Thank you, Mr Speaker.] Top 12.15 pm Mr Speaker: You have five minutes, Mr Kearney. Mr Kearney: The participation of the Education Minister in his Israeli state-sponsored propaganda stunt was an obscene act, one that has caused deep offence. It has also been roundly condemned by teachers, unions, students and all right-thinking people across these islands. Minister Givan knew exactly what he was doing. His participation was premeditated. He knew that the use of his departmental social media would provoke widespread outrage. That, too, was premeditated. In doing this, he chose to ignore Israel's sadistic depravity and genocide against the Palestinian people. If there was ever the slightest doubt before, there is no doubting now that he is a genocide denier — an amoral, inhuman, incredible and grotesque position for anyone to adopt, but especially someone in public office. The Minister chooses to ignore the slaughter of over 20,000 innocent Palestinian children in Gaza, 1,000 of them under the age of 12 months. One child has been murdered every hour for the past two years, and 21,000 children have been left with permanent life-changing injuries. Limbs have been amputated without anaesthetic; hundreds have been starved to death by Israel's siege of Gaza; and Gaza is a graveyard for children, as described by UNICEF. The Minister has form in using these institutions to rake up the past of our political conflict and to consciously provoke and demonise. By acting as a prop for that propaganda stunt, you have aligned yourself with a rogue terrorist state — a state whose murderous bloodbath in Gaza has made it a pariah in the global community; whose leader is the subject of an international arrest warrant issued by the International Court of Justice (ICJ); whose genocidal war has violated every canon of international law, such as the genocide convention, the Rome statute, the Geneva Convention and the United Nations charter; and whose famine, genocide, torture, siege and carpet bombing of Gaza have been denounced by the United Nations, the International Court of Justice, B'Tselem, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the International Association of Genocide Scholars. Today, the state of Israel stands charged with and condemned for crimes against humanity. Your Israeli-sponsored trip and attempt to sanitise your complicity with a social media post on the Department of Education web page is an affront to the Assembly and to our power-sharing institutions. You do not own the Department of Education. It is the property of our peace settlement and the Good Friday Agreement. The arrogance that you have shown in defence of your actions since your return confirms your premeditation. There has been not one ounce of humility, compassion or regret for the people of Gaza or the anger that you have provoked. It is clear that you intended to cause rancour and division. Your actions are inevitably tied up with your personal political ambitions and your party's electoral pressures within political unionism, but, be that as it may, what you did was absolutely wrong. Denying genocide and defying international law are absolutely reprehensible. You have chosen to associate yourself with the perpetrators of a modern holocaust and then to revel in that decision. You should be ashamed. You can no longer command — Mr Speaker: I remind the Member — Mr Kearney: — confidence as a Minister of Education — Mr Speaker: Mr Kearney — Mr Kearney: — and you should go. Mr Speaker: Just a moment. I remind you that, when you say "you", you are actually referring to me. If you want to refer to the Minister, you should say "the Minister" or the other person, but, when you say "you", you are referring to the Chair. I remind you and other Members of that. Are you finished? Mr Kearney: Yes. Miss McIlveen: "Victory to the Palestinian Resistance" alongside a raised fist emoji. What a thing to write as Hamas, an internationally proscribed terrorist organisation, not only fired over 4,300 rockets indiscriminately into Israel but murdered more than 1,200 innocent men, women and children, raping and pillaging as they went. What a thing to write from the comfort of your home, thousands of miles away, as young people at a music festival were hunted down and slaughtered, young women were brutalised and hundreds were dragged off to an uncertain future and reduced to commodities. However, the mover of the motion felt that that was the most appropriate thing to post as the murderous brutality of the Hamas attacks unfolded on 7 October 2023. Those were and remain the deeply held sentiments of Gerry Carroll, as he submitted the motion of no confidence in the Education Minister. The motion is nothing more that an extension of his continued support for the brutal actions of Hamas on 7 October 2023. It is not a nuanced position. It is unequivocal support for the terrorist slaughter of men, women and children: an explicit anti-Israel position. That is at the root of the motion. The motion is not about the competence of the Education Minister or about what the Department did or did not do. It is not about any of those things. It is a convenient vehicle to attack Israel. It is a performative motion and, frankly, it is grotesque. Here we have a Minister who visited a school — not just any school but an integrated one where Arabs, Christians and Jews are educated together. In response, People Before Profit, Sinn Féin, the SDLP and the Alliance Party — a pan-nationalist pile-on — decide that that is enough for them and he needs to go. Is it any wonder that this place is ridiculed? Unsurprisingly, my party will not support the motion. We know that Gerry Carroll is a Hamas fanboy; that was clear from his tweet. We know that Sinn Féin have been long-time admirers of Hamas, having met them multiple times over the years, with Declan Kearney, Gerry Adams and Pat Sheehan all having courted them and tried to give them credibility. Sinn Féin have done the same with terrorist groups around the world. It is what they do. The SDLP, of course, is struggling for relevance, and being the official Opposition necessitates supporting pointless motions such as this. However, it would have been nice to think that the SDLP was better than that. It will be interesting to note what approach the SDLP takes in response to the outcome of court proceedings involving the Infrastructure Minister. If she is found to have acted unlawfully, what then? Or is it only going to do this when a unionist Minister visits Israel? Where was its criticism of its former party leader, Colum Eastwood, on his visit to Lebanon, funded by the Council for Arab-British Understanding, or is it only when fact-finding trips are organised by the Israeli embassy? Then we come to the Alliance Party. If ever there was a party that has drifted from its roots, this is one. It is not the party of Oliver Napier, Bob Cooper, John Ferguson and Basil Glass. It was a party that was once not neutral on the union and explicitly supported it, but now the world and his dog can see what its position is as, once again, it falls in behind nationalism and republicanism. Any party with any wit would have steered well clear of the toxicity of such a motion, tabled by Gerry Carroll and supported by Sinn Féin, but the Alliance Party could not help itself as it seeks to boost its credibility in nationalist areas. The people of Northern Ireland deserve better. Is this where we are as a society, where politicians are condemned for speaking directly to the innocent victims of the 7 October massacre, public representatives are not permitted to ascertain facts for themselves and we must source our news and current affairs only through avenues permitted by nationalism? No, thank you. Once this pantomime is over, perhaps we can get back to what we are paid to do. I support my colleague. Mr Tennyson: Recent months have not been good for the institutions or for politics more generally. There has been a race to the bottom marked by toxic culture wars, nasty personal insults and a politics that is rooted in fear, division and distraction, with the Chamber at times descending into farce. The propaganda mission by the Education Minister is but the latest distraction. The images of the Minister smiling for photographs in illegally occupied east Jerusalem that were posted on the Department's website were no accident. They were designed to provoke and stir controversy in order to deflect from a mismanaged budget, hikes in the cost of school meals and cuts to education support for some of our most vulnerable children. The hurt felt by pupils, parents and teachers as a result of that cynical stunt is real. They are appalled that a Minister who is responsible for the welfare of our children would not only accept hospitality from a Government who have killed a classroom of children every day but use public resources to whitewash that situation. In a power-sharing Executive, of course we will have different views. We will not always see eye to eye, and there will be times when we do not have confidence in Ministers' political positions or policy priorities. However, the motion is not about a simple policy disagreement or difference in political opinion; it goes to the heart of a flagrant disregard for international law and the ministerial code. Despite the bluff and bluster in many of the statements that we have heard from the DUP over the past two weeks and, indeed, often because of those statements, key questions remain. On 24 October, the Minister told the BBC that he was, in fact, there not in a ministerial capacity but in a party political one. That story has since changed, and it goes to the nub of the issue: if the Minister was there in a DUP capacity, he has misused departmental resources by promoting a political visit; if he was there as a Minister, he was potentially in breach of the Functioning of Government Act by not having officials present. Much more seriously, by entering illegally occupied territory in that official capacity, he has brought the Executive into disrepute by egregiously breaching UK foreign policy and ignoring international law. There is also a question about why the Minister had not declared that he was about to receive thousands of pounds in hospitality from the Israeli Government before rising in the Chamber to praise the actions of the IDF. A Minister in any other part of these islands who engaged in that conduct would already be gone. Of course, the Minister will be keen to claim that his permanent secretary has given him a clean bill of health in a report that, coincidentally, has not seen the light of day. However, I am aware that the head of the Civil Service is undertaking further enquiries that have not yet concluded. Ultimately, confidence is at the heart of the issue, and the manner in which the Minister has responded to the fiasco has not helped in that respect. It is clear that the confidence of teaching unions, the wider public and a majority of parties in the Chamber has been shattered by the Minister's behaviour. He could, at any point, have recognised and apologised for the hurt caused, committed to an independent review of his and his Department's actions or referred himself to the standards process, but, instead, he lashed out and doubled down. Successive attempts have been made in recent weeks, disgracefully, to overlay this debate with sectarianism and prejudice. They are not orange or green issues. People from across our community are horrified at the disregard for the ministerial code, international law and human rights. It is entirely possible to condemn the terrorism of Hamas on 7 October and the genocide that has followed. The previous Member to speak made reference to Oliver Napier and Bob Cooper: I mean, she is not fit to utter their names [Interruption.] The DUP, throughout the history [Interruption.] Throughout the history —. Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Tennyson: Throughout the history of the Alliance Party, the DUP has attacked us and impugned our integrity and our motives, so that certainly has not changed. We have been consistent, unlike her party, in standing up to paramilitarism, wherever it comes from, and standing up for the rule of law. Let it be beyond doubt: the comments of the proposer of the motion, Gerry Carroll, on 7 October were abhorrent and repulsive, and Alliance condemned those comments clearly at the time. Indeed, if Gerry Carroll held ministerial office, we would be in the Chamber supporting a motion of no confidence in him as a result of his conduct. Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up. Mr Butler: We are told that the motion was tabled because the Minister of Education failed "to uphold and support the rule of law" and breached the ministerial code of conduct. In truth, the motion tells us far more about the state of politics in Northern Ireland than it ever will about Paul Givan or the visit to Israel. It is performative and partisan. Worse than that, it misleads the public. Let us call it what it is: political theatre dressed up as moral outrage. Top 12.30 pm We in the Ulster Unionist Party, like the people of Northern Ireland, are horrified by the horrors, the death and the destruction in Israel and Gaza. We recognise that, across Northern Ireland, people hold a range of views on Israel and Palestine, and we note that some have taken issue with the Education Minister's actions. Those who tabled the motion of no confidence, however, should be honest with the people of Northern Ireland. It is politicking, pure and simple, and it will achieve little but the further entrenchment of views and attitudes across our society. I have said it before, and I will say it again: a Palestinian child and an Israeli child are of equal value. Their lives, education and future are all of equal worth. That simple truth should shape how we speak and act, especially when the world is torn by war and grief, particularly in the Middle East, but those driving the motion have chosen something different. They have chosen spectacle over substance and condemnation over consistency. I know that some who have signed the motion have done so from a place of genuine conviction. Their moral compass is far clearer than that of others who have attached themselves to it. Perhaps inadvertently, however, they have allowed themselves to be drawn into an alliance with those who would spin sincerity into spectacle and turn even principle into a prop for politics. The author of the motion, Gerry Carroll of People Before Profit, in an attempt to outdo Sinn Féin, accuses the Minister of failing to uphold the rule of law, yet, on 7 October 2023, as Hamas murdered, raped and butchered hundreds of innocent men, women and children, Mr Carroll posted on X, "Victory to the Palestinian Resistance". That post is still there today. That is hypocrisy at full throttle. It tells us all that we need to know about the double standards at play. We then have Sinn Féin, eager to reclaim the territory staked out by Mr Carroll. Some of its members have met Hamas representatives. Those individuals openly boast of their involvement in acts of terror, yet Sinn Féin now presumes to lecture others on moral responsibility and the rule of law. Once again, it is a case of the mote and the beam. Sinn Féin is quick to spot the fault in someone else but blind to the failings in its own ranks. When Sinn Féin Ministers attended the Bobby Storey funeral during a time of strict COVID restrictions, the rules were ignored. Public faith in government was shattered, yet there was no motion of exclusion, no 12-month sanction and no humility. There was only deflection. The people who justified that now claim to be guardians of the ministerial code. This is not about the rule of law but about the rule of convenience. The rules apply to others when it suits but never to Sinn Féin. The Minister of Education has informed the House that his visit to Israel has already been reviewed by his Department's permanent secretary and found to have followed proper procedure. I am sure that, for full transparency, the Minister will ensure that that review is published. I also understand that the head of the Civil Service is examining the wider handling of the visit. That is the correct and proportionate process for addressing such matters, not the kind of political show trial that we see here today. Until those reviews conclude, the Assembly should resist the temptation to play judge and jury for the sake of a headline. The motion drags the Assembly into performative outrage while our schools cry out for resources, our children wait months for special needs assessments and our teachers struggle to find basic classroom materials. If those who tabled the motion cared as much about our own children as they claim to care about the conflict in the Middle East, they would channel their energy into education reform and mental health support instead of political grandstanding. Northern Ireland faces deep and seemingly intractable problems, but I can think of few moments that illustrate our dysfunction more clearly than the motion. When hypocrisy outweighs humanity, theatre replaces truth and the beam closes our eyes to our own failings, we all lose sense of what really matters. The Ulster Unionist Party will not support the motion. We see it as performative, divisive and deeply hypocritical. It does no justice to the innocent victims who have lost their lives in Israel and Gaza. Until we learn to remove the beam from our own eye, we will remain blind to a better future for all our children — Palestinian, Israeli and Northern Irish alike — and — Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up. Mr Butler: — they richly deserve it. Mr O'Toole: My time is brief, so I will be clear about why we are here today. I will be clear about why the SDLP supports the motion of no confidence and why I am a signatory to it. We are not here solely because of Paul Givan MLA's views on Israel, which I and others in the Chamber find reprehensible and abhorrent. Nor are we are here solely to debate Israel's genocide in Gaza, which has scarred the moral conscience of the entire planet. We are here because of Paul Givan's misuse of office, his shameless compromise of Civil Service impartiality and his flagrant breach of a law that was passed in the Assembly four years ago. Yes, and all of it in territory that has been deemed by the international community, including successive British Governments of all stripes, to be illegally occupied. Israel's bombardment of Gaza, following the appalling and evil atrocities of 7 October, unleashed, as I said, a wave of revulsion across the world, and it has tested the ability of language to capture horror and misery. Today's debate is not simply about that. I do not think that there is any debate left to have on the justification of that, but had Mr Givan simply embarked upon a tour as a private MLA and a DUP representative, as he first claimed that he had done, we would probably not be here today. He would have angered and appalled people — perhaps, much to his delight, because that was the entire point — but that would not necessarily have been anything new. However, on 27 October, with the Minister having already been in Israel for several days, the Department of Education, at the Minister's instruction, posted a news story online and on social media about his visit to the Ofek School in occupied East Jerusalem, commending: "Israel’s innovative approaches to gifted education and inclusive learning." That communication is at the core of why we are here today. The Minister also posted a picture on his own account, which included a nameplate that described him as the "Minister of Education". I want to be precise and clear about why we are here today because Mr Givan has been imprecise and inconsistent and spoken with a forked tongued. He confirmed last week that, in addition to the extraordinary social media posts, officials had been involved in setting up that meeting, so it was an official ministerial meeting. He shakes his head, but his nameplate was in front of him, and he said last week that his officials helped him to set up the meeting. Under section 7 of the Functioning of Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021, he and all Ministers are obliged to ensure that official meetings are attended by at least one civil servant. The meeting has all the appearance of an official meeting: it was an official meeting. In my view, and that of the Opposition, he has clearly breached the Functioning of Government Act. Ironically, in the DUP's haste to outdo the TUV in offending people, it has broken a law that was introduced by the TUV. We then come to the matter of Civil Service impartiality in the NICS code. He said that the permanent secretary has given him a clean bill of health. We have not seen that, but I am afraid it has all the credibility of one of Donald Trump's medical exams. The content may not have mentioned the DUP by name, but it should have been obvious to the Minister, the special adviser, and, indeed, senior civil servants, including the permanent secretary, that a visit to occupied East Jerusalem was highly and profoundly controversial. Add to all of that the extraordinary situation in which a unionist Minister conducted an official visit to a place that has been deemed by the UK Government to have been illegally occupied for the past six decades. That is the precise diplomatic equivalent of visiting a school in Russian-occupied Ukraine, in Luhansk or Crimea, with one of Vladimir Putin's officials. Minister, you are not a stupid man — you certainly believe yourself to be very smart — but, even if you do not care about Palestinian suffering, that was a moronic, stupid thing to do. The Minister is not a stupid man, but he cannot resist provoking and outraging people. Even before the trip, he had pushed the envelope when it comes to politicising his Department. In the EA, he forced in a chief executive against the wishes of the EA board and forced in a serving DUP politician as chair of the Education Authority. He also had a permanent secretary leave in murky and unexplained circumstances. Minister, you and your colleagues have already begun deflecting and distracting from your appalling actions. Worse, Minister, you have tossed around the profound libel of antisemitism. People from all backgrounds have got in touch with me to say that they are angry at your actions. Today, your party will protect you from your deserved fate, even though the majority in the Chamber have lost confidence in you. You will no doubt feel vindicated. You are already crowing with the smile of a panto villain, but you know, deep down, that, as is so often the case in your party, the victory will be pyrrhic, because more and more people will turn off politics in this place and look to an entirely different future. Mr Givan, if you had shame or sense, you would be gone by now. Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up. Mr O'Toole: Sadly, you have neither. We support the motion. Mr Sheehan: The Israeli regime is full of unvarnished liars, and they have been caught out on numerous occasions, of which I will mention just two. On 17 October 2023, a rocket landed in the courtyard of Al-Ahli Hospital, and almost 300 Palestinian men, women and children were killed. They were blown to pieces. The Israeli regime said that it was a misfired Islamic Jihad rocket. When ballistic experts and sound pattern and sound wave experts were brought in to look at the evidence, it became clear that it had been the Israelis who bombed the hospital. On 23 March this year, in southern Rafah, the Israel military attacked a convoy of ambulances, a fire truck and a UN vehicle, and 15 paramedics were killed. The Israelis said that the convoy had advanced without any lights. The Israelis also buried the ambulances and the dead. It was only when the bodies were recovered and a mobile phone was recovered from one of them that what the Israelis had said was shown to have been absolutely untrue. The ambulances and the fire truck had approached with all their lights on. The Minister and the DUP do not want to listen to the likes of the UN, Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch when they say that Israel is committing genocide, but plenty of other reputable organisations have said that Israel is committing genocide: in Israel, B'Tselem, the Israeli human rights organisation, and Physicians for Human Rights; in the States, the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention, Jews Against Genocide, Jewish Voice for Peace and Genocide Watch; Médecins Sans Frontières; and Doctors Against Genocide, which is a global coalition of healthcare professionals, all say the same thing. The Minister would, of course, much prefer to accept the word of those who are wanted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Not once has anyone from the DUP, let alone the Minister, said that the killing of over 20,000 children, the maiming of tens of thousands of others and the destruction of the entire education system is wrong. Not one of you can say that. Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way? Mr Sheehan: Killing children is wrong, whether it happened here or is happening in Gaza. We have heard weasel words about the killings being appalling, regrettable and so on, but the DUP cannot even bring itself to say that the slaughter of children in Gaza is wrong. Where is the empathy? Where is the compassion? Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way? Mr Sheehan: Where is the humanity — Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way? Mr Sheehan: — from those who constantly bombard us — [Interruption.] Mr Speaker: Order. It is quite obvious that the Member does not want to give way. Let him carry on. Mr Sheehan: Where is the humanity from those who constantly bombard us with their Christian beliefs? That is a different sort of Christianity from the one that most Christians, I think, believe in. I ask the Minister to give a commitment that he will not go back to Israel while he holds the post of Education Minister, and I ask him to give that commitment today. There are many reasons why the Minister should resign. After the debate, we will see that he does not have the support of the majority of MLAs. Over the past year or so, we have seen that he is financially and economically illiterate. Now we hear about his inability to manage his staff. If he were the manager of a football team, it would be reported that he had lost the changing room. Rather than stand aside, however, he will continue to parrot the propaganda of those responsible for genocide, and he will hurl personal insults at those who support the no-confidence motion. All of that is deflection. The truth is that his actions are indefensible, and his position is untenable. Do the right thing, Minister: go now. You are an embarrassment. Mr Buckley: Today's pantomime confidence vote is nearing its final act, but, in case anybody has not been listening, let me issue a spoiler alert: the only resignation that there will be today is at the BBC for apparent breaches of impartiality. I have stated continually in the House that everybody is entitled to a different perspective and position on the Middle East and the conflict there. For the benefit of Mr Sheehan, every child and baby is innocent, no matter where they are in the world, and their killing is abhorrent and wrong. Is that clear enough, sir? The motion is nothing short of the imposition of a view that is held by some people. Top 12.45 pm Mr Middleton: Will the Member give way? Mr Buckley: I will. Mr Middleton: Does the Member agree that a number of current and former Ministers have certainly lost the confidence of the House? Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute. Mr Buckley: Absolutely. When we come to a time when it is deemed that a Minister has breached the ministerial code — say, via a court ruling, rather than by a pan-nationalist kangaroo court — what will be the position of those parties? If we want to talk purely about confidence in Ministers, the Executive and indeed previous Executives, we had better do just that. What about confidence in our supposed "First Minister for all", a lady who said that there was no alternative to IRA violence? We are being subjected to lectures from none other than Declan Kearney and Pat Sheehan about the murder of defenceless, innocent children and babies when their own military wing took the life of many innocent babies and children in this country. Sorry, but there is a brave degree of self-denial from the Members opposite. What about confidence in another Minister who signed the motion, namely the leader of the Alliance Party, Naomi Long? Some Members: She did not sign it. Mr Buckley: Sorry, I will correct that: she is the leader of a party that will support the motion, a lady whose party believes that those who planted bombs and pulled triggers must be elevated to the same status as innocent victims. What utter shame. She is a Minister of Justice who believes that men should be housed in women's prisons. I mean, is that not a point of confidence? Then, we have the Minister of Agriculture, Andrew Muir. Well, where do I start with this one? My goodness, his approach to agriculture is reminiscent of the man who thought that you could milk a cow by pulling its tail. This man — Mr Speaker: Will the Member get back to the motion, please? Mr Buckley: The Ulster Farmers' Union (UFU) has demonstrated that it has absolutely no confidence in that man as Minister. Then, there is the SDLP. Well, this will be brief. It will be brief, because voters issued their vote of no confidence in the SDLP at the last election. Mr Tennyson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The item in the Order Paper is a motion of no confidence in the Minister of Education. I ask for your ruling on whether anything that we have heard from Mr Buckley deals with that issue. Mr Speaker: I see where the Member is going, in that he is questioning whether other Ministers should be here. However, I encourage him to get back to the issue of the motion, which is about confidence in the Education Minister. Mr Buckley: Alliance Members are interested in talking about other Ministers’ records, but, when their own Ministers’ records are put up in lights, they run for the hills. They are records of dismissal and of hiding behind the desk while their Departments are in absolute chaos. The voters had their vote of no confidence in the SDLP. They are in opposition not out of choice but because the voters put them there. That is the truth. Then, we have — come on now, Members — Comrade Carroll, the conductor in chief. He has the SDLP, Alliance and Sinn Féin all doing the 'Cha-Cha Slide' to a leftist agenda. I mean, I would expect it from Sinn Féin, but what a slide to the hard left by the Alliance Party. It is a shameful approach. On 7 October 2023, Mr Carroll tweeted: "Victory to the Palestinian Resistance", when babies were being burnt in ovens, children were being killed and women were being raped. I will give him the chance, if he wants it, to withdraw it right now. Will he withdraw it? There is silence. That, my friends, is the man who is being propped up by the parties opposite. They have no shame. Mr Carroll, because you will not withdraw that comment, I cannot conclude anything other than that you are a rampant antisemite and that you hate Jews. Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Carroll: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it right and fitting for the Member to repeat things that are categorically untrue — Mr Buckley has done it once again — such as that I am antisemitic. That is a slur and a lie, and he should withdraw that remark right now. Mr Buckley: Withdraw your tweet. Mr Speaker: Order. I remind Members that, if they were to refrain from using words such as "antisemite", "racist" and various other things, that would help us to conduct our business. I talked at the outset about moderating our language, and I encourage Members to do so. Mr Buckley: The most interesting part of Mr Carroll's point of order is that he did not utter one word of regret about the tweet that he issued and had not one word of sympathy for those who were killed. That is hypocrisy, Members. The Minister of Education will still be the Minister of Education at the end of today's debate. He will get on with doing his job. He was put into office by members of this party, courtesy of those who voted for us at the election. He will serve all communities without fear or favour and ensure —. Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up. Ms Nicholl: Paul Givan is entitled to his views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but, in his role as Education Minister, he represents every child, school and parent, and that has weight. What message does promoting a state that is accused of war crimes and genocide send out to those whom he represents? We are obliged to ask the following questions: to what end? Whose story is he telling? Whose pain is he willing to see? Those are the voices that are missing from the Chamber today, and I will bring them in. The Palestinian community has asked me to read the following: "We in the Palestinian community are shocked and dismayed by Education Minister Paul Givan's visit to Israel and Jerusalem, the capital of Palestine under illegal Israeli occupation. During and after his visit, the Minister made statements praising the genocide in Gaza in which, so far, around a quarter of a million Palestinians — over 10% of the Gaza population — have been killed, wounded or remain missing. It is important to remind the Minister that Israel also destroyed Gaza universities and 95 of its schools, depriving 660,000 students of their right to education. Despite the announced ceasefire, Israel continues to bomb Gaza, killing and injuring hundreds of Palestinians. In the West Bank, Israeli settlers and soldiers attack Palestinians on a daily basis. Over the past two years, over 1,000 Palestinians have been killed in the West Bank, while thousands have been displaced through home demolitions, land confiscation and settlement expansion. The apartheid wall, the theft of land and over 1,000 military checkpoints and metal gates have devastated Palestinian life and undermined hope for a two-state solution. The Education Minister's abuse of his position and departmental resources to frame the suffering of the Palestinian people as a green and orange issue is inappropriate. This is not political or a partisan matter; it is a humanitarian tragedy that resonates across communities in Northern Ireland. Christian members of the Palestinian community in Northern Ireland would like to invite Minister Givan to hear more about their fellow Christians who are living under Israeli occupation in east Jerusalem, including chronic underfunding of their schools and hospitals, the confiscation of Christian-owned land for settlement expansion, and severe planning restrictions that have crippled their housing prospects. Such discrimination has decimated the Jerusalem Christian population and forced many to leave their ancestral city. Numerous reports and footage show Israeli settlers harassing and assaulting Christian priests and nuns and desecrating churches while Israel failed to take action. Also, 3% of Gaza's Christian community were killed during the genocide, and three historic churches were destroyed. These are not the actions of a democratic state. Finally, we the Palestinian community invite the Education Minister to meet us, including those who have lost family members in the ongoing genocide, to hear our concerns and to understand the plight of our loved ones in Gaza, who will face the harsh winter months without food, healthcare or shelter." It is our job as elected representatives to listen, feel and unite. What do we want for our children? Do we want more entrenchment and indifference, or do we want compassion and understanding? Many people have suffered in the conflict. I say this sincerely to the Minister: if you truly believe in education, fact-finding and understanding, please listen to the people in the Palestinian community in Northern Ireland. Listen to their plea and meet them. I have been working with the people in that community for 18 months now, and they have been telling me of their families, who are moving to safe places — places where they are told that they will be safe, but they are then bombed. They have been denied food, and babies have been denied breast milk and formula. All that was done by a state that paid for your visit. Please listen to their stories; listen to their pain. The values of the Assembly were founded on peace, justice and our shared humanity. Those values seem to be more important right now than ever before in the whole world. The Minister has an opportunity to show leadership here and to introduce hope where there has been despair. There is an opportunity for us to move forward. Please, meet the Palestinian community and offer some hope in this very sorry situation. I urge you to take that opportunity. Mr Brett: We have heard a lot of lofty words in the Chamber this afternoon about integrity, accountability and leadership, but let us be honest: that is not what the motion is about. It is about political opportunism but, more importantly, rank hypocrisy from parties who want to hold everyone else to a standard that they will not follow themselves. Let us start with the party opposite. The Assembly unanimously passed a motion of censure against Ministers who, during the COVID pandemic, put a Provo show of strength ahead of a public health message. That party's Members then sign a motion of no confidence in our Minister and think that we will take lectures from them. The only Minister in the history of this state to be found guilty of religious discrimination against a Protestant was a former Sinn Féin Minister. Where was your motion of no confidence then? It was nowhere to be seen. Two Sinn Féin Ministers and an SDLP Minister were in court for breaching the ministerial code when they attempted to remove a bonfire in north Belfast and heighten tensions. Where were your motions of no confidence then? They were nowhere to be seen. The very Minister who was found to have breached the ministerial code has, again, signed a motion of no confidence in our Minister. No lectures will be taken from those Benches. Then we have the Alliance Party, whose Members today said that they would support the motion. It is always claiming to be the party of the moral centre and preaching and lecturing to others. The Police Federation has a different view of the Alliance Party's ability, as it has publicly condemned an Alliance Minister for its failings. Let us not forget the Ulster Farmers' Union. The very people whom another Alliance Party Minister is meant to represent passed a unanimous vote of no confidence in that Minister. Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way? Mr Brett: I will happily give way. Mr Buckley: Does the Member agree that the Alliance approach is, "One rule for thee, a different for me"? Mr Middleton: Yes, yes. Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute. Mr Brett: How can a party that has lost the confidence of our Police Service, our justice system and our farmers come to the Chamber with a straight face and try to lecture us and then get into personal attacks on our deputy leader? Let me be very clear: my deputy leader will be returned without hesitation by the electorate of Northern Ireland at the next election. I am not quite sure that the same will be said for the deputy leader of the Alliance Party. Some Members: Hear, hear. Mr Brett: The SDLP, in its continued search for relevance, falls into line in behind Mr Carroll. We take our confidence from the people of Northern Ireland, who voted us into office to be joint head of government, unlike the SDLP, which was voted out of office, out of seats and into opposition because the people of Northern Ireland have no confidence in it whatsoever. I will not waste a huge amount of time on the proposer of the motion today, but it will not be lost on the people whom I represent that, when he had the opportunity to withdraw his antisemitic, disgraceful tweet, he did not take it. Thankfully, I know that, in 18 months' time, the electorate of West Belfast will pass verdict on Mr Carroll, and I look forward to welcoming an additional DUP Member to these Benches who will properly represent the people of West Belfast. Top 1.00 pm Mr Givan's record speaks for itself. Record pay settlement for teachers. Record pay for new teachers. The first time we have had a proper childcare support scheme. Bursaries for new teachers to ensure that the subjects that we want to see promoted are produced. A record number of SEN places. Also, he has been proven by the High Court to properly interpret legislation, unlike the Alliance Party, because its Bill and Act was found to be a nonsense. This party has confidence in Mr Givan. Our party leader has confidence in Mr Givan. The people of Northern Ireland have confidence in Mr Givan. He is not going anywhere. Get used to it. Mr Burrows: I rise with a deep sense of regret and dismay: regret that so many Members of this House are being led by a man whose conduct in the hours after that awful attack on the people of Israel was nothing short of outrageous and regret that the passion and intensity that they whip up at times like this are not replicated when we are dealing with domestic public services issues. If they were, perhaps services might not be in the mess that they are. Let me say at the outset that there has been terrible loss on both sides, but let us look at where this first began. The attack on the people of Israel was an evil one. Twelve hundred people were killed, 250 people were taken hostage, babies were butchered and women and girls were raped. That is the Palestinian resistance that this man fist-pumped, shamefully, on social media. That is the man whom you follow today. There has been devastating loss on both sides, and I have as much empathy for the bereavement of Palestinians as I do for Israelis. They are both made in God's image. Israel has a responsibility to prosecute its war with as much precision and proportionality as possible, but that is made nigh on impossible by the fact that Hamas weaved itself into the community in Palestine. It embeds itself into schools and hospitals. In fact, the fact that it weaves itself into every nook and cranny of Palestinian society is something that the next president of Ireland has hailed as a good thing. Israel can be judged, as every state should be, on its prosecution of war. Not by this Chamber, but by those with the expertise and the evidence to do so. Let me tell you why I will oppose the motion. Mr Carroll: Will the Member give way? Mr Burrows: No, I will not give way. I have heard enough from you, Mr Carroll. Some Members: Hear, hear. Mr Burrows: I will tell you why I and the Ulster Unionist Party oppose the motion. First, we will not be led by the man who celebrated the attack on the people of Israel. To the people who are being led, it is not too late to think again. The SDLP — the party of Hume, Mallon and McGrady — is following a man who tweeted, "Victory to the Palestinian Resistance". The Alliance Party, which was on the middle ground —. Ms Nicholl: Will the Member give way? Mr Burrows: No, I will not give way. The Alliance Party, which is trying to untangle itself from its dalliance with republican language about the past, is doubling down on that. I see the Member pull his face, but yesterday, when Ms Bradshaw was talking about memorials to terrorists, she said that they were for ex-combatants. That is the language of Sinn Féin. The people who blew up Enniskillen in the Poppy Day massacre are not ex-combatants; they were terrorists. That is why I will not support the motion. Secondly, the motion is destabilising. We did not support Mr Gaston's motion, which, actually, I thought was fairly presented in the sense that Minister Long had lost a lot of confidence. I think that her leadership is disastrous and that her language about victims was atrocious, but, if we all started backing motions that were brought about fellow Ministers in our Executive, there would be no government. Where would it end? It is proper scrutiny, not stunt politics and Punch and Judy politics, that brings real accountability. Thirdly, we must deliver for our people here in Northern Ireland. There are places in my constituency where planning permission cannot be passed to build homes and schools because the sewerage is at capacity, so people are moving out and the school population declines and the villages are dying. We should be here until midnight discussing those things. Basic infrastructure has failed because many in politics have failed. The challenges to special educational needs are huge. School buildings are crumbling. There are children who travel for three hours to get to school every day, but, no, we want to talk about matters of international affairs. I tuned in, slightly late, to the Education Committee last week. For a moment, I thought that I had tuned into the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs at the Houses of Parliament, but then I saw two Sinn Féin members, and, clearly, they would not go to Parliament. A Member: Will the Member give way? Mr Burrows: I will not give way. What are we doing debating these issues with such passion and intensity while we crumble here at home? I did not appeal to Sinn Féin's moral compass, because it has none. It is the party of the PIRA, of Hamas, of FARC, of ETA. You judge people [Interruption] by the company that they keep. [Interruption.] Mr Speaker: Order. The Member will be heard. Mr Burrows: For those reasons, we extend sympathy to and empathy for everyone affected by the crisis in the Middle East and every other humanitarian crisis. The biggest in the world at the minute is in Sudan, which the Member does not mention — Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up. Mr Burrows: — because it does not suit his antisemitic narrative. Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up. Mr Burrows. [Interruption.] Order. Three Members wish to speak after Mr Frew, whom I will call now, so I will apply the grace period to allow those Members to speak. However, I warn you that, if you give way, you will not get an extra minute. Mr Frew: Mr Speaker, what a farce; what an absolute farce. When we in the Chamber could be debating housing — we have a Minister here — or education in our own country — the Education Minister is here — what a farce it is that we are debating something that will make no material difference or have no outcome after the debate. It is an absolute farce. Members are bringing the Chamber into disrepute by bringing the motion to the House. It is incredible that we are spending and wasting time on a debate on a motion that will make no material difference. Why do they do it? Mr Speaker, I suggest that the parties have brought the motion as a sham fight — a pantomime. However, it is even more serious than that, because they have all been led by the nose by a Member who, to his shame, tweeted, "Victory to the Palestinian Resistance", followed by clenched fists. On the day that babies were being burnt in ovens, when children were being executed by a bullet in their head and when young girls and women were being raped and gang-raped in their homes, the Member tweeted, "Victory to the Palestinian Resistance", followed by clenched fists. It is not the first time that Sinn Féin has been spooked by Gerry Carroll and People Before Profit. I remember when it voted, last term, to reduce everybody's rent by 10% and had to claw that back through legislation. It has been in embarrassing situations before. Of course, I have no confidence whatsoever in Sinn Féin, any of its Members or any of its Ministers. However, I expect a different level from the SDLP, which has, in the past, deemed itself to be non-violent, and, of course, the Alliance Party, which models itself as being middle-of-the-road. How middle-of-the-road is this? There is no middle-of-the-road here. Instead of spending time debating the important issues that will affect our people — every one of our voters in Northern Ireland — we have this sham fight that will make no material difference. Shame on you all, because you have brought the debating Chamber into disrepute. It should not be the case, but you have, and it is shameful. Why should I have confidence in the other Ministers in the Executive? At times, in my time, especially over the past five years, the Executive have been poor. They have brought in measures that have hurt our people dramatically and drastically. Anxiety levels and mental health issues are through the roof. It was the Executive — it was the parties in the House — who did that to our people. The DUP fought against it, resisted it and opened up sooner. Lockdown philosophy is your fault, and you need to be held to account for it. Even during that time, Sinn Féin had a sham funeral oration in a graveyard for somebody who was not even buried there. It brought thousands out on to the streets at a time of public health dangers and risks. Did Sinn Féin care? No, it did not. Sinn Féin is just as bad as Boris Johnson, yet it will criticise him. Sinn Féin has the only Minister who has been taken to court and proven guilty on the grounds of religious discrimination against a protestant. Where was Alliance then? Where was the SDLP then? Why was there no motion then? This is drama, and you have all been spooked by the person in the corner: by the Member who tweeted, "Victory to the Palestinian Resistance", followed by clenched fists, when babies were being burned in ovens and young girls gang-raped in their homes. Shame on you all. When we should be debating issues important and significant for the children of Northern Ireland, the mask has slipped, and you have brought the House into disrepute. Shame on you all. Ms Hunter: Minister, you have been hailed by political commentators as a doer: a man who is getting things done. I begin by complimenting you, because I do think that you are a doer, but the problem is that you are not bringing anyone along with you. In the past number of weeks, you have been extremely and deliberately divisive, and, both last week and this week, when we were discussing humanitarian tragedies, you smiled like a Cheshire cat. It is not me who is saying that, Minister. Rather, it has been pointed out in the many messages that I have received from people from across our communities who feel outraged. Today's debate goes beyond the trip that the Israeli Government paid for, which was inherently political and divisive. In your role, Minister, you have not allowed girls to wear trousers to school, and you did not include in legislation a number of amendments that we had worked hard on in Committee to assist children with sensory needs and to provide period dignity for our young people. Today, we are asked to scrutinise the conduct and judgement of the Minister, who accepted a state-funded visit to Israel: a state that has engaged in the relentless and wholesale destruction of Gaza and that has killed innocent women and children. Those are the facts. What Mr Givan wishes to do as a private citizen is a matter for him. Mr Brooks: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given that the Minister did not make any decisions about amendments to the Bill in question, is it in order for the Member to challenge the Speaker's judgement on that issue? Mr Speaker: The Member can keep going. I do not want to be drawn into a further issue. Ms Hunter: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What Mr Givan does in his own time, as a private citizen, is a matter for him. What he wishes to do and where he wishes to visit as a DUP MLA, outside of his ministerial role, is a matter for him, but today's motion is simple. In his role as Minister, can we have confidence in him when he chose to lend the prestige of his office to his trip with the Israeli Government, who are carrying out what is arguably the greatest atrocity of this century? Minister, you pride yourself on being a believer in Jesus Christ. You pride yourself on being a Christian. You are proud to be someone who uplifts, educates and empowers children. You and your colleagues have rightly spoken out passionately about Christians being persecuted across the globe, yet Israel has bombed Christians in Gaza. Israel has killed Christians and their families in Gaza. You have stood, smiled and waved with the Israeli Government despite the fact that they have murdered innocent Christians, Muslims and others. It is important to mention that, because it has been painfully overlooked throughout the debate. I am not virtue-signalling or acting morally superior. I just genuinely do not understand why that is continually overlooked. The Minister of Education undertook a paid trip to a place with a Government who have bombed schools, universities and hospitals. That is beyond understanding. The Minister's decision has been criticised by the Northern Ireland Teachers' Council (NITC) as an: "overtly political and divisive act that serves to diminish confidence in his judgement". The Irish National Teachers' Organisation (INTO) stated that accepting the invitation is: "hard to comprehend, let alone justify". Those are not the words of the SDLP but the words of members of the public. There is an old proverb that states: "A fish rots from the head down." It is generally used to mean that, when an organisation or state fails, the leadership is to blame, because dysfunction starts at the top. The Minister has clearly failed to act correctly. He has failed morally; he has failed professionally; and he has failed the children, parents and teachers of Northern Ireland. Top 1.15 pm Today's motion is not sectarian; it is certainly not antisemitic; it is not about orange and green; and it is not selective outrage. The violence of 7 October was wrong, and the continued slaughter of innocent Palestinian people to this day is wrong. Today's motion gives voice to so many across Northern Ireland about how they feel. It is led by the people of Northern Ireland: the pupils, parents, unions and teachers who have sent us all, I imagine, countless messages about their outrage. I speak for them when I say this: no more. It is time for the Minister to resign. Mr Kingston: It is understood that some Members and parties in the Assembly disapprove of other Members taking part in the official visit to Israel last month. They are entitled to that view, and we are entitled to support the Members who took part in the visit, which, clearly, made a strong impression on them. However, the fact that Sinn Féin, the Alliance Party and the SDLP are being led on the matter by Gerry Carroll MLA, who has the most extreme anti-Israeli views, is utterly appalling. As we have repeatedly stated, Gerry Carroll posted on social media on the very day of the diabolical slaughter, rape and kidnapping of Israeli and international citizens by Hamas on 7 October 2023, "Victory to the Palestinian Resistance", along with the image of a clenched fist. That was and remains a shameful message. Shame on the parties that align themselves with his position on Israel in the motion. Those parties are supporting a stunt motion that will, of course, come to nothing. The named supporters of the motion are all members of the Finance Committee. At the Committee last week, the SDLP Chair pushed forward a proposal, which split the Committee, resulting in Ayes 5, Noes 4, nationalist and Alliance against unionist, to investigate the actions of the Education Minister, Paul Givan, in taking part in the trip to Israel and, in particular, a post on social media that he visited a school, which is not surprising. Ms Nicholl: Will the Member give way? Mr Kingston: No, I will not have time. The DUP and UUP members said that, if the Committee had any sense of consistency, it would also then investigate the Sinn Féin Economy Minister, Caoimhe Archibald, who recently announced that she had issued an instruction to stop her officials taking part in UK trade discussions with Israel and to prevent Invest NI support from going to any companies from the Northern Ireland defence industry — an area of excellence — whose products or components might be supplied to Israel. That is the imposition of her political views on officials, and we in the DUP seek to bring that matter before the full Executive. Dr Aiken: And the UUP. Mr Kingston: And the UUP, which supports that. However, the double standards of the Finance Committee were in full view when the members who voted to investigate the DUP Minister divided the Committee — Ayes 4, Noes 5 — in voting not to investigate Sinn Féin Minister Caoimhe Archibald: nationalist and Alliance against unionist. Everyone can see the clear double standard in play. Likewise, the motion before us is entirely about politics; it is not about principle. We in the DUP stand 100% behind and beside our Minister, and we will have no part in this charade. Mr Gaston: I want to make it clear from the start of my comments that the motion is not about justice, it is not about principle, and it is certainly not about integrity. The motion is Punch and Judy politics, and, my goodness, it is a poor attempt at that. What we are witnessing today — Mr Sheehan: Will the Member give way? Mr Gaston: — is the art of left-wing political theatre — Mr Sheehan: Will the Member give way? Mr Gaston: — with Gerry Carroll writing the script. Do not worry, Pat, once I get to you, I will certainly give way. I will give way to you, Pat, and I hope that you will do the same for me the next time. You are nothing but a hypocrite. When I get to you, I will certainly give way. My goodness, we have Gerry Carroll writing the script and Sinn Féin, the SDLP and Alliance falling into place right on cue. Getting to serious matters here, if there were any substance to the motion, section 30 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 exists for exceptional circumstances where a Minister has demonstrably breached the law or, indeed, the solemn Pledge of Office. That determination must rest in evidence and depend on due process. The Functioning of Government Act 2021, passed by the Assembly, provides precisely that process. When an allegation arises, it should be referred to the Assembly Commissioner for Standards, the independent office created to investigate and report. That route was designed to remove partisanship from judgement, yet the proposers of the motion bypassed it entirely. There was no investigation, no report and no findings before they came to the Assembly today for this political theatre; just accusation to suit the political narrative. If the rule of law truly mattered to those who tabled the motion, they would have allowed the commissioner to examine the facts before seeking to exclude a Minister from office for their own social media likes. It is especially rich for those who have never accepted the rule of law to give lectures. We are asked to believe that Sinn Féin now stands as the defender of probity while it continues to glorify terrorists who murdered our police officers, soldiers and civilians. Eighteen years ago last month, Paul Quinn, a 21-year-old, was stripped to his underwear and beaten for half an hour with iron bars and nail-studded cudgels. Every bone in his body was broken by the IRA. At the time, a Sinn Féin Minister, Conor Murphy, blackened that young man's name. Sadly, there was no vote of no confidence to remove him from office. Do not come to the House and tell us that you care and have compassion for young people in Gaza, when the same parties turned a blind eye to a 21-year-old being beaten to death on his own doorstep. This week, as our nation gathers to remember the fallen men and women who gave their lives to uphold the rule of law, we still have a Sinn Féin First Minister who, only weeks ago, refused to describe the Enniskillen Poppy Day massacre as murder. Sinn Féin spokesman, Mr Pat Sheehan: my goodness, he is well equipped. He is the cash-and-carry bomber from West Belfast, who does not like to take an intervention to give me the opportunity to call out his hypocrisy. His party stood shoulder to shoulder with Hamas, and he does not even have the guts to let Members come in and challenge him on that. I will go back to the newly crowned leader of the nationalist and republican alliance: Mr Carroll. As Israeli women were raped, children kidnapped and grandmothers murdered, he tweeted, "Victory to the Palestinian Resistance". Mr Buckley gave him the opportunity to retract that, but he did not take it. Shame on him. Members will troop through the Lobbies today behind Mr Carroll — Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up. Mr Gaston: — who now leads your circus. Mr Speaker: Your time is up, Mr Gaston. Mr Gaston: Members must know what that man stands over to this day. Mr Speaker: Time is up, Mr Gaston. Mr Gaston: Shame on any of you who follow Mr Carroll into the voting Lobbies. Mr Speaker: I call the Minister of Education. You have 15 minutes. Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): Mr Speaker, I will not be taking any interventions. I welcome the opportunity to respond to the debate and to take the opportunity to expose the toxic mix of antisemitism, anti-unionism and hypocrisy that is at the heart of the motion. The motion was proposed by a man who has never condemned the murder of over 1,200 Israelis and is now backed by a coalition of those who will jump on to every bandwagon going. The debate has exposed the ugly face of pan-nationalism and its fellow travellers. I am confident that, when the votes are cast, the attempt to drive me from office will have failed, but, in the process, some deeper truths will have been revealed. Those truths will not be lost on the unionist community. We have seen the informal creation of a new coalition of Sinn Féin, the SDLP and the Alliance Party under the leadership and direction of Gerry Carroll. We have witnessed a calculated attempt to drive a unionist Minister from office, not for misconduct but simply for daring to dissent from the prevailing anti-Israel orthodoxy of Irish nationalism. That is not principled politics; it is an attempt at ideological purging. We have had a glimpse into a new Ireland. It is not a land flowing with milk and honey but a land where unionists serve only at the pleasure of and on terms dictated by nationalists and republicans, aided and abetted by the Alliance Party. It is a vision not of equality but of subjugation. The motion has not just targeted me; it has sent a chilling message to the unionist community that our convictions, our values and our right to engage with the wider world are to be policed and punished. It is a warning to every unionist voice that dares to speak outside the lines that have been drawn by nationalism. It tells our community, "You may participate", but only on their terms. You may speak but only if you say what they want to hear. It is because those truths have revealed themselves that I welcome the motion and the opportunity to reply today. Let me begin with the trumped-up charges drafted by Mr Carroll but signed and endorsed by others. The motion suggests that I do not support the rule of law and have breached the ministerial code in some undefined way. It is signed by those who, for generations, refused to recognise the police, the courts and the rule of law in Northern Ireland and still claim that there was no alternative to murder, including the murder of over 70 children by the Provisional IRA. We truly are in Alice in Wonderland territory. What is it that the MLAs who speak and seek a political lynching want? Is it to rebuke me for my conduct in visiting a school where Jews, Arabs and Christians are educated together? No. It is to exclude me from office altogether. It is a form of political internment — exclusion without a proper trial — not for the minimum period of three months but for the statutory maximum of 12 months, indicating that there can be no greater punishment for any Minister, no matter their conduct. What is the case against me? Going to Israel on a fact-finding mission to hear from the victims of terrorism? Going to a country with which the United Kingdom retains full diplomatic relations and an embassy in Tel Aviv? Going to visit a school during that trip? Are Members seeking to tell me what to think or where to go? Is it, as some would suggest, merely asking the Department to publicise my visit to a school — yes, a school — on the departmental website and on social media, a request that was properly approved at the highest level in the Department before it was issued? As I said last week, my permanent secretary assessed the Department's role with regard to the trip and concluded that its involvement was limited and administrative in nature. That was deemed appropriate, given the need to manage the Israel trip within my broader ministerial diary and the need to cancel other engagements. Where do those alleged offences fit into the annals of the Assembly? Has it been forgotten that, far from simply visiting a school, there are Members in the House, some of whom have served as Ministers, including as Education Minister, who were personally guilty of the most heinous crimes without one word of regret or remorse? The Assembly has considered exclusion motions on a handful of occasions, so let us compare the gravity of those allegations with those that I face today. Are today's trumped-up charges truly more serious than the refusal of the IRA to decommission its weapons and to continue to murder people when Sinn Féin remained in government in the early years of devolution? Are they more serious than when the police raided Sinn Féin's offices in this very Building, investigating a suspected spy ring on the back of the IRA's break-in at Castlereagh police station and its training of FARC terrorists in Colombia? Remember this: I went to visit children in a school, whereas Sinn Féin's partners in the IRA went to Colombia to teach terrorists how to use car bombs. That is the contrast; that is the truth. Top 1.30 pm What of the countless occasions when no exclusion motion was brought? Is it more serious than when an industrial tribunal found Conor Murphy to have discriminated against a Protestant on religious grounds and that his evidence was "implausible and lacking credibility"? There was no exclusion motion then. Is it more serious than when Margaret Ritchie, Mark Durkan and Michelle O'Neill were separately found, by the High Court, to have acted unlawfully and in breach of the ministerial code? There were no exclusion motions then. Is it more serious than when the IRA murdered Kevin McGuigan on the streets of Belfast, and the police and security services confirmed that Sinn Féin continued to operate subject to the direction of the Provisional IRA army council? There were no exclusion motions then. Is it more serious than when the then deputy First Minister brazenly and unapologetically violated the Executive's own COVID regulation at the peak of a global health crisis, undermining public trust and setting a dangerous precedent at a time when leadership was needed most? There were no exclusion motions then. There was no outrage and no accountability. What of my accusers? Do they come with clean hands? Gerry Carroll, the author of the motion, is the same man who tweeted "Victory to the Palestinian Resistance" as Israelis were being murdered — a tweet that remains on his timeline to this day and for which he has never apologised. That is the man who would stand in judgement of me, but Gerry Carroll does not stand alone. No longer at the margins of political acceptability, others row in behind him to create Gerry Carroll's coalition of hate. What of Sinn Féin's Deputy Chair of the Education Committee, Mr Pat Sheehan? He is a man with a chequered past to say the least. Having once been sentenced to 15 years for bombing a cash and carry, following his release he attempted to bomb a security checkpoint in Belfast. On that occasion, he was convicted and sentenced to serve 24 years and was released only under the terms of the Belfast Agreement. Now, he is not just an MLA but a friend of Hamas. No wonder it took his party leader five days, following the horrendous events of 7 October 2023, to condemn the attacks on Israel. Sinn Féin alleges that the Israelis are guilty of genocide, but allegations of genocide are no impediment to Sinn Féin's approach to China. We can look at the genocide of the Uyghur community that is taking place in China, but Sinn Fein's hypocrisy is such that it is prepared to turn a blind eye whenever it suits. What of the Alliance Party, which is now a bedfellow of Gerry Carroll as well as a regular bedfellow of Sinn Féin? Mr Mathison accused me of being on a propaganda visit. That is grossly offensive. If he had seen and heard what I saw and heard, he would not have said such a thing. The motion is not about justice but ideology. It is not about conduct; it is about control. I will continue to speak up for those who need to have their voices heard. I was in Yad Vashem, the national Holocaust memorial centre, and will remember the six million Jews — men, women and children — who were murdered in the Holocaust. While the debate has helped to expose and reveal the true face of Gerry Carroll's coalition and the hypocrisy that is at the heart of the opposition that has been levelled at me, it is a distraction from the work that I have been doing — we have been doing a lot. While the Alliance-led Education Committee has been pondering whether a three-year-old can be trans, I have been focusing on what happens in the classroom. In my first 18 months, I ensured that the starting pay for teachers increased by over £7,500 to £31,650. More generally, teachers' pay has increased by between 16% and 18%. Later this month, the independent review of teacher workload will report, and we will take forward a package of measures to ensure that teachers can focus on the place in which they matter the most: the classroom. On behalf of the Executive, I have delivered the most meaningful package of childcare measures in the history of Northern Ireland. Later this week, I will submit the early learning and childcare strategy to the Executive for consideration. I am undertaking a far-reaching programme of reform to support special educational needs. I have introduced new guidance to discourage the use of mobile phones in schools. I have introduced legislation to ensure that school uniforms are affordable. I have brought common sense back to our education system by making it clear that biological boys should not be playing in girls' sports, using girls' toilets or changing in girls' changing rooms. In the face of opposition in the House, I have been vindicated by the courts for correctly applying the law that the Assembly passed on integrated education. I have assembled a team of international educational experts to ensure that Northern Ireland will have a world-leading education system. In TransformED, I have launched the most far-reaching and comprehensive reform of education in generations, focusing on curriculum, assessment, school improvement and qualifications, all of which is underpinned by a focus on and investment in teacher professional learning. When implemented, that will help to close the attainment gap for disadvantaged children and raise standards for every child. I have invested £31 million in teacher professional learning in the largest-ever intervention of that kind. In short, by learning from others and building on our own successes, we are creating an education system that can compete with the very best across the world. That is the ambition that I have for every child. To conclude, the motion is not a stand for principle; rather, it is a stand for political convenience. It is not about upholding standards; it is about silencing dissent. The message is clear: if you dare to think differently, if you dare to stand with Israel and if you dare to speak up for victims of terrorism, you will be hunted, hounded and hauled before the Assembly. I will not be silenced. I will not be intimidated. I will not be removed by those who preach tolerance but practise exclusion. I will not apologise for standing with victims of terrorism. I will not apologise for visiting a school where Jews, Arabs and Christians learn together. While others indulge in performative outrage, I will continue to deliver for our children, our schools and our future. Whether those people like it or not, so long as my party entrusts me with this office, I will be here. I will quote Tennyson's 'Ulysses': "To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." Despite the best efforts of Mr Carroll's coalition of hate, we on this side of the House will not yield. The unionist people of Northern Ireland will not yield, and we will not be silenced by those who once brought terror to these shores to drive us from office. The true nature of their new Ireland is exposed. I oppose the motion and all those who have brought it. Some Members: Hear, hear. [Interruption.] Mr Speaker: I call Deirdre Hargey to make a winding-up speech. [Interruption.] Order. [Interruption.] The member of the public will be removed. [Interruption.] [Applause.] Mr Speaker: Order. Order, Members. Miss Hargey: I thank the proposer of the motion. We in Sinn Féin are glad to support it. I am concerned by the opening and ending to the Minister's statement, because I thought that he was here as the Education Minister to serve all our community, not speaking as a unionist politician. I ask you to reflect on that. Minister, you are here as the Education Minister, and that is about representing all the communities here, be they unionist, nationalist, republican, loyalist, minority ethnic or those from the Palestinian community who are here. You are to represent all the communities that make up our society. The Minister's decision to use his visit to Israel and to use departmental resources to promote a visit in the occupied territories is wrong, and, I believe, political. Last week, the Minister stated in the Chamber that he was formally invited by Israel — a trip that was planned and organised by the Israeli embassy. That was a political visit and an Israeli-paid-for propaganda visit that was planned well before the Minister made his disturbing speech from the Back Benches the week before he went to Israel, thanking and praising the IDF. Remember that over 50,000 Palestinian children have been murdered or injured in Gaza, and almost 500 teachers have been killed at the hands of the IDF. An enforced Israeli-made famine has taken place in Gaza, and the army enforces its Government's policy of starving an entire population. That is the context in which the Minister visited the Ofek School, situated in East Jerusalem, which is in the occupied Palestinian territories. On 19 July 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered a landmark opinion that the occupation of Palestinian territories is against international law. It is unlawful, but still this Minister chose to visit and to promote his visit on his departmental website. The ICJ further stated that Israel's: "policies and practices amount to annexation of large parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territory." Israel's restrictions on Palestinians: "in the Occupied Palestinian Territory constitutes systemic discrimination". Where the Minister visited, there is systemic discrimination against the Palestinian people. The court advised states to avoid any action that would maintain the current situation, but you ignored that advice. Indeed, the British Government, along with other Governments, also see this as illegal activity by Israel and have issued advice pertaining to that. Yet this Education Minister thought that he would flout that advice and use the Department of Education's resources in promoting his visit. The Minister stated: "No departmental resources were used to publicise any political message." If only that were true. Publicising the message that East Jerusalem is a normal society is political propaganda. It is a message that is consistently given by the Israeli state, a political propaganda message that this Minister chose to parrot and that breaches international law. I once spoke in the Chamber of one of the political speeches that most inspires me, made by Tony Benn, the late British MP, on the Iraq war. He spoke of his lived experience as a child in Britain during the period of a world war and the impact on his community. He spoke of 24 October 1945, when the United Nations Charter was passed, and how that generation was determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war — an era that enacted human rights law and standards. Over recent days, we have also heard the well-known phrase, "lest we forget", as part of remembering those wars. We should all understand and never forget those periods of global history and that we need to learn from the past. Oh, how we have forgotten. International law has been torn up by Israel, or set alight, as in the words of Israel's Defence Minister: "Gaza is burning". That Minister, along with the Israeli Prime Minister, has been issued with an international arrest warrant by the International Criminal Court for war crimes against the Palestinian people. The Education Minister visited a regime that has war crimes warrants out for their arrest, for war crimes against the Palestinian people. Where do these actions leave international law? In recent weeks, a UN rapporteur who oversees the inclusion of women and children has said how the actions of the Israeli Government towards the Palestinian people normalise atrocities globally. What a stark and depressing statement. Indeed, during the Minister's visit to Israel and to the school in the occupied territories, there was another IDF attack on Gaza, which killed six children. I wonder whether the Minister praised the IDF on that visit. In this context, the teaching unions have rightly condemned the Minister's actions. The wider community has condemned them and, as others have reflected, condemnation has come from across the community. At my constituency office, I have been inundated with messages, not just from nationalists and republicans but from right across the community in South Belfast and, indeed, from East Belfast as well. That anger and those sentiments are backed up by international condemnation of Israel's actions, including by international courts, which have made rulings of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Top 1.45 pm That is the context in which Paul Givan made his visit. More importantly and sickeningly, he boasted about it on the airwaves in the midst of 50,000 children having been murdered and injured; over 500 teachers having been murdered; international law having been broken and ignored; a forced, man-made famine; forced displacement; and, most grotesque of all, a genocide. Anyone who calls this a pantomime needs to take a serious look at themselves. This is not a pantomime; it is about a breach of international law and the genocide being committed by the Israeli state. Those of us here today who support the motion stand with international law and international human rights organisations that have called out the actions of the Israeli state. We stand with teachers and teaching unions and the young people who go to school here; indeed, we stand with the wider community, which, I believe, is also repulsed by the Minister's actions. We do so lest we forget Israel's war crimes against the Palestinian people and the Education Minister's attempts to sanitise them. The community sees that, and we support its call for you to go, Minister. Mr Speaker: Before I move to the Question, I remind Members that it requires cross-community support. Question put. The Assembly divided: Ayes 47; Noes 33 AYES NATIONALIST: Dr Archibald, Mr Baker, Mr Boylan, Miss Brogan, Mr Delargy, Mrs Dillon, Miss Dolan, Mr Durkan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Finnegan, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Miss Hargey, Ms Hunter, Mr Kearney, Mr Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mr McAleer, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McNulty, Mrs Mason, Ms Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs O'Neill, Mr O'Toole, Ms Reilly, Mr Sheehan OTHER: Ms K Armstrong, Mr Blair, Ms Bradshaw, Mr Carroll, Mr Donnelly, Ms Egan, Mrs Guy, Mr Honeyford, Miss McAllister, Mr McMurray, Mr Mathison, Ms Mulholland, Ms Nicholl, Mr Tennyson Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Carroll, Miss Hargey NOES UNIONIST: Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Ms D Armstrong, Mr Beattie, Mr Brett, Mr Brooks, Ms Brownlee, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Mr Burrows, Mr Butler, Mrs Cameron, Mr Chambers, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mrs Erskine, Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew, Mr Gaston, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Irwin, Mr Kingston, Mrs Little-Pengelly, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Martin, Mr Middleton, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Robinson, Mr Stewart Tellers for the Noes: Mr Brett, Mr Buckley Total Votes 80 Total Ayes 47 [58.8%] Nationalist Votes 33 Nationalist Ayes 33 [100.0%] Unionist Votes 33 Unionist Ayes 0 [0.0%] Other Votes 14 Other Ayes 14 [100.0%] Mr Clarke acted as a proxy for Mrs Erskine. Question accordingly negatived (cross-community vote). Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Mr Speaker, may I ask for your guidance? During the debate, Mr Kingston talked about business in the Finance Committee. To be clear — I am sure that you will agree — the business of Statutory Committees includes what is covered by that Department. In this case, the Civil Service code — Mr Speaker: I am sorry, Mr O'Toole. I will take the point of order, but I will do so after Question Time, which has to start at 2.00 pm under Standing Orders. I now pass over to the Principal Deputy Speaker. (Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair) Top 2.00 pm Oral Answers to Questions The Executive Office Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Question 7 has been withdrawn. Victims and Survivors: Memorial 1. Mr Boylan asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the work to progress a permanent memorial to victims and survivors, as recommended by the historical institutional abuse inquiry report. (AQO 2640/22-27) Mrs Little-Pengelly (The deputy First Minister): Victims and survivors of historical institutional abuse (HIA) have endured unimaginable pain and suffering over many years. We recognise the importance of fulfilling the final recommendation of the Historical Institutional Abuse Inquiry report to honour those who suffered, including those who did not live to see justice or acknowledgement. Following extensive engagement with victims and survivors, we are pleased to confirm that agreement has been reached to place a memorial plaque in the Great Hall of Parliament Buildings. We have considered the views expressed by victims and survivors and agreed the final wording for the plaque. The Speaker has confirmed that the Assembly Commission is content with the final wording, and officials are working closely with the Speaker's Office to take the final steps. We thank the Speaker for his continued support in helping us to deliver this important inquiry recommendation. The memorial will ensure that the victims and survivors are permanently and respectfully remembered and acknowledged. Mr Boylan: I thank the deputy First Minister for her answer. When will the memorial plaque be unveiled? Mrs Little-Pengelly: I am pleased to say that, as it is in its final stages, it is just a matter of ensuring that the final plaque is prepared for installation. The First Minister and I hope to be in a position to formally put up the plaque early in the new year. Ms Bradshaw: The update on the plaque is good news. What work is going on between victims and survivors' groups and the Arts Council on the wider programme of memorialisation that the inquiry report recommended? Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. As she is aware, we have included the Arts Council in taking the matter forward. That was a recommendation, as she knows, from the Hart report. It has been outstanding for such a long period because of the need to find as much consensus as possible on a matter that is both sensitive and incredibly important to victims across the piece. We have always been acutely aware that not all victims and survivors have the same view on every matter. We have therefore worked carefully with them, and I am really pleased that we have found a way through on what was a challenging issue over the past number of years. I have no doubt that there will be the same challenges with local memorialisation, but we want the process of working with people to be victim-centred. It also has to be trauma-informed. That will take time, working with the Arts Council and potentially with councils. Local groups may want to see something a bit different in their area, and we need to have the flexibility to take them into account. Once the plaque is completed, work will continue at pace to ensure that the commitment to local memorialisation is fulfilled as well. Mrs Cameron: What more can be done to support those who come under the range of legacy schemes, including the historical institutional abuse (HIA) redress scheme and the victims' pensions process, many of whom face difficulties in having their situation understood and recognised? Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her important question. Those schemes are so meaningful to so many people. They are long overdue. It is recognition of a wrong that was done in the past. That wrong was not done by anyone in this place — indeed, it was done by very few people, if any, in those institutions or organisations today — but it was a wrong that was done, and that needs to be acknowledged and addressed. We do not just have the HIA redress scheme. We are about to commence our mother-and-baby homes redress scheme. We also have our pension scheme for people who were severely injured. I have talked to people who are going through that process. It can be a re-traumatising and frustrating process. Just over the past week, I spoke to people who have applied on the basis of post-traumatic stress disorder, particularly those who served in our armed forces and the then RUC. It was an incredible thing to step forward in those most difficult of circumstances. People saw their friends, colleagues and family members killed in very difficult circumstances. They have suffered psychological injury. Experts connect that directly to what they experienced. Often, however, they are unable, at the moment, to get help from that scheme. That needs to be addressed. Our understanding of the nature of mental health issues and how they come about has evolved significantly. I do not believe that, at the moment, that scheme takes that into account. However, that does not mean that people should not get that help and support. Of course, I would urge the panel to use maximum flexibility in order to reflect the reality of how mental ill health can happen as a result of those traumatic events. Ulster Boxing Council: Equality Commission Review 2. Ms Brownlee asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for their assessment of the Equality Commission’s recently published review of the Ulster Boxing Council. (AQO 2641/22-27) Mrs Little-Pengelly: We recognise that sport plays a vital role in bringing people and communities together, and we welcome the report and its call for a series of reforms to ensure fairness and transparency in the sport. It is encouraging that the Equality Commission has recommended the establishment of an oversight panel to support the effective implementation of the recommendations. We also welcome that the commission will continue to engage with stakeholders on that important matter. We look forward to seeing the outworkings of the report. Ms Brownlee: I thank the Minister for her answer. Does she agree that it is long past time that Northern Ireland's sportsmen and sportswomen should be able to compete internationally under their national flag by right? Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her important question because some of the important issues that have been highlighted in that case are common in too many other places as well. Of course, I welcome the fact that the report has now been shared. I welcome the commitment on action. I understand that, tomorrow, there will be a statement in the House from the Minister for Communities on that important issue. However, the Member is absolutely right: the situation in too many sports is that you cannot, and do not have the choice to, compete under your national flag for Northern Ireland. That needs to be addressed. I have worked with many different sports bodies. It is a mixed picture depending on what the sport is. I believe that it should be an enshrined right of this place that you have the ability, should it be in boxing, athletics or fishing, to compete for your country, Northern Ireland, under the flag of your country. I would like to see that addressed not just here and across the UK but, indeed, by international sporting bodies and organisations. AI Strategy 3. Ms Nicholl asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on an AI strategy. (AQO 2642/22-27) Mrs Little-Pengelly: Mr Speaker —. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, with your permission, I will answer questions 3 and 7 together. The Office of AI and Digital, under the leadership of Professor Helen McCarthy, is preparing a comprehensive strategy for the ethical adoption of AI in the public sector. That is a collaborative effort, which draws on expertise from across government, industry and academia. The scoping phase of that work is now complete. It incorporated input from a diverse group of stakeholders, which has been instrumental in shaping the key pillars of the strategy. To support that drafting phase, the office set up two key groups: an external AI advisory panel, made up of industry leaders, including the Artificial Intelligence Collaboration Centre (AICC) and local universities; and a government AI network, which brings together representatives from all nine Departments. Efforts are under way to consolidate feedback from the advisory panel and the government AI network. The government AI network will reconvene in December to review and discuss an early draft of the strategy. Taking an iterative approach will help to ensure that the strategy is robust, inclusive and future-proofed. At the heart of the strategy is a firm commitment to the ethical and responsible use of AI, which is embedded in the governance pillar. The governance pillar is grounded in the principles of transparency, respect and fairness, ensuring that AI is deployed ethically and responsibly across Departments. By embedding those principles, we reinforce our commitment to inclusive governance and to ensure that AI solutions are developed and used in ways that are morally responsible, socially beneficial and aligned with human values. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Question 7 was withdrawn, so it cannot be grouped. Only question 3 can be considered. Ms Nicholl: I thank the deputy First Minister for her answer and her emphasis on the responsible and ethical use of AI. I agree with that. Given that Northern Ireland has the potential to be a world leader in this space — all the businesses tell us that — and that we need to act with speed to deliver, is the deputy First Minister able to talk to a more specific timetable for rolling out the AI strategy? Mrs Little-Pengelly: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Due to the seamless transition from the previous item of business into Oral Answers to Questions, I do not have the updated file. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: It is OK; I have been called worse. Mrs Little-Pengelly: Nor did I realise that question 7 had been withdrawn. That is why I requested permission for the questions to be grouped. Apologies. The Member is absolutely right. We have a timetable for phase 2 and phase 3. Phase 2 is now complete. As I am sure the Member is aware, a task and finish group has been established by Professor Helen McCarthy, who is in our new post of Chief Scientific and Technology Adviser (CSTA). She has been a real breath of fresh air. That shows the benefit, even though hers is only a part-time posting, of someone's coming in from outside the system with knowledge and experience of, and passion for, the area. She is really trying to drive through what we require from the strategy. That work is well under way. As I said, that group has been convened, and she has been engaging with a wide range of people. We have established six core pillars for the new AI strategy and action plan, and the aim is that it will cover up to 2030. The six pillars are governance, infrastructure, data, skills, public-sector transformation and citizenship. We are looking at having an AI hub for delivery, which would look at the actions. I commend our CSTA, as it is a significant amount of work. I know that she has also relied on a range of third-sector and private-sector partners for expertise and support. Of course, we are very grateful for the help and support that we have received on that from inside and outside the system. Mr Delargy: Minister, you touched on the fact that this is about being inclusive. We know that, with a lot of the technology strategies, it is very difficult to reach people, so will you give an outline of exactly what is being done to reach people in the most hard-to-reach communities so that they can input into the strategy? Mrs Little-Pengelly: As the Member will be aware, so much of what we do now is about collaborative design and co-production. We hear those buzzwords all the time, but they are important, because this is about including those who will use the strategy during the period and process of putting together the strategies and action plans. That is important, and there are so many different elements. If you speak to anybody about what they think that AI is, you will find that it depends on their personal experience of it. Many people will think that it is about jumping on an app on their phone and asking it to put something together, should that be a picture, a couple of paragraphs or some factual information. Of course, AI has so many other potential uses, not least in our health sector, supporting diagnostics; across our system, populating fields with common information and therefore saving a lot of people a lot of time; and in the drafting of factual background speeches. There are two key principles: the first is that it has to be ethical; and the second is that it is important that we still have a core human element to check facts and to check for bias and other issues. The end users are really important. We know that a lot of older people use government services. Many of the older people whom I know could buy and sell you in social media and online. We also know that there are challenges with some of those digital skills right across people's ages, so it has to have a role in the entire life cycle. We need to look at all its characteristics and challenges and make sure that it is fit for purpose. You are absolutely right. Top 2.15 pm Mr Durkan: We have heard a lot about the potential benefits and opportunities that will come with AI. Has there been any Executive analysis of the potential impact of AI on job displacement across not just the Civil Service but the North? Mrs Little-Pengelly: It is a big concern for many people when they look at their own job and at future-proofing it. Realistically, in all likelihood, AI will be able to do things in five or 10 years' time, and maybe in one year's time, that we cannot even imagine right now. There is an apprehension about that at times. I always think that we need to be careful that we are not being Luddites about it. We do not want to delay by being apprehensive about something that we do not perhaps always understand but should, in fact, look at it while being conscious of the risks and challenges that it poses and acutely aware of the opportunities that it presents. I would always say that it is not about simply replacing people. It is very much about looking at how AI and technological development can help support better efficiency and better productivity. It is also about upskilling or reskilling people who currently work in jobs that could perhaps be picked up by AI and used in different ways. As we know, the needs of the Civil Service in the future will be very different from its needs of the past. The head of the Civil Service has undertaken a people strategy review. A lot of work is being done on looking at the numbers that are needed across our public sector to make it fit for purpose, what skills are required for the future and where AI can support those. The important point is that it is not primarily about people losing their jobs; it is about maybe doing things better and differently in the future and reskilling and upskilling for future jobs those who are in existing jobs. Mr Brett: Deputy First Minister, AI has been at the fore in the cutting-edge development in our continually growing defence and space industry in Northern Ireland. How can we ensure that the AI strategy aligns with that growth and that we fully benefit from the UK defence growth deal, which will be worth millions of pounds to the people of Northern Ireland? Mrs Little-Pengelly: It is undoubtedly the case that we have a really strong, high-quality defence and aerospace industry in Northern Ireland. Last weekend, we had Remembrance Sunday, which is a time for many to pause and reflect on the role that so many in Northern Ireland played in the world wars and in wars and conflicts since. Importantly and in line with that are the roles that our industries and businesses play in supporting the defence industry. Companies and the things that are made right here in Northern Ireland help to keep the world safe. At the moment, it is unfortunate that, because of global conflict, there are fears. I speak with a number of ambassadors, and we have the opportunity to meet ambassadors and delegations who come to Northern Ireland from across the globe. When you speak to people from Poland, Latvia and a number of countries, you can see that real sense of insecurity and the concerns about security. They are investing in defence, because, fundamentally, they see that as the best way to secure peace for their region, and our companies can absolutely play a role in that. The Member is right. The initiative by the UK Government to support the defence industry is UK-wide. We absolutely must make sure that Northern Ireland can benefit from that. We have a number of really strong areas in not only aerospace and defence but cybersecurity. That is a big strength that we have. Conflicts of the future will be as much about cyberattacks on our networks and on our electricity systems etc as they will be about that traditional street-by-street type of fighting that, unfortunately, formed part of past wars. That is something for us to be aware of in our defence strategy, and I look forward to working with the ADS group, with you, as Chair of the Committee, and with others to make sure that Northern Ireland can benefit fully on that front. Casement Park: Update 4. Mr McNulty asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on progress to redevelop Casement Park. (AQO 2643/22-27) Mrs Little-Pengelly: The redevelopment of Casement Park remains an Executive flagship capital project for sport in Northern Ireland. Mr McNulty: Deputy First Minister, after years of delay, people are fed up with warm words with no commitments on Casement Park. Has a paper finally been brought to the Executive table; will funding be secured; and will you commit to ensuring that delivery is no longer held hostage to party disagreements at your Executive table? Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. The holding up of Casement Park was never a political issue. The funding for Casement Park was secured as part of a multi-sports package. That funding of circa £62 million remains on the table. The Member will be fully aware of the financial pressures facing the Executive in both revenue and capital. That funding remains on the table, and, as indicated, it remains an Executive flagship programme. Ms Flynn: Does the deputy First Minister agree that, as she outlined, Casement Park is indeed an Executive commitment and remains a priority commitment? Mrs Little-Pengelly: I can confirm that it remains an Executive flagship capital project. It was part of that investment strategy, and it is referenced in the Programme for Government. The challenge in all of this is because of the cost of that project now, but, as we have said many times before, the commitment to that £60-odd million by the Northern Ireland Executive remains. We know that that is not sufficient against the plans that the GAA has. I understand that the GAA is not willing at this point to put additional money into the project, and that will leave a significant shortfall between the cost of the aspiration and what is on the table. That is a challenge for people to look at, including the GAA, and I look forward to seeing what the GAA's proposals are on that. Mr Honeyford: Progress on Casement is now critical. Every week of delay risks losing a once-in-a-generation opportunity. We also have the potential to host the Women's World Cup in 2035 and the cricket T20 World Cup in 2030, and the football fund still has a £50 million shortfall. Sport urgently needs strategic direction and investment. Where is the cross-departmental leadership to attract and deliver the long-term funding that we need to finally deliver Casement Park, to fully fund the football fund and to make sure that Northern Ireland does not miss out on international events? Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. I know that he has been lobbying and speaking much on the GAA issue, but I reiterate that the project was not delayed by the Northern Ireland Executive. It was not delayed because of political disagreement. It was not delayed because of the DUP. There were lots of local issues in relation to planning, and the costs of the project have increased significantly, leaving what many people would assess to be a shortfall of well in excess of £100 million on that project. I see that the Member is shaking his head. If that is incorrect, that needs to be articulated, but that is my understanding of it. The Executive do not have £100 million sitting about for this project, as the Member is aware. There are many pressures in the system. We are looking at our investment strategy for Northern Ireland (ISNI), and that is a matter that is coming up later in these questions. To be clear, in all likelihood, the vast majority of any capital funding that will be available in the next 10 to 20 years is already fully committed against a range of projects, and we have been actively looking to see how we can increase the amount of capital available because of, for example, big issues in NI Water that are now holding back housing and economic development. Those are big challenges, and the Executive need to look at those. In the case of this project, there is a significant capital shortfall. That is the reality. It is not political posturing, and it is not about people being difficult about it. It is just a reality, and there is not a solution to that issue at this stage. Mr Harvey: Given the huge financial pressures faced by the Executive, including on capital, can the DFM outline the challenging environment for any additional expenditure? Mrs Little-Pengelly: That is a timely question, because we are looking into the Chancellor's Budget event at the end of this month. I have to say that there is little space for optimism that we will get any additional money, either revenue or capital. Of course, if we got that, that would be welcome. There are huge challenges. I do not need to say that to anybody around this place when you know what needs to be done in your constituencies, should that be on potholes in our roads, the need for new roads or the promises that have been made to our schools. You can go into a school and see the maintenance that is required and the backlog for that. I go around Lagan Valley and, day in, day out, see that need for capital investment and infrastructure. There are difficult things that we need to look at. The First Minister and I have tasked the Strategic Investment Board (SIB) with looking at the options around capital funds and what we can do, particularly with regard to NI Water and the requirement for infrastructure, where that is impacting. As we have said, that is not just about the building of houses or holding back economic development; it is contributing to issues such as the situation with Lough Neagh. We cannot avoid that. NI Water is a significant contributor to that situation, and it needs to be addressed by investment. Those are all things that we are trying to tackle at the moment. However, let us all be incredibly clear: there is not enough capital in the system to do what we need to do and to support our core public services. The idea of finding hundreds of millions of pounds is not realistic, unfortunately, so it is a challenge to which there is no answer at the moment. Investment Strategy for Northern Ireland: Update 5. Mr O'Toole asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the investment strategy for Northern Ireland. (AQO 2644/22-27) Mrs Little-Pengelly: I knew that a question on the investment strategy was coming up shortly; I did not realise that it was the next question. The investment strategy remains under consideration. We hope to be able to bring it to the Executive in the near future. The Member may recall that junior Minister Bunting provided a detailed update on the investment strategy in the Chamber on 14 October in response to an Opposition motion. Although an immense amount of work has already gone into shaping the strategy, there are still some key considerations to be worked through. However, we are confident that the substantial work that has already been completed, together with progress on the enabling action plan, sets a clear direction. We know what needs to be done, and we are committed to doing it. We are determined to get this right. Once finalised, the timeline for approval and publication will be a matter for the Executive. Mr O'Toole: Thank you, deputy First Minister. Almost exactly one year ago, you said: "We are considering the draft investment strategy, after which we hope to be in a position to bring the strategy to the Executive." — [Official Report (Hansard), 25 November 2024, p27, col 2]. That was a year ago. In the meantime, as you have said, road development, including that of the A5, has languished; there has been no investment in NI Water and no plan to invest in it; Casement Park lies unbuilt; and social housing lies unprogressed. Deputy First Minister, are you seriously telling us that, after a year, there has been no progress in delivering the investment strategy? Private meetings do not count. When will it be published? Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. He is well aware that none of those things is impacted on by the long-term investment strategy, which sets the overarching framework. The Executive and everyone in this place knows that we need to fix roads and that we need new roads; we know that we need to fix schools and that we need new-build schools; we need more physical SEN provision; and we know what commitments exist with regard to flagship projects and outstanding issues. The A5 will not be impacted on by the ISNI being there or not. We need to be honest with the public, and we need to be clear with the public. The real challenge that we face is the fact that almost all of the capital that is projected to be available over the next 10 to 15 to 20 years has, as I said, already been committed by previous agreements and commitments on those flagship projects, the roads programme and the schools programme. As the Education Minister has said in this place, if we were to do for schools all the capital work that has been promised, all of the education capital programme for the next 20-plus years would be eaten up. That is the reality of what we face. We also need to acknowledge that there have been significant changes from this time last year with the A5 judgement and the climate change legislation potentially having a significant impact on big public-sector capital projects. That is something that we need to take into account, and we are actively looking at that. Work is ongoing, but we are considering a number of key issues and trying to bring forward something that will make a meaningful difference, as opposed to having a document simply for a document's sake. Ms Ennis: It is evident that the Long Kesh site has immense social and economic potential that will benefit communities not just in Lisburn but beyond Lisburn. Does the deputy First Minister agree that now is the time to finally move forward with the regeneration of Long Kesh? Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. This has been a source of real frustration for me. I am a representative for Lagan Valley, and, speaking personally and in that capacity, I say that I do not agree with the Sinn Féin position that nothing can happen on that site until it gets its way in relation to the listed buildings. The listed buildings issue is a sensitive issue. There is the potential for a huge amount of hurt, depending on what happens there, particularly for victims and survivors. The then deputy First Minister, Martin McGuinness, made it clear that no or very little economic development could happen on that site unless there was an agreement on those listed buildings. I appeal to Sinn Féin, and to my colleague in this office, to lift that restriction in order to allow for the economic potential of a site on the main Belfast to Dublin corridor to be fulfilled while discussions continue on dealing with the difficult legacy issues. All kinds of economic development and businesses would be interested in using the site, given that it is key strategically and given its importance to my Lagan Valley constituency. I therefore reiterate my appeal to lift that condition on economic development and allow for it to go ahead in order to unleash the incredible potential of the Maze/Long Kesh site, not just for Lagan Valley but for all of Northern Ireland. Top 2.30 pm Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up. That ends the period for listed questions. We will now move to 15 minutes of topical questions. Topical questions 5 and 7 have been withdrawn. Inauguration of the Irish President T1. Mr O'Toole asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, in indicating that he will lay a wreath here tomorrow on behalf of the SDLP, because he recognises the importance of Remembrance Day, particularly but not only to the unionist community, whether they agree that political leaders have a duty, in word and deed, to embody empathy and reconciliation in this shared society, given that he has taken the deputy First Minister at her word that her priority is to attend Remembrance Day services tomorrow, and further asked why not one of the DUP's more than 150 elected representatives is able to attend the inauguration of a president who is important to many people in this society. (AQT 1741/22-27) Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. The inauguration event commences at 11.00 am on 11 November, and, as he said, he is acutely aware of the date's importance. It is an unfortunate clash, and my statement outlined why I cannot attend. I will be here with him, and I hope not only to attend that service of sombre reflection and remembrance but to take part in another act of remembrance. Of course, whom a party decides to send is a matter for that party, and I stand here as deputy First Minister. I advise him, however, that no matter whether people are councillors, MPs or MLAs, tomorrow is a very significant date. I know that some commentators have said that it is a very significant date for unionists, but it should be a significant date for everyone across Northern Ireland, given the immense sacrifice that so many from this part of the UK on this island made, as, of course, did many from the Republic of Ireland as well. Mr O'Toole: Deputy First Minister, you will never find me or my party trivialising the importance of remembrance and of Remembrance Day for so many people in this society and, indeed, on this island, but it is the case that many people feel that your party, which is the leading unionist party, has embarked, perhaps not by design, on a journey of fear, grievance and anger, particularly for unionist people in Northern Ireland. After the debate earlier today, can you genuinely reflect on that and move back to making some vague progress towards reconciliation? Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his supplementary question. I can advise him that I strive to represent everyone across Northern Ireland in everything that I do, be that by condemning acts of violence or by building a better and brighter future for everyone here. I genuinely believe in doing that and am firmly committed to it. When people reflect on my time as deputy First Minister, they will see that I strongly indicated from my very first speech that I wanted to be a deputy First Minister who worked with and for everyone. I believe that I have demonstrated that not just through the wide range of events that I have attended but through generosity of spirit, which is something that we all need to have. The Taoiseach, the Irish Government and others understand completely the importance of 11 November. As I indicated, I recognise that it is a huge day personally for the incoming president. I have sought to have a personal call with her in recognition of her very significant personal achievement and what she is about to embark on. I advise the Member that, looking back, there has been a huge amount of engagement not just with the Taoiseach but with Simon Harris and the Irish Government as part of our North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) and British-Irish Council (BIC) engagement. We have had a number of very constructive discussions, and I believe in building constructive relationships. Much of what we are trying to drive forward in order to improve people's lives is based on having those constructive relationships. Inauguration of the Irish President T2. Ms Flynn asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, after noting that she was pleased to hear the deputy First Minister's response to the previous topical question about the spirit of representing everyone, which is extremely important, whether, in the context of her understanding that tomorrow will be hugely significant for many people across the North, across the island and, for the Irish diaspora, across the world, she accepts that she has some responsibility for attendance at tomorrow's event in that spirit and as a symbol of the representation of everyone across our communities. (AQT 1742/22-27) Mrs Little-Pengelly: There is a real appetite among some people to make the matter into a political football and use it to indicate political division or to score political points. That is not what this is about. I got an invitation to the event on Thursday morning. I have commitments on an issue that is very important to me, not least because my grandfather, my great-grandfather and so many people in my family served and were severely injured in the wars. I have committed to attend the service and pay my respects in remembrance here. I also have committed to go to Windsor Castle and pay tribute, in the 80th anniversary year of Victory in Japan, to the veterans of the Asia-Pacific theatre of World War II. That is an opportunity not only to pay our respects to an incredible generation that did incredible things but to recognise the fact that so many people, mainly young men, who came from this small place went right across the globe, risking their lives and giving their lives or getting injured in those frightening and dangerous circumstances, to fight for peace and democracy for all of us. The very least that I can do is go along to pay my respects and tribute to them. Ms Flynn: I thank the Minister for her response. I hope that she will send someone in her place if she cannot make it. Regrettably, a lot of people from across our communities will hear in her answer a refusal to attend that does not fulfil her cross-community duty, in the spirit of respect and reconciliation, to represent everyone across our society. Sadly, that is what many people will hear in your answer, which is in stark contrast with the leadership that our First Minister for all showed at yesterday's event. It is an extremely stark contrast. Mrs Little-Pengelly: That was quite a lengthy statement. I will not rise to political point-scoring. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Excuse me. Will you take your seat? I am in the Chair here. OK? Do not tell me how to chair. If you do not like a decision, go to the Speaker's Office. Continue. Mrs Little-Pengelly: I am sorry. I was interrupted. As I indicated, that characterisation is unfair. Given that the matter is so serious, I will not get involved in what is an attempt to score political points. I have gone to events throughout Northern Ireland, and I have gone to events on my own, such as when I went to Normandy to pay tribute, despite the fact that 70,000 soldiers from what is now the Republic of Ireland also served there. I paid tribute to those soldiers, too. Likewise, there are events that Michelle, as First Minister, attends on her own, and there are things that we have done together. A generous approach would be to recognise that both of us have been out there talking to people from across Northern Ireland. I will always do my part, but I ask you to respect the fact that 11 November is a hugely important day in my community, which includes so many people who served, and that, in this case, I am unable to attend an event because of an invitation from His Majesty the King and Her Majesty the Queen to pay tribute to veterans. There will be future opportunities to engage with the new president of Ireland and, indeed, to build relationships east-west and North/South. Education Minister's Visit to Israel: Role of the Head of the Civil Service T3. Mr Brooks asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, given that the leader of the Opposition has written to the head of the Civil Service on matters relating to the visit of the Education Minister to Israel, to indicate what role the head of the Civil Service has in that regard. (AQT 1743/22-27) Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for that important question. It is really unfortunate that there have been comments in this place in relation to that matter. We need to be very careful about the limitations of the role of the head of the Civil Service. She has confirmed that she is only engaged in fact-finding and does not have a role in such investigations or inquiries. It is always important to recognise that it is the Minister who takes the decisions in their Department. As you said, the leader of the Opposition has written to the head of the Civil Service seeking certain information on and an assessment of whether the NICS code of ethics has been breached. I am very clear that, while the head of the Civil Service may wish to provide him with factual information, as she would to anyone who corresponds with her, she is not accountable to the leader of the Opposition, and she is not empowered to sit in judgement of a democratically elected Minister of Education. Mr Brooks: I make a declaration of interest, having been on the trip to Israel. Will the deputy First Minister clarify for the leader of the Opposition that the accountability of Ministers is to the House and not with him trying to politicise civil servants? Mrs Little-Pengelly: As indicated, I feel that it was inappropriate for the head of the Civil Service to have been brought into the matter by others in this place. Indeed, I have no doubt that the head of the Civil Service would not want to put herself in the middle of what is essentially a political argument. She has a formal, professional role as head of the Civil Service, and that role absolutely does not include any investigation into Ministers or Ministers' decisions. Veterinary Medicines: Disruption to Supply T4. Mr Irwin asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister whether they agree with him that disruption to the supply of veterinary medicines must be addressed before the grace period ends in January 2026, and to outline what engagement they have had with the UK Government on that very important issue. (AQT 1744/22-27) Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. He has been a champion for our farming industry for so many years in this place. This is an important issue not just for the farming community but for pet owners. Many people are getting notifications indicating that, from January 2026, they will no longer be able to buy their pet medication online from GB suppliers. The UK Government must address the issue urgently. We have an indication from the UK Government that they are moving in the direction of getting an agreement with the EU, particularly in relation to sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures. In my view, that should remove any of the European Union's apprehensions or concerns that prevent a resolution on veterinary medicines from going ahead. As the First Minister will know, I have raised the outstanding issue on veterinary medicines at every single opportunity with the UK Government, whether that is with Nick Thomas–Symonds, the Prime Minister or our Secretary of State. The clock is ticking. The issue needs to be resolved. It will add significantly to the costs that pet owners have to pay for essential medicines for their animals. It will add lots of costs for our farming community and vets. We need to get the issue resolved. I call on the UK Government to act urgently to get the matter resolved immediately and to prevent the grace period from ending and the crisis continuing into 2026. Mr Irwin: I thank the deputy First Minister for her response and for her efforts on the matter. The deputy First Minister will be aware that a large number of vaccines are used by the intensive farming sectors. Does she agree that it would be a serious issue if those medicines were not available? Mrs Little-Pengelly: It is really important because, first, while we oppose the Windsor framework, it indicated agreement that there would be limited or no diversion of trade, but what we are seeing with veterinary medicines is an entire diversion of trade to other markets and away from the GB market. That needs to be addressed. Secondly, others may say that we have reduced the proportion of medicines affected to 5% or 10%, but, if you are a dog owner or you have a companion animal that is reliant on the drugs that are among that 5% to 10%, that is everything to you, and the cost is very significant. We know that many people across Northern Ireland, particularly older people, rely on their companion animal for tackling loneliness as a best friend that they love and care about deeply. Top 2.45 pm Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, deputy First Minister. Mrs Little-Pengelly: They do not have a lot of money to put towards excessive costs. This need to be addressed. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Time is up, deputy First Minister. Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: There are no points of order during Question Time. Take your seat. Justice Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Question 5 has been withdrawn. PSNI Pay Award 1. Mrs Cameron asked the Minister of Justice when she will announce the approval of the pay award for police officers for 2025-26, in line with the recommendations of the Police Remuneration Review Body. (AQO 2655/22-27) PSNI Funding Shortfall 2. Mr Clarke asked the Minister of Justice to outline any plans that she has to assist the Police Service of Northern Ireland with its shortfall in funding for the 2025-26 financial year. (AQO 2656/22-27) Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): With your permission, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I will respond to questions 1 and 2 together. I am committed to implementing the Police Remuneration Review Body's recommendations in respect of the 2025 police pay award as soon as possible. As Members are aware, public sector pay awards must meet the affordability test before they can be implemented. I have been consistent in advocating for police officer pay to be placed on an equal footing with other public sector workers. As a result of those representations, I was pleased to secure additional provisional allocations from the Executive specifically for police officer pay in October on the same basis as Health. Even with that additional funding, however, the PSNI remains unable to confirm affordability for the pay award at this time. I am fully aware of the commitment given by the Health Minister that health workers can expect payment of their award in February 2026. The consequence is that funding will be deducted from the Health budget in the next financial year. That will, no doubt, have an impact in future years. While I am keen to ensure that police officers are treated on a par with other public sector workers, such decisions have wide-ranging implications for justice delivery. I will continue to work with the Chief Constable to explore options to allow the PSNI to demonstrate affordability for the pay review body's recommendations. I can assure the Chamber that the successful implementation of the police officer pay award remains a priority for me as Justice Minister, and I am confident that the award will be realised by the end of this year. Mrs Cameron: I thank the Minister for her answer. I wish her well in ensuring that police officers get their well-deserved pay award in the near future. The Minister went on record in the media last week as saying that the fact that the PSNI is unable to take industrial action did not mean that the police should be at the end of the queue when it comes to funding. I agree wholeheartedly with that statement. Should the 1,600 police support staff decide to strike, what impact that would have on front-line policing functions? Mrs Long: I am sorry; I did not catch all of the question, but I think it was referring to the police support staff potentially going on strike. Of course, the rationale for doing so is not to do with pay, because their pay has already been realised in-year. The issue there is to do with the settlement of the data breach claims. As I have done in the past when there have been disputes with staff or with any other sector, I urge people not to withdraw their services and go on strike but to work with me so that we can find the resources to make those payments. It is important that the police are properly resourced, and that includes their pay. That is why I set money aside at the beginning of the year, when I was making my allocations, to allow for pay. The pay review body, however, came back with a significantly higher allocation than expected, which left us with something of a gap to fill. The Chief Constable and I have been working hard to look at ways that we can do that. The Department and the PSNI are looking at some of the savings that we are trying to make, and I am pretty confident that we will be able to do that in-year. That is a better place to be than entering next year with an overspend and, essentially, having that trickle on into future years. Mr Clarke: I share the Minister's optimism about the pay settlement for the police, and I hope that we are both right to have that optimism. My question goes much wider, however, because it is about police funding as a whole. We all know about the pressures that policing faces at the moment. Is she as optimistic that something can be done to resolve some of the outstanding issues, in particular the big-ticket items that have featured in the media most recently? Mrs Long: The Member will be aware that, when it comes to Justice funding in general, I have said on many occasions that we have seen an increase that is well below inflation; in fact, had we matched inflation over the last 10 years, Justice would have around £225 million in addition to what we have at the moment. That would have been a game changer when it comes to things such as injury to feelings, pensions issues, holiday pay and, indeed, the data breach. Those are things that at a better time, perhaps, we could have absorbed, but we are not in a position to do that now. I continue to engage with the Department of Finance, the Executive more widely, the NIO and Treasury, because, in addition to the issues of which we have been apprised already, there are the issues of legacy, the cost of policing and the pressure on the wider justice system coming down the tracks as a result of new legislation. We need to work out a sustainable model that allows us to have a Police Service that is properly resourced for its primary task but, at the same time, does not eat up the entire Justice budget, which would mean not being able to have courts, prisons and all the other facilities that we need to provide. If I may, with your indulgence, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I will correct, for the record, something that I said to Mr Clarke last week. He asked about the release of an individual on pre-release testing. I said that that person was time-served on their tariff; in fact, they were not time-served but approaching that point, which is why their pre-release testing had been started. Apologies to the House if anyone was misled by what I said. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Mr Chambers: Given that pay issues may have a negative effect on police morale and, possibly, on police recruitment, what is the Minister's assessment of whether 7,000 police officers by 2027 be achieved? Mrs Long: Pay will, undoubtedly, have an impact on morale; there is no question about that. As I said, however, there are things other than pay and the speed at which people get their uplift that will impact on morale in the PSNI. The contractual pay arrangements have already been implemented. Since those are unavoidable, I have split them from the PRRB recommendations so that officers now automatically get their contractual uplift each October. That will have been received and will, hopefully, go some way to easing the pressure on officers. I want to see two things, however. First, I want to see pay realised in-year for officers and in their pockets as quickly as we can make that happen. Secondly, I want to put the wider system, including the PSNI, on a sustainable footing. That means that, as we come up on our three-year Budget, the Executive will need to commit to what has already been indicated to me as a priority: the recovery plan. We need that to be written into the Budget for next year. Far be it from me to speak on behalf of the Department of Finance and the Finance Minister when it comes to making those allocations, but he has so far indicated to me that that is his intention. Given that it meets the value-for-money criteria, it would make sense for us to do that. When he has made such promises, he has, to date, stood over them, so I can only rely on that. Mr O'Toole: Minister, I am sure that most Members in the House will agree with your broad position, which is shared by other Ministers and, indeed, by the Chief Constable, that the Treasury should meet the reserve claim for the data breach. However, if we are to assume the worst from the Treasury, which is probably a good position to take, what planning is happening between you and the Finance Minister on a plan B? Mrs Long: We do not know when the matter will crystallise. Our preference is to settle it as soon as possible, but we do not know whether it will crystallise this year or next. It is important that we do not set aside money this year and hold it until the last minute, because we will end up having to return it to the Treasury or to negotiate with the Treasury over a budget exchange scheme, which it is often not willing to do at Executive level. We are looking at other options. For example, is there an option to convert capital into revenue that would allow us to pay a one-off sum? We are also looking at what options we have to negotiate with the Treasury on how to pay back any call on the reserve. A number of things are there, but, at the end of the day, the Executive will have to look at their overall Budget next year, deduct any projected overspends that are still in place at the end of the year and then look at the other pressures and decide where to allocate money. I will be one of the Ministers at the table and will make the case for this being a priority, but the agreement of all Ministers will be required for that to happen. Child Protection Disclosure Scheme: Applications 3. Mr Frew asked the Minister of Justice to outline the number of applications made to the child protection disclosure scheme in each of the past four years. (AQO 2657/22-27) Mrs Long: Delivery of the child protection disclosure scheme is an operational matter for the Police Service of Northern Ireland. The scheme enables information to be disclosed to members of the public where it is necessary to protect children or a child from serious harm. The information may be requested by any member of the public and will be disclosed by the police, where it is appropriate to do so. My Department is responsible for the overarching legal framework. I note that the disclosure scheme is in line with the requirements of article 50 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 and with statutory guidance that my Department published in accordance with that legislation. Such public protection-related matters are kept under review. Notwithstanding that it is for the PSNI to run the disclosure scheme, I want to reiterate the message that I have given before, which is that, if anyone is concerned about potential harm to a child or children, it is incumbent on them that, in the first instance, they contact the police. Mr Frew: The Minister has failed to answer my question, even though she had time to get the data that I seek. That does nothing to assuage my concerns that the Department of Justice and, indeed, the PSNI are refusing to promote the child protection disclosure scheme, meaning that parents are the last to know if there is a risk to their child. Will the Minister commit to informing the House of her plans to promote the child protection disclosure scheme in the future so that parents will not be the last to know? Mrs Long: The first thing to say when it comes to points of order on this is that the data is not held by my Department, and there is an extant ruling from the Speaker that, when it comes to operational PSNI matters, I am not required to seek that data or to present it here as though it were my own. The second thing to say is that, possibly with the sole exception of the Member who asked the question, I have been one of the few MLAs who, when others have asked for disclosure of the names and addresses of all sex offenders, has repeatedly raised in the Chamber the fact that those disclosure schemes are available, the public can use them, the PSNI has a right to tell and the public have a right to ask. I do not have a budget to be able to promote the scheme. If the PSNI believes that the scheme is being underutilised, it can, of course, choose to prioritise some of its resources, but, given what we discussed during the last question, I think that I have made every effort throughout the past 18 months to make people aware of the scheme and to promote it. I encourage other MLAs to do so as well, because the scheme works well for public protection. Ms Mulholland: Minister, will you outline what further steps you are taking to strengthen the statutory sex offender notification requirements? Mrs Long: Home Office Ministers provide us with opportunities to further strengthen and streamline the current sex offender notification requirements by extending provisions proposed in the Crime and Policing Bill. As Members will appreciate, providing a consistent UK-wide approach to sex offender risk management is paramount to supporting wider public protection. I have secured the legislative consent of the Assembly for the greater part of the proposed provisions, for which I am grateful, and I intend to bring forward a further legislative consent motion (LCM) early in the new year to enable the introduction of some further provisions in Northern Ireland. Those include, for example, the need to notify a new name no less than seven days in advance of it being used; the requirement to notify at least 12 hours in advance before entering qualifying premises where children are present; and the requirement to seek the approval of the police to apply for certain identity replacement documents, if they are in a new name. Instead of the need to amend this by way of statutory rule, we are now looking at the list of prescribed police stations where an offender must notify and at the ability for notification to be given virtually in certain circumstances but only where particular conditions are met. We are doing all that with a focus on not only trying to streamline how we manage sex offenders but how we ensure that the public are fully protected. We are also looking at the ability of a police officer to consider whether relevant offenders should remain subject to indefinite notification requirements without the need for an application to be made from the relevant offender and at the ability for an application for a warrant for power of entry and search of an offender's home to be made by a court officer of at least the rank of inspector. Considerable work is ongoing in that space, because we will all agree that we want our children and, indeed, wider society to be properly protected from predators. Restorative Justice Practitioners 4. Mr Brett asked the Minister of Justice for her assessment of the role of restorative justice practitioners in the justice system. (AQO 2658/22-27) 13. Mr McMurray asked the Minister of Justice for an update on the new adult restorative justice practice standards and accreditation framework. (AQO 2667/22-27) Mrs Long: With your permission, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I will answer questions 4 and 13 together. Restorative justice is a well-established practice in Northern Ireland, both in the formal youth justice system and through community-based initiatives. It aims to address the harm and/or trauma caused by crime by involving victim, perpetrator and community and supporting dialogue to repair the harm caused and promote healing. It also emphasises the importance of supported rehabilitation in order to reduce the risk of further offending. Restorative justice has been at the core of the youth justice system here for over two decades, and a range of independent reports and Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (CJINI) inspections have recognised those benefits.? Learning from the youth conferencing process is being used to develop and extend the use of restorative approaches in the adult justice system. The two currently accredited community organisations have played an important role in promoting community safety, repairing relationships and reducing antisocial behaviour. They work in partnership with justice partners to deliver restorative approaches to harm that does not meet the criminal threshold. They have also played a key role in the development of the new accreditation arrangements as part of the restorative justice working group. Top 3.00 pm My Department has been delivering on the commitments in the adult restorative justice strategy since its launch in 2022, including through the publication of the revised restorative justice protocol in 2023, a key aspect of which is the development of new practice standards and an accreditation framework to govern the delivery of future restorative work. That framework developed by my Department in the interim protocol lead was published on 17 October 2025 and aligned with the launch of the application process for those wishing to become accredited. That application window will be open for six weeks, closing on Friday 28 November. Once the applications close, the protocol lead and an independent suitability panel will assess and make recommendations on the appropriate level of accreditation. A register of accredited organisations and practitioners will be published on the departmental website early in 2026. Mr Brett: I thank the Minister for that. We are blessed to have Northern Ireland Alternatives headquarters in our constituency of North Belfast. Under the leadership of Debbie Watters OBE, its work right across Northern Ireland has been vital. Will the Minister commit to continuing to work with Northern Ireland Alternatives and Community Restorative Justice (CRJ) to ensure that we can continue to deliver that important role throughout Northern Ireland? Mrs Long: We intend to create, essentially, a pyramid of access for all restorative justice. At the top of that, the highest-qualified and most experienced providers will deal the most sensitive cases where restorative justice may be appropriate. At the bottom of that, there will be a much wider group, with much higher numbers, that will deal with more community-based restorative interventions rather than justice referrals. In between, there will be stages of accreditation for people to be able to develop themselves personally in their chosen way. I am committed to continuing to work with all those who go through the accreditation process, who engage with the formal justice system, and who do so with integrity but also with connections in the community and the ability to engage people on the ground in a way in which, perhaps, the formal justice system is not always fully able to do. Crucial for me is the ability to engage with the PSNI, the courts, probation and others to ensure that the decisions that are made around restorative justice bring about changes in behaviour but also leave victims feeling that they have got the outcome that they wish and deserve. Mr McMurray: Will the Minister explain how the work will be supported by the new restorative hub that her Department is establishing with the Probation Board? Mrs Long: The new restorative hub will be integral to the delivery of adult restorative justice services. The benefits of the hub are that practitioners can co-facilitate their referrals to gather experience, participate in group training and professional supervision, and contribute to a monthly community of practice. It is about allowing all those who work in the sector to share their experience and skills and, hopefully, to find some economies of scale when it comes to training and development. All that is critical to ensure consistent and high-quality delivery of restorative justice. The hub is going to be managed by the independent referrals body — it will sit within the Probation Board's victim unit, because the hub has to be victim-centred — as a well-established and neutral statutory organisation with expertise that can deliver those services. The Probation Board works in perpetrator-victim conferencing, and it is really important that it brings that to bear and work with others in the community who may be able to become more engaged in the formal justice process as a result. Mr Beattie: Restorative justice is one of those areas that I am really glad that we are talking about. It is incredibly important. Will the Minister look at adult restorative justice forming part of the sentencing framework in the new sentencing Bill? Mrs Long: Adult restorative justice is already allowed for in the policy and the statement that we have already made. We have already launched the strategy and an action plan. It is already being dealt with. It is hard to put it on a statutory footing, because restorative practice can take a multiplicity of forms. To try to prescribe that in legislation would be difficult. However, it is part of our overall strategy for the delivery of justice, engaging particularly with the levels of satisfaction of victims within the justice system and also in our overall reoffending and desistance strategy. From my perspective, it is well covered in the strategy that we already have in place and in the considerable work that has been done through the working group to deliver the new structures that will, hopefully, allow it now to take on a new level and have more momentum and dynamism than it had in the past. Miss Hargey: Minister, you spoke about the new pyramid system of accreditation. The Committee heard the concerns of Community Restorative Justice Ireland and NI Alternatives about level 1, the ethos of adhering to the peace process, working with the PSNI etc and the fact that there may be gaps. Can you assure us that that will not be the case? Mrs Long: Given the work that has been done, which both Community Restorative Justice Ireland and Alternatives were involved in as part of the working group, we are fairly confident that those areas are covered. When I talk about the different levels, to be clear, some of the people whom we are talking about at the top of that pyramid where you will have very few practitioners will be in cases, for example, of rape or murder — so very serious offences — and some restorative practice may be necessary there. For example, we have been approached by and have examples of victims who want to sit down with the perpetrator and have a conversation with them, and restorative justice can allow them to do that in a way that is meaningful, respectful and victim centred. That would be at the very apex, if you like, of difficulty. Then there would be stuff that is not justice but is more about restorative practice, such as community dispute resolution and other things, so it would not have reached that. Between that, there will be a whole scale from diversionary conferencing with young people to the work that the Probation Board does with offenders post the point where they have been convicted and so on. There will be opportunities for organisations to upskill and to go through those layers of accreditation. Some of the practitioners that we have in Northern Ireland are amongst the most skilled that you will find anywhere on these islands. I believe that we should use that resource to best effect. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Question 5 has been withdrawn. Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) 2021 6. Ms Ferguson asked the Minister of Justice for an update on the areas that still require implementation under the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) 2021. (AQO 2660/22-27) Mrs Long: The majority of provisions in the Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) 2021 have now been commenced. However, work to implement a few outstanding measures is still in train, one of which is section 27, which makes provision for my Department to make regulations on protective measures for victims of abuse; in particular, domestic abuse protection notices (DAPNs) and domestic abuse protection orders (DAPOs). I have already set out the challenges that my Department has encountered in trying to develop a DAPN and DAPO model for Northern Ireland that will enhance the protections available to victims of domestic abuse whilst being operationally viable and affordable. My officials are continuing to work with partners, including the PSNI, to resolve the challenges, with a view to launching a DAPN/DAPO pilot in the next financial year. The model will take into consideration the specific Northern Ireland context, including operational capacity, cost and, most importantly, the needs of victims. Fact-finding visits to pilot areas in Croydon and greater Manchester have been valuable in informing policy development. The aim is to agree a preferred pilot model with delivery partners by the end of this financial year. The Member may like to write to me, because there are, I think, about four other sections that still have to be commenced in order for delivery. It would be better to put those in writing rather than prevail on the patience of Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Ms Ferguson: I thank the Minister for her answer. Minister, is there a timeline for or further information on when the prohibition of cross-examination in person in civil and family proceedings will be implemented? What work has been done to date on the Criminal Justice Inspection's (CJI) recommendation to develop the role of specialist domestic abuse prosecutors? Mrs Long: I am glad that I do not have to write to you, because that was the next part of my answer, and I just thought that it was too long as I was working my way through it. First, work is continuing on section 32, which places a requirement on the Department to publish a statement setting out information about the level of participation by personnel and staff in domestic abuse training. The Department has already published two training statements in line with that requirement, and work is well advanced to finalise the third report. That is one way in which we can increase expertise. You will appreciate that not everyone in that cohort will be an expert provider, but it is important that all first responders and those who are in contact with people in the system have a basic level of knowledge. Work is also continuing on sections 36 and 38, which provide for the prohibition of cross-examination in person in family and civil proceedings, and section 39, which requires court rules to make specific provisions for special measures for victims of specified offences in civil proceedings. Our focus with those provisions continues to be on implementation in family proceedings, as that will have the greatest impact for victims. The provision relating to court rules on special measures for victims of domestic abuse in section 37 has already been implemented, and the drafting of the secondary legislation that is required in support of the prohibition on cross-examination in person provision is under way. Subject to emerging priorities and to securing the necessary funding for the court-appointed legal representatives, the aim is to commence that provision during this business year. Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for that detailed update. Will she provide an update on the latest round of funding under the domestic and sexual abuse strategy small grant scheme? Mrs Long: Yes. Projects that offer vital support to victims and survivors of domestic and sexual abuse have recently received funding from my Department and the Department of Health. A total of £259,091 has been allocated across 10 organisations by the scheme for 2025-26. That money will enable them to deliver a range of services, including trauma-informed counselling, crisis de-escalation therapy and one-to-one legal advice clinics. Those interventions play an important role in helping individuals recognise harmful behaviours, seek support at an early stage and navigate what can often be a challenging and complex process. The community and voluntary sector continues to demonstrate innovation and dedication in its working with victims and survivors. It is important that we continue to fund the sector and that we try to ensure that it can bring its expertise to bear. The domestic and sexual abuse strategy small grant scheme is a key initiative under the jointly led domestic and sexual abuse strategy. It supports organisations that are represented on the domestic and sexual abuse expert reference group and on the five domestic and sexual violence and abuse partnerships. We have made the second round of awards, so the total funding that has been allocated under the scheme to date is £568,718. Drug-related Intimidation 7. Mr Middleton asked the Minister of Justice how her Department intends to respond to the findings of the Public Health Agency (PHA) report, 'Drug Related Intimidation in Northern Ireland: Nature, support needs and how to respond'. (AQO 2661/22-27) Mrs Long: I welcome the publication of 'Drug Related Intimidation in Northern Ireland', which was commissioned by the Executive programme on paramilitarism and organised crime (EPPOC) and delivered by the Public Health Agency, and was pleased to be at its launch with Minister Nesbitt. The report shines a light on and recognises the seriousness and impact of drug-related intimidation on individuals, families and communities right across Northern Ireland. It provides a valuable evidence base and highlights the complexity of the challenges involved, including the role of organised crime, paramilitary influence and the vulnerabilities of those affected. It also demonstrates the widespread and pervasive impact of the harm caused by drug-related intimidation. Nearly 40% of the general population are aware of suspected or real drug-related intimidation happening in the community, and one in eight reports direct experience of it in the past three years, involving either themselves, someone known to them or a family member. The Department is already progressing a number of measures that will help address the report's findings. They include introducing new offences in legislation such as participating in and directing the criminal activities of an organised crime group and developing new legislation to address the vulnerabilities created by cuckooing and child criminal exploitation. Work is also under way to improve child referrals to the national referral mechanism concerning child criminal exploitation. The work of the speeding up justice programme focuses on reducing delay, and we are working on the sentencing review, proposals from which I hope to introduce later this year. There is much more to do, however, and, over the coming months, my officials will engage with the Executive programme on paramilitarism and organised crime team and wider criminal justice partners to consider the recommendations in more detail. I also note that the outworkings of the report go wider than the Department of Justice, and I am committed to working with all sectors, including health, housing, education and community organisations, to build safer, more resilient communities. Mr Middleton: I thank the Minister for her response. Minister, you highlighted the fact that drug-related intimidation is not only an issue for policing and justice. Will you outline how you plan to work with other Ministers in the areas that you mentioned in order to respond to the PHA's findings? Mrs Long: Even the report itself is a collaboration between two Departments. The Executive programme now has a ministerial advisory panel. All Ministers are invited to participate in the panel, which allows them to get direct briefings and to feed into the issues that are raised. All Ministers were also invited to attend the panel's launch, but I realise that not all of them will be available and that people will prioritise engagements. It is important that, as an Executive, we see that there are societal and criminal elements of drug-related intimidation that need to be dealt with. There are also wider issues around mental health and addiction that need to be dealt with in a therapeutic environment, as opposed to their being viewed simply through a criminal justice lens. We know that health issues, housing issues and other issues can become incredibly strained when people are extorted because of drugs or when they struggle or fail to maintain making payments to their dealer. Unfortunately, the intimidation and coercive control that people can exert in those circumstances is bleak. It can be life-changing, and it is certainly life-destroying for many people. It is important that, as an Executive, we work collectively to try and avoid it happening. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister. That ends the period for listed questions. We now move on to topical questions. Top 3.15 pm PSNI Training Centre, Antrim: Missing Bullets T1. Mr McGlone asked the Minister of Justice whether she will launch an independent inquiry into how 40,000 bullets have reportedly gone missing from a PSNI training centre in Antrim. (AQT 1751/22-27) Mrs Long: First, I share the concerns that many in the House will have about the reports that they have read over the weekend. My officials have been engaging intensively on the issue with colleagues in the PSNI, and I have spoken to the Chief Constable to seek clarity on it. I am somewhat constrained in what I can say because we are midway through an active police investigation. I would not want anything that I say in the Chamber to jeopardise any future lines of inquiry that the investigation might have, but it is fair to say that the matter is incredibly serious, and it is being treated as such by the Chief Constable. That is as much as I want to put on the record for now, other than to say that I have conveyed my concerns to him on the potential threat that it represents to public safety. Mr McGlone: Thank you, Minister. I am sure that everyone in the Chamber shares concern about 40,000 bullets going missing. Does you support an independent inquiry into how it happened? Mrs Long: I do not want to be specific about the number of rounds of ammunition that are involved. I do not think that we can be specific on that at this time as there have been conflicting reports, so it would not be helpful to try to be. I do not want to prejudge the outcome of a criminal investigation by launching a public inquiry, because that would put the cart before the horse. The first thing that we need to do is allow the PSNI to conclude the criminal investigation that is under way. If, at that stage, there are wider questions that need to be asked, there will be an opportunity for the Policing Board and me to drill down into those and decide the best means of ascertaining the full facts. For now, it is important to let justice take its course. Criminal Bar Association: Withdrawal of Service T2. Ms Egan asked the Minister of Justice for her assessment of reports that members of the Criminal Bar Association (CBA) have voted to escalate their withdrawal of service. (AQT 1752/22-27) Mrs Long: I thank the Member for her question. My officials were engaging intensively over the weekend to clarify the specific actions that the CBA membership plans to take with immediate effect this week. The Bar Council confirmed the definition and scope of the planned action late yesterday afternoon. Over the weekend, there was a lack of clarity on the matter within the criminal Bar and between the Bar and ourselves, which is incredibly concerning. I understand that a number of CBA members were planning to withdraw from all Crown Court cases from today, which only serves to demonstrate the vulnerability of those people who turn up at court and face the lottery of whether a barrister will take their case. The fact that such a course of action was even being considered is profoundly concerning. I had a positive meeting with both arms of the profession last week, which makes this all the more depressing. At that meeting, I reaffirmed my commitment to bringing forward enhanced legal aid fees and ongoing engagement. Officials in the Department and Judge Burgess have been working tirelessly to bring the previous partial withdrawal of services by the CBA to an end. Since the CBA clarified why it had engaged in a partial withdrawal of service, its conditions have, essentially, been met. I understand that, over the weekend, for the second time in three months, the entire executive committee of the CBA resigned. I am not going to get into the internal machinations of, or politics within, the criminal Bar. There are enough politics in this place to keep me fully occupied. I want to ensure that the criminal Bar continues to take instructions in complex cases and moves away from its current partial withdrawal of service. Crucially, I want to ensure that victims, particularly the most vulnerable victims, are able to access justice in a timely fashion. I am committed to doing that. I believe that the people with whom I spoke last week were genuine in their commitment to doing that, and I hope that we can proceed with that by the end of the month, as anticipated. Ms Egan: Thank you, Minister. Will you please outline the impact that the ongoing withdrawal of service has had on victims, witnesses and the wider justice system? Mrs Long: Any additional delay obviously impacts on the justice system, not only on victims and witnesses but on defendants, many of whom are being held on remand, which means that there will be a knock-on impact on our prison system. Some 132 cases were listed to be heard across the Crown Court today. In light of the decision emerging late yesterday afternoon, they have not been impacted on by the withdrawal of service. The specific actions being taken today have varied. At the moment, it seems that only new cases are not being taken in the action, but that will clearly have an impact down the line. The specific actions being taken by CBA members have varied somewhat since the withdrawal of service commenced last December. Since March, members have refused to take new instructions in murder and serious sex offence cases, but, as I said, that has now been extended to all Crown Court cases with effect from today. That puts more stress on the criminal justice system and court business, and it wastes scarce resources. It is time that the Criminal Bar Association made its intentions clear. I have worked with the solicitors' criminal Bar, with the Law Society and, indeed, with the Bar Council more generally to address some of the genuine issues that they have. I am willing to do that with the criminal Bar, but there has to be some sense of putting victims back at the heart of the discussions that we are having and of ensuring that we can do so while still providing the service for which people rightly seek to be paid. Youth Custody and Supervision Orders T3. Mr Baker asked the Minister of Justice, given that, during the public consultation on the new youth custody and supervision orders, views were openly split between those in favour of setting the minimum duration and those against, whether setting a minimum duration is in keeping with children's rights. (AQT 1753/22-27) Mrs Long: I am aware of the discussions that have been taking place on that matter, and you are aware of the Department's position, which very much reflects my view. There is a balance to be struck in all these things, and I will be happy to engage with the Committee on the way to handle the situation. It is important that there is clarity on what the orders will look like. That is one of the things that we are trying to do by replacing the multiplicity of orders and conditions with something that will be much more streamlined and easily understood by the young people themselves. Knowing when an order will end is also important so that young people will know that there is a finite timeline of engagement. I understand the arguments that are being made about the order's minimum length. The crux is to have long enough to engage and build trust with the young person involved and their family to be able to effect a difference. A bit like with sentencing, if the orders are too short, that does not allow us to do the rehabilitation work that we want to do, and we would be better off working through those things in the community. Mr Baker: Thank you, Minister. What steps will the Department take to monitor and assess whether the new youth custody and supervision orders are being used as a measure of last resort? Mrs Long: We can do a number of things. For example, we can look at the practice that already happens in the youth justice sector. Very few young people are now held in a custodial environment other than those who choose not to make their bail conditions, which some do because they do not feel safe returning to the community, or those who have committed potentially very serious offences that would require a public protection response. That commitment has been shown by making sure that we do the earliest possible intervention. You will be aware of the work that youth justice does in, for example, providing supplementary work in child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) for young people at risk of offending and working with those who are right on the boundary between getting themselves into serious trouble and not doing so. That is a measure of the commitment of the people who work in the Youth Justice Agency to ensure that, insofar as we can, we divert young people from the criminal justice sector and, crucially, from criminality. We are trying to protect those young people from becoming involved in activities that will mark them potentially for the rest of their lives, because we know that people graduate through the system, and that is not good for them or their community. It is in all our interests to support that. Fireworks: Legislation T4. Mr Robinson asked the Minister of Justice to outline plans to review the Explosives (Fireworks) Regulations (NI) 2002. (AQT 1754/22-27) Mrs Long: I am somewhat concerned that I might end up stealing the thunder of the Members immediately to my right if I start announcing my intentions today, because I think that there will be a debate on that next week. Fireworks legislation in Northern Ireland is some of the most robust in these islands for rather obvious purposes. There are reasons why we have concerns. Some people love fireworks, and some people hate them. As a dog owner, I understand the stress that they can cause to animals in particular. However, we have robust legislation in place. I also have limited resources, and I would have to take those resources away from something else to do that piece of work. I am not entirely sure, therefore, that it would be the appropriate way forward. Other Members have mentioned the sentencing review during Question Time. We hope to launch that during the autumn. We may be able to do something around penalties and enforcement as part of the sentencing review that would mean that those who breach our, currently quite robust, regulations could then be held to account in a way that, perhaps, would be more of a deterrent. Mr Robinson: I thank the Minister for that response. Every year, at this time of year, we hear, more and more, about family pets being extremely stressed due to fireworks. Will she consider the introduction of low-noise fireworks? Mrs Long: The Member is almost channelling what I was thinking in my head but had not managed to say in my original answer. When I write to people on the issue, I always promote the use of low-noise fireworks. There is also the opportunity to have some pretty amazing displays using drones and not using fireworks at all. The number of organised fireworks displays has actually dropped dramatically since the 1970s and 1980s because the cost of fireworks has risen exponentially. Therefore, there is a balance to be struck. As I said, I understand people’s concerns about pets. Over the Halloween period, the Agriculture Minister and I spent quite a bit of time sharing advice and guidance with animal owners on how to ensure that they could do their best to keep their pets safe. Obviously, my personal preference, as well as my preference for animals, would be to have low-noise fireworks. Fireworks noise is a problem. We cannot be prescriptive, though, because not all low-noise fireworks would be suitable for every occasion. However, a reduction in the number of fireworks licences that are being granted is indicative of the fact that many people are moving to other kinds of celebratory displays to avoid the use of, or over-reliance on, fireworks. Fireworks: Legislation T5. Mr Stewart asked the Minister of Justice, noting that, while the previous Member had stolen his thunder, it was a topical issue because, for weeks leading up to Halloween, vulnerable elderly residents and, unfortunately, thousands of pets have to suffer the noise of fireworks, and having heard about the tragic death of a dog as a result of that a few weeks ago, whether, given that she is not minded to review the regulations at this stage and has explained the reasons for that, she has had any engagement with senior police officers on how they could better interpret those regulations and use their resources to tackle the people who routinely misuse fireworks. (AQT 1755/22-27) Mrs Long: That is one area of sentencing where more robust sentencing for breaches of the licensing regulations could actually be quite helpful in making it clear that, while it will not justify what is a relatively expensive business, there will be consequences for that. That is one element of it. The other element is investigation. The most annoying situation is not actually the organised fireworks displays that are well advertised and well notified — often, we can put notification requirements on when people purchase fireworks — but the individual bangers that go off at random times of the day and night. That is traumatic for many people. It is frightening for older people and those who, for example, because of their history, have a fear of bangs, loud noises and so on. Young people with autism and neurodiverse people can find it quite distressing, as can animals. Therefore, there is a wider issue. It is about trying to decide how we can bring balance to it so that those of us who enjoy fireworks — I confess that I enjoy a good fireworks display as much as anyone else — are able to do so safely and in a way that does not overly impinge on the rights of those who just want a quiet night at home without random bangers going off in the neighbourhood. Mr Stewart: I thank the Minister for her answer. You talked about the fact that the regulations are some of the most robust anywhere. However, they are over 20 years old. Fireworks have moved on in both their strength and noise. Some of them are approaching the likes of explosives. Perhaps, that could be looked at. Is there also an opportunity, perhaps, through a pilot project with a policing and community safety partnership (PCSP) somewhere, to look at how we could tackle that better at a local level? Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Minister, you have exactly 70 seconds in which to respond. Mrs Long: Certainly: anywhere where there is a particular local issue that needs to be addressed, I would encourage PCSPs to engage and try to find solutions. I am always open to solutions if people come to me with them. Unfortunately, more often than not, they come to me with problems. Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I was going to go to Alan Chambers for a question, since the Minister was so quick, if he wants in quickly. No? OK. Point of order. Thank you, Minister. Top 3.30 pm Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. During questions to the Executive Office, the deputy First Minister and her colleague Mr Brooks accused me of politicising the head of the Civil Service and the Civil Service in general by writing to the head of the Civil Service with questions about the Civil Service code that were raised by Mr Givan's trip, when the Chair of the Economy Committee, Phillip Brett, has also written to the head of the Civil Service, exactly as I have, and the Education Minister has, on occasions including today, publicised his permanent secretary's opinion. Is that appropriate commentary from DUP Members? Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I do not think that that is a point of order, but, happily, the Speaker is standing here. While such issues are serious, it is starting to sound like, "Nyah-nyah, nyah-nyah nyah" from the lot of you — seriously. I advise you to write to the Speaker to get your point of order responded to in writing, Matthew. Miss McAllister: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Unfortunately, during Question Time last week, I missed my allotted slot. I gambled with my time at an event and did not get to the Chamber in time. I apologise. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: You should be barred for a week, Nuala. Fair play to you. Anyway, the Speaker is here, thank God. (Mr Speaker in the Chair) Assembly Business Mr Brooks: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker: Are you serious? Mr Brooks: Yes. Mr Speaker: OK. Mr Brooks: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I ask you to rule on remarks made by the leader of the Opposition in the earlier debate about the Minister's visit to Israel. He was entirely incorrect to say that the chief executive of the Education Authority was foisted on its board against its will: that board voted to support the move. The Member made that factually inaccurate statement in the Chamber knowing full well that, if he were to make it outside the Chamber, it would be actionable. Mr Speaker: All Members know that we in the Speaker's Office are not fact checkers. Sometimes, people who claim that they are fact checkers are not very good at it. It has been demonstrated that BBC Verify, for example, is not great at fact-checking, even though it has 60 people. We do not have the capacity in the Speaker's Office to fact-check everything that everybody says, but the Member has made his point. We will move on. Questions for Urgent Oral Answer Education Education Authority: Savings Plans Mr Speaker: Nick Mathison has given notice of a question for urgent oral answer to the Minister of Education. Mr Mathison asked the Minister of Education to outline the impact that Education Authority (EA) savings plans will have on schools and parents. Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): First, I apologise to the House: I walked between the Minister of Justice and Mr Stewart while she was speaking to him. I did not realise until afterwards, but I know that that is not normal protocol. My apologies for that. Mr Speaker, I ask for an extra minute to answer the question for urgent oral answer, after which I will set out the financial context that my Department faces. Education has been and remains significantly underfunded. That has been independently evidenced not only by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) in its last two comparisons of spend per pupil across the United Kingdom but, more recently, by the independent review of education's report 'Investing in a Better Future'. While the EA has been able to operate within budget in the past two financial years, it has been able to do so only because of significant additional in-year funding totalling £480 million in 2023-24 and £614 million in 2024-25. The Minister of Finance has strongly indicated that additional funding of that quantum will not be available in this financial year. It is in that context that the Education Authority recently announced its savings plan in response to the unprecedented financial pressures facing the education sector this year. Currently, the EA faces an overcommitment of £280 million. As a result, the EA board has had to make difficult decisions to protect core statutory services, while implementing a number of measures aimed at reducing the EA's projected overspend. The decisions made by the EA board make will, inevitably, have operational implications for schools. Adjustments to home-to-school transport and the suspension of new education other than at school (EOTAS) referrals may place additional pressures on school leaders and staff, particularly in supporting pupils with complex needs. However, I can provide an assurance that the Education Authority is committed to working closely with schools to manage any changes and ensure that pupil welfare remains a priority. For parents, I recognise that the increase in school meal prices and changes to discretionary charges, such as music tuition, are regrettable and may cause concern. However, I reassure Members that pupils who receive free school meals will not be impacted. Those decisions of the Education Authority board have not been taken lightly and reflect the economic reality of operating within a strictly constrained budget whilst continuing to meet rising service demands associated with delivering statutory and policy obligations. Since taking up this post in February last year, I have been and remain fully committed to advocating for additional resources for the education sector in Northern Ireland, which is chronically underfunded. I will continue to engage with parents, schools and Members to ensure that the most vulnerable children are supported and that, collectively, we all continue to press for a sustainable funding solution for the education sector. Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for his answer. Obviously, we are all clear on the scale of the financial pressures both on education more widely and on the EA. Does the Minister accept that last week's announcement in a press release that was light on detail caused a degree of unnecessary alarm among parents, who did not understand the outworkings of the savings plan that was being announced? How will he ensure that the communication that parents now need, particularly on home-to-school transport, is delivered clearly so that they know where they stand? Mr Givan: The Education Authority indicated that it planned to put out a press release. Obviously, there is an operational responsibility for the EA when it comes to managing its budget. I assure the Committee Chairman that my Department has been engaging extensively with the EA and repeatedly making the case that it needs to deliver on the opening budget that it received. I know that the EA board, on which all the political parties sit, has deliberated on a range of measures that the senior management team brought to it at board level. The outworkings of that were proposals that the EA board then approved and wanted to put into the public domain. However, where there are lessons to be learned about how that is communicated, we should, of course, learn those lessons. Mr Baker: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker: There are no points of order during questions for urgent oral answer. Mr Sheehan: I have asked the Minister a number of times for his response to the critical Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee (PAC) reports. We now have cuts relating to school dinners coming from the Education Authority, and the working poor will be hit hardest. For EOTAS placements, the most vulnerable will be hit, and, for music tuition, again the poor families will suffer. Is it not time that the Minister started thinking of the most vulnerable in our schools and realised that it is his financial mismanagement that is causing the problem here? Mr Givan: The Member is wrong in his final point. In the original response, I highlighted the fact that in-year funding in 2023-24 was £480 million, which was beyond the opening baseline that the Department of Education received. In the last financial year, in-year funding was £614 million. That was additional to the opening budget settlement. In this financial year, I have found that there has been nowhere near that level of in-year funding being made available to the Department of Education. The evidence of the underfunding is there, and I encourage the Member to listen to his school principals and the teaching trade unions. They make it clear that there is nowhere left from which they can cut. We need additional resources to be put into the Department of Education so that we can then assist the Education Authority. His members have looked at and supported those proposals. The board approved the proposals [Interruption.] The board approved them. It is an operational responsibility of the Education Authority board. If the Members want to produce a minute showing where the Sinn Féin representatives on the Education Authority board opposed the proposals that were brought by the senior management team, they can do that, and I will stand corrected if Sinn Féin opposed them at an Education Authority board level. Mr Brooks: Clearly, the Minister is sensitive to the concerns that some of the decisions will cause families across Northern Ireland. Some people would say that they might be looked at as controversial. On that basis, did the Minister consider bringing the decisions to the Executive? Mr Givan: The Member is right. Reductions in public services, which cause harm, are controversial and significant, so, yes, I brought a paper to the Executive. The Education Authority board having made the proposals, I asked the Executive, if they had objections, to raise those objections. Indeed, one of my proposals in the paper to the Executive was that additional funding would be granted to the Department of Education so that the cuts would not need to take place. I note that Sinn Féin did not support that. These matters are controversial and significant, and, indeed, if the expectation is that the current projected overcommitment of hundreds of millions of pounds needs to be implemented, that is a quarter of all teaching staff. Is that what Sinn Féin is now seeking when it talks about fiscal responsibility? It wants to see that level of cuts in the Department of Education and in our schools. It needs to be honest with the public, or it could join me in making the case for our schools to get the funding that they need. I will happily join Sinn Féin on that, but the points that it is making are not lost on many in the education sector. Sinn Féin demands cuts, but, as soon as a board takes forward those proposals, it is critical of those cuts. Mr Stewart: Minister, it will be working parents who pick up the tab for this, and there is a lot of concern among them. Concern has also been raised to me by our fantastic cooks and kitchen staff, who are concerned that some cost-cutting exercises might reduce the quality and nutrient value of the food that is being sent to schools to be prepared. Can we get an assurance that that will not happen under any cost-cutting measures that will take place? Mr Givan: The point is well made. Again, decisions on how food is sourced and so on are a matter for the EA in its operational responsibilities. There will be appropriate standards on the quality of food that needs to be presented. I absolutely readily admit that, for some families, some of whom have multiple children in a school, the increase in the cost of meals by 50p will create a level of financial hardship, particularly for those who do not qualify for free school meals. It is often those who nearly but not quite qualify — the working poor — who struggle most. I absolutely understand the challenges that that creates, but, again, I appreciate that the Education Authority and its board are grappling with significant financial pressures, and these are proposals that it has made. Ms Hunter: Minister, understandably, parents are distressed about the 20% increase, particularly in the lead-up to Christmas, where every penny counts. Will you consider revisiting the threshold for free school meals, recognising that, as you said, Minister, working parents who have multiple children are under significant financial pressure? Mr Givan: The Member makes the point for me. The financial pressure on the EA is an overcommitment of £280 million. In the Assembly, a Member gets up and says that we need to provide greater levels of subsidy: where from? Where, financially, do you want to take money off other Departments and help to address the financial pressures in the EA board? That is a question to countless Members around the Assembly. Mr Baker wants to bring in a private Member's Bill on holiday hunger. That will cost £20 million. Where is he funding it from? I have every sympathy for him, but where is he funding it from? Has he spoken to John O'Dowd, the Finance Minister, to get the money? If Sinn Féin believes what it says, rather than tricking the people out there whom it claims to represent, it should be there fighting for their financial needs and pressures. You control the Minister of Finance: tell him to open up the wallet and provide the financial support to the people whom you claim to speak for. Is it just, again, a continued pantomime that Sinn Féin operates in? It tells one thing to the public, but, privately, my Department is being starved of the funding that it needs, and it is Sinn Féin that controls the Minister of Finance. Top 3.45 pm Mr Baker: Minister, I have a private Member's Bill, which you replied to me about at the beginning to tell me that you would not be supporting it, so I know where you stand. The proposals made by the EA were brought to the board for noting; there was no decision. Why are you standing here trying to mislead the Assembly, once again? Mr Givan: When it was brought forward to the board, did Sinn Féin representatives on the board vote against it? Mr Baker: It was for noting. Mr Givan: Did they vote against it? Mr Baker: It was for noting. Mr Givan: Again, this is the hypocrisy when it comes to Sinn Féin. It has members on a board, as do the Alliance Party, the DUP and the Ulster Unionist Party, and it is saying that a paper was brought forward for simply "noting". Pontius Pilate-like, it washes its hands of responsibility and says, "It's not us. It's the senior management who brought this forward to the board". What is the point in your board members being on the board, if they are just there to rubber-stamp? I do not rubber-stamp any decisions in my Department. I go through it, line by line, to see where the expenditure is, how it can be justified and where we need to find savings. That is why we find them. I would appreciate it if Sinn Féin could get its board members to apply a little bit more scrutiny when it comes to these proposals and to make sure that the measures are not falling on those who can least afford them. Mr Middleton: The savings proposals from the EA, alongside the stark financial position that faces the Minister's Department, will rightly draw concern. It is not enough for Members to simply stand and point out the problems without ever coming forward with a single solution. What support has the Minister received from his ministerial colleagues to try to avoid the budgetary cuts that will face his Department if he does not receive the finance that he needs? Mr Givan: I thank the Member for the question. The pressures that education has been under for a significant number of years are clear. That is something that I have raised repeatedly in my role as Minister of Education. I will continue to champion the needs of our schools and to fight the corner of our children in the face of difficult circumstances. That is why I tabled the draft Executive paper, on 14 October, that set out the critical position of my Department's finances and the actions that my Department would need to take in the absence of additional funding in order to significantly reduce the projected overcommitment in 2025-26. In that draft paper, I set out the savings that the EA was proposing and stressed that many would have an adverse impact on our most disadvantaged children and young people and on school communities more widely. Therefore, I struggle to express my disappointment at the failure of my Executive colleagues to recognise the crisis that is facing education. The Minister of Finance even questioned why I had brought the paper to the Executive, asserting that the Executive do not run my Department. I can reassure you, Mr Speaker, that I fully acknowledge my responsibility in running my Department, but I also recognise the collective responsibility that Ministers share to operate within the agreed Budget envelope. Given the prospect of an overspend at the Northern Ireland block grant level, it is vital that we work collectively to seek to minimise our collective overcommitment to the fullest extent possible. Therefore, I trust that all Ministers in the Executive will take that collective responsibility seriously and help to support me and, more importantly, our schools and children who need to have the support of the Executive and not just me as Education Minister. Mr McMurray: Would a planned and communicated approach earlier in the financial year have been a more effective way of saving money and offsetting the resulting outworkings that the Minister has described? Mr Givan: There was a series of reductions before devolution was restored. There were a number of savings, of which holiday hunger was one. Those reductions were made, before I was here, in order to help reduce the expenditure in the Department. I would love to be able to put more money into education to meet the needs of those people who deserve it, but the Executive are facing serious financial pressures collectively. One pressure is from the Department of Health and one will likely crystallise in the Department of Justice, next year, due to the data breach. That pressure will be to the tune of well over £100 million. If that is not met by the Treasury, it has to be met by the Executive collectively. As a result of some of those actions, pressure is placed on other Departments. I want to see effective management within the EA when it comes to trying to address the financial pressures. That is why I brought a paper to the Executive, and that is why I seek the support of my Executive colleagues. I wish that they would all get behind doing what we can achieve collectively rather than engaging in some of the positioning that is happening in Sinn Féin's ranks. Its voters deserve better than that. The children whom it represents deserve better than that kind of political posturing, and its Ministers need to roll up their sleeves with me so that we can do all that we can to mitigate the pressures that we face as an Executive. Longer-term strategic decisions will need to be taken on workforce planning and transport policy, and there will not be a lot of appetite for that in the wider public domain, but legislative change is required. My Department continues to scope out measures for the medium- to long-term plans, but the short-term pressures are chronic and will have severe implications for our education system. Mrs Mason: Minister, you have just said that we should listen to school leaders. Day in, day out, we are contacted by school leaders, who tell us just how stretched they are. A number of weeks ago, the EA sent them a letter to tell them to tighten the purse strings. We have heard about teachers spending their own money on resources, and now we hear the statement about cuts. Meanwhile, we have heard about all the wastage in the EA, such as money being spent on taxi journeys. How can you stand here and justify that? Will you listen to school leaders? Mr Givan: I will not justify any wastage. My correspondence with the EA challenges it on the measures that it is taking and on its responsibility to ensure that it lives within its budget. That is documented. I regularly meet the EA, and I take my role very seriously. The overcommitment does not sit within my Department's core functions, nor does not sit within any arm's-length body other than the Education Authority, on the board of which we all have political representatives. It is a shared responsibility, and if Members listen to principals, as I do, they will hear them say that they need our support in order to be able to do more, and that is what we need to provide. Join me in making every effort possible to stave off the hundreds of millions of pounds of cuts that will be made to our education system. What will the education system look like if those cuts take place? Cuts would have severe implications for the number of teachers in our workforce. Sinn Féin would rightly be the first to say, "We do not accept that", and I would agree with them. Cuts would have implications for expenditure on things such as school transport, and Sinn Féin's MLAs would be the first to demand that constituents need to get to school and may need a taxi to do so. I am asking whether there is a more efficient way in which to provide transport. I could give you hundreds of examples of correspondence from Members of the Assembly in which they have asked for more money to be spent on the education system, not less. The challenge for the Finance Minister is to determine how he will support me as I seek to support the school principals and our education system. I hope that he will rise to the challenge and support me. Mr Harvey: Minister, if you were to balance the budget this year, what would that mean for the education sector? Mr Givan: I have outlined some of what we need to do, but, because of the EA overcommitment, the Department will not be able to balance its books without additional investment. To deliver a balanced budget, any shortfall in the reduction secured through the cuts identified by the EA would have to come from other areas. The implications and practicalities of that are far-reaching. Balancing the budget could be delivered only through an extensive programme of voluntary and, inevitably, compulsory redundancies, which would ultimately need to be implemented with close to immediate effect. That would likely require a quarter of the teaching workforce to be made redundant, and such decisions would clearly have devastating consequences for our education system. That is why those matters are controversial and ought to be referred to the Executive. There are other Ministers in the Executive who should have referred matters because they were significant and controversial. I will comply with the ministerial code and ensure that the Executive deal with education matters that are controversial. Mrs Guy: Minister, I am aware of an EOTAS centre servicing children in Lagan Valley that found out about the suspension of referrals only when the EA issued its press release. There had been no direct communication with it. Nine children from our constituency are now facing uncertainty. Minister, can you tell us what the changes to EOTAS referrals mean for those children with social, behavioural and emotional well-being issues who require that type of provision? Mr Givan: The changes mean that less support is available. That is deeply regrettable and, indeed, unacceptable. Schools will have to do more to try to provide the young people with support. The Member's question crystallises the serious pressures in the Education budget. That is why, when the Assembly collectively discusses expenditure levels, I say that education should be one of the top priorities. We need to put our education system first; we need to put our children first. The consequences of not doing that are now being felt by the very children whom we are here to support. That is deeply regrettable. Greater collective responsibility is required in the Executive and then in the Assembly when it comes to the prioritisation and allocation of funding. Mr Durkan: It is baffling but convenient that such a swathe of far-reaching cuts could be made at the EA without board approval. What analysis has been done of the impact of the cuts, particularly on the most disadvantaged children? Has any equality impact assessment or rural needs assessment been done of the home-to-school transport cuts and how they will eradicate many children's opportunities to engage in the after-school activities that are so important for our children's development? Mr Givan: The EA went through various proposals, some of which the board did not want to implement because of their implications for the education system, and, from the category of proposals approved by the board, provided a series of them to the Department to be taken forward. There were other, much more severe proposals. With the projected overcommitment of £280 million, the current proposals are estimated to achieve savings in the region of £20 million to £30 million, which is barely 10% of the overcommitment that sits with the Education Authority. Members rightly find the proposals unpalatable. How much more serious will the situation be if the EA ends up having to go through with other, much more severe proposals? That is why the proposals are controversial and why a collective response is required in the Executive to help meet the issues. Operationally, the EA is responsible for determining the proposals, and its board has approved them. I agree with the Member's sentiment that they are not satisfactory, but that is a reflection of the financial position in which the Department and the EA find themselves. Ms Brownlee: Minister, will you provide further detail on the overall budgetary position that you face? Mr Givan: The overall pressures are equivalent to 8·7% of the opening budget that was granted to the Department of Education in this financial year, which is in the region of £280 million. Given the extent of the current forecast overspend in the overall education sector, there is a real risk of breaching that budget allocation. That in turn has a consequence for the Northern Ireland block grant. I referred earlier to the Department of Health's position. Without question, had the data breach issue crystallised in this financial year, the Department of Justice would also have breached its budget settlement, given that the Treasury indicated that it would not be able to access the reserves. That pressure will face the Executive in the next financial year. Initial planning for next year indicates that, according to the Education forecast, inescapable pressures — they are not nice-to-do things or luxuries; they are inescapable — come to £890 million. In that context, we simply cannot afford to have a 2025-26 overspend increase into the 2026-27 budget shortfall. Mr Carroll: Like the Member for Lagan Valley and other Members, I was contacted over the weekend by EOTAS workers who are concerned about the EA's announcement of the suspension of referrals to their provision. Workers are furious about that decision. Minister, have you carried out any assessment of how it will affect vulnerable people, given the work that EOTAS workers do? Top 4.00 pm Mr Givan: I know what effect it will have: it will have a negative effect. The consequences of what is happening are negative. I have repeated in response to other Members that it is not an acceptable position. That is why I am seeking the help and support of Executive colleagues. We all have collective responsibility. I take my ministerial responsibility seriously and can evidence and document where we have been able to make savings. However, the Education Authority is sitting with a very significant overcommitment, and the reductions in services will have a negative impact on those who depend on them. Mr Kingston: It is a difficult situation, with difficult options being considered by the EA, the Minister and the Executive as a whole. What indication has the Minister received from the Finance Minister regarding finance that might be available in the December monitoring round? Mr Givan: There is an ongoing process on what we want to achieve. We are waiting on the position at Westminster. They are facing incredibly difficult financial challenges, and the Finance Minister has indicated that he does not anticipate funding being made available through that process. The monitoring round will come in late November or, more likely, early December. There is opportunity there for Departments that need support to receive it, but, with the Executive looking at hundreds of millions of pounds of pressures on the block grant, I do not believe for one moment that we will receive that level of funding from the Treasury. Last year, an exceptional amount of funding became available. That funding masked the underlying situation faced in Education and other Departments. The pressures are now crystallising. That requires me to take action, which I will, in the medium to long term. I will outline some of the issues that need to be addressed, and it will be challenging. I suspect that very few Members in the Assembly will be supportive of those actions, but, given the financial reality that faces the Executive, difficult decisions need to be taken. My experience has been that many Ministers do not want to take those difficult decisions and immediately rule out revenue-raising in certain areas. They do not want to do those kinds of things, but we have public services that need to be funded. Those are the pressures that we, as an Executive, face. Mr Speaker: That concludes questions to the Minister of Education. Finance Budget Overspend Mr Speaker: Matthew O'Toole has tabled a question for urgent oral answer to the Minister of Finance. Mr O'Toole asked the Minister of Finance, following the decision to allow the Minister of Health to overspend on his budget by £100 million, for an update on his efforts to reduce the Executive’s overall departmental overspend. Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): Last Thursday, the Executive collectively agreed to the Health Minister's direction to deliver pay parity for health service staff. Without that decision being taken, there was severe risk of industrial action. I am sure that no Member of the House would have wanted to see health workers on strike, and I know that health workers did not want to go on strike, particularly as we approach the winter period when services are already under pressure. That would have caused disruption to service delivery, exacerbated waiting lists and, therefore, undermined the Executive's Programme for Government commitment to reducing waiting lists. The December monitoring round, which will take place after the Chancellor's autumn Budget, will provide final allocations to Departments for 2025-26. It is important to set out that the Health Minister has agreed to any funding shortfall in his Department at the end of 2025-26 being deducted from the Health opening budget for 2026-27. There has been close cooperation and partnership at ministerial and official level between my Department and Health on action being taken to deliver savings. The Health Minister has a plan in place to reset the Health and Social Care (HSC) system budget and has indicated that he will continue to do everything that he can to further reduce his Department's funding gap. I have consistently made it clear that all Departments must live within their budget allocations. I have repeatedly highlighted to Executive and Assembly colleagues that it was unlikely that there would be any additional funding in-year and the detrimental implications of not living within budget. Departments should have already taken actions, earlier this year, to ensure that they live within their budgets, which were agreed by the Assembly and the Executive, and those efforts must now be redoubled. I have reiterated to my Assembly colleagues the severity of the constrained financial situation and the need to work in partnership in order to manage the extremely challenging financial position. All Ministers must play their part. Mr O'Toole: Let me say first, Minister, that I welcome the fact that healthcare workers will get the pay settlement that they were promised, but, of course, they were promised that for years. Every year, they have had to threaten strike action, and every year, the money has to be found down the side of the Stormont sofa. They have to, effectively, beg and threaten industrial action, and, every year, your Department tells other Departments to live within their means. Minister, that is Polyfilla politics. We are now nearly two years into this mandate with no sign of a plan for funding pay settlements in the long term. Later this year, when we have a multi-year Budget, will there be a proper plan to fund pay parity over the long term, rather than treating healthcare workers in this way year after year? It is chaotic. Mr O'Dowd: Early last month, I said that I was confident that the issue would be resolved. The Executive collectively, working in partnership, have resolved it. I urge all Ministers, when they are looking at their budget allocations at the start of the year, to have pay at the top of the list rather than at the bottom. That is the way to deal with those matters. I understand that the Health Minister has made a commitment that, in future years, he will set aside funding for pay at the start of the year. When pay awards come through in Britain and there have to be increases, he will undertake to make those awards. That is how it should be dealt with. No worker should have to threaten strike action in order to achieve the pay award that they are entitled to. I welcome the fact that we have resolved that matter. As I said, I believe that it should have been resolved at the start of the year, but we are where we are. The three-year Budget will give colleagues an opportunity to plan over a three-year period rather than year by year. Miss Dolan: Minister, you touched on it briefly, but what action have you taken to encourage Ministers to live within their budget? Mr O'Dowd: It is worth noting — it is, perhaps, understandable — that when finance issues or Budget allocations come up, people will sometimes, quite rightly, look towards or point fingers at the Finance Minister. Let us, however, look at the history of how a Budget is set. I bring a draft Budget to the Executive. The Executive discuss it, and they either vote in favour of it or vote against it. In this instance, the Executive voted in favour of the Budget, and it was passed by the Assembly. It is now the Budget Act; it is a piece of legislation. All Ministers, and those who supported the Budget in the Assembly, have their fingerprints all over it. When it comes to living within budgets, it is vital that the Executive act collectively and in partnership with each other. If one Minister does not take the decisions necessary to live within their budget, that has direct implications for the ability of all the other Ministers to deliver public services across the board. We have an agreed Budget Act, and it is important that that Act is adhered to. Mr Kingston: As was the case with the Minister of Education, we all recognise that difficult decisions are having to be made. To allow the Health Minister to overspend by £100 million this year is one thing, but that cannot become a recurring loss, year-on-year. What information or undertakings have you received from the Health Minister that he will prevent that being a recurring loss? Mr O'Dowd: The Executive have agreed to the ministerial direction for the Department of Health, but part of that agreement was that the overcommitment would come off the Health Minister's budget for the 2026-27 year. As I said in my initial remarks, my Department and the Department of Health have done considerable work at ministerial and official level in order to fully understand the challenges and opportunities for the Department of Health around its savings plans. The Department of Health has done a considerable amount of work recently. That shows what can be done when a Minister is prepared to make decisions and give directions to officials on how a savings plan can be achieved. None of those decisions is easy. In the case of the big-spending Departments of Health and Education, the quantum of money is huge. However, similar percentage savings plans have had to be achieved in all Departments, and behind each of those is a very difficult decision for the Minister, the officials and everyone else who is involved. If we are to work to a plan, however, and that plan is the Budget Act, we must make those decisions and deliver in conjunction with that and with our Programme for Government. Mr Tennyson: I am not sure, Minister, whether you heard the Education Minister's response to the earlier question. He blamed a lack of in-year Barnett consequentials for the challenges in his Department. He was also critical of you and other Executive colleagues for refusing to make savings and efficiencies on his behalf. How predictable was that lack of Barnett consequentials this year? What is your response to the Education Minister's criticism? Mr O'Dowd: As you know, I was Minister of Education during difficult financial times, and my budget balanced each year. It is difficult and, at times, unpleasant for all Ministers, but that is why they are paid the big bucks. There is responsibility in that, and Ministers are paid the big bucks to make the decisions. As for how things move forward, people should have been discussing budgets and what we should do on 10 January, 10 February,10 March and 10 April, instead of on 10 November. Decisions should have been made in and around then, and statements issued from boards at that stage. I have been clear with ministerial colleagues from the outset that I did not expect there to be any significant Barnett consequentials this year. That is not because I am some financial wizard. Anybody watching or listening to events in London — to the Chancellor or to those who debate and discuss the Chancellor's views — would have known clearly that there were not going to be major Barnett consequentials this year. Dr Aiken: Minister, thank you very much indeed for agreeing with the Health Minister to look at this and to move those funds across. As you are aware, however, that is about 1·2% of the Health budget. Looking ahead at the next three years, is there an intent to profile and prioritise public-sector pay to begin with, as you mentioned, and to measure the quantum of that public-sector pay over the next three years? Mr O'Dowd: Yes. Collectively and individually, Ministers are going to have to do that. As I said in response to one of our colleagues, it is better if Ministers identify pay awards early in the financial year, rather than later in the year. If there then needs to be a top-up as part of a broader award, that has to be done. There is now an opportunity for Ministers to look at a three-year pay award programme. That will give them and workers certainty in planning. Ms Forsythe: Like others, I am glad to see the health service pay award. Minister, when there is good news at Finance, such as delivery on childcare and health pay, Sinn Féin is quick to take the credit for it, even though those are delivered through other Departments. Yet when there are pressures across the board, Sinn Féin is quick to say that the pressure lies with other Ministers and not with yourself, as Finance Minister. That fact is not lost on us. In Health, a £100 million overspend this year carried into next year will be recurring. You said that the Health Minister has accepted that and is taking it on board. Are you saying that he should be planning to make cuts of £200 million in Health from April 2026? Mr O'Dowd: In relation to broader Executive decisions, it was the Executive who decided to put an extra £55 million into childcare, and yes, I will take credit for that. If the Executive have to make difficult decisions, I will take responsibility for those. That is the nature of the game. You cannot shirk all responsibility, and the danger is that some will shirk all responsibility. When they do that, they do not deliver what the public expect of a leader in any organisation, which is to take a leadership role and take the hits with the highs. That is just the way it goes. As for what the Health Minister has to do next year, we will not know exactly how much of an overspend there will be in the Department of Health until the end of this financial year. That was emphasised again to the Health Minister, and he accepts it, but there still needs to be a savings programme in the Department of Health. Last Thursday was not a full stop on a savings programme in the Department of Health. That work has to continue, and we will continue to engage at ministerial and official level on the Health budget to ensure that we make it as balanced as possible. Top 4.15 pm Mr Carroll: Minister, it is better to break the stringent, out-of-date fiscal rules than to break working-class communities. I asked this question before in the Finance Committee and got a mixed answer, so I would appreciate it if you could bring some clarity for me: can you outline how much of an overspend Departments can enter into? Mr O'Dowd: The Member refers to "stringent" fiscal rules. I want independence here, but, in the meantime, I want full fiscal devolution to ensure that the Assembly and Executive make the decisions on all the fiscal rules that govern them, because, in my opinion, some of the fiscal rules from Treasury hamper us. For instance, we cannot hold a reserve here, but I think that a reserve would be very useful to the Assembly and Executive. A departmental budget cannot be overspent — a departmental budget should not be overspent. An overspend may arise, but that has consequences for future years' Budgets, because the Treasury will immediately remove that overspend from the next year's Budget. That has consequences for the entire Executive, and the Executive have to make decisions on how they deal with the implications of Treasury actions. In this instance, the Executive have said to the Health Minister, "If you overspend, it will come off your next year's budget", but, in this case, we have approved what is known as a ministerial direction. Mr Durkan: We welcome the fact that health workers will get pay parity, which is the very least that they deserve, but one of the consequences of delay is that, for our lowest-paid health workers, who are every bit as valuable as any others, any lump sum back payment is rendered virtually worthless to those workers who are on universal credit. Will the Minister encourage or ensure cooperation between different Ministers and Departments to ensure that that cohort of low-paid workers is not effectively penalised for being poor? It is possible. It was done with COVID payments, so I am sure that a way exists, but will the Minister ensure that the will exists as well? Mr O'Dowd: That is another reason why it is important that Ministers have these settlements earlier rather than later in the financial year. I suspect that that question is more for the Department for Communities, but I assure the Member that I am more than happy to cooperate. If there is a way around the rules on benefits that the Executive can deal with that without further financial consequences, I am happy to cooperate with the Communities Minister on that. Mr Speaker: That concludes questions to the Minister. Members' Statements Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council: Loyalist Intimidation Mr Kelly: On Monday 27 October, a mob of up to 30 people, including some masked individuals, gathered outside Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council. When the Sinn Féin councillors left, they were met with abusive swearing and intimidation. One female councillor, who was isolated and surrounded, was effectively prevented from moving forward and had to call for assistance. Sectarian insults were shouted, and the councillors were verbally abused for not wearing poppies and were called "rats" again and again while those people walked behind them. That was not a peaceful protest. It was a loyalist-coordinated attempt to intimidate those who were elected to represent their constituents. Many Sinn Féin elected representatives have faced threats before, as have elected representatives from other parties. Those loyalists and right-wing elements bring nothing but hate and disruption, but they will not stop us working on behalf of the people who elect us. What made the situation more concerning was the lack of response from the PSNI, which was actually present at the time. No meaningful action was taken to stop the escalation of abuse or to protect those who were being targeted. Two meetings took place with the local PSNI district commander after the event in which the lack of preparation and necessary action was strongly challenged. Public representatives and members of the community must be able to rely on the police to act to prevent threats and intimidation. The reason that I raise this now is that a known loyalist is posting on social media that there will be a similar gathering at the council meeting later this month. No public representative from any party or background should be subject to that kind of abuse, which could turn physically abusive at any moment. Political disagreement and free speech are part of democracy, but what we witness increasingly is not peaceful protest or free speech but targeted harassment led, to a great degree, by loyalists. Sinn Féin will not be intimidated by loyalists or right-wing gangs. We will continue to stand up for our communities and those who elect us. BBC Bias Mr Frew: Information is the currency of democracy. I am the first politician to stand up for freedom of the press and investigative journalism. However, the priority now for the BBC must be to restore its relationship with the truth and with the people who are forced to pay for that shabby and unethical service. The Trump speech is not the first time that the BBC has mischaracterised a politician's words, and it is not the first time that the BBC has reported false or fake news that represented a lack of editorial impartiality. On 23 July 2021, 'Good Morning Ulster' reported that the Mater Hospital was filled with young people on ventilators. That was false. It was untrue. 'The Nolan Show' repeated the story and ran with it. It was lazy journalism, because the BBC had not practised due diligence in checking the story and getting further sources to back up it up, and it was designed to feed into a narrative with which the BBC was obliging the Government and the Executive of the day in deploying fear, which caused great anxiety throughout our people and particularly our young people. The Executive's motives were to coerce young people to take a medicine that could cause them adverse side effects. A complaint went in, and it was upheld in April 2022, but the damage was done. Then we had the 'Talkback' programme that sensationalised me in my assisting people who had been harmed by medicine. It then took a public conversation that I had on Twitter with another account about vaccine injuries and reported fatalities and injuries on the yellow card scheme. On 16 January 2023, the 'Talkback' programme ran a story entitled 'Public health experts combat new wave of misinformation'. The BBC took a small section of that conversation out of context, changing its meaning, even though, earlier in the conversation, I had clarified the very point that it was reporting. It chose to ignore that in order to take a small section of the conversation and run a narrative that has both mischaracterised my words and misrepresented my opinion on the topic. That then was reported repeatedly by other media outlets. The false pretext was represented as fact. That mischaracterisation or misrepresentation was echoed only last week. I am calling for an investigation — a thorough review of BBC practices, not only in BBC News but in BBC News Northern Ireland, and into the current affairs programmes on Radio Ulster, so that we can get to the truth of these matters and ensure that the BBC once more becomes impartial, fair and accurate. COP30: Brazil Mr Blair: As chair of the all-party group on climate action, I take this opportunity to mark the start of the 30th UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties, otherwise known as COP30, hosted this year in Brazil. Each year at COP, leaders from across the globe are reminded of the scale of the challenge that we all face together. The theme this year is especially poignant, calling us not just to recognise the seriousness of climate change but to act collectively in the face of it. While Northern Ireland has experienced its own share of climate change — my constituency, South Antrim, for example, has increased and recurrent flooding — we must remember that other countries have been hit much harder, often with far fewer resources at their disposal to deal with it. Therefore, COP is an annual call to solidarity and shared purpose. We must not let political boundaries stifle our progress. It is far too easy to see climate action as someone else's responsibility or to delay necessary decisions out of short-term convenience. However, as elected representatives, we are entrusted with protecting the future for our constituents, our society and the natural world. That means embedding this year's COP vision into everything that we do in the Assembly. Collaboration is key, especially across parties, Departments and all levels of government. We must make and follow through on the difficult decisions that are necessary. I acknowledge the work that is taking place already: for example, the steps that have been taken by my colleague the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to deliver the long-standing Alliance Party policy to establish an independent environmental protection agency for Northern Ireland. Delivering such an agency will involve genuine collaboration and support from every Department and every party. The transparency and accountability that it will bring are crucial for safeguarding our natural world, as well as its being the ultimate invest-to-save measure. As COP30 begins, I remain hopeful that decisive action will finally match our words and that agreements forged this week will lead to progress that benefits not only our natural world but our people and our economy. This is not the time for delay or denial on climate action, as advocated by some; it is time now for that decisive action. Prisoner Release Victim Information Scheme: Ministerial Response Mr Beattie: Last week, my fellow Upper Bann MLA Jonathan Buckley raised a question for urgent oral answer with the Justice Minister about the murder of Marjorie and Michael Cawdery by Thomas McEntee while he was on day release. Many who know case will know that the family, in particular Charles Little, worked extremely hard to help inform how the health trusts and the PSNI deal with individuals who have mental health issues, as McEntee did. After the question for urgent oral answer, the family contacted me about some of the answers that the Justice Minister gave. They were concerned, because the Minister said that the Prison Service notified the Victims' Commissioner and the Parole Commissioners, but the family are absolutely adamant that it was they who notified the commissioner and that it was they who requested that the Prison Service contact the Parole Commissioners, not the Prison Service. It is a real concern and a failing that a family had to do that. The other issue that the family raised was in challenging the Minister when she said: "it is fair to say that, before anyone is released for pre-release testing, their mental health condition has to be stable and well managed and they will only be released if those issues are being addressed." — [Official Report (Hansard), 4 November 2026, p43, col 1-2]. Yet, at the sentencing of McEntee, Dr Kennedy and Justice Colton, who were looking after the case, agreed: "The future violence risk for life threatening harm in my view is thus a significant one, which will require indefinite management and supervision." They said: "He has already demonstrated concerningly that even when quite mentally unwell he has an ability to present himself as mentally well, even to experienced mental health staff." Was that ignored? If it was, it is damning that it was ignored and that McEntee was let out and sometimes let out while he was on his own. It is also worth nothing that the Minister said that McEntee's tariff had expired. That was not the case; his tariff was not due to expire until June 2027. So, the Minister, possibly inadvertently, misled the House. I know that she clarified that very point today. However, she did say that his tariff was close to expiring, but that is not true either, because he still had 30 months to go on his tariff. There were some serious structural failings in the pre-release testing that allowed McEntee to be out on day release after murdering Marjorie and Michael Cawdery. The family, rightly, want answers; the family, rightly, deserve answers; and the Minister needs to give answers. WEST Project Miss Dolan: I want to take a moment today to highlight some really positive news for Fermanagh and our neighbouring counties: the launch of the water enhancements through sustainable treatment project, better known as the WEST project. It is a €32 million cross-border initiative between NI Water and Uisce Éireann that is funded through the PEACE PLUS programme, which is managed by the Special EU Programmes Body (SEUPB). It is due to be launched tomorrow at Finn Lough resort on the shores of our own Lough Erne, a fitting setting for a project that is all about protecting and improving our local waterways. Top 4.30 pm The WEST project will focus on tackling water pollution in Lough Erne, Lough Melvin and Donegal Bay. Through innovative modelling and sustainable treatment, it will help identify where investment is needed most, no matter from which side of the border the issue comes. In Fermanagh, we will see benefits on the ground, with low-carbon waste water treatment upgrades planned for Belleek and Garrison. The upgrades will improve services for more than 5,000 people, with extra capacity for another 1,000. That is an example of real investment in rural communities that have often been overlooked when it comes to infrastructure. Clean water is vital not only for the environment but for farming, tourism and the health of our people. Such projects show the real value of cross-border co-operation, of EU funding and of communities working together to protect what we share. I commend NI Water, Uisce Éireann, the SEUPB and the Department for Infrastructure for their hard work and vision. The WEST project is a fantastic example of partnership in action, and it will make a lasting difference to Fermanagh and for future generations. Carrickfergus: US Rangers Mural Ms Brownlee: I speak in light of recent media reports and social media comments relating to a new US Rangers mural in Carrickfergus, which was delivered through the Communities in Transition (CIT) programme. I make this absolutely clear: the mural in Carrickfergus is not a mistake, anything to be ashamed of or something to be whispered about. It is something to stand beside with pride, and the many people of Carrickfergus and beyond are doing just that. The image on the wall does not glorify violence; it honours valour. It tells the story of the men who trained in our town in 1942: the United States Rangers' 1st Battalion, which was forged in Sunnylands Camp under Major William Darby. Those men were the tip of the spear in the fight against fascism. They were trained here, they bled for freedom and they set the standard for courage under fire. Carrickfergus played a part in that global story. While others turned their back or declared themselves to be neutral, our town stood up, opened its doors and helped build an elite force that led the way across Europe. That is our history and our connection to one of the most respected military units in the world. Some people have criticised the mural, saying that it looks too militaristic and aggressive. They have made the bizarre statement that it resembles a paramilitary image. Frankly, that is a lazy and offensive comparison that shows a misunderstanding of history and art. The mural is a symbol of sacrifice, discipline and strength. If people cannot tell the difference between those who fought for freedom and those who fought against it, maybe that is exactly why the mural is needed. The artist, Dan Kitchener, captured something powerful: the harsh reality of war, the machinery and the rubble. He also captured the light breaking through the clouds, which represents hope. It is honest and raw, because history was not polite, and neither were the men who fought to defend us. The mural stands in an area that, for years, has been scarred by graffiti and intimidation. Now, instead of darkness and division, we have a wall that tells a story of courage and of the victory of good over evil. Carrickfergus has always been a proud town: proud of our castle and of our involvement in the wars of the previous century. We have never shied away from defending what is right, and the mural continues that tradition. It is a declaration and a reminder of who we are, where we came from and the values for which we stand. Yes, it is bold, defiant and unapologetic. That is exactly what it should be, because the men who trained there did not apologise for standing up to tyranny, and we should not apologise for remembering them. Minister of Education Mr Baker: For a long time, we have had no confidence in the Minister of Education. Arrogance, incompetence and financial mismanagement have been the hallmark of Paul Givan's time in office. He blames everyone but himself. Just last week, the Education Authority (EA) informed parents and education other than at school (EOTAS) staff via social media that the price of school dinners was to increase by 20%, referrals to EOTAS were to stop and children were to be locked out of music programmes. Owing to the Minister's mismanagement and ideology, the Lagan Valley Education Project in my constituency will be forced to close its doors. For decades, that organisation has helped young people on their last chance by educating them outside of school. That, coupled with the uncertainty that families face with school transport and the hike in the price of music programmes, shows that we need a Minister for all children. Instead, we have a Minister who wants to build a regressive education system that will harm our young people by removing coursework and AS levels and setting up a one-off high-stakes exam. We have a Minister who took a trip to Florida to promote his agenda while children with special educational needs had no school places and who ignored the Education Committee's proposals, which would have cut uniform costs and ensured that girls could wear trousers if they wanted. The Minister has spent money on vanity projects. He spent a quarter of a million pounds on a pilot scheme for mobile phone pouches: how many school meals would that have covered? There is a litany of failures by the Minister. However, the past two weeks have been the straw that broke the camel's back. He championed the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and went to Israel and visited a school in an illegally occupied territory, using departmental resources to promote the whitewashing of genocide. At the same time, schools here are being told that they cannot spend their budgets. The Minister has lost the confidence of teachers, unions, pupils and parents. He attempts to overwhelm our school leaders with consultations and surveys. If he continues down the path of destruction, it will take years to rectify the damage. He is a lame-duck Minister, and he needs to go. Healthcare Workers: Pay Rise Mrs Dodds: I welcome the announcement that healthcare workers are due to get the pay rise that they deserve. Our healthcare workers are the glue that has bonded a broken system, and it is they who go above and beyond in times of crisis. We cannot be seen to have been clapping for the NHS during COVID but failing to get to grips with fair pay for healthcare staff. All other healthcare workers in the rest of the United Kingdom have been paid that rise, and Northern Ireland should be no different. However, I hope that the pay rise will be supported by a clear plan for workforce sustainability, better working conditions, safe staffing reforms and improved patient outcomes. Of course, there are questions to be asked about the handling of the pay award. The Health Minister has a budget of £8·6 billion, yet he indicates that it is difficult to meet pay awards. I sit, week in and week out, monitoring those issues at the Health Committee, and I understand the pressures on the budget. However, with 52% or 53% of the block grant, those issues could be resolved. I note that the Minister, in his statement on the issue, has promised to prioritise pay in next year's budget. However, that begs the question of why he did not prioritise pay in this year's budget. Public sector pay rises are a bit like winter pressures in the health service: they are well known, and they come round every year. We are also left with the questions about the impact on next year's budget if there is an overspend this year. While it is right that healthcare workers are paid appropriately, it is also right that the Minister explains how he will handle this really important issue. Cuts to manage an overspend next year would not be acceptable. Our National Health Service is nothing without the people who get up every morning, go to work — at times, in a chaotic system — and care for us at the most vulnerable times in our lives. They deserve fair pay. The pay award should have been made after it was indicated. While there are issues with timing and budgeting, it is right that our healthcare workers are paid properly and valued for the huge contribution that they make. Translink School Bus Pick-up Points: Ballyclare Dr Aiken: First, I declare an interest as a parent governor at Ballyclare High School. We are, unfortunately, all used to our public utility companies making changes that often defy logic and exacerbate rather than solve problems. Anyone who lives in Ballyclare or has children at any of the excellent schools in our town will know the times to avoid due to school traffic. There have been ongoing issues with bus timetabling, access along the narrow streets and tight car parking around the Square. The buses pick up close to the school, with the embarking and driving off happening within minutes of the end of school. That has been largely an encumbrance, but it has not led to real concerns about child safety until now. Due to a series of managerial and staff issues, Translink has decided to change the bus pickup areas. The changes have particularly affected pupils at Ballyclare High School and residents along and in Hillmount Avenue, Rathmena estate, Rashee Road and Readers Park. Last Friday evening, I witnessed 300 children walking or, to put it more accurately, stumbling towards the new bus stops at Readers Park, a distance of approximately one mile, along wet, ill-lit roads and narrow pavements. They were rushing to get buses within 15 minutes. Several pupils have been left behind by Translink's buses leaving in a rush. That is happening even before midwinter sets in and along pavements and side roads that are notorious for being seldom, if ever, gritted. Translink's response to the entreaties of the school's senior leadership has been indifference. I have called for Translink to contact me and public representatives to discuss the matter, but it has not deigned to do so. Regrettably, it is only a matter of time before an incident occurs. It seems inexplicable that a public service provider such as Translink ignores the concerns of those on the ground. The question has to be why. I and the staff, parents, pupils and residents in the affected areas in Ballyclare would be delighted if a senior member of Translink's management would explain the rationale for that ridiculous decision or, better still, listen to common sense and revert to an arrangement that works and is safe. President Michael D Higgins Mr Durkan: Today, we mark the conclusion of an extraordinary chapter in the life of our nation as Michael D Higgins completes his second term as uachtarán na hÉireann [Translation: president of Ireland.] Few individuals have embodied the heart and spirit of Ireland quite like Michael D. Through his words, his wisdom and his warmth, he has reminded us of the power of compassion, culture and community. His presidency has been one of deep connection to the people of Ireland, our shared history and the generations yet to come. President Higgins has spoken for those whose voices often go unheard: the artists, the workers, the dreamers and the dispossessed. In every corner of the island, his message has been consistent that equality and dignity must not be ideals that we aspire to but realities that we live by. He leaves behind not only a record of service but a legacy of hope and a belief that politics, when infused with humanity, can still be a noble calling. Though his tenure as president comes to an end, his influence on Irish life and thought will endure for many years to come. On behalf of all who cherish the values of inclusion, justice and kindness, I thank him. Go raibh míle maith agat, a Uachtaráin [Translation: Thank you very much, Mr President] , for your leadership, your poetry and your profound love of Ireland. Go n-éirí an bóthar leat [Translation: May the road rise to meet you] , and may your next chapter be as inspiring as the one that you have just written. BBC Bias Mr Gaston: Yesterday's resignations at the very top of the BBC are the public implosion of a myth. The BBC claims to be the gold standard of journalism, yet the public have known for years that that is nonsense. Now, the BBC's leaked internal report shows that even it agrees. Why did the director general and the head of news resign? It was because the corporation that they led had been caught red-handed editing a documentary about Donald Trump in a way that manipulated the truth. That was not an isolated mistake. It was symptomatic of a culture that has abandoned journalistic integrity for ideology and of a culture of "serious and systemic" bias. Those are not my words but the words of those who worked in it. There was systematic bias in the coverage of Donald Trump. There was systematic bias in the coverage of the Middle East. There was systematic bias on transgender ideology, where standing up for biological truth was silenced, misrepresented or mocked. Top 4.45 pm Had that report examined Northern Ireland, it would have found specific issues, such as pan-nationalist bias, endless propaganda aimed at eroding the Union, and the demonisation of unionists. We see trigger warnings before 12 July coverage but wall-to-wall uncritical coverage of the GAA, an organisation that glorifies those who pulled actual triggers. In July, we saw blanket, dishonest coverage of the comments of the Goldsprings of Comber Orange Lodge when it dared to challenge the GAA. Months later, it still has not received a proper apology. On that issue, I say this to BBC Northern Ireland: stop stalling, do the decent thing and apologise to that lodge. When the national broadcaster becomes a platform for one side of the debate, it ceases to be a public service. It becomes a propaganda machine, paid for by the public. We had the Savile cover-ups and the Bashir deception. We have seen a live broadcast from Glastonbury of death threats from a so-called artist whose comments were entirely predictable. We have seen decades of bias punctuated by the odd apology. It is time that time was called on the licence fee. It is time to defund the BBC and scrap the licence fee. Mr Speaker: I call Gary Middleton. You have a couple of minutes, Mr Middleton. Colum Eastwood: Court Decision Mr Middleton: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak about the recent court decision on the Foyle MP. In 2024, Colum Eastwood took part in an un-notified pro-Palestine, anti-Israel procession. That was a clear breach of the law, and he was subsequently charged. We now see that the charge against him has been dropped after he accepted a formal reprimand. The charge against him was dropped quicker than the unionists who signed up to the SDLP's New Ireland Commission. That is saying something. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Blair] in the Chair) When the rule book seems to change depending on who is involved, people are right to ask questions. That decision tells us that the standards are incredibly low for some people but high for the rest of us. Several years ago, in the Chamber, I highlighted what I saw as an imbalanced approach towards people in the Waterside who were charged with taking part in illegal processions. They were protesting against the increase in antisocial behaviour, sexual attacks and sectarianism in St Columb's Park. They walked on the footpath, but were charged and fined. The latest decision is another example of the alleged two-tier justice system that many in the unionist community have been warning about for years. It makes people lose faith in the system, especially when so-called leaders like Colum Eastwood can act so blatantly as though the law does not apply to them. Where is the strong leadership from Colum Eastwood when problems exist in our communities? He has time to travel to Beirut at the taxpayer's expense and time to take part in an illegal procession but no time to show leadership when we desperately need it in our constituency. Think about the outrage when a banner showing a PSNI officer was brazenly burned in public; an appalling attack on the men and women who keep us safe. There was silence from Colum Eastwood. Where was his voice when the flag of St Columb's Cathedral was burned on a bonfire? Again, there was silence from Colum Eastwood. Today, when a banner commemorating people who lost their lives during the war was stolen from the Fountain estate — Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member's time is up. Mr Middleton: — there was no comment from Colum Eastwood MP. Shame on him. Opposition Business Holding Ministers to Account Mr O'Toole: I beg to move That this Assembly recognises that the current structure of government in Northern Ireland makes it impossible to fully hold Ministers to account for their actions; expresses concern that, under existing structures, it is not guaranteed that Ministers will be removed from office even when found to have breached the ministerial code or broken the law; agrees that a programme of institutional reform is required to overcome those challenges; and calls on the First Minister and deputy First Minister to bring forward proposals for Executive and Assembly reform, which upholds the stability of the institutions, while also ensuring that Ministers are effectively held to account for their actions. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. Two amendments have been selected and are published on the Marshalled List, so the Business Committee has agreed that 30 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate. Mr O'Toole, please open the debate on the motion. Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Earlier today, we saw histrionic and fairly depressing scenes as the DUP Minister of Education, Mr Givan, sought to respond to legitimate and serious attempts to hold him to account for clear breaches of not just the ministerial code but the Civil Service code of ethics, the Functioning of Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021 and accepted 60-year-old UK foreign policy. He responded with deflection, arrogance and contempt to detailed points that were put to him by us and others in the Chamber. Perhaps we should have expected that; it was fairly well telegraphed that that would be his response and that of his party. However, it is clear — it was highlighted very starkly to the people who were watching — that there is a crisis of accountability in this society and in these political institutions. There is a crisis in trust in our politics that is systemic and threatens the long-term and even medium-term future of these institutions. Nobody should be in any doubt about that. Since we entered Opposition nearly two years ago, we have been clear about the need to reform these institutions. We have made that one of the core themes of our opposition. The very first thing that I did as leader of the Opposition was to ask the First Minister and deputy First Minister to pledge not to resign their office for the duration of this term. Our first Opposition day was devoted to the theme of reform and the need to progress meaningful change to the way in which these institutions work to, first, make them less likely to collapse; secondly, improve trust among the public in their being accountable and having good governance; and, thirdly, improve policy delivery overall, so that we can be more proud of these political institutions and the public can not just have more trust but have trust in the first place, because, as we know, trust is painfully low. One of the issues that causes people not to trust our political institutions is the feeling that, even when there is a clear and, frankly, overwhelming argument for censuring or holding to account an individual Minister, they are, effectively, immune from that because of the provisions that exist to protect them. I accept that there has been no finding against Mr Givan as yet of a breach of the ministerial code, but, even when there have been findings of breaches of the ministerial code, such as there were with other DUP Ministers last year, the cross-community voting provisions have prevented any meaningful censure. To be clear, I am not talking about removing any or all forms of cross-community voting provision. I do not think that we are ready for that yet, although that does need to be reformed. What we are proposing today is that we need to remove the permanent barrier to any Minister's being held to account. Earlier, DUP Members, in responding, I think, very performatively, although perhaps they were being sincere in some of their responses, listed all the occasions on which Ministers from other parties — particularly from Sinn Féin, although they also mentioned members of my party and Ministers from the Alliance Party — had not been held to account. I assume from those remarks and contributions that those Members will support the Opposition motion, because the upshot of it is that it would make it easier to hold Ministers to account when they are found to have breached the ministerial code or, indeed, the law. We are open-minded about precisely what reform looks like. There are a whole range of measures that we and other parties have proposed for reform to reduce the likelihood of institutional collapse. When it comes to improving ministerial accountability, we have also set down particular things that we think should happen. There should be a legal duty on Ministers and their Departments to work collaboratively and across departmental silos. We should also look to removing some of the permanent barriers that exist to Ministers being held to account, because let me say again that a lot of people watching today's proceedings — those who have been outraged by the conduct of Minister Givan — are not simply people from what are called "nationalist backgrounds", or indeed people who are necessarily critical of the state of Israel in every particular circumstance. They are people who clearly see that he misused his office, and today we proved, again, that we do not have enough power to hold Ministers such as Mr Givan, and others who break the rules, to account. So what should we do? Our motion calls for a fundamental step change in reform. We want the support from the Assembly today to do that, and I state upfront that we will not support any amendments to the motion today. We do not believe that any of the amendments are proposed in good faith, and I will go on to explain why. If we do not get on and reform these institutions before the end of this mandate and prove to the public that we can meaningfully change the way that we do business, we will completely and permanently jeopardise trust in our ability to govern here. I say that because, frankly, the public really has had its patience tested beyond its natural limit by the antics of parties in this institution. The public is deeply distrustful of our politics and of the parties in it. It is incumbent on all of us to get serious about reform. Since February last year, we have not yet got serious about reform. On the very first Opposition day that we had, way back in March last year, an amendment was successfully made to one of our motions, prioritising reform and calling for it to be pushed to the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, which is examining these issues and related issues, specifically in relation to institutional stability, right now. The only reason that that is happening is that my party and I put down a proposal, supported by colleagues from the Alliance Party, which has also put down and moved its own proposals in that Committee. The proposals were not supported at first by either Sinn Féin or the DUP. Indeed, it was only when Sinn Féin changed its position that we were able to begin an inquiry into that in earnest. When we did a call for evidence on reform, Sinn Féin did not even respond. Nor, of course, did the DUP. So there is no evidence whatsoever that Sinn Féin is serious about institutional reform, none whatsoever thus far. Other than its slightly moving its position rhetorically, we have yet to see any meaningful, practical commitment to it. In the past, the DUP was —. Mr Sheehan: Will the Member give way? Mr O'Toole: I will happily give way. Mr Sheehan: As the Member knows, because he is on the AERC, there is a process taking place whereby the Committee is taking evidence on potential reform of the Assembly. Would it not be better to wait until we gather all the evidence and then go out to public consultation, rather than nailing our colours to the mast beforehand? We are all for a discussion on reform of the Assembly. There is absolutely no doubt about that. Mr O'Toole: No, I do not agree with what the Member has just said. There is nothing to prevent us from having a discussion or taking evidence on the basis of positions that we already have. Those positions can be challenged — we can learn more; we can evolve our proposals — but we are not an academic study group. We are politicians. We are allowed to have positions. Mr Sheehan: Will the Member give way? Mr O'Toole: I will give way, but I do not have very much time left. Mr Sheehan: The difficulty is that, with the Good Friday Agreement — we were warned by those who designed it — there is always the potential that, if you pull at a thread somewhere, it will unravel other parts of the agreement that we do not want to unravel. Therefore, we need to be absolutely clear, when we do nail our colours to the mast, that the Good Friday Agreement — certainly, the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement — will not, in any way, be affected by it. Mr O'Toole: The Good Friday Agreement was designed to be reformed and updated as we went along. Of course, it was changed fairly negatively in 2006. It was never supposed to be preserved in aspic. The key values need to stay there. The key value is that it exists and that we have inclusive institutions that deliver good government. They are not doing that now. That is the key point, and today's theatre has proven that again. We have had panto villain exploits from Minister Givan, who, I am sure, was delighted with some of what happened today, and his party colleagues defended him. That is fine. They have, I think, undermined trust yet again in these institutions, but they are not the only ones to have undermined trust in these institutions. Other parties, including the First Minister's party, have done that. Top 5.00 pm As I have said in the Chamber repeatedly, there is nothing that prevents us from being clear about our intention to change the rules and to improve how this place works while retaining the core spirit of 1998. Let us improve that; let us improve ministerial accountability; and let us prevent these institutions from collapsing at the drop of a hat, because that looks closer to happening today than it did a month or a year ago. Let us get serious about reform. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up. Mr O'Toole: I commend the motion to the Assembly. Ms Ennis: I beg to move amendment No 1: Leave out all after "broken the law;" and insert: "refers to the Assembly and Executive Review Committee for consideration the matter of reforms that uphold the principles and protections of the Good Friday Agreement, and ensure the stability of the political institutions while holding Ministers to account for their actions; and calls on the Committee to urgently bring forward meaningful proposals for reform on this matter." Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you. You have 10 minutes in which to propose the amendment and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. Please open the debate on amendment No 1. Ms Ennis: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. [Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.] Today's unedifying display by the Education Minister has given proof, if proof were required, of the need for reform. Earlier today, a majority in the Assembly voted that it had no confidence in the Education Minister. As it stands, the Education Minister has not just lost the confidence of the Assembly; he has lost the confidence of the public. Now we are left with a petulant, morally bankrupt Education Minister, a spent force who has lost all credibility; yet he remains in office. That is not accountability, and it shows exactly why our institutions need to be strengthened. The Education Minister's trip raises serious questions about his moral and professional judgement. It was tone deaf, politically reckless and showed a complete disregard for the feelings of many people across our community, not least of all those who work in the Minister's Department, our teaching staff and their unions. That kind of behaviour undermines confidence not only in one Minister but in these institutions themselves. Twenty-seven years on from the Good Friday Agreement, we have come a long way, but the world of 2025 is not the world of 1998. Times have changed, and our institutions must adapt with them. Sinn Féin is ready for that conversation. We want reform, but it must be serious reform that delivers accountability and strengthens power-sharing. However, if I am to be honest, too many others are treating the issue of Assembly reform as an opportunity for a headline; for the chance to outdo a political rival or to claim some quick political kudos. Rushing into reforming these institutions without the proper consideration, scrutiny and thought would be reckless. Reform must be done right, and we do it right by gathering and examining the evidence. We do it through engagement, and we do it with respect for the principles of the Good Friday Agreement, because those principles are not obstacles but the foundations for everything that we do and everything that we have achieved. That is why our amendment refers this issue to the Assembly and Executive Review Committee. The Member who moved the motion knows all too well, because he sits on that Committee alongside me, that that is the proper forum in which to take this forward. Mr O'Toole knows that the Committee is already examining important questions around how cross-community voting operates, how the Executive are formed and how accountability can be strengthened across the board. I take exception to Mr O'Toole's misrepresentation of Sinn Féin's position on AERC, because it was our party that added to that list and asked for things to be looked at, including how the Speaker is elected and the power of the Speaker. We believe that changes in that respect would fundamentally give the Assembly more credibility and more stability. The Assembly and Executive Review Committee is where the serious work is being done; it is not in the headlines of newspapers or in social media but in the detail of the work that the AERC is already undertaking. I acknowledge that my Committee colleague Michelle Guy has proposed that we enhance civic engagement in the process, and I do think that civic engagement is good. It helped to shape the Good Friday Agreement, and it must play a part in shaping the next part of its evolution. It should also be said that reform here cannot happen in isolation. Any legislative change will, ultimately, require Westminster's involvement, and that must be approached in the spirit of cooperation. Let me say clearly again that Sinn Féin is up for reform, but we are up for doing it properly. We are engaging with the evidence and with the experts and the people whom we represent. Others, including the DUP and its Ministers, need to reflect on their position on that and on their responsibility. Equally, others in the House need to approach the issue of reform with maturity and with the seriousness that it deserves, because playing party politics with reform or with the public's trust is not leadership. The people of the North deserve better than distraction and cheap political point-scoring on the issue. They deserve seriousness, accountability and a politics that delivers. That is a standard that we in Sinn Féin are intent on upholding. Mr Gaston: I beg to move amendment No 2: Leave out all after "First Minister and deputy First Minister" and insert: "to respect the role of the Commissioner for Standards when it comes to investigating breaches of the ministerial code as required by section 5 of the Functioning of Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 2021." Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Assembly should note that the amendments are mutually exclusive, so if amendment No 1 is made, the Question on amendment No 2 will not be put. Mr Gaston, you have 10 minutes in which to propose amendment No 2 and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak in the debate will have five minutes. Please open the debate on amendment No 2, Mr Gaston. Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. Through necessity, there will be a degree of overlap in some of my comments on the earlier motion and this one, given that the earlier motion dealt with the exclusion of a specific Minister, while this one deals with how Ministers can be removed from office and held accountable through the ministerial code. The purpose of my amendment is to highlight the fact that we already have a process in place. We have an independent mechanism through which alleged breaches of the ministerial code can be examined. The problem with the motion, and, indeed, with the House in a recent example, is that both have chosen to ignore that existing mechanism. Let us be honest: the so-called constructive Opposition were quite happy to go along with that for the sake of protecting the process. My amendment changes the motion's final line. Instead of vaguely calling for the First Minister and the deputy First Minister to dream up some more nice reform proposals, it requires them: "to respect the role of the Commissioner for Standards when it comes to investigating breaches of the ministerial code as required by section 5 of the Functioning of Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 2021", because we already have a structure in place for accountability. It is simply not being used. In fact, the Assembly allowed it to be bypassed. The 2021 Act, from my party leader, Jim Allister, was borne out of the findings of the renewable heat incentive (RHI) inquiry and the public demand for integrity in government. It recognised, as Mr Allister said during the Second Stage debate on the Functioning of Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill: "Ministers have a ministerial code, but there is no accountability." — [Official Report (Hansard), Bound Volume 127, p77, col 1]. Mr O'Toole: I appreciate Mr Gaston's giving way. I spent a lot of time in Committee scrutinising the Functioning of Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, which his predecessor introduced, and I tabled amendments to it and worked with his predecessor on them. If Mr Givan is found to have broken that law — I cannot see how he could not be — will the Member support his leaving office? Mr Gaston: I thank the Member for his intervention. To be clear, he is putting the cart before the horse. I want to see the report. It is important that evidence be gathered and that we then make our determination on the report, instead of the pantomime that we saw this morning, where Members were willing to hang the Minister out to dry without due process being followed. I am very clear: let us see the content of the report, and we will take it from there. Clause 5 of the Bill was designed to close that gap. Its purpose was simple. Mr Allister said: "If MLAs are subject to the Assembly commissioner, why not Ministers?" He asked: "Why are we reinventing the wheel? We have ... a standards commissioner to deal with issues of conduct." — [Official Report (Hansard), Bound Volume 127, p77, cols 1-2]. He then asked why we should not widen that commissioner's remit to include the ministerial code. The intention was to ensure independent oversight, to remove discretion from the Executive and to give binding effect to standards, which, until then, existed only in a code. At Second Stage, Mr Allister quoted Lord Bingham's observations on a code, which he made in another case. Lord Bingham said that a code: "does not have the binding effect which a statutory provision or a statutory instrument would have." — [Official Report (Hansard), Bound Volume 127, p71, col 2]. That was the point. Codes are fine, but they are simply not enough. When the McMonagle scandal broke — when the First Minister and other Sinn Féin Members were accused of a serious misuse of public money — the statutory route was ignored. Instead of referring the matter to the commissioner, as the law permits, the investigation was handed to an insider: the Assembly's head of Legal Services. It was, by its own admission, a purely paper exercise, with no witnesses, no testing of the evidence, and, I would argue, no independence. When the Assembly debated the matter in January, the House agreed with me that the process was unacceptable. Yet, 10 months on, the same paper review remains the only investigation to have been carried out. I attempted to refer the scandal to the commissioner. She declined to accept the referral, citing the fact that the head of Legal Services had already reviewed the issue. That meant that significant evidence was never tested by an independent investigator, including Sam McBride's report that, contrary to Sinn Féin's claims, McMonagle had worked as a press officer in a party political capacity. There was no new inquiry, and the report that the Assembly regretted is still treated as definitive. Sinn Féin, the Alliance Party and the SDLP tolerated that, but were quite prepared to hang, draw and quarter the Education Minister earlier without any report. The SDLP speak this afternoon about accountability, transparency and integrity, yet when the opportunity arose to use the proper processes to investigate the First Minister, it played along for the sake of the process. The motion calls for respect for the law, yet the law, specifically the requirements of the 2021 Act, was ignored in our handling of the McMonagle affair. The DUP should also reflect. When I tabled a motion of no confidence in Michelle O'Neill because of that scandal, the DUP was nowhere to be seen. Tellingly, as the DUP found out today, the favour was not returned by its coalition partners. There is one rule for Sinn Féin and another rule for unionist Ministers. So-called accountability is not a principle but a political weapon, and that is why my amendment is necessary. Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Member for giving way. You will be surprised to hear that I will, in my speech, praise your predecessor for bringing forward the Functioning of Government Act. I am a bit concerned that your amendment does not highlight the fact that there is no automatic sanction and that, under it, whether something happens when a Minister breaks the ministerial code will still be a political issue. Will you speak to that, please? Mr Gaston: I am happy to speak to that. Indeed, it allows due process and an investigation to take place, and then it is up to the standards commissioner to take that forward. The gap was narrowed to make sure that everybody in this Building was treated in the same way. Indeed, my amendment does not propose new structures or commissions; it simply insists that the Assembly uses the independent mechanism that it already has — the Commissioner for Standards — and that Ministers be investigated in line with statute, not by their colleagues or party allies. As Mr Allister said, when introducing his then Bill, giving the commissioner that role: "would put everyone in the House on the same footing." — [Official Report (Hansard), Bound Volume 127, p142, col 2]. That is what equality before the law looks like. If Members genuinely want to build trust, they should start by following the law. The 2021 Act was designed to end the era of insiders marking their own homework, but the McMonagle affair showed that, when tested, the House still prefers cover-up to candour. Members have a choice this afternoon. They can support the SDLP's motion as it is written and sign up to another talking shop on reform, while the statutory safeguard that we already possess lies unused. Or, they can support my amendment and commit the Assembly to respecting the law, using the commissioner, who was appointed just last week, and investigating Ministers based on the evidence. If we truly believe in equality before the law, there can be no more insider reviews, no more paper exercises and no more selective outrage. One standard must apply to us all, whether we are an MLA or a Minister. The Functioning of Government Act 2021 gave us the mechanism for achieving integrity, consistency and respect for the rule of law — a rule that Sinn Féin has never honoured. I commend my amendment to the House. Top 5.15 pm Mr Brett: Sometimes, when I come to this place, I think that I am living in a parallel universe. Having exactly the same debate this evening as we had this morning only confirms my suspicions. I read with interest the motion from the leader of the Opposition in the Order Paper this morning. Following my promotion to the Executive Office Committee, I get to respond to such motions. The motion states: "that the current structure of government in Northern Ireland makes it impossible to fully hold Ministers to account for their actions". It was not those on these Benches who came up with the rules of the game. We on these Benches are often lectured as though the Belfast Agreement was written on tablets of stone passed down by Moses himself and cannot be touched or changed, but, when that does not suit the narrative of the Opposition, suddenly, it can be changed. The motion goes on to criticise the existing structures in the Assembly. Mr O'Toole's party brought forward the very structures that he criticises. Now, he is like the child who brings his football to the game in the street and, when he does not get his own way, takes the football and goes home. He and his party have been voted out of office, and, because the electorate does not want them in the Government, they want to change the rules. The people of Northern Ireland see through those flimsy arguments. In his speech at the start of the debate, the leader of the Opposition said that there had been clear breaches of the law and the code by the Minister of Education. That indicates clearly why no party should support the motion from the leader of the Opposition: he has no evidence to back that up as fact. No independent report has been made. Alongside his comrade in People Before Profit, he tables a motion of exclusion of the Minister before the Minister has been found guilty of a single thing. That is what the motion is about. I struggled to take lectures on the ministerial code from the leader of the Opposition when sitting behind him as he made his speech was Mr Durkan. Mr Durkan, of course, was found by the High Court to have breached the ministerial code when he acted illegally to approve the Belfast metropolitan area plan (BMAP). Once again, it is one rule for the SDLP, and it thinks that others should be held to account for those —. Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way? Mr Brett: Happily. Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Member for giving way. That points cuts to the heart of the matter in that we are reliant in many ways on the courts to rule on whether there has been a breach of the ministerial code, when we should have in our gift the mechanisms and the sanctions to act on such breaches. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute. Mr Brett: The Assembly has such ability, Ms Bradshaw; that is why cross-community support is required. I believe that, if a Minister were found to be in breach of the law, parties across the House would come together to take clear actions. I am happy to give way to Ms Armstrong, but maybe she is just shaking her head. Ms K Armstrong: I am shaking my head because the Member perhaps does not understand what cross-community voting is. It means a majority of unionist and nationalists; it does not mean all of the House. The Good Friday Agreement includes the option of weighted majority voting, which the House has never considered. Come back to me when your vote counts for less than everyone else's, Mr Brett. Mr Brett: Of course, you could follow in your predecessors' steps and redesignate to other parties when it suits your political agenda, Ms Armstrong, but I do not need to take any lectures from you about — [Interruption.] Sorry, you have had your say. Stop chuntering from a sedentary position. You will get your chance to speak. We have had it laid out clearly today from— [Interruption.] Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members. Mr Brett: Thank you. I appreciate that. There are mechanisms for the House to hold Ministers to — [Interruption.] Mr Deputy Speaker, when Alliance Party Members speak and anyone dares to reply or make a facial expression, they call it sexism; they call it misogyny; and they call it abuse. Yet they sit in the corner making faces and snide comments when unionists speak, and, when you react to them, they call it a personal attack. This is a debating chamber — Ms K Armstrong: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. As you know, I am Chair of the Committee on Procedures, and I am well across Standing Orders. I ask you to rule on whether it is appropriate for a Member to dictate how another Member should act in the House when that is clearly laid out in Standing Orders. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, Ms Armstrong. Your query has been noted and will be looked at by the Speaker's Office. Mr Brett: Clearly, there is no breach of Standing Orders, so the Chair of the Procedures Committee may wish to do some homework before trying to lecture me in the Chamber. The motion is a pointless exercise. The Assembly and Executive Review Committee is already taking forward important work in this regard. I expected the leader of the Opposition to put forward some proposals or solutions in today's motion as to what he wanted to see in the reform package, but, once again, he has tried to outsource the hard work to someone else, calling on the First Minister and deputy First Minister to bring them forward. If the SDLP were serious about this —. Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way? Mr Brett: I have only 30 seconds left, Matthew. If the SDLP were serious about reform proposals, it could have tabled them for the Assembly to discuss in detail and debate, but, instead, it wants to outsource that work to this party and to the party opposite. As a party, we will continue to engage with the work of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee because no serious proposals have been put on the table by the Opposition here today. The parties in the Chamber should treat the motion with the contempt that it deserves. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, before we proceed, all of you know that there will be a level of commentary during debates. I think that all of you also know what is an acceptable level of commentary in order to show courtesy and good manners when a Member is on their feet, a Minister is on their feet or an official is on their feet, as happened at the start of the debate. Therefore, I urge Members to reflect on that and show courtesy as we continue. Ms Bradshaw: The motion before us today addresses what the Alliance Party views as one of the greatest threats to the stability of devolution, and that is the structural failure of accountability. Across the institutions, there is fundamental and dangerous imbalance. Ministers are given immense power, but the mechanisms to hold them to account are weak, inconsistent and often paralysed by political deadlock. That is not a theoretical concern: we have seen repeatedly how that systemic weakness erodes public trust and damages the integrity of government here. We have seen crises around the renewable heat incentive (RHI) and Red Sky that have shown spectacular mismanagement and colossal failure of duty, yet there was no political or institutional means to ensure that the Minister involved was promptly removed or sanctioned. We have witnessed Ministers acting unilaterally and taking critical policy decisions without collective Executive agreement. In those cases, it has fallen to the courts, as I just mentioned to Mr Brett, not the Assembly, to rule that Ministers have acted unlawfully or outside their legal duty. That failure means that the ministerial code is treated more like a set of optional guidelines than mandatory standards. Crucially, that is why the Functioning of Government Act (Northern Ireland) 2021, which was introduced by Mr Gaston's predecessor, is so important. Its core purpose was sound. It aimed to strengthen the legal duties around collective responsibility and prevent Ministers from acting as solitary agents. The Act was intended to codify the expectation that Ministers work together, ensuring that decisions are not taken unilaterally but are legally and explicitly bound by the collective will of the Executive. I will pick up on Mr Brett's point towards the end of his speech. He criticised the call in the motion. I understand why he put that at the feet of the First Minister and deputy First Minister because they are the co-chairs of the Executive Government here. Mr O'Toole: I appreciate the Chair of the Executive Office Committee giving way. I know that she and her party have been engaged in this for a long time. Is she as disappointed as I am that neither the First Minister nor the deputy First Minister or even the junior Ministers could be bothered to come along today to engage in the debate? Ms Bradshaw: Yes, I agree. They need to take full ownership of addressing the deficit here. We must be clear that legislation that dictates how the Executive should function is only half the battle. The Assembly has failed to create and implement the internal institutional enforcement mechanisms that are required to make the Act meaningful. For the Alliance Party, achieving real accountability requires two key changes to the institutions. We need a clear, independent and transparent process for dealing with breaches of the ministerial code that removes the power of sanction from the partisan politics of the Executive. That process must apply to everyone, regardless of party or position. Furthermore, when a Minister acts outside their authority or contrary to the law, breaching the collective principles that the 2021 Act reinforced, it must ultimately be the authority of the Assembly, representing the people, that delivers the consequence. We should also note the ongoing importance of ensuring that Ministers neither act in a way that glorifies terrorism or paramilitarism nor show favour to those who participated in such things. Their task is to heal wounds, not repeat them. Accountability cannot depend on political convenience or legal rulings after the damage is done; it must be built into the system. Our goal in the Assembly is to forge institutions that are stable because they are fair, transparent and bound by consequence, not because they are frozen by inertia. We will not support the Sinn Féin amendment. I will allow my colleague Michelle Guy, who sits on the AER Committee, to speak to that. I have spoken to Mr Gaston about the ability of the Commissioner for Standards to put forward sanctions. The TUV amendment removes the provision for reform, which is a key part of the Alliance Party's aspirations for this place. Reforming our internal systems is the only way to honour the promise of partnership agreement. Let us move forward from a system that shields Ministers to one that earns unequivocal public trust. Mr Stewart: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was not expecting to be called, so I will speak to the motion briefly. As others have said, the motion is limited in substance, but I do not say that in order to take away from its intent. I am sure that it is well meaning, but there is not a great deal in it. I have said at the Assembly and Executive Review Committee — it is good to see so many members of that Committee here — that it is in that Committee that that work should be carried out. There has been a distinct lack of stability in this place for many years since the Assembly was founded. There is a distinct lack of scrutiny and, sadly, of public confidence,, and we see that time and time again. That is not necessarily the fault of the institutions; more often, it is the fault of the parties involved in bringing them down. I take the Member for North Belfast's point about those who lauded the Good Friday Agreement as if it were written on tablets of stone. We in the Ulster Unionist Party take great pride in our role in creating that document and in the peace and stability that came about on the back of it. Having spoken to most of its authors, I know that there was an expectation among them that those rules would evolve over time: even its authors would have accepted that, 25 years on, we would see change. For me, change has to come through the Assembly and Executive Review Committee. There is a great deal of work going on, and the proposer of the motion sits on that Committee with us. As has been said, we are looking at a great deal of work around Executive formation, cross-community voting and the nomination of the Speaker. That Committee has been tasked with that work. I would be concerned were it simply to be kicked to the First Minister and deputy First Minister, who are not here today, as they represent only two parties. Any successful reform of the institutions — Ms K Armstrong: I thank the Member for giving way. Having sat on the AERC in a previous mandate, I agree that that is certainly the place to review this. If we look at the name of the ministerial code of conduct, however, we can see that it is the 'Northern Ireland Executive Ministerial Code'. That is why, as set out the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the First Minister and deputy First Minister are responsible for it. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute. Mr Stewart: That is a fair point. The motion, though, goes further than that and talks about Assembly and Executive reform generally. That is why that Committee is well placed to do that. My second point — I made it in the Committee, and I think that others would agree — is that any changes to the institutions need to have cross-party input and agreement. We have seen what has happened in the past. On the three occasions when fundamental changes were made to the Good Friday Agreement, whether at St Andrews, at Stormont House or in 'New Decade, New Approach' (NDNA), not everyone was involved. Those changes were often made at times of crisis, and, at times of crisis, changes are made to pacify and suit those who have created the crisis, not to create the best forms of institutions. Mrs Guy: Will the Member give way? Mr Stewart: Absolutely, yes. Mrs Guy: In light of what you have said, would you signal your support for a citizens' assembly-style of civic engagement that would allow people to come together in a representative way to bottom out some of those issues? Mr Stewart: I take the Member's point. We discussed that, and I have no problem with the public feeding into any process. That was an integral part of the Good Friday Agreement. However, I see us as the citizens' assembly. We are all nominated and elected by the people, and we all have a mandate to be here and contribute, and we are contributing those points to the Committee. Top 5.30 pm To come back to my point, previous changes that we have seen were, sadly, at times of crisis. What we saw on the back of that were bad decisions taken to pacify and placate those who created crisis. That is not a good way to do it, so I take some comfort from the fact that the Assembly and Executive Review Committee is working collegially. We are taking a good range of evidence. There is a collegial spirit in that Committee, and I genuinely believe that proposals for reforms —. Mr O'Toole: I thank Mr Stewart for giving way. I am on that Committee with him: it is working broadly collegially, and I want to see it continue with that work. To be absolutely clear, I proposed the work stream in the first place. Some in the debate would suggest that the AERC is the Second Vatican Council. I am genuinely surprised at Members. I look forward to all the progress that will be made in that Committee. It is a Committee of the Assembly. It does not stop us giving a view about anything, in the same way as we are not prevented from giving a view on education, health or any other subject. Mr Stewart: You have made a good job of giving your view, Mr O'Toole, on many subjects, and we appreciate that. However, the reality is that this is a non-binding motion on the First Minister and deputy First Minister, who are not here. Whatever amendment passes today, like most of the non-binding motions that we debate in the Chamber, nothing will come of it. Work is being carried out by the Assembly and Executive Review Committee. That is where the work needs to continue to take place, and I am pretty confident that we will see at least some of the changes that we want to see. Ms Ní Chuilín: The clue is in the title: Assembly and Executive Reform Committee. That is about reform across the board. Irrespective of that, I still do not understand why the amendment cannot be supported. I genuinely cannot, because it includes what people in the SDLP and the Alliance Party have said at the Committee. Yet, when they step in here, it is something completely different. I am sceptical about why they cannot support the amendment. There is absolutely no doubt that confidence among any members of the public watching or listening to this place, particularly after today, will be at an all-time low. In fact, I was speaking to a group of people from across the community at a good relations event last week about acts of remembrance, talking about the need to move on and talking about citizens' assemblies. They are good, because people use them as an opportunity to tell you what they think. They do not miss you and hit the wall, and they are honest and productive. However, the toxicity in this place is not down to Ministers; it is down to people who speak from these Benches, as well as some of the Ministers. What we saw two weeks ago was Members going on a genocide junket. That is the best way that I can describe it. One of them was a Minister, and that has caused people from across the board to ask, "Where is the bar? Is the bar now so low?". It has caused public damage. The Assembly and Executive Review Committee can be as good or as bad as we want it to be, but there needs to be an outcome. I have been here since 2007, and I have seen Ministers agree to do things in Programmes for Government and then walk away. One of the best things was the Líofa programme. It was accepted by the Executive, and then Paul Givan decided to pull the bursary for working-class kids who could not afford to go to the Gaeltacht. People across the board commented on that. We had legislation as a result of RHI. I am long enough here to say that we should have had it as a result of Red Sky, and we go on and we go on. I do not want to be associated with any allegations like that, and I think that most people here are the same. I look forward to the day when it does not matter who brings proposals forward: it is what we do with them and how we make a difference. Does this place need reform? Yes, it does. It is also about attitudinal reform and about people who, frankly, use debates such as this to be hurtful, offensive, misogynistic, sectarian, racist, homophobic and Islamophobic and to be lacking in equality and respect. The reasons why the institutions came down and were under threat were basically about a lack of respect, a denial of equality and allegations at the heart of government, so let us be honest about that. I still do not understand — I am willing to take an intervention — why anyone cannot accept the amendment. Mrs Guy: Will the Member give way? Ms Ní Chuilín: Yes, absolutely. Mrs Guy: To be honest, I am only asking you to give way because I am going to speak to this, so, if you do not mind waiting until my contribution, I will explain in full detail why we will not support the amendment. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute. Ms Ní Chuilín: Thank you. I gave you an opportunity to do that, Michelle, on the basis that I heard what you had to say eloquently at the AERC. That is why I do not understand. I am not agreeing with Phillip Brett — I understand why Matthew tabled the motion — but I do not understand why the amendment will not be accepted. There is part of this that makes me think that this is just stroke politics for the sake of it. This was an opportunity to point out what we all need to do collectively and to put it up to us all, but, no, that has not happened. What has been put up to one another, frankly, is insult and offence. Does it need reformed? Do we need to be reformed? Absolutely. Does the way people speak to each other in this place need to be reformed? Absolutely. However, you cannot point the finger at anyone else, particularly in the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, when you have an opportunity in this place to bring forward something, non-binding as it is, and do not do it. So pardon me for being a bit cynical about the lack of consistency when it comes to reform across this place. Mrs Cameron: The Democratic Unionist Party recognises the need for strong and effective measures that enhance transparency and accountability in the devolved institutions. Accountability and trust matter, and Ministers should always conduct themselves to the highest standard of propriety and integrity. The public are entitled to nothing less. However, we also recognise something else that is fundamental: before any reform of our institutions, we need a period of sustained political stability. Stability is not a luxury; it is the foundation that allows accountability to operate properly and fairly. The SDLP motion claims that, under the current structures, it is impossible to hold Ministers to account even when there has been a breach of the ministerial code or the law, but that is simply not accurate. Accountability mechanisms already exist. Since the passage of the Functioning of Government Act in 2021, the Assembly has given the Assembly Commissioner for Standards clear statutory power to investigate alleged breaches of the ministerial code. In addition, the Standards and Privileges Committee already possesses authority to set the procedures for those investigations and can require the commissioner to revisit a decision if a complaint is ruled inadmissible. Therefore, when the SDLP claims that no process exists, it is ignoring the powers that the Assembly put into law. Our party has consistently supported fair and robust measures that ensure that Ministers are accountable for their actions. In our engagement with the Standards and Privileges Committee earlier this year, we acknowledged that the careful use of powers, particularly the ability to explore or recommend sanctions, could improve accountability, but any such reforms must be subject to essential safeguards. That is where the motion and Sinn Féin's amendment are deeply flawed. First, any reforms or changes to Standing Orders must command broad political support. Accountability should never be driven by temporary voting strength on one side of the Chamber. Reforms must be considered within the wider framework that already exists to examine such matters, namely the AERC. That is the proper structure to review institutional reform, not motions dropped on to the Floor of the Assembly without detailed scrutiny. Critically, the power to appoint or dismiss Ministers must continue to rest solely with the party leaders and their nominating officers. The SDLP motion implies that a grouping of parties should be able to dictate the appointment or dismissal of Ministers from parties that they oppose. That directly contradicts the motion's language about stability. The integrity and independence of the Assembly standards commissioner must not be impeded. The commissioner was given powers to investigate Ministers precisely so that accountability could be independent. If the intention is to allow what would essentially be a pan-nationalist coalition to ignore the commissioner's findings and impose its own sanctions for political purposes, that is unacceptable. Any recommendations for sanctions of any kind must require cross-community support in Committee and in the Assembly. In a power-sharing system, cross-community support is not optional but fundamental. No sanction should ever be recommended or approved on the basis of a simple majority vote. Sinn Féin's amendment speaks grandly about protecting the Good Friday Agreement, yet Sinn Féin has happily abandoned the agreement's cross-community principle when it suited, most notably on the protocol. It will be interesting to see whether Sinn Féin's professed concern for the agreement extends to its upholding of core protections today. Any arrangements must guard against vexatious or frivolous allegations: without that, accountability becomes a political weapon rather than a safeguard. Finally, we must be clear on one point that seems to have been overlooked. If a sanction prevents a Minister from taking part in the Assembly, such as their being suspended from the Chamber, that reduces accountability, as it prevents MLAs from questioning that Minister about their departmental work. That frustrates rather than improves scrutiny. Without those safeguards, the SDLP motion and the Sinn Féin amendment would do real damage. They would undermine the independence of investigations, erode cross-community protections and destabilise the institutions. The DUP supports accountability, transparency and consequences where wrongdoing is proven, but it will not support a model that allows political parties to remove Ministers from office simply because they do not like the party to which they belong. Accountability must protect democracy, but it should not be used to manipulate it. Accountability? Yes. Cross-community safeguards? Yes. Political power plays? Absolutely not. Mrs Guy: I thank the Member who tabled the motion, which we support. As the motion of no confidence debate evidenced today, the accountability mechanisms in this place are ineffective and allow Ministers to avoid democratic accountability. The current political balance of the Assembly means that mechanisms intended to act as minority safeguards now create an inequality that disenfranchises those of us who do not designate as "Unionist" or "Nationalist". I sit on the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, so I will speak to the Sinn Féin amendment. AERC has heard some brilliant evidence on the need for reform of Assembly and Executive structures and on how those reforms could be brought about, but there is not enough conversation about what happens if we continue to choose not to reform this place. Make no mistake: it has been a conscious choice so far not to reform the institutions. I am encouraged to hear the Sinn Féin statements today that it is up for reform. The DUP has also stated a commitment to engage seriously in the work of the AERC, but it is worth noting that it has voted against every proposal on reform so far on that Committee. It is obvious that refusal to act undermines further the trust in this place and in its ability to operate. Evidence on public opinion shows us that there is appetite for reform. That is not surprising, yet we are not meeting that desire for change. I do not pretend that reform will be easy. It will take courage. Continuing to do nothing cannot be the answer, however. Some have suggested that focusing on Assembly and Executive reform is a distraction from the day-to-day work of this place, but that, of course, is not true. My vision for reform is one of ensuring that the day-to-day work of this place is more effective than it is today. The key reason that we do not support the Sinn Féin amendment is that it removes a crucial line from the motion that states: "agrees that a programme of institutional reform is required to overcome these challenges". I am not sure, on the basis of what Sinn Féin Members have said, that that was intended, but it is pretty critical to the conversation that we are having. It raises a concern for us, and I cannot stand by an amendment that removes the crucial words that we will support: "institutional reform". Mr Sheehan: Will the Member give way? Mrs Guy: Yes, 100%. Mr Sheehan: I take your point about the line having been omitted, but you should take our amendment and the motion in the round. There is an implicit recognition of the need for reform. Like my colleague, I am surprised that the Alliance Party does not support our amendment. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute. Mrs Guy: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. There is implicit and explicit, and that is an explicit line showing support for overcoming the challenges through institutional reform. I am sure that the Member will understand that, as a party that has really pushed the idea of reform, its omission is something that we cannot support. It is fair that our party has taken that stance in the context of our driving passion for reform. As I said, I sit on the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, so I know the work that is being done there. We will continue to do what we can through that Committee, and I hope that we can get to a point at which there is a shared vision on the Committee of what can be achieved. Top 5.45 pm I hope that we commit to a citizens' assembly. I am really glad that Sinéad signalled an openness to engage on that so that we can drive forward work through the Committee. However, that work in no way stops the call for the First Minister and deputy First Minister to bring forward proposals for Executive and Assembly reform. We all know that reform will only take place if Sinn Féin and the DUP agree to it, so it makes perfect sense for the First Minister and deputy First Minister to put forward proposals that they support, and that could be considered as part of the work of the AERC review. In fact, it would add to the work of the Committee and give it real momentum. It also offers us a real opportunity to show people that we can come together to deliver in their interests. Continued institutional instability stifles this place. It holds us back and causes people to lose faith in our institutions and in us as elected representatives. From listening to everybody today, I look forward to seeing the momentum that will come forward from the AER Committee. We are going to deliver some serious stuff, by the sounds of it, and I tell you what, I am definitely up for it. Mr Carroll: As others have said, today really shows the absurdity and the lack of accountability that we have in the House when it comes to holding Ministers to account. We had a democratic vote encompassing several parties, with a majority of MLAs — 47 — voting for a motion of no confidence in a Minister, while 33 voted against, and still, for this week at least, the Education Minister remains in place. That shows you how accountability mechanisms do not really exist in this Building and how Ministers can effectively do what they want. I am therefore bamboozled at the amendment in the name of Mr Gaston. Effectively, he wants to limit the already limited or, I would argue, non-existent accountability mechanisms that are in place to hold Ministers to account. Mr Gaston: Thank you very much for giving way. The mechanisms are in place. The problem is that the Assembly chooses not to use them. That is the crux of my amendment. The 2021 Act brought in provisions to ensure that the Assembly and the commissioner can use powers to hold people to account. However, in the past, the Assembly has decided, in its wisdom, not to use them. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute. Mr Carroll: Thank you. My next line was going to be that the Commissioner for Standards has an important role. I remind the Member — I know that he was not here at the time; I was not either — that, in 2011, his party leader called for a motion of no confidence in Conor Murphy. I do not know which one it is. Following the logic of your argument, that will embolden Ministers and prevent MLAs from bringing forward motions of no confidence, which is understandable if your party is in the Executive, but I do not understand it from a party and a Member who is not in the Executive. I have issues with the mention of political stability in the amendment from Sinn Féin and with the motion generally. Obviously, it will mean different things to different people. I am concerned that it could mean "protect Stormont at all costs", and I do not support that position. It was the correct thing for Sinn Féin to pull down Stormont in early 2017 over RHI — our party called for it in 2016 — when hundreds of millions of pounds of public money was splurged by the DUP. The only way for Arlene Foster to face some limited accountability at the time was to pull down Stormont. So, I do not support keeping it up at all costs. During the period of welfare reform, there should have been a political crisis caused by pulling down the institutions, rather than hammering working-class and poor people. Given the context that we may be approaching, with more austerity Budgets, as we have heard today, and damaging Budgets, protecting Stormont at all costs is not a position that we should advocate. The motion talks about "institutional reform", which is needed. I obviously agree with that. It should also include people who are othered in the House, including me, when their votes do not count, as Alliance Party Members have said. We should look at the recommendations of the NI Affairs Committee. It stated that the Assembly Speaker should be elected — no disrespect — by a two-thirds majority of MLAs in the House. We should take such a position, rather than having backroom stitch-ups and deals. It also proposed changing the titles of First Minister and deputy First Minister to joint First Minister and having joint First Minister elections that would to be open to people from any party, including those who are others. I have issues with the Sinn Féin amendment. Parts of it are OK, but it removes the part that: "calls on the First Minister and deputy First Minister to bring forward proposals for ... reform". I am sceptical about whether those proposals will ever be —. Mr Sheehan: Will the Member give way? Mr Carroll: I will in a second. I am sceptical about whether those proposals will ever come forward, but, at the very least, that line should remain in the motion. I give way to the Member. Mr Sheehan: I heard Michelle make the same point about the First Minister and deputy First Minister bringing forward proposals for reform. It is like the academics who come to Committee and use broad brushstrokes, saying, "We cannot get this, that or the other". One party is to blame. We do not have tax-varying powers here because the DUP is opposed to it. We do not have proper female representation in this place because other parties do not follow Sinn Féin's example. Instead of blaming everybody, let us put the blame where it lies. If there is no agreement between the First Minister and deputy First Minister on reform, it will not be the First Minister's fault. Mr Carroll: I thank the Member for that. I did not accuse his party of anything. His intervention was slightly defensive, but that is his right. The Member should be clear: if proposals are made about reform in this place, shout about them; say them. He made some points with which I generally agree, but, again, he should vote for the motion as it is. The motion is not ideal, but voting for it is better than amending it to remove the responsibility of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to bring forward proposals to reform this place. It should be on them to ensure that that is done quickly and that the can is not kicked down the road to the Committee. It is an important Committee, but I argue that people are trying to put work on it to absolve the First Minister and deputy First Minister of the responsibility to act. I am sceptical as to whether it will happen at all, but we should, at least, not vote for the amendment for that reason. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): That concludes the list of contributors. I call Timothy Gaston to make a winding-up speech on amendment No 2. You have up to five minutes. Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker. I will be as prompt and as quick as I can. In Mr O'Toole's opening remarks, he talked about reform. I will go back to the points that I made in proposing the amendment. There is an obsession with reinventing the wheel, but you cannot and should not have to do that, because the structures already exist. The problem is that you decide not to use them. The Functioning of Government Act 2021 already gives us that power, but the parties opposite refuse to use it. You cannot call for strengthened accountability while ignoring the mechanism that is in place, which is the Commissioner for Standards. The next contributor was Sinéad Ennis, who talked about how the Education Minister has lost the confidence of the community. We hear that Sinn Féin is up for reform. Sinéad seems to speak of that as though coming from the all-knowing oracle, but I am quite sure that Sinn Féin does not speak on behalf of unionism. Therefore, I would not get too carried away about Sinéad's comments about the community losing confidence in Mr Givan. His only alleged crime was going to Israel and visiting a school, but the problem for Sinn Féin, Alliance, the SDLP and Gerry Carroll is that he went to Israel at all. Even if the Minister had not visited a school, we still would have had the pantomime that we have had today. They have been shown to be anti-Israeli. Mr Carroll: I thank the Member for giving way. I said both things in my comments. I said that he should not have gone to Israel and that doing so should be enough for him to go from office, but I also stated that he broke the ministerial code and blurred the lines when it came to actions that he should not have taken as a Minister who represents everybody. I mentioned both things today. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute. Before he uses that extra minute, I appeal to him and all others not to rehearse arguments that we had earlier in a separate debate but to stick to the principles and references of the motion. I will insist that they do so. Mr Gaston: It is shameful that Gerry has battened down and doubled down on his statement that Paul Givan should not have gone to Israel. I believe that he should have. I got an invite. If I had been able to go, I would have happily gone to Israel. It is only because of unionist Members —. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Can we go back to the motion, Mr Gaston, please? Mr Gaston: Yes, absolutely. It is only because unionist Members of the House went out to Israel to bring back some of the stories that —. My goodness, the BBC, as we have seen —. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Gaston, I am not looking for a factual report on an overseas trip. I have made clear my request that you stick to the terms of the motion. Mr Gaston: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will go back to the motion. Sinn Féin is once again lecturing us on what it does and holding itself to moral standards. On 28 January, I proposed a motion to the House, which was unanimously agreed. In that motion, there was an onus on the First Minister to come and correct the record about comments that she had made on 7 October 2024, which were directly related to the McMonagle scandal. The First Minister has not done that, so I believe that gives zero credibility for Sinn Féin to come to the Chamber and lecture anybody on reform, after the way it handled the McMonagle paedophile scandal and the fallout from that. Mr Brett was the next Member to speak, and he talked about Mr O'Toole criticising the very structures that his party created. Indeed, he referred to them as being carved into "tablets of stone". Paula Bradshaw was next to speak, and she talked about the greatest threat to these structures and said that the powers are weak. I agree with some of the Alliance Party's points about reform. Indeed, I will pick up on the point that she raised specifically about the fact that Ministers should not glorify terrorism. If that were the case, we would not have too many Ministers on the Sinn Féin Benches, and that is something that I would very much welcome. They would be bound by consequences, but the problem is that, at the minute — Mr Sheehan: Those days are over, Timmy. They are over. Mr Gaston: Now, Pat, you would not come in on an intervention. You did not have the guts in the debate earlier to come in and challenge me. You did not have the guts to bring me in — Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Comments through the Chair. Mr Sheehan: Do you want to give way now? Mr Gaston: I am happy to give way. Come on, Mr Sheehan, let's hear you. Mr Sheehan: I just wonder whether the Member would be prepared to comment on the eulogy that his leader gave to the paedophile and wife beater, Mr Tweed. Will he comment on that? Mr Gaston: I was not here at the time, but taking lectures from a cash-and-carry bomber is something that I will not be doing when I am standing in this Chamber. You have a brass neck on you. You are brazen. The hypocrisy just bleeds out of you, Mr Sheehan. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, back to the motion. Mr Gaston: The next Member to speak was John Stewart. He talked about the minimal substance in the Bill. The one that I want to finish on is that from Carál Ní Chuilín, the Principal Deputy Speaker of this House, who referred to the "genocide junket". That is certainly not what the trip was about. It was a fact-finding mission to expose the hypocrisy of the Sinn Féin/Hamas cosy relationship. My goodness, you do not want the propaganda, but you love to wheel it out, courtesy of the BBC, but — Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The motion is about holding Ministers to account, Mr Gaston. Mr Gaston: — you do not like being called out about it. My goodness, Sinn Féin Members should hang their heads in shame. The bed partners that you keep and the terrorist partners that you have. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member's time is up. Thank you, Mr Gaston. It is just a pity that we could not return to the motion, but time is up. I call on Pat Sheehan to make a winding-up speech on amendment No 1. You also have five minutes. Mr Sheehan: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. [Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.] First of all, there may be people watching this — sad, as they may be — who do not really understand the remit of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee. With regard to the proposed reforms of the institutions, the Committee will take evidence from experts, academics, constitutional experts and so on, who will lay out what they think is a possibility with regard to reform. We will question them, ask them how it affects the Good Friday Agreement and so on, because we do not want to bring in any aspect of reform that might damage either the spirit or the letter of the Good Friday Agreement. When the Committee has completed its hearing of evidence, it will then lay out the options and have a much bigger public consultation. The need for reform in these institutions is clear, especially with what has happened over the past couple of weeks and the outworkings of that here today. A majority voted in favour of no confidence in the Education Minister, yet he remains in post. That outcome underlines the need for serious work to be done on how we ensure accountability in these institutions. Twenty-seven years on from the Good Friday Agreement, we must acknowledge just how far we have come and how much things have changed, as I pointed out to Mr Gaston. The context in which we now operate is fundamentally different from that of 1998, and, with that in mind, we must look seriously and maturely at the question of reform. Sinn Féin is up for that discussion. We are open to exploring how our institutions can be strengthened and accountability improved, but we are equally clear that any reform must defend, not dilute, the principles and protections of the Good Friday Agreement. That is why our amendment refers the matter to the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, which is the proper forum in which to examine the issues in detail, hear the expert evidence and bring forward meaningful proposals. Top 6.00 pm As part of the Committee's current work, we are already engaging with academics, constitutional experts and others on questions such as the role and election of the Speaker; cross-community voting and designations; the process for Executive formation; and all the other important issues. They are complex issues that require thoughtful consideration. The Assembly and Executive Review Committee is the place to have that conversation, test ideas, build consensus and ensure that any changes strengthen rather than undermine the institutions. I was pleased to support a proposal from my Committee colleague Alliance Member Michelle Guy to explore enhanced civic engagement on institutional reform. Civic participation was key to building the Good Friday Agreement, and it should remain central to how we continue to shape the political institutions. Let us be honest, however: reform here cannot happen in isolation. Legislative change would ultimately be required at Westminster, and that, too, must be approached in a spirit of cooperation. I take issue with the leader of the Opposition here. Throughout his speech, he almost suggested that reform here can happen quickly, that it can be done almost immediately. I am not suggesting that he did that deliberately to make a misrepresentation, but that is what he suggested. I also take issue with the line in the motion that states that the First Minister and deputy First Minister must, together, bring forward proposals for reform. He knows that that will not happen. He knows that the DUP is opposed to reform and that the First Minister, in that role, cannot bring forward proposals for reform on her own. Forgive me for thinking that that line in the motion is just cynical. Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way? Mr Sheehan: Yes. Mr O'Toole: If the position is that the First Minister and deputy First Minister cannot or will not agree, although they have never said that that is the case and that has never been articulated officially, does the Member agree that the First Minister should articulate clearly her party's position, ideally in the AERC, in order to explain where she wants reform to go? After all, she is the First Minister: the head of the Government. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute. Mr Sheehan: As our leader in the Assembly, Michelle O'Neill appointed Carál, Sinéad and me to the AER Committee. We constantly report to her as our party leader here, and she, at times, delegates it to us to bring forward proposals at the Committee and supports those proposals as leader of Sinn Féin. She will not do that as First Minister, because she cannot. You know that. That is why I said that you were being cynical: you know that you are asking for something that cannot be given. You are like everybody else who uses broad brushstrokes rather than laying the blame where it belongs. If Members are serious about reform of the institutions, they need to move away from mealy-mouthed words and start being honest and having a bit of integrity. Our message is clear: Sinn Féin is up for a discussion; we are engaging with the detail; and we will continue to do so through the proper forum, which is the AER Committee. Others, particularly the DUP, need to explain where they stand, because setting their face against reform — Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member's time is up. Mr Sheehan: — is not a plan for the future and is not good enough — Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up. Thank you. Mr Sheehan: — for the people we represent here. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, Mr Sheehan. I call Sinéad McLaughlin to conclude the debate and wind up on the motion. You have 10 minutes, Sinéad. Ms McLaughlin: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will close the debate by stating something really plainly: the refusal to reform the institutions is the clearest possible admission that this place will never work. Every Member here knows that. For years, we have tiptoed around the truth, pretending that our problems are cultural, political or temporary. They are not: they are structural and systemic. Our problem is that the current make-up of our institutions, which were forged by the two greatest parties — the two largest parties; that was a Freudian slip — in the St Andrews Agreement, has been bent and twisted beyond recognition. Going by your comments, Phil Brett, that might be news to you. The changes that happened under the St Andrews Agreement were an affront to the Good Friday Agreement. Yes, the Good Friday Agreement is a precious achievement, but it is also a living document. It is not a museum piece. Those who claim to be its defenders, some of whom come from strange places, while refusing even the most basic reforms are, in reality, its biggest threat. As a member of the Committee for the Executive Office, I see first-hand the dysfunctionality of its structures. Frequently, the Executive Office cannot even agree on papers to be issued to the Committee for scrutiny. Officials have to cancel evidence sessions on fundamental issues, such as an update on the delivery of the Programme for Government. It is an absolute mess. The public have lost confidence not just in the parties but in the competence of this place. People watching at home genuinely doubt whether Stormont can ever function like a normal Government. Can you blame them? Earlier, we saw how Ministers cannot be held accountable for their actions. How can we have a situation where a motion of no confidence is brought before the House, passed by the majority of Members and yet amounts to nothing? That is not symbolic of a healthy democracy, nor is it purely the pursuit of those outside the Executive. The First Minister signed the motion of no confidence seeking the removal of the Education Minister: what message does that send to the public about how partners in government act? How can people have faith in delivery when that is what they see from those who are entrusted to lead? We have allowed a political culture to develop where division is rewarded; personal attacks replace policy; every debate becomes a performance; and the question at election time is not about the values, principles or — heaven forbid — a manifesto but simply about who sits in the high chair. While parties posture over meaningless titles, the public get nothing. Failure to reform is a failure to deliver. At times, the debate was thoughtful and, at times, it was depressingly predictable. It has proven a simple truth: we can pass all the motions that we like on health, housing, childcare and infrastructure, but none of it matters while the fundamental flaw in the institutions remains untouched. I remind the Chamber of what the First Minister said during the last collapse of the Assembly. When the DUP refused to enter the Executive, Michelle O'Neill warned that its boycott: "threatens our democratic governance, public administration, reconciliation, and the fabric of this society." She was absolutely right. Every word was right. I therefore ask the First Minister, with respect, whether she still believes that. If she does, does she accept that the same warning must apply equally to her refusal to rule out collapsing the institutions in the future? If the collapse of Stormont threatened democracy then, it threatens democracy now. I welcome Sinn Féin's endorsement this evening of reform and the strengthening of the institutions. Time will tell how serious that party is. When my colleague proposed to look at it at the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, Sinn Féin members initially voted against it until they realised that it was a bad idea politically to do so. With the greatest respect, Carál, your party did not even submit a response to a call for evidence. Whether you support the Union or a united Ireland and whether you are a nationalist, unionist or neither, the truth remains the same: you cannot sell anything if the house from which you are selling it is falling apart. Unionists want to sell the Union, and we want to sell a new Ireland, but nobody will buy a basket case. Right now, that is what this place is. The dysfunction of the institutions overshadows everything and every aspiration, be it constitutional, social or economic. Nobody wants to buy ideas from a system that they do not believe works. It does not have to be that way. We have an opportunity in this mandate to fix it and to change how this place works and to do so ourselves, rather than being forced into it by Westminster after another collapse. That is why the SDLP tabled the motion. We believe that, without reform, anything else is pointless. Let me be clear: equalising the titles of First Minister and deputy First Minister is only the beginning. If we are serious about building institutions that work, they need practical, not performative, reform. We need a Speaker who is elected by a broad Assembly majority, not on the whim of whichever party wants to hold the Chamber to ransom. We need the nomination of First Minister to be tied to the d'Hondt system so that no party can threaten collapse simply by refusing to nominate. If a party does not take the post, it should move on. We need genuine power-sharing, which means ensuring that parties beyond the two big ones have a meaningful route into the Executive. Our society has changed significantly since 1998. For example, the average house price in 1998 was £50,000: it sits today at £185,000. We now live in diverse, multicultural communities. Our electorate is no longer limited to the political definitions of unionism and nationalism. I am much more comfortable calling myself a social democrat than saying I am a nationalist. The Alliance Party is right to question the outdated political structure that does not give weight or value to a significant proportion of our people. Good government should not be confined to a nationalist or unionist headcount. It is unacceptable and undemocratic, and, worse, when abused, it is absolutely sectarian. We need Ministers who meet their responsibilities, including their North/South and British-Irish duties. It is time to put ransom politics to bed. If a Minister refuses to do the job, they should not keep the job. It is that simple. Those are not radical ideas; they are basic steps that are needed to stop collapse and to stop parties gaming a system that was meant to serve the public, not their electoral tactics. I know that some people hate to hear this, but we reached the point long ago at which every strategy and campaign is overshadowed by the dysfunction of this place. Whatever side of the constitutional debate you are on, it is impossible to argue that the institutions work. The SDLP has been consistent. We brought forward reform proposals in February. We have pressed for accountability. Just last month, my colleague Matthew O'Toole secured agreement at the AERC to examine serious options to prevent future collapse. I will briefly address the Sinn Féin amendment. It would rid the First Minister and deputy First Minister of their responsibility to help to reform the institutions. It argues that the AERC is the place for reform to be formulated. However, that completely ignores the fundamental issue: if the Assembly were to collapse, the Assembly and Executive Review Committee would no longer exist. The continued refusal of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to rule out collapsing the institutions fundamentally undermines the ability of the AERC to deliver any meaningful reform. Mr Sheehan: Will the Member give way? Ms McLaughlin: I have no time. Sorry. The First Ministers now have a choice: engage constructively or keep defending a system that repeatedly falls apart and fails the public. Northern Ireland deserves a Government that works, not one that merely survives, staggering from crisis to crisis, and can be pulled down by parties when it suits them. Reform is not optional — Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up. Ms McLaughlin: — it is essential, and — Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up. Ms McLaughlin: — the SDLP will — Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you. Ms McLaughlin: — continue — Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up. Ms McLaughlin: — to push for it. [Interruption.] Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Order. Before I put the Question on amendment No 1, I remind Members that, if it is made, I will not put the Question on amendment No 2. Question, That amendment No 1 be made, put and negatived. Top 6.15 pm Question, That amendment No 2 be made, put and negatived. Main Question put. The Assembly divided: Ayes 42; Noes 30 AYES Dr Archibald, Ms K Armstrong, Mr Baker, Mr Boylan, Ms Bradshaw, Mr Carroll, Mr Delargy, Mr Dickson, Miss Dolan, Mr Donnelly, Mr Durkan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Finnegan, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Mrs Guy, Miss Hargey, Mr Honeyford, Ms Hunter, Mr Kearney, Mr Kelly, Mr McAleer, Miss McAllister, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McMurray, Mrs Mason, Mr Mathison, Mr Muir, Ms Mulholland, Ms Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Ms Nicholl, Mr O'Dowd, Mr O'Toole, Ms Reilly, Mr Sheehan, Mr Tennyson Tellers for the Ayes: Mr McGrath, Ms McLaughlin NOES Dr Aiken, Mr Beattie, Mr Brett, Mr Brooks, Ms Brownlee, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Mr Burrows, Mr Butler, Mrs Cameron, Mr Chambers, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mrs Erskine, Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew, Mr Gaston, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Irwin, Mr Kingston, Mrs Little-Pengelly, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Martin, Mr Middleton, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Robinson, Mr Stewart Tellers for the Noes: Mr Brooks, Mrs Cameron Mr Clarke acted as a proxy for Mrs Erskine. Main Question accordingly agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly recognises that the current structure of government in Northern Ireland makes it impossible to fully hold Ministers to account for their actions; expresses concern that, under existing structures, it is not guaranteed that Ministers will be removed from office even when found to have breached the ministerial code or broken the law; agrees that a programme of institutional reform is required to overcome those challenges; and calls on the First Minister and deputy First Minister to bring forward proposals for Executive and Assembly reform, which upholds the stability of the institutions, while also ensuring that Ministers are effectively held to account for their actions. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, please take your ease before we move to the next item in the Order Paper. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Dr Aiken] in the Chair) Top 6.30 pm Independent Environmental Protection Agency: Establishment Mr McCrossan: I beg to move That this Assembly notes the findings of the independent review of environmental governance in Northern Ireland, which identified that environmental pressures, including the crisis in Lough Neagh, reflect serious weaknesses in governance and accountability; agrees with the review’s findings that the absence of a new model of environmental governance is undermining public trust, compliance and the delivery of environmental outcomes; and calls on the Executive to bring forward and pass legislation to establish an environmental protection agency, properly resourced and operationally independent, before the end of the mandate. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members will have five minutes. Daniel, please open the debate on the motion. Mr McCrossan: The motion before the Assembly is both clear and necessary. After more than 10 years of warnings, reviews, reports and unfulfilled commitments, we ask the House to agree that Northern Ireland must now legislate to establish a properly resourced and operationally independent environmental protection agency (EPA) before the end of the mandate. The proposal is not new, and it is clearly not controversial. It is the natural next step in a discussion that has been ongoing for many years but has rarely been matched by decisive action. For too long, our political system has acknowledged the problem and even identified the solutions yet has struggled to follow through. Northern Ireland is currently operating with an environmental governance system that is no longer fit for purpose. It does not adequately protect water quality; it struggles to ensure compliance with environmental standards; and it lacks the level of oversight and enforcement that the public expect from a modern regulatory framework. Ultimately, it fails to give people confidence that serious environmental issues are being handled with the urgency and authority required. The independent review of environmental governance that the Minister commissioned earlier this year set out the scale of the challenges with absolute clarity. It identified persistent weaknesses in how environmental responsibilities are structured, managed, overseen and, indeed, enforced. It also made an unavoidable connection between those weaknesses and the environmental pressures now confronting us, including the crisis at Lough Neagh. The review confirmed that earlier evaluations had also found that the present arrangements are not designed to meet either current environmental needs or the more demanding challenges that lie ahead. That is not an isolated observation. It sits alongside a long sequence of similar findings that stretches back to the original review that was held in 2011. Assembly Committees have raised the issue repeatedly, and the New Decade, New Approach (NDNA) agreement explicitly committed all parties to the creation of an independent environmental protection agency. Scientists, councils, community groups and environmental organisations have warned for years that, without structural reform, the system will continue to fall short, yet progress has moved at a pace that does not reflect the seriousness of the situation. The consequences of that inaction can now be seen across Northern Ireland. The images of Lough Neagh last summer and, indeed, in the years before that under dense, toxic algae blooms were not only alarming but deeply symbolic of a system that has been allowed to drift for too long. Only a modest proportion of our rivers achieve good ecological status, and untreated or partially treated waste water continues to enter waterways at levels that are simply not acceptable. That, combined with the chronic under-resourcing of enforcement and the complex, fragmented governance structure, is clearly how we have arrived at this point. The issues are not abstract or distant. Poor environmental management has direct consequences for public health, particularly in drinking water safety and for those who live, work and spend time near the affected areas. It has a direct effect on the rural economy, including tourism, angling, agriculture, small businesses and hospitality. It carries real reputational risks for our agri-food industry, which relies on high environmental standards for market access and, indeed, consumer trust. It threatens the future of our natural heritage: the rivers, lakes and landscapes that form a central part of our identity. Perhaps the most corrosive consequence has been the damage to public trust. When communities see Lough Neagh in crisis, they ask who was responsible for preventing it. When rivers decline, they ask, "Who enforces the rules?", and, when pollution incidents occur, they ask, "Who will be held to account?". Too often, there is no clear answer, and, in the gap, confidence is eroded further. Farmers feel targeted and misunderstood,; communities feel that their concerns go unanswered; and environmental groups feel that their warnings are left without meaningful responses. Many feel powerless as they watch long-term decline take place in real time. The question before us, therefore, is not whether a problem exists but what the Executive intend to do to resolve it. That is why establishing an independent environmental agency is vital. The view across independent reviews is consistent: Northern Ireland requires a regulator that is structurally independent of political Departments, that can take decisions based on scientific evidence, that can enforce compliance robustly and fairly and that has the resources and statutory powers to carry out its functions effectively. All parties in the Executive have accepted that principle. In 'New Decade, New Approach', every party committed to the creation of an independent environmental protection agency. That was not externally imposed but collectively agreed — there were no opt-outs or qualifications — yet, five years later, the commitment remains unfulfilled. We do not have the legislation or the agency, and the problems that an agency was meant to address have continued to worsen. The Minister has stated that he intends to introduce a Bill. That is welcome, but we must be realistic about the time that remains in the mandate, which is less than 18 months. The work must begin immediately, or it will not be completed. Further delay would result in yet another missed opportunity, and the consequences for the environment would be significant. We have frequently heard in the Chamber references to the debates on the Climate Change (No. 2) Bill in 2022, so I will briefly address that. During that process, the Alliance Party tabled an amendment to create an independent office of climate change and environmental protection. Although that amendment was well intentioned, it was not fit for purpose, as it did not define powers; it did not set out functions or governance and enforcement measures; and it did not explain how that office would interact with existing institutions. It was, in essence, an undefined concept grafted on to legislation that was never designed for that purpose. The SDLP has always backed the principle of an independent environmental protection agency as set out in 'New Decade, New Approach', but what was presented there was not delivered. Here we are, in late 2025, with no progress. The Minister who criticised that decision is the same Minister who still has not delivered an environmental protection agency, despite the fact that the amendment that he cited said that one should already be in operation. Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for giving way. The Member criticised the amendment to the Climate Change (No. 2) Bill because it did not define functions. Does that not underline the need for the review that the Minister commissioned upon taking office, the recent report on which sets out what the agency's functions ought to be in order to inform the next steps towards setting it up? Mr McCrossan: I thank Mr Tennyson for that intervention. Our point is that, in effect, the proposal had no teeth. That was our main point of concern. Equally, we see countless reviews proposed in this place, with little delivery as a result. Minister, give Northern Ireland the independent environmental protection agency that it was promised and that is so urgently needed. Since I expect the debates on the Climate Change Bill to be referred to in the debate, as they have been on so many recent occasions in the Chamber, including by Mr Tennyson today, I will say that it is vital that we do all that is in our power to bring about that important agency. The suggestions by the Alliance Party attempted to place an undefined concept in legislation that was not designed for that purpose. As I said, we are now in 2025, and the Minister has not delivered what he promised. Public trust must be rebuilt. Communities must feel that their concerns are being taken seriously. Farmers really need assurance that enforcement is proportionate and based on evidence. Environmental organisations must know that expert warnings will not be dismissed. The Assembly must have confidence that environmental decisions will be made impartially and transparently. Creating an independent environmental protection agency will not provide immediate answers to every challenge, but it will put in place the essential foundation for serious environmental governance. It will create institutional clarity. It will strengthen enforcement, ensure that decisions are not influenced by undue political pressure and provide the accountability and structure necessary for effective, long-term improvement. It will allow the Department to focus on policy and strategy while the regulator concentrates on compliance and enforcement. It will provide the Assembly with the confidence that environmental matters are being handled with independence and competence. It will place Northern Ireland on a modern footing comparable with the arrangements that have existed in other parts of Britain and Ireland. There is now no credible reason to resist the change. Independent review supports it; experts recommend it; all Executive parties have previously endorsed it; and the public expect it. The alternative is further deterioration, growing public frustration and a continuation of the uncertainty that has characterised environmental oversight — Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Can the Member draw his remarks to a close? Mr McCrossan: — for far too long. I commend the motion to the House. Ms Finnegan: Sinn Féin supports the motion and the amendment. We have consistently and publicly called for the creation of an independent environmental protection agency. It is a commitment that has been at the heart of our approach for many years. The simple truth is this: without strong, independent environmental governance, there can be no real accountability, and, without accountability, there can be no public confidence. The crisis in Lough Neagh has laid bare the consequences of years of weak enforcement, fragmented responsibility and political delay. This is not just about one lough or one river; it is about how we protect all of our shared environment: the air that we breathe, the land that we depend on and the biodiversity that sustains us. Pollution does not recognise borders; it spreads, accumulates and damages livelihoods and communities alike. That is why Sinn Féin believes that the North urgently needs an environmental protection model that is truly independent, properly resourced and empowered not only to respond when harm is done but to prevent it in the first place. We need a body that can hold polluters to account, whether that is large commercial operations or smaller ones, in a way that is fair, proportionate and consistent. Our party has been engaging with local communities, farmers and businesses across the North. They are the people who care deeply about the environment and want to do the right thing. They are not looking for punishment; they are looking for clarity, support and fairness. They deserve a system that sets clear standards and ensures a level playing field for everyone. For too long, responsibility for environmental oversight has been passed from pillar to post between Departments, councils and agencies. That lack of joined-up action has left enforcement gaps wide enough for serious damages to occur. An independent EPA can bring the coherence and coordination that has been missing for too long. It is also vital that the work be anchored in all-island cooperation. Environmental challenges do not stop at the border, and nor should our solutions. Shared catchments, shared coastlines and shared air quality demand shared strategies. We have an opportunity to build an agency that strengthens environmental protection in the North while aligning with best practice and partnerships across the island. At its core, this is about protecting the natural heritage that belongs to us all but doing so in a way that is practical, fair and sustainable. Regulation must be strong enough to protect our environment but flexible enough to support the livelihoods that depend on it. The motion calls for the establishment of an independent environmental protection agency. That should not be seen as a political trophy or a talking point. It is about responsibility, transparency and trust in ensuring that we leave behind an environment that is cleaner, safer and more resilient for the generations who will come after us. Top 6.45 pm Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Just for clarity, there is no amendment proposed to the motion. Ms Finnegan: Apologies. Miss McIlveen: I have no doubt that the SDLP motion is well intentioned, but it ignores a fundamental reality. The Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs finds itself incapable of properly funding the environmental structures that it already has. We are being asked, however, to fund yet another expensive quango. We already have the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) and the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP), which exist to safeguard our natural environment, enforce regulations and hold Departments to account. Their collective failure to do so rests at the Minister's feet and that is his responsibility. We are not short on oversight, but we are short of results. There is a tendency in the Chamber to tag Lough Neagh into every motion on the environment, and we need some honesty on that issue. Creating another agency will not clean up Lough Neagh; it will not improve water quality. It will create another costly layer of bureaucracy — another structure with its own staff, offices, reports and headlines, but very little delivery on the ground. We do not need more committees, commissions or quangos; we need results. We need a system that actually works. Rather than token gestures or bureaucratic reshuffles, if the Minister truly wants to lead on the environment, he should start by fixing the system that he already controls. That means ensuring that the NIEA is properly resourced and empowered to act. It means cutting through departmental silos so that agriculture, infrastructure and environment policies work with rather than against each other. Importantly, it means holding senior officials and Ministers to account for delivery and for their failures. The SDLP motion speaks about governance and accountability, yet it proposes that we remove accountability from the Chamber, Ministers and elected representatives and hand it to an unelected quango. Mr Blair: Will the Member give way? Miss McIlveen: No, I will not. That is not environmental leadership; rather, it is environmental abdication. The creation of another quango is a means by which the Minister avoids responsibility and accountability. It all becomes someone else's fault, and, as we have seen repeatedly, that becomes a safe space for an Alliance Minister. We have already heard the Minister complain that he is vilified for taking difficult decisions, and now he wants to create an agency to take those decisions for him. It is a convenient shield and a way to say, "It is not my fault; the agency decided". If we allow the Minister to hide behind a quango, what message does that send? It is that, when the going gets tough, we delegate. It is that Ministers can wash their hands of environmental enforcement and blame the quango instead. Accountability should remain with elected representatives and not be handed to an unaccountable board of appointees. We are meant to be living in a democracy. The independent review of environmental governance in Northern Ireland mentions accountability 34 times, but its recommendations only dilute that. I cannot think of a single occasion when adding another layer of bureaucracy solved a problem. We must also be wary of what happens when so-called independent bodies are created. They grow legs and arms. The Equality Commission's handling of the Ashers case should be a salutary warning. It was an independent body that was established to promote fairness and was never set up to police conscience or dictate belief, but its overreach cost the public dearly. Mr Tennyson: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The matter in the Order Paper relates to the independent environmental protection agency. I am not sure what relevance the Ashers case and the Equality Commission have to the debate, other than the Member's wish to engage in a homophobic dog whistle. I do not believe that she would have raised that case were it not for the sexuality of the Minister who is sitting beside me. I ask for your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker, as to whether that is relevant to the debate, and I ask the Member to withdraw her comment and to apologise, because it is disgraceful. Mr Blair: Hear, hear. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Mr Tennyson. Your point has been noted and will be passed to the Speaker's Office for further investigation. Please keep to the debate, Miss McIlveen. Miss McIlveen: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is an example of the overreach of unelected quangos. Recommendation 22 of the review states that the agency: "should develop its own regulatory and enforcement strategy, independent from DAERA's." In other words, it can decide what is a priority and what is not. Who, then, will direct environmental policy in Northern Ireland? Will it be the Minister or the quango? What we need is better delivery from the structures that we already have. If the Department and the NIEA were made to do their jobs properly, with clear lines of authority and proper resourcing, water quality in Lough Neagh could be improved, biodiversity protected and pollution tackled without creating another costly bureaucracy. That rests at the feet of the Minister. The motion is a recipe for more bureaucracy, less accountability and higher costs. It will do nothing to clean up Lough Neagh or improve air quality. It will, however, create jobs for bureaucrats and headaches for everyone else. An independent environment agency is not the panacea for the ills of Lough Neagh. We need accountability and coordination, not duplication and confusion. The buck stops with the Minister, and that is where it needs to stay. Mr Blair: I thank the Member who tabled this timely and vital motion. It is especially fitting that we debate it today, on the opening day of COP30, when political leaders from around the world are gathering to demonstrate their commitment to tackling the climate crisis. It is only right that the Assembly send the strongest possible signal that we too are prepared to meet our environmental responsibilities. For the Alliance Party, creating an independent environmental protection agency is more than just a policy. Rather, it is a fundamental principle and a long-standing goal. We have consistently advocated for one. Its establishment is vital for a sustainable future for Northern Ireland. Our Alliance Party Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs is actively working to deliver on that commitment. Just last week, he gave a detailed update in the Chamber in which he reaffirmed his strong commitment to establishing an independent, effective and well-funded environmental protection agency. The need for such an agency is pressing, and the evidence is now irrefutable. The recent independent review of environmental governance provided a thorough and scientific assessment of that evidence, highlighting not only the depths of the environmental pressures facing Northern Ireland but the critical gaps in governance, accountability and enforcement that have undermined real progress. The report's conclusion is clear: an independent environmental protection agency is needed in order to strengthen environmental governance in Northern Ireland. The distressing situation at Lough Neagh — I make no apology, despite the DUP's protestations, for mentioning Lough Neagh — the tragic loss of biodiversity, the state of our rivers, illegal dumping at sites such as Mobuoy and the ever-worsening impacts of climate change are a testament to the environmental, social and financial costs of inaction. We cannot continue to accept fragmented environmental governance, divided among multiple agencies with blurred lines of responsibility and accountability. That fragmentation breeds inconsistency and inefficiency and, most harmful of all, allows vital deadlines and targets to slip past unfulfilled. The Alliance Party recognises that creating a genuinely independent environmental protection agency will be challenging and that it is not a quick solution to our problems. Difficult choices will be necessary, and funding will need to be secured. That should be viewed not as a drawback but as an investment in our future. The Assembly cannot keep repeating its despair about Lough Neagh or our declining environment while, time and time again, failing to deliver the interventions that are desperately required. To achieve lasting and effective solutions, we must embrace cross-departmental collaboration. Environmental challenges do not respect departmental boundaries or sectoral silos. They demand an all-of-government approach that is underpinned by strong political will and a shared responsibility. The environmental protection agency must be operationally independent and must be supported by, and work with, every part of government. Only through taking that approach can we bring about the transformation that is needed. It is not only about obligations but about opportunities for positive, lasting change. An independent agency would act not only as a vital watchdog and deterrent to polluters but as a catalyst for restoration, investment and fostering public trust in our institutions. It could drive improvements in cross-border cooperation, helping protect what is a single biogeographical unit spanning the island of Ireland. Relationships with the Irish Environmental Protection Agency, the Northern Ireland Climate Commissioner, when appointed, and the Office for Environmental Protection will be essential to our shared success. We must also learn from the shortcomings of the past. The absence of functioning government for nearly two years has meant missed deadlines for urgently needed environmental strategies, such as the previously delayed environmental improvement plan. That cannot happen again. We must now commit to resourcing the new agency, not just through funding but with legal powers that equip it to act decisively, independently and effectively. Despite what the DUP said earlier, all the reshuffling and restructuring of the current structures will not make any of them independent of government. The DUP knows that. We need to deliver an IEPA that protects the environment, ensures accountability and regains public trust. In simple terms, the public expect more from us in this Chamber, and, quite frankly, our natural environment deserves better. Alliance is happy to support the motion, and we hope that the Minister will receive the political support to deliver an IEPA that the public will expect him to receive. Mr Butler: The Ulster Unionist Party supports the motion, because the findings of the independent review of environmental governance were a long time coming, and, if you have read them, you will have seen that they make for some difficult reading. The environmental decline of Lough Neagh is not an isolated failure, but it is the clearest example of the blurred responsibilities, weak enforcement and lack of accountability that exist. Whilst we welcome the motion's objectives, it is fair to say that it was drafted before the Minister's recent announcement. The timing does matter, however. Some of the actions that are called for in the motion are now acknowledged by DAERA and the Minister, and I believe that work has begun. That makes the debate no less important, because the Assembly must now ensure that what was previously promised is actually delivered and delivered well. The Department has accepted the review's 32 recommendations, but there remains uncertainty, certainly from my perspective, about the pace, the sequencing and the direction. Stakeholders across environmental organisations, farming, business and local government are all waiting for clarity. They want to know not just what will change but how it will affect them, because we need to step in time. Reform imposed without proper engagement will not deliver long-term improvement. The proposal to publish a road map of environmental governance is a positive but overdue step. For too long, the system has been opaque: everyone responsible yet no one accountable. However, a map alone will not solve that problem, so once the picture is clear, the focus must be on removing duplication, not adding to it. Creating a new environmental protection agency must not mean replicating existing functions or adding another layer of management, because independence cannot come at the cost of efficiency. The Ulster Unionist Party supports genuine independence for the environmental regulator, but independence must be built on a well-defined mandate, proper resourcing and financial transparency. Anything less risks its becoming a cosmetic exercise — changing logos rather than culture. Independence achieved through structure alone will fail unless it is matched by operational clarity and accountability. Oversight by the Assembly is essential. The proposal for an environmental audit committee deserves serious consideration. Independence must not mean isolation, because a new regulator that is free from interference must still be answerable to the elected representatives of the people that it serves. That is how public confidence will be rebuilt: through transparency, not through detachment. We also acknowledge the Department's stated intention to strengthen compliance and broaden the use of civil sanctions. Whilst complex, that should be welcomed. Too often, environmental offences are met with token penalties and do little to deter repetition. Enforcement must be visible, fair and proportionate. Only then will it command respect across industry and communities alike. Another area that requires clarity is the Department's relationship with NI Water. The review's recommendation to exit the current SORPI arrangements is fundamental, because a regulator cannot sit within the same system as the body that it regulates. That separation must be real and decisive if we are serious about restoring integrity to environmental oversight, particularly in waste water management and pollution control. None of this will work without genuine stakeholder buy-in, which has to be front and centre. Farmers, environmental groups, councils and businesses must all be part of designing the systems that will regulate them. An advisory committee representing civic society is a sound proposal, but it must have influence, not just symbolism. Education, support and partnership will achieve much more than enforcement alone. Top 7.00 pm The Ulster Unionist Party, while supporting the motion because it reflects the direction of travel that we have long argued for, also makes the point that clear governance, real accountability and independent oversight will be critical. We add this note of caution: reform must simplify, not complicate; it must clarify, not confuse; and it must deliver outcomes, not bureaucracy. Northern Ireland cannot afford another round of restructuring that multiplies agencies, blurs lines and drains resources. We need a regulator that is lean, trusted and effective and works with others rather than sitting above them. We will support the motion as a statement of intent but also as a reminder that the true measure of progress will not be the number of organisations created but the quality of the environment that they protect. Mr Kearney: We are living through one of the worst ecological and diversity declines in Europe, so our party supports the urgent establishment of an independent environmental protection agency. That is an unfulfilled commitment from 'New Decade, New Approach' in 2020. The delay is not good enough. We need to be seized with an urgency to deal with our environmental and biodiversity crisis. Therefore, we welcome the motion from the SDLP. I also welcome the Minister's engagement on the issues thus far. The most shocking example of the dilemma — the existential crisis — that we face is the ecological catastrophe in Lough Neagh. I regret the dismissive approach that the SDLP Member who spoke took in relation to the centrality of the lough. That flies in the face —. Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way? Mr Kearney: Yes. Mr O'Toole: You said that someone from the SDLP dismissed the centrality of the lough: was that a misspeak? Were you talking about another party? Mr Kearney: If I said "SDLP", that was a misspeak [Laughter.] My remarks were directed towards the intervention from the Member of the DUP who spoke. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Declan, you get an extra minute. Mr Kearney: Thank you, Deputy Speaker, and thank you, Matthew. Those dismissive remarks detract from the centrality of the lough to this important conversation. They fly in the face of the views of local stakeholders — those who live and work around the lough shore — who want to see the establishment of an independent environmental agency. Just transition principles, Lough Neagh and the need to lift the issue above politics must be our shared and collective focus. The environment and how we challenge that issue in the Assembly should be above party politics. It is a national emergency that requires a North/South intergovernmental response. It demands concerted and joint political action from the Assembly, the Executive and the Irish Government. The pollution in Lough Neagh has deep and complex repercussions for the lough shore community. It jeopardises the commercial fishing industry and the entire biodiversity of the lough itself. It endangers our sustainable access to safe drinking water. It damages tourism and other economic opportunities and the rich historical heritage that is associated with Lough Neagh. The total collapse of eel fishing in the 2025 season illustrates how the environmental crisis is devastating livelihoods and economic activity along the lough shore. Research from the Office for Environmental Protection reports that the North has lost approximately 50% of its diversity during the past 50 years. Many of our fresh waterways, rivers and lakes are failing to meet healthy ecological standards. A recent report from Friends of the Earth reveals that, between 2020 and 2024, 4,202 water pollution incidents were reported by NIEA. Incredibly, from that total, only 63 fines were imposed on the polluters. Such an inadequate and ineffective response will never deter the polluters. Pollution will continue unchecked in the absence of an appropriate agency that is equipped with the capacity and remit to properly sanction those responsible for polluting our land, waterways and air. The commitment made five years ago to establish an independent and properly resourced environmental protection agency must be delivered without further delay. Inaction will lead to the greater devastation of our environment and natural habitat. Time is running out. We need to act now. Mr T Buchanan: I am not as enthusiastic as others around the Chamber about how a new body will deliver what we are looking for. I note that those who tabled the motion claim to be the Opposition who hold Ministers, Departments and the Executive to account on delivering more effective, efficient and accountable governance. However, what they have brought to the House as a solution to our current environmental challenges are proposals for increased bureaucracy in the form of an environmental protection agency with powers to set its own enforcement policy. For me, that creates concern, as it should for everyone around the House. What role will the Minister with responsibility for the environment have in directing that policy? How much scrutiny will the AERA Committee have over such policy? The answer is none. The Committee will have no scrutiny powers over the policy that is set by that agency. Do people in the Chamber believe that that is good, effective and accountable governance? I do not believe that it is. How many environment agencies do we need to protect our environment? Let us examine what we already have. We have the Northern Ireland Environment Agency; the Shared Environmental Service; the Office for Environmental Protection; Waterways Ireland; and the Public Health Agency. All those agencies are already in place. Look at that list of environmental agencies: what is the justification for another agency that will be accountable only to itself? What will be its role and function beyond those of the agencies that are already in place? How much will it cost, and where will that funding be found at a time when all Departments are under such financial pressure? If the Department cannot adequately fund what is already in place, how is it to fund a new body such as this? Perhaps the Minister will provide clarity on those issues when he responds to the debate. Do those who tabled the motion and the other parties really expect the House to accept the addition of another independent agency and another layer of bureaucracy to the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs without any scrutiny or indication of how it will be funded or how it will interact with the existing environmental bodies? Mr Blair: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he accept that the Office for Environmental Protection, which was on his list of environmental agencies, is simply a replacement for the European structures that Brexit removed and is not a directly responsible independent environmental protection agency for Northern Ireland? Nor is Waterways Ireland such an agency, as it is responsible for the development of waterways in Ireland. Does he accept that those agencies are not directly responsible for environmental protection and it is not correct to present them as though they were? Mr T Buchanan: What causes me a problem is a new agency having the power to set its own enforcement policy without scrutiny or direction from the Minister or the Department. That is where the problem really lies. Would it not be much better practice for the Minister to review the effectiveness of all the current environmental structures to ensure that they deliver than to establish another agency that is neither necessary nor appropriate? The new agency could be detrimental to our environment rather than improving it. I will clarify that point. Placing more bureaucracy on top of bureaucracy always leaves a thing less effective. A few years ago, what were we doing in the House? We were fighting to cut red tape in the Department of the Environment. Now what are we doing? We are adding more red tape to red tape and more bureaucracy to bureaucracy, which leaves the processes much less effective. We all want to see improvements to our environment and pollution issues dealt with, including those relating to Northern Ireland Water, but we need to see them dealt with in an effective way by bodies that are held accountable. That will not happen with the new body or quango that is going to be set up. At present, our farm businesses are hindered by an over-bureaucratic process that prohibits them from enhancing their farm buildings. Doing so would reduce ammonia levels and therefore pollution, but the stringent targets set by the NIEA, and the months of delay to the NIEA and the SES reaching a decision between them, mean that a farm business that could reduce its ammonia levels by perhaps 90% or more through new, upmarket buildings is instead compelled to work with its old system that results in high ammonia levels. Would it not be sensible for the Minister and the Department to look at those structures, free them up and get things more effective so that the farming community is able not only to make progress but to help to clean up the environment? We must allow our farm businesses to grow, where possible, while protecting the environment. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Tom, can you bring your remarks to a close, please? Mr K Buchanan: It is time for the Minister to work alongside farm businesses to provide that way forward. Miss McAllister: I support the motion and welcome the SDLP's tabling it. I will speak about the preservation of our future for our future. We have sewage spillages; pollution in our rivers and lakes and on our beautiful beaches; and illegal dumping in our rivers, country parks and countryside. We all feel the consequences of that, regardless of whether we are in a rural constituency or an urban constituency. It is not just about abstract ideas, theories or fearmongering; it is about real-life events that affect our lives and our biodiversity, that are affecting the extinction of species — our natural fauna and plants — and that increase or worsen flooding. Pollution affects our air quality, and we all know that the people who live in the communities that are already affected by poverty are the worst affected by air pollution. The Lough Neagh crisis did not develop overnight. We all recognise and accept that. It took a generation for it to reach the current worsening and deepening crisis, and it will take a generation to fix the problem, but we can do it if we all — Government, Opposition, local councils and communities — work together. Alliance has long supported the establishment of an independent environmental protection agency and has always supported the establishment of a body that will have that protection and independence from not just one Department but all Departments, into the future. How many of us who are in the Chamber today have contacted our local councils or the NIEA about illegal dumping, whether that is tyres, rubbish or thousands upon thousands of other instances of illegal dumping within our urban or rural environment? How many of us have been told by them that they have bigger fish to fry and cannot deal with those smaller issues? How frustrating is it for all of us, as elected reps, to be told that? We simply do not have enough when it comes to protecting our environment. That is not because of Alliance's wishes. Indeed, it is not because of one single party in the Chamber. It is because of a collective failure, over the years, to recognise that our environmental protections need to be strengthened. We attempted to do that through the Climate Change (No. 2) Bill. I recognise and welcome the comments from the proposer of the motion, which clarified the SDLP's position on that. It is important that we put that behind us, move forward and work together to get the independent agency up and running. We know that that may not happen, because of the position in which we find ourselves when it comes to power-sharing. That is why I turn and call on the DUP to support the motion. I hear what it says about governance issues and bureaucracy, but we do not buy that. We do not believe that. Top 7.15 pm You say that having an independent agency will not fix Lough Neagh, so let us look at other ideas that will potentially fix it. The nutrient action plan — you voted against it. An increase to cross-compliance penalties for repeat polluters — you voted against it. Climate targets — you voted against them. Your record stands for itself. There is no need to hide behind absolute nonsense when it comes to protecting our environment in the future and for the future. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Minister, you have up to 15 minutes. Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Opposition motion on the establishment of an independent environmental protection agency for Northern Ireland, and I thank the leader of the Opposition for tabling it. From the outset, I make it clear that I have long held the view that Northern Ireland needs an independent EPA. That belief is rooted in the clear and growing evidence that our current environmental governance arrangements are not fit for purpose and are failing everyone. For too long, our environment and nature have suffered from a lack of robust protections. The consequences are visible to us all and are increasingly severe, from the crisis in Lough Neagh to waste crime, as exemplified by one of Europe's largest illegal dumps at Mobuoy. The independent review of environmental governance, led by Dr Viviane Gravey and supported by Diane Ruddock and John McCallister, has provided a comprehensive and evidence-based road map for reform. I thank the independent panel and the related stakeholder reference group for their rigorous work, which included the consideration of 590 responses to a public call for evidence, three public events and extensive stakeholder engagement across Northern Ireland, Great Britain and Ireland. The panel's final report, which was published on 21 October, sets out 32 recommendations under four key themes: clarity and coherence; meaningful independence; better compliance; and transparency and accountability. Those recommendations aim to deliver a governance system that is robust, trustworthy and capable of meeting our environmental obligations whilst restoring public confidence. At the heart of the report is a recommendation to establish an independent environmental protection agency as a non-departmental public body sponsored by DAERA. The proposed EPA would be responsible for: "oversight of air and water quality, waste management, nature and biodiversity and the marine environment". The model would ensure a clear separation between policymaking and regulation, aligning with best practice across these islands. It would also provide the necessary independence to build public trust whilst maintaining accountability to the Assembly. Northern Ireland is currently the only region — the only region — in the UK and Ireland without an independent EPA. I fail to see how any Member here today would want to continue to support that position. The absence of an independent EPA undermines public trust and confidence, weakens compliance and hampers our ability to deliver meaningful environmental outcomes. Mr Tennyson: Will the Minister give way? Mr Muir: Yes. Mr Tennyson: On the basis of what he said, does the Minister agree that we have the DUP campaigning for a border in the Irish Sea when it comes to environmental governance? Mr Muir: I find it strange that Members of a party that purports to have a concern about other issues believe that we should have a different set-up in Northern Ireland when it comes to the environment or on rights and equality for people in Northern Ireland. The costs of inaction and of not having an independent environmental protection agency in Northern Ireland are stark. The Mobuoy illegal waste site will cost between £100 million and £700 million to remediate. This year alone, my Department is spending over £17 million to address the crisis in Lough Neagh. Those figures illustrate the economic consequences of failed governance and non-compliance. Inaction also leads to degraded ecosystems, public health risks and lost opportunities for sustainable growth. We must act decisively to reverse that trend. I am therefore seeking Executive agreement to establish an independent environmental protection agency as a non-departmental public body of DAERA. A public consultation will follow securing agreement, after which firm policy proposals will be brought back to the Executive to enable legislation to be drafted and implemented. I am fully committed to progressing that work at pace, but in order to do so, I need urgent support from my Executive and Assembly colleagues. The window of opportunity is tight, but, with swift decisions, full and unconditional backing and a willingness to work at pace from both the Executive and the Assembly, we can legislate for an independent EPA in this mandate. We need to see some of the current momentum and desire for change. How people vote on the motion is important. Aside from the recommendations on an independent environmental protection agency, the report makes a number of recommendations that fall within my Department. In parallel with our work to prepare an independent EPA, I will work with my officials to take forward those recommendations. Some aspects already align with ongoing work or our own plans for improvement. At this stage, I will address some concerns that were raised after my oral statement last week. I understand that Members will have concerns around the delay in establishing a new independent EPA. I assure you, however, that the review was critical to understanding the complex environmental governance landscape post EU exit and to charting a practical way forward. A key part of the new governance system will be to look at the functions of NIEA and other bodies and to remove any duplication. The overall intention is to streamline the new independent EPA and ensure that it is effective and efficient in order to, for example, allow a speedy response to planning applications. I am acutely aware of the shared environmental challenges across these islands. Pollution and environmental crimes do not respect borders. Through a new independent environmental protection agency, I want to foster a culture of improved collaboration in which we all work towards better environmental outcomes by sharing information and best practice. There are existing structures in place for that. I will seek to build on those through formal memorandums of understanding. On the funding issue, my officials will consider detailed costs to establish a new independent environmental protection agency and will bring formal proposals back on that in due course, if I get the green light to proceed with an independent environmental protection agency in principle. However, that should not be seen as a barrier at this early stage. What we need to agree is that the status quo is no longer sustainable. Funding issues can be worked through. The enabling legislation will include safeguards to protect against underfunding, similar to those that are in place for the Office for Environmental Protection, which replaced the role that was previously undertaken by the European Commission. We should have nothing to fear from an independent environmental protection agency. A regulator that operates independently should give greater confidence that issues are being tackled proportionately and regulation applied fairly. That is about more accountable regulation and, through that, creating a fair and more level playing field for all. The independent EPA will operate under a clear legislative framework, with oversight by an independent board and scrutiny mechanisms that are established by the Assembly. It will have a clear mission, with measurable environmental outcomes. I have been clear in the past that enforcement should be the last stage in the process to ensure compliance when all other options have failed. Education will play a crucial role in how we shape our governance structures going forward. Prevention is key to all that. If we can advise and guide as much as possible, and that brings about the change that is needed, we will not need to enforce. However, when pollution happens despite our best efforts to educate and inform, and regardless where the pollution comes from, we need to move swiftly to enforcement and to ensure that sufficient deterrents and resourcing are in place for that. I recognise that some Members have expressed scepticism about the creation of another public body. Let me be clear: this is not about bureaucracy; it is about delivering effective, accountable and independent environmental protection. There are many non-departmental public bodies throughout Northern Ireland that perform a vital role. This one should be no different. As I stated last week in my oral statement, this is a pivotal moment for Northern Ireland. I urge Members to put their support on the record, not just in principle but in practice in the voting Lobbies, so that we can move forward together in setting up an independent environmental protection agency. The people of Northern Ireland expect and deserve better environmental protection, greater accountability and a system that they can trust. I am committed to delivering that. I hope that the Assembly will join me in supporting the establishment of an independent environmental protection agency. As the Bucks Fizz song 'Making Your Mind Up' goes: "Don't let your indecision take you from behind Trust your inner vision Don't let others change your mind ... soon you will find that there comes a time For making your mind up". Tonight is the time for making your mind up. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much, indeed. After that musical interlude, I call Mark Durkan. Mark, you have up to 10 minutes to make the winding-up speech. Mr Durkan: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I just hope that my colleague does not whip my skirt off. [Laughter.] I am covered at least. In closing today's debate, I will reflect on our storied landscape. Miss McIlveen expressed unhappiness about the continual reference to Lough Neagh. Although every hill and lough here holds a tale, when we speak about Lough Neagh, we are speaking not just about a body of water but about a place that is woven into our mythology and the very sense of our identity. Fishermen swore by its waters. Storytellers spoke of wood turned to stone. Communities drew life and livelihood from it shores. Although we now understand those myths in a different light, their meaning holds true. Generations that came before recognised something that many of us seem to have forgotten, which is that our well-being and the land's well-being are interlinked. What was once a symbol of vitality has become a mirror of our failures. The suffocating green expanse that chokes the life from its waters is a physical manifestation of years of neglect, delay and dysfunction. Perhaps that is why the DUP does not like its being mentioned. From what we have heard today and seen over the past few years in particular, it is clear that environmental governance in Northern Ireland is not working. The independent review of environmental governance laid it bare: from the devastation of Lough Neagh to the illegal dump at Mobuoy, we are facing a failure of accountability, enforcement and leadership at the core. Review after review has stated the same thing, which is that we need an independent environmental protection agency that is properly resourced, fully empowered and free from political interference. Every Executive party, including the DUP, signed up to that commitment in the New Decade, New Approach agreement. Five years on, however, we are still waiting. That is another NDNA commitment that has been neither delivered on nor achieved. We are not blaming the Minister. We are willing him to maximise the majority support that now exists in the Assembly — I expect it to manifest itself again today — and in the Executive, which did not exist when I was Minister. The Minister has been clear that he wants to deliver an independent EPA. Although we of course welcome and support that, there are just 18 months left in the mandate. If we fail to legislate now, this term will end with nothing to show for it but more environmental decline and public frustration. People have lost trust. Their warnings have been ignored while sewage spills and pollution are met with shrugs of indifference. That begs the question: who is protecting our environment? The answer, sadly, is that no one is protecting it very effectively. In recognition of that frustration, I have a private Member's Bill that seeks to introduce legally binding and measurable targets for air, water and soil quality and biodiversity. That is yet another recommendation of the independent review that has not been implemented. Successive Executives and AERA Ministers have been unable — I am not going to say "unwilling" or that anyone has failed — to treat the issue with the seriousness that it deserves. We were the last part of these islands to put in place climate legislation. That delay has seen biodiversity destroyed, with many indigenous animals and plants at risk of extinction, as Miss McAllister said. That is not hyperbole but reality. Northern Ireland currently ranks as the twelfth-worst country globally for biodiversity loss. We cannot protect what we do not measure, and we cannot recover what we refuse to count. Meanwhile, as the only region across these islands without an independent EPA, we remain an outlier. The other EPAs have been in place for decades. I therefore do not know how the DUP can justify its concerns when the other regions of the UK, all of which have an independent EPA, have better environmental outcomes. Tom Buchanan fears that the proposed new agency will increase bureaucracy but then lamented bureaucracy and failures in the existing arrangements. Top 7.30 pm We have seen the toxic consequences of what our existing environmental protection looks like. Lough Neagh is the most visible example, but it is not the only one. I mentioned the damage that has been inflicted at Mobuoy, which risks costing hundreds of millions of pounds to clean up, yet those responsible will walk away with barely a slap on the wrist. Miss McAllister gave much smaller, everyday examples of the inherent weaknesses in the current system. There are always bigger fish — or fish kills — to fry. We need radical reform of environmental oversight, clear accountability, proper penalties and an independent regulator with the resources and teeth to act. That is in no way a criticism — I certainly hope that it is not construed as one — of the individuals who are working in the NIEA. Their expertise and enthusiasm are shackled by the system in which they have to operate. The Minister has said that establishing an EPA will require resources. I know that we are still at an early stage in the process, but I would like to know how much that might cost. If the costings were done 10 years ago, we can only expect them to have gone up, but the cost of inaction will undoubtedly still be much greater. Miss McIlveen cited resources as a reason for not establishing an independent environmental protection agency. We do not envisage it as being an addition to the environmental protection function of NIEA but a replacement of it. Until we change the system, incidents such as Mobuoy will keep repeating. That is why we in the SDLP are calling for the delivery of an independent environmental protection agency before the end of the mandate. Any delay is another missed opportunity and another looming crisis. Mr Muir: Will the Member give way? Mr Durkan: Certainly. Quickly. Mr Muir: Will the Member acknowledge that the ability to block things at the Executive and our resulting inability to progress something on which the will of the Assembly has been stated is damaging our environment, which is why we want to reform the institutions? Mr Durkan: I agree with the Minister. We are nearly on the same page on the subject. That was demonstrated by the fact that, on that very subject, we tabled a motion today, and you made a statement in the House last week. Coincidence, I am sure. A strong and independent EPA can rebuild public confidence and restore our natural assets. It can help us meet our climate commitments and coordinate with our counterparts in the Irish Government. It is ludicrous that the protections that exist in the South simply stop at a line on a map — a point that Ms Finnegan made. The agency should, and will, eventually, operate on an all-island basis, but I do not want to give the DUP another reason to oppose its establishment. Pollution of the air, water and land does not recognise borders. Collaboration is key if we are to deal with the environmental crisis effectively. We need a model that puts environmental protection at the heart of decision-making. It should not be an afterthought. Let us not be remembered as the Assembly that fiddled while Lough Neagh died. Let us be the one that chose to act and confront one of the greatest challenges of our time. Mr Blair mentioned COP30, which kicked off today. The mood music emanating from COP30 is very different from the optimism of 10 years ago in Paris at COP21, at which I had privilege of representing Northern Ireland, the Assembly and the Executive. It is not a case of good COP, bad COP, but future generations will look back on this time through the lens of history. Let them see courage, not complacency. Their prosperity and health depend on the choices that we make today. Let us get on with it. Question put. The Assembly divided: Ayes 44; Noes 21 AYES Ms K Armstrong, Mr Baker, Mr Blair, Mr Boylan, Ms Bradshaw, Mr Burrows, Mr Butler, Mr Chambers, Mr Delargy, Mr Dickson, Miss Dolan, Mr Donnelly, Mr Durkan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Finnegan, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Mrs Guy, Miss Hargey, Mr Honeyford, Ms Hunter, Mr Kearney, Mr Kelly, Mr McAleer, Miss McAllister, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McMurray, Mrs Mason, Mr Mathison, Mr Muir, Ms Mulholland, Ms Murphy, Mr Nesbitt, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr O'Dowd, Mr O'Toole, Ms Reilly, Mr Sheehan, Mr Tennyson Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Durkan, Ms McLaughlin NOES Mr Brett, Mr Brooks, Ms Brownlee, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Mrs Cameron, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mrs Erskine, Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew, Mr Harvey, Mr Irwin, Mr Kingston, Mrs Little-Pengelly, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Martin, Mr Middleton, Mr Robinson Tellers for the Noes: Mr T Buchanan, Mr Harvey Mr Clarke acted as a proxy for Mrs Erskine. Question accordingly agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly notes the findings of the independent review of environmental governance in Northern Ireland, which identified that environmental pressures, including the crisis in Lough Neagh, reflect serious weaknesses in governance and accountability; agrees with the review’s findings that the absence of a new model of environmental governance is undermining public trust, compliance and the delivery of environmental outcomes; and calls on the Executive to bring forward and pass legislation to establish an environmental protection agency, properly resourced and operationally independent, before the end of the mandate. Top 7.45 pm Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Ladies and gentlemen, can you move out of the Chamber quietly, please? Thank you. Have a bit of decorum, thank you. Winter Preparedness Plan Mr McGrath: I beg to move That this Assembly expresses concern at the handling of the winter preparedness plan 2025-26, noting that poor coordination and communication has caused confusion and uncertainty across the health and social care (HSC) sector; acknowledges the vital contribution of healthcare workers, who will face immense pressure in delivering front-line services throughout the winter months; regrets that a pay settlement has not yet been agreed despite commitments made by the Executive; and calls on the Executive to urgently conclude a fair and sustainable pay agreement with healthcare staff to ensure stability, morale and the safe delivery of patient care this winter. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have five minutes to propose and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. An amendment has been selected and published on the Marshalled List, so the Business Committee has agreed that eight minutes will be added to the total time for the debate. Colin, please open the debate on the motion. Mr McGrath: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. The motion comes from a simple but urgent concern that our health and social care system is, once again, entering the winter without the confidence, clarity or coordination that it deserves. Each year, we see the same story repeated: staff stretched beyond endurance, patients waiting too long for care and plans that arrive too late to offer real assurance. Each year, we hear the voices of health professionals saying that we need to do more to prepare for next year, and, each year, the Department of Health somehow misses the mark. The Opposition motion is not about scoring points; it is about recognising that our system and the dedicated staff who keep it standing cannot keep absorbing crisis after crisis without change. At the heart of the debate are the people who hold the system together: nurses, GPs, allied health professionals (AHPs), care workers and all those who show up every day with professionalism and compassion. I will highlight some of their voices today. The Chartered Society of Physiotherapy and the Community Rehabilitation Alliance have been crystal clear: they tell us that community rehabilitation, which is one of the most effective tools we have to improve patient flow and reduce hospital demand, remains largely invisible in this year's plan. The Department has had a draft community rehabilitation framework ready for some time, yet it still has not been published, and no explanation has been given for the delay. That is a real missed opportunity, because rehabilitation is a necessity. Physiotherapists, occupational therapists, speech and language therapists and rehabilitation assistants enable people to recover safely at home, prevent avoidable admissions and support timely discharge. While the plan includes some pieces of the puzzle, it does not have a strategic framework. We need a clear home-first, rehab-first approach embedded across all future winter plans. Allied health professionals more broadly, the second-largest workforce in our health system, have also been overlooked. Aside from paramedics, they do not appear in the plan at all, and that omission matters. AHPs are essential to keeping people independent, mobile and out of hospital. Excluding them from planning discussions means that we are underusing one of our greatest assets in tackling winter pressures. The Alzheimer's Society has similarly voiced deep concerns that dementia is not mentioned in the plan. That is startling, when dementia now accounts for over 16% of winter mortality and, we are told, is the leading cause of death in Northern Ireland. One in six patients in hospital at any given time has dementia, and there are about 15,000 A&E visits each year by people with undiagnosed dementia. The plan talks about older people living with frailty but fails to recognise that many of those people are living with dementia. Including dementia expertise in the Department's "Big Discussion" could have helped to ensure that training, discharge planning and community support were properly aligned with the reality on the ground. We must do better. The Royal College of GPs (RCGP) has warned that GPs are again being asked to deliver more with little extra support. The additional winter funding this year equates to about 2·5 days' worth of appointments spread across four months, a figure that simply does not reflect the scale of the challenge. GPs are the foundation of community care. If we continue to under-resource them, the pressure will spill back into emergency departments and the cycle will repeat itself. This is what our motion is about: coordination, communication and accountability. We have the people, the skills and the ideas to make winter preparedness meaningful, but it requires joined-up planning that values every part of the workforce, listens to all the professional voices and acts on evidence. The amendment rightly acknowledges additional funding for staff pay. I welcome that recognition, because fair pay is not an optional extra. However, it leads me to one reflection: is it not amazing how other Executive parties — this is not exclusive to the party proposing the amendment — will readily throw the Minister under the bus when he needs the funding but, when the money suddenly appears, they all jump at the chance to declare that they were the ones who found it? The motion does not seek to attack the Minister or throw him under the bus; rather, it simply says that, if we listen to the voice of our healthcare staff and make fairness and coordination the hallmarks of the system, next winter perhaps, for once, we will not be talking about coping with a crisis but instead delivering care with confidence. Ms Flynn: I beg to move the following amendment: After "throughout the winter months;" insert: "notes the additional allocation by the Minister of Finance to the Department of Health of £100 million from the Executive’s Budget towards a pay settlement;" Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): You will have five minutes to propose and three minutes to wind. All other Members who speak will have three minutes. Ms Flynn: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. [Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.] I welcome the opportunity to contribute to tonight's debate on the winter preparedness plan and pay, albeit that it is slightly outdated, thankfully, with the progress that we have seen in the past couple of days. Everyone in the Chamber will be thankful that, together, the Minister and the Executive were able to deliver a pay settlement for our Health and Social Care (HSC) staff. That is the most important thing to come out —. Mrs Dodds: Thank you for taking an intervention. I have a process point that is quite important. The additional £100 million for the pay settlement was announced by the Executive on 16 October, yet I understand that the amendment was lodged with the Business Office on 5 October. Can you explain how you knew about the £100 million and how it was communicated? Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Member has an extra minute. Ms Flynn: Thank you, Diane. I am not sure. My understanding was that the amendment was possibly submitted after the original £100 million was set aside by the Executive, as opposed to the additional £100 million. I am not sure whether that answers your question, but I can get that clarified for you. It is my understanding that the original £100 million was the basis of the amendment, but I am happy to have a chat with you following today's debate. I welcome the Minister's confirmation. At Question Time, the Minister of Finance spoke about the Health Minister's confirmation that future pay awards will be prioritised at the start of each financial year. The Finance Minister encouraged all Departments to prioritise their pay awards, especially for our Health and Social Care workers, at the start of the financial year, if that is doable and achievable, as opposed to trying to scramble and being genuinely stuck to meet the need at the end of the financial year. I am really pleased that the Minister promised in his statement that that situation will not happen again. I welcome his commitment to taking responsibility for those allocations going forward. I sincerely believe that that is what true accountability looks like across all our Departments, and it is what staff and the public expect. We all recognise the immense pressure that staff across the system are under. That is all staff: nurses, doctors, porters, care workers, the whole team who basically keep the system running. They are the backbone of the service. They deserve respect, recognition and fair pay. Thankfully, that is exactly what we have been able to achieve. While no one is pretending that all the challenges in health are fixed, the Executive have stepped forward to prioritise health and deliver on pay when it mattered most and to support our Health Minister. The Department of Health now has a record budget of over £8·4 billion and additional allocations through each of the monitoring rounds, but with all that support comes responsibility. It is not enough to simply ask for more money each time that you find yourself stuck financially. That goes for every Department that finds itself under pressure. That pressure comes from years of underfunding imposed by the British Government. Our health service, schools and communities are all living with the consequences of decisions made in London and not made directly in this Chamber. However, the question for us now is this: how are we spending what we have? Are we doing things differently? Are we learning from last year and the year before that? None of us wants to see a repeat of last winter. I think back to the long lines of ambulances outside emergency departments, with patients waiting for hours to be admitted or discharged and staff being exhausted and working flat out. That cannot happen again. Sadly, it dragged on beyond the winter, and staff say that it is all year round. I would like to hear from the Minister how his Department will address some of those issues, what interventions can be put in place to keep people out of hospital and away from emergency departments, first and foremost, and whether there will be any additional investment in GP practices on top of what was already announced at the Health Committee. I would like to hear about the specific steps that are being taken to prevent avoidable admissions to hospital. Hopefully, that will take the pressure off emergency departments. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Before I call Diane Dodds, I remind Members that they have three minutes to speak. Diane, over to you. Mrs Dodds: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Although part of the motion is somewhat irrelevant now, like the previous Member who spoke, I welcome the fact that healthcare workers will receive the appropriate remuneration. It is important for all of us to have a workforce that is valued and motivated and that we support. Top 8.00 pm I will say a few words about the winter plan. It contains some positive but relatively small-scale initiatives that, I worry, will not make a difference for patients who are lined up in hospital corridors or waiting for an ambulance. When we talked about that, Minister, you said, for example, that the Northern Trust, which does not have an acute care at home service, was to start one this November — perhaps you can tell us whether the Northern Trust has done that — but it would initially cater for only 10 people. That is good for the 10 people who get it, but it is limited in scope. It is the same with many of the initiatives in the winter preparedness plan. We know about much of the plan's content. We know about the issues that are involved. The big issue that is not addressed, however, is social care. We will not be able to resolve winter pressures if we cannot get people to leave hospital who are fit and ready to do so in order to get other people into the beds. In September, Craigavon Area Hospital had 700 care packages outstanding. That is a huge number. I understand the pressures on the budget, but hospital flow is where the problem lies. Again, Minister, perhaps you will advise the House about that matter, because it is important that we understand, as of this moment, how many people are in hospital beds who otherwise may be able to go home. I turn to the amendment. As I said, I welcome the fact that healthcare workers are to receive their pay uplift. I also welcome the fact that you said in your statement, Minister, that you were going to prioritise pay awards in next year's budget. Maybe you will advise the House how, if doing so leads to an overspend, that will be managed in next year's budget. Will that mean cuts to services? The House needs a little more information about how you hope to manage that part of the budgetary process. Winter pressures are not new, Minister. When I read the document, starting from the blank page that you talked about in January, it is hard to believe that this is how little progress we have made on planning — Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Diane, please draw your remarks to a close. Mrs Dodds: — and preparation. Mr Donnelly: I thank the Opposition for tabling the motion, which we will support. Like other contributors to the debate, I am happy that healthcare workers will get their pay uplift, albeit at the end of February 2026, and that pay uplifts will be prioritised next year. I feel a bit like a broken record when talking about winter preparedness. We first heard about this year's plan in early January, when the Minister was called to an urgent meeting of the Health Committee to answer questions about the extreme pressures that we faced last winter. There was talk of a blank page, a big conversation to be had and the promise of an August plan. September came and went, and the plan was not published until mid-October. I might have been able to accept that delay had there been any meaningful change. The Minister told the Assembly that that delay would not have an impact on staff morale and that the plan was well ahead of last year's, yet, when the Health Committee received a 10-page, mainly pictorial report, it listed moral injury on staff as one of its major red lines, all of which were breached in the summer. The plan was published three weeks earlier than in the previous year, with few noticeable differences, not to mention that there was no consultation with key stakeholders such as the Royal College of Nursing or the British Medical Association on the final plan prior to its publication. This is about real people and loss of life that could be prevented. The Royal College of Emergency Medicine (RCEM) called last year's plan "too little, too late", and it has said that it remains unconvinced that this year's plan will translate into meaningful action to reduce waiting times that it has called "dangerous". The RCEM used the standard mortality ratio as a method of working out the number of excess deaths associated with long waits in emergency departments. It calculated the figure in Scotland last year to be 800 excess deaths. In 2022, the figure in Northern Ireland was over 1,400. Our population is a third of that of Scotland, and pressures here have increased since 2022. I can only guess that that figure has increased. I urge the Minister to commit the Department to recording and publishing the data so that we can assess the situation and understand the impact in real terms. In response to another question, the Minister shared that, on 13 October 2025, there were almost 400 medically fit patients either awaiting care packages or care placements across the trusts. That is 400 beds that could not be accessed by patients stuck in our overcrowded A&Es, and that was before the pressures began. Maybe the Minister can tell us what the figures are now. If we want a sustainable system, the shift must happen upstream. Investment in community care must become the foundation of winter planning rather than being an afterthought. There is nothing in the winter plan that will significantly increase capacity in the community, which is where it needs to be. We support the motion sincerely. I urge the Minister to radically rethink how he can improve patient flow at all stages in the process and to do everything that he can to increase capacity in the community so that patients can be discharged in a timely manner, which is key to easing the extreme pressures on the health service this winter. Mr Chambers: I welcome last week's announcement on pay parity. The motion refers to the uncertainty that has surrounded pay for our health and social care staff and the knock-on effect that that has had on planning and morale in the service. However, we now have clarity and certainty for those staff, so I want to take a moment to acknowledge the work of Mike Nesbitt, the Minister of Health. From the day that he took office, the Minister made clear that pay parity was not optional but essential. He also did the right thing earlier this year when he said that he was committed to honouring the pay awards. The fact that we are in a position where the Executive have, at long last, agreed to the request that the Health Minister made six months ago to deliver parity is hugely welcome, but it is also tinged with some frustration that it took so long. Our healthcare workforce have endured years of strain winter after winter and crisis after crisis. As MLAs, I trust that we can all recognise that pay parity is not a reward but a basic recognition of the value of their work. It is a cross-party Executive commitment that parity should be maintained. The agreement secured by the Minister last week is therefore not simply about remuneration but about safeguarding the future of our health and social care service. While it will not be easy, I particularly welcome the indication that, instead of staff having to wait into the year for their annual uplift, the Minister expects that he will be able to offer some degree of immediate uplift at the start of the financial year next April. The publication of the strategic preparedness plan has been helpful, but the Minister probably agrees with me that even more important is the planning and work under way in individual trusts and their planning documents. Good progress has already been made in reducing ambulance handover delays. As we know, this winter, like all winters, will be difficult, and a report is coming out about a strain of flu that is circulating. If that comes to fruition here, it will make the situation even more challenging. For the weeks and months before us, the message must be one of stability and shared purpose. With pay parity delivered, the Executive and Assembly must support the Minister in helping the system to help as many patients as possible. In the coming weeks, our hospitals are likely to focus even more on freeing up capacity currently occupied by those who are medically fit to go home. As MLAs, we all have a responsibility when engaging with local families. That means constructive engagement, not headlines. We must also be mindful of those who stand on the sidelines offering commentary but no solutions — the hurlers on the ditch. It is easy to criticise but much harder to negotiate and deliver. The Minister did the hard work, and the results speak for themselves. I commend the Minister for securing on pay what all other parties said that they wanted to deliver but spent many months actively choosing not to. Mr Robinson: It is important to begin by thanking the thousands of health and social care workers who, every day, show up and do serious heavy lifting on behalf of us all. The winter preparedness plan rightly highlights that it is vital to recognise the immense dedication and effort shown by our staff across HSC. Staff will tell you, however, that they are sick of warm words alone. They are sick of hearing long-winded speeches but seeing no changes to the pressures that they face. For years, health staff have faced immense pressure. It is not just this winter that they face such pressure but every winter and all year round. There is no doubt that, at this time of year, they face higher demands and surges in various illnesses, frailty, problems with discharging patients and staff sickness. Then, on top of it all, they are caught in the middle of budgetary issues [Inaudible.] In such circumstances, staff morale, stability and retention are key. Even the best-laid plans will not be successful if the workforce are demoralised, overworked and underpaid, which they will be until they get the pay rises that they deserve. The winter months always bring increased demand for health and social care services. As the winter preparedness plan from the Department of Health for 2024-25 reminded us: " people become sicker for longer over the winter months". That is particularly true of our frail and older population. Mr McGrath: Will the Member give way? Mr Robinson: I will not tonight, thank you. The plan states that, although difficult, measures will be in place, such as the Northern Trust's Hospital at Home service, but that will initially cover just 10 patients and does not appear to be able to be scaled up to make a huge difference this winter. There are small positive steps, and it would be wrong not to acknowledge them. There are 12 additional beds in the Altnagelvin ED: I hope that that is enough and that there are enough staff to treat patients. The positives do not remove the stress that is being felt by the healthcare system and its staff. They do not allay the frustrations of the staff, nor do they fully reassure the public that the healthcare system here will stand firm and that things will improve, particularly when, so early in the season, we already see huge pressures. The motion refers to a pay settlement for healthcare staff. That had not yet been agreed despite prior commitments. We had all hoped that the workforce would see that reflected before the winter set in, but, alas, that has not happened. Healthcare staff have been saying to me that it sends the wrong message to staff at a time when the Department is asking them to dig deeper, do more with less and face the winter surges in illness. They say that it is unfair to ask them to wait longer for recognition. In recent correspondence from the Minister to the Health Committee, he gave an assessment that a pay award in full for 2025-26 was doubtful without additional support and that such support was not expected to be available. That was disappointing to read, but I am glad that money now seems destined for those incredibly hard-working staff and that it will be factored in to the beginning of the Department's budget process. I will be honest — Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Alan, will you draw your remarks to a close, please? Mr Robinson: — and say that, ahead of this winter, I am scared about the safety of patients. Miss McAllister: I support the motion and the amendment on the winter preparedness plan or the start of the winter preparedness framework, as it has been called. It is really important that we discuss the issue enough. My colleague mentioned that, at the Health Committee at the start of the year, the Minister said: "As soon as we are through this, late February/early March, I will be asking stakeholders and the experts to sit down with me, with a blank page and look ahead to Christmas 2025 and see if we can do things differently." We have often been critical of engagement and consultation with those on the ground who are delivering the care. It was really important that we gave the Health Minister and the Department time and space to go away and work up plans to do things differently, but, unfortunately, that has not borne fruit. I acknowledge that there has been some engagement but not enough to use the feedback to deliver something that can make tangible change. I also recognise that there is a large resourcing pressure on the Department of Health. However, as many in the Chamber have acknowledged during many debates, the Department of Health receives over 50% of the Executive's Budget. We need to listen to those who deliver the care. Many have mentioned the allied health professionals, whether it is occupational therapists or physiotherapists, and some of the new initiatives that trusts are rolling out to care for people in their home. The Northern Ireland Ambulance Service, GPs and even the Department all have a role to play, but, given where that role is carried out every day, those people will have solutions to the problems. I would like to highlight a few issues that others have focused on, including domiciliary care, where there have been 7,000 redirected hours. Of the 300,000 hours that are offered per week, that is just 2·3%. That is not new. It must be welcomed, of course, but it is not new. Dementia beds are an issue. There are people in the sector who are pulling away from providing dementia beds because it is difficult to do so. We need to address that. We also need to address the 10,000 care plans that were cited. Are those new care plans or the care plans that GPs already offer, and will those be additionally resourced? It is important that we have answers to those questions, because people ask us them, as members of the Health Committee. We were told back in January that we would have a blank page, new developments and new plans to deal with the issues, so we should have those. Hopefully, through the new framework or plan for winter preparedness, we will see more solutions to the issues. Top 8.15 pm Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Will the Member draw her remarks to a close, please? Miss McAllister: Sorry, I have run out of time. I look forward to hearing what the Minister says and what is new in the plan. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): And, on that, Minister, you have 10 minutes. Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): I will start in reverse order, by addressing the amendment, which I find very welcome. The Minister of Finance promised me up to £100 million towards pay, but the amendment is much more definitive than that: it talks about "£100 million". Therefore, the proposer's powers of persuasion with Mr O'Dowd are admirable compared with mine. I thank her for it. In next year's pay awards, I have made it clear to the unions and the professional bodies that, as soon as I am aware of what my budget is for 2026-27, the first thing that I will do is make what I call a "down payment", which will be a percentage. This is a pay award, not a pay rise. This year, it is 3·6% and 4%, and that is not a pay rise with inflation where it is. They are pay awards. However, as a sign of good faith, I will put some money up front and into workers' pay packets so that, for once, instead of having to wait months for what they are entitled to, they will get something up front. It will be before the two pay bodies make their recommendations. When they do that, if those awards are higher than the percentage that I have given at the start of the financial year, I will make up the difference. If — this is very unlikely — the two pay bodies are so stingy that we have awarded more than they recommend, the workforce will get to keep the additional. However, as I say, that is extremely unlikely, and so do the unions and the professional bodies. That is the plan. I cannot tell you what the percentage will be because I do not know yet what my budget will be for next year. Mrs Dodds wonders about the implications for service delivery, and so do I. However, until I know what my budget is and make a decision on that percentage, we cannot deal with what the service delivery issues will be. As to the winter preparedness plan, many Members have made a lot of the fact that I said in January that, for this winter, we would start with a blank sheet and get all the stakeholders in the room. That is exactly what we did, and that is the genesis of the plan. Everybody knows that there were four workshops, which were oversubscribed. I would imagine that, if I were to go through the list of everyone who attended the four workshops, I would be talking about well in excess of 100 people who are all health and social care professionals. If anybody wants me to get them back together so that you can say, "What you have come up with is really disappointing", just say so. I will not say that to them. That is up to you. I do not know why anybody thinks that it was going to be so radical that this winter was going to be fine — Miss McAllister: Will the Minister give way? Mr Nesbitt: — because the big issue, which has been identified by several Members, is with the flow not at the front door but at the back door. It is a lack of community capacity. If anybody thinks that you can click your fingers and, in one financial year, sort out the fact that we do not have enough people delivering care packages at home and we do not have enough care beds in the community, they are delusional. This is a step in the right direction. What concerns me at the moment is not the plan but the fact that this year's flu is coming early. We know that the flu comes every year from the southern hemisphere. We are seeing an unusually early start to the flu season. Surveillance data shows that it is increasing among children and rising across other age groups, and here we are on only 10 November. The NHS in England is talking about millions of vaccinations this week alone. The latest dashboard for us, which covers the week up to 2 November, has shown a doubling in community-acquired emergency hospitalisations because of flu. In the week to 2 November, it was 52 people, and that is exactly double the number in the week before. The vaccine uptake could be a lot better. In people over 65, it is over 50%, but, among 18- to 64-year-olds, it is only 21%. Here is another figure that was the same last year, in that it was troubling: of all trust-employed health and social care workers, it was 15·8%. We may be dashing towards additional winter pressures due to the flu this year. I will go through some of the points in the plan. One is tackling ambulance handover delays through a new approach to collaborative working. There is the vaccination programme, and I again encourage all MLAs to encourage their constituents to get a vaccination, if they can. We have initiatives with Community Pharmacy, such as the Living Well and "Stay well this winter" campaigns. There are Pharmacy First services across community pharmacies, including the sore throat service, which has proved popular and effective. There is additional assistance for GP practices. Improving mental health and learning disability bed pressures will reduce the demand on emergency departments and ensure that the right care is available in the right place. We will support social care delivery in the community, improve system flow from hospitals and avoid ED attendance and admission for end-of-life care for those whose preference is to be at home. That is a big issue. We know that people who are terminally ill want to pass away at home, and we are concerned about some people sending sick people to emergency departments, where there is no bed for them, when they had a bed in a care home. We need to think about that. There were seven outputs from those four big conversations: the identification and risk stratification of frailty in the over-65s; supporting people to be well and cared for at home; avoiding admission for end-of-life care, which I mentioned; the provision of appropriate or sensible care — some clinicians are risk-averse, so someone might get an X-ray, a CT scan and an MRI scan when doing so is not necessarily in the best interests of the patient or the hospital flow; a frail, elderly pathway for ED attendees; clinical advance care planning; and a fractured neck of femur pathway improvement group. Those were the seven categories. I want to make another point or two, but I will give way to the Member. Miss McAllister: Thank you, Minister. Much earlier in the debate, you said that the plan was not "radical", because we cannot be radical. However, with respect, you are the Minister who stood up and said that there was a blank sheet of paper and that you were willing to take on the solutions. Many in the sector said that the plan was not good enough. That comes not from us as MLAs in a vacuum but from our engagement with people in the sector who carry out the work. Mr Nesbitt: I am glad that the Member has engaged with the sector. The four workshops were oversubscribed because people wanted to engage with the Department. We have engaged with the sector in great detail. The final point to which I will refer was, I think, brought up by Mrs Dodds. The Northern Trust does not have the Hospital at Home service but is starting the process to put that in place. Mrs Dodds said, "But, there are only 10 beds", and that that is great for those patients who end up being one of the 10 who get those Hospital at Home service domestic beds. That is fair enough, I suppose, but it is a start. What I question is this: how can you say, "You can only afford to do 10 beds", then say, in the same breath, "Ah, but the Department of Health gets over 50% of the entire Executive Budget"? Hospital at Home costs money. It is an initiative and a development. It is new. You cannot magic it out of the ether without money. The idea that the Department gets over 50% of the Executive's Budget is a bit of a red herring. Remember, we got the Executive and the Assembly back up and running at the beginning of last year by persuading Treasury that the block grant should be based not on a crude headcount but on assessed, objective need. When we are looking at the Health budget, why do we go back to that crude count and say, "You have got just over 50%"? Why do we not sit down collectively and decide on the assessed objective need to deliver world-class health and social care? My answer is that I do not want to take a greater and greater percentage of the Budget; I want to shift left into a neighbourhood delivery model that concentrates on prevention and early intervention. That is what we will do over the course of 2026. In the meantime, however, we will deal as best as we can with the winter pressures, which are additional to the 365 pressures that our health and social care workforce have to deal with every day. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Minister. I call Colm Gildernew to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. Colm, you have three minutes. Mr Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. [Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.] I am very pleased to follow the debate and wind up for my party on the amendment. Órlaithí has already outlined how the Executive have worked successfully to create the conditions for a pay deal for health and social care staff. I will not reiterate that in detail, but I will focus on what that now means in practice for staff and patients. For too long, health workers have lived with uncertainty about their pay, staffing levels on wards and whether the system around them will hold up when the winter pressures hit. The agreement that has now been reached and accepted by the unions gives much-needed certainty on pay. That is welcome, and it matters not just to staff but to their families and for paying their mortgages and household bills. Pay certainty has to be matched by certainty in planning. The Minister has said that winter preparations have been ongoing throughout the year. In that case, people are entitled to see a plan being rolled out that they can recognise in their own experience when they walk into an emergency department, ring for an ambulance or, indeed, start a shift. When we talk about winter pressures, it can sound abstract, but for our constituents, it means very real situations. It is the older person who is perhaps reluctant to ring 999 because they do not want to be an extra burden on the system. It is the parent with a sick child who sits for hours in a crowded waiting room, not knowing when they will be seen, and it is the nurse finishing a 12-hour shift, staying on because there is simply no one to hand over to. A serious winter plan has to speak to all those realities. That means a clear pathway so that people can get help in the community before they end up in A&E, properly joined-up arrangements so that someone who is medically ready to go home is not stuck on a ward for days waiting on a care package, and honest and transparent information about where the pressures are and what is being done. As the Minister said, prevention has to be front and centre, and people who are eligible for vaccines need straightforward ways to get those in communities, workplaces and settings that suit them, and the staff need to be supported to take up the vaccinations. On the pay award, the reality is that the Executive have created the space for that settlement. Every Department is certainly under pressure, and every Minister could certainly use more money. We cannot, however, ignore the harm that industrial action would have caused if those issues had not been addressed. Staff would have been forced on to picket lines, patients would have waited longer for treatment and families would have been under increased pressure. We will continue to challenge the British Government's austerity agenda. The Executive have helped to secure the pay award, prioritised health in every monitoring round and given the Department of Health a record budget. The focus now needs to be on delivery, and we need to see a plan that makes a real difference during the coming winter and supports staff and patients. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Patsy McGlone to conclude the debate on the motion. Patsy, you have five minutes. Mr McGlone: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank all the Members who have contributed to the debate. There are common threads running through all the contributions — from my colleague Colin McGrath, Órlaithí Flynn, Diane Dodds, Danny Donnelly, Alan Chambers, Alan Robinson, Nuala McAllister and, indeed, Colm Gildernew — in the references to the very real issues that affect people on the ground in our constituencies: our neighbours and friends and the problems that they are faced with. We are one year into the Minister's three-year strategic plan, which is apparently based around the three pillars of stabilisation, reform and delivery. Unfortunately, there is no stability. If you visit any of the emergency departments, it is often just madness, and doctors and medical staff are having to try to deal with that. The stability is certainly there in regard to the waiting lists, in that they are at record lengths. I will say one thing, Minister: the waiting list reimbursement scheme is having a material effect, and a good effect. There is one aspect of it that is not necessarily within your Department or even within the trusts, and that is the communication from the hospitals in Dublin, particularly the UPMC Sports Surgery Clinic, to the relevant staff here. I had a case recently where a gentleman had a double hip replacement. He was due for discharge last Friday or Saturday, and the trust here did not even know that he was due for discharge, because it had no communication from the hospital in Dublin. It was the hospital's duty and responsibility to inform the central comms centre so that a discharge package, whether that was occupational therapy, physio or rehab, be put in place for him. The scheme needs a wee bit of tweaking around the edges, but it is a good scheme, and many a person visits their local credit union to help out with it. Top 8.30 pm As my party colleague said, we accept the Sinn Féin amendment, noting the allocation of £100 million from the Executive Budget towards the overdue pay settlement for healthcare workers. However, as the Minister outlined, the belated allocation will not cover the full cost. I trust that he will not, but it looks as if he may have to overspend his budget for this year by an additional £100 million to fulfil that pay settlement, and, as he pointed out, it is a pay settlement, not a pay increase. It is yet another example of the Executive's annual cycle of crisis management. If health and social care staff have finally secured long-overdue pay parity with colleagues across these islands, it has come about after months of confusion, mixed messages and public infighting between Ministers. As the joint First Minister helpfully told the media last week: "The Executive has found the entire amount for this pay parity pressure. The Department of Health could not fund any of it." I do not know what that is supposed to mean. I am sure that the Minister has been grappling with that too. Nevertheless, if the Executive could find that money now, they should have found it months ago without causing the unnecessary anxiety for healthcare staff. We need long-term planning for funding and genuine Executive coordination, which the public and healthcare staff want to see. We cannot have the Executive scrambling at the last minute to fix problems that have been there for a long time. Everybody knows what the problems are. It is just about getting a plan to fix them. Whether it is the child waiting for an operation, the adult waiting for treatment and care in hospital for a medical condition or the older, or maybe not-so-old, person waiting for joint surgery, those are our constituents. They are people with real, human conditions: our very real neighbours, friends and relations. Let us have no more public arguments between the First Minister and the Health Minister. People just want this to be resolved. A common theme has run throughout the debate. At the end of July this year, around 3,000 people in the North were waiting for all or part of their home care package. Almost 1,000 of those people were in the Northern Trust area, which is mostly my responsibility in my constituency. That was during the height of the summer, before the start of the build-up of pressures. The Minister has referred to flu vaccines and a peak in the earlier set-in of the flu in the community. The figures were from before the start of that. For as long as I have been an MLA, I have encountered the same problem, year in, year out, except that it appears to have started earlier this year. A key element of alleviating those winter pressures on the health service is ensuring that — Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Patsy, will you draw your remarks to a close, please? Mr McGlone: — when a patient is medically fit to be discharged from hospital, the appropriate care package and support are available for that person. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much. Question, That the amendment be made, put and agreed to. Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly expresses concern at the handling of the winter preparedness plan 2025-26, noting that poor coordination and communication has caused confusion and uncertainty across the health and social care (HSC) sector; acknowledges the vital contribution of healthcare workers, who will face immense pressure in delivering front-line services throughout the winter months; notes the additional allocation by the Minister of Finance to the Department of Health of £100 million from the Executive’s Budget towards a pay settlement; regrets that a pay settlement has not yet been agreed despite commitments made by the Executive; and calls on the Executive to urgently conclude a fair and sustainable pay agreement with healthcare staff to ensure stability, morale and the safe delivery of patient care this winter. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Before we adjourn, I remind Members that tomorrow's sitting will commence at the later time of 11.30 am to enable Members' attendance at events to mark Armistice Day. Adjourned at 8.34 pm. Top
[ni-assembly-official-report][plenary_report] Official Reports https://aims.niassembly.gov.uk/officialreport/report.aspx?&eveDate=2025/11/04&docID=456025 Official Report: Tuesday 04 November 2025 Table of Contents Members Statements Occupational Therapy Week 2025 Poppy Appeal: Intimidation Youth Assembly Enniskillen Royal Grammar School: ABP Aberdeen Angus Youth Challenge Winners Cumann Naomh Treasa Loch Mhic Ruairí: Tyrone Senior Football Champions Public Health Bill European Convention on Human Rights: 75th Anniversary Coimisinéir na Gaeilge: Ceapachán Irish Language Commissioner: Appointment World Stroke Day Aerospace Industry Political Policing Parliament Buildings: Vandalism Ministerial Statement Independent Review of Environmental Governance in Northern Ireland Executive Committee Business Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill: Consideration Stage Oral Answers to Questions Finance Question for Urgent Oral Answer Justice Executive Committee Business Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill: Consideration Stage The Coronavirus Act 2020 (Extension of Provisions Relating to Live Links for Courts and Tribunals) (No. 2) Order (Northern Ireland) 2025 Private Members Business Supporting Service Leavers, Veterans and their Families Holiday Homes and Short-term Lets Adjournment Sensory Room: Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children The Assembly met at 10:30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair). Members observed two minutes' silence. Members' Statements Occupational Therapy Week 2025 Mrs Dillon: I rise to mark Occupational Therapy Week 2025, which provides us with the opportunity to celebrate the vital and far-reaching contribution of occupational therapists across our health and social care system. Whether it is helping someone to regain mobility after injury, supporting a child with developmental challenges or enabling an older adult to live safely at home, their work is invaluable. It is about giving people independence and a good quality of life. As you will all be aware, occupational therapists are central to improving hospital discharge processes, facilitating timely rehabilitation and strengthening community-based care. Their work spans a range of diverse settings, including in the home and in education and mental health facilities. The challenge, for them and us, is that there are simply not enough of them to meet the growing need in our community. I commend the Royal College of Occupational Therapists for launching its first workforce strategy action plan in January of this year. The plan sets out a clear and ambitious vision for the future of the profession. Cuireann sé i gcuimhne dúinn go mbaineann fíordhaoine le gach staitistic agus páipéar beartais, daoine lena bhfuil a gcaighdeán beatha ag brath ar thacaíocht thráthúil, oilte chomhbhách ó theiripeoir saothair. [Translation: It reminds us that, behind every statistic and policy paper, there are real people whose quality of life depends on timely, skilled and compassionate support from an occupational therapist.] As we celebrate this week, I call on the Minister of Health to prioritise strategic workforce planning. We must ensure that occupational therapists are equipped to meet future demand, supported in their development and recognised for the transformative impact that they have on individuals, families and our communities. Nuair a dhéanaimid infheistíocht sa lucht saothair againn, déanaimid infheistíocht i neamhspleáchas, i ndínit agus i ndeis ár bpobail — díreach na rudaí a ligeann do dhaoine togha saoil a bheith acu. [Translation: When we invest in our workforce, we invest in independence, dignity and opportunity for our people — the very things that allow people to live their best lives.] Poppy Appeal: Intimidation Ms Forsythe: This year's Royal British Legion Poppy Appeal was officially launched on Thursday 23 October. Many of us will wear a poppy proudly in memory of the fallen of our nation and for the future of the living. The sale of remembrance poppies and donations enable practical, financial and emotional support to be given to our armed forces community. I wear my poppy with pride. Last week, I was made aware of a sinister threat to poppy sellers at Tesco in Newry. The faceless group behind the threat called on Tesco to: "immediately remove such offensive displays, otherwise local republicans may have no choice but to seek to take action to ensure they are removed". That is disgraceful. Online intimidation is disgraceful. All intimidation is absolutely disgraceful. Newry city was the scene of many shocking and heinous attacks during the Troubles in Northern Ireland. Those attacks resulted in the murder of two British Army soldiers, one member of the British Territorial Army and four members of the Ulster Defence Regiment. Three former members and 21 serving members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary also lost their lives to terrorists. The humble poppy pays tribute to all of them. To those poppy sellers in Newry, volunteering their time to support that valuable charity and its work to support our armed forces community, I say, "Thank you. We stand with you". I thank all the poppy sellers across the country for their dedication, and, of course, I thank our armed forces for their selfless service to us all. The Members on this side of the House will always remember those who fought in service of our country and those who died in defence of our freedoms and way of life. We will stand up for everyone's right to sell a poppy without the fear of intimidation. We wear our poppies with pride. "At the going down of the sun and in the morning, We will remember them." Youth Assembly Mr Blair: Mr Speaker, I had the pleasure of attending the final plenary session of the second Youth Assembly on Saturday past, and I know that you were also there. I take this opportunity to recognise the dedication and hard work of everyone involved. At Saturday's event, the Youth Assembly Members launched their legacy report, which chronicles their extensive work from 2023 onwards. The legacy report is a testament to the dedication and engagement of the Youth Assembly Members. They have played a significant role in shaping policy and debate across a wide range of issues. The depth and breadth of the Youth Assembly's involvement is highlighted by its collaboration with the Justice Committee on the Justice Bill; its input to the Education and Economy Committees during the independent review of education; and its valuable perspectives on the Dilapidation Bill, delivered to and through the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee. The Youth Assembly also engaged on and addressed a host of other issues, including the plight of young carers. Such a broad remit across all Departments truly demonstrates the scope of the Youth Assembly Members' understanding and why they are held in such high regard as credible, articulate representatives of young people in Northern Ireland. That important legacy report has been provided to every MLA and is also available online. I encourage everyone to take time to read it, as it offers a unique insight into the achievements and perspectives of our Youth Assembly Members. I look forward to seeing what those remarkable young people will go on to achieve. I also look forward very much to working with the 90 newly recruited Members for the 2025-27 mandate. That new group reflects the diversity of our society, with Members coming from every constituency across Northern Ireland. We must always recognise and commend the hard work, commitment and enthusiasm of those young people. They have succeeded in their Youth Assembly roles while juggling demanding school or college schedules, exams and extracurricular activities. I also pay tribute to the dedicated and enthusiastic team of Assembly officials who have supported and encouraged our Youth Assembly since its inception. I am deeply impressed by the increase in confidence and contribution that I have observed amongst the Youth Assembly Members. Their efforts should never be taken for granted, and they should be celebrated by us all. I wish all outgoing and incoming Youth Assembly Members every success for the future. Mr Speaker: I am probably not supposed to, but I endorse all of that. Enniskillen Royal Grammar School: ABP Aberdeen Angus Youth Challenge Winners Ms D Armstrong: I commend the outstanding achievement of four pupils from Enniskillen Royal Grammar School, Conor Phair, Mackenzie Wilson, Jensen Lindsey and Alfie Thompson, who were recently crowned overall winners of the 2025 ABP Aberdeen Angus Youth Challenge. The four young County Fermanagh farmers claimed the top spot, competing against 20 teams across Northern Ireland. Since they entered the competition in September 2024, it is safe to say that the boys were kept busy. On qualifying for the final, they received five calves from ABP Food Group to rear through to finishing. They went on to receive skills development in the beef industry on a 12-month programme, winning a £1,000 cash prize for their school at the end of it. As part of the challenge, the boys developed a project called "One Health: The Link Between Animal, Human and Plant Health", which tackled the critical issue of soil sustainability. They developed a soil analysis results guide to simplify complex data for farmers, distributed it to local vets, marts and agri-stores and hosted a "Healthy Soil, Healthy Future" conference, which raised an impressive £4,120. In total, the boys raised over £6,500 for Air Ambulance NI and Rural Support, which shows just how education and agriculture can come together to deliver real-world impact in the community. I commend not only the boys but Ruth Moore, their College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise (CAFRE) adviser, and Enniskillen Royal Grammar School itself. The school fielded a total of three teams, with each reaching the semi-final stage. All three teams have done their school and County Fermanagh proud. It is clear that we have a strong, vibrant agriculture sector in Fermanagh and South Tyrone. Those pupils represent the next generation of farmers and rural leaders who have been equipped with knowledge and the drive to make a difference. Their success reminds us of the importance of investing in rural education and supporting initiatives that help young people to grow and make their mark in the agri-food industry. I trust that all Members will join me in congratulating the Enniskillen Royal Grammar School team on this remarkable achievement. The boys, their teachers and their families have done their school, their county and Northern Ireland proud. Cumann Naomh Treasa Loch Mhic Ruairí: Tyrone Senior Football Champions Mr McAleer: I congratulate my home club, Cumann Naomh Treasa Loch Mhic Ruairí, on winning its first ever Tyrone senior football championship last Sunday. The game against Trillick and, indeed, the path to the final were extremely competitive and nail-biting but played in the best of spirits. Our club was formed in 1972, so it is still relatively young. We spent most of those years playing in junior or immediate football, so to win a senior title in one of the most competitive counties in Ireland is a massive achievement of which I and countless others are very proud. The scenes when the lads returned home to the lough last Sunday evening were something to behold, and, of course, the celebrations continued for a number of days. That included when the Madden Raparees, who won the Armagh championship, arrived in Loughmacrory on Tuesday evening. Our two clubs are for ever connected through the Grimley brothers, one of whom plays for our club and two of whom play for their home club in Madden. That family, more than any, deserves great achievements such as this following the harrowing tragedy that it has endured. Loughmacrory clubman and local historian Seamus Mullan penned the history of our club in a book called 'Making Our Own Heroes'. That title is a most fitting description of how the lads who make up the team and the panel are seen in our community: grounded, modest and disciplined. Our children need look no further than that group of players for role models. I am certain that that is the case for every GAA club across Ireland. I pay tribute to Trillick, who really put it up to Loughmacrory in the final, in what was a tough physical encounter but was played in the best of spirits. I recognise that this has been an emotional year for Trillick, especially since the passing of its esteemed colleague Jody Gormley, whose spirit lives on among that team. I was delighted to see the club win the Tyrone league title at the weekend. After the game last Sunday, Loughmacrory clubman Ciaran Meenagh said that, for 20 years or more, he stood in the stand or terrace in Healy Park on county final days hoping for even one day in the sun to see the lads in amber and black walking behind the band. That wish has come true, and it is due to decades of hard work and dedication. I sincerely hope for many more county titles to follow. Well done to Loughmacrory senior team, the lads from the lough, and good luck against Kilcoo in the Ulsters this Saturday. Top 10.45 am Public Health Bill Mrs Dodds: I rise to outline our opposition to the public health Bill, which the Minister has now withdrawn and on which he has told his officials to go back to the drawing board. First, I state clearly that no one doubts that public health legislation that dates from 1967 should be revised and that that should be done as soon as possible and that it should be up to date. We must also ensure that it tackles the issues of today. However, the public health Bill did not meet our criterion for such a Bill, which is that it strike a fair balance between fulfilling public health objectives and defending personal liberty as the cornerstone of a democratic society. We are clear that sweeping powers should not be handed to the Minister of Health to impose restrictions that would directly impact on private and family life, education, employment and movement. Having lived through the experience of the COVID-19 pandemic, we understand that such powers and the lockdowns that they enabled led to major social and economic disruption, had serious impacts on personal health and derailed the educational and emotional development of many children and young people. In particular, we will continue to reject mandatory vaccination or plans to compel citizens to undergo any form of medical treatment against their wishes. Any future public health framework for Northern Ireland must be underpinned in law and practice by the principle of informed consent. I am glad that we are going back to the drawing board on the legislation, and I urge the Minister and his Department to ensure that the principles that I have outlined are fundamental to any new public health Bill. European Convention on Human Rights: 75th Anniversary Mr Dickson: Today marks the 75th anniversary of the European Convention on Human Rights. That charter was born out of the horrors of World War II, with the United Kingdom playing a leading role in setting minimum standards by which Governments across Europe agreed to abide. That improved respect for human rights across Europe. No signatory state has instituted the death penalty for 25 years, and the convention has facilitated cross-border cooperation on issues of joint interest, such as crime and human trafficking. As a Winston Churchill Fellow, I am proud to know that Churchill was a key early advocate and the spiritual architect of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the aftermath of World War II and the Holocaust, he championed the idea of a united Europe based on shared values and human rights to prevent future atrocities and resist the spread of communism. As chair of the non-governmental European Movement, he presided over the 1948 Congress of Europe in The Hague, which called for a charter of human rights and a court of justice. Today, in Northern Ireland, the convention not only plays a pivotal role in securing the foundation of our peace process but, along with the court, was and is integral to building trust in such public institutions as our Police Service and security services after decades of conflict. The convention is explicitly embedded in the Good Friday Agreement. The agreement requires that the rights in the convention be incorporated into Northern Ireland law, a requirement met through the UK Human Rights Act 1998. Today, I highlight the convention's role in safeguarding fundamental freedoms and its critical importance for maintaining justice and democracy not just in Northern Ireland but across the 46 member states of the Council of Europe. The convention protects the human rights and fundamental freedoms of over 700 million people. It protects the right to life; a fair hearing; respect for privacy; private and family life; freedom of expression; freedom of thought, conscience and religion; and the protection of property. The charter prohibits torture, inhuman and degrading behaviour and punishment through slavery or forced labour; the death penalty; arbitrary and unlawful detention; discrimination in employment and in the rights and freedoms that are set out in the convention and its protocol. Let us today mark 75 years of the convention and remember its origins in the aftermath of World War II and the rights and freedoms that it protects. Coimisinéir na Gaeilge: Ceapachán Mr Gildernew: Céim stairiúil chun cinn don Ghaeilge, dár bpobal agus dár n-oidhreacht chomhchoiteann a bhí i gceapachán an choimisinéara teanga an tseachtain seo caite. D'fhógair Oifig an Choiste Feidhmiúcháin an tseachtain seo caite go rachadh Pól Deeds i gceann oibre mar choimisinéir nua sna seachtainí seo amach romhainn. Is geal liom an ceapachán seo, ceapachán a comhaontaíodh in Ré Nua, Cur Chuige Nua sa bhliain 2020. Is bunchloch faoin reachtaíocht nua teanga atá againn ceapachán an choimisinéara, 20 bliain ó tugadh gealltanas ar dtús faoi Acht Gaeilge a thabhairt isteach. Tá rath agus bláth ar an Ghaeilge ar fad. Daingneofar agus neartófar an fás agus an fhorbairt sin le ceapachán coimisinéara. Beidh ról tábhachtach, lárnach aige, agus beidh dualgas air gearáin ón phobal a fhiosrú faoi údaráis phoiblí nach ndéanann de réir na gcaighdeán nua teanga. Tá an Tuaisceart ar thús cadhnaíochta in athbheochan na teanga: chríochnaigh Oireachtas na Samhna Dé Domhnaigh, féile theanga a bhí ar siúl i mBéal Feirste; beidh Ard-Fheis Chonradh na Gaeilge agus Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann ann i mBéal Feirste fosta. Is imeachtaí iad sin a bhfuil an Ghaeilge fite fuaite iontu, imeachtaí ina léirítear agus ina gcuirtear saibhreas ár gcultúir agus ár dteanga chun cinn. Tá sé thar am coimisinéir a bheith ceaptha ag an stát le forbairt na teanga a stiúradh, a neartú agus a chinntiú. Strácáil na nGael agus feachtasaíocht pholaitíochta le 50 bliain anuas is bunsiocair leis an cheapachán. Gairim sibh as bheith chomh righin, dochloíte, dianseasmhach. Ba cheart eang a chur sa mhaide mullaigh toisc an ceapachán seo á dhéanamh. Guím gach rath air agus ar an Dr Katy Radford agus ar Lee Reynolds ina bpoist nua. Go n-éirí libh uilig. Irish Language Commissioner: Appointment [Translation: The appointment of an Irish language Commissioner last week is a watershed moment for the Irish language, our community and our shared heritage. The Executive last week announced that Pól Deeds will start as the new commissioner in the coming weeks. I welcome that appointment, which was agreed in New Decade, New Approach in 2020. The appointment of a language commissioner is a core component in our new legislation, 20 years on from the initial commitments to implement an Irish language Act. The Irish language is thriving and continuing to grow, and the appointment of a dedicated commissioner will secure and strengthen that growth. He will have an important central role, and he will have a duty to investigate complaints made on non-compliance by public authorities with the new language standards. The North is leading the charge in the Irish language revival. Oireachtas na Samhna, which was hosted in Belfast, finished yesterday. Belfast will also host the national conference of Conradh na Gaeilge and Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann. Those events have the language at their core, and they will showcase and promote our rich culture. A state-appointed commissioner who will ensure, enshrine and direct the development of our language is long overdue. This appointment is a direct result of over 50 years of the striving of Gaels and political campaigning. Their persistence, perseverance and steadfastness are to be commended. This appointment is a momentous occasion. I wish him all the best, as I do Dr Katy Radford and Lee Reynolds in their new respective roles. Good luck to them all.] World Stroke Day Miss McAllister: As chair of the all-party group on stroke, I am delighted to mark World Stroke Day, which fell on 29 October. There is an event today in the Long Gallery at 12.30 pm, and I hope that as many Members as possible can come along to it. I want to highlight the impact and magic of modern medicine and how it can transform lives here. There are over 41,000 stroke survivors in Northern Ireland, and someone here will have a stroke every two hours. Many people will recover thanks to our skilled and dedicated specialist stroke staff, including consultants and nurses, who work across the entire stroke pathway to provide expert care in acute stroke units. After hospital discharge, we have speech and language therapists, physiotherapists, occupational therapists and support recovery counsellors who offer much-needed psychological, physical and emotional care long after a stroke has occurred. I want to focus on one key aspect of stroke care: thrombectomy. A thrombectomy is a mechanical procedure that, if carried out on eligible stroke survivors in a timely manner, can save brains, save money and change lives. Some of the most powerful stories about stroke survivors whose lives have been transformed by that treatment have been captured in a documentary entitled 'Thrombectomy: Restoring Life' by Harry Bateman, a local film-maker. As chair of the all-party group on stroke, I am proud to sponsor the event today, which will highlight that video. We have had a preview of it. The film has an emotional impact, and it should be highlighted, particularly those families who support stroke survivors. However, with only 4·3% of stroke survivors receiving a thrombectomy last year, we are still falling short. At least 10% of stroke patients are thought to be eligible, meaning that many are missing out on that life-changing treatment. The only way to ensure that every eligible patient receives a thrombectomy is by providing a 24/7 service. That was committed to by many parties, and, in the stroke action plan published in June 2022, the Department of Health committed to delivering such a service by the end of 2024. We know that budgets are tight and services are strapped, but we must move to prevention in order to save. That is the magic of medicine. Medicine and science have evolved. They can eradicate disease, help to speed up recovery and take the strain off our health service, so we must invest. We must ensure that the over 100 people who missed out on thrombectomy services last year do not miss out again. I invite Members to the event in the Long Gallery today to meet some of the survivors and hear their stories. Aerospace Industry Mr Brett: Last week, the deputy First Minister and I were delighted to host the aerospace, defence and space council in Northern Ireland. It was a vital opportunity for us to showcase the industries that are at the very heart of Northern Ireland's economic strength and innovation. In every corner of Northern Ireland, world-leading companies are designing, manufacturing and maintaining the technology that keeps the United Kingdom and its allies safe. From advanced aircraft companies and cutting-edge defence systems to cybersecurity expertise, Northern Ireland's contribution to that vital sector is something that we should all be proud of. Already employing around 10,000 people and worth over £2 billion to our economy, the sector is set to grow even further, with last week's news of defence contracts being awarded to Northern Ireland and a defence growth deal of £250 million. Those industries are not just about national security; they are engines of economic opportunity. They provide long-term careers for our young people, attract inward investment and sustain local communities. This success is a clear demonstration once again of Northern Ireland's place in the United Kingdom, giving us access to a national defence programme, shared expertise and a scale of investment not seen anywhere else. Yet, while Invest Northern Ireland's report recognises the importance of the defence sector, the Economy Minister seems intent on undermining it. Since taking up her role as Minister for the Economy, she has failed even to meet the ADS Group, which is the very organisation representing our aerospace, defence and security sectors. Instead, she issued a politically charged written ministerial statement that overstepped her authority and risked damaging confidence in the sector. That will come as no surprise because the self-proclaimed "First Minister for all" described recent investment as "incredulous" and, indeed, was unavailable when the Bank of America came to Northern Ireland to announce thousands of new jobs. That is why this party has acted. I pay tribute to the Ulster Unionist Party and the Traditional Unionist Voice, which have ensured that we have secured the 30 signatures required to call in to the Executive the disgraceful decision by the Minister for the Economy. While others talk this country down, these Benches will always turn up, stand up and proudly fly the flag for Northern Ireland. Political Policing Mr Burrows: The risk of political policing in Northern Ireland remains current, and that is a risk from Sinn Féin, which is continuing to interfere in policing in this country. I revealed last week that Sinn Féin was demanding — I see that its Members cannot look up, probably in shame — that PSNI officers not carry their firearms into meetings, community meetings and Sinn Féin offices. That is not only dangerous, putting an invidious pressure on our officers, but represents a breach of policing by consent and the very nature of democratic policing. No political party can interfere with the operational independence of our police officers, let alone a party with the history of Sinn Féin. I revealed that last week, and I have written to the Chief Constable so that he makes a clear direction that that does not happen again and that his officers are told to resist such approaches. This morning's 'Nolan' show revealed that that is routine practice in west Belfast. That is shameful. I want to hear what the Policing Board members say about that in the course of the rest of the week. Top 11.00 am It is clear to me, however, that, since Sinn Féin joined the Policing Board in 2007, it has tried to control, coerce and manipulate police officers. After Gerry Adams was arrested, Bobby Storey stood up and said very clearly, "Hands off our party leader". Sinn Féin tries to create a chill factor every time that the police enforce a law against its community or against one of its own. I have heard the pressure and the lobbying, and I have had the phone calls, and I never succumbed to it. The previous Chief Constable lost his job because two senior members of Sinn Féin told him to suspend an officer who was entirely innocent and threatened that, if he did not, they would call for his resignation on the 'Sunday Politics' show a few days later. That is what we are dealing with. This time, however, it is junior constables who are being manipulated, coerced and controlled. I will be eternally vigilant to the attempts of that party to control and manipulate our police officers. I can tell you that they trust me and will bring those issues to me if they feel that no one else is listening. I will hold you to account. You have a long way to go on policing. It is time that you took the final step and signed up to normal, democratic policing and stopped trying to use your influence to intimidate, bully and coerce our police officers day and daily in their jobs. You are politicians like anyone else. The army is gone, and you have no more threats. I will ensure that the PSNI stands up to your bullying and your pressure. Mr Speaker: Mr Gaston, you have a couple of minutes. Parliament Buildings: Vandalism Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Over recent weeks, concerns have been brought to my attention regarding vandalism in Parliament Buildings. It is behaviour that would disgrace any workplace, never mind the seat of the Government. I refer specifically to the deliberate flooding of the toilets in this Building. On one occasion, I discovered taps intentionally left running with the sink blocked, leaving the floor saturated. On speaking directly to our hard-working cleaning staff, it became clear that that was not an isolated incident. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Dr Aiken] in the Chair) To get clarity, I tabled a question for written answer to the Assembly Commission, and the response confirmed the scale of the problem. There have been multiple deliberate flooding incidents in the past year alone. Those occurred on 14 January, in the first-floor ladies' toilets beside room 144, and on 19 May, in the second-floor male toilets beside room 282. On 14 October, there were two separate incidents in the same male toilet beside room 282. On 16 October, there was another incident in the same male toilet. On 20 October, there was an incident in the third-floor male toilets beside room 368. [Interruption.] The members of the Alliance Party and the SDLP may laugh and sneer at my raising this issue, but I will stick up for our hard-working cleaners in this place, because somebody is deliberately flooding the toilets. It is childish vandalism, and it needs to stop. [Interruption.] I am glad that you find it so funny, Mr McCrossan. Mr McCrossan: There are bigger issues. Mr Gaston: Absolutely. There are bigger issues, but that is happening in this place, which is the seat of the Government. That is what is going on. It is not happening in public areas but in areas that are accessible only to pass-holders: MLAs and their staff, and Assembly staff. Such behaviour is disgraceful —. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Please draw your remarks to a close, Mr Gaston. Mr Gaston: It is shameful waste of public money — Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Mr Gaston. Mr Gaston: — and I am disappointed that there are MLAs here who think that that is funny. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Mr Gaston. Mr Gaston: It is childish vandalism — Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Timothy. Mr Gaston: — and our cleaners have to clean it up. [Interruption.] Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Excuse me, ladies and gentlemen. Let us have a bit of order and decorum here. We have a Minister here who wants to make a statement. Ministerial Statement Independent Review of Environmental Governance in Northern Ireland Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Speaker has received notice from the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs that he wishes to make a statement. Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that they must be concise in their questions. This is not an opportunity for debate, and long introductions will not be allowed. Over to you, Minister. Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to address the Assembly on the outcome of the independent review of environmental governance in Northern Ireland and to set out my proposed way forward. I have always firmly believed in an independent environmental protection agency (EPA) for Northern Ireland. For too long, our environment and nature have suffered from a lack of robust protections, and we are all seeing the consequences of that. This short, sharp and comprehensive review has provided the foundations for building a brighter future for our environment. We cannot continue to dodge this critical issue. Now is the time for action: the people of Northern Ireland expect and deserve it. As we all know, Northern Ireland continues to experience significant environmental pressures. For example, there are water-quality concerns, including the widely recognised issues that are affecting Lough Neagh, and ongoing remediation challenges at the Mobuoy illegal waste site. Those pressures are compounded by the impacts of climate change, which is driving more frequent extreme weather events, biodiversity loss and soil degradation. Alongside those pressures, we continue to face challenges in tackling waste crime, improving air quality, restoring habitats and species, and delivering on our commitments to a circular economy. Taken collectively, those issues underline the urgent need for more effective governance to protect our environment and restore public confidence and trust in our environmental protection arrangements. As Members are aware, 'New Decade, New Approach' included a clear commitment from the parties that were entitled to form an Executive that, as part of a Programme for Government, a returning Executive would establish an independent environmental protection agency. Our latest Programme for Government commits the Executive to complete a review of environmental governance and commits me, as AERA Minister, to present a proposed way forward to the Executive for consideration and agreement. In November 2024, I appointed an expert independent panel, led by Dr Viviane Gravey of Queen's University Belfast and supported by Diane Ruddock, a National Trust retiree, and John McCallister, a representative and member of the Ulster Farmers' Union. The panel was tasked with carrying out a review of environmental governance in Northern Ireland to assess the adequacy of the current arrangements and provide recommendations for improvement for my consideration. I put on record my sincere thanks to Viviane, Diane and John for carrying out that extensive and complex review as expert individuals. The panel launched a call for evidence in January 2025. A total of 590 responses were received via Citizen Space and email. That was supported by three public events and substantial in-depth interviews with regulators, regulated parties and broader stakeholders across Northern Ireland, Great Britain and Ireland. The panel published its final report on 21 October 2025. The report is extensive and detailed, and it provides a clear evidence-based case for change. It is unequivocal in its conclusion that the current environmental governance system is not fit for purpose and is failing everyone. The crisis in our environment is also a governance crisis, thus governance reform is a critical part of the solution. The panel has set out a practical road map for reform that is structured around four key themes: clarity and coherence; meaningful independence; better compliance; and transparency and accountability. Those themes underpin 32 recommendations, which, when taken together, aim to deliver a governance system that the panel considers to be robust, trustworthy and capable of meeting Northern Ireland's environmental obligations and restoring public confidence. At the heart of the panel's recommendations is the establishment of an independent environmental protection agency in Northern Ireland as a non-departmental public body. Its functions would include oversight of air and water quality, waste management, nature and biodiversity and the marine environment. In the panel's view, that model provides the right balance of independence, accountability and deliverability, ensuring clear separation between policymaking and regulation whilst aligning with best practice from across these islands. I agree. Northern Ireland is an outlier, as we are the only region in the UK and Ireland that does not have an independent environmental protection agency. That position is simply not sustainable. I recognise, as does the panel, that independence is not a silver bullet that will improve environmental governance in Northern Ireland, but it is a critical part of the overall governance system. Establishing an independent environmental protection agency is about much more than just aligning with what other regions are doing. I assure Members that, as a non-departmental public body, the new agency will still be accountable to the Assembly, and its functions and the legislative framework within which it would work would be determined by Ministers and approved by the Assembly. Crucially, though, it would be overseen by an independent board that is led by a non-executive chair and would have full operational independence in how it discharges its functions. That would ensure that a new EPA would be able to carry out its regulatory, advisory and enforcement duties without political interference. Effective functional independence is important in building trust and confidence in the body's work. Now is a pivotal moment for us all: we should establish an independent environmental protection agency, as recommended by the independent panel. We are witnessing more and more visible signs that our environment is struggling, and we need to take the decisions now to change course. The costs of inaction are simply too great. We should look no further than Lough Neagh or the illegal dump at Mobuoy, which, as you will know, could cost hundreds of millions of pounds to resolve. Failed environmental governance and non-compliance with environmental law result in huge costs to the public purse, so we must invest now to make savings in the longer term. Inaction also leads to increasingly degraded ecosystems, public health risks, negative impacts on people’s livelihoods and lost opportunities for sustainable growth. Without decisive reform, Northern Ireland will continue to fall behind in meeting its environmental obligations and the public will continue to pay the price in quality of life and economic resilience. Restoring trust and confidence in environmental protection is crucial for the economy and for our communities. Better and more accountable regulation will create a fair and level playing field for all. I therefore intend to seek the support of my Executive colleagues to agree, in principle, to the establishment of an independent environmental protection agency in Northern Ireland as a non-departmental public body of DAERA. That agreement in principle would allow us to move swiftly to look in greater detail at the powers, functions and status of the new body, together with the financial implications. Following public consultation, firm policy proposals will be brought back to the Executive to enable my Department to draft and implement the legislation needed to set up the new non-departmental public body. The report also makes a number of recommendations that fall within the remit of my Department. In parallel with our work to prepare for an independent environmental protection agency, I will work with my officials to take forward those recommendations. Some aspects already align with work that is ongoing or our own plans for improvement. As I have said on many occasions, there are no quick fixes to the significant environmental challenges that we face today. Environmental governance is no different. However, I am fully committed to strengthening environmental governance in Northern Ireland, improving public confidence in our arrangements and, ultimately, reducing environmental degradation. I hope that Members will support me in seeking to establish a new independent environmental protection agency in Northern Ireland as a non-departmental public body of DAERA. I will, of course, update Members as the work progresses and following Executive consideration. Mr McCrossan: It is nearly two years since you were appointed as Minister of this Department, four years since the Alliance Party promised an independent environmental protection agency and six years since the Executive parties agreed to it in 'New Decade, New Approach', yet all you have to show today is another review telling us what we already know. When it comes to reviews, this place could teach Tripadvisor a few things. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Daniel, is there a question? Mr McCrossan: We do not need another report, Minister, to tell us that Lough Neagh is dying; we can see that with our own eyes. The simple question is this: when will the talking stop and the independent environmental protection agency finally be established, not in principle or in theory but in practice? Mr Muir: I have set out today the process that I am taking forward. Since we left the EU, we have a very different environmental landscape. I need support, in principle, for an independent environmental protection agency. Now is the time for a decision on that. Once we get that agreed — hopefully — we will move to consultation. The cooperation of the Assembly is absolutely critical. If Members believe in this, they need to work with me on its implementation, so that we can have it legislated for by the end of the mandate. I am up for doing it. You mentioned timescales. We lost two years of this mandate. You know why that was: it was not because of the Alliance Party or your party; it was because one party decided to walk away, which has constrained an awful lot of what we do in this place. I work night and day to deliver in my Department, within a constrained mandate and budget situation. However, I am determined to make progress on this, and Members need to back me. Mr Butler (The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I thank the Minister for the advance notice of the publication of the report. The Committee will consider it for the first time this week. The Minister has said that the agency will be a non-departmental public body. What specific vires or terms of reference does the Minister see the agency having to ensure that there is no crossover or duplication of work with agencies that already exist and that it will not be seen as another barrier to environmentally compliant and sustainable planning applications? Top 11.15 am Mr Muir: The report, which is excellent, was written by three respected individuals, who came forward as individuals to look at the issue. They have outlined what the functions of the independent environmental protection agency should be, and those functions relate to air and water quality, waste management, nature and biodiversity, and the marine environment. One of the key benefits of this — there are many — relates to planning applications. The speed at which the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) turns around responses is not good enough. We need an independent environmental protection agency that is properly funded and properly resourced so that we can turn around responses to planning applications and allow people to move forward on all the issues about which they are asking for advice from the Northern Ireland Environment Agency. That will be critical. It will be absolutely fundamental that we are able to change that and turn it around. We have many non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) in Northern Ireland. It is lost on me why anyone would oppose this. Ms Finnegan: I thank the Minister for his statement. We absolutely support the creation of an independent environmental protection agency. Minister, the review recommends developing memorandums of understanding and formal collaboration on North/South and east-west bases to improve coherence and share best practice. What discussions has the Minister had with his counterparts in the South regarding a joint, cross-border funding mechanism to support the environmental governance reforms and new regulatory structures recommended in the review? Mr Muir: I thank the Member for her support. It is appreciated. The report sets out quite a lot when it comes to the independent environmental protection agency and the other issues that the Member has highlighted. We need to have much more joined-up working between Departments and agencies in Northern Ireland but, when it comes to regulators, also on North/South and east-west bases. That is why those memorandums of understanding are set out. There is work that I need Executive approval for, but there is other stuff that we can take forward as a Department. We should do that, because the environmental challenges do not stop at the border. We need to cooperate. We already do that through established functions and structures, but we need to solidify that through memorandums of understanding. I am keen to work with officials to take that forward. Miss McIlveen: I thank the Minister for his statement. If the Department cannot adequately fund what is currently in place, how can we expect a new, additional organisation to be properly funded to carry out its functions? Further to that, what safeguards did the panel suggest should be established to prevent the mission creep seen with other independent bodies established through statute? The Equality Commission and Ashers case comes to mind in that regard. Mr Muir: Right. When it comes to funding, the independent review clearly sets that out. I will quote from it: "The enabling legislation to establish the NDPB should protect against these risks" — one of the risks is reduced funding — "as is the case with other recent legislation, including the UK Environment Act 2021." That is an important recommendation. The other issue is in relation to accountability. There is a recommendation in the review that I have passed on to the Speaker about the scrutiny mechanisms of the Assembly in regard to the non-departmental public body. That has merit as well. On the linkage to Ashers, I am lost, to be honest. Mr Blair: I thank the Minister for his statement. In the Minister's opinion, what has the cost been to our environment of previous inaction on establishing an independent environmental protection agency? I ask that in the context of some in the SDLP, for example, forgetting that that party held the brief before and did not deliver on that. Mr Muir: The cost of inaction and the lack of efficient and robust protections for our environment is substantial. The cost of remediation on the Mobuoy site could be between £100 million and £700 million, and, this year, my Department is spending over £17 million on the crisis at Lough Neagh. I could continue. The business case is very clear. We cannot allow ourselves to get into the same situation again. We also need to restore people's trust and confidence in environmental protection, because it is at an all-time low and we have to turn it around. I am setting out a way forward to do that. Mr Gildernew: Minister, thank you for the statement. You know that I have raised issues in my constituency with you many times, particularly the issues with odours and air pollution in Killeeshil and Granville. I have also raised the issue of an independent agency. Can you assure those communities that the agency will have the teeth to address those issues and will work with those communities to ensure that they can live with sound air quality? Mr Muir: Thank you, Colm. I have a couple of things to say. First, I thank all the staff who work in the Northern Ireland Environment Agency. I feel extremely privileged to work with them. I was with them this morning at an event on invasive species, and I will be with them throughout the week. They are good staff, they are working really hard under significant resource constraints, and I am very grateful to them. I have set out the resourcing issue. Ultimately, it is about the budgets that are allocated, but we need to have mechanisms in place to call it out if the environment agency, as a non-departmental public body, is being underfunded. One of the other issues is that, under the legislation, the penalties available to the agency would be set by the Assembly. That will not be a silver bullet. Ultimately, political leadership will be required here to ensure that sufficient deterrents are in place and that the environmental protection agency, as an independent non-departmental public body, can use the proper enforcement mechanisms. It is really important that we give it teeth. I am progressing a consultation on the fisheries and water environment Bill. When I bring that to the Executive, I will need their support for it. I will also need the Assembly's support to ensure that we have legislation in place to provide sufficient deterrents on the issue of water quality and in so many other areas. Mr Mathison: Minister, thank you for your statement. Will you outline in more detail the advantage of establishing an environmental protection agency as a non-departmental public body? Mr Muir: The report has set out the way forward, and I thank the panel for doing that. A lot of people said to me that they wanted an independent environmental protection agency, but, when I asked, "What would that look like? What would its functions be?", they were not able to answer. The report has answered that, particularly in the context of our leaving the EU and of the different arrangements that we have. The non-departmental public body would have not just the necessary independence but accountability, which is important. It would have specific structures, such as an independent board, and the functions that I set out. We have many non-departmental public bodies in Northern Ireland that play a valuable role; for example, the Arts Council and Sport NI. Now is the time to ensure that we end the situation whereby Northern Ireland is an outlier by not having an independent body for environmental protection. Ms D Armstrong: Minister, thank you for your statement. You said that an independent environmental protection agency would have regulatory powers without political interference. One of the proposed themes is better compliance. How will the agency differentiate between deliberate discharge by NI Water, for example, and discharge from an old septic tank that no one knows is still working? How will it differentiate between phosphates that NI Water adds and phosphates discharged via household sources? Mr Muir: One of the review recommendations, which I support, was that the independent environmental protection agency be able to set its own enforcement policy. It is important that it has that ability. That will answer a lot of your questions. If we get agreement in principle and people say, "Yes, we are on board with this. We want it" — to date, I have not had that from around the House; I am making a real effort to get support for this so that we can move it forward — we can scope out the details on the functions and the drafting of legislation. Mr McMurray: Thank you, Minister. Can you offer any assessment of the panel's recommendation to exit the arrangement with NI Water known as the statement of regulatory principles and intent (SORPI)? Mr Muir: I am on the record as consistently saying that the separate regulatory arrangement that has been in place for Northern Ireland Water since its establishment is not fit for purpose. The idea that NI Water often gets a bye ball on the pollution of our waterways is not acceptable. I will quote from the review: "From our engagements with key stakeholders and from our CfE" — call for evidence — "it is clear that SORPI arrangements between NIEA and NI Water are not working as they were designed to – they were intended to offer flexibility for NI Water to invest to address the sources of non-compliance. Instead, the lack/low level of penalties for wastewater pollution has weakened the case for sufficient investment (giving the impression that the current situation is acceptable). This creates a negative feedback loop, with NI Water prioritising investment in drinking water over wastewater as it faces a sharper regulatory edge ... (as the Drinking Water Regulator has already exited SORPI arrangements). We note that the DAERA Minister has stated publicly that the current arrangement is not fit for purpose." The review recommends that DAERA exit the current SORPI arrangement with Northern Ireland Water. Further to that, I will bring a paper to my Executive colleagues. Mr McGlone: Minister, thank you for your statement. I note that the expert panel consulted widely and that you now intend to seek the support of your Executive colleagues to agree, in principle, the agency's establishment. I also note that that agreement in principle will lead to a further consultation exercise. Minister, can you give us assurances that we will not experience an environmental Groundhog Day with the EPA, which many of us support? Mr Muir: There is a window of opportunity here for us to set up an independent environmental protection agency in Northern Ireland. I need support, in principle, to do that. We will then go through the process that we are required to do, which is consultation. Sometimes I am criticised for doing too much consultation, but I am legally required to do it. We will then look to get Executive support for drafting legislation. With the Assembly's cooperation, which is critical — if people want this, they need to work with me — we can legislate for it by the end of the mandate. However, people need to put their money where their mouth is and support me in establishing the agency. There are many issues in my Department that I work night and day on. People need to understand that this is a priority for me and to support me on it. Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for his answers. We are all aware of the devastating impact that the pollution of Lough Neagh has had on our beautiful natural environment. Alliance has long called for an independent environmental protection agency, and that included tabling an amendment to the climate change legislation, which many Members neither supported nor turned up for. Will the Minister detail other examples of where our current environmental protections have fallen short? Mr Muir: The list is endless, unfortunately, Nuala. We have Lough Neagh, Mobuoy, nature decline and issues with air quality. Northern Ireland is a laggard in the environment. Whenever I say that or look to take action, I get vilified — vilified — because people are not prepared to take difficult decisions. This is a point of decision for this place, and people need to back me on it. Mr McAleer: I thank the Minister for his statement. I welcome it while recognising that the matter is also an NDNA commitment. Minister, you will appreciate that there are now quite a number of organisations in the regulatory landscape, such as the Shared Environmental Service (SES), the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP), the NIEA, and there is now this new agency. Will it be important to unravel that landscape to explain to the public where precisely the functions sit in those organisations? I am thinking specifically of SES. Where will it sit in the new regulatory environment? Mr Muir: Thank you, Declan. The independent panel's report was useful in teasing all that out. We have a very different regulatory landscape since leaving the EU. SES supports district councils to process applications, and I respect that. NIEA has a separate role in planning applications. That would remain largely the case in the independent environmental protection agency. It is important to respect that. The Office for Environmental Protection's oversight function will remain in place and will replace, in part, the role of the European Commission. We should not underestimate the impact that leaving the EU has had on Northern Ireland. We all know that. We see it in not only the UK economy but the environment. There have been significant impacts and a changed landscape, and I am seeking to address that. Mr McNulty: I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, I entirely support the establishment of an independent EPA. It is long overdue, yet your Department seems to still be in go-slow mode. Minister, following decades of reports, commitments and promises, why has DAERA still not delivered a single ounce of accountability to those who are responsible for environmental destruction? Will the new EPA have any teeth? Why should communities believe that yet another agency will make a difference given that enforcement has not been acted on for decades? Mr Muir: When you were asking your multiple questions, I was thinking about what the "S" in the SDLP stands for. I think that it is "sound bite". Some Members: Ooh. Mr Muir: When I came to this place to look for support to remove the cap on penalties for repeat polluters, your party did not support me. Who was it in Fermanagh and Omagh District Council — Mr McNulty: Do your job. Mr Muir: — who pushed for the return of Going for Growth? It was the SDLP, time and time again. You may turn round and pretend that you support the environment, but the reality is otherwise. Mr O'Toole: That is utter nonsense. Mr Muir: Sorry, but you are trying to turn around and do that. When I have looked for support on measures, you have not supported me. That is the truth, and sometimes the truth is inconvenient for you. [Inaudible.] Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Shush. Ladies and gentlemen, have a bit of decorum, please. Let us just keep it steady. Top 11.30 am Mr Gaston: Minister, I will be upfront: I am highly sceptical of an independent environmental protection agency, as was my predecessor. In your statement, we are told: "The costs of inaction are simply too great". That is a self-confessed, damning indictment of inaction from the Minister's Department. How will an additional quango make any difference, apart from blowing more public money? Mr Muir: I set out the difference that it will make in my statement, as did the review report. If the Member does not understand that, I ask that he read it again. Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for his statement and welcome the progress. I do not doubt the Minister's industry and effort. However, where we are now, in seeking approval from the Executive, is as far as I got as a previous Minister. Hopefully, there is now a majority in the Assembly and, therefore, one would imagine, in the Executive that will support the progress that he proposes. Will the Minister outline the envisaged costings of establishing this new independent environmental protection agency? Mr Muir: The Alliance Party sought to progress it via an amendment to the climate change legislation, and your party did not even turn up. Mr Durkan: When was that? Mr O'Toole: We are supporting this. Mr Muir: Sorry, but if you are not across the detail, that is not my problem. I set out the need for support, in principle, in regard to the agency. If we get that support in principle, we will work through the costings, but the costs of inaction are very significant. It is a no-brainer that we want to progress this. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Minister, ladies and gentlemen. When we are debating this, please make your remarks through the Chair. That is what we are trying to do. On that point, I call Mr O'Toole. Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Minister, to be absolutely clear, we are the official Opposition. We respect the fact that you want to get it done, and we acknowledge that, but our job is to hold you to account. We make no apology for that. To be very clear, we hope that your proposals pass, and we will support them. We hope that they are passed through the Assembly before the end of the mandate. However, that looks very challenging in getting Executive support and getting it through the Assembly in the requisite time. That looks highly unlikely now, so why did you and your party not make it a specific red line and a condition when you entered the Executive? That is a reasonable question. Why not? Mr Muir: People outside Northern Ireland look to this place with despair when they see people who turn around and hold these institutions to ransom over issues. We are focused on delivering for the citizens of Northern Ireland and working in a power-sharing Executive. It is difficult. Believe me, working in a power-sharing Executive is hard. Your party knows that as well, because it has been in the Executive before. You have to work with your partners in government, and they are partners in government. We do not see eye to eye on many different issues, but we have to work together. That is what I have sought to do since I became Minister, and I will continue to do that. However, if people turn around and we start going back to the world of demands and whether the institutions are up or down, I despair. I will close by saying two things. First, the Chamber causes me great concern. It is nothing more than a toxic thunderdome in its engagement. Some people love that, and I think that that is poor. Secondly, I am happy to receive analysis and scrutiny on issues, but people need to make those points on issues of substance. Mr McGrath: I welcome the statement. I welcome this line: "Inaction also leads to increasingly degraded ecosystems, public health risks" and "impacts on people’s livelihoods". The people of Warrenpoint absolutely agree with that, because somebody has to wonder who under God the NIEA works for, because it is not the people of Northern Ireland. NIEA certainly does not keep an eye on the environment. I hope that this agency replaces the NIEA and that we can scrap it and get rid of it, because it is utterly useless. Minister, will the new independent authority get cross-party buy-in and powers from other Ministers? For instance, the Department for Infrastructure looks after the ports, and, unfortunately, it is the people in areas such as Warrenpoint who lose out. Mr Muir: I will seek support from others on the proposal. I will say to you, Colin, that the officials who work in the Northern Ireland Environment Agency —. Mr McGrath: Useless. Mr Muir: No. Mr McGrath: Useless. Who pays for them? Mr Muir: These are officials whom I have respect for. They are part of the Northern Ireland Civil Service — Mr McGrath: No. Mr Muir: — and they have my support. It is important that we respect individuals who work in public services in Northern Ireland. That is what I do. Mr McGrath: Cannot even answer the question. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Ladies and gentlemen, please, no. That concludes questions on the statement. Just take your ease while we change the top Table. (Mr Speaker [Mr Poots] in the Chair) Executive Committee Business Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill: Consideration Stage Mr Speaker: I call the Minister of Finance, Mr John O'Dowd, to move the Consideration Stage of the Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill. Moved. — [Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance).] Mr Speaker: Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments detailing the order for consideration. The amendments have been grouped for debate in the provisional grouping of amendments selected list. There is a single group of six amendments dealing with baby loss certificates; in addition to which notice has been given of opposition to clause 8 and to the schedule that concerns technical amendments relating to the registration of births and still-births by same-sex couples. I remind Members who intend to speak that, during the debate on the single group of amendments, they should address all the amendments and opposition to stand part Questions on which they wish to comment. Once the debate on the group is completed, any further amendments will be moved formally as we go through the Bill, and the Question on each will be put without further debate. The Questions on stand part will be taken at appropriate points in the Bill. If that is clear, we will proceed. Clauses 1 to 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 8 (Minor amendments relating to births and still-births) Mr Speaker: We now come to the opposition to clause 8 standing part, the six amendments and the opposition to the schedule standing part. I advise Members that amendment Nos 2 and 3 are mutually exclusive. I call Timothy Gaston to address his opposition to the Questions that clause 8 and the schedule stand part and to address the other amendments in the group. Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List: No 1: In clause 11, page 5, line 24, leave out "may" and insert "shall". — [Mr Tennyson.] No 2: In clause 11, page 5, line 36, leave out paragraph (e) and insert— "(3A) The regulations shall provide that no applicant may be required to pay a fee for a certificate to recognise the loss of a baby during pregnancy." — [Mr Tennyson.] No 3: In clause 11, page 5, line 36, leave out paragraph (e) and insert— "(3A) The regulations— (a) may not provide for the charging of fees for a certificate (or amended certificate) or for the first copy of a certificate (or amended certificate), but (b) may provide for the charging of fees for a second or subsequent copy of a certificate (or amended certificate)." — [Mr Frew.] No 4: In clause 11, page 5, line 37, at end insert— "(3A) The regulations must include provision specifying that a certificate may contain, if the applicant so requests— (a) the name and sex of the baby and any other biographical information; and (b) a statement by the applicant recognising the baby as a member of their family." — [Mr Gaston.] No 5: In clause 11, page 5, line 37, at end insert— "(3A) The regulations must provide for the issue of a certificate following a termination of pregnancy." — [Mr Gaston.] No 6: In clause 11, page 6, line 5, leave out subsection (5) and insert— "(5) Before making regulations under this section, a draft of the regulations must be laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the Assembly. (6) The first draft of regulations under this section must be laid before the Assembly within the period of 12 weeks beginning with the day on which this Act receives Royal Assent." — [Mr Tennyson.] Mr Gaston had given notice of his intention to oppose the Question that the schedule be agreed. Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. As you pointed out, the first item on the Marshalled List is my intention to oppose clause 8 standing part of the Bill. Linked to that is my opposition to the schedule. My opposition is consistent with that of my party, a founding principle of which is support for and promotion of traditional family values. That is a founding principle of my party and one that made me choose TUV. The schedule amends the Births and Deaths Registration (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 by inserting the term "second female parent" and replacing the words "both parents" with: "both the mother of a child and the father or second female parent of that child". That amendment permits me to put some important facts on the record. I believe that a child needs both a father and a mother. That is a biological reality that has held true for as long as there has been life on this planet. While, sadly, there are occasions when families break up, that does not negate the need for a father in the conception of any child. Writing a father out of a child's life is wrong. That would be done by paragraph 6(3) of the schedule. There will be those in the House who take strong exception to my saying that. I accept that, but my convictions on such issues are what brought me to the House, and, while I am here, I will continue to stand up for traditional family values and, more important, to be directed by my faith. My convictions will not allow me to ignore the fact that the issue is contained in the Bill. Anyone who shares that belief will join me in the Lobbies later, and I will certainly welcome the company. I have tabled amendment No 4. Through that amendment, I seek to ensure that the regulations permit the certificate, if — "if" is the key word — the applicant wishes, to include: "(a) the name and sex of the baby and any other biographical information; and (b) a statement by the applicant recognising the baby as a member of their family." Parents who want to name their baby on their certificate will be able do so. Parents who do not want to will not have to. Parents can add a line saying, "We recognise" — insert the baby's name — "as a member of our family", but, to be clear, only if they choose to do so. Why do that? It is because grief is personal. Some families name their baby and want the name to be in print. Amendment No 4 will allow them to do just that. Others prefer not to. The amendment is about choice, not compulsion. It turns a cold form into a living memorial to the little one whom they have sadly lost. Amendment No 5 makes provision for a certificate to be issued: "following a termination of a pregnancy." I remind the House that, at Second Stage, when I mentioned the issue of abortion, Mr Blair, who occupied the Speaker's Chair at the time, interrupted me to say: "this is not a debate on abortion, and it is not going to become one. It is a respectful debate. Members have provided some very poignant examples today. The rest of the debate will continue in the same vein and will not divert to another issue." — [Official Report (Hansard), 7 April 2025, p54, col 2]. Top 11.45 am With those comments on the record, it is important to clarify what the Bill does and whom it does not exclude. The system must allow parents who lose a baby through termination to apply for a certificate but only if they want one. There is no forced participation. There is no clinical handout, as has been misrepresented by some in the media. A woman who miscarries at 20 weeks can apply for a certificate. A woman who has an abortion at 20 weeks, perhaps due to the fact that she has been told that her child will not survive outside the womb, should be able to do the same. Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. He has hit on a critical point. To be fair to the Member, it shows the intent of his amendment. Is it also the case that, in circumstances where, under the previous law, the mother's life was at risk and the baby was aborted to save the mother's life, parents can, if they wish, apply for and receive a baby loss certificate to mark and mourn the loss of that child? Mr Gaston: I thank the Member for his intervention. Absolutely: it gets to the nub of what my amendment is trying to achieve. In the case that he has described to the House, absolutely —. Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way? Mr Gaston: I will in a wee minute. Absolutely: in circumstances where a baby has been aborted because of advice that the mother's life is at risk, the mother should be able to apply for a certificate if she so wishes. Over the weekend, I read a lot of commentary in the media in which, frankly, my amendment had been misrepresented. It is wrong to do that. Let us be clear about that. Mr Frew: Will the Member give way? Mr Gaston: I am happy to give way. Mr Frew: Is the Member saying that it would be wrong to exclude from receiving a baby loss certificate a mother who has just lost her baby through abortion to protect her and save her own life? Mr Gaston: Nobody should be excluded. It is up to the parent. It has to be choice-based. If that mother wants to apply for a certificate, she should be able to do so. Yes, some people have said, "Leave it to the regulations", but I want it to be in the Bill. I want it to be clear that, if somebody wishes — only if they wish — to apply for a certificate, they will have the opportunity to do so. I give way to Mr O'Toole. Mr O'Toole: One might speculate about your reasons for referring to abortion specifically. By putting that in the Bill, rather than waiting for regulations, where every other detail of the certificates will be covered, you are separating out that one form of baby loss from all the other forms of pregnancy ending. I could go through all the many traumatic and difficult circumstances in which pregnancies are lost or ended. You have chosen to single out that one form and to leave all the others for regulations. My question is this: why? Why does that one form of a pregnancy ending have to be dragged out and put in the Bill, other than to pick that fight? Mr Gaston: I have a question for you, Mr O'Toole. We are talking about loss. Everyone agrees that loss matters, so why fear the clarity that my amendment would put in the Bill? It is important that it is in the Bill, especially after the comments that Mr Blair made when he was in the Chair during the Second Stage debate. We have to bring clarity to the debate. If I may say so, my amendments were tabled on 23 June, so it has not been dropped in at the last minute. The amendment was tabled well in advance. It is only the Members who have created opposition and hysteria who have made it an issue. Miss McAllister: I thank the Member for giving way. I was not going to speak on the issue, but he talks about putting it in the Bill. Clause 11(2) states: "The regulations may provide for the recognition of any loss which is not a still-birth". That is in the Bill. It is covered. You mentioned that you are talking about loss. It is right there in black and white in front of us. Mr Gaston: I thank the Member for the intervention. As I said, on the basis of the comments from the Deputy Speaker previously, it is important to have it in the Bill. Ms K Armstrong: I thank the Member for giving way. This is an important discussion today about legislation that will have an impact on many people. We should have said — perhaps the Member will agree — that there is a triggering and upsetting use of language. As a former bereavement counsellor, I know that using the word "abortion" to someone who has miscarried, when it is on their medical records as a spontaneous abortion, is incredibly callous and cruel. Using such language in the Bill, when it already covers all forms of loss, is more about political point-scoring and harming women than it is about making good legislation. Mr Gaston: I do not accept that it is about point-scoring. I have been open and honest. I tabled the amendments well in advance. The only issues that have arisen were from Mr O'Toole and from Mr Tennyson in the paper over the weekend. I have never tried to raise this as a political issue, but it is important. I felt a conviction to bring it to the Chamber, which is why I have done so. I have tried and will continue to try to be as sensitive as I can on the issue as we progress. It is important to recognise that, for those who have had an abortion that, in some cases, they deeply regret, giving them the option to apply for a baby loss certificate would help with the process of dealing with that loss. It is cruel to deny women in either circumstance that option or to suggest that it is wrong. My amendment removes that barrier. It says, "Grief does not discriminate by cause". Importantly, it mirrors the Scotland scheme, which includes medical terminations without controversy or compulsion. The FAQ paper on the Scottish Memorial Book of Pregnancy and Baby Loss Prior to 24 Weeks states: "Q: I had a termination. Can I apply for a certificate? A: Yes, if you wish to have a record of your loss you can apply for a certificate." All that I am trying to do is replicate the scheme that exists in Scotland. Every year, thousands of families in Northern Ireland lose a baby before 24 weeks, some through miscarriage, some through medical necessity and some through abortion. All of them grieve. All of them deserve dignity. My amendments do not judge. They do not compel. They include but only if requested. I urge MLAs from all parties to support my amendments — amendment Nos 4 and 5 — as acts of basic human kindness. Parents who have lost a baby, however that loss happened, should never be told, "Your grief doesn't count". I have heard some suggest that MLAs should leave all of that to the regulations. My question is this: which of my amendments do you disagree with? I understand that there will be deep division in relation to my opposition to clause 8 and the schedule, but who is opposed to a family's including: "the name and sex of the baby and any other biographical information" plus: "a statement by the applicant recognising the baby as a member of their family" on a baby loss certificate? Who is suggesting that someone who has had an abortion, perhaps as a result of medical advice, should be denied a baby loss certificate? I commend my amendments to the House. Mr O'Toole (The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance): I will speak first in my capacity as Chair of the Finance Committee, and I will then make some brief remarks in a political capacity. One of the most important issues that the Committee has considered with respect to the Bill is the immensely sensitive topics that it encompasses: death, stillbirth and baby loss. Mr Speaker, I should take your guidance before I proceed: are we debating just Mr Gaston's amendments at this point? Is that right? Mr Speaker: The debate is on all the amendments. Mr O'Toole: All of them? OK. In that case, I will give the Committee's view and move on to give a party view. One of the most important issues that the Committee considered with respect to the Bill is the immensely sensitive topics that it encompasses: death, stillbirth and baby loss. The Committee requested evidence from a range of interested organisations and carried out a detailed online survey to which it received 40 responses from individuals, organisations and representative bodies. The responses included highly emotive personal testimony from individuals. The Committee carefully considered the views of all those who provided written evidence. On behalf of the Committee, I thank all who took the time to provide detailed evidence to inform and support the Committee in its consideration of the Bill. That was especially important in the case of this Bill, given that its provisions had not previously been consulted on, and it was important that the Committee gave that time to ensure that the process was right. On behalf of the Committee, I also thank the Department, the Forget-me-not Group and the National Association of Funeral Directors, who provided oral evidence. I single out the Forget-me-not parents who made time for us and gave very sensitive and, at times, emotional evidence. Their input was greatly appreciated. I note that the Committee managed to complete Committee Stage well in advance of the date in the extension motion, which shows — perhaps it is a lesson to others — that Committees are capable of not exceeding updated target dates and, indeed, can view such dates as limits rather than targets. I now refer to some general issues that were raised by members during the Committee Stage. Clauses 2 to 10 relate to the recording of deaths and stillbirths and the repeal of the temporary provisions of the Coronavirus Act 2020. The Committee previously agreed a number of statutory rules made under the provisions of the Coronavirus Act 2020 that related to the recording of deaths and stillbirths. Those changes allowed the registration of deaths and stillbirths by telephone, without an informant's signature, and the electronic transfer of registration documents between the parties in the process. This Chamber subsequently approved regulations on a number of occasions. Members of the Committee were therefore well versed in the use of such provisions. The Committee's deliberations on those clauses were mostly of a technical nature to ensure the legislation's robustness. In its evidence, the National Association of Funeral Directors outlined how the arrangements were working, gave its support for the arrangements and conveyed its eagerness that they should continue in perpetuity. The Committee had no objections to that part of the Bill. Clause 11 gives the Department the power to introduce a baby loss certificate scheme. As Members will be aware, the House has previously supported, via a private Member's motion, the introduction of baby loss certificates. It was the Committee that ensured that they were included in the Bill. There was unanimity on the Committee that such a scheme be introduced. Committee discussions therefore mostly centred on the potential for a monetary charge for a baby loss certificate. The Department confirmed to the Committee that a charge could not and would not be introduced without the approval of the House. Any potential charge would have to be introduced via subordinate legislation through the draft affirmative procedure, allowing the provisions of the statutory rule to be both debated and amended. The Committee therefore agreed to proceed without an amendment on that issue. The Committee is, however, aware of the amendments, including those on that issue, tabled to the Bill. Members, having seen the Marshalled List, will debate those today. However, the Committee did not discuss the specific amendments and therefore has not taken a Committee position on them. The Committee unanimously supports the Bill. The ability to register deaths and stillbirths without having to attend a registration office in person is to be welcomed, and the opportunity for bereaved parents to obtain a baby loss certificate is an important step. As I indicated at Second Stage, the Committee welcomes the Bill. The Committee undertook its duty to perform scrutiny and fully supports the Bill's moving through the next stage of the legislative process towards, hopefully, Royal Assent. I will make some brief remarks on the amendments in a party capacity. Mr Gaston has discussed his two amendments and his opposition to clause 8 and the schedule, which creates new registration rights for same-sex female couples. He will oppose the Question that they stand part of the Bill. I will take those points in turn. Obviously, my party, which believes in equality, will strongly support the Question that clause 8 stand part of the Bill. It is deeply disappointing and a regressive step to try to remove that one, small, modest, bureaucratic updating of the rules to reflect the fact that there are loving, supportive same-sex couples and families in this society. Mr Gaston is attempting to make his points today. He is entitled to his views on that. I do not prevent people having their personal views, but this is the law of the land. Once the Bill gets Royal Assent, the law of the land will be that same-sex female couples will be able to register births in exactly the same way as other families. That is a welcome step forward. It is regrettable that Mr Gaston has sought to oppose it, but I understand why he has done that. Top 12.00 noon I will move on to Mr Gaston's other two amendments. Amendment No 4 specifies that parents would have the right to request that the name, sex and other biographical details be on the certificates. There is much in that that is fine. I do not necessarily object to it, in principle, but it brings me on to a big part of the reason to oppose his amendment No 5. Both amendments are to clause 11. Amendment No 5 inserts the provision that the Department: "must provide for the issue of a certificate following a termination of pregnancy." Amendment Nos 4 and 5 are putting the cart before the horse, and that is before we get to the morality, as it were, of some of the language that has been used. Amendment Nos 4 and 5 are very specific designs of how the scheme would work. The entire purpose of the Bill and clause 11 is not to design down to the minutiae how a baby loss certificate scheme will work. We had very detailed discussions in Committee about whether that was advisable. We discussed it with the Department, the Minister and the Registrar General, who is in the Chamber today, and we came to the view that the appropriate thing to do is to mandate the Department to go away and design a scheme. That scheme will then come back to the Chamber via draft affirmative regulation. Therefore, the Committee will be able to scrutinise the draft when it comes back and will then be able to advise the Assembly. The Assembly will be able to amend that, if it so wishes, so that it includes any other detail, and it will then go to a vote. Before I get on to the substance of what is in those amendments, the idea that we need to design every small, fine detail of how the scheme will work is simply not accurate from the perspective of making legislation. In fact, I am not sure that it is good practice, because, once you put things in a Bill, you then, ultimately, ask why other things are not in the Bill. I will now come on to the detail of what Mr Gaston said about termination. Clearly, there are many circumstances in which pregnancies are terminated. People have views on that, and those are discussed here. I have my strong personal views, but, clearly, there will be circumstances in which people who have experienced termination will want to avail themselves of a baby loss certificate for different reasons. There is not necessarily a need for me to go through what all those personal and medical reasons might be, but suffice it to say that, yes, there are circumstances in which someone who has had an abortion or a termination, either where it is forced on them medically or where they have had it for other reasons, may want to apply to participate in the scheme and apply for a certificate. Here is the thing: the Bill does nothing to prevent that happening. Those people are already included in the Bill, along with everybody else who suffers any form of baby loss. Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way? Mr O'Toole: Yes, I will give way. Mr Gaston: I understand the point that Mr O'Toole is trying to make, but cast your mind back to the Bill's Second Stage and the Deputy Speaker's remarks and his ruling during that debate. Do you not believe, based on the Deputy Speaker's comments, that clarity is needed in the Bill? Mr O'Toole: You seem to have a particular bee in your bonnet, if I may say so through the Chair, about something that Mr Blair said when he was in the Deputy Speaker's Chair. It is not really for me to litigate that between the two of you, and I do not know whether it has any ultimate legal effect. The point is that the Bill is drafted to be inclusive in the sense that it creates the broad mandate that a scheme is designed, and the Department will then go away and come back. The upshot of what you have just said to me is that, because of something that was said in the Speaker's Chair and a particular understanding, you have to insert that particular form of baby loss into the Bill. One might argue that, in doing so, you are excluding all other forms of loss; for example, a miscarriage that followed a car accident. In some ways, I hate to be so specific, because these are very sensitive issues. Does that have to go into the Bill? Does every single form of very traumatic, sad and very difficult baby loss have to be included? By the way, I am aware that the people who are watching this are traumatised, and have been traumatised, by baby loss, so I feel a bit flippant having to talk about it. However, since I have to explain why I am opposed to Mr Gaston's amendments, I am explaining the illogicality of them and not simply the insensitivity of them. We will be strongly opposing that. To be clear, that is not to say that I do not think that the scheme should exclude families who have experienced termination. It should, and I hope and trust that it will and that we can look at that when the scheme comes back in draft affirmative regulations. That is the place to do it. That is probably also true of amendment No 4, but that is somewhat less sensitive than amendment No 5. I will move on to some of the other amendments. I am not sure of the status of all the other amendments or whether they are going to be moved. There was some discussion around the potential for charging for certificates. It is important to say that there was a broad view in the Committee that you would not want to see a situation in which somebody is charged for receiving one of these certificate. A practically reasonable point made by officials in evidence was that you may need some mechanism for limiting or regulating the number of certificates that can be issued to individuals. That may be the genesis of where the question of charging arose. I would like to hear from others, including the Minister, as to their position on charges, and hear assurances that they can give, before taking a final position on some of the amendments that relate to charging. Our broad view is that there should not be charging at all. If there is a very good, plausible explanation for why you need to include that provision to deal with some hypothetical situation, I will not be completely close-minded or ideological about it, but I would like to hear that during the debate — including from the Minister — before taking a final view. I have covered most of the amendments, but not all. Notwithstanding the remarks that I have made about particular amendments, I look forward to this proceeding through to its next stage, both as Chair of the Committee and as an SDLP politician. It is hugely positive, first, that we are formally enacting these COVID-era powers and getting them on to the statute book, not in a timely way, but belatedly and eventually, and, secondly, that we are creating the provision for a baby loss certificate scheme, which is hugely important and poignant for a group of people. I hope that, as those people watch today and follow and engage in the detail of the legislation, they are not too despondent about some of the debate and they stick with it. Once we get through this stage, I hope that we will have the legislation on the statute book fairly soon. Miss Dolan: This Bill will ensure that changes that modernised the process for death and stillbirth registration during COVID will be enshrined in permanent legislation. Enabling the electronic transfer of documents will make the registration process for families who have suffered a bereavement easier, reduce stress and improve overall efficiency, while also still allowing people the choice of opting for an in-person process if they wish. Ensuring equality for registering births and stillbirths for same-sex female couples is also an important aspect of the Bill. Moving forward, that will mean that they are able to register in the same manner as opposite-sex parents. The development of a baby loss certificate scheme will give families the opportunity to have formal recognition of their heartbreaking loss and send a clear message to parents who have lost a baby prior to 24 weeks that their love and grief is real and that they are not alone. During the Committee Stage, we heard directly from parents who have suffered such loss. I thank them for their courage in coming forward, sharing their experiences and helping to shape this positive legislation. Their voices must continue to be heard as we move forward. I welcome the commitment from the Finance Minister and his officials that they will continue to engage with those groups while designing the scheme to ensure that it meets their needs. However, it is disappointing that some seek to use this as an opportunity to oppose equality for all couples and to bring amendments that focus on creating division. I remain focused on the compassionate objectives of the Bill in its existing form and the benefits that it will bring to many people, particularly grieving parents. Throughout the Committee Stage, those directly affected by loss during pregnancy made it clear that the scheme should be as accessible as possible, and it is vital that the regulations that follow from the passing of the legislation reflect that. I look forward to the Bill progressing in the compassionate manner with which it has been dealt with to date. Ms Forsythe: I am pleased to debate the legislation. It is a piece of legislation that, whilst largely procedural, is made with a spirit of compassion to help people at a time of loss. We all know that death is a part of life, but, when we are faced with it, that does not make it any easier. There are practical things that need to be done at that time. Whilst the legislation is not the usual Finance Committee work, I was proud to work alongside colleagues to bring it through. We consulted on it and heard from members of the public, funeral directors, councils and representatives from baby loss groups. I give special thanks to the Forget-me-not Group for working closely with us so that we fully understood the reach, impact and importance of the legislation and its language for those who face those difficult circumstances. In relation to deaths and stillbirths, which are defined in legislation as babies who have died in pregnancy at 24 weeks or beyond, the temporary provisions introduced by the Coronavirus Act 2020 enabled telephone and electronic communications to support the registrations during the lockdown restrictions. They have proved to be efficient and effective and have significantly reduced the trauma for those who have suffered a loss. I am pleased that the Department has brought them forward as law. A number of clauses in the legislation today relate to recording deaths and stillbirths and the repeal of the temporary provisions in the Coronavirus Act 2020, which we welcome. As an unashamedly pro-life party, the DUP recognises and values the life of every baby from the moment that it was formed in the womb. We believe that every loss of a baby represents the loss of a precious life. The existing law on registration makes the clear difference that babies who, sadly, pass away during pregnancies that reach 24 weeks are considered to be stillbirths and formally registered in that way and that babies who, heartbreakingly, pass away before 24 weeks do not receive that. The difference is heartbreaking. Today, I am pleased that, through the legislation, we are bringing forward baby loss certificates to Northern Ireland to provide a way to formally record and recognise the lives of all babies lost here. We saw it brought forward in England, and it was great to be in the Chamber when, with a united voice, we supported the need for it in Northern Ireland. I thank the Minister for working with the Committee at pace to consult and bring it forward for parents here and especially for those babies who, until now, have left only footprints on the hearts of those who love them. They will now be able to have a certificate that recognises their life. I know, as a mother, the feeling the moment you find out you are pregnant and will have a baby. You know your due date, you know what age they will be for their first Christmas, and you have hopes and dreams for that child. No matter how old the baby grows to be, the baby lived, it existed, it mattered, and it was your child. When that child passes away, your loss is huge. It is so real, and it matters. At the Consideration Stage, I turn to speak to the amendments that have been tabled. We are content to support amendment No 1. It is notable that, in England, the baby loss certificate scheme is not enshrined in regulations. The provisions of the Bill, therefore, provide security for the introduction of the scheme in Northern Ireland. Making the act of bringing forward parent regulations compulsory for the Department will not affect the flexibility in the rest of the clause with respect to the scheme's criteria and implementation. On amendment No 2, whilst we agree with the focus on removing unreasonable barriers to accessing the scheme, it does not seem prudent to make a provision to prohibit any fees in any circumstances, as was highlighted by the Department during the Committee's deliberations. That will particularly be the case if there is demand that exceeds the Department's expectations from those who formally wish to have their loss recognised. Paul Frew and I tabled a compromise in amendment No 3, which would provide for a free certificate plus another free copy and permits the ability to levy a fee for a replacement, second copy or subsequent copies of the certificate. We felt that that wording struck the fair and right balance between ensuring that controls are in place for potential costs that may arise from the scheme and the need to ensure that the system is as accessible as possible for grieving parents and families, and that is our intention. We seek clarity from the Minister on how we move forward on that. On amendment No 4, the DUP is an unashamedly pro-life party. We believe that every loss of a baby represents the loss of a precious life. In keeping with that belief, we feel that it is appropriate that the Bill provides assurances that any future scheme will afford applicants the opportunity to have their baby's identity, including name and sex, formally acknowledged. We would be grateful if the Member who tabled amendment No 4 would elaborate on how he envisages the statement referenced at (b) in the amendment being catered for. For example, would it be provided as an annex to the main certificate? It is worth noting that the name and sex are standard but optional fields on the English certificate. Equally, we are mindful that some parents cannot or do not wish to know the sex of the baby that they have lost, particularly —. Top 12.15 pm Ms K Armstrong: I thank the Member for giving way. This is one part of the legislation that I am passionate about. We need to be flexible because some of us who have lost a baby will not have known their sex because they were born too soon. Having that flexibility, recognising the importance of that for parents and not forcing them to leave something blank is key. Ms Forsythe: I thank the Member for her intervention. I completely agree. Something that came through in the Committee's consultation is that we do not want to see a difference made between babies, as every one of them and their loss matter so much. As outlined by Ms Armstrong, many parents do not know the sex of their baby because of the early loss. We must be compassionate and consider how the format of any certificate and optional fields may make those parents feel. The intention of the certificates is to recognise the life of a precious baby who has sadly passed away; it is not to cause further distress. Ultimately, the format of the certificate must be as flexible as is practical to respond to the wishes of the parents whilst recognising that the experiences and emphases of individuals will differ. On amendment No 5, I welcome the clarity in the Chamber today from the Member who tabled it. We stand over the proposed voluntary nature of the scheme. It is consistent with our pro-life position that the loss of an unborn baby up to 24 weeks' gestation in any circumstances is recognised and covered. Where a woman has had a termination because there was a risk to her life or for any other reason, there should be space provided in the envisaged scheme to have that loss recognised, should they come to regret the decision, seek healing or seek closure but only where a parent requests it. The Member has outlined that that is his intention. I am happy to give away if he wants to clarify that. Mr Gaston: I am happy to clarify that that is, absolutely, the intention. It is only for a mother or parent who wishes to have the certificate. We need to be clear that there will be no compulsion: the option will be there for families who want that recognition. Ms Forsythe: I thank the Member for clarifying that. We do not support amendment No 6. The Department previously indicated its desire to lay regulations prior to the end of calendar year 2025. It is unclear where the proposed duration of 12 weeks has come from or whether it is likely to improve the timeliness of the scheme's introduction. I would be grateful if the Member who tabled the amendment would clarify whether there is any rationale for that. In the same vein, the effect of the proposed new subsection (5) of clause 11 is unclear. I would appreciate him clarifying how the procedure would differ from that currently in the clause, whereby the secondary legislation would have to be laid before and approved by the Assembly before regulations could be made. My colleagues Paul Frew and Brian Kingston will speak in the debate, but I reiterate that I am pleased to have been able to play a small part in the process of bringing forward the legislation, which will make a real difference to the lives of so many. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, death is a part of life that we all have to navigate, and every life matters. Mr Tennyson: Like others, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the Consideration Stage of the Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill. The loss of a baby during pregnancy can be a deeply traumatic experience for parents, but it is too often met in our society with silence or treated as though it is taboo. During the Bill's Committee Stage, we heard from parents who had experienced loss, from professionals who had supported them and from campaigners who were advocating a better approach to tackling the issue and recognising loss. I pay tribute to the women, parents and campaigners, including the Little Forget Me Nots Trust, who told their personal stories with enormous courage and selflessness in the pursuit of better. I was struck by two things in those deliberations. The first was the emphasis on the need for sensitivity and the importance of language when we discuss such issues, because these are often triggering, difficult, painful and distressing subjects for bereaved parents. I was also struck by the degree of political unanimity in the Committee on the need to make provision for baby loss certificates. I hope that we can maintain some degree of consensus and unanimity as we move forward. The amendments that I have tabled would build on, rather than contradict, the progressive and compassionate approach that the Minister set out in the original draft of the Bill. Amendment Nos 1 and 6 to clause 11, when read together, specify that the proposed baby loss certificate scheme must be brought forward within 12 weeks of the Bill obtaining Royal Assent. The Department has been clear throughout the legislative process that it intends to deliver the scheme within that timescale and, indeed, by the end of this calendar year, as the previous contributor mentioned. Given the delays and the many false dawns that there have been in setting up a baby loss certification scheme, it is entirely appropriate to give bereaved parents and campaigners some confidence that those commitments will be honoured and that the scheme will be subjected to no further unnecessary delay. I recognise that including the clause with the choice of 12 months as opposed to a shorter timescale would create a level of legal risk for the Department. Therefore, I feel that it is reasonable to give the Department a little more time than it committed to at Committee Stage in order to, hopefully, ensure that the Department and the Minister feel that they are in a position to support that. I would welcome a response from the Minister in that respect. Amendment No 2 stipulates that no charge should be levied for a baby loss certificate. That is a small but meaningful act of compassion. Fundamentally, I do not believe that any parent should ever be asked to pay simply to have their loss recognised. The Department has said that it does not intend to levy a charge. If that is the case, I hope that there will be support for the amendment to place it beyond doubt. Whilst that may be this Minister's policy intention, it would be unacceptable if, under a future Minister, baby loss certificates were used as a cost recovery mechanism or to cut departmental costs. Mr Carroll: I thank the Member for giving way. I agree with his assessment. Does he share my concern that the Department and the Minister are saying one thing but doing the other? They are saying, "We don't want to charge for certificates, but, at the same time, we're going to have the power to charge people for them". Does the Member agree that that is doublespeak? Mr Tennyson: I agree with the Member to an extent. I can understand that the Department may look at certain hypothetical situations where they believe, for example, that the system may be abused. I do not foresee that as a realistic prospect, to be honest, but I can understand why, hypothetically, it would wish to have some powers. However, given the fact that, where schemes have operated in other jurisdictions, no charge has been applied and there have been no circumstances that necessitated a charge, I do not believe that it is necessary for the Department to take that power, if its commitment is to ensure that the certificates are free at the point of access. Dr Aiken: I thank the Member for giving way. That is a very important point, which exercised the Committee. If the Department is never going to use the power, why would it have it in the first place? It would send out a strong message to everybody if we agreed to the amendment. Charging for a certificate is not appropriate, and I do not think that that is the Minister's or the Department's intent. Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for that intervention. Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): Will the Member give way? Mr Tennyson: I will indeed, yes. Mr O'Dowd: It is important for Members to recognise that we have moved out of the period in which we debated motions that have no impact: we are now writing law. When you write law, you write it for whatever circumstances might arise in future. The Department's proposal, which is the subject of a number of amendments, is that it has no intention to charge for the first certificate. However, when you write law, you have to take into account circumstances that may arise in future, where multiple copies may be required. If you do not have the powers to prevent that, you will be left facing financial consequences in a situation where you do not want to face financial consequences. Setting all that aside, if the Department were to seek to introduce charges, it would have to bring the regulations back to the House before it could do that. Therefore, neither the Minister nor the Department has the final say: the Chamber has the final say. However, I urge Members to move beyond thinking about motions to the point where we are thinking about legislation. Mr Tennyson: I will not rise to some of the patronising comments from the Minister because, fundamentally, I disagree. I see no circumstances, Minister, in which, on this issue, it would be appropriate to levy a charge. There is a difference of perspective on that, and I respect the Minister's view that he would wish to have the ability to bring that to the Assembly in regulation. I concur with Steve Aiken that, if there is no intention to use the powers, why take them? In other jurisdictions where the scheme has been operating, circumstances have not arisen whereby charges would be required. Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. He has been gracious with his time. The issue, though, is that, in every other jurisdiction it is policy. It is not regulations, and it is not legislation. We are the only place that is doing legislation and regulation on this. It is giving the Department that space, whereas, in England, they could change policy and administer a fee just like that. If anything, it gives the Department agility for a future event. Will the Member acknowledge that? Can the Member explain what is the material difference in what he is amending through amendment No 6? The draft affirmative resolution, as the Minister said, means that this issue comes back to the Assembly and we can debate and amend the regulations at that point? Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for that intervention. The subsection (5) that he refers to is the technical amendment to ensure that the Bill reads coherently when laying the requirement that the regulations must be laid before the Assembly within 12 months from the day that the Act receives Royal Assent. My understanding is that there is no substantive change, and that is certainly not the intent of the amendment; rather, it is just to ensure that the Bill reads correctly when the amendment is made. For me, this is a fundamental point of principle. Some issues are beyond charging, and it is important to make that case. Of course, there is a difference between policy and legislation, but, with regard to the practical outworkings, no other jurisdiction has felt it necessary to make that policy change as a result of an influx of applications. There have been references to hypothetical situations: I have not heard a concrete example of where the Department would be overwhelmed or the system abused. It would be bad faith for anybody to seek to abuse such a sensitive and important process. Amendment No 2, tabled by the Alliance Party, is preferable to the DUP's amendment No 3. I recognise that it goes some way to eliminate a charge for a first certificate or an amended certificate. It allows for charges to be levied for subsequent copies, and I have difficulty with the idea that charges could be levied if, for example, two parents separate and a copy is made for one of them. That would be an important issue for them, and they, too, would have been affected by the loss of a family member. Mr Frew: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. That is the point of that amendment and why Diane and I made it clear that the certificate would be free but the first copy of a certificate would also be free so that, if parents were estranged for whatever reason — that might even be due to them having suffered the loss of a child — they would each receive a certificate free of charge. The Department could charge for further copies if it felt it necessary. Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for that clarification. However, if one of those parents loses their certificate, they would potentially face a charge to have it replaced. Top 12.30 pm Ms K Armstrong: I thank the Member for giving way. I appreciate that we are debating legislation, so we have more time. With regard to charging bereaved parents, the House has been kind. The child funeral fund, to which anyone who loses a child after 24 weeks of pregnancy can apply — it is not means-tested — provides money for the family to cover the cost of the funeral. However, if we charge for the baby loss certificates, we are saying to parents of children under 24 weeks that they have to pay; they are different. If we are talking about equality and about making legislation that is fair and equitable, we should not charge those parents just because they lost a child a few weeks earlier. When we think about families and their grief, we should see all grief as equal. Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for her intervention. It goes to the crux of the issue. I see no circumstances in which it is appropriate to charge a grieving family for the recognition of their loss. However, if amendment No 2 is not successful, I will support amendment No 3 because it goes some way towards addressing some of my concerns. I recognise that it is an attempt to find a compromise. Mr Carroll: Will the Member give way? Mr Tennyson: I will, but I am being very generous with my interventions. Dr Aiken: You have as much time as you want. Mr Carroll: I heard Mr Frew's point. Does the Member share my concern that, if a mother and father or a same-sex couple were to separate, under Mr Frew's amendment, they would not be charged for two copies, but, if a grandparent, uncle or another close relative — a third person, if you will — wanted to apply for a certificate under the legislation, and the Department decided to charge, they could be charged, which could lead to more bereavement and upset? Is the Member concerned that, if his amendment does not pass, that situation could be in play? Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for that intervention. It is a concern. I appreciate what the Minister has said, and he is correct: regulations will come before the Assembly, so we will have an opportunity to scrutinise precisely how the primary legislation is implemented. We will be able to influence that. It is certainly not a foregone conclusion that that will happen, and it is important to bear that in mind, but, as a point of principle, if we do not intend to go down that road, why make provision for it at this stage? I turn to amendment No 4, in the name of Timothy Gaston. There is nothing in the proposed content that Mr Gaston has outlined that I necessarily oppose, but I am conscious that the amendment puts the cart before the horse, in that the Department has undertaken a 12-week consultation on the content of baby loss certificates, which will be taken forward through the regulations. It would be wrong to prejudge the views of bereaved parents who have taken the time to respond to that consultation. It would be much better for us to wait in order to ensure that we reflect parents' priorities, views and lived experiences. We should take time to do that before we specify the contents of baby loss certificates. On that basis, the Alliance Party will oppose amendment No 4. There are two ways of looking at amendment No 5. Either it is an attempt to stir a bit of a culture war and score political points or — this is the more generous interpretation; to be fair, Mr Gaston has said that this is his intention — it is to provide additional flexibility in complex and individual circumstances in which someone may have had to access a medical termination. To be clear, I absolutely favour the widest possible definition of loss, but, in this debate, we must avoid pitting the pain and trauma of one woman against that of another. Unfortunately, there have been attempts to do that in some of the contributions in this debate and previously. Fundamentally, I do not believe that the amendment is necessary because clause 11 of the Bill is clear, as Nuala McAllister said: "The regulations may provide for the recognition of any loss" — it specifies "any loss" — "which is not a still-birth within the meaning of the 1976 Order." That provides sufficient flexibility for women who experience loss to self-certify and access the certificate in circumstances that they deem to be appropriate, not those that we in the Chamber deem to be appropriate for them. We will oppose amendment No 5. On Mr Gaston's opposition to clause 8 and the accompanying schedule, first of all, clause 8 is not about changing the contents of a birth certificate or the registration process. It is about equality in who can access the process. That is of fundamental importance, particularly in those circumstances, which the Bill seeks to rectify, where there is a same-sex female couple and one of the partners has perhaps suffered a baby loss and is experiencing pain and trauma. It is completely fair that she would wish that her same-sex female partner were able to go to the registry office to register that stillbirth on her behalf at what is a really difficult time. I do not think that it is acceptable that, simply because you are in a same-sex relationship, you are not treated with the same compassion as a heterosexual couple would be. I heard contributions during the debate about traditional family values. It is quite callous to say that, solely on the basis of biology, a partner, be they a same-sex partner or a step-parent, is not a parent to a child. Those people may have held that child's hands as they took their first steps, held the bike as the child took off without stabilisers for the first time and may have sat night in, night out doing homework with that child. To try to reduce that relationship simply to biology or to discount it is, frankly, offensive not only to same-sex couples and step-parents but to single parents. We need to stop trying to vilify and judge others who are not like us or who do not live by our values and have a little bit more respect and compassion when it comes to diversity in our society. I am very passionate about clause 8 standing part of the Bill, and I welcome the fact that the Minister brought it forward. That is all that I have to say. I hope that parties will support amendment Nos 1, 2 and 6, and I look forward to continuing to support the Bill as it progresses. Dr Aiken: The Bill has to be dealt with in very compassionate terms, and I made my points clear when I was in the Committee, particularly when we were talking with those bereaved people who were dealing with the issue. This is a deeply sensitive and very touching issue to many, many people. It is important that we get this right, and the intent of the Bill so far has largely been going in that direction. Many Members have spoken very passionately and very clearly about their views on the amendments and the Bill. I do not want to delay Members, because much of what they said is what I would say anyhow. From our party's perspective, we will support amendment No 1 and then either amendment No 2 or amendment No 3, depending on which way they come through. I have a question about amendment No 4. I have been in a similar situation. Proposed new subsection (3A)(a) talks about: "the name and sex of the baby and any other biographical information". I feel quite uncomfortable about that and about supporting it, and that is for reasons that I do not wish to go into in the Chamber. It is something that I have been particularly noted on as well. I would like more clarity on amendment No 5, because, although I understand the sentiment that Mr Gaston and others in the Chamber expressed, I do not really get why clause 11(1) does not cover those areas, particularly 11(1) and 11(2), and how they cannot be interpreted in that way. Mr Gaston, maybe you would like to make an intervention to explain particularly how clauses 11(1) and 11(2) do not cover that — sorry; through the Chair. Mr Gaston: Thank you very much for bringing me in. To be clear, that amendment was tabled, because, during the debate at the Bill's Second Stage, the Deputy Speaker said that abortion does not come into this. I was motivated to introduce abortion into the Bill, because it is part of the process and should be included. Given that the Deputy Speaker was very clear, I feel that the issue needs to be in the Bill. Mr O'Dowd: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it appropriate for Members to discuss a ruling that was given from the Speaker's Chair during a previous debate in the way that Mr Gaston is doing? It appears that Mr Gaston is giving his interpretation of the ruling. I know that he read out the Deputy Speaker's words, but we do not have the context of what Mr Gaston was saying at that time. In my humble opinion, in that context, a ruling from the Speaker's Chair has no determination in defining how a law is presented to the Assembly. Mr Speaker: I thank the Minister for his point of order. My guidance on this is that Members will vote today on the substance of what is contained in the legislation and the amendments. The only thing that they should base their decisions upon is how they read that legislation and the proposed amendments. They should base their vote on that. Anything that was said, or any commentary, from this Chair should not and will not be reflected in the actual legislation and will not have any standing in law. Members, this is my guidance to you: stick very strictly to what is in the written legislation. Dr Aiken: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will move on to amendment No 6. With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I would like some clarity from Mr Tennyson. In his remarks in the Chamber, I think that he said that it would be 12 months, beginning with the day on which the Act receives Royal Assent, but it says "12 weeks" in the amendment. Is it —? Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for giving way. I am happy to correct the record. I intended to say 12 weeks, as opposed to 12 months. Dr Aiken: Thank you. Just for a bit of clarity there. Obviously we will not be supporting Mr Gaston's opposition to the schedule. We believe that the Bill needs to be given due consideration when it moves through to the next stage. My final remarks are to the people, and the bereaved families in particular, who came and gave evidence to us. It was both humbling and a privilege for Committee members to hear from them. Miss Hargey: I thank the Minister for this legislation, and I welcome the fact that the Bill is now at Consideration Stage. The Committee has taken a good approach so far. We all see the importance of progressing the legislation and, importantly, putting it on a firm footing. This compassionate legislation has been broadly welcomed by all those whom we have engaged with in Committee and outside of the Committee as individual MLAs. Importantly, it replaces the temporary provisions that were implemented at pace during COVID. We have listened to the lived experience of those who have suffered loss and the impact that it continues to have on them. We have also heard how recognition is an important step for many. The introduction of a baby loss certificate scheme has been welcomed across the board by all those whom we have met and taken evidence from. I agree with other Members that clause 8 and the schedule are an important part of the Bill. In essence, they address and rectify an inequality that exists in the legislation. They will allow for couples who are unmarried or who are not civil partners to have access to the same registration process, regardless of whether they are same-sex or opposite-sex couples. I agree with keeping it as flexible as possible and not being restrictive in how people in society choose to live. That is the right thing to do, and I will oppose any Question that attempts to remove it and thus allow the inequality to continue. Some have attempted, through the amendments, to create division and, indeed, to narrow the approach. At the Committee, I reflected on the treatment of women across the island as a result of ideology and ultraconservative views on all these issues. I warn that we have to learn the lessons of the mother-and-baby homes, forced adoptions and other issues that have impacted on women, as well as the attempts to demonise women and their wider family circle. From the outset, the legislation was intended to cater for all those who have lost. It was to be done with compassion and, most importantly, the certificate scheme should reflect the wishes of those who have experienced that loss. The Minister has delivered on that, so I do not agree with the amendments that attempt to divert from that thrust. On the issue of cost, the Minister has outlined from the outset — he did it at the Committee, and I know that he did it when he introduced the legislation — that the scheme would be done with compassion and that, at the initiation of the scheme, there would not be a charge when someone applies for a baby loss certificate. It was always important that the certificate scheme would sit alongside all the other certificate schemes that the Department has responsibility for. That is why we are approaching it in the way that we are. It is good to see the Bill at Consideration Stage. I look forward to continuing engagement at Committee and with other Members in the Chamber. Top 12.45 pm Mr Frew: I acknowledge the Minister's comment about dealing with legislation as opposed to motions. You can see a marked difference in the way that legislation and regulations are debated, rather than debating motion after motion, some of which are pointless. We should leave populism outside the door when talking about regulations and legislation. I acknowledge the sentiment that the Minister expressed. I do not think that it was crass; I think that it was meant in the right way. I am always mindful that we should be careful in how we proceed when dealing with legislation. It is great that we have got to the Consideration Stage of the Bill. I place on record my thanks and appreciation for the work of the Committee. I have now left that Committee, but, on it, I saw teamwork on this serious issue. I acknowledge the work of and support given by the Department — the Minister and departmental staff — in listening to the Committee from the very start. To begin with, the Bill was designed to put temporary legislation on a permanent footing. That is all that it was meant to do. I pushed and pushed to get it to this stage sooner, but I acknowledge that the Department and the Minister listened to the Committee. It has been a goal of the DUP to have baby loss certificates in place. We have been fighting for that for so many years, because we recognise that a vacuum exists for those who are in the position, which is so pressurised, of having lost a baby, especially before 24 weeks. That is why it is so important that the Department and Minister listened. By adding that to the Bill, they have completely changed it for the better. That must be acknowledged in the House. When I first saw that the Minister had set out, in clause 11, that the Department of Finance "may" make regulations, I thought, "No, we can go further than that. We can put it in". I asked staff in the Assembly Bill Office whether we could copy and paste the legislation from England. Due to my ignorance, I had not realised that there was no legislation in England and that it has purely policy. There was no legislation to copy and paste from England from which we could start. I give credit where credit is due: the Department and the Minister are putting it in legislation. It should be acknowledged that we will, I think, be the first place in the British Isles to legislate formally for baby loss certificates. That means something, and it should mean something. When we castigate Ministers and Departments for how bad they can be, and when we say how bad this place is or how bad debate in the Chamber can be, we should also acknowledge our successes. This is one of them, and we should all applaud it and unite behind it. I will get into the detail of the Bill and amendments. I point first to the repeal of temporary provisions, which are: "Section 18(3) of, and Part 3 of Schedule 13 to, the Coronavirus Act 2020 (registration of deaths and still-births: Northern Ireland)". Those provisions are being repealed. That is worthy of celebration. It is important, because the Minister could simply have let the six-month extension lapse, but he is obliterating it from legislation, historical or otherwise, and needs to be applauded for that. I was delighted to see that clause in the Bill. There are only two aspects of the entire Coronavirus Act that I see as having been fit for purpose, not causing harm and being good and positive. That is one of them. The provision was brought in because there might have been a massive wave of death registrations. That did not materialise, of course, but it made it so much easier for bereaved families, undertakers and everyone who was involved in that process. It made the process of registering deaths and stillbirths easier for them. We applaud the fact that the Bill puts that on a permanent footing, as it should have been months and years ago. In fact, I argue that we should have done it before the pandemic, but, of course, the pandemic was the necessitating factor. The other aspect is the live links in courts, which we will discuss later today. However, when it comes to everything else in the Coronavirus Act and the way in which the Assembly, where we are now debating law, became a zombie Assembly, we should never go back to that place. It is good that we can be here and have the power to debate and vote on legislation and that the decision is not left to one person, no matter who that person is. It has taken months to go through the Bill. It has not been a case of a Minister dreaming up a harmful policy, reading it out to the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) in the morning, enacting it in the afternoon and enforcing it before midnight. That is no way to do legislation. This is the proper way. Mr Speaker: I know that the Member is enjoying himself, but will he come back to the amendments? Mr Frew: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will get back to the Bill. I will move on to the other clauses and the amendments. I was the first person in the Chamber to raise concerns about the schedule to the Bill substituting the word "father" with "other parent". I raised that as a concern. I applaud the Minister for getting back to me in a very timely way about my concerns after the Second Reading and for sharing that information with the Committee. That is a good example of how a Department, a Minister and a Committee should work together. The process has worked tremendously well. The Minister has assuaged most, if not all, of the concerns that I had at Second Reading. Since the Second Reading, I have learned that the harm and damage to which I was trying to allude is not in the schedule of the Bill. The issue predates the Bill in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, which is established UK law and means that a child will have only two parents. In some cases, that will be the mother and the father, and, in others, it will be the mother and a second female parent. In the circumstances in which a child has a second female parent, under the 2008 Act, the biological father is not recognised as a parent. That is the law as it stands, and it is not changed by the Bill. My grievance is with the fact that the father has been completely removed from that scenario, but the Bill does not do that. Regulation 13 in the Civil Registration Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012, as amended by the Bill, will state that, where both the mother of a child and the father or second female parent of that child: "attend a Register Office separately, they shall attend at the same Register Office, before the expiration of a period of 42 days from the date of birth." At the end of that regulation, the Bill inserts the following: "references to the 'other parent' of a child are to the child’s father or second female parent". Therefore, the Bill does not so much remove the father as add the other parent. Due to that clarification, we are content with clause 8 and the schedule. I turn to the other amendments that have been tabled by Timothy Gaston. We agree that the issue of termination is covered by clause 11(2), which says: "The regulations may provide for the recognition of any loss which is not a still-birth within the meaning of the 1976 Order." We accept that, but the Member has talked about his concerns and his sentiment in tabling amendment No 5. I honestly do not see how it would do any harm to have that it in the Bill. There is a valid point about putting the cart before the horse — I get the argument — but you could make that argument in respect of clause 11(3) in its entirety. The Department may have just left it whereby it would make regulations, but it has added stipulation 6, through which it wants to build a framework of regulations. I do not see any harm in adding to that framework, even if it gets into specifics. Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for giving way. I understand the point that he is making. However, clause 11(3) states that the regulations "may" include that. The amendments from Mr Gaston state that the regulations "must" include it and, therefore, severely limit what could be done through secondary legislation. Amendment No 5 from Mr Gaston states: "The regulations must provide for the issue of a certificate following a termination of pregnancy." It is debatable as to whether there would be a choice, so voting in favour of that amendment is a particular risk. Mr Frew: I take that point from the Member, but just because the regulations "must" provide for that does not mean that you must impose a certificate or any action on anyone. The applicant should have the choice, on request, of whether they want one or not. I get where the Member's concerns are coming from. I do not think that it would limit secondary legislation and the regulations; it would add to and enforce rather than limit or take away from the regulations. You could argue that we are doing the same in our amendment No 3. I will now speak on amendment No 3. We recognised what the Department was saying about having the agility to charge a fee if it needed to in the future. We accepted that. We do not want to see a fee. We hope that there will never be a fee for any aspect of it, but we understand that the Department should have that flexibility. I go back to the point that I made earlier: this is the only place where baby loss certificates will be in legislation, not just in policy. You have to afford the Department agility around fee structures if it thinks that fees might be required in the future. At least the Department would then have the flexibility to add to that. The point remains that it would still have to come to the Assembly to be passed. It would be in the Assembly's gift whether or not to agree to the fee structure. I suspect that, because it is a draft affirmative procedure, we would be able to amend the fee structure or even take fees out completely. Amendment No 3 adds flexibility. It adds compromise to the positions of Eóin Tennyson and the Minister. We hope that that amendment will be supported by the Minister and the Department. If the Minister makes it known that that is his intention, it is debatable whether we will move amendment No 3. We will wait for the Minister's comments. Mr Speaker: The Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The debate will continue after the question for urgent oral answer, when the next Member to be called will be Brian Kingston. The debate stood suspended. The sitting was suspended at 12.59 pm. On resuming — Top 2.00 pm Oral Answers to Questions Finance Mr Speaker: Questions 7 and 13 have been withdrawn. UK Treasury: Pre-Budget Engagement 1. Mrs Guy asked the Minister of Finance for an update on any engagement that he has had with the UK Treasury ahead of the Chancellor’s Budget on 26 November 2025. (AQO 2625/22-27) 4. Mr Baker asked the Minister of Finance for an update on his engagement with Treasury ahead of the autumn Budget 2025. (AQO 2628/22-27) Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): With your permission, Mr Speaker, I intend to answer questions 1 and 4 together. I have urged the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to use the autumn Budget as an opportunity to further support workers and families, particularly on childcare. Economic growth and improved public services cannot be achieved without meaningful investment and support for working families. Affordable childcare is essential to improving labour market participation and to driving economic growth. I have therefore urged the Treasury to consider enhancements to the tax-free childcare scheme. I have also asked that the autumn Budget can be used to reverse the two-child benefit cap, recognising the hardship that it places on families. I have made it clear to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury that further austerity measures must not be taken that place an unfair burden on people, businesses or public services. The significant reduction in the resource Budget for local growth funding will severely impact on the community and voluntary sector's ability to deliver vital services, particularly for those furthest away from the labour market. The Assembly also sent a clear and united message that we stand with the community and voluntary sector and that there must be an urgent change to that approach. I have pressed the Chief Secretary to work with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to consider the funding profile of the new local growth fund. I have also reiterated my calls for a reduction in VAT to ensure that our hospitality sector can compete on a level playing field in the all-island economy. Mrs Guy: The Minister is well aware of the funding challenges facing our justice system. In particular, the PSNI data breach was clearly unforeseen, unavoidable and unaffordable. What representations has he made to the Treasury to make that funding available? Mr O'Dowd: As early as August of this year, I wrote to the Treasury on behalf of the Executive requesting access to the reserve fund for the PSNI data breach. Since then, there has been ongoing engagement with the Treasury on the issue, including between the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and me and at official level. It is regrettable that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury declined the Executive's request for access to the reserve fund for costs associated with the PSNI data breach. I and the Executive will continue to make the case to the Treasury. I also note the comments from others on the matter, which are welcome in supporting our approach to the Treasury. Mr Baker: Minister, you touched on this already, but will you give a wee bit more detail on what support you asked for in respect of working families? Mr O'Dowd: It is important that the Budget is used as an opportunity to support working families. I pressed that point both at the Financial Interministerial Standing Committee (FISC), which comprises the Ministers from the devolved institutions, and at the meeting with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in mid-October. I followed that up in writing to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I specifically called for the support for childcare to be increased from 20% to 30% and for the £2,000 annual cap per child to be reviewed. I also asked the Treasury to ensure that, if further austerity measures are to be introduced, they do not target working families and businesses. It is important that we support workers' families and businesses through this time, and the Treasury has an ideal opportunity, in the upcoming Budget, to do so. Mr O'Toole: Minister, I recently wrote to you about something that you have often talked to me about, which is the Opposition's alternative plans. I asked you whether you would officially support costing our alternative Budget and other plans, as happened with the Opposition south of the border. I have not had a response yet. Will you support that measure to open up the books and cost Opposition policies? Mr O'Dowd: I have asked my officials to engage with our counterparts in Dublin to see exactly what process is in place for supporting Opposition parties there and to see whether we can replicate those measures here. I note that, in Scotland and Wales, such measures have not been introduced. The Member will also be aware that the SDLP receives, I think, approximately £7,000 more per Member to carry out its function as the Opposition. We want to ensure that we do not duplicate finances that the SDLP already receives. Mr Brett: Minister, you might be aware that Chartered Accountants Ireland recently relaunched its campaign for the lowering of corporation tax in Northern Ireland. Have your discussions with the Treasury included the rate of corporation tax? Mr O'Dowd: The matter has not been discussed during my tenure. There are well set criteria for the devolution of corporation tax here. Given that the costs to the Executive associated with devolving corporation tax are estimated to be between £300 million and £400 million, I do not think that the Executive or public services can afford that at this time. I have, however, tabled an Executive paper on the fiscal framework. We want a full examination of tax-varying powers and of what should be devolved to the Executive in the time ahead, following on from the Fiscal Commission's report. Any discussions about corporation tax need to be included in those discussions. Dr Aiken: Minister, you will be aware that, this morning, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made an unprecedented speech, basically signalling that she will put up taxes and that she will prioritise health and other areas of public service. Bearing in mind that, if that goes through, additional consequentials are likely to come our way, will the Minister commit to ring-fence those moneys for Health to pay for health workers in particular? Mr O'Dowd: I thank the Member for his question. I listened carefully to the Chancellor's address this morning. Very broad hints were dropped that taxes would be increased. The question that has not been answered thus far is this: on whom will that tax burden fall? It is important that that tax burden falls on those with the broadest shoulders and that any money raised from those taxes is invested in front-line public services. The Member will be aware that it will be for the Executive to decide how to allocate any Barnett consequentials that we receive as a result of that. Recently, we made commitments to allocate significant funding to Health, Education and Justice. Commitments have already been made by the Executive, but, if the Chancellor is to raise taxes, let us ensure that they are fair and progressive and that the money goes to front-line services. Marlborough House: Next Steps 2. Mr Irwin asked the Minister of Finance to outline the next steps regarding the Civil Service vacating Marlborough House. (AQO 2626/22-27) Mr O'Dowd: In line with my Department's estate strategy, we are progressing with plans to divest ourselves of Marlborough House in Craigavon and move forward with replacement accommodation in the area. That will deliver savings at a time of budgetary pressures while providing an efficient, modern working environment for Civil Service staff. Marlborough House is the worst-performing site in the Civil Service estate with regard to energy efficiency and is significantly under-occupied. A business case has been approved for replacement accommodation for Civil Service staff, with the preferred option being High Street Mall in Portadown. That is progressing, with the accommodation expected to be ready in 2026. Notice to all occupants has been issued of the Department's plans and to vacate the building at the end of their occupational agreements this financial year. Non-Civil Service bodies located in Marlborough House are progressing with their own plans for their future accommodation. Mr Irwin: I thank the Minister for his response. Does he agree that the historical environment division's recent grade B1 listing decision will make it more difficult to repurpose that building or dispose of it on the open market? Mr O'Dowd: There will be different views and opinions on such matters. It is unfortunate that we have reached this position. My Department made its case to the historical environment division of the Department for Communities. The decision has now been made. I am aware that there is interest in the building from at least one public-sector organisation. It is assessing the building to see whether it can be incorporated in its plans for future development. I hope that that moves forward at pace and that the building does not lie vacant and become a blight on an area of Craigavon that has seen significant investment in recent years and is thriving both commercially and residentially. I want to ensure that the building becomes usable again, but it will have do so through a sector other than the Civil Service. Mr Tennyson: As a constituency colleague, I share the Minister's concern about the B1 listing. Did the Minister make representations to his colleague the Minister for Communities on the listing? Has there been any reappraisal of the Department's plans for the site following the listing? Mr O'Dowd: I am not sure whether I raised that directly with the Minister for Communities in writing — I will clarify that for the Member — but representations were certainly made at official level at my request, because it caused concern. Interest has been shown in the site, which could be of huge benefit to the entire area by continuing the progress that we have seen in central Craigavon over many years. I will clarify that point and respond directly to the Member on it, but representations were made through officials at my request. Miss Hargey: As you touched on, it is good that there is an indication that somebody is interested in the building, but, if that sale does not go ahead, do you foresee difficulties with its sale because of the listing? Mr O'Dowd: The listing will present challenges to future potential buyers and occupants of the property. It was simply impossible for us to bring together a business case that would allow us to invest in that building the money that is required to bring it up to modern heat efficiency standards etc. Others have a different vision for the use of the building, and I hope that their business case stacks up and that progress is ahead. There will be different views inside and outside the Chamber about some of those matters, but I know that the listing has caused challenges, shall we say, in ensuring that the building is put to future use. Mr McNulty: Minister, over the past 50 years, thousands of people have worked behind Marlborough House's uniquely honeycombed facade. Those of us who worked there have varying degrees of affinity with the big brute. There are 14 Civil Service properties worth £30 million that are lying completely empty and unused. Now that Marlborough House has been listed, will that number become 15? Mr O'Dowd: I thought for a second that the Member was calling me a big brute. [Laughter.] He may do at times. As I said, the listing of the building does not assist us in moving forward, but a public-sector body is interested in it. The Member will be aware that we have an estate strategy on the disposal of public buildings. We have been successful with the disposal of a number of buildings, and we will continue to put buildings on the market as they become vacant. The market will respond in due course with what it is prepared to pay for those etc, but we have an estate strategy and a plan. I am content with how things are moving forward. Local Growth Fund: Update 3. Miss Dolan asked the Minister of Finance for an update on his engagement with the British Government on the local growth fund. (AQO 2627/22-27) Mr O'Dowd: As the House will be aware from the recent motion on the matter, I have been engaging with Ministers in the NIO, Treasury and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government on it since my appointment as Finance Minister. That engagement has intensified as the continued Whitehall delay has increased the urgency of the situation. Last month, I met Hilary Benn and reiterated the urgency of the issue and stressed the need for resource — not capital — funding to tackle economic inactivity, which is a key barrier to economic growth. I also highlighted the risks, particularly to the community and voluntary sector, of further delay. I attended a trilateral meeting with the Secretary of State, Hilary Benn, and Steve Reed, Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, on 22 October. We have agreed to an intensive period of trilateral working at official level to urgently develop a way forward. I have also repeatedly raised those issues with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, most recently in person at a meeting on 17 October. I followed that up in writing on 23 October, calling on him to provide flexibility on the capital/resource split through the budgetary process. I emphasised the negative impact that the proposal for capital-heavy funding would have here. It is unacceptable that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government left it so late to commence that joint working, but I remain ready to work with anyone at any time to progress the matter. The stakes are too high to do anything else. Miss Dolan: Minister, thank you for your work on the matter. I know how committed you are to ensuring that we get some follow-up money after the loss of EU funding. What engagement have you had with the community and voluntary sector about the fund? Mr O'Dowd: I have had several meetings with the community and voluntary sector on that. The first meeting was with the Chief Officers Third Sector (CO3) group on 17 September, at which I provided an update to 41 representatives of the sector and listened to many of their concerns. I have kept the sector regularly updated. I met it again on 1 October under the auspices of NICVA and wrote to it again on 3 October. I have directed my officials to do the same and to collaborate with the sector through their intensive engagement with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the NIO over the next number of weeks. Top 2.15 pm Student Placement Scheme 2026-27: Accessibility 5. Mr Butler asked the Minister of Finance, in relation to the recently launched 2026-27 Northern Ireland Civil Service student placement scheme, to outline the steps he will take to ensure that students with a disability have equitable opportunity to be successful. (AQO 2629/22-27) Mr O'Dowd: The Civil Service is an equal opportunities employer committed to building a diverse and inclusive Civil Service that reflects the society that it serves. The student placement competition has been advertised widely via a range of channels and welcomes applications from disabled students. The Civil Service engages directly with the placement teams in local universities to promote the opportunities. Information on the NI Union of Supported Employment is included in the candidate information booklet. The Civil Service will discuss putting reasonable adjustments in place for disabled applicants at any stage of the selection process. Mr Butler: I thank the Minister for his answer. The Minister will already know that the disabled community is under-represented across probably all employment levels. Does the Minister agree that the Civil Service should lead the way and move beyond reasonable adjustments and set significant ambitions to see some of the most underutilised, most professional people in our communities — those with disabilities — in paid employment? Mr O'Dowd: I take on board the Member's comments and the direction of travel that he is coming from or wishes to see. I want to continue to see the Civil Service as an inclusive employer. That means that all of those under-represented sections of our society have to be reached out to, and we need to look at the ways of making sure that we are not presenting barriers to their entering the service. We also have to be conscious of other employment and equality legislation, but I assure the Member that the team behind this are committed to ensuring that the Civil Service is inclusive. If there are lessons to be learnt, I am more than happy to learn, and I am sure that the team working behind this are too. Ms Hunter: On the topic of widening criteria, we have heard that there are some challenges with students in further education applying for a student placement. Are you aware of that, and can you tell us more? Mr O'Dowd: I am not aware of it. If the Member has any more details on it, please correspond with me on it. As I said, it has to be inclusive, and all further education colleges have to be included in it. If the Member has information in that regard, she should please forward it to me. Social Value Strategy 2025-27: Update 6. Ms Forsythe asked the Minister of Finance for an update on progress under the social value strategy 2025-2027. (AQO 2630/22-27) Mr O'Dowd: I am proud that my Department is the first Executive Department to publish a social value strategy, which was developed in partnership with key stakeholders in the business and voluntary, community and social enterprise sectors. While the strategy was a commitment in the revised procurement policy note, 'Social Value in Procurement', it goes beyond procurement and sets out the social value goals and ambitions, focusing on the Department's key responsibility as owner of the Civil Service office estate and policy lead for finances, procurement and human resources. Demonstrating my commitment to raising the profile of social value in my Department, I have appointed a social value champion who will monitor and report on the Department's progress. Good progress has been made on the strategy, with 11 targets already met. A progress report with further details on what has been achieved in the six months will be published on the Department of Finance website in the coming weeks. Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for his answer. I look forward to seeing the progress report. In the meantime, is he able to detail whether there has been an increase in engagement and trading with small and medium-sized enterprises? It was a key target coming through on that to reach out to the smaller businesses in Northern Ireland, which are such a key player. Mr O'Dowd: Yes is the answer. If there are areas in which we can seek improvement, let us look at those to see how we can improve. Given the proportion and importance of the small and medium-sized enterprise sector to our economy, it is only right and proper that my Department and, indeed, others engage in relation to social value and many other aspects of doing business. In my opinion, yes is the answer, but, if there are other areas where we need to learn, I am happy to do so. Mrs Mason: Minister, in your first answer, you mentioned the social value champion. Can you give us an idea of who that is and what exactly their role is? Mr O'Dowd: I have appointed the Construction and Procurement Delivery (CPD) deputy secretary to the social value champion role. Her role is to monitor the progress of the social value strategy and identify areas for improvement. I intend to publish a progress report shortly, as I said in my original answer. As the first Department to develop and publish a strategy, we recognise that we are leading the way. Therefore, feedback from all sectors is particularly welcome to help inform future strategies. County Hall, Ballymena: DOF Staff 8. Mr Gaston asked the Minister of Finance to outline the number of staff from his Department and its arm's-length bodies who work in County Hall, Ballymena. (AQO 2632/22-27) Mr O'Dowd: There are no staff in my Department or its arm's-length bodies (ALBs) working in County Hall, Ballymena. As of 30 June 2025, 254 staff are based in County Hall, Ballymena from the following public bodies: Department for Infrastructure, 67; Department of Health, 149; Department for Communities, 34; Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, four. Mr Gaston: I thank the Minister for his response in outlining the numbers not only of his own staff but the numbers of staff from other Departments at County Hall. Minister, the grounds of County Hall have not been maintained and have become neglected over recent years and months. Can you set out today when the Department will start to carry out routine maintenance at County Hall again to ensure that it becomes a nice, welcoming environment, not the eyesore that it has been allowed to turn into? Mr O'Dowd: My Department, like all Departments, continues to face significant challenges, which, unfortunately, has impacted on the services that we can provide, including the routine maintenance of public grounds. My Department's construction and procurement delivery team has prioritised essential building maintenance services to ensure the health and safety of the working office environment for staff and visitors to our buildings. My Department's estate management unit is in regular contact with the premises team to ensure that any statutory and priority health and safety issues are identified and dealt with promptly. Grant Recipients: Procurement Costs 9. Mr McAleer asked the Minister of Finance to outline the steps that his Department is taking to reduce bureaucracy and costs in terms of procurement for grant recipients, particularly those in the voluntary, community and social enterprise sector. (AQO 2633/22-27) Mr O'Dowd: Following the introduction of the Procurement Act in February 2025, my Department carried out a review of existing procurement policy and guidance to ensure that the flexibilities in the new legal framework can be maximised. The revised guidance, known as the "'Dear Accounting Officer' letter 05/22 (Grant or Procurement)", was approved for publication by the Executive on 16 October 2025. As a result, we have updated the guidance to reduce red tape and make procurement easier for grant recipients, especially those in the voluntary, community and social enterprise sector. Grant recipients will now no longer need to follow the same procedures as government Departments and arm's-length bodies. That change recognises that most local businesses have fewer than 50 employees and is aimed at making it easier for them to deliver grant-funded projects for communities. As a result, the new guidance will help to reduce bureaucracy, support faster delivery and lower costs for funders and recipients. Mr McAleer: I thank the Minister for his response. Can public bodies, such as the Education Authority, benefit from changes made in the Procurement Act 2023 and procurement guidance? Mr O'Dowd: Yes, they can. I continue to hear stories of difficulties that schools and other bodies have in procurement exercises. I am of the view — evidence backs this up from the changes that we have made in the past year through the Procurement Act and supported by the Executive — that significant changes have been made. Increasing the threshold for public tendering from £30,000 to £50,000 last year allows schools to make local spending decisions and to contract with local suppliers for lower-value contracts. Given the financial constraints facing us, it is important that we continue to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy, which wastes time and money. I have encouraged, do encourage and will continue to encourage all Ministers, their Departments and their arm's-length bodies to take advantage of the changes to procurement legislation, guidance and policy to ensure that we achieve best value for money. Unpaid Rates: Recovery 10. Mr Frew asked the Minister of Finance to outline any further measures that his Department is taking to recover the £145·4 million in unpaid rates as of 31 August 2025. (AQO 2634/22-27) Mr O'Dowd: Last year saw Land and Property Services (LPS) collect a record £1·63 billion in rates. As I outlined to the House on 21 October during the debate, my Department remains committed to the collection of unpaid rates. Already this year, the amount owing from previous years has reduced by 20%, and, as legal action for non-payment increases in the coming months, that will continue to drive the amount owed down further. There are two categories when it comes to rates debt: those who cannot pay and those who will not pay. We have to pursue rigorously those who refuse to pay, and we have to support and work with those who cannot pay in order to find a way for them to do so. It might be helpful if I provided more detail on the £145 million that is outstanding. Some £59 million has already been subject to legal recovery action, which enables further legal action to be taken where rates remain unpaid; and £12·8 million is being repaid through active payment plans or agreements with Land and Property Services. The remaining £73·5 million is under review for further legal action. It is important that Members understand that, within that amount, there are cases that are not suitable for legal action, including those in which there has been a bereavement, an appeal or where the ratepayer is in receipt of benefits. Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for that comprehensive answer. How does the shortfall in rates collection impact on the overall Budget, the Departments that enjoy the Budget and the way in which councils get their budgets? Mr O'Dowd: It does not impact on front-line delivery until a decision is made to write off an amount of debt. Such a decision is made over a period of years. It will not impact on them then. Departments spend on the amount of money that, we predict, will come in from the rates; that is how the planning is done. In year, there is no impact, but, when we reach the stage at which we have a number of years of debt that we need to write off, there will be an impact on further years' spending. It does have an impact, hence the reason for Land and Property Services and me putting a greater emphasis on ensuring that we go through the process of retrieving all moneys that can be retrieved. As I have said to Members, we have to be measured on this. For example, bringing a small business to court can mean the end of that business and the loss of its jobs etc, but, one way or the other, everybody has to pay their rates. That is the strategy to which my Department works. Mr Gildernew: The Minister has outlined the difference between those who will not pay and those who are unable to pay: what support is in place for those who are unable to pay? Mr O'Dowd: People who face financial difficulties can apply for comprehensive support with their rates through the benefits system. LPS will work with people who are having difficulty in paying and agree an affordable repayment plan. That is in the case of those who wish to pay but cannot afford to pay. You will always run into people who can afford to pay but refuse to do so, and we have no reluctance in pursuing legal action in those cases. Fiscal Sustainability 11. Mr Beattie asked the Minister of Finance to outline any targeted reforms being prioritised to improve fiscal sustainability, while protecting front-line services such as health and justice. (AQO 2635/22-27) Mr O'Dowd: The Budget sustainability plan, which was published in October 2024, marked an important first step in the pathway towards more fiscally sustainable Budgets and policy decisions. Since the publication of the plan, officials have been progressing its commitments. One of the strands of that work is the development of departmental five-year plans. My officials are working with each Department to develop those plans. They will articulate each Department's strategic direction over the medium term, outline the associated costs and identify opportunities to reduce expenditure in a way that supports long-term sustainability. Following the autumn Budget announcement on 26 November, I intend to bring forward proposals for a draft Budget, which will include funding allocations for all Departments, including Health and Justice. In addition, I recently published a report on aligning spending with priorities, which examines how the 2025-26 Budget aligns with the Programme for Government. That is a significant step forward in illustrating how Departments' spending is allocated towards the priorities that are set by the Executive. That will become an increasingly valuable tool for directing resources to priority areas. Mr Beattie: Thank you, Minister. Do any of the strategic, targeted reforms include a review of revenue raising? Mr O'Dowd: All Departments have, within their remit, the responsibility to review revenue raising and see how they can raise revenue. That should be done in a fair and equitable way, but each Department has the authority to do it, and I encourage them to do so. Healthcare Workers’ Pay Uplift 12. Mr McGrath asked the Minister of Finance for an update on the delayed healthcare workers’ pay uplift. (AQO 2636/22-27) Mr O'Dowd: We all want to see public sector workers, including healthcare workers, get the pay rise that they deserve in a timely manner. I plan to hold a December monitoring round, at which time we will understand the funding available following the Chancellor's autumn Budget. That will also provide an opportunity for Departments to declare any easements of funding that they no longer require, which the Executive can then consider reallocating to public-sector pay. The Executive have agreed that, in that monitoring round, the Department of Health will have first call on £100 million of available funding for health service pay costs, alongside funding to meet the pay awards of other public-sector workers. Top 2.30 pm Mr Speaker: We now move to topical questions. Israel: Minister of Education's Visit T1. Mr O'Toole asked the Minister of Finance, given that most reasonable people think that there is a prima facie case that the Minister of Education has plunged the Northern Ireland Civil Service into disrepute through the use of official resources to promote a visit to an occupied territory, whether he has asked the Department of Finance officials, who are responsible for propriety in the Northern Ireland Civil Service, to investigate the circumstances and for an assessment of whether such use violates the Civil Service code of ethics or the Functioning of Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021. (AQT 1731/22-27) Mr O'Dowd: All Ministers need to be extremely careful about how they use Civil Service resources, which are there primarily to support delivery front-line public services and should not be used in a party political way. I heard the Minister of Education's comments in the Chamber yesterday about his engagement with his permanent secretary on the matter. My understanding is that it would be a matter for the head of the Civil Service to further develop any inquiries in that case. Mr O'Toole: I have also written to the head of the Civil Service. As the lead Minister responsible for Civil Service propriety, may I ask that you commission an urgent review of the broader issues of Ministers giving inappropriate instructions to civil servants and of the provisions of the Functioning of Government Act? The actions of the Minister of Education clearly breached that law, which is on the statute books. Will you ask your officials to commission an urgent review, because there are some serious broader issues at stake? Mr O'Dowd: It is best that we await the independent inquiries of the head of the Civil Service. If I were to commission an urgent review, I would be accused of political interference. It is best that we allow the head of the Civil Service to carry out her inquiries into the matter. If, as a result of those inquiries, it becomes apparent that I, as the Finance Minister, have a role, I assure you that I will not shirk it. Mr Speaker: Miss McAllister is not in her place. I call Doug Beattie. Northern Ireland Civil Service: Inclusive Language Policy T3. Mr Beattie asked the Minister of Finance to confirm whether the Equality Commission was involved in the development of the Northern Ireland Civil Service inclusive language policy. (AQT 1733/22-27) Mr O'Dowd: I cannot confirm whether the Equality Commission was directly involved. I will have to come back to the Member directly on the matter. However, equality issues relating to the Department reflect our equality programme, which was approved by the Equality Commission. Mr Beattie: Thank you, Minister. Hopefully, you can come back to me with that answer. You may have to come back to me on this question as well. Is the Northern Ireland Civil Service inclusive language guide, which recommends using the title "Mx" instead of "Mr", "Mrs", "Miss" or "Ms", a mandatory policy for all departmental staff? What funding has been set aside for training on that? Mr O'Dowd: That is a procedural matter within the Department; it is not a matter for the Minister. The guide is not mandatory; it is guidance, as it says on the tin. I am not aware of what funding has been set aside for training etc in that regard, but I am more than happy to supply that information to the Member. Those matters are dealt with as procedure in the Department and not by the Minister. Special Educational Needs Capital Investment Programme T4. Mr Brooks asked the Minister of Finance, who will be aware of the crisis in capacity and need for investment across our special schools, to indicate whether he is minded to provide the necessary funding to support the SEN capital investment programme. (AQT 1734/22-27) Mr O'Dowd: I am aware of the proposal from the Education Minister, but we also need an estate plan from the Department of Education. The Member will have heard me refer to my Department's estate plan in relation to Civil Service buildings. It would be useful if the Department of Education were to come forward with an estate plan and an area plan, and then the Executive collectively could examine how we dispose of the public assets that can be disposed of and how we reinvest that money. The proposal is that that money is reinvested in building SEN schools — that is a worthy cause for any investment — but all parts of the equation need to be included before we can come to an answer. Mr Brooks: We heard in the Chamber yesterday that the Minister's party has been responsible for holding back the discussion about that at the Executive. I am sure that he will agree that our SEN children and families should not be used as a pawn in a political game. Therefore, will he ask the First Minister to bring the matter to the Executive for proper discussion? Mr O'Dowd: I am sure that the Member is aware, as is whoever informed the House yesterday, that Executive business is confidential. Shared Property Management Scoping Study Report T5. Mr Blair asked the Minister of Finance what his next steps will be, following the publication of the shared property management scoping study report. (AQT 1735/22-27) Mr O'Dowd: The next steps are that the report needs to be studied, and we need to engage with all the sectors involved in it to see whether there is further potential for shared use of properties across the entire public-sector estate. Efficient, effective use of all resources has to be primary in all discussions that Ministers and Departments have. Mr Blair: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he envisage going to public consultation during the mandate on any of the options considered in the report? Mr O'Dowd: I will give careful consideration to that and will report to the Committee or the House when I have concluded my deliberations. Inheritance Tax T6. Ms Flynn asked the Minister of Finance whether he agrees that the Chancellor should use the autumn Budget later this month as an opportunity to rethink the approach to inheritance tax, given the impact that it will have on our agri-food sector. (AQT 1736/22-27) Mr O'Dowd: Yes. That matter has been raised repeatedly at various venues and by various Ministers, including me, with representatives of the British Government. Unfortunately, they do not appear to be listening to that. It will have a significantly greater detrimental impact on our agriculture sector than on that in England or Wales. It is another example of decisions being made in Whitehall with no understanding of the local picture here. Ms Flynn: I thank the Minister for that response. Does he agree that the autumn Budget could also be used to review the VAT rate, which could help to support our hospitality businesses? Mr O'Dowd: Yes. That is one of the direct calls that I made to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in person and in my recent correspondence to him ahead of the Budget on 26 November. It is important that our hospitality sector is supported, particularly given the changes to VAT across the border. They are competing in an all-island economy, so they should be supported in that regard. VAT is a non-devolved matter, and it is up to the Chancellor to make a move on it. PSNI Funding Shortfall T7. Mr Clarke asked the Minister of Finance whether, following his update to the House a few weeks ago on correspondence from the Treasury about the business case for funding for the PSNI, he or the Justice Minister have had conversations about advancing that business case and how we are going to make up that shortfall in funding for the PSNI, given that it is now in a dire situation. (AQT 1737/22-27) Mr O'Dowd: The Justice Minister and I have had a telephone conversation in that regard. We were due to meet again yesterday. Unfortunately, that meeting had to be cancelled, but it will be rescheduled as quickly as possible. The matter has been raised on a number of occasions during Executive discussions as well. Therefore, there are ongoing discussions and a push in regard to that matter. Mr Clarke: I thank the Minister for that update. Minister, given the nature and the urgency of the matter in hand and given the dire straits that the police find themselves in, how hopeful are you that a solution can be found before the end of the financial year? Mr O'Dowd: Discussions are ongoing. I have also asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to write to the Prime Minister about the matter. I am conscious that there are legal proceedings — an ongoing court case — in regard to the matter, but we continue to discuss how we will deliver our commitments in regard to the financial consequences of the data breach. Back in Business Scheme T8. Ms Finnegan asked the Minister of Finance how the Back in Business scheme supports businesses. (AQT 1738/22-27) Mr O'Dowd: The Back in Business scheme allows businesses to access rates support that incentivises business ratepayers to consider occupying empty retail premises when looking for a business property. The scheme provides a 50% rate reduction for up to two years, once a retail premises that has been empty for 12 months is occupied. That rate reduction is a huge boost to any new business and allows a business to, hopefully, establish itself in the long term. Ms Finnegan: Thank you, Minister, for your response. What steps are you taking to make positive changes to the rating system? Mr O'Dowd: I am pleased to say that good progress has been made in line with my intention to act at pace to make progress on positive changes to the rating system. I submitted a paper to the Executive prior to the summer recess. If that paper is agreed, we could generate about £9 million per annum for central and local government. Other significant work has been undertaken in recent months on the review of small business rate relief and non-domestic vacant rating. My officials have already completed the research and tax-base analysis associated with that review. They have also completed an extensive series of interviews with key stakeholders. I will shortly outline to the Assembly my intended way forward, following review of the findings. Sign Language Bill T9. Mrs Cameron asked the Minister of Finance what his Department is doing to prepare for the passage of the Sign Language Bill, which is making its way through the legislative process. (AQT 1739/22-27) Mr O'Dowd: My Department will prepare as it would for any legislation and will take on board any legislative requirements that fall to my Department as they come about. Mrs Cameron: I thank the Minister for his answer. Does he agree that it is wholly unacceptable that the deaf community is left out and has no reasonable way of communicating, including with his Department, and that it is really important that that community has full access to public services? Mr O'Dowd: It is vital that we have an inclusive society. At the head of that society, Departments and government have to be accessible to all. I agree with the Member that we have to ensure that our public services are accessible in a user-friendly way. Mr Speaker: That concludes questions to the Minister of Finance. Well done, Minister; you got through all your topical questions. Question for Urgent Oral Answer Justice Prisoner Release Victim Information Scheme Mr Speaker: Jonathan Buckley has given notice of a question for urgent oral answer to the Minister of Justice. I remind Members to rise in their place should they wish to ask a supplementary question. Mr Buckley asked the Minister of Justice, given recent failings in respect of the family of Michael and Marjorie Cawdery, to outline the steps that she will take to ensure that the prisoner release victim information scheme is fit for purpose. Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): I have met many victims of crime and fully appreciate the profound impact that the release of prisoners back into the community at the end of their sentence can have. The safety of the public and consideration of the impact on victims are of the utmost importance to me. Michael and Marjorie Cawdery died because of a vicious attack by Thomas McEntee. After McEntee was sentenced, the Cawdery family registered with the prisoner release victim information scheme (PRVIS). That meant that they should have been kept informed when McEntee was eligible for pre-release testing. That did not happen. That mistake was caused by an administrative error at the time the family registered, seven years ago, which meant that the prisoner database system was not properly updated. As soon as the Prison Service became aware of the error, it immediately contacted the family to offer a sincere apology and provide them with all the relevant information. The Prison Service also notified the Victims' Commissioner and the Parole Commissioners of the error and paused McEntee's pre-release testing. I would like to publicly reiterate that apology. I am genuinely sorry for the hurt that this caused the family, and I intend to meet them soon. To ensure that there can be no repeat, a full check of all cases in which a prisoner is serving a life sentence and victims are registered has commenced. Once that priority work has been completed, further checks will be carried out on all other cases in which victims have registered with the scheme. Top 2.45 pm On the wider issue of keeping victims informed, in August, the director general of the Northern Ireland Prison Service and the chief executive of the Probation Board for Northern Ireland (PBNI) commissioned an external review of the schemes that are within their remit to ensure that they are trauma-informed and victim-centred. That review was timely, and many of the recommendations will be implemented to ensure that families and, indeed, the wider public can have full confidence in all victim information schemes. Mr Buckley: The double murder of my constituents Michael and Marjorie Cawdery was an appalling act of human evil that was caused as a result of catastrophic failures. We think of that family today. I remember visiting neighbours in that quiet residential area of Portadown following their murder, and the sense of shock and fear was palpable. Minister, for many in that community to learn through a television report that the couple's killer, Thomas McEntee, had been on pre-release on 13 occasions since February, four of which were unsupervised, is a damning failure on the part of the Department of Justice. Were any restrictions placed on where Mr McEntee could or could not go, particularly in the Portadown area? Does the Minister think that it is acceptable that a killer such as Mr McEntee was unaccompanied on four occasions? Finally, with the review that she initiated, is she aware at this stage whether there have been similar incidents with families not having been notified? Mrs Long: On the first of those questions, of course it is of great concern to the Department, and particularly to the Prison Service, when an event such as that occurs. The administrative error that was the cause in that case has been identified and rectified. Further, though, as I said, a review is ongoing of all similar cases to identify whether there are other comparable administratively mishandled issues in the system. To date, none has been identified. However, that does not preclude the fact that some may be found. If so, those will also be rectified. The wider review on pre-release testing is to try to ensure that the risk of those who are being tested pre-release is properly managed. The reason why people are released first on short periods of accompanied release, then on short periods of unaccompanied release and then on longer periods of unaccompanied release is precisely to test their ability to rehabilitate safely into the community. All those periods of pre-release testing come with conditions that have to be adhered to. Those conditions will depend on the individual prisoner and the point of pre-release testing that they are at. If they fail testing, obviously, they will come back into the prison system and will have to be managed. However, all the cases of people being tested pre-release are to ensure that, when they are finally released, which is the decision made by the courts when they were sentenced, they will be released in a way that is safe and at a time when they are ready and not before. Not to release prisoners on pre-release testing and not to undertake that course of action would mean their simply being released automatically at tariff served, and that would not give us a good indication of what the risks that are associated with the release of that prisoner might be. Miss Hargey: Thank you, Minister, for coming to the Chamber. That is a serious case in which a family was impacted on and failed by the agencies that were there to protect them, as the coroner set out. They were failed again 13 times in the pre-release testing. I welcome the apology and the fact that you will meet the family. That is important. What proactive steps can you take to ensure, as well as to show that family and, indeed, others, who are also their priority, that no other families will be failed? You outlined a number of steps. Will you give a timeline for those as well, please? Mrs Long: The rigorous examination that is ongoing is, in the first instance, to ascertain whether there are further errors. It is too early to state whether further errors have occurred, but any that are found will be rectified immediately. People are aware of how the original error occurred, and action has been taken to prevent a recurrence. There is then a further finding on the external review of prisoner release victim information schemes, which will also help to reduce the potential for future errors and ensure that the schemes are victim-centred and trauma-informed, as they are intended to be. As for the wider situation, further planned periods of temporary release for Mr McEntee have been paused. That is to afford the family their legal right to make written representations. As soon as the error came to light, the family were provided with written representation forms to enable them to submit their views on Mr McEntee's temporary release and the potential conditions that may be attached to any pre-release testing. Decisions regarding any further periods of temporary release for Mr McEntee will be fully documented and will explicitly reference the views of the Cawdery family and the consideration and weight given to those views. I will take time at my meeting with the family to explain what has happened and what will happen in the future. Hopefully, that will provide them and other victims and families, and the wider community, with some reassurance. Ms Egan: I welcome the Minister's commitment to addressing this issue and ask whether she can update us on the wider work that is being undertaken to ensure that pre-release testing is fit for purpose and victim-centred. Mrs Long: The Northern Ireland Prison Service is reviewing what further steps can be taken to manage individuals who raise serious concerns during the pre-release testing process. That includes what more can be done to strengthen risk management for those individuals, and also the sanctions that they face if they fail testing. The Prison Service has a duty to prepare prisoners for release, which may be directed by the Parole Commissioners, as soon as they have served the tariff imposed by the judiciary at the point that they were sentenced. However, the commissioners may only direct release if they are satisfied that the individual will no longer present a risk of serious harm to the public. Crucially, pre-release testing helps to provide that evidence, so its benefits are considerable for the wider community. If an individual fails that testing, it is highly unlikely that they will be released at that point, although ultimately that remains a decision for the Parole Commissioners. If there is a failure, testing may also be paused for a short period. While those who fail receive a lot of attention, as do any errors in what is a very sensitive area of criminal justice, we should not lose sight of the fact that the vast majority comply with the rules and the tests. Those people are much less likely to reoffend and create more victims. Therefore, pre-release testing is and will remain an essential part of the rehabilitation process. Mr Beattie: The Minister knows that I have raised the issue of keeping victims informed on multiple occasions, particularly with regard to the family of Jim McFadden, who was murdered by James Meehan. Therefore, I have raised the issue of pre-release testing and the failures, as I believe, of the Probation Board's victim unit. Even last week, Meehan was up in court, and the family was not even informed of the outcome of that. Meehan has now been at large for a year. We see with the Cawdery family that the prisoner release victim information scheme seems to have had a catastrophic failure as well. The Minister has been very clear that a review is ongoing, but does she not now feel that it is time that we had an opt-out system of joining the prisoner release victim information scheme, instead of an opt-in system? Will the Minister think about including that in the sentencing Bill that is due soon? Mrs Long: It is too late to include any change of that nature in the sentencing Bill. As Members are aware, that Bill is making progress through the various drafting phases to be introduced this side of Christmas, in all likelihood. However, there are issues with an opt-out system too, in that people may then end up perversely being contacted when they want no further contact, and that is a high risk also. Therefore, there is no single issue that can account entirely for human error, but we can put in place more rigorous procedures to try to minimise those human errors. With respect to the Meehan case — I have to tread very carefully, because the case remains sub judice — it is an extradition case being heard in a different jurisdiction, so there is no ability for us to inform or even to be made aware of the outcome of that extradition case, given that it is between two arms of another Government. However, I have met the family, discussed their concerns and shared with them the work that we are doing. We also, in that regard, sought to provide them with all the information that is available to us regarding the progress of Meehan's case. However, you will understand that we are not necessarily apprised of the outcome of extradition cases, given the modalities that are engaged in such cases. Mr Speaker: I remind Members that they must observe the sub judice guidance for any cases that are before a court. Mr McGlone: Minister, you mentioned that it would be difficult to introduce an opt-out scheme. Will you please advise why that is the case? We think of so many victims who are potentially at risk or are fearful of the individual being in circulation within their immediate community where that could be the case. I can think of numerous cases of assault or sexual assault where that is happening. That is the first part. The second part is to ask this: when an individual has escaped from custody, what exactly is the procedure from the Prison Service to the police to make sure that anyone who has been a victim and is potentially at risk again from that individual is notified? Mrs Long: Anyone who is unlawfully at large from prison is committing an offence and is automatically reported to the PSNI. There will then be a manhunt for that individual, if they are unlawfully at large. In most cases, those who breach their pre-release testing conditions will either be unlawfully at large for a very short period, often a matter of hours, or it will be to do with their conduct while they were on release during that period. That may be detected on their return to prison — for example, if they have been drinking alcohol or taking drugs. It is very important that we recognise that many victims do not want to hear anything further about the perpetrator in their case. It is a very sensitive issue, and not all victims want to receive or, indeed, welcome receipt of updates on the progress of the case of the individual who has been charged. I did not say that it was not possible to introduce an opt-out scheme. I said that it would be impossible to do so ahead of the introduction of the Bill in the autumn, because it would require us to go to consultation, to engage with victims organisations and to restructure the PRVIS system, as well as the other systems that are in place with other agencies, including probation. Therefore, we could not do that in this mandate. However, we could give consideration to that as part of the wider sentencing review that is happening in parallel with the sentencing Bill. That will hopefully pick up areas that Members might identify during the sentencing Bill process but that need further policy development. As I said, at the moment, the issue for me is not about whether it is an opt-in or opt-out scheme but about ensuring that people's decisions to opt in or opt out are properly recorded on the system and are respected when a decision is made to release an individual from custody, whether permanently or temporarily. Mrs Dillon: Minister, your last line is really the nub of it. It is about trying to understand and whether the family will be told exactly how one administrative error led to 13 pre-release incidents. I remember the statement from the family at the time that Thomas McEntee was also a victim because of a failure in mental health services, so is there any reassurance about what mental health support that individual will get to ensure that he never becomes so ill again that something like this happens to another family? There were recommendations, and I am not sure that they have all been implemented by any Department. Mrs Long: I am aware that an inquiry followed those murders, and it is fair to say that, before anyone is released for pre-release testing, their mental health condition has to be stable and well managed and they will only be released if those issues are being addressed. If someone is, for example, going through a period of instability, they will not be released for pre-release testing and will not reach the point of release in that process. The Member refers to the fact that there were 13 incidents. To be clear, what happened simply was that, as a result of adding an additional family member to the system, all family members on the system were deleted from the system and were not attached to the individual prisoner. Instead of having three family members rather than two appear on the system, no family members appeared on the system. Their names were in the system, but they were not connected to the particular prisoner, and, as a result of that, each time that individual prisoner was released — on 13 different occasions — no one was notified. It was not 13 different administrative errors; it was a single error in adding an additional person to that individual's case that led to the 13 releases without them being notified. As I said, we have now suspended all further pre-release testing, and we will meet the family to ensure that, before pre-release testing recommences, as it must, their witness report statements will be available and they will have an opportunity to make witness and victim representations to the system, as should have been the case on each occasion. Top 3.00 pm Mr Frew: I have had the honour of meeting some members of the Cawdery family. They have been very helpful with my private Member's Bill on an individual duty of candour. Minister, you failed to address the question about the specific conditions that were placed on Thomas McEntee while he was on pre-release testing and whether he was allowed to frequent the Portadown area, where he would have been at risk of meeting some of the family or neighbours of his victims. Mrs Long: He was not allowed to enter the Portadown area while he was on pre-release testing. Mr Clarke: Given the magnitude of the situation and the hurt that has been caused to those who have been affected by it, I appreciate that the Minister has offered to meet the family. Given that mistakes have been made, will anyone be held accountable for them? There was clearly more than one mistake. Does the Minister think that it is acceptable that a killer was unaccompanied on four occasions, or was that a mistake as well? Mrs Long: I am not sure whether the Member was here when I said this in answer to an earlier question, but there was a single administrative error. There were not multiple mistakes; there was a single error. Due to that single error, the family's connection with the prisoner on the system was deleted. That was the single error. People are held to account when they make mistakes, but it depends on what the Member means. If he is asking me whether heads will roll, while that might satisfy some people, I do not think that that is how we should deal with staff who are operating a system that is under the level of pressure that our prison system is under. We need to ensure that people are adequately trained and properly supported and that we have a full complement of people working in the prison system in order to ensure that such errors do not happen in future, insofar as anyone can prevent human error. On the issue of how a murderer can be released four times unaccompanied, I want to be clear that we are talking about someone who has served the tariff on their sentence. A judge made a decision that, at the point of tariff, provided that they passed a number of tests, they were free to be released on licence into the community. We could either do that automatically, in which case that person would always be unaccompanied without any testing, or we could go through a process of pre-release testing, as we do in the Northern Ireland Prison Service, whereby we first release people accompanied and then, for short periods, release them unaccompanied, which is what happened in this case. That is the basic way in which pre-release testing works. Yes, people who have committed heinous crimes and have served the tariff on their sentences will be tested to see whether they are ready to be rehabilitated and are capable of moving back into the community. Failure to meet the requirements of pre-release testing will lead to it not happening. Those people will then be referred through the testing system. The alternative is that we simply open the prison door and let people go when they have served their tariff. Mr Burrows: Michael and Marjorie Cawdery were innocent, 83-year-old pensioners who were, I have to say — I served in the district at the time — butchered by Thomas McEntee in their own home. Only in Northern Ireland would the killer be walking around free eight years later. There is something very wrong with our justice system. Specifically on pre-release testing, to describe an error whereby a double killer was released onto our streets 13 times as being an administrative error is insulting to every victim that has been affected. There was a catastrophic systems failure of training, IT, safeguards, processes and leadership. It is more than the pre-release testing system that is not fit purpose; it is the Minister. Do you agree? Mrs Long: I am tempted to treat the Member's TikTok preview with the contempt that it deserves, but, given the seriousness of the issue and the fact that I have met the family, I am not going to do so; I am going to give answers. This is not the only place in the UK where somebody who has committed murder would be released on licence after eight years, so that is factually incorrect. There are many parts of these islands where people, after serving their minimum tariff, are released on compassionate grounds for short periods for pre-release testing, both accompanied and unaccompanied, and in different sets of circumstances, so that is a fallacy. The Member then predicates that there has been a failure of leadership in this case. There was an administrative error. I have not, in any shape or form, sought to minimise the catastrophic impact on the Cawdery family. To make out that there was some systemic failure because someone failed to press a button on a computer is an outrageous and unfounded allegation. Any person can make an error, and someone did. As Minister, my job is one of leadership to ensure that all possible steps are taken to ensure that that is not repeated. We have already done that through our quick review of how it happened, by putting additional resource into the PRVIS unit and by looking at each of the other cases in which we are dealing with life-sentence prisoners. We will go ahead and do the rest in slower time, with the resource that is available to us. If I wanted to get up here and play the kind of petty and, frankly, grotesque politics that the Member is playing, I could raise the fact that none of this would have happened had our health service been functioning. Mrs Dodds: Minister, you indicated that Mr McEntee was not allowed to visit the Portadown area. How can you be sure that he was not within the Portadown area on the four occasions when he was unaccompanied? Mrs Long: Part of his pre-release testing was about where he was and was not allowed to go. Were he to have been seen by a passing patrol or by probation officers, or were anyone else to have reported his presence in the area, he would automatically have failed his pre-release testing. When people are unaccompanied, the situation is exactly as it says on the tin: they are released and unaccompanied. That does not happen, however, until after they have completed other parts of the pre-release testing process, and that process is there to test their conduct and behaviour, both when unaccompanied and when supervised. At that stage, we are talking about very short periods, during which it would be very difficult for somebody to make the journey that you are suggesting without being identified as having done so. Mr Speaker: That concludes responses to the question for urgent oral answer. Mr Beattie: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask that the Minister review one of her answers, which took us down a bit of a rabbit hole. She said that the restrictions on McEntee were that he was not allowed in the Portadown area. The murders took place in Craigavon and not within the Portadown boundary. I think that that was a simple mistake, but it would be worthwhile for the Minister to clarify what the restrictions were and give a more detailed answer when she gets the opportunity to do so. Mr Speaker: If the Member wishes to ask further questions, he can do so in writing. Mrs Long: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I can probably make this simple for everybody, although I am happy to take a further question from the Member. I was asked the question, "Was he allowed in the Portadown area?". I answered that question by saying, "No, he was not". Mr Speaker: I confirm that that is the question that was asked. That is why I encourage Mr Beattie that, if he wants further elaboration, he may ask for it in writing. Executive Committee Business Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill: Consideration Stage Clause 8 (Minor amendments relating to births and still-births) Debate resumed on Question, That clause 8 stand part of the Bill. The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List: No 1: In clause 11, page 5, line 24, leave out "may" and insert "shall". — [Mr Tennyson.] No 2: In clause 11, page 5, line 36, leave out paragraph (e) and insert— "(3A) The regulations shall provide that no applicant may be required to pay a fee for a certificate to recognise the loss of a baby during pregnancy." — [Mr Tennyson.] No 3: In clause 11, page 5, line 36, leave out paragraph (e) and insert— "(3A) The regulations— (a) may not provide for the charging of fees for a certificate (or amended certificate) or for the first copy of a certificate (or amended certificate), but (b) may provide for the charging of fees for a second or subsequent copy of a certificate (or amended certificate)." — [Mr Frew.] No 4: In clause 11, page 5, line 37, at end insert— "(3A) The regulations must include provision specifying that a certificate may contain, if the applicant so requests— (a) the name and sex of the baby and any other biographical information; and (b) a statement by the applicant recognising the baby as a member of their family." — [Mr Gaston.] No 5: In clause 11, page 5, line 37, at end insert— "(3A) The regulations must provide for the issue of a certificate following a termination of pregnancy." — [Mr Gaston.] No 6: In clause 11, page 6, line 5, leave out subsection (5) and insert— "(5) Before making regulations under this section, a draft of the regulations must be laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the Assembly. (6) The first draft of regulations under this section must be laid before the Assembly within the period of 12 weeks beginning with the day on which this Act receives Royal Assent." — [Mr Tennyson.] Mr Gaston had given notice of his intention to oppose the Question that the schedule be agreed. Mr Kingston: I am a newly added DUP member of the Committee for Finance. My party and I welcome the purpose of the Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill. The Bill will modernise the permitted manner of notification to registrars of any death to include the sending of documents by electronic means and provide for the issuing, at a parent's request, of a certificate recognising the loss of a baby at any stage during pregnancy. Permission of the electronic transfer of documents for the notification of any death was introduced on a temporary basis during the coronavirus pandemic. That was appreciated by funeral directors, particularly as it meant that they did not have to constantly travel to City Hall — in the case of Belfast — to hand deliver documents that could more readily have been sent by email for verification. Rather than constantly extend that coronavirus-themed emergency legislation, it is right that we and the Finance Minister legislate to permit on a permanent basis electronic communication via email without the reference to coronavirus. That legislation is now before us, and I believe that it is universally welcomed. The Bill also provides for the issuing of a certificate that recognises the loss of a baby at any stage during pregnancy, including at an early stage, if so requested by one of the parents. It is consistent with our pro-life position in the DUP that the loss of an unborn baby, including before 24 weeks gestation, in any circumstances can be recognised and covered by the legislation. However, we stand over the proposed voluntary nature of the scheme, which means that a certificate is provided if so requested by one of the parents and that there should be no charge for the original and a first copy of a certificate or an amended certificate. The legislation is intended to be compassionate and practical, and we welcome its progression to Consideration Stage. Ms K Armstrong: I thank everyone who contributed to the discussion, which has been extremely difficult for me. The fact that everyone spoke with care and compassion has shown how much we respect those grieving parents out there. I thank all colleagues for that. I also thank the Minister for introducing the Bill. As others, such as Mr Frew, said, it is the first piece of legislation that will allow people who have lost children during pregnancy, under 24 weeks, to have, at last, something concrete in their hand that they can hold that recognises that they had a child. Thank you for that. I also thank the Committee, because it could not have been easy to listen to the stories of those grieving parents. Having been a bereavement counsellor and involved in supporting hundreds of parents who have lost children and, of course, given the fact that I have suffered losses, which I have not hidden, I know that it can be quite difficult. To anybody in the House, those listening or any staff in the Building who have been through the same situation as me, I am very sorry for your loss, and I hope that the Bill goes a long way in helping you grieve for your child, because the Government will recognise your child, albeit they may have survived for only a short time. I will go straight to the clauses to which amendments have been tabled. Mr Gaston, of course, tabled his opposition to clause 8 stand part. It is his right to have his own considerations, but I came to the House to represent everyone, and I believe in the code of conduct for MLAs, which means that we have to consider equality in all that we do. Therefore, I will not support him. He may oppose clause 8, but I do not think that the majority of the House do. Amendment No 1 requires the legislation to be laid within a timescale. That is relevant, because, far too often in the House, we have the situation where we legislate, and, as I know from my experience on the Committee for Communities, it takes years for regulations to come forward. To be honest, we are giving a lot of hope to people outside the Chamber, and they will expect to see something. To be fair to the Minister and his Department, they have done an awful lot of work in the background, and they are almost there. It would not be such a stretch for them. Amendment No 2 was tabled in the name of my colleague Eóin Tennyson. Mr Frew made an important point, and I will perhaps comment on it now. We are talking about legislation. It is something that, when written down, is law. We are talking about whether to charge people for certificates. Here is something: we either charge for the certificates, or we do not. There is no in-between. I say that in reference to amendment No 3, tabled by the DUP. Who would hold a register of who has applied for baby loss certificates? I do not understand how that works. We either charge for everything, or we do not charge for it. Top 3.15 pm If we are going to say that we will give so many certificates free and the rest will have to be paid for, there must be a list — a tally kept against that child's name or record — of who has applied and how many times people have applied for a certificate, and that will incur costs. That is not appropriate. We need to decide today whether we will charge or not. The ability to charge is in the legislation as the Minister has it, but, to be honest, as I said in reference to the child funeral fund, the Assembly has already decided to provide funding so that a parent does not have to pay for the funeral of a child under the age of 18, so why are we asking parents who have lost a child at under 24 weeks of pregnancy to pay for a baby loss certificate? Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. The amendment is a safeguard to ensure that no parent would have to pay for a certificate. It states that the certificate and the first copy of it would be free. Why did we go for two certificates? The mother and the father or the other parent, for that matter, might be estranged, and, in such cases, at least they would have a copy each. The amendment is a safeguard: no parent would be charged for a baby loss certificate. Ms K Armstrong: I appreciate that, in a perfect world, just a mother and a father would be involved, but what happens if they become estranged and a new partner comes into the relationship who adopts the other family members and wants a copy? Grandparents, sisters, brothers, aunts, uncles and many others might look for that. If we are to legislate on an equal footing, we have to consider this: anybody who loses a child over 24 weeks of pregnancy does not have to pay for funerals because we reimburse them for that, but we will be charging people who lose a child before 24 weeks of pregnancy. That is part of the problem that we are getting into as we debate the harm that can be caused. There is no difference in the grief, but we are making a difference financially. To be fair to everyone, we have to just say either that they pay or they do not, and that will be up to the House. My preferred option is this: if we are going to provide free services to people whose loss happened after 24 weeks of pregnancy, we should do nothing different for people whose babies pass away before 24 weeks. Perhaps the Minister could come back to us on the matter of the register. If people can get some certificates for free but have to pay for the rest, how will that be managed and worked on? For example, I started life as Kellie McGrattan. I got married and became Kellie Armstrong. I did not have a youngster when I was McGrattan, but I could have had one. How would we know who the father is? Are we going to ask for a lot of details? We are starting to get into a convolution here that does not need to happen. With regard to amendment No 4, I get it — I absolutely get it — but putting amendment Nos 4 and 5 into the Bill is a waste of time. Regulations that are already being talked about are coming forward, and it is not for the House to tell a grieving parent what should or should not be on a baby loss certificate. It is for grieving parents to decide that. They should be part of the development of the regulations and should decide what goes into the Bill. As I said earlier, not every parent — I include myself — knows the gender of their child or has been able to give that child a name. Even the date on which the child was lost might be a convoluted matter. Let us be careful, and let us be as flexible and open as possible to the opportunity to provide a baby loss certificate, which is something so special for so many people. Let us not make it too convoluted and difficult. Mrs Dillon: Will the Member take an intervention? Ms K Armstrong: Yes. Mrs Dillon: Does the Member agree that the reason for introducing the Bill was to try to make up for the trauma that has been caused to so many mummies who, like her, have lost their babies and to allow them the recognition that the baby existed? By making it more convoluted, all we are doing is adding to the trauma that, in some cases, has been ongoing for many years. Ms K Armstrong: I thank the Member for that. It leads me nicely to amendment No 5. I am sorry, folks, but I cannot support amendment No 5. I say it honestly from my heart: please do not do this. I have sat in more than enough rooms as a bereavement counsellor and even when I was being counselled myself with women who have had to struggle with the term "abortion" being used in respect of their miscarriage. While I absolutely, 100%, respect a woman's right to choose, I also absolutely respect a woman's right to grieve. For some women, having the words "termination" or "abortion" associated with their loss is devastating. I remember seeing the words "spontaneous abortion" at a time when I could not understand why my body had not carried children. It was harmful for my mental health, and I know that it has been harmful for a lot of other women's mental health. Members have talked kindly today about the issue. Ms Forsythe, your speech was very moving for me. It recognised that, as soon as you get pregnant, you have thoughts, wishes and dreams for the baby who will come along. If your body then expels it and you do not know why and somebody calls that "an abortion", you think, "Do they think that I got rid of my child — the one that I wanted?". That is difficult. I beg the House to please leave the regulations as flexible as possible and not to use emotive language in the Bill that will mean that when a woman, a man, a grandparent or whoever goes to apply for a baby loss certificate, they will have to tick a box to indicate whether they want to say how they lost their baby. It is a baby loss certificate, not a medical procedure certificate. I ask the House to please just be kind and keep going with what we intend the Bill to do. Let the regulations deal with that. Let bereaved parents deal with that. Let the Minister of Finance and his officials deal with it in a flexible way that will allow all those who wish to apply for a baby loss certificate to do so without having to specify. Mr Gaston: I thank the Member for giving way. It is a misrepresentation to state that the term "abortion" will appear. It is a case of opening up the regulations so that those who have suffered an abortion can and will have the right to apply for a certificate. Nobody is saying that the term "abortion" will be on certificates. Nobody is saying that the term "abortion" will be listed on the form. That is a misrepresentation of the heart behind the amendments. Ms K Armstrong: I thank the Member for his contribution, but I am a legislator the same as him, and I do not read his amendments in the way that, he thinks, he has written them. Amendment No 5 states: "Clause 11, Page 5, Line 37 At end insert— '(3A) The regulations must provide for the issue of a certificate following a termination of pregnancy.'" The words "a termination of pregnancy" will be in the Bill and in the Act, and I ask the House to not agree to that. With clause 11, we have the opportunity to cover all instances and reasons, and we do not need to go into those reasons. Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way? Ms K Armstrong: I will. Mr Gaston: Absolutely, yes, those words will appear in the Bill. That is the purpose of the amendment. In previous debates, abortion was not counted. The amendment is to ensure that abortion is given its place in the Bill so that, if those who have suffered an abortion, whether through a medical termination or through their choice, wish to avail themselves of a certificate, they can get one. Ms K Armstrong: Thank you, Mr Gaston. I am sorry, but I am one of those grieving parents, and my last loss involved a medical abortion that was very difficult for me. I find the terminology offensive and callous. It lacks understanding. It also lacks evidence of conversations with women who have been through any of this. None of us want to see that wording in the Bill. What we have in clause 11 is enough; we do not need amendment No 5. We do not need to retraumatise and harm people just because they lost a child before 24 weeks of pregnancy. It has been difficult today. I believe that we in the House, irrespective of our positions on what are technical points of law, are in agreement. We need to have baby loss certificates. We need to provide people with a piece of paper that finally confirms that they were pregnant and had a baby. That baby may no longer be here, but there is a certificate that people can apply for and have. I fully believe that, in the early days of the certificate being available, there will be an influx of people of all ages and genders applying for it, because, for years in Northern Ireland, we have not had the opportunity to do so. This is the right thing to do. It is right that we have not put a time limit on it, as appears in other places. It is kinder. There is also an unknown element to this regarding how the certificates will eventually be produced. It may well be something that you can apply for and print or choose to print yourself, or you may wish to have a formal printing process — a bit like it is for a death certificate — where you are given a certificate. There are lots of options still to come forward. Minister, I honestly believe that, through the regulations, you and your Department will bring forward what bereaved parents want and need. Today, all that I ask is that people think about this craic of charging people. You either have it in the Bill, or you do not. There is no halfway house here, because the halfway house will cost a lot of money and will require you to get data protection information from grieving parents at time when they just want a certificate for their dead child. We should think about getting this passed as quickly as possible. I have every belief that the officials are almost there. I know that the consultation piece is over. There has been a lot of input into it. I was one of those who responded to the consultation. I am grateful, as a grieving parent, to have been able to do that. We are almost there, and we can have this done within this financial year, never mind within the mandate. All that I would say, as someone who is so grateful that this is coming forward, is this: thank you so much, Minister, and thank you to your Department. I thank the Committee for the work that it has done and for listening to grieving parents. We are doing something special here. I do not think that there is a row about that. It is something outstanding that shows that the Assembly has a heart and compassion for its neighbours, friends and families. I thank you for that. Mr Carroll: As I have said before, the Bill's broad aims are important for everyone who has experienced baby loss, death or stillbirth. I commend everybody who has spoken out, including Ms Armstrong and other Members who have experienced that sadness and tragedy. There are, however, gaps in the Bill. I have raised that before. It is completely unconscionable that the Department and the Minister are including a provision to charge for certificates. I have been consistent on that. The reason given for that is not strong or robust enough. The only argument that I have heard from the Department and the Minister is that, in the future, somebody may ask for a large number of certificates, thus costing the Department money. That is my reading of the explanation that has been given. As I have said before in Committee, not only does that show a contemptible view of the public but it will cause harm and probably trauma to people who have suffered and been bereaved, thus rendering the Bill's aims redundant and counterproductive. Amendment Nos 2 and 3 deal with that. Amendment No 2 is stronger, so I urge people to support that amendment. Amendment No 4 seems OK on the face of it, unless the Member has other motives. I am interested to hear from the Minister on it. I have taken note of comments from Kellie Armstrong and Steve Aiken as well. Amendment No 5 tries to stigmatise women who have had terminations and will put people under pressure to think that, in the future, they may need a certificate or that a certificate may be compulsory and they will have to mention their termination. It looks as though it is designed to create a chill factor around a healthcare issue for women. I will oppose it for that reason and urge others to do so as well. Amendment No 6 strengthens the accountability mechanisms in the House and for the Committee to ensure that the regulations on certificates match what the public and grieving parents want and expect. We heard from Forget-me-not that language is important when it comes to bereavement. Often, legislation can be misunderstood. It comes across as dry and not compassionate, even when it is trying not to be. The language is really important in this case. Clause 8 deals with the rights of same-sex couples. It is ironic — cruelly ironic — that parties who talk about women's rights to attack trans people cannot allow or stomach same-sex parents who are women the chance to register a birth or stillbirth. I highlight that hypocrisy. The clause is a step forward for parents who are non-birth mothers, although there is an anomaly and a gap that I have raised with the Minister and in Committee. Constituents of mine who go through IVF treatment in the South do not have the same rights to register a birth or stillbirth in the North. There cannot be a partitionist approach for same-sex parents and so many families. Top 3.30 pm I tried to introduce an amendment about the lack of bereavement support nurses and services in place, but I was told that that issue was connected to Westminster legislation. I raise it because it is something that the Minister and the Health Minister need to tackle. The Member who spoke previously touched on the issue. As, hopefully, the Bill becomes law, it is likely that a large number of bereaved people will come forward, which is their right, but there is no coordination or plan in place from Ministers to address that situation. The answer to a question for written answer that I submitted revealed that there is one bereavement services coordinator in the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, there is none in the Southern Health and Social Care Trust and there is one in the Northern Health and Social Care Trust, that the number of bereavement nurses in each trust area is one or zero, and that the number of bereavement midwives in each trust area is two, one or zero. There is a massive issue in that regard because of the good aims of the Bill: people who are traumatised or have issues that they need to express are going to come forward, but, unfortunately, the support will not be there for them. That is not to downplay the important work that is done by healthcare workers already, but they are a small number of people who are under pressure. The voluntary groups also do tremendous work, but the services are not really in place, and, with respect, I do not hear a plan from you, Minister, or the Health Minister to try to address that issue. Mr O'Dowd: I begin by thanking all Members who have contributed to the debate on this important matter. As Members will be aware, the key aims of the Bill are, first, to place the temporary processes contained in the Coronavirus Act 2020 that enable the remote registration of deaths and stillbirths and the electronic transfer of registration documents on a permanent footing; secondly, to rectify the differences in the birth and stillbirth registration processes for some opposite-sex and same-sex female parents; and, thirdly, to enable the making of secondary legislation for the introduction of a baby loss certificate scheme. Mr Gaston has indicated that he will oppose the Questions that clause 8 and the schedule stand part of the Bill. Those are, of course, decisions for Mr Gaston. Clause 8 and the schedule relate directly to one of the key aspects of the Bill, which is to rectify differences in the birth and stillbirth registration processes between opposite-sex and same-sex female couples. Clause 8 and the schedule are important parts of the Bill, as they will ensure that unmarried and non-civil partner couples have access to the same registration procedures, regardless of whether they are same-sex or opposite-sex couples. The inequality in the birth and stillbirth registration processes has existed for some time, and it is right that those disparities are rectified through the Bill. The provisions in the Bill will ensure that those inequalities are removed, so that all couples have the same options for the registration of a birth or stillbirth. I ask Members to consider the importance of that issue and to vote to ensure that clause 8 and the schedule stand part of the Bill. The intention of amendment No 1 from Mr Tennyson, which is to change the word "may" to "shall", is to ensure that the Department is required to make regulations and to remove any possibility that the Department may decide not to progress them. I am aware of the importance of the scheme to families who have experienced an early pregnancy loss. The scheme will offer families the same formal recognition as those who are affected by the death of a loved one or a stillbirth. For the families, the certificate will confirm that their baby existed, and I hope that it will help them to navigate the grieving process. I therefore assure the Member that it is my intention that the regulations that outline the content of the baby loss certificate scheme will be progressed as soon as possible, with the aim of having the scheme operational by the end of this financial year. Officials are in the process of drafting the regulations for the scheme, and those will start the legislative process through the draft affirmative route as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent. I recognise the desire of Members to see the scheme operational as quickly as possible. That is also my desire. Based on what I outlined previously, I do not feel that an amendment to the wording is strictly necessary as it has always been my intention to bring forward secondary legislation without delay. However, I am content to accept the amendment, as it supports the route that I intend to follow to bring forward regulations for a baby loss certificate scheme as soon as possible. Amendment No 2 from Mr Tennyson is about the charging of fees for baby loss certificates and proposes that "no applicant" should be required to pay a fee for a baby loss certificate. As Members will be aware, the question of whether or not there should be fees for a baby loss certificate is highly emotive. From the outset, it has been my intention that the scheme will be compassionate and open to anyone who has suffered a loss early in pregnancy. While a certificate will not undo the pain that parents have suffered, it can provide formal recognition of the loss and validate their grief. For that reason, it has always been my view that there should be no charge when someone applies for a baby loss certificate. The question of fees was also considered extensively as part of the Finance Committee's scrutiny of clause 11(1). I am grateful for the Committee's detailed report in that regard. The Committee's view, as set out in its budget report, was that there should be no charge for a baby loss certificate. At the end of its scrutiny, the Committee did not recommend or table any amendments to the Bill, noting that any charges would need to be approved by the Assembly when the baby loss regulations are introduced. Consequently, I believe that there was consensus that no fees should be charged for a baby loss certificate. The amendment goes further, however, by requiring that no fee be levied for any baby loss certificate. It will require that a second, third, fourth and any other subsequent copy of the certificate is free. It will also set the scheme apart from other certificate schemes. Members, understandably, referred to equality in this matter and to ensuring that everybody is treated equally. If you request a copy of any other life event certificate, there is a charge. I am sure that it is difficult for all Members to discuss money and fees in this context. I was not being patronising to Mr Tennyson when I commented about introducing legislation as opposed to debating motions. The point that I was trying to make was that you have to write legislation in a way that, as best you can, incorporates powers that will deal with any future circumstances that arise. That way, you do not regret having the power to act and not doing so and do not have to go through the process again, which costs money and time. It is better for the Department to have a power — I will come to the DUP amendment in a moment — than it is for it to have no power. The real power rests in the Assembly, because it will decide on any regulations that are proposed. We can go around the Chamber and talk about different ifs and whether certain circumstances are to going to arise, but there is a charge for a copy of all other life event certificates, so if we are going to have equality on these matters, that is a reference point for us all. For the reasons that I have outlined, I oppose the amendment tabled by Eóin. However, to ensure that no family will face a cost for a first baby loss certificate, I propose to amend the Bill at Further Consideration Stage. As I do not want to exclude the possibility of any fees being charged in the future, I have asked my officials to work with Ms Forsythe and Mr Frew, whose amendment is closer to my position, to develop an amendment for the Assembly to consider. That work will be able to take account of the results of our public consultation, which asked the public for their views on the appropriateness of fees. It will also give the Department flexibility to charge fees in the future, subject to the agreement of the Assembly, should it become necessary to do so. For those reasons, I cannot support amendment No 2, and I urge Members to reject it to allow us to develop a narrower provision for inclusion at Further Consideration Stage. Amendment No 3, tabled by Paul Frew and Diane Forsythe, deals with the same matters as amendment No 2: the charging of fees for baby loss certificates. It proposes to amend the Bill to ensure that the regulations: "may not provide for the charging of fees for a certificate ... or for the first copy of a certificate". However, they: "may provide for the charging of fees for a second or subsequent copy of a certificate", if needs be. Although it is not drafted exactly as I would like, the amendment aligns with my view that there should not be a fee for the first certificate. I also recognise the flexibility that it retains for the Department to propose fees in some, likely quite limited, circumstances in the future, again, subject to the approval of the Assembly. Ms K Armstrong: Minister, thank you so much for giving way. I normally do not interrupt a Minister when they are speaking. Will you clarify whether that means that you will have to hold a register of all parents who apply for a baby loss certificate? Mr O'Dowd: Whether there are fees or not, it is proposed that we will have a register of parents who have applied for a certificate and that we will hold that for at least five years. Some data will have to be held, obviously following sensitive and proper procedures. With or without fees, the proposal is to hold that data for at least five years. That would be the process. For those reasons, I am content to support the amendment in principle and to work with Ms Forsythe and Mr Frew to propose additional amendments at Further Consideration Stage. Moving on to amendment No 4 from Mr Gaston —. Mr Frew: I really appreciate the Minister's giving way. He has spoken to our amendment. Just so that the House is clear: given the Minister's charitable stance, given that our amendment is very similar to his principle and given what he has said about tabling a departmental amendment at Further Consideration Stage, we will not move our amendment today, in order to allow the Department the time and space to develop an amendment to reflect that principle. We will have the right to table our amendment again at Further Consideration Stage, if need be, but we trust in the Minister, given what he has said. Thank you, Minister. Mr O'Dowd: I thank the Member for those comments. He is being nice to me a lot today. Your move to the Justice Committee has done you the world of good [Laughter.] I appreciate the manner and tone in which all Members have approached the debate and the entire process. Of course, there will be differences of opinion on various matters, but Members have —. Mr Tennyson: Will the Minister give way? Mr O'Dowd: Yes; just one second, Eóin. Members have tried their best to ensure that we approach this in a mature and dignified manner. Mr Tennyson: I thank the Minister for giving way. Minister, it is clear that there will not be support for amendment No 2. In the spirit of allowing space and time for the Department to do further work in collaboration with Ms Forsythe and Mr Frew, I will not move amendment No 2 as part of the voting process. Mr O'Dowd: Again, I appreciate the Member's approach to the matter and the desire of many in the Chamber for consensus as we move forward. Amendment No 4 proposes the introduction of subsection 3A to clause 11 to specify fields, such as the name and sex of the baby, that should be included in the content of the baby loss certificate. The amendment also proposes the inclusion of a statement on the certificate recognising the baby as a member of the applicant's family. Clause 11 enables the Department to make regulations that will provide for the recognition of any loss — importantly, any loss — that occurs before the end of the twenty-fourth week of pregnancy. The regulations will set out the specification for the certificate scheme and provide for the content of the baby loss certificate. Those regulations will be brought before the Assembly through the draft affirmative route, which will enable all Members to consider and debate their contents. I have always emphasised that the scheme will reflect the requirements of those who have experienced a loss and that their views and opinions will help to shape the scheme. To that end, my Department carried out a public consultation exercise between 17 June and 12 September. More than 1,100 responses were received, with people taking the opportunity to provide their views on the content of the scheme and the information that they would like to see included on the baby loss certificate. I thank each and every one of those 1,100 respondents. I am sure that it was very difficult for many of them to respond to that consultation, but they did so for the betterment of all, which is a credit to them. The baby loss certificate will include a number of details that respondents to the consultation exercise indicated that they want to be included. We expect that those will include the name and sex of the baby, where that can be detailed, along with the date and place of loss and the parents' details. We also expect that applicants for baby loss certificates will not need to provide all that information; they will be able to provide as much or as little information as they wish. I am confident that the parents and families who have experienced loss already consider their baby to be a member of their family. We will bring forward a full report on the findings from our public consultation in due course, but there was no suggestion, during the process or in discussions with stakeholders, that a statement is required on the certificate to recognise that the baby was a member of the family. There was a clear wish for the certificate to be as similar to other life event certificates as possible, and none of those includes such statements. As I have outlined, it is vital that the scheme reflects the requirements of those who have experienced a loss. The Bill and the subsequent regulations will provide for that, and the Assembly will have to consider them in detail. I, therefore, do not feel that it is necessary to make changes to clause 11, as proposed by amendment No 4. Top 3.45 pm I move now to Mr Gaston's amendment No 5, which proposes the insertion of subsection (3A) following clause 11(3) to specify that: "The regulations must provide for the issue of a certificate following a termination of pregnancy." I will take Mr Gaston at his word regarding what he has presented to the Assembly for his motivation behind the amendment. In fairness, the comments of the Speaker in relation to the comments of the Deputy Speaker, who was in the Chair at that time, has clarified that position. When you look at clause 11(2), you see that it clearly states: "The regulations may provide for the recognition of any loss which is not a still-birth within the meaning of the 1976 Order." That encapsulates the concerns that Mr Gaston has expressed today. If the Bill already encapsulates his thinking on those matters, I see no reason for the amendment, and I will not support it. I move now to amendment No 6 in the name of Mr Tennyson. The amendment would omit clause 11(5) and insert new subsections to provide that: "a draft of the regulations must be laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the Assembly." Amendment No 6 also proposes that the regulations must be: "laid before the Assembly within ... 12 weeks beginning with the day on which this Act receives Royal Assent." Again, it is an admirable proposal or amendment, but the difficulty with it relates to its unintended consequences, if, for whatever reason, the Department is not able to produce those regulations within the 12 weeks. If difficulties are going to arise with those regulations, they will arise regardless of whether we have that amendment. The difficulty that might arise, further from that, is that it may call into question the validity of the legislation if we do not produce it within 12 weeks. Again, I ask the Member to consider that. It is a well-intentioned amendment, and I can understand the frustration of the public, at times, at the delays in legislation not only being passed in this place but enacted, but I think that everyone will agree that my departmental officials, in cooperation with the Department of Health, have been working their way through the process admirably. Mr Tennyson: I thank the Minister for giving way. Unfortunately, I will move the amendment because there have been delays around baby loss certification schemes. Issues only arise if the Department does not meet what it has committed to meeting in relation to delivering the scheme. It has said that it will be by the end of the calendar year. This gives you three months from Royal Assent. If you are going to deliver within that time frame, there is no reason why you would not accept that amendment. Mr O'Dowd: I accept the motivations behind the amendment, but there could be unintended consequences. As I said, my officials are working their way through this at pace. However, if you run into an unexpected problem, you will run into it regardless of whether we have the amendment. The problem is that, if the amendment is in statute, it could call into question the legality of the entire process. The Member has set out his position, and I have set out mine. I have covered Mr Gaston's comments and emphasised the importance of clause 8 and the schedule to the Bill. The provision will ensure that inequalities in birth and stillbirth processes are removed and that all couples have the same options for the registration of a birth or stillbirth. I urge Members to reflect on the importance of equality in the registration process for different couples and to support the inclusion of the schedule. I draw my remarks to a close. Mr Gaston: I thank Members for their tone. They might not agree with the amendments that I have tabled, but we have had a good discussion on them. I trust that Members see the heart that is behind the amendments that I have brought to the House. Regardless of the outcome of the debate, due to my amendments being tabled, the Bill firmly applies and recognises that aborted babies, either through choice or led by medical evidence, will be included in the scheme. That was not the case in the debate at an earlier stage. The House has moved on that, and I welcome the fact that we now recognise that babies lost through abortion cannot be left out and need to be recognised. That is a change of direction for the House. The life of a baby starts at conception, and it is important that life is recognised and included in the certificate scheme if — this is the clarity I have tried to bring to the Bill today — and only if the parent wishes to avail themselves of a certificate. Agreement to my amendments will not automatically mean that those who have lost a baby through abortion will automatically get a certificate. That, as I have said, is a misrepresentation of my stance. I will go through the comments of a few Members. Mr O'Toole, as the Chairman of the Committee, thanked those who provided the 40 responses at Committee Stage. He paid tribute to those who had given personal testimonies. I am sure it was traumatic and delicate, but those who gave their personal testimony need to be recognised, and we must commend them for doing that. Mr O'Toole went on to speak on behalf of the SDLP. Throughout his contribution, I wondered whether he was speaking on behalf of everyone in his party or whether those who sit on the Back Benches are sympathetic to some of the amendments that I have put forward today. He said that he did not object to the principle of amendment No 4. He voiced his objections to amendment No 5. I say to him that Stormont decides the principles; the civil servants fill in the details. It is up to the House to ensure that the Bill includes the principle that no grieving parent should be excluded. As I have said, the lives lost through termination were not included in previous debates. Jemma Dolan spoke on behalf of Sinn Féin. She said that I oppose equality and cause division. I clarify once again that my amendments reflect basic, first-day biology — it is a biology lesson — and that is where my opposition to the schedule comes from. Diane Forsythe made a heartfelt contribution, and I felt that some of the thoughts that she put forward reflected a genuine stance. She reminded the House that death is a part of life that we must all navigate. A concern was raised shortly after that, and Ms Armstrong intervened to make the point that the sex of a baby is not known in all cases. To clarify, what I propose is an appendix to the form for the sex and name. No one needs to leave anything blank. If they do not know the details, they do not have to fill in the appendix. It is about the personhood of the unborn child. I trust that that clarifies my proposed subsection 3A(b) of clause 11. Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for giving way on that point. As I said, I do not object to the Member's proposal per se. However, given that many bereaved parents have taken the time to respond to the 12-week consultation, does he agree that it would be wrong for us to proceed with primary legislation before we have had an opportunity to take account of their views and listen to them? Mr Gaston: The Minister said that there were 1,100 responses to the consultation, and I thank everyone who submitted their views, but it is appropriate for the House, at Consideration Stage, to include the amended clause. I hope that that clarity will allow Members to back the amendment. Diane spoke in support of the amendment that she and Paul Frew tabled. I note that it has been withdrawn pending the outcome of what the Minister said. Mr Tennyson said that debates such as this are triggering and that language matters. I trust that Members will have heard from my language and how I presented my amendments what I have tried to do in that regard. The Member does not oppose amendment No 4 essentially but will oppose it anyway, and his contribution reflects that. Where his comments on amendment No 5 are concerned, Members should be assured that that amendment has nothing to do with a culture war. It is disingenuous to try to label me as someone who is entering into that sphere. Indeed, it was the Member who brought the culture war into the debate when he went to the press at the weekend to misrepresent my and my party's stance on the issues. Given Mr Tennyson's contribution, biology does not matter, according to the gospel of Eóin. He then stated his opposition to amendment No 5. Dr Aiken talked about dealing with the matter in compassionate terms, saying that it is important to get it right. I trust and believe that Members have done that today. Dr Aiken went on to thank all those who gave evidence. Deirdre Hargey gave us the typical equality speech. She said that I was demonising women. That is a misrepresentation of my stance, and it does not reflect the heart that I have behind such matters. Miss Hargey: Will the Member give way? Mr Gaston: I am happy enough to take a point. Miss Hargey: I speak as a woman with experience on those issues, so yes. Mr Gaston: At the same time, just because I am a man, that does not mean that my views do not count. I trust that, when I presented my arguments today, I did so sensitively. Mr Frew very jollily welcomed the fact that we are dealing with legislation. He thanked the staff on the Committee, which he has now left. I am not sure whether they are glad to get rid of him, but he certainly was in his element today when he was putting forward his opinions. He pointed out that this is the first place in the British Isles to legislate for baby loss certificates. Do not let this get lost in the debate that we have had today: everybody in the House supports the scheme. It is just that some Members have a different interpretation of the things that need to be included. However, do not let that take away from where we are and where we are going. Brian Kingston was first up after lunch. He said that the Bill is consistent with the DUP's pro-life stance, and he agrees with there being a voluntary option for those who want to opt in or, indeed, do not want to avail themselves of the scheme at all. Kellie Armstrong spoke about how hard the debate has been for her today. I pay tribute to Kellie for giving her personal experiences not just today but in my short time in the Chamber. I must commend her for that. We might agree on some things and disagree on others, but that does not stop me recognising a heartfelt contribution, and that is what Kellie brought to the debate. However, at some stages throughout the debate, she misrepresented me. In an intervention, I pointed out that nobody is suggesting that the words "termination" or "abortion" be included on a certificate or form. It is simply wrong to try to peddle that and to leave it at my feet. That is not at the heart of what we want to achieve. In Kellie's intervention, however, she seemed to take exception to the word "abortion" appearing anywhere in legislation. I realise that that word can be triggering, but it is legislation that we are dealing with here. I support such an inclusion, and my amendments deserve a place in the Bill. Mr Carroll talked about the gaps in the Bill. He has an issue with charging for certificates. He said that amendment No 4 seems reasonable, but he talked about amendment No 5 stigmatising women and creating a chill factor. Once again, that is certainly not right. I trust that Members today will take on board the heart behind my contribution and my intentions in the amendments. To sum all that up, my concern is that those who are opposed to my amendments are those who do not agree that conception starts at birth. Mrs Dillon: Will the Member take an intervention? Top 4.00 pm Mr Gaston: I will give way in a moment. I am proudly pro-life, and it is issues like this that brought me to the Chamber. I will use every opportunity that I have to get to my feet and raise those issues and concerns. My faith guides my contributions in this Chamber. That is why I am opposed to schedule 8 and it is why I have tabled my amendments. I am happy to give way. Mrs Dillon: Does the Member agree that, if you can acknowledge one Member's heartfelt contribution as a woman with experience, the honourable and decent thing would be to acknowledge both women who spoke from the same perspective, rather than accusing them of the usual equality stance? Mr Gaston: I certainly acknowledge anybody who spoke in a personal capacity, whether in the Committee or in the Chamber. I acknowledge the hurt and pain that they have gone through. I am sincere when I do that. That, however, does not stop me presenting my amendments in the manner that I have done. I have full sympathy for anybody who has lost a child through miscarriage or termination. That is one of the reasons why I tabled my amendment on abortion. There are those who have aborted a baby who regret it later in life. Those who have had a miscarriage grieve the loss of that child. How could you not grieve the loss of any child? Being a father, I know how much my children mean to me. I strongly support the scheme because, if my wife was in the same position, I would want to recognise that child and name that child. That is what is at the heart of my amendments. I will move the amendments that are tabled in my name on that basis. Mr Speaker: Before I put the Question, I remind Members that, while we have debated Mr Gaston's opposition to clause 8, the Question will be put in the positive. Furthermore, I advise Members that Mr Gaston's opposition to clause 8 is linked to his opposition to the Question that the schedule stand part, as clause 8 gives effect to the schedule. Clauses 8 to 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 11 (Certificates of baby loss) Amendment No 1 made: In page 5, line 24, leave out "may" and insert "shall". — [Mr Tennyson.] Amendment Nos 2 and 3 not moved. Amendment No 4 proposed: In page 5, line 37, at end insert— "(3A) The regulations must include provision specifying that a certificate may contain, if the applicant so requests— (a) the name and sex of the baby and any other biographical information; and (b) a statement by the applicant recognising the baby as a member of their family." — [Mr Gaston.] Question put, That amendment No 4 be made. The Assembly divided: Ayes 23; Noes 51 AYES Mr Bradley, Mr Brett, Mr Brooks, Ms Brownlee, Mr K Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mrs Cameron, Mr Carroll, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mrs Erskine, Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew, Mr Gaston, Mr Harvey, Mr Irwin, Mr Kingston, Mrs Little-Pengelly, Miss McIlveen, Mr Martin, Mr Middleton, Mr Robinson Tellers for the Ayes: Ms Forsythe, Mr Gaston NOES Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Ms D Armstrong, Ms K Armstrong, Mr Baker, Mr Beattie, Mr Blair, Mr Boylan, Ms Bradshaw, Mr Burrows, Mr Butler, Mr Chambers, Mr Dickson, Mrs Dillon, Miss Dolan, Mr Donnelly, Mr Durkan, Ms Egan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Finnegan, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Mrs Guy, Miss Hargey, Ms Hunter, Mr Kearney, Mr McAleer, Miss McAllister, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McMurray, Mr McNulty, Mr McReynolds, Mrs Mason, Mr Mathison, Mr Muir, Ms Mulholland, Ms Murphy, Mr Nesbitt, Ms Nicholl, Mr O'Dowd, Mr O'Toole, Ms Reilly, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Mr Stewart, Mr Tennyson Tellers for the Noes: Mrs Dillon, Miss Dolan Mr Clarke acted as a proxy for Mrs Erskine. Ms Bradshaw acted as a proxy for Mr McReynolds. Question accordingly negatived. Amendment No 5 proposed: In page 5, line 37, at end insert— "(3A) The regulations must provide for the issue of a certificate following a termination of pregnancy." — [Mr Gaston.] Question put, That amendment No 5 be made. Mr Speaker: I have been advised by the party Whips that, in accordance with Standing Order 27(1A)(b), there is agreement that we can dispense with the three minutes and move straight to the Division. The Assembly divided: Ayes 23; Noes 53 AYES Mr Bradley, Mr Brett, Mr Brooks, Ms Brownlee, Mr K Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mrs Cameron, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mrs Erskine, Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew, Mr Gaston, Mr Harvey, Mr Irwin, Mr Kingston, Mrs Little-Pengelly, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Martin, Mr Middleton, Mr Robinson Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Gaston, Mr Kingston NOES Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Ms D Armstrong, Ms K Armstrong, Mr Baker, Mr Beattie, Mr Blair, Mr Boylan, Ms Bradshaw, Mr Burrows, Mr Butler, Mr Carroll, Mr Chambers, Mr Dickson, Mrs Dillon, Miss Dolan, Mr Donnelly, Mr Durkan, Ms Egan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Finnegan, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Mrs Guy, Miss Hargey, Mr Honeyford, Ms Hunter, Mr Kearney, Mr McAleer, Miss McAllister, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McMurray, Mr McNulty, Mr McReynolds, Mrs Mason, Mr Mathison, Mr Muir, Ms Mulholland, Ms Murphy, Mr Nesbitt, Ms Nicholl, Mr O'Dowd, Mr O'Toole, Ms Reilly, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Mr Stewart, Mr Tennyson Tellers for the Noes: Mrs Dillon, Miss Dolan Mr Clarke acted as a proxy for Mrs Erskine. Ms Bradshaw acted as a proxy for Mr McReynolds. Question accordingly negatived. Top 4.30 pm Amendment No 6 proposed: In page 6, line 5, leave out subsection (5) and insert— "(5) Before making regulations under this section, a draft of the regulations must be laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the Assembly. (6) The first draft of regulations under this section must be laid before the Assembly within the period of 12 weeks beginning with the day on which this Act receives Royal Assent." — [Mr Tennyson.] Question put, That amendment No 6 be made. Mr Speaker: Again, I have been advised by the party Whips that, in accordance with Standing Order 27(1A)(b), there is agreement that we can dispense with the three minutes and move straight to the Division. The Assembly divided: Ayes 18; Noes 50 AYES Ms K Armstrong, Mr Blair, Ms Bradshaw, Mr Carroll, Mr Dickson, Mr Donnelly, Ms Egan, Mr Gaston, Mrs Guy, Mr Honeyford, Miss McAllister, Mr McMurray, Mr McReynolds, Mr Mathison, Mr Muir, Ms Mulholland, Ms Nicholl, Mr Tennyson Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Dickson, Ms Egan NOES Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Ms D Armstrong, Mr Baker, Mr Beattie, Mr Boylan, Mr Bradley, Mr Brett, Mr Brooks, Ms Brownlee, Mr K Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mr Burrows, Mr Butler, Mrs Cameron, Mr Chambers, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dillon, Mrs Dodds, Miss Dolan, Ms Ennis, Mrs Erskine, Ms Ferguson, Ms Finnegan, Ms Flynn, Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew, Mr Gildernew, Miss Hargey, Mr Harvey, Mr Irwin, Mr Kearney, Mr Kingston, Mrs Little-Pengelly, Mr Lyons, Mr McAleer, Mr McHugh, Miss McIlveen, Mr Martin, Mrs Mason, Mr Middleton, Ms Murphy, Mr Nesbitt, Mr O'Dowd, Ms Reilly, Mr Robinson, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Mr Stewart Tellers for the Noes: Mrs Dillon, Miss Dolan Mr Clarke acted as a proxy for Mrs Erskine. Ms Bradshaw acted as a proxy for Mr McReynolds. Question accordingly negatived. Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 12 and 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Mr Speaker: Before I put the Question, I remind Members that we have debated Timothy Gaston's opposition to the schedule, but the Question will be put in the positive as usual. Schedule 1 agreed to. Long title agreed to. Mr Speaker: That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker. I thank all Members who participated in the debate. It was done in a constructive and positive way, and I appreciate your efforts. Members should take their ease before we move to the next item of business. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Blair] in the Chair) The Coronavirus Act 2020 (Extension of Provisions Relating to Live Links for Courts and Tribunals) (No. 2) Order (Northern Ireland) 2025 Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): I beg to move That the Coronavirus Act 2020 (Extension of Provisions Relating to Live Links for Courts and Tribunals) (No. 2) Order (Northern Ireland) 2025 be approved. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time limit on the debate. Mrs Long: I seek the Assembly's approval for the Coronavirus Act 2020 (Extension of Provisions Relating to Live Links for Courts and Tribunals) (No. 2) Order (Northern Ireland) 2025, SR 2025/151. I am grateful to the Justice Committee and the Examiner of Statutory Rules for their scrutiny of the order. Article 2 extends the provisions allowing courts and statutory tribunals in Northern Ireland to receive evidence wholly or in part using audio or video conferencing systems, commonly referred to as "live links". Live links are primarily video systems that are utilised to facilitate the attendance of persons participating remotely in any court or tribunal hearing. The provisions are in addition to legislation that allows the use of a video link for a specific witness or defendant, with all other participants attending in the courtroom. The extension will allow us to maintain access until March 2026 to a digital tool that has proved to be an essential element of the toolkit for addressing the backlog of cases accrued during and since the pandemic. Members will recall, from the debates on similar motions for approval in 2024 and earlier this year, that we intend to put in place new primary legislation to provide a long-term legislative solution for live links in courts and tribunals. The Justice Bill, which, if enacted, will ultimately resolve the issue, was introduced last year and is at Committee Stage. Meanwhile, this further extension will allow us to maintain efficacy in the system. It will offer an avenue for wider access for participation in the courts where a judge is satisfied that that is in the interests of justice. I remain keen to have the Justice Bill in place as soon as reasonably practical, but it will be well into next year before that can happen, as the Bill's Committee Stage has been extended to March 2026. I am conscious of the concern expressed in past debates on similar motions about relying on emergency-related legislation and wish that there were a practical alternative to continuing to rely on the provisions as a temporary measure. However, there is justification for doing so, in that the legacy of the pandemic continues to have an impact on the justice system today. Top 4.45 pm Since the pandemic, Northern Ireland, like the other jurisdictions in the UK, has suffered a persistent backlog in the criminal courts. During the pandemic, more cases were received than disposed of in the criminal courts, which meant that the number of outstanding cases rose. The Department's analysis of live case numbers at any stage, and of processing times for cases that were completed at courts in the years 2019-2020 to 2024-25, indicate that the pandemic not only had an impact at that time but continues to do so. For example, the total number of live Crown Court cases from the point at which a person is charged or informed rose from 940 on 1 March 2020 to a peak of 1,642 on 1 April 2022. That figure remained high on 1 April 2025, at 1,591 cases, up 69·3% from the figure in 1 March 2020. The number of adult Magistrates' Court cases from the point at which a person is charged also rose from 25,604 on 1 March 2020 to a peak of 30,555 on 1 April 2021. That figure remained high on 1 April 2025 at 29,854 cases, which is an increase of 16% from the figure in March 2020. There have been also been percentage increases for live cases in the Crown Court over the same period. The number of Crown Court cases, from the first court date after the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) decision to prosecute in the Crown Court, rose from 898 in March 2020 to a peak of 1,612 on 1 April 2022. The level remained high, at 1,585, on 1 April 2025, which is a 76·5% increase on the 1 March 2020 figure. Within the adult Magistrates' Court, the number of cases from the first court date after the Public Prosecution Service decision to prosecute rose as a result of the pandemic, from 6,081 on 1 March 2020 to a peak of 10,545 on 1 April 2022. That number remained high, at 9,346 cases, on 1 April 2025, which is a 53·7% increase from the figure on 1 March 2020. The median number of days taken for a case to be completed in all courts from the date when an offence was reported to the date it was dealt with was 189 days in 2024-25, up 26·8% from 149 days in 2019-2020. That number reached a high of 226 days for cases that were dealt with in 2021-22. Similar impacts have been reported in England and Wales, as well as in Scotland. Although progress is being made, a substantial percentage of cases, adult and youth, have been with the Crown Court and Magistrates' Court for more than three years. While the pandemic is not the sole factor in the level of the backlogs, it is, nevertheless, a significant material factor. Other factors that play a role in the level of the backlogs include limited options for increasing case throughput by stakeholders, industrial action by other players in the criminal justice system and the extraordinary ongoing financial pressures that the Department faces. Maintaining access to live links has been identified as being an essential means of addressing the caseload backlog, particularly in the criminal courts, and it continues to be a useful tool in facilitating the efficient management of court time. The Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service reports that the number of SightLink connections consistently averages approximately 23,000 per month. SightLink is to be replaced by the end of 2025 with a bespoke justice video platform based on Webex and provided by NICS IT Assist. While there is no guarantee, based on current disposal rates, an optimistic timescale for Crown Courts and Magistrates' Courts to recover would be mid to late 2026. There remains support by court users, particularly those who advocate for victims of crime, for that avenue of participation to be available, subject to judicial approval, to those who would prefer not to attend a court in person. The use of those provisions aligns with commitments that were made, or are reflected in, the Victim Charter. Therefore, whilst I hope that I never have to repeat that lengthy introduction, as I untangle and wrestle with the wording of the motion, I commend the approval of the order to the Assembly and look forward to being in a position, hopefully in the near future, where we no longer have to rely on that temporary measure. Ms Egan: I put on record my support, and that of my party, for the extension of the regulations relating to the use of live links for courts and tribunals. As all Members across the Chamber will be aware, the renewing of the regulations is an item of business that has come to the Assembly on multiple occasions, modernising our legislation for practical and effective use in the 21st century. Live links play a key role in addressing case backlogs and ensuring access to justice in the most timely and appropriate way possible. The provisions are important in ensuring that those with accessibility requirements have an option to engage in justice in a way that best represents them. The regulations also have adequate safeguards in place: the judiciary must be satisfied that receiving evidence via live links is in the interests of justice and will provide a fair hearing. I look forward to supporting, in 2026, Minister Long's Justice Bill, which will aim to enshrine the important provisions in primary legislation. That is another reason that we must progress the Justice Bill swiftly and effectively through its Committee Stage. I urge all Members across the Chamber to vote in favour of further extending those successful regulations. Mr Frew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Justice): I am pleased to speak briefly on the motion as Chairperson of the Committee for Justice. I pay tribute to my predecessor, Joanne Bunting, for her work as Chairperson. This is the first opportunity that I have had to do so in the House officially as Chair of the Justice Committee. The Minister has outlined the intention of the statutory rule, which I will not repeat. It is the latest rule in a sequence of statutory rules to extend the provision of live links for courts and tribunals under section 90 of the Coronavirus Act 2020. The Committee has recommended that the Assembly approve all previous extensions, and, following consideration of the current rule, it maintains that position to extend the provisions until 24 March 2026. As the previous Committee Chairperson informed the House, the Committee has sought assurances from the Justice Minister that the continuation of the use of powers in the Coronavirus Act 2020 remained appropriate and proportionate as an interim arrangement until a permanent provision could be established by means of primary legislation. The House will be aware that the Minister indicated that she plans to introduce an amendment to the Justice Bill at Consideration Stage to make permanent provision for the use of live links in courts and tribunals. That will bring Northern Ireland into line with neighbouring jurisdictions. The Committee continues to receive evidence on live links as part of its scrutiny work on the Bill and its amendments. The Committee considered the rule at its meeting on 16 October 2025. That included consideration of the Examiner of Statutory Rules's report, which raised no issues regarding the technical aspects of the rule. The Committee agreed to recommend that the rule be approved by the Assembly. Therefore, on behalf of the Committee for Justice, I support the motion. I will now speak briefly as an individual MLA and the DUP's justice spokesperson. You will know my views on the Coronavirus Act and what it meant for Northern Ireland and its people: how it harmed our people and destroyed democracy in the Chamber. It turned the Chamber into a zombie Assembly, which I detested. I fought every day against the harmful measures that originated in the Department of Health and were implemented by the Executive. You will all know my views, but I supported wholeheartedly two aspects of the Coronavirus Act. We discussed one earlier: the remote, electronic registration of deaths, stillbirths and births. The second one is what we are talking about now: wider access to the courts through live links. That has been very important to the justice system. I will support anything good that comes out of this place, no matter what vehicle it comes in, so I support access to live links and the wider access to justice that that brings about. Over the years, the fact that we have had to roll on the extension six months after six months after six months, when it has always been a good idea, has frustrated me. It was always a good idea, even before the COVID pandemic, and we could ask the question: "Why did we not think of that before the necessity of the COVID pandemic?", and so, we find ourselves here. The Minister is quite right when she states that she is now using the vehicle of the Justice Bill to put these measures on a permanent footing. I welcome that, but I also regret the fact that she had to do it through an amendment that we will see and debate at Consideration Stage, instead of bringing it in the Bill at Second Reading, when we could all have debated the merits of and the reasons that we need it to continue. Notwithstanding all of that, I, as DUP justice spokesperson, am content to support the motion. I hope that there will not be too many more extensions of this provision of the Coronavirus Act and that it can be repealed in the same way in which we discussed repealing the finance provision earlier. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you. As there are no other Members listed to speak, I ask the Minister of Justice to conclude the debate and make a winding-up speech on the motion. Mrs Long: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and thanks to those Members who contributed to today's discussion. I have a couple of things to say. In addition to enabling access to justice, which is absolutely critical, this legislation has a role in speeding up justice and in bringing some economic efficiencies to bear on the system, so it has been very important for us to get this right. It is a complex area. Necessity drove the process forward. I understand the point that the Chair makes in asking why nobody had thought of it before, but, of course, we had, and we had sought to engage with our justice partners. That engagement was slightly slow and tenuous in the beginning, but necessity drove engagement on it, and it had to be implemented to sustain court business during the COVID period. That experience of using live links and remote access is something that we can learn from. Very often, people allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good, and we look for everything to be completely tested and thoroughly driven before we are willing to step out and give it a go. In this case, we did not have that luxury, but we found that it worked incredibly well. The issues that arose as a result of live links were ironed out pretty quickly in the courts. When it comes to wider reform around the delivery of justice, we also have to bear in mind that it will require us to have a greater risk appetite than, perhaps, we have had in the past if we want to make real change to the speed with which we can deal with issues in the justice system. It is incredibly important that live links are available so that people have the opportunity, often through no fault of their own, to be compelled to engage in the justice system. The pressure that that puts on them and, often, on their legal representatives, can be very challenging. Live links can provide an avenue of communication that may reduce that stress or reduce the other pressures that participation in court hearings might bring. We did take advice on the six-monthly rolling review. Unfortunately, it would not be proportionate for us to do it in a longer block. The six months is all that is allowed for in the original Coronavirus Act, so, unfortunately — speaking as the realist that I am — even if the Committee were to take great haste on its way through the rest of the Bill, we will have still have at least one more rolling review to face, if not, two. However, at least we do it secure in the knowledge that primary legislation on live links is proceeding and that the Committee will have an opportunity, as will the House, to properly scrutinise the basis upon which we will take that forward. Knowing that we had the experience and tested it thoroughly during the COVID period, I would certainly like to see the uptake of live links start to go up again, their having fallen quite dramatically after COVID. I would love to see them being more widely used, because the potential for efficiency savings, in both time and money, would be significant to court users, the system itself and all our justice partners. It is something that I feel quite passionate about. I hope that that addresses all —. Well, I will not say "all" the issues that the Member had, because I know that the Member has many, many issues with the coronavirus legislation that are way above my pay grade. However, I hope that that has answered the main questions in relation to this particular legislation, and I thank the Members who engaged in the debate this afternoon. Question put and agreed to. Resolved: That the Coronavirus Act 2020 (Extension of Provisions Relating to Live Links for Courts and Tribunals) (No. 2) Order (Northern Ireland) 2025 be approved. Top 5.00 pm Private Members' Business Supporting Service Leavers, Veterans and their Families Mr Frew: I beg to move That this Assembly recognises that the transferable skills developed by many armed forces service leavers and veterans can make an important contribution to our economy and build stronger communities; believes that those serving, service leavers, veterans and their families should not face disadvantage as a result of their military service when accessing services, including healthcare, education and housing; welcomes, in that context, the legal duty placed on a range of public bodies in Northern Ireland to have due regard to the principles of the armed forces covenant; calls on the Executive to ensure that Departments meet that duty, including by appointing a departmental armed forces liaison officer; and further calls for closer collaboration between government, employers, education providers and veterans’ organisations, which is essential to support the successful transition to civilian life, and in the interests of a shared and inclusive society. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who speak will have five minutes. Mr Frew, please open the debate on the motion. Mr Frew: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am delighted that we have a motion today that has been supported by four of the parties in the House. That does my heart good not only because four parties have signed the motion and agreed its wording but because the subject matter is very close to my heart and to that of many families throughout the Province. The armed forces covenant is a vital commitment that aims to ensure that members of the armed forces community, including veterans, service leavers and their families are not disadvantaged in areas such as health, housing and education. In Northern Ireland, however, real and perceived challenges continue to affect the armed forces community, largely stemming from a lack of strategic discussion and policy implementation around the covenant. That has created gaps in communication and understanding, leaving some veterans and their families feeling that they may face disadvantage even when none is intended. One of the key issues is the ability of veterans to safely and confidently identify their status. For many years, service personnel were, for security reasons, advised to maintain a low profile, use an alias and avoid disclosing details of their service. In a post-operational environment, where reintegration and normalisation should be the focus, that culture of concealment can hinder access to support services. For service families, that can be particularly acute in areas such as education. For example, a family moving from England to Northern Ireland or returning from a posting elsewhere in the UK or abroad may encounter difficulties if a child has a special educational needs statement that was issued elsewhere. Such statements are not always fully recognised, which can disrupt the continuity of educational support and care. Veterans also face challenges in housing and health provision. In some areas of Northern Ireland, housing allocations may place veterans in locations where they feel unsafe due to past service-related experiences. Veterans may also hesitate to disclose their status to healthcare professionals, including GPs and those in hospitals and mental health services, due to concerns about misunderstanding or lack of empathy. That can prevent them from accessing statutory or third-sector support that could alleviate the pressures on them and on public services. Much of that stems from the absence of accessible armed forces champions in Departments or services. Veterans need a clear and safe point of contact where they can ask questions and access support without fear of prejudice or disadvantage. While the armed forces question is now widely included in national censuses elsewhere in the UK, it remains absent in Northern Ireland, leaving the local veteran population under-recognised in planning and service delivery. It is essential that veterans living in Northern Ireland are acknowledged, valued and supported. They have served with dignity and professionalism, and they should not experience disadvantage because of their service. Strengthening the implementation of the armed forces covenant in Northern Ireland is a crucial step forward in ensuring that veterans and their families can access fair and equitable support in all areas of public life. As we look at conflict around the world, we see that peace, democracy and sovereignty can never be taken for granted. Northern Ireland is playing its part. We are proud to contribute more reservists per capita than anywhere else in the UK. That highlights the deep commitment of our people to serve us and keep us safe. The armed forces protect and serve the community from whom they recruit. Defence and business must work closely together in the world's changing landscape. That is laid out in the 2025 strategic defence review, which said that it would put personnel at the heart of the UK's defence. The skill set in the armed forces could be of great benefit to our economy and the communities across Northern Ireland, if those skills were celebrated and harnessed. There is a misconception among many in our society when they are asked to think of a veteran. They imagine older gentlemen in their later years of life. However, there are also many veterans and service leavers who are young — like me [Laughter] — and in middle age who are highly trained professionals and an asset to our communities. They have a skill set that should be harnessed and supported. We know that reservists are an essential part of the UK's defence strategy. They are called on as individuals for their specific skills or as units to serve alongside the regular forces when required. They have expertise in engineering, logistics and digital sectors and skills in leadership and resilience. They are an asset that can strengthen our economy and national security. Reserve-trained employees bring many professional advantages to civilian roles. The strategic defence review highlighted the overlap in leadership, programme management, cyber, digital and data skills between warfighting and modern workplaces. Northern Ireland has strong engineering and digital sectors, and it is uniquely positioned to contribute to the defence need for innovation. Defence is an integral part of the UK economy and wider society. It supports 440,000 highly qualified jobs and drives social mobility through the training offered to armed forces personnel and civil servants, with over 24,000 apprenticeships. That is what reservists bring; that is what veterans bring; and that is what the armed forces bring to our communities and way of life. That is why we must support our armed forces and the people in them, be they regular forces or reservists. They are a vital cog in the machine of society and defence. That is why, through our Departments and councils, we must protect them and ensure that they are never disadvantaged. However, because of their service, and because of how they contribute to the safety and defence of our people, they sometimes are disadvantaged, or, if they are not actually disadvantaged, they feel as if they are, and that is just as bad. That is something that we should not tolerate. These people should be commended for stepping forward to protect us, our families, our homelands and, indeed, the world from terror and wars. That is what being in the armed forces is all about. It is also about a friendship group, teamwork and being together. Sometimes, you can feel very alone when you leave that environment, because, for three, six, nine, 12, 15 or 22 years, someone had your back. Someone was always at your side. Sometimes, when you leave that environment, you can feel exposed. You can feel alone. If you do not have the support of a government agency with housing, health and education for your family, it can make the feeling of alienation and the concerns about safety and security 100 times worse. They always have to check under their car, that the lights are working and whether someone is following them from their home or their work. That is real, and we need to make sure that our veterans are supported so that they do not feel alone and vulnerable. Where should that support start? It should start with our Executive Departments; the Departments in this country that have the power and responsibility to support our veterans, our people who went overseas to foreign lands and fought on our behalf for our safety but also those who fought in this land against terrorist fire. It is important that the Departments in this place support our veterans and their families. Ms Sheerin: I rise to oppose the motion on the basis that it promotes inequality and pits one group in society against others, which is something that my party opposes. Sinn Féin supports the provision of public services on the basis of objective need. We believe that there should be equality of opportunity and equality of access to public services across the board. We should treat everyone equally. The objective of the motion is to ensure that nobody faces disadvantage, and we wholeheartedly agree with that. No one should face disadvantage because of their political ideology or their background, but, problematically, the motion goes much further in requiring the Executive to go beyond the meaning of "due regard" in the armed forces covenant. Obviously, the 1998 Good Friday Agreement copper-fastened our right to be Irish, British or both, and there has to be a reflection of the fact that people have a right to reject symbolic elements of the armed forces covenant. Obviously, I fall into that category. We have to oppose the motion because it requests that one section of society be held in higher esteem than others. I reiterate that we do not want to see anyone discriminated against or disadvantaged because of their past service in the British Army, military, forces or whatever the case may be. We do not need duplication of services; we already have a Victims' Commissioner whose role is to engage with public services and ensure that those who have served in the British Army can access the support that they need. It is an unnecessary request and something that we cannot support. Mr Allen: Will the Member give way? Ms Sheerin: I will give way. Mr Allen: It appears to me that the Member is struggling to conjure up words to oppose the motion. There is no difficulty in the motion about having "due regard", and that is clearly set out. She then talked about individuals not being disadvantaged, and that is what the motion is about. If they fundamentally believe in individuals not being disadvantaged, there will be no difficulty in supporting the motion. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute. Ms Sheerin: Apologies: I said clearly at the start, in clear English, that we oppose the motion. I have no issue in articulating that. I have said that no one should be disadvantaged, but the motion calls for one section of society to be given extra support. It goes beyond the meaning of "due regard", and I have stated that clearly. Top 5.15 pm Ms Bradshaw: I am pleased to speak in support of the motion. I thank the motion's sponsors for allowing me to put my name to it in the Order Paper. It is important that we try, as far as possible in this place, to not view this being as a green versus orange issue. I appreciate that there are many in our society who view the armed forces exclusively through the British state lens and that hurt remains as a result of some incidents that happened during the Troubles. I am very much aware of that. However, the motion focuses on the present. It rightly recognises the immense contribution of our serving personnel, service leavers, veterans and their families, and, crucially, it calls for practical action in adhering to the armed forces covenant to ensure that no one faces disadvantage in accessing public services. It is understandable that, here in Northern Ireland, we associate the armed forces with conflict. However, I recognise that their work extends far beyond the battlefield. Around the world, servicemen and servicewomen are on the front line in securing and maintaining peace, delivering humanitarian aid, supporting post-conflict societies and rebuilding the very foundations of civic governance. For example, when we think of the devastation that has recently been visited upon the island of Jamaica, not many of us will be cognisant of the fact that HMS Trent is standing by ready to deliver humanitarian assistance and help with recovery efforts on the island. The transition to civilian life is not always straightforward, something to which veterans' associations can attest. For some, it means leaving behind a job and, in some ways, an identity, a sense of belonging and a shared purpose. There is also the impact that spending years on active service will have had on many people's health — I am thinking of mental and physical injuries — and on their ability to secure housing and, in turn, stability. For example, many veterans will have been on active duty overseas when their peers were getting on the property ladder and buying houses, . Furthermore, there are servicemen and servicewomen who have dedicated time and effort to getting trained in specialised roles in the armed forces but found that those qualifications and skills are not fully transferable to other trades and sectors. That is precisely why the armed forces covenant matters. It is a commitment to equality. The recent legal duty that was placed on our public bodies to uphold the covenant is a welcome step, but, as always, the key is delivery. Every Department, from Economy to Health, must now actively demonstrate how it is meeting that duty. While I appreciate that every Department is facing significant budgetary constraints, I sympathise with the idea of a dedicated departmental armed forces liaison officer to ensure that the needs of veterans and their families are understood and acted upon. This is not about hierarchy; it is about equality, respect and opportunity, and it is about ensuring that those who have served globally are supported when they return home. I did not think that it would be appropriate to try to amend the motion, knowing the work that the Veterans Commissioner and others have engaged in for many weeks and months in order to agree its wording. However, we, as an Assembly, should consider writing to the Secretary of State regarding section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act. I would like to see the Secretary of State reviewing the list of protected characteristics under section 75 to assess whether it would be appropriate or necessary to include ex-service personnel. I have said publicly at the Executive Office Committee several times that that review could also look at greater protections for minority language speakers, the Travelling community and looked-after children. Those are just some examples. There are possibly other sections of society that need extra protection to ensure that they are not being disadvantaged and discriminated against. As an Alliance representative, I see providing protection for veterans against discrimination as being an integral part of building a shared and inclusive society that respects different experiences and builds bridges not barriers. I support the motion, not only to honour servicemen and servicewomen but to help us in the Assembly to live up to our highest values of fairness, inclusion and equality for all. Let us ensure that our commitment to the covenant is not just written in law but lived out in practice through real support and opportunity for all those who have served. Mr Stewart: I support this important cross-party motion. I thank the Members who tabled the motion, as well as the Veterans Commissioner and his staff, for carefully wording the motion and for all the efforts that have gone into it. The motion recognises the enormous contribution of all who have served and continue to serve and the families who stand beside them. I declare an interest as a proud member of His Majesty's Reserve Army. I am very proud to continue to serve alongside hundreds of men and women from across Northern Ireland and from every background, tradition and walk of life. They are the very best of us. I am also immensely proud to be in an MLA team and a party that has a proud tradition of service. I look to my party colleagues on my left: that service and commitment can be no better demonstrated by Andy Allen. We all know the difficulties that Andy has faced, having served on the front line for the nation. I pay tribute to each and every one of my colleagues and every single person who has served our nation over the years. Through my experience, I have seen, at first-hand, the skills, discipline, teamwork and leadership that military service instils. Those are qualities that our economy and our communities need now more than ever, whether, as the proposer of the motion said, that be in engineering, logistics, healthcare, IT or management. Those who are leaving the forces have transferable skills that represent a powerful asset for employers and our society alike. They will and do make a valuable contribution. The motion also reminds us that, while service brings strength, it can also bring challenges. The transition from military to civilian life is not always straightforward. We have heard examples of that: finding new employment, adapting to different routines and accessing healthcare, housing and education for you and your family members can all be difficult steps. That is why the armed forces covenant matters. Its guiding principle is simple but profound: no one should suffer disadvantage as a result of their service. It is not about special treatment; it is about fair treatment. It is about recognising the unique sacrifices that are made by our service personnel and their families, and ensuring that they are not left behind when they return to civilian life. As has been mentioned in the debate, we have made progress in Northern Ireland. The legal duty that has been placed on public bodies to have due regard for the covenant is a significant step forward, but legislation alone is not enough; it must be actively implemented. Departments must be aware of their responsibilities; staff must be trained; and veterans must see the benefits in real terms, and not be hard done by, when it comes to access to GPs, schools and housing offices. That is why I particularly welcome the fact that the motion calls on each Department to appoint an armed forces liaison officer. Having a clear point of contact within government will make a real difference, ensuring that the covenant is not just a statement of intent but a working framework that delivers support on the ground. I agree with the Members who mentioned the particular role of councils. In 2014, I was proud to introduce the local government covenant to Mid and East Antrim Borough Council. Given the overlap between services, it is essential that central and local government work together to ensure that all the service provision is there. We also need stronger collaboration between government, employers, education providers and veterans' organisations. Many local charities and community groups already do superb work to support veterans with job training, counselling and welfare advice, but, too often, their efforts operate in isolation. We can and should join up that support so that every service leaver knows where they can get help to succeed in civilian life. I say this very clearly: the armed forces community belongs to each and every one of us; it transcends politics and background. The men and women whom I, and veterans across Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, have served with come from every single background in our community in Northern Ireland, whether that be rural or urban. They are the shared fabric of our society. Supporting our armed forces veterans is not a partisan issue; it is a shared moral responsibility. I commend the motion to the House and, again, thank everyone who brought it forward. Let us ensure that the promises of the armed forces covenant are fully delivered in Northern Ireland so that no veteran or member of their family feels forgotten and we harness the immense potential that they bring to our society and economy. Mr O'Toole: We will not be supporting the motion. I want to put some context to that, offer some clarity and engage in an honest way with the text of the motion but also reflect on some of the challenges of the motion and why we cannot support it. However, I acknowledge some of the issues and concerns, and why people are so understandably passionate. First of all, I acknowledge the importance of service, and the bravery and courage of many service personnel and their families, what they go through and the sacrifices that they make. Those are real things. I would not diminish them in general, and I certainly would not diminish them, particularly when talking to veterans. John Stewart is right that we are talking about veterans who are not exclusively from a unionist background, but it is true to say that it is deeply resonant for people from the unionist community, and we are coming up to Remembrance Day. Having acknowledged all that context, and the challenges that people from veteran backgrounds, including people in the Chamber, have faced, I just do not think that we can support the motion because we have to acknowledge the many and real ways that Northern Ireland is different. That is not to say that veterans who are from here and live here do not deserve equal right to services. They absolutely do, and let us be clear and on the record in saying that of course they do, and that includes to do with issues that have arisen from their service. However, Northern Ireland is different from other parts of the UK. Northern Ireland is, of course, the site of the longest deployment by the British military anywhere. That was Operation Banner. That has created a post-conflict context, and having acknowledged, as I did sincerely, the service of many personnel, it would be wrong of me and others not to acknowledge the fact that many people's experience of the British military here in the North of Ireland is not quite the same as that of people in England. That is to put it mildly. Mr Beattie: I thank the Member for giving way. He mentioned Operation Banner, and that is a fair and historic point. However, he does know, of course, that Operation Banner ended, and Operation Helvetic started, and it runs today. The very same soldiers whom we are talking about are the very same soldiers who go out to your community to defuse bombs, even today. Some Members: Hear, hear. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute. Mr O'Toole: As I said, I am not diminishing the service of all individuals, nor am I saying that those people do not deserve fair treatment and equal service. They do, absolutely. However, I am saying, and I stand by this point, that we are in a different context here. This is a more contested space, and it is true to say that the legacy of the conflict runs deep in many communities. I also said — I took time to say it and I meant it sincerely — that I acknowledge the very real service of individuals, their families and, indeed, the broad affinity with the history of service, particularly for the British military, and I will be laying a laurel wreath myself next week, out the front of this Building. It is true to say that we have equality provisions in law here. It is also true to say that the military covenant does actually apply to Northern Ireland. What the motion is calling for is, in a sense, to go further than that and create — I know that people dislike this comparison — a special category of individuals to have access to additional rights or additional support. I want all serving and former personnel to absolutely get fair provisions — Mr Allen: Will the Member give way? Mr O'Toole: I will in one second. I want all serving and former personnel to get absolutely fair access to services. Inevitably, however, the question will be asked as to why we would create a distinct category of support for that one group in the context that I talked about. Mr Allen: I thank the Member for giving way. The Member highlights some of his difficulty in supporting the text of the motion, and it seems to be around the armed forces liaison officer. Would it not be fair to say that that would be at no additional cost, and it is important that we have the ability for Departments to engage and interact with those affected, and, in turn, remove that disadvantage that we talk about? Mr O'Toole: I did not use the word "disadvantage". I believe that Paul Givan used that specific word earlier in the debate. [Interruption.] Apologies. Sincere apologies. [Laughter.] It was Paul Frew. I put my sincere and genuine apologies to Mr Frew on the record. I really did not mean that. Mr Frew talked about perceived disadvantage. [Laughter.] The perception is not always quite the same as reality, but I acknowledge that there are service personnel who face real challenges. I have tried to be respectful in this debate. I gently say to some colleagues across the Chamber that, in recent weeks, there have been a couple of moments when they could have been so much more generous and thoughtful in how they talked about a particular issue in relation to service personnel in Derry. I do not want to go there in this debate, but it is important that we talk respectfully about such things. Top 5.30 pm We will not be able to support the motion, but that is not to say that I do not acknowledge that service personnel and their families face real issues. In the context of Northern Ireland, we cannot support the text of the motion or the armed forces covenant being given an excess of status. That is not to say that I do not acknowledge that there are issues that service personnel face. We will not support the motion, but I hope that the debate continues in as respectful a tone as possible. Mr Buckley: I am proud to support the motion. It has been a particularly immense privilege to work, from the very genesis of the motion, alongside the UUP's Andy Allen and the TUV's Timothy Gaston to ensure that it could be presented jointly. Our community has long called for such joint leadership, and I hope that that continues. I pay tribute to the Veterans Commissioner for Northern Ireland, David Johnstone, and his team. They have coordinated and worked with us to ensure that we presented a motion that could get broad consensus in the House to reflect accurately our deep appreciation of all the men and women who have served our country in our armed forces. To Members of the House, present and past, who have served, we thank you sincerely for that service. The men and women of our armed services embody courage, professionalism and self-sacrifice. They stand ready, often at great personal cost, to protect our freedoms and uphold peace not just abroad but, indeed, as has been mentioned, here at home. It is only right that the Assembly demonstrates our commitment to them in return. The armed forces covenant is built on two simple principles. The first is "no disadvantage". No serving or former member of the armed forces nor their families should be at a disadvantage when accessing public services such as healthcare, housing or education. The second is "special consideration", particularly for those who have been injured or bereaved in the line of duty. Those principles are not just throwaway remarks or words on paper. They are a moral obligation: the nation's promise to those who have already given this society so much. Through 'New Decade, New Approach' (NDNA), the DUP fought to ensure that the covenant would be properly enshrined in law here, alongside the appointment of a Veterans Commissioner. The legal duty now applies to a range of public bodies across Northern Ireland, but the real litmus test is how we give life to those commitments. Implementation must be robust, not rhetorical. Mr Frew: Will the Member give way? Mr Buckley: I will indeed. Mr Frew: The Member makes a valid point, and I am glad that he mentioned the Veterans Commissioner, because we should be grateful for the commissioner's work. He mentioned the duty that is placed on the Departments. That duty should not be one that Departments see as having to be done. In doing that duty, there has to be a spirit of commitment to our veterans, not of it just being something that they are obliged to do. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute. Mr Buckley: I thank the Member. In making my earlier point, I omitted to thank him for his work. He stretches the definition of "young" at times [Laughter] but I can assure you of his youthful and energetic approach to ensuring that this debate happened. It really was of personal note, and I thank him for it. He makes a strong point. He went on to outline the significant contribution that the UK defence sector makes across the United Kingdom: it provides 440,000 jobs. He highlighted how former service personnel, with their characteristic discipline and highly trained adaptability, can be transformational to industry in Northern Ireland. However, I want to focus on a particular challenge, and we must be honest about the challenges that many veterans continue to experience. Ms Sheerin: Will the Member give way? Mr Buckley: I will, if I have time. I want to make this point. Among veterans aged 25 to 44, the rate of suicide remains higher than that of the general population. That truth cannot be ignored. We owe it to them to ensure that our health services and, indeed, every Department are responsible, compassionate and proactive. That is why the appointment of a departmental armed forces liaison officer, which the motion calls for, would be a vital step in ensuring accountability in this area. Ms Sheerin: I thank the Member for giving way. Other Members have referred to the perceived disadvantage or challenges faced by ex-servicepeople. Is the Member able to outline for me specific challenges faced by people as a result of being abroad with the armed forces that are not faced by migrant workers who come here and have difficulties accessing services? Mr Buckley: The first point that I will make to the Member is that they do so in service to this nation. The second point is that to brashly put it across that they may not face significant challenges is a denial of the reality that they continue to live in. Whether it is their families, as mentioned by Mr Frew, or their personal security, they continue to face significant challenges. I will just say this: let the motion be a clear example of what the Assembly can achieve when it works together, because we value our armed forces and understand the challenges that they face. We will ensure that — Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up. Mr Buckley: — their service is always safeguarded and protected. We are so thankful for that service. Mr Dickson: As my colleague Paula Bradshaw said, the Alliance Party is pleased to support the motion. Indeed, we do so as a party that is proud to count among its members service leavers, veterans and their families. The motion, at its heart, is about fairness and about the simple fact that serving your country should never be a source of disadvantage for you or your family. It is not about asking for special treatment but about recognising the real barriers faced by those who have spent years serving elsewhere when they return home. The armed forces covenant is a promise — a promise that no one who has served should be left behind. We must therefore recognise the progress that has been made. Since the Armed Forces Act 2021, public bodies have had a legal duty to consider the covenant in healthcare, education and housing. We can see that in the Department of Education's pupil premium for service children and the Housing Executive's work on fair access. Those are both positive and tangible steps, and they show that Departments are taking their duties seriously. However, let us be clear: progress is uneven. While some Departments have forged ahead, others are behind, and, critically, we are flying blind. The Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) estimates that there are between 40,000 and 60,000 veterans in Northern Ireland, yet, without a census question, we are making policy in the dark. If we do not have the data, how can we know whether our measures are truly working or where the most urgent gaps remain? It is not just a local challenge. The Defence Committee in Westminster recently found that access to the covenant's support has been a postcode lottery across the UK. That alone tells us that we need to be consistent in delivery and stronger in coordination. The covenant truly works only when every part of government, every employer and every Education Department pulls in the same direction. That is the core of the motion. It is a call for joined-up leadership so that, no matter which door a veteran or their family walk through, they will receive consistent, fair and informed responses. When we open those doors, we must remember what service leavers bring back to our society. They come home, as others have said, with skills in leadership, teamwork, engineering and logistics. They are proven problem-solvers who are accustomed to working to a common goal. Helping them settle into civilian life is not just a moral duty; it is a smart economic investment. Veterans do not just need support; they strengthen our workforces and enrich our communities. We should also acknowledge the work of those who are already leading the way. Organisations like the Royal British Legion, the Soldiers', Sailors' and Airmen's Families Association, Brooke House and the Reserve Forces' and Cadets' Associations support well-being, provide vital advice and connect the armed forces community to wider society. Their work is living proof that it is partnership, not politics, that delivers real results. Let me tell you about one veteran, Jacqui. She was always destined to wear a uniform and was proud to be in the Royal Air Force. She relished the camaraderie and the travel until, one day, the pressure hit her. It consumed her. Battling depression, she turned to alcohol. Leaving the RAF and taking off her uniform did not take away her problems; it took away her support network. Alone in civvy street, her problems grew. She struggled to find permanent work and took out loans just to survive. With military friends spread far and wide, all those relationships broke down. It was on the day that she looked in her purse and saw that she was down to her last 60p that Jacqui, ashamed and fearful of judgement, contacted the Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen’s Families Association. Her caseworker did not judge her. She saw a mother doing her best and in need of urgent help. Jacqui said that Cathy's kindness as her caseworker meant that she opened up about her situation. Cathy provided her with food parcels before referring her to a charity to help with counselling. Once her debts were consolidated, she had more money to live on and stopped dreading the letters on the doormat. Cathy understood that leaving the military had destroyed Jacqui's confidence and that the community was key to improving her mental health. She invited Jacqui to weekly meet-ups with other veterans, and it became her safe space. She has since met a new partner, and her life has changed beyond recognition. Supporting our veterans should, can and must be a unifying issue for the Assembly. This is about fairness, opportunity and respect. When we remove disadvantage, we strengthen not just the veteran community — Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up. Mr Dickson: — but the very fabric of Northern Ireland. Ms Brownlee: Northern Ireland has a long and proud history and an affinity with the armed forces. It is poignant that we debate today's motion during a time of national remembrance. Every one of us in the Chamber today and across Northern Ireland benefits from the immense sacrifices made by so many veterans and serving armed forces personnel. Of course, it is incumbent on us all to ensure that those who have sacrificed so much are supported. The DUP has always been clear about its strong support for our veterans and armed forces. We secured and worked on the creation of the Veterans Commissioner for Northern Ireland and the progression of legislation on the armed forces covenant through the New Decade, New Approach agreement. In my consistency of East Antrim, we have some incredible individuals and organisations that work tirelessly to support our veterans and armed forces community, such as the Royal British Legion, the UDR veterans association and the cadets association, to name just a few. There are so many incredible organisations throughout Northern Ireland, and it is a pleasure to work with them. I thank them so much for the work that they do. Veterans' champions have been appointed across a number of councils and are heavily involved in supporting our military service personnel through practical support and events such as veterans' breakfasts and social gatherings, as well as signposting them to support and advice. However, as has just been highlighted, the problem is that that is not happening across the board. It is not equal, and it is not fair. No one should ever be disadvantaged because of their postcode. The transition from life in uniform to civvy street is significant and can be fraught with uncertainty and challenge. We have heard about the high suicide rates. We have heard about addiction. We have heard about the struggle to gain a house and stay in it. I have spoken to veterans who have found a property but cannot stay there. They are not used to it, because it is not the environment in which they grew up and lived for so long. It is incredibly difficult for them, and they need additional support. Only a few weeks ago, I was honoured to attend the Northern Irish Veterans Awards. It was fantastic to see so many of our local businesses recognising and supporting our veterans and utilising their transferable skills. Both my colleagues mentioned the strategic defence review, as well as the jobs that the defence sectors across the UK create and the benefits of that for the economy. We have mentioned here today the duty that is placed on public authorities in Northern Ireland to give due regard to the unique circumstances facing our service personnel in housing, education and healthcare. I was delighted with the response that I received recently from our Minister of Education on the topic in which he detailed the additional funding for schools, including for transport and to ensure that children of service personnel are not discriminated against in the admissions process, and the fact that they are working closely with the children's education support officer for Northern Ireland, who looks after the children of service personnel in Northern Ireland on education matters. I thank the Minister for his work in that field and for recognising how important it is. He has instructed his officials to undertake a review of current practices in order to identify opportunities for further enhancement. Top 5.45 pm We should always be looking for better ways to protect those who have sacrificed so much to protect us and our freedoms. It will never again be possible for any Minister to wrongly claim that the armed forces covenant does not apply in Northern Ireland. There is a clear legal duty on our Departments that cannot be ignored. I am immensely proud of our servicemen and servicewomen and our veterans. All of us on the Benches on this side of the House will continue to ensure that we support them in every way we can. Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way and for pointing to the example of the Education Minister stepping up to support veterans' families. Does she agree that, if the same approach was adopted across all Departments, our veterans would be in a better place? Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute. Ms Brownlee: Thank you. I totally agree. It is incumbent on all Ministers to realise the importance of the veterans community and the disadvantage that veterans experience. Some people do not realise what it is like to come back from serving, how difficult it is and what the challenges are. I have learned so much from my engagement, and I want to see what more we can do and find out more about the challenges that veterans face. It is about all of us opening our eyes to the challenges and barriers that veterans face that we may not even have realised were there. We owe veterans so much. It is high time that we all stepped up to recognise not just their sacrifice but their continued contribution to society. The issue deserves so much more than gratitude; it demands commitment from us all. Miss Hargey: Thank you to those who have spoken. Emma highlighted that we will oppose the motion. I had not intended to speak, but I have been listening intently to all the contributions. As Matthew touched on, we are a society that is emerging from decades or, going back, centuries of conflict. As a result, although people have spoken passionately about veterans and the British Army being their army, that is not reflective of all of society here. It is important to say that. We have a complex and layered history, which means that these things do not run in straight lines. I had a great-grandfather who fought with the British Army in the First World War. He joined the British Army in Ireland as a young person. My father was tortured in Palace Barracks, not too far from here, in the early 1970s. He was arrested under the Special Powers Act and then interned and tortured. We are still grappling with the impact of the conflict here and with how to resolve those issues. Dr Aiken: Will the Member give way? Miss Hargey: Yes, of course. Dr Aiken: Thank you very much. I was not going to intervene, but I have a question. Of the people from Northern Ireland who are currently in the British armed forces, approximately 40% come from what we would describe as a "nationalist" or "republican" background. They have joined the armed forces because they want to serve this nation. We say that there are two communities here, but would the Member agree that there are many people from all communities across Northern Ireland who serve in our wonderful armed forces and that they are doing a fantastic job, keeping our nation safe? Miss Hargey: That is your perspective, Steve. I never mentioned two communities. I spoke about there being different perspectives and narratives in the community here. We have a conflicted history. It may be your army, but it certainly is not mine, albeit my history does not run in straight lines, as I have shared. Even though my father was tortured by the British Army and died early as a result of those injuries, I do not agree that anybody in our community or across society should be discriminated against, whether that is in housing or health. Such inequalities have to be addressed on the basis of objective need. Another Member mentioned changing the protected characteristics in section 75. If there was to be any change to that, the biggest issue to address in order to have an impact on inequality would be social class. When we look at issues affecting those in working-class communities, whether they are a working-class British Army soldier, a working-class republican or a working-class migrant, we see that they are discriminated against not because of those characteristics or backgrounds but because of where they were born and their social class. That has a bigger impact on inequalities in health, education, childcare, where people live and how long they will live. I would much prefer to have a conversation about social class, because that would have a bigger impact and address those issues on the basis of objective need, rather than lifting one need above another. Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Member for giving way. I listed a few examples, but I totally agree that socio-economic background could be looked at as a category. However, some people sign up for the armed forces to escape poverty, because they see the opportunities that would be afforded to them through the different forces. I want that to be on the record too. Miss Hargey: My point is that, if you looked at social class, you would pick up not only those people but everybody else. You would not elevate one over the other; again, it would be done on the basis of objective need. That is the core theme of our point and, unfortunately, our opposition to the motion. Mr Gaston: It is fitting that the motion comes before the House on the Assembly's final sitting day before Remembrance Sunday. In a few days, men, women and children across Northern Ireland will stand in silence. We will lay wreaths and honour courage, sacrifice and duty. Remembrance, however, cannot be a mere sentiment; it must be practical. If our words and actions on Sunday are to be sincere, our actions in the Chamber will reflect them. The motion recognises the value that our service personnel, veterans and their families bring to our society. It affirms that they should not be disadvantaged in accessing services. It welcomes the legal duty to give due regard to the armed forces covenant. On paper, it is sound, but we must be honest with ourselves: the experience of too many veterans here tells us a different story. Earlier this week, some of us from my office spoke with a veteran who was injured while serving his country. We showed him the motion and asked him to give his thoughts on it. I quote some of what he said: "The motion is fine on paper, but the reality on the ground is very different for most veterans here. A lot of us are still waiting years for treatment for injuries we got while serving." He went on: "Veterans with medical discharge paperwork are still treated like they are trying to cheat the system. PIP assessors do not understand service-related injuries, and you have to keep proving the same injury over and over during each review. Northern Ireland is the only part of the UK with no proper veterans' mental health service. Charities are doing the work that Government should be doing. " Here is perhaps the most sobering line of all: "Veterans don't want praise or pity. We just want the covenant honoured in practice, not just mentioned in debates." If we ask people to risk life and limb for their country, we owe them more than platitudes when they come home. The motion does not call for special treatment; it calls for fairness. It is unacceptable that, years after service, men and women in other parts of the United Kingdom benefit from the covenant, but people in Northern Ireland cannot see it delivering for them. In Northern Ireland, service-related injuries are treated differently, and there is no understanding of their impact, with repeated assessments. Government staff lack covenant training. Mental health support is left to charities, often without core funding from the health service. Military qualifications are not properly recognised by employers. That is a disadvantage; that is failure; and that must change. Yes, I welcome the motion, and I am proud to add my name to it, but let me be clear: warm words are not delivery. At this stage of the debate, I pay tribute to the Veterans Commissioner and his staff for the help and support that they give and deliver to veterans the length and breadth of this country. I also thank Mr Buckley, Mr Frew and, indeed, Andy Allen for tabling the motion, especially Andy for bringing his lived experience. He has served this country with distinction, and I pay tribute to the service that he has given to us. Respect is expressed not in motions but in meaningful policy. During the remembrance service on Remembrance Sunday, we will rightly say. "We will remember them." Today, let us prove that we mean it by removing disadvantage, not merely acknowledging it. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you to the Members who have contributed to the debate. I call Andy Allen to conclude and make a winding-up speech on the motion. Mr Allen, you have up to 10 minutes. Mr Allen: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I declare an interest not only as a veteran but as a trustee of a veterans' charity that delivers many of the services that have been highlighted by Members across the House. The motion can be broken down into distinct areas. First, the fact that veterans — service personnel — have transferable skills, which many Members have spoken about, for example, their dedication to service; commitment to leadership, teamwork and professional development; and the practical skills that can strengthen communities, businesses and voluntary work. Their contribution continues well beyond service and should rightly be recognised. I have the immense honour of getting to see much of it being delivered in practice. I have seen and supported many veterans through the vast array of organisations that I have the privilege of working with in delivering tangible outcomes and making sure that veterans are connected with employment opportunities and with local community groups and organisations. One example is that many veterans have gained qualifications in football through the Irish Football Association (IFA) and have gone on to deliver those skills and outputs in football clubs across our community and society. The next and, perhaps, key part of the motion refers to the fact that no service person or veteran should face disadvantage. The key is disadvantage. They should not face disadvantage, and I think that every Member has rightly referenced that no one should face disadvantage, not least those who serve our country. Whether in relation to housing, healthcare, education or employment, they should not face disadvantage, but, in some respects, they do. Many have challenges, and Members across the Chamber asked us to highlight some of those disadvantages. There are many, but one element that creates a disadvantage is hypervigilance, and it is not perceived by many in the community that I am proud to represent. They still live with the fear of what has gone on in this place. They are restricted in where they can put down as an area of choice for housing, for example, so that is a disadvantage. They are limited; they still have that hypervigilance. They still have challenges when they go to their GP service. They have challenges when they interact with the health service. They do not want to divulge their background. They are afraid of that, and we need to break that down and address it. It will take a very long time. A start could be for all of us to send the message in the Chamber, and I understand that, perhaps, Members across the Chamber cannot be convinced to support the motion. Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. Does the Member recognise that, whilst there is hypersensitivity for anybody who serves across the United Kingdom, it is even more acute when it comes to Northern Ireland? Top 6.00 pm Mr Allen: It absolutely is, and I have highlighted that. I was going on to say that a powerful message to show how far we have come as a society would perhaps be for the Members on the other side of the House to abstain instead of going through the No Lobby. I know that that would not send the entire message to the veterans' community, but it would at least be progress. Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. He makes a really valid point. When I served in the Royal Irish Rangers and the Royal Irish Regiment, many of my colleagues treated their Irishness as what made them special. Indeed, the Royal Irish is renowned for its Irishness and proud of it. That is the difference between the Royal Irish and the rest of the regiments in the British Army. So many of those people would have voted for parties on that side of the House. Mr Allen: The Member has made an interesting point. I was proud to serve and stand on a battlefield with many courageous and selfless individuals. Indeed, some of them put themselves in harm's way to extract me from a danger zone. They rushed in, not knowing that there were several other IEDs that had not detonated, and many of those individuals came from a different background from mine. It is that cultural enrichment that has helped me. Ms Sheerin: I thank the Member for giving way. In their contributions, he and the previous Member to speak are getting to the heart of the matter. We do not want anyone to be discriminated against. Other Members have referred to community background or Irish identity, but that is not what the debate is about. We are saying that one cohort in society should not be elevated above all others, and that is why we cannot support the motion. We have reiterated that a number of times. Mr Allen: I thank the Member for her point, but she is missing the point of the motion. It is not about elevating members of the armed forces above others in society. It is about saying that, where a disadvantage exists, we recognise it, and we will face it head on and address it. We would do that for any other section of society that faces disadvantage, and I have highlighted examples of disadvantage that may exist. Where no disadvantage is highlighted or is supported by evidence, nothing needs to be done, but there is disadvantage, and the greatest message that Members can send out, if they are truly for tackling and addressing disadvantage, is to support the motion. I know that they will not do that, but they could at least abstain. Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Member for giving way. I did not mention this, because I always mention it in the Chamber, but when my son left the RAF, he was told about the bars and clubs that he was not to go to, not just because of republican paramilitary threat but because of loyalist paramilitary threat. I echo the point made to the other side of the Chamber that a really important message could be sent that the past should be left in the past and the threat from paramilitary control, coercion and potential violence to any section of society should be shunned. Supporting the motion would send a message that the days of the paramilitaries and the threat that they pose to society are over. Some Members: Hear, hear. Mr Allen: I thank the Member for making that point, and I wholeheartedly agree. Threats, wherever they come from, are wrong. They must be called out and challenged. I do not care where they come from: they are wrong, and I will challenge them. I am running out of time. Perhaps Members will not make any further interventions, as I do not want to refuse them. As has been stated, public bodies rightly have a legal duty to uphold the covenant, but delivery, as has been highlighted, remains inconsistent. The Defence Committee's recent report highlighted confusion about what "due regard" means in practice. Each Department should take responsibility, with a named liaison officer to ensure that its obligations are met. I emphasise that that would come at no additional cost, because the liaison officer could be identified within the existing staff complement, but it would provide a dedicated point of contact that would create better coordination across government at all levels. That is needed to make the covenant work in real terms. For some, the move from service to civilian life can be difficult, as we have heard. Access to housing, healthcare and employment support is essential. As we have heard, whilst military qualifications are vast and can contribute to our economy, they do not always map across to the civilian equivalent. There is a process by which to be able to do that. I implore the UK Government and the MOD to look at how they can ensure that every veteran or serviceperson, upon transition, can have those qualifications actively mapped into their civilian equivalents. The recent removal of the Northern Ireland Veterans' Support Office has created challenges. The Veterans' Support Office provided a dedicated pathway that could bring together that coordination function. The loss of funding for the office makes the call for those armed forces liaison officers more important, because they can act as that coordination function. I know that I am running out of time, so I will probably not get to address Members' contributions. I apologise for that. In closing, I, too, pay tribute to the current Veterans Commissioner, David Johnstone, and my former party colleague Danny Kinahan, who charted the way in establishing the office. There were many challenges. Both Veterans Commissioners have done sterling work, and there is much more work to be done. I pay tribute to all those volunteers — Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up. Mr Allen: — who work day and night behind the scenes to deliver services for our wider armed forces community. Thank you. Some Members: Hear, hear. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, Mr Allen. You did that just in time. Thank you for concluding the debate. Question put. The Assembly divided: Ayes 42; Noes 26 AYES Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Ms D Armstrong, Ms K Armstrong, Mr Beattie, Mr Bradley, Ms Bradshaw, Mr Brett, Mr Brooks, Ms Brownlee, Mr K Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mr Burrows, Mr Butler, Mrs Cameron, Mr Chambers, Mr Clarke, Mr Dickson, Mr Donnelly, Ms Egan, Mrs Erskine, Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew, Mr Gaston, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Honeyford, Mr Irwin, Mr Kingston, Mrs Little-Pengelly, Miss McIlveen, Mr McMurray, Mr McReynolds, Mr Mathison, Mr Middleton, Mr Muir, Ms Mulholland, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Robinson, Mr Stewart, Mr Tennyson Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Butler, Mr Frew NOES Mr Baker, Mr Boylan, Mrs Dillon, Miss Dolan, Mr Durkan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Finnegan, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Miss Hargey, Ms Hunter, Mr Kearney, Mr McAleer, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McNulty, Mrs Mason, Ms Murphy, Mr O'Dowd, Mr O'Toole, Ms Reilly, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin Tellers for the Noes: Mrs Mason, Ms Sheerin Mr Clarke acted as a proxy for Mrs Erskine. Ms Bradshaw acted as a proxy for Mr McReynolds. Question accordingly agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly recognises that the transferable skills developed by many armed forces service leavers and veterans can make an important contribution to our economy and build stronger communities; believes that those serving, service leavers, veterans and their families should not face disadvantage as a result of their military service when accessing services, including healthcare, education and housing; welcomes, in that context, the legal duty placed on a range of public bodies in Northern Ireland to have due regard to the principles of the armed forces covenant; calls on the Executive to ensure that Departments meet that duty, including by appointing a departmental armed forces liaison officer; and further calls for closer collaboration between government, employers, education providers and veterans’ organisations, which is essential to support the successful transition to civilian life, and in the interests of a shared and inclusive society. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I ask Members to take their ease while we make a change at the Table before moving to the next item. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Dr Aiken] in the Chair) Holiday Homes and Short-term Lets Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): An amendment was selected and published on the Marshalled List in Ms Sugden's name, however she is unwell and unable to attend the Chamber to move that amendment. Ms Hunter: I beg to move That this Assembly recognises the impact that holiday homes and short-term lets have on several rural and coastal communities in Northern Ireland; notes with concern that the growth in holiday homes and short-term lets is contributing to rising house prices, reduces the availability of affordable housing and threatens the social fabric of many communities; and calls on the Executive to, as a matter of urgency, bring forward proposals to address the impact of holiday homes and short-term lets in areas where they are having a negative effect. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who speak will have five minutes. Cara, please open the debate on the motion. Ms Hunter: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am raising this issue in the House yet again, and, if I am to be frank, I am sick, sore and tired of doing so. It is an issue that rightfully angers so many of my constituents. The rising number of second homes is pushing them out of the very towns that they were raised in. There are no children in the streets. There are over 532 second homes in the one small town of Portstewart. That leads not only to a breakdown of community but to so much more. As the SDLP has stated many times in the Chamber, we are in a housing crisis and a housing emergency, yet we are forced to repeat the conversation yet again today. The challenge to secure housing for all is incredibly complex. There are onerous planning regulations; there is a lack of adequate sewage infrastructure; there is a lack of security in private rentals; there are rising rents; and, of course, there is a failure to build social housing at the pace that is so desperately needed. For those who do not have a home of their own or a secure and sustainable tenancy, the problem is acute and painful, but that problem bleeds into every single aspect of their life and impacts on entire families. I recently spoke in my office with the Portstewart Community Association. That group has made it incredibly clear that the lack of housing and the explosion of second homeownership in our constituency, particularly at the north coast, is leading to the unravelling of community life and of the sense of community as we know it. People from the north coast in particular — people who grew up there; people whom I know who were schooled there; and people who have roots and connections there dating back decades and generations — are increasingly being forced to make lives elsewhere when they do not want to. It is not fair, and it is not right. It is ruining the very fabric of our towns and villages. Our towns are literally dying. We need the Executive to listen to us. We have empty streets with no children in them, and we have empty houses with no people in them. It really is killing our sense of community. The failure to build homes, and the failure of the Communities Minister to monitor or regulate second homes, are huge failures. The knock-on impact of a lack of available housing is displacement, emigration and despair for the thousands who, sadly, find themselves reduced to a life of sofa-surfing. Just last week, I helped an elderly man in his 70s who is homeless. It was devastating to see the situation — probably, one of the worst cases that I have had as an MLA — and heartbreaking to witness at first-hand the way that he has to live each and every day without a sense of security. It speaks to the failure that we have in the North of Ireland to address the housing crisis. It has led to the separation of families, a brain drain and economic decline in our communities, and schools have faced challenges as a result of the lack of available housing, which is particularly driven by second homeownership. On the north coast, our once-thriving nightclubs languish as students from the west and beyond are forced into a life of commuting. We have seen a change in how students live: fewer are coming to live in the Coleraine/Portstewart area. Cultural institutions are struggling for numbers, while thousands of locals live in misery as they compete with hundreds to rent a property. This week, I heard of a young family who applied for over 100 houses in the north coast area, were unsuccessful in securing one and now have to live in Ballycastle. That speaks to the severity of the issue. The proliferation of second homes is a problem that must be faced down if we are to make meaningful progress on the problem. As I said in an Adjournment debate here months ago, the reality of the industry being left unchecked is fragmented communities, soaring house prices, and villages and towns, such as those in my constituency, being left desolate in the off-season as homes sit unoccupied. I urge the Minister for Communities and the wider Executive to, please, grasp the severity of this — grasp the nettle — and take action to remedy this genuinely horrific state of affairs. Each and every day, I speak with families who are homeless, who are sofa-surfing, whose children cannot bring friends over after school and who are living in their parents' living rooms. It is devastating. The home is the foundation on which you build your life, your stability and your sense of security. Without homes, people struggle severely. We need to find solutions. Ahead of today, I conducted some research into how other places are dealing with the issue. In Wales, local councils have been empowered to introduce planning rules to limit new second homes and apply higher council tax premiums where they hollow out local communities similar to ours. In Cornwall, new housing developments can now be reserved for people who live there all year round. In France, they have gone further and allow towns where second homes exceed 20% of housing stock to zone land for primary residents only. In Spain, such cities as Malaga and Seville have begun freezing new short-term rental licences to keep homes for local families to avoid pushing them out. I thank my colleague Claire Sugden — I hope that she feels better. She, too, is passionate about this topic and, as I have done, has met constituents who are living through the most horrific circumstances. Each of the places across Europe that I have mentioned have recognised the same truth that we now must face here in Northern Ireland: unrestrained second homeownership and unchecked short-term letting are not benign byproducts of tourism. They are drivers of housing insecurity and social decline in our communities. As the SDLP MLA for East Derry, I know that it is important to keep pushing the issue again and again in the House. I cannot reiterate enough the need for data and the need to monitor the issue. Constituents feel that they are not being listened to. So much more could be done. It is vital that the Executive fight for local communities and the people whose families have lived in our towns for generations and protect their right to live and work in the place in which they grew up and call home. Ms Ferguson: Sustainable, affordable and year-round vibrant communities must be achievable across all our rural, coastal and urban communities. The reality is this: our schools, businesses, services and communities cannot exist without people. Therefore, we all have a duty to ensure that all people have the opportunity to live, work and make a life for themselves in their local area and community. Top 6.30 pm I thank the Members who tabled the motion, which is similar to one that we debated in May 2024. It acknowledges specific concerns about certain coastal towns and scenic areas, such as the Causeway Coast and Glens area and the Mourne Mountains, and our city centres. The motion notes the growth of unregulated short-term and holiday lets, which, due to rising house prices, risks eroding the very existence of our local communities who make those areas so special. Further to that, as a Derry MLA, I express my deep-rooted concerns about the general lack of delivery of social and affordable housing. In our constituency offices, we all have a significant number of daily interactions about the lack of suitable social and affordable housing for struggling renters, students, workers and families. Whilst we are making headway on economic development plans, including investing in our universities and the economy, there are still significant questions about the status of the Housing Executive's revitalisation and how, practically, we are going to deliver the targets laid out in the housing supply strategy, which runs until 2039. Balanced regulation can work, and tourism and community can coexist; however, that is only deliverable if social and affordable housing is delivered at scale to meet the level of existing need and if we place sustainability before short-term gain. With nearly 50,000 households on our social housing waiting list as of March this year, which is the highest total number of applicants since 2010, I cannot emphasise this point enough: we have a moral responsibility to make housing accessible and affordable for all. A lack of affordable housing affects not just individuals but entire communities. Businesses cannot attract and maintain workers, schools lose pupils and staff, hospitals lose key workers, and whole communities become unstable and unsustainable. As an MLA for Foyle, I emphasise that, whilst we are immensely proud of the history and culture of the area, from the Bogside to the Waterside, we are equally angry about the sight of boarded-up homes and the reality of rising rents and house prices when families are desperately calling out for support to find suitable, affordable and sustainable places to call "home". Across Ireland, we do not lack space, nor do we lack heart; however, housing policy and investment are not keeping pace with people's needs. We need more investment now, in social and affordable homes. We need genuinely collaborative partnership working across our councils, housing associations, the Housing Executive and our communities. We need balanced regulation and common-sense approaches to tourism and investment as interconnected drivers of economic growth. Additionally, we urgently need to see the delivery of social and affordable housing at scale, the prioritisation of community wealth building and regeneration projects and, fundamentally, the eradication of poverty and homelessness once and for all. Mr Bradley: I rise to speak not just about housing but about the future of rural Northern Ireland and whether we will act or continue to manage decline with half measures. On the north coast, in areas such as Portstewart, Portrush, Ballycastle, Portballintrae and beyond, even into the town of Coleraine, the sharp edge of our housing crisis is being driven by the unchecked growth of second homes and short-term lets. Since 2013, house prices in the Causeway Coast and Glens area have surged by almost 70% while wages have barely moved. The price of an average home now sits at about £245,000, and over 85% of properties are out of reach for the median earner. That is not a market: it is a locked door to local families, young people and key workers. Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way? Mr Bradley: Yes. Mr Brooks: I entirely agree with the Member. Does he agree that the problem is not only second homeownership but those who have a portfolio of family homes that they have turned into Airbnbs? We need not only a low cap but a sufficiently punitive sanction for those who refuse to register. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Member has an extra minute. Mr Bradley: The Member raises a very valid point. There is a proliferation of Airbnbs in coastal areas. People find it more profitable to have Airbnbs instead of permanent rental people in their houses. It is a massive problem that needs to be addressed along with the rest. Behind the postcards and summer football on the north coast, communities are hollowing out. Streets that once echoed with school runs and neighbourly chat now fall silent for months. Shops, GP practices and bus routes struggle when year-round residents are displaced by properties that lie empty for most of the year or churn over with short-term visitors every weekend. We are building a visitor economy without residents to make it liveable. When people look at the social housing safety net, they find threads. Nearly 4,000 people in our area are on the waiting list. Over 2,000 are in housing stress, yet we are delivering roughly 52 social homes a year. That is not a strategy; it is a managed scarcity. This is about more than roofs and rents; it is about the character and cohesion of our coastal towns. High concentrations of short-term lets mean transient occupation and constant turnover. Neighbourhoods do not have time to become communities. Local schools lose pupils, clubs lose volunteers and the fabric frays. Noise, litter and poorly maintained properties follow when regulation fails, deterring the very visitors who value the north coast for its clean, peaceful environment. The economic picture is no less stark. Economic inactivity remains stubbornly high, and too many of the jobs that we are creating on the north coast are low wage and seasonal. If we want a resilient economy, we cannot push the workforce out of the places where work should grow. I see no effect of the Executive's regional balance. I see no investment in employment opportunities, higher education or equitable healthcare. To me, it seems like, "Let's look at what Coleraine and the Causeway coast have so that we can move it here, there or anywhere", rather than investing in what is already there and working well. So what must we do? First, we need to introduce robust planning controls where second homes and short-term lets are harming community cohesion. That means a primary residence test in pressured areas; a distinct change of use class for short-term lets so that councils can set caps; a licensing regime with real enforcement; and the power to levy council tax surcharges on homes that are kept empty for most of the year. Secondly, we need to prioritise building truly affordable and social homes where demand is greatest; set binding targets for the north coast and fund them; use public land proactively; and tie planning approvals for new developments to local occupancy and affordability conditions that actually bite. Thirdly, we need to rebalance our economy; bring public-sector and high-quality remote jobs to Coleraine and East Londonderry; invest in digital infrastructure, transport links and childcare so that people can get to work and stay in work; invest in equitable healthcare and job creation; and make sure that training aligns with year-round sectors such as advanced manufacturing, green energy, health and social care, not just summer tourism. Finally, we need to back communities to lead and give councils the data, tools and discretion to act street by street if needed and support residents' groups that are holding their places together. Without urgent intervention, we risk becoming a postcard economy: beautiful to visit, impossible to live in. Let us choose better. Let us invest in people and not just in visitor numbers. Let us deliver housing justice and economic dignity on the north coast and ensure that our towns are living communities 12 months of the year. I support the motion. Ms Mulholland: As an MLA for North Antrim, I have the privilege of representing communities that take in much of our north coast. I was delighted to hear Ms Hunter referencing Ballycastle. It is just a wee nod that the north coast does not stop on the road out of Portballintrae; it goes right the way around. What unites those places is not just their beauty; it is their popularity. From Bushmills to Ballycastle and Cushendun to Portballintrae, the balance between tourism and community is vulnerable to tipping too far. The motion goes right to the core of what I see as mattering most to me in my job. It is about maintaining those thriving, sustainable communities where our local shops, local schools and services flourish by being able to depend on people to live and work locally all year round. It is a common issue right across the coast, and there is now an urgency about it. I thank the proposer of the motion for bringing it once again to the House. What once was a housing crisis is now a real threat to the very sustenance of our rural and coastal communities. I see that every day for myself as I drive around and when I am driving home. I see the darkened rows of houses that sit empty through the week and especially through the winter. Our high streets quieten as soon as the tourists leave, and the schools struggle to keep their doors open. Barnish Primary School in Carey closed because families have had to move away. I hear about the situation so often in my surgeries, particularly in what I call the north of North Antrim, which is situated in the Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council area. People there have told me that they cannot find homes that they can afford. What once was a real concern about housing affordability has turned into a community crisis. The proliferation of second homes and short-term rentals is absolutely reshaping our coast and our rural way of life. The Department for Communities says that 13% of the homes in the Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council area have no usual residents. That is more than double the Northern Ireland average of around 6%, and, in some coastal settlements, it is far higher. The council has told us that in Portballintrae, which straddles the two constituencies, between 45% and 51% of properties are second homes. When you go canvassing and walk past those homes, you will knock six doors before you come across someone who lives in the house full-time. Those are extraordinary figures for any community that is trying to sustain schools, services and civic life. On top of that, there is a striking disparity because Causeway Coast and Glens has both the lowest average wage and the highest average house price in Northern Ireland. That tells its own story. Local people are being priced out while homes sit dark for most of the year, once the summer sun sets. I have spoken to constituents who have had to move to Ballymena, Ballymoney or Coleraine just to find somewhere that is affordable to buy. The knock-on effects of that are so significant, particularly with childcare pressures, longer commutes and families who are growing up without the close network of grandparents and family members nearby. As the saying goes, it takes a village to raise a child, but so many people on the north coast are losing that village life. For those who are unable to buy, the picture is no better. Between 2018 and 2023, private rents in Causeway Coast and Glens increased faster than in any other council area in Northern Ireland. When landlords can earn several times more from a short-term let, the incentive to remove properties from the long-term rental market is clear, and it is devastating. Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council has also said that 40% of all certified self-catering accommodation units in Northern Ireland are registered in the Causeway Coast and Glens area. As has been mentioned before, those are just the ones that are properly registered. Anecdotally, many of us know about countless others that are operating informally throughout the wider north coast area and are not properly registered. We need better data and transparency and a public register of short-term lets and second homes, as is the case in Scotland and Wales. We need to empower our councils, and we need to be able to designate short-term let control areas or to introduce new planning use for short-term lets and second homes. We need rates reform, like Wales and Scotland. We should explore a fair premium on non-primary residences, with revenue being reinvested in affordable housing or for waste infrastructure in order to allow new homes to be built. That has to be an Executive-wide plan. Housing should not be a privilege that is dictated by economic disparity; rather, it should be a basic right and the foundation of every thriving, sustainable community. Ms D Armstrong: I welcome the opportunity to speak to the motion, which highlights the growing impact of second and holiday homes on our rural and coastal communities, particularly along the north coast. The motion recognises the impact of holiday homes and short-term lets on local communities. That recognition is important. There are 549 registered self-catering properties in Portrush, and, as has been mentioned, there are a further 532 such properties in Portstewart. Those figures from Tourism NI show the extent to which the market has become concentrated in a small area. The effect of that on local housing availability is significant. When hundreds of homes are occupied only part of the year, that drives up prices and reduces supply for those who wish to live and work locally. The result is that many young people, who would once have started families or built careers in those towns, are now forced to look elsewhere. The consequences of that can be seen clearly on the ground. In the off-season, streets fall silent, and communities that were once thriving year-round are left with fewer permanent residents. Local schools such as Mill Strand Integrated Primary School and Nursery and Hezlett Primary School have seen their enrolments decline as young families have moved away. This is not simply a housing issue; it is about the long-term sustainability of our communities and the services that support them. Top 6.45 pm The motion rightly expresses concern about rising house prices and the availability of affordable housing. However, our response must be based on data, not assumptions. The Department for Communities has confirmed that around 6% of homes across Northern Ireland have no usual residents. In the Causeway Coast and Glens area, however, that figure, as Sian said, is 13%. That includes vacant, renovated and holiday homes, but we still do not know precisely how many of those are genuine second properties. We also need to acknowledge that our wider housing challenge runs deeper that this one issue. The shortage of affordable and social housing has persisted for far too long. Placing the blame solely on the tourism sector will not resolve that. The problem is far more complex and demands long-term investment in new and affordable housing stock. The motion warns that the issue threatens the social fabric of communities. That is true, but we must not overlook the fact that tourism — the self-catering sector in particular — supports thousands of jobs and businesses across Northern Ireland. The challenge, therefore, is to find balance and protect community life whilst sustaining livelihoods. The motion calls on the Executive to bring forward proposals to address the impacts. I support that call, provided that the proposals are targeted, proportionate and informed by reliable data. The Ulster Unionist Party believes in empowering local authorities to manage concentrations of holiday homes through their local development plans, in line with the Executive's housing supply strategy. We must avoid blunt, one-size-fits-all restrictions that could damage our tourism economy. The motion focuses too much on absolutes and lacks the balance that our communities deserve. Holiday homes and short-term lets are not inherently negative, but, without effective regulation, they can become problematic, and we have heard good examples of that this evening. We need policies that safeguard local families, ensure that housing remains affordable and support tourism — an industry that so many rely on. The Ulster Unionist Party supports the motion. Mrs Mason: Housing stress and housing pressure are felt across the North. We have heard a lot about Derry and the north coast this evening, but those pressures are also prevalent in South Down. Due to the increasing demand for housing in our rural and coastal communities, it is a harsh reality that young people and families across South Down are being locked out of owning a home or living in the community in which they grew up. South Down is an area of outstanding natural beauty, and we are so lucky to have the stunning Lecale coastline, the iconic Mountains of Mourne, seaside towns such as Newcastle and idyllic villages such as Dundrum, Ardglass and Killough. That makes the area an attractive location to go to for days trips and short holidays or even to relocate to permanently. The reality, however, is that that puts the available housing stock in the area under more and more pressure due to an increase in demand. More and more people face housing pressure, whether that is due to the lack of housing in general, the rising cost of rent, limited access to the market or the increase in the number of short-term lets and holiday homes. The housing crisis is, as has been said, complex. It is multifaceted, but it is spiralling out of control. The crux of the challenge continues to be about ensuring the availability and affordability of housing alongside providing adequate support to tackle poverty and help low-income households. The housing crisis will not, however, be solved by tackling one aspect of the problem alone. We need to see cross-cutting action that will make a real impact in addressing rising housing pressure. Rural communities across South Down need to be able to access affordable and social housing. As of June 2025, there were 3,994 people on the social housing waiting list. Of those, 3,355 were experiencing housing stress. We need to be creative. We need solutions to develop affordable and social homes in areas such as Newcastle, Downpatrick, Castlewellan and across South Down and, indeed, the North. I have been working recently with Clanmil on the transformation of the old Downe Hospital site into much-needed family homes in the heart of Downpatrick. We need to see more of that creative thinking. Working with housing organisations and other groups is key to building more affordable social housing. It is vital that families and young people are not locked out of the opportunity to live in the communities in which they grew up. Safeguarding future generations is key to protecting the fabric of our rural, coastal and small communities. The Communities Minister should, as a priority, work at pace to deliver more social and affordable housing. Mr Robinson: I am pleased to speak on the impact of holiday homes and short-term lets in our coastal regions. I will focus on the unique circumstances facing our north coast, including the Causeway coast and surrounding villages, where the growth in the number of second homes and short-term holiday lets is certainly one factor that is impacting on housing access. Some go further and say that it impacts on the fabric of the towns and villages in that area. In the north coast area and across the Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council area, data from coastal villages such as Portballintrae and Cushendun indicates that second homes and short-term lets are becoming a dominant part of the housing stock. According to a report by Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council, up to half of the properties in Portballintrae are estimated to be second homes. The same report estimates that roughly 31% of houses in Cushendun are being used as holiday lets. For Northern Ireland as a whole, the legislation remains unchanged. A change from a permanent dwelling to a second home or a short-term let does not require planning permission. In some of our most beautiful coastal villages, a substantial fraction of the housing stock is being removed either wholly or part-time from the permanent residential stock and, instead, used for seasonal second homes, holiday lets or non-resident ownership. Those of us who represent the area will have heard how young adults who work locally in hospitality, tourism and retail increasingly struggle to find accommodation in the locality in which they grew up. We have heard of families who might have expected to buy a modest home being priced out, as demand is driven not by local need but by holiday-home demand or investment return from short-term lets. We have heard of the long-term rental sector being squeezed. Some houses that were once available for year-round rent are being moved into the holiday market where yields are higher, or the owners prefer to use them for themselves. If homes are vacant for much of the year and used not by full-time residents but by holidaymakers, the fabric of a village or coastal resort can be impacted negatively. As has been said, schools, youth clubs, sports clubs and local shops all depend on a stable population. When many homes become seasonal, the viability of local services can decline. Indeed, minutes of Causeway Coast planning meetings record concern from councillors that the inability of young people to secure housing in rural areas is impacting on local settlement patterns, schools and sports clubs. A home —. Ms K Armstrong: I thank the Member for giving way. I agree with what he says. We have seen rural local schools come under threat because there are not enough children in the area to keep them viable. Does the Member agree that it would be prudent for our councils to consider, as part of their local development plans, limiting the number of short-term lets and Airbnb rentals, for instance, so that families can live in the area? Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Member has an extra minute. Mr Robinson: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council is actively considering that. A home that lies empty for months or that is occupied only for transient stays does not support the community ties that a long-term resident does. While tourism is vital, we must guard against creating a situation in which the only people who can live permanently in the area are those of significant means, thereby skewing the character of the place and potentially undermining the local workforce. A number of factors add to the issue. The cost-of-living crisis has increased pressure on housing, and there is the need for affordable new-build homes. Rural and coastal communities in East Londonderry already face demographic and economic challenges, including the outward migration of younger people and their distance from major employment centres. The packaging of holiday homes as holiday lets adds another barrier to those seeking to live and work locally. On the north coast, which is an area of outstanding natural beauty and tourism importance but also a place where people live all year round and raise families, it is said that the balance has tipped much too far. The beauty of the north coast — somewhere that I am incredibly proud to call "home" — the shopping towns nearby, the golf courses and the beaches all attract investors and holidaymakers, but what is attractive to an outsider for a week's stay also makes the property less accessible to a local, living-wage earner who is seeking a home. As one councillor noted in the minutes of a planning committee meeting in Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council three years ago, the issue is the inability of young people to secure housing and the impact on settlements, schools and sports clubs. Some might argue that motions such as this are anti-tourism, but they are far from it. Our tourism offer is one of our greatest assets, but tourism cannot become the sole driver of the housing market. Otherwise, we will lose balanced, liveable areas and restrict who can afford to live and work here. The growth of holiday homes and short-term lets on the north coast is having a real and material impact on housing affordability, the availability of homes for local resident families and workers and the sustainability of community life in the villages and towns in that part of Northern Ireland. The evidence is becoming clearer, and the local voices on the north coast are growing louder. We must listen to those voices. Mr McMurray: I thank Ms Hunter and the Opposition for tabling the motion. The issue is certainly raised with me in my office regularly. I am lucky that South Down is a brilliant part of Northern Ireland, as Mrs Mason has already pointed out. Colin McGrath will no doubt get in there too. It is famously a place where the Mourne Mountains swoop down to the sea, and it boasts wonderful beaches, forests and the peaks and crags of the hills. It is easy to understand why people wish to visit the area, and, accordingly, they need somewhere to stay. The tourism industry is making important economic contributions to the area, and there can be no doubt about that. All that is positive, within reason. However, increasingly, the balance is tipping the wrong way. I hear from constituents who want to live in the area but have been completely priced out of doing so in towns such as Newcastle and villages such as Dundrum and Bryansford. Young couples soon to be married are not able to move to an area that is geographically central to their family and their work, and parents express concern that their children will not be able to afford a property in the area in which they grew up. It is as much about economic growth as anything else. At this stage, I thank the Minister — the Minister is not here; I will need to rejig my notes. I acknowledge that the motion calls on the whole Executive, so there must be various messages to various Ministers. I have also heard from constituents who find that, at times, every other house in a development is rarely occupied. Indeed, at this time of the year, when the clocks have changed, that is certainly a bit more prominent, and there is many an evening when many a house is unlit. Again, that really contributes to the sense of community detachment. Likewise, some properties are occupied for mere weeks of the year. Tourism NI statistics show that the number of self-catering units in the Newry, Mourne and Down District Council area has increased by almost 50% in two years, from 414 in 2022 to 619 in 2024. At times, that presents a difficult conundrum for tourist areas to grapple with. Yes, they understand the need to accommodate visitors and the economic benefits that come with that, but they also feel that the balance is not always fairly struck at the minute. Some of the previous contributors referenced that. Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way? Mr McMurray: Certainly, Mr Brooks. Mr Brooks: Will the Member agree that one of the problems with short-term lets is that they also undercut some of the legitimate tourism businesses, which are subject to much more regulation and greater checks? I was at the event upstairs yesterday to do with electrical checks and regulations. They were talking about how private houses have to have many more checks than some of the short-term lets. Our hotels and so on also face that situation. Does the Member agree? Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Member has an extra minute. Mr McMurray: I certainly do, yes. One bit of feedback that we get is about that undercutting and the lack of regulation. The bona fide tourist operators have really well-cared-for and safe properties. The Member referenced the electrical checks. That is something to bear in mind. The motion calls on the whole Executive and for good reason. It is a complex, cross-departmental issue, and Ministers need to work together to find a sustainable way forward. I have a couple of thoughts on that. One of the moves should be towards diversification and sustainability. Towards the end of the summer, the National Trust held a symposium on sustainable tourism. One of the strongest themes to come out of that was that there is a need to ensure that communities are supported and sustainable. If we get it right for the community, we will get it right for the tourists; if there is no community, tourism will not survive. Top 7.00 pm Mr Bradley quite rightly pointed out that other economic drivers can be utilised to drive sustainability in housing and get people into the area. One driver that I can think of is the offshore renewable sector, as represented in Kilkeel in South Down. If it is supported, that sector could develop, meaning that companies would keep and offer well-paid jobs in South Down rather than further afield. Therefore, although I appreciate the sentiment of the motion, which is very much about tourism and second homes, wider economic development can go some way towards easing the pressure and ensuring that young families can stay in their locale. The fact that we need stronger regulation and a stronger planning response to short-term lets was touched on. The current situation is putting unsustainable pressures on housing in certain parts of the country, and we cannot let that continue. Councils have a role to play, but so do the Communities Minister, the Infrastructure Minister and the Economy Minister, and we are yet to see decisive action from some of those Departments. The Infrastructure Minister has stated that she has no plans to restrict the conversion of residential properties into short-term holiday lets but that she is open to looking at the issue under the planning improvement programme. We encourage her to do that. I hope, too, that the Finance Minister will have another look at the rates response and see what can be done from that angle. There are areas such as the Lake District in Cumbria — Ms Hunter referenced some others — that have utilised that tool to offset the broader socio-economic costs for an area that is facing this issue. Ultimately, we can all agree that we cannot elevate the needs of the tourism industry above the basic needs of the people whom we serve, and there are few needs more basic than a safe and stable home. I urge all parties to do their best to support this issue. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Colin McGrath to wind. Colin, you have up to 10 minutes. Mr McGrath: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. What a vicious and nasty arena this room can be, but is it not a pleasure that we have just got through a debate in which we all agreed on something and that we are trying to put our thoughts in the right place to help those who elected us to be here? The debate has managed to restore a bit of faith in what we can do when we discuss things that we agree on and scope out whether we can pitch something to Ministers to see whether there is a way in which we can influence them to change the policies that will guide our constituents and, hopefully, help people as they face some of the problems that have been so eloquently expressed by Members this evening. To take a positive from the debate, it has been a great tour around Northern Ireland in which we heard people talk about their areas, putting forward the beauty of the north coast or of Fermanagh, for example, and we will not forget the cities: Belfast, Derry and the other places that were referenced. Of course, I will not get through my contribution without mentioning South Down and joining my colleagues in highlighting the beauty that is there. We would be naive not to realise that with that beauty, and with our wish to have places where people want to be, comes the problem of people taking up and occupying properties by purchasing them but, in whatever way it may be, not using them. That erodes the sense of community. It is the role of the person who is winding up the debate to reflect on the remarks that were made in it. It is interesting that, probably to a T, everybody mentioned the same things. We mentioned the fact that the important thing for an area is a sense of community. Community is not the bricks and mortar but the people who live in it: people who come together and become part of local sporting clubs, go to local schools and shop in local shops. For them to do that, however, they need to be in that community regularly. There is no easier way of being a positive advocate for an area than to actually live there and use the local facilities. It is clear that people will miss those things once they are gone. By that stage, it is too late, but, often, that is when you realise that things have been taken away. Ms K Armstrong: Will the Member give way? Mr McGrath: Of course I will, Kellie. Ms K Armstrong: I am not standing up to talk about the wonderful Strangford and my Ards peninsula. The Member talked about services being taken away. Quite a lot of Members here live in rural areas, and we know the impact of there not being a local community: it means losing the school and the post office, the banks disappearing and the local shops going down to the size of a corner store. That drives tourism away. If there is no community, we do away with tourism as well, and we may as well have those bushes blowing past. Ms Mulholland: Tumbleweed. Ms K Armstrong: It becomes an empty town. Does the Member agree that we threaten community life by taking people away, because services then come away? Mr McGrath: I am not going to discuss pilfering in great detail, but, given that the Member's constituency has stolen part of our constituency, I am bound to say that great swathes of Strangford are absolutely beautiful. I know many of those areas, because I was born and raised and went to school in a part that is now moving over into her constituency. The Member's point is well made. It is about how acutely that difference is noticed. It can take longer in a city to notice that those sorts of services are being eroded. That does not mean that you do not notice it. However, especially in rural communities, as anyone who you speak to about them will tell you, it is the people who make the area. It is about knowing who is going to be in the local shops and going about their daily business in those areas. I acknowledge the point — I do not think it was an intentional absence — in Diana's remarks on behalf of the Ulster Unionists. We get that point; we get that it is a balance. You cannot exist without tourism. We all need it. It supports a massive industry, and, in some areas, probably the biggest industry. It was really good to see so many Members contributing by saying that it is about getting the balance right and making sure that we do not tip over into having too many people removed from an area, because it all becomes too tourist-focused. Likewise, you have to have those tourists. In places in my constituency such as Newcastle, Warrenpoint and others, we know about the importance of tourism, because of the money that it brings in and the jobs that it supports and how that supports the community that we are talking about trying to support. Diana referred to balance, but everybody, I think, took the opportunity to refer to the balance that is needed. In acknowledging that there is a problem, which is probably most felt in the north coast area, a number of Members referenced the importance of not reinventing the wheel. Scotland, Wales, France and other places that were referenced face these problems. They are having to get to grips with that. Some of them are years ahead of us in the problem of over-saturation, but they are also years ahead of us in trying to find the solutions to deal with it. I encourage any departmental officials who might be listening to the debate to scope out other places that have managed the problem and come up with a solution. Many Members referenced the important point that taking these second properties, Airbnbs and other types of lets out of the housing stock means that there is pressure on the rest of the stock. Business is business. That drives the price of properties up. That means that, for people in our local community who are trying to get on to the housing ladder for the first time in an area close to their families and to that support and community that we all referenced, it becomes increasingly difficult, because house prices are going up to £300,000, £400,000 or £500,000. That prices first-time buyers out of the market. We want to keep that healthy balance that we spoke about, but how can you have that balance if you are needing half a million pounds to buy a house? You just cannot do it. Even MLAs could not afford that, although many people out there think that we can afford anything. I appreciate everyone's support for the motion. It is great to see that we have that commonality. Our phrasing did not include reference to a Minister. We wanted to call on the whole Executive, because it is a cross-cutting issue that a number of Departments need to look at. The downside of that is that we do not have any Ministers here, but I do not think that that means that there is any lack of interest among the Ministers around the Executive table. They know that the problem is there, and they have the good, solid Back-Benchers from all the parties pushing forward what we want to see. Hopefully, together, we can get a solution that will help the local communities that we all represent. Question put and agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly recognises the impact that holiday homes and short-term lets have on several rural and coastal communities in Northern Ireland; notes with concern that the growth in holiday homes and short-term lets is contributing to rising house prices, reduces the availability of affordable housing and threatens the social fabric of many communities; and calls on the Executive to, as a matter of urgency, bring forward proposals to address the impact of holiday homes and short-term lets in areas where they are having a negative effect. Motion made: That the Assembly do now adjourn. — [Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken).] Adjournment Sensory Room: Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): In conjunction with the Business Committee, the Speaker has given leave to Cheryl Brownlee to raise the matter of installing a sensory room in the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children. Cheryl, you have up to 15 minutes. Ms Brownlee: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a real privilege to bring today's Adjournment debate to the Floor. I pay full tribute to Erin McAllister. She is here with us today and is the founder of the Northern Ireland Community for Parents/Carers of Children with Complex Needs group. The group has been driving a petition, which has been signed by over 1,000 people in Northern Ireland. It was Erin's lived experience, determination and passion that have brought the topic to the Floor today, and she should be incredibly proud. Most of us will agree that no one likes going to A&E. It is stressful, noisy and unpredictable, but, for most people, it is manageable. However, for a child with sensory processing difficulties, autism, ADHD or a learning disability, it is not just stressful; it is impossible. The lights are too bright, the alarms are too loud, the crowds are too close, and the waiting is too long. When their senses become overwhelmed and that invisible bucket finally overflows, there is nothing that anyone can do but wait. That is when you see the flailing, the crying, the biting and the panic that takes over their little bodies. It is not a tantrum. It is not bad behaviour. It is just distress. It is a child's nervous system screaming, "I just cannot cope anymore". That distress does not just affect them; it ripples through the entire waiting room. It affects the parents who are holding back tears, terrified that people are judging them. It affects the staff who want to help but have nowhere calm to take the child, and it affects every person in that place. That is why we are asking for something so simple, yet so transformative: a sensory room — a small, calm space within or near the A&E department; a space with soft lighting, comfortable seating and gentle sounds; somewhere a child can breathe; and somewhere they can regulate before they unravel. It is not a "nice to have"; it is a reasonable adjustment and a necessary step to make emergency care accessible to children who experience the world differently. The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 makes it clear that public services must make reasonable adjustments for people with disabilities. It is to be done not as an afterthought when a crisis hits but proactively. Other hospitals across Northern Ireland have already shown what is possible. At Altnagelvin Area Hospital, a triage room was transformed into a beautiful sensory space with colour-changing lights, comfy chairs and calming sounds. Staff say that it has changed everything, allowing patients with learning disabilities to receive care in peace. In the South West Acute Hospital in Enniskillen, a sensory room project won a national award for "Low Cost High Impact", which proves that it is not about money or luxury; it is about compassion, inclusion and creative thinking. My colleague Deborah Erskine is probably watching. When she talks about regional balance, I am very jealous of the services in her area, although they are absolutely credible and fully deserved. At the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children — a hospital that serves the most complex and vulnerable children from across Northern Ireland — there is still no sensory room in A&E. Every year, around 34,000 children pass through that department, and many of them have additional needs. Many are autistic, and many have known sensory challenges. Yet, in their moment of crisis, there is no space that is safe and quiet for them to go to. I know that the trust has huge pressures. Space is limited, budgets are stretched and staff are exhausted, but I have seen it myself. I have been there. I have sat in the corridors with my child and have seen how impossible it can be even to find that moment of calm. Mr Clarke: Will the Member give way? Ms Brownlee: Yes. Mr Clarke: The Member is right to point out the financial pressures, but, given the difficulty that some of those children face, addressing them in a calm and timely manner would be much more efficient and could actually save money in the long term for the staff. Does the Member agree? Ms Brownlee: I thank the Member for the intervention. He makes a very valid point, which I will get on to slightly later. Many parents are put off going to A&E, because of the stress that it will cause to the child, to them and to the people around them. They do not go, and the child's condition can get worse. Top 7.15 pm I was not going to talk about my experience, but at home we put off going to A&E with my son. We were worried about the stress that it would cause him and the stress that, we knew, we would be walking into, but we went. He was in diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). That was when we found out that he had diabetes. If I had left that, he would have died. It is about those moments — those hours and minutes. If, for a second, parents think, "I am not going to go, because of that stress", it could be critical, so it is a case of invest to save and save lives. If there is no room for a permanent space now, we have to start with something mobile — a pod or a modular sensory unit — that is close by. It is important that we act. The truth is that, when we do not make space for those children, families stop coming. Parents delay bringing their child to A&E, terrified of what the experience will do to them. Alternatively, they go to A&E but leave before being seen, because the stress becomes too much. That is not equality or accessibility; it is just fear. No family should have to choose between their child's medical needs and their emotional safety. We are not asking for a luxury or for a playroom but for understanding. We ask that our children who experience the world differently will be given the same right to care, safety and dignity as any other child. A sensory room would mean a calmer, safer and more inclusive A&E for patients, parents and staff alike. It would help turn that chaos into calm and that panic into peace. It would also show that the Royal not only treats children's bodies but cares for their minds and their wee hearts. Our children did not choose to experience the world differently. They do not ask for more; they ask only for enough. Their needs are different, but they are not lesser. Every child deserves to feel safe, even in an emergency. Dr Aiken: Thank you very much indeed, Cheryl. All other Members who are called to speak will have approximately five minutes. Ms Flynn: I thank Cheryl and the DUP for securing this important Adjournment debate. Cheryl has articulately outlined the risks that are at play if we cannot provide that type of facility for parents who are already really worried, stressed and concerned, with sick children who really need that kind of space, particularly when they are in that difficult environment. She also mentioned Erin, who, fair play to her, has probably reached out to most of us with her petition and the campaign that she has undertaken. That has definitely given the issue a bit of a lift and focused people's minds on it. I hope that we will receive some good news from the Minister when he responds to the debate. I will not repeat Cheryl's points. She talked about her personal experience, and the chances are that anyone in the Chamber who has been blessed with being a mother or a father will have had to bring their child or sick baby into a hospital environment. This time last year, I was in that position with a sick child. I think that he had just turned two; it is coming up to a year ago, so he was a very sick two-year-old. The emergency department was completely chaotic, because, in the wintertime, with the winter pressures, there are more people in those departments. It was particularly bad because there were so many wee, sick, vulnerable, upset and frail children everywhere, and, on top of that, there were all the really concerned, worried and distressed parents. When all the issues that Cheryl mentioned for a child with additional needs are put into the mix, there is additional trauma for that wee child, who is already not well, in that environment. I do not think that anyone would disagree with the need to call for those facilities. Around a month or two ago, a delegation of Belfast MLAs and MPs met the chief executive of the Belfast Trust. At that stage, Maureen Edwards was still in post, so the meeting was not with the new chief executive, Jennifer Welsh. We raised the issue of the sensory space. The trust discussed issues of capacity, the room, the set-up of that ED and where you would physically put that space. It raised the issues of risk from the spread of infection, the fact that you are dealing with very sick children and whether a separate sensory space would create more risk for children, who would want to leave their parents to play and mix together. Those are all genuine issues that the clinicians, doctors and nurses who treat the kids have to think about. At the meeting, they agreed to go away and look at some models that are already in place. I think that it was Gerry Kelly who mentioned at the meeting that a school in north Belfast had put in place a mobile sensory room. I genuinely do not know what has taken place since the meeting, but I saw that, recently, the Minister responded to a question for written answer by saying that options may be explored with a charity for some type of mobile sensory room. I hope that we can get that over the line in the coming months. That would be very welcome. With regard to the longer term, staff reassured us that the new regional children's hospital has been designed and built with children with additional needs and sensory needs at its heart. I thank the Member for tabling the Adjournment topic. I am happy to support it. Mr Donnelly: I thank the Member for tabling this incredibly important topic for debate and bringing attention to the lived experience of disabled children and their families across Northern Ireland. I got an email from Erin as well, and I wrote to the trust to ask it what services were currently available in Belfast Trust hospitals to support children with sensory needs who attend children's A&E and whether there were any plans to implement such services. The trust replied that, while it understood the requirement for that type of space and its impact, it was awaiting confirmation of funding to purchase a mobile sensory pod, so, currently, there was no specific area. I fully believe that we need to give our public bodies the tools to understand that something like that is about more than just a bottom line on a budget paper and that it is about equal participation in society and the ability to access the same rights as everyone else. It is not an optional addition. As the proposer stated, it is not a "nice to have". It is incredibly important to me personally, because, for the past year, I have been working on consultations with the disability community for the purpose of bringing forward a Bill that would put the United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (UNCRPD) into the fabric of public policy and decision-making in Northern Ireland and intends to build a foundation for progress in situations exactly like the one that we are discussing. To ensure that the voices and lived experience of disabled people in Northern Ireland are embedded and to go beyond symbolic gestures or box ticking, the consultation process has been intentionally extended to allow for as much involvement as possible. When I looked at Erin's campaign for the installation of a sensory room around the A&E waiting area, I was struck by what I had heard so many times throughout that consultation process about the need to explain or prove a disability. That should never be the case. There is dismissal, misunderstanding and disregard for the frustrations of a lifetime of sub-par rights or considerations, which are often met with apathy when raised. Adjustments or specific requirements on the basis of disability are treated as optional. As was mentioned, disability protections in Northern Ireland are behind those of the rest of the UK and Ireland and are mainly based on outdated legislation from 30 years ago that is older than the Assembly itself — an Assembly that, in six of the past 10 years, has been impacted by shutdowns and political instability. A consequence of that instability has been the retrogression of disability rights in a number of areas. The sensory room is necessary for children who have sensory processing difficulties, including those with autism or ADHD. As Erin states in her campaign message, the experience of A&E can be overwhelming for neurotypical children, but, for children with high sensory needs, the bright and noisy environment can cause serious dysregulation, which can have a massive impact on their health, especially considering that sensory meltdown can lead to increased body temperature, vomiting and self-harming behaviours. As Cheryl highlighted, that may put parents off attending A&E and result in the sick child not getting timely treatment. The Health Committee recently heard a presentation from a provider of mobile sensory rooms about the benefits to young people and their families in those environments. The Committee wrote to the Minister, and maybe he will refer to it. We recently received a response from him that states: "Research has indicated that sensory approaches result in a reduction of stress, support regulation and promote self-management and the overall patient experience and ward environment." It also states: "One of the primary constraints for future development of sensory rooms is the limited availability of suitable physical space. However, engaging with service user representatives, trusts have been proactive in seeking service user feedback and using this information to inform and co-design resources and services for patients." It is important that the services are co-designed with families and organisations with specialist knowledge in the area. I have spoken to Erin about the issue, and I would be happy to meet anyone affected by the lack of provision for disability in public services. It should go without saying that disabled people in Northern Ireland deserve better protections and that equality should never be an option. I fully support this debate. Mr Chambers: I certainly welcome this extremely important debate. I also welcome the broad cross-party recognition of the growing and well-documented value that sensory rooms and sensory pods can bring to healthcare settings. As MLAs, we often have people coming to our constituency offices to relay their experiences of the health service. That includes families who sometimes face the sensory challenge of a busy hospital environment. For any child, hospitals can be a strange and overwhelming environment, but, for children who are neurodiverse or live with sensory processing difficulties, it can be an even greater challenge. Any family with such a child will know how quickly distress can escalate when the environment feels unsafe to them or out of their control. That is why sensory rooms are so important. They provide a breathing space, offer a much better environment for a young person and allow them to receive care with minimised distress. While there is provision for such spaces across the health estate, there is a shortfall at the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children. I know from engaging with the Department on the matter that the Belfast Trust has been seeking to identify the necessary space adjacent to the paediatric emergency department to create a dedicated sensory room in the near future. That is a really positive step. I am hopeful that that shortage in provision can soon be resolved. I beg your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, to highlight a development in Bangor, albeit that it is aimed at a different cohort. The council recently opened a dementia-friendly sensory garden in Ward Park. That has proved to be a calming oasis for dementia patients and their families. The plants have not reached full maturity, but, next year, they will. I certainly welcome that facility. Mr McGrath: I thank Cheryl for bringing the topic to the Chamber and for achieving the second full agreement in a row about what needs to happen. There is no issue more important than this one. I also thank Erin McAllister. I received the email and signed up to the petition because of its importance and its sense. Sometimes there are complicated reasons for doing or not doing things, but there are other times at which things are so obvious that you wonder why we have not already done them. Top 7.30 pm Although this is an Adjournment debate about the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children and whilst the hospital goes to great pains to point out that it is not a regional service for everything, some of what it does is on a regional basis, so we can all subscribe to the fact that our constituents may be using that facility and benefiting from it. In doing some gentle research in preparation for the debate, I thought about who could actually benefit from a sensory room. If we look at the figures, we see that 5·9% of our school-age children have autism, somewhere in the broad region of 45,000 to 60,000 have ADHD and 31,000 have learning difficulties. There certainly is not and cannot be a suggestion that there is no need for a facility such as that. When we look at why we should have such facilities — others mentioned this — we see that it is about the fact that it reduces the stress and the pressure. We know that emergency departments are busy places. Thankfully, in the past year or two, I have only had one occasion to be in an emergency department. It was busier than an airport and than a bus station; so much was happening. Whilst I was there with somebody who was sick, I really felt for the people who were sick and having to be that environment. I thought, "This just is not the place to be". There is nothing calming or comforting in it — it is a very harsh environment — so I can only imagine how the effect of it is multiplied for people who really struggle with all the things that take place around them. We also have a legal duty on equality: if we are going to provide services and do so on an equal basis, it is really important that we provide for those with autism, ADHD or learning difficulties so that they are able to access services in a way that works for them. We have a number of good examples in various units around the country. The South West Acute Hospital's sensory room has been referenced, we have the Bluestone unit at Craigavon Hospital, and Altnagelvin Area Hospital has a sensory room that opened in 2021 for those with learning difficulties, so we have lots of examples about the place. Maybe it is about extending that provision rather than having to start again from the very beginning. When it comes to cost and practicality, the emergency department is a small space and every inch of it is crucial to delivering its aims, but, as has been mentioned — this is well rehearsed — there is a cost benefit to spending a little money and securing the space: it gets people through the emergency department more quickly. That means that people are able to go to it in the first instance, so there is less opportunity for illnesses and conditions to progress. When people turn up much later, it costs much more to put it all together. When we look at it from that cost perspective, we see that it is reasonable and sensible to try to help to move that on. There are a couple of things that we would all love to see — the SDLP would subscribe to them — including the space being made available in the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children and its being co-designed with users. Experts out there have been contacting us about it, and we have experts in the Public Gallery who, I am sure, would be only too willing to give of their experience and expertise to make sure that what could be provided would really work for people. That is something that we should try for, so that, when it is delivered, hopefully, and people need something from us, we will know that it will help them. Thank you for securing the debate today; I am delighted to support it. Mr Baker: Cheryl, thank you for securing the debate this evening and for sharing your story. Society and the system make our children with additional needs vulnerable. This is about a very basic ask; it should be there in the first place. In my constituency, I find it very frustrating that so many families need us intervene in order for them to get some of the most basic equality measures. In education, children with additional needs are offered places that do not exist. We do not do that to mainstream children, so why do it to children who need that support? In health, I have been blown away by some of the cases that I have to deal with. I think of children who need a dental appointment: very recently, I had a case of a child having to wait eight months for an appointment, and it was only with my intervention that that took place. My child does not have to wait eight months to get a filling or have an abscess treated. I cannot wrap my head around it: eight months of a wee child biting the hand off themselves in pain. That is happening day and daily, so that is a system that is completely failing. If we cannot even deliver a sensory room in 2025 and not have that, there is something seriously wrong. Going forward, we need to start getting everything right. We need to make sure that families are heard at the table. It is not just about an architect designing a room or a building; it has to be there to meet the needs of that child, and it is simply not happening. It is not happening across the board, and it needs to start happening now. There is commentary coming from across the water that is starting to bed in here where we are now trying to see the reasons why children have autism as if we are trying to understand that. It is appalling language where some people are wanting to bring this. These are children in our society who are being made vulnerable because the system is broken, and we need to start getting it right. Families need to stop having to fight for absolutely every single thing, and policy and Ministers and us as MLAs need to start understanding the challenges from the bedroom to the bathroom, from the bathroom to the kitchen and from the kitchen to the classroom or into the ER. Thank you for sharing your story. I have no doubt that it is a difficult decision to bring your child there. They are maybe not too sick to bring, because what they have to go through is so traumatic, but it is the knock-on effect that that could have had going forward. It something that we all have to work together on, and that is not me trying to single out any particular Minister, whether it is Education, Communities with welfare, or Health. It is about us all working together to get it better going forward. We need to start getting it right now. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call the Minister of Health, and, Minister, you have up to 10 minutes. Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As Mr McGrath said, the spirit of harmonious agreement has really broken out. We could be on for a hat-trick on Monday, but I would not bet on that because I have seen the running order. To Cheryl Brownlee, thanks for bringing the debate. We are in agreement. It is an area where, for once, I am not going to say that the biggest issue is finance and money. It is not. It is actually space, and I will come to that in a second. Multidisciplinary environments are becoming an increasingly vital part of paediatric healthcare, particularly for children with neurodiverse needs or sensory processing conditions. To follow on from Mr Baker, and to be fair to the Belfast Trust, these sensory rooms were not a thing when the hospital was built, so the issue is space, and a mobile is where I would be putting my money for where the trust will get to. It is only in recent years that there has been this big shift in thinking about how we understand and respond to the needs of individuals with sensory processing challenges. The shift, of course, is driven by a deeper awareness of neurodiversity and the unique ways in which people experience the world around them. Sensory rooms and sensory pods are at the forefront of the movement because they offer safe, therapeutic environments where individuals can regulate their sensory input. The growing importance of those spaces, along with the wide range of equipment and aids that they offer, are now well recognised as valuable tools for professionals working in those clinical settings. Those spaces are designed to meet a wide range of needs, and they are proving to be especially beneficial in high-stress environments such as emergency departments, where children and young people, as has been said, become overwhelmed and overstimulated really quickly. EDs are often loud and often bright. They are chaotic places that can be distressing for any child, especially those with autism spectrum disorder or ADHD, and also those with anxiety, mental health challenges, developmental disabilities and other sensory processing disorders. I have visited a lot of EDs, and I am struck by how bright they are, by necessity; how noisy they are, because of demand; and how unsuitable they are for people with neurodiversity issues. Sensory rooms are not just limited to supporting children with diagnosed conditions; they provide comfort and regulation for any child or young person experiencing heightened stress or anxiety such as at a time of trauma or in the middle of a medical crisis. We can supply that support in two main ways. First, through a fixed sensory room: a dedicated space within a facility designed and equipped to provide a consistent sensory experience. Those rooms are often tailored to meet the specific needs of the population they serve, and they can include a wide range of equipment and design features. Secondly, there are mobile sensory pods. They are portable units that bring sensory equipment directly to the child when they are in the hospital. That flexibility is particularly valuable in settings where space is limited, as is the case with the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children. Equipment in those settings can stimulate or sooth through visual, tactile, auditory or olfactory means, depending on the individual's needs. For example, visual stimulation can include bubble tubes, fibre-optic lights or projection systems; tactile stimulation can be provided by textured or padded walls, or soft furnishings; auditory elements might include calming music or white-noise machines; and olfactory equipment may include aromatherapy diffusers with soothing scents. In a hospital sensory room, you will typically find a variety of specialist equipment and features that are designed to help children and young people to manage stress, anxiety and sensory-processing challenges. The tools are often selected to provide calming, stimulating or regulating sensory input across multiple senses, including sight, sound, touch, smell and movement. The goal is to create an environment that feels safe and predictable and which is responsive to the child's needs. Much of the equipment is mobile. That allows it to be repositioned or repurposed as needed, and it adds to the versatility of the space. It also means that it can be individualised for a child's needs. As Members will be aware, construction of a new state-of-the-art children's hospital is under way on the current Belfast Trust site. It is a 10-storey facility, which will accommodate up to 155 inpatients and include 10 theatres. It represents a significant step forward in delivering a world-class service in world-class facilities. It is expected that it will be completed by 2030. The hospital will be designed with the needs of children and families at its heart. I am confident that sensory support will be an integral part of that vision. Mr Donnelly talked about co-design. I am keen on that. Some months ago, I was in Dublin and visited its new children's hospital — it is not yet open, but it is pretty much complete and just needs to be commissioned. They have given much attention to the needs of the child and thought about sounds, echoes, tactile issues and the sort of visuals required. This is so cool — I hope that we do it with our children's hospital — the window-cleaning contract stipulates that the window cleaners who will be going up and down the outside of the building have to wear superhero outfits. How cool is that for children who are stressed out and sick? It is magnificent. I cannot impose it on the trust, but I hope that it sees the sense of doing that. At the moment, my officials are engaging with senior staff at the Belfast Trust. We are exploring the possibility of introducing a sensory room at the current hospital for sick children. However, it is an old facility, and that makes it difficult to change the building, despite the need to include a sensory room particularly close to the paediatric emergency department. The trust has confirmed that it has actively considered the inclusion of a sensory room but feels that the current layout and capacity constraints make it unfeasible, at present. However, I have asked the trust to look at it again, because, as Órlaithí or anyone else who has been there will know, there is a corridor round to your left, just past the entrance, and then there is what they are calling the garden area. I am not convinced that the garden area is big enough, and the trust is not convinced that it is big enough, but I have asked the trust to take one final look at that garden area to see whether it could get in a sensory room, because those sensory rooms are not particularly big. In fact, because they are one-on-one, they are pretty small. Mr Clarke: I appreciate the Minister giving way, and I appreciate his language in the debate. It has been very helpful and encouraging for Erin and the families who are listening. He said that space is at a premium. There is a suggestion that there is a disused shop on the site. Will the Minister explore the genesis of that story that is going around? It is a shop that has been disused for some time, and questions remain unanswered about its purpose. Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member. I was unaware that there may be a disused shop. A shop is probably a good size for a sensory room. I will look at that. Notwithstanding that, the current direction of travel is the trust investigating the procurement of a mobile sensory unit. That would allow the equipment to be brought directly to children when they are in the hospital. It is a flexible solution, and it could provide much-needed support. Top 7.45 pm Encouragingly, the trust is exploring the use of charitable funds to acquire the necessary equipment. Those funds can be allocated to projects of that nature. That approach demonstrates resourcefulness during a challenging financial time, and it demonstrates how the generous contributions received from the public of Northern Ireland can help support the well-being of its youngest and most vulnerable children. Charitable contributions have long played a vital role in enhancing hospital services and the experience of patients, and I am keen that the initiative resonates with donors and supporters. Mr Donnelly: Will the Minister give way? Mr Nesbitt: Yes. Mr Donnelly: Minister, you mentioned the new children's hospital. Are you aware of any space that has been identified in the plans for the new children's hospital? Mr Nesbitt: I cannot tell you exactly where it will be, but it will be a big building. As I said in my opening remarks, the direction of travel is towards recognising the benefit of sensory aids for children who have anxiety, stress and neurodivergent needs that we have to deal with. We are in a positive and proactive position. The point has been made that sensory rooms are not a luxury; they are a necessity for many children. Their presence can transform a child's hospital experience from one of fear and distress by taking them out of a clinical situation and putting them into something much more homely, acceptable and calming. I have asked my officials to maintain regular contact with the Belfast Trust. We will monitor progress and provide updates as the work continues. Mr Clarke has given me some homework, which is to find a disused shop that we could turn, at speed, into a sensory room. Ms Brownlee: Will the Minister give way? Mr Nesbitt: I have two seconds. Ms Brownlee: Hopefully, you will give me a bit of latitude, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I do not get to make a winding-up speech. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I will give you a bit of latitude. Ms Brownlee: I thank the Minister for his attitude and for the way in which he has come to the Chamber. I want to nail down whether he has any time frame for the project. As we have said, parents are passionate about the issue. Do you have any time frames for the work? Can we get some definite answers for the people of Northern Ireland about a sensory room at the Royal? Mr Nesbitt: I understand why you ask the question, but, if you have been listening to me over the last few days, you will know that I have stopped giving timelines because, as a Department, we keep saying that we will do things by a certain date or month but tend to honour them in the breach. All I can say is that it will be done at pace. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you, Minister. Thank you to those in the Public Gallery for coming to see something a bit more positive than usual in the Assembly. Adjourned at 7.47 pm. Top
[ni-assembly-official-report][plenary_report] Official Reports https://aims.niassembly.gov.uk/officialreport/report.aspx?&eveDate=2025/11/03&docID=456024 Official Report: Monday 03 November 2025 Table of Contents Assembly Business Matters of the Day Soldier F: Not Guilty Verdict Catherine Connolly, President of Ireland Members Statements Gaza: Scholasticide UFU: DAERA Vote of No Confidence Politicking in the Chamber Israel: Visit Israel: Visit Good Jobs Employment Rights Bill Israel: Visit Fuel Poverty Strategy AFBI Data Breach Mental Health Israel: Visit Assembly Business Commissioner for Standards: Appointment Private Members Business Cervical Screening Scandal Inquiry Oral Answers to Questions Infrastructure Health Questions for Urgent Oral Answer Education Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Assembly Business Standing Order 10(3A): Extension of Sitting Private Members Business Cervical Screening Scandal Inquiry Childcare Strategy The Assembly met at 12:00 pm (Mr Speaker in the Chair). Members observed two minutes' silence. Assembly Business Mr Speaker: Members, you will be aware that I have selected two Matters of the Day and three questions for urgent oral answer to be added to today's business. The Minister of Justice has asked that we do not hear the question for urgent oral answer to her today, as she is unwell, so one of the questions for urgent oral answer will be delayed. It will now be heard tomorrow. It is no secret that a number of those items of business are, to put it mildly, somewhat contentious. When Members speak, I therefore ask that they be reflective. They should get their point across, and forcefully if required, but I encourage them to do so respectfully. It is important that the House discuss matters that are contentious, because this is the place in which that should happen. It is for us to express our views on such issues on behalf of the public. Ministers should be scrutinised appropriately. That does not mean that we can be rude, however. We can be robust without being rude. I encourage Members to note my comments. I do not want to have to intervene, but if I have to, I will. Matters of the Day Soldier F: Not Guilty Verdict Mr Speaker: Jonathan Buckley has been given leave to make a statement on the not guilty verdict in the trial of Soldier F, which fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24. All other Members who wish to speak can indicate to do so in the usual manner. Mr Buckley: I welcome the not guilty verdict in the case of Soldier F, an elderly veteran who has been put through years of unnecessary turmoil for what can be described only as a show trial. Many years ago, the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) made it clear that the evidence was confused and unreliable and was therefore unlikely ever to result in a prosecution or a conviction. That was not enough for some, however. Those determined to use the courts for political ends pressed on. They pushed for a judicial review (JR) and then went to the Court of Appeal, forcing the PPS to reconsider, and we therefore had the spectacle that many in the republican movement wanted and had long yearned for: a British soldier being brought before the courts. Whilst I respect the desire and urge for every innocent victim to seek justice and truth for their loved one, we must be honest: this was never an attempt to get to the truth. It was about propaganda, pure and simple; an attempt to rewrite the narrative of the past; an attempt to recast the characters of hero and villain. In the version pushed by the parties opposite, our armed forces, which stood between terrorism and us throughout the Northern Ireland Troubles, were painted as the aggressor, whilst those who planted bombs, pulled triggers and murdered the innocent were portrayed as freedom fighters. Many of them sit in the ranks of the party opposite with the assurance of a letter of comfort from Tony Blair in their back pocket. The evidence in this case was the same confused and contradictory evidence that had already been dismissed, so we must ask this: why did it go back to court in the first instance? Therefore, I say to those, such as Colum Eastwood and members of Sinn Féin, who have championed the process that the enormous public cost, the emotional cost and the damage done to the trust in our judiciary system lies on you. We will never allow the history of the Troubles to be rewritten. We will honour the truth; we will honour their sacrifice; and we will ensure that those who served with dignity — Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up. Mr Buckley: —have the respect that they deserve. Ms Ferguson: For more than 53 years, the Bloody Sunday families have fought consistently, courageously and collectively in pursuit of truth and justice. On that day, the British army indiscriminately murdered 14 innocent civilians, many of whom were teenagers, and injured at least 15 more, on the streets of Derry. Not one British soldier or their military and political superiors has ever been held to account for their actions. The decision not to convict Soldier F is a travesty. As is reflected on the Free Derry wall, that remains an affront to justice. It goes against the very principles of what justice is meant to entail: principles of fairness, impartiality and due process. We have been proud to walk with the families for over half a century. In the wake of that most recent, deplorable decision, we remain ever more determined. We commend the determination, dedication and diligence of the Bloody Sunday families. The Bloody Sunday families can stand proud and undaunted in the full knowledge of the thought that reminds them that they have been and, on this day, remain on the right side of history. The Bloody Sunday justice campaign is a campaign led with dignity and carried out of love; the families' campaign for their deeply cherished loved ones: their sons and fathers, brothers and uncles. In 2010, they proudly achieved the first two limbs of the campaign's demands when the Bloody Sunday inquiry consigned the Widgery report to history and all the victims were declared innocent. The truth was set free. Whilst the recent decision was a setback to their final ask — to hold those responsible for the murders and attempted murders of their loved ones to account before a criminal court — it is due to their bravery and resilience that they have reached that stage to date. They have met the British state's attempts to subvert justice and the rule of law head on. Despite this most recent setback, their quest for accountability and justice remains. We in Sinn Féin continue to stand with the families now as we did then and will do ever more in the days, weeks and months to come. We will support whatever decision they make on the next steps forward. Mr Gaston: I welcome the acquittal of the veteran known as "Soldier F". There are fundamental questions of why the veteran was put through that ordeal, given the self-evident failings of the evidence. The first decision taken by the Public Prosecution Service to decline prosecution was, as the verdict demonstrates, correct. The later decision to proceed was completely wrong and only happened because of political pressure rather than any realistic prospect of conviction. Having pushed for Soldier F to stand trial, it now behoves those who demanded the trial to respect the verdict, including the MP for Foyle, Mr Eastwood. He must admit and recognise that Soldier F is now unquestionably an innocent man and does not have a blot on his record. I welcome the vindication of a soldier who has borne the weight of years of scrutiny, uncertainty and the stigma of accusation. Secondly, I ask the Assembly to put emotion aside and reflect soberly on the process. If evidence is clearly inadequate, prosecution should not proceed. Thirdly, I call upon all parties to accept the verdict and allow Soldier F to now live in peace. I am shocked that some have sought to attack the fact that Soldier F had his legal bills paid. That criticism has invariably come from those who had nothing to say about the £200 million cost of the Bloody Sunday inquiry. In many cases, it also comes from those who continue to defend and justify the bomb in Enniskillen, where 12 innocents were blown up while remembering the sacrifice for freedom in two world wars. There has been bloody Monday, when 10 Protestants were lined up and shot on the side of the road at Kingsmills; bloody Tuesday, when 11 soldiers were murdered in the Hyde Park and Regent's Park bombings; bloody Wednesday, when six off-duty soldiers were murdered at a fun run; bloody Thursday, when nine RUC officers were murdered in the Newry mortar attack; Bloody Friday, when 22 bombs exploded in 80 minutes, murdering nine and injuring 130; and bloody Saturday, when the IRA bombed the Abercorn restaurant, leaving two dead and over 100 horrifically injured. Yet Sinn Féin pollutes the air — Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up. Mr Gaston: — in the Chamber. My goodness, it knows hypocrisy, and it knows no bounds. Miss McAllister: I rise to mark the significance of the acquittal of Soldier F. This is an important milestone as we reflect on our past and our failure to deal with our dark and troubled past here in Northern Ireland. There is no doubt that the depth of feeling on the issue is felt right across the community in Northern Ireland, regardless of what side of that debate or community you feel that you sit on. Acquittal should not be a celebration. It is not a celebration by any. Justice should always be an option. It is possible and right to condemn the actions of the IRA on the streets of Northern Ireland and beyond during our Troubles and also condemn the actions of the military and those who served in the regiment. We cannot forget the words of the judge. To paraphrase, he said that members of the Parachute Regiment had totally lost all sense of military discipline, that they shot unarmed civilians fleeing and that those responsible should hang their heads in shame. We should also not forget the Saville inquiry and the apology of the then Prime Minister. We cannot forget the reason why earlier investigations were flawed. We have to remember the humanity when it comes to dealing with our dark past. It is really important that, in order to move forward and become an inclusive society, we move forward with victims, we have justice and we have reconciliation. I pay tribute to the families of all those who were killed on Bloody Sunday. It has not been an easy time for anyone, but it is really important that, as we gather here today, we remember that, if we continue to fail in dealing with our past, we are doomed to repeat these conversations and these condemnations over and over. Top 12.15 pm Mr Beattie: When we stand to talk about such things, I am always mindful of the fact that we should do so with compassion and empathy. I am a military veteran of 44 years. Today, as I stand here, my heart goes out to those who lost loved ones or who were injured. It is important to acknowledge that. One of the worst things about all this is that we always knew what the outcome of the trial was going to be, because there was not the evidence that was needed to secure a conviction. At times, the families were let down when people made them feel as though there would be enough to get a conviction. Clearly, there was not, and everybody knew that. It was not the army that was on trial, nor was it the Parachute Regiment. Those who tried to extrapolate the trial of Soldier F to cover all those are the people who created the feeling of a show trial, but that is not what happened. It was a trial against a lance corporal — a single lance corporal who was in charge of four soldiers out of thousands who were deployed on that day. He was found not guilty. Regardless of whether we like it — I know the families do not like it, but it is the reality of where we are — the individual was found not guilty. The families can now do as they wish to bring further charges of perjury — it is their absolute right to do so — but I am concerned that we are leading them down another road where we will raise their hopes and then dash them. We had the Saville inquiry and spent £200 million. I am not complaining about that — it is a lot of money, but I am certainly not complaining about it, and I am not complaining about the £4·3 million that was spent defending Soldier F — but look at the Birmingham bombings. Twenty-one people were murdered and over 200 were injured, but victims and families have been told that they are not getting an inquiry. In many ways, we have to reflect on the issue in the round. I am happy enough to say that Bloody Sunday was wrong and that what happened on that day was poor — I am more than happy to say that: it was certainly nothing to be proud of — but carrying on down the road that we are going down now, and trying to tell families that they are going to get something that, clearly, they are not going to get, does not help anybody. I started by saying that our thoughts should be with those who were killed, those who were injured and their families, but, in truth, they have had more than anybody else in Northern Ireland has had regarding investigations, inquiries and bringing somebody to trial. There are so many more people out there who have not had that. We need to reflect and remember compassion and empathy. Ms McLaughlin: Last week's social media posts by the DUP leader and others that included the insignia of the Parachute Regiment following the acquittal of Soldier F caused deep hurt, particularly in Derry and especially among the families of those who were murdered on Bloody Sunday. For those families who have spent over 50 years seeking truth and justice through lawful and peaceful means, it was not only another political controversy but a painful reminder of the disregard that has been too often shown to their grief. Let us be clear: the Parachute Regiment was responsible for shooting dead 13 unarmed civilians on the streets of my city, with a fourteenth dying later of his injuries. Lord Saville's inquiry report could not have been clearer: those killings were unjustified and unjustifiable. Judge Patrick Lynch reminded us of that truth. He said that the soldiers who entered Glenfada Park North had: "totally lost all sense of military discipline"; had shot: "unarmed civilians fleeing from them"; and: "Those responsible should hang their heads in shame." In that context, the DUP leader's decision to post the Parachute Regiment insignia suggests that he finds those actions acceptable, or rejects the judge's conclusions. Either way, it is indefensible and deeply hurtful for the Bloody Sunday families. Those families have carried themselves with extraordinary dignity and restraint. They have always sought justice through the rule of law — never revenge. They have upheld the very best of Derry: compassion, persistence and faith in democratic institutions, even when those institutions failed them. That is why the DUP leader's post was profoundly wrong. Political leadership carries responsibility; it requires empathy and understanding, especially when dealing with wounds that run so very deep. When anyone in public life causes hurt, the right thing for them to do is acknowledge it and apologise. That is strength not weakness, and it builds trust and helps us to move forward. As MLAs, we owe it to the Bloody Sunday families and every victim of our troubled past to act with decency, respect and moral courage. Their struggle was for truth, and it is one of the most powerful examples of peaceful perseverance in modern times. They remind us that justice is not a slogan or a weapon in culture wars, but a principle that must apply equally to all. I pay tribute — Mr Speaker: Your time is up. Ms McLaughlin: — to their unwavering dignity, and to the people of Derry — Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up. I call Paul Frew. Ms McLaughlin: — who continue to show the world that — Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up. Ms McLaughlin: — even in the face of profound injustice, peace and — Mr Speaker: Will the Member take her seat? Ms McLaughlin: — perseverance can pull through. Mr Speaker: I call Paul Frew. Mr Frew: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise with a heart full of sensitivity and compassion for all the innocent victims of the Troubles, who never came home and left an empty chair in their households. It is with that compassion and sensitivity that I will speak today. You could ask whether the soldiers were even supposed to be there on the day. That was a decision that was made by the Government of the day and the command of the army on the day. We are talking about putting an individual on trial, not a regiment or the British Army. We are talking about an individual, who, at a very young age and at the rank of lance corporal, was in charge of four soldiers who were part of a section of eight. He would have been trained for wartime conflict, not the restoration of civil peace. On the streets of Northern Ireland at that time, fires were burning, and no one knew what the future held. The British Army served in that context in Northern Ireland, and we should not forget or shy away from that. The soldiers who served in Northern Ireland came from all over the British Isles and included those from the Royal Irish Rangers and the Ulster Defence Regiment, later the Royal Irish Regiment, who lived here and served their communities with distinction. Each one of them went out every day to protect all of us from terrorist fire, and all we hear is hypocrisy from the parties opposite, which have, no doubt, used the families of Bloody Sunday over the decades to suit their political goals and objectives and to try to rewrite history. We do not hear the facts about the innocent victims of the Teebane, Enniskillen, Omagh, Bloody Friday, Kingsmills and Regent's Park attacks and the Birmingham bombings. Why are the parties opposite not campaigning for justice for those families? Mr McCrossan: How dare you? [Inaudible.] That is a disgraceful comment. Mr Speaker: Order. Mr McCrossan: Absolutely disgraceful. Mr Frew: Why do they not hand over the information that they know? Martin McGuinness had an opportunity to do so, but because of the IRA's code of silence, he refused to give innocent victims the truth about the tragedies and the murder of their loved ones. That is hypocritical nonsense from the parties opposite, and we should call it out when it happens. Mr Burrows: Bloody Sunday was an awful day for the people of Londonderry, and it was not a proud day for the British Army. Two things can, however, be wrong at the same time. Bloody Sunday was wrong — it was a catastrophic error by the British Army — but it was also wrong to prosecute Soldier F. That reflects the imbalance that is at the heart of how we deal with legacy in Northern Ireland. There is an imbalance in the prosecutions taken, the media reporting, the money spent and the condemnation expressed. I was proud to stand in Guildhall Square on 15 June 2010 — there were only about three police officers there — when the Bloody Sunday families got to read the report. On the screen live was David Cameron, our Prime Minister at the time, and he said that Bloody Sunday was "unjustified and unjustifiable". That is the difference between the British state and republicans, who still say that what they did was necessary and noble and who still celebrate their patriot dead. That is the cancer that is at the heart of our politics and that creates so much divisiveness and polarisation. They should reflect today on the fact that, while our Prime Minister was able to say that Bloody Sunday was unjustified and unjustifiable, their leaders continue to stand and give orations about those who murdered people in cold blood, not in the heat of the battle but in actions that were planned; they sneaked under people's cars and planted bombs. One of their former leaders, Martina Anderson, planted bombs all across England and then went to Scotland and lay in a flat while she knew that they were ticking down. When she was interviewed and told, "It is not too late. Can you tell us where they are?", she did not, knowing that the bombs were planted in hotels in London. As someone whose family served at Sword Beach and the Somme and whose father served for the entire Troubles, I can say that Bloody Sunday was wrong. The British Army acted wrongly, but the prosecution of Soldier F was wrong. There was no evidence. That is the invisible hand of the PPS, which takes the path of least resistance. Turning a blind eye to anything that would rock the boat is a culture that emanated from the peace process. That is why there are people who are not prosecuted when there is evidence, and people who are prosecuted when there is no evidence. We still live under the shadow of a guillotine, which is the threat of Sinn Féin. I stand in solidarity with the families of Bloody Sunday. It was an awful day. I also stand with the thousands of victims of loyalist and republican terrorists who do not get the same voice. We, in this party, speak for all victims — innocent victims, even if the Alliance Party struggles with that terminology. Mr Durkan: It had not been my intention to speak, but I feel compelled to, given the tone and content of some contributions from across the Chamber. Mr Buckley spoke of the years of "turmoil" visited upon poor Soldier F. That does not compare to the years of turmoil suffered by the Bloody Sunday families — and not just the Bloody Sunday families but so many families across Northern Ireland, from every community, who lost victims. To make that comparison does an injustice to all of them. We are told that the trial is something that the republican movement wanted; no, it is something that the families of victims wanted. Mr Buckley spoke of the recasting of the roles of heroes and villains. There is no confusion as to who the villains of Bloody Sunday were, and there is no confusion as to who the victims of Bloody Sunday were and who the victims still are. The people of Derry always knew, and the UK Government finally accepted, finally admitted and finally apologised for that. Those murders were unjustified and unjustifiable, and the SDLP has always said that all the murders were unjustified and unjustifiable. The only rewriting of that particularly awful chapter in the horror story of our collective past is being done by the DUP, the TUV and others. All victims deserve truth, and all victims deserve justice. You cannot stand and accuse others of hypocrisy, as hypocritical as they might be, while you are engaging in hypocrisy and gloating over victims. That is what is being done. You put a Para flag — a Parachute Regiment insignia — on your social media in the light of the trial. Catch yourselves on. It is absolutely disgusting. This is not about whataboutery; this is about victims, truth and justice. Mr McCrossan: I, too, had no intention of speaking, because I thought that Members in the House would have learned well from the journey that our people collectively have been on and the hurt and pain that people have suffered. Just to be very clear to Mr Frew: our party was built on peace and on bringing an end to the violence and cold-blooded murder on our streets. It did not matter which shade that was. Omagh was wrong. Enniskillen was wrong. All of those events were wrong. Bloody Sunday was wrong. It is not a case of "Go compare". Innocent people were blown to bits, shot up and killed and did not return to their families. Anyone in the House who dares to justify or attempt to justify any of those actions, regardless of whether they were carried out by the IRA, the UVF, the British Government or anyone else, should be absolutely ashamed of themselves. Ashamed of themselves. Top 12.30 pm There needs to be a lesson learned here. Our people are suffering incredibly. These institutions were brought about to put an end to all of this nonsense, yet, even with issues such as this today, you find reasons to poke one another in the eye instead of acknowledging the pain and hurt that our people have gone through. The SDLP was built on the foundations of peace and bringing an end to violence. Anyone in the House who dares to taint the memory of John Hume, Séamus Mallon or others who sacrificed themselves to a lifetime of brutal intimidation from all sides needs to think again carefully. We would not be here today but for the work and sacrifices of people who went long before us and created these institutions. I am absolutely insulted in the House not just for the people who work hard to bring about peace but for the families who, every day, have been seeking out peace, justice and simple answers to the questions that they have, should it be the families of the Disappeared, the families in Omagh or the Bloody Sunday families. There is no right or wrong answer to this. It is clear that we have a responsibility in the House to show some leadership, and a new low has been struck today. This is not a game. This is about people's lives. Wake up and start realising that and, for God's sake, have some respect for the memories of everybody who is affected. Catherine Connolly, President of Ireland Mr Speaker: Gerry Carroll has been given leave to make a statement on the election of Catherine Connolly as president of Ireland that fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24. All other Members will have up to three minutes to speak. Mr Carroll: Ba mhaith liom mo chomhghairdeas a dhéanamh lenár nUachtarán nua tofa, Catherine Connolly. [Translation: I would like to congratulate our newly elected president, Catherine Connolly.] The recent election of Catherine Connolly has given people hope, amidst the despair and rising sentiment of right-wing and racist ideas that are growing in Ireland and across the world, that things can be different. Catherine Connolly clearly stands on the right side for people here and across the world and lets us know that things can be different. In the middle of a housing crisis North and South it is important that we have a president who recognises where the blame should lie for that. We have problems with skyrocketing rents, landlordism and homes lying empty. Catherine Connolly has articulated a solution to the housing crisis that is positive and inclusive and that most people can get behind. (Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair) In the middle of a genocide and the killing of at least 20,000 children and hundreds of thousands of women and men slaughtered by Israel, Catherine Connolly has been an ardent critic of Israel's actions for years and a stalwart supporter of the right to Palestinian self-determination. Members would do well to listen to her on that matter. As Governments make excuses, wring their hands and, on occasion, fund Israel, it is important that we have a president who stands up on the right side for citizens on the island. [Interruption.] I sincerely hope that this is the last time that people in the North, including me, my family and my community, will not have a vote in a presidential election. It is a crying shame that people who live on this island, travel in it and contribute so much to it cannot play their part in voting for the figurehead of the state. Despite that, Catherine Connolly achieved a record vote. The Member to my right who shouted at me should listen to this: she received almost one million votes — the biggest vote in the history of voting for the Uachtarán, the president of Ireland. It was fantastic to see the parties of the left come together to back Catherine as Uachtarán through the campaign. People are enthused and inspired by the realisation that we can have a different type of politics and that we can have a Government in the South without the civil war, right-wing, gombeen parties. People want a new hope, and, although her position is that of a figurehead, Catherine Connolly provides that hope in droves. It was great to see Catherine Connolly at Cultúrlann McAdam Ó Fiaich in my constituency in the past week. I hosted her there a few months ago at the start of her campaign. It was great to see her back, meeting people, chatting to them and getting a bite to eat. It was fantastic to see her at the Oireachtas na Samhna this week, standing up as a Gaelgeoir for all Gaelgeoirí [Translation: Irish speakers] North and South. The future is unwritten, but the cracks are starting to appear. Cracks of light are coming through, and Catherine will shine a torch brightly for everybody who wants to see a positive and different future. Comhghairdeas agus beir bua. [Translation: Congratulations and good luck.] Ms Sheerin: I am happy to join Gerry in congratulating Catherine Connolly, our new president-elect, and I was delighted to take part in canvassing for her throughout the country. This discussion is a stark contrast to the previous one. The election was an example of positivity rising above negativity and of good conquering evil, and that should give all of us in the House heart. People talk a lot about labels and politics being ideologically separate at the minute, but Catherine Connolly is the epitome of what it is to be on the left. She is a genuine worker on the ground, and she understands the issues that affect the Irish people North and South. That is why the people felt such a closeness to her and voted for her in their droves. She reflects what it is to be Irish. We are known across the world for our soundness, and that is what Catherine is: sound. She understands the issues that are affecting working people and how we can address them when we work together. Catherine's election is an indicator of support for Irish unity; indeed, Irish unity was a key theme of her campaign. I was struck by the number of people across the Twenty-six Counties who expressed almost sympathy with me as an Irish woman from the North who did not have a vote for my president. However, I will be proud to call her "my president" when she is sworn in, and, hopefully, our next presidential election will see that franchise extended to us all. Catherine Connolly stands with the underdog and the downtrodden. She reflects the will of the majority of Irish people in standing with the people of Gaza as they suffer genocide by an apartheid Israeli state. She shows us on the world stage to be a compassionate country whose people care about others and have genuine charity and kindness in our hearts. Catherine rose above the negative campaign that was fought against her and showed that being true to yourself and honest in your politics can conquer any hate-filled drivel that comes at you. Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine. [Translation: People live in one another's shadow.] We all stand in one another's shadow, and the workers united can never be defeated. That is a lesson for us all going forward. Mr Brett: The election of the Irish head of state is, of course, a matter for those people, but Members on these Benches and the vast majority of the unionist community will not miss Michael D Higgins as he leaves office. The former holder of the Irish presidential office brought that office into disrepute as he entered into unnecessary and unwanted political tirades. His antisemitism, which many in the House share, will be what he is remembered for. This election will be remembered for these issues: how dare a Protestant run for the highest office in the land? How dare Heather Humphreys get above her station and try to be a Protestant woman who wanted to be the head of the Irish state? It was the same old story, and those in the House who continue to campaign to break up this United Kingdom may be sorry for what they have got. Unionists across Northern Ireland have seen that the so-called new Ireland means that Protestants should be neither seen nor heard and that the treatment of Heather Humphreys reflects how any unionist, Protestant or anyone in Northern Ireland who has any British way of life would be treated in a new Ireland. Not that hypocrisy is something that anyone in the House would engage in, but, in 2018, the Irish president-elect visited Syria at the taxpayer's expense to see her friend Mr Assad. I am sure that People Before Profit's TDs in the Irish Republic will table a motion of no confidence in that office holder, but, given the fact that the people whom she visited were not Jewish, perhaps the views of People Before Profit will not stretch to doing so. We all know People Before Profit's views, because, when 1,200 people were murdered, the Member for West Belfast tweeted, "Victory to the Palestinian Resistance" — [Inaudible] Mr Brett: Unlike you, Mr Carroll, I do not read from a prepared script. Just you sit there in the corner and be quiet. We heard enough from you over the weekend. We wish the president-elect well, but she has a difficult task. I am sure that Members on all sides of the House will hold her accountable for her disgraceful support of a tyrannical regime. Mr Honeyford: On behalf of the Alliance Party, I warmly congratulate Catherine Connolly on her election as president and wish her every success as she begins a new chapter in our shared history. President-elect Connolly has long been a voice for inclusion and compassion, which are qualities that will serve her well in her role of representing all the people on the island. I will also mention Heather Humphreys. In defeat, her character was shown, even in her concession speech, which spoke to her integrity. She will always be welcome here. I will take a minute to thank President Michael D Higgins, whose years of service have been defined by his generosity of spirit, leadership and unwavering belief in the power of empathy and understanding. I had the absolute pleasure of meeting him in Dublin earlier this year. I was struck by the warmth of his engagement with us in Northern Ireland. He reminded me of the strength of this island, which lies not in what divides us but in what we share. As we look ahead, the Alliance Party believes that there is a real opportunity and a responsibility to share this place across all communities, to deepen collaboration, to deliver better for everybody across our economy and our health service, to improve the lives that people live and to build a future that reflects the best of all of us. We want to see an island that not just shares this space but replaces, with purpose and partnership, the politics of division, which we have heard this afternoon, and reconciles us to a lived space. There should be a shared now. It should not simply be spoken of as some sort of dream for the future but as something right now in which we live together and are reconciled. As President-elect Connolly begins her term, the Alliance Party offers her our full support and best wishes. May her presidency help us continue on that journey towards building reconciliation and having a truly shared island that we can all call "home". Dr Aiken: The Ulster Unionist Party recognises that President-elect Catherine Connolly is the choice of the Irish people, given at the ballot box, and has been duly elected. As a party, we respect the choice of the Irish people and will treat her, as we do all democratically elected heads of state, with the due respect that that office holder has. Be it the head of state of Ireland, the United States, the Ukraine or wherever, we treat them all with that respect. We note with some concern, however, the president-elect's approach to Europe, particularly to peace in Europe. First, there are her comments on being ashamed at being part of the European Union led by Ursula von der Leyen. There is then the fact that she voted against virtually every EU treaty that has come through. This is quite a strange one. President-elect Connolly spoke in support of former MEPs Mick Wallace and Clare Daly when they refused to vote in favour of a tribunal to prosecute Vladimir Putin. She also refused to join in and clap Vlodymyr Zelenskyy in Dáil Éireann when he was there. That seems to be very partial. In her recent election campaign, she agreed with People Before Profit that NATO was warmongering and that Germany's move towards rearmament was equivalent to that in the 1930s, a clear reference to Germany's long-gone fascist past. Top 12.45 pm We also need to reflect on her remarks about defence spending in Ireland. We know that the Irish Republic is freeloading on its defence. Everybody from the United States and Europe — everywhere — has been saying the same thing. However, when Catherine Connolly says that Ireland does not need an army, navy or air force, just who, does she propose, will defend the Irish state? [Inaudible.] Dr Aiken: Indeed. Who will defend it from the drug smugglers, the narco-terrorists, the terrorists and just about everybody else? It is refreshing to see that some of her views are not necessarily followed by all the people who voted in her support, and there has been a degree of concern raised across the piece. It is the Irish people's choice, and we recognise that. When she comes to Northern Ireland as the head of state, we will recognise that role and will bear it in mind that she is here in what is supposed to be a politically neutral position to represent the people of Ireland and is not here to be like President Higgins and interfere with the political process. Mr McGrath: On behalf of the SDLP, I join in the congratulations to Catherine Connolly on her election as president. It marks a significant and hopeful moment in the story of our nation. Her election as president is a milestone for social justice, workers' rights and the inclusive, compassionate and new Ireland that so many of us strive to build. Catherine Connolly has long been a voice for fairness, equality and the dignity of every person. Her presidency will carry that same spirit, one rooted in courage, integrity and a deep commitment to the common good. As we look forward, we in the SDLP want the Irish Government to look north, because this must be the last presidential election in which Irish citizens in the North are denied a vote for their head of state. The people of the island share one nation, one culture and one destiny, and our democracy should reflect that truth. As Catherine Connolly prepares to take up the mantle of the presidency, Ireland stands as a proud, progressive nation that is confident in who we are and hopeful about who we can yet become. She embodies a politics that will listen, that uplifts and that remembers that the measure of any republic is how it treats its people, especially the most vulnerable. As we celebrate this new chapter, we pause to pay tribute to the outgoing president, Michael D Higgins. He was a poet and a thinker who was rooted in the shaping and forming of ideas, and he was a champion of human rights who inspired not only Ireland but the world. His time in office reminded us that leadership can be both principled and compassionate and that words, when used with care, can help to heal and unite. Mr Gaston: Catherine Connolly's recent election as president of the Irish Republic is no great leap forward for an all Ireland, as some may try to portray it; indeed, it is quite the opposite. Ms Connolly's election is, in fact, a disaster for anyone promoting an all Ireland. She will be a toxic and divisive figure. She represents the most militant and ideological strand of Southern nationalism, and she will be deeply unpopular amongst unionists, even more so than her predecessor, which is an achievement in itself. Far from advancing their cause, the nature of the election has set back the so-called agreed Ireland project. The campaign descended into open sectarianism, particularly after Sinn Féin entered the fray in support of the ultimate winner. The mere suggestion that her husband had, in the past, been an Orangeman merited front-page news in the Republic. Red, white and blue posters went up in a panicked response to the idea that anyone with even the most distant connection to Protestantism might be associated with high office. The treatment of Fine Gael's Heather Humphreys, who was targeted and abused because of her Protestant background, exposed the ugly undercurrent of intolerance that stills runs through Southern politics. If that is what inclusivity looks like, it will repel rather than attract. Catherine Connolly may well become an embarrassment for the Republic on the international stage. Her far-left instincts, her hostility to traditional Western allies and her eagerness to insert herself into political controversies could put her on a collision course with key Western Governments. The turnout for the election was a mere 45·8%. Of those who turned out, 13% spoiled their ballots. Over 200,000 ballots were deliberately rejected. That level of disagreement and protest strongly suggests that there is something fundamentally wrong with the system in the Irish Republic. For unionists, the election changes nothing. If anything, it reinforces the conviction that our future lies securely within the United Kingdom, not a Republic that is increasingly defined by ideological extremes and cultural intolerance. Ms Connolly's election marks a moment of clarity. It reminds us why Northern Ireland's place within the Union must be defended with even greater determination. Mr Frew: First, I state categorically that the presidential election in the Republic of Ireland is for the people of the Republic of Ireland. As a democrat, I will always support using democratic means to support a head of state, no matter where that state may be in the world. We need to be champions of democracy in all its ilks and in all parts of the world. Looking on during the election in the Republic of Ireland, I was struck by the fact that a number of things happened that had not happened in quite a while, one of which was the spoiled ballots, as has been mentioned. Thirteen per cent of ballots were spoiled. That must be a first in the history of the Republic of Ireland. That lends itself to a discontentment among the populace of the Irish Republic that politicians down there should look to and be mindful of. The second thing that struck me was the negative campaigning. As a politician and a democrat, I am scared to think about the level of negative and untruthful campaigning that went on. The way in which that practice played out does not bode well for the future of democracy, especially Western democracies. You can always deny a fake news story or negative digital campaigning, but what you cannot deny about this election is the naked sectarianism that was on display against candidate Heather Humphreys. What that did for most unionists in Northern Ireland, I suggest, is reaffirm how the Irish Republic is no place to be comfortable in if you are a unionist or even a Protestant. It pains me to say that. It harks back to a time when the Republic of Ireland — look at its extradition policies — harboured terrorists. It even harks back to the movement of a massive number of Protestant people who left what became the Republic of Ireland and ended up needing to go to England and gain support from the Government through schemes, because they were left homeless after being burned out of their homes. It was not only Protestants, mind you, but service people of all ilks who had served in the First World War. It echoes and harks back — Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Paul. Mr Frew: — to a time in the Republic of Ireland that we do not want to see again. Mr McCrossan: On behalf of the SDLP and as an Irish citizen, I congratulate our newly elected president of Ireland, Catherine Connolly. I also offer my best wishes to Heather Humphreys and her family on a powerful campaign. It was a challenging election, with two powerful and determined women at the fore. That is a sign of tremendous change and is emblematic of the vital role that women play in society as leaders of our community. That, in itself, spoke to a lot of people across the island. I am happy for Catherine, and I wish her and her family well. It is disappointing that elements of the campaign were negative and that the media often portrayed some of the more difficult challenges that affect our society and did not, ultimately, focus on the opportunities that are ahead of us as an island and as a people. I want to thank President Michael D Higgins. Michael D Higgins will go down, in my strong opinion and that of others, as one of the greatest Irish presidents that we have ever seen or will ever see. He made people in this House, it seems, feel uncomfortable because he spoke truth to power. He spoke up for people, which, unfortunately, does not go down well with some in the House. Mr Gaston talks of toxicity, division and embarrassment: it sounded very much as though he was discussing his own party, the TUV, because it seems as though its mantra is to be toxic, divisive and embarrassing. Nobody in the House — certainly not Members on some Benches — can criticise anybody for being divisive or toxic. The sludge of toxicity in the Chamber today has been enough to turn anyone's stomach. People would do well to see beyond their own toes and recognise that Ireland has changed in a positive way. It is an inclusive society that welcomes people from all walks of life. It has a bright future. I wish Catherine well in the important role that she will play, and I hope that she follows in a similar vein to President Higgins. I have just received a letter from him — just at this moment, actually. I am grateful for that letter, and I wish him and his wife well in their well-deserved retirement. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Folks, before we move on to the next item of business, people seriously need to chill their jets. Members' Statements Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: If Members wish to be called to make a statement, they should rise in their place. Members who are called will have up to three minutes to make their statement. I remind Members that interventions are not permitted. I will not take any points of order on this or any other matter until the item of business has finished. Gaza: Scholasticide Mr Sheehan: The term "scholasticide" refers to the systemic obliteration of education through the arrest, detention or killing of teachers, students and staff and the destruction of education infrastructure. Over 20,000 children and 500 teachers have been killed in Gaza over the past two years. Tens of thousands of others have been maimed and injured. If that is not scholasticide, I do not know what is. Anyone with an ounce of honesty or integrity knows that what is happening in Gaza is genocide. There are any number of reports and organisations that support that view, including the UN international commission of inquiry, the International Association of Genocide Scholars, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, B'Tselem, Oxfam, Genocide Watch and Physicians for Human Rights. The Minister, however, prefers to parrot the propaganda of his Israeli paymasters; the genocidal regime, the leaders of which are wanted on international arrest warrants for war crimes and crimes against humanity. This morning, I listened to a young student outside here as he talked about his routine for going to school each day. He said that he does not have to worry about bombs dropping from the sky. He passes the hospital but does not have to worry about whether it will be there tomorrow. Likewise, he knows that his school will be there when he reaches the gate. That is not the case for children in Palestine. The Minister is oblivious to that. This morning, against my better judgement, I listened to the Minister for 40 minutes. There was not one word of empathy for the tens of thousands of Palestinian children who have been killed, maimed and injured. There was not one ounce of humanity or compassion. The Minister is a disgrace. He should hang his head in shame. He has shown that he is not fit to be the Education Minister, and we have no confidence in him. He should pack his bags and go now. Top 1.00 pm UFU: DAERA Vote of No Confidence Miss McIlveen: Last week, the Ulster Farmers' Union, which is one of DAERA's largest stakeholders and a body that represents over 12,500 farmers and their families, took the extraordinary step of passing a motion of no confidence in DAERA. That extraordinary step was passed unanimously by the executive committee, which comprises around 150 people. It was not only an extraordinary step but an extraordinary vote, given the breadth of diverse views and interests in farming. The farming sector is worth £6 billion to the Northern Ireland economy and is recognised as providing 25% of the UK's food supply. This is no small matter. The vote was a damning indictment of the Department and the course that the Minister has set for it. The buck stops with Minister Muir on that. The Alliance Party may blame everyone else for its woes and drop as many dead cat arguments as it can, but the vote cannot have come as a surprise to anyone. We have repeatedly warned the Minister. We raised those issues time and again in the Chamber. The Minister has been told that he has been placing too much of the blame for and burden of climate change on farming and that he needed to be proportionate and even-handed in his approach. He has been told that a wildlife intervention was needed to tackle bovine tuberculosis. He said that that was in hand, but there has since been nothing. He pressed ahead with the nutrients action programme (NAP) consultation, which did not engage the sectors and was based on scientific assumptions that had not even been peer-reviewed. He was told that he needed sincere partnership working when developing his NAP proposals. He has been told repeatedly about action being needed on ammonia controls and how they are stifling betterment proposals and planning, but nothing has happened. He was told about the issues with generational renewal during the debate on the Farm Sustainability (Transitional Provisions) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025. He and his Department were warned. The Minister has not been the critical friend that farmers have needed. He has set himself against the sector rather than working with it. The Minister and the Department need to change course, whether that is on TB, NAP, ammonia controls, betterment proposals or climate change targets. His agenda of environmental purism is hugely damaging to our most important industry and threatens to undermine the very fabric of our rural economy and community. He has lost the trust of his biggest stakeholder. It is time that he listened. Politicking in the Chamber Ms Nicholl: I was going to talk about Ballynafeigh School of Irish Dancing's success, but I will make my Member's statement on the House, because the past hour has been so deeply depressing. My six-month-old baby is in crèche at the moment. Just before I came back to work, I thought, "I am outsourcing the care of my kids because we are here to try to make this place better". That is how I justify it to myself: my six-month-old baby is being looked after by someone else — not me — because we have the privilege of trying to make this place better for everyone who lives here now and for future generations. There has been so much politicking in the Chamber. I have noticed such a difference in this place in the six months from when I left to when I came back. We can make political points, and we can argue about things. We can disagree on things, and we will disagree on so many different levels, especially on huge moral questions. However, it has become so personal and nasty. Anytime that anyone stands up, there is a niggling behind them. Are we going to do that for the next 18 months? Are we honestly going to have to come here for the next 18 months and put up with that? Who is inspired by such discussions? Who is watching that and thinking, "Wow, those people really represent me. They will really make a difference". Who watches how we discuss things and feels hopeful right now? We disagree on so many things, but when we are in the corridors, it is human and personal. We are able to talk to each other, human to human. Please, can we do better? I honestly do not know why I have come away from my children to be here if we are not actually going to make a difference to people's lives. We can disagree on things, but we can do so in a respectful way, not by constantly attacking one another's party in such a personal way. It is so personal. There is no humanity in politics across the world right now, but we have a duty to live up to this: people come to the Assembly every day because the Good Friday Agreement offers hope for how things can be better and how we can have huge differences but still sit in a room and think about how to make life better for people. They come here to learn from us, but what hope are they taking away right now? I just think that we can be better. Sorry, Ballynafeigh: I will write you a letter instead. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I remind Members that, when another Member is on their feet and speaking, it is really rude to talk over them. I ask you to be respectful, even for five minutes. Israel: Visit Dr Aiken: Last week, along with several colleagues, I visited Israel. As a declaration of interest, the visit was paid for by the Israeli embassy in London. I thank all those whom we met: those of the Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Bahá'í and Druze faiths or of no faith; and those who consider themselves to be Israeli, Palestinian or Druze. The many people whom we talked to all mentioned the trauma and enormous suffering that happened on 7 October 2023 and the impact that that and the subsequent war are having on their lives. They all want a just and, hopefully, lasting peace. The testimony that we heard directly from the innocent victims was in many, if not all, cases harrowing — so harrowing that, even as a military veteran, I find it hard to comprehend. The abuse, torture, sexual mutilation and violence and the pure brutality that occurred on 7 October are unfathomable. Far from being a victory to the Palestinian resistance, it was a horrific example of what I can only describe as pure, unadulterated evil. There was no attempt to hide what they did; in fact, they livestreamed it. Some of the greatest horrors occurred at Kibbutz Nir Oz. That is, in the saddest way, ironic because it was known across Israel as the "peace kibbutz", where the residents went out of their way to help and support their Palestinian neighbours. That is where actual genocide was committed. Rita Lifschitz, a resident of the kibbutz, guided us around the burnt-out buildings. She walked us through the homes where the residents, many of whom were elderly or young, were murdered. We then stopped outside what remained of the home of the Bibas family: husband, Yarden; wife, Shiri; Ariel, aged four; and Kfir, aged 10 months. The light was dropping as we gathered close to see where the shooting and grenades had left their mark. Outside, there was a washing machine and dryer with baby and children's clothes still in it. Beside it were children's toys, including a plastic house and swing. I have exactly the same toys in my garage for my children and grandkids. Yarden eventually came home, severely traumatised. Kfir, at the age of 10 months, was strangled in front of Shiri, and Ariel was murdered shortly thereafter. It is known from forensic evidence and Hamas's sick records that Shiri was alive to witness that. She was then murdered and mutilated, although it is uncertain whether all the mutilation was carried out pre- or post-mortem. They were murdered that day, along with thousands of others, just because they were Jews. Everyone whom we met desired peace, but how do we make peace with people whose mentality is such that they sadistically strangle a child in front of their mother? The sad fact is that, on 7 October, the words "never again" became "now". Shalom. Israel: Visit Mr Gaston: I rise this afternoon to follow up what we have heard about the response to last week's cross-party trip to Israel. Of all the places where lectures on human rights and terror can be delivered, this Chamber has zero credibility; it should be the last place where such comments are made. Of all the people who can pontificate in the Chamber about such matters, Sinn Féin Members are close to the bottom, with Pat Sheehan not even making the list. Of all the people to lead the nationalist and republican alliance by the nose on human rights in the Middle East, the Member for West Belfast, who is not in his place, should be very last. Why? It is because the Assembly is founded on the principle that you reward terror. You grant terrorists, such as Martin McGuinness and Conor Murphy, and apologists for terror, such as Michelle O'Neill, positions in Government so that they will not do it again. Let us not pretend that this controversy is about human rights. It is about selective outrage and political theatre. I remind the House that the lead party for nationalism here proudly publicised its meetings with Hamas in 2006, 2009 and 2016 — an organisation that then, as now, is recognised by the United States as a terrorist organisation. I remind the House of what happened on 7 October: Israeli civilians were being murdered, Israeli women were being raped and Israeli children were being abducted from their homes. While that was happening, Mr Carroll was sitting at a safe distance away, tweeting, "Victory to the Palestinian Resistance". Yet, today, he clicks his fingers and Sinn Féin, the SDLP and, now, the Alliance Party fall into line behind him, not because of any great moral principle but because the Education Minister visited a school. The hypocrisy is nauseating, but we should also pause to reflect on what the saga reveals about the dysfunction of this place. In no other Government in the world would so-called coalition partners declare no confidence in each other one day and then sit around the Executive table the next. For the record, Mr Givan, yes, indeed, you are partners with Sinn Féin in government. This is not normal politics. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member's time is up. Mr Gaston: This place will never deliver normal politics. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member's time is up. Take your seat. 'Good Jobs' Employment Rights Bill Mr Kearney: In the coming weeks, Sinn Féin will be conducting a house-to-house canvas throughout the North to discuss the 'good jobs' employment rights Bill, which will be brought before the Assembly in 2026. The Bill aims to introduce unprecedented improvements in all workplaces. Workers and employers will benefit, so it will be progressive and consequential legislation. Sinn Féin's grassroots political engagement will provide information about the proposed legislation and how it will advance economic productivity and shared prosperity. As the all-island economy continues to grow, it is essential that everyone feels the benefits of prosperity, but that can only be achieved when workers are well paid and guaranteed secure employment. The proposals to expand trade union membership and strengthen collective bargaining rights are very important. The legislation will enhance the working environment for workers with parenting and caring responsibilities by guaranteeing rights to flexible working and parental leave. It contains family-friendly proposals, such as an introduction of additional leave and pay entitlements for working parents of babies in neonatal care, a statutory right to carer's leave, strengthened paternity leave rights and an extension of redundancy protections for pregnant women. The 'good jobs' employment rights Bill will improve workers' conditions. It will guarantee that they keep their tips, strengthen the right to disconnect from the workplace and end precarious working conditions by introducing banded-hours contracts. The proposals in the legislation are expansive and transformative. Sinn Féin's constituency-based canvas will be aimed at maximising awareness of those important measures in the coming weeks. Israel: Visit Mr Buckley: On many occasions, the House has debated the conflict in the Middle East, and not unlike many democratically elected Parliaments across the world, we have differing views. That is the essence of parliamentary debate. That is the essence of democracy. We should all be able to agree that there has been an untold loss of innocent human life, but today's debate is not about that. It and the past week's attacks on the Education Minister are barefaced and brass-necked. Why? It is because he had the audacity to visit the state of Israel and to visit a school in Jerusalem — an integrated school where Arabs, Christians and Jews are all educated together. Top 1.15 pm We all know what today's discussion is really about. Comrade Gerry Carroll has Sinn Féin by the nose and is dragging it to the leftist extreme, as he often does in this place. It was once said that when the herd moves, it moves. My goodness, it has moved this morning, because right on cue, their useful lackeys in the Alliance Party and the SDLP are right behind them to support an extreme leftist cause. Who are they supporting? Gerry Carroll used to say that he stood up to fascists; today, he stands with them. Let us not forget that most disgraceful tweet, which, by the way, no Sinn Féin Member has ever once condemned or criticised in the House. What did he say? He said, "Victory to the Palestinian Resistance", with a fist in the air, whilst 1,200 people had been executed by Hamas. That was the reality. What about the hurt that was caused? There was no comment. Then again, Sinn Féin is used to coming to the aid of international terrorism. It has been the lapdog and fanboy of terror gangs across the world. Mr Sheehan had the gall to talk about his position — he, a convicted terrorist and a man who went to visit Hamas. We will take no lectures. This party will not be dictated to about who our Ministers shall be. They are put in place courtesy of the electorate that votes for us, and Minister Givan will continue to represent — Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Your time is up. Mr Buckley: — all the people in Northern Ireland. Fuel Poverty Strategy Ms K Armstrong: I will bring the House back to something that is relevant to Northern Ireland and that affects so many of our constituents. This morning, National Energy Action Northern Ireland revealed research that confirmed that 27% of households in Northern Ireland are living in fuel poverty. That is 27% of our neighbours, friends and family who are living in fuel poverty. Now, you would think that we would have a plan for that, but our fuel poverty strategy still sits in draft form in the Department for Communities and has not seen the light of day. What is worse about it, and all should pay attention to this, is the fact that over 50% of our pensioners and over 60% of our people with disabilities live in fuel poverty. It is November. It is getting colder. While others are worried about everything else, they are failing to deliver for people who live in cold homes in Northern Ireland today. The research that was announced this morning confirmed that our Government, and the Minister for Communities in particular, are failing to deliver for the people who are living here by allowing them to continue to live in cold homes in the social housing and private rented sectors. The House has agreed legislation stating that energy efficiency standards will be introduced. Where are they? They have not seen the light of day. What is the hold-up with them? We have heard waffle after waffle about when the fuel poverty strategy might come forward. It is November. We still do not have a fuel poverty strategy, and we have 27% of households here living in cold homes. We have over 50% of our pensioners living in cold homes. What are we doing, folks? Are we just here for a game? Today in Northern Ireland, people will go without heat in their houses. Sadly, the research confirms that people are not turning on their heat. They are not eating in order to have enough money to pay for oil heating. Where is our strategy to get rid of oil heating? For goodness' sake, we are so far behind the rest of the Western World on our heating programmes here that it is unbelievable. Rising energy costs are harming people here today. That is not mentioned in the Programme for Government, and it is time that it were. If we do not have a fuel poverty strategy in place to influence the future three-year Budget, it will be a shame on the House and a shame on the Minister for Communities. Too many people are getting into debt or are sitting cold in their home because this place is not delivering. It is time to get to action, folks. I do not want any pensioner to die in a cold home on our watch. AFBI Data Breach Ms D Armstrong: I raise the issue of the significant data breach at the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI), in which farmers' personal details were inadvertently released through a freedom of information request. The incident raises serious concerns about data security in public bodies. Clearly, lessons were not learned from the PSNI's catastrophic data breach in 2023. At AFBI, proper safeguards and oversight measures were either inadequate or ignored. It was a careless and almost certainly avoidable failure that has placed hard-working farmers and their families at risk. The release of personal information has reportedly been exploited by activist groups to target and infiltrate farms under false pretences. Such behaviour amounts to vigilantism. Investigations into animal welfare must be conducted by the appropriate statutory authorities, not by politically motivated campaigners whose ultimate aim is the promotion of veganism and the destruction of Northern Ireland's agri-food sector. Farmers who provide data to public agencies in good faith must be able to trust that it will be handled responsibly. Many now face sleepless nights knowing that their personal details are in the hands of extremists. I therefore call on the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to outline urgently the full timeline of events, including when the breach occurred, when it was discovered and when affected individuals were informed. He should explain what steps have been taken to address the situation and to prevent a recurrence, confirm how many farmers have been impacted on and explain why it took nearly seven months for the information to come to light. I also ask him to detail what support or compensation will be made available to those affected. The incident has further damaged the confidence of the farming community in public authorities. Trust is at an all-time low, so it must be rebuilt through transparency, accountability and immediate action from the Department. Recent reports citing investigations by those activist groups, based on illegally obtained information, have attempted to paint Northern Ireland's farming sector in an appalling light. It is deeply concerning that that narrative is being driven by clear ideological agendas rather than by objective, lawful and evidence-based oversight. Farmers deserve protection, not persecution. The Minister must make it clear that there is no threat to livestock or poultry production and that decisive measures are being taken to ensure the security of those who feed our nation. Mental Health Mr McCrossan: I will speak about something that affects every family across the region — mental health — and the shameful failure of the Executive parties to deliver on the commitment that they made to our people. In 2021, the Department of Health published a 10-year mental health strategy, which was ambitious, hopeful and long overdue. It promised a better system: one that would prevent crisis, deliver early intervention and finally give mental health the priority that it deserves. Almost four years later, however, that promise lies in tatters. The recent review of the strategy confirms that, as many of us feared, only £12 million has been invested in 14 actions out of 35. The original strategy required over £1·2 billion in order to deliver fully for the people most impacted on. That means that only a small fraction of what was pledged has been delivered. Let me be clear that it is not a case of a funding gap but, rather, a failure of political will from the Executive parties. People across Northern Ireland are paying the price. Families are left waiting for months, and sometimes for years, for support. Some do not get any support at all. Young people in crisis turn up at overcrowded A&Es because there is nowhere else for them to go. The community and voluntary organisations that hold the system together are being left to survive from hand to mouth while the Executive hide behind excuses about budgets. Mental health services cannot continue to be the first thing cut and the last thing funded. They should be at the very heart of every decision that the Executive make. Indeed, it would serve the Executive parties well if they were to become as vexed about that issue as they are about some of the things that they use in the House to distract from their own failures. Every week in my constituency of West Tyrone, I meet people who are crying out for help: parents whose children cannot get counselling, older people who are struggling with isolation and individuals who feel completely abandoned by the system. They are right to feel abandoned, because that is exactly what has happened. We cannot allow the cycle of strategy without delivery, promises without resources and words without meaning to continue. The Minister of Health and the Executive must fully fund and implement the mental health strategy as originally planned, not the watered-down version that we see lingering through today. They need to invest properly in crisis care, and they need to support the community and voluntary structures that are holding the whole system together. Mental health is not a luxury or an optional extra: it is fundamental. Every life lost to suicide and every family broken is a failure of the Executive. The people of Northern Ireland deserve so much better. They deserve action, and it is high time that the Executive got their priorities in order and delivered in the interests of those who are suffering most. Israel: Visit Mr Givan: I associate myself with the remarks made by Dr Aiken and make a similar declaration of interest. Last week, I had the privilege of visiting Israel and hearing the stories of human tragedy in that community. Today, I put on record some of the voices that I heard. Just as others seek to silence them and cancel them, I will make sure that their voices are heard. The visit started at Yad Vashem, the national Holocaust memorial for the six million Jews slaughtered during the Second World War and remembered at that centre in Israel, the only place and home where Jews can survive after centuries of persecution. I visited Malkia, a kibbutz in northern Israel that Hezbollah repeatedly targeted, year after year after year. I listened to Boaz, who recounted the horrors of many of the atrocities inflicted on his community. What was his message? "I just want peace, and I want the people of Lebanon to prosper". I visited Madjal Shams and the Druze community, an Arab sect of the Shiite variety, where 12 innocent children were killed by a rocket fired by Hezbollah. I visited Nir Oz, and Rita showed us around the site of one of the most appalling atrocities that took place on 7 October: 117 people from that very small village were either murdered or taken hostage, including an 84-year-old man, who was killed in captivity. I went to the Nova music festival site, where 378 young people were gunned down and 44 taken hostage. I listened to Yair recount how he managed to escape, but the trauma lives on. Those are just some of the voices, and that human story needs to be heard about what is happening in Israel. That is why the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland and I are appalled by the manufactured outrage of the extreme left, led by Gerry Carroll, who, on 7 October, tweeted, "Victory to the Palestinian Resistance". He never once apologised, and, yet, he is now supported by the Alliance Party, the SDLP and Sinn Féin. Sinn Féin does not surprise me: terrorists supporting terrorists will never come as a surprise to me. However, I will continue to raise my voice for the innocents who were slaughtered in Israel on 7 October. Some Members: Hear, hear. Assembly Business Commissioner for Standards: Appointment [Pause.] Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I am just waiting for people to have a bit of manners. Mr Allen: I beg to move That this Assembly, in accordance with Section 19(1) of the Assembly Members (Independent Financial Review and Standards) Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, appoints Stephen Wright as the Northern Ireland Assembly Commissioner for Standards. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to 45 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes. Top 1.30 pm Mr Allen: On behalf of the Assembly Commission, I ask the Assembly to support the appointment of a Commissioner for Standards to fill the current vacancy. On 8 September 2025, as the House is aware, the Assembly agreed the appointment of Mr Mark McEwan as Commissioner for Standards. The Speaker then wrote to Members on 16 September 2025 to inform them that Mr McEwan had submitted his resignation. The Assembly Commission would, of course, have preferred not to have returned to the Chamber on this matter so soon. However, it is recognised that the position of deputy chief constable of Surrey Police is a significant appointment for Mr McEwan, and the Assembly Commission wishes him every success with it. The Assembly Members (Independent Financial Review and Standards) Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 requires that the person to be appointed as Commissioner for Standards be: "identified by fair and open competition". The Assembly Commission undertook that function on behalf of the Assembly, and the House is aware that the recruitment panel comprised the Speaker, on behalf of the Assembly Commission; the Chairperson of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, Cathy Mason; the Clerk/Chief Executive, Lesley Hogg; and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards at Westminster, Daniel Greenberg CB. The Assembly Commission previously thanked the Chairperson of the Committee on Standards and Privileges and Daniel Greenberg for giving of their time to sit on the panel. Following the completion of the recruitment competition, the Assembly Commission was able to identify a number of strong suitable candidates for appointment and is therefore pleased to be able to make a further nomination today. The Assembly Commission is today asking the Assembly to support the appointment of Mr Stephen Wright as the new Commissioner for Standards. Stephen Wright has 30 years' service in the PSNI. The majority of his roles in that time have been investigatory in the crime department, including as senior investigating officer (SIO) for serious organised crime and head of the anti-corruption unit. He has also held other posts in the PSNI, including head of training, a brief period as head of human resources and, most recently, head of professional standards. The primary role of the commissioner is to carry out investigations into complaints relating to the Assembly's code of conduct and ministerial code of conduct and to report the outcome of those investigations to the Assembly. Therefore, the role of commissioner is an important part of the framework to ensure that high standards of conduct in public life are upheld at the Assembly. The Assembly Commission believes that Mr Stephen Wright has the relevant skills and experience to serve the Assembly well as Commissioner for Standards for the period of five years set out in the 2011 Act. Therefore, on behalf of the Assembly Commission, I commend to the House the nomination of Mr Stephen Wright as Commissioner for Standards. Mrs Mason (The Chairperson of the Committee on Standards and Privileges): I speak to the motion having sat on the Assembly's recruitment panel for the appointment of a new Commissioner for Standards. As Members are aware, the commissioner is an independent officer who is appointed by the Assembly to consider and investigate complaints of alleged breaches of the MLA code of conduct and the ministerial code of conduct. In fulfilling the role, the commissioner contributes to the overseeing and safeguarding of the ethical standards of MLAs and Ministers. The commissioner's independence is therefore essential to ensuring fairness, transparency, accountability and public trust in our standards regime. The process for investigating complaints is designed so that allegations of breaches of the MLA or ministerial codes of conduct go directly to the commissioner for assessment of admissibility and, where applicable, for investigation. For complaints against MLAs, the Committee then considers the commissioner's investigation reports, determines whether a breach of the code has occurred and, where appropriate, recommends to the Assembly the sanction to be imposed. The commissioner, the Committee and the Assembly therefore exercise the complementary functions of investigation, adjudication and sanctioning respectively. Each has a key part to play in ensuring that proper standards of conduct are upheld by Members. As such, it is important that the Assembly ensures that the office of the commissioner remains filled without undue interruption in order to safeguard the timely exercise of the commissioner's functions. I expect that the other Committee members welcome the appointment of Stephen Wright, as I do, and look forward to engaging with the new commissioner in progressing the vital work of implementing the Assembly's ethical standards system. On behalf of the Committee, I support the motion. Mr Gaston: The role of the Commissioner for Standards is important, and the commissioner should be an independent person who makes sure that all MLAs and Ministers are held to the same standards, which should apply equally across the House. That is a unique role that should not be surrendered to anyone else. If Stephen Wright fulfils that role, he will have my full support. I trust that Mr Wright will be permitted to do his job, and I trust that he will treat all MLAs equally. Sadly, that was not the case with a predecessor who adopted the, frankly, bizarre view — Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Gaston —. Mr Gaston: — that she should not investigate —. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Gaston, I am not going to permit you to continue in that line of debate. You are well outside of the scope. If you want to return to the scope of the debate, which is the appointment of the new commissioner, you are welcome to continue. Mr Gaston: I was going to raise the issue that a previous commissioner would not investigate Committee Chairs. Previously, you took great offence when I talked about the McMonagle sex scandal that happened in the Building — Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Right, Mr Gaston —. Mr Gaston: — but I was going to try to keep my remarks to the debate today. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Gaston, sit down. I am moving on. I call Brian Kingston. Mr Kingston: As a member of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, I welcome the appointment of a new commissioner. We trust that it will be a longer appointment than the one immediately previous to it, which, we understand, was short-lived due to another recruitment. As has been said by the Chairperson of the Committee, the commissioner has an important independent scrutiny role and reports to the Committee on Standards and Privileges with recommendations. Reports are considered by the Committee and, ultimately, brought to the Floor for debate on any sanction or consequence. I commend the work of the Committee. We look forward to working with the new commissioner in that independent role and ensuring that standards, the codes of conduct and the principles of conduct are upheld in the Assembly. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Sinéad Ennis to make the winding-up speech on the motion. Sinéad, you have five minutes. Ms Ennis: I thank Members for their contributions — their sensible contributions — to the debate. At the beginning of the debate, my colleague Andy Allen set out the circumstances that bring the matter back to the House and reminded Members of the arrangements for the fair and open recruitment process that was undertaken by the Assembly Commission. The role of Commissioner for Standards is crucial to upholding standards in the Assembly. It is, therefore, important that the Assembly Commission has been able to come back to the House relatively quickly, with only a period to complete the normal pre-appointment checks that are required for such a post. The involvement of the Committee on Standards and Privileges in the recruitment process is vital. I thank the Chairperson, Cathy Mason, for confirming her support for Stephen Wright's nomination and for participating on the panel. I know that the Committee and the new commissioner will want to quickly form a strong relationship as he gets down to his work. The role of commissioner is important in giving the public confidence that any breach of the Assembly or ministerial code of conduct will be investigated and dealt with, but also in giving Members confidence —. Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way? Ms Ennis: I will not give way. I could not listen to the Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle [Translation: Madam Principal Deputy Speaker] embarrass the Member again. The role is also important in giving Members confidence that any complaints will be considered with due and proper process. Stephen Wright's experience means that he is entirely well suited to ensuring that any allegations of breaches of the codes of conduct are investigated rigorously and fairly. On behalf of the Assembly Commission, I commend to Members the nomination of Stephen Wright for appointment as the new Assembly Commissioner for Standards. Question put and agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly, in accordance with Section 19(1) of the Assembly Members (Independent Financial Review and Standards) Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, appoints Stephen Wright as the Northern Ireland Assembly Commissioner for Standards. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members, take your ease while we change the top Table for the next item of business. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Dr Aiken] in the Chair) Private Members' Business Cervical Screening Scandal Inquiry Miss McAllister: I beg to move That this Assembly expresses concern at the lack of transparency, delay and slow pace of the investigations and reviews into individual patients and the overall cervical screening scandal by the Department of Health and the Southern Health and Social Care Trust (SHSCT); recognises the steps taken by the Department of Health and the Southern Health and Social Care Trust regarding the recall of women for cervical screening; pays tribute to the Ladies with Letters campaigners who have fought hard for transparency in the issues that led to the underperformance of screeners and the recall of the slides of 17,500 women in the Southern Health and Social Care Trust area; acknowledges that, for some patients, the review was too late and lives were affected by the failure; and calls on the Minister of Health to establish a statutory public inquiry in order to uncover the full truth, establish accountability and ensure that such failures never arise again. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. As an amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List, the Business Committee has agreed that 15 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate. Miss McAllister, please open the debate on the motion. Miss McAllister: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, is there scope to wait for the Minister? It is important that he hears the points that will be made by the proposers of the motion and the amendment so that he can address them when winding up the debate. I am not sure if there is scope to do that. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): There is no scope to do that because you have started the debate, and the proposer of the amendment is here. We have messaged the Minister and encouraged him to get here as soon as possible. Speaking of that person, he has just arrived. Your point of order has been noted, Miss McAllister. It is on the record, and the Minister has duly arrived. Miss McAllister, over to you. Miss McAllister: It is with great sorrow and frustration that we have brought the motion to the Chamber, which calls on the Minister to establish a statutory public inquiry into the cervical screening scandal in the Southern Health and Social Care Trust. It is not a political issue; it has brought together all the parties in the Chamber to support the women, who are still suffering with their families. It would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to those women. First, I pay tribute to the Ladies with Letters group for representing the 17,500 women who have been impacted on by the scandal. They have stood strong and been determined in their fight for justice and transparency. Anyone who has met the women involved cannot help but be in awe of the courage that they continue to show in a fight that is the result of traumatic failures by the Southern Trust and possibly other trusts in Northern Ireland. I thank them for all the work that they have done and continue to do. While we, as MLAs, can highlight the stories and call for accountability and transparency, there is no better way to show the damage caused than by hearing from the women directly impacted. Top 1.45 pm I also pay tribute to the ladies who tragically lost their lives as a result of the failures: Lynsey Courtney, a mother of one from Portadown, was just 30 when she died in 2018; and Erin Harbinson, a mother of four from Tandragee, was 44 when she died in 2024, after three of her smear tests were misread. We will hold their families, friends and loved ones in our thoughts as we continue to fight for justice and accountability. Last December saw the publication of the reports from the Southern Trust on the cervical screening review and audit. Over 17,000 women were included in the review: 11 women required further treatment, and eight women were diagnosed with cervical cancer after their smears were misread. Despite those reports, whistle-blowers have raised concerns that there are still quality assurance issues. That does great damage to the confidence of women across all trusts in Northern Ireland in ensuring that they come forward to receive their smear tests. Health Committee members have discussed the outworkings of the reports three times this year. We have continually raised concerns about the quality assurance issues that occurred from 2008 to 2021 and the failures of the Southern Trust and the Public Health Agency (PHA) after those issues were raised. It is deeply unfortunate that, on the majority of those occasions, we have not been able to ask questions of the people directly involved. Concerns around screener performance were raised as early as 2009, yet the issue continued until 2021. The trust offered little training or support. Performance data was looked at year-on-year and siloed in each trust, rather than compared across trust areas and across the years. Those are among the major failings highlighted in the 2023 report from the Royal College of Pathologists. However, when a newly recruited consultant in the Southern Trust noticed the failures of two screeners immediately on taking up the role, he removed them from their duties in October 2021. I have been made aware that the issues were raised in a meeting with the PHA in February 2022. Despite that, the Southern Trust continues to maintain that the concerns did not reach their senior leadership team, through an assistant medical director, until July 2022. The Southern Trust reiterated that to the Health Committee. I again ask for evidence that that is the case. Surely there are minutes of that meeting in July 2022; indeed, surely there are notes from the meeting with the PHA in February 2022. I raise those issues because it is important for our confidence that, in moving forward, we can have true transparency and accountability. There was a six-month gap before the trust leadership took action and asked for a look-back exercise. Anyone who has had an unfortunate experience with cervical cancer or, indeed, any cancer will know the difference that six months can make. At the same Health Committee meeting in July, officials from the Health Department noted that there were three outstanding pieces of work, including the peer review of external quality assurance arrangements by NHS England and the independent external review of the Southern Trust reports. At that meeting, they said that the publication of those reports would be imminent and that we were looking at it being in the short term rather than it being extended well into the autumn. Officials confirmed that the Health Minister had had sight of the peer review of external quality assurance since July, yet we stand here at the beginning of November with no indication of when the reports will be brought forward. We have heard musings that it will perhaps be some time this week. Meanwhile, women have continued to dutifully present for smear tests at their GP surgeries, often despite their nerves or fears. For as long as the reports are unpublished, recommendations are unclear and action is not taken to ensure that our cervical screening arrangements are as robust and accurate as possible, we will continue to fail those women. I hope that the Minister can take the opportunity presented today to confirm to the House when the reports will finally be published. Perhaps more important, I hope that he will also make a commitment on the Floor of the Assembly that the ladies behind the campaign "Ladies with Letters" will receive proper briefings in advance. It is important to note that, because we are aware of many communication failings that have occurred throughout the process. Women who are the subject of serious adverse incidents (SAIs) are being informed of sensitive medical failings in impersonal meetings in front of a panel of 10 professionals. The Department of Health can show that lessons have been learned and that concerns have been listened to by simply paying attention to those women in a respectful way. A number of weeks ago, alongside other Members, I had the opportunity to meet the Ladies with Letters group on the front steps of Parliament Buildings. We spoke to a number of women who have had their SAI reports and are deeply unsatisfied with the information or lack thereof given to them. That is why we tabled today's motion. Those women do not have confidence in the current system. They do not have confidence that the three reports that are to be published, including the individual SAI reports — of course, with data protected — will contain all of the answers and assurances that they need. I thank the DUP members of the Health Committee for their amendment, which we will support. It is important that we have cross-party support. Given the scale of the damage to trust and confidence caused by the events in the Southern Trust, the Belfast Trust and the Department of Health, we must act quickly to resolve the issues, particularly in the Belfast labs, so that delays and distress can be limited. I will finish with the words of Heather Thompson, a retired nurse from Tandragee and member of the Ladies with Letters group, who said it best: "The Health Minister ... has publicly committed to a Women's Health Strategy. What better way to demonstrate that commitment than by establishing a statutory public inquiry into these failings?" Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The next item of business in the Order Paper is Question Time. The debate will resume after the questions for urgent oral answer, when the next Member to be called will be Diane Dodds to move the amendment. By leave of the Assembly, I suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The debate stood suspended. The sitting was suspended at 1.51 pm and resumed at 2.00 pm. (Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair) Oral Answers to Questions Infrastructure Traffic: Ballykelly 1. Ms Hunter asked the Minister for Infrastructure to outline any discussions she has had in relation to traffic issues in Ballykelly. (AQO 2595/22-27) Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure): The £2·6 million active travel improvement scheme along the A2 Clooney Road is part of my commitment to enhance and expand our active travel network across the North. On completion, the scheme will provide significantly enhanced cycling and pedestrian facilities between Ballykelly and Greysteel and is part of a long-term plan to improve active travel facilities in the north-west. The scheme started on 4 January 2025 and is currently programmed to run for 52 weeks. By their nature, roadworks can be disruptive, and my officials have been continually working closely with the contractor to minimise disruption to road users, with the aim of striking a balance between efficiently progressing works and minimising disruption for the travelling public. In response to concerns raised by motorists and the local community, temporary traffic management measures have been modified over the duration of the scheme. Lane closures are put in place only when required, works areas are kept as short as possible and traffic control has been changed from automated traffic signals to manually operated ones to aid traffic progression further. Moreover, on a number of occasions, works were suspended to accommodate major events in the area. I fully appreciate that traffic delays are frustrating for motorists and that there have been additional delays in recent weeks as the works near completion. The temporary traffic management arrangements are essential for the safety of road workers and the travelling public. I continue to ask the public to allow extra time for their journeys and to comply with the measures in place. Ms Hunter: Understandably, constituents are angry at the continued delays on that road. We know with roadworks that delays sometimes cannot be helped, but people feel that they are not being listened to. Will the Minister commit some time in the next month to come to Ballykelly, meet me and other elected reps and speak with constituents about the ongoing delays? People are missing health appointments, school and so much more. Ms Kimmins: I have been in Ballykelly and met elected representatives in recent months. I do not underestimate people's frustrations. We have heard them right across the North when there are major roadworks. We are very cognisant of the impact that roadworks have, and officials have worked very closely with the contractor to ensure that any works that are happening are absolutely necessary and that we keep disruption to an absolute minimum. I understand that, over the Halloween weekend, the volume of traffic was huge. It is brilliant to see so many people going to Derry specifically. I am aware, however, that various routes experience the same traffic congestion. It is a perfect storm on some occasions, but I assure the Member and the wider community in the area that we are doing our utmost to ensure that work progresses as quickly as possible and that we are doing as much as we can to keep people safe, particularly road workers and road users. Mr Robinson: Given the number of times that Ballykelly traffic has been highlighted to her Department, how much weight is now being attached to progressing a bypass for Ballykelly village? Ms Kimmins: I have said how much weight is being attached to it. Traffic is a constant issue, so we are always looking at what can be done to minimise disruption. The Department, as the Member knows, is in the process of developing the new transport strategy, which will help shape the vision and strategic priorities for transport right through to 2035 across the whole of the North. Once that is published, it will help inform the transport plan for the regional strategic transport network, which includes the A2 at Ballykelly. A preferred route for the Ballykelly bypass was announced in 2010. Since then, however, no further development work has been undertaken on the project. If that scheme is prioritised in the transport plan, the route will then be reassessed as part of the plan for scheme delivery. I discussed that with elected representatives when I was on-site in Ballykelly, because I know that the wider community is keen to see a bypass be progressed. Mr Boylan: Will the Minister provide an update on the provision of a railway halt at Ballykelly? Ms Kimmins: The Belfast to Derry route enhancement programme is a collection of railway infrastructure works that are required to be delivered in order to maximise potential and efficiencies of service on that key rail corridor, which maintains connectivity between Belfast and Derry. The programme aims to examine opportunities for greater connectivity on the route, increase journey frequencies on the Belfast to Derry line and potentially the provision of new halts at Eglinton, City of Derry Airport, Ballykelly and Strathfoyle. It is envisaged that that may require construction of passing loops and line speed enhancements, and Translink plans to submit a revised strategic outline case to the Department by the end of this year. In addition to demand, the location of any new halt or halts will need to consider the implications for the wider operational network, such as how stopping and starting will increase journey times. North-west Rail Corridor: Service Enhancements 2. Ms McLaughlin asked the Minister for Infrastructure for an update on the Translink business case for service enhancements on the north-west rail corridor. (AQO 2596/22-27) Ms Kimmins: I fully recognise the need to address regional imbalance and to better connect our communities, including those in the north-west. As the Member will be aware, Translink submitted a revised business case in September this year for the provision of additional services on the north-west rail corridor to ensure that the predicted costs and revenue projections are up to date and accurate. My officials are considering that updated business case. I am pleased that Translink has also delivered significant improvements to public transport in the north-west in recent years, including by creating over 46,000 additional seats by converting 232 rail services per week to six-car operations and by making improvements to Goldliner services. Since April 2024, when the A6 works were completed, Translink has introduced seven additional direct X212 services to and from Derry. The scheduled journey time on the X212 is one hour and 45 minutes, which represents a 15-minute improvement on the standard 212 journey time. Derry is the first city on this island to operate with a full zero emission bus fleet. There has also been significant capital funding in public transport in the north-west, including a £27 million investment in the north-west transport hub; an investment of £59 million in zero emission buses, which I mentioned; and a £97·7 million investment in phase 3 of the Derry to Coleraine project. As I just mentioned, I have also, in my 2025-26 budget, included ring-fenced funding of £5·79 million to allow Translink to progress phase 3 of the Derry to Coleraine track renewal project. Work is continuing, including on the production of the detailed design of the required track improvements in preparation for the procurement phase of the project. It has also included the manufacture of railway sleepers in advance of the main works. Ms McLaughlin: Minister, Translink first submitted a business case for rail improvements in the north-west over a year and a half ago, and, because of the Department's failure to act, it has had to submit an updated version more than a year and a half later. In the meantime, we just see chaos after chaos, particularly over the weekend, when people visiting Derry for Halloween were left stranded and were unable to get home because of the lack of rail services. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Is there a question, Sinéad? Ms McLaughlin: How can you possibly justify the continued failure to deliver a vital upgrade to the north-west rail line when your inaction is already leaving passengers — Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: OK. Minister. Ms McLaughlin: — stranded? Ms Kimmins: I do not agree with the Member that there has been a failure because, as I have said, we are considering the updated business case. I take this very seriously, and I recognise the importance of regional balance. I have set out very clearly that I am committed to that. There is no doubt that funding has been a huge challenge, and I am sure that the Member's former colleague will have found the same challenges when she was in post, as all previous and current Ministers in the Executive will have. However, I have met Into the West and other representatives from the area who are very keen to see this progress, and I really want to see that happening. We are looking at the updated business case, and I hope to be able to provide further information soon. Mr Middleton: Minister, it is welcome that the north-west transport hub has been a game changer for my constituency. However, the frequency of trains is raised time and time again. Minister, are you actively seeking to address that issue? Will that be covered in some of the funding bids that you will bring forward to, hopefully, see this progress? Ms Kimmins: Yes. As I said in my initial answer, one of the things that is included is increasing the frequency of journeys on that Belfast to Derry line. I recognise how important that is, and we are considering that. It is part of a package of measures that the Department is looking at as part of the Belfast to Derry route enhancement programme. There is no doubt that that would go a long way to being a huge benefit for the whole region. Ms Ferguson: I very much welcome the close working relationship between Translink and the Department and the resubmission of an updated business case to progress service enhancements. Will the Minister provide an update on the proposed new rail link from Derry to Portadown? Ms Kimmins: The all-island strategic rail review sought to provide a strategic vision for rail right across Ireland, including how rail could contribute to the decarbonisation of transport; promote sustainability and connectivity into and between major cities; enhance regional accessibility; and support balanced regional development. I have ring-fenced £1 million in Translink's 2025-26 capital budget to continue momentum projects that were identified in the all-island strategic rail review, including the Portadown to Derry rail link. Translink has submitted a feasibility study on the Portadown to Derry rail link to my Department, and I expect to publish the outcomes later this year. Mr Honeyford: On the all-island rail review, the feasibility study on the Knockmore line was due to be published, but it has not been. Can the Minister confirm when that will happen and state why it has been delayed? Ms Kimmins: I am not aware of there being any delay. As I said, I have proposed that the feasibility studies come forward very soon. Waterways Pollution 3. Miss McIlveen asked the Minister for Infrastructure to outline any further steps that can be taken to address the pollution of waterways by Northern Ireland Water. (AQO 2597/22-27) Ms Kimmins: NI Water invests in detailed modelling of catchments and collection systems, along with much more empirical data from advanced instrumentation, to better understand when storm overflows are operating and the impact on the receiving waterbody. Further investment in those areas will provide NI Water with a better understanding and potential control of its waste water networks to mitigate the number of discharges from its network into the water environment. NI Water is continuing with the roll-out of its event duration monitor programme. That will gather evidence and inform future investment plans in order to prioritise work to address poorly performing combined sewer overflows. NI Water also continues to invest and develop its pollution management strategy in order to improve its operational management and response to pollution incidents. In addition, NI Water reviews the cause of each reported pollution incident to assess the lessons learnt and establish the read-across to other assets. My Department’s Water, Sustainable Drainage and Flood Management Bill contains enhanced powers for NI Water to deal with sewer and drain miscommunications in private infrastructure. Untreated discharges from miscommunications can pollute waterways and local rivers and potentially end up on beaches. These enhanced powers will provide NI Water with the capacity to repair drainage miscommunications and recover the costs associated with the work, if the property owner refuses to do the work. My Department is also taking forward an urban drainage pilot project to retrofit a range of nature-based drainage solutions, such as leaky dams, attenuation ponds, rainwater gardens and swales to manage rainwater. We also need to integrate nature-based drainage solutions into future housing developments. On 22 September, I launched a consultation on sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) in new developments. Both projects demonstrate my commitment to delivering environmental improvements, reducing flood risk and improving water quality. Miss McIlveen: I thank the Minister for her answer. When the AERA Minister appeared before the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee recently, he was extremely critical of the Infrastructure Minister's inaction on the pollution of Northern Ireland's waterways by Northern Ireland Water, a company that is wholly owned by the Minister's Department. He said: "the situation at the moment is not tenable." and "we need to have stronger regulation and enforcement around sewage pollution." Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Is there a question? Miss McIlveen: What direct engagement has the Minister had with Minister Muir on those points, and what action will be taken as a consequence of those discussions? Ms Kimmins: I have been working with Minister Muir. His comments were disappointing to say the least, given that I have shown a very clear commitment to working closely with him and his Department, for all the reasons outlined. I am keen to play my part in improving our water quality and addressing water pollution, which impacts on his role and affects Lough Neagh and other waterbodies. I have outlined some of the work that I have done with NI Water and what we are trying to do to address the ongoing issues that we are all well versed in. I met Minister Muir recently, and I will meet him again later this month to discuss his review of the statement of regulatory principles and intent with NI Water. I await his decision on the outcome of that review. My door is always open. I have been very keen to continue that work with him, and that will continue to be the case going forward. Ms Finnegan: Minister, will the legislation on sustainable urban drainage systems help to improve water quality in our waterways? Ms Kimmins: Absolutely. By integrating nature-based drainage solutions into future housing developments, we can lessen the demands on existing sewerage systems and, at the same time, lessen the impacts of climate change and potentially reduce pollution, thereby helping to protect water quality in our rivers and loughs. Earlier this year, as you mentioned, I introduced the Bill in the Assembly. It will provide enabling powers for my Department to regulate for SuDS in new developments. Top 2.15 pm In tandem with the progression of the Bill, on 22 September 2025, I launched the initial public consultation on nature-based SuDS in new housing developments. The consultation seeks views on the development and implementation of new policies and regulatory arrangements to ensure that nature-based SuDS such as grassed swales, rain gardens and detention ponds, which I have mentioned, are provided in new housing developments in the future. The widespread implementation of nature-based solutions will help to tackle the challenges of climate change and will help to manage flood risk, improve water quality and limit the impact of new developments on the existing drainage network. Recently, I had the opportunity to see that in action at Belmont Hall in County Antrim. I was hugely impressed by the work that has been done by the developer to take those measures on board, and I hope to see more of that. Mr Blair: It is well known that waste water spills are a key factor driving water pollution. It is also known that our waste water infrastructure is at capacity and that SuDS alone in new developments cannot change the situation that already exists. How does the Minister propose to deliver the significant investment that is needed without undue delay? Ms Kimmins: Sometimes, I feel as though I am saying this for the first time in the House. I have outlined repeatedly the steps that I have been taking, as did my predecessor, John O'Dowd, to find solutions. That is where I am: I am solution-focused. At present, the Executive cannot provide the investment that is needed. That is a well-known fact. However, I am not prepared to sit on my hands. I have talked at length about the three-pronged approach. We have the SuDS Bill, which the Member mentioned, but I am under no illusion that it is a silver bullet. It is not the only solution. I look continually at everything that is available to me to ensure that we can make progress. We have seen good progress. I have been working closely with NI Water, which has been able to deliver an innovative solution. The pilot has been delivered in Newry, enabling capacity to be unlocked for the next 10 years. That has been really positive. I hope to see more of that in the time ahead. There are lots of other things that we can do, working with Executive colleagues to ensure that we can secure additional investment to keep this thing moving and to keep making progress on our waste water infrastructure. As well as that, the Member will know about the consultation on developer contributions, which closed recently. Hopefully, those contributions will help to supplement the money that is needed. I am under no illusions that it is not challenging, but I am absolutely committed to doing all that I can and to working with anyone who wants to work with me to deliver, because it is not just about waste water infrastructure but about environmental issues, progress, housebuilding and the economy of this place. I will continue to do that. I hope to hear other suggestions from Members as time goes on. Gaelscoil Uí Dhochartaigh: Road Signs 4. Mr McHugh asked the Minister for Infrastructure whether her Department will install road traffic signs outside Gaelscoil Uí Dhochartaigh. (AQO 2598/22-27) Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for his question. I can confirm that the developer responsible for the construction of the school is required to erect "safer routes to school" signage and appropriate road markings as part of the approved planning permission. I can also advise that an instruction to complete the required works was passed to the developer’s contractor in October. Officials will continue to work with the developer to ensure that the school signage is erected. Mr McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a Aire [Translation: Thank you, Minister] for your response. Minister, is it possible to have a reduced speed limit in proximity to the school? Ms Kimmins: My officials will carry out a speed limit assessment on Strahans Road at the school, in line with the Department's policy, to determine whether the existing speed limit remains appropriate. I can ask officials to keep the Member informed of the outcome. Mr Buckley: The installation and maintenance of road signage is important to all road users. The Minister will be aware that a recent BBC report showed that dozens of "Londonderry" and "Welcome to Northern Ireland" signs have been damaged and vandalised. Does the Minister condemn that? Will she act urgently to ensure that they are repaired promptly? Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I am not accepting that question. It is not related to the original question, so we will move on. [Inaudible.] Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: It is not. Do not challenge the Chair, Jonathan, OK? Thank you. [Inaudible.] Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I am not going to call you. Mr Buckley: Are you not? Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: No, absolutely not. Sure, run into the Speaker's Office. Mr Buckley: On a point of order. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: There are no points of order during Question Time. Read your Standing Orders. I call Trevor Clarke. Banners and Billboards: Planning 5. Mr Clarke asked the Minister for Infrastructure to outline her Department’s role in the planning process for banners and billboards erected on or near public highways. (AQO 2599/22-27) Ms Kimmins: In 2015, the majority of planning functions, including the processing of local and major applications, transferred to local council planning authorities. The devolution of planning powers to local councils was intended to provide democratically accountable decision-making at a level where local knowledge and experience could be utilised. The display and control of advertisements are typically categorised as local applications and are subject to a consenting process by way of an application to the appropriate council under the Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations (NI) 2015. Any breaches of planning regulations are generally addressed under that legislation and, in most cases, fall within the jurisdiction of the relevant council. My Department's Roads officials have a role as consultees on local council planning applications and will provide advice on advertisements if consulted, having specific responsibility for planning-related aspects of the roads network but not the overall application. As part of the consultation process, DFI Roads is consulted on planning applications for advertising hoardings when they are submitted that the Department assesses to ensure that no road safety issues will be caused by the proposal. A local council may have enforcement cases for signs or hoardings that do not have planning permission. As part of that process, it will consult DFI Roads for advice on road safety. The Department will assess and respond to the local council. Mr Clarke: I thank the Minister for that answer. I am glad that she pointed out the Department's consultative role and the road safety issues. Minister, given all of that and the fact that there is a sign in your constituency that is adjacent to a bridge and is prejudicing road safety, when will you instruct your officials to remove it from your land? Ms Kimmins: The billboard to which the Member refers is mounted on five posts, some of which appear to be situated on my Department's land. The rest of them are on privately owned land, so the billboard is not fully on DFI land. The erection of advertising signs within the boundaries of a public road is an offence under article 87 of the Roads Order 1993. That article gives the Department the discretionary power to seek to have the advertisement removed or, if necessary, to remove it itself. The billboard in question is considered to pose a low risk to road safety, because it is set back from the road on an embankment, does not obstruct sight lines and is in a 30 mph speed limit area. Mr McCrossan: Minister, are you aware of whether your party sought the necessary consent to erect such a sign on public or third-party land? Ms Kimmins: No, I am not, because I did not erect it. Mr McMurray: Minister, as you know, my colleague is working on a private Member's Bill that might deal with issues like that. Will you assure us that due process will be followed not only in that matter but in other matters that might arise across the board? Ms Kimmins: As I said, the legislation is clear, and I have outlined how it is applied. I am aware of your party colleague's private Member's Bill on those issues, particularly flags and other issues that have arisen. We all deal with such things regularly. I have had meetings with the PSNI about the nature of some signs and other things that have gone up, particularly those that have had a hate or intimidatory aspect. I continue to work with everyone to find a sustainable solution to all those issues. A5: Road Safety Measures 6. Mr T Buchanan asked the Minister for Infrastructure to outline any proposals to introduce road safety measures on the A5 to help save lives. (AQO 2600/22-27) Ms Kimmins: I reiterate that my ultimate aim is to ensure the delivery of the A5 flagship project. I remain committed to doing all that I can to see that it happens and that no more lives are lost on the road. The most important point made by the court was the need for a new and safer A5 dual carriageway so that no other family experiences the huge tragedy that we have seen on the A5 over many years. That is my focus. In the last financial year, my Department undertook a series of targeted road safety enhancements along the existing A5 corridor aimed at improving visibility, driver awareness and surface performance. Those works included refreshing white lines, replacing signs and catseyes and completing localised resurfacing. My Department has programmed further resurfacing work this financial year. My officials have recently provided me with a report highlighting the potential for further safety improvements on the A5, and I am considering the additional measures that we can implement in this year. Mr T Buchanan: I thank the Minister for her response. I appreciate that some work has been done on the A5. While the new western transport corridor will be some way down the line, perhaps — we are not sure yet — has the Minister considered, for example, the installation of cameras on some of the most dangerous parts of the A5 for drivers coming on to and off it, which would help to slow the traffic at relatively low cost? Ms Kimmins: Safety risks are routinely considered across the entire road network, including the A5, through analysis of the accident statistics available to us to identify significant accident clusters. Additional analysis is carried out to highlight any contributory risk factors, such as vehicle speed, road condition or road configuration. Provision of street lighting in localised areas is being considered to help driver and pedestrian safety through increased visibility, and consideration will be given to locations that would benefit from parapet upgrades by the introduction of vehicle restraint barriers. The location of any such safety interventions across the network is primarily driven by the data on accidents and collisions; however, other considerations, including consultation with the PSNI, information received from elected representatives and the public and engineering judgement, are also taken into account. As I said, that forms part of the ongoing work, and, when we have more information, I will be happy to update the Member. Ms D Armstrong: Minister, you recently responded to a question for written answer from me in exactly the same vein, but do you consider speed restriction at accident hotspots to be an additional measure that can be implemented? Ms Kimmins: As I said in my answer to your colleague further along the Benches, all that is being looked at in considering what can be done in the interim; however, I must reiterate that the ultimate aim is to get the road built. That is not to take away from the fact that we will do what we can in the meantime to make the road safer, but what will enable us to truly have an impact is delivery of the A5. Mr McGlone: Minister, officials from your Department and DAERA met 13 times on proposals for the A5. My colleague's FOI request returned from DAERA with a series of major redactions that revealed little or nothing. In the interests of openness and transparency, do you support the placing in the public domain of the unredacted minutes of those 13 meetings so that people can see with their own eyes exactly what happened at them? Ms Kimmins: The Member will be aware that an appeal is live and ongoing and that, at this point, we have to respect that process. We see FOI requests all the time, and redactions are made for a reason under legislation and guidance. Whilst I appreciate the frustration of Members and others who cannot access all the information, all of this will be considered as part of the appeal. We need to go through that process and get to the other side of it as quickly as possible. Residents’ Parking Schemes: South Belfast 7. Ms Bradshaw asked the Minister for Infrastructure for an update on plans to introduce residents' parking schemes for built-up areas in South Belfast. (AQO 2601/22-27) Ms Kimmins: Following the introduction of the first residents' parking scheme in the North on Rugby Road and College Park Avenue in Belfast, my Department completed a review of the scheme and our wider approach to residents' parking. Whilst the review found that the scheme introduced on Rugby Road has been generally well received among the residents of the area, it highlighted how other such schemes have been difficult to implement. Challenges to progressing the schemes have included the resource-intensive nature of continuous redesigns of potential schemes and the inability to secure the appropriate level of consensus among local residents for a scheme to be implemented, which is a fundamental premise of the residents' parking policy. Following the publication of the review, there has been a significant level of interest in the establishment of residents' parking zones across the North. Given the level of demand and ongoing budgetary and resource constraints, I have asked my officials to develop an application process for demand-led schemes and an assessment process for all potential residents' parking schemes to ensure that any requests can be appropriately considered. That process will take into account the findings and recommendations of the review and provide a streamlined approach for considering, assessing and prioritising requests. I am considering officials' recommendations on this, and I intend to make an announcement imminently on how future schemes will be assessed by my Department. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Paula, you have 30 seconds. Ms Bradshaw: OK. Minister, you will have received a letter from Stranmillis Neighbourhood Association asking for a consultation on a scheme between Landseer Street and Ridgeway Street. When will you respond to that? When will that consultation open? Ms Kimmins: As I have said, I am due to make an announcement on that, which will hopefully detail what steps are to be taken next. Top 2.30 pm Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: We now move to topical questions. New Builds: Waste Water Capacity T1. Mr McNulty asked the Minister for Infrastructure to clear up some confusion, given that, in response to a question for written answer, she said that, through adopting an innovative approach, she has freed up capacity for 400 units in Newry, which is wonderful and positive news, but to explain what she meant when she said in response to a Member today that NI Water has unlocked capacity for 10 years. (AQT 1711/22-27) Ms Kimmins: Those were NI Water's words. I am just reiterating what it said, and, as part of that announcement, it said that it would look at 400 properties. Mr McNulty: So, the Minister is saying that 400 units will be built in Newry over the next 10 years. That is not very ambitious. I am getting a different message on the ground from developers who cannot access the waste water treatment network because there is insufficient capacity; they cannot build on sites. There is a stalling of economic development and no housing for people who desperately need it. Minister, what is the story? No drains, no cranes. You are holding back development and holding back the economy. Can you show some ambition, please? Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has made a statement and asked three questions. Minister, respond as you see fit. Ms Kimmins: To clarify, the 400 is for now, but it is unlocking capacity over the next 10 years. The original plan from NI Water was costed at £107 million. For £26 million, it has been able to unlock capacity for the next 10 years. That is what NI Water told me and what the announcement was based on. You can read the press statement that it delivered. However, I am not immune to the issues that the Member has raised. It is why I have been working with NI Water to find solutions, and I will continue to do so. Dungannon to Portadown Road T2. Mr Buckley asked the Minister for Infrastructure about the Dungannon to Portadown road in his constituency, which has become an accident black spot where, tragically, a number of young men have lost their life in accidents, and given the fact that there have been continual accidents along that stretch, whether she will commit to reviewing the criteria for setting speed limits on rural roads. (AQT 1712/22-27) Ms Kimmins: I am very sorry to hear about the experience of the Member in his constituency. Every life lost is one too many, particularly on our roads. I have been very vocal with my views on how we can collectively do more to ensure that our roads are safer, and that involves a whole range of things. However, since coming into post, as the Member will know from the recent tranche of 20 mph zones outside schools, which I know is not specific to what the Member is raising, my focus has been on rural roads because I recognise that most rural roads have 60 mph limits, which, in my view, are too high for some of the roads that people are navigating. As part of a wider review, I have already set out to look at the national speed limit roads right across the North for the reasons that the Member has outlined. It is something that we need to look at when considering how we can make our roads safer for everyone. Mr Buckley: Thank you. Driver behaviour and, in particular, speed is the biggest cause of deaths on our roads. Minister, the current legislation is restrictive with regard to speed reductions on busy rural roads, and that urgently needs to be addressed. I welcome what the Minister said, but will she, please, indicate when we will see progress on the issue to ensure that fewer lives are lost on our roads? Ms Kimmins: I completely agree with the Member about driver behaviour. It accounts for 95% of all road collisions. That is a fact, and I have been doing quite a lot of work and have had a lot of engagement with Road Safety NI and other organisations that are at the forefront of delivering that message. As well as looking at speed limits on our roads, I have been looking at road safety advertising, working with as many groups as possible and looking at vulnerable road users, who may be more at risk when out on the roads. The Member's colleague facilitated a meeting between me and the Motorcycle Action Group in recent months. That is another example of a vulnerable road user group that we need to be cognisant of. We are also looking at fitness to drive and other campaigns to try to ensure that we all, as citizens, are playing our part to ensure that everyone on the road can be kept as safe as possible. As I receive further information and updates on that review, I will be happy to keep the Member updated. Roads: Tree and Hedge Cutting T3. Mr Beattie asked the Minister for Infrastructure what action her Department is taking to ensure that overhanging trees and overgrown hedges that obstruct footpaths and roads or visibility for drivers are being appropriately managed, particularly when there is confusion about who owns them, be it the property owner, the council or her Department. (AQT 1713/22-27) Ms Kimmins: I can give plenty of examples where that has been an issue. When such issues arise, people tend to contact us, as elected representatives, first. Routine inspections happen on a monthly, three-monthly and six-monthly basis depending on the road category. If there are specific locations where overgrown vegetation is a particular problem, I ask the Member to feed that information into the Department, if he has not done so already, and I will ask officials to look at it urgently, particularly if there is a potential risk to road users or pedestrians. Mr Beattie: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. I will be honest and say that, if I were to send you an email about every road or footpath issue that I have, I would be spamming you for days on end. The problem is that the overgrown vegetation on private and public land sometimes causes a risk to people. I know that your Department puts out enforcement action, but people do not take it and the Department does not follow it up. Can you do anything to start following up on the enforcement action that the Department puts out? Ms Kimmins: I am happy to look at that. I know that it can be very frustrating, particularly where there is a risk. I will add the caveat that resources are limited. I feel that that goes through every response that we give, but it is a reality. Sometimes we have to prioritise things that are within our remit over things that, essentially, are not our responsibility. However, I take on board what you said, and I am happy to speak to officials to see whether we can do any more on the matter. Translink: Ballot for Strike Action T4. Mr Carroll asked the Minister for Infrastructure, in light of the Unite ballot of Translink workers that she knows will open on Thursday on the intention to take industrial action, what her message is to those workers ahead of the ballot and potential strike action in the weeks before Christmas. (AQT 1714/22-27) Ms Kimmins: As the Member will be aware, the pay award is Translink's responsibility. I have met union members in recent months on the issue. My message is that everyone is entitled to fair pay. It is crucial that Translink engages properly and proactively with the unions so that a fair and equitable pay award can be reached. Mr Carroll: I agree with that, Minister. Terms and conditions for workers that include fair pay are essential for services to be rolled out, including, of course, the night bus. Minister, have your officials looked at taking action to address the fact that drivers are stuck on buses, in some cases for up to five hours at a time, without any breaks? That is leading to a lot of anger, injuries and grumblings among workers in Translink in particular. Ms Kimmins: I have not been aware of that specific issue, but, if the Member wants to write to the Department with more detail, I am happy to follow up on it with officials and with Translink. Speeding Fines: Update of Review T5. Ms K Armstrong asked the Minister for Infrastructure, after declaring an interest as someone who has lost a beloved family member to death on our roads, for an update on her review of speeding fines. (AQT 1715/22-27) Ms Kimmins: I convey my sympathies. Many of us in the House will have had that tragic experience, so I know how impactful it is on many people when someone loses their life, particularly in a road traffic collision. As I outlined, road safety is an absolute priority for me as we work to reduce the number of road deaths. As I said in a previous answer, one death is one too many, and we have to do all that we can to reduce the number of such deaths. I also think about people who get serious injuries. Whilst they may not have been in a fatal collision, the impact of that event will have been life-changing, and we have to be mindful of that. As I outlined, the Department is working on a number of interventions to improve road safety behaviour, including that of people who choose to speed. Officials are considering options for a review of penalty fines for speeding. Once I receive that briefing and advice from officials, I will consider the next steps. Ms K Armstrong: Minister, I thank you for your answer. When I look to the South of Ireland, I see that people there can be fined up to €1,000 for speeding if they do not pay a fixed penalty within a certain time limit. That makes the fines here pale into insignificance. Our penalties for parking badly cost more than a speeding fine. Minister, will you commit to looking at the South of Ireland's speeding fine model to see whether it can be replicated here? The more that we can do to put people off and stop them speeding, the safer our roads will be. Ms Kimmins: As part of the ongoing work on the matter, we will look at all other jurisdictions to see what works well. Any approach that is taken must be evidence-based. We can see the benefits of some of the examples that we talked about, such as 20 mph zones, specifically in Wales. I am keen to see how we can use that evidence to ensure that we do more here. We are also looking at the penalties for drug-driving and for the use of mobile phones and such things. As the Member might know, a consultation recently opened on mobile phone use while driving. I appreciate the Member's comments. As I get more information, I will keep her updated. Larne West: Congestion T6. Mr Donnelly asked the Minister for Infrastructure for an update on the long-overdue work to relieve congestion in the Larne west area. (AQT 1716/22-27) Ms Kimmins: Unfortunately, I do not have an update in front of me, Danny. If you write to me, I can give you a more detailed update. I will need to speak to officials to get the specifics. Mr Donnelly: The issue has impacted on residents for many years. I invite the Minister to accompany me to the site so that she can see it for herself. Ms Kimmins: No problem. If you write to me to invite me, we can get that arranged. Safe Pedestrian Crossings: Criteria T7. Miss McAllister asked the Minister for Infrastructure to outline the criteria for safe pedestrian crossings where there are no other options for them, particularly at roundabouts. (AQT 1717/22-27) Ms Kimmins: I do not have the criteria in front of me. Members are asking very specific questions today. I would need to have the policy book in front of me in order to answer them. Every request or application for a pedestrian crossing is considered equally, however. There is a specific set of criteria to be met. Again, I am happy to respond to the Member in writing to outline the criteria more clearly. If there is a specific site that she is thinking of, we can look at it and give her more detail, including any previous responses. Alternatively, if it is something that needs to be looked at presently, I am happy to do so. Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for her answer. I ask because, when it comes to the question of whether there is a pedestrian crossing, in responses from the Department and based on site visits, the decision that is made is often car-dependent rather than being about encouraging active travel. I want to see whether the Department can move away from that kind of car-dependent assessment and attitude and instead enable safe pedestrian access and active travel. Ms Kimmins: The Member will appreciate — I know this from raising issues in my constituency over the years — that everything is prioritised on the basis of where the safety risk is higher. If it is a route that has a high volume of traffic, where it is difficult for people to cross the road, that route is probably more likely to be prioritised over somewhere where there is a lower volume of traffic. I completely take the point that the Member makes, however, about how we balance that against promoting active travel. Again, I am happy to speak about the criteria in more detail, which may answer some of her question. Alternatively, she may wish to put forward suggestions that we can consider in the time ahead. Northern Ireland Water: Jointure Bay Access T8. Mr Dickson asked the Minister for Infrastructure, given that she should be aware of the long-running public campaign to access the shore at Jointure Bay in Greenisland in East Antrim, to meet him and local residents to help them understand why Northern Ireland Water continues to block access to the beach there, despite saying that it wants all its public facilities to be as open as possible so that the public can enjoy them. (AQT 1718/22-27) Ms Kimmins: If the Member writes to me with the detail, I am happy to consider it. If it is something that is relevant to the Department, that is no problem. Mr Dickson: I thank the Minister. I will certainly write to her to encourage her to take up my invitation. The issue has been a long-running sore for people who live in the area. Unfortunately, Northern Ireland Water is supported by some members of Mid and East Antrim Borough Council, which asserted that there should be a right of way but does not seem to want to take any further action. Ms Kimmins: I am happy to consider that, Stewart. Thank you. A29 Cookstown Bypass Public Inquiry: Inspector's Report T9. Ms D Armstrong asked the Minister for Infrastructure whether she has received the inspector's report on the A29 Cookstown bypass public inquiry, which was held last November. (AQT 1719/22-27) Ms Kimmins: Not at this stage, but we are looking at the issue. I think that the recent announcement about the next stage of the Cookstown bypass was about what will happen in the coming weeks. As I get more information, I am happy to keep the Member updated. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Diana, you have 10 seconds for a supplementary question. Ms D Armstrong: Do you intend to publish that report, Minister? Ms Kimmins: Once it comes to me, and I consider it, I will update Members accordingly. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Peter Martin, very quickly. Driving Disqualifications: Mutual Recognition T10. Mr Martin asked the Minister for Infrastructure whether she will engage directly with the Westminster and Irish Governments to push for a review of the mutual recognition of driving disqualifications to ensure that there are no legal loopholes that could allow disqualified drivers from the Republic of Ireland to obtain a valid licence in Northern Ireland and vice versa. (AQT 1720/22-27) Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: You have 10 seconds, Minister. Ms Kimmins: The Member wrote to me recently about that. Perhaps he would like me to come back to him in writing, because I might not have time to fully answer his question. I feel as though I will be writing letters all week after today's sitting, but I appreciate that he has been raising that issue. Mr Martin: Thank you. Top 2.45 pm Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That ends questions to the Minister for Infrastructure. We move to questions to the Minister of Health. Health Autism: Transition Framework 1. Ms Bradshaw asked the Minister of Health to outline any plans that his Department has to develop and fund a transition framework to support young people with autism, aged 18 to 25, in moving from children’s to adult autism services. (AQO 2610/22-27) Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): We are progressing a number of pieces of work to improve transitions for autistic children as they move into adult services, particularly a new learning disability service model that is currently out for consultation. It is fully applicable for autistic adults with a co-occurring diagnosis of learning disability. (Mr Speaker in the Chair) In relation to transitions, the model sets out a framework to support people transitioning into day services, carers support, independent living, healthcare and specialist mental health services. In addition, a transitions protocol has been developed to standardise the planning process across the trusts. In the draft children’s emotional health and well-being framework, transitions are a key area of focus. I want to ensure that young people with a range of neurodevelopmental needs, including autism, are supported and prepared as they navigate the shift from child to adulthood. A public consultation for that framework closed on 26 September 2025, and responses are currently being collated and analysed. Transitions are a long-standing challenge, not just in the Department of Health. Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Minister. I recently met the Inner South Belfast parents' support group of Autism NI. It is a key issue for them, because they have been fighting their whole life for support for their children. Do you have any firmer timelines for when they will start to see the programmes being implemented on the ground? Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member. I am not particularly keen on committing to timelines, because, as the Member may be aware, there have been a number of initiatives, such as the cancer research strategy, where we have said that we had put a timeline on it but then have not delivered on it, so I do not want to continue to raise expectations. However, in this case, particularly with adults — the Member mentioned adults — I meet parents of children with learning disabilities and parents of children with autism or ADHD, and one of the common themes that keep them up at night, as the Member will know, is, "Will they be OK after I am gone?", so it is a matter of urgency. Ms Brownlee: Minister, parents and carers are really struggling. One of the main barriers that I hear about is access to support and access to direct payments. Can you provide an update on how that is progressing? Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for the question. I was not particularly aware of direct payments when I took up post 18 months ago, but, very quickly, I was made aware that it is a pretty complicated process. It puts a huge onus on those who are receiving direct payments, because, effectively, they become employers. That is maybe the last thing that they want to do when they feel vulnerable. Therefore, I have asked for a review and am actively chasing that up. Members will know my view: the public sector — I include the Department of Health — is not necessarily built for speed on such issues, and, yet, if you are looking for help, speed is, of course, of the essence. Ms Hunter: It is really important that we do all we can to support young people with autism. Minister, will you agree to establish a cross-departmental work group to address this cross-cutting issue? As I understand it, there are many sectors and aspects to the issue and to supporting children with autism from Communities and Education etc. Mr Nesbitt: I am afraid that I will not dream up policy on the hoof. However, I certainly accept the logic of what the Member seeks to address. I hope that she knows that I am looking for standardised regional services that take a holistic approach and that we want to end the silos, whether it is over diagnoses, procedures or postcode lotteries. All those things need to be addressed so that we smooth things out and people know that, if they have to wait, it is not a longer wait than that of anybody else and, if there are difficulties that need to be overcome, they are not bigger difficulties because they have autism compared with some other condition. Clinical Trials 2. Mr Dickson asked the Minister of Health to outline any action that he is taking to ensure that patients in Northern Ireland are afforded the same access to clinical trials as patients in other parts of the UK. (AQO 2611/22-27) Mr Nesbitt: The Department of Health facilitates access for patients to clinical trials through the work of the Health and Social Care (HSC) research and development division in the Public Health Agency (PHA). The division oversees participation in UK-wide clinical governance and trial approval processes. In addition, it funds core research infrastructure, which, in turn, supports access to clinical trials. That includes the Northern Ireland Clinical Research Network, a cancer trials network, a clinical trials unit, a clinical research facility and research offices in each of the trusts. Approximately 80% of clinical trials taking place in Northern Ireland also have research sites in other UK nations. However, I recognise that many clinical trials open only in a small number of sites around the UK and seek to recruit only a limited number of patients who have very specific characteristics. Therefore, not all trials will open in Northern Ireland or, indeed, in any other part of the United Kingdom. Mr Dickson: Thank you very much. Minister, how is your Department working with relevant stakeholders, such as universities, and the trusts to make Northern Ireland an attractive partner for UK-wide and international trials? Why has the Department brought about a great deal of confusion regarding EU rules, which, we were told, were blocking trials, with correspondence from you, Minister, last week saying that that was all wrong, there were no EU blockages and trials should be able to proceed? In reality, Minister, the blockage is in the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust. Mr Nesbitt: To be fair to the Belfast Trust, the Department of Health and our arm's-length bodies (ALBs) rely, on such occasions, on the advice of a UK-wide body, which is the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). It originally gave an opinion that we had to conform to specific EU regulations — the EU in vitro diagnostic regulatory conditions — and that therefore we could not proceed with the trial. It now appears that MHRA has reviewed its analysis, and we are good to go as long as we have the right governance structures locally through the Belfast Trust. That was unfortunate, because it has led to a delay, but I do not think that it has led to any patient safety concerns. At the Patrick Johnston facility on the Queen's site in Belfast City Hospital, I have seen in action the ball that goes down the throat to look for Barrett's oesophagus. It is magnificent. It is so quick, it is cost-effective and it delivers better outcomes, so it is a matter of regret that we have had that one-year delay. On how we tap into the rest of the UK, I was at the launch recently at the Ulster Hospital of the Northern Ireland commercial research delivery centre. That is a clinical trial centre. It is brand new, and it will link us in to a UK network. That is really good news, because we have clinicians who are incredibly passionate about clinical trials and Northern Ireland is of a size that is almost perfect for clinical trials. When we do them, we do them really well. I happen to think that we are missing a bit of a trick by not becoming global leaders or, certainly, UK-wide leaders in the field. Mr Brooks: On the back of the Member's question, when will patients have access to those trials? For clarity, reiterating what the Member asked, can we be sure that the EU regulations will not be a barrier in future to patients accessing such trials? Mr Nesbitt: I can be specific only about the clinical trials regarding that ball that goes down on a string for Barrett's oesophagus. The MHRA is now saying that the EU regulations do not apply, so we can go ahead. We cannot start it immediately, because we must make sure that we have the right governance arrangements in place in the Belfast Trust. I would like to think that they will now proceed at pace, because we should all be slightly embarrassed, although it was not our fault but that of the MHRA across the water. At that, it was a one-year delay that was unnecessary. Let us show the public that we will make up lost ground on that. On the application of other EU regulations for developments in health and social care, I can give the Member no assurance. He knows my view: we came out of Europe without thinking through the consequences, and, sadly, some of the consequences impact on health and social care delivery. Mr Chambers: I was pleased to learn recently that good progress has been made on the cancer research strategy, and I think that publication is imminent. How important was it to give the research organisations and individuals locally that further time to feed into the draft plan and allow them to work in partnership with the Department? Mr Nesbitt: I will respond to the Member in a couple of ways. There is no point in having what, we think, is a solid strategy if it does not have buy-in from stakeholders. As well as the need for buy-in, we have to be sure that, if we are going to have a strategy, we will be able to follow it up not just with an implementation plan but with one that is fully costed and deliverable. The Member will know that I pointed to the cancer strategy, rather than the cancer research strategy, and the mental health strategy as two gold-plated 10-year strategies that we cannot afford to implement in full. The feedback that we got some months ago was that some key stakeholders were not buying into the document as it was written up then, so it was important that we stepped back, re-engaged with them, listened to them and reacted positively. We have done that to the best of our ability, and I believe that all the key stakeholders are now relatively satisfied. They are not absolutely delighted: who would be? You cannot expect everybody to be delighted with a strategy. However, I believe that we have got to a place where we can have confidence that we are doing the right thing by the people whom we are trying to serve: the patients and service users for whom we are trying to deliver better outcomes. Clinical Variation 3. Dr Aiken asked the Minister of Health for an update on actions being taken to address clinical variation across Northern Ireland. (AQO 2612/22-27) Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his question. As the Member will know, Professor Mark Taylor has become the first elective care lead in the history of healthcare in Northern Ireland. He is looking at waiting list initiatives, particularly, but, within that, we want to try to address some of the issues regarding clinical variation. Delivering consistent clinical outcomes across Northern Ireland is complex. My ambition is to get to a point where we deliver standardised regional services, whatever the service has to be. The action is also being led by the Chief Medical Officer (CMO), Professor Sir Michael McBride, so we have two really experienced people looking at this area. If we can start to make solid improvements, that will deliver better outcomes and address the idea of postcode lotteries and variance in clinical delivery. I am absolutely delighted to know that I have the right people in the right places looking at the issue. Dr Aiken: Is the Minister confident that his appointment of Professor Mark Taylor as the clinical lead for reducing Northern Ireland's waiting times will serve as an important opportunity for a focus on why the number of procedures delivered on hospital theatre lists can sometimes differ from what are independently recognised baselines, such as those in Getting It Right First Time (GIRFT)? Mr Nesbitt: I absolutely am. It is something that he is addressing. It is not a question of saying to somebody, "You've done really well", but to somebody else, "You haven't done quite as well" or "You're not doing what you should be doing". I spoke to Mark at some length before he went out on the ground, in post. The fact that he is a clinician and a surgeon is extremely useful in allowing him to engage with clinicians and surgeons across Northern Ireland. There is mutual respect. He is not saying, "Somebody's doing your procedure 10 times a day in another hospital, but you're only doing six. You've got to do 10". It is more a case of Mark saying, "This is the variance. Let me understand why there is a variance, and let me see how I can help you get up to the best that we can achieve". Mrs Dodds: Last October, I think, we held a debate on breast cancer referral times and the 14-day target. At that stage, the Western Trust was 80-something per cent within that target, the Southern Trust 10% and the South Eastern Trust 6%. Now, it appears that, instead of offering equality with the creation of a regional list for breast cancer referrals, we are offering everything equally bad. What do you say to the lady who contacted me last week, who, 11 weeks ago, was red-flagged for a referral for breast cancer investigation and still has not seen a consultant? Mr Nesbitt: I regret the fact that it is such a long wait, but I hope that the Member will understand the logic of what we did in bringing in a regional service. She noted the variation, with the Western Trust having the best — or shortest — waiting times. What do I say to that person? I say that I am very sorry and hope that she gets the best outcomes when she is seen. What do I say to two people who are neighbours but, because the dividing line for the trusts runs between their houses, have had weeks of variation in their ability to get an appointment? That is not right either. To achieve what I wanted to achieve, we had to do two things. The first was to level up, which we have. Unfortunately, to drive down the longest waiting lists, the shortest waiting lists have to nudge up in the short term, but the two then equalise. The second was to drive down waiting lists across Northern Ireland towards the 10-day target. We have not yet achieved that, but we are working on it. Top 3.00 pm Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for his answer. I agree that the regional outworkings for trusts need to be fair across the board. That has to be the case. Does the Minister agree that true transformation is a key element in that and that the clinical variations need to come down to the outcomes? It is not just about waiting lists, but the particular types of services that are offered in each trust. For example, mental health services are great in one area and severely lacking in others. Mr Speaker: Right, we get the drift. Minister. Mr Nesbitt: I agree with the Member. We are driving down the variation, which demonstrates that we can then turn to areas such as mental health. I want to get away from postcode lotteries and move to having consistent and standardised services regionally, so that nobody feels disadvantaged by their postcode. Postcode lotteries are in no way consistent with the idea of the founding fathers of the National Health Service. Mr Durkan: I understand and, indeed, support the need for regional, standardised services that do away with the postcode lotteries. What services are being delivered regionally? Why have breast cancer assessments been used as a pilot? Why have you chosen the one lottery that patients in the Western Trust area had a chance of winning, particularly given that that area has the worst health outcomes overall? Mr Nesbitt: I understand that the Member represents the west. I represent Strangford, as a constituency MLA, but I have to park that and perform the role of Minister of Health for the whole of Northern Ireland. It was made abundantly clear to me that the variation in waiting lists for breast cancer assessment was not acceptable, and I have done the right thing. It is a two-part move, as I have explained. I regret that people in your area may have to wait a bit longer, but hopefully that will only be in short term. That is a matter of regret, but I have to look at the big picture, which tells me that I am doing the right thing and to roll out the change. Cancer Treatment: Ambulance Transfer 4. Mrs Dillon asked the Minister of Health to outline the actions that his Department is taking to ensure that patients requiring regular cancer treatment are able to access ambulance transport between different health and social care trust areas. (AQO 2613/22-27) Mr Nesbitt: The Northern Ireland Ambulance Service (NIAS) provides non-emergency transport for patients who, due to clinical need, cannot reasonably travel independently. The service operates under my Department’s transport strategy for health and social care services, which promotes safe, equitable, and patient-centred transport. Eligibility is determined by clinical need, including mobility, medical condition and any requirement for professional assistance. Once approved, transport is coordinated by NIAS in partnership with the health and social care trust. NIAS does not restrict transport by trust boundaries, with patients routinely being transported across regions to ensure continuity of care and timely access to treatment. NIAS also operates a voluntary car scheme, which supports immobile patients who cannot use public transport. Additionally, Cancer Focus NI provides a free volunteer driving service for eligible patients, which is accessible via a referral from a health professional. Other charities may offer similar support, though availability varies by region. Mrs Dillon: I thank the Minister for his answer so far. Minister, as you are well aware, Mid Ulster is a vast, rural constituency, and it is therefore vital that all our residents can access the care that they need. I am dealing with a number of patients who have to go to Altnagelvin for radiotherapy treatment every day for six weeks, and they are unable to get transport. If we want to seriously look at delivering healthcare better and transforming healthcare, we need to ensure that the public have faith that, if something is not available in the hospital beside them, they will be able to access it elsewhere. Can you give an assurance today that, as part of any transformation, we will make sure that every person across the North has access to the services that they need? Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member. I should have added in my opening remarks that we have a cancer support services directory and that, for those on low incomes, there is a hospital travel costs scheme that may provide financial assistance. On the broader point, the Member knows that I consulted on a strategy that would create a hospital network for better outcomes. I believe that many people, probably including me until relatively recently, wanted every procedure to be delivered at their nearest hospital, whether it was an acute hospital or not. That is neither possible nor particularly desirable, given the fact that we have the potential to move to create hospitals that are specialists in particular procedures. If you need a procedure, and your local facility does it once a week, but a facility 30 miles away does it 10 times a day, five days a week, I think that I know where you will go. However, the question is whether you can you get there and back, and, therefore, transport becomes particularly important. It is absolutely essential for a relatively small percentage of the population. I think that the larger percentage can get there and back one way or another, but, for those who cannot, transport becomes critical. We are looking at all those schemes. The Member may be aware that there are ongoing discussions between the Department of Health, the Department for Infrastructure and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. A couple of months ago, we escalated that to being an inter-ministerial meeting, because we felt that there was not enough impetus. The focus will be on getting people to and from health and social care settings. It is very much on the radar. Mr McNulty: Has the Minister considered working with the Department for Infrastructure and community and rural transport organisations to support this work? Rural transport organisations provide a life-saving transport link for the health service. Mr Nesbitt: As referenced in my previous answer, the Department for Infrastructure, the Department of Health and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs are engaged. Officials have been tasked with looking at how we can help to get people who do not have their own transport to and from health and social care settings. That involves community organisations, such as community transport providers. They are looking at how we can work with those organisations to deliver better outcomes for patients and service users, so it is happening. Mr Robinson: On the back of Mrs Dillon's question regarding cancer treatment, will the Minister update the House on what action he is taking to tackle the unacceptable breast cancer waiting times? Mr Nesbitt: I am not sure how that relates to transportation. We are very conscious that cancer waiting times are getting longer, that that is not good and that it delivers very bad outcomes. The longer a patient has to wait, the less likely they are to get an optimum outcome. It is a very important issue, but it is not relevant to this question. I will write to the Member, because I was not expecting to be asked about that on a question on transport. Mr Donnelly: We are all aware that getting a cancer diagnosis is an incredibly stressful time in someone's life and that attending for treatment is incredibly important. How many cancer patients in the past year either missed or had treatment appointments delayed due to transport issues? Mr Nesbitt: I do not think that I have that statistic to hand. I am not sure whether we even trap that statistic, but I will certainly look out for it for the Member if we have it. NIFRS Learning and Development College: Benefits 5. Mr Butler asked the Minister of Health to outline the benefits delivered by the new Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service (NIFRS) Learning and Development College at Desertcreat. (AQO 2614/22-27) Mr Nesbitt: The Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service Learning and Development College in Cookstown represents a transformative investment in firefighter training, public safety and regional development. It is world class. I will repeat that, because we do not have many facilities that meet that criterion: it is world class. It has been operational for 11 months. Several benefits have already materialised, with further gains expected. The college's state-of-the-art facilities provide trainees with multiple opportunities to experience realistic and repeatable training simulations in a controlled environment under expert supervision. That leads to personnel being better prepared than they were previously, and that, in turn, enhances the safety of the public and firefighters alike. Mr Butler: As the Minister rightly points out, and I agree with him, the college is a world-class facility. In that vein, will there be opportunities for other services to use the facility, and will there be opportunities in the future to recover costs for running it? Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his question. Yes, absolutely. The first thing to say is that the college being there has led to a reduction in costs for several training topics for the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service itself. Those include breathing apparatus instructor training, road traffic collision instructor training and hazardous material officer training. The college also has a flood facility, which is absolutely spectacular. The college is primarily, of course, for the use of the Fire and Rescue Service here, but other emergency services, including the Ambulance Service and the Police Service of Northern Ireland are already making use of the site. The Fire and Rescue Service operates a cost recovery model for third-party usage, which, at present, remains under development, so its full potential is not yet fully known. The Fire and Rescue Service is, however, keen to optimise that in order to support the effective and efficient operation of the college. I know that representatives of fire services in the Republic have been to see it and that there has been interest from across Great Britain and, I believe, further afield. Community Children’s Nursing Services 8. Mr McMurray asked the Minister of Health to outline the number of special schools that have had community children’s nursing services withdrawn. (AQO 2617/22-27) Mr Nesbitt: All special education needs schools across Northern Ireland have community children’s nurses (CCNs) available to them in order to manage the identifiable healthcare needs of their pupils. For historical reasons, of the 40 SEN schools in Northern Ireland, only eight have on-site CCNs in place, who are split across the Belfast Trust and the South Eastern Trust. In the 2023-24 financial year, the delivery model in Knockevin School changed to an in-reach model, with CCNs providing assessment and care planning for children with complex healthcare needs. The nurses provided knowledge and skills-based training to key staff in the school and were available for queries and guidance as necessary. After engagement and discussion with the Department and the South Eastern Trust, the presence of an on-site nurse in Knockevin School was stepped up again in mid-2025, and, currently, a CCN is on site two mornings a week in addition to the presence of allied health professional colleagues. Following last month's publication of the Public Health Agency's review of the healthcare needs of children attending SEN schools, officials in my Department have commenced work alongside colleagues from Education in order to ensure that all children in SEN schools have access to necessary healthcare. Mr McMurray: Thank you very much, Minister, for the reference to Knockevin School. When will the full review of nursing provision in special schools be completed so that it can provide the necessary certainty? Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his question. We have looked at the provision of CCNs, but it is imperative that we ensure that all children have safe access to education that is supported by the necessary therapeutic support. The Public Health Agency is leading a comprehensive analysis in order to identify what the assessed therapeutic needs are for children and young people who attend special schools. We need to know that the development of an effective model of therapy provision is being planned and that we have the associated workforce in development and planning. That will include a comprehensive scoping exercise to capture the assessed needs of children and young people in respect of occupational therapy, physiotherapy and speech and language therapy. To answer the Member's question, I expect to receive the completed review with recommendations by March 2026, with the usual proviso that, sometimes, our deadlines are not met. Electronic Prescribing System: Update 9. Mr Buckley asked the Minister of Health for an update on the roll-out of an electronic prescribing system for patients and pharmacies. (AQO 2618/22-27) Mr Nesbitt: The Department is currently leading on an ePharmacy programme, a central component of which is the electronic transfer of prescriptions (ETP) project, which will introduce a fully electronic system to replace the current paper-based prescription process. That system will enable the secure transmission of prescriptions from prescribers to community pharmacies and onward to the Business Services Organisation for processing and payment. The Department has included the ETP project in its 10-year capital investment plan, with an indicative start date of 2027 at the earliest. Work is currently under way to develop an outline business case that will set out the strategic, economic and financial justification for the project. I remain hopeful that, subject to securing the required funding, the project can commence in 2027 and be completed by 2032. Top 3.15 pm Mr Speaker: A brief supplementary, Mr Buckley. Mr Buckley: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and thank you, Minister. Will the Minister outline the potential benefits for patients of introducing that system? How can we safeguard against errors being made through the wrong medication being prescribed? Mr Speaker: A brief response, Minister. Mr Nesbitt: On the latter point, I believe that GPs and, indeed, community pharmacists are very aware of the need to check for unintended errors, so I do not expect that there will be any lack of focus there. An electronic system allows you to build in objective tests rather than to rely on individuals' subjective eyesight and thought processes. Even though there will be potential benefits in the system for patients, I am very focused on the benefit that it will have for GPs. Every GP whom I talk to when we bring up the idea of paper-based prescriptions says, "That is so time-consuming. It would be transformational to have an electronic system." I take five tablets per day on repeat prescription. When I need a repeat prescription, I go on the internet and fire off an email to my GP pharmacy, and it comes back and says, "Yeah, we got that all right". However, they print out a script, and the local pharmacist has to walk up the hill, collect the script and walk back down to the pharmacy. I do not understand this: if it can get from me to the GP, why can it not get from the GP to the community pharmacy, and why does it take so long? However, it does, apparently, take that length of time. Mr Speaker: We will move on to topical questions. Breast Cancer: Detection and Treatment Times T1. Mr McGrath asked the Minister of Health whether, having just seen the completion of Breast Cancer Awareness Month, he agrees that it is absolutely abhorrent that we have some of the worst results in meeting detection and treatment targets anywhere on these islands. (AQT 1721/22-27) Mr Nesbitt: I do agree, and I can only assure the Member that that is an area of focus for me. Introducing the regionalised booking service for breast assessment is not the beginning and the end of what I intend to do in that area. Mr McGrath: Minister, your party has held the Health portfolio for most of the past 10 years, except for those times when, inexcusably, this place was down. In the past 10 years, however, the percentage of patients that are being seen within the14 days has gone from 84% down to 6%. Will you develop a specific plan to address that matter that, as Members detailed, is more than what you have been offering us, which is just regionalising the service and making everybody deal with long waiting lists? Mr Nesbitt: On the substantive point, yes is the short answer. However, the context that the Member tried to place it in is deeply unfair. The Assembly, as he knows, was down twice during that time, and the only other person in recent years from this party to hold the position of Minister of Health was Robin Swann, who got hit immediately with a global pandemic, which became nearly his entire focus. He did manage, for example, to appoint a mental health champion and get out a mental health strategy, so he did do things. However, those were done under the most constrained circumstances that any Health Minister has faced since devolution in 1998. The context is not fair, but, as for the intent of doing better with cancer services, I am with you. Restricted Procedures T2. Miss McIlveen asked the Minister of Health, given that the Comptroller and Auditor General found that Northern Ireland health trusts spent in the region of £22 million on 12,000 restricted procedures during the 2023-24 financial year, what he is doing to ensure that such procedures are being carried out in line with government policy and that there is proper departmental oversight of them. (AQT 1722/22-27) Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for her question. I was not aware that that was happening until that report was published, and I found it quite shocking. The range of activity and the scale of Health and Social Care are such that it is challenging to stay across every development. I did not welcome what I heard, because we are in very constrained financial times. The question then becomes — I do not have the answer to this yet — whether people are actioning and signing off on those procedures because they think that they are in the best interests of patients and service users or whether it is because people are not properly focused on the fact that we have that unprecedented and, frankly, unmanageable, pressure on our budget. I would like to think that it is the former, but, even at that, we have to review the situation and make sure that every penny that we spend is spent properly. Every pound that is misspent in the Department of Health is a pound that is not spent on education, on housing or on all the other areas that are in charge of the social determinants of ill health. We therefore have to spend every penny wisely, not just for Health but for everybody else. Miss McIlveen: My supplementary question is also about spending money wisely. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that his Department's investment of £40 million a year in tuition fees benefits health provision in Northern Ireland? Mr Nesbitt: I am pretty confident that it does, because the workforce challenges remain. Although we have invested heavily and increased the overall workforce that delivers health and social care, there are still major gaps. Before coming to the Chamber, I was slightly delayed because I was listening to somebody in the Long Gallery who has MS. It was awkward for me to get up and walk out on somebody who was giving a personal testimony. His point was that we do not have enough workforce in neurological services. He said that we do not have enough psychological staff and that we do not have enough trained nurses and consultants. That is a common call that Members will hear made right across health and social care delivery. To my mind, the Member's question is valid. Is the £40 million being spent to best effect? It absolutely is. We are pretty much there, but could we use £50 million or £60 million? Yes, we could. Dental Services: Asylum Seekers T3. Mr Buckley asked the Minister of Health, while acknowledging that he is aware of the huge pressures facing dental services, whether he has heard any concerns from dental practitioners about potential abuses of dental provision and wider social services that are available to asylum seekers in Northern Ireland. (AQT 1723/22-27) Mr Nesbitt: Off the top of my head, I am not aware of any such concerns. Mr Buckley: Minister, dental practitioners and social workers have been in contact with me to raise concerns that a number of asylum-seeker patients, who, in their professional opinion, are most certainly adults, are presenting as children when accessing dental treatment in Northern Ireland. They feel unable to voice their concerns for fear of being branded far right or racist. I therefore ask the Minister whether he acknowledges that, if that is happening, it is of huge concern and presents wider child-safeguarding issues for social services and their use? Moreover, will the Minister commit to looking into the issue, which warrants serious investigation, and come back to the House on it? Mr Nesbitt: Again off the top of my head, I suggest that, if the Member holds such information, he should immediately pass it on to the Police Service of Northern Ireland and potentially to the Safeguarding Board for Northern Ireland. Public Health Bill: Human Rights T4. Mr Frew asked the Minister of Health, given that he is quoted in the press as saying about the public health Bill, which has been removed from the Executive's legislative programme: "I also fully recognise there were a number of genuine concerns raised, not least questions about how individuals' human rights would be affected by the introduction of any legislation", whether he will outline to the House those concerns and to what aspects of individual human rights he refers. (AQT 1724/22-27) Mr Nesbitt: It was more of a broad acknowledgement that there was concern about human rights and about government being in a position in which it will potentially overreach into people's personal freedoms and decision-making. Let me make a broader point to the Member, however. It was early in my tenure that I was asked to sign off on the consultation. Had I been in post longer, I might have come to the view that it was too soon after the COVID-19 pandemic to go out to public consultation on the proposed Bill, because that is the clear impression that I get from the 8,000-plus responses to the consultation and, indeed, from the reaction at the time. A former leader of the Member's party used to say that Ministers do not go out to consultation until they have decided what they are going to do and that the consultation is only to see whether there are banana skins that they have not spotted. I do not take that approach, and that is why, for example, I put in mandatory vaccinations as an option. I did not support the proposal, but who am I to tell the population of Northern Ireland that people cannot even have an opinion on that? That is why I put it in, but I made it clear that, personally, I would not be supporting it. Overall, the 1967 Act contains some draconian measures, but people are not aware of that. It was in the context of it being so soon after COVID that I realised that we are making people fear for their civil, religious and human rights and liberties. Mr Frew: I thank the Health Minister for that very honest answer, and I also applaud the fact that he has removed the public health Bill from the legislative programme. Minister, if it is wrong to have that Bill now, so soon after the atrocious decisions taken in the Department of Health during the COVID pandemic, why do you think that it will be right in 10 or 20 years' time? Mr Nesbitt: It is because I do not accept the Member's assessment that there were "atrocious" decisions made in the Department of Health at that time. The Member and I clearly disagree absolutely fundamentally, and it is fine that we should do that. The 1967 Act deals only with infectious diseases. We are in the 21st century, and we need to consider all hazards and take in the biological, chemical, nuclear and all the horrible threats that have developed down the years. Although I am saying that we will not bring the legislation forward in this mandate, I have said to officials that we have to re-engage with people and try to make them understand two things. The first is the implications of what we have, which are some fairly draconian measures in the 1967 Act about how you can detain people. The Member will obviously be 100% against that, and I might agree with him on the one about mandatory detention of people without going to the courts to get permission. The second thing is to say, "Let us think about all the other issues that have arisen since 1967 that we do not have covered". I would like to think that, in the next mandate, we will do a new public health Bill that will be more to the Member's satisfaction — not entirely so but more so. Ambulance Waiting Times: Altnagelvin T5. Mr Gildernew asked the Minister of Health for an update on ambulance waiting times, particularly in relation to Altnagelvin, where some very worrying messages are coming out in the September review. (AQT 1725/22-27) Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member. I will write to him on that, if he does not mind, because, while ambulance waiting times have been bad down the years, I am getting a hint that there is some really solid, positive Northern Ireland-wide news that includes Altnagelvin. I will listen to the follow-up question, but a focus is being put on that issue, and that focus is beginning to yield results. Mr Gildernew: I thank the Minister and look forward to that information. Minister, the situation at Altnagelvin has significantly worsened since the removal of emergency general surgery from the South West Acute Hospital, and you will be familiar with the phrase "double ED waits" for patients from that hospital. Those double ED waits continue. The Ambulance Service has outlined very worrying prolonged delays. Can you indicate what engagement you are having with the trust in that area about removing those double ED waits, which are discriminating against patients coming from Fermanagh? Mr Nesbitt: Again, let me check exactly where we are with the double ED waits. It was the RQIA assessment of the impact of moving emergency general surgery to Altnagelvin that exposed to the public the idea of people having a wait for assessment in the ED in the South West Acute Hospital but then having to do that again when they get to Altnagelvin. I think that the trust was already on it, as it were, but had not cracked it. It was aware that it was an issue that needed to be addressed and that we did not have to have the double ED wait. Of course, under Encompass, instead of having to put a big physical file in an ambulance with a patient, you can say, "This patient will be with you in whatever time", and the incoming team can look at Encompass and see the diagnosis and all the rest of it. If double ED waits are still happening, I would be concerned about that. The Member is nodding to say that that is still happening. I will certainly take that away, because I was of the impression that we might well have seen that problem off by now. Sign Language: Northern Trust T6. Mrs Cameron asked the Minister of Health to confirm how many social workers are trained in sign language across the Northern Ireland trusts, and in the Northern Trust area in particular, given that it has come to her attention that a number of people in her constituency from the deaf community have not been able to access a social worker who can communicate with them through any form of sign language. (AQT 1726/22-27) Top 3.30 pm Mr Nesbitt: If the Member is looking for specific numbers, I will have to write to her. There is certainly a shortage of social workers and social care workers, so I am afraid that what she is telling me does not come as a huge surprise. I will have to get back to her in writing with the fine detail. Questions for Urgent Oral Answer Education Minister of Education: Visit to Israel Mr Speaker: Cara Hunter has given notice of a question for urgent oral answer to the Minister of Education. I remind Members that, if they wish to ask a supplementary question, they should continually rise in their place. Ms Hunter asked the Minister of Education to outline the departmental resources used to promote his recent visit to Israel. Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): I had the opportunity to visit Israel last week. What I was able to bear witness to was intolerable suffering and loss of life at the hands of terrorists. Across the Middle East conflict in Gaza, Palestinians have suffered terribly and endured loss of life, with Hamas using and abusing its own population as human shields. I was formally invited by the Government of Israel to participate in a delegation from devolved nations. No public funds were spent on the visit. The trip was planned and organised by the Israeli embassy. No departmental officials participated in the trip overall or in the visit to Ofek School that was organised by the hosts. The school visit was directly relevant to my ministerial portfolio and provided valuable insights into pedagogy and practice. In light of that relevance, I requested that the Department issue a factual press release to share the inclusive education practice that I observed. That communication was strictly non-political and focused solely on the educational aspects of the visit. No departmental resources were used to publicise any political message. Ms Hunter: Minister, you have said that you were on a fact-finding mission, but here are the facts that you might not have been presented with while in illegally occupied territory: more than 50,000 children in Gaza have been murdered and injured by Israel. While your politics and your morality are ultimately your own and are a matter for yourself, it is clear, through public messaging, that departmental time and official platforms were used to promote what was your highly controversial trip. Minister, you said today that no public funds were used, but who hit "send" on the public messaging? Did you instruct your departmental officials to use official channels to promote what was clearly a very political visit and, in doing so, bring not only yourself but your Department into disrepute? Mr Givan: I challenge the Member or any Member to point out in the press release what the political message was. There was no political message. The objection is that I visited a school in Israel. That is the objection from Members who are opposed to this. There is nothing in the press release that had any political connotation whatsoever. It is an integrated school where Jews, Arabs and Christians are educated together. Those who are opposed to the visit now manufacture this outcry. What I can say is that my permanent secretary and senior officials have carried out a review of my engagements on the visit. They have concluded that review and given a clean bill of health not just to me as Minister but to every civil servant in my Department, whose actions were entirely appropriate. That is the position of my senior officials and the permanent secretary. Mr Martin: Minister, you just mentioned the permanent secretary in the Department of Education. Can you speak a little bit further about his assessment of the Department's role in either organising the trip or any subsequent publicity about it? Mr Givan: I thank the Member for that question. As I said, my permanent secretary has assessed the role of the Department in assisting with the organisation of the trip. My private office liaised with the organisers to confirm travel logistics and to relay my travel requests. That support was minimal and administrative in nature, and, in total, it is estimated to have amounted to less than one hour of Civil Service time. That limited involvement was deemed to be appropriate given the need to manage the Israel trip within my broader ministerial diary and to cancel other engagements. My permanent secretary reviewed the press release pertaining to the school visit that was published by the Department. He concluded that it had no political content and was directly related to my portfolio, and therefore approved my request. Mr Sheehan: A significant number of highly reputable organisations are clear that what has been happening in Gaza over the past two years is a genocide. Those organisations include a UN commission, the International Association of Genocide Scholars, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Oxfam, Genocide Watch and B'Tselem, which is an Israeli organisation. Why can the Minister not accept the truth rather than continuing to peddle the propaganda of a genocidal regime, the leaders of which are wanted on international arrest warrants for crimes against humanity? Mr Givan: I note that the Member, who is also the Deputy Chair of the Education Committee, did not ask a question — not one question — about the Department. I am here to be held to account as Education Minister for the element of the trip that related to my Education portfolio. I am not here to be held to account by a convicted terrorist who supports Hamas terrorists. You will not hold me to account: I will hold you to account for your terrorism. What has Mr Sheehan done in his past? He has met Hamas and been pictured with Khaled Mashal. What did Khaled Mashal say in respect of 7 October and concern for Palestinian lives? A member of Hamas, with whom Pat Sheehan has been photographed, said that lost Palestinian lives are a necessary sacrifice. Do not give me crocodile tears. You have been pictured with, and support, Hamas terrorists. Sinn Féin needs to get the message very clearly: it is the unionist people of Northern Ireland who have elected my party and put me in this position. I will never be dictated to by Sinn Féin, particularly not by the likes of Pat Sheehan. [Inaudible.] [Inaudible.] Mr Speaker: Order. Mrs Guy: Minister, I agree with your comments about 7 October. What happened was abhorrent and unjustifiable. However, you walked into this controversy with your eyes wide open. You understood how provocative and hurtful it would be for people to see our Minister of Education standing and smiling in an occupied territory, when, just miles away, Gaza lies in ruins, with schools having been destroyed and children killed in an act of genocide that has been sanctioned by the very Government who paid for your trip. Minister, you understand the difference between acting as an individual and acting as the Education Minister. In that context, is it not absolutely reasonable that people are asking whether you are suitable to be our Education Minister? Mr Givan: The Member should listen to the Ulster Farmers' Union's position on her own party's Agriculture Minister and his suitability for that ministerial office. Members have set a very low bar for passing no-confidence motions. Indeed, one Minister is elected, with cross-community support, by the Assembly, so be careful what you wish for. The Alliance Party now allows Gerry Carroll to lead it. Maybe that is part of the internal discussions: we all know what is going on in the Alliance Party. It is now being led by Gerry Carroll, who, on 7 October, tweeted, "Victory to the Palestinian Resistance". There has been no condemnation of Gerry Carroll from Michelle Guy — no condemnation whatsoever. I have explained the basis of the visit. It is interesting that the Alliance Party, proponents of integrated education, are hostile towards a visit to an integrated school. When I was in Israel, I had the opportunity to meet a member of the Opposition in the Knesset. He talked about how, eight years ago, when he had responsibility for education, he brought 25 Arab principals and 25 Jewish principals here to gain insight into Northern Ireland. In Jerusalem, I witnessed people — Arab communities, Jewish communities and people from the Armenian Christian Church and Orthodox Christian Church — living side by side, navigating their differences, in a very diverse way. That is far from the malign intent of an "apartheid regime" in what is, indeed, the only democratic country in the Middle East. The Alliance Party would do well to remove the shackles of the extreme left wing and the likes of Gerry Carroll, who is leading them. Dr Aiken: I declare an interest, because I was on the visit as well. Minister, will you comment on the fact that, when we went to the Ofek school, which is led by Jewish, Muslim and Christian leaders, we had to have our meeting in a bomb shelter? Why would a school for children need to have a bomb shelter? Mr Givan: I thank Dr Aiken for the question. I also commend him for going on the visit and making a Member's statement about it. [Inaudible] Mr Sheehan: bomb shelter. Mr Givan: When it comes to the visit, I know very clearly which side he is on. I commend and pay tribute to him. When we visited the school, we heard how the children have to actively practise fleeing to the bomb shelter — Mr Sheehan: At least they have got one. Mr Givan: — because of the rocket attacks that have been inflicted on them by Hamas. What does Hamas do in its schools? It indoctrinates its children to kill Jews, saying, "Death to Israel". [Interruption.] It builds terrorist infrastructure and uses the children as human shields. That is what Hamas does. Mr Sheehan: Propaganda and lies. Mr Givan: It was also interesting to hear on the visit that, as a result of what happened on 7 October, 45,000 children were displaced, because there were movements of people from northern and southern Israel. They all had to leave their schools. Mr Sheehan: How many Palestinian children had to leave their schools? Mr Givan: It was remarkable how the Israeli education system had established those facilities to try to react to that. Do you know what they said about the experience of those children when they came back to school? Mr Sheehan: How many Palestinian children were displaced? Mr Givan: Many of them could not talk because of how they had been traumatised. Children have been traumatised in the Middle East. They have been used and abused in Gaza and weaponised by Hamas terrorists, the very same terrorists with whom Mr Sheehan was photographed. [Inaudible.] Mr Speaker: Mr Sheehan, you have had your chance. I do not mind a bit of chuntering, but you have had a fair old crack at it. Mr Middleton: The car-crash contributions from the SDLP leader and the People Before Profit MLA on the 'The Nolan Show' this morning exposed the true anti-Israeli sentiment towards your visit to Israel. Minister, is it not right that, as Education Minister, you look at educational aspects of schools in the Middle East and what is happening in Israel so that we learn from the educational experience in that country? Mr Givan: It would have been very strange for us to visit Israel but not take the opportunity to visit a school. That visit was organised and facilitated by the hosts. [Interruption.] Members, again, want to shout down the message. The tactic for the past four or five days has been to holler abuse [Interruption] and drown out a different opinion because they do not like what is being said. It is interesting. If we lived in a truly liberal society, we would respect other people's opinions, but there is no respect shown by those who claim to be liberals. Instead, it is a case of let us have that domination of a contrary opinion. Suppress them so that they do not feel comfortable in saying it. Regrettably, for those opposite and others in the Chamber, I am not one of those people who yields to the kind of bullying and intimidation that I have witnessed from many Members in the House. Ms Sheerin: I note that the Minister did not answer my colleague's questions. Why would B'Tselem state that a genocide is happening in Gaza if that is not true? Where is the Minister's humanity? Mr Givan: The Member is interested in genocide. Why was the Chair of Fermanagh and Omagh District Council, Barry McElduff, in China last week? You are concerned about genocide: let us look at the genocide of the Uyghur community that is taking place in China? China has that community engaged in forced labour in camps. There are forced sterilisations, mass arbitrary detentions, cultural and religious erasure, surveillance and family separation. If we are to have consistency on genocide, where is her condemnation of her own colleague for going to China? [Interruption.] That proves the double standard that we have become well accustomed to from Sinn Féin. We will not be lectured by Sinn Féin on such things. Mr Sheehan: You cannot answer the question. Mr Givan: They just need to calm down. We hear the anger. Mr Sheehan: Answer the question. Mr Givan: Listen — [Interruption.] Mr Speaker: Order. Top 3.45 pm Mr Givan: You may have tried to bully other people in the past, but it will not work with me [Interruption.] You may not like the answers, but you will listen to them from me today, tomorrow, next week, next month and next year [Interruption.] Ms Nicholl: The Minister is entitled to his views. I know that we disagree on nearly everything, but I will support his right to hold his views. The issue, Minister, is that the school that you visited is in the illegal settlement of Ramot Alon. Please answer my question without deflecting it with things that other parties have done. Do you think that it was acceptable for a Minister to visit a school built on stolen land against international and UN rulings? Is the Minister aware that Priti Patel resigned as International Development Secretary in 2017 for having unauthorised meetings with the Israeli Government while she was on holiday? Mr Givan: As I have said, it was entirely acceptable for me, Dr Aiken, a TUV councillor and the leader of the Welsh Conservative Party to visit that school. Members would have been critical of a delegation to Israel that refused to go into East Jerusalem, where there is a majority Arab community, and to experience what it has to live with. The same Members would have condemned us for not doing that. We went to listen. We heard clearly about what many people in Jerusalem and across Israel have had to experience. Do you know what it was like in pre-1967 East Jerusalem under Jordanian rule? Jews were not allowed in. Christians were not allowed in. They were refused access to a lot of the holy sites in the city. Under Israeli rule, all the sites are open, irrespective — Mr Sheehan: Rubbish. Mr Givan: — of the religious differences in Jerusalem. The Member shouts, "Rubbish": I was there last week, so I have witnessed it. Mr Sheehan: I have been there. I know. Mr Givan: We know that other Members visited, but they went to visit Hamas [Interruption.] That is what they did when they visited [Interruption.] Mr Speaker: Now. I call Jonathan Buckley. Mr Buckley: The public can see through this choreographed witch-hunt, orchestrated by the antisemite-in-chief, Gerry Carroll, propped up by those on the extreme left in the Alliance Party, the SDLP and Sinn Féin. The Minister has already said that his departmental officials knew about the trip. Will the Minister indicate whether departmental officials suggested to him at any time that he was in breach of any rules relating to his ministerial duties? Mr Givan: I thank the Member for his question. At no time did departmental officials suggest to me that I was in breach of any rules relating to my ministerial duties. Opponents want my civil servants in the Department to have acted in a highly political manner when it came to the statement that was released. That would have been to invite them not to act impartially under the direction and control of the democratically elected Minister but to usurp the authority of those who are in elected office. I repeat it for the benefit of all Members and the media who have been listening that this has been reviewed by the senior officials in my Department, and the permanent secretary has given a clean bill of health when it comes to every civil servant who engaged with the visit and to my conduct as Minister. Mr Tennyson: Unlike other parties in the Chamber, Alliance has been consistent in our condemnation of both Hamas terrorism and the genocide that is unfolding under the Israeli Government. Let us set aside the bluff and bluster, Minister. Were you there in a party political capacity, in which case it would have been inappropriate for departmental resources to be used to promote your trip, or were you there as a Minister, in which case you have potentially breached the Functioning of Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2021 by not having officials at that engagement? This is not about the conflict in the Middle East; this is about your obligations as a Minister under the ministerial code. Mr Givan: I am repeating for, I think, the fourth time that it has been reviewed by my permanent secretary and senior officials, who have found that I and every official in the Department acted entirely appropriately when it comes to the visit. There are no issues to see here, despite those who want to manufacture them. The Member said that the Alliance Party had been entirely consistent. I remember a time when the Alliance Party condemned terrorists. Now, the Alliance Party does not even know what an innocent victim of terrorism is. I remember a time when the Alliance Party used to find space to vote with DUP colleagues in the Chamber. Now, the Alliance Party walks through the Lobbies led by Gerry Carroll. When the vote on the no confidence motion comes, it will troop into the Lobby behind Gerry Carroll, the man who posted, "Victory to the Palestinian Resistance". How far the Alliance so-called cross-community Party has fallen that it is now in the pretty appalling position that it has found itself in. Mr Carroll: Rent-free in your head, Minister, I suggest. There has been widespread opposition to the Minister's recent whitewashing propaganda trip to Israel, which was political from the start to the middle and end. I commend the hundreds of people in Belfast who came out at the weekend and called for him to go. I commend the Mothers Against Genocide protest today, calling for him to go. I also commend the teachers who came out this afternoon from Colaiste Feirste and other schools and protested, calling for him to go. I commend the tens of thousands of people who signed a petition calling for him to go. Mr Speaker: Mr Carroll, please ask a question, as opposed to giving commendations. Mr Carroll: The Minister is completely out of step with public opinion and completely out of step with the majority opinion in the House. Will he save himself further embarrassment and step down now? Mr Givan: The Member is in lockstep with Hamas. That is who he is in step with, and that is who he was commending and celebrating on 7 October. Hamas, which has brutally murdered, raped and killed babies and children. The Member should go to Gaza and take his left-wing policies and ideology and see how he will be treated in Gaza. He might not get back out if he were to articulate the views that he has on Hamas and Gaza. I note that Matthew O'Toole is not here. That is probably appropriate, because we now have the real leader of the Opposition, Gerry Carroll, leading Alliance, the SDLP and Sinn Féin. I give credit to Gerry Carroll: at least he is honest. At least he does not try to hide the antisemitic position that he holds. Others in the Chamber masquerade as being against racism. It is clear that the mask has truly slipped. Mr Gaston: Minister, in your interview this morning and again this afternoon, you have rightly highlighted the fact that a delegation from Fermanagh and Omagh District Council was visiting China last week. Does the Minister have any concerns about the relationship between the Executive and the Chinese Government? Mr Givan: The Member asks a very important question. In the past, questions have been asked about minutes and notes of meetings that have taken place when it comes to China. I know the position that I have when it comes to engaging with China: I do not. They are committing genocide. This, however, is the challenge: it is the inconsistency, particularly of Sinn Féin, and the inconsistent approach. If you are claiming to be against genocide in Israel, why are you not against genocide when it comes to China and the Uyghur community? It is the inconsistency and double standards. Let us see how principled Sinn Féin is in the days, weeks and months ahead when it comes to its engagements with the human rights-violating People's Republic of China. Mr Durkan: On 13 October, we had a Matter of the Day debate in the Chamber on the Gaza ceasefire settlement. On that day, the SDLP again lamented the loss of life on 7 October perpetrated by Hamas and the genocide waged by Israel since. In an extremely rare contribution to a Matter of the Day debate by a Minister, Minister Givan spoke from the Back Benches and basically gave a sycophantic soliloquy about Israel, during which he thanked the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), who had massacred tens of thousands of innocent people. Was that before or after he accepted an invitation to visit Israel, paid for by Israel? Mr Givan: We met members of the Israel Defense Forces. Here is what we witnessed. We were in the outpost right on the Gaza border. Do you know what happened on 7 October? Hamas came into that outpost, took 19 unarmed females, put them into a room, rolled up tyres, set them on fire and suffocated the women to death. They burnt them alive. All that was left was their military dog tags for their families. The party opposite talks about gender equality and ending violence against women, but it does not worry about the violence by Hamas terrorists against women in Israel. Mr Brooks: I declare an interest in that I was also glad to join the visit to Israel. It was a useful visit, and we learned much. Does the Minister share my concern that the obsession and faux outrage about his visit to a school in another country, having been absent when he visited schools in other countries, are fuelled by the institutional antisemitism that is characteristic of the parties that are backing a vote of no confidence that is being led by a man who, on 7 October, tweeted a cheerleading tweet while Jews were being massacred in Israel? Mr Givan: I agree with the Member, and I thank him for being part of the delegation. Members clearly do not like the report that we are bringing back on the devastation that happened in Israel. They do not like to hear the truth. Well, you are going to have to get used to hearing the truth. [Interruption.] You can continue to shout me down; I will continue to give you back the answers that you need to hear. [Interruption.] I am being —. Mr Speaker: Order. Just a moment. If Members wish to ask questions, they should put their name down to ask one. Mr Givan: Members opposite are shouting about those with international arrest warrants and criminal convictions. Am I living in a parallel universe? I ask the Members opposite this: how many of you were incarcerated in the Maze prison, in Maghaberry or in Crumlin Road because of your terrorist criminal convictions? How many of your family members were engaged in terrorism? You have the audacity to sit there and lecture me and others about this visit to Israel. Seriously? You may have been sanitised by others who in 1998 were weak on the Belfast Agreement, and you may be acceptable to the British Government, who have failed to deal with Sinn Féin's politics effectively, but we will continue to stand up to, expose and confront your politics, because that is what we have to do in the Assembly and in the Executive. Get used to it. Mr McMurray: Minister, you visited Ofek School in Jerusalem, which deals with the top 2% to 3% of academic achievers. Do you agree that the focus should be on addressing the lowest achievers in Northern Ireland, which is what the people want us to do in the Chamber? Mr Givan: Yes, absolutely. That is why I will continue getting on with the job. When I came into post, we faced a crisis in special educational needs placements, and we established thousands of extra places. This year, we had to establish thousands of extra places. Whilst others want to detract and take us away from those issues, my job is to continue to deliver, and I will deliver by creating those places. I have published all the details on area planning. I say this to the Member and to Sinn Féin: I brought forward a costed, detailed, 10-year strategic plan for children with special needs, but Sinn Féin still has not put it on the agenda. When will Sinn Féin put things such as that on the Executive agenda? My focus is very much on helping children with special educational needs. I am also focused on ensuring that our teachers, who got a pay rise of over 11% under me, as Minister, which was more than under any other Minister in previous years, are represented. I will continue to represent those teachers and get on with doing my job while others just want to distract from it. Mr Kingston: Does the Minister agree that the fact that his detractors have failed to articulate any coherent or relevant objection to his visit to Israel last week has exposed the fact that their only real objection is that it was to the state of Israel? Top 4.00 pm Mr Givan: I agree with the Member. What we have in evidence here is a mob mentality of shouting down and seeking to intimidate. That is not going to happen. I will continue to speak up for those who need to have their voices heard. I was in Yad Vashem, the national Holocaust memorial centre. I will remember the six million Jews who were persecuted during the Holocaust. I will remember Boaz in the kibbutz of Malkia on the border with southern Lebanon, who has endured Hezbollah rocket attacks raining down on his community. I will remember the Druze community, which is an Arab community, in Majdal Shams, where Hezbollah killed 12 innocent children playing on a football pitch. I will remember Rita in the kibbutz of Nir Oz, where 117 people were either murdered or taken hostage on 7 October. I will remember the 378 victims at the Nova festival and the voice of Yair, who spoke about how, although he was able to escape, 44 other people were taken hostage and held captive. I will remember those people. I can condemn violence on all sides. I can think about and have empathy with all innocent civilians. I will, however, not stand by and listen to those who have supported and promoted Hamas terrorism. Hamas has destroyed Gaza. The people of Gaza need liberated from those Hamas terrorists so that they can have a free Palestine without terrorists ruling it. That is what needs to happen. Members can therefore reflect on the stories that I have relayed to them. I await with interest their showing any concern at all for the people to whom I have referred. Mr Mathison: The Minister is right to remind us repeatedly of the absolute violence and horror that was perpetrated on 7 October. There will be no equivocation on that point from the Alliance Party, but, as our Education Minister, who should have the interests of all children at the heart of the work that he does, will he take the opportunity also to express publicly sympathy and support for the children of Gaza, who have no schools to attend and who have been killed in their thousands since 7 October? Mr Givan: I quite happily associate myself with the remarks of the Chairman of the Education Committee. I bore witness to how children in those schools in Gaza have been entirely indoctrinated. Hamas is not just a paramilitary terrorist organisation but the political infrastructure of Gaza. It controls the schools and the hospitals. It controls the social welfare system. Do you know how you get a better pension scheme in Gaza? The more Jews whom you kill, the bigger your pension scheme is. That is what the Hamas-run Gazan territory is about. Schools and hospitals are being used by terrorists as infrastructure and for tunnels. It is the terrorists who have abused the civilians and children of Gaza. Mr Clarke: My only disappointment is that I did not get an invitation to join you, Minister. I am sure that other Members on these Benches would have welcomed the opportunity to join you to see at first hand some of the genocide that happened to the Israelis, as opposed to listening to some of the chuntering that we hear from the terrorist on the Back Bench. That having been said, Minister, in accordance with the Functioning of Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 2021, are there any records of your meetings? Mr Givan: I thank the Member for his question. The legislation sets out specific obligations for Ministers concerning transparency, accountability and the conducting of official business. Those obligations apply only to relevant meetings, which are defined as prearranged meetings with third parties to conduct official business. Having reviewed all engagements during the Israel visit and consulted officials, my permanent secretary and I have concluded that none of them meets that definition. The visit to Ofek School was a tour rather than a formal meeting. It did not involve an agenda or agreed actions. The focus was on having the school leader share insights into educational practice while fact-finding, which is relevant to my portfolio. It did not constitute a meeting to conduct official business in the formal sense that is required by the Act. Mr Speaker: That concludes all those who wish to ask questions. Ms Hunter: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have a number of points of order to make. Regarding Standing Order 65, is it appropriate for the Minister to be laughing, sniggering and smiling when we are talking about the killing of thousands of innocent children? [Interruption.] He is laughing like a Disney villain. On Standing Order 73, is it in order for the Minister to accuse many across the House of antisemitism when we have spoken passionately, condemning the violence of 7 October and strongly condemning antisemitism here at home? Standing Order 20 states that Ministers shall answer questions relating to matters affiliated with their Department. Is it appropriate that the Minister here today answered fewer than half of the questions from all Members of the House? [Interruption.] Mr Speaker: I am happy to look at the points that the Member has raised. Mr Clarke: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you to review the conduct of Madam Principal Deputy Speaker during Question Time today. When one of our Members asked a question, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker decided that the Minister would not answer it, and the Minister was not afforded the opportunity of deciding whether she wanted to answer the question during Question Time. Mr Speaker: OK. Let us move on. Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs UFU: DAERA Vote of No Confidence Mr Speaker: Timothy Gaston has given notice of a question for urgent oral answer to the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. Mr Gaston asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, in light of the Ulster Farmers’ Union unanimous vote of no confidence in his Department, to outline the steps he will take to restore confidence in his Department’s leadership. Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Last Thursday, I was disappointed to learn of the vote taken by the Ulster Farmers' Union (UFU). I am proud of our farm families and the role that they play, and I am proud of the international reputation that we rightly enjoy for the quality of the food produced here, and I am pleased to champion that on many fronts. My record of standing up for our farm families, whether on inheritance tax or on securing continued ring-fenced funding for agriculture, is clear. Good leadership is not defined by running away from challenges; rather, it is defined by identifying and facing up to them. Here, in Northern Ireland, we face some very significant challenges, partly as a result of decisions taken by those who came before me. I fully agree with the Ulster Farmers' Union that previous policies in relation to bovine TB failed Northern Ireland; so too have our past approaches to addressing biodiversity and delivering the high standards of water quality and air quality that citizens rightly expect. Like others in these islands, we face new challenges around adapting to climate change that require us to reduce carbon emissions; a particular challenge, given agriculture and the role that it plays. I am committed to having a just transition for agriculture and ensuring a successful future for farming, whilst restoring our environment, improving air and water quality, and driving down rates of TB. That requires leadership. That does not involve backing away from inconvenient truths. It requires leadership that ensures that the law is complied with and that policy is shaped by evidence, not rhetoric. It requires courage, not timidity. It also requires all of us to work together. As Minister, my door is always open, and it will continue to be so. I have scheduled a meeting with the UFU president and chief executive in my office tomorrow. I look forward to seeing them both. I will outline my real concern about the motion: it is a motion of no confidence in my Department. I am immensely proud of the officials with whom I am privileged to work, and I stand full-square in support of them. Mr Gaston: The Ulster Farmers' Union's vote of no confidence last week is a damning indictment of the Department and its Minister. During Mr Muir's time in office, he has delivered a flawed nutrients action programme (NAP) consultation, delivered inadequate progress in combating bovine TB, allowed continued delays in planning decisions, overseen a data breach at the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) and overseen generational renewal schemes that are simply not working. Time and time again, Mr Muir prioritises environment over agriculture. When will you hold up your hands and resign, along with the caretaker Minister and your party leader in the Justice Department? Mr Muir: Naomi Long is a colleague; she is a friend; and she is the Justice Minister. Both Naomi and I work hard for all the citizens of Northern Ireland. If you think that I am going somewhere, Mr Gaston, you have another thing coming. I have a job of work to do, and I do it across the whole remit of the Department: the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. If we are talking about what your party has delivered for farmers, you delivered one of the biggest negative impacts to farming in Northern Ireland, which was Brexit. Brexit has destroyed the UK economy, and it was one of the biggest betrayals of the people of Northern Ireland. You should own up and take responsibility for that. Miss McIlveen: The UFU's unprecedented vote is a damning indictment of the Department but more so of the Minister and the Alliance Party, which have set the current policy direction for that Department. At the heart of this are the aspirational and unachievable interim climate change targets set by the Assembly. Does the Minister recognise that, if he is to restore confidence in both himself and his Department, he has to take the first step to look at introducing a workable and achievable suite of targets and quit demonising the agriculture sector? Mr Muir: What I find strange about some of the questions from the DUP around this is that a lot of the policy that I am delivering is policy from my predecessor. The climate change legislation was passed by a DUP AERA Minister. It is farming policy that was initiated by a DUP AERA Minister. I am delivering on pledges previously made, and I believe in delivering on those. Climate change is one of the biggest threats to farming in Northern Ireland, and I am committed to supporting farmers on that journey on the road ahead. Ms Mulholland: Minister, can you outline for us how you have secured public money for the benefit of farm businesses? Maybe we can start to learn a bit more about how you are delivering for farmers. Mr Muir: We are delivering significant benefits for farming in Northern Ireland. I was the only Minister in the UK to secure ring-fenced funding of over £300 million for agriculture, agri-environment, fisheries and rural development. I also secured a just transition fund for agriculture. I am very conscious of the immense challenges arising from Brexit, which others championed. I engaged with the UK Government, and we agreed a sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) veterinary agreement and are now negotiating the details around that. We also got a blueprint agreed with all the stakeholders around the table on tackling the significant issue of TB. I have been standing firmly against the proposed changes on inheritance tax. We are delivering change on the ground. I do not underestimate the challenges that we face. Perhaps people need to be a bit more honest in facing people with regard to the issues and the decisions that need to be taken. Mr McAleer: Minister, quite a number of the issues have already been mentioned, and we have been raising with you and lobbying you on the issues of TB and ammonia, the fact that there is no sheep scheme and the fact there is no replacement for the young farmers' scheme. While many issues, such as Brexit and inheritance tax, have been brought to us courtesy of Westminster, what, Minister, are you planning to do to reset relations with the UFU and the farmers that it represents? Mr Muir: I will continue to engage, and I am at a meeting tomorrow. Today, I met farmers from the Nature Friendly Farming Network, and I will continue to engage with all people. It is important that we listen and engage and that we face up to and work together on these issues. I am committed to doing that. If anyone were to read the first-day brief that I got when I became Minister, they would see that I inherited a complete and utter mess — a mess that was the result of indecision and wrong decisions. If they were to read the reports from the Office for Environmental Protection, they would see that the situation that I inherited was that we were acting unlawfully on ammonia, we had a failed judicial review in relation to bovine TB and we had all the problems coming from Brexit. I am working through those issues, and I am guided by making sure that we are doing that through respect for science, evidence and the law. I do not underestimate the challenges that have faced the farming community in the past number of years. They are significant, and they have been compounded by the changes to inheritance tax. I will continue to work night and day to work through those issues. They are significant issues, and I look across the rest of the UK on the issues that they are facing. I will work with people on those. Mr Butler: Minister, you will be aware that the relationship with farmers across Northern Ireland has been fractious since you came into post. What steps have you taken since last year's meeting at the Eikon centre? I note that you say that you have an open door, and the UFU does not refute that. However, it does not believe you to be listening, particularly around planning and ammonia output, which you mentioned. When planning applications are going in, it wants you to demonstrate an improvement, and the Department, through the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA), is refusing those. Is the Department, by default, now failing its own targets? Top 4.15 pm Mr Muir: The situation on ammonia is clear. If people read the report from the Office for Environmental Protection, they will see that it sets out the situation that we are in due to the fact that we were acting unlawfully. I have to find a way forward so that we can reduce ammonia emissions and allow replacement sheds. I am keen to do that. We consulted on the ammonia strategy, we are considering the responses to it and we will set out a way forward. They are significant challenges, because I have to stay on the right side of the law, but I also want to deliver for the farming community in Northern Ireland. They are difficult challenges. It is not lost on me that Agriculture was the last Department that any political party wanted. People shied away from the difficult issues. I face up to them. I want to reiterate one thing: criticise me all you want, but I take great exception to the passing of a motion of no confidence in my Department. There are excellent officials with whom I am privileged to work. I am really impressed by their professionalism and their commitment to the job. Do not criticise them. That is wrong. Mr McCrossan: Members of the DUP described the vote as "a damning indictment" of the Minister, but, on the same day, refuse to accept the criticism of their own Minister by the teaching unions and colleagues across the House and an impending vote of no confidence. Is that a bit hypocritical? Minister, what will you do to reset your relationship with the Ulster Farmers' Union? Did you foresee the breakdown in relations, or did it completely catch you off guard? Mr Muir: I will continue to engage on the issue. In my job as Minister, I see people playing politics with issues and looking for wedge issues because of their own drop in the polls. They do not understand the importance of respecting the difficult decisions that I face, and other political parties are desperate to divide and prevent us from working. I respect the Ulster Farmers' Union. I have FOI requests coming in and reports saying that I meet it too often. There has been criticism that there is too much consultation and too many meetings. I am engaging and being honest about the issues, and I will work through them. Mr Irwin: Does the Minister accept that, in future, he needs to take on board stakeholders' concerns before making policy decisions? Mr Muir: My job as Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs is to serve everyone in Northern Ireland. I respect the Ulster Farmers' Union. It is a representative lobby group. I will continue to engage with it, but I have to serve everyone in Northern Ireland. I have to get us to a position where we deliver a resilient and thriving future for agriculture while improving our environment. It is damn hard, folks. The lough has been green for the past three years. Come on. People need to focus on delivering for everyone in Northern Ireland. I am happy to take criticism — that is fine — but let us try to work together, because people are looking at this place and, frankly, they are despairing. Mr McMurray: Does the Minister agree that the debasing of science and evidence undermines the agri-food sector? Mr Muir: The future is clear for us. We see the situation that is in front of us. For people to refer to peer-reviewed science as "magical figures" and make other comments is very dangerous. We have to respect scientists and the evidence that is in front of us and work together on it. I am committed to doing that. Over the past number of days, many farmers across Northern Ireland have contacted me to say this: we know that it is a tough job, but continue the engagement and let us work together. That is what I am committed to doing. Mr T Buchanan: The UFU is not playing politics; it speaks for the vast majority of farming businesses throughout Northern Ireland. In light of the unanimous vote of no confidence, do you not think that it is time to listen to and work with the farming community, whom you have ignored since coming into office, to deliver sensible and workable policies? Mr Muir: I will continue to do that. I will go to the Committee, engage with people and be open around the issues. We all know the challenges. The difference is that I am just being honest about them. Mr Dickson: How are agriculture and agri-food vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and the real and present dangers of ignoring it? Mr Muir: Whilst some want to engage in denial and scepticism or ignore the reality of it, the financial markets will look at farming and the challenges that it faces by way of nature, biodiversity and climate change and the need for us to take action on it. That is what I hear from farmers daily. That is why we are investing in delivering that resilience for farming. Without a thriving environment and resilient nature and biodiversity, farming does not have a future. I want to nail some of the incorrect stories that have been told. The vast majority of farmers are doing just that. The small minority on social media do not speak for all farmers in Northern Ireland; they speak for themselves. Mr Burrows: I am proud to represent North Antrim, which, in many ways, is the beating heart of the agri-food industry in Northern Ireland. I want to help the Minister restore confidence among farmers. If I set up a public meeting in North Antrim, will he commit to coming up to listen directly to the concerns of hard-working farmers there, who believe that he has a tin ear and is not listening. Mr Muir: I am happy to consider any invitations, but I engage with farmers daily. I did it today; I am doing it tomorrow; and I will continue to do it. I will engage with the Ulster Farmers' Union and others through structured groups, and it is important that I do so. Miss McAllister: Minister, you have previously outlined that it is important to listen to everyone, no matter which Department you represent. Do you believe that all Ministers have a duty to serve and represent everyone rather than one particular group, and that no group should ever be pulling the strings of an entire Department? Mr Muir: There are significant ethical issues with how we make policy in Northern Ireland. We should ensure that we listen to different views, but we should base our decisions on the science and evidence not on the views of any particular group. That is something that I am keen to do, and it is important that I do it. We have a duty to serve everyone and to listen to different voices. That is something that I have been keen to do as Minister. We may not agree, but it is important to listen and take this seriously. As Minister, I will continue to do that. Mr Buckley: Minister, your attempt to blame your predecessors is fooling absolutely no one. The Ulster Farmers' Union passed a motion of no confidence in DAERA, which is a Department led by you, not your predecessors. Minister, farmers are a patient and hard-working section of our society. They have concluded that you do not cut the mustard. Is that not a source of complete and utter embarrassment for the Minister of Agriculture in Northern Ireland? Mr Muir: We have the DUP talking about embarrassment. It is a party that does not even know what shame is. Mr Blair: First, I thank the Minister for providing a reminder for those who are in need of it that he also covers environment and rural affairs. Is he as fed up as I am with the politicians who, mostly, sit on our right and line up every year to call for action on pollution and Lough Neagh when they see blue-green algae but then come to the Chamber and decry or vote against every practical, proportionate and essential measure that is proposed? They talk out of both sides of their mouth and deliver nothing in detail. Mr Muir: The inability to take difficult decisions goes to the heart of the problem with these institutions. We debate issues, but people scatter when we talk about the difficult decisions. I have been open about the challenges that we have. I have engaged with everyone on those challenges and will continue to do so, but I will not be dishonest about them and my desire to work through them. We cannot just turn a blind eye or issue statements that are not followed up with action. Mr Donnelly: We are all aware that, without reform, this place is only as stable as it was the day before its last collapse. Minister, what impact has the collapse of the institutions had on agriculture? Mr Muir: The first-day brief that I got as Minister sets that out, if people care to look at it. If the DUP had not downed tools and walked away for two years because the going got tough, we would have had primary legislation in place for a TB intervention; we would have resolved the ammonia situation; we would have been able to make much more progress on climate change and had a climate action plan in place; and we would have been able to deliver a just transition fund for agriculture at a much earlier stage. There have been multiple impacts as a result of one party deciding that it did not want to go to work. Ms D Armstrong: Minister, you talk about respecting the UFU. The 11,500 members of the UFU have been represented, and it is those very people, with their total of 26,000 farms, who contribute to Northern Ireland's world-leading agri-food industry. If you do not respond to those voices, how can you expect the industry to survive? Mr Muir: I will continue to respond to those voices, as I have done since I became Minister. However, I also have a duty to respond to everyone in Northern Ireland, and I take that duty seriously as well. Mr Speaker: That concludes questions to the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. Assembly Business Standing Order 10(3A): Extension of Sitting Mr Speaker: I have received notification from the members of the Business Committee of a motion to extend the sitting past 7.00 pm under Standing Order 10(3A). Resolved: That in accordance with Standing Order 10(3A), the sitting on Monday 3 November 2025 be extended to no later than 8.30 pm. — [Mr Butler.] Mr Speaker: The Assembly may sit until 8.30 pm this evening if necessary. I ask Members to take their ease for a moment while there is a change in the Chair. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Dr Aiken] in the Chair) Private Members' Business Cervical Screening Scandal Inquiry Debate resumed on motion: That this Assembly expresses concern at the lack of transparency, delay and slow pace of the investigations and reviews into individual patients and the overall cervical screening scandal by the Department of Health and the Southern Health and Social Care Trust (SHSCT); recognises the steps taken by the Department of Health and the Southern Health and Social Care Trust regarding the recall of women for cervical screening; pays tribute to the Ladies with Letters campaigners who have fought hard for transparency in the issues that led to the underperformance of screeners and the recall of the slides of 17,500 women in the Southern Health and Social Care Trust area; acknowledges that, for some patients, the review was too late and lives were affected by the failure; and calls on the Minister of Health to establish a statutory public inquiry in order to uncover the full truth, establish accountability and ensure that such failures never arise again. — [Miss McAllister.] Mrs Dodds: I beg to move the following amendment: Leave out all after "Southern Health and Social Care Trust area;" and insert: "acknowledges that, for some patients, the review was too late and lives were lost following the failure; notes with alarm the ongoing technical issues with equipment at Northern Ireland’s only laboratory for HPV screening in the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust; highlights that that has resulted in thousands of smear tests being sent to England for screening since 30 September 2025, creating the potential for further delay, backlogs and distress to the women affected; calls on the Minister of Health to urgently clarify when that vital equipment will be fully operational; and further calls on the Minister to establish a statutory public inquiry in order to uncover the full truth, establish accountability and ensure that such failures in the Southern Health and Social Care Trust, and throughout Northern Ireland, never arise again." Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much. You will have 10 minutes to propose and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other contributors will have five minutes. Please open the debate on the amendment. Mrs Dodds: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Members who tabled the motion. I hope that all parties in the House will support the motion and the amendment. It is important that we have cross-community and cross-party support on the issue. When I speak to those who have been impacted by the cervical screening scandal in the Southern Health and Social Care Trust, they all say the same thing: "This should never happen again". That is why it is important to understand what is happening with the Northern Ireland screening programme that is now run by the Belfast Trust. There is a clear need for transparency and answers in the House for women throughout Northern Ireland. Minister, I hope that you will be able to provide those answers today. Women in Northern Ireland deserve full transparency and a cervical screening programme in which they can have full confidence. Top 4.30 pm I first spoke about the scandal of the Southern Trust's screening programme at the start of devolution in 2024, shortly after the trust had recalled 17,500 tests for review. Since then, I have been privileged to speak to many of those who have been impacted on. Today, like others, I want to acknowledge Lynsey Courtney and Erin Harbinson, both of whom were diagnosed with cervical cancer and are no longer with us. Children have been left without mothers, husbands without their wives and parents without their daughters. They need answers. Then there are those who have developed and are living with cervical cancer and have had to endure those very invasive procedures. They have had their lives turned upside down. They have endured worry and stress alongside a difficult diagnosis. They, too, deserve answers, Minister. I also want to acknowledge a very tenacious group of women whom I have had the pleasure to work alongside. The Ladies with Letters group has been a support to those who need it, but it has also been willing to question the narrative and spend time creating a campaign that has highlighted this injustice. It wants a statutory public inquiry to uncover the truth and make sure that this can never happen again. We support that call, and I hope that the Minister can give us answers today. We also owe a huge debt of gratitude to the very courageous whistle-blower who, when he came into post, saw the problem and took action. His actions saved lives. He risked his own position in order to uncover a very great harm. The trust should reflect on his subsequent treatment. Whistle-blowers need protection and, in this case, commendation. At the heart of the scandal is a real lack of transparency, accountability and responsibility in health service delivery. The Southern Trust recalled 17,500 smear tests dating back to 2008. During that time, some screeners from the Southern Trust were underperforming in relation to those smear tests. Those screeners, some of whom were underperforming at a very substantial rate, were not sufficiently managed, nor was their performance monitored. Looking back at that, it now seems unfathomable that trust arrangements for the monitoring and performance of screeners were not robust. It seems absurd that trust managers could find a colleague's annual performance to be inadequate but not want to know how that compared with previous years. It is quite simply extraordinary that when those who were found to be failing were provided with extra training, no one seems to have checked whether that made any difference to their work. It turns out that some were still not achieving adequate standards even after receiving additional support. That is a whole-system failure — a failure not just of the screeners but of the managers and supervisors who failed to recognise the problem. Again, it is unfathomable that some screeners were not reported to their professional body by trust managers and supervisors. We have been advised that individual screeners who were found wanting have moved beyond the Southern Trust and that some are working in different disciplines while others have retired. What of their managers and supervisors, however, who were responsible for the service and were allowing screeners to work huge volumes of overtime, thereby jeopardising their efficiency? Do they continue in management and leadership roles in our health service? Minister, I hope that on Wednesday, when you publish those reports, you will be on the side of accountability and transparency. That is essential, but, so far, it has failed. Our amendment seeks clarity on the Belfast Trust's handling of the new regional human papilloma virus (HPV) testing service. The Minister knows that I have asked many questions about the awarding of the multi-million-pound contract to the Belfast Trust. We know that the committee that was set up to advise on the awarding of the HPV screening contract advised that it be set up on two sites. The Western Health and Social Care Trust and the Northern Health and Social Care Trust were already accredited for HPV screening, yet, despite that and the committee's recommendation, the contract was awarded to the Belfast Trust. That seems even more bizarre when we consider that the Belfast Trust did not have accreditation for HPV screening. Indeed, it had its screening accreditation removed by the UK's screening accreditation service. One reason for that was the lack of record-keeping. We know from subsequent reports that important slides were lost and that some were found down the back of a filing cabinet somewhere. Surely, that would move us to action on the issue. That ultimately led to the resignation from the screening programme of two leading clinicians. The Public Health Agency (PHA) described the awarding of the contract as being in line with best practice, and it talked about the need to concentrate expertise and staff resources in one specialist laboratory. That is extraordinary in light of what we now know about the performance of the regional screening service. At the very start of the contract, the Belfast Trust, which is a trust without accreditation, was sending tests to the labs in Gateshead, Newcastle. The result of that was extremely long waits for results, which extended to months. I have had an update on the figures since tabling the amendment, so we now know that, since 30 September, the Belfast Trust has sent 13,500 HPV tests to Gateshead. The trust said that that was due to an equipment failure. I would be interested, Minister, to know whether the 21-day target for the return of the results of those tests has been met. The specification for the new regional lab was to deliver 130,000 HPV tests and 23,000 cytology tests each year. Minister, how many of those tests has the Belfast Trust managed to deliver in the past year? What is the cost to the Belfast Trust of sending tests to Gateshead, and how is that cost being met? Will the Department recover costs from the trust for not meeting its performance targets? Have there been other times that are not in the public domain when tests have been sent to Gateshead? That is the information that is necessary for the House to judge the performance of the Belfast Trust and the new regional service. In finishing, I want to return, Minister, to my theme of accountability. The Department of Health is responsible for the performance management of screening programmes and related diagnostic and treatment services. The PHA is responsible for maintaining the structures and systems that support quality improvement and coordination across screening programmes. Therefore, I hope that you can tell us today, Minister, what exactly the PHA is doing to hold the Belfast Trust to account for those failures. What is the Department doing to hold the Belfast Trust to account for performance management failures? You and your Department need to consider the future very carefully. Many women across Northern Ireland —. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Diane, could you draw your remarks to a close? Mrs Dodds: Yes, thank you. Many women across Northern Ireland need to have a service that they can have full confidence in. A public inquiry will uncover the truth. Mrs Dillon: I thank the proposer of the motion and the proposer of the amendment for bringing the issue to the Floor today. I wish that we were not, but it is devastating to be standing here once again talking about another failure in women's health. Time and again, we are in the Chamber dealing with crises that have impacted on women and with preventable failures that have cost lives and eroded trust. That is not accidental. It is systematic discrimination, institutional misogyny and a deep-rooted failure to value women's health equally and to listen to women and to act when they raise concerns. It is a form of oppression that has been embedded in our systems for far too long. As Audre Lorde, writer, poet and civil rights activist, once said: "Caring for myself is not self-indulgence. It is self-preservation, and that is an act of political warfare." For women, simply demanding to be heard, to be treated with dignity and to have their health taken seriously has become an act of resistance. On that basis, I support the motion and the amendment. I acknowledge, as previous Members who have spoken did, the women and families who have been directly impacted on by the cervical screening failures in the Southern Health and Social Care Trust. For too many, the review came too late. Lives were changed, and lives were lost. Again, I pay tribute to the Ladies with Letters campaigners, and all those whom they support, who have fought tirelessly for the truth, transparency and accountability that Members have talked about. They have carried the weight of those failures with courage and dignity, and they deserve answers. As the motion states: "The lack of transparency, delay and slow pace of the investigations" by the Department and the trust have been deeply concerning. Women have again been left waiting for information, reassurance and leadership on the issue. That is unacceptable. We still await the outcomes of the three reports. It is probably a positive thing that we will hopefully get them together and thus be able to look at everything in the round, but there could have been more openness about the process and about the fact that there were going to be delays. That could have been done better. There could also have been better communication on the issue. We now face further challenges, as outlined in the amendment, over the technical issues at the Belfast laboratory, which is the North's only HPV screening facility. Thousands of smear tests have been sent to Gateshead since the end of September. I want to know whether that has created any delay or backlog, because I want to be sure that women get their results in a timely manner. How can we be assured of the safety around their being sent there? We need clarity, Minister. We need to have urgent confirmation of when the Belfast lab will be fully operational. We need answers on the accreditation process. Were those issues previously highlighted? Were warnings known about but ignored? Who was responsible for oversight? Without clear accountability, we are doomed to repeat previous failures. We also need oversight of the entire process, including of labs in England that are now handling tests for women from here. Women need to know how long their test results will take and what safeguards are in place to ensure accuracy and safety. On that issue, we need reassurance, direct communication with women and the restoration of confidence in a system that has let them down. I take the opportunity to make it absolutely clear that, despite all the failures, women must continue to attend their cervical screening appointments. As I have said before in the Chamber, it is not a pleasant process, but it takes a few minutes and could save your life. Those tests do save lives. The worst outcome would be that fear or mistrust keeps women from going to be tested. I also take the opportunity to clarify a common misunderstanding, which is that cervical screening also detects ovarian cancer. It does not. I encourage women who are symptomatic of either ovarian or cervical cancer not to think, "I have had a cervical smear and am therefore OK". If a woman has any symptoms, she should go to her GP to seek help and to get the answers about what is going on with her body. She should trust her instinct, because she is usually right. The scandal represents a profound breach of trust. The only way in which to rebuild that trust is through truth and accountability and by making sure that such failures never happen again. Women deserve better. The other question to which I want an answer concerns the women's health action plan. Where are we at with that? All the issues that have been debated in numerous motions over the past number of weeks and months should be included in that plan. Women deserve a health service that listens, that — Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Linda, please draw your remarks to a close. Mrs Dillon: — acts and that values their lives and their families. Mr Chambers: I begin by acknowledging the women and families at the heart of the matter, in particular the two ladies who sadly and tragically passed away. We must never lose sight of the fact that, behind every report, process or statistic, is a woman whose life may have been profoundly affected by the issues that we are discussing today. Women's courage and resilience, particularly that of those who have spoken publicly and those represented through the Ladies with Letters group, deserve our respect. Top 4.45 pm This is undoubtedly a very complex and deeply concerning episode for our health service. The scale of concerns raised about cytology performance in the Southern Trust laboratory over a period stretching back to 2008 is incredibly serious. The very essence of a screening programme is trust: trust that systems are robust, and trust that, when problems arise, they will be confronted swiftly and transparently. That trust was damaged, and it is right that apologies have been made, particularly when it comes to the previous finding of persistent underperformance in laboratory work, which simply had to be fully investigated. The enormous screening review, which involved looking at results from 17,500 women, raised the anxieties of many, but it had to be done. It was essential that the concerns were raised and acted upon appropriately. Whilst we all probably would have wished for it to conclude slightly earlier, given the importance of the issue and the scale of the concerns that were raised, it was better for the review to be done properly rather than hurriedly. I very much welcome the finding that the vast majority of results were sound. Nevertheless, since the initial Royal College of Pathologists report in 2023, there have been a number of very important changes. HPV testing has been fully introduced, offering a more accurate and reliable primary screening system, with cytology acting as the secondary test. Of course, Northern Ireland is now operating a single regional laboratory service that provides improved oversight and consistency. Those are substantial reforms that put patient safety at the forefront. Further reports are due imminently that, I hope, will help us to understand not only what happened but how oversight failed, how warning signs went unnoticed and how we prevent anything like that from ever occurring again. I urge all colleagues to approach the reports responsibly and, especially, not through a political lens but with the seriousness that the women affected deserve. The Minister, in particular, will need to give the reports' findings very careful consideration, because, at some point in the coming months, a decision will be required to consider which of the various options available to him are needed to establish accountability and to ensure that such failures never arise again. Commissioning a public inquiry is, of course, one of those options, and I have every confidence that the Minister will not shirk his responsibility in picking the right option. It is also critical that we protect the future, and that means protecting confidence in cervical screening. That screening saves lives. That is not an opinion; it is clear evidence-based fact. Screening reduces the risks of cervical cancer by detecting cell changes early, long before cancer develops. I cannot stress this strongly enough: I encourage every woman who receives an invitation to attend screening to do so. The improvements that we have made mean that the system is stronger now than before. We owe it to the women who have suffered distress to ensure that others are protected. When concerns are raised, it is essential that they are acted upon. There have been a number of reports already and more are expected. Each and every one will need to be read in its entirety to help to determine the next steps. I again pay tribute to every woman and family involved, including those who have so bravely spoken up in recent years. Again, I applaud the commitment of the Ladies with Letters group. Mr McGrath: In beginning my contribution to the debate, I want, on behalf of the SDLP, to recognise Ladies with Letters. Those women have shown extraordinary courage and determination. They have carried this issue from local communities through to councils and up to the Assembly, and they have rightly refused to be silenced or brushed aside at times when this place was collapsed or while it stands. Their persistence has exposed not only the truth of what happened in the Southern Trust but the deeper truth that, too often, our health service fails to listen until it is forced to do so. This scandal has laid bare something far beyond the failure of individual screeners. It has revealed a system that is crumbling while we have watched on. No amount of whitewashing, spin or polished press releases from the Department can disguise that reality, and the public can see right through that. The women affected certainly see through it. The trust between patients and the health service, which takes years to build, has been shaken to its core. The families of Erin Harbinson from Tandragee and Lynsey Courtney from Portadown, whose lives were so tragically lost as a result of this scandal, also see through that. Those who developed cancer or had precancerous cells identified can see through it. We are told that the report will be published on Thursday, and all of us here welcome that. I pose this question to the Minister: if the report confirms that there were serious failings and shows that systems were broken, that warnings were ignored and that oversight was missing, what threshold will he set for supporting a full public inquiry into this most horrendous scandal? How bad does it have to be before we draw a line and say that the public deserve the full truth and not another internal review? The DUP amendment is important. It highlights that, even now, we face further problems: technical failures at the Belfast HPV lab, thousands of tests being sent to England, more delays and more stress for women who are already anxious about their results. That is not just a technical issue. It speaks to a system that has lost resilience, that lurches from one crisis to another and that leaves women bearing the emotional cost of that bureaucratic dysfunction. As a man, I will not fully understand the fear, the anxiety or the deep sense of betrayal that so many women have felt because of the scandal. However, that does not absolve me or any of us from a responsibility to make sure that we learn from it. It is precisely because I will never experience this directly that I have sought to listen more carefully, to speak more honestly and to act more decisively in standing with the women whom I have met as part of their campaign. The safety and dignity of women in our health service is not just a women's issue; it is a matter for all of us. If the Assembly is to mean anything, it must mean that we do not look away when systems fail those whom they are meant to protect. The women who were caught up in this scandal did not ask for heroism, but they have absolutely shown it. They have done what the system could not: they have stood up for the truth. Their courage and steadfast resilience demand that we now do the same. I support the motion and the amendment. I certainly hope that, after we get the report on Thursday, we will see a public inquiry, if it is required. Ms Finnegan: I begin by echoing the thanks already expressed to those who tabled the motion and, most importantly, to the Ladies with Letters campaigners. Their persistence and dignity have forced the system to face uncomfortable truths, and we owe them a huge debt of gratitude for that. As my colleagues have outlined, Sinn Féin supports both the motion and the amendment. Our focus throughout has been on truth, transparency and accountability, not just through inquiries but through the publication of the reviews that were promised months ago. Women are still waiting for the answers that they deserve. I will use my time to focus on the public health side of the issue, reassurance and the need to rebuild confidence in the screening programme. As articulated by my party colleague Linda Dillon, although there have been failings, the message must be absolutely clear: women should continue to attend their cervical screening appointments. The HPV test is now standard across Ireland. It is a more accurate and more reliable form of screening, and it saves lives. Yes, there have been serious issues with oversight and delays, but the test itself is safe and effective. You have a 100% chance of cancer not being detected if you do not go for your smear. That is the reality, and it is vital that this debate does not inadvertently discourage women from attending. While the motion focuses, rightly, on the Southern Trust's failures, we need to see it as part of a broader pattern. Time and again, women have had to fight for their healthcare to be taken seriously, be it in screening, menopause support, endometriosis services or access to fertility and maternity services. The forthcoming women's health strategy must deal with that head-on. The Minister must publish the reviews and explain the delay, but he must also rebuild confidence by showing that women's health will never again be an afterthought. Ms Forsythe: I thank the Members who tabled the important motion. Cervical screening is a proven way in which to detect the early stages of that type of cancer, treat it and prevent it from progressing and adversely affecting, or, in some heartbreaking cases, ending, women's lives. Screening saves lives. As an MLA for South Down, I speak for all the women and families in my constituency who have been affected. I also speak as a woman who understands, at first hand, the impact that the scandal has had on us all. Smear tests are not the most pleasant appointment that we attend as women. Many have to build up a lot of courage in order to go to their appointment, but most of us go, placing our trust in the doctors and the NHS. We trust that, by doing that, issues will be detected early, improving our outcomes. There is relief when a test is clear, and stress when there are concerning results. As others in the Chamber have done, I encourage everyone, no matter what is said in the debate, to continue to attend their smear tests. When the news of the scandal broke, I think that every woman who lives in the Southern Trust area thought, "My goodness, do my years of clear results mean nothing?" There was a crisis in public confidence. It is deeply regrettable that the Southern Trust has not always been forthright in providing key information to relevant scrutiny bodies in the Assembly. People have had to go to unfortunate lengths to access individual screener data; information that is key to the entire issue. It is vital that we see openness and transparency across our health service at all times. Alarm bells should ring when professionals who have oversight of such a critical programme raise serious concerns. Full disclosure, openness and transparency in all those matters is needed now from the Department and the trust. Confidence in the effectiveness of cervical screening is paramount to women across Northern Ireland. I want to build on that. I did not fully appreciate how much confidence I had lost in the system until I faced it myself. Two years ago, I was at an event, and, at the end of that event, I saw that I had a number of missed calls from my GP, which was unusual. When I called her back, she said that she wanted to speak to me before I got home and got my post, because my smear test, taken five months earlier, had highlighted issues. She said, however, that I should not be overly concerned, and went on to explain further, although I heard very little after that. I was in Cookstown, two hours from my home, and I felt like I had taken a gut blow. I should have thought immediately, "It's OK. I get that test every couple of years; this will be new and treatable," but that is not what I thought. I thought, "This is it: I'm dying. This has been growing within me for 20 years and they've missed it because they are useless. Look at how many people have been let down. It is all over the press, and I'm another one of those people". Perhaps that was an overreaction, but that is how I felt. It hit me hard, and I had a long journey home that day. When I got home, there was my letter. I went to Daisy Hill the following week. I got my test. Nobody committed either way when giving me information. I spent the entire Christmas, with my children, incredibly stressed. With the support of my sister, I got on to a clinical trial for the next six to nine months to help to improve possible outcomes. It was mid-February before I got a letter from the Southern Trust to say that my investigative tests from November were clear and that nothing more needed to be done. To be honest, I had zero confidence in that letter. I continued on my clinical trial until late 2024. After that, I went for screening again, because I still believe in smear tests. Thankfully, earlier this year, I got clear results, but I still have a crisis of confidence. The failure of the Southern Trust to be open and honest throughout has really affected me. I am one person with lived experience, but I like to think of myself as a reasonably well-informed person when speaking on the issue. Given that I feel that way as an individual, it is difficult for me to be open and honest with constituents who come to me with the same concerns without having more information and assurances from the Department. I commend the Ladies with Letters. Their strong voice on the issue has been incredible. We remember those who have, devastatingly, been lost along the way. I thank my colleague Diane Dodds for her strong advocacy on the issue. There is a clear need for greater candour and transparency in our health service. We support the call for a public inquiry, but it should not have had to come to that. Accountability, openness and honesty should be the pillars of our health system at every level. Women across Northern Ireland deserve clarity. They deserve better. Their confidence in the system needs to be restored. Top 5.00 pm Mrs Guy: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion. First, I pay tribute to the women at the heart of the scandal. Members from across the House have offered their support to the women who were impacted, some catastrophically, by the failures of the Southern Trust. It is right to start by acknowledging that. I also thank the DUP for its amendment. It adds to our original motion and reminds us that there are still some frailties in the system and that we need to get those answers to restore confidence. When I was co-opted to the Assembly, I got a message from my colleague Sorcha Eastwood telling me to check in with the Ladies with Letters campaign. Sorcha did not realise at the time that, when the news of the scandal broke, I was recovering from surgery for cervical cancer. Apologies, I did not expect to lose my composure. I did not realise at that time that I would have the opportunity to stand here as an MLA and advocate for those women. That is what I want to do today. I want to give voice to their pain, their anger and their ongoing determination to get truth and accountability. I want us to remember what we are talking about: 17,500 women had their smear test reviewed due to failings that stretched back over 13 years. Two women have died, and five children have lost their mother. They were not abstract mistakes. Miss McAllister: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. It is important that we come together from across the parties today and support the motion and the amendment. I reiterate that the people and women who were impacted live with the issue every day. I thank the Member for her bravery in speaking out. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Michelle, you have an extra minute, but take your time. Mrs Guy: They were not abstract mistakes; they were avoidable, life-altering errors that denied women the opportunity for early detection and treatment. Leona Patterson had three misread smear tests before she was diagnosed with cervical cancer at just 42. She told me: "When you’re diagnosed with cancer and you go through treatment, you are changed. Going through what I have gone through, and knowing it was preventable, creates a different kind of anger. We shouldn’t have to fight for answers. If the Minister is really committed to women’s health, he would initiate this statutory public inquiry." Sandra Courtney's daughter, Lynsey, died in 2018, aged only 30, after a misread smear test. Sandra asked me to read this out on her behalf: "Lynsey tragically died in 2018 at the age of 30, through no fault of her own. At that time, I requested that the Trust undertake a review of the individuals involved, yet a consultant questioned the necessity of doing so. We were also assured that 'lessons had been learned.' However, seven years on, there is little evidence that meaningful lessons have been implemented. In light of this continued lack of transparency and accountability, will the Minister now agree to commission a thorough and robust statutory public inquiry into Lynsey's death and the conduct of the Southern Trust, to ensure that such a tragedy is not repeated?". Heather Thompson, from the Ladies with Letters campaign, said: "The only way forward in this dire situation is for the Minister to establish a Statutory Public Inquiry. Who knew this was happening? How did these failings continue for so long? Who will be held accountable? Only a public inquiry, with powers to compel evidence and testimony, can deliver the answers we deserve." The Ladies with Letters are an inspiration not only in how they have campaigned but in how they have supported one another. They have been let down not only by the failures in the system but by the lack of urgency since. They have no confidence that the reports that will be published this week will give them the answers that they need. Confidence in the screening programme is fragile. Women must feel that they can trust the system. That trust can be rebuilt only through honesty, accountability and transparency, not through departmental reviews behind closed doors. Minister, nothing you can do now can undo what has happened, but you can choose truth over defensiveness and transparency over secrecy. Delay in itself is a decision, one that deepens the pain and prolongs injustice. Decide, Minister, and be straight with those women. A statutory public inquiry is not only justified but essential. Ms McLaughlin: I, too, welcome the opportunity to speak to the motion. We support the motion and the amendment; indeed, I feel privileged to listen to Members' testimonies. It is so important that, as elected reps, we share our life experiences and show those who are going through this our empathy, so thank you very much. It is not easy. I begin by acknowledging the incredible women who are, I know, listening to today's debate online; they have been in touch. The Ladies with Letters campaigners have fought tirelessly to demand transparency and accountability in a scandal that has caused untold suffering. In the Southern Health and Social Care Trust area, 17,500 women have had their smear tests misread, but it is not just a Southern Trust issue. The impact stretches across Northern Ireland. Many women in the Western Health and Social Care Trust area have had misread tests, and I know of at least six women who have developed cancer because of that. The consequences of that failure are truly devastating and incredibly personal. I will share the story of one constituent who was diagnosed with stage 1A1 cervical cancer in late 2016. I supported her recently at her disclosure meeting and serious adverse incident (SAI) meeting. To say that that was traumatic would be a complete understatement, but it is so important that she could see and hear the truth, with the smear tests that had been misread on several occasions laid out in front of her. It did not happen because she did not go to have her smear test: she went. She did everything right, but they were misread time and time again. She had a full hysterectomy on 13 April 2017 while raising young children. She went through surgical menopause without any support. The trauma, loss and lack of care that she faced are a damning indictment of how little urgency there has been in women's healthcare. In 2019, she asked for her smear test to be reread. That review revealed that the test had been incorrectly read multiple times, as I said. Years of her life were filled with fear, treatment, recovery and the anguish of surgical menopause. It could all have been avoided. She was not treated with understanding or compassion during the process. She did not even get counselling. Like many women seeking answers, she felt as though she was on trial, being questioned and doubted while simply trying to uncover the truth. That is utterly heartbreaking but all too common, emphasising the additional damage caused by the failings in the system. She is still fighting for the truth. We must never forget that behind every statistic is a life, a family and a story of courage. The women have had to navigate trauma, health scares and the failings of the very system that should have protected them. Through it all, many have shown extraordinary bravery — attending meetings, confronting the trust and demanding accountability — despite the emotional toll and turmoil. The Ladies with Letters campaigners are a testament to that courage. They refuse to accept that women's lives should be jeopardised by negligence and systemic failure. Their work has shone a light on a scandal that has otherwise remained hidden. For those reasons, I call for a statutory public inquiry. We need a full investigation, not a partial review or another set of internal meetings but an independent, transparent process that uncovers the truth. We need to know how it happened; why warnings were missed; why errors went unchallenged for years; and why women were left to face the consequences alone. Justice and transparency are not just for the women affected but for all of us, because the credibility of our health system is at stake. Minister, you have continued to insist that a women's health action plan is sufficient: let me be clear that it is not. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Sinéad, will you draw your remarks to a close, please? Ms McLaughlin: Action plans are intentions; strategies are commitments. Mr Gaston: I welcome the original motion tabled by the Alliance Party and the amendment tabled by the DUP. Both recognise the seriousness of what has unfolded, the need for full transparency and the absolute necessity of a statutory public inquiry into the cervical screening scandal in the Southern Trust and, now, beyond. I commend the strength and determination that the Ladies with Letters have shown and continue to show. It is not a moment for point-scoring but a moment for accuracy and accountability. The TUV was the first party to publicly call for a statutory public inquiry. On 4 September 2024, when others were still speaking in vague terms of reviews and learning exercises, the TUV stated clearly that a full public inquiry was necessary to uncover what happened, who failed whom and how women were so badly let down. That call is a matter of public record. I also commend my colleague, Councillor Keith Ratcliffe, who has been tirelessly working away in pursuit of the issues, standing with affected families and refusing to allow the scandal to be buried. Members will have seen the questions for written answer that I have submitted, seeking answers about the Royal College of Pathologists' report and about concerns raised as far back as 2021. Several questions have been answered, and I welcome and acknowledge that, but one remains outstanding even to this day, despite having been tabled in early September last year. That is simply not good enough, Minister, and it speaks volumes about the frustrating pace of achieving transparency in your Department. That is why victims and campaigners have lost confidence in the internal processes. Women have been failed; families have suffered loss; and 17,500 slides have been recalled. Warnings were raised years ago that, sadly, were ignored. We now have fresh concerns about the Belfast Trust laboratory, with tests having to be sent across the water. The amendment rightly highlights that the scandal cannot be ring-fenced to one trust. Warm words will not restore trust; only full truth and accountability will. That is why I support the motion and the amendment and why the TUV will continue pressing consistently and without hesitation for truth for those women and assurance that it can never happen again. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Minister, you have up to 15 minutes. Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): Deputy Speaker, thank you. If anybody was in any doubt that all healthcare is personal, this debate and this issue are the proof. I will begin by trying to assure Members that, right from the beginning, from taking up my post, I have given this matter my full focus. I have listened to those who have been affected and have met some of the women and some of their families, not just their spouses but their children. On several occasions, I have met the Ladies with Letters group. I have listened to their concerns, and I believe that I understand their frustration and anger. One thing that, I am sure, we all agree on is that the affected women must and will remain the key focus for all of us. With regard to information sharing, I have sought to be as open and transparent as possible right from the get-go. I recognise that it has now been more than two years since the publication of the Royal College of Pathologists' report on 9 October 2023, and so, of course, I regret the time that it has taken to reach this point. However, it is essential that we gather all the relevant information, because we have to fully understand the full picture of exactly what happened in the Southern Trust cytology laboratory. While I am conscious of the time that it has taken to reach this point, a significant amount of work has been undertaken in relation to the screening programme in the meantime. Top 5.15 pm Let me list a few points. All the recommendations contained in the royal college's report have been implemented. All cervical screening activity in the Southern Trust has been ceased. There has been the full implementation, since December 2023, of human papillomavirus, or HPV, testing, which is a better and more reliable automated test. Cytology is now used as a second line of testing, undertaken for screening samples that test positive for the presence of HPV. Since November of last year, a single regional laboratory service, managed by the Belfast Trust, has been established. I will return to Mrs Dodds's concerns about that later. Consequently, the cervical screening programme has been significantly improved over the past two years. As Members will be aware, a population-based cervical screening programme is a complicated process and involves a number of steps. The UK National Screening Committee states: "It is important to have realistic expectations of what a screening test does and that it will not identify all cases of disease. It is not a diagnosis." It is important to repeat that point: screening is not diagnosis. False negative and false positive tests occur in all screening programmes. The screening programme is aimed at healthy women with no symptoms. Its purpose is to reduce the incidence of cervical cancer and to prevent women from dying. Screening has been shown to be effective in helping reduce the risk of developing cervical cancer, and, like other Members, I urge all women to take up the offer of screening when invited to do so. The programme's effectiveness is reflected in comparative data across the UK for 2017-19, which shows that the European age-standardised incidence rate for cervical cancer in Northern Ireland is similar to the UK average. In Northern Ireland, it is 9·1 new cases per 100,000 females, while the UK average is 9·9. In the Republic of Ireland, the age-standardised incidence rate is 10·43 cases per 100,000 females for the period 2018-2022, which is just a year out from our own data. I urge Members to ensure that that message is not lost. I also remain committed to understanding what happened in the Southern Trust cervical screening programme. As Members may recall, the background is that, in 2021, the Southern Trust's senior management received internal notification that raised concerns of poor performance in the laboratory going back several years. That was formally raised with the Public Health Agency in February 2022, triggering a series of meetings that led to the royal college's being commissioned to undertake a desktop-based risk assessment. The pathologist's report was received in May 2023. It found that there was a significant performance issue with a number of screening staff. The report also found that the trust failed to take appropriate action to manage the underperformance. So, yes, it was management and screeners. The Southern Trust and the PHA considered the report's recommendations and, taking into account ethical considerations, decided to carry out a precautionary physical review of the records of over 17,000 women who had been screened during the period in question. The review became known as the cervical cytology review, or CCR. I fully acknowledge that the news of the review naturally caused a lot of worry and upset for the women who received letters. It was, however, a necessary and important step to help establish the facts, to check the accuracy of the original screening results and to check whether those who were screened were on the correct pathway. Although the Southern Trust laboratory played no role in it, the review took longer than was initially anticipated and was completed in the autumn of 2024. Following its completion, two factual reports were published on 11 December last year: the 'Cervical Cytology Review: Activity and Outcomes Report', for 2008-2021; and a separate, companion report, 'Cervical Cancers in the Southern Health and Social Care Trust Area: A Summary Report', for 2009-2023. The reports provided the factual information collated from the review and drew on data reported by the Northern Ireland Cancer Registry and the audits of the invasive cervical cancer process. As Members will recall, no cervical cancers were identified during the CCR. The cervical cytology review outcomes report noted that 96% of the women included had no change to their original smear test result on review and required no further follow-up. Therefore, while the review in itself did not provide all the answers that we needed, it went some way in reducing the concerns that were raised in the RCPath report, which stated: "Whilst the majority of Negative results issued by this laboratory ... were correct, a significant number of women are likely to have had negative screening results on tests which would have been identified as abnormal in other ... laboratories". As a result of the review, 64 women were invited to attend a colposcopy or gynaecology review. Of those, 56 attended their colposcopy appointment: 21 had a negative or normal result and therefore required no treatment and were discharged; 24 had evidence of precancerous changes to their cervix that did not require treatment; and 11 had precancerous changes to their cervix or another significant incidental finding that required treatment. Those women have either completed or are undergoing a treatment pathway. There is a second report, entitled 'Cervical Cancers in the Southern Health and Social Care Trust Area'. It is a comprehensive review of cancer rates in Northern Ireland from 1997 to 2021. That report concluded: "When adjusted for the population, data from the registry show that there is no statistical difference between trusts in the number of cases of cervical cancer, the stage at which they have been diagnosed, deaths from cervical cancer or the number of cases of pre-cancerous changes of the cervix. The incidence of cervical cancer in Northern Ireland has also been reported as being similar to the UK average." To ensure that we have a full understanding of the potential issues in the Southern Trust laboratory, several additional reports were commissioned. I advise Members that three separate reports are due to be published jointly by the Southern Trust and the Public Health Agency this Wednesday, 5 November. Let me emphasise that I am not publishing and the Department is not publishing; the three reports will be jointly published by the Southern Trust and the Public Health Agency. They are an independent expert's opinion on the factual reports that were published in December last year; an independent review by NHS England of the PHA's quality assurance arrangements for cervical screening in Northern Ireland; and a summary of the multi-patient serious adverse incident findings and learnings. I requested that those reports be published at the same time as they relate to the full cervical screening pathway and because they need to be viewed in their entirety and in conjunction with the reports previously published. I will make a written ministerial statement to coincide with their publication and to update Members. Miss McAllister: Will the Minister give way? Mr Nesbitt: I will give way to the Member, but I will say this: one report was ready to be published, but I asked for it to be held back so that all three could be published at once, which means that we will not have some sort of swinging effect of one publication's taking people to a certain conclusion and a second one's taking them to another. Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for giving way. I urge him, when those reports are published, to also look at the Kent and Canterbury inquiry that took place in the 1990s. Its statistics were not as bad as the statistics here in Northern Ireland. Hopefully, that inquiry will help to inform the next steps as we move forward. Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for the intervention. I will certainly note that. I have a next step in mind. I will make clear in my written ministerial statement on Wednesday what that intention is. I take on board what the Member has asked to be included in my thinking. The senior management of the Southern Trust previously acknowledged that there was underperformance by some screeners in its laboratory and in its oversight system. It recognised that that was a completely unacceptable breach of governance procedures, and that it represented a system failure. Turning to the issue of the equipment in the regional laboratory, it is important to note that cervical screening and HPV testing are two separate processes, that cervical screening in the Belfast Trust has never been paused, that cervical cytology screening is the step that is undertaken after primary HPV testing, and that reporting for that step has continued on-site during the equipment downtime and remains unaffected. I confirm that, at this time, the HPV testing equipment is operational again in the regional laboratory. Trust staff are committed to having the service back to full operational capacity within the next short number of days. However, that machine, it seems to me, is nearing the end of its life. I have spoken to the permanent secretary about, as a matter of urgency, finding the capital to find a replacement piece of equipment, because there have been issues with the HPV testing equipment and it is reaching the end of its working life. However, all laboratories have contingency arrangements to deal with scenarios such as this, and since the Belfast Trust enacted its contingency plan for HPV testing with Gateshead, there has been no backlog in HPV testing. The plan will continue until technical issues are resolved. As of 31 October, around 13,522 samples have been sent to Gateshead, and the results are sent back within 21 days of samples being sent there. Let me emphasise that they are sent to GPs, and it is up to the general practitioner to pass them on to the patients. The vast majority of women who attend screening — approximately 90% — test negative for HPV. They will not have had any negative impact on their screening outcomes, as that report will return them to a three-yearly smear as part of the screening programme. For women who test positive for HPV, there will be minimal to no additional impact to their turnaround times. Those samples require secondary testing by cytology screening to determine the final report. That process is more complex and manual, and it requires additional time. As I have said, reporting for that step has continued on site during the equipment downtime and remains unaffected. In closing, I acknowledge again that this remains a difficult and challenging time for all who have been impacted on. I pledged to keep communication open with the women and families whom I previously met, and I will fulfil that pledge. I urge all Members to read the three screening-related reports due to be issued on Wednesday. Diane Dodds asked about how the contract was awarded to the Belfast Trust. It was open to any trust to pitch. Accreditation for HPV testing was one of the criteria scored, but the decision by the implementation project board to commission Belfast Trust was informed by a range of factors. I am told that the Belfast Trust scored highest in the process and was awarded the contract. The scoring was reviewed by an independent appeals panel on 3 July 2025, and it endorsed the original result. Linda Dillon asked for a women's action plan, and Sinéad McLaughlin said that I believed that an action plan was "sufficient". I have never said that. We do need a strategy. I am saying that, in the remainder of the mandate, what is practical is to deliver an action plan ahead of delivering a strategy in the next mandate. Mrs Dillon: Will the Minister give way? Mr Nesbitt: If you can do it in 10 seconds, it is yours. Mrs Dillon: It is just to get confirmation that the Ladies with Letters and the women whom they represent will get an embargoed copy of the reports. Mr Nesbitt: I understand that they will be given sight of the reports before they are made public, yes, by an hour or so. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Minister, and thank you for finishing at 15 minutes. I call Alan Robinson to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. Alan, you have five minutes. Mr Robinson: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I begin by thanking Michelle Guy, who is just leaving the Chamber. I know that, in here, it is sometimes difficult for politicians to show a personal side and to show their emotional hand, but she did, and she is very brave for doing that. On behalf of us all, it is important to wish her good health. I also thank Diane Forsythe, who also spoke in a very personal way about the issues that she has faced. She told her own personal story. It is very brave of both women to tell those very personal stories. I also thank my colleague Diane Dodds for working up the amendment and for the incredible work that she has been doing with the families who have been so badly affected by this dreadful issue. I also thank the proposers of the motion. It is really important, and it has been a good and solemn debate here today. The cervical screening scandal cost two lives that we know of. It is causing ongoing distress, and it has shaken public confidence in a programme that should be a bulwark of women's health. We believe that our amendment strengthens the motion and, in so doing, calls for accountability, transparency and, ultimately, justice for those women of this Province, who tell us that they have been failed. We thank all Members who have said openly that they will support our amendment. Top 5.30 pm It is important to thank the senior health staff who spoke out about their concerns, resulting in the review of over 17,000 women's smear tests, spanning the period from January 2008 to October 2021. It is also important to thank the Royal College of Pathologists, whose independent report raised concerns about underperformance in the screening labs. It was important that, during the debate, we did not lose sight of the personal toll. That has been central to many if not all Members today. It is very important that we applaud the campaign group Ladies with Letters, which was formed by the women who have been affected. It helped to report that eight women under the review went on to have cancer, and two whom we know of, Lynsey Courtney and Erin Harbinson, have died. The names of those two women should weigh heavily on our minds in the Chamber. Lynsey, a mother of one from Portadown, died in 2018, aged just 30, after a smear test was misread. Erin, a mother of four from Tandragee, died in 2024 at just 44 years of age, her smear tests having been misread in 2012, 2015 and again in 2018. That is unforgivable. Other women who are still alive carry fear and uncertainty, not knowing whether their health is in danger as a result of errors. For some time, those women, the media and others have pushed for clear answers about who knew what and when and why so little was done and not done sooner, yet they feel that they are no further forward. It is deeply concerning that, when some have called for further answers, trusts and some supporting bodies have not always been able or willing to provide full data. As I mentioned earlier, UTV's appeals for data on screening performance in a number of trusts were met with obstacles, with some citing the time required to collate and process the information. When the Information Commissioner was pressed, that office upheld that public interest and transparency outweighed internal delays. With episodes of underperformance being detected in all health and social care trusts, not just the Southern Trust, it is incredibly worrying that, in one year, 2016-17, half the screeners in the Belfast Trust failed to meet the 90% detection threshold for all abnormalities. That suggests that the issues may have been much more widespread. Furthermore, a whistle-blower has warned that oversight and quality assurance in the programme have not significantly changed and that internal and external checks have not been sufficient to prevent reoccurrence of errors. That raises questions. How were underperforming screeners allowed to run for 13 years? Why were remedial actions not triggered sooner? What was the role of oversight bodies, management, governance and quality assurance in enabling or failing to stop that slide? Time and time again, women who have been affected say that they have also been met with a slow response to their questions. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Alan, can you draw your remarks to a close, please? Mr Robinson: A recent story from UTV showed that, due to equipment breakdown, nearly 10,000 HPV or smear tests have been sent to GB for testing. That is yet another indictment of our cervical screening facilities in Northern Ireland. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call on Danny Donnelly to make the winding-up speech on the motion. Danny, you have 10 minutes. Mr Donnelly: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. First, I thank all Members across the House for their contributions. It has been a sensitive debate, and the contributions from across the House have been very positive. I thank the DUP for its amendment, which we will support. The amendment adds to the motion. Two years have passed since the scandal came to light, yet progress on getting answers has been painfully slow. We have seen a lack of transparency, unacceptable delays and a slow pace of investigation by the Department of Health and the trust. That is simply not good enough. Every woman impacted by the scandal deserves truth and accountability as a bare minimum. While I welcome the recall and review of 17,500 smear tests, it should never have got to that stage. We absolutely must rebuild public trust in our screening services; a point that has come up time and time again. Cervical screening saves lives, but it can do so only if patients have faith that the system is robust and that any errors will be swiftly identified and corrected. Right now, that trust has been deeply eroded. It was not that long ago that we were discussing endometriosis and the almost decade-long wait for diagnosis for women in Northern Ireland and the fact that there is no mother-and-baby unit in Northern Ireland. What about the delays to the maternity hospital? Time and time again, it is being proven that women's health is not a priority. That is a massive concern. Women must be able to place their trust in our health service without reservation. They cannot do so currently, and they are dying because of that. Women across Northern Ireland are understandably anxious. They will be asking, "Will my smear test be accurate? Can I trust the results?". The human cost of the failures has been devastating. Misread smear tests resulted in at least eight women developing cervical cancer, and two women lost their lives. That is not just an unfortunate statistic: those people did the right thing, took the right steps and were given a death sentence due to serious failings in our health service. Many of us will have heard the names Lynsey Courtney and Erin Harbinson throughout the debate. Over the course of a decade, Erin had three cervical cancer screenings, all of which gave her the all-clear. All of them were incorrect. Erin died in August last year, aged 44. She was told by doctors that, if her results had been caught earlier, she would have been treated sooner, which could have helped save her life. She was told to think of her disease as "one of those things", not her fault or anyone else's. When Erin realised that she could have been diagnosed earlier, she said: "this is somebody's fault ... They've killed me ... they've taken my life away." Lynsey Courtney died in 2018, aged 30, following a misread smear. Her family met the trust and asked whether the screeners' work could be rechecked. In the minutes of that meeting, senior doctors admitted that no re-examinations had taken place and questioned why such action would be taken. Like other Members, I have had the privilege of meeting Lynsey's parents, Ron and Sandra, and I was moved by their quiet dignity in campaigning for the truth about their daughter's death. No words will ever express the utter tragedy of Lynsey's death and the possibility that it was preventable. The relief of an all-clear result no longer carries the same meaning. We cannot let that fear, coupled with a lack of action to investigate, undermine participation in screening. If we do, more lives will be at risk. As my colleague Michelle Guy, who has worked closely with Ladies With Letters, said recently, a public inquiry is the only way to begin rebuilding trust in that essential service. The Ladies With Letters group believes the: "scandal represents one of the most significant healthcare failures in Northern Ireland." Its members are calling for a statutory public inquiry with full powers to establish the full, unvarnished facts of what happened. It is undeniable that the cost of inaction has gone too far, and the Minister must establish a statutory public inquiry in order to uncover the full truth, establish accountability and ensure that such failures never arise again. That is the very least that women in Northern Ireland deserve. I will highlight a few of the comments made by Members during the debate. My colleague Nuala McAllister proposed the motion and highlighted the effect of the recall on the confidence that women have in the screening process. She said that concerns were raised as early as 2019, yet no action was taken until 2021. Diane Dodds noted the call from the Ladies With Letters campaign for a full statutory inquiry and the actions of the whistle-blower in the Southern Trust, which, undoubtedly, saved lives. She also talked about the failings in the management of the screeners and the anomalies in the awarding of the contracts. Linda Dillon described the deep-rooted failure to value women's health equally. She asked whether delays and backlogs had been created by the recent sending of thousands of HPV tests to Gateshead. The Minister covered that. She also encouraged women to continue to attend cervical smears and to attend their GPs if they have any symptoms of ovarian cancer. Alan Chambers encouraged MLAs to approach the reports responsibly and highlighted that screening saves lives. Colin McGrath highlighted that the trust between women and the health service has been shaken to the core, and he encouraged the Minister to state his threshold for holding a full public inquiry if the reports show that there were failings. Aoife Finnegan spoke of the importance of reassurance and rebuilding public confidence in the screening programme. Diane Forsythe talked of the crisis in public confidence and said that it is vital that we see openness and transparency across the health service. She also bravely shared her personal account of worrying about test results. Michelle Guy also powerfully shared her personal journey with this, highlighting that the mistakes were not abstract; they were avoidable and life-altering. If the Minister was really committed to women's health, he would commission a public inquiry. Michelle also quoted Lynsey Courtney's mum. Sinéad McLaughlin thanked Members for sharing their personal stories. She recalled supporting a constituent at her disclosure meeting and SAI meeting and highlighted the additional damage done to women by a system that should have protected them. Timothy Gaston highlighted the necessity of a public inquiry. Minister Nesbitt listed the meetings that he had had with the women, their spouses and the Ladies with Letters group. He highlighted the importance of the cervical screening programme and said that there have been significant improvements, including implementation of all the recommendations in the report and the move to HPV and cytology testing as the second line. He encouraged women to take up any opportunities for screening and highlighted that 96% of the women in the review needed no follow-up. The Minister also talked about the three reports that will be jointly published by the PHA and the Southern Trust on Wednesday, highlighting that he had asked for one to be held back so that all three could be published together. In his winding-up speech on the amendment, Alan Robinson commended the Ladies with Letters campaign but said that the women feel no further forward. He said that the issue raises serious questions about the management of the screeners and the system as a whole. It has been a sensitive and powerful debate, and I thank all the Members who took part in it. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Given some of today's earlier debates, it was good to see this one conducted in the way that it was. I pass on my regards: I understand how difficult that must be for those Members. Question, That the amendment be made, put and agreed to. Main Question, as amended, accordingly agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly expresses concern at the lack of transparency, delay and slow pace of the investigations and reviews into individual patients and the overall cervical screening scandal by the Department of Health and the Southern Health and Social Care Trust (SHSCT); recognises the steps taken by the Department of Health and the Southern Health and Social Care Trust regarding the recall of women for cervical screening; pays tribute to the Ladies with Letters campaigners who have fought hard for transparency in the issues that led to the underperformance of screeners and the recall of the slides of 17,500 women in the Southern Health and Social Care Trust area; acknowledges that, for some patients, the review was too late and lives were lost following the failure; notes with alarm the ongoing technical issues with equipment at Northern Ireland’s only laboratory for HPV screening in the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust; highlights that that has resulted in thousands of smear tests being sent to England for screening since 30 September 2025, creating the potential for further delay, backlogs and distress to the women affected; calls on the Minister of Health to urgently clarify when that vital equipment will be fully operational; and further calls on the Minister to establish a statutory public inquiry in order to uncover the full truth, establish accountability and ensure that such failures in the Southern Health and Social Care Trust, and throughout Northern Ireland, never arise again. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Members may take their ease while we make a change at the top Table. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Blair] in the Chair) Childcare Strategy Mrs Mason: I beg to move That this Assembly recognises that the commitment to delivering more affordable, accessible, high-quality early learning and childcare is an immediate priority in the Executive’s Programme for Government and that the Executive have provided £80 million towards childcare support measures during the past two financial years; further recognises that many families continue to struggle with the cost of childcare alongside their other bills; acknowledges the challenges facing the childcare sector in terms of recruitment and retention; regrets the delays by the Minister of Education in bringing forward the early learning and childcare strategy; calls on the Minister of Education to commit to publishing the long-awaited early learning and childcare strategy by the end of 2025; and further calls on the Minister to commit to a strategy that delivers high-quality, affordable childcare that meets the needs of all children, including those with special educational needs, physical disabilities, children in Irish-medium education and those for whom English is not a first language. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. As an amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List, the Business Committee has agreed that 15 minutes will be added to the total time for debate. Please open the debate on the motion. Top 5.45 pm Mrs Mason: Since the Assembly returned, we have all agreed that tackling the childcare crisis must be a defining priority of the mandate. We know that delivering high-quality, affordable childcare is a key commitment in the Programme for Government. Sinn Féin Finance Ministers have not just recognised that, they have acted. They have allocated £75 million specifically for childcare and early years. It is funding given directly to support affordable childcare, struggling providers and to deliver the long-overdue childcare and early learning strategy. However, when it comes to a strategy, parents and providers are still left in the dark by the Minister of Education. There is no strategy and no plan. The childcare subsidy scheme was a welcome first step, but it has not been built upon. Families are still facing crippling childcare bills that rival mortgage payments. According to the latest NISRA survey, only one in four households say that childcare is affordable. That means that three out of four families are struggling to pay for the very thing that lets them work and provide for their children. For too many families, whether on two incomes or relying on universal credit, accessing suitable and affordable childcare is not possible. That has to change. The price uplift gap that leaves families on universal credit locked out of affordable childcare must be closed, but affordability alone will not fix the crisis. We need a childcare workforce strategy that tackles recruitment and retention, improves pay and conditions and values the skilled staff who make the sector possible. Let us be clear: the workforce is overwhelmingly female, underpaid and undervalued. If we want quality childcare, we must value the people who deliver it. The strategy must also be inclusive. It must provide for children with special educational needs, for those with physical disabilities and for those learning through the medium of Irish or whose first language is not English. The Irish-medium sector has been under-resourced for years, lacking affordable childcare places, proper training pathways and workforce development in the language. Parents choosing Irish-medium education should not be penalised by poor provision. They deserve equality of access. The non-statutory preschool sector, which is the backbone of early years education in many of our communities, must no longer be treated as a second-class service. Those providers, at present, feel at a disadvantage on funding, staffing ratios and resources. If we value early learning, we must fund it fairly, statutory and non-statutory alike. The strategy must support all parts of our childcare system, including community and voluntary providers, Sure Start, childminders and home carers. It must finally deliver the long-overdue review of the minimum standards in partnership with the Health Minister. Children are at the heart of the issue. Childcare is not just supervision; it is the very foundations of learning, confidence and opportunity. That is what the Education Minister should be focused on — not on propaganda trips funded by the Israeli Government but on delivering for the children, families and childcare workers here at home. The childcare and early learning strategy must be child-centred, workforce-driven and action-focused. It is time to stop delaying, stop deflecting and start delivering. We need a fully costed, inclusive and ambitious plan that cuts bills for parents, supports providers, values workers and gives every single child, in every community and in every language, the very best possible start in life. Mrs Guy: I beg to move the following amendment: Leave out all after "recruitment and retention;" and insert: "considers that cross-departmental collaboration is essential to the success of any strategy, including delivery from the review of the minimum standards for childminding and day care for children under age 12 being taken forward by the Minister of Health and proposed support for the childcare sector being taken forward by the Minister for the Economy; further acknowledges the requirement for an early learning and childcare strategy that meets the needs of all children, including those with special educational needs and disabilities, children in Irish-medium education and those for whom English is not a first language, ensures that parents and carers can pursue education, training or work and delivers a workforce plan that promotes early learning and childcare as an attractive and rewarding career pathway and ensures those in the sector are valued, have access to training and development and are paid fairly; and calls on the Minister of Education to publish such a strategy, with a fully costed action plan, that ensures high-quality, affordable childcare, as required by all children." Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): You have 10 minutes to propose the amendment and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members will have five minutes. Please open the debate on the amendment. Mrs Guy: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Once again, we are discussing childcare and early learning in the Chamber. It is a reflection of how important the issue is for families. Families and children do not care how many times we talk about something; they care about what actually changes. The Minister has committed to deliver the long-awaited draft strategy to the Executive within weeks and confirmed that it will go out to consultation, which I welcome. Our amendment seeks to widen the scope of the motion and capture a number of key aspects of the strategy, especially the need for cross-departmental commitment to actions. When it comes, the strategy must mark a step change in how the Government act on early learning and childcare. There has been progress, driven by years of advocacy from organisations and the sheer desperation of parents. However, we are still far from where we need to be. There has been some welcome support on affordability through the Northern Ireland childcare subsidy scheme, which provided a fast injection of financial support for some families. As the Minister has acknowledged, however, it does not support those who are on universal credit, who, although they can avail themselves of support, can do so only in arrears. The scheme also does not support those who are studying or who are made redundant. In short, too many people are still being left behind. The Minister has described the upcoming strategy as "ambitious but realistic". I hope that that realism reflects the delicate ecosystem on which the sector depends. Let me be clear about those interdependencies. Subsidising fees helps, but if fees outstrip the subsidy, it does not work. Many families say that that is happening now. A discounted place means nothing to a family who cannot find a provider in their area. Providers cannot expand provision unless they can cover costs and retain qualified staff. A long-awaited business support scheme, which was announced as a scheme: "to assist those in financial difficulty and in areas where the demand for childcare exceeds supply" appears from recent Assembly questions for written answer to the Minister for the Economy to have morphed into an advisory service. That will worry providers. Clarity on that is needed in the strategy. We also know that families of children with special educational needs and disabilities face some of the greatest struggles. They find it incredibly difficult to access adequate childcare, and the same barriers follow those children into school. A strategy that is a decade in the making must deal with that complexity, not sidestep it. Let us also remember that publishing a strategy is not the achievement. Rather, delivery is. The real measure will be the difference that it makes to homes and early years settings across Northern Ireland. I will also speak specifically about the early learning aspect of the strategy, which is where joined-up working with the Department of Health needs to improve. Lucy Crehan, who recently undertook a review of the curriculum, heard early learning professionals express serious concerns about early child development. She described the issue as a "ticking time bomb". We know that investing in early years has the biggest return on investment, be it investment in tackling educational underachievement or investment in special educational needs. As Lucy said in her report: "Giving children the input they need at a young age can transform educational (and life) trajectories. Funding and infrastructure to provide this necessary support in the early years is essential to the successful functioning of Northern Ireland's economy and society." That investment, which is key to setting up young people for the rest of their lives, starts before the child is born. A significant part of that involves focusing more on what advice and support is available to parents and carers. Parenting is a difficult role that is made more difficult given the financial strains that are caused by the cost of living, including childcare, and the erosion of funding that is available to the community and voluntary sector. We must defend the public and community organisations that support our parents. 'A Fair Start' showed the need to reorient our systems towards early years. Many of its actions, including better data sharing between the Department of Health and the Department of Education, still have not been completed. Those are practical steps that do not necessarily require funding, simply a focus on delivery. A focus on delivery must be at the heart of the strategy. Early learning and childcare have been neglected for far too long. Transforming the system will not only change children's lives but strengthen our education, health and justice systems, boost our economy and build a fairer society. Let us therefore not allow this strategy to become another strategy that is announced, debated and then quietly shelved. Let us get it right for our early educators, for our parents and, most importantly, for our children. Mr Brooks: I welcome the opportunity to speak to the motion on childcare. I do so with a sense of pride at the progress that has been made to support families across Northern Ireland, not least by this Minister. The extension of the Northern Ireland childcare subsidy scheme was an incredibly important initiative that is already making a tangible difference to the lives of parents and children in every corner of our country. By extending the scheme to include all school-age children, the Minister has increased eligibility by an impressive 60%. That means that thousands more families will now have access to vital support that helps them manage the cost of childcare. For many people, that support is the difference between being able to work and not. It is a promise made and a promise kept. The DUP is serious about tackling the issues that matter most to people. It is serious about helping our working families, and few issues matter more to working families than the affordability and availability of childcare. As has been mentioned, we have discussed the topic many times in the Chamber for that reason. As a result of that initiative, which the DUP Minister championed and led on, working parents are now seeing savings of up to 32% on their childcare bills. That is not rhetoric; it is delivery. It is the practical difference that good government can make when the focus is on what really matters. For too long, parents in Northern Ireland have been paying over the odds for childcare. Many families have felt that the system did not work for them and that it was too expensive and too inflexible. This scheme gave that foot up. It is not a magic wand. It does not remove every challenge or financial strain, but it helps to ensure that more parents are not forced to choose between career and family and that children are given the best start in life. While we can take pride in the progress made, this party is clear-eyed that challenges remain. The Minister has committed to launching the comprehensive early learning and childcare strategy, which is mentioned in the motion. That is to ensure that the childcare that we provide is affordable not only today but into the future. That is a commitment in the Programme for Government, and I am confident that we will see this Minister acting, as he has said, sooner rather than later on the implementation of that beyond its consultation. The £25 million support package announced for 2024-25 represented the most significant expansion of early years investment in decades. That was not an afterthought but evidence of the drive of this Minister and this party to deliver on the commitment to support hard-working families and to build a stronger and fairer Northern Ireland. Our goal is to support every child and to empower parents to provide the best start for their children; to back working families so that parents can continue their career and see benefit not disadvantage from that and, in doing so, strengthen communities. That is why the Minister supported early years with a 10% uplift in 2024-25 and 11% in 2025-26 to stabilise Sure Start as its faces rising costs and increases in National Insurance and to expand the service to another 2,500 families alongside the other programmes that we are aware of such as Toybox, the pathway fund and others that target the key early years and aim to address educational inequalities and underachievement. At times, Sinn Féin speaks out of both sides of its mouth on some of these issues. There is, of course, a commonality in what we support and what we want to see, but it wishes to create political hay and narratives out of motions such as this with simple demands for more, and sooner. However, the public are not fools. Sinn Féin holds the purse strings. This party recognises that the entire Executive face financial challenges and that, at times, there is not enough resource to fund all ambitions and pressures across Departments, so we should be careful about giving hope to people that there is enough resource. The Education Minister is clear on childcare, on SEN education and on the schools estate. He is laying out the plans to address the need. We have seen that in SEN education, where he has not only laid out ambitious plans for the future but has sought to find innovative ways to meet need in the short and medium terms. Indeed, we heard in the Chamber today that Sinn Féin is an impediment by refusing to table SEN issues at the Executive. The Education Minister has said that he could do more, and more quickly. If the Sinn Féin Finance Minister has the funds to spare, I am sure that the Education Minister will be a willing and keen recipient. The implication of the motion is that the Minister is not already working as he is towards that which is being demanded. However positive the Minister's plans, ultimately money talks, and, when the rubber hits the road, resourcing or the lack thereof from the Department of Finance will obviously dictate the scale and pace of change. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member's time is up. Mr Brooks: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr Burrows: An early learning and childcare strategy is certainly needed, and we hope that it comes as soon as possible. I want to make a couple of points that transcend many of the arguments that we could have today. The first is to value childminders and those who provide support to young people at the start of their lives. I hear consistently that the number-one barrier is cost. In preparation for today's debate, I was speaking to a constituent who said that the cost of their childcare was £1,000 a month. That was for just three days a week because the grandparents provided two days worth of childcare. That family is incurring debt every month to pay for their childcare. That is a difficult thing, and perhaps only those in certain professional and well-paid jobs can afford it. In all these things, those who have the least are the hardest impacted. Top 6.00 pm I also hear from constituents who are dropping out of employment or taking pauses in it in order to mind their children. The reality is that they are mostly women. That is not to say that that is the right or wrong thing, but, in our society, it is often women who bear the greatest responsibility for raising children. That leads into things like the gender pay gap, because, during those critical times, women are not getting advancement at work or promotion. Therefore, it is really important to support women generally in society so that we get this absolutely correct. Some of the support for the cost of childcare is welcome, but I find, when I speak to people, that there is a lack of awareness of the existing support measures, such as the support with tax-free childcare. We need more of an education or awareness campaign on the various supports that are available, as well as increasing them. I am doing some touring around the country to schools, nurseries and parents, and I hear directly from parents that they find that raising children is a complex and difficult thing. It is not easy. In all these strategies, we need to get more support to skill parents in that very difficult role. They are bringing up children in an environment that is different from what it was in the past, particularly in the availability of screens. I hear from parents that that is a particularly difficult aspect. When children get as far as nursery school, I often hear that there is a problem in trying to get the child away from a screen. That is not judgement of the parent, but it is another obstacle that our nursery-school teachers face by the time a child gets there: they are having to deal with that issue. Some of the nursery-school teachers that I have spoken to find that the child does not want to go into nursery school because they are told that they cannot have their screen or that it will be controlled. Those are societal issues that I did not face when growing up, because there were no screens like that. Parents need support in dealing with those issues. Recruitment and retention of nursery-school teachers is a really significant issue. I know that a lot of those involved in childminding and nursery-school teaching do not feel that they have sufficient accreditation or professional skill recognition and that they are dealing with issues that are beyond their capability in the complex needs that are presented to them. I hear that increasingly in primary schools. That is why a lot of teachers in primary school — P1 and P2 — are injured daily, being kicked, bitten or spat at. I say that without judgement, but it is the reality that they face. That difficulty, that challenge and that behaviour are also faced by people who are childminding and those involved in nursery education and support. They feel that they do not have sufficient support to deal with the increasingly difficult, challenging and complex behaviour being seen in children in numbers that did not exist in the past. The evidence base for that is clear in the rise of special educational needs and in the delays in development that school principals report with children increasingly coming to school perhaps 18 months or two years behind. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member's time is up. Mr Burrows: There is much merit in the motion, but this is not about political point-scoring; it is about getting the right strategy and the right support. Ms McLaughlin: People across Northern Ireland rightly expect this place to deliver on the issues that matter most in their lives. For so many families, the issue that keeps them awake at night is childcare. It is an enormous expense that stretches family budgets to the limit, often swallowing up one parent's entire wage every month. They are waiting and waiting for a childcare strategy. It is incredible that we still have not got one. We were expecting it in the autumn, and, given that tonight I feel pretty cold in here, winter has arrived. Time and again, the Chamber has heard stories of parents who are unable to make ends meet as a result of those costs and tales of families who are frustrated and angry at the inaction from government to successfully deal with their spiralling bills. Therefore, it is right that the motion states that families continue to struggle with childcare costs. As I said, that is an understatement. While the motion boasts about £80 million being invested to reduce costs, the reality tells a very different story. Barely a day goes past when I am not told about the costs that are crushing family finances. We know from official figures that costs have risen by 24% in less than two years. When the Executive introduced the subsidy scheme in September 2024, the average daily rate for day-care settings stood at £54·51: by March 2025, it had risen to £61·43. Many pay much more than that. I can vouch for that, because my daughter is paying a higher daily rate for childcare. Nearly half — 43% — of the subsidy introduced by the Executive scheme has been absorbed by fee increases, and families now pay significantly more than they did when this place was restored. Things are going backwards instead of forwards. Reducing childcare costs is one of the key priorities for the Government, but the Executive have not made a dent in that so far, and there is little sign of the situation improving. Parents are still paying the price of that failure. For far too many of those parents, particularly women, it simply does not make sense to work, and that puts a handbrake on our economy. That is why we urgently need a strategy. Parents have waited decades for one, and they cannot afford to wait any longer. While the motion appears to back up our position that we should not pull the wool over anyone's eyes, the party that proposed the motion runs the Government and controls the purse strings. Unfortunately, the amendment that we tabled was not selected, but it would have also called on the Finance Minister to commit to funding the strategy, once we get one. We know that a plan on paper means nothing if the money is not there to back it up. I urge the Finance Minister to make that commitment. Of course, that will require a significant financial investment, but it will be more than offset by the benefits to our economy and by the investment in the lives of our children. The amendment that was selected is right to call attention to the other needs that the strategy will need to address. Our proposals have supported child-centred and inclusive childcare that invests in additional and targeted support for children, including those from disadvantaged backgrounds and those with disabilities. Research has found that fewer than one in five areas in England have enough childcare facilities for children with disabilities. I have severe concerns that, if we follow the 30-hour English model, it will not work in practice for all children, and I challenge the Minister to address, in his response, the particular needs of those children. We also have to recognise the cross-government nature of the challenges, particularly the work on ratios in the Department of Health. On that, we have to say loudly and clearly that registered childminders cannot be left out of the picture. Between 2020 and 2022, there was an 11% reduction in the number of registered childminders across Northern Ireland, and 59% of respondents to a Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action (NICVA) survey said that they had real concerns about their future. The challenges facing registered childminders — Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up. Ms McLaughlin: — are a real and pressing danger to the childcare sector. Mr Sheehan: First of all, I want to deal with an issue that has been raised twice today in the Chamber, namely the Minister's SEN capital plan and the fact that the Executive have not offered him any money yet. The Audit Office brought out two reports — the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) also brought out reports — that stated that neither the Education Department nor the Education Authority (EA) can demonstrate value for money. When the permanent secretary of the Department was at the Committee recently, I asked him what had changed since those reports came out, and he said, "Well, we are working together more closely". When I asked the chief executive of the Education Authority whether it had identified any efficiencies or wastage, his answer was no. If the Department and the EA cannot manage their current budgets, why on earth would anybody want to give them more money? In any event, I just wanted to deal with that issue. The delivery of affordable childcare is a clear commitment in the Programme for Government and a key priority of the Executive. Families already struggle with the cost of living. Affordable childcare would be life-changing for many of them. It would help parents get back into work and give children the best start in life. That is why our party delivered over £75 million in funding to help deliver high-quality and affordable childcare and early years provision. That money was directly allocated to the Education Minister with a clear expectation that it would make childcare more affordable, support struggling providers and finally deliver the long-overdue early learning and childcare strategy. Yet, despite almost £80 million having been spent, in many cases, families continue to pay the equivalent of a second mortgage for their childcare. There has been no strategy and no real reduction in bills, as providers continue to raise fees due to the scale of the costs with which they are dealing. Hard-pressed families need a break. When we eventually see a strategy from the Minister, if he remains in post, there must also be a clear commitment to the Irish-medium early years and childcare sector. That sector faces acute challenges and remains chronically under-resourced. Many Irish-medium early years settings are forced to create their own learning materials, fundraise to buy resources and operate with limited access to Irish-speaking SEN support staff or allied health professionals. Those are among the reasons why I have brought forward a private Member's Bill that will place a statutory duty on the Department of Education to prepare and review an Irish-medium education workforce plan every five years. The Bill will ensure that the Department finally takes responsibility for recruiting and retaining the staff that our Irish-medium schools and early years settings need. I urge all Members to support the Bill when it comes to the Floor. The Minister must now do what he has failed to do to date: publish a childcare strategy that delivers affordability, sustainability and inclusion for all families, including those in the Irish-medium sector, and for children with special educational needs or disabilities. Mr Middleton: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion. It is unfortunate that Sinn Féin Members in particular have sought to refight some of the battles that they have already lost. That having been said, we need to focus on the issues that matter to people in my constituency and across Northern Ireland, which include childcare. As a father of two young children and with a wife who also works full-time, I am acutely aware of the pressures that many families face when it comes to balancing work and childcare. It is about finding not just a place but the right place, one that is affordable and accessible and meets the needs of the child. Like Mr Burrows, I pay tribute to all those involved in the childcare sector, be it statutory or non-statutory. They have an important role in the education of our young children. I also thank the Education Minister for his commitment and delivery on the issue. The delivery of the childcare subsidy scheme and its subsequent extension was a welcome step. The policy is making a difference to people across Northern Ireland. Thanks to that initiative, many working parents have seen a reduction of up to 30% in childcare bills. That is having a positive impact on family budgets across Northern Ireland. As my colleague Mr Brooks stated, as of September, 15,000 children and families were benefiting from that support. Now that the scheme is extended, it will benefit even more families, not only in the Foyle constituency but across Northern Ireland. I welcome the Minister's commitment to expanding preschool education, aiming for 22·5 hours per week for all children in their immediate preschool year. As my colleague Mr Brooks stated, it is a significant investment, made by a DUP Minister. Top 6.15 pm Of course, we recognise that there is more to do. Families still feel the squeeze, and the sector continues to face challenges, particularly with recruitment and retention. That is why we see that there is a need for and support an early learning and childcare strategy. Let us be clear, however, that a strategy alone will not be enough. We need the Finance Minister to put the money where his mouth is and back the Education Minister's plans. It is not good enough for Sinn Féin to come in and blame the UK Government or whoever; the reality is that there is a budget there, and the Sinn Féin Finance Minister needs to ensure that he backs the Minister's plans. This party is committed to supporting hard-working parents and ensuring that those who, for too long, have paid over the odds no longer need to do so. Let us keep building on the progress that has been made, set aside party politics and support the Education Minister in his role. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you to those Members who have spoken. I call the Minister of Education to respond. Minister, you have up to 15 minutes. Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Transforming early learning and childcare has been a key priority for me since I took up the office of Minister of Education. The priority to: "Deliver More Affordable, Accessible, High-Quality Early Learning and Childcare", as set out in the Programme for Government, demonstrates the Executive's commitment to invest in that area over the longer term. I am happy to confirm that I will bring a draft strategy to my Executive colleagues for consideration within the next few weeks — certainly before the end of 2025, as is requested in the motion. If that draft strategy is agreed, it will be subject to a public consultation. The strategy will address all the issues that Members have raised today. It will build on the significant investment of £80 million already allocated by the Executive, which is making a positive difference for thousands of children, families and providers across Northern Ireland. That has allowed us to introduce a range of tangible measures, including the Northern Ireland childcare subsidy scheme, which initially targeted support to families with preschool children, but was extended to include school-age children from 1 September 2025. That scheme now provides support to a much wider group of working parents, with the recent expansion to school-age children resulting in a 60% increase in the number of children who are eligible for the subsidy. That has helped to address the cumulative childcare costs that are faced by families with multiple children aged from 0 to 11, and it is in line with the tax-free childcare coverage. The scheme has made a meaningful, tangible difference to families by providing a 15% reduction to registered childcare costs, with potential savings of up to 32% when combined with the United Kingdom's tax-free childcare. In order to maximise the benefit of the subsidy for parents, when childcare fees increased in April 2025, I again acted, increasing the subsidy cap of the scheme by 10% to £184 per month per child and raising administrative payments to providers. Almost 22,500 children are registered and active on the subsidy scheme. Since September 2024, £17·8 million has been paid out to reduce childcare costs for eligible working families. That is a significant investment that simply would not have happened had I not prioritised the introduction of the scheme ahead of the strategy. When the scheme is combined with tax-free childcare, working families in Northern Ireland have saved approximately £37·5 million on their childcare costs. I accept that bills are still unacceptably high for some families. I want to go further. In the context of the strategy, I will bring proposals to the Executive that would further improve affordability. In addition, the £80 million that has been allocated by the Executive to date has enabled me to fund the creation of 2,500 more full-time preschool places, with the provision of a free school meal for eligible children. That means that half of our preschool places are now full time, with further increases planned for September 2026. Added to that is the additional funding to support children who face disadvantage via Sure Start, the pathway fund, the Toybox project and a range of programmes to support additional needs or disability. That early investment has made a real and meaningful difference for many children who often find the odds stacked against them. I have clearly demonstrated my intention to enhance and transform early learning and childcare in Northern Ireland through the actions that I have taken forward to date. I am sure that colleagues will agree that that is a significant achievement in a very short timescale. I take the opportunity to acknowledge the positive partnership working across Departments with the early learning and childcare sector and parents in enabling the successful roll-out of those initial actions. I thank all for their continued work and support as we move to introducing and implementing an early learning and childcare strategy for Northern Ireland that builds on the successes to date. It is essential to the success of all cross-cutting strategies that Departments work together in a collaborative and tangible way. That is why I established the cross-departmental task and finish group to ensure that the measures to date and the longer-term strategy reflect each Department's policy needs in the early learning and childcare arena. My officials have also worked closely with the Department of Health, which has statutory responsibility for childcare regulation, including minimum standards for day care and childminding provision, and the Department for Communities to support those on low incomes with childcare costs and those who are economically inactive to get into the workplace. In addition, work continues with the Department for the Economy on supporting training and apprenticeships in the sector and on proposals for a specific business advisory service. Whilst progress from that Department has been very slow, I am grateful that the Economy Minister has led on the recently published scoping study on the sustainability of the childcare sector. The recommendations from that report will also feed into the strategy. The Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs has also been at the table to ensure that any planned action is considered through a rural lens. That collaboration has been essential to address the challenges that we face in transforming early learning and childcare. I am committed to continuing with that approach. In tandem with successful cross-departmental engagement, my Department has engaged directly with parents, children and the early years sector. I have attended a number of meetings with the early learning and childcare stakeholder engagement forum, which allowed me to hear at first hand the challenges that they face. I listened to what was said and incorporated proposals in the draft strategy to address a wide range of issues, many of which were mentioned today. A robust evidence base is critical to determining where investment should be directed. I commissioned the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency to carry out the Northern Ireland childcare survey, and the first ever official statistics on childcare in Northern Ireland were published on 8 May this year. It provided insight into a range of issues, including the type and amount of childcare used, childcare costs, summer holiday childcare arrangements and the factors that influence parental childcare choices, including affordability, quality of care and proximity, to name a few. Those findings, alongside the data that is being gathered through the Northern Ireland childcare subsidy scheme, other commissioned reviews and significant stakeholder engagement, are supporting the development of the draft strategy and ensuring that it reflects the needs of children, families and the sector. The strategy will include measures to support the early learning and childcare workforce, recognising the issues with recruitment and retention and the need to truly value and support all those who provide those essential services to ensure the best start in life for all our children. It will build on the early actions to support child development, including for those with special educational needs or disabilities, children in Irish-medium education and those for whom English is not a first language. The strategy will be comprehensive and ambitious, but it will also be realistic. The scale and pace of implementation will depend on the budget that is available. It will include a proposed prioritisation and be structured in a way that enables actions to be scaled up or down or rescheduled. It will be flexible, allowing us to respond to the funding that is available over the coming years. I have consistently said that I would bring the strategy to the Executive by this autumn, and I will do so. If agreed by the Executive, it will be consulted on. I invite the House and Executive to support the strategy and, when the time comes, provide the funding that will be necessary to deliver it. We have too many strategies that are a substitute for delivery. I do not want this one to be another example of that. I thank Members for their contributions to the debate, even if some strayed into party politics. I welcome further engagement with all concerned so that the benefits of a new early learning and childcare strategy are fully realised for children, families and the wider early learning and childcare sector. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, Minister, for that response. I call Kate Nicholl to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. Kate, you have up to five minutes. Ms Nicholl: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I really welcome the opportunity to speak about childcare, which I do at any opportunity. No one in the Chamber will dispute the fact that affordable, accessible, high-quality early learning and childcare is vital for families, for gender equality and for our economy. My comments will largely be about the economic side, because, if we are truly serious about achieving that type of early learning and childcare, our focus cannot begin and end with reducing parental fees. So often, the conversation centres on that. Affordability is absolutely one side of the equation. I should declare an interest, because I avail myself of the Northern Ireland childcare subsidy scheme. I am very well paid. I have three children, and my childcare bill, with the subsidy, is £2,600 a month. If that is how much we are paying, I honestly do not know how so many families are managing to pay for childcare at the moment. The other part, however, is sustainability: sustainability for the people and places that deliver childcare every day. Childcare is not a luxury or a personal choice. Rather, it is essential economic and social infrastructure. It enables parents to work, supports children's development and underpins our productivity as a region, yet the people who deliver it — early years educators, childminders and assistants — are among the lowest paid, despite often doing the most precious work in our economy, which is nurturing and shaping the next generation. That has to change. I will share some information from a local provider who contacted me recently. Their story reflects what I hear across the sector and what, I know, other MLAs hear. The provider, who runs a few day-care settings, describes growing and unsustainable pressures. Recruitment is in crisis. They report a chronic shortage of applicants. People do not turn up to interviews, and, if they do, many leave their post within weeks. The provider pays above the minimum wage, but the rising national minimum wage has narrowed the pay gap between qualified and unqualified staff. That makes it impossible to reward skills or experience properly. That director told me: "We can't raise wages without raising fees, and that's the cycle families blame us for even though it's beyond our control." The vetting system is described as being cumbersome, paper-based and inconsistent. Health declaration forms can take weeks for GPs to complete, often at the applicant's cost, and that delay means that settings are left short-staffed. The provider also points to financial challenges. Providers here cannot register for VAT, so they cannot claim for essential costs. They manage multiple funding streams, from tax-free childcare to employer voucher schemes, with payments that often arrive without remittance advice, thus making reconciliation a full-time job, and one can add to that the strain of multiple staff being on maternity leave. We talked about how many women work in the sector. In one setting, five senior team members were off at once, and the result was very difficult for the provider. Those complaints are not isolated but, rather, speak to a system that has evolved piecemeal across Departments without a coherent plan. That is why having a strategy is so important and why it is so important that Departments work well together. It is great that there is a task force, but, my goodness, the lack of goodwill in this place at the moment is shocking. We have heard that the business side sits with the Department for the Economy and that the Department of Health is also responsible for a big part of it. There therefore needs to be goodwill between the Ministers so that they can work together and deliver. That really struck me today. When I became an MLA, my very first question was on the review of minimum standards. I was told that it was coming in a couple of months, but it is still not here. It is really important that we have a strategy, that it be joined-up and that there be delivery. As my colleague so perfectly said, we can keep talking about childcare, but we need to deliver on it. I will briefly mention the registered childminding sector. Patricia Lewsley-Mooney is an expert on that and a fountain of knowledge. She told me that one childminder told her that she employs an assistant to support three children with additional needs but that the rise in costs have made doing that almost impossible to sustain. Those are exactly the people whom business support funding should help: those providing inclusive care that keeps parents in work and children in stable, nurturing environments. Top 6.30 pm I welcome the childcare academies. I have a free idea for the DUP. There is so much more that communities and councils could do. Work is already happening in the 11 council areas, but what about our parks and the space that is being used? How can we utilise that more? If you take that forward, I promise not to take credit for it. So much more could be done with councils, especially because of their grassroots reach and the work that already shows collaboration across Departments. It is the kind of joined-up approach that our amendment calls for. Yes, families need affordable childcare, but affordability will mean nothing if there are no qualified staff to deliver it or if providers cannot keep their doors open. We owe it to the parents who need childcare to work and to the educators in nurseries, preschools and living rooms across Northern Ireland — Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member's time is up. Ms Nicholl: — who make that possible every day. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Emma Sheerin to conclude the debate and make a winding-up speech on the motion. You have up to 10 minutes. Ms Sheerin: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. [Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.] I welcome the opportunity to make a winding-up speech on the motion, which we tabled because we want to see action on the issue. We are at the close of what has been a particularly difficult day, when ideology has perhaps been the focus in some people's minds. For us, it is about doing the right thing for the people whom we represent. I note that the Members opposite snigger and laugh. The people who have contacted us in recent days are not sniggering or laughing. They are really concerned and really worried. I speak to teachers and parents weekly, and they are concerned about the direction in which the Department is going. We tabled the motion because we want to see delivery for our constituents. Unlike Kate, I have neither chick nor child and cannot speak from personal experience on the issue of childcare and how costly and uncomfortable it is for many working families across society, but constituents bring the problem to me. I know — we have all heard it — that the cost of childcare and the lack of childcare that is specific to children's needs, with the rise in additional needs in children and children being educated through the Irish-medium sector who cannot access childcare that is appropriate for them, are causing real problems in homes across the North. That is what we want to see being addressed. Mrs Dillon: Will the Member take an intervention? Ms Sheerin: I will. Mrs Dillon: Does the Member agree that the issue is particularly pronounced in rural areas, where we have much less provision and fewer options? Ms Sheerin: Yes. I was going to touch on that, because, again, there is another specific issue with people accessing transport and childcare before and after school. That is difficult to access. It is heartening to see that, across the Chamber, everybody wants to see delivery on the issue, and, again, it is regrettable that the Minister referred to party politics when that is not the objective of the motion. It is about delivery. All parties across the House will table motions to try to see their objectives achieved, and that is why we tabled today's motion. Members have touched on the fact that this is an equality issue, and we know that it predominantly affects women. We do not know the cost of unpaid care across the North, because it is unpaid, but we know that it is massive and is often left to the women in the families. That refers to the childcare issue, but it also touches on the care of our elderly population and people caring for relatives. The lack of domiciliary care packages feeds into that as well, which is another thing that is most keenly felt in rural constituencies. We also know that it has a negative impact on our economy, because it keeps people out of the workforce. A lack of respect is felt by the people who are in that workforce: it is a vocation, but it is treated as an unskilled job, which it is not. To reiterate what has already been covered by my colleagues about the commitment that our Ministers have made on the budget, we want to see delivery on this, and we want to see a move away from what has been a regressive start from the Minister. I have spoken to school principals and teachers who are really concerned about the TransformED programme and listening to so-called experts from elsewhere with worse records than we have in the North. The events of the past week or so, which have not cast this place or the Department in a positive light, are causing real concerns for the people whom we all represent. The Minister would do well to consider all of that and to show a bit of humility. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Question is that the amendment — [Interruption.] Members — all Members — I am on my feet. We are going to consider the conclusion of the debate. Question, That the amendment be made, put and agreed to. Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly recognises that the commitment to delivering more affordable, accessible, high-quality early learning and childcare is an immediate priority in the Executive’s Programme for Government and that the Executive have provided £80 million towards childcare support measures during the past two financial years; further recognises that many families continue to struggle with the cost of childcare alongside their other bills; acknowledges the challenges facing the childcare sector in terms of recruitment and retention; considers that cross-departmental collaboration is essential to the success of any strategy, including delivery from the review of the minimum standards for childminding and day care for children under age 12 being taken forward by the Minister of Health and proposed support for the childcare sector being taken forward by the Minister for the Economy; further acknowledges the requirement for an early learning and childcare strategy that meets the needs of all children, including those with special educational needs and disabilities, children in Irish-medium education and those for whom English is not a first language, ensures that parents and carers can pursue education, training or work and delivers a workforce plan that promotes early learning and childcare as an attractive and rewarding career pathway and ensures those in the sector are valued, have access to training and development and are paid fairly; and calls on the Minister of Education to publish such a strategy, with a fully costed action plan, that ensures high-quality, affordable childcare, as required by all children. Adjourned at 6.35 pm. Top
[ni-assembly-official-report][plenary_report] Official Reports https://aims.niassembly.gov.uk/officialreport/report.aspx?&eveDate=2025/10/21&docID=454910 Official Report: Tuesday 21 October 2025 Table of Contents Members Statements Naomh Eoin Cumann Lúthchleas Gael Jim Lynagh Winter School Domestic Abuse Awareness Week Poppy Appeal 2025 BSL Interpreters: Healthcare Settings Oireachtas na Samhna PSNI: Additional Funding Historical Clerical Child Abuse: Delays Mens Sheds Union Customs Code Energy Strategy Ministerial Accountability Health and Social Care Workers Pay Ministerial Statement Houses in Multiple Occupation: Regulation Private Members Business Local Growth Fund Oral Answers to Questions Education Question for Urgent Oral Answer Finance Private Members Business Unpaid Rates Adjournment Infrastructure: Castlereagh South The Assembly met at 10:30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair). Members observed two minutes' silence. Members' Statements Naomh Eoin Cumann Lúthchleas Gael Ms Reilly: A comhghairdeas mór [Translation: A huge congratulations] to everyone at Naomh Eoin Cumann Lúthchleas Gael on bringing the Antrim Senior Hurling Championship title back to the Whiterock Road in west Belfast after a 52-year wait; an incredible achievement for the players, management and every single person who is connected to the club. Of course, we know that a win like that does not happen overnight and does not come out of thin air. It is the result of years of behind-the-scenes work from generations of Naomh Eoin Gaels. Those who trained on a wet night, stood on the sideline or lifted a hurl for the club have played their part in that win. Naomh Eoin, like all GAA clubs, is more than bricks and mortar; it is a family and a cornerstone of our community. As a proud member of Naomh Pól, I am acutely aware of that. With volunteers and coaches at all levels, from "babymentals", Gaelic4Mothers&Others and social teams right through to senior level for boys and girls, the GAA plays a vital role in the lives of so many people. What is even more special about Sunday's win is the legacy that it will leave behind for the next generation of young hurlers and camogs who are coming up through the ranks. They will look at that team and know that, through hard work, belief and resilience, anything is possible. Maith sibh, a chairde. Comhghairdeas. [Translation: Well done, my friends. Congratulations.] . I wish the team every success in its Ulster campaign. The whole community of the Whiterock Road and west Belfast is behind you. Maith sibh. [Translation: Well done.] Jim Lynagh Winter School Mr K Buchanan: I rise to express my deep concern about, and unequivocal condemnation of, a recent event that was held in south-east Fermanagh that sought to commemorate Jim Lynagh, a man whose legacy is steeped in violence, terror and murder. Let me be absolutely clear: there is nothing thought-provoking about the campaign of destruction that he orchestrated. His actions were not political discourse: they were calculated acts of terror that were designed to instil fear and inflict suffering. Jim Lynagh was not a freedom fighter: he was an architect of terror. Before being killed by the SAS in the Loughgall ambush, he helped to plan a brutal bombing attack on a police station as part of a wider campaign to destabilise and murder. His legacy is one of bloodshed, not bravery. For any right-thinking person, reflection must centre not on the perpetrator but on the innocent victims whose lives were stolen. We must remember the people who went to work, protected their communities or simply went about their daily lives and never returned home because of Lynagh's campaign of terror. Those are the individuals who deserve our remembrance and respect. It is beyond belief that such an event could be hosted in the grounds of a former school; a place once dedicated to learning, growth and community. To purpose such a place for the glorification of terrorism is not only deeply offensive; it is a betrayal of the values that bind us together. No matter where such events are held, we must be vocal and unequivocal: no terrorist should ever be celebrated. The organisers of that commemoration have inflicted renewed pain on a community still scarred by the ethnic cleansing of Protestant people. The decision to hold such an event in south-east Fermanagh, or anywhere, is not just insensitive but simply wrong. It speaks volumes about their disregard for reconciliation, healing and basic human decency. Let us reject the glorification of violence and ensure that history remembers the truth — the actual truth — and not a revisionist fantasy that seeks to sanitise terror. Domestic Abuse Awareness Week Ms Egan: I welcome the Housing Executive's first ever Domestic Abuse Awareness Week. Its aims are vital: to raise awareness of the connection between domestic abuse and homelessness; to highlight the support services that are available to those experiencing domestic abuse; and to echo a message that, I am sure, all of us across the Chamber agree on: "home" should mean "safe". Data released last month revealed that, from July 2024 to June 2025, 29,740 domestic abuse incidents were reported in Northern Ireland; that is 15 per 1,000 in our population. Last December, the Housing Executive shared that, each year, it helps over 1,000 households who present as homeless due to domestic abuse. Startling though they are, we know that those numbers are not a true reflection of the scale of domestic abuse in our communities. So many victims and survivors refuse to come forward out of shame or fear for their safety. It is an inescapable fact that domestic violence has permeated the fabric of our society, be it physical, psychological or financial abuse; coercive control; sexual violence; or any other intimidation or threat. The Housing Executive has organised various opportunities for people to come together and reflect on the victims of violence and the survivors who have suffered, including a candlelit vigil in Lisburn last night, which my colleagues attended; a panel to reflect on the impact of domestic abuse on our society; and progress on initiatives such as the Housing Executive's Sanctuary scheme. Abuse can be experienced by anyone, no matter their gender, in a range of different types of relationships and circumstances. In many cases, support services, such as Women's Aid, Nexus and the Men's Advisory Project, are left to pick up the pieces. There has been real momentum behind the campaign to connect homelessness and domestic abuse in the past year. In March, I had the opportunity to attend a legislative theatre event on homelessness and domestic abuse. That was a unique opportunity to listen to the lived experience of those who have found safety and support in the system and also those who feel that they have been failed. It was a powerful way of connecting policymakers, support organisations and victims and survivors to collaborate, share ideas and take forward actions to improve services. Everyone across society has a role to play in tackling domestic and sexual abuse. It is vital that we all step up to the plate. I look forward to learning about how this inaugural Domestic Abuse Awareness Week Northern Ireland progresses, and reiterate the essential message: "home" should mean "safe". Poppy Appeal 2025 Mr Stewart: This week marks the official launch of the 2025 Poppy Appeal by the Royal British Legion, a campaign that holds a special place in the hearts of people across Northern Ireland and, indeed, the entire United Kingdom. Each year, as we approach Remembrance Day, the poppy becomes a symbol of remembrance, gratitude and our shared commitment to support those who have served and sacrificed for our freedom. Since 1921, the Royal British Legion has stood by the armed forces community, providing vital welfare and financial and emotional support to serving personnel, veterans and their families. Whether it is helping someone to find a new career after leaving the forces, supporting a family in times of hardship, or offering a listening ear to those who are struggling, the legion continues to make a profound difference every single day. In East Antrim, we are fortunate to have some of the most dedicated and energetic branches anywhere in the country. I pay tribute to the members, committee members and volunteers from our branches in Larne, Carrickfergus, Whiteabbey and Whitehead. Their tireless efforts, year after year, ensure that the Poppy Appeal thrives in local communities, and I am sure that I speak, on behalf of all Members, to each of the local branches across the country. From organising remembrance parades and coffee mornings to standing in town centres in all kinds of weather collecting donations, their commitment is nothing short of inspirational. Those men and women give freely of their time and energy, motivated not by recognition but by gratitude to those who have served and a desire to ensure that the legacy endures. As the 2025 local Poppy Appeal begins, I urge everyone across Northern Ireland to support it. Buy a poppy, attend a fundraising event, volunteer for a few hours. Every contribution, large and small, helps the vital work of the British Legion in supporting our veterans and their families. As we wear our poppies this year, let us do so not only as a symbol of remembrance but as a promise that we will never forget the sacrifice and service of those who defended our freedoms and that we will continue to stand by our veterans and their families. BSL Interpreters: Healthcare Settings Ms Hunter: I rise to speak on the important issue of the lack of access to interpreters in our healthcare service for those who are in the deaf community. I recently spoke with a young woman who spoke about how both of her parents are deaf and have struggled profusely to get appropriate access to the NHS and to their local GP. That really is due to the challenges and the lack of training that we have seen for some of our healthcare workers. She highlighted the fact that, sadly, that is a common issue across the deaf community and across the North, and she raised with me the fact that, many times, deaf parents have to rely on their children to make important phone calls on such things as mortgages and banking issues. She said that, right across the public sector, we really struggle with appropriate email services and in ensuring that we are reaching out to those in the deaf community. She highlighted one incident from a few weeks ago where her father, who has type 2 diabetes, was very ill. They rang ahead to the local hospital to ensure that a BSL interpreter was provided, and, when they landed at the hospital, they became aware that, sadly, there was no interpreter and that, again, it would fall on the shoulders of both children to try to interpret to healthcare staff. I really think that that is absolutely unacceptable. Lots of time was given for the arrangements to be made, and, sadly, it was three hours before an interpreter arrived at the hospital. I have to highlight that concern as a matter of equality. We all have a right to equal access to healthcare. She also noted that the signposting and awareness of and public messaging on BSL interpreters was minimal. Access to interpreters for different languages for newcomers to our community was highlighted, and she felt really strongly that BSL and sign-supported English were not adequately signposted or that the public messaging was not appropriate. Following her father's attending hospital, she reached out to her GP to try to get things set up there for a BSL interpreter. The family was told that the GP did not know who to call or how to access that, and, again, it fell on the shoulders of the children to interpret for their parents. I am asking the Health Minister to reassess how we go about supporting people in the deaf community to access healthcare to ensure that each and every citizen — every constituent — has an equal right when getting the help that they so rightfully deserve. Oireachtas na Samhna Mr Kearney: Is é Oireachtas na Samhna an t-imeacht lán-Ghaeilge is sine ar an oileán seo. Beidh sé ar siúl ón 29 Deireadh Fómhair go dtí an 2 Samhain i mBéal Feirste. Déantar an Ghaeilge, na healaíona agus traidisiúin na hÉireann a cheiliúradh ag Oireachtas na Samhna, agus beidh díospóireachtaí, scannáin, ceardlanna chomh maith le himeachtaí eile ar siúl le linn na féile. Níor chuir sé iontas ar bith ormsa gur roghnaíodh Béal Feirste le féile na bliana seo a óstáil. Leoga, tá Béal Feirste ar thus cadhnaíochta in athbheochan na Gaeilge. Is léiriú ar an cheannasaíocht é an beartas nua Gaeilge atá comhaontaithe ag Comhairle Cathrach Bhéal Feirste. Ina theannta sin, roghnaíodh Béal Feirste le Comórtas Péile na Gaeltachta, Ard-Fheis Chonradh na Gaeilge agus Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann a óstáil ar an bhliain seo chugainn. Is deis den scoth é sin leis an dul chun cinn atá déanta le déanaí a léiriú. Táthar ag súil leis na mílte Gaeilgeoirí as gach cearn d’Éirinn, agus níos faide i gcéin, i mBéal Feirste don fhéile. Tá deireadh seachtaine na n-imeachtaí á eagrú ag An Oireachtas i gcomhar le Comhairle Cathrach Bhéal Feirste, an Roinn Pobail, gníomhaireachtaí turasóireachta agus grúpaí Gaeilge, lena n-áirítear Conradh na Gaeilge. I measc na n-imeachtaí, beidh díospóireacht ar siúl faoi "Ról na nGael i dTógáil Éire Nua", díospóireacht ina bpléifear an tábhacht a bhaineann le Gaeilgeoirí in Éire nua a thógáil. Ba chóir leas a bhaint as gach deis le bheith ag ullmhú don aontacht, don todhchaí, agus d’Éire nua. Tá mé cinnte de go gcuirfear breáthacht Bhéal Feirste i lár an aonaigh sa dóigh a rachfar i gceann an fhéile a reáchtáil anseo. Tá mé ag tnúth go mór lena thaispeáint go bhfuil an chathair seo i gcroílár athbheochan na teanga. Taispeánfaidh sé gur teanga í an Ghaeilge a bhfuil stair shaibhir aici agus go bhfuil sí bríomhar agus faoi bhláth inár láthair, agus go leanfaidh sí ag fás léi amach anseo. Beatha teanga í a labhairt. Guím gach rath ar an Oireachtas agus é i mBéal Feirste agus tá mé ag súil go mór le bheith páirteach sa chraic, spraoi agus cultúr le linn na féile. [Translation: Oireachtas na Samhna is the oldest Irish language event on this island. It will take place from 29 October to 2 November in Belfast. Oireachtas na Samhna celebrates the Irish language, arts, and traditions, with debates, films, workshops, and other events. It came as no surprise to me that Belfast was chosen to host this year’s festival; Belfast is leading the revival of the Irish language. The newly agreed Irish language policy from Belfast City Council is one example of that leadership. In addition, Belfast has been chosen to host Comórtas Péile na Gaeltachta, the Conradh na Gaeilge Ard-Fheis and Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann next year. This is a great opportunity to illustrate the progress that has been made here in recent times. Thousands of Irish speakers from all corners of Ireland and beyond are expected to be in Belfast for the festival. The weekend of events is organised by An tOireachtas in collaboration with Belfast City Council, the Department for Communities, tourism agencies and Irish language groups, including Conradh na Gaeilge. Among the events will be a debate on "The Role of the Gaels in Building a New Ireland", where the important role of Irish speakers in shaping a new Ireland will be discussed. We should take every opportunity to prepare for unity, for the future and for a new Ireland. In hosting this event, I have no doubt that Belfast will showcase all that it has to offer by putting its best foot forward. I am greatly looking forward to showing that this city is at the heart of the language revival. It will show that Irish is not just a language with a rich history but a vibrant language, flourishing in our present, and it will do so in the future. A language survives by being spoken. I wish An tOireachtas every success in Belfast, and I look forward to taking part in the craic, fun and culture during the festival.] Top 10.45 am PSNI: Additional Funding Mr Clarke: I will speak on funding for policing and, for the first time, not blame the Minister of Justice for the debacle that is unfolding before us. First, I will say that my thoughts are with the men and women who, every day, put on their uniform and go out to serve our community. They are caught up in a debacle through no fault of their own and, I dare say, through no fault of any Ministers in the Executive. This week, it has been shameful to hear, through a leaked report from the Treasury — I suggest that people were briefed — suggestions that it will not give additional funding to the PSNI. It is shameful that the Secretary of State is not standing up for the PSNI. Indeed, he enjoys its support and protection every time that he flies into Northern Ireland on a whim. He said that such things should have been planned and budgeted for. I say this to the Secretary of State: I am not sure how any Minister, be that the current or any future Minister of Justice, could have planned for things that happened in our past. I declare an interest as a member of the Northern Ireland Policing Board. I have an insight into some of the things from the past and their cost to the Northern Ireland purse. I am talking primarily about legacy. If the Secretary of State were to quantify what legacy has cost since the formation of the Assembly and give us that money, it would remove the difficulties that we face with the current funding cycle in which we are stuck. We can look also at the Government's immigration policy and asylum policy, both of which we had no say on. Some in the Chamber support having asylum seekers here, but asylum seekers have brought with them problems — some of them unforeseen — for the police by way of protests and riots. That has been through no fault of the Assembly. Rather, it has been the fault of the current Government and their policies. The report talked about planned events. No one planned for the data breach. The data breach was unforeseen and clearly not planned. I do not know what planet the Treasury is living on: it must be cloud cuckoo land. No one went into work that day to leak information about all those officers and their families. It was an accident. I see the Member opposite shaking his head. It was a mistake that is going to cost tens of millions of pounds, however. Early indications from the Treasury were that it was going to support the payment of compensation, but it is now running away, as it does from everything else. Historical Clerical Child Abuse: Delays Ms Bradshaw: I feel a deep sense of frustration over the continuing delay in dealing with historical clerical child abuse in Northern Ireland, which needs to be dealt with urgently. At the start of the summer, the long-awaited commissioned research on that abuse was submitted to the Executive Office. I have been contacted by a member of the survivors' reference group to say that the group is very concerned that a meeting has not yet been convened between the chair of the interdepartmental working group and the First Minister and the deputy First Minister. The concerns that the representative raised with me included the fact that nine of the 10 recommendations associated with that research relate to safeguarding. We cannot overestimate how important it is for us to get it right going forward. I have written to the First Minister and the deputy First Minister through their private office to request that the meeting be set up as soon as possible. We have seen delays in this place, in Northern Ireland, around supporting those impacted on by historical child abuse and delays in support for those who went through the mother-and-baby institutions. We have to learn from that, because we cannot let down a new cohort of victims and survivors of historical clerical child abuse. I hope that the First Minister and the deputy First Minister will convene the meeting, publish the research with the associated recommendations and bring to the Assembly a ministerial statement on how they intend to take the work forward. I will submit Assembly questions to that effect this afternoon, but we need political leadership from the First Minister and the deputy First Minister. Men's Sheds Mr Frew: Men's Sheds are community initiatives that positively impact on the health and well-being of their members, their families and the wider community in which they reside. Men's Sheds promote social connectivity among their members and give attention to physical and mental health. They are spaces in which to learn and share skills, and they provide environments to combat social isolation and loneliness. They are vital for the men who use them. Men's Sheds are set up and run by volunteer members who support each other shoulder to shoulder and direct health information and personal development opportunities to the people who need them most. They provide significant social value and, by supporting one another, help to ease the burden and strain on the health service and other care systems and providers. Some of the most successful Men's Sheds in the country are in the North Antrim constituency and include Harryville, Ballycastle, Cloughmills, Portglenone, Martinstown, Cullybackey and Ballymoney. They are all supported by Groundwork NI, which, whilst it is based in north Belfast, supports Men's Sheds across the country. Men's Sheds not only offer traditional, skills-based activities, such as woodwork, and now technically advanced processes, such as laser cutting, as demonstrated by Harryville Men's Shed, but the Men's Sheds in North Antrim have active community engagement programmes that reach directly into the community. They include promoting healthy living, organising health fairs, horticultural sessions and food-growing initiatives through the gardening projects and polytunnels. They have established links with organisations and charities to bring further help and awareness on issues such as first aid courses and mental and emotional well-being sessions. The Men's Sheds, supported by Groundwork NI, provide platforms to collaborate on activities that engage with nature, sports, festivals, heritage, arts and culture and, importantly, fun. It is also important to recognise that Men's Sheds have become vehicles for change in our society, promoting inclusivity and cross-community action that is often overlooked by us all. Men's Sheds in North Antrim survive on the generosity of their members, community donations, small funding opportunities and charities to help them out. Groundwork NI, supported by the Public Health Agency, will continue to support the Men's Sheds in North Antrim, helping to build and grow the Men's Shed ethos and model to help others. Groundwork NI offers developmental training, funding and internal support to over 100 Men's Sheds in Northern Ireland. Union Customs Code Dr Aiken: The Union Customs Code (UCC) defines the legal framework for customs rules and procedures in the EU customs territory. It was introduced across the European Union in 2016, but, because of its complexities, a transition period was set to run originally until 2020 and has now been extended to a final date of 31 December 2025. The revisions of the new Union Customs Code will apply to Northern Ireland by the end of the year. The rules are mandatory, as detailed in the Community Customs Code Council regulation (EEC) No 2913/92. That is 72 days away. The existing provision of the customs rules, which covers every good in the single market, is not, to put it mildly, well understood by companies in Northern Ireland or GB companies that trade into this part of the United Kingdom. The extensive reports by Lord Murphy and the House of Lords Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee have made it clear that there is limited understanding and knowledge about how the Windsor framework should work. The Federation of Small Businesses was much starker: the reality is that the Windsor framework is not working, even in its current form. The Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee decided, for once, to be curious about the UCC. Bearing in mind the time available before it was introduced, we asked to speak to the head of our Northern Ireland Bureau in Brussels. We know how important it is for all of Northern Ireland, bearing in mind that we are about two months out. We were scheduled to speak to him this week. Anybody studying or looking at European trade bodies, think tanks and parliaments knows how seriously the changes to the UCC are being taken everywhere that the single market applies, except here. Inexplicably, OFMDFM has refused to sign off on the head of our Northern Ireland Bureau coming to speak to us. Our meeting on Thursday to discuss those vital changes has now been cancelled. Why? We complain about being denied information to conduct our scrutiny in the House, and it is beyond acceptable that our Executive think that they have more information and understanding than the House, particularly about the Windsor framework. Spoiler alert, Members: as the Windsor framework debacle has shown so far, they do not. It is 72 days and counting, and we are not doing well. Energy Strategy Mr Honeyford: Today's Audit Office report on energy strategy is a timely wake-up call for us all and sets it out in stark terms that, while the ambition is really strong, we are failing to deliver. Today's report highlights what I have been calling for and what Alliance has been consistently raising, which is that progress towards the 2030 target remains far too slow and we need to use it as a stepping stone to the wider 2050 targets. Our goal is to reach 80% renewable electricity by 2030 and, importantly, to reduce overall energy use by 25%, yet there is no clear line of sight between those targets and the action that has been taken to achieve them. Anyone wanting to remove the targets, give up or peddle a right-wing Trump/Farage anti-net-zero narrative should remember that this is about people's lives and livelihoods here. Every family in Northern Ireland has felt the shock of rising energy costs. Every family continues to pay the cost of that every month. Since 2022, bills have more than doubled, and the long-term answer is cheaper, cleaner, home-grown energy that we can control and that protects us from volatile global energy markets. Energy security, affordability and climate targets go hand in hand. I continue to call for that master development plan to sit alongside the overarching councils' local development plans, giving direction that will stop people literally paying the price for this. However, there are positives, and we should build on them. We have the potential to lead on the issue. We have a community of world-class engineers and expertise, and we have an opportunity to create hundreds and thousands of skilled jobs in clean energy, retrofitting, biomethane and hydrogen. Our North-South interconnector, energy storage and renewable projects can all deliver not only environmental benefits but real economic growth, reducing people's costs. Crucially, we have an entrepreneurial business community to deliver that. It just needs the support, direction and will of the House to give it confidence that we are serious. My message today is one not of blame but of urgency to seize the opportunities that are in front of us. Now is the time for us to close the gap, build public trust and deliver an energy system that is secure, affordable and sustainable for every household in Northern Ireland. Ministerial Accountability Mr Gaston: I want to address something that has become all too clear in the House: the complete lack of accountability from those who claim to lead. Yesterday, we witnessed two appalling examples. During Question Time, I asked the First Minister a simple question about the Enniskillen Poppy Day massacre: was Enniskillen an example of mass murder? Among those murdered were a nurse, a teacher and pensioners. They were ordinary people cut down by the IRA for the crime of remembering the fallen and those who gave their lives for freedom, yet the First Minister for all, the person in charge of victims' issues, could not bring herself to say that those men and women were murdered. That is a shameful situation. Top 11.00 am Then we had the Health Minister's non-response. Moments before coming to the Chamber, I read an email from Kerry O'Neill. I watched a video of her lying on the floor of the South West Acute Hospital. I told her that I was coming to the Chamber to raise her case. The Minister's response was not one of compassion or concern but the words: "I cannot say anything that will satisfy the Member." — [Official Report (Hansard), 20 October 2025, p47, col 2]. Kerry heard those words, and her response was this: "The response from the Health Minister was disgusting". Indeed, she was right. Whether it was the First Minister dodging the truth about Enniskillen or the Health Minister dodging, in his cold response, an answer to a woman who lay suffering on the floor of a hospital at the weekend, the attitude from both was beneath contempt. Stormont's problem is not a lack of money; it is a lack of honour and truth and a complete lack of accountability. I would like to think that the Health Minister, on reflection, will contact Kerry directly to offer the dignified response that he should have given me in the House yesterday, accompanied by a sincere apology. It does not matter who the messenger is: a constituent's case was raised and deserved a dignified response. I am disappointed by what the House experienced yesterday from the First Minister and the Health Minister. It shines a light on how they treat some of us in the House — with contempt. Mr Speaker: Mr Carroll, you have a couple of minutes. Health and Social Care Workers' Pay Mr Carroll: Thanks, Mr Speaker. What does it say about our society that, with the passing of another year, there is another attempt at a strategy to deny our health and social care workers the pay that they are owed? How many times do health and social care workers need to be strung along by political parties and be told, "We get it", "We are with you" or "We have got your back", while Budgets are passed again that refuse to include the money set aside for those health and social care workers while continuing to slash our public-sector budgets? In the absence of their pay being forthcoming, health and social care workers are totally correct and justified in taking strike action. The blame should not be placed at their door for having the temerity and the gall to stand up for themselves, for their communities and for future public-sector workers across the board. The blame should be placed at the door of the system and of the Executive, who give rates handouts to multinational corporations and landlords whilst telling health and social care workers, "Sorry, the money is not available". The last time that there was a political crisis in this place, politicians promised health and social care workers safe staffing legislation and proper, fair pay. The Executive have categorically failed on both fronts, and people are right to rail against them. The Health Minister tells health and social care workers that there is no money to pay them, but his Department has paid over £400 million not to the independent sector but to the private health sector. That is a disgrace. It is time to stop taking advantage of all those who work in health and social care. It is time to stop exploiting those workers and making below-inflation pay offers that amount to less than those made to healthcare workers in the South and in England, Scotland and Wales. It is time to pay health and social care workers what they are owed and what is due to them. Ministerial Statement Houses in Multiple Occupation: Regulation Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister for Communities that he wishes to make a statement. Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): I wish to make a statement to the Assembly on the enforcement and licensing of houses in multiple occupation (HMOs). In recent months, there has been an increased focus on HMOs, with concerns being raised about concentrations of that type of accommodation in certain areas. I am also aware of reports about overcrowding and about the operation of unlicensed HMOs. The purpose of my statement today is to address those concerns and provide clarity on the licensing regime for HMOs that operates in Northern Ireland and the responsibilities for enforcement. Let me first clarify what HMOs are. An HMO is a property or part of a property where three or more people from more than two households live and share washing or cooking facilities. HMOs are useful in some circumstances, for example, when it comes to student accommodation or for those on a low income. Indeed, the benefits system presumes that single people under 35 will share accommodation and normally limits housing benefit and universal credit to a shared accommodation rate on that basis. We must acknowledge, however, that that type of housing carries higher risks in safety and standards and can have wider community impacts. We must ensure that those matters are managed responsibly while maintaining the right balance across communities, ensuring that housing needs are met without creating undue pressure or changing the character of neighbourhoods. Controls on the numbers of HMOs are necessary to ensure that any detrimental effects on neighbouring properties or the environmental character and qualities of residential areas are minimised. Unfortunately, it is recognised that over-concentrations of HMOs were allowed to develop in some areas, which left some challenges to be addressed. The Houses in Multiple Occupation Act (Northern Ireland) 2016 provides councils with a key statutory tool to prevent future over-concentrations of HMOs through the over-provision test. That means that when considering an application for a new HMO, councils must have regard to the number of HMOs that are already in the locality. Councils should also have their own policies on HMO provision and set restrictions on numbers or percentages of HMOs in certain areas. Regrettably, there are many inconsistencies of approach, and some councils have not exercised their powers to the fullest extent when it comes to that legislation. For that reason, I can confirm that I will be writing to all council chief executives, outlining their obligations and my expectations under the legislation. Councils have powers to investigate, enforce and punish those landlords who are acting outside the law. I expect councils to implement their own HMO policies, including setting a limit on the percentage of HMOs in a certain area. Immigration is an excepted matter, and the lead Department with responsibility for legal obligations to asylum seekers across the UK, including for accommodation, is the Home Office. Where an individual has been accepted by the Home Office as a refugee and given leave to remain in the UK, that will, in most cases, bring an entitlement to access public services, including housing assistance, for which my Department is responsible in Northern Ireland. Approximately 250 HMOs are in use by Mears across Northern Ireland to provide accommodation for asylum seekers and refugees. I have raised concerns on several occasions about the Mears accommodation issues, and I do not plan to rehearse them all today. It is, however, the case that the system is not working and that current policies are failing communities across Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. There are higher risks associated with HMOs, and they often have a negative impact on neighbourhoods and the balance of a community. Councils, however, have substantial powers under the Act to manage issues that are reported about that type of accommodation, including powers to obtain information and enter premises. Councils also have powers to issue fixed penalty notices and fines and proceed to prosecution if necessary. The most serious offences carry fixed penalties of £5,000 and fines of up to £20,000. Between April 2019 and early September 2025, there were only 77 fixed penalty notices issued, two successful prosecutions for the operation of unlicensed HMOs and one successful prosecution for exceeding the licensed occupancy. The operation of the HMO licensing scheme is funded by the licence fees that are paid by landlords. I am, therefore, increasing the maximum amount that can be charged for a HMO licence application to ensure the adequate resourcing and operation of the licensing scheme. The private rented sector in Northern Ireland is under strain, so it is important that landlords who decide to break the law are held to account. Therefore, I can confirm that I have written to the Home Office and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, requesting that they extend the right-to-rent scheme to Northern Ireland. That would ensure that landlords in Northern Ireland have a legal obligation, as landlords do in England, to ensure that prospective tenants have legal status to reside in the United Kingdom. I have always said that I will do what I can with what I have. Today's statement sets out the clear expectations that I have of every council in Northern Ireland to ensure that they exercise the powers available to them. I have also demonstrated my support by increasing the fees to landlords, which will support councils and the HMO unit to carry out their responsibilities, and I will continue to engage with His Majesty's Government on bringing the right-to-rent scheme to Northern Ireland. I encourage anyone who has concerns or suspicions about unlicensed HMOs, or knows of other issues with HMOs, to report those to their local council or the HMO unit for investigation and action. I commend the statement to the House. Mr Durkan: I have raised issues regarding HMOs on several occasions in the Chamber, but I have a real concern that, from the statement, we can infer that there is a hierarchy of HMOs: if they are used for students, they are good, but, if they are used for immigrants, they are bad. The Minister laments the low number of penalty notices and prosecutions over the past six years. Does he accept that, given the evidential threshold and definitions that exist in legislation, adequately resourcing the HMO unit may not be enough in itself to address the issue and that he may have to look at legislative change, or is he content to just pass the buck and pass the blame? Mr Lyons: First of all, I am happy to look at any legislative change that may be required, but I would rather use the powers that are available to us and to councils right now, because my understanding and feeling from talking to elected representatives and others on the ground is that they feel that councils are not taking the appropriate action to deal with the problems that many people face. I make no apology whatsoever for making the statement today. I make no apology for setting out the powers and responsibilities that are there. I can highlight many cases where this issue is having an impact on people and is changing the residential nature and make-up of an area. It is right that councils put in place policies that can ensure that those areas are protected and that, when people are doing something illegal, action is taken and fines are used. It is those fines that will fund the HMO unit, which can take that enforcement action. Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): It appears, Minister, that elements of the statement scapegoat migrant families. However, the statement is only in, and the evidence for that will become clearer in due course. How does the Department intend to balance legitimate demand for affordable shared housing, including for students, low-income workers and refugees, with community concerns about neighbourhood change and the safety risks that you flag in the statement? Mr Lyons: The Member must be reading a different statement, because I have not scapegoated anybody at all. I have set out clearly the powers that are available to councils. I hope that councils will use those powers in determining HMO applications but also in taking enforcement action against people who are here legally and people who are here illegally. Those powers are available to deal with those landlords. Ultimately, how do we deal with many of the housing issues that we face? We deal with them by building more homes. I encourage the Member to speak to his party colleagues who are in the Executive, because I want to make sure that we can meet our housing targets, including our social housing targets. I hope that his Executive colleagues will join me in ensuring that the necessary finance is available. Mrs Cameron: I thank the Minister for his statement to the House this morning. It is very welcome. This is a big issue in Northern Ireland. The housing shortage is certainly a problem that affects every MLA in their constituency. Minister, why are some houses in multiple occupation allowed to operate without proper planning permission? Mr Lyons: They should not be operating without proper planning permission. I have had a number of reports of that happening — various examples have been brought to my attention — particularly in the Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council area. Those have now been reported to the council and are being investigated. HMOs require planning permission. If they are operating without that planning permission, that should be reported to the HMO unit or to your local council's planning authority so that we can do what needs to be done to make sure that people are adhering to the law and that, if they are not prepared to adhere to the law, they receive the necessary fine and punishment. Top 11.15 am Ms Mulholland: Minister, are you aware of research from the UK Government on their evaluation of the right-to-rent scheme and research by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, which shows that the right-to-rent scheme has led to racial discrimination against lawful tenants? What analysis has your Department undertaken to assess those risks in Northern Ireland, in our context, before you attempt to bring in the right-to-rent scheme here? Mr Lyons: Ultimately, it will be for the UK Government to bring in and consider all the evidence. I take a simple position on this, which is that those who want to rent a property should have the legal right to do so. That should not be a controversial statement. We do this in all aspects of our lives. We make sure that people are legally entitled to a good or a service before they are able to get it. If there is racial or any other sort of discrimination, we should use the law to tackle it, but we should not ignore another part of the law. I think that most people in Northern Ireland and beyond think that it is perfectly reasonable and credible that, if you want to rent property in Northern Ireland, you must have a legal right to be here. Mr Allen: In his statement, the Minister mentioned writing to the chief executives of councils to set out the expectations and obligations placed on councils by the respective legislation. Will he share a copy of that correspondence with Members so that we are clear as to the position of the Department with councils? Mr Lyons: I have largely set out today what I said in that correspondence, but, if the Member would like to see it, I am more than happy to share it with him and others. I will arrange for it to be placed in the Assembly Library. Mr McHugh: To what extent has the Minister consulted councils on the problem? Is he prepared to provide additional resources to councils? The increase in the fee will penalise those who already adhere to the law, but it will not impact on those who do not even register. Mr Lyons: Additional work comes with the administration of HMOs, and it is right that those who benefit from it pay a contribution towards it, which is why I am increasing the fee. Also, there is the ability to get income from penalising those who act outside the law. That is how this will be funded, and most people find it reasonable that the money that comes from those who operate illegally is paid so that we can continue the work of cracking down on that behaviour. Mr Kingston: I welcome the Minister's statement and that he will write to council chief executives to outline their obligations under current legislation. The Minister will be aware that there are many cases of negative experiences of HMOs as a cause of antisocial behaviour in local communities, in particular excess waste and dumping, noise nuisance and over-occupation. To which statutory agencies should residents report such concerns, and will the Minister highlight that to councils? Mr Lyons: If residents have concerns with those issues — that has been my experience as an elected representative — members of the public can report concerns either directly to the Northern Ireland HMO unit, which is based in Belfast City Council, or to their local authority so that appropriate action can be taken. Mr Dickson: The vast majority of people who are in HMOs have been given leave to remain if they were originally asylum seekers. What action do you take to ensure that those who accommodate them provide the best quality and standards of accommodation, bearing in mind that most of those people are highly vulnerable and find it extremely difficult to articulate their complaints or are scared to make them? Mr Lyons: That is one of the reasons why there are higher standards for HMOs. It is set out in the Act, and landlords are subject to more stringent standards because of the nature of those who may need to use HMOs. Additional concerns can come from local residents in those areas about the proliferation of HMOs. That is why higher standards are already in place. Of course, they can be reviewed if necessary. Miss Hargey: I thank the Minister for his statement. HMOs have presented issues for well over a decade, particularly in areas such as the Holylands in South Belfast and in other inner-city communities. However, I am concerned with the Minister's framing of the question. He looks at one small area that is not reflective of the concerns that those communities raise: concerns about the economic system that drives profit in housing over the needs of communities. I know that, because of the restrictions on HMOs in, for example, the Belfast City Council area, landlords are now switching to temporary let accommodation. Minister, if you want to build a fairer housing system, what work is being done to address the issues more broadly to ensure that we can deliver housing for people, no matter what their community background, ethnicity, religion or gender is? Mr Lyons: Again it seems as though Sinn Féin has a different statement from the one that I read out. I have been clear that there is an issue and that there are concerns. I have made it clear to the House today what powers are available to councils to put in place measures to ensure that the right policies are there to determine whether a HMO should come into existence in the first place and that, if HMOs are there, be they legal or illegal, landlords adhere to their responsibilities and, if they do not, there will be the threat of a fine. The Member is absolutely correct to say that we have issues with housing. That is why I am seeking more money from the Minister of Finance, and I am sure that that will be forthcoming in due course. It is also why we are looking at other measures to improve housing provision. I am, of course, taking forward the measures in the Private Tenancies Act (Northern Ireland) 2022, with which the Member will be familiar, and that work will continue. Mr Buckley: I thank the Minister for taking action. Despite what Sinn Féin, the SDLP and Alliance think, there is a hierarchy of housing access in Northern Ireland that often works against local people. The Minister knows the issue that the concentration of HMOs has caused in my community in Portadown, where their proliferation has changed the character of the town in which I live. One of the bigger issues, however, is dispersal rates, with Belfast having the second-highest rate in the entire UK of asylum seekers who have been dispersed from hotels into accommodation. Does the Minister agree that those who have concerns are not far-right or racist and, indeed, that the issue has added to housing stress in Northern Ireland? Mr Lyons: I agree with the Member. There are others in the Chamber who continue to bury their head in the sand and say that the UK Government's policy on housing and immigration has not had an impact on housing in Northern Ireland: of course it has. This Government and the previous Government accelerated the rate of their decision-making on right-to-remain applications, changing it from being a UK Government responsibility to being the responsibility of the Housing Executive and, ultimately, my Department. That is one of the reasons that we have seen an increase in temporary accommodation, which has resulted in additional housing stress. I hear tuts from around the Chamber, but that is not opinion but fact. It is having an impact, and that is why we need to take the issue seriously. It is not the only issue — of course it is not — but it absolutely contributes. Mr Stewart: I thank the Minister for his statement. I am sure, Minister, that you will agree that the Mid and East Antrim Borough Council planning committee took a common-sense decision last week in response to the application in Larne. Planning committees and planning offices across the country seem to be taking different approaches. How concerned are you about the different approaches that are being taken and the different interpretations? What more can be done to apply consistency when processing such applications? Mr Lyons: That is one of the reasons that I made the statement today and that I wrote to council chief executives. I did so to make them aware of the powers that they have available to them. Some councils' local development plans have no provision at all for HMOs. That council took the right decision last week. There will be different approaches taken. It is up to councils to decide on their approach on the basis of the particular circumstances in an area or even on a street. It is right that councils have the ability to take decisions in accordance with what is right for an area. My concern, however, is that there is inconsistency, in that sometimes no policies whatever are in place. That is what councils should seek to rectify. Mr Speaker: I call Stephen Dunne. Mr Dunne: Sorry, but I do not have a question, Mr Speaker. Ms Brownlee: I thank the Minister for his statement. My constituency colleague just mentioned the planning decision taken by Mid and East Antrim Borough Council. There was overwhelming concern from the community about that decision. Minister, how are communities' feelings and concerns about HMOs being taken into consideration, particularly in sensitive areas where residents are extremely concerned about how that will change their future? Mr Lyons: It is absolutely right that councils consider local people's views on the proliferation of HMOs on certain streets or in wider areas. That is why it is important that councils have policies in place and adhere to them as part of the planning process. Of course, it is absolutely legitimate for people to raise concerns and say, "I have concerns about what this will do to the residential nature of this area and that it is transforming it from a family area into an area with more HMO accommodation", or that they raise concerns about other associated issues such as the provision of waste water infrastructure or parking, which are particularly pertinent in the example that the Member referred to in our constituency. That is why it is important that councils do the work, put the policies in place and ensure that local people have a say. Ms Bradshaw: Thank you for your statement, Minister. You said that you will write to councils to outline their obligations under the Houses in Multiple Occupation Act (Northern Ireland) 2016. I think that council officers know exactly what their obligations are. I have worked very closely with residents in the Holylands over many years, and they feel that the legislation is not fit for purpose. Will you undertake a wider review of the legislation to establish whether it is fit for purpose and a proper consultation with those who are impacted on and may feel that their community is changing? Mr Lyons: First, it is clear to me that some people do not understand what their responsibilities are. Secondly, there is never any harm in reminding people or, indeed, in telling the House, because I have received numerous questions for written answer on the issue, and not everybody has been clear on the rules. As I said in my answer to a previous question, we are happy to look at the legislation and at whether additional legislation is required — a review of the Act was done in 2021 — but it is important that people use the powers that are available to them and make sure that local people have their say. Mr McNulty: I thank the Minister for his statement. In response to a previous question, the Minister referred to inconsistencies of approach taken across councils to HMO provision. Can he be more forthcoming on that? Where is it done well, and where is it done wrong? What policies need to be put in place? Mr Lyons: I am happy to repeat, for the Member's benefit, that there is an inconsistency in approach, especially to local development plans (LDPs). Some councils have those plans in place and some do not. It would be appropriate for councils to be very clear in those plans about what is acceptable for HMOs and what additional measures need to be in place for HMOs to get the necessary approval and consent. That is where I see an inconsistency in approach. Mr Middleton: I thank the Minister for his leadership on the issue. People look to this party on these matters, whilst other parties have been silent for many years. In my constituency of Foyle, we have concerns about how landlords manage some HMO properties. What is your assessment of whether landlords are meeting the required fire, safety and maintenance standards? Mr Lyons: I need to be clear with the House that all HMO properties are subject to a physical inspection as part of the application process for a licence to ensure that the property meets the required standards of space, safety and facilities for the number of occupants. Inspections are also carried out when a licence renewal application is made and in the case of any reports of a breach of a licence. Those reports need to be made, however, as councils and the HMO unit can take action only if we have the reports. I encourage people, if they have concerns — I know that there are concerns — to contact their local authority. As I said, in part, in answer to a previous question, it is important that we highlight the powers and sanctions that are available, the fact that we take the issue seriously and the fact that we do not think that landlords should break the law. It is important that we say that it is right that things are done legally and to the required standards, and it is important that, if people think that they can step outside what is required of them under the law, there is sufficient punishment for them. Top 11.30 am Ms Nicholl: The Minister will be aware of the increasing anti-immigrant narrative in Northern Ireland. What assessment has he made about how his statement feeds into that, and how does he reconcile it with Christian values, particularly when Jesus commanded us to welcome strangers and treat those with the least with compassion? Mr Lyons: The statement is not anti-immigrant; it is anti the landlords who are willing to take advantage of those people. It is not about those who are housed in HMOs. The responsibility lies with those who often take advantage of people and do what they should not do. I do not make any apology for wanting to make sure that the law is upheld and that those who are in breach of the law are dealt with. It is right that we take that approach and highlight the powers that are available. On her other comment, it is right that we are seen to uphold the law. That is also a Christian principle. I am more than happy to have a further conversation with her about that, if she wants, and talk through some of the theology on it. Mr Brett: It is a good day, because, once again, it exposes those in the House who have no concern for the genuine issues that HMOs cause across Northern Ireland. It is also a good day for my North Belfast constituency, parts of which are being destroyed by HMOs. Does the Minister agree that working-class communities, particularly those in inner-city areas, bear the brunt of the negative impacts of HMOs and that, had HMOs been erected in the more salubrious areas in which more people in the House seem to be interested, they would soon be knocking on his door about taking action? Mr Lyons: Yes, that is absolutely the case. Time and time again, working-class communities bear the brunt of many of those issues. I am a little bit frustrated with the approach of some people in the House today, because I am making a very reasonable statement. It sets out the fact that people should adhere to the law and that policies should be in place to ensure a consistent approach across Northern Ireland to determining whether or not an HMO should be in place. Those who cause issues, break the law or do not adhere to the terms of their licence should be dealt with, because there are real-life implications. Sometimes those implications are for the people who live in the HMOs, and, sometimes the implications are for the people who live around the HMOs. It is entirely reasonable and proportionate that we set out what the law says and what we will do to enforce it. A lot of people here seem to have a problem with that today. Mr Butler: Irregularities and inconsistencies to do with HMOs and planning, as the Minister pointed out, have long occurred across councils. Minister, you have rightly pointed out the powers that councils have. Will you outline what powers you have or steps you might take if councils do not react to your letter? Mr Lyons: I have power over policy and legislation relating to the issue. Largely, the issue of HMOs lies with councils, particularly the HMO unit at Belfast City Council. If we get to the stage where councils are not using the powers or where additional powers are required under legislation, that can be looked at. Mr Frew: Can the Minister provide any further detail on the right-to-rent scheme, and has he had any response from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland or the Home Office since my question on that issue last week? Mr Lyons: The right-to-rent scheme is a UK Government scheme that requires landlords and letting agents in England to check that tenants have the legal right to live in the UK before renting a property. To comply with that, landlords must verify a tenant's immigration status and right to reside by checking original documents before the tenancy begins. The scheme applies to all properties in England but not in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. That is why I have written to the Secretary of State and the Home Secretary to ask that they extend the provisions to Northern Ireland. I have not had a response from either the Home Office or the Northern Ireland Office. Mr Brooks: The proliferation of HMOs is a cancer in our communities, largely caused by greedy, profiteering speculators. It has been interesting to hear equivocation by parties that are, supposedly, on the left, as well as some theology from a member of the Alliance Party, who is concerned about Christian values. How many unlicensed HMOs have been identified, and what actions are being taken against landlords who operate illegally? Mr Lyons: I am grateful to the Member for his question. I am happy to confirm that 77 fixed penalty notices have been issued and paid. The fines totalled £343,800, which helps us to fund the HMO unit that operates in Belfast City Council. There have also been two successful prosecutions for the operation of unlicensed HMOs and one such prosecution for exceeding the licensed occupancy. Mr Robinson: I thank the Minister for taking action on the matter. How can we stop HMOs in areas where there is a high number of them? Mr Lyons: The number and over-proliferation of HMOs are increasingly a concern for communities across Northern Ireland. It comes back to councils, which have the power to limit or cap the percentage of HMOs in an area, even down to the level of streets. Planning permission, which takes into account issues such as parking, water and waste, must be sought for new HMOs. Those are the ways in which we can prevent further HMOs being approved. Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for his statement. When questions about HMOs are brought up, those on the other side of the House are, much of the time, quick to blame the Communities Minister and shout at his decisions on housing. The agenda has become clear, and it is entirely inappropriate that the Minister's religious beliefs have been challenged in the House. Minister, I welcome the clarity in your statement. You outlined councils' powers in existing legislation: do you feel that councils are sufficiently resourced to inspect according to the regulations? Mr Lyons: The enforcement of HMO legislation is funded from HMO licence fees and income that is generated through fixed penalty notices and fines. The licence fee is kept under review by the Department and has been uplifted in regulations to allow the scheme to continue to operate on a cost-neutral basis, with no additional cost to ratepayers. I assure the Member that it does not concern me one bit if people want to question me, my integrity or even my faith. I am more than happy for people to make those comments. As I have said, I will have those conversations with anyone, and I am happy to discuss the matter further. Mrs Dillon: Has the Minister engaged with the migrant and refugee community or the organisations that represent its members, in order to understand their perspective? If we take at face value his saying that the issue is landlords, he should engage with the community that is affected. I know that Kate Nicholl has held a number of such meetings, and I am sure that she would welcome the Minister to attend one of them to gain an understanding of that community's perspective. Mr Lyons: I am not sure whether she would welcome it, but I am more than happy to do so. I have not had that direct engagement, but my Department and the Housing Executive often meet interested groups. It is absolutely about dealing with those who are intent on breaking the law. Responsibility lies with the landlords, not with those whom they may try to exploit. Mr Gaston: Minister, I welcome your statement, and, from raising local issues with you, I know that you are well across the concerns that illegal HMOs have caused in my constituency, particularly in the Clonavon area of Ballymena. If it is believed that illegal HMOs are in operation in an area, does the legislation allow applications to be paused by the council while investigations take place? In Ballymena, only nine legal HMOs are listed, which shows the depth of the problems that we experience in Ballymena alone. Will you clarify whether Mid and East Antrim Borough Council has the right to pause new applications while concerns are investigated? Mr Lyons: It is up to councils to take those issues into consideration and to determine their policies, but a planning committee, in looking at the issues, would take such factors into consideration when making a determination. Regardless of that, if fresh applications are made, it will be up to councils to consider any pertinent factors. Mr Carroll: Minister, any attempt to clamp down on rogue landlords or those who are exploiting people through high rents is welcome. I am not sure that that is what this is; it seems to be a non-subtle way to try and stick the boot —. [Interruption.] Mr Carroll: Be quiet. You have had your time. It seems to be a non-subtle way to try and stick the boot into asylum seekers and refugees. It is poor housing, a lack of regulation and extortionate rents that are upsetting the "balance of a community", not demographic changes as you are alleging. My question was referred to earlier but it was not adequately addressed. In 2019, the British High Court ruled that the right-to-rent scheme was racially discriminatory and had "little to no effect" on controlling immigration. Minister, it sounds like you did not do your homework on this one. Mr Lyons: My goodness, the Member is some craic, is he not? [Laughter.] He really likes what I am saying, but that is a problem for him because he does not like to agree with what I am saying. He wants me to crack down on rogue landlords, but not in this way. It looks as if he is just looking for something to disagree with or argue about. I make no apology whatsoever: people should adhere to —. Mr Carroll: Answer the question. Mr Lyons: It is OK. I will come to it. Mr Speaker: Remarks through the Chair, please. Mr Lyons: Mr Speaker, I will come to it if the Member gives me the opportunity to speak; I am more than happy to do so. This is about making sure that we enforce the standards that are there. It is about making sure that HMOs only get a licence if they meet the criteria. For those who are breaking the law, operating illegally, operating without planning permission or operating beyond their licences, there are penalties, and I have put them in the letter to the councils. Fines of between £5,000 and £20,000 can be issued for the 21 offences in the HMO legislation that are punishable by fixed penalty notices. It is all in there. On the right-to-rent scheme, I say this again: I do not understand why people would have an issue with making sure that someone who wants to rent a property in Northern Ireland has a legal right to live here. Ms Sugden: Minister, I appreciate that you recognise that HMOs are useful in certain circumstances. One of the biggest threats to the Causeway Hospital is recruitment. People do not want to take jobs there because they simply cannot find places to live. My concern with the statement is that we could actually add to the housing crisis, which is particularly acute on the north coast, if we do not make the distinction that needs to be made. Mr Lyons: First, there is a housing crisis, and we are bringing through a number of policies to try to help deal with that. That is why it is so important that we have policies in place that work for HMOs, and the Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council could put in place a policy that works for it, taking into consideration all the necessary factors that need to be considered before the granting of a HMO licence. The need for workers and the economic benefit that those workers might bring is something that could feed into that process, but it has to be balanced against the rights of local residents and the residential nature of the area that may be changed. Again, that is why we need to have a consistency of approach in the policies that are in place, whilst ensuring that they can be adapted for local areas. Mr Speaker: Thank you, Minister, and Members. Please take your ease while we change personnel at the top Table. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Dr Aiken] in the Chair) Private Members' Business Local Growth Fund Ms Sheerin: Molaim an rún. [Translation: I beg to move] That this Assembly recognises the positive impact that the European regional development fund and the European social fund have had in supporting the community and voluntary sector; notes the ongoing failure of the British Government to deliver on the commitment to fully replace European funding in the aftermath of Brexit; further notes the ongoing lack of clarity from the British Government regarding the local growth fund, which will replace the Shared Prosperity Fund in 2026; acknowledges the uncertainty for the community and voluntary sector here; calls on the British Government to fulfil their promise to match European Union funding in full and to provide clarity for the community and voluntary sectors beyond 2026; and further calls on the British Government to fulfil their commitment to return decision-making on structural funds to the Executive and to urgently engage to ensure that a replacement fund can be put in place by April 2026. Top 11.45 am Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members will have five minutes. Emma, please open the debate on the motion. Ms Sheerin: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. [Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.] The motion relates acutely to Brexit. There have been many debates about Brexit in the Chamber, across the North and beyond in the run-up to the decision that was made by the UK Government to pursue that agenda and since. We will have different narratives as to how that has played out, which is fair enough. Some people had a clear perspective on the issue of leaving the EU and decided that they wanted to support that and were comfortable with it, but the issue that we are discussing today is a clear example of how that decision has been objectively bad for the North. Leaving the EU has left us with serious economic consequences, most acutely through a loss of funding. Across the North, we were net benefactors from the EU. As a rural MLA who represents Mid Ulster, I see numerous examples across the board, including the LEADER approach, the rural development programme (RDP) and the common agricultural policy (CAP), of funding streams that we have lost and have thus had to scramble to replace. The motion refers to the European social fund (ESF) and the replacement funding that was supposed to come but did not come in the way in which we would have liked. That is having real-life implications for the people whom we all represent. There are groups in the Assembly today, including the Workspace Group from my constituency; I see Alex and Adele up there watching on. I know from meetings with them and the people who benefit from the schemes that the Workspace Group and others run that this is having a real impact and is causing real anxiety for our constituents. We were told that, when we left the EU, we would not lose out and that all of the funding that we had would be replaced. That has not been the case. We had a cliff edge almost three years ago, when there was an awful lot of concern because we did not know whether the programmes would be extended. We have had some replacement funding, but it has not been to the level that it was. Studies have been done to ascertain the exact value of the shortfall, but the estimates of £20 million per year give you an idea of just how critical it is for those whom we represent. The Go Succeed programme is run by the Department for the Economy and supports local small businesses and allows people to start up. I know that that is supported by the likes of the Workspace Group in Mid Ulster. If that is not extended, there will be real implications for the people who have been able to benefit from it and who are trying to plan for their business, which might want to avail itself of such support. There are programmes for people with learning difficulties and disabilities who need that wee bit of help to get into employment. They have been supported thus far, but there will be knock-on implications for those people and their families and for the people who employ them. We talk every day about supporting people with complex needs, including through work that needs to happen in our schools around special educational needs (SEN), and that is a real, tangible example of actual support that allows people to get into employment. It needs to be extended. This is not a debate about the pros and cons of Brexit. I have a clear perspective on that. My party has been consistent on the harm that has been done here as a result of that decision, which was not of our making. The debate is about what we can do now. We need to have a united voice in going to the British Government and asking for replacement funding and for certainty now. We want to see our businesses, local enterprise groups and support networks and agencies being given certainty so that they can plan for the future. That is what the motion calls for. I hope that we will speak with one voice across the Chamber today — that we will have universality — in passing the motion and asking for a clear message to go from the Executive to the British Government that we want to see that delivered now. Ms Forsythe: As chair of the Assembly's all-party group on the voluntary and community sector, I am a champion for the sector. I recognise the huge value of its contribution to society and our public services. This morning, I was pleased to join members of the sector with the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action (NICVA), the Finance Minister and colleagues on the steps of Parliament Buildings to show my support. The voluntary and community sector in Northern Ireland continues to deliver front-line services to the public, filling gaps where public services do not reach, especially in response to crises such as the recent storms. Members in every corner of the Chamber will, no doubt, testify to the impact that those organisations have in their constituencies. It is vital that our voluntary and community sector feels valued for the work that it does. Ensuring stability and sustainability for its services and volunteers is critical to ensuring that the support infrastructure is there for those who need it. It seems that Sinn Féin has copied its motion from September 2024. My party's position remains the same as it was then. The DUP believes that the UK Government have a responsibility to provide clarity on the future of the funding without delay. It is appalling that community and voluntary organisations that are doing essential work have been left in such an uncertain position, with NICVA reporting that nearly 24,000 people, including people with disabilities, women, lone parents, carers and young people, face losing access to life-changing support. We want to see the previous spending power under the EU structural funds replicated and enhanced. The UK always paid in more to the EU than it received back under structural funding. There can be no excuse for any shortfall in funding now. The DUP does not accept that that was, in some way, inevitable as a result of our exit from the EU. Ultimately, previous Governments made promises that they did not honour. My party is also of the view that long-term multi-annual budgeting for replacement EU funds should be a priority. Over the past three years, we have repeatedly sought clarity on when the funding would be available, how it would be administered and the degree of input that would be afforded to local Ministers. It is clear on all those fronts that the engagement of the previous Government was severely lacking. We want to see that remedied. Just last week, in the House of Commons, DUP leader Gavin Robinson MP raised that directly in questions to the Secretary of State. We have always been clear that the aims and funding objectives of the local growth fund must align with the Executive's agreed plans for economic growth and social inclusion. We cannot be in a situation again where funding that comes from the UK Government duplicates aims that are already covered by the Executive programme or where Northern Ireland's circumstances are not reflected in the development or administration of the funding. Equally, the DUP does not believe that providing a more meaningful role for the devolved Administrations in deciding how and where the funding is targeted needs to be at the expense of retaining a national approach to providing greater economic and social cohesion between different parts of the United Kingdom. It should be noted that, even under the framework of previous EU structural funds, there was a role for the UK Government working in conjunction with the devolved Administrations. Given the tough decisions that need to be taken by Ministers in coming weeks and months, my party, on balance, does not believe that it would be prudent or constructive to provide greater uncertainty to the community and voluntary sector and add to the challenges facing our Departments by devolving responsibility for those schemes solely to local Ministers. We do not want to see political ideology stymie growth in Northern Ireland. It is evident to many that Sinn Féin's ideological opposition to defence issues risks holding Northern Ireland back from investment, growth and job creation. The establishment of the East-West Council provides a constructive platform for the UK Government and Northern Ireland Executive to work together to address the issues that have hampered the realisation of the full potential of replacement EU funding to date. We support the replacement funding, but we do not support devolving full power to local Ministers. Today, we will stand with the sector. As was said by the previous Member, across the House, we want to see a quick solution to the matter because the voluntary and community sector deserves better. Mr Tennyson: The community and voluntary sector has always stepped up where government has fallen short, plugging gaps in vital public service provision and working with people and communities who are furthest from opportunity. The benefits of the European social fund and the European regional development fund (ERDF) in supporting that work was clear. Between 2014 and 2020, those funds collectively provided an average of £65 million a year to Northern Ireland. That money helped tackle economic inactivity, promote social inclusion, enhance the competitiveness of small and medium-sized businesses and support research and development. In my time as an MLA, I have been privileged to meet many of the organisations that deliver projects on the ground. Their work is second to none. European funding, however, was cast aside as collateral in the reckless and ideological pursuit of a hard Brexit, with those organisations treated shamefully and left peering over a financial cliff edge as a result. I found the contribution from the Member who spoke previously to be galling. To claim that the situation was not inevitable or foreseeable and to believe that, after leaving the EU, money would not be clawed back to be invested in England is the height of naivety. We were sold a pup by English nationalists in the Conservative Party. The DUP in particular owes the organisations that it sacrificed on the chopping block an apology for its conduct over the past 10 years. Nobody who has taken the position that the Member has can credibly claim to be a champion of our community and voluntary sector. Eventually, it has to be said, a replacement fund emerged in the form of the Shared Prosperity Fund, but, far from being the like-for-like replacement funding that was promised, the scheme failed to live up to its predecessors in either quantum or design. Despite the setbacks and frustrations, our community and voluntary sector stepped up and responded with agility, often by submitting consortium bids in order to preserve as many of the services that they offered as possible. Between April 2023 and March 2025, £57 million was committed to Northern Ireland, with 18 projects supported. Almost 24,000 people were supported in that period, with 5,000 moving into employment and almost 8,000 moving into further education or training. Despite that clear success, those organisations are now peering over another cliff edge and facing another funding crisis, as the Shared Prosperity Fund is due to come to an end in March 2026. That will jeopardise 650 jobs and the progress that has been made, as well as the position of individuals who rely on those organisations' support. I am deeply concerned about the UK Government's approach to the Shared Prosperity Fund's proposed successor, the local growth fund. The majority of the £46 million allocated in the spending review to that fund is capital money, which clearly will not meet the organisations' resource needs. It is shameful that, once again, promises that were made to those very organisations are being broken, with uncertainty looming large. That uncertainty hits our community and voluntary sector harder than any other sector in our economy. Staff have to be placed on notice and preparation has to be undertaken to deliver services differently or to cease delivering them altogether. Once staff and vital services are lost, it is almost impossible to replace them. That will result in a false economy, heaping yet further pressure on our public services, which are already struggling. It is particularly shameful that the Government profess to care about economic inactivity while simultaneously gambling with funding for organisations with a proven track record of getting people into work and education. The least that we can do for the sector and its service users is to deliver sustainable funding to support the positive change that they make in our society. We need urgent confirmation that the Government will deliver targeted employment support for those furthest from the labour market. We need to ensure that any scheme builds on the successes of existing schemes, that funding is at least maintained at current levels, adjusted for inflation and rising costs, and that contingency plans and transitional arrangements are in place to avoid any service disruption in the interim. Alliance has consistently raised those issues with the Secretary of State. Today, parties, despite our different perspectives, have an opportunity to unite to send a clear message that those organisations and their vital schemes must not be abandoned and to reaffirm our commitment to build an economy and society that works for all, in which everyone, regardless of background or ability, has the chance to belong, contribute and succeed. I hope that all parties will support the motion. Ms D Armstrong: I thank the signatories to the motion for highlighting the concerns of the community and voluntary sector. Northern Ireland was long a beneficiary of European funding. I agree with the proposer of the motion's comments on how valuable that funding was. We have seen at first hand how it transformed communities and gave opportunities, particularly to disadvantaged rural areas such as my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone. The EU regional development fund supported entrepreneurs and small businesses, while the European social fund supported the valuable fabric of our society, the community and voluntary sector, to give people a real chance to live improved and purposeful lives. Top 12.00 noon After Brexit, as other Members have noted, the British Government introduced the Shared Prosperity Fund as a replacement for the European social fund and the European regional development fund. However, closer analysis shows that the totality of the Shared Prosperity Fund has not matched what was delivered through the EU structural funds, delivering £127 million over three years: an average reduction of £23 million a year compared with the EU funds. Despite the shortfall, the Shared Prosperity Fund delivered tangible results. Between April 2023 and March 2025, £57 million was committed to helping Northern Ireland tackle economic inactivity and promote opportunity. It was effective. It supported almost 24,000 people over two years; 6,500 people moved into employment; 3,445 jobs were sustained for at least six months; and almost 9,000 individuals progressed into further education or training. Those figures demonstrate the profound difference that properly resourced initiatives can make in transforming lives, strengthening communities and boosting local economies. Now we wait to see whether the successor to the SPF, the local growth fund, will deliver. We are told that it will support at the same cash level as the 2025-26 SPF allocation: £45 million a year. Beyond that, there is no clarity about the local growth fund, and the absence of detail on how the fund will operate is leading to an atmosphere of deep uncertainty for many community and voluntary groups that rely on that support to deliver essential services. Without clear guidance, those organisations are unable to plan or retain staff, leaving Northern Ireland once again in limbo. This is not simply about funding being delayed by Westminster; it is about real people, real progress and the ongoing support for those in our communities who need it most. The UK local growth fund must include a dedicated regional fund for Northern Ireland beyond 2026. By comparison, on 14 October, it was announced that Wales is to receive £500 million from the local growth fund. The delivery plan for that funding will be developed and led by the Welsh Government, with local authorities, community organisations and other stakeholders being involved in determining how the money will be used, alongside a full public consultation. That model provides transparency and accountability, ensuring that local voices are heard in shaping how the fund delivers meaningful outcomes. It is exactly that type of model that needs to be replicated in Northern Ireland, where it can be most effective. The local growth fund will be vital to the groups and organisations that carry out such incredible work across our communities, supporting those with disabilities and others into employment, skills and social cohesion. With only a handful of months left before 2026, when the Shared Prosperity Fund will be replaced by the new growth fund, time is quickly running out for clarity and planning. The Labour slogan, "Things Can Only Get Better", has yet to ring true for Northern Ireland; in fact, for many community organisations, the opposite seems to be the case. What we need now is not more rhetoric but decisive action, genuine engagement and a clear plan that ensures that Northern Ireland receives its fair share of funding, with local decision-making at its core. Words of praise for our region's valuable services, as expressed by Rachel Reeves on her recent visit to Belfast, need to be matched by a solid undertaking to match EU funding in full and support the community and voluntary sector in Northern Ireland. Ms McLaughlin: I welcome the motion on the future of funding to replace the European programmes that sustained so much good work in our communities for decades, and I acknowledge and welcome the presence in the Public Gallery of Celine McStravick and others from the community and voluntary sector. I have said before that I was proud to be at the heart of the Remain campaign in Northern Ireland, and, while people here voted to remain, we were dragged out of Europe against our will. I do not want to dance around all that again, but it has to be said. The value of that membership, particularly in the European regional development fund and the European social fund, continues to be seen across our region every day. We can see the legacy of the regional development fund in infrastructure in our towns and cities, the growth of our local businesses and social housing delivery. Those projects remind us of the tangible benefits of EU membership and what it brought to each of our communities. The European social fund's impact was quieter, but vital. It helped people rebuild confidence, gain skills and move much closer to work. It underpinned much of our community and voluntary sector, and it transformed lives. The community and voluntary sector is one of Northern Ireland's greatest strengths. It employs over 53,000 people across 7,400 registered charities, and 73% of those working in the sector are women — many in part-time roles. Those organisations hold communities together, often on insecure funding, yet with unshakeable dedication. At a time of enormous pressure in our health service, they are essential in supporting older people, families and those facing poor mental health, addiction and isolation. We all know the pressures that our health service is under. If we did not have the community and voluntary sector, it would be on life support. We are not far from that, but it would be, because the sector is providing core functions in our communities. It is often the only support when statutory services cannot cope. In Derry, the loss of the European social fund saw such support organisations as Women's Centre Derry and Derry Youth and Community Workshop lose staff, skills and capacity, along with vital services. It was not only Westminster that pulled the plug. European funding relied on partnership, with local Departments providing match funding. Since 2016-17, the Executive contributed tens of millions in statutory match funding. When European funding disappeared, so did the match funding from our Departments, with real consequences for organisations and the people whom they serve. Virtually the same motion was debated here almost a year ago and was passed, yet the sector still lacks clarity about the future of funding. The Department of Finance is the lead Department for developing the fund for Northern Ireland. It committed to engaging with the sector, including through the hosting of an event, on 18 June, and agreed to produce a report outlining the Executive's position, yet that report still has not been made available. That adds to the uncertainty that is faced by the community organisations. I would like to hear about that from the Minister in his response. The NI Can't Wait campaign warns that almost 24,000 people could lose vital support unless urgent action is taken. Those are people with disabilities, lone parents, carers and people with health conditions. They rely on community organisations to move closer to employment. The British Government say that the local growth fund will replace the Shared Prosperity Fund in 2026, but serious concerns remain about its design and accessibility. It cannot become another overly centralised fund that is out of reach for community organisations. NICVA's message is clear: groups across Northern Ireland need leadership, and they need it now. The SDLP believes that the Executive must take action and must take matters into their own hands. We cannot continue to go to Westminster with a begging bowl, come away with nothing and have no solutions closer to home. We need leadership at home that explores such funding as social finance, which allows organisations to leverage private capital for social and environmental good. Departments must also provide stability for our organisations to deliver essential services. The community and voluntary sector has carried this region through some of its darkest days — through conflict, austerity and political collapse. It deserves certainty, sustainability and respect, and as NICVA rightly says — Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Will the Member draw her remarks to a close, please? Ms McLaughlin: — Northern Ireland cannot wait. Mr Gildernew: Tubaiste amach is amach don Tuaisceart a bhí sa chinneadh an tAontas Eorpach a fhágáil. Tá beagnach deich mbliana ó shin, thug Sinn Féin rabhadh go mbeadh anord eacnamaíochta agus polaitíochta sna hoileáin seo de dheasca an tAontas Eorpach a fhágáil agus go mbeimis uilig thíos leis ó thaobh airgid de. Mar is eol dúinn go léir, d’aontaigh formhór mhuintir an Tuaiscirt le Sinn Féin, ach má d’aontaigh féin, tarraingíodh amach as an Aontas Eorpach muid in éadan ár dtola. Tá iarmhairtí an chinnidh úd ag tosú á nochtadh féin anois, áfach, fiú don té ba dhíograisí ar son an Bhreatimeachta. Leoga, níor bhréag a rá go bhfuil aithreachas ar an té sin anois. D’admhaigh Rialtas na Breataine, faoi dheireadh, go ndearna an Breatimeacht dochar "tromchúiseach fadtéarmach" do gheilleagar na Breataine agus gurb é is mó is cúis le cuid mhór den dua eacnamaíochta atáimid a fháil inniu. Ba thubaisteach mar a chuaigh caillstean maoinithe ón Aontas Eorpach i gcion ar an Tuaisceart, go háirithe ar ár n-earnáil pobail agus dheonach. Gheall Rialtas na Breataine go soláthródh siad féin iomlán an mhaoinithe a cailleadh, ach, mo náire iad, níor chomhlíon siad an gealltanas sin. Mar shampla, bhí Ciste an Rathúnais Choitianta, a mbeidh deireadh leis i mí an Mhárta, bhí sin £20 milliún níos lú in aghaidh na bliana ar an mheán ná na cistí struchtúrtha Eorpacha ar tháinig sé ina n-áit. Ar an drochuair, d’fhág an t-easnamh maoinithe sin an iomad grúpaí in áit a gcarta agus d’fhág a n-inbhuanaitheacht fhadtéarmach faoi amhras mar aon lena gcumas na seirbhísí a sholáthar a bhfuil géarghá leo. D’fhógair Rialtas na Breataine i mí na Bealtaine go dtabharfadh siad isteach ciste an fháis áitiúil in ionad Chiste an Rathúnais Choitianta. Ach is tearc sonraí atá ann ó shin faoin dóigh a n-oibreoidh sé. Caithfidh Rialtas na Breataine a chur in iúl dúinn gan mhoill cé acu a bheidh an ciste fáis áitiúil i bhfeidhm sula dtige deireadh le Ciste an Rathúnais Choitianta nó nach mbeidh. Faigheann na mílte daoine anseo fostaíocht san earnáil pobail agus dheonach, agus tá cinnteacht de dhíth san earnáil chéanna ionas go mbeifear in ann bheith ag pleanáil don am atá le teacht. Tá daoine san earnáil sin dubh dóite den éiginnteacht leanúnach agus de na fógraí a thig ag an bhomaite dheireanach. Caithfidh Rialtas na Breataine a shoiléiriú fosta an mbeidh aon ról ag ár n-institiúidí cineachta sa Tuaisceart i gcistí a leithdháileadh ar thionscadail fhiúntacha. Gealladh i bhforógra Pháirtí an Lucht Oibre urraim a thabhairt do na hinstitiúidí cineachta. Caithfidh siad cur lena bhfocal agus a chinntiú go mbeidh cead cainte ag polaiteoirí áitiúla in aon chiste fáis feasta. [Translation: The decision to leave the European Union has been a disaster for the North from start to finish. Almost a decade ago, Sinn Féin warned that leaving the EU would bring economic and political chaos to these islands and that we would all be financially worse off as a result. As we all know, the majority of the people of the North agreed with Sinn Féin; however, we were dragged out of the EU against our will. The reality of that decision is now beginning to set in, even amongst some of the most ardent Brexiteers, who, it would be fair to say, are experiencing a degree of buyer’s remorse. The British Government have now finally conceded that Brexit has caused "severe and long-lasting" harm to the British economy and that it is the primary reason for much of the economic hardship that we face today. In the North, the loss of EU funding has had a devastating impact, particularly on our community and voluntary sector. The British Government promised that EU funding would be fully replaced, but, shamefully, they never lived up to that promise. For example, the Shared Prosperity Fund, which is due to come to an end in March, was on average £20 million less per annum than the European structural funds that it replaced. This shortfall in funding has placed many groups in a precarious position, causing uncertainty about their long-term sustainability and their ability to provide the services that are so badly needed. In June, the British Government announced that they would replace the Shared Prosperity Fund with the local growth fund, yet, to date, there have been very few details about how it will operate. The British Government need to clarify urgently whether the local growth fund will be in place in time for the end of the Shared Prosperity Fund. The community and voluntary sector employs tens of thousands of people here, and it needs certainty so that it can plan for the future. It is sick of the endless cliff edges and last-minute announcements. The British Government also need to clarify whether our devolved institutions in the North will have any role in allocating funds to deserving projects. The Labour Party made a commitment in its manifesto to respect the devolved institutions. It now must follow through and ensure that our locally elected politicians have a say in any future growth fund.] Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Go raibh maith agat, Colm. Mr Kingston: The Democratic Unionist Party is deeply concerned about the lack of clarity on the new local growth fund, which is supposed to replace the Shared Prosperity Fund, itself a post-Brexit replacement for the European social fund. Last week, a response from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to a question for written answer asked by our party leader, Gavin Robinson, provided no real new insight. Hilary Benn stated that his Department: "is working in close partnership with the Northern Ireland Executive and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to implement and develop the new Local Growth Fund." There are reports that 70% of the new fund will be allocated to capital, which, if true, will greatly reduce revenue support for voluntary and community sector programmes that aim to level up society. Throughout my time on the Committee for Communities, I have raised concerns about the future of community-based employability projects that support economically inactive people into employment or training for employment. I firmly believe that such community-based projects have the ability, contacts and appeal to reach people whom statutory services are less likely to reach. With just five months of funding left until the end of the financial year, there is no certainty that those projects will continue. As it stands, the staff will receive protective notice before Christmas. It is appalling that those dedicated staff are once again in that uncertain position. Top 12.15 pm One such group is the Prosper NI consortium, which operates in 10 of the 11 council areas in Northern Ireland, helping disabled people into vocational training and sustainable employment. Prosper NI reports that, since April 2023, it has enrolled 2,158 economically inactive participants, of whom 874 have achieved qualifications and 753 have progressed into paid employment. Those are economically inactive and disabled people who have gained confidence, skills and independence, and local employers have benefited from additional motivated staff. With the unemployment level among those actively seeking work in Northern Ireland at a record low — around 2% — it is all the more important that we have projects that help us to address our high level of economic inactivity. Around 27% of adults are not working and are not actively seeking employment. That category includes those with long-term sickness or disability, those with caring responsibilities, full-time students and people who are in retirement. Extra investment, support and outreach are required to assist such people into employment. Belfast Works Connect is a consortium of five community-based groups across Belfast, covering the north, south, east and west of the city and the Shankill. It supports people who are economically inactive due to ill health, disability, caring responsibilities, early retirement, complex needs etc. Those people are considered to be furthest from the workforce. Between 2023 and 2025, the consortium has enrolled 5,244 such people. That is 112% of its target. Of those, over 3,000 have achieved a qualification and 850 have been helped into employment — again, exceeding the target — 651 of whom are now in sustained employment lasting over six months. That shows the important work that those groups carry out in our communities. On a day when all parties should unite in support of our voluntary and community sector, the comment from the Alliance Party Member was an indulgence and regrettable. We will take no lectures on the impact of Brexit on Northern Ireland from the Alliance Party, which called for the rigorous implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol and was left with a red face when the EU agreed to change it due to the stand taken by the DUP. We continue to campaign to restore our place in the UK's internal market. As for his comment that my colleague Diane Forsythe is not a champion for the voluntary and community sector, the Alliance Member clearly knows nothing about her work, including as chair of the all-party group, but ignorance is no excuse on his part. Ms Mulholland: Wow. For decades, voluntary and community sector organisations have been at the heart of our society, forming that crucial backbone and stepping in where the state has faltered. They have consistently delivered vital services, especially during turbulent times, including Executive collapses caused by parties around the Chamber, and amid chronic underfunding from the UK Government. Their value cannot be overstated, and I echo the welcome to them to Parliament Buildings today. My perspective in the debate is shaped by my experience as an MLA more recently and by my previous life as a youth worker and a worker in the voluntary and community sector. I have seen at first hand the lifeline that those organisations provide. We have heard today how they face a funding crisis that is not of their making but arises from ongoing delays and, crucially, uncertainty from the UK Government. Despite their resilience and dedication, those organisations now operate under constant threat of financial instability, forced to survive on short-term contracts and unable to make meaningful long-term plans. That goes for the staff, who are unable to get mortgages because of their lack of full-time and permanent contracts, and the organisations. The sector has felt like it has been in continual free fall since the removal of EU funding. The NICVA economic inclusion paper makes clear the scale of the problem that the sector faces. With reduced funding, increased reliance on short-term arrangements and a climate of ongoing uncertainty, it does not look good for those organisations. There is still no confirmed delivery plan or timeline. That is no way to treat a sector, especially one that has given so much to our society. Without decisive action, the sector stands at yet another funding cliff edge. According to NICVA's NI Can't Wait campaign, many of the thousands of recipients of those programmes — whether they are individuals with disabilities, carers, women who are returning to work, young people with criminal records, older people or rural people who are without access to sustainable employment — have already been failed by the system. We have heard already that we have some of the highest rates of economic inactivity — as much as I do not like that term — in the UK and the lowest employment rate amongst disabled people. If you strip away voluntary and community sector support, there is no alternative to absorb the impact. Vulnerable groups will be further marginalised; pressures on our health and social care system will increase; the justice system will come under greater strain; employers who are already struggling to find workers will face further challenges; and, ultimately, inequality will deepen and opportunity will shrink. Those are the consequences. Another element is that, if the funding cliff edge is not addressed, not only will the thousands of people whom we have discussed lose support every year, but around 650 skilled staff will be at risk. That expertise and dedication cannot be quickly or easily replaced; it is institutional knowledge that we simply will not get back. We have seen that before when funding has been removed en masse from the community and voluntary sector. Right now, the sector's call is clear: clarity and contingency agreements and arrangements are urgently needed. NICVA and its partners are seeking a bridging arrangement and an extension of the current funding in order to avoid being plunged off a funding cliff. Furthermore, the Government have to confirm that the local growth fund will be delivered through a regional programme that is tailored specifically to Northern Ireland, with community and voluntary organisations at its core. There has to be a genuine co-design process, which draws on evidence and local knowledge and expertise, to shape the fund's operation. Crucially, as the previous contributor mentioned, the proposed ratio of capital allocation has to be revised. Northern Ireland needs stronger revenue funding to sustain people-focused programmes, not just investment in infrastructure. We have consistently raised those concerns at Westminster. The Alliance MP, Sorcha Eastwood, has persistently lobbied that a local growth fund that is tailored specifically to Northern Ireland and co-designed with the sector has to be on the table. The sector is calling for the swift creation of a task-driven, time-bound co-design group, involving the Department for the Economy, local councils, Invest NI, Enterprise NI and local enterprise agencies. That group should deliver, by the end of November, a fully costed and improved enterprise support model that will be ready for implementation in April 2026. The UK Government have to end their piecemeal communications and provide the certainty that the sector so desperately requires. The people of Northern Ireland, especially those who are furthest from work and opportunity, deserve nothing less. Miss Dolan: Almost a decade after we were dragged out of the European Union against the democratic wishes of the people of this region, Brexit's harmful legacy continues to reverberate here, particularly in the community and voluntary sector. It was no surprise that the British Government's Shared Prosperity Fund failed to deliver on their promise to replace all EU funding to community and voluntary organisations here. A reduction of tens of millions of pounds in financial support in recent years has had a detrimental impact on groups that do vital work in our local communities, such as supporting people to gain new skills, providing employment opportunities and creating initiatives to tackle poverty. One example of many in my constituency is Action Mental Health New Horizons in Enniskillen, which does phenomenal work but is a victim of that reduction in funding. The Labour Government who were elected 15 months ago may have decided to implement a new successor programme to EU funding, but it appears as though that will continue to fall short of the arrangements and support that we enjoyed prior to Brexit. Unlike the EU investment that was managed by the Executive, who are directly elected representatives of the people here, there is no such input for local representatives into what the British Government have ironically labelled a "local" growth fund. That represents a clear democratic deficit that prevents local Ministers from being able to use their knowledge, expertise and interaction with communities here to create programmes that are tailored to meet the needs of our people. A clear illustration of that is Whitehall's intention that 70% of the local growth fund will be steered towards capital investment. That will lead to a significant reduction in resource funding, which will have a further detrimental impact on voluntary and community groups here that have also had to cope with other decisions that were taken by the British Government in recent years, such as the increase in employer National Insurance contributions. I welcome the commitment by the Minister of Finance to meet the British Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to make the case for more flexibility on the new funding programme as it is crucial that elected representatives here are a strong voice on behalf of our community and voluntary sector. Mr Middleton: I join other Members in support of our community and voluntary sector, which continues to deliver vital front-line services across Northern Ireland, often stepping in where other public services tend to fall short. Every Member will be able to point to organisations that have made a positive impact in their constituencies. It is essential that the sector feels valued. It is evident, however, that many community organisations do not feel valued. Stability and sustainability for their services, their volunteers and staff must be priorities. The uncertainty surrounding the future of funding, particularly from the local growth fund that is to replace the Shared Prosperity Fund in 2026, is deeply concerning. Having spoken to many organisations over the past 15 years as an elected representative, I see first-hand how stressful it can be for staff and volunteers but particularly for service users, who are at the forefront of the minds of staff and volunteers. On each occasion when funding is once more at risk, it causes deep distress. To that end, the UK Government must provide clarity without delay. It is unacceptable that organisations doing that essential work have been left in limbo once again. We want to see the spend that was available under EU structural funds not only restored but enhanced. That was a commitment made by the UK Government, and there is no excuse for any shortfall now. There should be a balanced approach, one that gives the Executive a meaningful role in shaping funding priorities whilst maintaining the national strategy and perspective that promotes cohesion across the United Kingdom. As my colleagues said, promises were made by the UK Government, and they must be honoured. We also call for a long-term approach through multi-annual budgeting to provide certainty and allow organisations to plan more effectively. We must also use all the structures available to us, by using our voices not only in the Chamber and in Westminster but in the East-West Council, which can be used to ensure that funding delivers real impact here in Northern Ireland. Although EU funding accounted for an important portion of the sector's income, further threat lies in the pressures on core government funding. Many organisations and groups in my constituency are familiar with the cliff edges, year in, year out, so the Executive must act on that front to protect the sector from further harm I pay tribute to all community and voluntary sector organisations in the Foyle constituency and across Northern Ireland and to the work of the all-party group on voluntary and community sector, particularly my colleague Diane Forsythe, who so ably chairs that group and has brought many people together. The people whom I meet in the community and voluntary sector do not want petty party political point-scoring: they want a Chamber that stands together on these issues. I look forward to us all working to that end and to seeing the community and voluntary sector get the funding and support that it deserves. Ms Sugden: I support the motion because it speaks to a growing concern in communities across Northern Ireland, namely the uncertainty that community and voluntary sector organisations are facing and the real fear about what happens when the funding runs out. In my 10-plus years as a Member, those organisations have been treated as an optional extra because they have never been supported in a way that is sustained and continuing. Yet they deliver services, which government depends on but cannot provide because it does not have the capacity, that range from employment to training, mental health, family support and tackling loneliness. Those organisations reach out to people whom public services cannot, and they do so with compassion, expertise and knowledge of those people. Their goodwill can go only so far, however. Staff and volunteers are exhausted and fed up. They are trying to plan from year to year, with no certainty about their future. In my 10-plus years as an MLA, I have heard every year about organisations putting their staff on protected notice because funding certainty just does not exist. Beyond the loss of jobs and community services, gaps are being left that government is not filling. If anything, those gaps are widening, because budgets across the board are being cut. Top 12.30 pm In my constituency, I see every day the difference that organisations in the community and voluntary sector make. Indeed, when I became an MLA, I identified as many of those groups as possible and set out to meet every one of them, and there were hundreds. Regrettably, since COVID, we have lost some of the strength in our community and voluntary sector, so funding is more critical now than ever. We hear every day about older people feeling lonely and about people in rural communities not being able to access services, meaning that they do not even try to access them. For a region in a Western democracy, it is not good enough that people feel that they are not being served and that they just have to get on with it. Unfortunately, they cannot do that. Those organisations support families, provide training opportunities, promote well-being and create spaces where people can connect. I feel that, to an extent, we are losing our communities because we are losing those organisations. As a mother of a two-year-old, I know that it takes a village to raise a child, but that village is our community and voluntary sector. We want to understand why people have mental health problems and why we have issues with parenting and behaviour right across society. The reason is that we are losing our sense of community. The support does not exist any more. The Northern Ireland Executive and the UK Government really need to return to the issue, because it is indicative of some of what we are seeing in society. More often than not, groups in the community and voluntary sector are not paid the attention that they deserve, simply because they quietly work away in their communities doing the things that, unfortunately, do not make the headlines. Their good work is not talked about enough. I join others across the Chamber in expressing how grateful I am to the community and voluntary sector in Northern Ireland, but I fear that, if we do not start funding it appropriately and in a sustained way, we will lose those groups and no longer be able to talk about them. Today, we are debating the importance of various funds, the benefits that they provide and, indeed, the shortfall that will be created if we do not find some form of replacement funding. Perhaps we are not appealing to the right Minister today and should instead have the Minister for Communities responding to the debate. We need to recognise our community and voluntary sector and the services that it provides. I support the motion. Although I am calling on the British Government to take action, I also call on our Executive to start taking responsibility, because we cannot keep blaming London every time that such issues arise. We have not meaningfully supported and invested in our community and voluntary sector in the way in which we should have done this year. That is one issue, but it is one of many. I encourage the Minister of Finance and the Executive to look to the community and voluntary sector, if for no other reason than to balance the books, because the Minister does not have the money to provide the services that the sector offers. We should therefore be supporting it. It is a case of invest to save, Minister, so it is over to you. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call the Minister of Finance to respond to the debate. Minister, you have up to 15 minutes. Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): Thank you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. [Translation: Mr Deputy Speaker.] I fully support the motion and welcome the opportunity to respond to the debate. Many Members have rightly recognised the positive contributions that the European social fund and the European regional development fund made in supporting the community and voluntary sector over many years. Those EU funds were central to tackling economic inactivity, promoting inclusion and building resilience in our communities, as well as to supporting local businesses and rural development. Their loss in the aftermath of Brexit was deeply felt, particularly in the community and voluntary sector. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government presented the Shared Prosperity Fund as a replacement fund for those lost EU funds, but it was never an adequate solution. Although there have been some benefits from it, the Shared Prosperity Fund has failed to match the ambition and scale of the EU programmes that it replaced. There was a reduction in scope and funding. We received an average of £65 million a year of European funding, with local delivery coming via Departments. The Shared Prosperity Fund — the intended replacement — was a reduction of, on average, £35 million a year, with centralised Whitehall delivery. That did not respect our unique system of government or our equality legislation. Despite its limitations, it provided vital support, particularly to our community and voluntary sector. Through its interventions, it also supported the work of the Department for Communities, the Department for the Economy, the Department of Health and the Department of Justice. From data gathered by NICVA, we know that, over the 2022-24 period, that funding enabled 18 projects to deliver economic inactivity interventions in every council area, and 64 organisations to deliver tailored community-based interventions and support to almost 24,000 individuals. Those projects focused on those furthest removed from the labour market, those with disabilities, health conditions and caring responsibilities, older people and young people facing multiple barriers to employment. The figure of almost 24,000 people is not just a number: it represents lives changed, futures rebuilt and communities strengthened. The funding also supported 650 staff who delivered person-centred, wrap-around support in every council area. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government implemented a transition year in 2025-26 so that the vital services that were funded under the Shared Prosperity Fund could continue, while, supposedly, a replacement programme could be developed. The lack of clarity from that Ministry regarding the local growth fund is creating deep uncertainty, particularly for the community and voluntary sector, which faces another impending cliff edge in funding due to the lack of certainty and the reduction in funding. After the spending review in June, it was announced that we would be allocated £46 million a year over three years. We were also told that the Executive would be a partner in delivering the local growth fund. Unfortunately, that partnership has not materialised nor have the Labour Government honoured their manifesto commitment to restore control over structural funds to local representatives. Despite sustained efforts, we are back to a situation that has been deeply depressing and all too familiar in recent years. I secured an Executive position on the future local growth fund in March this year. We explored some of the shortcomings in the Shared Prosperity Fund approach and how the local growth fund could be better. That position detailed a number of principles: funding must be long term and sufficient in value; there must be co-design with partners; structures must be efficient and accessible; interventions must be in line with our Programme for Government; importantly, lessons — positive and negative — must be learned from what went before; and time is critical. We needed to be able to move quickly to prevent another funding cliff edge. Those principles were shared with British Ministers in March but have not been factored into decisions taken in Whitehall. Despite months of pressing the Government, I still have little information about the local growth fund. The scant information that I have does not paint a promising picture. The £46 million a year will be heavily skewed towards capital funding. The Shared Prosperity Fund was three quarters resource funding, but the local growth fund will be only one third resource funding. Earlier this month, I met representatives of the community and voluntary sector. I listened to their concerns, and their message was clear. The significant reduction in the resource budget for this funding will severely impact on the community and voluntary sector's ability to deliver vital services, particularly for those furthest away from the labour market. Resource funding is needed to deliver interventions, including for economic inactivity, through the community and voluntary sector. That shift will disrupt or potentially end the very programmes that have employed 650 staff and helped thousands into work and training. Co-design and proper, meaningful engagement are vital, and the British Government need to engage contingency arrangements. I note the recent announcement that the Welsh Government will be provided with the spending power to use the local growth funding according to an investment plan delivered by the Welsh Government. That is a good outcome for Wales. It clearly shows that there is no structural barrier to fulfilling the commitment made in the Labour Party manifesto: to restore control of this funding to devolved Governments. I found myself in full agreement with the Secretary of State for Wales, Jo Stevens, when she stated: "Decisions about how this money is spent are best made by people in Wales". The same principle applies here. Decisions about spending are best made by people who live here. A fully local fund would have been the optimal solution, but Whitehall has run down the clock. What comes next must be managed carefully to mitigate, as far as possible, negative impacts on the community and voluntary sector. That will require hard work, good faith and close cooperation here and in London — the partnership that we were promised. Frankly, it does not make sense for Whitehall Departments to implement, manage and run such funds here. It creates duplication, adds a further layer of bureaucracy and does not align well with our priorities. It is not the way to get best value for money, especially when the Treasury itself tells us that money is so tight. When I met the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, James Murray, on Friday, I raised the issue of lack of recognition across Whitehall of the different needs in the North compared with those in Britain. I also spoke about our different governmental landscape and how that requires bespoke arrangements. I outlined the need for resource funding to achieve local growth and pressed him for flexibility to allow the Executive freedom to spend the local growth allocation in a way that best meets our needs. Earlier this month, I met Hilary Benn and stressed the urgency of the issue. I was very clear that economic inactivity is a significant barrier to local growth here and that resource funding is needed more than capital funding to tackle it. During our meeting, Hilary Benn undertook to seek a joint meeting with the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. As a result, I will meet him and Steve Reed tomorrow. I will be pressing Mr Reed to work towards a sensible outcome. To conclude, the Assembly can today send a clear message to Westminster that our communities deserve better. The community and voluntary sector has proven its value, its reach and its impact. It must not be left behind due to Whitehall indecision and funding redesigns that ignore local realities. Our local communities deserve local solutions that are aligned to local challenges and local priorities. If the British Government do not provide us with clarity, flexibility and more resource funding, we risk losing front-line jobs, vital services and the infrastructure that connects our most vulnerable citizens to opportunities. That is not an acceptable position. I stand firmly behind the motion. I encourage fellow Members to do likewise and send a united message to the Government that the time for dithering and delay is over. Clarity is needed, and needed now. Our community and voluntary sector and our communities deserve better. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Pádraig Delargy. Pádraig, you have up to 10 minutes. Mr Delargy: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. [Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.] At the outset, I pay tribute to the community and voluntary sector, particularly those members who join us in the Gallery today — I am sure that others are watching online — because they provide a vital service every single day right across the North. They are out in our communities helping young people into work, helping families through difficult times, providing mental health support and bringing communities together. As has been acknowledged right across the Chamber, much of that work happens quietly, often without recognition, but it provides the backbone of our society. For many years, that work was sustained through the ESF — a fund that changed lives and gave people hope, opportunity and dignity. The loss of that funding has created real hardship: groups that were already stretched now face impossible choices; staff have lost their jobs or have been placed on protective notice; projects have closed; and, ultimately, people who depended on those services have been left without that support. I thank the DUP for highlighting our consistency on this issue, because Sinn Féin has been consistent on it. We have been consistent in defending the right of the community and voluntary sector to funding in order to provide support to people and enhance support services in our community. When the British Government promised that every penny of EU funding would be replaced, that commitment gave communities a degree of reassurance, but what we have seen since then is broken promise after broken promise. The funding does not match what was lost: it is lower. The process is more complicated, and, critically, the decisions are made in London rather than here. I am glad that most parties here today have acknowledged that. John, Jemma and Sian have acknowledged the need for co-design and local knowledge, which is vital. To a certain extent, I disagree with the SDLP's position and its talk of "a begging bowl", because saying that lets the British Government off the hook. It allows them to shirk their responsibility, and it reinforces the reality that people in the North are picking up the pieces for a British Government who refuse to stand up and defend those rights and who have left us poorer in terms of funding and —. Top 12.45 pm Ms McLaughlin: Will the Member take an intervention? Mr Delargy: I do not have time, sorry. They have left us poorer in terms of funding and in what the community sector can offer. In my constituency, organisations that, for years, have helped people to get back into training and employment have been forced to shut their doors. In the north-west, where deprivation levels remain among the highest of any on these islands, that has been devastating, not just because of the loss of money but because of the loss of experience, relationships and trust that have taken years to build. The motion is about fairness and respect. It is about fairness for the organisations that have delivered incredible outcomes for decades and about respect for the principle of devolution. Decisions about our communities should be made in our communities by those who understand them. As John highlighted, that understanding is about our unique situation. The funding should meet local needs; it cannot be uniform. We call on the British Government to fulfil their commitment to replace the EU funding in full and to provide clarity beyond 2026. The uncertainty that hangs over our community and voluntary sector cannot continue. Organisations need time to plan, they need to retain their staff, and they need the assurance that they can continue to deliver vital services in our communities. We also call for decision-making and structural funds to be returned to the Executive. Local expertise, local accountability and local delivery work. Westminster cannot and should not decide the future of our community development programmes. The Assembly needs to send a clear and united message that we stand with the community and voluntary sector, that we will hold the British Government to account and that it is time for the British Government's promises to be honoured in full so that a locally designed replacement fund is in place by April 2026. Question put and agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly recognises the positive impact that the European regional development fund and the European social fund have had in supporting the community and voluntary sector; notes the ongoing failure of the British Government to deliver on the commitment to fully replace European funding in the aftermath of Brexit; further notes the ongoing lack of clarity from the British Government regarding the local growth fund, which will replace the Shared Prosperity Fund in 2026; acknowledges the uncertainty for the community and voluntary sector here; calls on the British Government to fulfil their promise to match European Union funding in full and to provide clarity for the community and voluntary sector beyond 2026; and further calls on the British Government to fulfil their commitment to return decision-making on structural funds to the Executive and to urgently engage to ensure that a replacement fund can be put in place by April 2026. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Ladies and Gentlemen, the Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm. I therefore propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The sitting was suspended at 12.47 pm. On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) — Top 2.00 pm Oral Answers to Questions Education Curriculum Review: Update 1. Ms Murphy asked the Minister of Education for an update on the independent strategic review of the Northern Ireland curriculum. (AQO 2580/22-27) Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): The strategic review of the Northern Ireland curriculum was completed in June 2025. The review, which was undertaken by Lucy Crehan, provided a focused, time-bound evaluation of the current Northern Ireland curriculum. The review was clear that Northern Ireland needs a new curriculum that is: "purpose-led, knowledge-rich, continuous and coherent, specific and focused and flexible and inclusive." It should ensure that every child enjoys an ambitious and knowledge-rich curriculum that develops their learning in a well-sequenced and explicit manner. On 27 August, I announced the establishment of the curriculum task force advisory committee, which will oversee, direct and lead the reform of the Northern Ireland curriculum. The committee, led by Christine Counsell with Lucy Crehan as deputy chair, includes those with a wealth of experience in curriculum design, classroom practice, evaluation and implementation. Its role is to guide the development of a new, coherent and knowledge-rich curriculum framework. Work is under way to establish a series of subject working groups, made up of teachers, academics and subject specialists, which will draft the reformed content for each subject area from Foundation Stage to Key Stage 3. I expect those groups to be operational in November. A new framework will be presented to me in March 2026 in advance of a public consultation. My ambition is for the new curriculum framework to be implemented for September 2027. Ms Murphy: I thank the Minister for his update. Minister, do you accept that scrapping AS levels and coursework would narrow learning for pupils and pile more pressure on those who have to undertake a high-stakes exam, albeit only one exam? Mr Givan: I thank the Member for the question, because it is relevant. That matter is out for consultation, and we are seeking feedback from pupils, practitioners and educationalists. One of the driving concerns that a lot of people have is that a lot of our young people undertake formal statutory assessments and tests in years 11, 12, 13 and 14. With those come controlled assessments, which contribute to teacher workload. Evidence shows that moving to that more linear approach can be more beneficial to academic outcomes. I have put the issue out for public consultation because I want to hear the feedback on it. There are principals who have very strong views in advocating for that change, but I have not taken a decision on it. I genuinely want to hear the feedback from the relevant stakeholders, and the consultation exercise is the opportunity to do that before final decisions are taken. Mr Mathison: Minister, it would be helpful to understand in detail why RE was not included in the strategic review of the Northern Ireland curriculum. Was that a missed opportunity to get robust assurances that what all children are learning in RE is fit for purpose and appropriate, given that it is not subject to the normal inspection regime as other subjects are? Mr Givan: The Member just highlighted the reason for that. The way in which you would commission a review of the RE curriculum is not the same as the way that you would commission one for other subjects. Obviously, the Churches have involvement in that. The Churches are not involved in respect of any other subject, but the approach to RE is different. However, as the Member will know, we await the UK Supreme Court reading down a judgement about RE. We will reflect on the judgement's contents, which may well lead to such a review being carried out. Mr Middleton: I thank the Minister for his update on the review of the Northern Ireland curriculum. Minister, will you share any insights that you have into the international experience of knowledge-rich curriculums? Mr Givan: I thank the Member for that question. I have been very keen to ensure that Northern Ireland looks outwardly towards international experience, as well as making sure that we reform our education system so that it is tailor-made for our local community and reflects our Northern Ireland context. To ensure that the Northern Ireland curriculum remains aligned with international best practice, we need to look at providing for a knowledge-rich and well-structured approach. A number of jurisdictions, including Sweden, Belgium, Norway, New Zealand and, now, some Australian territories have reviewed the former approach to curriculums, which was primarily skills-based, due to concerns about a lack of specificity, commonality and core knowledge. Internationally, there is a revival of the importance of knowledge in education approaches. It has re-emerged as a prerequisite for improved learning, critical thinking, problem-solving, reading and comprehension and as a facilitator for collective discourse. That evolution is backed by a greater understanding of cognitive science, which now very much indicates that, with detailed knowledge, you empower yourself to develop much greater skill. It is not an either/or, skills-versus-knowledge situation. Rich, detailed knowledge and mastery of a subject area allow you to deploy the skills, so you need that knowledge. It is about ensuring that we have both. Teaching Appointment Scheme: Review Rationale 2. Miss McIlveen asked the Minister of Education to outline the rationale behind the Education Authority’s review of the teaching appointment scheme for controlled schools. (AQO 2581/22-27) Mr Givan: The Education Authority (EA) has advised that the rationale for the review of the teaching appointment scheme for controlled schools is that the current scheme has been in operation since 2016 and has not been subject to substantive review or engagement since a post-implementation review took place in 2017. The EA is of the opinion that, whilst the current scheme provides a framework for the completion of teaching appointments, there has been learning about what areas could be improved. The Education Authority is therefore completing a review of the scheme to provide a proposed improved and more flexible framework for the delivery and development of the appointment of teachers to controlled schools. A draft teaching appointment scheme for controlled schools has been prepared, and consultation with controlled schools, governors and wider stakeholders is ongoing. That work is expected to be completed early in 2026. Miss McIlveen: I thank the Minister for his response. I declare an interest as the chair of the board of governors of Nendrum College in Comber. The proposals in the consultation would see the role of governors diminished. In the appointment of principals, the voluntary chair could be replaced by a paid, independent chair, and teaching appointments could have the input of only one governor. That would not happen in any other sector, which shows exactly why controlled schools need their own dedicated managing authority. Will the Minister engage with the EA on that as a matter of urgency and support the role of governors? Mr Givan: I first thank the Member for taking on her role as chair of a board of governors. It is hugely commendable to take on that responsibility. Membership of a board of governors is voluntary, and those who take on the role of chair are to be commended, because I know the high levels of work that are involved for anybody who engages in that. I can confirm that departmental officials have already been in discussions with EA officials on some of the proposals outlined in the revised teaching appointment scheme for controlled schools that is out for consultation. My officials have highlighted to the EA the fact that its proposals, if implemented, would see the role of governors diminished. The EA consultation on the revised teaching appointment scheme is ongoing and is expected to be completed early in 2026. I agree that that would not happen in any other sector, nor is such an approach proposed for any other sector, and that controlled schools need a dedicated managing authority. That is why, last week, I launched a public consultation on proposals to establish a new organisation dedicated to supporting controlled schools across Northern Ireland. The consultation will run for eight weeks. It seeks views on the role, structure and functions of the proposed organisation ahead of legislation being introduced. Controlled schools are the largest and a most diverse sector in our education system. They play a vital and distinctive role in communities across Northern Ireland. The independent review of education and feedback from school leaders and the controlled schools task force have highlighted clear shortcomings in the current support arrangements. Forest Schools: Support 3. Mr Dunne asked the Minister of Education to detail any action that his Department is taking to support forest schools in Northern Ireland. (AQO 2582/22-27) Mr Givan: Whilst I recognise that forest schools can play a significant role in the education of our children, the financial position for the Department unfortunately remains extremely challenging, which means that funding is not available for projects to develop outdoor space at present. Mr Dunne: I thank the Minister for his answer and for his recognition of the value of outdoor learning and his commitment to that. The Minister may be aware that my constituency is home to a flagship forest school site, based in Clandeboye estate. What support is available to schools and school staff who wish to become involved in forest schools, of which there are quite a few across the country, and will he agree to visit the Northern Ireland Forest School Association at Clandeboye with me? Mr Givan: I thank the Member for highlighting that project in his constituency. I have visited quite a number of schools over the past 18 months, and a number of them have forest schools. Undoubtedly, they enhance the environment in which those young people learn and give them that outdoor experience. I certainly commend that approach where it is possible. Schools in Northern Ireland are free to work with a wide range of voluntary, community and private sector organisations, including forest schools. The Education Authority has produced a series of teacher professional learning videos on outdoor learning that are accessible on its supporting learning website. My Department provides a range of discretionary funding streams to schools, such as extended schools programme funding and targeting social need resources, which schools may direct toward forest school provisions if they wish. I will certainly seek to accommodate the Member's request to visit. Early Learning and Childcare Strategy: Update 4. Ms Nicholl asked the Minister of Education for an update on the early learning and childcare strategy. (AQO 2583/22-27) Mr Givan: I thank the Member for her question. I will be bringing a draft strategy to my Executive colleagues for consideration in the coming weeks, and, if agreed, it will be subject to public consultation. The strategy will build on the significant investment of £80 million already allocated by the Executive, which is already making a positive difference for thousands of children, families and providers. Some of the £80 million went to the Northern Ireland childcare subsidy scheme, a scheme that initially helped families with preschool children but which I extended it to include school-age children from 1 September this year. That has put money in parents’ pockets with a 15% reduction on registered childcare costs and potential savings of up to 32% because it is combined with the tax-free childcare system. It is meaningful and tangible. When fees started to rise, they were offset as I acted again to increase the subsidy scheme in April by 10%, raising it to £184 per month per child, and I raised the administrative payments to providers. In addition, I have already funded the increase of 2,400 more preschool places to full time, with the provision of a free school meal for eligible children. It means that 50% of preschool places are now full time, with further increases planned for September next year. Add to that the additional funding to support children facing disadvantage via Sure Start, Pathway, Toybox and a range of programmes to support children with additional needs or disabilities. Those early actions are the foundation on which the early learning and childcare strategy will be built. I will be bringing more proposals to the Executive as part of the draft strategy to further support our children, families and the early learning and childcare sector. Ms Nicholl: I thank the Minister for his answer. I declare an interest as I avail myself of the Northern Ireland childcare subsidy scheme and acknowledge that significant work has been undertaken in that space. Will the Minister give assurance that, when the childcare strategy comes to the House, it will come with a fully costed action plan alongside it, so that people can see the actions to be delivered? Mr Givan: I am glad that the DUP is delivering for the Alliance Party and it is benefiting from the hard work of a DUP Minister. Unfortunately, that support was not available for my three children, who are beyond the age of eligibility. The Member is right. The Executive have already invested £80 million and have put in place new schemes and stood them up, all before we had a strategy. Often, Departments and Ministers spend lengthy periods developing a strategy. We got on with delivering the schemes while taking forward the development of a strategy, and that is important. The strategy needs to be fully costed, and, certainly, as I bring it forward, we will know how much its implementation will cost. It will be, however, subject to the funding that is available. That should not limit the ambition of what a comprehensive strategy should look like, but I need to caution Members that there will be reality around what funding is available to implement the strategy once it is finalised. That has not curtailed me in making sure that we have an ambitious, comprehensive strategy that will be brought to the Executive very soon. Top 2.15 pm Mrs Mason: Minister, as you said, your Department has spent over £80 million on early years support and childcare, but, according to a NISRA survey, only 26% of households say that childcare is affordable. What measures will you build into the childcare strategy to ensure that costs are kept down? Mr Givan: The Member is absolutely right to say that the cost of childcare is a huge financial pressure that many hard-working families have to face; we hear that in all our constituencies. That funding is a start. I have a much greater level of ambition, but that ambition very much depends on the resources that we have available. The funding does not sit in my Department, as the Executive ring-fenced it to protect it from the pressures that all Departments face. Those pressures have been well documented today. Delivery of the strategy, once it has gone out to consultation and is finalised, will therefore be subject to the allocation of funding. That is a wider collective decision that will need to be taken, because the funding sits outside my Department. The Member should be assured that we have been able to make a positive impact by delivering the new schemes. Where I am empowered to do so by the wider Executive, I will continue to deliver. I agree entirely with the Member that many families struggle to meet childcare costs. The Executive have made a start, but there is much more that we need to do. Mr Brooks: I thank the Minister for his work on childcare. It is an example of a DUP Minister delivering against DUP commitments. My question follows on from Ms Nicholl's question: how long will it be before we see the strategy implemented? Mr Givan: I thank the Member for his comments and his question. As I indicated, I intend to publish a comprehensive implementation plan alongside the finalised strategy following the consultation process. Although the strategy is ambitious, it will, as I said, be realistic about what can be achieved, through taking account of the funding available and recognising the capacity that exists in the sector and the ability to deliver. It is important that we take those considerations into account. Ultimately, it will be for the Executive to decide how much funding they are prepared to allocate to the strategy. That will then dictate what can be achieved. Mr McGlone: Minister, you mentioned resource issues. The Northern Ireland qualification audit highlighted some significant gaps in the early years workforce's qualifications. What concrete steps are you taking to fill that gap in order to develop what is a particularly important sector? Mr Givan: The Member is right. As I said to Mr Brooks, as we seek to provide support, we also need to support the sector so that it can develop its capacity. We have an ambition to provide more support, but not just financial resource but human resource needs to be available in order to do that. Some funding has already been provided to the Department for Communities. Through an academy, it is helping people working in early years get qualifications and accreditations. We are therefore looking at how we can support organisations in that regard. While I have primarily led on the delivery of the strategy, other Departments are involved, and I am grateful to the Minister for Communities for stepping forward to facilitate that aspect of the plan. CCEA Qualifications 5. Ms Egan asked the Minister of Education to outline any engagement that he has had with children and young people in relation to his proposals for the future of Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) qualifications. (AQO 2584/22-27) Mr Givan: My proposals reflect a clear ambition to ensure that CCEA GCSEs, AS levels and A levels remain relevant nationally and internationally. While the main consultation is an opportunity for students to inform the proposals, my officials have also been engaging directly with students and young people in a range of settings over the course of the consultation. That engagement has included holding focus group sessions with school students and speaking directly with young people in years 11 to 14. Officials have also met representatives of the Secondary Students' Union of Northern Ireland (SSUNI) and, in collaboration with the EA, have designed a children and young people's version of the consultation questionnaire. That has been shared with youth organisations in order to allow young people the opportunity to share their views. Ms Egan: Minister, it is extremely important to have youth engagement on any changes to examinations. As, I am sure, you are aware, many young people have raised concerns about the move away from controlled assessment towards higher-stakes examinations. What will you do to ensure that any changes to qualifications will benefit learners of all abilities? Mr Givan: It is a really important question. That is why we are asking for feedback, particularly from pupils. The engagement that we have already had indicates that there is high pressure when you go into year 11, because, where you are carrying out the modular approach in some subjects, you are formally tested in year 11. The more linear approach is year 12. The evidence shows that academic results are better for those who follow the linear approach rather than the modular approach. We need to look at what the evidence shows about which approach to follow for the best educational outcomes. The high levels of testing that our young people face are also well documented, and many Members have rightly talked about that. There is a high level of testing in lower sixth. I declare an interest, because I have one daughter who has gone through her AS levels — she does not necessarily agree with the proposal, I have to say — and I have another one who has to do them. I know the pressure that it puts on them. Thousands of young people will repeat the exams that they have just sat in lower sixth in order to try to improve their result in upper sixth. Quite a number of weeks of valuable teaching time is lost. Young people can be off school for a number of weeks to carry out revision and sit mocks, and then they are off for a number of weeks to sit the exams. Some young people in lower sixth may not be in school learning for up to seven or eight weeks. There is a balance to be found between how much learning time there is and how much focus there is on testing and qualifications. I am open to hearing people's views on that. Mr O'Toole: Minister, I hope that you will listen to the responses to the consultation that you are undertaking — you are already saying that, in your own house, there has been some robust feedback — because the real concern is that pursuing a clear, possibly ideological position will create more high-stakes pressure, particularly for vulnerable kids and, indeed, kids from working-class backgrounds. It is also the case that removing the AS level would make it even harder for Northern pupils to get the requisite points to get into Southern universities. Will you bear both those points in mind when coming to a conclusion? Mr Givan: Yes. The Member mentioned the points system. I have concern that access to universities in the Republic of Ireland is very difficult for young people in Northern Ireland. There are challenges. Work needs to be carried out at the higher education level to remove those barriers. Many young people would be willing and want to study in the Republic of Ireland, but the barriers to access are challenging. I have said that the view that is emerging from the evidence base is that that approach would be a better one to follow. However, I also hear the conflicting messages that come particularly from young people around the issue. We just need to hear that feedback properly and carefully consider all the responses that we get from the consultation. I encourage teachers and pupils to very much engage in the process. It is a consultation for a reason: it will inform the decision-making process that will then flow after that. I have not reached a firm view at this stage. Mr Brett: Can the Minister say when a decision is likely to be taken, bearing in mind that he will take into consideration all the evidence that is produced before making a final decision? Mr Givan: The consultation is open until 13 November. When it closes, there will be a period of analysis that officials will carry out. We will draw on that analysis and other evidence. I then intend to confirm my policy framework intentions early in 2026. Once that process has concluded and I have taken decisions in respect of it, CCEA Regulation would be required to prepare a regulatory framework from which CCEA, the awarding organisation, would undertake a full revision of its qualifications. Previously, that process has taken a minimum of two years prior to the roll-out of new specifications. Again, I will just emphasise that I have not made decisions in respect of those matters. Mr McMurray: As the father of a red-headed daughter as well, I make no comment on fathers disagreeing with daughters. On a serious point, how will young people feed into the consultation on the change? Will the Minister listen to the young people who feed in, especially if they show a bit of, let us say, disagreement with the Minister in that regard? Mr Givan: I did not realise that we had that in common. There is stakeholder engagement for young people to feed in their views. The consultation is open to everybody to do that, and of course that will all be taken into account and considered. This is not the first time that I have had some disagreement in my house. The mobile phone policy was another one on which I had interesting debates in my house. By way of example, I visited St Ronan's College in Lurgan, one of our largest schools in Northern Ireland, which is participating in the mobile phone pilot scheme. Some of the pupils who had had apprehension and did not agree with the scheme are now very much advocates for it. I appreciate that sometimes people cannot see what benefit the change will deliver until they have experienced that change. That certainly has been the experience of those pupils at St Ronan's in respect of the mobile phone pilot scheme that is being rolled out there. Therefore, that will all be taken into account, where young people can feed into it. However, I appreciate that, until you feel and see that change and the outworkings of it, there will be an apprehension about what it means. Teaching Bursary Proposals 6. Mr McAleer asked the Minister of Education to provide further details on his bursary proposals for undergraduates, aimed at tackling teacher shortages in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) and Irish-medium education subjects. (AQO 2585/22-27) Mr Givan: The pilot bursary scheme for initial teacher education represents a strategic investment in our education system and economy. It is designed to address critical teacher shortages in key post-primary subjects, namely mathematics, chemistry, physics, computing and technology and design, and in Irish-medium education. That substantial financial support totals £8·2 million of investment over a five-year period. It will fund over 130 places and is a key commitment in delivering my TransformED strategy. From September 2026, eligible students on the postgraduate certificate in education (PGCE) courses will receive up to £17,000 a year, while Bachelor of Education undergraduates will have their tuition fees paid each year in full at a bursary value of approximately £20,000. By supporting teacher recruitment in those key subjects, we are safeguarding the future in STEM education and ensuring that our young people have access to the full breadth of learning opportunities, as well as supporting post-primary Irish-medium education more generally. The pilot scheme will be subject to a full evaluation, and future strategic workforce planning will continue to monitor teacher supply across all subject areas. That will inform any necessary adjustments to ensure that the scheme remains responsive to evolving needs. Mr McAleer: I thank the Minister for his response. I declare an interest as the father of children who have been educated through the Irish-medium sector. Minister, on the topic of staff shortages, a comprehensive workforce strategy is needed to underpin the growth of the Irish-medium sector. Can the Minister confirm whether he intends to support any prospective Irish-medium education teachers with bursaries or other financial assistance? Mr Givan: Forgive me if I have not quite followed the question. I can be corrected, but, if the question is about providing support to those who are already in the teaching colleges, the answer is no. These are for new teachers. It is in order that, where there are shortages — the shortage in the Irish-medium sector relates to post-primary, and that is why it applies to post-primary — we can try to make sure that we attract people. The reason that the key subject areas are being supported is to try to attract where there is a challenge attracting people in. I appreciate that those who are currently in teaching colleges would want it to apply to them, but we have to target our limited resources to where there is a critical need. The way to ensure that the scheme works is to recruit new people into the teaching colleges in those key areas. Mr McNulty: Minister, what measures will your Department adopt to ensure that universities and colleges are accountable for encouraging and obliging bursary recipients to complete their courses and enter teaching in STEM or Irish-medium subjects? What penalties will apply if they fail to deliver? Top 2.30 pm Mr Givan: That is a good question, because that is often an issue. We provide financial support, but how will we keep the young people who have gained the qualification so that they will, so to speak, pay it back to society, which has helped to pay for the course? We are very much looking at that. I believe that I have a legal pathway to make that a condition on which someone would be granted eligibility for such a bursary. The legal side of that aspect is being worked through, and I believe that we will be able to get that condition, which will be for a minimum of two years. Mr Speaker: We move to topical questions. Special Educational Needs Coordinators: Support T1. Ms Hunter asked the Minister of Education, given that, this morning, as part of the Education Committee's inquiry into special educational needs, we heard from a special educational needs coordinator (SENCO) who spoke passionately about the lack of support and the pressure felt by SENCOs across Northern Ireland and said that she feels let down by the Minister, the Department and the Education Authority, whether he is really doing enough to support staff who work with children with special educational needs. (AQT 1701/22-27) Mr Givan: I will be keen to hear the exact evidence that the Member has sought to frame and characterise in the way that she has done. Addressing special educational needs is a huge challenge. We have published a reform agenda and a delivery plan, all of which have been worked through. We had the SEN end-to-end review, which we have taken forward with the other delivery plans. We have secured funding of £27 million through the transformation budget. Although that is not sufficient, it will allow us to make progress. Securing placements for a lot of children with special educational needs has been increasingly difficult over the past two years, but, through an incredible amount of work and willingness by schools to engage, we have been able to do that. I have also published the SEN capital programme and have placed it on the agenda for the Executive. It is a £1·7 billion, 10-year plan. It not only addresses the short-term, responsive challenge but looks to how we meet the long-term plans. That paper has not yet been approved to be on the agenda. The deputy First Minister has approved it, and I certainly would like it to be approved for the Executive to support, because that would demonstrate our commitment to supporting those, and especially our teachers, who are involved in providing that critical work for children with special educational needs. Ms Hunter: Perhaps I will expand a little further. The SENCO said that it took one hour and one minute on hold for her to be put through to a support worker to provide support for a child with complex needs, only to be told that the staff member was not at their desk. At the same time, Minister, parents are being taken to court in Northern Ireland because a child with special educational needs is not attending school. They are not getting the right support. Do you think that the work that you have done is acceptable? What are you going to do about it? Mr Givan: I have just outlined the work that we have been doing, and I commend that response to the Member. Having met a number of principals and SENCOs in schools, I agree that the time that SENCOs have to spend in completing educational statements and advocating for resources to be provided to children is excessive. That is a process issue with the Education Authority. I therefore very much welcome the Education Committee's looking at that area, because I have sought to shine a spotlight on how I can make improvements and support those in the education system. It is a welcome opportunity for the Education Committee to carry out that work. That will help me, and, more importantly, it will help the children and young people. There is another piece of work on special educational needs on which I will take a paper to the Executive. Increasingly, principals can demonstrate that, where they have flexibility in the allocation of resources for the employment and recruitment of the appropriate staff, there are better ways of doing so than the current system allows. We need to find ways to empower schools to take those decisions in a more timely way, and we need to make the processes that need to be followed to secure additional support less bureaucratic. Ultimately, that will lead to a better educational outcome for the children. The best interests of the children and young people that we have to support should drive the processes around special educational needs, and I will shortly bring a paper to the Executive on how we can do that. Integrated Status: High Court Decision T2. Mr Middleton asked the Minister of Education to provide an update on last week's decision by the High Court in relation to the two Bangor schools that were seeking to transform to integrated status. (AQT 1702/22-27) Mr Givan: I thank the Member for that question. Members will note that a decision was made by the High Court not to grant leave for a full judicial review of my decisions on the development proposals for the two Bangor schools that wished to transform to integrated status. The court's comprehensive judgement answers many of the questions that Members raised at the time concerning my decisions and the criticisms that were made of them. It also confirms that I acted within the law and the powers given to me under the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 and Alliance's Integrated Education Act (Northern Ireland) 2022, as I am required to do, and that my interpretation of the law, particularly around the requirement for reasonable numbers of pupils from Protestant and Catholic backgrounds, was correct. I cannot approve a proposal for a school to transform to integrated status unless I consider it likely that reasonable numbers of Protestant and Catholic pupils presently exist or will be achieved. That was confirmed in the judgement. I did not want my decisions to end up in court, and I am disappointed that they did, particularly given the fact that the judge observed that the judicial review, when carefully examined, was an attempt by some proponents of integrated education to effect a reversal of the realistic stance that was taken by me. Nevertheless, I welcome the clear and comprehensive ruling by the High Court, and I remain committed to encouraging, facilitating and supporting integrated education as defined in the law. The ruling sets a significant precedent for future integrated education proposals and reaffirms the importance of legal and evidential rigour in shaping Northern Ireland's educational landscape. The full comprehensive judgement is available to read on the Judiciary NI website. Mr Middleton: I thank the Minister for that response. Minister, your critics have been loud and dramatic, but completely and shamefully wrong. Minister, have you received an apology from any of the Members who were critical of your decision in January? Mr Givan: I have not yet received an apology, but I have no doubt that when those who commented earlier in the year have the opportunity to read the full judgement, they will be in touch. Professional courtesy demands no less. However, I assure those Members that I will accept any such apologies, and I will not then take every opportunity to point out their errors. If Members are unclear about who is required to apologise, they should feel free to speak with me, as I have compiled a comprehensive and extensive list. Mr McCrossan: Name them. Ms Hunter: Name and shame. Mr Givan: I do not want to single out MLAs today, but one suggested that they were disappointed at my misreading of the Act. Mr Speaker, you would be surprised if you heard who said that, given their role in drafting the legislation, or, perhaps, you would not. Another said that the Minister seemed to have got hung up on one particular criterion. To say that those comments have not aged well may be regarded as something of an understatement. Integrated Status: High Court Victory T3. Mr Brett asked the Minister of Education, after congratulating him on his court victory last week, which was a clear and decisive victory for his decision, and stating that he looks forward to the Minister's appearance at the Education Committee tomorrow, at which he is sure that those who were incorrect will point out the error of their ways, whether he agrees that those who said that he had read the law incorrectly were, as the court said, wrong. (AQT 1703/22-27) Mr Givan: Yes, but the Member is tempting me to criticise in particular my good friends in the Alliance Party, although there are others. I am going to resist that temptation today. Rather, I will quote directly from the summary of the High Court's decision. It states: "the Minister could not be faulted for concentrating on the key issue" — in this case — "and addressing the matter which in essence 'operates as a knockout blow to any proposal' ... the Minister cannot in law approve a proposal unless he considers it likely that reasonable numbers presently exist or will be achieved: 'The Minister determined that he could not be so satisfied and even if a heavyhanded review was permitted, it would be hard to find fault with the Minister’s reasoning, let alone conclude that it was irrational or Wednesbury unreasonable.'" Mr Brett: Minister, given the clear judgement, will you articulate to the House when you will set out your future policy decisions on reasonable numbers so that we can ensure that there are no further erroneous, politically-motivated court cases, which waste taxpayers' money, to cover up for a terrible Bill that was passed by the Assembly, having been railroaded through by the Alliance Party? Mr Givan: I thank the Member for his question. Consideration of reasonable numbers is guided by the legislative framework set out in the Education Reform Order 1989, the Alliance Party's Integrated Education Act 2022 and the principles of integrated education. As a general principle, my Department will expect schools transforming to integrated status to demonstrate the ability to attract at least 10% of their year 1 or year 8 intake from the minority religion in the first year of transformation. Alternatively, schools should aim for 15% of the combined number of Protestant and Catholic pupils in year 1 or year 8. Evidence must also be provided that the proportion is likely to increase over the next seven years, with the aspiration of achieving a reasonable balance between the two groups. While flexibility will be applied to account for local circumstances, I highlight the fact that the underlying rationale of integrated education is to ensure a reasonable balance that promotes equality. The aspiration remains to move towards the 40:40:20 balance of Protestant, Catholic and others over time, as recommended by the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education (NICIE), although it is acknowledged that that might not always be immediately achievable. I refer Members to the written ministerial statement in which I addressed the issue of reasonable numbers. A written ministerial statement about the court judgement will be issued to the Assembly imminently. Restraint and Exclusion Task and Finish Group T4. Mr Sheehan asked the Minister of Education to explain why, as of last week, his Department had not responded to correspondence from the Children's Law Centre and the Commissioner for Children and Young People, which was sent on 13 August, given that those organisations have now withdrawn from the Department's task and finish group on restraint and seclusion, citing broken promises and long-standing human rights concerns. (AQT 1704/22-27) Mr Givan: Not only have those two organisations withdrawn, but health organisations have withdrawn. It is really disappointing that they have withdrawn. When people walk away from the table and no longer wish to engage, it does a disservice to the people affected by the important issues that we are trying to deal with. It is a very sensitive issue. I have often heard about the challenges that some of our young people face, but I have also heard about the very difficult challenges that many staff in our school settings face. Trying to strike the right balance will be grounded in human rights — but that is the human rights of all those who are impacted on. The Commissioner for Children and Young People, the Children's Law Centre and others should not have withdrawn. That is a matter for them to explain, but it is a retrograde step that I certainly do not support. Mr Sheehan: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagra, [Translation: I thank the Minister for his answer,] even though he did not answer the question that I asked. The RCN has now joined the Children's Commissioner and the Children's Law Centre in withdrawing. Those are organisations that deal with children's rights, and they have accused you, Minister, of ignoring human rights and exposing children with SEN to potentially unlawful use of force. Is it not now time for you, Minister, to accept that the process has lost all credibility and legitimacy? Mr Givan: I do not accept that at all, and nor do the school principals and the teaching professionals who take a different view from that of the Children's Commissioner, the Children's Law Centre and the RCN. They do not agree with that analysis either. Has the Member listened to the teaching profession? Has he listened to those who have to give operational effect, in their school settings, to the very difficult circumstances that they face? I would be very interested to know the Member's position if he listened to the principals and made the same comments to them as he has made in the Chamber today. The issue is difficult to navigate. We need to find the right balance. Those who operate the system need clarity, and, therefore, it is my intention to produce guidance. However, that guidance would have been much better informed by health professionals, the Children's Commissioner and the Children's Law Centre being engaged in the process rather than withdrawing from it and running to the media to make commentary. Instead, they should have remained engaged. That would have resulted in a better outcome for the final guidance that I will publish. Top 2.45 pm Mr Speaker: That draws to a conclusion the time for questions to the Minister of Education. I ask Members to take their ease for a moment while we change the top Table. (Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair) Question for Urgent Oral Answer Finance PSNI Data Breach Compensation Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Matthew O'Toole has given notice of a question for urgent oral answer to the Minister of Finance. I remind Members that, if they wish to ask a supplementary question, they should rise continually in their place. The Member who tabled the question will be called automatically to ask a supplementary question. Mr O'Toole asked the Minister of Finance to outline how compensation claims arising from the PSNI data breach will be paid. Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): It is regrettable that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has declined the Executive's request for access to the reserve for costs associated with the PSNI data breach. It remains my view that the exceptional, unavoidable nature of the costs meets the conditions of our reserve claim. People and families have been impacted by the data breach, and we all need to be mindful of the effect that it has had on them. Significant information was supplied to support their case for access to the reserve. That included outlining the extremely challenging budgetary position that the Executive face and how having to meet the costs will add further to the pressures that public services are currently under. As recently as last Friday, at the Finance: Interministerial Standing Committee (F:ISC), I pressed the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on that. I will continue to press the Treasury to reconsider the decision. Executive colleagues have been kept informed of the position and remain committed to working with all Ministers to consider how that financial pressure will be managed. It is not clear when the cost will crystallise, given the ongoing legal proceedings. Once those are concluded, I will be able to consider the budgetary implications along with my Executive colleagues. Mr O'Toole: It is clearly right that our first thoughts are with the affected PSNI officers and staff, but let us be absolutely clear: this is another shambles; in fact, we only found out about it because a letter was leaked to the media. Presumably, your Department has known about it for weeks. Is it another example, like the A5, of basic work simply not being done on your watch? Your predecessor got a "no" to the reserve claim a year ago. What happened in the subsequent year to make your Department think that the answer would change? When will we have clarity on how the costs will be met? At the minute, it is a shambles. Mr O'Dowd: What is required from the Chamber today is unity of purpose and a unified approach to sending a clear message to the Treasury from the Chamber and elsewhere that the Executive should have access to the reserve, that the bid meets the requirements of a reserve claim and, given the substantial pressures that the Executive are under, the reserve claim should be met. There will always be a bit of party politicking in here — it is the nature of the game that we are all involved in — but, if we have a unified voice today, it will be much more beneficial to the Executive and broader public services in ensuring that the claim is met. I informed my Executive colleagues on the day that I was informed of the Treasury bid, which was 1 October. I have been working since then to get the decision overturned. I was conscious that I was meeting the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on Friday in person, and I wanted to make sure that I engaged with him then. It was my intention to inform all members of the Committee on Monday. The fact that it got into the press is not of my making. That is for others who leaked the letter. I do not know who leaked the letter to the press. That is for them to respond to, but let us have a bit of political maturity about this one and keep focused on the objective. Mr Kelly: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagraí go dtí seo. [Translation: I thank the Minister for his answers so far.] The Minister knows that this is much wider than a data breach. I think that he pointed out at the beginning that the police are vastly under-resourced. Can the Minister outline what steps he is taking to support the Justice Minister and Chief Constable's call for additional funding for the PSNI? Mr O'Dowd: I thank the Member for his question. He will be aware that the PSNI was included as part of the Executive's discussions and decisions on public pay last Thursday in order to help meet the PSNI pay bid. I have also indicated and made it clear that it is my intention, as part of the three-year budgetary cycle, to make a recommendation to the Executive as part of that Budget that the PSNI's sustainability plan is fully funded. That will amount to around £200 million over a number of years. The Department of Justice submitted a business case to my Department, and it has been cleared. It meets the required criteria, and I hope that Executive colleagues will support me in that bid to fully fund the PSNI's sustainability plan. Mr Clarke: It is disappointing to hear the leader of the Opposition politicking on the matter. He is not genuinely concerned about the officers and is clearly trying to score political points on that basis. Minister, it was surprising to hear today, given what you said in your initial answer, about the quantum of the claim. Where did the UK Treasury's figure of £760 million come from, given that some claims have not been settled at this point? Mr O'Dowd: The figure of £760 million in the Treasury letter refers to the provisional out-turns from Departments in relation to the pressures that they face. Those pressures will rise and fall as the financial year goes on. Executive colleagues and I, as Finance Minister, have a responsibility to manage those pressures, and we will continue to do so. It was unfortunate that the Treasury took that angle of approach as part of its response to me. The PSNI data breach claim stands on its own and is exceptional. It is simply not possible for us to manage that in-year at this stage. That situation has not yet crystallised, however, and I will continue to engage with Executive colleagues and make the case to the Treasury for that reserve claim to be met. Miss McAllister: The additional security funding that is provided by the UK Government is currently not enough, despite there being a slight increase, to even meet a fraction of those costs. Is there any indication from the UK Treasury that there will be another increase in that additional security funding? Mr O'Dowd: Given the fact that the claim has been turned down, what we are witnessing is further proof of the significant economic pressures that the British Government are under. Some of that, it has to be said, is of their own making. They are operating within defined Treasury rules. The margins are so tight that I am incredulous that a sovereign Government cannot access £119 million in this instance. I am not expecting any increase in spending in any area from the current Government. We will have more information in that regard when we approach the Treasury. There may be examples where it will improve funding, but, at the moment, the situation in the Treasury is so bad that we should not be optimistic about anything in terms of increased funding. Mr Beattie: The data breach was an unforeseen mistake, and I cannot understand why the Treasury cannot see it as an exceptional circumstance. We are all talking about the money for compensation. Have you had any discussions with the Justice Minister to find out the cost of welfare for those officers, their staff and families, including children who may have had to move school, who have been affected by the data breach? What is the cost of all that? Mr O'Dowd: I have had no direct conversations with the Justice Minister in that regard. My understanding is, however, that the Chief Constable has admitted liability in this case. I am not directly involved in the legal proceedings, but mediation is ongoing in relation to the scale of the compensation for each officer, as well as for PSNI staff. I assume that that will take into account all the issues that the Member has mentioned in considering the impact that the breach has had on PSNI officers and staff. Mr McGlone: Minister, I heard your response to Mr Beattie on a specific question about the welfare of officers and their families. What discussions have you had or what preparations have you made, if any, with the Minister of Justice in the past 12 months on the matter? Mr O'Dowd: The Justice Minister and I have discussed the matter on a number of occasions in person, in correspondence and at the Executive table. There have been ongoing conversations and discussions between me and the Justice Minister and at official level in my Department. Miss Dolan: Minister, what representations were made to the Treasury in relation to the data breach? Mr O'Dowd: We submitted an application to the reserve claim that contained substantial information as to why we believed that it met the criteria for the reserve claim, setting out the unexpected nature of it and the uncertainty as to when the costs would crystallise. I am of the view that it meets the criteria. Unfortunately, I think that it is a financial rather than a procedural decision in the Treasury, because it is in such a stringent position, some of it through its own making and its own rules, which it has been sticking to rigidly. A strong case has been made to the Treasury in writing and verbally. Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for coming to the Chamber to respond to the question. The unfortunate media narrative today is fuelled by confusing a number of issues regarding the PSNI. We have the £200 million sustainability plan, PSNI pay and the cost of the data breach. I echo what the Minister said, which is that it is important that we unite and show that the Assembly supports the PSNI. Minister, have you any idea how much of this will crystallise in 2025-26, and is £119 million a cautious estimate or a realistic one? Mr O'Dowd: It is the best estimate at this moment with the business case that we received from the Department of Justice. I simply do not know when it will crystallise. Engagement is ongoing at a legal level. My understanding is that there is another court hearing on these matters in November. Colleagues will be aware that, when legal engagement takes place, it may take more time than was expected around these matters. I will await the crystallisation of the figure and then continue to engage with Executive colleagues on how we find the funding for it. Ms Egan: Minister, this is a disappointing day for the PSNI. Will you elaborate on the justification that you received from Treasury? What did it put forward as to why it rejected this? Also, what are your next steps, particularly if you are not successful in convincing the Treasury to overturn the decision? Mr O'Dowd: The Treasury position is that we should have set aside moneys for the claim on the basis that we knew that a claim had been lodged. That is somewhat contradictory to the rules under which we operate, because we cannot hold a reserve. Given the financial constraints that all Departments find themselves under, I and the Executive thought that it was only right and proper in May to issue a monitoring round and help Departments to face the pressure that they are under. That is the rationale that the Treasury has given me for not supporting the bid, although I believe that it is simply in such stringent times that it speaks volumes about the state of the economy in Britain. How will we find the funding for it? That is part of the process of discussions that I and my Executive colleagues will have to have once the figure crystallises. I am conscious that it is coming at us. I am engaging constantly with my officials about what we can do and what options are available to us, but we first have to wait for the figure to crystallise. Mr Chambers: Recently, I asked the Minister of Justice what her options were for securing the money for the compensation. She said that in no circumstances could her Department's budget meet it. She said that she would continue to engage with the Department of Finance to try to get additional funding from the Executive or HM Treasury. It now appears, however, that the Treasury has slammed the door in the face of the Minister and the Assembly, and it is having a devastating effect on the morale of the PSNI. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Alan, is there a question there? Mr Chambers: I ask the Minister — Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Good man. Mr Chambers: — where we go from here. Mr O'Dowd: I will continue to press the Treasury on the matter. I will also engage with Executive colleagues on contingency plans. However, if the Executive have to find the funding, that will lead to significant challenges for other public services. We will have to work our way through that and see how and when we can deliver the funding. Top 3.00 pm Mr Durkan: The situation will indeed prove challenging for the Executive, but it cannot have come as a complete surprise, given that the answer was no last year, and I am not sure how the landscape will have changed this year. In his response to Ms Egan, the Minister referred to feedback. Was that feedback on the discrete data breach element of the bid, or was it a blanket ask and a blanket answer? Mr O'Dowd: The only bid that I made as a reserve claim was for the PSNI data breach. There was no broader bid regarding other elements and pressures facing the Executive at this stage. The only response that I got was to the question that I asked, which was this: can I access the Treasury reserve to pay claims resulting from the PSNI data breach? Thus far, the answer is no. Mr Gaston: In a meeting last week, the Assistant Chief Constable outlined that the estimated collective cost to deal with the data breach will be in the region of £110 million. Due to the money not being available, it is now estimated that it will cost between £220 million and £330 million, if claims are taken individually. Is the caretaker Minister of Justice making any provision this year to deal with such claims, or, as per usual, are the Executive solely adopting the Oliver Twist approach and putting the hand out for more? Mr O'Dowd: We are adopting the approach that other devolved institutions and Whitehall Departments adopt when making requests to access the reserve. All those bodies take the same approach. It is not helpful to bandy figures around and say, "It might be this or it might be the other". It might not be any of those figures. It might be more. I have to deal with the reality that is in front of me, as do the Executive. There is ongoing mediation between representatives on both sides, and I will wait until those mediation processes are complete and a figure is given to me as Finance Minister or to the Justice Minister. The Executive will then have a job of work to do. Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. The Minister said that the Executive cannot hold a reserve. That is true in a literal sense, but, for the record, the Executive can hold items centrally in their Budget for specific projects. They do that all the time, so it is not correct to say that there was no means of holding that budget. However, I accept that the preference would have been for the Treasury to provide the money. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sorry, that is not a point of order, and the Member knows that it is not a point of order. We will have to get a Standing Order for showboating. That concludes the item of business. Members, please take your ease. Thank you. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Blair] in the Chair) Private Members' Business Unpaid Rates Ms Forsythe: I beg to move That this Assembly expresses concern that over £82 million in rates bills have been written off by the Department of Finance in the past six years, with over £145 million remaining unpaid as of 31 August 2025; believes that it is unfair that law-abiding businesses and households pay their rates while others have their slate wiped clean; notes that uncollected rates debt is a barrier to maximising funding available for vital public services; calls on the Minister of Finance to tangibly increase the target figure for gross collectable rates operated by Land and Property Services (LPS); and further calls on the Minister to present a range of new and concrete proposals to reduce the level of rates that are unpaid or written off over the next five years. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Business Committee has agreed to allow to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes. Please open the debate on the motion. Ms Forsythe: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Rates are the main lever that the Northern Ireland Executive have to raise revenue. The rates bill is well known to every home and business across the Province. It is a necessary pain to all, in that it is required by law to be paid to bring in around £1·5 billion a year to pay for public services. A great deal of effort goes into valuing homes, setting rates bills and determining policies on relief. After the bills are set, taxpayers in Northern Ireland expect Land and Property Services to make every effort to collect everything that is owed to the Government. However, the figures on rate collection continue to be disappointing, with £18 million of unpaid rates written off in 2024-25. That brings the total amount of unpaid rates that have been written off in the past six years up to £82 million. That is a terrible statistic that requires urgent action. Departments are operating within highly constrained budgets, with huge financial pressures on our public services. Even a small proportion of the unpaid rates that are not recovered by LPS could be used to fund projects and maintenance across the country. It is unfair that law-abiding people pay their rates whilst others fail to pay and have their slates wiped clean. As of September 2025, LPS reported that the amount of rates arrears carried forward was £145·4 million. The Finance Minister reported that £73·6 million of that is still being examined for potential legal action. It must be asked of the Minister and LPS why it is deemed acceptable to deprioritise recovering almost half of the total unpaid rates in Northern Ireland to date. People are clearly struggling to pay the rates bills that they already face. Businesses are closing and many sectors are on their knees. The DUP is committed to delivering for hard-pressed working families in Northern Ireland and has demonstrated that time and again. As we continue to support the squeezed middle, who are trying their best to pay their rates, it is unfair that the Finance Minister seems to think that the only way in which financial pressures can be met is by raising the rates cap and ending the early-payment discount. Those measures will increase the burden on many households and punish those who sensibly make preparations to pay their rates each spring, whilst turning a blind eye to those who are not paying the rates that have already been billed to them. That is a concerning message to the public and leaves many frustrated. Uncollected rates debt is a barrier to us maximising the funding that is available for vital public services in Northern Ireland. It is welcome that the vast majority of rates are collected on time by LPS. However, the commitment by LPS to see 93% of the total rates bill being successfully collected is frustrating. The target should be 100% always, or, at the very least, as close to it as possible. Why would you not target full collection of the bills that you have calculated using such a comprehensive method? Why would you not choose to show the public that you are committed to achieving full collection and set an aspirational target? For example, in the 2024-25 financial year, when the target was 93% collection, if the total rates charged and due were calculated to be approximately £1·5 billion, setting out with a 93% target collection rate meant that £105 million was already expected to not be collected. What sort of tone does that set? We need to pause and look at the significant values. We see write-offs of £82 million, huge arrears of £145 million and, operationally, we begin the year expecting to fail to collect in the region of £105 million. Those numbers are huge. Think of those, and then of the financial pressures that we see facing the Northern Ireland Budget. What would those tens and hundreds of millions of pounds do for our public services or for people? We are under no illusions that, in the current economic climate, many hard-working people, families and businesses right across Northern Ireland are encountering challenges in paying their rates. We are not unsympathetic to those concerns, but for those who repeatedly or wilfully fail to meet their obligations to be effectively let off the hook, sends out a message that we should not send to the thousands of hard-working ratepayers across Northern Ireland. The collection of rates should be on a level playing field, with every household and business treated fairly and equitably. We call on the Minister of Finance to tangibly increase the target figure for gross collectable rates, the system for which is operated by Land and Property Services. We also call on the Minister to present a range of new and concrete proposals to reduce the level of rates that are unpaid or written off over the next five years to address people's key concerns. Those include: can the Finance Minister provide evidence that his rate recovery action plan is working; will he commit to increasing the number of cases that are pursued through the courts; has he any plans to review the current criteria for write-offs; and does he intend to benchmark future collection targets against those in other jurisdictions? I also ask how the Minister will ensure that there is regional balance in unpaid rates recovery, given that, in some constituencies, the level of unpaid rates arrears appears disproportionate to the size of the population and, in others, the reduction in arrears has been stagnant. The collection of rates in every corner of Northern Ireland should be on a level playing field, with every household and every business treated fairly and equitably. I welcome the Minister's progression of the strategic review of the rates system in Northern Ireland. It is long overdue. We need to see a common-sense approach to how individuals and businesses are charged rates. The people of Northern Ireland deserve a fair system. I look forward to seeing how a difference will be made to many people and the economy here. However, a 10-year span is too slow. We need to see change now, or there will be no businesses left open in some sectors. Strong voices from the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB), Retail NI, Hospitality Ulster, Community Pharmacy and many more are shouting loudly about how the rates that they are charged impede their trading or how they operate, and it is devastating for them. We tabled the motion to note our serious concern about the high levels of unpaid rates that are written off or sit as arrears and call on the Finance Minister to take action now, as we in the DUP continue to support the hard-pressed middle, who are trying their best to pay their rates. The Finance Minister's approach to tackling the financial pressures is unfair as it continues to increase rates bills for some, while appearing to turn a blind eye to others who are not paying their rates bills. It is time that we saw a change. I commend the motion to the House. Miss Hargey: I thank the proposer of the motion, which raises important issues. Sinn Féin fully recognises that rates are a vital source of public revenue. They are the only form of taxation that is available to us here, and that means that we have to look at this critically. We have to get the system right and ensure that rates are collected fairly, efficiently and in a way that supports rather than burdens families and local businesses. That has been the Minister's priority. Years of Tory austerity have seen public services ripped apart and stripped of vital resources and funding, and global economic uncertainty and failures have contributed to increased pressures on many households here in meeting their essential needs, particularly as we are going through another cost-of-living crisis. Many businesses have also faced difficulties, while some have failed. Like households, businesses have struggled under the pressure. The Minister of Finance is taking real and practical steps to tackle those challenges and is ensuring that the most vulnerable are not further impacted on. First, the 2024-25 period saw the highest-ever level of rates collected here in the North. That is a positive note that reflects the focused work of the Department and LPS to improve billing, collections and recovery. In the previous financial year, £1·63 billion in rates was collected. The Minister has also ensured that support for those who need it most has been maintained and strengthened. That includes the continuation of rural ATMs to help sustain that important local service in rural communities, which we as a Committee have heard about in recent months; ongoing rates relief for low-income households; and protection from excessive burdens for the most vulnerable in our communities and families. The Finance Minister has overseen an overview of the strategic review of the rating system that examines the system in its entirety and looks at the forms of relief that are offered, vacant property charges and other issues. The Finance Committee has had briefings on the reform programme in the past couple of months and even in the past week. The Finance Minister has also engaged with the Committee and is due in front of it again before the Christmas recess. Top 3.15 pm Sinn Féin welcomes the Minister's forward-looking approach, which recognises that, while the system for collection of rates must improve, it must also be fair, transparent, adapted to the realities that ratepayers face and must ensure that the most vulnerable are protected. Those with the broadest shoulders have a responsibility to bear some of the burden, and there is a question to be asked about how to go about that in a fair and balanced way: those with a bigger income and bigger home need to pay higher rates, and we need to look at more mitigations for those who are struggling to meet their bills. One of the most important points that I will make today is about balance. As the Minister outlined, nearly £13 million is currently being repaid through active payment plans, helping people to meet their obligations in a manageable way that can be responsible for government pursuing what is owed without punishing people who are already struggling. It is simply unfair that many families and businesses pay their rates on time, often under great financial pressure, while others avoid that responsibility. That undermines confidence in the system. Not all unpaid rates are the result of avoidance or unwillingness to pay, however. It can be down to some of the realities of the cost of living that people face, which I spoke about, and to the impact that the interventions that the British Government have made have on our small and medium-sized businesses. There must be a balanced solution that includes enforcement and recovery, where appropriate, but also compassion and support, putting in support measures for those who struggle to pay. That is the approach that Sinn Féin sees and that Minister O'Dowd is delivering. When we look at the full picture in context, we see that the numbers tell a different story. Over the past six years, more than £8 billion has been collected, with uncollected amounts totalling around 2%. We are aware that arrears are reducing. As I said, last year, we saw the biggest increase in rates collection. That shows that the interventions that are being introduced work. Addressing the issue of unpaid rates is not about blame; it is about responsibility and solutions, recognising that progress is being made. We all want to build a fairer and stronger rates system that supports public services and, importantly, treats people with dignity. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up. Miss Hargey: Thank you. Mr Tennyson: Domestic and non-domestic rates revenue is a crucial source of income and the most significant of all the levers that are available to the Executive to raise funding for front-line public services. It has generated around £1·6 billion in the past financial year alone. The increase in unpaid rates in recent years is, undoubtedly, the result of a challenging economic environment, with the higher cost of living and doing business weighing heavily on many ratepayers. It is, however, a welcome fact, which must be acknowledged that, as of the end of August, the volume of unpaid rates carried forward in that year had fallen, with £59 million moving through legal recovery panels, almost £74 million being examined for potential legal action in the current rating year, and almost £13 million being the subject of active payment plans. LPS must be robust and rigorous in pursuing those who refuse to pay, including through the courts where necessary. That is particularly pertinent in the context of the increased financial pressures facing our public services. It is also essential that LPS continues to offer affordable longer-term repayment arrangements in cases where households and businesses are genuinely struggling to pay. Otherwise, we could see some of those businesses go to the wall, which would cost more to the public purse in the long run. We have to make a distinction between those who cannot pay and those who will not pay, with a fair and proportionate response being taken as a result. Whilst some unpaid rates relate to avoidance, others are legitimately the result of businesses going to the wall. The proposer of the motion mentioned the £82 million that has been written off over the past six years. I am curious whether the Minister can set out any more detail on the composition of that £82 million. I suspect that a significant portion of it has resulted from businesses that have gone bankrupt, where there is nothing to legally recover. The level of unpaid rates is, undoubtedly, a serious issue that needs to be tackled, but it is not the core source of our financial challenges as an Executive. That is why Alliance has continued to call for a short, sharp, independent and holistic review of rating relief in order to ensure that the system is progressive, fair, fit for purpose and able to support the needs of our public services alongside economic growth. The 10-year strategic review of rating policy that was announced by the previous Finance Minister clearly falls short of that aim. The lack of independence will impact on confidence in its recommendations, the piecemeal approach will impact on its ability to recommend meaningful change, and the long timeline invariably means that the socio-economic environment will have changed dramatically by the time the review is complete. It is clear, based on the number of businesses that are struggling, that there is a need for additional support in key sectors, such as hospitality, retail, leisure and, in particular, childcare. It is a missed opportunity that even the most modest reforms to our rating system to make it fairer and raise additional revenue for public services have not been achieved since the Assembly was restored. As a progressive politician, I believe that those with the broadest shoulders ought to bear the greatest burden. We have to take steps that protect the most vulnerable whilst raising the investment that our public services need. It is not good enough for parties to simply come to the Chamber and bemoan the lack of investment from Westminster whilst refusing to take any responsibility or take action with the powers that we have. I acknowledge that, in fairness to the Minister, consultations have been undertaken and proposals have been brought to the Executive that were not supported. It is not necessarily for a complete want of trying by the Department on this occasion. What hope is there for any serious transformation of our finances or, indeed, any greater fiscal devolution if we cannot achieve political consensus about even the most basic change to our rating system? Alliance will support the motion, because we absolutely support the need to tackle unpaid rates in Northern Ireland, but that has to happen in the context of much-needed and long overdue reform to our rating system. Mr O'Toole: Like others, I am sure, we will support the motion insofar as it goes. We have no profound issues with clamping down on the level of unpaid rates. That should be obvious. Some Members in their contributions have lambasted, as it were, the LPS and the Department. I will not defend them, but I offer a plea in mitigation: not all — in fact, very few — authorities that collect taxes, rates and revenue target or achieve 100% in the collection of payments. In broad terms, the tax gap in the UK is about 5%, so I do not think that we should assume that not believing that we will get 100% is necessarily evidence of a profound failing by the Department. That said, there is a significant stock of uncollected rates. It has come down significantly from, I think, £180-odd million to about £110 million since we first returned last year and discussed the issue. I have no particular issue in supporting the motion. However, my party and I will make the broader point that the debate is happening in the context of us not taking the power that is at our fingertips. As a progressive centre-left politician and someone who believes in devolution and, ultimately, in the exercise of power on this island rather than from Whitehall in London, I believe that we should take more power over the revenue that we raise and use every opportunity that we have to exploit and maximise the powers at our fingertips in the here and now. To be honest, we simply are not doing that at all. The motion effectively says that we should stretch ourselves a little bit more to collect a little bit more of the revenue that we are owed. That is grand; I have no issue with that. In fact, there are loads of instances of rates reliefs being applied totally inappropriately, including in my constituency. I have mentioned in the Chamber multiple times the preposterous situation in the preposterously named Tribeca site in the middle of the Cathedral Quarter. Properties there have been left to fall into dereliction, but the property owners been given rates holidays by LPS. That was undone only after questions were asked by me and others. When it comes to the powers that we have, we have pressed consistently for more ambition from the Minister on getting more fiscal devolution and local revenue-raising. That is not because we love the idea of taxation for its own sake; it is because we believe in taking responsibility here. In the Chamber, there is a huge amount of blame-shifting and responsibility-shifting. Members say, "Someone in London has to do something" or, "Another party in the Executive needs to do something". Someone somewhere else is always to blame for something. The public want us to take responsibility. I want us to take the ultimate responsibility and build a new Ireland on this island, but, until then, I want the Sinn Féin Finance Minister to explain how he and the Executive will take more power over revenue. At the moment, we have something called a rates "review cycle" over a 10-year horizon. That is completely preposterous. It is preposterous that we are talking about waiting a decade before taking any meaningful steps. I know that the Minister has taken some steps towards changing the rating system. I would like to hear when that is going to be discussed at the Executive. We understood there would be a discussion, last week or this week, specifically on measures to change non-domestic rating and, on domestic rates, early repayment and the cap. Can he give us an update today on whether that discussion is happening and when we are going to get a clear decision? Will that happen in time for the multi-year Budget later this year and therefore for the collection of next year's rates bills? Furthermore, I also ask when we are actually going to get a coherent plan for revenue raising and fiscal devolution in order to meet the challenges in our public services — Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr O'Toole, the motion relates to uncollected rates. Mr O'Toole: — and our economy. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): We should confine our comments to that. Mr O'Toole: I understand that, Mr Deputy Speaker, but, as Mr Tennyson also made clear, these things are inherently linked. How we raise revenue and the amount of revenue that we have available to spend are inherently linked to the amount of unspent rates. The point that I am making is this: if we want to deliver against a set of priorities, rescue our public services and invest in our infrastructure, we are going to need a plan. We will hopefully have a multi-year Budget and investment strategy at some point this year. We assume, because we hear it constantly in the Chamber — it is right — that London does not give us enough money and that our financing model is broken because we have to go to London for reserve claims and to get our funding. I do not want that in the long term, and I know that the Finance Minister does not want that either, but, in the short and medium term, why do we not take more power here? Why do we not raise more local revenue? Why do we not have a bit more ambition about taking power into our hands? That is a noble aspiration and a practical imperative. Let us hear from the Finance Minister what he intends to do to raise more revenue locally in the short and medium term, and in the meantime, by all means, let us collect the unpaid rates. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you for returning to the topic of the motion in the Order Paper. Members will note that some latitude is given; they may wish to note also that such latitude may not be extended to two thirds of their speech. Miss Dolan: As has been said, rates are a vital source of revenue that the Executive and our councils use to support the delivery of public services. Given the limited taxation levers available to us as a devolved Assembly, I welcome the strategic review of rating, which is looking at measures such as increasing the maximum rates cap from £400,000 to £485,000. That would generate more income in a progressive way. Despite the challenging fiscal circumstances that we face, the Finance Minister has been able to maintain considerable rates support, such as through the Back in Business scheme, which encourages the use of retail space in our towns and villages, and the rates exemption for rural ATMs, which continues to play a significant role in maintaining access to cash in my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone. I am conscious that many families have faced extremely difficult financial circumstances in recent years due to numerous factors, such as the pandemic and the cost-of-living crisis. Those circumstances will undoubtedly have contributed to the unpaid rates bills that we speak of today. Despite that, in 2025, the overall amount collected in rates increased to a record £1·6 billion. While I believe in compassion and rates support measures that support those on low incomes and encourage investment in businesses and jobs, it is imperative that LPS proactively works to recover, in a fair manner, all the rates that are owed and that legal action is taken against those who continue to refuse to pay. Mr Harvey: I join my party colleagues in bringing this motion to the Assembly today. It highlights a significant issue as part of the wider conversation on revenue raising. The figures outlined in the motion, which were supplied by way of previous answers from the Department, are astounding, particularly when viewed in the context of what it takes to operate some of our front-line public services across Northern Ireland. The current landscape of our public finances was acknowledged in the Programme for Government, which highlighted the fact that there is not enough funding for services to meet the needs of people here and that our ability to deliver on all our priorities is dependent on the availability of funds. In light of that, the Department has engaged in a review of rating and has been consulting on proposed changes. It is unfortunate that similar industry has not been procured to address the issue of recouping unpaid rates. To do so would be to provide a much fairer and more sustainable means of increasing revenue without placing additional burdens on those who already meet their obligations. Top 3.30 pm The Finance Minister and his predecessor have pointed to favourable trajectories in the past for annual recovery figures. However, the Department has published little by way of new, concrete proposals to systematically combat the issue. As of 31 August 2025, £145 million remains unpaid. If the Department and the Minister are to get serious with those flouting the law and significantly reduce that figure in the coming years, we must see a doubling down on processes and procedures and tangible actions, such as an increase in the target figure for gross collectable rates for Northern Ireland, which remains considerably lower than that in other jurisdictions at 93% compared with, for example, 96% in England, as has been highlighted. I would also be interested to hear from the Minister on the disparities across council districts, where disproportionality appears to exist between the level of unpaid rates and the population data, and on how the Department intends to combat such regional imbalance. Sinn Féin made much of austerity in the past. We all know the impact that the cost-of-living crisis continues to have on our citizens, yet the Department seems more interested in crippling ordinary, decent people with even higher bills than in getting tough on those who think that the rules do not apply to them. Scrapping the early payment discount, raising the rates cap or removing business support should not be our primary focus until uncollected rates debt has been sufficiently addressed. Let me be clear: the DUP will fight for hard-pressed working families. Those who prepare for and pay their bills on time should not be required to pick up the tab for those who do not. Mrs Dillon: Will the Member take an intervention? Mr Harvey: I am almost finished, but I certainly will when I come to the end. Those who repeatedly and wilfully fail to meet their obligations to the LPS should not be let off the hook. There is an onus on the Minister to show good governance and equality on the issue, to ensure that every possible effort is made to collect what is owed to the Government and to tackle the scourge once and for all. Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. I absolutely agree that everybody should pay their rates, but does the Member agree that some of those who have been unable to pay their rates are hard-working, decent people who have just been unable to pay their rates? Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute. Mr Harvey: I agree with the Member that there surely are those cases, but, in effect, there are things that cater for that. Thank you. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Timothy Gaston. Mr Gaston: Thank you, Principal — or Deputy Speaker, should I say? I elevated you there. The motion is topical, as the Executive scramble to solve some of their money woes and we approach the point of struggling to keep the lights on and services functioning. For me, the motion touches on four groups of people who give context to the problems that the Department faces in trying to recover this money. I think of my constituent in Cullybackey who owns her home and who, through no fault of her own, had to retire early from her job. Sadly, that lady cannot gain employment and, due to having a small private pension, does not qualify for universal credit or get help from personal independence payment (PIP). Until she reaches state pension age, she will have to continue to stretch her money as far as she can to pay a little of her rates bill to keep the wolves from the door, while choosing every day between paying all her rates, heating her home and having food in the cupboard. If she had not worked all her life, she would be entitled to universal credit and would qualify to get her rates paid for her. The second group is of people who, through unforeseen circumstances, have been unable to pay their rates bills and whose debt has spiralled to the point at which the only option is bankruptcy. I presume that that is the group that is most responsible for the £82 million of debt that was written off. The third group is of people who have moved out of their homes due to the poor condition that they have got into and have stopped paying their rates as a result. Even though those houses are now empty, the rates remain payable until the houses are either toppled or become so badly dilapidated that they cannot be repaired and are condemned. That brings me to my fourth group of people: those who have the resources but, through poor financial management, have not paid their rates bills. The Department needs to use all the resources at its disposal to ensure that those rates are paid in full as a priority. The best example that I can give relates to an office in my constituency that was recently highlighted in the local press. Shockingly, over a 13-year period, that property was the subject of repeated arrangements, court summonses, bounced cheques and what were politely described as "oversights", none of which successfully settled the rates account. I will take the House through the facts of what the Department has faced. In 2012, Land and Property Services sent its first debt recovery letter. In 2013, when the bill remained unpaid, a court summons was issued. Only then did the office request a copy of the bill to arrange payment. In 2016, LPS was assured that there would be payment by mid-August, yet there was still nothing four months later. A second court summons was required before payment finally came. In 2017, another summons was issued. A post-dated cheque was offered, but it was rejected. In 2018, a six-month payment arrangement was agreed, yet the cheques — one for £3,000 and a second for £1,000 — bounced. In 2020, pre-court letters were issued before payments were made. In 2021, LPS again had to threaten court action. In May 2023, a final red-letter warning was issued. In March 2025, more than £5,000 was still outstanding. Shockingly, that property was the constituency office of the former MP and now united Irelander, Ian Paisley Junior. The property was held by the Ballymena Advice Centre, which is a corporate entity linked to the Paisley family, with the DUP a passive beneficiary. Ms Sugden: Will the Member give way? Mr Gaston: I am happy to give way. Ms Sugden: The Member has outlined the extensive process involved in collecting the rates bill, setting aside the particular individual at whom it was directed in that case. Does that bureaucracy in and of itself add to the cost and the challenge with rates collection that we are discussing? Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute. Mr Gaston: The case goes to the heart of the problem that the Department is facing. In that case, the money would have been covered by public money if somebody had managed their budget and their resources right. Mr Paisley was the tenant and was legally responsible for paying the rates. The DUP now calls for the stricter enforcement of unpaid rates, demanding higher collection targets and new proposals to tackle arrears. Unpaid rates are unfair, a burden to ordinary citizens and a threat to public services. However, if the DUP truly wants to lead by example, perhaps the first step is simple: ensure that your own offices are fully up to date on their bills before lecturing the public. Only then can the public take seriously the call for fiscal responsibility and take lectures and guidance from the Benches to my right. Until that happens and until the Church Street account is finally settled, there should be no lectures — Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member's time is up. Mr Gaston: — from the DUP on the issue. Mr Tennyson: Hear, hear. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you. I call —. Mr Tennyson: Well said. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members. I call Claire Sugden. Ms Sugden: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I prepared a speech that took the issue at face value, in that £145 million sits outside the system. When the general public hear that figure, they think of the debate that we had prior to this one and the £110 million that we are not paying in relation to the police data issue. They also think of the money required for the holiday pay claim and the millions that, the Health Minister says, we do not have in our budget to pay nurses. I appreciate, Minister, that it is not as easy as transferring money across Departments. However, the public are trying to understand. They see that huge £145 million shortfall and are trying to understand: is it due to Stormont incompetence or does the fact that the system is just too bureaucratic — I mentioned that in my intervention to Mr Gaston — mean that it is almost not worth recovering it, because to recover it in an efficient way may cost more? That takes us into another conversation about how we collect rates and what the issues are, and even Linda Dillon's point about the fact that people simply cannot afford it. That, in itself, is an issue, because the rates system is one of the few ways in which Northern Ireland can raise its own revenue. As budgets get cut, as services seem to cost more and as public services haemorrhage money, we need to find it from somewhere. To be honest, the only way in which to do that is through rates and, ultimately, by increasing them. We can point to the successes of recent years and the money that has been brought in by Land and Property Services, but, ultimately, that has been because you are raising rates. I appreciate that we need rates, at local, council function level and at Northern Ireland function level, because we just do not have enough money to go across all services. I am a little bit concerned that that, in itself, is what is increasing our rates generally. We need to have an honest conversation about why the system is there and what it is for. Earlier, I mentioned that I have been in the Chamber for 10 years, and that we are talking about the same issues that we talked about a decade ago. Rates is one of those issues, particularly non-domestic rates. More often than not, any business that challenges its rates bill will win that appeal because the system is so convoluted that it cannot really justify itself, and LPS will probably have no option other than to agree with the appeal. I do not want to rehash what others have said: I am trying to be a bit more thoughtful about the contributions because they point to the general concerns around the system. We need to see reform. We need to look at what we are doing there. Maybe we need to look at other ways in which to raise revenue so that rates are not the only opportunity for us to get more money for the services that we all use. The person who cannot afford to pay their rates will not pay them, and will then go through a lengthy accountability process. I suspect that the Minister has regular conversations with the Minister of Justice about the challenges and pressures that the Enforcement of Judgments Office faces. Is that an issue as to why we are unable to collect rates better — that, again, the system is so bureaucratic and convoluted? We need to have an honest conversation. I admit that I came at this by seeing £145 million and saying, "Wow, that is a huge shortfall", particularly when we put it into the context of the many millions of pounds that we need for other services. Minister, I encourage you to look at the system as a whole and speak to your Executive colleagues about this. I expect that you will stand up and tell us all the reasons why that figure exists, and it may not be as simple as some of us would have assumed at the outset. However, the fact is that there is not enough money and our system is not efficient enough to address services in a way that can justify the figures that we have to present to the public. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call the Minister of Finance to respond to the debate. Minister, you have up to 15 minutes. Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): Thank you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. [Translation: Mr Deputy Speaker.] In a very straitened financial operating context, the revenue from rates is key to the provision of much-needed public services, such as health and education, not to mention the many services that are provided by councils to support local communities. That is why, as Minister of Finance, the issue of the collection of rates is high on my agenda. Land and Property Services has a strategy for improving rates collection that is focused on making it easier to pay while balancing compassion for those who are struggling to pay. Indeed, Members write to me asking for such compassion for their constituents. The constituents for whom they write to seek compassion are included in the rates figure that is before us. I assume that the Members who write to me are not suggesting that I do not show compassion to the people for whom they make representations. Last year, my Department collected £1·63 billion in rates revenue, the highest ever amount of rates that was collected in a single year, which represented an increase of over £90 million from the year before. Even with that level of performance, of course, there will be outstanding rates that have not been recovered, including unpaid debt that has accumulated over a number of years and is carried forward. We have faced, and continue to face, extreme fiscal pressures in our society and economy, yet my Department continues to strive to increase the amounts that are collected year-on-year. Top 3.45 pm For context, the value of uncollected rates of £145 million, as mentioned in the motion, represents less than 2% of the £8·261 billion collected over the past six years. So far this year, we have collected almost £1 billion and driven down arrears from April by 20%. Whilst good progress has been made, I am, of course, focused on the balance remaining. Recovery of the £145 million remains a priority. Significant efforts are ongoing to ensure that as much of the revenue owed is paid as quickly as possible. It would be useful to Members if I broke down the £145 million figure further: £59 million has already been subject to legal recovery action, enabling further legal action to be taken while rates continue to remain unpaid; £12·8 million is currently being repaid through active payment plans or agreed arrangements with Land and Property Services. That money is being collected over an extended period, reflecting a flexible approach that supports ratepayers. I am confident that no Member of the House disagrees with the principle of allowing ratepayers who want to pay the additional time to do so. As was pointed out by Linda Dillon, many of those people who find themselves in difficulty are honest, hard-working people who want to do the right thing. Some of the language in the motion referring to "law-abiding businesses and households" who pay is disappointing. Others who are law-abiding find themselves in difficulties where they cannot pay, so let us not paint everybody with the same brush. The challenge for LPS is that it has to deal with each individual circumstance on its own merits. That can be complicated, convoluted and difficult, at times, as Mr Gaston pointed out in relation to one case, which, I believe, is ongoing, so I will make no more mention of it. It is important to understand that the approach contributes to the overall amount of rates still outstanding. The remaining balance of £73·5 million is under review to obtain payment or progress through legal action within this rating year. Within that balance, there are rates that are not suitable for legal recovery, such as rates pending valuation appeals or settlements of probate on estates following bereavement. It is important that I am clear on this point regarding write-offs: the writing off of rating debt is a legitimate provision that accepts, under certain prescribed circumstances, that collection is simply not viable. My officials cannot simply decide to reduce debt balances through write-offs. There are agreed checks and balances in place to ensure that any such action is in accordance with the legislation and good governance. Write-off is the final step taken after all recovery options have been pursued. On the figure of £82 million in write-offs over the past six years, 80% of the amount written off — that is, £67 million — was due to what is referred to as "legal reasons". Those are not discretionary decisions but are obligations under law that prevents further recovery, often involving businesses that have ceased trading or have gone into receivership. Mr O'Toole: I appreciate the Minister giving way. On this occasion, I agree with him. In my family, I have experience of what happens when a small business owner cannot continue because of a serious illness and has rates liability. Does the Minister agree that it is often the case in small towns that, sometimes, a liability remains a liability because the ratepayer, perhaps for reasons of stigma or a feeling of obligation to other creditors to whom they owe money in their local town or wherever it is, feel that they do not want to seek write-off? That liability stays there. Therefore, it is important not to stigmatise and simplify those issues, particularly when it comes to small business owners. Mr O'Dowd: That is an important distinction to make. Broadly, there are two sets of people when you come to rates debt: those who cannot pay and those who will not pay. We have to pursue rigorously those who refuse to pay, and we have to support and work with those who cannot pay to find a way for them to deliver their liabilities. That is the broad breakdown of where people are at. Going back to the collection figure of £1·63 billion last year, the significant efforts by my officials to collect and recover rates owed should not be underestimated. Calls have been made to increase the Department's collection rate, with one previous point repeated here today: the mooting of 100% collection targets. The prospect of collecting the full amount of rates revenue owed is one that we all support. However, regrettably, that prospect is not realistic. During the debate, several Members alluded to why that is not the case. The current target that I have set of 93% is a considered position, setting a standard that measures collection performance against all collectable rates and strikes a balance between ambition and deliverability. The process of valuation, assessment, billing and applying reliefs is complex and evolving, and I have to say that comparing our collection rate to that of England and elsewhere does not necessarily simply match. It is a very complex process to match both over and go back on forth on those. I have engaged with my officials on that on a number of occasions, and I am satisfied that the target that we have set is comparable with other regions when you look at all the facts and at what you are measuring. The process of valuation, assessment, billing and applying reliefs is complex and evolving. There are necessary elements of process that, together, combine to make the administration of collecting revenue challenging. We must recognise that there is a cost in money and time in recovering rates, and we need to accept that there are times when it is uneconomical to do so. Many Members will have first-hand experience of asking Land and Property Services to provide support for constituents who are struggling to balance household and business bills. Not all ratepayers are able to pay what is owed, through no fault of their own. In those cases, officials have a responsibility to be understanding and support the ratepayer to come to a payment agreement that is affordable and sustainable. On the other hand, there are those who can make payment but wilfully choose to avoid doing so. Those cases require relentless recovery and enforcement action and can often take years to resolve. It is fair to say that, sometimes, distinguishing clearly between those who cannot and those who will not is challenging, and my officials work hard in managing the demands in handling both. I am pleased to say that good progress has been made in the year to date in rates recovery, and I am looking forward to a positive end-year out-turn against the target set. I am in no doubt about how difficult it is to maintain those levels of collection in a very challenging operating environment; however, I am committed to striving to do more. Land and Property Services has a revised strategy for improving rates collection over the next three years. Supporting the principles that I have endorsed in the road map for rating, the strategy is built around three key aims: making it easier for ratepayers to pay; supporting those who need help to pay; and taking effective action against those who will not pay. My Department has set out not only a clear ambition to increase collections but the approach to achieving that ambition. Key deliverables for this year include new digital services that will enhance ratepayers' experiences through, for example, online billing and flexibility in managing payment options as well as using data-driven insights to strengthen decision-making on enforcement action. My Department is committed to maximising rate collection, and I think that the £1·63 billion that was collected last year demonstrates that. I commend my officials for their performance to date in very challenging circumstances. I also recognise that there is always a need to do more, and a process is under way for, amongst other things, my plans for rating policy reviews and a rate collection strategy. However, let me be clear: the overarching approach is to not lose compassion and understanding for the circumstances that people find themselves or their businesses in. That is why making it easier to pay and setting up plans to recover in slower time remain the top priorities for me as Minister. I could ask my officials to have a more ruthless approach, for instance, with businesses and to pursue them more rigorously, but that will put more and more businesses out of business each year. We will collect more rates, or maybe we will not, because, once they are declared bankrupt, we might not be able to get the rates at all. You have to give the freedom to officials to deal with it on a case-by-case basis, working within an agreed framework. I believe that the framework that we have agreed and that will be presented to the Committee and others is the best way forward for what is a hugely complex and, at times, difficult process to be involved in. However, I believe that we are making significant strides in the right direction. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, Minister, for that response. I call Brian Kingston to conclude the debate and make a winding-up speech on the motion. You have up to 10 minutes. Mr Kingston: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank all who contributed to the debate on the motion, and I thank those who indicated their support for our motion and those who have made other observations. It has been an interesting debate. I think that everyone has agreed that the pressures and demands on the public purse in Northern Ireland are vast and are well known to us all and to the general public. Many Members pointed out that the only means by which the Assembly can raise taxation for public services, in addition to the block grant that we receive from His Majesty's Treasury, is through the rates as a property tax on residential and commercial premises. Therefore it is essential that we ensure that everyone pays their fair share, in view of the need for public finance and fairness to everyone. In the previous financial year, £18 million of unpaid rates were written off. That is a substantial amount — £18 million in one year. Our motion notes with concern that, over the past six years, the total written off was £82 million. That is a shocking statistic when we think about the need for those public funds. Our motion asks for two actions from the Finance Minister. First, to: "increase the target figure for gross collectable rates", which is currently 93%, and, secondly, to: "present a range of new and concrete proposals to reduce the level of rates that are unpaid or written off". The Minister mentioned some measures, and we would be interested in seeing those in writing. The bottom line is that, as the motion states, it is unfair that law-abiding people pay their rates while others fail to pay and, ultimately, have the slate wiped clean. A number of Members spoke of the need to be aware of the value of repayment plans and support where people have difficulty paying their rates. Absolutely: they should be in place when people are in financial difficulties, rather than seeing businesses go bankrupt and, therefore, lose. Anyone who is involved in a business will know that, at some stage, debts have to be written off. At a time when proposals have been brought forward for charging ratepayers more, the public expect us to exhaust all avenues to ensure that the rates that are due are being paid, and paid fairly by all. My colleague Diane Forsythe said that half of the £145 million that has been carried forward from previous years is being examined for potential legal action. Why only half? We have to ask that question, and the public will ask why it is not a larger amount. Mrs Dillon: Will the Member take an intervention? Mr Kingston: I will, yes. Mrs Dillon: Does the Member agree that the Minister addressed that directly in his response? Mr Kingston: I heard a number of things about people who are having difficulty paying their rates, but the question remains: why is more not being done to collect? The distinction between those who cannot pay and those who will not pay is too arbitrary. There are people in the middle who are reluctant to pay, and people need to be put under pressure to pay, in the interest of fairness and the public purse. Certainly, measures might need to be put in place over time, but if people are swinging the lead, that should not be tolerated. Mr Tennyson: I thank the Member for giving way. Far be it from me to agree with the Member for North Antrim Mr Gaston, but on the topic of swinging the lead, and given that it has been widely publicised that rates are unpaid on the constituency office of a former DUP MP in North Antrim, will the Member be pursuing his colleagues in respect of those unpaid rates? Or is this a case of, "Do as I say, not as I do" from the DUP? Mr Kingston: Mr Gaston mentioned a number of cases in which he would be sympathetic to people having difficulty paying their rates, and he highlighted one case in which a significant rates bill is outstanding. That is unacceptable. That case should continue to be pursued and the rates brought in for it — there is no doubt about that. We stand by our view on the 93% target. I heard the Minister say that he did not feel that it was comparable to England, where the rates collection rate is 96%. It is our duty to push to increase the 93%. If that was what was raised, we would have £105 million not collected each year, so we are actually exceeding the 93%. Therefore, why not increase the target? Why have a target that is below what is actually being collected? Top 4.00 pm Do I have 10 minutes, Mr Deputy Speaker? Is that correct? Deirdre Hargey and Jemma Dolan pointed out that the £1·63 billion of rates collected last year was the highest amount ever. They said that measures needed to be put in place to support those in financial difficulty, so that people are not pursued with unnecessary rigour if they are unable to pay. Eóin Tennyson also commented on the increase in rates collection in recent years. That shows the importance of setting targets. He wanted to distinguish between those who will not pay and those who cannot pay. He commented on the 10-year review announced by the previous Finance Minister and said that it is taking too long. Matthew O'Toole expressed support for the motion and then spoke at length about revenue-raising powers. He finally returned to the motion's theme in his final sentence to support the concept that more rates should be raised. Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way? Mr Kingston: You had quite a bit of time to speak, and you did not really address the motion. Will you address it now? Mr O'Toole: I appreciate the Member's giving way. He mentioned swinging the lead and said that the LPS should be better able to decide between who cannot and who will not pay. Further to the point made by Mr Gaston and Mr Tennyson about how easy it is to draw the distinction, will the Member give his view about the DUP office in Ballymena? There has been repeated action by LPS. Does he think that the party responsible for the property, whoever they are, cannot pay or will not pay? Mr Kingston: I have already commented that that rates bill needs to be paid and should be pursued rigorously. I thought that you were going to speak about the motion, but you have decided not to. My colleague Harry Harvey said that funds are needed for all the actions and priorities in the Programme for Government and that, as we know, every Minister is crying out for more funding to enable those ambitions to be met. He also said that the 93% target is too low and that, while other proposals have been put forward by the previous and current Finance Ministers on the maximum capital value of property and on reducing the early payment discount, first and foremost, the public expect to see us bring in what is legally due under the current system, and that must be the priority. I thank Claire Sugden for her contribution. She wanted to see reform and more money for public finances. In closing, I thank everyone for their contribution to the debate. We think that there is strong support for our central theme, and we hope that the motion will be approved by the House. Question accordingly agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly expresses concern that over £82 million in rates bills have been written off by the Department of Finance in the past six years, with over £145 million remaining unpaid as of 31 August 2025; believes that it is unfair that law-abiding businesses and households pay their rates while others have their slate wiped clean; notes that uncollected rates debt is a barrier to maximising funding available for vital public services; calls on the Minister of Finance to tangibly increase the target figure for gross collectable rates operated by Land and Property Services (LPS); and further calls on the Minister to present a range of new and concrete proposals to reduce the level of rates that are unpaid or written off over the next five years. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members can take their ease for a moment before we move to the next item in the Order Paper. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Dr Aiken] in the Chair) Motion made: That the Assembly do now adjourn. — [Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken).] Adjournment Infrastructure: Castlereagh South Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): In conjunction with the Business Committee, the Speaker has given leave to Kate Nicholl to raise the matter of improving infrastructure in Castlereagh South. Kate, you have up to 15 minutes. Ms Nicholl: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is my first Adjournment debate, and I am delighted to bring the topic to the Chamber, which covers a wide range of issues that are consistently raised with me and other Alliance representatives across the Castlereagh South, from Knockbreda right up to Carryduff. It is a privilege to represent such a vibrant and growing area. The demand for housing is a particularly clear indication of its popularity, but it also brings a series of challenges and issues that must be resolved. That is what we are here to discuss. Housing alone does not make a community or a neighbourhood. When I talk about infrastructure, I do not just mean roads, public transport and planning, although they are all very important: I am also talking about community infrastructure. I want to address four key areas of concern and opportunity: green spaces and active travel; pedestrian safety and traffic; public transport; and planning and development. The issue of green spaces is a major priority in Castlereagh South and is raised with me on every doorstep when we do outreach work in the area. It is clear that more land ought to be secured for future green space use and that that needs to be considered as part of future development plans. We want to see parks being developed and expanded. There are brilliant examples of really positive work, including at Carryduff Park. I have been able to work with our councillors, Paula, local schools and councils to support improved biodiversity. The greenway is a separate project that needs to be progressed by Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council, but it feeds into a much wider need for active travel routes and cycle lanes in the area. Simple things like footway clearing make such a real difference but are often neglected. There is also a need for upgrades to Lough Moss leisure centre. The people of Carryduff deserve so much better. The development of the walkway from St Ita's Primary School has been agreed. That is a real win, but I would be grateful if the Minister could look into it further and provide an update on the progress there. Pedestrian safety and traffic comes up in my office time and time again. My office is on the Saintfield Road, and we are told that there is an urgent need for safe pedestrian crossings on the Saintfield Road, especially at the Church Road roundabout in Carryduff. The Church Road pedestrianisation is a recurring topic, and traffic volumes are extremely high and growing in the area. I have spoken in the Chamber about the roadworks along the Saintfield, Knockbracken and Ballymaconaghy Roads. That is before we get into the anticipated impact of future roadworks related to the Glider expansion, if it happens, on the Saintfield Road traffic. The Four Winds roundabout experiences very heavy traffic volumes. There is positive work in relation to that upgrade, but I would appreciate an update from the Minister on that today if she can give it to us. Forestside traffic is a major concern, especially with the Lidl development coming into play. Entry and exit points are in need of improvement, especially at the roundabout as you come off the main road. Traffic there has such an impact on the arterial and commuter routes. The Hillsborough Road pedestrian crossing at Lough Moss Leisure Centre is something that we have raised with officials and we know that they will be reassessing it. Residents are really keen to see results there. Parking at Hydebank playing fields and a controlled crossing on the Purdysburn Road for St Ita's Primary School have also been raised, as was parking in and around Cairnshill Integrated Primary School. Regarding public transport, there is a really poor bus service to Four Winds and Carryduff, with frequent delays, overcrowding and no-shows. We have spoken to Translink about that, and we have written about it, but it is a recurring problem and there does not seem to be a solution. Buses frequently terminate at Forestside rather than go all the way up to Cairnshill. That has been raised with me on many occasions by constituents, especially during busy periods. In the run-up to Christmas, we really need to see improvements on what happened last year. When buses terminate early, it puts people off using them, which has an impact on moving people into active travel. There really is a need for improved connectivity between Belfast and Lisburn. The final of the four points that I want to raise is around planning and development. Planning applications should include green spaces and play parks, and there should be greater focus on enhancing community infrastructure in housing developments. So many families are moving into areas where there is nothing for children. A lack of green spaces is really felt. Walkability and connectivity between developments should be prioritised, rather than there being a patchwork of developments. We need to create a sense of community and connection. I would be interested in knowing how the Department could facilitate that. There is a need for better linkages and walkways between housing developments. Knockbracken Healthcare Park is on otherwise unused land. There have been discussions with the Health Minister. Could that land include a community centre? There is a real need for place-building for community development, and the Department for Infrastructure can play a role in that. We need to see commitment to, and the delivery of, the Carryduff public realm project. So many developments are coming up in the area. When issues arise with developers, it is difficult for MLAs to advocate for their constituents. What support can the Department give to residents who are having issues with developers and do not know what support they can get? Castlereagh South is a brilliant, diverse, shared community that is growing and developing every day, but it cannot just be about housing. People are calling out for improved infrastructure that not just improves connectivity but supports community development and, ultimately, builds a stronger sense of neighbourhood. Alliance will continue to champion those issues. I am grateful to the Minister for being here. She is patient in answering my multiple questions and letters about the area, and I look forward to hearing her response to the debate. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much indeed, Kate. It is good to hear your voice making speeches again in the Chamber. Welcome back. All other Members who are called to speak will have approximately six minutes. Miss Hargey: Thank you to Kate for bringing the Adjournment debate. Castlereagh South sits within the Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council area at the south-east side of Belfast. It is a growing community, particularly in Carryduff, Four Winds and Newtownbreda, with an increased demand for housing and the associated amenities. You just need to look at the council's planning portal to see the growth that has taken place and what is planned for the months and years ahead. The area sits within the wider road infrastructure network for commuters and public transport users from outside Belfast. Thus, it acts as a key connector to more rural communities. The expanding nature of the area, with many housing developments agreed or progressing through planning, has increased demand for local infrastructure services, including greater access to public transport, walking and cycling. There are schools, sports teams and amazing community organisations in the area, so road safety is important, as is connectivity between each of those infrastructure elements and the housing developments that surround them. I welcome the Minister's recent public transport announcement about the Glider phase 2 start — an investment of £48 million in south and north Belfast — and her commitment to see the full Glider project delivered. The number of users of public transport in Castlereagh South has increased over the past couple of years. That shows that, if the public transport is there, the local community will definitely make use of it. As the next iteration of the Glider scheme into the area develops, I ask the Minister to engage with Translink to look at extending the Metro service to Carryduff, so as to align with the Glider development. The Minister's recent announcements about the late-night bus services pilot, which will see an increase in services into Castlereagh South, and on bus prioritisation over the Christmas period, are welcome. As Kate touched on, we have seen completed schemes at Purdysburn Road, Mealough Road and Ballynagarrick Road and the Saintfield Road and Knockbracken Road junctions, while works are ongoing at Ballymaconaghy Road. Whilst those schemes are welcome, it is about how they are sequenced. When roads are closed for long periods, residents get annoyed. Once the roads have opened, however, particularly Knockbracken Road, you see why it was important for the changes to be made. Top 4.15 pm Another key area of infrastructure is connectivity and pedestrianisation, and, importantly, linking local services and green spaces. That is why the proposed Carryduff greenway project is a game changer in the area. The Department previously provided the council with funding for a feasibility study and for design costs to work up the project in more detail. The council recently re-established the Carryduff working group to look at that project, and I am keen to see the proposals from that extensive work. Castlereagh South is an expanding area, and we must all ensure that it has appropriate infrastructure. I welcome projects that have been delivered so far and the important projects that are in the planning and design phase. As I say, the greenway and the Glider, along with enhanced Metro services, will be significant projects over the next period, and I want to work with the community, the Minister, the council and, indeed, with the local reps who are here this afternoon, and Edwin, who could not be here, to deliver and ensure that we build a safe, sustainable, accessible and connected transport and infrastructure system in the Castlereagh South area. It is a vibrant area. We were at the Down county final on Sunday, watching Carryduff, and you can see how even one small sports team — we have soccer teams and others too — is playing a role and attracting young people. It reflects not only the vibrancy of that wider community but its hopes and aspirations to build a sustainable Castlereagh South that is connected and that intersects with other areas while also delivering for the needs of the residents, not just the current residents but the residents who will be living there in the next 10, 20 and 30 years. We need to ensure that the infrastructure investment that we put in now is future-proofed to meet those future needs. I welcome the Adjournment debate, and I look forward to working with everyone here to ensure that we deliver for the residents in that area. Mr O'Toole: I am really pleased to be debating this issue today, and I thank the Member who brought the Adjournment debate to the House. I am so proud to represent Carryduff, Newtownbreda and Four Winds — the BT8/Castlereagh South area. In many ways, calling it Castlereagh South is a bit of a let-down for the people who live there, because that is a council district electoral area (DEA). People who live there live in brilliant, shared communities, and one of them — Carryduff — is, in many ways, one of the original shared communities here in the North. There is a brilliant cross-community ethos and a brilliant set of community institutions, one of which, as Deirdre said, had a big moment on Sunday. Unfortunately, throw-in was delayed, and I could not make it down to the match, but Carryduff were unlucky again against Kilcoo. I hope that, next time, they will become the first Down county champions from the greater Belfast area. I think that they will get there — in fact, for the purposes of balance in the constituency, I should say either they or Bredagh will get there. Carryduff is an amazing and growing community, as are Newtownbreda and Four Winds. The truth is that people are coming from all over Northern Ireland and further afield to make their home in BT8/Castlereagh South, which is a shared community with brilliant sports clubs and community facilities. To be candid, they have been failed for too long. I do not say that to be churlish; I say it to be honest. They have been failed at Executive level but particularly at council level. I will be quite pointed in my remarks about this today, because people in Castlereagh South contribute the biggest volume of rates revenue to Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council, but, as the SDLP discovered through an FOI request to the council, they consistently get the lowest level of spending in that council area. That is unacceptable, because people move there to invest their future in that community and to invest their children's future in the brilliant schools there, such as Cairnshill Primary School, St Ita's Primary School, Carryduff Primary School and St Joseph's Primary School. Those are all brilliant amenities. People move there and spend money — sometimes a pretty penny — on a house, and, when they get there, they feel that investment has not been made in that community when it comes to public transport, the public realm and other things. Indeed, there is lack of broader spending in that area, and Lough Moss leisure centre has been mentioned. I want to mention a few things that have already been mentioned that need to be resolved. I grew up in Downpatrick, and I now represent South Belfast, so a large part of my life, like the life of lots of people who live in that part of County Down, is spent driving through Carryduff and down the Saintfield Road. That is a problem, not because people are travelling to South Belfast — I want them to — but because it is treated like a motorway. Carryduff, Newtownbreda and Four Winds are communities. They deserve to have a proper public realm and public transport all the way up the Saintfield Road and out to Carryduff, as part of the broader city. They do not have that at the minute. Will the Minister update us as to where things are? We have no clarity yet on the Glider. We do not know when it will go all the way up the Saintfield Road. I know that that is the intention, but the last that we heard was a let-down: it had been discontinued, and the Glider is going only so far as just beyond the Ormeau Bridge. We do not know when it will extend any further. Apparently, the Glider has been ruled out for the foreseeable future for Carryduff, which is a shame. However, if we are to have more Metro services, I would like to hear when the expanded services will be delivered. People want to go into the centre of Belfast and to move about without feeling that they have to drive to get from one bit of Carryduff, Newtownbreda or Four Winds to another. Lough Moss has been mentioned. It is not directly the responsibility of the Minister. It is a great facility, but it is now pretty careworn and old. If you are a family living in Carryduff and you want to take your kids swimming but you rely on public transport, you have to take two or three buses to get to Olympia or Lisnasharragh or to get the bus to Downpatrick to go to the leisure centre there. That is unacceptable. Why are people left with that quality of service in Carryduff? The investment in the public realm is just not there. If you drive through, there is an unkempt whin bush in the middle of Carryduff roundabout. What does that say to people who are travelling through that community? People take great pride in the community, but they are simply let down by the statutory authorities. Carryduff greenway has been mentioned. I welcome the fact that the working group has been set up again, but that has been going on for longer than 'The Mousetrap'. We need to have clarity from the council, in conjunction with the Department — a lot of this is on the council — as to when we will see action in delivering the greenway. There are issues around land ownership, but let us finally cut through them and deliver something for the people in that area. People in the area look to the east and west and see things happening in Dundonald and in Lisburn. As a political party, the SDLP has no issue in calling out these things: we do not have as much representation in Dundonald or Lisburn. People wonder, "What the hell is happening here?". I hate to be pointed about it, but our party did not vote for a £50 million, £60 million or £70 million Ice Bowl in Dundonald, which is great but is a vast drain on ratepayer resource in that area. When people in Carryduff ask me why they are not getting more investment in the public realm, I am willing to tell them. Mr Brooks is obviously unhappy with me saying it: that is fine. I do not think that it is a justifiable use of ratepayers' money, given the amount of resource that comes out of Castlereagh South and into the coffers of Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council. People who have invested in their homes in Mealough and Baronscourt Green — the new developments that Deirdre mentioned — want to build an amazing community. Let us support them and back them with proper public transport and proper public realm. I welcome the fact that a further consultation happened recently on the public realm in Carryduff, but let us see proper delivery of that and proper ambition. Kate is right about road safety and allowing people to be pedestrians there, not just motorists. Let us properly invest in that community, because they have invested in it themselves. As of yet, they have not had the backing from statutory authorities. Let us finally get behind them. Our party certainly will not be found wanting. We have been tough in campaigning about this, and we will continue to be tough, because people in Carryduff, Knockbreda, Newtownbreda and Four Winds all deserve better. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much, Matthew. I am glad that you did not take us to three endings. Ms Bradshaw: I thank my Alliance Party colleague, Kate Nicholl, for securing today's Adjournment debate. I have represented South Belfast since 2016, and it has been such a joy to see the Castlereagh South area flourish during that time. We have seen retailers, small traders and hospitality businesses go from strength to strength, meeting the needs of the growing population. Membership of sports clubs, such as Newtownbreda Football Club, Carryduff Colts and Carryduff GAC, is growing and bringing people together to play, volunteer and socialise. Community organisations, such as Killynure Community Association, Carryduff Regeneration Forum and the Four Winds Community Group, all work with the statutory authorities, the council, the police and, of course, our elected reps to improve their local neighbourhoods. The schools are welcoming and inclusive, and they work collaboratively and effortlessly every day. Lastly, we have an area that is blessed with proactive and engaging church communities that do sterling work in creating community cohesion, giving local residents a sense of common purpose and addressing issues such as loneliness and poverty. Kate and I had a lovely morning just this weekend at the Cornerstone Methodist Church, which was making fundraising efforts for Chest, Heart and Stroke. They do great work not just for the community but for local charities. Castlereagh South is an area to be envied. Its wards are ranked amongst the least deprived in Northern Ireland; in fact, the Carryduff West ward is the second least deprived. It has a healthy mix of people from different backgrounds, socio-economic groups and ethnicities. Some people have lived there for a lifetime and are now enjoying their retirement in their mature and well-manicured gardens, living cheek by jowl with families who have recently moved into beautiful new homes across the large number of housing schemes that have transformed Castlereagh South. The consequences of the growing population in the Castlereagh South area are being borne by the people who live there. As has been mentioned, there are huge pressures on the road infrastructure. Most of the Members who have spoken so far have mentioned the south Belfast rapid transit route. I really would appreciate some clarity and information on that from the Minister this evening. On the public transport issue, my colleague Kate Nicholl raised the issue of regularity of buses. Sometimes they do not turn up, and sometimes the information for commuters is out of date, both of which can be frustrating. However, that is just part of it. When we were out engaging with residents on Saturday morning, I spoke to a man who lives in Beechill Park Avenue, who said that he just wants to be able to walk to the Forestside area with his family but that his only route is down the Saintfield Road, where the speed of the cars and the urban grey jungle make it unappealing. I very much concur with others on the need to see progress on the Carryduff greenway. That would not be just for people who want to get to the shops but — again, the issue has been raised — for young families who want to encourage their children to walk and cycle to school. We need to see more work around trying to get our roads connected. Linked to that is the perennial issue of speeding. Newton Park, Purdysburn Road and Cairnshill Road are three routes that are regularly raised with us as areas of concern. Yes, the police and community safety partnership (PCSP) moves the speed indicator devices (SIDs) around, and, for a while, people adjust their driving, but it is not long before they start speeding up again, so that is an issue of concern. Matthew O'Toole raised the recent consultation on potential public realm works in Carryduff. The proposals are great. We need to be ambitious in their delivery, not just for cosmetic improvements but to address the public safety issues that remain there. My colleague Councillor Bronagh Magee is working to ensure that there is a permitted route from the beautiful Lisnabreeny National Trust site in the Castlereagh hills. A new development is going to happen at Mount Ober, and she is trying to make sure that there is a permitted route through that development. Minister, you should maybe think about that as a policy area to ensure that, where there are new housing developments on the green belt, people are allowed to remain and have access to the green fields and beyond. With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to put on record some infrastructure issues that are not within the purview of the Infrastructure Minister. There is the need for a new swimming pool at Lough Moss. I know that the councillors will be given some options, but the people of Castlereagh South deserve that. We have only one post-primary school in the DEA: Breda Academy. We need to see more post-primary schools, not least — this is an Alliance Party ambition — an integrated one. Lastly, the broader issue of access to public services needs to be included in the debate, because we have far more families and far more businesses etc and are not keeping pace with the provision of GP practices and other health and social care provision. In summary, we need to keep pace with the growing population. There is a role there for central and local government. We need to ensure that the needs of individuals and their families are met. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): David, you have six minutes. Mr Brooks: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and thank you, Kate, for securing the Adjournment debate. First, as a Member for East Belfast, I will respond to my colleague across the way. As a Linfield fan from east Belfast and someone who works closely with Glentoran who is speaking in a debate about South Belfast, I understand your care about where you nail your colours to the mast for GAA teams. Secondly, from an East Belfast point of view, I would say that the Ice Bowl is a regional facility that benefits many of the Member's constituents as well as others across Belfast who use the facility, so everyone will see that. Top 4.30 pm People in Dundonald will be surprised to hear that they are privileged, given that they cannot even get a household recycling centre from the council. A lot of the issues that have been talked about today are similar to the issues facing people in Dundonald, and I hope to give voice to them. I can do that only because of the work of my colleagues. If I am honest, I am giving voice to them — Councillor Brian Higginson and the office of Edwin Poots, who is precluded from speaking in the debate because of his role as Speaker — and leaning heavily on their knowledge of the area. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the continuing issue of underinvestment in infrastructure in Castlereagh South. It is not a new problem. For years, residents have watched significant housing growth in the area without seeing significant investment in roads, transport, community facilities and essential services to match it. That issue is familiar from areas of my constituency too. The Castlereagh South area, which covers Carryduff, Four Winds, Newtownbreda, Cairnshill and Bests Hill, has grown rapidly over the past decade, yet it remains an area where development has far outpaced delivery. Over the past 10 years, we have seen 1,200 new homes proposed or built across the area. Despite the scale of the growth, there is still no dedicated, council-owned community centre anywhere at the lower end of the DEA, and I think particularly of Newtownbreda, Cairnshill and Four Winds. Beyond Lough Moss leisure centre and the emerging Killynure community hub, residents in other parts of the constituency have little access to local or council-owned community space. Pitch and recreational space is also extremely limited. The Killynure pitch and community provision has been delayed unnecessarily, and the Cairnshill and Hydebank football pitches are in serious need of investment and improvement if they are to meet the demands of local clubs and youth organisations. At the same time, school spaces are stretched, and there is little planning for future growth. Play parks are welcome additions, but they have been funded largely by developers or through small council grants rather than through long-term investment strategies. We look at housing policy, but we also need to look at housing need. There are over 450 people on the social housing waiting list in Carryduff alone. That figure should serve as a wake-up call. Housing plans must include a stronger commitment to affordable and social housing provision and not just private development. With that private development and other development, however, there needs to be a focus on an overall master plan for the area. We have seen that in Dundonald, where developments grow the number of people living in an area and the pressure on services, often without oversight of what the overall area should look like. I have heard that those frustrations are shared elsewhere. With regard to the transport network, residents from across the DEA face daily gridlock on roads, such as along the Saintfield Road corridor, where traffic from new developments funnels into Belfast with limited alternatives. We acknowledge progress where it has happened. We welcome the upgrade of the Knockbracken junction and the resurfacing of parts of the Saintfield Road, but those represent only small steps in addressing a much bigger problem. Road improvements were promised more than a decade ago, when new housing was zoned for development, yet those promises have not been delivered on. The proposed Saintfield Road relief road to connect the A55 at Belvoir to Cairnshill remains a concept, with no planning work having been undertaken. That situation is not unique to Castlereagh South but reflects a wider pattern from Kilkeel to Saintfield, where development has outpaced infrastructure. The strain is visible on roads, schools and essential services. Every morning, traffic from expanding communities feeds into the Saintfield Road, choking local routes and adding to residents' frustration. Without proper forward planning and targeted investment, that pattern will continue, and South Belfast will remain an area that carries the burden of growth without feeling any of the benefits. If we are to be serious about connectivity, we need to have better public transport. Colleagues touched on that and talked about the need for enhanced bus services across the DEA and further into Carryduff in particular in order to give commuters real alternatives to the car. Public transport is a key part of the solution not only to congestion but to issues around sustainability and quality of life. The extension of Belfast Rapid Transit to Carryduff has been proposed, but we must recognise the issues raised by residents around that. Consultation with the local community will be key to any further proposals on it. We have the Glider in Dundonald, which Matthew touched on, but it is not an answer to all ills: opinion is divided. In line with that, I record our support for the proposed Carryduff greenway that is being taken forward by the council. That is a worthwhile project that could greatly improve safety and encourage active travel. I call on the Department for Infrastructure to fully support that. I realise that I am coming towards the end of my time. I am glad to have been able to contribute to the debate, and, again, I thank colleagues for their work. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Before I call Michelle Guy, I remind her of the convention that Members are normally supposed to be in the Chamber at the beginning of the debate, when the first speech is made. On this occasion, I am more than delighted to let you speak, Michelle, but you have just five minutes. Mrs Guy: Thank you so much for your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker. I had not intended to speak, but I was passing the Chamber. I lived in and represented Castlereagh South for many years. It is something of a heartland for me, and it is where I cut my teeth in politics and public representation. I echo everything that my colleague said about the community and its strengths. It is a wonderful place to raise kids, but there are challenges, and there always have been. I am sure that the need for infrastructure to keep up with development is what has been highlighted. We have talked about public transport, safety around schools and greenway paths. All those things are absolutely necessary. I only want to touch on one thing, so that I do not keep you very long. I pay tribute to the people who took over from me. Three fabulous councillors represent our party in Castlereagh South: Marty McKeever, Jamie Harpur and Bronagh Magee. They are dedicated representatives, and if anyone wants to know the secret of our success in the area, I can tell them that it is hard work. Those guys are continuing that hard work. I hope that the Minister listens — really listens — to some of the stuff that has been said today, because that community deserves the investment that people are asking for. As I think I heard Matthew say, it is a community that pays its rates and contributes to Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council, but it has always felt a little bit on the edge of everything and it deserves to be supported. I thank everybody who spoke up for the community today. I hope that the Minister can give them some good news. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call the Minister for Infrastructure. Minister, you have up to 10 minutes. Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure): Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. [Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.] I thank Kate Nicholl for securing the Adjournment debate. Kate, it is great to have you back in the Chamber, and I hope that all your babies are doing well after your short maternity leave. I thank all Members who contributed. Their passion and heart for the area are evident. I am familiar with the area, as I previously worked in Knockbracken Healthcare Park when I started out as a social worker. I have some familiarity with the area, albeit from a number of years ago. I welcome the chance to address you all on improving infrastructure in Castlereagh South. As many of you said, the area plays a vital role in the wider Belfast metropolitan area, and its infrastructural needs reflect the urban and rural challenges due its being located near Belfast and other areas that come into play. Castlereagh South encompasses a very diverse and growing community, as all Members strongly highlighted, including areas such as Carryduff, Knockbracken, Newtownbreda and Four Winds. It is served by the key strategic routes, including the A24 and the A7. Those routes are essential for connectivity, commerce and daily life. I recognise just how busy all those routes are and the impact that they can have on the local community. As Minister, I am committed to ensuring that the people of Castlereagh South benefit from safe, sustainable and well-maintained infrastructure. The significant funding challenges that my Department faces are well rehearsed, and I know that Members are overly familiar with them, as am I. We know of the budget of £68 million for structural maintenance, which is, I think, a third of what is required to do what we need to do this year. That includes resurfacing, surface dressing, drainage and verge stabilisation. Some of the schemes that have recently been completed in Castlereagh South include those at Purdysburn Road, Ballynagarrick Road and Mealough Road, which were mentioned this afternoon. We are targeting investment at rural roads and prioritising those with high-risk defects to predominantly protect public safety. However, I recognise the frustration that is caused by potholes — we are all familiar with that issue — and deteriorating road surfaces. I am committed to finding ways to improve our road network as much as possible. Looking ahead, my Department is preparing the eastern transport plan. That plan, which will cover five council areas, including Lisburn and Castlereagh, aims to rebalance the transport network in favour of more sustainable modes of transport: walking, cycling and public transport. Public engagement on the Belfast city centre and metropolitan area proposals is expected to take place early next year. As I mentioned, Castlereagh South falls within the metropolitan area. I encourage Members and their constituents to participate in that process to shape the future of transport in their community. It is obvious from the debate this afternoon that people want to have their say and that they have good ideas and suggestions on what will meet their needs in the community. Many Members mentioned active travel, which is, as you know, a central part of our infrastructure vision. Officials are reviewing the submissions received during the public consultation on the active travel delivery plan earlier this year, and I hope to be in a position to publish the final plan by the end of the year. In Castlereagh South, as has been mentioned, we recently completed the active travel scheme on Alderwood Hill to improve access to St Ita's Primary School. The aim is to encourage more people to walk, wheel and cycle to school by making that safer, easier and more appealing. The scheme includes the installation of pencil bollards to prevent parking on footways, which, we know, is a huge issue across the North. That will help to create safer walking corridors for pupils. We have also seen the introduction of a zebra crossing to enhance safe access to the school and the provision of an additional lay-by to support traffic progression. That scheme has been designed to integrate with a proposed Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council scheme to deliver a remote footway between Cairnshill park-and-ride and Alderwood Hill. That will provide a safe and attractive park-and-ride facility for parents, encouraging families to park away from the school gates and walk the short distance to school together. Just two weeks ago, I was in St Mary's Primary School, Greenlough, which provides a really good example of how to encourage pupils and families to park a little bit away from the school. Sorry, I mean that St Mary's on the Hill Primary School in Glengormley, not in Greenlough — that was last week — is doing something similar to what we are trying to achieve at St Ita's in Castlereagh South by making it easier for people to do that. It was so refreshing to hear some of the young people at St Mary's talk about how they are aware of the importance of doing that every day. We also heard from the principal and staff that the children are much more settled and ready for the school day because they have had a wee bit of physical activity before they come into the classroom, so the benefits increase tenfold. Members strongly emphasised the importance of the proposed Carryduff greenway. Departmental officials work closely on that with Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council officials, and we have provided grant funding for the feasibility study and design of the proposed greenway. I appreciate that progress has been slow, but we are hopeful that the council's greenway investment framework will help advance that project. Future funding rounds will be available to support delivery when the council is ready to proceed. At that point, we will be more than willing to work with it to support the progress of the greenway. A number of Members referred to local road safety measures. As you will know from Question Time and debates in the Chamber and from my responses to questions for written answer, road safety is a top priority for me. The road safety strategy to 2030, which was launched by my predecessor, Minister O'Dowd, sets out strategic interventions and actions to reduce fatalities and serious injuries, including targeted campaigns, engineering improvements and collaboration with partners such as the PSNI and the emergency services. In Castlereagh South specifically, several local transport safety measures that relate to our intelligent transport systems have been or are about to be delivered. Those include traffic signal upgrades that have been completed at the Ballynahinch Road-Hillsborough Road-Church Road, Carryduff junction; the A24-Knockbracken Road junction, where the work is developer-led; and the Upper Galwally-Lesley Forestside shopping centre junction. Further work is planned to upgrade the junction of the A55 at Upper Galwally and Glencregagh Road. In addition, a new CCTV column and associated infrastructure will soon be installed at the Church Road-Comber Road-Saintfield Road junction in Carryduff. That will allow the Department to monitor live traffic, which is so important in ensuring that we can adjust signal timings dynamically. I am pleased to advise Members that that work will commence in the coming days. Those measures will enhance our ability to respond to congestion and improve journey reliability, which I know is important to many of your constituents. Top 4.45 pm We continue to assess requests for traffic-calming measures and safe crossings based on collision history and prioritisation criteria. Whilst funding constraints limit the number of schemes that we can deliver, we want to ensure that we continue to work to improve safety in areas with the greatest need. I have asked officials to prepare a paper, as Members will be aware, on permanent 20 mph speed limits in more urban areas, particularly near schools and residential areas, and also to look at national speed limits on rural roads. With regard to planning, a lot of that is for the councils, but I recognise the significant residential growth in Castlereagh South that is either under construction or going through the planning process. As the statutory consultee, my Department assesses each application to ensure that road safety and traffic progression are considered with each new development. Some of the upgrades that I mentioned around junctions are examples of how we can advise and respond appropriately to ensure that it is taken into account through the development. We work closely with developers to agree on the appropriate road infrastructure improvements to minimise the impact of new developments and improve road safety for all road users, not just motorists but pedestrians and cyclists. Work has recently been substantially completed on the A24 Saintfield Road and Knockbracken Road junction associated with the Mealough development, which has approximately 350 dwellings. We are also working with two other developers to deliver further improvements on the Saintfield Road. In addition, substantial improvements to the Ballymaconaghy Road are under way, and the redesign of the Four Winds roundabout is associated with the new developments, which are delivering a further 300 dwellings. Moving on to public transport and the Glider rapid transit service, I know that all Members have consistently been lobbying for that, particularly given the significant housing developments in the DEA. Public transport continues to be absolutely essential for reducing congestion and promoting sustainability. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Minister, your time is up. Ms Kimmins: I will just finish this bit, with your indulgence. As Members will be aware, Translink currently operates three bus services between Belfast and Carryduff, with a combined peak frequency of 10 to 15 minutes and annual passenger journeys exceeding almost 460,000. The late-night services that we recently announced will help to address demand, with more services going in that direction. As well as that, the Glider project is moving well, and I am pleased with it. We were disappointed with the announcement back in February; however, I said that I am fully committed to seeing the full project delivered, and that remains the case. As we fully realise the project, we are keeping it under review until such time as the funding becomes available. With regard to some of the concerns around the operation of public transport, those are operational matters for Translink. However, I am happy for Members who have any specific queries to put them to me in writing. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Minister, please draw your remarks to a close. Ms Kimmins: Apologies that I did not get to answer all the questions; time has beaten me, but thank you, everyone, for the debate. Adjourned at 4.48 pm. Top
[ni-assembly-official-report][plenary_report] Official Reports https://aims.niassembly.gov.uk/officialreport/report.aspx?&eveDate=2025/10/20&docID=454909 Official Report: Monday 20 October 2025 Table of Contents Assembly Business Members Statements Domiciliary Care: Western Trust Ulster Boxing Council: Equality Commission Review Flooding: Newcastle Jim Lynagh Winter School Opposition Rights: Executive Budget Community and Voluntary Sector: Funding Minister for the Economy: Israeli Defence Contracts Sport: Inclusive Environments Lá Idirnáisiúnta an Aistriúcháin Newcastle: Flooding BIPA Report on UK/EU Defence and Security Cooperation Post-Brexit Assembly Business Public Petition: Scrap the Rates Exemption for Big Business Executive Committee Business RHI (Closure of the Non-Domestic Scheme) Bill: Second Stage Private Members Business Storm Resilience and Infrastructure Preparedness Oral Answers to Questions The Executive Office Economy Questions for Urgent Oral Answer Health Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Private Members Business Storm Resilience and Infrastructure Preparedness The Assembly met at 12:00 pm (Mr Speaker in the Chair). Members observed two minutes' silence. Assembly Business Mr Speaker: Before we begin business today, I return to some issues that arose last week. Members will be aware that our general standards of debate are those of good temper, moderation, courtesy and respect. Members can have robust debate to challenge and scrutinise the points of others, but that can be done with good manners and by focusing on issues, not on the Member who is raising them. I will give two specific examples from last week. First, using the term "Grow up" or similar terms, including, "Shut up", whether during a contribution or from a sedentary position, cannot be considered temperate or respectful. That is particularly the case when the House is discussing the serious issue of Members' having experienced being the subject of threats. It was not just the words that were said; it was the time at which they were said. It was entirely inappropriate. Secondly, I encourage Members to avoid using swear words, even when quoting someone from outside the Chamber. The circumstances in which that could be considered by the Chair to be absolutely necessary are rare. If the common use of swear words in the Chamber were to become gratuitous, it would coarsen our debate and undermine the seriousness of the business that we are here to do. I do not intend to revisit specific instances from last week further, but Members should take heed of my ruling on those matters for the future. I have observed that there has been an increase in ill-tempered debate in the Chamber over the past few weeks, involving a number of matters being raised with the Chair and a number of Members taking issue with the decisions of the Chair, which is clearly out of order. I note public comment that that is a sign that we have entered a pre-election period. However, there is significant business to be done in the House over the next 18 months. Therefore, we do not want there to be disorder, which could distract from the debates at hand. I make it clear to the House again that I will uphold the right of all Members to exercise their role of scrutiny and to challenge opposing arguments, but robust debate does not mean disorderly debate. Members can make their points on issues without being personal or disrespectful to other Members. Members' Statements Domiciliary Care: Western Trust Miss Dolan: I take this opportunity to highlight the serious and growing pressures on domiciliary care services in the Western Health and Social Care Trust area, particularly in Fermanagh. Every week, families contact my office about the difficulties in securing home care packages. Demand for domiciliary care is increasing as our population ages and people live longer with complex health needs, yet the Western Trust is facing a severe shortage of carers, which is having a direct impact on those who are most in need of support in their own homes. We now have long waiting lists for care packages, and many hospital discharges are being delayed simply because care is not available in the community. Older people are waiting weeks — sometimes months — for the support that they need to live safely and with dignity in their own homes. At the heart of the problem is a shortage of domiciliary carers. The Western Trust and independent providers are struggling to recruit and retain staff, and those who remain are working under huge pressure, travelling long distances, covering extra calls and often working beyond their contracted hours out of sheer compassion for their clients. Those carers are doing incredible work under immense strain. They deserve far better. If we are serious about tackling the crisis, we must properly value and support our care workforce. That means fair pay and conditions, paying for travel time and mileage, and offering secure contracts rather than zero-hours ones. It also means creating clear career pathways, providing opportunities for training and progression, and investing in carers' well-being. The new carers' support hub in the Fermanagh and Omagh area is a positive and welcome development, but that must be part of a wider strategy: one that promotes the role of carers, invests in their well-being and makes domiciliary care a valued and sustainable career choice. Above all, carers must be recognised as the vital professionals that they are: the backbone of our health and social care system. By investing in them, we can ensure that older and vulnerable people in Fermanagh and across the Western Trust area receive the dignified care that they deserve and can remain in their own homes, surrounded by their community, for as long as possible. Ulster Boxing Council: Equality Commission Review Mr Brett: One year ago, I rose in the House to raise the case of my constituent Mr Daryl Clarke, who was excluded from the Commonwealth Games because he is a Protestant. I vowed then to fight that case. Today, I welcome the 24-page report by the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland, which justifies every single word that I said in the Chamber. The review of the Ulster Boxing Council is not merely another report; it is a damning, but necessary, mirror held up to the structures that have, for far too long, failed the Protestant boxing community in Belfast and beyond. Some Members in the Chamber claimed that anti-Protestant sectarianism did not exist in boxing, some tried to make me shut up on the issue, and others believed that it would go away. The report not only disproves them but shames them for the remarks that they made in the Chamber. It shines a light on the painful truth that young Protestant men like Daryl Clarke and others before him, such as Lewis Crocker, were denied opportunities and subjected to treatment that no athlete should ever endure. It was not because of their talent or ability but because of their background. The report lays bare what many have whispered for years: that, in local boxing, anti-Protestant bias has been allowed to fester. It tells us that the structures that govern the sport have not been fair, transparent or inclusive. While boxing has long been hailed as a sport that unites people, the report shows that boxing has been used to divide our communities. I pay tribute to Daryl for his courage in standing up and saying, "This is not right". It has paved the way for change that will benefit generations to come. Daryl's fight should just have been in the ring; instead, it was for respect, fairness and equal treatment for every young boxer, regardless of their religion or identity. The Equality Commission's findings are clear and uncompromising. It calls for a transparent and merit-based selection process for the Commonwealth Games; demands the creation of an independent oversight panel to ensure that those reforms are no longer delayed and a code of conduct to which all clubs must sign up; and finds that, for far too long, Protestants have been denied a space on Ulster Boxing Council governance committees. It will mean that Protestant voices are finally heard and respected. Let me be clear: the report is a turning point. The days of looking the other way are over. The culture of exclusion of Protestant boxers is over. We on these Benches will look very closely at how the Ulster Boxing Council responds and will ensure that our Minister makes comments in the coming days that ensure that Protestants have the same rights as anyone else. Flooding: Newcastle Mr McMurray: I will speak on the flooding that affected Newcastle, specifically the Sunningdale area and the Tullybrannigan Road. It is really important that I thank all the agencies that were involved. All reports stated that the Department for Infrastructure and other statutory agencies were out on the ground, as, I am sure, were council staff. Unfortunately, it is all too often left to locals to be the first line of defence and resistance, with people volunteering hardware. We also seem to speak about the matter all too often, and here I am again raising the issue of flooding in my constituency. The residents who have been affected need to be listened to now. They need to be engaged with in order to determine the cause of the most recent flooding and how best to treat it. The Newcastle regional community resilience group has been very active on that front for a number of years now. The group needs to be listened to, because it is finding it more and more infuriating that, at times, actions taken on the ground are not necessarily marrying with what had been discussed. That having been said, everyone on that group is very keen to help. As you referenced earlier, Mr Speaker, we can sometimes get very rumbustious in here, and political divisions are often brought into sharp focus. Members will know this, as we are all on the same WhatsApp groups, but, at times over the weekend, people from different parties were out attempting to do what they could to address the situation. There is therefore a uniform sense of desire from all parties to help sort out the matter. We have spoken about flooding in South Down before. It could be in Ms Forsythe's Kilkeel or more towards Ms Ennis's end in Killowen. All too often, weather events are demonstrating that infrastructure has failed. Ultimately, whatever way we frame the climate change debate, our oceans are getting warmer. That means that we have more intense storm periods and are getting them more and more often. That bears highlighting. We are still chasing our tails after storm Éowyn. We have since had storm Amy, and now we have had what was only a yellow weather warning that produced a month's worth of rain between early morning and early afternoon. One dreads to think what an amber or red weather warning could have brought. Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up. Jim Lynagh Winter School Ms D Armstrong: I express my deep outrage at the so-called Jim Lynagh Winter School event, which took place in Lisnaskea over the weekend. It was held, unbelievably, in the grounds of a former place of education, St Eugene's Primary School. It is utterly shameful that a man such as Jim Lynagh, the ruthless and violent leader of the Tyrone/Monaghan brigade of the Provisional IRA, should be commemorated in any way, let alone in a former education setting. Lynagh was no hero. He was a man responsible for some of the most brutal acts of terrorism during the darkest days of the Troubles. Let us be absolutely clear about whom Jim Lynagh was: he was a key architect of a campaign of murder and destruction and was responsible for multiple attacks on members of the security forces and innocent civilians alike. Among his many crimes was the heinous attack on Ballygawley RUC station that led to the brutal murders of two dedicated police officers, George Gilliland and William Clements. Both served with courage and commitment, protecting communities in my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone. Their loss is still deeply felt by their families, colleagues and all who value peace and justice. To glorify or romanticise Jim Lynagh's actions is to dishonour the memory of every innocent life destroyed by the Provisional IRA's campaign of terror. It sends a dangerous message to our young people that violence can somehow be justified, that terrorism can be excused and that murderers can be heroes. That is not the way in which for Northern Ireland to move forward. The truth is this: Jim Lynagh's elimination at Loughgall in 1987 saved countless lives. It brought to an end the murderous ambitions of a man who showed no mercy and sought only to spread fear and division. Top 12.15 pm As a representative of Fermanagh and South Tyrone and someone who believes deeply in the rule of law and peace, I find it abhorrent that any organisation would host or facilitate an event that seeks to rewrite history and glorify terror. Our schools and community buildings should be places of learning and reconciliation, not platforms for the veneration of those who took innocent lives. We owe it to the victims, men like officers Gilliland and Clements and every family that still bears the scars of IRA violence to speak out firmly against that revisionism. There can be no moral equivalence between those who enforced the law and those who waged war against it. Let us continue to honour the true heroes of our society: those who upheld peace, served their communities and gave their lives to protect others. Let us reject completely and unequivocally any attempt to glorify terrorism in our schools or anywhere else in our shared society. Opposition Rights: Executive Budget Mr O'Toole: We entered opposition 21 months ago, and we pledged then to be a constructive Opposition, to work hard and to improve the way that politics is done in this place. Sometimes, it feels, for our Members, like a lonely furrow, but it is an important job, and we are proud to have done it. Before the end of this year, we hope, the Executive will publish their first multi-year Budget in more than a decade. That is a critical moment for the people of this region. They will finally be able to see whether the Executive, with all their fallings-out, chaos and backbiting, are able to set a long-term Budget to deliver on the things that matter to them. That means a three-year Budget that is matched to getting waiting lists down. It also means a four-year capital Budget, we hope, that is matched to building social homes for the people who need them in our society and that delivers on critical infrastructure, including all-island rail, the A5 and other critical road, rail and, indeed, waste water projects. That, hopefully, will be set out not just in the three-year Budget but in the investment strategy. That is the context for what we as the official Opposition have done today, which was to write to the Finance Minister. Along with other Opposition parties in Dáil Éireann, such as the Social Democrats and the Labour Party, the Finance Minister's party enjoys the right to access costings from the Finance Department there. Today, as the Opposition in the North, we ask for the same right from the Finance Department here. We would like, ahead of the multi-year Budget later this year, the right to have our proposals costed by departmental civil servants. We would like them to mark our homework, because we are serious when we talk about providing an alternative and improving politics here. Often, the question is thrown back to me in the Chamber, "Where is the Opposition's alternative?". We have produced many alternatives and many papers, so much so that I am thinking of printing them and putting bows on them for Christmas presents for some of my colleagues from all parties in the Chamber. However, if we are to move to the next stage of providing a real alternative for people here and to improve the quality of our debate here in Northern Ireland, we want the same rights that are applied to the Opposition in the South of Ireland: proper, rigorous costings of our proposals. We are doing lots in the Chamber to fall out and prove to the public that they cannot expect anything from Stormont. Let us finally prove to them that we can be mature, we can move on and we can genuinely build something better here. We will put our proposal forward to the Finance Minister, and we hope that he and other parties in the Chamber will agree to it. Unlike others, we are serious about improving the quality of our politics and proving to the public that there is a point in their voting for a Government at an election and that the Opposition will be constructive and robust. I commend our proposal to colleagues. Community and Voluntary Sector: Funding Ms Ferguson: I rise to speak on the urgent need to invest in our community and voluntary (C&V) sector. If we do not invest in our community and voluntary sector, the truth is that we will lose not only the vital services that each of us know are critical to strengthening and supporting local people on the ground but the very fabric that I think holds our communities and people together. As someone from the north-west who has worked in the community and voluntary sector for over 20 years, I know only too well the invaluable power of sustainable investment in community development and community infrastructure in strengthening community relations; helping to tackle inequality and disadvantage; empowering and building the capacity of local people who become active participants in shaping their future and the future of their communities; improving health and well-being; and building strong resilient communities where everyone can thrive. Community development increases participation in local community life, and it strengthens social networks and civic engagement, which are the cornerstones of a resilient community. Likewise, our social enterprises are a significant part of the economy. They employ thousands and generate substantial revenue. Investing in their capacity helps scale and diversify the sector, particularly in deprived areas. There is the community wealth-building approach: on Wednesday, we had a local conference in the city, led by Development Trusts NI. It was fantastic to see a packed hall with great ambition. That approach redirects wealth back into the local economy and keeps it circulating in local areas, which provides economic stability and growth. That is where we need to invest — our social enterprises and community development organisations — to help build strong, resilient communities. As we are well aware, there have been serious and ongoing cuts since 2009 in our C&V sector. It is critical, now, when looking into the long term, that all Departments, be that Health, Education or Communities, focus on core community development and our social enterprises and invest for the long tem to build, support and strengthen our communities and build resilience. Minister for the Economy: Israeli Defence Contracts Mr Buckley: I remind the Chamber what it means to be the Economy Minister for Northern Ireland. It is a role that comes with serious responsibilities — responsibilities to promote investment, support job creation and grow sectors that sustain our economy. It is not a platform for advancing narrow political ideologies, nor is it a position to unilaterally decide what international trade relationships Northern Ireland should or should not have. Yet that is exactly what we have seen from the Sinn Féin Economy Minister, who last week instructed Invest NI not to support companies that are involved with Israeli defence contracts. They have even suggested that Northern Ireland should be excluded from any UK-Israel trade talks. On the one hand, Sinn Féin parades about as a responsible custodian of the Northern Ireland economy but, on the other, blocks businesses' routes to market, and it cannot resist the temptation to promote a bitter, twisted ideology that has resulted in it not being able to publicly welcome 1,000 jobs from Bank of America and in blocking other investment. It is the politics of the student council, not a serious party of government. Let us be clear: the decision was made without any consultation with the Northern Ireland Executive. It was made without transparency and without regard for the 9,000 people employed in our aerospace, defence and security, and space sectors. The decision was both controversial and cross-cutting. Those are industries that generate in the region of £2·2 billion for our economy. They are real jobs in real communities, and they deserve better than to be treated as pawns in a political game with no regard to people's livelihoods. No one should stand by and allow such matters to go unchallenged. Our wider economy is being undermined to appease a small section of anti-Israel voices. The role of the Economy Minister is not to act as Sinn Féin's foreign affairs spokesperson; it is to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland, and that means supporting economic growth, not stifling it on the basis of partisan politics. Sport: Inclusive Environments Mr Dickson: The findings of the Equality Commission on boxing remind us once again how symbols and expressions of identity can either build inclusion or create exclusion. The way that we present and display our identities has a real impact on who feels welcome and who does not. No young athlete should ever feel that their background, accent or community affiliation will determine the opportunity to compete. Sport should be open to everyone. It should be defined by hard work, talent and merit, not by a flag or someone's community background. I echo the Equality Commission's recommendation for: "the creation of an independent oversight panel to monitor progress and ensure all reforms are completed within 18 months." That kind of accountability is essential if we are serious about building inclusive sporting environments that work for everyone. Equality does not belong to one tradition or community: equality belongs to us all. Respect for identity should never come at the expense of someone else's sense of belonging. The more we create environments that reflect fairness and openness, the stronger our shared society becomes. My colleague Paula Bradshaw has submitted a private Member's Bill on the display of flags and emblems. The purpose of the Bill will be to establish clear and fair standards that protect freedom of expression, while ensuring that our shared spaces remain genuinely welcoming to everyone. It is not about taking identity away from anyone; it is about ensuring that identity is never used as a barrier or a weapon and that everyone can feel equally accepted in this place that we call "home". When the Bill comes before the Chamber for debate and scrutiny, I trust that all Members, including those in the DUP who have spoken passionately about inclusion in sport, will bring the same energy and commitment to creating inclusive environments through a fair and transparent framework. If we can show leadership in this place, we can help to change the tone beyond it towards a Northern Ireland in which identity is respected, opportunity is impartial and equality truly belongs to everyone. Lá Idirnáisiúnta an Aistriúcháin Miss Brogan: Rinne muid Lá Idirnáisiúnta an Aistriúcháin a cheiliúradh an mhí seo a chuaigh thart. Tugtar seans dúinn an lá sin leis an obair thábhachtach, fhiúntach a dhéanann fir agus mná teanga ar fud an domhain a cheiliúradh. Nuair a dhéantar teanga amháin a aistriú go teanga eile, cuirtear leis an chumarsáid idir daoine, cuirtear leis an tuigbheáil atá againn dá chéile, cuirtear leis an tsíocháin agus cuirtear leis an chomhar agus leis an dáimh atá againn le chéile. Ní bagairt teanga. Is cuma cén teanga í. Má deirtear nó má scríobhtar friotal as Béarla agus sin a aistriú go Gaeilge, go hUltais nó go ceann de na teangacha nua ar an oileán seo, an Úcráinis nó an Araibis, ní bhíonn duine ar bith thíos leis. A mhalairt atá amhlaidh: is fearrde dúinn é. Tugann sé seans do na daoine a bhfuil na teangacha sin acu a gcuid a bheith acu den tsaol anseo agus a bhuíochas sin ar na haistritheoirí agus na hateangairí. Tá an t-ádh orainn go bhfuil aistritheoirí agus ateangairí sa Tionól seo, go díreach mar atá sa Dáil, sa Senedd sa Bhreatain Bheag agus sna céadta eile Parlaimintí ar fud na cruinne. An áit a mbíonn an t-aistriúchán, bíonn faill ag polaiteoirí óráidí a thabhairt nó ceisteanna a chur sa teanga is fearr a oireann dóibh. Neartaíonn an áis sin an díospóireacht agus, dá bharr sin, an daonlathas. Mholfainn do Chomhalta ar bith anseo a chuid Gaeilge a chur chun a caite oiread agus is féidir agus tairbhe a bhaint as an tseirbhís atá againn. Mar sin de, a Cheann Comhairle, ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil leis na haistritheoirí agus na hateangairí uile go léir, bíodh siad ag obair in institiúidí polaitíochta nó amuigh fríd na daoine sna hotharlanna agus sna cúirteanna. Is annamh a théann a luach orthu, ach tá sé ar shlí a ráite nach mbeadh teacht againn gan iad. [Translation: Last month, we celebrated International Translation Day, which gives us an opportunity to celebrate the important and valuable work of language professionals all over the world. When one language is translated into another, communication between people is enhanced, our understanding of each other is enhanced, peace is enhanced and cooperation and the bond that we have with one another are enhanced. Language is not a threat. It does not matter what that language is: if a word that is spoken or written in English and is translated into Irish, Ulster Scots or one of the new languages on this island - Ukrainian or Arabic - no one is disadvantaged. On the contrary, it is better for us all. It gives the people who speak those languages a chance to participate in life here, and all that is thanks to translators and interpreters. We are fortunate to have translators and interpreters in the Assembly, just as we do in the Dáil, the Senedd in Wales and hundreds of other Parliaments around the world. Where translation is available, politicians have the opportunity to make speeches or ask questions in the language that they are most comfortable with. That facility strengthens debate and, as a consequence, democracy. I encourage any Member here to use their Irish as much as possible and to take advantage of the service that we have. Therefore, I express my gratitude to all the translators and interpreters, whether they are working in political institutions or in the community in hospitals and courts. Their value is rarely appreciated, but it is true to say that we could not get by without them.] Newcastle: Flooding Ms Forsythe: Yesterday, the good people of Newcastle were once again subject to unacceptable scenes of flooding, and it has been devastating. There was a warning for heavy rainfall, but the scenes that emerged yesterday were absolutely shocking and terrifying. We saw fast-flowing water pouring down the roads in the Tullybrannigan area like waterfalls. I am incredibly grateful that no one was hurt, but I have serious concern over how that scale of flooding happened there. Top 12.30 pm A major clean-up operation continues. I was there this morning, and I thank all those out working on it, including the various agencies and community-based volunteers. The amount of debris is frightening. We can see from the clean-up that diggers are needed, which is really terrifying. We need an urgent investigation of why it happened. There has never been flooding like it in the area. My family lives just down the road, and, in my lifetime, I have never seen anything like it. It has been widely described by others as the worst in over 40 years. Residents are absolutely shocked and frightened about whether it will happen again. The weather warning was yellow, not amber or red. For a relatively short few hours of heavy rainfall to have caused such flooding is really concerning. Local people deserve to know what happened and what actions will be taken to prevent it happening in the future. Many were trapped in their homes for some time. Flooding is not new to Newcastle as a whole, with flood alleviation schemes in place, but I ask that the new schemes are part of an investigation. We need to understand whether they have made things better or have moved all the problems to a different part of Newcastle. There needs to be a solution. Ongoing concerns about the maintenance of the rivers and gullies and the flaps managing the floodwater getting in and out of the Burren river are continuous. We need to see real action. We need a permanent solution. Temporary pumps help to address the consequences, but we need to see prevention prioritised. In an area at the foot of the Mourne Mountains, we understand that there will be surface run-off at speed from the mountains, but why can that not be planned for, the risks managed and safety put first? We are only in October, and the local infrastructure in South Down is still suffering from the severe damage caused by the storms in 2023 and 2024, with major roads still not repaired. Our people deserve better. We want no more scenes of chaos and panic. I call on the Infrastructure Minister to prioritise an urgent investigation and to put in place a permanent solution to the flooding in Newcastle before someone gets seriously hurt. BIPA Report on UK/EU Defence and Security Cooperation Post-Brexit Dr Aiken: First, I make a declaration of interest as a member of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly (BIPA) and a long-standing member of committee B. Last week, our committee submitted a report on UK/EU defence and security cooperation post-Brexit. The committee consists of members from the Oireachtas, Westminster and the devolved Administrations, including members from Sinn Féin, the SDLP and the Scottish National Party. We conducted the inquiry through a series of evidence-gathering meetings and visits to key areas. The meetings included talking to the ex-chief of the Irish Defence Forces; Garda Commissioner Drew Harris; the European Union, including the European Hybrid Centre of Excellence; NATO, including the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence; the National Crime Agency; and cybersecurity experts. The report, which I recommend to everybody — I will ask the Assembly Library to ensure that it has copies of it — is well worth the read. The key supplementary themes became apparent during the investigation. The first is that there is a clear and present danger to this island from Putin and non-state actors, including narco-terrorists and criminal gangs. Attempts to sabotage critical cables, other parts of national infrastructure and the near relentless cyberattacks in every aspect of our lives show that the hybrid war is raging, and the Irish Republic has a particular vulnerability. Secondly, evidence shows that Ireland's shores, air and cyberspace are, regrettably, defenceless. The lack of security for vast areas of sea, subsea, air and cyberspace are an open back door for those wanting to harm not only the Irish Republic but transatlantic trade, the European Union and NATO. Sadly, there is a degree of hypocritical expectation from most Irish political parties, including the current presidential Sinn Féin candidate, that they pontificate about the UK and NATO for their so-called militarism and defence expenditure while doing absolutely nothing to defend themselves. Paradoxically advocating drone defences at Dublin Airport while bashing the only nations that can make effective protective systems is a case in point. As we discovered at BIPA and as even the most myopic TDs or senators now know, NATO has other priorities. We in Northern Ireland, as part of NATO, have a defensive umbrella that is widely stretched but protects us. The Irish, with their minuscule defence spending, have little or no willingness or capability to defend themselves, with few or no guarantees. (Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair) Our committee has recommended joint UK/Republic of Ireland maritime patrolling and increased joint working. Without NATO membership, however, Ireland has no access to a military alliance that can secure its borders. Hoping for good luck, the goodwill of hard-pressed neighbours or the beneficence of the triple-lock nations, is, I am afraid, no security at all. Assembly Business Public Petition: Scrap the Rates Exemption for Big Business Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Gerry Carroll has sought leave to present a public petition in accordance with Standing Order 22. The Member will have up to three minutes in which to speak. Mr Carroll: I present the petition on behalf of over 3,000 people who signed it to raise their objections to the ongoing industrial derating policy. I thank Roan and the team at Act Now, who gathered the signatures. The petition challenges the fact that huge amounts of public money are going to major multinational corporations. The Department of Finance, no doubt, will tell people otherwise. Despite some of what we have heard today, that is money that working-class communities need. Nurses are being denied a pay rise, when they could have availed themselves of that almost £80 million. That money could go a huge way towards resolving the mental health crisis, the housing crisis and other crises in our communities. Every year, however, that money goes to multinational corporations. Companies such as Moy Park, Caterpillar and Coca-Cola do not need corporate handouts. They need to be human-rights compliant; they need to respect, protect and not pollute our environment; and those that are doing so need to not engage with or support the Israeli war machine. The signatories to the petition have raised their objections to the fact that rates for homeowners and small businesses rise year-on-year. There is no derating process, handout or bailout for those people: they are forced to pay ever-increasing amounts for their rates. It is also worth mentioning that a similar policy was in operation for some time in England and Scotland, but came to an end in 1963 in the former and 1995 in the latter. It is clear that the policy is not only unfair and should not be in operation but is completely out of date and backward. Over the years, huge sums of public money that could have gone into the region — hundreds of millions of pounds — have been wasted on those companies, while they do not give a damn about their workers: they underpay them and exploit them. Thank you for allowing me to present the petition in the Assembly today. Mr Carroll moved forward and laid the petition on the Table. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thanks, Gerry. I will forward the petition to the Minister of Finance and send a copy to the Committee for Finance. Executive Committee Business RHI (Closure of the Non-Domestic Scheme) Bill: Second Stage Dr Archibald (The Minister for the Economy): I beg to move That the Second Stage of the RHI (Closure of Non-Domestic Scheme) Bill [NIA Bill 22/22-27] be agreed. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: In accordance with convention, the Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time limit on the debate. Dr Archibald: I apologise in advance: I might have a coughing fit in the middle of my speech, as I am getting over a bad dose. On 22 September 2025, I provided the House with an update on the work towards the closure of the non-domestic renewable heat incentive (RHI) scheme, in line with the New Decade, New Approach (NDNA) agreement and the Executive's agreement that the scheme should be closed. With your indulgence, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle, [Translation: Madam Principal Deputy Speaker,] I will speak briefly to that, as it sets the context for today's debate on the RHI (Closure of the Non-Domestic Scheme) Bill. My Department recently launched a public consultation on the closure arrangements. The consultation is seeking views on the proposed approach to closure of the scheme, which will be set out in regulations. With closure, Ofgem will no longer administer the scheme or take quarterly readings. Participants are, however, entitled to a closure payment. My Department completed a review of tariff levels and payments over the lifetime of the scheme. The period 2017 to 2019 represents the least distorted and fairest time frame of historical usage that is in line with the support scheme's policy intention. Payments are therefore to be based on that period. That model has been independently validated by Professor David Rooney. My officials have made themselves available to any Member who wants to go through the calculations in more detail. Once the methodology for closure payments is decided on, the next question is whether to provide a one-off payment or to stagger the payment until the end of each participant's original 20-year accreditation period. Staggering the payment has two benefits. First, it would allow us to use the unutilised annually managed expenditure (AME) sooner. Secondly, it would allow us to check that the boilers are still in use. I have therefore opted for staggered payments. My Department is working urgently to introduce a set of regulations ahead of the coming winter period to apply the same tariff rate that will be used to calculate the closure payments. The proposals are out for public consultation from 29 September to 24 November and best balance the three objectives of closing the scheme, of fairness for legitimate participants and of fairness for the taxpayer. Indeed, no party has put forward alternative proposals. The immediate matter at hand is the RHI (Closure of Non-Domestic Scheme) Bill. The Bill is short and technical in nature and does not directly amend any aspect of the scheme. Rather, it will provide my Department with powers to make regulations that will formally close the scheme and establish a new framework for legacy payments. The Department's existing powers for the RHI scheme are set out in sections 113 and 114 of the Energy Act 2011. Section 113 enables the Department to establish: "a scheme to facilitate and encourage renewable generation of heat". The two sections do not, however, provide the Department with the powers to close the scheme. That is why the RHI (Closure of Non-Domestic Scheme) Bill is needed. Without it, my Department is not in a position to deliver on the NDNA commitment or to implement the Executive's agreement to close the scheme. I therefore commend the Bill to the Assembly. Mr Brett (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Economy): I will first speak on behalf of the Committee and then make some remarks in a personal capacity. I anticipate that members of the Committee will set out their views on the principles of the Bill during the debate. As to the next steps, I will await the outcome of the vote in the House this afternoon. The Bill allows the Department to make regulations "to close, partially or completely", the non-domestic RHI scheme, to prevent anyone else from joining the scheme and to restrict or cancel aspects of the scheme, so it is kind of an all-purpose stop button for the RHI scheme. That is to be achieved through regulation-making powers, including powers to make regulations to vary the sums payable by the Department to scheme participants until the scheme is completely closed. Those sums, as the Minister outlined, may be paid as a one-off sum, periodically or in installments. The Bill allows regulations to be made that may, subject to conditions, take into account: "deemed or notional generation of heat", based on how non-domestic RHI boilers were used in the past. The regulations will be used to determine future closure payments to scheme participants. Such regulations will be subject to draft affirmative resolution, meaning that they will have to be debated and passed by the Assembly. All of that can happen as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent. Further to that, the Department advises that regulations flowing from the Bill could be applied retrospectively from 1 April 2026 should the Bill's passage be delayed. The date is key, because, as the Minister outlined, Ofgem will withdraw its administrative support from the RHI scheme at that point. While the Assembly is considering the Bill, the Department is consulting on the related closure regulations, as the Minister mentioned in her speech. Although those regulations are not the subject of today's debate, they give an indication of the Department's intention for how the non-domestic scheme will close. If the Bill passes its Second Stage today, given the retrospective nature of the closure regulations, the Committee will seek an extension to the Committee Stage until the end of February 2026. That will allow its members to gauge the feedback from that consultation before making up their minds on the Bill. I will save any further comments on that for now. Top 12.45 pm I will deal briefly with the proposed closure regulations. They would make an annual payment to scheme participants based on records of average historical heat usage from 2017 to 2019. Those records are to be obtained from the energy heat output recorded by Ofgem during that period. The Department seems to have advised that that is in response to the tariff cut in 2019 and the COVID pandemic, which may have led to a distortion of or reduction in boiler usage by operators. The closure regulations will therefore no longer require participants to continue to record and submit quarterly meter readings. However, participants will still have to keep some records of their boiler use. The revised closure tariffs are a lot more generous than the current tariffs and will also be indexed annually to the consumer price index. The payments will be made annually in arrears, as articulated by the Minister, and will continue until 20 years after the original accreditation, provided that boiler installations continue to be utilised in line with the scheme regulations and subsequent guidance. As new applications to the scheme stopped in February 2016, all those payments will therefore end in 2036. The closure regulations will require participants to make a declaration in respect of whether the boiler continues to be used in its historical mode. If that is the case, participants will receive 100% of their historical payments at the new tariffs. If the boiler is operated at just over 50% of the historical usage, participants will still get 100% of the payment. If the boiler is used for less than 50% of its historical usage but more than 5%, the participant will still get a 50% payment equivalent. If the boiler is used for less than 5% of its historical usage, the participant is to get a de minimis payment equivalent to 5% of its historical use. The Department will not take meter readings but will carry out inspections and request evidence of heat production, such as, for example, records of eligible fuel purchased. Inspections will check that installations remain in use, declarations are accurate and participants are complying with scheme regulations and guidance. Participants will be notified in advance if they are selected for inspection. Officials seem to have advised that there may be, on average, one or two inspections per installation in the remaining 10 years of the scheme. The Department advised that non-compliance may lead to suspension of payments, recovery of previous payments or exclusion from future payments. The cost of the staggered closure appears to be around £196 million in capital AME plus £17 million in resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL) over the next 10 years. That means that the annual AME cost of the scheme has likely more than tripled from £5 million to £17 million per year. The Committee was advised that the proposed regulations appear to have been designed following engagement with the Ulster Farmers' Union (UFU), the Renewable Heat Association Northern Ireland (RHANI) and the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) and that they align with the cost models devised by Professor David Rooney at Queen's University Belfast. Officials advised that the new tariffs will generate an internal rate of return of 12% over the 20 years of the scheme and thus are compliant with state aid requirements. The Department assured the Committee that Treasury had agreed to the increase in costs for the scheme. Given the Executive's previous experience of misunderstandings with Treasury over what will and will not be paid for, it is perhaps not surprising that the Bill includes an all-purpose stop button for the RHI scheme. However, the Bill and the proposed regulations generate a lot of questions to which the Committee would like answers, and I hope that the Minister will provide some answers to those questions. First, why do this at all? Why not just continue as we are and let the contractual arrangements with RHI boiler owners run out in 10 years' time? Is it the case that the new arrangements will require renewable energy boilers to be run while also allowing the release by Treasury of approximately £15 million per annum of support for other renewable energy schemes that is presently going unused? Secondly, if running the boilers is important, why abandon metering completely? Why not install RHI smart meters, as the Department will do in every household in Northern Ireland? Those meters could be monitored remotely and likely at low cost. Payments could be made on the basis of the heat that is actually generated, and the Department could do inspections to ensure compliance. Thirdly — to digress slightly — can the Minister explain the reason that underpins the banding of the payments? Some members indicated that it made no sense to award a 50% payment when the boiler may only have been used for 6% of the time and, indeed, to award a 100% payment when the boiler was in use for just 51% of historical levels. That appears to be a strange arrangement. The cost saving associated with not metering would surely be outweighed by the association of the loss of transparency. The anticipated closure regulations will be subject to draft affirmative resolution, and, as you are aware, it was demonstrated this time last year that the Assembly has the ability to vote down the regulations. The consequences of such actions may be adverse for stakeholders, as was the case for good-faith boiler owners last year. In order to avoid that, I ask the Minister to undertake that, when regulations are developed, a meaningful draft is brought to the Committee as soon as possible. That will allow members some time to understand the challenge and the tariff suggested by the Department. There are, of course, two sides to the non-domestic RHI story. On the one side is the UK taxpayer, who does not want to be on the hook for millions of pounds of unnecessary expenditure and those who entered the scheme in good faith. With that in mind, I ask the Minister how we can ensure, under the closure arrangements supported by the Bill, that heat will be generated for useful purposes only. I said that there are two sides, and we also want to ensure that we deliver a fair deal for those who entered the system correctly. The Committee will be keen to hear evidence from those participants. The fifth and final question that the Committee raised during our initial deliberations was how we can be sure that, once the Bill has passed, the Department has the means to shut down the scheme and that there will be a fair and equitable settlement for those good-faith owners. The Committee has already sought and received some answers. If the Second Stage is passed, it will look at that in more detail. I will now make some personal remarks. I welcome the fact that we now have a Bill before the House. The Committee and, indeed, the House were informed 18 months ago of Ofgem's decision to withdraw from the scheme. From a personal point of view, it has been disappointing that it has taken until this time for the Bill to arrive on the Floor of the House. As I articulated on behalf of the Committee, we are now on a very tight timetable to have the Bill passed and the closure arrangements in place before Ofgem withdraws from the scheme on 31 March. Given last year's debacle, it is vital that the Department has engaged with those sectors to ensure that there is widespread support for the new arrangements. In her opening remarks, the Minister said that she was committed to utilising the underutilised AME from the scheme. I am keen to know what work has been done by her officials to bring forward a new scheme. When officials were before the Committee just a few weeks ago, we were informed that no progress had been made on utilising the remainder of that funding. If the position is that that funding is in place to meet the targets set by the Assembly of 80% by 2030, surely the underutilised AME in this budget will be vital to that. Tomorrow, the Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) will pass its judgement on the Department's ability to implement its energy strategy. It is not for me to speculate on what may be in that report but, to date, the performance of the energy section in the Department for the Economy raises serious questions for the House. I support the passage of the Bill to Committee Stage and look forward to the Minister's answers to the questions raised on behalf of the Committee. Ms McLaughlin: The Bill represents an important step towards closing a scheme that has cast a long shadow over public confidence in government. We recognise that the legislation is also intended to bring a fair and lawful conclusion to the involvement of those who entered the renewable heat incentive scheme in good faith. Businesses and individuals who followed the rules made genuine investments in renewable energy and have lived for years with uncertainty. They deserve fairness and clarity as the scheme is brought to a close. For that reason, the SDLP supports the principle of the Bill that the non-domestic renewable heat incentive scheme should be formally and finally closed. While we support those principles, we have serious concerns about how the process has been handled and the lack of clarity about what will follow. Once again, the Assembly finds itself dealing with major legislation at the last possible moment. The Bill has been introduced under intense time pressure, with a live consultation still under way on the regulations that will give it effect and with a hard deadline approaching in April 2026, when Ofgem will withdraw from its role in administering the scheme. That timeline means that scrutiny of the Bill and the subordinate legislation will be compressed into a matter of weeks. That is not how good governance should work. It is not the careful, transparent and considered process that the public expect, especially given the history of RHI. We all remember what went wrong the last time, and we all remember how public trust was damaged. Anything bearing those three letters now must be handled with absolute care and transparency. Fairness must also be extended to the taxpayer. We have a duty to ensure that every pound of public money is used properly, is monitored effectively and is capable of standing up to close scrutiny. That balance between fairness for participants and the protection of public funds is essential if we are to build public confidence. We must be realistic about the implications of not supporting the Bill. If the Assembly were to reject or delay it, the Department for the Economy would not have the legal powers to transfer the scheme's administration once Ofgem steps back next spring, which is pretty close in the calendar, in order to put in place the arrangements that must follow. Without those powers, there is a risk of a legal and administrative vacuum — essentially, it will be in limbo — and there will be significant uncertainty for participants and the public purse. That is why the SDLP will support the principles of the Bill. We are not convinced that the Department's current approach or, indeed, its capacity are yet sufficient to deliver a smooth and credible transition. Given the Department's historical role in the scheme, there are legitimate questions about whether robust, independent oversight should form part of that process. Our position is clear: we support the principle of closure, but we have real concerns about the process, the timing and the arrangements that will sit beneath the legislation. We will continue to undertake and push for proper scrutiny in order to secure an approach that is fair, credible and accountable and protects public funds. This place cannot afford a repeat of past mistakes. We must close the scheme properly, with fairness for participants, value for money for the public and confidence for all. Ms Sheerin: I will speak briefly in support of the legislation. I welcome the support for the Bill from the Members of other parties who have spoken already. The closure of the scheme was a commitment in NDNA. At that stage, all the main parties that signed up to that were clear that they wanted to see the scheme close. The Minister is trying to do that in a way that best suits the public purse and the people who entered the scheme in good faith, who, in some ways, have been collateral damage in the fallout from the mess that was made of the scheme at the beginning. It is important that we bear that in mind. As the Bill goes through the Committee, we will have the opportunity to scrutinise the fine detail. I welcome the commitment from the Minister that the team who are working on it will make themselves available. It will be positive to see the Bill pass its Second Stage today. We will progress the legislation and work together to deliver the best for everyone involved. Mr Honeyford: I will be clear from the start: we in Alliance support the principle of completely closing down the RHI scheme and bringing that sorry chapter to an end. RHI has been an absolute disaster from the beginning. It effectively collapsed the Assembly, because it was conceived and implemented without oversight and managed with arrogance. It was a textbook example of greed enabled by government failure. That happened under the DUP's watch. They were, apparently, under the belief that, "Treasury will pick up the Bill, so what does it matter?", so here we are today. Top 1.00 pm That approach led to reckless decisions that cost our public finances dearly. More importantly, however, as is often emphasised, it shattered public confidence in the institutions and continues to cast a shadow over the Department. We see and hear that every time the Department comes before the Committee. It has massively delayed progress towards net zero targets and energy security. In dealing with renewable energy, it has caused there to be caution in moving towards any new scheme to secure the future energy of the island — they come at a snail's pace, although we need them in place yesterday — whether utilising wind, solar, biogas or hydrogen. I sit on the Public Accounts Committee, where, all the time, I can see, from various Departments, although most pointedly from the Department for the Economy, that RHI single-handedly further destroyed Civil Service confidence in taking any decisions, limiting creativity within the Departments and thus holding us back from entrepreneurship or creative ideas to tackle today's problems. By continuing to do the same thing over and over again, we continue to deliver the same outcomes. We in the Chamber have to be honest: it was the DUP Minister of the day who oversaw and brought us RHI. The damage to politics in Northern Ireland that followed was a direct result of their political negligence. It now passes to us all — it is our collective responsibility — to bring RHI and this chapter to an end and to do so in an orderly, transparent and fair way. This should have been sorted out years ago. The fact that we are talking about it today illustrates the failure of successive Economy Ministers, alongside stop-start government, to bring this to an end and deal with it. That is a disgrace. This action has been forced by Ofgem: the timeline is being controlled by Ofgem, not by the Minister or the Department. The Ofgem deadline has created the circumstances that have brought us here today. I will tease out my core concerns. The Bill is short. It grants the Department the power to make regulations, without any of us or the public being able to scrutinise those regulations in their final form. Effectively, we are being asked to sign a blank cheque to the Department that originally delivered the RHI scheme and to trust that, this time, the detail will be right. That is not good enough for me, and it is certainly not good enough for those who expect us to have learnt lessons. We need a Bill that brings confidence that bringing this to a close enables learning and allows us to move forward with confidence, free from the shackles of RHI. On the subject of the proposed regulations and fairness, the Department's consultation proposes that payments will be based on the figures for historical generation, from 2017-19. There is a question over why those years were chosen. The Minister addressed that today, and we were also given an explanation at Committee. We are told that the level of payment at that time was fair, but why, then, has the number of users halved since then? How can the data from nearly a decade ago accurately reflect the current usage, the current technology or our environmental targets? If the Department truly intends to close the scheme, why does it propose that it will continue payments for another 10 years, running out the original 20-year term from 2012? Surely, that is an extension of RHI rather than an end to it. That does not sound like closure; it sounds like running down the clock on a flawed system. Can the Minister confirm absolutely, today, that the Treasury has signed off on the plan and that it agrees with the regulations that are to come and with the approach that the Department has taken? Can she confirm that it will enable the Assembly to, at last, access central funding for other renewable schemes that has been denied to us over the past years? It is critical that we hear the answers to those questions and that we can actually move forward. We need to a clear explanation of how the Bill delivers value for money and how it delivers on our climate objectives. Confidence in renewables starts with confidence in governance. Frankly, we cannot build tomorrow's energy on yesterday's mistakes. I hope that the Minister will give a reassurance that the environmental benefits that come from the scheme will not be lost; that we will not have another decade of delay dressed up as delivery, which we cannot afford; and that the Bill will ensure fairness for all those who participated in good faith but will not allow others to take advantage. The proposed payment model also raises plenty of questions. Paying for heat that is not generated is not reform; it is repetition of previous mistakes. If I produce 51% output but get 100% payment, or if I produce 6% output but get 50% payment, how does that deliver value for money to the public purse? That is not policy; it is paying for inactivity. How can the public have faith in a system that rewards outputs that do not exist? Those who invested in good faith deserve fairness, not a fudge, but fairness cannot mean overpaying for boilers that are not running to the percentage for which payment is being made or are not even running. The Department cannot claim that lessons have been learned if the new model still rewards inefficiency and penalises integrity. The rate has obviously been too low for some time: is backdating payments to pay for heat that has not been generated the way to go? When it comes to oversight, fraud and inspection, the Department says that it will remove the need for quarterly meter readings and will rely instead on an annual declaration and occasional inspections. Given the advancement of technology since the RHI scheme came in, why are we moving backwards? Why did the Department go for fewer checks? I hope that the Minister will give us a clear answer to that. Surely there are now digital solutions, as Phillip mentioned — simple solutions that can easily monitor usage in real time and would cost less than creating a new inspection regime to make visits. The entire RHI scandal was caused by a lack of proper monitoring and oversight. If we remove even the few checks that remain, how can we be confident that the fraud will not creep back in? We have been told that there will be a new fraud policy, so I would like the Department to spell out clearly what that will look like. At the Committee a while back, we heard that every boiler will be visited once over the next 10 years. If you think that through, you realise that, if a boiler is checked next year, the owner can be pretty confident that it will not be checked again for the entire 10 years of the scheme. How will that work in practice? Why should we believe that the control this time will be different from the first scheme's control, which failed so comprehensively? Moreover, we have seen no evidence that the Department has resourced the necessary inspection regime to ensure that the boilers are still in genuine use or that the heat generated is being used for the purpose for which the boilers were installed. Previously, the headline was "Cash for ash": we must be absolutely confident that we do not see a repeat of that. Today is 20 October. Why is this being done now? We have been told that closing the RHI scheme is urgent, yet we have had years in which to do so. If it is urgent today, it was urgent years ago. The Minister could have introduced the Bill at any time. Given that it is two and a half pages long, no Member will believe that it has not been drafted for some time. If it has been, why was it not introduced before now? We cannot wait until the process has almost timed out. The consultation was launched only at the end of last month and will close at the end of November, yet the Bill is before us today. This time last year, I asked a question about the Bill at Committee and was told that it would be introduced in the new year. Everybody in the room was pretty clear that "new year" meant January or February. Technically, nobody misled the Committee. Technically, officials answered correctly — it is still 2025 — but, by goodness, introducing the Bill at the end of October, almost a year later, is stretching the understanding of what was said. Stretching that understanding stretches the trust that we have in the Department, so I look for things that the Department is hiding. If the Department could have brought forward tariff adjustments or closure arrangements any time sooner, I am left wondering why it did not. Why did it take 18 months of behind-the-scenes work to consult with just three groups and arrive at a proposal that leaves many unanswered questions? That leaves me with a feeling that introduction may have been deliberately left to the last minute to try to bypass Committee Stage and force through the Bill regardless of anyone's opinion. If that is the case, it will be a new low and another push against the trust that the Committee has built up, working together to deliver better for people. We are being asked to trust a Department that designed, oversaw and defended the original RHI scheme. Such trust must be earned, but it has not been. The Department has done little to change that opinion and given little reassurance that it is on top of this. Alliance supports the principle of the scheme's closure, but it must be done in the right way. I am disappointed at how the Bill has been rushed, thus limiting Committee and Assembly time to debate it. Given that we had a similar debate a year ago, during which we were told that the Bill would be introduced in the new year, the measure should not be hidden behind departmental regulations and definitely should not come at the expense of fairness and transparency. We will not give the Department a blank cheque. We will not endorse a process that risks repeating the failures that caused the scandal in the first place. We cannot end one scandal yet create the conditions for the next one. I look forward to hearing the Minister answer the questions that have been raised and to having her reassure the House that the Department is in control and has the ability to deliver what it says that it will. In moving forward, our constituents from across the region deserve to know that the lessons from the mistakes of RHI have been learnt and that a process is in place to make sure that they are never repeated. Our constituents also deserve a Department that does not live under a cloud because of the ghost of RHI by progressing a Bill that is simply a quiet extension of the scheme under a different name. Legislate properly and openly, and let us finally bring that sorry chapter to an end in a way that commands the respect of everyone in the House. Ms D Armstrong: I support those Members who have sought reassurances and expressed concerns about the RHI (Closure of Non-Domestic Scheme) Bill. The UUP supports the scheme's closure in principle. I share the Chair of the Economy Committee's view that the Bill may prove contentious. Fellow members of the Committee have already outlined some of their worries and concerns. The messaging around the Bill needs to be clear and concise and give the assurances that the public seek. The public and many others will struggle to understand how the Bill can be presented as a scheme closure when the Department admits that payments will continue until 2036, and, in some cases, at an increased rate. If we extend payments for another decade, we will be not closing the scheme but rebranding it. The Bill looks more like a legacy payment scheme than a genuine closure scheme. The Assembly must be honest and transparent with the public, particularly when confidence remains at an all-time low following the legacy of RHI. My question to the Minister is therefore this: are we achieving financial savings, or is it just a case of rebranding and rebadging the scheme? Members will recall that the original RHI scheme collapsed because controls were too weak, oversight was inconsistent and accountability was blurred. Under the Department's current proposal, however, metering will end, quarterly readings will stop and some inspections will even be announced in advance. It feels as though we have not learnt lessons, because that risks setting us up for failure and potentially another scandal. Today, I seek assurance from the Minister that the Department will ensure that sufficient safeguards are in place to guarantee that boilers are genuinely in use, not sitting idle while payments continue. Others have referred to the payment tariffs. Such safeguards include unannounced inspections and independent verification of annual declarations. Good-faith participants should have no objections to that. The Department has said that it does not have the capacity to carry out meter readings, now that, from April 2026, Ofgem will step away, but that is not an acceptable reason for weakening safeguards. Rather, it is an argument for strengthening internal capacity. If, as I asked in Committee last week, we could measure heat output between 2017 and 2019, why can the same mechanism not continue to be used? The technology and the data exist. Without ongoing metering, independent verification and advance notice of inspections, the system risks reverting to the same complacency that led to previous failures. I await the Minister's comment on that. Clause 1(6)(a) allows the Department to alter the scheme "from time to time". That acts as a potential get-out clause, meaning that, after the Bill passes, the Department could continue to adjust payments or conditions without returning to the Assembly to seek a fresh mandate for doing so. Officials insist that any changes will follow due process, but we have seen how due process can become a tick-box exercise rather than real accountability. If the Bill is to grant such broad regulatory powers, I request that the Minister show how it could also include statutory reporting requirements and Assembly oversight to match. Top 1.15 pm We cannot overestimate the reputational damage that ongoing RHI payments continue to inflict on public confidence in government in Northern Ireland. As other Members have said, the term "RHI" still provokes public anger and mistrust, and the Department should fully assess the reputational risk of maintaining payments under that name for another decade. It must be stressed that many boiler owners joined the scheme in good faith. Under the leadership of the then Minister, Michelle O'Neill, the Department of Agriculture organised 60 workshops up until the end of 2015 to explain the benefits of the scheme. Indeed, the scheme ensured tangible benefits by producing heating for poultry houses, which improved environmental conditions for chickens, reduced infection and improved performance. Many farming families who were encouraged to attend the workshops were innocent participants, and they are the same farming families who are constantly under the cosh today. We owe it to them to ensure fairness and transparency in bringing the sorry saga to a close. Therefore, I ask the Minister why the Department cannot reconstitute any legacy arrangements under a separate mechanism with a new governance model to help rebuild trust. Before the Assembly grants the Department new powers, we must be satisfied that the lessons of the RHI inquiry have been fully implemented. Were Sir Patrick Coghlin's recommendations fully considered when drafting the Bill? The public deserve assurance that the Department is not simply repeating history. The Department's documentation shows up to a fourfold increase in tariffs for small and medium biomass boilers; for example, a lower medium tier-1 tariff is rising from 2·2p per kilowatt-hour to 6·1p per kilowatt-hour. What justification exists for such significant increases, and how can the Minister assure the Assembly that it will not, once again, deliver excessive rates of return to participants? The target return is 12%, yet there is no clear evidence that it will be achieved consistently or that outliers will not benefit disproportionately. The total projected cost of closure payments up to 2036 is £213 million: £196 million in scheme payments and £17 million for administration. That mirrors the cost of simply keeping the scheme open, so where are the savings? A cost of £17 million for administration, including inspections, compliance and IT systems, is a significant amount for a Department that is still rebuilding public trust after the previous RHI scheme. I ask the Minister what measures will be in place to ensure that the compliance regime delivers value for money and operates independently of those who managed the original scheme. An important consideration is whether, on the basis of this RHI scheme, any future new renewable energy scheme will find difficulties in attracting participants and whether, should there not be enough uptake of such schemes, we will continue giving money back to Westminster. I urge the Department to seriously consider anaerobic digestion as part of the food and energy security debate. I would welcome the Minister's views on anaerobic digestion as a solution for agri by-products and renewable energy targets. The Ulster Unionist Party recognises the need to move on from RHI but will not support a process that simply rebrands it. There must be clear reporting obligations, independent auditing by the Northern Ireland Audit Office and a statutory duty of transparency that requires the Department to publish annual data on payments, inspections and administrative costs. Only then can we say that we have truly learned the lessons of RHI and begun to rebuild the public's confidence in how Northern Ireland manages its energy policy. The Ulster Unionist Party supports the principle of closure but will not support a process that reopens old wounds. The Bill must deliver closure in substance, not just in name. If the Assembly is to pass legislation in the shadow of RHI, that legislation must restore trust. That means openness, accountability and fiscal discipline, not another blank cheque for a Department to manage behind closed doors. Ms Finnegan: Is geal liom deis bheith agam labhairt ar son an Dara Céim den Bhille. [Translation: I am delighted to speak in favour of the Second Stage of the Bill.] I commend the Minister for her clear and determined leadership in bringing the legislation before the Assembly. The Minister has rightly focused on fairness, value for money and the need to protect public finances, but, from an environmental perspective, the legislation also represents an opportunity to reset, refocus and build something better. We know that decarbonising heat is one of the most complex and critical challenges in our journey to net zero. It requires innovation, investment and a clear policy framework. The legacy of the RHI scheme has made that harder, but the Bill begins to clear the way. I emphasise the importance of ensuring that any future scheme is designed with climate impact front and centre. That means supporting technologies that genuinely reduce emissions, prioritising energy efficiency and ensuring that the support reaches those who need it most, including our rural communities, low-income households and small businesses. We must also learn from the past. Any new scheme must be robust, well regulated and built on clear principles of sustainability and fairness. It must support our climate targets, stimulate local supply chains and contribute to a just transition for workers and communities. The Bill gives the Department the powers it needs to close the current scheme and begin shaping a better future for renewable heat policy in the North. I fully support the legislation, and I look forward to working with colleagues across the Assembly to ensure that what comes next is ambitious and credible and delivers for people and the planet. Ms Nicholl: Without rehearsing the arguments of the past number of years, it is really important to say at the outset that RHI has been an unmitigated disaster for Northern Ireland. It has been detrimental to our economy, to taxpayers and, ultimately, to faith in our politics and these institutions. It is a buzzword for failure, poor governance and collapse. The damage to public trust is perhaps one of the most enduring legacies of the RHI saga; it continues to plague our discussions around this Bill and the wider effort to close the scheme. It is right and proper that good-faith boiler owners have a fair settlement that ensures that they are not unduly punished for the failures of the scheme as a whole. However, a lot more clarity needs to be provided on the banded nature of the proposed payments. The Department calls the system "a common-sense approach", but, as several Members have set out, there are questions to be asked about the way in which the bands have been broken down. Under the proposed system, when an installation is operated for less than 50% but more than 5% of its historical heat output, the payment would be for 50% of the historical heat output. That means that someone using a boiler for 10% or even 6% of the time could be eligible for payments covering 50% of usage, as my colleague set out. When officials came to brief the Committee on the Bill, I said that my main concern with the process was to do with trust. We all agree that the RHI scheme needs to close, but we need to assure ourselves that there is sufficient trust in the system and the Department to deliver a rational, fair and efficient closure of the scheme. The Bill gives significant power to the Department without much clarity on what exactly it is going to do with that power. My colleague David Honeyford set that out in detail. Without the regulations in front of us, it is difficult to understand how the Department expects us to pass the Bill as it stands. I welcome the reassurance that the regulations will come to the Committee. It is on that basis that I am happy to support the Bill at this stage. We will need the Minister to provide the clarity that we need in the Committee and in the Chamber to give us confidence to move forward. Trust needs to be rebuilt to allow us to vote for this legislation. Although we support the passage of the Second Stage, there remain questions that must be answered at Committee Stage. Mr Gaston: When considering the closure of the RHI, one must remember that there were and are many legitimate participants who signed up to the scheme in good faith and with the correct motivations. Legitimate boiler owners have been left high and dry, including the owners of the 304 accredited systems in North Antrim. Instead of bringing clarity, the Bill raises more questions than it answers. Like many other Members, I am concerned that the Bill risks repeating the very mistakes that led to the RHI scandal in the first place. Recently, those flaws were spelt out in an article by someone who literally wrote a book on RHI: Sam McBride of the 'Belfast Telegraph'. We are being asked to pass a Bill that empowers the very same Department that helped to make that mess to make the regulations to close the scheme. Clause 1(7) gives the Department powers to determine how closure payments are calculated. We know that the tariffs are currently out for consultation. However, the Bill does not specify any methodology, leaving it entirely to the Department to decide whether payments are based on actual usage, estimates or some other approach. Ofgem's stepping away offers no excuses for us to step away from actual meter readings. Will the Minister confirm what safeguards will be included in the regulations to prevent overpayments or abuse? We have heard from the Chairman of the Committee that it will look at banding for payments. Why then do the regulations not require actual meter readings? From what I have heard today, payments will be based on guesses, as Sam McBride has warned. The Bill allows for periodic payments until the scheme is completely closed under clause 1(6)(a). Clause 1(7) gives the Minister erroneous discretion. Does that mean that participants could continue to receive large payments for years to come while the public are told that the scheme is closed? The Department's consultation suggests that closure payments may be based on historical output from 2017 to 2019. Will you confirm, Minister, the rationale for that period being chosen? It is not realistic when compared with the actual usage by the boiler owners today. Will participants be allowed to challenge those calculations, if they believe that the baseline is inaccurate? Then, there is the question of oversight and anti-fraud measures. Clause 1(8) and clause 1(9) allow the Department to enter into agreements and make administrative arrangements, but there is no requirement for meaningful inspections or enforcement. Will the Minister assure the House that she will not simply rely on the light-touch oversight that, history tells us, is woefully inadequate for the scheme? How many inspections will there be, and how will they verify that the boiler owners are using the boilers to produce heat rather than to generate profits from subsidies? Does the banding of payments not encourage boiler owners to do that? We also need to see the Bill giving retrospective effect to payments or obligations under clause 1(10). Will the Minister confirm that no regulation will penalise participants for actions taken in good faith under the existing scheme? Will there be explicit protections for those who acted responsibly? Finally, there is the question of fiscal control. The consultation and, indeed, the media coverage suggested a potential cost of £196 million, but the Bill gives no statutory cap. How can the Minister guarantee that public money will be spent efficiently and not rise further, given the Department's record on the scheme to date? Minister, I ask you for clarity on each of those points so that Members can be confident that the Bill delivers real closure and not another decade of mismanagement. Until that assurance is given, I will remain deeply concerned about the Bill and the regulations that it will enable. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Timothy. I call the Minister for the Economy to conclude the debate and make the winding-up speech on the motion. Dr Archibald: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle. I thank Members for their consideration of the Bill. Whilst the Bill does not make any changes to the scheme directly, it is an important step towards fulfilling the New Decade, New Approach commitment, which was endorsed by the current Executive, to close the scheme. It provides the Department with the powers that will be needed to bring forward regulations under the draft affirmative process, setting out arrangements for closure. As I said in my opening speech, those arrangements remain under development. The public consultation is currently seeking views on the proposals to ensure that closure is implemented in a way that achieves fairness to participants and, more widely, to the taxpayer. Top 1.30 pm I will try to respond to the various points that Members made in the debate, and I will start with the Committee Chair. If I do not cover all your points, feel free to come in. Why not allow the scheme to continue as it currently is at the level that it currently is? The Member will be aware of previous court proceedings, where the judge indicated that the tariff needed to be amended. We have worked alongside industry experts to develop the proposed tariffs. Those have been modelled and described by departmental officials and Professor David Rooney to ensure that where we are proposing to go with the tariffs is the correct way forward. As for metering, if we continue to meter, we are not effectively closing the scheme: we are not giving certainty to what the payments will be on an annual basis. Certainty on what the payments will be annually is key to unlocking the AME. That brings me to another of the Committee Chair's points: why are we taking this approach? It is because we want to ensure that we finally deal with the RHI scheme in a way that is fair to participants and taxpayers and will also give us the ability to access AME funding that we are currently unable to access and to put it to good use. As for the regulations, I am happy to commit to the Committee Chair that, when we have those, we will share them with the Committee so that it has the opportunity to scrutinise them appropriately. Obviously, the Bill that we are debating today gives the Department the power to develop regulations, but those regulations are still subject to the scrutiny of both the Committee and this Chamber. There is an opportunity for the Chamber to do as it did last year and vote the regulations down because a draft affirmative process is in place for the regulations that are to be developed. How we will monitor the use of the meters has been described, both in the consultation and when the officials attended the Committee. There is an intention to have an inspection process in place. Those will be physical inspections, and the participants will be required to sign an annual declaration and provide information that confirms that the installations continue to be used for useful purposes. I think that I have dealt with the Committee Chair's questions, but if he wants to intervene, I am happy to take his intervention. Go ahead, Phillip. Mr Brett: Thank you, Minister, for covering those points. I know it is not within the scope of the Bill per se, but I have questions about the underutilised AME. First, can you confirm to the House what that figure is, currently; and, secondly, what work are your officials doing to advance a scheme that can draw down that funding? Obviously, if we are going to close the scheme, and this Bill can pass by March of next year, we need to have a new scheme ready to rock, so I would like to hear some views on that. Dr Archibald: Yes, I thank the Member for reminding me of that question. Mr Honeyford raised a similar question in relation to the AME. We have to have the RHI scheme closed and certainty on the way forward for it in order to engage with Treasury about the AME that will then be accessible. Treasury is aware that that is what we intend to do and is content to engage with us on using that AME for a purpose that is in line with the original intent of the scheme: renewable heat. The Department will bring forward proposals on how we will make use of that. Emma and Sinéad were both broadly supportive of the direction of travel, although I do note Sinéad's caveat in her comments. I know that Sinéad will scrutinise the legislation as it goes through Committee. I dealt with some of David's points in response to the Committee Chair on the question of why we are keeping the payments going. Mr Honeyford: Will the Minister give way? Dr Archibald: Yes. Mr Honeyford: I want to clarify that. You are saying that participants will run at either 100% or 50%. Is Treasury happy that somebody who runs at 60%, say, will get full payment — that they will get paid for heat that is not generated? Can I clarify that, once this moves forward, we will be able to access the funds for the rest of the renewables sector? Dr Archibald: On what Treasury has agreed to so far, it is aware of what was proposed in the business case and is content with that. We will have to re-engage with Treasury about accessing the AME that will be freed up. Treasury knows that it is our intention to do so. I am sure that the Member and all other Members will know that, when you deal with Treasury, it wants to know what your exact proposals are before it will give you a commitment about whether or not you can access the funding. We need to be in a position to know what amount of funding will be utilised out of the existing AME. That is why it is important that we have certainty on what the annual payments will be. The process that we are setting out on "deemed" heat as the way of calculating the payments allows us to have that confirmation of what the required funding envelope will be. That gives us the ability to know what excess AME we will have to access to introduce an additional scheme in line with similar principles. The Member raised some questions around why, on the one hand, we were continuing to pay participants over a number of years but how, on the other hand, we can make sure that they are using the heat for useful purposes. If we did a one-off payment, there would be no ability to ensure that the heat is being generated for useful purposes — that the appropriate safeguards are in place. That is one of the reasons why we are taking the approach that we are taking — to have such an inspection regime in place; to have the declaration; and to have the requirement for records to be shared annually — to releasing the payment. We are trying to strike a balance where we give certainty about the funding that will be required to allow us access to the AME and where we are fair to both participants and taxpayers about what we are doing. Mr Brett: I appreciate the Minister's giving way and for articulating answers to some of the questions. I want to push on the timeline for the new scheme; let us call it that. Treasury will not engage until a new proposal is on the table, and officials will not fully work up a new proposal until there is certainty. Given that it is likely that the Bill will move into Committee Stage, that can now advance. Can the Minister outline to the House when she expects officials to have a concrete alternative proposal that we can scrutinise and then all get behind and back its going to Treasury for support? Dr Archibald: As I set out, Treasury has advised that it will need to review the detail of any future proposals to ensure that they are in line with the original policy intention, which, obviously, as I mentioned, was renewable heat. Heat pumps, for example, were part of the original RHI, so that will be consistent with the work that the Department is progressing and in line with the original policy intention. I imagine that a new support scheme will need to be consulted on. We hope to do that in 2026 and be in a position to spend in the 2026-27 financial year. Mr Honeyford also asked why we have introduced the Bill at this point. Obviously, we had to get Executive approval for our proposals. A lot of work has been done by officials and participants' representatives over the past number of months to get us to the position where we have a set of proposals that has the broad endorsement of those who will be in receipt of the payments. That was important work for us to do in order to get the Bill to this point. We then had to engage with the Executive on agreeing a way forward. Thankfully, Executive colleagues have endorsed a way forward. Once we have consulted on the regulations, we will return to the Executive to seek final approval. I will respond to Mr Gaston's comments, albeit some have already been dealt with in my responding to other Members'. He mentioned participants having the ability to appeal and asked whether there will be enforcement. The regulations will include both elements, and they are currently being consulted on. He also raised the issue of cost. The projected cost of £196 million is the maximum cost and is based on all participants taking up the offer of payments. That applies certainty to the amount that the proposed scheme is going to cost. As I said previously, it also gives us the certainty to be able to engage with Treasury about utilising the unused AME. I am grateful to all those who contributed —. Mr Gaston: Will the Minister give way? Dr Archibald: Go ahead. Mr Gaston: Minister, while you are here, I will push you further on the use of historical data from 2017 to 2019 to make payments and the comments that we have heard about banding. What protections can you put in place for such times as a boiler owner, who knows exactly what his output was during that period, sets his dial to use 55% of his output but then secures 100% payment? What safeguards can you put in place to ensure that that is not done and that people are not driven to maximise what they can get out of the scheme? Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his intervention. As I said, tariffs to be paid to participants have been developed based on the period that was deemed to be most fair. The Member will be well aware of the trajectory of the cost of fuel post COVID and beyond. The 2017-19 period therefore represents what is considered to be the best period for fair usage. It is after the time at which the unfair tariffs that resulted in overpayments had been corrected, and it represents a time at which there was a fair price. That is why that period has been used to predict the way forward with payments. The payment that will be made will cover the production of heat, but maintenance and the cost of fuel will also be taken into account. As I said to other Members, there will be an inspection regime, a declaration and a requirement to provide information and records annually in order to ensure that the heat that is being generated is being used for useful purposes. I ask Members for their support to agree the Bill's Second Stage so that it can be referred to the Committee for the Economy for more detailed scrutiny. I am sure that officials will be happy to engage on the questions that Members posed throughout the debate. I assure the House that my Department will provide whatever support the Committee requires in order to complete the Bill's Committee Stage. I commend the Bill to the House. Question put and agreed to. Resolved: That the Second Stage of the RHI (Closure of Non-Domestic Scheme) Bill [NIA Bill 22/22-27] be agreed. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I ask Members to take their ease. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Blair] in the Chair) Top 1.45 pm Private Members' Business Storm Resilience and Infrastructure Preparedness Mr Butler: I beg to move That this Assembly notes with concern the increasing frequency and severity of storms that have caused widespread disruption to electricity, broadband, transport and essential public and community services across Northern Ireland; further notes that those events have exposed weaknesses in communication, coordination and infrastructure resilience, particularly in rural and isolated areas; expresses concern at the confusion during recent storms, when delayed and inconsistent messages from the Education Authority (EA) about school closures left parents, pupils and staff struggling to make last-minute arrangements; recognises the need for clearer contingency planning, stronger leadership and better coordination between Departments and agencies; and calls on the First Minister and deputy First Minister to lead a cross-departmental review to improve communication, strengthen infrastructure and emergency response systems and ensure that communities and essential services are better protected during future severe weather events. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. As an amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List, the Business Committee has agreed that 15 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate. Mr Butler, please open the debate on the motion. Mr Butler: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a matter of fact that, this year, Northern Ireland has been subject to a series of increasingly severe storms. Those storms have left a trail of damage and destruction that is both physical and deeply human. Families, farmers and entire communities have faced fallen trees, toppling poles, flooded roads, the danger of aquaplaning vehicles and, in many cases, community and individual isolation. The extreme weather has exposed our vulnerabilities. It has reminded us painfully that we are not adequately prepared. The time for reaction is over, and the time for preparation must begin. Storms will inevitably come again, and it is our responsibility to act together now to build long-term, effective solutions that will protect lives, homes and livelihoods. I express my support for the residents of County Down, particularly those in Newcastle, who endured heavy rainfall and flooding over the weekend that left many fearing for their lives and the safety of their homes. I am sure that many if not all of us have seen the pictures and video footage of the properties that were damaged. I think particularly of the Tullybrannigan Road area, which was cut off, leaving residents feeling trapped and helpless. The fact that much of that was predictable and, to an extent, preventable makes it all the more frustrating. With better planning, coordination and communication, we could make a difference. That is why this debate is not just necessary but urgent. We must close the gaps in our storm preparedness and put in place permanent or long-term solutions rather than short-term fixes. Rural areas, as always, tend to suffer most. When storms hit, they are often the last to be reconnected and to receive help. I am often asked, "Are we the first to be forgotten?". Limited infrastructure and stretched emergency services mean that, when trees fall or flooding occurs, small villages and farms can be entirely cut off. During storm Éowyn, many rural homes, farms and businesses were left without electricity for weeks, and MLAs across the Chamber worked tirelessly to get people reconnected. People faced devastating losses of livestock and property. Better rural connectivity and stronger infrastructure are absolutely key if we are serious about protecting those communities. The threat to life posed by extreme weather is not fully recognised, even after the devastation of storm Éowyn and storm Amy. Too often, we focus on the visible damage — the fallen trees, the flooded roads and the power outages — but we sometimes forget that behind those stories are people whose lives are genuinely at risk. We need much stronger collaboration between councils, emergency responders and national agencies, and I thank the people who respond. Communication is crucial, not to create panic but to educate and empower communities to act early and stay safe. Those improvements could literally mean the difference between life and death. I turn briefly to our modern healthcare system. More people than ever rely on medical equipment at home, such as oxygen machines, ventilators and other devices, where an interruption to electricity or broadband is not merely an inconvenience but can be life-threatening. We must give those people consistency, assurance and protection. The recent storms have also raised serious questions about the efficiency of our emergency systems. Take, for instance, the late notice from the Education Authority regarding school closures on Friday 3 October. Many parents and staff were left scrambling at the last minute, while public transport had already been suspended. That confusion was unnecessary and avoidable. The early activation of emergency plans with clearer coordination can prevent panic and help keep people safe. Our power network remains outdated and vulnerable. It is fragile, and every major storm exposes that weakness. Despite repeated opportunities, we have not yet fully embraced renewable resources, such as wind, solar, hydro and anaerobic digestion. Doing so would not only strengthen our energy security, which needs to become a serious matter for debate, but decentralise generation and move us towards a more sustainable and resilient future. We should also look outward. Other countries have faced even harsher weather. From the Netherlands to Australia, we can see cases where they have shown what can be achieved through investment and, in particular, resilient flood defences and community-based preparedness. In Australia, for example, flash flood response relies heavily on education and local drills. Northern Ireland can and should learn from those international examples, adopting what works, adapting what does not and building a strategy fit for our unique landscape. As we look to the future, we must also ensure that our ambition for green, energy-efficient communities goes hand in hand with building storm-proof, resilient communities. Sustainability and strength must be integrated; it is not one or the other. We need to create homes and neighbourhoods that are as efficient as they are robust. Let us act with urgency and focus on collaboration. Let us ensure that every community, whether it is rural or urban, is not just ready but empowered when the next storm arrives. We owe it to the people whom we represent and their communities to let them know that they are not defined by tomorrow's storms and that the Chamber is speaking about it today, and we are going to act. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): As Question Time begins at 2.00 pm, I suggest that the Assembly takes its ease until then. The debate will continue after the questions for urgent oral answer, when the next Member to speak will be Phillip Brett, moving the amendment. The debate stood suspended. Top 2.00 pm (Mr Speaker in the Chair) Oral Answers to Questions The Executive Office Europe Strategy 1. Mr Honeyford asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the development of a Europe strategy. (AQO 2550/22-27) Mrs O'Neill (The First Minister): We do not underestimate the importance of having a strategic focus on Europe as our closest neighbour. Following Brexit, our officials continue to explore how best to engage strategically to manage the challenges of our new relationship as well as maximise the opportunities that it presents. That work has been considered as part of the development of the new overarching international relations strategy, and it will intersect with broader Executive and departmental strategies and actions. We live in an increasingly interconnected world, one where developments and decisions elsewhere impact on us directly. If we are to drive prosperity and tackle disadvantage across our communities and deliver on our Programme for Government ambitions, we must engage with key international partners. That will be important in setting out our longer-term approach to global engagement. Mr Honeyford: Thank you, First Minister, for your response. Regardless of Brexit, our relationship with the rest of Europe has become more complex and difficult. As citizens and businesses, it is essential that we engage positively and productively with our European neighbours. Will you commit to advancing a strategy so that there is something concrete in place before end of the mandate? Mrs O'Neill: Yes. We are moving closer to finalising an international relations strategy, which will focus on all our international relations but, in a post-Brexit world in particular, our relationship with Europe more generally. Certainly, there is a recognition that Europe remains one of our most significant partners for trade, investment and cultural exchange. Our international relations strategy is going to be supported by thematic and regional delivery plans, and that is all going to be important. We are engaging constantly with an ever-increasing number of ambassadors who are choosing to visit here and to talk to us about building relationships. That is going to be really important. I am hoping to come to the House in the near future with a new international relations strategy. Mr Kearney: Minister, I turn to the economic element of our relationship with Europe. In your Transforming Communities for Inclusion (TCI) global conference speech, a few days ago, you said that the North can now boast that Titanic Belfast is one of the most attractive visitor experiences in Europe, that we are now looking at cruises to this destination becoming more popular than in any other part of Europe in a relative sense, and that, in the context of the all-island economy — Mr Speaker: Question, Mr Kearney. Mr Kearney: — our exports are growing. Therefore, Minister, do you agree that now is the time for us to maximise our access to the dual-market economy? Mrs O'Neill: In short, yes, absolutely. You mentioned the TCI conference. That was a conference last week that I and the Taoiseach spoke at. The theme of the conference was clustering and how we work together. I took the opportunity to talk about the manufacturing and engineering growth and advancement (MEGA) network, which is a fantastic example of advanced manufacturing companies coming together across my constituency and neighbouring constituencies. That is a really good example of how, collaboratively, we can work together. You mentioned our having dual-market access, and I spoke about that at the event. The fact that we have unique access for local businesses to trade freely with the EU and British markets — two of the world's largest — gives us access to more than 500 million customers and a net worth of £6 trillion. That is why it is important that we continue to reach for all those opportunities to create jobs and grow our economy. We have that unique selling point, and we have to maximise it. That is at the heart of the work of the Department for the Economy through Dr Caoimhe Archibald. With regard to international relations more generally, in the past month, we have met a considerable number of ambassadors who are choosing to visit here to talk about areas of partnership and areas where we can engage and grow international trade. We need to continue to grab on to the dual-market access and maximise it to our benefit. Ms McLaughlin: The UK Chancellor recently announced plans for a new youth mobility agreement with the EU. Have the Executive made any formal representations to ensure that young people here are included in that scheme? Mrs O'Neill: Yes, we raised that issue at a recent meeting with a British Government Minister whose name escapes me just now. We had a discussion about youth mobility. Clearly, there is a whole new strategic focus, with a new partnership arrangement between the British Government and the EU, and the youth mobility scheme is built into that. Our young people should be afforded the opportunity to have that freedom of movement, so we will continue to make that case. 'Borderland' Podcast: Victims 2. Mr Gaston asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, in light of their statutory obligation to represent the interests of victims, whether an assessment has been made of the impact that recent comments on the BBC ‘Borderland’ podcast, that IRA murders were justified, has had on victims. (AQO 2551/22-27) Mrs O'Neill: Recent comments quoted in the BBC 'Borderland' podcast are a matter for those who were interviewed. Our Department has been representing the interests of victims and survivors for many years. We remain committed to ensuring that their needs are met. A key commitment in the victims and survivors strategy is to provide support for victims and survivors and their families as they move forward from experiences of the past. The strategy also recognises the importance of truth and justice and the need to work towards greater societal recognition of the hurt, loss and trauma of our past. We will continue to provide support for victims and survivors in dealing with the legacy of the past and will take a flexible approach to deal with changing needs and circumstances. Mr Gaston: The front page of 'The Irish News' today has a story about revelations in a podcast about the Enniskillen Poppy Day massacre. Does the First Minister agree that the IRA was guilty of murder? No weasel or honeyed words, First Minister: was Enniskillen an example of mass murder; yes or no? Mrs O'Neill: As the Member knows — I have said it on many occasions in the House — there were many injustices and tragedies in our past. Our job is to try to heal the wounds of the past. Our job is to try to ensure that we support victims and survivors. Many people have been impacted on by the conflict here. We should not be selective. Equally, we should not try to pawn victims for political point-scoring in this place. Let us work together to support all victims and survivors. Mrs Dillon: First Minister, I know that you have previously acknowledged that every death during the conflict years left a deep legacy of suffering and trauma. Given the deep suffering and trauma carried by so many families and victims across our society and beyond, how can we ensure that, in the Chamber, there is less petty politicking, and using and abusing of victims, and that we conduct ourselves in a manner that is about acknowledging all loss, with everyone taking responsibility for what was done in their name? Mrs O'Neill: I thank the Member for her question and also for the tone in which she presented it, because it is important that we reflect on the fact that at the heart of this conversation are people who have been impacted on and hurt by conflict. We must never forget all those who lost their lives or were injured or, indeed, families who still deal with grief. I have said in the Chamber many times that I regret every single loss of life in the conflict, and I will work every day with others to ensure that we continue the work of reconciliation and continue to support our victims and survivors. The Member is absolutely right to highlight the fact that the pain of victims and survivors should never be used to score points in this place or to reopen old wounds time and time again, week after week. We would be much better working together in this Chamber to try to heal the wounds of the past and build a brighter and better future. Mrs Cameron: The First Minister has previously said that there was no alternative to IRA violence, and her party colleague Michelle Gildernew has now stated that murder was justified. How can victims have any confidence in the First Minister and her party to represent their interests? Mrs O'Neill: I set out in my original answer the work that we are carrying forward in our Executive Office to support victims and survivors, and we will continue to do that work. Comments made by other commentators in a podcast or any other public forum are for them to answer for. Ms Bradshaw: Given the change of focus of the new legacy proposals that are put forward in the joint framework, what work will your Department do with others to ensure that we see delivery of sustainable, long-term reconciliation on this island? Mrs O'Neill: The Member will be aware that, towards the end of last week, the British Government published the legislative text. I think that we are all taking a look through that to ensure that it does what it needs to do, which is command the support of victims and survivors. Equally, we want to ensure that it is human-rights compliant. Through legislation, there is an opportunity to help all those people who have been affected by conflict, but it has to be the right legislation. It has to meet the tests and command the confidence of victims and survivors. Reconciliation is the work of all of us who are elected to the House. Through that work, we should all step outside our comfort zone, reach out to one another and do everything that we can to build a better future. I will continue to lead the way in that regard, and I know that many others in the Chamber are committed to doing so as well. Mr Burrows: I was on 'The Nolan Show' last week with the First Minister's former colleague Francie Molloy. He said that anyone with information about republican atrocities such as the Enniskillen bomb should give it to the police for them to undertake a criminal investigation. Does the First Minister believe that anyone with information about crimes committed by either loyalist or republican terrorists should give it to the lawful authority in order to support a criminal investigation? Yes or no? Mrs O'Neill: As I said previously, I do not comment on how others choose to conduct themselves in a public forum. I also encourage the Member not to be selective in what he chooses to pick out. It is important that we deal with the past holistically, that people with information come forward and that we find a way in which to heal the wounds of the past, but we will do that only if we work together instead of point-scoring. International Relations Strategy 3. Mr Carroll asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister whether their Department has received any correspondence from local councils in relation to its work on the international relations strategy in the past six months. (AQO 2552/22-27) Mrs O'Neill: The international relations strategy is under development and will intersect with broader Executive and departmental strategies and actions. The strategy will be important for setting out our longer-term approach to global engagement. Our officials have engaged extensively with partners in local government on its development. They host quarterly discussions with representatives of each local council to ensure a shared awareness of incoming visits and the work of our overseas offices. That encourages local engagement on the development of our international relations policies and on the design of programmes for visiting delegations. Our officials work to ensure that delegations can visit all our local councils and witness at first hand the varied sectoral expertise, tourism offering and opportunities for investment. We continue to take every opportunity to show that we are open to having partnerships that support our economic growth and that deliver outcomes for all our citizens. Mr Carroll: I thank the First Minister for her answer. She is aware that, earlier this year, Belfast City Council passed a motion, with the votes of Sinn Féin councillors among others, that expressed objection to the use of Belfast International Airport by US warplanes. At least 60 of them have gone through Aldergrove this year. Will she give an update on conversations with Belfast City Council on that matter and any action that she has taken as First Minister to express, I presume, her opposition to that fact? Mrs O'Neill: As the Member knows, we share a position on that. There will, however, be no joint Executive Office position on the issue. The council will therefore not get joint Executive Office correspondence. We received a letter from the council to let us know about the motion and to invite comment from us. The reality is that international relations are not a devolved matter but an excepted matter for the British Government to deal with. As I said earlier, we conduct ambassadorial engagements, but the operation of military aircraft and their use of airports is not devolved to here. Personally, I concur with the position that Belfast City Council adopted. Ms Ní Chuilín: Will the First Minister expand on what the Executive Office does to build international relations? Mrs O'Neill: As I have already referred to, even in the past month alone, the deputy First Minister and I met the ambassadors of Germany, Italy, Bulgaria, Romania, Belgium, Finland and Estonia, as well as the EU ambassador to Britain, Pedro Serrano. Through all such engagements, we take the opportunity to promote trade, tourism, higher education, digital industries, cybersecurity and fintech, as well as our unique access to both markets. We have our offices in Washington DC, Brussels and Beijing, all of which play a key role in promoting our interests as we continue to strengthen our reputation as a world-class destination in which to work, live, invest and study. Moreover, we have 25 Invest NI offices in key locations globally. Looking ahead, our new international relations strategy will build on all those engagements and look at the changing picture in a post-Brexit world. Given what is happening internationally, there is a lot on which to reflect. I hope that, in the coming period, we will be back here discussing our international relations strategy. Top 2.15 pm Mr Durkan: First Minister, given the potential for international partnerships to drive investment and tourism, will you outline what practical role Invest NI and Tourism NI have played in shaping the international relations strategy? Mrs O'Neill: There has been considerable engagement across all those bodies, because it is important, as I said, that we join up all the dots. A lot of work is happening at an Invest NI level and a tourism level. We are in 25 key locations globally with Invest NI, and we have our three offices in Brussels, the US and Beijing. You have to overlay all those areas of work, and that is what you will see as the product and the outworking of the investment strategy itself. Executive Office: NSMC-directed Work 4. Mrs Mason asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on work undertaken by their Department under the auspices of the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC). (AQO 2553/22-27) Mrs O'Neill: Through the NSMC joint secretariat, our Department supports the delivery of all activity under the auspices of the North/South Ministerial Council. The North/South structures are fully operational, with Ministers regularly meeting their counterparts in the Irish Government to take forward activity that benefits both jurisdictions. Just last Friday, we attended the thirtieth plenary meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council, which was hosted by the Taoiseach in Dublin. We had a very good agenda for that meeting, and we discussed topics including business and trade; infrastructure and investment; emergency planning and preparedness; and ending violence against women and girls, all of which are areas where there are opportunities for us to work together with the Irish Government to deliver better outcomes for our people. We will make a full report on that meeting and the NSMC institutional meeting that took place on the same day to the Assembly in the near future. Looking forward, arrangements are in the process of being finalised for a full series of NSMC sectoral meetings that will take place before the end of the year. At those meetings, Executive colleagues will engage with their opposite number in the Irish Government to discuss the various areas where we can work together for mutual benefit. Mrs Mason: First Minister, you mentioned that Friday's meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council was, indeed, the thirtieth plenary meeting. That is clearly a significant milestone. Looking ahead, will you outline how the Executive can build on the important work that has already been done to deepen cooperation across the island, particularly in the areas of health, infrastructure and the economy, and how that cooperation benefits people in both jurisdictions? Mrs O'Neill: As I said, in addition to the 30 plenary meetings, over 330 meetings of the Council have taken place. That shows sustained engagement across all the areas of cooperation. It is very much about laying strong foundations for closer engagement and collaboration and for planning. There is so much to be gained from working together on the practical, everyday issues and improving people's lives, be it across health or education. The new area that we are now talking about is how we can collaborate on ending violence against women and girls. We share that common cause, because it is such a huge problem across our island. We also talked about emergency planning and preparedness. If the pandemic taught us anything, it was that we need to have really strong collaboration across the island. Looking ahead, I want to see that continue to strengthen. We want to continue to grow and expand those areas. We also have the Shared Island Fund, which the Member will know about, as it funded the Narrow Water bridge project in her constituency. So many projects are now being advanced as a direct result of that. That is really good, practical cooperation, and we can build on that in the time ahead. Inward Investment 5. Mr Clarke asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister how their Department is leading the Executive in attracting large-scale inward investment to Northern Ireland. (AQO 2554/22-27) Mrs O'Neill: Since we have been in post, attracting inward investment to help grow our globally competitive and sustainable economy has been one of the Executive's key priorities. As First Minister and deputy First Minister, we have taken an active role in promoting our region and all that it has to offer as a great place to live, work, study and invest. We have been working together with the Economy Minister and other Executive colleagues to show that we are open for business internationally and to support our local companies that contribute so much to driving growth and innovation here. In the past 18 months, we have taken that message to representatives of the world's leading economies, many of whom have come here to visit us to see for themselves just how far we have come. Just this month, we met the Italian and German ambassadors to explore closer links between our countries. In the past year, we have had similar conversations with Ministers and ambassadors from all sorts of areas, be it the US, China, France, India or Japan, as well as leading an academic delegation to North Carolina to build our reputation and attract inward investment. We had the Open in July, when the eyes of the world were very much on us. That promoted us among global business leaders and strengthened our reputation. We are very much becoming a destination of choice. Mr Clarke: I suppose that I could be described as churlish for going back to the podcast on which the First Minister's party colleague made those comments. Of course, the First Minister would say that those were her colleague's comments and were not made on behalf of the party. In response to her colleague from, I think, West Belfast, the First Minister talked about Northern Ireland being a world-class destination. How can we say, on the one hand, that Northern Ireland is a world-class destination and give the description she gave, which was glowing with regard to what Northern Ireland has to offer, while, on the other hand, her Executive colleague makes it difficult for the defence industry to invest in Northern Ireland. How do those two things square? Mrs O'Neill: I do not agree with what you said. The heart of the economic plan, project and strategy that the Economy Minister has developed is very much about growing a strong economy. The Member can see all the opportunities that have been created over the 18 months since the Executive were formed. We will continue to create opportunities and jobs and grow the economy to make people's lives better. That is at the heart of the strategy. Regional balance, equally, is at the heart of the strategy, in order to ensure that prosperity is felt across the board. The really good examples of job creation that we have seen in recent days are to be celebrated, and there are many more to come. Ms Sheerin: First Minister, creating a globally progressive and sustainable economy is at the heart of the Programme for Government. What work has been done to progress that? Mrs O'Neill: As I said, at the heart of the economic plan is a focus on productivity, targeting resources at seven high-potential sectors and using dual market access to drive export growth. Also at its heart is investment in talent with the launch of a new skills action plan. That will take time. When trying to harness those new investments, it takes a bit of time to see the positive impact of the approach, but we are already starting to see that coming through. In the two years since the Windsor framework came into effect, the export of goods has increased by 2%, compared with a decline of 9% in Britain. Cross-border trade between North and South has reached a record £12 billion, up by 7% in one year. That shows how much things are changing. Our overall economic growth is estimated to have been 3·5% over the past year, compared with a 1·4% increase in Britain. That is a strong performance in spite of the rising costs of doing business and uncertainties such as restricted access to labour, the introduction of the US tariffs and the constraints on public investment that have been imposed by London. It is testament to the resilience and adaptability of our local businesses and to Dr Caoimhe Archibald's leadership of the Economy Department. Mr Dickson: First Minister, you will be aware that the Prime Minister recently took university chancellors from around the United Kingdom with him on a business trip. What actions is the Executive Office taking to include our university vice chancellors in inward investment to Northern Ireland? Mrs O'Neill: Just last year, we led an academic delegation to North Carolina. As part of the new international relations strategy, there will be an opportunity for us to work more collaboratively. We are in a small part of the world where we all know one another. Our strengths include our connectedness and agility. For example, where industry has a need, we can work with our local universities and have a partnership between academia, government and industry. That needs to be at the core of the new international relations strategy, and we need to look for opportunities to collaborate and do things together. Mr O'Toole: I do not doubt — no one doubts it — that there have been lots of photo ops and warm words, but the people who are going to make decisions on investing in this place want to know what the Executive are doing to build road and rail and to invest in our crumbling waste water infrastructure. All the meetings and engagement in the world amount to nothing if those people do not understand that. When will the investment strategy be published? It has been promised since the Assembly came back, but there has been no sign of it. When will we see that document? Mrs O'Neill: An immense amount of work has already informed the key themes that are set out in the current draft of the investment strategy. Those themes were shaped by over 400 engagements. There was wide-ranging engagement through formal public consultation, findings from equality and needs impact assessments and extensive engagement with Departments and wider stakeholders. Some key considerations still need to be worked through to finalise the strategy. It remains under consideration, but we hope to bring it to the Executive in the very near future. The timeline for its approval and publication will then be a matter for the Executive. Executive Delivery 6. Ms Flynn asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to detail key Executive delivery points since February 2024. (AQO 2555/22-27) Mrs O'Neill: We have made substantial progress in advancing and agreeing a new Programme for Government and have secured £1·3 billion of new funding from the Treasury. We have launched the childcare scheme, saving working parents £8 million and expanding support from 15,000 to 24,000 children through a £55 million investment. We have delivered over 100,000 additional outpatient appointment diagnostic tests and inpatient procedures via waiting list initiatives, passing the 70,000 target for the mandate. We have invested £45 million via the regional balance fund to boost regional growth and over £20 million in the skills fund, supporting over 9,000 individuals and 1,000 employers through a range of training initiatives linked to our economic priorities. We have committed £3·2 million to community-led initiatives under the ending violence against women and girls strategy; delivered 14 of the 37 actions to protect and restore Lough Neagh; allocated £129 million through the transformation fund to reform public services; and established an office of AI and digital to drive innovation. That includes £61 million to expand primary care multidisciplinary teams over the next five years, supporting an additional 680,000 people. We have undertaken a range of engagements to see at first hand how the Programme for Government priorities are making a difference and are progressing on the ground. It is encouraging to see the progress to date. However, we have much more to do to continue to do what matters most in driving positive reform and transformation and improving people's lives. Ms Flynn: Go raibh maith agat [Translation: Thank you] First Minister for that detailed response. I note that you referred to the launch of the childcare scheme at the end of your response. Do you agree that we still need to do much more to deliver high-quality and affordable childcare for parents? Mrs O'Neill: Yes. We have made good progress by identifying that area, and we are making a difference by investing £55 million in early learning and childcare for 2025-26, but, of course, we have much more to do. We want to deliver more and support more parents. Up to this point, we have delivered £8 million in savings to parents. That makes a big difference across the board, but we want to do more. We have expanded preschool education and will expand it even more in September 2026. Incrementally, we are making a difference. I want us to be as ambitious as we can be to support working families. Childcare is one of the things that become the biggest bill in the house and is so challenging for so many people, but we have made progress in that area. The Minister of Education will publish the childcare strategy and bring it to the Executive. It is important that that has the chance to be aired, and it is important that we see how much more progress we can make. Language Commissioners: Appointment Update 7. Ms Ennis asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the timeline for the appointment of the language commissioners and the director of the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression, launched on 5 March 2025. (AQO 2556/22-27) Mrs O'Neill: With your permission, Mr Speaker, junior Minister Reilly will answer that question. Ms Reilly: Tá mé sásta a chur in iúl go bhfuil an próiseas earcaíochta maidir leis an stiúrthóir agus na baill eile den Oifig um Fhéiniúlacht agus Léiriú Cultúrtha, maidir leis an Choimisinéir Teanga don Ghaeilge agus maidir leis an Choimisinéir um Thraidisiún na nAlbanach Uladh agus na mBriotanach Uladh ag teacht chun críche agus go ndéanfaimid fógraí a chur amach in am agus i dtráth. [Translation: I am pleased to say that the recruitment process for the director and other members of the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression, for the Irish Language Commissioner and for the Commissioner for the Ulster Scots and the Ulster British Tradition is coming to a close and that we will make announcements in due course.] Ms Ennis: I thank the junior Minister for her answer. Does she agree that the Irish Language Commissioner's role will be vital in promoting best practice standards on the use of the Irish language in the provision of our public services and by our public bodies? Ms Reilly: Absolutely. My stance, as someone who was born and reared with the Irish language, will shock nobody. I know, see and have learned the incredible importance of an Gaeilge, but, of course, it is so important that best practice standards in the use of an Gaeilge are promoted across public services and, indeed, across our society. More and more people use the language gach uile lá [Translation: every single day] . They go for coffee as Gaeilge and go to youth clubs, play sport, do their messages, sing songs, watch films and TV shows and live their lives through the medium of Irish. Those are people of all ages and at all stages of their language journey. I think of my nephew, who is five years old, in primary 1 and completely fluent, and of my mother, who learned the language later in life and was able to gain employment in the Irish-medium education sector. Supporting the language properly and making it visible in public services and provisions is essential to building a society that is representative of the richness of culture that exists here. That is a society that is built on fairness, equality and justice. Mr McGlone: A Aire, dúirt Uachtarán Chonradh na Gaeilge le déanaí go bhfuil an-díomá uirthi faoin mhoill atá ar cheapachán na gcoimisinéirí teanga. Cad é go díreach an chúis leis an mhoill ar na ceapacháin sin laistigh den Choiste Feidhmiúcháin? [Translation: Minister, the President of Conradh na Gaeilge said recently that she is very disappointed by the delay in appointing the language commissioners. What exactly in the Executive is causing the delay to those appointments?] Top 2.30 pm Ms Reilly: Níl cúis ar bith le moill ar bith ar na ceapacháin sa phróiseas seo. Tá súil agam, mar a dúirt mé, an fógra oifigiúil sin a dhéanamh go han-luath. Tá an ról a imreoidh na coimisinéirí seo ríthábhachtach lena chinntiú go ndéanfaidh ár n-iarracht chomhroinnte meas a chosaint agus go gcuirfear sin ar aghaidh go dtí na glúnta atá le teacht. Tá mise ag dúil go mór le ceapachán na gcoimisinéirí sin agus ag dúil go mór le bheith ag obair leo uile nuair a bheidh siad sa ról sin. [Translation: There is no reason for delay to any appointment in this process. I hope, as I have said, to make that official announcement very soon. The role which these commissioners will play will be vital in ensuring that our joint effort protects respect and passes that respect on to the next generations. I am greatly looking forward to the appointment of these commissioners and to working with them all when they are in that role.] Mr Speaker: We move to topical questions. Casement Park T1. Mr O'Toole asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, after noting that it is Book Week, albeit he dare not ask for a book recommendation, and noting that, from what she has said in the Chamber, the First Minister is a fan of the power of positive thinking, whether they agree that the public are much less positive about Executive delivery and have real concern about it, specifically on Casement Park, having lost all trust that that vital project in west Belfast will be built, and whether the First Minister stands by what she has repeated almost ad infinitum, that Casement Park will be built on her watch, with construction beginning before the end of the mandate. (AQT 1681/22-27) Mrs O'Neill: Yes. Casement Park remains a flagship project of the Executive and we are actively working to make it happen. The project must be built for all the reasons that the Member is only too aware of: there is the economic benefit from the construction, and the investment in Gaelic games is long-overdue. I assure you that I continue to work night and day to ensure that it is done. Mr O'Toole: First Minister, I asked you not whether you were working night and day but whether construction would begin before the end of the mandate, so I would like a specific answer to that question. More broadly, is the Environment Minister right to say that the Executive are sliding into backbiting and what he calls, "A battle a day"? Mrs O'Neill: There are two different questions. Yes, Casement Park will be started, and yes, Casement Park will be built. I will work night and day to ensure that that is the case. When it comes to Andrew Muir's comment, "Battle a day" are words that he decided to use. There is no doubt that the Executive arrangement is challenging, but we are in there every day, fighting the good fight on behalf of the people; we are in there every day, taking on the challenges; and we are in there every day, trying to deliver for people whilst others stand on the sidelines and just bicker. Gaza: Humanitarian Aid T2. Mr McGuigan asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, after welcoming the fact that the First Minister has been a positive and constant advocate for an end to the genocide in Gaza, whether she will join the call for immediate, massive and unfettered humanitarian aid to save the starving and beleaguered people of Gaza. (AQT 1682/22-27) Mrs O'Neill: There was a glimmer of hope last week with the ceasefire announcement, and we very much welcome the return of the Palestinian and Israeli political prisoners and hostages and their being reunited with their families. However, that needs to be built on, and eternal vigilance is needed because we all watch on in absolute horror and dismay when we see Israel's genocidal war against the Palestinian people. That is an outrage to international opinion; it is a flagrant breach of international law; it is state-sponsored famine; it is ethnic cleansing; it is displacement of people; and it is the biggest humanitarian disaster of our time. Israel has very much weaponised hunger, relentlessly slaughtered women and children and forcibly destroyed the majority of Gaza, making it uninhabitable. The devastation that we have all witnessed for the past two years is completely inhumane, and the absolute priority — you are 100% right — has to be getting aid to those people by allowing through the aid, support, equipment and everything else that is required to help the Palestinian people. Mr McGuigan: I completely concur that what has happened is inhumane. Further to the First Minister's touching on a glimmer of hope that needs to be built on, does she agree that the impetus for a lasting peace must be grasped? Mrs O'Neill: Yes. We have already seen a lot of volatility, even since the ceasefire was announced. Absolutely, I urge all sides to faithfully implement the ceasefire agreement and, in doing so, to negotiate in good faith. That must mark a turning point not just for the people of Palestine but for people across the entire Middle East and guarantee a durable peace process for the Palestinian people and the wider Middle East, including an independent Palestinian state. We need to see a two-state solution. The root causes of the decades-long conflict between Palestine and Israel, which we all know, must now be addressed. This opportunity must be taken. The solution has to include the total withdrawal of the Israeli military from Gaza and the West Bank, and an end to the illegal occupation and apartheid. The Palestinian people always had and continue to have the right to determine their own future. I sincerely hope that this is the beginning of the end. I sincerely hope that everyone involved will play a constructive role in securing peace and justice. 'Borderland' Podcast: Michelle Gildernew's Comments T3. Mr Frew asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister how they can promote Northern Ireland to potential investors as part of their work, when the First Minister's party colleague calls Northern Ireland a S-H-I-T-hole. (AQT 1683/22-27) Mrs O'Neill: Those are not my words. They are not words that I would ever use. My job is to try to build a more prosperous society here; to create opportunities and employment; to make this an inclusive society; and to work with others to govern in the best interests of people. That is very much my focus as everybody's First Minister. Mr Frew: Will the First Minister then disown her party colleague for the words that she used? Mrs O'Neill: I have been very clear in saying that I do not concur with those words. They were her words, and I will not answer for someone else's words. Ending Violence Against Women and Girls: Strategic Framework T4. Mr Gildernew asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the work of the Executive Office's strategic framework to end violence against women and girls. (AQT 1684/22-27) Mrs O'Neill: We launched our strategy in 2024. It is one of the areas in which the Executive are very much united. Ending that scourge is a top priority for all of us around the Executive table and for all Executive parties. As the Member knows, our strategy is based on prevention and early intervention. Some of the work that we have seen thus far is making a real and positive difference. The change fund has invested over £3 million to empower community and voluntary organisations that are working, at grassroots level, to tackle the root causes. The Power to Change campaign has been really powerful. It was launched by TEO, Justice and the PSNI to challenge unacceptable attitudes and reduce harmful behaviours among men and boys. Far too many women here — it happened as recently as last week — are losing their lives in what is a deeply ingrained misogynistic society. We are making progress, but, of course, we have an awful lot more to do. It will take all of society working together for us to be successful. Mr Gildernew: I thank the First Minister for her answer. That is a really good example of where this institution works well: identify a problem, develop a framework, put resources in and work with partners on the ground to deliver it. In light of that, my local community development organisation, Brantry Area Rural Development Association, is rolling out a programme to almost 40 young boys and girls in association with White Ribbon. Will the First Minister and deputy First Minister accept an invitation to come and visit that project and see the impact of its work? Mrs O'Neill: Yes, I would be delighted to visit the Brantry Area Rural Development Association, because it is projects like those that make a real difference. They get right into the heart of the community: they talk to young guys about their role in this; help them to understand everyday misogyny; assist them to make the right decisions; and show them that they have a role in turning the tide. I would love to visit. The benefit and beauty of how we have rolled out the strategy is that it filters down to a community level, so, yes, I will take up that invitation. Legacy Legislation: Initial Assessment T5. Miss Hargey asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to provide an initial assessment of the British Government's legacy legislation. (AQT 1685/22-27) Mrs O'Neill: As I said earlier, the success of any legacy arrangement is predicated on the confidence of victims and survivors. The British Government's publication of the new Bill will begin to test the credibility of their approach with regard to the framework and how it is translated into text. Perhaps, the deputy First Minister and I will not have the same opinion, but, certainly, in my opinion, the inclusion of a clause to change the law and block compensation for former internees is an act of bad faith. That approach was ruled unlawful in 2020, yet here we have the British Government reintroducing it. I am also concerned about the national security veto. What will that mean for people getting access to information? That will now be firmly at the discretion of the British Secretary of State, and I do not see how that sits well in having a process that people can have confidence in. In addition, the bar for the re-establishment of inquests appears to be so high that very few will be reopened. Those are all concerns at this stage. We are still working our way through the framework. The glaring omission from what has been published so far is that of the Sean Brown public inquiry. The High Court has ruled five times that there must be a public inquiry, but the British Government seem to be deaf to those legal calls. We are not going to give up on that. We will continue to push the case and stand with the family. Miss Hargey: Thanks very much for your answer, First Minister. The PSNI's Chief Constable and, as you said, the domestic courts have also called for an inquiry into Sean Brown's murder. Do you therefore believe that the needs of victims should be at the core of the wider process? Mrs O'Neill: Yes, because they are whom it is all about. Victims and families have been waiting for far too long — some have waited for longer than five decades — for access to truth and justice. We have to have in place a process that commands confidence, that is human rights-compliant and that will enjoy the support of many victims and survivors. Any process has to earn people's respect and confidence and then retain that respect and confidence. All of that will be tested in the weeks, months and years ahead. Irish Language Commissioner: Appointment T6. Ms Flynn asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on when the Irish language commissioner will be appointed. (AQT 1686/22-27) Mrs O'Neill: The announcement earlier this year that two commissioners, including an Irish language commissioner, will be appointed in the North represents a huge step forward. The Irish language commissioner will play a central role in promoting Gaeilge [Translation: Irish] across public services and in everyday life. As the junior Minister said earlier, the language continues to flourish at the heart of communities and community life right across the North, including in schools and youth centres. In general, it is about enriching people's lives. Many people, like the junior Minister, have been reared and educated through the medium of Irish. It is therefore important that those people notice the language visibly around them. It is also important that they have a commissioner who will stand up for them. The appointment of the commissioners is imminent. Ms Flynn: I thank the First Minister for her response. Will she commit to continuing to do everything that she can to build equality and to protect language and cultural rights for everyone right across our society? Mrs O'Neill: Yes. It is about having an inclusive society, about building a place in which everybody is comfortable and about ensuring that the energetic revival of the Irish language continues at pace. Those are things that I very much welcome and encourage. No one has anything to fear from the growth of the Irish language right across our community. It is about respect, inclusivity, parity of esteem and our culture and identity. It is very much about whom we are. The Irish language also very much enhances our society. We should therefore embrace the fact that we have a rich cultural tapestry here. No one has anything to fear from the identity, culture and beliefs of others. They are something that we should celebrate. We should work day and night to try to create that type of society. I will certainly work with other Ministers to try to build that inclusive society. I want us to work across the Executive to expand, support and celebrate cultural diversity, which is a very positive thing in any society. We need to create opportunities for all our people to learn and engage with their history, identity, culture, language and other things that are important to them. Innocent Victim: Definition T7. Mrs Dodds asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, given that, in December 1996, the IRA came into the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children to target her and her husband, Nigel Dodds, whether they consider them to be innocent victims of IRA terrorism. (AQT 1687/22-27) Mrs O'Neill: The Member asked me a similar question a number of years ago, and I invited her to come and have a conversation with me. Let us sit down and talk about the past. That is the way in which we heal and try to move forward. My door is open to you at all times to come and sit down and have a conversation. I will never ask anybody to move on, but, if we are to move forward, we need to have an honest conversation about the fact that there were so many injustices and that so much hurt was caused across our society on all sides. Many lives have been trespassed against. Let us try to find a way in which to heal. I am more than happy to sit down with you to discuss that even further. Top 2.45 pm Mrs Dodds: Once again, the First Minister cannot condemn the actions of the criminals in the IRA. That is part of the problem here: she talks about an inclusive society, but she does not want to include the innocent victims of terrorism. Do you understand the impact that the eulogising of IRA terrorists has on innocent victims? Mrs O'Neill: If we are going to talk about the past, we must do so honestly. It is important that we recognise that many people out there caused hurt in our society. You cannot cherry-pick. You do not get to pick who, you think, is and is not a victim. There were many injustices in the past. There were many people involved, including the British state, loyalists who donned the Ulster beret — your party would know a lot about that — those who ran weapons and state agents. Let us not be selective. Let us honestly find a way to recognise that there are different experiences and different narratives of the past. That is the first step towards reconciliation. Let us use all our efforts to build for a better future. That is what I am focused on. I believe that the majority of people in this society are also focused on that. Mr Speaker: We will move on to questions to the Economy Minister. I ask Members to take their ease for a moment while the Minister takes her place. Economy Local Economic Partnerships: Update 1. Mr Middleton asked the Minister for the Economy for an update on the work of the local economic partnerships. (AQO 2565/22-27) 8. Mr Donnelly asked the Minister for the Economy for an update on the development of the local economic partnership in Mid and East Antrim. (AQO 2572/22-27) 11. Mr Dunne asked the Minister for the Economy for an update on the Ards and North Down local economic partnership. (AQO 2575/22-27) Dr Archibald (The Minister for the Economy): With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 1, 8 and 11 together. Local economic partnerships (LEPs) represent an entirely new approach in how the Department works with local government and other local stakeholders. It takes time to instil genuine partnership. The three-year programme allows for the flexibility required to establish LEPs and bring forward action plans that address local economic needs. LEPs have been established in all 11 council areas. Progress varies across the partnerships, with some still refining economic priorities while others are finalising action plans. Newry, Mourne and Down LEP is the first to submit an action plan to the Department for approval. I anticipate that more will follow soon. On the basis of the latest estimates from councils, approximately £1·5 million of the regional balance fund will be spent in year 1, with the majority of funding being weighted towards years 2 and 3. Mid and East Antrim LEP is currently refining its action plan with a view to submitting a final version to the Department for approval in the coming months. In September, I met Ards and North Down Borough Council to hear more about the LEP following the partnership's inaugural meeting. I know that the partnership intends to meet again in October to develop its priorities further and identify project proposals. My officials and Invest NI colleagues will continue to support all partnerships in developing their action plans over the coming months. Mr Middleton: I thank the Minister for her response. In your answer, Minister, you outlined the purpose of the partnerships, but, of course, the real measure of success will be delivery. You mentioned that £1·5 million is to be spent by the end of this financial year: is the lack of spending a failure by you and your Department? Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. No, I do not think that it is a failure. It was necessary to give the partnerships time to establish themselves and come up with their priorities. We want the partnerships to be genuine. Therefore, they require different lengths of time. Some councils already have good relationships and similar arrangements in place on which their partnerships can build. Others are starting from further back and will take longer; hence, I suppose, the difference in where councils are with their action plans. We have ensured that the spend is spread over the three years and that we follow the trajectory of the spend, with the lesser spend in year 1 meaning that spend works its way through years 2 and 3. We want to make sure that they will deliver for people on the ground. Ms Sheerin: Minister, can you outline what types of project are coming forward? Dr Archibald: There is a wide range of actions being brought forward by the partnerships that are intended to address identified local economic needs. Proposals include business support and mentoring, workspace development and tourism initiatives. Mr Donnelly: The Minister will be aware that 89% of Northern Ireland's businesses are microenterprises, many of which operate in our town centres. How does the Minister envisage the LEPs supporting town-centre regeneration and the growth of the small businesses that are so vital to the local economy? Dr Archibald: The benefit of the LEPs, the positive about them — the beauty of them, so to speak — is that they are devolved to local areas to come up with what, they feel, are their economic priorities. If there is a particular initiative that they want to take in respect of town-centre regeneration, that is for them to include in their action plans. The funding allocated to each of the LEPs is designed to support them to leverage additional funding from other Departments. We encourage them to build those relationships across Departments, as well as working directly with us and our officials. Mr Dunne: The Minister may be aware that the latest figures from Invest NI show that zero jobs were created by external investment in the Ards and North Down area for the fifth consecutive year. Can the Minister outline what steps her Department is taking to address that worrying trend? Does she believe that the LEP can be an effective part of the measures addressing that regional imbalance? Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. The increased focus from Invest NI on indigenous businesses and the subregional economic plan is a good vehicle for trying to address some of the challenges that he has outlined. The LEPs represent an opportunity to ensure that there is more investment and job creation and that the priorities of each of the LEPs are being taken forward. It is up to the partners around the table to bring forward their priorities and to develop an action plan to support those. As I mentioned, I had the opportunity to meet Ards and North Down LEP just after it was established, and progress is being made. It is incumbent on us as elected representatives to engage with the LEPs, to advocate on their behalf and to make them aware of the priorities and projects that other LEPs are developing so that there can be a sharing of knowledge. I would encourage that. Mr O'Toole: Minister, you were previously Finance Minister. Your colleague the current Finance Minister has been engaged in a long-running consultation on changes to rates. There is no crystallisation on what those will be. Are you advocating specific changes to the rating system to get more properties back on the high street and businesses to engage back on the high street? Are you making that specific case, and when will we see those coming forward? Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. He is right: I published the rates review, and one of the things that I said at the time was that I would be inclined to look at non-domestic vacant property rate relief. That would be a useful vehicle to incentivise businesses back on to our high streets but only if it was done in partnership with regeneration. There is a real opportunity to work cross-departmentally on that issue as to how we revitalise and rejuvenate our high streets. The rating system is the main lever that we have to generate revenue, so we have to carefully balance when we are trying to make changes to it. Go Succeed: Update 2. Mr Honeyford asked the Minister for the Economy for an update on the current status of the Go Succeed business support service, given that its UK Shared Prosperity Fund allocation is due to conclude in March 2026. (AQO 2566/22-27) Dr Archibald: Go Succeed is an important part of the business support landscape and provides essential advice and guidance to anyone looking to start or grow a business. It is a council-led service and is funded through the Shared Prosperity Fund (SPF). It was expected that the successor of that funding would be transferred to the Executive following the British Government's spending review announcement in June. I met Enterprise NI in September to discuss the future of Go Succeed. While I am ready to establish a co-design group to consider improvements to the service, clarity is needed on its future funding position. I am concerned that the new local growth fund appears to be heavily skewed towards capital, with only 33% resource funding. That is significantly lower than for the Shared Prosperity Fund, which was 75% resource-based. That risks significant harm to projects such as Go Succeed that are delivering important services currently funded using resource under the SPF. I am keen to ensure that there is continuity of service and that any disruption to businesses and entrepreneurs due to a gap in funding is avoided. My officials are urgently coordinating with the Department of Finance, councils and other stakeholders to determine next steps. Mr Honeyford: I thank the Minister for her response. From her response, I am sure that she will agree that it is unacceptable that such an important service is facing uncertainty five months from now, given how vital business support schemes are to economic development. Can the Minister tell us about any work that the Department is doing to prepare for a scenario in which that business support ends in 2026? Dr Archibald: I agree with the Member. It is absolutely regrettable and disgraceful that we are in this position again. When the European social fund (ESF) ended, there was a cliff edge, and we said that we did not want to see that again. I have consistently made that case, as has my colleague the Minister of Finance, to the British Government, and I know that there is unanimity around the Chamber on the issue. My priority is to ensure the continuation of the funding of Go Succeed from the local growth fund. It is vital that the service is not interrupted or delayed because of the lack of information that is available to us. Therefore, I continue to engage at ministerial level, as I said, to ensure that such a scenario is avoided. Mr McGuigan: I welcome the Minister's response and the fact that her priority is to see no interruption to services. Will she give her assessment of the impact of Go Succeed to date? Dr Archibald: Since its launch in November 2023, Go Succeed has demonstrated a significant impact across the North, empowering entrepreneurs and small businesses with tailored support and expert guidance. It has helped thousands of individuals to turn ideas into viable enterprises, contributing to local economic growth and job creation. It has had a transformative effect at local level, and I am particularly pleased to see strong engagement from female entrepreneurs who have been supported through the service. I have had the opportunity to visit and meet businesses that have been supported by Go Succeed, and I have been really encouraged by the feedback that they have provided. The mode of delivery, working alongside councils, local enterprise agencies and other partners, is a really good example of collaborative working. It is the type of initiative that the local economic partnerships are based on and is a demonstration of how successful that approach can be. US Semiquincentennial: Ulster-Scots Heritage 3. Mr Robinson asked the Minister for the Economy to outline any new visitor experience innovations being considered in preparation for the semiquincentennial of the Declaration of Independence to maximise the Ulster-Scots heritage with the United States of America. (AQO 2567/22-27) Dr Archibald: We have numerous existing tourism products that embrace the opportunities that America250 brings, and we recognise the links between America and those of Irish and Ulster-Scots heritage. Those, as well as their links to the story of America, are showcased on the America250 page on Tourism NI’s websites. Among the relevant key attractions are the Ulster American Folk Park, Hillsborough Castle and the Ulster Folk Museum as well as the Siege Museum and the Tower Museum in Derry. Both Tourism NI and Tourism Ireland are represented on the America250 working groups along with a number of partners including PRONI, DFC, the Ulster-Scots Agency, National Museums and local authorities. That collaborative approach will ensure that plans for America250 are tourism-focused, using visitor interests such as Irish and Ulster-Scots heritage, genealogy, music and literature, sport, screen and US presidents. Tourism Ireland will also use this opportunity to encourage more US visitors to come here to explore shared ancestry, history and heritage. Mr Robinson: I thank the Minister for her response. Given the unique links between America and Northern Ireland, including the many in the constituency that the Minister and I share, will she engage with Tourism NI and Tourism Ireland to make sure that the Ulster-Scots story features in the branding and promotion next year? Top 3.00 pm Dr Archibald: There are opportunities to be garnered from America250 and the clear linkages across this island with people who emigrated to make a better life in America and whose descendants have come back and want to find out about their history and heritage. I am happy to engage on whatever opportunities and initiatives there might be. Mr Kearney: It is clear that the American market is a very important asset in the promotion of tourism here. What more can be done to optimise the promotion of our tourism offering here — on an all-island basis — within the United States? Dr Archibald: The US market plays a vital role in tourism in the North. Statistics from NISRA show that, in 2024, US visitors took 189,000 overnight trips to the North, spending £67 million. There is a significant opportunity to work with Tourism Ireland across the island on marketing and promotional activities that will be effective in building on the continued trend of US visitors coming here. There are a number of key opportunities across the year — St Patrick's Day, for example. There is also a campaign under the branding of "The Home of Halloween" — obviously, we have a significant asset in that regard in the city of Derry. There is a significant opportunity to build on the success that we already have in attracting visitors from the United States. Ms D Armstrong: Will the Minister provide an update on the Mid South West growth deal investment in the Ulster American Folk Park in Omagh and the role that that attraction will play in the upcoming celebrations? Dr Archibald: I am not sure that I have the information that the Member is asking for in front of me, but if she wants to write to me, I will be happy to furnish her with an update on that project. Mr Gaston: Individual councils appear to be making their own plans to mark the semiquincentennial of the Declaration of Independence. What work is the Minister's Department doing to ensure that there will be an overarching and joined-up approach to ensuring that our landmarks with links to the United States of America in such villages as Dervock, Cullybackey and Coagh are being marketed to ensure that their story is also being told? Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. In some regards, councils are best placed to develop specific initiatives for local areas, because they will understand exactly what attractions they have and what initiatives can be developed. Tourism NI has a suite of marketing support and business development tools that can be utilised by businesses and others to focus on the specific messaging around America250. Tourism NI and Tourism Ireland have already outlined their promotional plans for the year to the America250 partner teams. The Minister for Communities has announced funding to support activity that is intended to draw out and promote the historical connection between the North and the United States. There are therefore opportunities to work across councils to develop a promotional offering. Airbnb Regulation 4. Miss Hargey asked the Minister for the Economy to outline any work that her Department is undertaking on the regulation of Airbnb rentals. (AQO 2568/22-27) Dr Archibald: My Department regulates the minimum quality standards for visitor accommodation across the North. It makes regulations to set standards for such areas as cleanliness, maintenance, essential facilities and comfort that operators must meet. Airbnb is a marketing platform, just as Tripadvisor and Booking.com are, and is used to advertise a range of accommodation types. Most properties that use the platform fall within the scope of Tourism NI's statutory certification scheme. Under that scheme, Tourism NI ensures compliance by inspecting all new accommodation establishments before they begin operating, and re-inspecting existing businesses at least once every four years. My Department and Tourism NI recently completed a review of the scheme's statutory criteria. That review highlighted how our world-class tourism offering has evolved over recent years. In response, I recently launched a public consultation on proposed changes to future-proof the tourism industry's minimum standards and improve visitor satisfaction. Miss Hargey: Thanks very much for your answer, Minister. What else is being done to control Airbnb rentals in areas of high housing demand? Dr Archibald: Any property owner who wishes to use their property as a short-term let or an Airbnb rental must apply for a change of use through their council's planning department. The council can then assess the impact on local housing supply when considering whether to grant that change of use. Tourism NI has a formal data-sharing agreement with Belfast City Council to facilitate exchange of information about the certification of tourism accommodation. That ensures that both parties are aware of potential legislative breaches and can progress appropriate enforcement action on both sides as necessary. Tourism NI is working to put in place similar data-sharing arrangements with all other local authorities. Mr McMurray: Minister, there are a number of Airbnb rentals across my constituency; there are approximately 100 in Newcastle alone. How does the Minister propose to balance the contribution that they make to the economy with the need to ensure that first-time buyers are not priced out of the market? Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. Certainly, I am familiar with that issue in my constituency. It cuts across a number of Departments. The Communities Minister is bringing forward our housing supply strategy, and he intends to launch research to understand the impact of short-term lets on the local housing market. That research will help inform all the Departments involved about the types of measure that they may need to take to regulate and control the proliferation of Airbnb rentals that we are seeing. Mr Brett: Does the Minister believe that the current eight statutory categories of tourism accommodation are sufficient, or would she support expanding them to include new types of developments, such as glamping pods, which would further cover what Airbnb provides? Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. I mentioned, in my initial answer, the public consultation that we have just launched. We are looking at accommodation categories, such as budget hotels, aparthotels and glamping pods, to ensure that different types of accommodation are regulated and able to access support. I know of examples in my constituency where people wanted to access support for glamping pods but were ineligible for such support. There is a good opportunity for people to respond to the consultation so that we can make the appropriate changes. Mr Durkan: Has the Minister considered introducing legislation to ensure that booking platforms verify that all listed properties are properly registered as short-term tourist accommodation? Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. As new and emerging trends continue to develop, it has become evident that some accommodation falls out of the scope of our regulatory remit and certification scheme. The consultation that I have referred to proposes the creation of a new stand-alone category called "alternative accommodation" in order to better support the providers who offer or wish to offer new types of accommodation and to regulate that accommodation. We are also engaging with booking platforms to encourage them to engage with us on new applications as they come forward. That is work in progress. ‘Childcare Providers Targeted Business Support Market Research’ 5. Mrs Mason asked the Minister for the Economy for an update on the ‘Childcare Providers Targeted Business Support Market Research’ report. (AQO 2569/22-27) Dr Archibald: The 'Childcare Providers Targeted Business Support Market Research' report was published on 24 September 2025. My Department, in agreement with the Education Minister, is leading on recommendation 1: " the creation of a specialised ongoing childcare business advisor role or service." My officials are working closely with Invest NI to develop a costed plan to deliver the service. I recognise the importance of ensuring that the service is accessible to all types of childcare providers, including voluntary organisations, community providers, childminders and childcare businesses. It is equally vital that the service operates continuously, enabling us to better assess the sector’s financial requirements. That ongoing approach will allow us to adapt our support to meet the evolving needs of childcare providers over time. Mrs Mason: I thank the Minister for her response. Will she be working in partnership with the childcare sector to design that service? Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. It is really important that we work in partnership with the sector, so I have asked my officials to ensure that the new service is designed in partnership. An initial pilot is being considered to allow meaningful engagement during the early stages of the service's development. Ms Nicholl: I thank the Minister for coming to answer questions today when she is clearly so unwell. She is such a trooper. Childcare businesses tell me that there is a chronic shortage of applicants and that the recruitment process is lengthy and complex. Much of that is because of the minimum standards of review, which is to do with the Department of Health. What engagement is your Department therefore having in order to speed up the process, because it is crucial that childcare businesses overcome those barriers? Dr Archibald: The Member is quite right. There are challenges in the childcare sector that cut across a number of Departments. The Minister of Education leads on the childcare and early learning strategy, and a cross-departmental group engages on the specific issues. My Department has the remit for skills development of those working in childcare and in the childminding sector to address shortages. We currently facilitate a range of training and qualification pathways through further and higher education, as well as through apprenticeships and traineeships. This year, I secured over £350,000 to support FE colleges to develop accredited online micro-courses that focus on supporting individuals who have children with additional needs. Further funding has also been provided for research into the barriers to managerial recruitment in the sector. Mr Speaker: I call Cara Hunter. Dr Archibald: A second collaborative shared skills academy in the early learning and childcare sector has also recently been launched to support participants with the training that they need in order to obtain entry-level roles in the childcare sector. Ms Hunter: The Speaker is keen to hear me speak extra soon. Minister, thank you for coming here to answer our questions today. We share a very rural constituency that has a number of childcare providers that face unique challenges as a result of being rural. Those include Appletree Childcare in Glenullin. What engagement have you and your Department had with representatives in those areas who face such challenges? Dr Archibald: In conducting the research, significant engagement took place with the sector. We encouraged responses from across the childcare sector to ensure that we got the best representation possible. Officials found it challenging to get input from across the sector, however. One of the things that we hope that the advice service will do is to give us a better understanding of the sector and its needs. Getting the pilot up and running and having somebody who is tasked with engaging with the sector will be really important for understanding the type of support that could be needed. Mr Speaker: Minister, I was just checking to see whether this has happened before, and it has not, but if you want to take some time out, I am happy to facilitate that. Dr Archibald: I am OK, thank you, but I appreciate the offer. Community Wealth Building 6. Ms Finnegan asked the Minister for the Economy for an update on the work that her Department is undertaking in relation to community wealth building. (AQO 2570/22-27) Dr Archibald: I am committed to delivering a more regionally balanced economy and to supporting the power and impact of our social economy more widely. Community wealth building is an important element of that. Last week, I announced £300,000 of joint funding from my Department and the Department for Communities for two community wealth-building partnerships in the north-west region and in Larne. Each will receive £150,000 to pilot community-led economic and social development initiatives. As part of the pilot, over 100 people attended a community wealth-building conference in the Playhouse in Derry last week. The conference formed part of the north-west pilot and is a great example of how the initiative brings people together to share ideas and learn from one another. Both pilots will explore how local places can assume a lead role in designing and delivering new approaches to economic development and how the framework contributes to creating resilient local economies and supporting long-term prosperity. In addition to those pilots, I consulted recently on proposals to strengthen the credit union sector. I intend to introduce legislation in this mandate that will modernise the credit union sector and provide a strong basis for continued growth. Top 3.15 pm Ms Finnegan: I thank the Minister for her answer. How has the Department progressed the other recommendations of the 2022 community wealth-building report, which comes under DFE's remit? Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. My Department has progressed many of that report's recommendations. We have grown our support for social enterprises, and we published our three-year social enterprise action plan last December, which continues to be implemented in a collaborative way by my Department and the social enterprise co-design group. Another recommendation was to explore the potential for worker cooperatives and employee ownership. This year, I made almost £100,000 of funding available to Employee Ownership Ireland, which will help to increase awareness and understanding of the employee ownership trust model and support businesses as they explore transition as an option. In addition, I funded Trademark Belfast and Co-operative Alternatives to conduct a six-month education and awareness programme to showcase the benefits of the cooperative business model and raise awareness of how to start a community-based cooperative. Ms Brownlee: I very much welcome the fact that the pilot will take place in Larne, which is in my East Antrim constituency. Will the Minister provide some more detail on the scheme and what it will mean for local people? Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. I had the opportunity to visit the Local Economy Development Company (LEDCOM) with the Communities Minister and hear about the pilot. It was one of my first visits as Economy Minister. The north-west pilot brings together Development Trusts NI, Trademark Belfast and Enterprise North West to promote the north-west region and community wealth-building across it. Trademark Belfast will focus on worker buyouts for business succession and economic resilience, while Enterprise North West will connect stakeholders and highlight the benefits of community wealth-building. It is also working to improve social value in procurement and will help local enterprises to access credit union finance. LEDCOM will coordinate the Larne community wealth-building partnership pilot. Its plans include investigating the creation of a life sciences cluster, developing the business case for the Willowbank 2 innovation hub and collaborating with the port of Larne on logistics upgrades and port decarbonisation. Mr Speaker: I will suspend the sitting until 3.25 pm in order to give the Minister a few minutes to rest her voice. I can see that you are struggling, Minister, whether you want the assistance or not. We will resume in seven or eight minutes at 3.25 pm. The sitting was suspended at 3.17 pm and resumed at 3.25 pm. Mr Speaker: We move to topical questions to the Minister for the Economy. Student Mobility T1. Ms McLaughlin asked the Minister for the Economy, given that the skills action plan that was published last week states that she "will seek to collaborate on an all-island basis to reduce cross-border barriers to North/South student mobility", whether she can be specific about how she will achieve that. (AQT 1691/22-27) Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. On Friday past, at the North/South Ministerial Council, I had the opportunity to have a bilateral meeting with my counterpart in the South, James Lawless. We launched the first all-island apprenticeship in accounting technology on Friday, which is a tangible demonstration of the opportunities to work on an all-island basis. We are also working to improve student mobility across the island, and there has been recent work on the Central Applications Office (CAO) points system. We are also looking at how we can better align the likes of the results announcement dates from the CAO and UCAS. We can look at all the opportunities that there are, particularly through the Shared Island Fund, and, in respect of apprenticeships specifically, we want to take up the opportunities to develop further areas of study. Mobility is a particular focus for us. Ms McLaughlin: Thank you, Minister, for that. Workforce mobility across the island is critical to addressing persistent labour shortages. Do you support the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Industry's call for an all-island mobility task force, and what active steps are you taking to establish and contribute to that initiative? Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. I spoke at the NI Chamber's workforce conference summit on Thursday, but, because of my cough, I was about as successful as I have been in my attempts to respond to questions today. I set out at the conference that I support the idea of a workforce development agency. There is an awful lot more for us to do in this mandate, and I indicated to the chamber that we will likely be into the next mandate before we are in a position to set that up. However, that does not mean that we should not do the preparation work at this point. Illegal Republican Memorial: Benbradagh Avenue, Dungiven T2. Mr Middleton asked the Minister for the Economy, given that, in a statement on Israel last week, she spoke of a moral duty to end the arming of "genocide", with the irony of that not being lost on those in the north-west who have witnessed ethnic cleansing at the hands of the IRA, whether she will show the same high regard for human rights by supporting the removal of the illegal republican memorial at Benbradagh Avenue in Dungiven, close to her constituency office. (AQT 1692/22-27) Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. What I set out last week was in response to a report that was undertaken by Invest NI on its investments. In response to that, there is a moral duty on us to ensure that we are not facilitating the genocide that is happening in Gaza. Israel is a regime that is illegally occupying and imposing apartheid in Palestine. It is carrying out a genocide, and there is a legal obligation on all Governments to take action to prevent genocide, including by not arming or providing financial support to those who are committing genocide. That is what I set out in my statement last week. In respect of memorials and other things across the region, as the Member will be well aware, there was a report by the Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition (FICT), and it is not my party that is blocking the taking forward of recommendations in that. Mr Middleton: Minister, you gave no answer whatever about the republican memorial that is near your constituency office. It is my understanding that a consultation was carried out with elected representatives on the removal of that shrine. Will you confirm whether you responded to that consultation? If so, what did you say? Dr Archibald: I do not have a recollection of what the Member is referring to, but I am happy to correspond with him on that. Transforming Communities for Inclusion Global Conference 2025 T3. Mrs Dillon asked the Minister for the Economy, after thanking her for her answers so far given the difficulty that she is having today, to give the Assembly some detail on last week's InterTradeIreland/TCI Network conference. (AQT 1693/22-27) Top 3.30 pm Dr Archibald: I was delighted to be at the TCI conference last week, which was hosted in Ireland for the first time, jointly between InterTradeIreland, Invest NI and Enterprise Ireland. It is a flagship event on clusters and innovation ecosystems, and the island of Ireland was chosen to host the twenty-eighth global conference, which marked a significant milestone for it because it is the first time that it has been held on a cross-border basis. The conference welcomed 250 delegates from more than 25 countries to the island. Cluster tours took place in Dublin, Mullingar, Portlaoise, Dundalk, Belfast and Newry, showcasing the innovation and strength of our current ecosystem in fintech, cybersecurity, life sciences, maritime and advanced manufacturing. Clusters are a really important part of our economic policy, and it was a fantastic opportunity for us to talk about what we are doing and to learn from what is happening internationally. We have work ongoing through the Shared Island Enterprise Scheme, where InterTradeIreland has taken the lead in the work across the island in partnership with Invest NI and Enterprise Ireland. I commend the work of InterTradeIreland in organising that truly global conference and providing an opportunity to demonstrate and showcase the world-class clusters that we have on the island. Mrs Dillon: I thank the Minister for her answer. Does she agree that the Manufacturing and Engineering, Growth and Advancement (MEGA) Group Mid Ulster, which is a cluster of engineering companies in the mid-Ulster area, is one of the best local examples of clustering? Does she agree that that is exactly why we need to listen to engineering companies about what we need and how we can work together with universities, local schools and the industry to ensure that the skills base required to keep our engineering companies going will be there in the future? Dr Archibald: I absolutely agree. MEGA is a standout example of effective clustering in the North. I gave it a shout-out at the conference because it was the first real-life example that I had come across of clustering and industry working together. It brings together key players in advanced manufacturing and engineering sectors and fosters collaboration, innovation and skills development. The strength of MEGA lies not only in its industrial impact but in its commitment to nurturing talent and supporting local businesses and the local economy. It is a model that other regions and sectors could certainly learn from. It points to the impact that clusters can have. They bring economies of scale and enable specialist expertise and capability to be leveraged for the benefit of all businesses, large and small, in the cluster. MEGA is an excellent example of how working together — businesses in partnership with government and academia — can help our economy to become more resilient, innovative and productive. One of the other things about clusters is that they can help us to capitalise on one of our key strengths, which is the fact that we are small and are interconnected. Everybody knows everybody. Because we are a small region, people in business, academia and government are already well connected and that helps us to collaborate really well. There are many successful examples of that. Invest NI: Review of Investments Report T4. Mr Dunne asked the Minister for the Economy to outline the costs associated with Invest NI's review of investments report, which was published just last week, as well as the number of staff assigned to work on it. (AQT 1694/22-27) Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. I do not happen to have that information in front of me, but I will be happy to furnish the Member with it. Mr Dunne: I thank the Minister for her brief answer. What message do your actions in the last week send to the 9,000 people employed here in our aerospace, defence, security and space sectors, including those who live in my constituency? The sector is worth over £2 billion to our economy. Will you outline any work undertaken by your Department to assess the potential risks to jobs and further investment as a result of your actions? Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. The message that is sent by the statement that I made last week is that we will have no part in supporting Israel's genocide in Gaza, and, as I outlined to Mr Middleton, we have a moral duty to ensure that we are not doing that and a moral duty to hold to account the Israeli Government for the actions that they have taken. We have a moral obligation to take actions to prevent genocide. I have made it clear that it is my expectation that public funding will not go towards supporting genocide. That is what I set out in my statement last week. On the wider economy, I work every day to support the betterment of our economy, create jobs and attract investment. We have sectoral action plans that we work on in partnership with businesses to support them to thrive, grow and create jobs. I will continue to do that work. Late-night Transport Pilot T5. Ms Bradshaw asked the Minister for the Economy, after welcoming the one-year pilot for late-night transport, which is an excellent example of collaboration not just across Departments but with the private sector, what success will look like at the end of the year and how she will monitor and evaluate the scheme. (AQT 1695/22-27) Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. I agree: it is an important step forward in supporting our night-time economy. It is a pilot. We want to understand its impact and evaluate it at the end of the year in order to decide whether we should continue to take it forward and whether it can be applied elsewhere across the North. We undertook research on the night-time economy that looked not just at Belfast but at Derry and Enniskillen. Learning can be garnered from the pilot and applied elsewhere, as I said. There will be an evaluation process. The Department for Infrastructure is leading on the initiative, but we are looking at what exactly will be included as part of the evaluation. Ms Bradshaw: Thank you for your answer. I suppose that success will be shown in how well the businesses respond to it. What further support will you provide directly to the businesses and in collaboration with the night czar, Michael Stewart, to make sure that it is a success? Dr Archibald: I thank the Member. One of the important things about the pilot is that it has a cross-departmental approach. A number of Departments, as well as Belfast City Council, have invested in the pilot, so there is an opportunity to look at how we can jointly support its success. As I mentioned in my previous answer, we undertook research. We are waiting for the report to be published. We will look at the recommendations that come out of that report to see what more we can do to support the night-time economy in Belfast and more widely. Skills Action Plan: Irish-medium Sector T6. Ms Finnegan asked the Minister for the Economy how her new skills action plan will benefit the Irish-medium sector. (AQT 1696/22-27) Dr Archibald: My Department will regularly review skills provisions to meet the evolving needs of the economy, which are aligned with departmental strategies and the economic vision. That includes the Irish-medium accreditation and learner support systems. In the near future, we will commission research to identify barriers and potential solutions to issues that are faced by those who want to achieve Irish-medium accreditation, the findings of which will be published later in 2026. A key piece of research will include the benchmarking of accreditation and learner support models across comparable sectors. Ms Finnegan: I thank the Minister for her answer. Will she outline how the skills action plan will enhance all-island working? Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. I responded to Sinéad in a similar vein. As I mentioned, there are many opportunities for skills development through the all-island skills task force, which will oversee the delivery of PEACE PLUS cross-border skills provision and the PEACE PLUS youth programme and will enhance and contribute to the all-island skills ecosystem in collaboration with partners in the South. My Department and officials will seek to collaborate on an all-island basis, as I mentioned to Sinéad, in order to reduce the cross-border barriers to North/South student mobility, including exploring Shared Island funding as a potential vehicle for further collaborative work across the apprenticeship sector in particular. There are areas that we will want to look at in particular in which there are opportunities for us to gain from what is happening in the South and for our counterparts in the South to gain from what we are doing through our successful delivery model. There are particular areas of demand for skills. I think, for example, of green skills, for which there is a clear need to develop new pathways and curricula. We can do that jointly on an all-island basis and share resources. We want to look at that in particular through the Shared Island funding opportunities that are coming up. Mr Speaker: Thank you, Minister. Time for questions to the Minister for the Economy is up. Members should take their ease while we change the top Table. (Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair) Questions for Urgent Oral Answer Health Winter Preparedness Plan 2025-26 Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I remind Members that, if they wish to ask a supplementary question, they should rise continually in their place. The Member who tabled the question will be called automatically to ask a supplementary question. Mr Donnelly asked the Minister of Health to outline how the actions in his overarching winter preparedness plan, published on 16 October 2025, will reduce pressure on health services during winter months. Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): I published the overarching winter preparedness plan on Thursday 16 October. It had been my intention to publish it at the Northern Ireland Confederation for Health and Social Care (NICON) conference on the Wednesday, but I took a decision to delay by one day, because I wanted to allow for further consideration of the publication of the individual trust plans, trusts being the operational leads on emergency departments (EDs) and hospital flow. The plan published last week includes a series of measures to help mitigate the additional pressures experienced across Health and Social Care (HSC) in the winter months. I stress the additionality, because those pressures are now experienced 365. The measures include tackling ambulance handover delays through a new approach to collaborative working between the trusts and the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service (NIAS); vaccination programmes against diseases such as influenza, COVID-19, shingles and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV); Community Pharmacy initiatives such as the Living Well and "Stay well this winter" campaigns; the provision of Pharmacy First services across community pharmacies, including the sore throat service, which offers advice, clinical assessment and treatment of sore throats without the patient having to wait for an appointment with a GP; additional assistance for GP practices, with the provision of 10,000 medical care plans for patients in nursing and residential care homes and over 8,000 additional sessions to help manage winter pressures; improving mental health and learning disability bed pressures to reduce demand on EDs by ensuring that the right care is available in the right place; supporting social care delivery in the community and improving system flow from hospitals; and avoiding ED attendance and admission for end-of-life care for those who have a preference to be at home. I reiterate that the publication of the plan was not the starting point. Planning for this winter started many months ago. In many areas, the actions in the plan have already been implemented. I point to some of the recent progress made on ambulance turnaround times as an illustration of that. To navigate the upcoming winter period successfully, it is vital that we all play our part in making sure that HSC services are ready and available for those who need them the most. Mr Donnelly: To me and others, it appears to be a rushed and uncoordinated paper that does not contain much that is new. It was published at short notice on social media before it was even sent to members of the Health Committee. Why did the Minister not think that it was worth taking the time to consult the organisations that represent healthcare workers in Northern Ireland — the very people who will be charged with delivering the actions — before he published the plan? Top 3.45 pm Mr Nesbitt: The point is that, back in January, as the Member may recall, in reacting to last winter's additional pressures, I said that I wanted all the stakeholders in the room with a blank page. I asked the Chief Nursing Officer and the Chief Medical Officer to lead a series of events. It was not just a one-off; it was a series of four big discussion meetings about the whole system flow. Each meeting was oversubscribed, so I am confident that every section of Health and Social Care was consulted about the plan. Mr McGuigan: Minister, the success of any healthcare plan, particularly one such as this on winter preparedness, depends a lot on the workers in our healthcare system. As you know, morale in some sectors is low. Nurses and other healthcare staff are waiting for a pay uplift. The living wage that was promised in January to domiciliary care workers has yet to be realised, which impacts on the system flow that you mentioned. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Question, Philip. Mr McGuigan: Yes. Some healthcare workers are disappointed that they have not been offered the COVID vaccine, as their counterparts in the South have, which could impact on days off due to sickness. Minister, will you address those three issues, which will help to improve morale in our health workforce? Mr Nesbitt: The Member will be aware that we follow advice on vaccinations from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), and we stick with its advice. It has changed a bit on the availability of the COVID-19 vaccination in particular. I am disappointed that I have not been able to action the real living wage as yet, but that is a function of the £600 million pressure on the Health Department's budget. On pay, the Member will be aware that the Executive are releasing £100 million, which is approximately 50% of what I need to fulfil the two pay recommendations for Agenda for Change staff and for doctors and dentists. I need to find £100 million. I have asked officials to urgently work up options, and I hope to meet the Royal College of Nursing, the trade unions and the other professional bodies perhaps as early as tomorrow but, certainly, as soon as possible. I intend to say to them, "This is the situation. Here are one, two or three options". I want to do the one that suits them the best, because I want to demonstrate to them how much I value their presence. As I often say, you need buildings, beds, equipment and medicine, but, unless you have the workforce with you, all the rest is as nothing. Mrs Dodds: Minister, in four weeks' time, we will really be in the throes of winter pressures, so the plan is late. It is underpinned by very little additional funding. Most importantly, it contains no outline of how you want to deal with delayed discharges. Will a winter pressures plan that does not address the issue of domiciliary care stop people — elderly, frail people — from lying in corridors this winter or lying in hospital beds when they could be at home? Mr Nesbitt: I accept that the flow through a hospital is determined largely by the lack of community capacity in domiciliary care packages and care home beds. I absolutely accept that and have never questioned it. You cannot magic up that level of resource in a single month or year. It therefore remains a problem, but I assure the Member that it remains a focus for me. The four workshops that I talked about — the big discussions — were very focused on practical steps that could be taken this winter, into 2026, and in preparation for winter 2027. The Member rightly identified things that are missing, but it would be wrong to put them in the plan and raise expectations that they can be dealt with within the existing workforce and resources. Miss McAllister: On the specifics regarding the domiciliary care and social care package, we are not seeing anything new in this plan. By our calculations, the recycling of hours amounts to roughly 3% of the hours. Is there anything innovative or new that the Minister and his Department can actually do in the next two to three months that will move people from hospital or keep people at home? Were any new options explored by and with those in the sector? Mr Nesbitt: I say two things in response to the Member. All trusts review domiciliary care packages frequently to ensure maximum efficiency. Sometimes, somebody who has a domiciliary or home care package needs it to be enhanced because their condition has deteriorated, but, at other times, it is possible to claw back and redistribute some hours. That is the first thing. Secondly, as the Member will be aware, the Northern Health and Social Care Trust has not, to date, had a Hospital at Home service. A total of £845,000 is being made available to the trust to establish such a service, which will help. Mr Chambers: Does the Minister agree that strong uptake of available vaccinations would make a huge contribution to reducing pressure on health services during the winter period? Will he encourage HSC staff to avail themselves of vaccinations for their well-being and to minimise staff absence in the workforce? Mr Nesbitt: I agree with the Member. Where a vaccine is available, I encourage everybody to avail themselves of it. I have looked at some of the uptake percentages. Overall, they have dropped year-on-year over the past three years, and they are particularly low amongst the workforce. I have asked for a piece of work to try to understand the reasons for that. It would be easy to say that it is about vaccination hesitancy, and, if I had to make an informed guess, I would have put that at number one, but I suspect that, when we have bottomed it out, that will not turn out to be the case. However, if it is about accessibility, for example, care homes get vaccination offers at their front door, so, for staff, particularly those who are on duty on the day, it could hardly be easier. There are some fundamental issues that I do not yet understand about low uptake, particularly among the HSC workforce. Mr Durkan: Winter comes every year, and winter pressures in the health service get worse every year. What lessons from last winter's performance have been captured, and how are those lessons being applied this year to ensure improved resilience and patient care? Mr Nesbitt: The Member is quite right: we need to learn year-on-year. The lessons have been trapped in the seven actions that have been identified. Action plan 1 is: "Identification and risk stratification of frailty in over 65s". Number 2 is: "Keeping people well at home - enhanced care in care homes". That is probably about boxing smarter rather than introducing additionality. Number 3: "Avoiding admission for end-of-life care" will be informed by the Committee's report on palliative care. Number 4 is: "Provision of appropriate (sensible) care", which is about learning from past experience. Number 5 is: "Frail elderly falls". We need a pathway for that, because it is particularly important — I have just been upstairs, hearing about osteoporosis — to reduce deconditioning, but we also want to avoid unnecessary conveyance following falls. Action plan 6 is on advance care planning, and number 7 is a specific one: "Fractured neck of femur improvement group". Those actions are all things that we have learnt and that came out of the four seminars that made up the big discussion. Mrs Dillon: Minister, you talked about the domiciliary care packages, and I appreciate the challenges that we have with them, but I raised with your officials at the Health Committee the week before last the need for a review of direct payments. We need to see a different process for direct payments. The process does not work. It puts an awful lot of pressure on families who are already under severe pressure from trying to look after the people whom they love to ask them to become an employer. I know that IMPACT provides a very good service —. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Is there a question, Linda? Mrs Dillon: I thank them for that, but we need to have a new process. Mr Nesbitt: I agree with the Member. I went out and met some social workers — I think that it was in Altnagelvin — who made the point to me that the regime and the criteria for direct payments are overcomplicated. That is one of the many areas in which we have overcomplicated the delivery of health and social care. I have asked for a review to see whether we can do it more effectively and in a more patient- and service-user-centred way. Some of the examples that I was given involved unfavourable comparisons with how things are managed in the Republic of Ireland. If there are lessons to be learned from the South, they will be learned. Mr Robinson: To allow for the extra GP sessions that are referred to in the plan, what additional funding has been allocated for GP services this winter? Is that new money or a reallocation of existing resources, and how does it differ from last year? Mr Nesbitt: Funding of £2·5 million has been made available to support GP practices to increase their capacity to meet the anticipated increase in demand this winter. We anticipate the delivery of around 10,000 medical care plans for patients in nursing and residential care homes, and over 8,000 additional sessions to help manage winter pressures in general practice. We have also engaged on the development of the Northern Ireland local enhanced service to manage winter pressures for 2025-26. The £2·5 million is, I understand, fresh additional money. Ms D Armstrong: Minister, what is your assessment of the benefit of the new NIAS target for ambulance turnaround times? Do you agree that that target will help ensure that more vehicles and crews are freed up to respond to patient needs? Mr Nesbitt: Obviously, ambulance handover times have to be a key focus because the ambulance handover is, basically, the start of the flow through the hospital setting. We have to get the whole thing working in tandem. The trusts and NIAS had a visit to a hospital in London to learn from its approach to releasing ambulances more quickly and, because of that, were asked to adopt a similar model. To support that, £12 million has been allocated to trusts to implement targeted interventions by the end of the month, and this is the twentieth of the month. Our immediate goal is to eliminate ambulance delays of over two hours by 1 December. All trusts signed up to that goal at the workshops, and once that milestone is achieved we will move towards a much more ambitious 15-minute handover target. It is a system-wide challenge, and I have tasked my Department with leading the coordinated action that is required to deliver those improvements. That will have a profound effect on outcomes and on patient satisfaction because the longer that they wait in ED, the more frustrated that they get and, indeed, the more likely it is that a less-than-ideal outcome will be delivered. Mr McCrossan: Minister, given that every day there are very serious pressures on our emergency departments, particularly at Altnagelvin, which often resembles a scene from your worst possible nightmare, what assurances can you give today in the House that your plan will actually do something different and prevent the crisis from deepening, particularly for people who are very anxious about having to present at emergency departments over the weeks and months ahead? Mr Nesbitt: I have visited the emergency department at Altnagelvin, and I recognise absolutely the need for a new-build ED in Derry. It is the oldest of the type-1 EDs, and it looks it. However, some of the performance statistics that I looked at this morning suggest that its performance is not the worst of all the type-1 EDs. That is a testament to the staff and the workforce who operate that ED because they are operating in far-from-ideal circumstances. On an assurance that the plan will deliver, all I can say to the Member is this: we had four workshops at which we brought in representatives from every nook and cranny of the health and social care system. I am not about to say that they do not know what they were talking about, or that they do not know how to do things better. That is the foundation of the plan. Top 4.00 pm Mrs Cameron: One of the main themes of the plan is to care for the elderly and those with complex and ongoing illnesses in their own home, which requires a functioning acute-care-at-home service, to which the Minister referred. Given that the Northern Health and Social Care Trust has no such service but is hoping to commence, within the next few weeks, an initial service to only 10 patients, how can the Minister claim that that is on a scale that will prevent elderly patients from lying in hospital corridors in Antrim ED this winter? Mr Nesbitt: I am not making such a claim. I expect that the additional winter pressures will result in people's waiting for far too long in emergency departments to be seen. I do not think that we will eradicate the idea of corridor care this winter. I do not think that we will do away with the fact that, if you were to walk into an emergency department, you would meet people who have been in a chair of some description for 12 hours, 24 hours or, maybe, even longer. The Member can certainly say that it is only 10 beds and is only the introduction of Hospital at Home, but I welcome it, because it is a start. It is something that we are going to build on. I have seen Hospital at Home in operation and have spoken to patients who get it. They much prefer it to spending time in an acute bed or elsewhere in an acute hospital. It works financially as well; it is cost efficient. It is a good thing. I accept that it is maybe just the start of something, but at least it is a start. Mr McNulty: Minister, my office was contacted last week by a lady who was distressed enormously by the fact that she spent multiple hours waiting in an overcrowded emergency department at Craigavon Area Hospital, where corridor care is the norm. After 26 hours' waiting to see a doctor, she walked out; she just could not wait for any longer. What does it say about our health service that a woman decided to leave an ED because she gave up? Mr Nesbitt: I am very sorry to hear that. It is probably not a unique experience in our type 1 emergency departments. I simply say this to the Member: if we were to go across the water, we would see the same. When I was in Washington in March, I visited MedStar Georgetown University Hospital. I believe that it was built in 1947, but an extension has just been added, at a cost of over $800 million. The emergency department is comparatively massive, but every corridor had trolleys with patients on them. We are not outliers; we are struggling, just as many health services are struggling. I am doing whatever I can to try to get to a position in which no patient walks out because they have had enough of waiting. Mr Gaston: Minister, earlier today, I was contacted by Kerry O'Neill, who, at the weekend, was in the South West Acute Hospital. Unable to sit, and, in the absence of a trolley or bed, she was reduced to lying on the floor. It is concerning to see that happen in the same week that you launched your winter preparedness plan. That is unacceptable and shambolic, much like how you launched your winter plan in late October. What will you do to ensure that that will not happen to anyone else in the coming weeks? Mr Nesbitt: I very much regret the experience of Mrs O'Neill. I cannot say anything that will satisfy the Member. Mr Carroll: Minister, given that there is an outstanding pay award for health and social care staff, and that half the money is clearly not all the money, how will it be possible to implement the winter plan if health and social care staff remain underpaid and their demands are not met? Mr Nesbitt: The answer is that it will not happen. If they are not paid what they are due, I expect them to continue to ballot for industrial action. I expect them to take strike action. As I have told the House before, the Royal College of Nursing has made it clear that, this time, there will be no derogations. The Chief Nursing Officer has told me, effectively, that she is not sure how we could possibly manage that. That is why, as we sit here, I have officials working on a small number of options to restore pay parity. It is my ambition that health and social care workers will get their payment and that the only disadvantage that they will face this year will be a delay in that payment. Ms Brownlee: Minister, your plan indicates that 258 additional beds can be opened in an emergency. However, given staff shortages, and the pressures that nurses are already under in overcrowded wards, how do you propose to staff those beds? Mr Nesbitt: I am sorry to say to the Member that nurses and other hospital staff are well accustomed to looking after more patients than they are supposed to look after. It has happened previously: it happened last winter, and it does not just happen in the wintertime. They manage. I am very grateful to them for managing, but I wish that it was different. Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Asian Hornets Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I remind Members that, if they wish to ask a supplementary question, they should rise continually in their place. The Member who tabled the question will be called automatically to ask a supplementary question. Ms Finnegan asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to outline the steps that his Department is taking to assess and address the presence of Asian hornets, given our delicate biodiversity system. Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): A report from a member of the public of an Asian hornet in the Dundonald area of Belfast led to the location of a nest by Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) officials. The nest was treated and successfully removed on Saturday 18 October. The nest has been delivered to the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) for analysis to determine what stage the hornets were at in their breeding cycle. Genetic analysis to obtain clues as to their origin is also being scoped. NIEA is continuing its monitoring and trapping programme in the Dundonald area to ensure that there are no further nests. There will be some residual activity from hornets that were not in the nest when it was treated. That is normal. Those hornets will either be trapped or will die off. I urge the public and beekeepers to remain vigilant and report any suspect insects, ideally with a photograph, to DAERA via the Asian Hornet Watch app or the Centre for Environmental Data and Recording (CEDaR) online recording. Ms Finnegan: I thank the Minister for his answer. Understandably, there is worry amongst local beekeepers. With that in mind, what specific engagement has DAERA had with local beekeepers to raise awareness and ensure that sightings are reported promptly? Mr Muir: Officials engaged with the Ulster Beekeepers' Association upon the first sighting of an Asian hornet. They will meet the association again tomorrow. As Minister, I will seek to engage with the association on the issue as well. The main thing for us to do is to raise awareness and encourage people to report sightings. Through the vigilance of members of the public, we have been able to track the Asian hornets, locate where the nest was and treat it. I thank people for reporting it, and ask people to continue doing that. Miss McIlveen: I thank the Minister for coming to the Chamber to answer the question. As this was unforeseen, I imagine that no budget had been allocated for the work that is being carried out in respect of Asian hornets. What is the estimated cost of that work? Is any potential bid likely to include support for beekeepers and compensation in the event that hives are lost? Mr Muir: We are working through the situation and will seek to absorb the cost within the budget in year. The budget is extremely tight. My Department is also dealing with avian influenza, which puts a budget pressure on us. As the situation develops, we will look at how we support the beekeeping industry in Northern Ireland and continue that engagement. The most effective way in which to deal with the situation immediately is for people to be aware of it and to report any sightings of Asian hornets to the Department so that we can track them. The vigilance of members of the public allowed us to locate the nest. I thank the officials who worked very quickly to locate the site of the nest. They moved in at dusk on Friday to apply a powder before removing the nest on Saturday. It was a very quick response. Mr McMurray: Given the recent sightings of the Asian hornet in the greater Belfast area, will the Minister provide an update on the role played by the Shared Island initiative? Mr Muir: Thank you, Andy. The Shared Island initiative was key to our response, because it has allowed the sharing of expertise and knowledge about the two nests that were found previously in Cobh and Cork. An individual who is involved in the Shared Island initiative lives quite close to the site where the Asian hornets were spotted and from where the nest has been removed. That was very useful. I spoke to my ministerial counterparts at the North/South Ministerial Council meeting at the end of last week about the situation, and I thank them for the Shared Island funding and support. That shows why we need to cooperate on the issue and what the benefits of such cooperation are. Mr Butler: The Minister will be aware that the Asian hornet is not the only threat to bees. Earlier in the year, there was a series of questions asked about there being no chief bee inspector. Can the Minister give us an update on how the Department is furnished for bee inspection? Mr Muir: My Department is responding to recent reductions in staff available for bee inspections. Recruitment competitions are under way to increase the number of inspectors who are available to carry out a range of duties, including bee inspections. Mr McCrossan: This is a very important matter for the Minister and the Department. Minister, you said that you are in the process of putting in place a plan to ensure that there is a rapid response to the issue. How much will it sting you? Mr Muir: We already have a response plan and are implementing it. We will review it in light of the situation that we have experienced and any lessons that we have learnt from it. Having shared knowledge through taking an all-Ireland approach is important. It is also important that I set out that, to date, there have been around 500 sightings of Asian hornets across the UK and Ireland, but those sightings had been in North Yorkshire and Cheshire, so the fact that sightings have occurred in Belfast and that a nest was discovered is of concern to us. It is therefore important that people report sightings to us in order to enable a prompt response. We will seek to manage the pressure in-year. It is important that we do that. As the situation unfolds, it is really important that we get on top of it and allow people to report sightings as soon as possible. Mr Irwin: In the Armagh area, there is a large concentration of bees in the apple orchards, as the Minister will be aware. Is there anything that beekeepers can do to help protect their bees? Mr Muir: The point that I made about awareness of the matter is that dissemination of information, followed by reporting, is critical. The reason for that is that the Asian hornet is a highly effective predator of insects, including honeybees, wasps, hoverflies and other important pollinators, so it is really important that reports of sightings be made in order to allow the Northern Ireland Environment Agency to respond to them, because the Asian hornet threatens our native insect biodiversity and pollination services more widely. Mr Blair: The Minister referred to 500 sightings of Asian hornets in the UK and Ireland. Will there be continued analysis carried out and information sharing among officials in those jurisdictions? Mr Muir: Yes. That is part of the remit of the British-Irish Council, because the Asian hornet has been identified as a risk. The Channel Islands have also had sightings of the Asian hornet. That is why the nest found here is with AFBI for analysis. It is therefore important that we analyse what we have found in order to allow us to respond. The fact that the Asian hornet has been found in Belfast is unprecedented. How the first one got here is not entirely clear. There is a possibility that it could have arrived through a delivery as a stowaway, but it is really important that people report sightings. As I said, the nest was treated on Friday night and removed on Saturday, but it could be the case that, on Friday night, some hornets were not in the nest and will therefore still be in the locality, so it is important that people report any sightings to us. Top 4.15 pm Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister. That concludes this item of business. Members, please take your ease until the next item. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Blair] in the Chair) Private Members' Business Storm Resilience and Infrastructure Preparedness Debate resumed on motion: That this Assembly notes with concern the increasing frequency and severity of storms that have caused widespread disruption to electricity, broadband, transport and essential public and community services across Northern Ireland; further notes that those events have exposed weaknesses in communication, coordination and infrastructure resilience, particularly in rural and isolated areas; expresses concern at the confusion during recent storms, when delayed and inconsistent messages from the Education Authority (EA) about school closures left parents, pupils and staff struggling to make last-minute arrangements; recognises the need for clearer contingency planning, stronger leadership and better coordination between Departments and agencies; and calls on the First Minister and deputy First Minister to lead a cross-departmental review to improve communication, strengthen infrastructure and emergency response systems and ensure that communities and essential services are better protected during future severe weather events. — [Mr Butler.] Mr Brett: I beg to move the following amendment: Leave out all after "isolated areas;" and insert: "is alarmed that recent storm damage to Ballylumford power station, combined with planned maintenance at Coolkeeragh power station, left local electricity supply at risk of a single point of failure; recognises the need for clearer contingency planning, stronger leadership and better coordination between Departments and agencies; calls on the First Minister and deputy First Minister to lead a cross-departmental review to improve communication, including with schools and parents, to strengthen infrastructure and emergency response systems and ensure that communities and essential services are better protected during future severe weather events; and further calls on the Minister for the Economy, as part of that review, to provide assurances that her Department’s pursuit of ensuring that at least 80% of electricity consumption is from renewables by 2030 will not jeopardise energy security or place vital public services at risk." Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): You have 10 minutes in which to propose the amendment and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called on to speak in the debate will have five minutes. Mr Brett: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to propose the amendment in my name and that of my colleagues. I will give some context for why we tabled the amendment. It relates to the importance of ensuring energy security and security of supply. Mr Deputy Speaker, from the way in which some Ministers handled the issue, you may not have known that, less than two to three weeks ago, Northern Ireland was just days away from a blackout. The context for that related to our three power plants. As you may be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, Ballylumford power station was damaged in the recent storm Éowyn and, as a result, has been offline. Coolkeeragh, one of our other power plants, has been down for maintenance. That resulted in Kilroot power station approaching the point of running out of its permitted hours to provide electricity to Northern Ireland. We required two emergency Executive meetings and a written statement provided by the Minister for the Economy to address the issue. EP UK Investments (EPUKI), which owns the Kilroot power plant, is now involved in a court action against the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA). That is the first time that that situation has been outlined and articulated to the House, which is a shame. It took the work of my colleagues on the Economy Committee to interrogate the Department for the Economy and the Utility Regulator in order to find that out. Members across these Benches should have been informed by both the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and the Department for the Economy that we were only hours away from a blackout in Northern Ireland. The reason why that situation was not articulated to Members was that it does not suit the narrative of the current climate change targets. It is clear that the current climate change targets, which were set in place by the previous Assembly, are not achievable and are undermining our energy security of supply. We look forward with anticipation to the report that will be produced by the Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) tomorrow in relation to our journey to net —. Mrs Dillon: Will the Member take an intervention? Mr Brett: Happily. Mrs Dillon: Does the Member agree that, if we do not do something about climate change, we will continue to have worsening storms? We are having such weather events because we did not address climate change. Mr Brett: I was just about to go on to that point, Ms Dillon. We have a moral duty to tackle climate change, but that should not be at the expense of being hours away from my constituents — and yours, Ms Dillon — being in a power blackout. We heard the proposer of the motion speak about the importance of ensuring that our schools receive timely notifications. If our schools do not have electricity, they will not receive those notifications. If our hospitals do not receive the power that they need, a result of the storms, Ms Dillon, will be that people will be placed in huge and real danger. That is why the House needs to take serious action and look at the consequences of the energy figures that we are trying to meet. As I made clear in a debate in the House two weeks ago, the Members who were proposing our climate change targets could not even tell us the current rate of our renewable electricity targets, because they are more interested in climate change extremism than in the reality before us. We need leadership on the issue, and that will not be found in the Minister for the Economy or the AERA Minister. It needs to be taken forward by the First Minister and deputy First Minister. Our amendment calls for the First Minister and deputy First Minister to prioritise above all else energy security and security of supply to the people of Northern Ireland. The duty of any Government is to protect their citizens and ensure the safety of those who live in Northern Ireland. There can be no greater requirement on government than to ensure security of energy supply. Thankfully, the previous crisis, which could have engulfed Northern Ireland, was avoided, but it could be repeated or come back, should Kilroot power station win its court case against the Department of Agriculture. We need strong leadership from the First Minister and deputy First Minister to look again at the targets that have been set by the previous Assembly. It is clear that we will not reach the 2030 targets, and we need to stop kidding the public and ourselves that we will. Today is an opportunity for the House to commit to energy security and supply and to ensure that the focus of the Executive is on providing basic services, not on trying to reach unreachable targets. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Before we proceed, I inform the House that the Speaker's Office has been made aware of ongoing legal proceedings relating to Kilroot power station. Therefore I remind Members about the requirements in Standing Orders in relation to matters that are sub judice. Members must respect the distinct roles of the courts and the Assembly when commenting on active legal proceedings. Mrs Mason: The need for all Departments to tailor their responses to the frequency and severity of storms and extreme weather events is increasingly clear, and the motion is timely. I am sure that everyone has seen yesterday's flooding in Newcastle in my constituency. It caused concern and panic for the local community. Many households were only millimetres away from their homes being flooded once again. I acknowledge the strength of the local community, particularly the Newcastle Regional Community Resilience Group, which provided vital communication throughout the day, and the Mourne Mountain Rescue Team, which brought a hiker down to safety. Upwards of 1,200 sandbags were made available and distributed to prevent flood damage to households in the area. DFI Roads and DFI Rivers officials were on the ground monitoring water levels at the Shimna river and clearing large stones and debris from the roads. They were elevating the seismic water run-off, which equated to three days' worth of rain across the course of the day, from the mountain. I welcome the fact that advice from the Department was consistent and that immediate action was taken to prevent extreme flood damage to homes. There are, of course, lessons to be learned to ensure that flooding can be avoided and, in worst-case scenarios, households protected. Lessons must also be learned from the Education Authority's delays in closing schools during storm Amy. They caused deep frustration and fear among parents and guardians. The lack of clear and timely communication caused chaos for schools and families. Schools in some counties were told to close early, but the lack of direct communication from the EA to schools on county borders caused confusion for parents. Schools were left to handle the resultant miscommunication, and that diverted focus from ensuring pupil and staff safety. Failing to close schools on time, with appropriate notice, put the safety of children and schools at risk. The Education Authority said that, as of 11.30 on the morning of the storm, 18 schools had reported storm-related incidents to its maintenance service. Those mainly involved damage to roofs and fallen trees. With no alternative transport provided, parents had to collect their children during a storm warning, which placed parents and families at risk, despite the advice to avoid unnecessary travel. There should have been much better communication and coordination between the Department of Education, the EA and the Met Office. The Department and the EA should have listened to the advice in advance and instructed accordingly. When Departments and statutory agencies fail to work collaboratively, it leads to unnecessary disruption. Working together delivers stronger results for our communities. The flooding in Downpatrick and Newcastle in 2023 was devastating for the local area. Despite extremely challenging circumstances, the resilience of our small and family-run local businesses and the remarkable community spirit shone through when everyone came together to support one another. The interventions that followed the floods showed us how we are at our best when everybody works together. Former Economy Minister, Conor Murphy, announced the flood support scheme, which was a huge relief for our small and family-run local traders and assisted them with restoring their premises and allowed them to continue opening their doors to the community. I also acknowledge the work that was undertaken by former Infrastructure Minister, John O'Dowd, which laid the groundwork for his successor, the current Minister, Liz Kimmins. The First Minister and the then Infrastructure Minister, John O'Dowd, visited Downpatrick to meet the affected organisations and residents and view at first-hand the sites that had been devastated by the flooding. Infrastructure Minister, Liz Kimmins, has also met the residents and businesses in Newcastle and Downpatrick to listen to their concerns, and she is working on their behalf to help prevent such devastating events. Mr Butler: I thank the Member for giving way. Notwithstanding the fact that some good work happened when the Ministers were in place, does the Member agree that some of the things that we are doing are not working and that we need to think slightly differently? Someone from Newcastle commented this morning that some of the flood alleviation measures in one area perhaps just redirect the water in a different way. As I said at the start of the debate, some countries are already leading the way in that space, and we need to think outside the box. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute. Mrs Mason: I agree with the Member's comments, which is why I am trying to reiterate that it is best when we all work together and form a response from all Departments. In responding to storms and extreme weather, every Department must play its part, not only by delivering the interventions that are needed to prevent damage but by stepping in to help communities recover and rebuild when disaster strikes. We are better when we work together. When it comes to storm and extreme weather responses, we need every Department to step up, work together and play its part, not only to deliver the early interventions that are required to prevent destruction and damage but to intervene and help communities to recover and rebuild after disaster strikes. Mr McMurray: I thank Mr Butler for his remarks and the sentiments about Newcastle at the start of them. I also thank Cathy Mason. I reiterate that there was a yellow rain warning: the consequences of an amber or, indeed, red rain warning do not bear thinking about. Certainly, I agree with the general intent of the motion. There is a: "need for clearer contingency planning, stronger leadership, and better co-ordination between Departments and agencies". The emergency response systems and communication on the ground can certainly be strengthened as well, and that must include putting in place a community emergency resilience network that can work with agencies to deliver local support during future storms. Thinking back to storm Éowyn, some of the community resilience that was on display in my constituency involved GAA halls, Orange halls, church halls and community halls coming together to create space. Mr Butler raised some points about medical issues, and those were experienced in my area. The County Down Rural Community Network is, I am sure, well known to everybody — it is certainly well known in south Down — and has a network in place that can put together responses. There are simple things that can be done, like putting adaptors on the outside of fuse boxes in houses to enable portable generators to be linked up. That is one of the ideas that could be adopted, and it would be really good if it was. We need to strengthen our infrastructure through better maintenance and new technologies to make it more resilient to extreme weather events. In our part of the world, those events tend to involve high winds and heavy rain. Given the rain that we saw over the past weekend, it would be good to see the flood forecasting service developed, enacted and put forward, because the flooding events are stark. Top 4.30 pm I am not sure that we can fully avoid every road closure, public transport disruption and power cut in the future, but we have to accept that we are seeing climate change play out exactly as we predicted, with massive storms causing extensive damage. Mr Butler: Will the Member give way? Mr McMurray: Yes, certainly. Mr Butler: The Member is right, but there are things that we can do to future-proof it. We are all engaged in the ambition to plant more trees, for instance, but where we plant them is important. For instance, if we do not plant them at the edge of roads, they will not fall across the road. There are steps that we can take to prevent road closures and so on, if we think long-term about those things. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute. Mr McMurray: The Member makes an interesting point, and we have to accept that the way in which our tree strategy is enacted will play a big part in tackling climate change, not least with mixed woodland areas and suchlike, to prevent some of the rainfall hitting the infrastructure. Coming back to the point, it is simple when you think about it, really. We are seeing warmer seas. Warmer things create more energy. That is creating more energy in our weather systems, which means that we see the weather events that are happening. If one or two days' rain falls in a matter of hours, we cannot expect our infrastructure to cope, but those weather systems are becoming more the norm. During storm Éowyn, there were over 2,300 reported obstructions on the road network, including hundreds on our motorways. Train lines suffered significant damage, substantial resources were poured into the clean-up and people worked extremely hard around the clock to remove the trees. Even so, it took a long time simply due to the sheer extent of the devastation. That is how climate change differs from weather. That is why climate change really is the problem. Short of removing all trees that are growing in the vicinity of infrastructure, which Mr Butler referred to, little can be done to prevent massive storms that result from climate change having an impact on people's lives. We need to step up our efforts to combat climate change. The AERA Minister is doing what he can, and so must his colleagues. We must ensure that climate change is a chief consideration when planning new infrastructure. We are already obliged to do so by law, and courts are enforcing that requirement, as we have seen. Mr Brett is not here, but I am concerned about the amendment. It is trying to twist and turn the motion into an attack on our renewable energy targets, and there is an insinuation about their impact on energy security. The truth is that the 80 by 30 target is nothing short of essential to our energy security. There is no cliff edge. Nothing will be switched off before sufficient renewable alternatives are in place, even in the unfortunate case that we miss the 2030 target. We can always put more units back on if need be. We are currently at the mercy of international gas markets, which comes with significant geopolitical risks. We saw some of that play out in the price spikes after the invasion of Ukraine. Our dependency on fossil fuels that are not generated locally also means that our energy consumption largely benefits other countries when offshore renewables could bring an economic bonanza to our economy around ports such as Warrenpoint, Ardglass and Kilkeel, which are in my constituency of South Down. I want to see my area not only driving the green economy but providing its own energy security, with the financial and energy perseverance that comes with it. The response should not be to slow down renewable deployment but to increase it, so that we have a more diverse portfolio that is not dependent on mostly old gas plants. The sooner we are energy-independent, the sooner we will become energy-secure. Mr McNulty: I rise today to speak on the motion calling for strengthening storm resilience and infrastructure preparedness. I agree that strengthening our infrastructure and resilience to better protect against storms is critical to the public and for community safety. However, the motion does not advance any specific actionable recommendations to tangibly address the matter. To best achieve the goal of storm resilience and infrastructure preparedness, the Executive must put forward specific and detailed plans to tackle the issue in areas where there are the greatest vulnerabilities and susceptibilities to flooding. Aligned with the construction of infrastructure protections, the Executive must put forward more supports and resources into community resilience groups to combat storm-related issues. Communities are best equipped to know the intricacies of an area, such as where vulnerable people live and where vulnerable places lie. Given that local expertise, communities should be empowered and supported and given the necessary tools to plan for and respond to adverse weather conditions. The Cushendall Community Resilience Group, for example, demonstrates how such organisations can operate. Instead of relying on emergency services, those groups have emergency plans that are tailored to their community needs, and they work in partnership with the rescue services as necessary. The flood resilience group in Newry is another example of a community-led group. Along with Newry business improvement district (BID) members, it has ensured that Newry is at a much more advanced state of flood readiness. That is crucial, as we all know that, in 2023, Newry experienced flooding that devastated local businesses. On 2 October 2025, Maydown bridge, which connects Tyrone and Armagh, suffered a partial collapse due to heavy rainfall, causing huge disruption to locals. When will Maydown bridge be repaired or reconstructed? Infrastructure issues that are compounded when we experience flooding, such as that in Newcastle at the weekend and in Newry two years ago, show that we have not taken enough concrete steps to prepare for adverse weather conditions. We talked about the problem then, and we are talking about it again two years later, without the Executive having taken any meaningful action. I call on the Minister for Infrastructure to provide specific details of plans on how to build storm resilience through the involvement of community groups such as those that I have mentioned. It is also an absolute no-brainer that we should have a coordinated approach to school closures when we experience storm conditions of a certain level. Mr Boylan: Each of us knows all too well about the increase in the number of severe weather events, including storms, and the impact that those events have across our communities. Prevention is key, and, while the Department for Infrastructure has been hindered by its budget in the level of day-to-day maintenance that it can provide, I commend the Infrastructure Minister for recognising the importance of such works and backing up her recognition by allocating further funding in order to deliver additional cleaning and maintenance of drainage lines and manholes. The Infrastructure Minister has shown that her Department takes a proactive approach in preparation for storms. In advance of storm Amy, the Department undertook culvert screening maintenance work in a bid to ensure that countless homes were protected from flooding. Preventative actions, such as gully emptying and culvert screening, have also contributed to ensuring that disruption to public transport is minimised. The work of the Department for Infrastructure has shown that it is intent on ensuring that public safety is a priority, as well as on maintaining an efficient transport network during storms, particularly for some of our most valuable workers who rely on public transport to get to and from work. While preparation is key, I commend the workers in the Department for Infrastructure, NI Water and the Loughs Agency and others who go above and beyond in order to ensure that the effects of a storm are dealt with as soon as possible. As my colleague said, recently, during storm Amy, 2,000 sandbags were delivered, and committed staff worked over the weekend to clear the unavoidable debris that that storm left behind. With 1,500 incidents having been recorded across rural and urban areas, it is clear that, with every best effort of the Department and other agencies, getting roads cleared of trees and debris is done as quickly as possible. It is also important to recognise the good work that is done by local community resilience groups in flood-risk areas. I know of the hard work that those groups do to manage the effects of severe weather and storms. As with everything, however, there is always room for improvement and new ways of working. Additional resources would enable the Department for Infrastructure to do more. Legislation that the Minister is progressing will assist with managing water entering the network, and advances in technology could enable new ways of working to be developed. I again commend all who work hard in our communities and in our agencies to plan and prepare for significant weather events and appreciate the huge body of work that is required in the clean-up afterwards. Mr Mathison: I will speak on the issue from an education perspective, as schools are referred to specifically in the motion. My colleagues will cover some of the wider issues. I made a Member's statement on the handling of school closures during storm Amy, and much of what I will say today will reflect those comments. I want, however, to correct the record. I said in my statement that an amber weather warning was in place from 1 October. It has since been drawn to my attention that, in fact, a yellow warning was issued at that stage, with the amber warning not kicking in until the evening before the storm. That undoubtedly impacted on the planning considerations that would have been in play in the EA, so I feel it important to put that on record, as EA officials raised that issue with me directly. If you err on a point of fact, it is important to note that. As Members have already said, the motion refers to "delayed and inconsistent messages" being delivered to schools about closures as a result of storm Amy. I concur that lessons need to be learned. Pupil and staff safety is key, of course. Robbie Butler highlighted the critical issue of the risk to life that is associated with storms. That must always be the priority when we consider such matters. It cannot be denied, however, that communications to schools about storm Amy came too late, and that did not help anybody in providing the right response. The timeline that was in operation for arriving at the school closures placed unnecessary pressure on school leaders and parents. The key was the appropriateness of when the notice about closure was received by the affected schools. For many, it was at the very moment that children were being brought in through the school gates and parents were driving away to their workplaces that emails landed stating that schools needed to close. That was at a time when many principals were nowhere near their email accounts and were instead at the school gates bringing children in to start the school day. That created an entirely unacceptable level of pressure, with principals then being tasked with reaching parents almost immediately after they had left school premises to go to work. Parents then had to arrange childcare and get back to the school. School leaders needed time to manage the closures, so it is hard for me to understand why a call could not have been made the previous evening to give schools the time to plan and communicate clearly and effectively with parents. Breaking down the closures by county, which has also been highlighted, undoubtedly created confusion. Parents were uncertain where Belfast fitted in. Despite the Met Office's warning map not covering all of Country Antrim, the EA closure notice gave blanket effect to the whole county, which caused further confusion. That could have been avoided through earlier and clearer communications. The communications on transport and school meals were also slow, often not landing until after the closures themselves had kicked in. The delay in communications appearing on social media also added to the confusion. Again, early decisions the previous day could have avoided all of that. The effect was pressure on school leaders and on parents. School leaders reported a sense of communication overload. They were being bombarded with contact from parents on social media, by email and by phone and were then having to try to navigate the internal processes of the EA. In short, when we have time to make decisions earlier, we should do so. Of course, there is always the risk of being damned if you do and damned if you do not. It is sometimes hard to call it right, but, when we have it, we should be in a position to give our officials and school leaders the appropriate notice. I concur entirely with the motion. Lessons should be learned, and I welcome any improvements that can be made to the timeliness and effectiveness of communications with school leaders about storm closures. I note that the Minister of Education has already requested a short, sharp review of the internal processes in Education, and I hope that that review will deliver improvements quickly and effectively. It is welcome, but, if a wider, cross-departmental view could bring about better alignment, I would welcome that. I hope that we see progress on cross-departmental working on the issue, and I am content to support the motion. Top 4.45 pm Ms Murphy: In recent weeks and months, we have all witnessed the growing severity and frequency of storms across the island. Those storms wreaked havoc on homes, businesses and our rural communities and caused widespread disruption to electricity, broadband, transport and community infrastructure. Whilst no area has been left untouched or has not been impacted on, the acute impact has been felt mostly in our rural areas, where long distances, vulnerable connectivity and rugged terrain amplify the challenges when bad weather strikes. When severe storms hit, power lines are brought down, roads are blocked and broadband, as well as signal, drops. For too many families, that means days without heat and light, with no way to access vital information. During storm Éowyn, some of my constituents in Rosslea were without power for more than 10 days. Most of them were elderly, but some were young families who have children with additional needs and life-limiting conditions. Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. Does the Member agree that, given the fact that NIE made £181 million in profits in 2024, it could well afford to have a better system in place to provide generators to those on the critical care list, particularly those at the end-of-life stage, who potentially have to be removed from their home? Those people chose to die at home. They are moved into hospitals that can ill afford to take them, but it is more that those people did not want to go into hospital: they wanted to die at home. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute. Ms Murphy: Yes, I concur with the Member. The point of the motion is about better cohesion, which we especially need to see between NIE and the health and social care trusts across the North. We have all, no doubt, been contacted by constituents who have lost power. I think particularly of those constituents who are vulnerable. Some children rely on nebulisers and ventilators. Losing power leaves our rural residents isolated and vulnerable, as well as leaving farms unable to operate and businesses unable to open. One area that clearly requires attention is the role of Forest Service when it comes to fallen trees and electricity outages. Time and time again, major power cuts in rural areas have been caused by trees, be they privately owned or owned by Forest Service, bringing down power lines, yet the response to remove those hazards has been far too slow. The Forest Service and private owners should work with utility companies, DFI and NIE to identify areas of high risk, undertake pre-storm assessments and ensure that trees near power lines are properly managed. A more proactive approach, one that prevents outages rather than simply reacting to them, would make a significant difference to rural residents, farms and our local businesses. It is simply unacceptable that homes are left in darkness and cut off from society for days on end because of delays in clearance works. Those experiences highlight the urgent need to strengthen our civil contingency planning. The Executive's civil contingency framework sets out a system of cohesion between Departments, councils and agencies. However, recent events have shown that communication between those bodies can be slow, inconsistent and confusing, and that means that delivery on the ground is delayed. Rural communities deserve a commitment from all bodies that guarantees fast action on the ground when they need it. We cannot continue to rely on goodwill and ad hoc coordination when communities are cut off. Strengthening our storm resilience is not just about repairing damage. It must be centred around prevention, planning and partnership to ensure that all agencies and utility companies work together effectively to protect our rural communities. Ms D Armstrong: I welcome the motion. It is undeniable that extreme weather patterns are increasing with devastating effect, as we saw at the weekend in Newcastle. My thoughts are with the people of Newcastle, who, today, are clearing up and suffering the after-effects of the destruction. The recent storms have exposed a critical weakness in our energy infrastructure that demands immediate attention. We would all struggle to name someone who, this year, has not been affected by outages caused by either storm Éowyn or, to a lesser extent, storm Amy. Our infrastructure was simply not able to cope, and many of us were left without electricity and broadband to operate businesses and farms and to communicate with colleagues and our loved ones. Many in my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone were concerned in recent weeks when school closure notifications were delayed, leaving parents unsure as to whether they needed to call at the school to collect their children. Dr Aiken: Thank you very much indeed for giving way. Does the Member agree that it is an absolute scandal that the likes of NIE and the System Operator for Northern Ireland (SONI) have made considerable profits on those networks even though they have not invested in them at all, despite the fact that "severe weather events" have been signalled for quite a long time by agencies such as the Met Office? Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute. Ms D Armstrong: I thank the Member for his intervention. He makes a good point. I will come on to something else to do with NIE at a later point in my words. In my rural constituency, good infrastructure and planning are as vital as they are anywhere else, yet it is rural places such as Fermanagh and South Tyrone that bear the brunt of our infrastructure failures. The Economy Committee recently met the Utility Regulator, who worryingly confirmed how close we came to a Northern Ireland-wide blackout due to a single point of failure. Further engagement with the Utility Regulator by me and my colleague revealed that Coolkeeragh was offline due to maintenance, and Ballylumford was also offline, leaving Kilroot as the only fully functioning station, effectively making Northern Ireland wholly reliant on a single supplier. We quite simply cannot risk reliance on a single provider of energy. There will be concern in Northern Ireland around the vulnerability of our supply, as recent storms have shown that we simply have not been able to cope. Furthermore, when things go wrong, response times for maintenance have been inadequate. For example, we saw after storm Éowyn that some Fibrus customers were left without broadband for as long as three weeks. In a day and age when we all rely on the internet for working from home or communicating with family, that is simply unacceptable. In addition, the stability of our electricity supply requires urgent solutions, but time is not on our side. A fourth power plant would take five years to build, and the indications are that the North/South interconnector will not be ready until 2031. Lessons need to be learned, and we must not allow our energy security to be compromised by delays or over-reliance on a single provider. Additionally, in Northern Ireland, we have no framework in place for storm damage compensation, as the guaranteed standard of service for electricity supply typically does not apply during exceptional weather events. That means that not only did many face a loss of earnings as a result of outages, but they failed to be adequately compensated for their loss of electricity supply. That situation highlights the urgent need for clearer contingency planning, alongside the better coordination between Departments and agencies that other Members have mentioned. The Education Authority must also improve communication with schools and parents to avoid the confusion that happened during the recent storm and to develop mobile alerts for all schools, with urgent out-of-hours information going directly to the management boards of schools. We support the call for the First Minister and deputy First Minister to lead a cross-departmental review to improve emergency response systems and strengthen infrastructure resilience, thus ensuring that communities and essential services are better protected. We also call on the Minister for the Economy to provide assurances that vital public services will not be placed at risk as we transition to renewable energy. Northern Ireland cannot afford to be left vulnerable, so we must act now to ensure that our infrastructure is resilient against future severe weather events. Mr Honeyford: I will just speak on energy security, the line taken by the DUP and what has been said in the Chamber. The line on energy security is fair. We all want a reliable, resilient energy system. However, the amendment veers right off the road when it tries to insinuate that renewables are actually the cause of the risk. Recently, the issues were with Ballylumford and Coolkeeragh, not renewables. That view is, at best, misinformed. Diversifying our sources of energy by hitting 80 by 30 renewable targets is not a risk to our energy security; it is the route to it. Clean, renewable energy that is homegrown and produced here gives us control over future security. It reduces costs for hard-working families in the long term. Every household has seen its energy costs more than double in the past couple of years since the onset of the Ukraine war, when fossil fuel costs rose sharply. Alongside the cost, renewables are important in meeting those climate obligations. Achieving structural change in our energy production needs targets to aim for. We should not oppose goals or create doubt. Everyone needs targets to work towards. Mr Brett: I appreciate the Member giving way. Will he outline where in my amendment I say that renewables undermine energy security? Does he believe that we will reach those targets? Who is correct on that: me or him? Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute. Mr Honeyford: The Member spoke about net zero being the basis for the amendment. What is said in the first bit of the amendment about energy security is fair, and I said that at the start. The implication is in what is said in the next part. We need to have security of energy supply here, but that needs a whole-system design. The issue that I have is that we are still too developer-led. We leave the power on renewables with developers and people who own power stations. We do not have an overall plan. I have raised that many times here. We need a master plan, led by the Department, that sets out how renewables, storage and interconnection fit together. We need a central approach that gives us a clear direction and a final design that we can work towards. Energy security depends on a strategic, whole-system approach rather than piecemeal decisions. Critical to the delivery of all of that is the North/South interconnector. When we met the Utility Regulator, we were told that that is at the heart of the issue. Delivery is key to our overall system. The interconnector will finally give us that all-island system. We have an all-island market, but it is made up of two smaller systems that sit side by side and are not fully connected. The interconnector will change that. It will unite the two systems and allow electricity to flow between the North and the South, creating the all-island system that has been promised for so long and reducing costs for consumers. It will also remove the risk of a single point of failure by providing flexibility. The system has been designed to ensure that, when we are connected across the island, we will need only one power station to function at a time in Northern Ireland. That needs to happen. I ask the Minister for the Economy to commit unreservedly to delivering the interconnector as planned. The North/South interconnector is essential to allow us to bring in more wind and solar power and all the other renewables without curtailing generation. Connection to Scotland is also important, as are the connections between Dublin and Wales and between the South and France. We need all of it. Yes, we want energy security, but let us be really clear: that will be achieved through a master plan, interconnection and investments in renewables, not by scaremongering about net zero and clean energy. It is really disappointing but not entirely surprising that a misinformed amendment has been tabled. I am surprised, however, that Phillip was the person from the DUP to deliver it, because we work really well together on this. I am not shocked that the DUP is burying its head in the sand, is allergic to change and cannot see the effects of climate change that are around it. You can see from the amendment and from what has been said here that, when it comes to climate and energy, in the DUP there are not too many lights on. Alliance cannot support the amendment, because we fully believe that Northern Ireland's future energy system must be clean, secure and planned. Mr Lyons: Will the Member give way? Mr Honeyford: I am about to finish, but go for it. Mr Lyons: I appreciate the Member giving way. Does he concede that it is not only the DUP that has outlined its concerns about the climate change targets, given that the Climate Change Committee said in its 2021 report that we were going beyond what was required to ensure that the UK hit net zero? In fact, going too far too fast can have problems for Northern Ireland. So, it is not just we who have said it; it is the experts, whom his party ignored. Mr Honeyford: To say that we ignored the experts is some stretch, to be absolutely frank. We have just had a weekend of rain, yet there is complete denial that the climate is changing. What I said is absolutely correct: when it comes to climate, energy and net zero in here, there are not many lights on. We need to stop causing division and uncertainty and using any excuse — Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member's time is up. — to continue to drive us backwards. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): That concludes the list of Members who wished to speak. I call on junior Minister Aisling Reilly to respond. Junior Minister, you have up to 15 minutes. Top 5.00 pm Ms Reilly (Junior Minister, The Executive Office): Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. [Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.] I thank Members for their important contributions to the debate. I thank the proposer of the motion for giving us the opportunity to highlight the work that is under way across the Executive and local government to prepare for, respond to and recover from severe weather events. Members referenced other Departments and Ministers, and I will try to touch on them as much as I can. If I do not cover them all, I am sure that the Departments will be happy to respond to Members' specific queries. Given where we sit on the edge of the Atlantic Ocean, we are not unfamiliar with severe weather conditions. As a result, we have well-exercised response arrangements in place. However, it is clear that recent storms such as Darragh, Éowyn and Amy have tested the resilience of our systems, our infrastructure and our communities. Additionally, we saw the local impacts of a low-impact rain warning on our communities in Newcastle this weekend, with 90 incidents reported to the Department for Infrastructure. I echo the comments of others in the Chamber in saying that our thoughts are with those who have been affected by that. The Minister for Communities has just left the Chamber, but I have been told that the scheme for emergency financial assistance, which is operated by his Department, was activated this morning and that local government environmental health staff have begun to arrange visits to those who have been affected. If Members are working with anybody in those constituencies, I point them in that direction to make sure that those who have been affected are supported. Those weather events have required a whole-of-society response, and it is only right that we continue to acknowledge the extraordinary efforts of our front-line staff, emergency responders and local volunteers who stepped up in very challenging circumstances. The saying goes that you cannot predict the weather, but, as the proposer of the motion noted, we have seen more frequent and more severe weather events here over recent years. That places even greater importance on preparations and the need for us to expect the unexpected. With severe weather events come impacts that develop across society, causing disruption to everyday life. There will be times when, because of measures to mitigate any immediate risk to life, we will be inconvenienced by temporary closures of facilities, businesses or schools or impacted on by transport delays. For the most part, those inconveniences are unavoidable, but the measures are to keep people safe. Of course, the impacts are felt more strongly when they disrupt essential utilities such as electricity, water supply, internet access and mobile phone networks — utilities that have become indispensable in modern life and are seen as being a lifeline, particularly for our rural and isolated communities. They are heavily relied upon, and any disruption is acutely felt. We acknowledge that the security of the electricity supply is a key priority for the Department for the Economy and that its officials are working closely with SONI and the Utility Regulator, who also have statutory responsibilities for security of supply through the real-time operation of the power system, and who continually monitor the situation and provide regular updates. Despite an increase in renewable energy generation and the additional clean capacity that it provides, the electricity system remains reliant on conventional fossil fuel generation to make sure that it can meet fluctuating electricity demand and maintain the stability of the electricity system. There is more work to be done, and it is being done alongside and in partnership with the private sector to make sure that all our essential utilities services are resilient and can be relied on by all in emergency situations. I will turn to the most recent storm: storm Amy. It should be noted that, while it was a named storm, it was not declared to be a major incident by any of our blue-light organisations. In line with the principle of subsidiarity, which is outlined in our civil contingencies framework, the response was managed at the operational level by local government, the Department for Infrastructure, NIE Networks and other key stakeholders. The decision to close schools in the areas covered by the weather warning was taken by the Education Authority, which holds the operational responsibility and duty of care for pupils and staff. As we are aware and has been mentioned, the Minister of Education commissioned an internal review, following storm Amy, which will consider the communication methods used by the Education Authority and assess the planning and decision-making processes that were utilised. As is highlighted in the motion, it is vital to consider the way in which we communicate with the public during emergencies. We share the view that communication and coordination have to be clear, timely and effective. In that regard, we are progressing a review and revamp of the content of the nidirect platform in order to improve communications and make sure that clear, accessible and timely information is available to the public in preparation for, during and after emergencies. Our primary duty is to protect those who live here, although that duty is not ours alone. I refer not only to the Executive; there is a role to play for everyone, far beyond the Executive — for MLAs, local government, public bodies and the community itself. We want to empower communities and individuals to prepare for, respond to and recover effectively from emergencies when they strike. That means fostering and supporting stronger community networks in which neighbours support one another and local organisations are empowered and equipped to respond. By strengthening personal and community resilience, we will enable the Executive to focus their resources where they are needed most, to protect the most vulnerable, restore essential services more quickly and minimise disruption across society. That is a shared endeavour that demands leadership, collaboration and a renewed commitment to preparedness at every level. The Executive are committed to delivering that leadership and promoting that collaboration. All Departments, strategic stakeholders and operational partners are working together across the civil contingencies risk landscape to make sure that operational plans that respond to any emergency are not designed and delivered in isolation. Through the civil contingencies strategic risk management project, work is ongoing to identify where all those interactions occur and to act as a catalyst for even closer cross-departmental working in the space. I hope that I have been able to demonstrate how many of the actions contained in the motion are already under way, but that does not mean that we rest on our laurels. We are not and cannot be complacent. We are continuously learning and adapting, and we will continue to do so. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, junior Minister, for that response. I call Gary Middleton to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. You have up to five minutes. Mr Middleton: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank Members for their contributions. I will wind on the DUP amendment. In recent months, Northern Ireland has faced a series of serious weather incidents that have caused disruption across our communities, whether that be storm Darragh, storm Éowyn or, more recently, storm Amy. Those storms exposed the vulnerability of our infrastructure, our emergency response systems and our communication networks. We have seen at first-hand the impact that the storms have had on homes, leaving people without power and water and cutting communities off from mobile and broadband signal. Of course, it is not just an inconvenience for people; it is about people's safety. It is also about ensuring that, when the next storm hits, people across Northern Ireland are not left in the dark, literally or figuratively. The amendment rightly highlights the alarming situation at Ballylumford power station, where storm damage, combined with planned maintenance at Coolkeeragh, left our electricity supply dangerously exposed to a single point of failure. Dr Aiken: I thank the Member for giving way. We have heard a lot about grids and access to renewables. One thing that we have not heard about is synchronicity and inertia, which are vital. Does the Member agree that, in any future discussions, we need to make sure that we have enough conventional or nuclear supply to have synchronicity and inertia, or else the system will not work? Mr Middleton: Absolutely. Unfortunately, I do not have enough time to respond extensively, but I support the Member's sentiment. Northern Ireland cannot function without a reliable power supply. Our hospitals, emergency services and schools very much rely on it. Road safety has also been highlighted, which is another major issue as surface flooding and debris on the road make travel dangerous. DFI is responsible for gullies, and they should be unblocked. Roads should be prepared for potential storm incidents as well. Our amendment calls for clearer contingency planning and better coordination between Departments. We also call on the Minister for the Economy to ensure that her pursuit of renewables does not jeopardise energy security. There must be a balanced and responsible approach. I will summarise some of the Members' comments. Mr Butler, who moved the motion, expressed sympathy, as did many other Members, with those affected by the flooding in Newcastle. We share those sentiments. He also spoke about the need for long-term solutions and stronger collaboration. My colleague Mr Brett highlighted the concern over the near-blackout situation and the shameful way in which we found out about that. He said that we have a moral duty to recognise the climate change that is happening but that we must also be realistic about how we can respond to the challenge. He called on the First Minister and the deputy First Minister to focus on providing strong leadership and on ensuring that basic services are provided. Cathy Mason spoke about the response in her constituency and welcomed advice from DFI but highlighted the lessons that should be learned about school closures. Andrew McMurray spoke about his constituency and the need for the flood forecasting service to be strengthened and expanded. Justin McNulty wanted specific plans put in place for empowering communities. Cathal Boylan gave DFI much praise for its response and commended all the staff who work to support those affected by flooding. Nick Mathison spoke from an education perspective about lessons that need to be learned. The Minister has since committed to reviewing the situation. Áine Murphy spoke from a constituency perspective about the need to support rural dwellers. Diana Armstrong talked about the need for joined-up working. Mr Honeyford broke with the consensus across the Chamber. At present, the Alliance Party is sensitive to criticism and particularly touchy when it comes to being challenged. I can assure Mr Honeyford, however, that, in our amendment, there is none of the commentary about which he raised concerns. Mr Butler: Will the Member give way? Mr Middleton: Unfortunately, I have no time to do so. We know that the Alliance Party supports the green agenda. This is not an orange and green issue but, rather, one that we can all get behind, so I urge Members to support our amendment. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Jon Burrows to conclude the debate and make a winding-up speech on the motion. You have up to 10 minutes. Mr Burrows: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The motion is indeed timely, and debating it is exactly what our constituents and communities want to see us doing, which is deal with practical issues that have an impact on them, with less drama and more delivery for the people of Northern Ireland. The motion is very important. Before I turn to it, we should acknowledge the work that our emergency services and community volunteers do. Whatever else we do or do not do in this place, we often send out messages saying, "Don't make journeys unless they're urgent" and, "Don't leave the house", yet there are men and women who have to leave the house, because their journeys are urgent. They take a risk on our behalf, often at considerable danger to themselves, so I recognise them. What we need is an adverse weather strategy: one place to which people can go to see that the Executive Office has an overarching plan for how to deal with adverse weather incidents. End to end, that would make life for people in Northern Ireland so much better, because it would join up all the Departments and agencies and the 999 services so that there is a clear, robust and resilient plan to deal with adverse weather incidents. When we have such incidents, the same issues repeat themselves time and time again, and I am not convinced that there is a structured way of learning from each incident and continually improving our response to the next one. Any strategy that is worth its salt begins with preparedness. Let me give Members a simple example of what a strategy would deliver. There would be an ongoing information campaign for the public about how households prepare for adverse weather incidents. There are some very simple things that people can do, such as making sure that their drains and gutters are clear and buying from Amazon, or other providers, wind-up radios, power banks and flasks so that they can have hot water. When an adverse weather incident is coming, there should be something that we can pluck out in advance to communicate to people, such as, "In two days' time, when this hits, here are the five or six things that you need to do" and, "Identify two or three vulnerable neighbours or family members to check in with". That is the practical advice that should be got out there, and, because such incidents repeat themselves in a weather cycle, we could have it ready to go now so that it can be sent straight out when needed. The public can then say, "Here is the kit that I need." I have it in my house — the batteries are charged up, and the torches are ready to go — because I am a bit of an anorak in that way, but the public need guidance. Top 5.15 pm That was the first thing about preparedness, but prevention is always better than cure. I do not want to get into the ideological debate about climate change, but I will say two things. As I said in my maiden speech, we are in an arm-wrestle, because we are trying to look after our climate in the long term and get things done in the short term. However, this is what is difficult to sell to the public: we talk about climate change when we are discussing flooding, yet they walk out and see a flooded street, and — do you know what? — the storm drain is not draining because it is full of debris. We cannot persuade people to change their lives, if we cannot clear the drains. There are simple things that need done across Northern Ireland, and part of the key to prevention is doing the simple things well, such as planting trees. Mr McMurray: Will the Member give way? Mr Burrows: Yes. Mr McMurray: Does the Member agree that our infrastructure is not equipped to deal with a month's worth of rainfall in an afternoon, regardless of how well the drains are cleared? Is that not what needs to be communicated to people about climate change? Mr Burrows: It absolutely does, but you have to do the simple, basic things well. If you do not do that, you cannot get buy-in for the grand project on climate change that we are trying to do. It is unforgivable that those things are not done. Also, when anyone goes out walking after a storm, they see all the power lines that have come down, and they can clearly see that the trees had not been cut. They might think, "Clearly, if that tree was going to fall, it was going to bring a power line down". That simple stuff needs to be done, but it is not. Mr Butler: Will the Member give way? Mr Burrows: Yes. Mr Butler: Does the Member agree that one of the disappointing parts of the debate was the disagreement about the fact that you can have ambition for climate measures and assurance on the energy supply? Does he agree that you can do both at the same time? Mr Burrows: Absolutely, and that is where we need that pragmatism to steer a course through the matter, which is, of course, what the Ulster Unionist Party does best. Dr Aiken: Hear, hear. [Laughter.] Mr Burrows: Planting and trimming trees are the things that the public need. However, that would be driven forward better if people could refer to one document that shows the strategy and mitigations. Those simple things can actually help people when there are difficulties. An adverse weather strategy would affect every nook and cranny of what we do in public life. It would affect planning. You would be able to say, "How can the planning process make sure that planners or developers build more facilities that encourage better drainage and more solar panels?", because, of course, if people have solar panels and batteries, they would be less caught out if there was a power cut. All those things should be driven by one central strategy. Communication is usually where things go wrong. No matter what you do, if you do not communicate, it will be a failure. I will raise the issue of the Education Authority's communication about storm Amy, and I will do so without judgement. When we have problems, we need to have the mindset that we are looking for learning and solutions, because then we will not be so resistant to those solutions or defensive of our own Ministry or whatever. The Ulster Unionist Party came out and called for a debrief after storm Amy, so that concrete learning could take place. That has to happen after every major adverse weather incident. Someone needs to chair a meeting to ask, "What are the three or four things that went well, what did not go well, how do we distil the learnings, and how do we improve?". That is why we called for a debrief, and I am glad that the Education Minister is doing it. The communication also has to be up to date. Storm Amy is a very good example. A decision was taken at 8.00 pm that meant they were likely to call for school closures the next day, but the parents and schools knew nothing about it. Then, when the decision was taken at 8.00 am, parents and schools knew nothing about it. An email was sent, which sort of takes me back to the '90s. Someone typed out an email and pressed "send". That email might have landed in inboxes at 8.57 am. I have spoken to many principals, and the first thing that they do when they go into school might be to go to the school assembly or to the school gates with parents. They are not, however, checking their emails. That meant that, at 9.45 am, principals still had not checked their email, and then, suddenly, they had to do something. Even if the decision that was made at 8.00 am had been communicated, it would have made a world of difference. That is why we have asked for a mobile communication system to allow, at one press of a button, the EA to communicate with every principal in every school to say, "The school is closing today". If that had bleeped in pockets at 8.00 am, there would have been an entirely different response. If you had a strategy, you could see in advance the things that you need to do. You would, for example, have a contingency and be able to say, "Well, if schools close because of an adverse weather incident, one of the things that you have to factor in is free school meals". I spoke to many principals — three in one day — who told me that children went without free school meals that day. In the busyness of responding to a late email, that had not been considered. If you were to plan in advance, that would be considered. If you had the email or communication earlier, the caterers would know, and they might make a packed lunch or whatever the case may be. One of the problems that I have when we plan for major incidents like this is that sometimes Departments talk about public safety. I am convinced that public safety is about risk aversion and moving a risk from yourself to someone else. I worry that the Education Department simply moved the risk from itself to schools. The reality is that, for many children, the risk went up, not down. Instead of being in a well-managed school, children were sitting at bus stops in the elements. Their parents were battling to get back from work, and the children were sitting out. I spoke to one child who did not want to go back to school in case they missed their bus, but their bus was not coming. They were probably at more risk than if they had stayed in school. We need leadership. We need an end-to-end adverse weather strategy that makes things better, prepares people, has prevention and mitigation and, at the end of everything, has a debrief so that we learn and keep improving our response. We should not get involved in ideological wars or a blame game. Question, That the amendment be made, put and agreed to. Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly notes with concern the increasing frequency and severity of storms that have caused widespread disruption to electricity, broadband, transport and essential public and community services across Northern Ireland; further notes that those events have exposed weaknesses in communication, coordination and infrastructure resilience, particularly in rural and isolated areas; is alarmed that recent storm damage to Ballylumford power station, combined with planned maintenance at Coolkeeragh power station, left local electricity supply at risk of a single point of failure; recognises the need for clearer contingency planning, stronger leadership and better coordination between Departments and agencies; calls on the First Minister and deputy First Minister to lead a cross-departmental review to improve communication, including with schools and parents, to strengthen infrastructure and emergency response systems and ensure that communities and essential services are better protected during future severe weather events; and further calls on the Minister for the Economy, as part of that review, to provide assurances that her Department’s pursuit of ensuring that at least 80% of electricity consumption is from renewables by 2030 will not jeopardise energy security or place vital public services at risk. Adjourned at 5.22 pm. Top
[ni-assembly-official-report][plenary_report] Official Reports https://aims.niassembly.gov.uk/officialreport/report.aspx?&eveDate=2025/10/14&docID=453676 Official Report: Tuesday 14 October 2025 Table of Contents Members Statements Adverse Childhood Experiences Baby Loss Awareness Week National Hate Crime Awareness Week Youth Club For All Individual Duty of Candour Special Schools: Nursery Provision Mental Health: Suicide Michael ONeill: 100th Game in Charge of Northern Ireland Autism Waiting List Sport: Equality, Fairness and Safety for Women and Girls Return of Bodies Opposition Business Investment Strategy for Northern Ireland Child Poverty Oral Answers to Questions Communities Opposition Business Child Poverty Community Crisis Intervention Service: Closure Adjournment Woodlawn House, Dungannon: Post-19 Adult Respite Provision The Assembly met at 10:30 am (Madam Principal Deputy Speaker [Ms Ní Chuilín] in the Chair). Members observed two minutes' silence. Members' Statements Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: As usual, if Members wish to be called to make a statement, they should rise continually in their place. Members who are called will have up to three minutes to make their statement. I remind Members that interventions are not permitted. I will not take any points of order on this or any other matter until the item of business has finished. Adverse Childhood Experiences Ms Ferguson: The beginning of 2025 was marked by the launch of 'The Prevalence and Impact of Adverse Childhood Experiences', groundbreaking research that found that almost one in five people in society here had experienced four or more adverse childhood experiences. Now, as we approach the end of the year, the Simon Community has followed that with another new study, which was launched here last week, considering the lived experience of people here who are homeless and living in temporary or hostel accommodation. Again, it showed, devastatingly, that a significant level of adversity and trauma had been experienced. We know from the May 2025 UNICEF report 'Child Well-Being in an Unpredictable World' that the overall trend is a reduction in children's life satisfaction. That reflects the findings in the 2024 young life and times and kids' life and times surveys, which found that the well-being of 11-year-olds has declined in recent years and that, furthermore, almost half of all 16-year-olds have probable mental ill health. It is now more pressing than ever to have joined-up thinking, particularly across the Communities, Justice, Health and Education Departments, in delivering policy and legislation that will deliver an expansive vision of doing right by our children here. That should include a key focus on tackling adverse childhood experiences, which can impact on a person's physical, mental and behavioural health, quality of life and access to opportunities. We all have a duty to, once and for all, tackle child poverty, deliver housing security, improve educational attainment, provide family support services, enhance mental health and well-being services, strengthen rehabilitation and justice diversion services, and fund a mentally secure and stable future for all our young people. Every child is filled with tremendous promise and potential. We have a shared obligation to foster and protect that. Baby Loss Awareness Week Mr Harvey: This week marks Baby Loss Awareness Week, a time to remember and honour the lives of babies who have died during pregnancy, at birth or shortly after. It is also a time to acknowledge the deep grief experienced by parents and families and to reaffirm our collective commitment to supporting those who have endured such unimaginable loss. This year marks the twenty-third year that Baby Loss Awareness Week will run, between 9 October and 15 October. Every day in the UK, 13 babies die before, during or after birth, and that figure does not include miscarriage. Across the country, families will light candles, wear pink and blue ribbons and take part in remembrance events to break the silence that too often surrounds baby loss. Their courage in sharing their stories helps others to feel less alone and encouraged to open compassionate conversations about miscarriage, stillbirth and neonatal death. The week culminates in a global wave of light at 7.00 pm on 15 October, when everyone is invited to light a candle and leave it burning for at least an hour to remember all babies. We must continue to advocate for high-quality bereavement care, better support for families and continued investment and research to reduce preventable deaths. To all parents who have lost a baby: your children are remembered, your grief is seen and your love endures. I invite all Members to join me in recognising Baby Loss Awareness Week and in supporting the families and organisations that are working tirelessly to bring comfort, awareness and hope. National Hate Crime Awareness Week Mr Dickson: This week marks National Hate Crime Awareness Week. I would like the Assembly to join organisations across the United Kingdom that are marking this important week, encouraging those who are victims or witnesses to hate crimes to report them to the authorities. Hate crimes are a scourge on our society. Many in the Chamber have been subject to hate crimes at home and at places of work. Depressingly, data released by the PSNI shows that, in the 12 months to June 2025, there were almost 2,300 hate crimes across Northern Ireland, with 1,329 of those being motivated by racial issues. That is the highest figure since records began in 2004. It is horrifying that hate crimes have become so commonplace in Northern Ireland. Every person in Northern Ireland has the right to live without fear or intimidation during Hate Crime Awareness Week and, indeed, during every week. If you are a victim of a hate crime or an incident, it is good to speak to someone who can hear about your experience. Support services, such as the Hate Crime Advocacy Service, are available and can help to deal with the impact of crime. Those services offer a safe and confidential space to provide support to victims of hate and signal crimes across different protected characteristics. In the summer just past, we witnessed shameful scenes of families being burnt out of their homes, something that we thought that we had left in our past. That toxic racist rhetoric has been amplified by the spread of misinformation and the lack of government action, which has been fuelled by social media platforms failing to monitor rampant tirades of hate. The individual targets in those crimes were attacked or terrorised solely because of the colour of their skin, their background or their community. Those are real people with real families. At this time, I am calling on our Executive to do more to protect those who are targeted simply for the colour of their skin or their race. If we are to truly tackle hate crime, there needs to be a purposeful move in prioritising action against race hate at all levels, from Westminster getting a grip with social media platforms, to the Executive Office promoting and delivering on its range of strategies, which, thus far, have not extended beyond sound bites or press releases. I pledge to support my constituents across East Antrim. I trust that all in the Chamber will agree that, one day, we should not need a hate crime awareness week. Until that day, I pledge to deliver my actions by working on delivering hope, not hate. Youth Club For All Ms Finnegan: I want to take a moment to highlight the incredible work that is being done by Youth Club for All in south Armagh — a small, community-led group with a huge heart and an even greater impact. The group was born out of the determination of parents who simply refused to accept that their children with additional needs should be left without a place to belong. When formal inclusion for youth provision was stopped during COVID, those parents, supported by Sinn Féin, worked to reinstate it. Out of that was born Youth Club for All, which provides a safe, inclusive environment where young people with additional and complex needs can socialise, learn and thrive alongside their peers. Over the past two years, Youth Club for All has transformed lives. For many families, it is their only outlet outside of school. For many young people, it is the only opportunity to develop friendships and confidence in a safe space outside of school. Parents have described it as a lifeline, which is exactly what it is. It should never have to rely solely on the goodwill of volunteers and the determination of parents. Those young people deserve consistent, statutory support, not a piecemeal provision that depends on who can fight the hardest. The reality is that the Education Authority has no statutory obligation to provide youth services for children and young people with additional needs. That gap leaves families fighting year after year to secure basic inclusion. It is not good enough. We also have a serious deficit in post-19 services. Too often, when young people with additional needs reach adulthood, the support simply disappears, with no youth club; no meaningful day opportunities; and no funded pathways that recognise their abilities, interests and right to continue participating in community life. Sinn Féin has consistently called for the Government to stand up properly for post-19 youth provision, so that young people with additional needs are not simply left behind once they turn 19. I encourage the Minister of Education and the Department to complete the priorities for youth review as soon as possible. Youth Club for All stands as proof that it works when inclusion is done right and when families, staff and the community work together to make sure that every child is valued and supported. It should not be the exception; it should be the standard. The families involved in Youth Club for All do not want charity. They want fairness, equality and a system that recognises their children as having the same rights as everybody else. It is time for the Education Authority and the Department of Education to step up and take responsibility to ensure that inclusion is not optional but guaranteed. Individual Duty of Candour Mr Frew: I place on record my appreciation for and gratitude to every individual and organisation who has spoken to and engaged with me on my private Member's Bill on individual duty of candour. I have met so many victims, so many healthcare staff members and so many organisational bodies that represent either healthcare staff or other people who have been victims of a lack of candour. The e-consultation that I carried out, using Google Forms software, ran for 14 weeks. It was launched on 4 July and closed on at 5.00 pm on Friday 10 October. The e-consultation consisted of 25 questions: there was a mixture of multiple choice questions and various other questions that enabled people to respond freely with text. A total of 111 responses was recorded on the online consultation. Those were accompanied by a number of written responses that were received via post and email. The consultation process involved significant engagement with stakeholders, be it through in-person meetings, email or phone calls or in writing. Stakeholders have made a significant contribution to the development of the Bill. The consultation responses were overwhelmingly supportive of the Bill proposal. Of the 111 online respondents, 104 — 94% — were in favour of an individual duty of candour. We also received positive responses from the Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman (NIPSO) and the New Script for Mental Health charity. The online consultation showed a vast amount of support for the Bill from victims and families of victims of malpractice or wrongdoing in the health service. Top 10.45 am The consultation also focused on the current practices for whistle-blowing and current reporting mechanisms that exist across the health service. The online consultation sought to gain opinion on whether current whistle-blowing legislation protects the complainant adequately. Some 86 — 80% — of the 108 respondents believed that it did not and that further strengthening of the legislation was required. Furthermore, a follow-up question was asked to assess what people felt needed to change about the current legislation. Common themes to emerge in answers were accountability and protection for the complainant. That is what the Bill seeks to do. Special Schools: Nursery Provision Mr Mathison: Over a year ago, I was contacted by a group of concerned special school principals regarding removals that had taken place and planned removals of nursing provision in their schools. That progressive chipping away of an essential service is happening at a time when we are hearing, more and more, about the increasing complexity of need, particularly medical needs, in our special schools. Nursing provision in special schools is essential. The suggestion that classroom assistants can simply take over those duties — duties that were previously undertaken by a medical professional — as proposed by the Public Health Agency (PHA), is simply unfair. Principals have been clear about the incredible amount of stress that that places on all staff in special schools and about the fact that while classroom assistants provide fantastic support in the classroom, they are not medical professionals with the clinical expertise that is required to deliver that kind of specialised support. It also places them in an incredibly vulnerable position with their personal liability when care plans do not go to plan. Following engagement between the Health and Education Ministers, the Health Minister gave an assurance that the issue would be considered as part of a wider PHA review of the population health needs of children attending special schools in Northern Ireland. A response to a question for written answer from the start of September assured me: "An assessment of nursing provision in Special Schools forms a key element of the review." While aspects of the report, which has been published, are encouraging, particularly on the need to listen to the lived experiences of children and young people and the need for better cross-departmental collaboration between Health and Education, the report gives no clarity on whether nursing provision will be restored in the settings in which it has been lost or protected in those that still have it. Parents and principals were left in limbo for almost a year waiting for the outcome of the review, and, following the report's being published, they are still no clearer on what the Minister will do. It is also concerning that only six families from two of the five trust areas were interviewed on the issue to inform the evidence for the report. Given the seriousness of the issue, I would have hoped that more effort could have been made to ensure that there was broad and wide consultation with the families affected by the decisions, since it was about the care of their children. Significant questions remain regarding the future of nursing provision in special schools. I urge the Health Minister to provide urgent clarity on how he will address those. It is a vital service, which, at times, can provide life-saving interventions. Its need must not be underestimated, and full nursing provision in special schools must be reinstated as soon as possible. Mental Health: Suicide Mr Gildernew: I rise to raise the issue of mental health, particularly suicide. I am conscious of the fact that we are just coming out of September, a month in which there is a particular focus on suicide. However, throughout the month of September, there has been what I call a tragic wave of suicides across the south Tyrone area. It has impacted on a range of people — young and old; men and women; urban and rural — and has been devastating for each and every one of the families involved. I have been asked by some of the families to raise the issue, and we are being asked by families to do more on the issue in general. It is disappointing to hear of a review being carried out to the mental health strategy, and an indication that that strategy is going to be pared back. We need to be spending more, not less, on mental health. We have to acknowledge the pain and suffering that the loss of each individual in these circumstances has on family, sets of friends, sporting clubs or whatever. I also acknowledge the groups in the south Tyrone area that are working so hard to try to reach out to people and to provide a service, sometimes in the absence of statutory services and sometimes alongside them. Groups such as the Niamh Louise Foundation and MensReach are doing everything that they can in the community and voluntary sector. Many clubs, societies and organisations are also doing what they can to try to raise awareness of the issue and to try to help people at a time of need. I commend and acknowledge the work of each and every one of those groups. I have made a commitment that I will work with everyone in the south Tyrone area to try to improve the capacity, delivery of services and outreach to people who are struggling. Finally, I say this directly to people: please reach out and speak to someone if you feel that you are at risk of harming yourself. Please speak to someone in your circle, someone in the groups that I have mentioned or someone in a sports club. The impact on people is just too great, and I urge all of us to do all that we can in the time ahead to address the issue of suicide. Michael O'Neill: 100th Game in Charge of Northern Ireland Mr Brett: It is with a deep sense of pride and huge gratitude that I rise to mark the historic occasion of Michael O'Neill's 100th game in charge of Northern Ireland. Despite the best attempts of the officials last night, what a performance it was by the football team to mark that occasion. In football, numbers, goals, results and appearances tell part of the story, but this milestone represents something far greater. It marks a journey of leadership and belief and the restoration of national pride here in Northern Ireland. When Michael first took charge of Northern Ireland in 2012, he inherited a side facing massive challenges, but he saw potential in our players where others did not. Through hard work, discipline and vision, he reignited that spark of belief that Northern Ireland could once again stand shoulder to shoulder with Europe's elite. Our two weeks in France in 2016 will be forever etched into the national consciousness of this country. That campaign involved more than just football matches; they were nights when the whole country smiled together, when Windsor Park roared as one and when the world once again took notice of Northern Ireland. Under Michael's leadership, our team reminded us that success is not defined by size but by spirit. Through his organisation, determination and togetherness, he showed that we can bridge any gap, and he gave a generation of young fans, which I once was, heroes to believe in for the future. When he returned to the job in 2022, he did so with the same passion and pride. His focus on raising standards, nurturing talent and bringing on the next generation of footballers has never wavered. As Michael said: "I just want every young boy, wherever you are from in Northern Ireland ... to play for Northern Ireland." For me, that statement encapsulates everything about his vision, which is built on pride, opportunity and a belief that, as a nation, we can stand together. As Michael continues to lead Northern Ireland, we pay tribute to his commitment, his class and his contribution to our national story. He has earned his rightful place among the great figures of our sporting history. On behalf of the Assembly and every supporter who dared to dream, we say, "Thank you, Michael". You have given us moments that we will never forget, and, like you, we believe that the best is yet to come. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, 'We're not Brazil, we're Northern Ireland'. Autism Waiting List Miss McAllister: I rise to talk about the autism waiting list in Northern Ireland. Over 17,000 children in Northern Ireland are on a waiting list for an autism assessment. What does that look like? That looks like classrooms with multiple students who do not have the right support to get them through each day. That looks like teachers who are struggling to carry out their role because they want to do their jobs to the best of their ability. That looks like parents who are fighting behind closed doors to hold it all together. Most importantly, however, it looks like 17,000 children who are struggling with emotional distress, anxiety, school avoidance and challenges in their home environment. There is help available out there from organisations. When the statutory bodies fall down, those organisations pick up the pieces. I thank and pay tribute to Autism NI, the National Autistic Society Northern Ireland and the many parents who have been in touch with me, and with many Members across the Chamber, to seek help. Parents are desperate. They are so desperate that they are turning to the private sector and, in many cases, paying over £1,000 for an autism assessment. What does that mean afterwards? It means that parents can access support from many of those organisations in their home. In school, however, it does not mean a great deal, because children still need an assessment and a statement from the Department of Education and the Department of Health. We are putting children in danger and families at risk. Early intervention is key. We are talking about children who cry themselves to sleep because they do not want to go to school. We are talking about children locking themselves in their bedroom because they are afraid of struggling siblings' breakdowns or meltdowns. We are talking about parents who often remain silent because they do not believe that help is out there. We must do better for all 17,000 of those children. I hope that the Minister of Education and the Minister of Health can work together on a plan to prioritise and implement the changes that need to be made so that it is not a postcode lottery, so that it not up to principals to select pupils and so that parents do not have to pay for private assessments. We need all those young pupils to be able to get the most help, and the best help, that they can. Sport: Equality, Fairness and Safety for Women and Girls Ms Forsythe: Women and girls who participate in sport in Northern Ireland are entitled to equality, fairness and safety. That sounds like common sense, but, unfortunately, such things are not guaranteed. They are not happening in practice, which is why I have been working on a private Member's Bill to address those issues and the many associated ones. The consultation on the proposed Bill will be open until Friday 24 October. I have engaged with a number of organisations, groups, clubs, schools and individuals, and I thank all those who have engaged with me so far. Some key issues have arisen across the three main themes in the Bill. First, on equality of access, there are many barriers in place for women and girls who want to participate in sport, such as access to funding, a lack of facilities, extra kit and complexities, periods and pregnancy, the perception of women and girls doing sport, and the additional cost involved. The Female Sports Forum recently issued a report that outlines a lot of the issues. Equality issues, such as equality of access, are important and need to be addressed. The second theme is safety and safeguarding. There are significant safeguarding issues across sports here, particularly for our young girls. From speaking to organisations, it became worryingly apparent to me that AccessNI vetting checks need to be improved across the board. I would love to see that matter addressed. Women also feel unsafe when they are out alone for exercise and in the evenings. There is a widespread safeguarding issue because of the lack of single-sex spaces and changing and showering facilities. That is also an issue of key concern that needs to be addressed. The third theme of my private Member's Bill is fairness. Women and girls should be afforded the opportunity to participate in fair competition so that they can excel and be rewarded for their success by competing against other biological females. Every woman and girl should have the opportunity to participate fairly in their sport and be rewarded when they are the best in their category. In spite of the many barriers, women's sports and girls' sports are thriving. At the weekend, the Northern Ireland Football League Women's Football Awards recognised Valley Rangers Ladies and Girls FC and Moneyslane Ladies FC from my constituency, which was brilliant to see. I want to be able to do more, however. Women and girls in Northern Ireland deserve to have equality, fairness and safety when they are trying to access and to participate in sport. I encourage everyone to continue to engage, to reach out to me and, please, to take part in my consultation to feed into it. Together, we can bring change forward. Top 11.00 am Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Diane. Timothy, you have two minutes. Return of Bodies Mr Gaston: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Yesterday, I secured a Matter of the Day on the Trump deal, which seems to have brought an end to the conflict in the Middle East. I regret that, 24 hours later, I already need to note that Hamas has fallen short of its commitments. The terrorists were to return the bodies of all the dead hostages, as well as releasing the hostages who had survived. Yet, as I stand here today, only four of the 28 bodies have been returned. My thoughts and prayers are with the families whose agony has been prolonged by the evil terrorists of Hamas in that most cruel fashion. In contemplating that, my mind turns to the families of Seamus Maguire, Joe Lynskey, Columba McVeigh and Captain Robert Nairac, all of whom were abducted, murdered and secretly buried by the IRA. Recently, Sinn Féin distanced itself from the comments of Michelle Gildernew, but it was far from clear what the party actually objected to in what its former MP and Minister said. Was it because she agreed with the use of the word "murder" when it came to the IRA? We recall how Gerry Adams notoriously said that the abduction and secret burial of mother-of-10 Jean McConville was wrong but was not a crime. Is the word "murder" the issue that Mrs O'Neill has with Ms Gildernew's remarks? Whether it is in the sands of Gaza or the bogs of south Armagh, the deliberate taking and concealment of human life is not politics; it is barbarism. It is time that Hamas and Sinn Féin/IRA delivered closure to the families whom they ripped apart. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That brings us to the end of Members' statements. I ask Members to take their ease for a moment while we change the personnel at the Table. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Blair] in the Chair) Opposition Business Investment Strategy for Northern Ireland Mr O'Toole: I beg to move That this Assembly laments the failure to publish an investment strategy for Northern Ireland, promised in the Programme for Government and critical to the delivery of major infrastructure, economic development, long-term investment and job creation; expresses disappointment at the Executive’s failure to meaningfully advance pre-agreed flagship infrastructure projects, including the A5 western transport corridor and Casement Park; regrets the Executive’s failure to implement the recommendations set out in the all-island strategic rail review, or to deliver increased investment in waste water infrastructure; rejects the efforts by some to distract from the clear failure of Executive delivery with petty rows; and calls on the First Minister and deputy First Minister to publish an investment strategy for Northern Ireland without delay, with clear time-bound delivery plans. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other contributors will have five minutes. Mr O'Toole, please open the debate on the motion. Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. When we became the Opposition in February 2024, we were clear that we would be a constructive Opposition. We meant it then, and we mean it now. Being constructive does not just mean never criticising the Executive: it means criticising the Executive for the right reasons. Being constructive also means building and delivering things for the people of Northern Ireland. That is what today's motion is all about: delivery, delivery, delivery — and building real things that will improve the lives of people whatever their background, constitutional perspective or class. A health system that works, with modern hospitals that can treat them. A functioning water system that can give them clean drinking water and allow homes to be built. Infrastructure that can allow them to get safely and sustainably from their houses to their place of work or leisure. Those are the basic things that any society should want to deliver for its people. The Executive, it must be said, are failing at that. They are failing at delivery and failing to build. They are failing to build for the people of the North. Our motion is clear about that, and we make no apology for being robust in our criticism of the Executive. That is what "constructive" means. Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way? Mr O'Toole: I will in one second. Yesterday, the deputy First Minister accused me of being — I think that this is the phrase that she used — "moaning Matthew". I am more than happy to take that moniker if it means standing up for the people of the North, who were promised better than this and who deserve better than this. We in the Opposition make absolutely no apology for being robust in demanding better for the people. I give way. Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Matthew, for giving way. We will support the motion, but we take exception to the line in it that states: "rejects the efforts by some to distract from the clear failure of Executive delivery with petty rows". What do you think that adds to the motion? It distracts and just looks like petty politicking. Mr O'Toole: I appreciate the commentary from the Chair of the Executive Office Committee. In many ways, her intervention was politicking, and that is fine, because she, like me, is a politician. She, I think, agrees that dragging to the Chamber debates such as the one on dual language signage, when there are people out there who are on a waiting list or who are waiting to find out whether social homes will be built in their community, is petty politicking. That is what I am talking about. Back to my remarks, however. Why do we need an investment strategy? First of all, what is an investment strategy? All the major economic and business representative groups are clear that Northern Ireland needs an investment strategy. It is, in effect, a road map for how the Executive intend to deliver critical infrastructure, not just transport infrastructure — although road and rail is an important part of it — but in schools, hospitals, waste water investment and stadia such as Casement Park, which Gaels and the people of west Belfast have been waiting for now for pretty much a generation. The most-recent finalised investment strategy was in 2011. That document set out clearly what the Executive intended to do and build. They certainly did not deliver everything that was in that programme, but some of it was delivered, and it had a critical role in showing people in the public, private and third sectors what the Executive intended to deliver so that the public could hold them to account. They will not be able to do that now. We are more than a year on from the publication of the draft Programme for Government, and 10 months on from publication of the final Programme for Government, which promised an "upcoming investment strategy" that was going to set out how we were going to see prioritisation of road, rail, water, stadia, schools and hospitals. There is still no sign of when it is going to come. I asked the deputy First Minister the other day when it was going to come. She would not give me an answer — she who calls me "moaning Matthew" for doing my job and holding the Executive to account. I make absolutely no apology for moaning about failure. I make no apology for moaning about the state of our health service or the abysmal state of our public transport infrastructure compared with other regions. I will give credit when progress is made, when we finally see phase 2 of the Glider delivered and — as I am sure that Mr Brett would agree — night buses in Belfast. I will give credit for the opening of the wonderful new Grand Central station, but I am not going to be shy about complaining and demanding better for the public of the North. I come to the focus of our motion. Our motion is clear that the Executive have failed, not just to publish an investment strategy but to make progress on flagship projects. We name them in the motion. The A5 is a life-saving project that people, particularly west of the Bann and in County Tyrone — it is also hugely relevant to people in Donegal, Monaghan and Derry — have been promised for decades. Not only is it not making progress, it is stalled, in limbo and chaos, because of what appears to be unacceptable ineptitude from the Infrastructure Department and a Sinn Féin Minister. Casement Park is a landmark stadium project in the heart of west Belfast, which is totally in limbo. There is no sign of progress. It is not even clear that it is being discussed properly at the Executive. The Finance Minister and the Communities Minister bat it back and forth between one another. Extra money has come from the Irish and British Governments, but there is no plan for delivery from the Executive. The all-island strategic rail review is an opportunity to decarbonise our economy and connect this island after the destruction of large parts of our rail network post partition. How many people in the Infrastructure Department are working on the all-island strategic rail review? I found out when I asked a question for written answer: it is 0·3 of an official. One third of a person is delivering what is in many ways the most important decarbonisation and public transport project on this island. That is shameful, so I will not apologise for being robust in calling out the Executive. I come to waste water infrastructure. When I ask the Finance Minister and the Infrastructure Minister about that, they dismiss me. They ask, "Ah, but what is your plan? What is your plan?". We are the Opposition. They will not say what their plan is. There was talk for months about a developer levy. I do not know where we are on that plan or where we are on long-term investment in our waste water network, but every large business organisation and outside investor is clear that failure to invest in the waste water network will cost us progress. It will not just cost us theoretical economic growth; it will stop homes being built. A report said that it could stop 6,000 homes being built annually. It is preventing people from living their lives and having homes. It is preventing job creation. It is pathetic. Does it have to be like this? No, it does not. As the Opposition, our job is to call for and demand better. An investment strategy that sets out clear prioritisation of investment is absolutely critical. We all know that resources are finite and that the Executive have decisions to take and priorities to set: that is the point of an investment strategy. That investment strategy is urgent now, because we are going to have a multi-year Budget, we are told, by the end of this year. It will set out three-year plans for resource but, critically, four-year plans for capital. How can that four-year capital Budget be set if we do not have an investment strategy alongside it? Genuinely, I would love a Minister or some other member of an Executive party to tell me how. Here is another thing. Those of us who want to build a new Ireland — who are serious about that — need to use every lever that exists in the North to illustrate the kind of new Ireland that we want to build. Sinn Féin holds the key strategic economic Departments: not just the First Minister post but the Economy Department, which is in charge of our all-island electricity market; the Infrastructure Department, which is in charge of delivering — or not delivering — the all-island strategic rail review and, indeed, the A5; and the Finance Department, which is supposed to be pursuing greater fiscal powers and more devolution and independence from London but is not doing any of those things. None of those Sinn Féin-led Departments is doing anything to deliver on that agenda. All of that could be part of the investment strategy, but we do not know because it has not been published. I am not here to be negative, but I am also not here to do the power of positive thinking or to clap and cheerlead an Executive who are demonstrably failing to deliver for the people of the North. Our motion is about demanding better for the public in Northern Ireland. We are going to keep doing just that, because it does not have to be like this. Our job is to build something for the people who sent us here. I say to the Executive and all parties today: support our motion if you want to finally get down to building something. Miss Brogan: While we all wish that progress was faster, the fact is that most of the projects outlined in the motion are moving forward. It would be lovely if we could simply snap our fingers and produce major infrastructure developments out of thin air, but the reality is that projects of that scale and importance require careful planning, detailed scrutiny and significant funding. That is proper, responsible governance, and while it can, at times, be frustrating, the fact is that Sinn Féin Ministers are delivering on their promises. Top 11.15 am Minister Kimmins and her predecessor, Minister O'Dowd, have fought tooth and nail for the progression of the A5 road upgrade. As a representative of West Tyrone and someone who uses the road daily, I appreciate the Minister's commitment to that vital project. The proposer of the motion knows that the reason for the delay to the A5 is continued legal challenges and objections by a minority. Quite frankly, political point-scoring on such an important issue is dangerous. We should all agree that no price can be placed on saving lives. Minister Kimmins has engaged extensively with local communities and has addressed every reasonable concern that objectors have raised. The Minister has also lodged an appeal to the court judgement on the development of the A5. The appeal has been supported by the AERA Minister and is due to be heard this December. I have said this before and will say it again: we need to continue to work together to ensure that the A5 is delivered. It is far too important for the families and communities that have lost loved ones on the road, and it is too important for all of us who use the road and understand the dangers of it, not to work together to see it upgraded. The all-island rail review, by its very nature, requires agreement and planning, North and South, at every step, but it continues to meet milestones. The European Investment Bank has been working with Minister Kimmins and the Dublin Government on a prioritisation strategy, and the Minister has announced that a progress report will be published in the autumn. Despite an extremely tight budget that continues to be stripped to the bone by consecutive British Governments, investment in waste water infrastructure is continuing. NI Water is getting 90% of the capital money that it could spend this year, which is an increase from last year. Meanwhile, as mentioned yesterday, the Water, Sustainable Drainage and Flood Management Bill continues to progress. It is an important aspect of the Minister's three-pronged approach to addressing issues around waste water infrastructure and how we will live with water in the future. It will integrate innovative and sustainable drainage solutions in housing developments and provide grants for measures to protect domestic buildings from flooding. That is not to say that improvements cannot be made. Of course they can. Just yesterday, as mentioned, the House heard of over 20 pieces of legislation that the Executive intend to introduce and progress in the 2025-26 session. For projects that continue to face inexcusable delays, such as Casement Park and the investment strategy, it is for those Ministers and those parties to explain why they are being delayed. Sinn Féin Ministers have their heads down, doing the work and delivering for families and communities right across the North. Ms Bradshaw: I support the motion because a case for an investment strategy for Northern Ireland is actually one of the most urgent and important issues before us. It is a test of our ability to plan for the future and not just react to the present. Like many across the Chamber, I share real disappointment at the continued failure to publish and implement it. As I said, we will support the motion, despite the inclusion of the words "petty rows". The commitment to a new investment strategy was first made in 'New Decade, New Approach', with the aim of providing a clear framework for planning our hospitals, schools, transport links, housing and digital infrastructure. It was meant to give Northern Ireland a long-term road map for sustainable growth, looking as far ahead as 2050. When the draft investment strategy was put out for consultation in early 2022, people, rightly, expected that the Assembly would follow through to produce a clear, costed plan showing how public money would be prioritised and spent. Instead, the Assembly collapsed, and although Executive Office officials reviewed the consultation responses, the process stalled. The Executive, as we know, were restored in February 2024, and the Programme for Government was launched in February 2025; and there was, rightly, an expectation that the investment strategy would be produced and published to sit alongside it. Yet, almost five years after the original commitment, we still have no published strategy. That is a missed opportunity to think long-term about not just physical infrastructure but technological investment, digital connectivity and climate resilience. The previous investment strategy covered the period up to 2021 and guided capital investment worth around £21 billion. Since then, in Northern Ireland, senior officials across the various Departments have been operating without a strategic framework and road map to enable them to plan effectively and deliver value for money, and the consequences of that failure are plain to see. Infrastructure pressures are worsening, projects are delayed and the costs continue to rise every month as the priorities drift. However, the cost of inaction is measured not only in money but in missed opportunities and loss of confidence. Between 2019 and 2023, the estimated cost of major capital projects rose by almost 40%. Waste water capacity has stalled thousands of new homes across all our constituencies, and I can certainly think of some examples in South Belfast. Key transport and regeneration projects, such as the Belfast Rapid Transit route through South Belfast, require investment and planning. We have faced repeated hold-ups and uncertainty, and the leader of the Opposition highlighted some of those examples in his speech, such as Casement Park. Other parts of these islands are not standing still. The Republic of Ireland's national development plan commits over €160 billion to infrastructure investment. Scotland and Wales already have clear, long-term frameworks that set out their priorities, and they are delivering on them, yet Northern Ireland continues to fall behind, not because we lack ability or ambition but because we lack coordination and leadership. We are very much just as capable as those other parts of these islands when it comes to setting and delivering on the standards that are required by our constituents, but we must prove that through delivery. Every week, we hear in the Chamber what happens when there is no investment strategy. Departments are moving out of sync, working at different speeds and competing for resources instead of collaborating. That is entirely counterproductive, and it undermines the efficiency of government here. The absence of a strategy is not just a failure of planning; it does a disservice to our taxpayers and ratepayers who fund our public services. In turn, without a clear framework, MLAs on our scrutiny Committees are unable to hold Ministers to account and scrutinise how billions of pounds of capital investment are spent. The Strategic Investment Board (SIB) has the statutory responsibility and expertise to lead on that work, but it cannot do so effectively without clear political leadership from the Executive. Publishing the strategy would give the authority and continuity that is required to allow the board to move forward with planning and delivery, even in times of uncertainty. As we know, we have political stalemate and ineffectiveness at certain times during our mandates. We need to send a clear message that we are serious about delivery through an investment strategy. The draft investment strategy 2025 needs to be brought to the Executive and signed off. We need to get it published. I will leave my remarks there. Mr Brett: I will split my speech in two. One part will be on where I agree with the leader of the Opposition, and the other will be on where I disagree with him. The first part might be slightly shorter than the second. All Members in the House want to see an investment strategy, and no contributor will stand up and lament the leader of the Opposition's call for that. However, it is important to recognise the context in which the forthcoming publication of the investment strategy will happen. First, in fairness to the leader of the Opposition, he articulated the fact that the comprehensive spending review has taken place, and the Finance Minister and Executive colleagues are now working on a multi-year Budget. It is right that we waited to have that before publishing our investment strategy, because, once again, in fairness to the leader of the Opposition, had we published an investment strategy in advance of knowing what our affordability envelope was, he would be the first to stand up in the Chamber and criticise the lack of ambition or our ability to deliver that strategy. Secondly, we cannot get away from the judgement on the A5 development. The court ruled that the current climate change targets meant that that capital project and its investment strategy could not go ahead. I am happy to give way to the leader of the Opposition: if he really wants to start building things and get that investment moving, he can join me in tabling a motion today that calls for the Executive to revoke those targets so that we can ensure that projects are delivered. Mr O'Toole: I appreciate the Member's giving way. We will not do that, because we think that meeting our climate targets is essential. However, in order to deliver on your climate targets in a way that is consistent with investment, you need an investment strategy, because that will, in part, help to convince a court that the Executive have a credible plan to meet those targets alongside infrastructure development. That probably would have helped in the A5 case. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute. Mr Brett: The Member had the opportunity to join us to remove those targets in order for the A5 to proceed — he spent 90 seconds of his speech talking about how he wants to see the project delivered — but he did not take that opportunity. I will move on to the motion and say why my party will oppose it. Ms Bradshaw articulated one of the reasons when she highlighted the inclusion of "petty rows" in the text of the motion. The one example that the leader of the Opposition gave for why those words were included was not an Executive motion but the Back-Bench motion that I moved yesterday, the debate on which took place after the motion before us was tabled. He therefore cannot even articulate a reason for why that wording was included. On the cherry-picking of flagship projects, we, as a party, are very clear that all flagship projects that the Executive agreed must be delivered, not just ones that the leader of the Opposition wants to see delivered. There is no mention of the Northern Ireland Football Fund (NIFF), the Union connectivity review report or the York Street interchange in the leader of the Opposition's motion. I wonder why the York Street interchange, which is an Executive flagship project in my constituency, is not included in the motion? Is it perhaps because, when the party opposite held the Ministry in the Department for Infrastructure, it delayed that project? It failed to deliver that vital investment. It failed to build what the people of North Belfast and Northern Ireland want to see. On waste water infrastructure, Members from the party opposite have held the position of Minister for Infrastructure for longer than anyone on these Benches. Where was the rationale for what was or was not delivered by previous Ministers? Members on these Benches will therefore take no lectures from the party opposite. In the motion, there has been an attempt to single out the lack of an investment strategy as the reason that Casement Park has not been delivered. That myth continues to be pushed by Members on all sides of the House to try to blame this party for not moving the project forward. I did a bit of research before I came here this morning in order to find some Members' comments on Casement Park. Former SDLP MLA Alex Attwood, who, as Environment Minister, had the Casement Park project on his desk until he was replaced by his party colleague Mark Durkan, said of the court case that blocked Casement Park: "I want first to applaud the residents of Mooreland, Owenvarragh and surrounding areas ... That is why the SDLP" supported their objections. There is no mention of the fact that Casement Park has not been delivered because of the actions of those in the party opposite. Once again, the SDLP tries to blame the big, bad unionists. We see that for what it is, which is nonsense. We oppose the motion. Mr Butler: Like the party of the Member to speak previously, the Ulster Unionist Party agrees with aspects of the motion, in particular the recognition of the fact that Northern Ireland needs a clear, updated investment strategy. There is no pushback from us on that whatsoever. As I stated last night, we face stovepiped plenary time, stovepiped legislative time and stovepiped everything in Northern Ireland, because, for two consecutive mandates, we have had a collapsed Assembly, and we therefore find ourselves having compressed time frames in which to deliver. Let us look at what has happened in this mandate so far. A Programme for Government was agreed and achieved. Yesterday, we voted on the Executive's legislative programme for 2025-26. What will come next is the outworkings of the comprehensive spending review and then a conversation on multi-year Budgets, as Mr Brett mentioned. All those things, although we would have liked them to happen more quickly, and although they should have come forward earlier, will help inform a comprehensive and agreed investment strategy. Strategic planning and capital investment are essential for everyone, as the leader of the Opposition picked up on. Be it hospitals, schools, infrastructure or social capital, all are there to strengthen our economy, improve connectivity and support job creation, thus driving proper prosperity for everyone in Northern Ireland. Although the sentiment is right, we will not fully support the motion. It reads less as a genuine call for progress and more as an exercise in assigning blame. Even Alliance picked up on that. When we are speaking about such high-level topics, that tone helps no one, least of all the public, who want to see delivery. Equally, one could be forgiven for thinking that the SDLP was not in previous iterations of the Executive. It recently held the Infrastructure portfolio. The truth is that the absence of an updated investment strategy is not the result of one failure — whether or not that is on the part of the Executive, as per the motion — but of a wider breakdown in long-term planning, fiscal realism and Executive coordination and, as I pointed out at the start of my contribution, as a result of there being no Executive at all. Top 11.30 am Publishing a strategy document will not, in itself, deliver a single metre of road or rail; nor will it fix our underfunded waste water system. What matters is the political and financial will to deliver what is agreed. That is why I outlined the steps that I did at the start. The Ulster Unionist Party —. Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way? Mr Butler: Only briefly, if you do not mind. Ms Bradshaw: Thank you. I am concerned that what the Member has picked up on are the immediate pressures on spend. An investment strategy would allow for longer-term thinking so that bigger projects could be delivered. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute. Mr Butler: I have no problem with that. As I outlined, we are not against having an investment strategy — we absolutely believe that one should come forward in haste — but we need the comprehensive spending review, the analysis of that review and the multi-year Budgets. We need to take the politics, which have been mentioned, out of the motion. The Ulster Unionist Party believes in strategic prioritisation: investing where there is clear social, economic and environmental benefit and where delivery is actually achievable. Take the A5 western transport corridor and Casement Park, both of which are referenced in the motion. We support the principle of key infrastructure projects that benefit communities and sport, but we recognise that the schemes have been delayed not by the Executive but by complex planning, legal and budgetary challenges. To simply criticise the delays without acknowledging those realities risks misleading the public. The Irish Government have offered €50 million towards Casement Park, the UK Government have offered £50 million, and the Executive are holding £65 million, but the words of the current chief executive of the GAA, when he took over the post, were, "Not a penny more". Everybody has a fist in the fight and needs to speak up equally if they want to see real delivery. Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way? Mr Butler: Absolutely. Mr O'Toole: We mention specific flagship projects in the motion — I will come back to Mr Brett's comments in my winding-up speech — but that is not to exclude the loads of other flagship projects. Is it not the point that, whether it is Casement Park, the York Street interchange or whatever else, if there is no plan, there is no road map, no clarity and no certainty? Having a target and putting down a marker creates focus. That is the point whatever the project is and whatever specific issues relate to that project. Mr Butler: I do not disagree with the Member at all. If he had stated those intentions in the motion, I think that he could have got total support for it, but he did not. Simply criticising the delays without acknowledging the realities risks misleading the public. I will never stand here and mislead the public, and no one will ever accuse me of that. It is equally important to remember that, as I set out, the latter delay did not come about by virtue of the Executive. Similarly, the all-island strategic rail review deserves serious consideration. Work is under way on that, but Northern Ireland's participation to it should be based on evidence, affordability, value for money and, once again, deliverability. I entirely agree that investment in waste water infrastructure is urgently needed. Without it, we cannot build new homes or attract major investment. The UUP has repeatedly raised that and suggested steps, such as mutualisation, that could be taken. Sadly, however, that has been dismissed outright. Therein lie some of the intra-Executive wrestles. Where our view differs from the motion is in the approach that is taken, not in the sense of what needs to happen. We want to see collaboration, not confrontation, and we want to see genuine costed proposals, rather than statements or grandstanding. What we need now is for the Executive, collectively, to produce a credible, costed and time-bound investment strategy. I welcome robust analysis and scrutiny from the Opposition, and I know that we will get that. It is absolutely valuable, and it is needed. I offer the view, however, that the motion could well have sailed through had they not used it for politicking. Ms Nicholl: When I came back from maternity leave, I decided that I would not rehash points that have already been made. There are a couple of reasons for that. The main one is that, having been in my glorious baby bubble, I now realise how little attention people pay to what we say in the Chamber. When we focus too much on politics rather than ambition, it turns people off. My colleague Paula Bradshaw outlined, as always, perfectly the need for an investment strategy and the context behind it, but there are a couple of things that I wish to point out. When I was in my baby bubble, at the mum and tot groups, the conversations that I had and that I overheard were not about the culture wars of the day. They were these: "How will I afford to pay for childcare when I go back to work?", "How will I move into a new house? I can't afford it; there aren't enough houses", and, "How are we going to pay the bills?". Those are the conversations that people are having and that they want us to have, so I am grateful for the motion. It is forward-looking. Having a motion that looks to the future and at how we improve our infrastructure, not just now but for the future, is welcome. As the Alliance Party, we obviously take issue with a few things, such as the language around "petty rows". We do not identify that with the work that Naomi Long and Andrew Muir are doing. We would have liked to see specific mention of net zero. The development of critical infrastructure must be balanced with our net zero commitments, and we would have liked that to be included in the motion. A point was made about that, but not tackling the climate crisis puts our infrastructure at risk. Any MLA in South Down and Upper Bann will be able to testify to that. It is counterproductive to pit the two against each other. Mr Butler: I thank the Member for giving way on that point, which is really important. Should the Government and Departments not deliver on the legislation and the test that that has produced to lead the way on net zero and the climate contribution? In this instance, it certainly seems, particularly on the A5, that the Department for Infrastructure may be unable or unwilling to produce the evidence that would meet the climate targets that we legislated for. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute. Ms Nicholl: It is important to have a pathway and a strategy that go hand in hand. The investment strategy has to lay out how we are going to meet our climate obligations. It is so important to decarbonise our economy. That should have been mentioned in the motion. The Member also mentioned the Assembly's being up and down. The constant collapse of this place is such a problem. We are like a broken record when we talk about it. We will not be able to solve all the problems right now — no one expects that we will be able to do that in a shortened mandate — but we have to lay the foundations for that, and we have the opportunity to do so. It needs to be about partnership. I loved working in Belfast City Council, because we worked so well with the universities and with business. We were able to be ambitious and work together. Given the size of Northern Ireland, we could do so much more of that. Casement Park, the A5, waste water and housing are not just good things to do in themselves; they are foundational for further economic development. Public infrastructure is a catalyst for further investment and gives innovators and business leaders confidence, but, too often, our lack of strategic investment in such projects has been a barrier. We have to turn that around. There was mention of the multi-year Budget, and that gives us a window of opportunity to plan and think ahead, but having an investment strategy really is urgent, and we need agreement and collaboration. I welcome the motion, although we would change a few things in it. The one thing in particular that I would change is how we engage collectively on the issues. So often it is about, "You said this" and "You said that". Let us talk about the future. Let us talk about having an investment strategy that will work now and for future generations, because, I promise you, that is what people out there want to hear us talking about. Mr Gaston: There certainly have been abject failures of investment by the Executive, not least the £17 million that has been wasted to date on Casement Park, a project that was flawed from the beginning. However, there is much more to examine and make right when it comes to investment in Northern Ireland. The recent Invest Northern Ireland performance report for the past five years showed a huge imbalance in funding across Northern Ireland council areas, with Mid and East Antrim Borough Council, which is in my constituency, being one of the most underfunded. Areas such as Belfast City Council, Mid Ulster District Council, Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council and Newry, Mourne and Down District Council, however, all secured high investment. That approach concentrates opportunities and stifles innovation in underfunded areas. Such areas face significant barriers, such as limited access to grants, weaker infrastructure support and fewer networking prospects. Part of the reason for an imbalance in Invest NI's funding is that there are fewer companies in areas such as Mid and East Antrim applying for funding. So much more needs to be done to highlight to companies and entrepreneurs the opportunities available to them. Much more needs to be done to encourage companies to look at expanding their exporting capabilities. I recently asked the Economy Minister how the imbalance in Invest NI funding is to be addressed. She replied: "Invest NI is implementing a new regional approach that is increasing its capacity and capability across all areas", but how will that redress the current imbalance? I also asked the Minister for the Economy to detail what metrics Invest NI uses to actively seek out businesses and identify them for support. I received the following answer: "Invest NI has set a target to support 450 ‘New to Invest NI’ businesses to implement productive investment projects, over the course of its 3-year business strategy period." That does not answer the question, much less confirm that regional disparity will be addressed or what specifics Invest NI is looking for in businesses that will increase their chances of being funded. We have much to celebrate in North Antrim. Our companies generate billions of pounds in sales and hundreds of millions in exports. Invest NI's Ambition to Grow programme, which supports micro-, small and medium-sized companies to create new jobs and look outside Northern Ireland for sales, has had some positive results. Ambition to Grow has originated 25 new investments, with the chance to create 71 new jobs and generate £7 million in the Mid and East Antrim Borough Council area, but the massive imbalance remains, and, without addressing that disparity, Northern Ireland's collective potential remains suppressed. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Before I call junior Minister Joanne Bunting, I will personally, if I may, wish her well in her new role. From previous roles that we did alongside one another, I know something of the diligent approach that she will bring to the job. I am sure that all Members will join me in wishing her well. I call the junior Minister. You have up to 15 minutes. Ms Bunting (Junior Minister, The Executive Office): Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am very grateful to you for your good wishes. I thank Members for their contributions on what is a very important topic: how we plan, invest and deliver for the future of all our people here. The debate has been predictable at times, but it has been a useful exercise for Members to showcase projects that they wish to see progress on and to highlight some of the real challenges that we face in rolling out our capital programme over the next number of decades. The Executive are focused on delivery, on improving lives, on supporting economic growth and on ensuring that our infrastructure meets the needs of our people. It is simply not accurate to say that progress is not being made; progress absolutely is being made, and a revised investment strategy will be brought to the Executive soon. It is important to emphasise three points. First, considerable effort has gone into developing a draft investment strategy and making sure not only that it reflects our focus on delivery but that it is focused and realistic. Secondly, work continues on the delivery of agreed capital projects, and Members will see much of that work roll out in their constituencies. Thirdly, work is already under way on a range of enabling actions to address key challenges that we face in delivering major infrastructure projects. Consider for a moment how much has changed across society here and globally since the turn of the millennium. We need a positive, forward-looking vision for the next 25 years, backed by detailed and specific plans for investment and enabling actions over the next decade. The final document needs to be robust, evidence-based and capable of delivering real and lasting outcomes for people here. That is what we are developing, and it is important that we get it right. An investment strategy must be more than an aspirational list of stand-alone projects. It must focus on the outcomes that will have the greatest impact, and it must have ambition. Strategic plans on such a scale have far-reaching impacts on budgets, public services, economic growth and local communities. At the same time, a strategy must reflect our financial reality and address challenges as a result of climate targets and our delivery capacity. It must be joined up across sectors, maximising every pound that we invest. Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Minister for giving way. About a year ago, in the Chamber, I asked for an update on the strategy, and I was told then that we would have it soon. Are you confident that the strategy will be forthcoming in this mandate? Top 11.45 am Ms Bunting: I thank the Member for her question. Yes, I am confident that it will come forward in this mandate. We are very clear that that needs to be done, and we are working towards it. However, we are not going to produce something that is not fully and properly thought out. We need to make improvements where we know that there have been issues, and we need to respond to the feedback. Members should know that drawing all that together is not straightforward, as I have outlined, and that it takes time, but they should understand that we must get it right to build confidence and ensure that there is buy-in right across society. When we bring forward an investment strategy, we want to be satisfied that it strikes the right balance and is supported by effective arrangements to ensure its successful delivery. An immense amount of work has already gone into shaping the draft investment strategy. It has been informed by over 400 engagements and responses through public consultation, equality and rural needs impact assessments and extensive engagement with Departments and wider stakeholders. A finalised strategy will require Executive approval, but, as we move towards that point, we are factoring in global uncertainties and continuing to press for a fair and equitable funding settlement that reflects need and the legacy of underinvestment here. The draft investment strategy provides a framework for planning and prioritising infrastructure investment, defining the outcomes that we need and setting out how we deliver them efficiently and effectively. It encompasses all areas of public infrastructure: health, housing, education, justice, communities, transport, water, waste water and the environment. The quality and safety of that infrastructure affects most aspects of all our daily lives. The draft also reflects our commitment to ensuring that investment reaches into every community and includes projects right across Northern Ireland. The draft strategy takes a three-strand approach. A long-term vision and strategic objectives provide a 25-year view of investment that promotes sustainability, resilience, productivity and well-being by 2050. The strategic framework identifies where we need to be and how we get there, all of which is aligned with our Programme for Government. We are working with the SIB to ensure that there is a clear governance structure in place that ensures a continued focus, accountability and the ability to adapt to changing priorities if needed. That is very important. Clear accountability mechanisms and provision for early intervention where issues arise are also essential. I am sure that Members concur. A 10-year investment plan will demonstrate how best to use available financial resources to deliver on previous commitments, address historical underinvestment and transform our infrastructure investment to meet our long-term goals. Although the details remain subject to change, the draft reflects many, if not all, of the priorities that have been raised by Members today. For example, it affords priority to the need to maintain our existing infrastructure, such as water. Investment in our essential networks is vital for unlocking and enabling wider investment. The need to expand provision for special educational needs is also recognised. Housing features as a distinct sector, with a range of projects on social and private housing. Wider investment in our public infrastructure, such as water, will also help to unlock challenges for housing. We are all aware of that in each of our constituencies. Alongside that sits an enabling action plan that is already guiding improvements in how we plan, prioritise and deliver major projects. The plan draws on analysis of the root causes of delays and cost overruns carried out by the Strategic Investment Board and reflects the findings of the Northern Ireland Audit Office and the PAC. We recognise and share the frustrations about delays and cost overruns. Although those are not unique to this part of the world, we have been clear that we need to address them. Although the enabling action plan forms part of the investment strategy package, many of the actions are matters of good practice, and work is under way. Those will be critical to successfully delivering the investment plan, and we are pleased to champion that work. Members will want to note that current work streams include improving the business case process, the planning system and procurement. The importance of social licence is also recognised, ensuring buy-in from communities and stakeholders for the delivery of the right projects in the right way. The Executive are delivering on infrastructure projects. Preparatory work for the expansion of the Magee campus has started. We are also seeing encouraging progress across the city and growth deals, including construction starting on the DNA Museum at Ebrington, which I was very privileged to visit, which is supported by investment from the Executive Office and others. With an additional £150 million allocated, the completion of the Strule shared education campus is now firmly on track. Progress has been made on building social houses, and, as a result of investment in Grand Central station, bus and rail passenger journeys are up by more than 4 million. Indeed, Ministers in all Departments are delivering capital investment programmes to improve people's lives, communities and places. Of course, there are projects that have not progressed as anticipated. A number of Members have mentioned the A5 and Casement as examples. However, the issues, which include the legal challenges, are well documented. The incredibly ambitious targets that were set by the House in the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 will have, and are having, an impact. The Infrastructure Minister is exploring that issue and how we can ensure that the A5 project and other major capital projects are not frustrated by climate obligations. It is easy to single out projects and criticise, but what we are doing is seeking to address the underlying causes and ensure that we militate against those arising in the future. Our business sector, too, is forging ahead with confidence and ambition. Recently, the First Minister and deputy First Minister welcomed plans by Belfast City Airport to grow passenger numbers and create thousands of new jobs. Earlier this year, we joined the leaders of Belfast International Airport as they launched the first phase of a £100 million investment to improve facilities, enhance global connectivity and therefore boost our economy. Northern Ireland is open for business, and the Executive are committed to working with partners across society to meet the needs of today while planning for the infrastructure that we will need in the future. There are still some key considerations to be worked through in finalising the strategy, including, as I have mentioned, the implications of the recent A5 judgement and the appeal that has been launched. The substantial work that has already been completed on the draft strategy, together with progress on the enabling action plan, sets a clear direction. We know what needs to be done, and we are committed to doing it. We are determined to get this right. The Executive are delivering major capital projects and infrastructure investment. We are supporting people, communities and places right now while planning for a stronger, more sustainable future. We will soon bring forward a finalised investment strategy to enable all partners across society to work better together in planning and delivering the infrastructure, prosperity and well-being that we all agree that our people deserve. The investment strategy will be much more comprehensive than previous iterations, with the necessary governance and support structures alongside actions to improve delivery. By taking the time to get those in place, we will have the best possible chance of successfully delivering the strategy's aims. We will also lay a firm foundation for future planning cycles. The Executive will continue to invest in the infrastructure that we need, improving lives, creating jobs and opportunities and building a more sustainable, more connected future for everyone who calls this place home. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Matthew O'Toole to make the winding-up speech on the debate on the motion. You have up to 10 minutes. Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I detected a slight note of ennui when you called me. Perhaps you have heard some of my arguments previously. I say that in the nicest possible way: I am not challenging the Chair. The point that I have been making in my remarks is about delivery. I make no apology at all for being robust when talking about delivery. I was slightly intrigued to hear colleagues from the DUP and Sinn Féin accuse me of playing politics. Of course, no Sinn Féin or DUP politician ever does that. Look: mea culpa. I am happy to stand accused of petty politicking by Sinn Féin and the DUP. I will respond to some remarks that were made. It was actually a really constructive debate, and there is a lot to which I want to respond. Nicola Brogan accused me of political point-scoring. I will just make one big point: we are the Opposition in the Chamber. There is an Opposition in Dublin. They are led by Uachtarán Shinn Féin, Mary Lou McDonald. Some people up here, including in Sinn Féin, seem to think that this place is not really entitled to have an Opposition or an accountability mechanism. That is nonsense: if opposition is good enough for Irish people in one part of the island, it is good enough for people in the North. I make no apology for that; none whatsoever. I am happy to give way, yes. Miss Brogan: I thank the Member for giving way. In the South, our Opposition actually bring solutions to the table, whereas I have not seen any from the SDLP in the North. Mr O'Toole: With the greatest of respect, that is absolute nonsense. We have produced loads of papers. I have heard that repeatedly from you and your colleagues, but, just because you say that we have not suggested alternatives, it does not mean that that is the case. I see lots of videos on social media of extraordinarily effective and robust Opposition politicians, including Pearse Doherty and Mary Lou McDonald. If it is legitimate for them to be robust in critiquing the Irish Government —. Ms Sheerin: Will the Member give way? Mr O'Toole: I will give way in one second. If it is legitimate for them to be robust in critiquing the Irish Government, it is also my job to critique this Executive, and I make no apology for doing that on behalf of Irish people and, indeed, British people who live here. Ms Sheerin: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he recognise that he has just stated that the Irish Government are a Government? Theirs is a sovereign Parliament, while this is a devolved institution in which we are working along with others. Your party was in that position at one time, so that reality has to be considered. Mr O'Toole: I absolutely agree with you that that reality does have to be considered. The two are not exactly the same, but the Executive do have some power. Otherwise, Sinn Féin Ministers would not have taken the Pledge of Office and would not have their ministerial cars and take their salaries. There is power here, although not as much. You and I want a new Ireland. We want a republic for the whole thirty-two counties on this island. Let me be clear, however, that there are powers that exist in the here and now. Otherwise, why would Sinn Féin take up ministerial office? I am going to talk about some of that now. Nicola Brogan made a really important point earlier, and I want to hear more about it. I was pleased to hear her mention the role of the European Investment Bank in the all-island strategic rail review. I will be pressing the Minister for Infrastructure to tell us more about that, because we have called for the EIB to play a wider role in infrastructure in the North. I would like to hear more from the Infrastructure Minister. I would also like to hear more from the Finance Minister about how he sees the EIB playing a role in helping us deliver on our priorities. I want to see ambition, so I make no apology for pressing Sinn Féin Ministers, who, like me, want to see a new Ireland and who, apparently, want to see more all-Ireland cooperation and delivery. Let us see it. Let us be as ambitious as possible, because it is true that, as Paula Bradshaw said, compared with what we have seen from the national development plan in Dublin, delivery up here has been paltry. It has been derisory. Before Members say that that plan has come from a sovereign Government who are running a massive surplus, I will say it: it has come from a sovereign Government who are running a massive surplus. That is one reason that lots of rational people are thinking about a new Ireland. It is also the case, however, that we have power up here. Yes, it is more limited, and, yes, we have more limited funding, but we do have power. To maximise the limited resource that we have, we need a strategy, and Paula acknowledged that. I am glad to hear that the Alliance Party is going to support our motion, notwithstanding the fact that it would not have worded it in precisely the way in which we have done. Phillip Brett said multiple things about the motion. He at least acknowledged that it includes some things with which he agrees. He did not like the flagship projects that we selected for inclusion. As I said to him in an intervention, insert your own flagship projects. We have inserted ones, but we could have inserted others, such as the York Street interchange. I would like to know whether that is still is an Executive flagship project. He criticised Nichola Mallon's actions. There is a context to those actions. Let us hear whether the York Street interchange will be in the investment strategy. Let us hear whether it is going to be delivered. It is the same with lots of other priorities, but we do not know about them, and that is because we have not seen the investment strategy. I therefore have no idea about them. Do not criticise the Opposition for asking about them. I would love to hear more about the NI Football Fund. I am sure that the football club in the Member's constituency that is taking his ministerial colleague to court — Crusaders — would also like to hear more about it. I am happy to give way if he wants to intervene. Mr Brett: I have two points to make. First, you do know that the York Street interchange is an Executive flagship project, unless you have not read the Programme for Government that you came to the House to criticise. Perhaps you did not read it before criticising it. Secondly, when the Northern Ireland Football Fund was launched, your party colleague was the first one to jump up and down about it. Mr O'Toole: I have certainly read the Programme for Government. I know that I am not supposed to use props, but I will discreetly display the Programme for Government document. In fact, I have both the draft Programme for Government and the final version with me. I did read them, and it did not take me that long to do so, because there is not much in them. I am happy to acknowledge that I did read the documents, however. Robbie Butler talked about assigning blame. He is not in the Chamber at the minute, but that is fine. That we are assigning blame is a nonsense criticism, with the greatest respect to Robbie, who said some very interesting things in his contribution. Assigning blame is literally the job of the official Opposition. It is not about blame but about accountability. That should be clear in any democratic society. Fundamentally, we tabled our motion in order to get the Executive to publish their plans so that we can hold them to account. The investment strategy will not be comprehensive, and it will not be able to solve all the problems. As Kate Nicholl said, you first need a plan to guide you. A road map is needed, and that is all that we are asking for in our motion. Kate also said that she would have liked net zero to be mentioned more in the motion. That is fair enough, but it is implied in, for example, our illustration of the need for more progress to be made on the all-Ireland strategic rail review. We could have included in the motion something about the need for more development of our energy infrastructure on an all-island basis and, indeed, on an east-west basis. If we are going to decarbonise, we need greater connections to Britain and to the Republic. Again, we want to hear more from the Economy Minister and the Infrastructure Minister about such delivery. Something else that we need to see in the investment strategy is information on how we are going to deliver on our climate targets. How are we going to meet electricity demand for the economy that we want to grow in order to create sustainable jobs? Those are all things that should be in the investment strategy, which we have not seen yet. Top 12.00 noon It was brilliant to hear Timothy Gaston talk with passion about economic development in his constituency. More of that please, Timothy. I agree. I would love to see measures to support North Antrim and all other constituencies in an investment strategy. I welcome the junior Minister Joanne Bunting to ministerial office. She is certainly a person of substance, and I hope that she brings some of that to getting an investment strategy over the line. Given that I have given, as it were, to use a colloquial expression, a bit of a touch to the Sinn Féin Ministers, I should give a bit of a touch to the DUP Ministers, too, because she talked about getting it right and not, effectively, spinning to the public about what could be delivered. Here is the thing: two successive DUP Education Ministers have promised big things on delivering schools. A few years ago, when she was Education Minister, Michelle McIlveen promised lots of schools a new school, including schools in my constituency, such as St Joseph's on the Ravenhill Road, and said that they would be added to the list, with no clarity on how that would be funded or when it would be built. They are still waiting, along with loads of other schools across the North. The current Education Minister came to the Assembly a few weeks ago and talked about a billion-pound investment in special educational needs. We would, of course, love to see that. He put that number and his plan for what he wanted to invest and create in SEN provision out there without any clarity on how that would be budgeted for or when it would be delivered. That is exactly the kind of thing that we need to see: a multi-year Budget and an investment strategy. I do not know how we will get there without a plan. Mr Clarke: Will the Member give way? Mr O'Toole: Very briefly, because I am coming to the end of my remarks. Mr Clarke: Very briefly, I remind you that your Ministers held the Department for Infrastructure for a number of years. Your Member on the Back Bench and, indeed, the former Member for North Belfast both blocked an infrastructure project in North Belfast that would have prevented our shipping waste across the world. What is your view on that? Mr O'Toole: You are talking about a specific project. We do not hold those Ministries now. You have made your point. [Interruption.] You are in government. [Interruption.] I say to the Members and to the Executive parties here: we have established that we are in opposition and you are in government. We accept that reality. You should accept the reality that you have the power now to build something and to deliver something: deliver a proper waste water system that grows social homes; deliver new schools, including for special educational needs; deliver all-island strategic rail that can reconnect our island; deliver Casement Park; and deliver the life-saving A5. Build those things. [Interruption.] Build those things. Do not shout at the Opposition for holding you to account for them. You have the power. Yes, it is limited, but it is there. You will have a multi-year Budget later this year. It will give you the opportunity. If the Sinn Féin Finance Minister does not think that we have enough resources — I agree with him — let us hear how he wants either to raise revenue or to look for new fiscal powers from London so that we are not just reliant on the block grant in order to build the future on this island that we want. Do not just blame others. Do not just blame others. Do not just project your anger on to the public or the Opposition. Get out there and build something. Build something. Build something. I commend the motion to the Assembly. Question put. The Assembly divided: Ayes 15; Noes 25 AYES Ms Bradshaw, Mr Dickson, Mr Donnelly, Mr Durkan, Ms Egan, Mrs Guy, Ms Hunter, Miss McAllister, Mr McCrossan, Mr McMurray, Mr Mathison, Ms Mulholland, Ms Nicholl, Mr O'Toole, Mr Tennyson Tellers for the Ayes: Ms Hunter, Mr McCrossan NOES Mr Allen, Mr Beattie, Mr Brett, Mr Brooks, Ms Brownlee, Mr K Buchanan, Ms Bunting, Mr Burrows, Mr Butler, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mrs Erskine, Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew, Mr Gaston, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Irwin, Mr Kingston, Mrs Little-Pengelly, Mr Lyons, Mr Martin, Mr Middleton, Mr Stewart Tellers for the Noes: Mr Brooks, Ms Brownlee Mr Clarke acted as a proxy for Mrs Erskine. Question accordingly negatived. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, please take your ease for just a moment, before we move to the next item of business. Top 12.15 pm Child Poverty Mr Durkan: I beg to move That this Assembly expresses alarm at the rate of child poverty in Northern Ireland, with one in five children living in absolute poverty, as detailed in the 'Northern Ireland Poverty and Income Inequality Report, 2023-24'; expresses concern that the proposed anti-poverty strategy will have little impact on addressing that challenge, with no new policies, no timeline for delivery and no budget; and calls on the Executive to make the eradication of child poverty a cross-departmental priority and to develop a fit for purpose anti-poverty strategy, shaped by lived experience, including commitments on the creation of a new child payment, an enhanced childcare subsidy scheme and enhanced provision of free school meals. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other speakers will have five minutes. Please open the debate, Mr Durkan. Mr Durkan: Poverty: the word itself is stigmatised. We other it. It is an issue that affects other eras, other places and other families, but poverty means not being able to afford the basics: food, heating and housing. Child poverty is no longer distant or abstract; it is on our doorstep. It is a lived reality, which steals the innocence of childhood across the North. There was a time, not so long ago, when Christmas appeals were for children in far-off and war-torn countries. Now, those same appeals are for children who live in our communities. They are the children of the nurse who tended our loved ones or the shopworker who stocks the shelves that we all depend on. They are the families now struggling to tell their children that Santa will not be coming this year, but, sure, the tooth fairy stopped coming long ago. The new shoes have not materialised, and some do not know when the next hot, nutritious meal will appear either. One in three children grows up here in food insecurity; one in five children lives in relative poverty, and one in four lives in absolute poverty. Those statistics have been cited repeatedly in the Chamber, but have failed to provoke the level of shame, never mind the level of action, that they deserve. I have persistently raised the plight of children who live in temporary or emergency accommodation. In 2025, children across the North are living without the basic dignity and security that every child deserves. The Assembly made a promise in the New Decade, New Approach agreement back in 2020, to produce an anti-poverty strategy and a child poverty strategy. We were told that one strategy could cover both areas, provided that child poverty was placed front and centre. Yet here we are, five years later, and what do we have? A draft anti-poverty strategy, backed by the Executive, that is toothless and targetless. It has no budget, no timeline and no new policies. It is not a road map; it is a press release. Let us not forget that the strategy did not come out of leadership and certainly did not come out of compassion. It appeared because the courts forced the Executive's hand. The Executive were found to be in breach of their legal duty to produce an anti-poverty strategy. Our constituents tell us the same thing: they feel the impact of poverty every single day. Families are stretched to breaking point. Parents are going without food so that their children can eat. Young people are unable to find a home because of sky-high rents and a lack of social housing. It is shameful that, in 2025, in this corner of the world, in the sixth-largest economy in the world, we have normalised the struggle to survive. The Children's Commissioner has warned that the current draft strategy is not fit for purpose. It has abandoned a life-cycle approach and has lost focus on children altogether. The Audit Office was crystal clear in its report: "An integrated, cross-departmental anti-poverty strategy is urgently needed" with measurable targets, defined accountability and fully costed actions. None of those recommendations was taken on board. The PAC said that old strategies failed because they had no ring-fenced funding, no ownership and no deadlines. In other words, they failed because the leadership parties failed to prioritise them. If data alone does not motivate us, let the human stories do so. One parent said simply: "It all makes me very sad. I don't see any change for me and my situation". That is a sentence that should haunt every one of us in the Chamber. This strategy will not deliver. It is a rehash of what has already been implemented: it is nothing new and nothing ambitious. The largest driver of child poverty on these islands is the two-child limit. Let us call it what it is: a state-sanctioned punishment for larger families. It is a punishment that is felt hardest by single-parent households and especially by women. The impact of the two-child limit in the North is severe and disproportionate due to the prevalence of larger families here. One in every 10 children is affected, and nearly 50,000 children are growing up in families who have been denied support for at least one child because of that cruel cap. Research from the Trussell Trust tells us that abolishing the two-child limit could lift 18,500 people in Northern Ireland out of severe hardship by 2026. Not only that, but it could have a wider economic and fiscal benefit of £155 million every year. The Scottish Government have effectively abolished that callous policy by mitigating it. We were promised the same protections. Last year, the SDLP Opposition tabled a motion to scrap the two-child limit. We did not just make noise: we provided a plan and costings, but Executive parties watered it down. They supported an amendment to introduce a larger-families payment instead, which had previously been recommended by the independent welfare advisory panel. We could live with that, but, 18 months later, that is yet another promise that has been quietly buried, out of sight and out of mind. In July 2025, when I asked the Minister for Communities about it, his response was, "I have no update". The only reference that we have seen to the two-child rule since is a single line in the draft anti-poverty strategy saying that research will be carried out. Again, I asked the Minister, "What research has your Department done?", and I received a one-line answer, which was basically that no research has been conducted. That is not just complacency; it is contempt. It is contempt for the evidence and the expert advice, and it is contempt for the families who are living that reality every day. The Opposition are serious about abolishing child poverty, so we stand here today not just to criticise but to propose another solution. The Scottish child payment, which was introduced in 2021, now pays £27·15 a week per child to families on low incomes. An evaluation of the payment found that it lifted children out of poverty, reduced debt and lessened material deprivation. The child poverty rate would have been four percentage points higher had the child payment not been introduced. That is real progress and is the model that we should be looking at and following. Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): I appreciate the Member's giving way, and I recognise the sincerity of his attitude to poverty, which I share. It is something that I am interested in hearing more about. If the Member were in my position, however, how would he pay for introducing a child payment here, and how much does he believe doing so would cost? Mr Durkan: I wonder whether the Minister's Department has done the research yet that could inform me to help inform him. Extensive research has been done by experts in the sector that has looked at the cost and at the benefit. We know the cost of not introducing a child payment, however, and people feel it very single day. Mr Lyons: Will the Member give way? Mr Durkan: I am sorry, but I have to get through my remarks, Minister. I will give way again if I have time at the end. We accept that success will also depend on wider structural reform, and that means having a comprehensive childcare strategy. Childcare in Northern Ireland is among the most expensive on these islands, yet, for families on low incomes, support is riddled with complexity and examples of exclusion. Last year, 130,000 children were living in food-insecure households, which is 20,000 more than the year before. That is not just a statistic but the sound of alarm bells. Expanding access to free school meals is one of the simplest and most effective actions that we can take. Free school meals not just fill tummies but improve health, reduce stigma and boost educational outcomes, yet while the UK Government are expanding provision to all families on universal credit, children in Northern Ireland are being left behind. This year, when the cost of food is higher that ever, there were 6,000 fewer successful applications for free school meals than there were in 2022-23, owing to a reduced income threshold that unfairly locks families out of receiving vital support. The Minister and his party may boast about a £300 increase in the income threshold for eligibility, but that increase came about only after it had been reduced by £1,000. It is therefore a token gesture that is woefully out of touch with reality. On the ground, it is groups such as the Cliff Edge Coalition, the Anti-Poverty Network, St Vincent de Paul and, in my constituency, the Focus Project — Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member's time is up. Mr Durkan: — that are picking up the pieces. Mrs Mason: Poverty is something that no one should have to endure. When families are hit hardest and find themselves living in poverty, it is the children who have least control over their circumstances and who suffer most from them. Growing up in poverty means that children miss out on opportunities in the short term and in the long term. According to the 2024 Audit Office report on child poverty in the North, children living in poverty are more likely to have poorer health, educational, well-being and economic outcomes than their peers who are more well off. We live in a society in which two childhoods exist side by side. One is of comfort and opportunity, while the other is of quiet suffering. The difference between them often comes down to nothing more than the postcode in which they live or the family circumstances into which they were born. Poverty is a result of the failure of the system to protect every single child. Unfortunately, what we have seen from the Minister for Communities lacks ambition and substance. It does not address the real challenges that struggling families face. To put it bluntly, it is not fit for purpose. There is a clear missed opportunity to use childcare as a key tool for helping address child poverty. Minister Lyons has a part to play in delivering high-quality and affordable childcare. He seems, however, to have deflected his responsibility to the Minister of Education and his yet-to-be-seen early learning and childcare strategy. The decision not to increase the limit of the adviser discretion fund represents a missed opportunity to support parents who are facing significant barriers to employment. That fund acts as a lifeline for those struggling to cover costs associated with returning to work, including meeting upfront childcare costs. Top 12.30 pm Childcare often represents one of the greatest financial obstacles to re-entering employment. Maintaining the fund at its current level, despite rising living costs, undermines its effectiveness and limits the support available to families who need it most. Furthermore, the Minister's decision not to reduce the 15% childcare attainment gap for families on universal credit is another failure to address a key barrier to employment and early education. Universal credit covers up to 85% of childcare costs, but the remaining 15% very often amounts to a substantial portion of some household budgets. For many, that gap makes childcare financially out of reach, disadvantages children's access to early learning and prevents parents from re-entering the workforce. The ongoing high cost of childcare continues to make returning to work financially unviable and completely out of reach for many families, further entrenching inequality and constraining opportunities for those striving to improve their circumstances. We have seen that the Minister has instead placed all the anti-poverty strategy's childcare interventions into the hands of the Department of Education, and we have to blindly place full faith in a strategy that we have not yet seen. Delivery of the childcare strategy is long overdue. The strategy must reduce bills for parents, support struggling providers and give our children the very best start in life. The introduction of the childcare subsidy scheme was a very positive first step towards making childcare more affordable for families; however, the persistent high cost of childcare continues to put pressure on many families. High-quality, affordable childcare supports families who are balancing the demands of work and home life and plays a vital role in a child's early learning and development. We must see the long-awaited childcare strategy, and there can be no further delays. Yesterday, the affordable school uniforms legislation was yet another missed opportunity to tackle child poverty, to once and for all cut the cost of school uniforms and put money back into the pockets of workers and families. I call on the Communities and Education Ministers to listen to families and take the necessary action to give every child the opportunity to reach their full potential. Mr Brooks: No one in the Chamber will be content with the statistics that we will hear from many Members in the debate. Some of the statistics that I was going to use have been mentioned already. Nevertheless, we must be mindful that behind each number that we hear is a person and a family. They are statistics that must challenge us all. It is also clear that tackling child poverty cannot be achieved by one Department acting alone. The task is multifaceted, and, as such, it requires a cross-Executive, cross-society approach. Poverty is not simply about income; it is about housing, health, education, employment and opportunity. That is why the Executive's draft anti-poverty strategy is the right direction of travel. For too long, progress in that area has been hampered, fragmented and delayed. As noted already, the Public Accounts Committee report made it clear that previous child poverty strategies have been characterised by failure, with poor monitoring and accountability and a lack of effective delivery. This party and this Minister are determined to do things differently. Since taking office, Minister Lyons and his Department have worked intensively to bring forward a realistic framework that seeks to address the symptoms and the root causes of poverty. It is about helping families now but also about creating the conditions where future generations do not fall into poverty in the first place. That means supporting parents into work, raising skill levels, improving childcare and reducing the barriers for disabled people. The Minister's disability and work strategy commitment to help 50,000 more disabled people into work by 2036 and reduce the disability pay gap is an example of targeted practical action that will make a difference to family incomes. As has been mentioned, childcare is one of the biggest pressures on working families. The DUP Education Minister's childcare subsidy scheme has already begun to deliver on this party's commitments by reducing bills by 15%, and that support, we know, will extend further. By the way, the Education Minister is on record as having said that he can do more, more quickly, but it will require investment. Those on the Benches opposite who challenge the Minister to do more are, I hope, battering down the door of the Finance Minister to ensure that the finances are put in place, because it is the same Members across the way who would have this Minister spending hundreds of millions of pounds on Casement Park. We have to make decisions — hard decisions — about where we want money to be spent. Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way? Mr Brooks: Yes. Mr O'Toole: On Casement Park, does the Member agree that we are talking about two different types of spending? One is capital spending, and the other is resource spending. There is a difference there; they are two different Budgets, set both by London and Stormont. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute. Mr Brooks: The point remains that, where you have hundreds of millions of pounds and people are talking about how they want more — that is fine; we would all like more — we all know that it is not always about the slicing of the pie: it is that the pie is not big enough and the resources are not there. Difficult decisions need to be made around resourcing, and those who, for the cameras, ask for more and say that more should be done should also be honest enough to say that the resourcing has to come from Finance to make those things possible. A Member: Will the Member give way? Mr Brooks: I will not; I need to make progress. The Education Minister has also raised thresholds for free school meals and uniform grants, linking future increases to inflation and ensuring that support keeps pace with rising costs. The expansion of full-time preschool provision will give more children the best start in life. Those measures, taken together, represent the most significant enhancement of early years investment in Northern Ireland for decades, and they show what is possible when Departments work together around shared priorities. We should also acknowledge the continuation of the welfare mitigations until 2028 — a decision made by Minister Lyons to give families much-needed stability and protection from the harshest impacts of UK-wide welfare reforms. Some have criticised the draft strategy for not including targets at this stage, but the Minister has said that those targets will come in the action plan once the delivery mechanisms and budgets are properly aligned. That is a responsible and evidence-based approach. We have seen elsewhere that simply throwing money at the problem has not helped. The Scottish system has been mentioned: £471 million annual spend on a Scottish child payment that has done little to move the dial in poverty and has been inconsistent across different regions of Scotland. I welcome the Minister's ambition and support his compassionate approach, but I also welcome the fact that his approach is practical and realistic, not promising that which is far beyond our means. Those pledging more must also consider how that can be paid for as a significant recurring cost. Again, tackling poverty and child poverty must be the responsibility of the entire Executive. It cannot be left to one Department or Minister. Our children deserve the same opportunities as those anywhere else in the UK: the chance to grow up healthy, educated and with a route to fulfil their potential future. That is what the anti-poverty strategy seeks to achieve and what the Minister seeks to achieve, and I will be behind him every step of the way. Ms Mulholland: I thank the signatories to the motion genuinely. I welcome any and every opportunity to continue the conversation about child poverty and to keep it at the forefront of our minds. I will not rehearse the catalogue of perceived shortcomings and the basic problems that we see in the draft anti-poverty strategy. The Northern Ireland Anti-Poverty Network, Children in Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People, the Cliff Edge Coalition, the expert panel and the strategy group have all set them out with clarity, and I do not think that I would do them justice by just repeating them. The Northern Ireland Office and the Public Accounts Committee have also spelled out what they think was wrong with previous child poverty strategies and how to fix them. Their responses offer the evidence-based alternatives that we need. We need a rights-based, life cycle, intersectional strategy with time-bound, measurable actions, clear accountability and proper resourcing, grounded in lived experience. My focus today is on what I see as a weakness — the legality. As the Ulster University submission by Dr Mark Simpson, Prof Gráinne McKeever and Dr Ciara Fitzpatrick made clear, the draft, as we see it, fails to meet the Executive's duty to adopt a strategy based on objective need. By the Honourable Lord Justice Treacy's test, a lawful strategy must have a start, a middle and an end, with measurable outcomes. The draft has a start — we can see that — but there are no measurable endpoints or timelines, and the outcomes are vague means, not ends. It also ducks the objective need element, offering no single consistent test of who actually needs the help most. Taken together, it is not yet a lawful plan of action, and I think that it leaves the Executive exposed to challenge again. I ask this: what are we doing, if we are knowingly putting forward a strategy that, so far, is not measurable or target driven and is not clearly anchored in objective need? Without those clear targets and budgets, I do not believe that it can be effective, meaning that the children whom it claims to help will continue to suffer. We support the call for a Northern Ireland child payment, as we have previously. Whilst there are issues with the Scottish scheme, it shows the way. It sets statutory targets that are bolstered by that payment. Analysis has shown that that payment reduced relative child poverty by around four to five percentage points. That has lifted thousands of children out of poverty. Whilst analysis has also shown that, yes, Scotland has not met every interim target, the point is much greater than that. It is about the fact that Scotland has targets in situ. It measures progress and can adjust policy as and when it needs to and when it sees what is and is not working. We can learn something from that model. I attended a Rising Together Against Poverty event at the start of September with lots of community and voluntary sector organisations. I heard very clearly that a cash-first approach was the most effective and impactful way to immediately help families. That approach worked in Scotland. The MLA for East Belfast David Brooks said that "throwing money at the problem" does not work. Respectfully, thousands of children in Scotland would disagree with that. Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way? Ms Mulholland: No. I have a lot to get through, David. If I have time at the end, I will let you in. Research from the Republic of Ireland also shows the impact of combining that cash and in-kind support. According to Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) in 2025, when you count the child payments and the in-work supports, alongside free preschool meals and free school meals, more than 150,000 children were lifted out of poverty. Closer to home, I turn to the 'Welfare Mitigations Review', which was led by Les Allamby. It found that offsetting the two-child limit and bolstering family incomes with those new payments is exactly the kind of targeted intervention that we should see in an anti-poverty strategy. As I have said many times, poverty does not just happen in silos, and we have a society that cannot tackle it in silos. We already have a law to make Departments work together: the Children's Services Co-operation Act (Northern Ireland) 2015. Recommendation 9 in the Public Accounts Committee's report on child poverty said that it is clear that the Act is not being used to its full potential. It recommended that the Department of Finance work with all Departments to remove the barriers and bring forward an action plan. I hope that that Act can be used, whether it is around the scrutiny of the strategy or cross-departmental working. It is clear that we could be doing so much, but, right now, the draft anti-poverty strategy is not going to fulfil the objectives that the Minister has set out so far. Mr Butler: The Assembly needs no reminder that child poverty in Northern Ireland needs to be tackled. We have had many debates on the issue. The 'Northern Ireland Poverty and Income Inequality Report, 2023/24' showed that one in five of our children are living in absolute poverty and one in four are living in relative poverty. Behind those numbers are children growing up in homes that are sometimes cold, parents skipping meals so that their children can eat and young people who see no realistic way to get ahead. That is the daily reality in too many households. When we look at some of the things that the Executive have tackled, poverty sits at their root cause. Take educational underachievement: we know that it is correlated with poverty. Take health inequalities: there is an inevitable correlation with poverty. Therefore, it is a cross-Executive matter. However, under the New Decade, New Approach agreement, the Executive promised an anti-poverty strategy and a child poverty strategy. It was accepted at that stage that one document could serve both purposes but only if it had a clear, measurable focus on children and measurable outcomes for children. The current draft, sadly, does not. The Children's Commissioner, for instance, has said plainly that it is "not fit for purpose", and many others share that view. It has been said by some in the sector that there are no new policies, no timelines and no ring-fenced budget. That part is unarguable. The Northern Ireland Audit Office called for a cross-departmental plan with clear, measurable targets, and the Public Accounts Committee warned that, without those targets, no strategy can deliver real change, yet no such targets appear in the draft. To the Minister's credit, the new disability and work strategy committed to supporting 50,000 disabled people into work by 2036, which is a welcome and specific target. Mr Lyons: Will the Member give way? Mr Butler: Absolutely, yes. Top 12.45 pm Mr Lyons: Does that not prove the authors of the motion wrong when they say that there are no new actions in the strategy and that there is no new budget for it? A number of strategies that flow from it have targets and have funding allocated to them, and more will come forward in the action plan as well. Therefore, it is demonstrably false to say that there are no timelines, no targets and no new actions. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute. Mr Butler: Thank you. Given the history of the Executive, setting aside the Ministers who have those portfolios at the moment, the difficulty is that we set strategies and then fail to deliver on them. If we fail to put it on paper, we will never hit the targets. The Minister is right to say — Mr Allen: Will the Member give way? Mr Butler: Yes. Mr Allen: Does the Member agree that the Minister should have followed the approach that he took with the disability and work strategy by including targets in the anti-poverty strategy at the outset? Mr Butler: Yes. Thank you. I will not give way any more, because I want to get through this. I agree with the Member for East Belfast. That is the point that I am getting to. The Minister has already shown that the Department has the capacity to be specific. It goes back to the point that I made that, in bringing forward one document that was agreed in 'New Decade, New Approach', the fear was that certain specifics would be missed. Childhood poverty is one such specific that, we feel, is missing. The NI Anti-Poverty Network, which is supported by more than 80 organisations, has called for the document to be rewritten. That is not a political move; it is the powerful testimony of 80 separate organisations that serve those people daily, whether it is at food banks or through the provision of advice and help. They said that it focuses on personal behaviour rather than on the structural causes of poverty and, in doing so, stigmatises the very people whom it should help. We also have the voices of those living in poverty. During the consultation, the Women's Support Network, Save the Children NI, the NI Anti-Poverty Network and Dr Ciara Fitzpatrick engaged directly with 145 people living in poverty. The results speak for themselves: 78% said that the draft strategy would make no difference to their life; 15% said that they were unsure whether it would make a difference; and only 7% believed that it would help. Eighty-two per cent stated that it was poor. People were clear about what would make a real difference: providing free school meals for all pupils; reinstating the holiday hunger scheme; capping school uniform costs; and increasing grants. Those are all very hard to deliver, but they are certainly worthy of debate. I welcome the fact that the School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill passed its Final Stage yesterday. I look forward to it doing what the Education Minister outlined: genuinely reducing the cost of uniforms for families. Those people also called for raising the level of social security benefits to reflect the true cost of living; removing the two-child limit and the five-week universal credit wait; introducing a Northern Ireland child payment; and ensuring affordable childcare and housing. Those are not radical asks; they are practical measures and have worked elsewhere. I also have to point out and recognise that poverty is not confined to our cities. In rural communities, families face higher living costs, poorer public transport, limited childcare and older, less efficient housing. Many spend more to heat their homes and to travel to work or school. Any credible anti-poverty strategy must reflect those realities and ensure that rural households are not left behind. We must also be honest about welfare reform. The draft strategy mentions the existing mitigations for the bedroom tax and the benefit cap, but it commits to nothing beyond continuing them. I hope that that is the subject of high-level discussion in the Executive. The Cliff Edge Coalition has been clear: strengthen the mitigations; end the five-week wait; remove the two-child limit; and support private renters who have been hit by the frozen local housing allowance. Poverty does not happen by accident. It is shaped by political policy decisions. If those are made on the basis of the right choices, we can move the dial on poverty in Northern Ireland. A real anti-poverty strategy must be measurable, time bound, targeted and properly funded. In that regard, Minister, you will have the willing ear of the Ulster Unionist Party in the Executive, because as my party leader, Mike Nesbitt, has pointed out many times, if we want to shift left in Health, we need to tackle the inequalities that are rooted in poverty, and we will improve people's outcomes as best we can. Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): On behalf of the Committee for Communities, I will contribute to the debate on tackling child poverty. The motion is correct to express alarm at the scale of the challenge that we face in the North, where one in five of our children lives in absolute poverty. Behind every one of those numbers is a child whose potential is constrained by hunger, poor housing or the stress of insecurity. In 2025, no child in our society should endure those circumstances. The issue has been a sustained priority for the Committee since the restoration of the Assembly. We have gathered evidence from those on the front line: Action for Children; the Trussell Trust; the NI Anti-Poverty Network; the Commissioner for Children and Young People; and many others. We have consistently pressed the Department and the Executive for a robust, cross-departmental, outcomes-driven anti-poverty strategy that meets not just the letter of the law, but the spirit of the law. Our message has been consistent: good intentions are not enough, and delivery mechanisms, measurable outcomes and accountability must be built in from the start. The Committee has sought detailed information on what actions are being taken at local government level. The urgency of the debate is underscored by research that has just been published by the Simon Community. Its report, 'Childhood Adversity and Homelessness in NI: Breaking the Cycle', provides a stark, evidence-based picture of the long-term consequences of failing to support vulnerable children. It finds that childhood adversity is an almost universal experience for single adults living in homeless hostels, with 96% of hostel residents having experienced at least one adverse childhood experience, and two thirds having experienced four or more. That is a stark warning, telling us that childhood trauma and poverty are not isolated problems but are intergenerational. Unless we intervene early and effectively, disadvantage simply reproduces itself. The Simon Community research must serve as a wake-up call. It reinforces why a truly effective anti-poverty strategy is not just desirable, but essential. The Committee welcomed the long-overdue publication of the draft anti-poverty strategy as a necessary step towards fulfilling a long-delayed legal obligation. After hearing extensive evidence, however, the Committee concluded that the draft strategy lacks the necessary precision and enforcement mechanisms to deliver real change. A framework alone will not transform lives. What matters is what sits beneath it: the statutory muscle, the financial commitment and the accountability that ensure that promises are kept. Those are essential if the strategy is to have a meaningful impact on the lives of the thousands of children who currently live in poverty. The Committee's formal response to the consultation on the draft strategy set out the architecture that is needed to address its critical gaps. Our conclusions are grounded in robust evidence and aligned with good practice recommendations from many bodies, including our own Public Accounts Committee, of which I am a member. The message from the Committee for Communities is clear. If it is to be fit for purpose, the final anti-poverty strategy must include four key elements. The first is legally binding, time-bound and numeric targets. The draft strategy proposes monitoring high-level indicators, such as the percentage of children who are in relative poverty, but sets no firm targets for reduction. Without targets, there is no clear measure of success or driver for ambitious action. The second key element is a costed, multi-year delivery plan. A strategy without a budget is merely a statement of aspiration. The Committee has called for a plan that maps actions to Departments and clearly distinguishes between existing funding and new money. The third key element is robust governance and transparent monitoring. The Committee supports having a board that is chaired by the head of the Civil Service, but that must be coupled with quarterly public dashboards that show progress against targets, as well as an annual report to the Assembly. Accountability must be built into the very fabric of the strategy. The fourth key element is a commitment to independent evaluation. To ensure that the strategy remains on track and delivers value for money, it must be subject to independent scrutiny at key points in its life cycle, including a mid-term review. The Committee believes that child poverty is not inevitable but is the result of policy choices. We have an opportunity to improve the draft anti-poverty strategy with the tools that it needs to succeed. The recommendations made by the Committee for Communities are proportionate, audit-ready and reflective of what the Committee has consistently heard from stakeholders and experts. We urge the Minister to listen and to incorporate our recommendations in full. By doing so, a well-intentioned framework can be turned into a powerful and practical — Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up. Mr Gildernew: — plan of action. Mr Kingston: The core purpose of the Assembly is to provide for the citizens of Northern Ireland, to provide a prosperous economy, to grow our economy and to provide circumstances in which people, families and households can thrive. That is reflected in our Programme for Government priorities: the growth of our economy; the provision of childcare; cutting health waiting lists; the provision of more housing, particularly social housing; and support for vulnerable people. The DUP Minister for Communities, on behalf of the Executive, has brought forward an anti-poverty strategy that seeks to reduce the risk of people falling into poverty, to minimise the impacts of poverty and to help people exit poverty. It seeks to address the root causes of poverty and to support and enable people to provide for themselves and their family. We welcome today's debate on the Opposition motion, which, again, proposes mitigations for the welfare system, funding for which would come out of the public purse for public services in Northern Ireland. The Minister has already committed to mitigations for the bedroom tax and the benefit cap and has extended them until March 2028. Introducing further mitigations would impact on the funding available for other, much-needed public services. Do the Opposition have proposals for from where they would make savings? Are they aware of the demands in the Department of Health —? Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way? Mr Kingston: Wait until I have got through my points, and I will then give way. Are the Opposition aware of the long waiting lists in the Department of Health, of the high demand for special educational needs provision in the Department of Education, of the investment that the Department for Infrastructure needs to make in roads and to address the situation with potholes that people encounter every day, of the shortfall in police officer numbers in the Department of Justice and of the need for DAERA to clean up Lough Neagh? All those issues have been raised, and the Opposition will table other motions about them. To where would they make cuts? Mr O'Toole: I appreciate the Member's giving way. I will make two points, and I will be quick. We made three specific suggestions last year to address the two-child limit. One was to ring-fence the bulk of the regional rate rise for use. From memory, that would have raised about £30 million. The second was to reform rating of empty properties. The final one was to get rid of our ridiculous subsidising of air passenger duty (APD) on flights. You and the Minister may disagree with those suggestions, but they were our ideas. We costed them and put forward proposals. It is therefore not right to say that we did not do so. To clarify, we also want to see more fiscal devolution and more revenue raising by the Executive. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute. Mr Kingston: Perhaps the Opposition should have included those proposals in their motion. It is always convenient to produce proposals for more public funds to be spent on a need, but that money needs to come from somewhere. That is the reality of government and of being stewards of the public purse. The DUP is committed to ensuring that each and every child has the best start in life. Mr Baker: Will the Member give way? Mr Kingston: I will, briefly. Mr Baker: If that is the case, will the DUP support my private Member's Bill, the aim of which is to end holiday hunger? Mr Kingston: If you put forward costed proposals, we will look at them, but, as I said, every expenditure has an impact on the public purse elsewhere. Child poverty does not exist in a vacuum. Rather, it affects whole families. We cannot lift children out of poverty without first addressing the needs of their parents, grandparents, carers and the other people who support them throughout their lives. It is therefore essential that we acknowledge that tackling child poverty means addressing wider issues of disadvantage in our society. Children are vulnerable. They cannot get a job to provide for themselves, which means that it is their parents' or grandparents' duty to provide that support. In recent years, many have found doing that to be increasingly challenging. There is a heavy burden on many hard-working people who are struggling to make ends meet in a cost-of-living crisis, and, as we have heard, almost one in four children now lives in relative poverty. A severe challenge therefore lies ahead. In the Assembly, we have discussed how unfair the two-child limit is and the real impact that it has on families. Although mitigations have been introduced, we look to Westminster to make funding available for further mitigations in order to provide for those families. Creating opportunity for children from disadvantaged backgrounds, be it through greater educational attainment, training, apprenticeships or employment, will be crucial to breaking the cycle of poverty for many. Tackling poverty is therefore an Executive-wide responsibility. Every Department has to take responsibility. It is important that we take the necessary action to provide people with the means to exit poverty and to introduce measures that will prevent people from falling into poverty. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm today. I therefore propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The debate will continue after Question Time, when the next Member to be called will be Michelle Guy. The debate stood suspended. The sitting was suspended at 1.00 pm. On resuming — Top 2.00 pm Oral Answers to Questions Communities Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Questions 5, 9 and 12 have been withdrawn. Grassroots Sports Facilities: Investment 1. Mrs Mason asked the Minister for Communities to outline any plans that his Department has to support investment in grassroots sports facilities. (AQO 2535/22-27) Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): In September, I launched £1 million of capital investment through the Olympic legacy fund. I have also made a budget allocation of £3 million to continue supporting the Your School Your Club programme. In addition, I recently approved high-level policy proposals for the grassroots facilities strand of the Northern Ireland Football Fund. That is delivery for grassroots sport across Northern Ireland. Mrs Mason: Thanks for that answer, Minister. When I engage with clubs across South Down, they tell me that they see a huge growth in women and girls' participation in sport — GAA, soccer, rugby, coastal rowing and cricket — but that facilities for them lag far behind. How will you ensure that future investment prioritises equality so that female players have the same opportunities as their male equivalents? Mr Lyons: That is exactly what I have heard, which is why I introduced those programmes. A lot of our need for facilities and changing facilities is as a result of the increased participation of women in sport. I have been consistent on this: we need to see those facilities upgraded. We need to make sure that we do not do anything that harms or limits the ambition of women and girls. All sports will have my full support in making sure that we make that a reality. Mr Stewart: Minister, out of those grassroots sports facilities and clubs come our future elite athletes. I am sure that you will join me in congratulating Josh McClune from our constituency on being the first cyclist from Northern Ireland to become a member of the British Cycling National Schools of Racing. Unfortunately, with high-level performance and participation in such courses comes great cost to the individual and their family. What more can be done to support our elite athletes in the pursuit of their dreams? Mr Lyons: Absolutely. I congratulate Josh. I have been involved in working with him. I am delighted at his success and hope that that continues. The Member is absolutely right. We need to make sure that that support is in place. Through Sport NI, we have the elite programmes — they need to continue — but we need to make sure that, before people get to that stage, they are supported through their grassroots club. That is why, in addition to what Sport NI offers, I have put in place the Olympic legacy fund, which helps with that grassroots element. Ms Mulholland: Minister, has there been any discussion of an allocation from the investment strategy to the Northern Ireland Football Fund? That might help with some of the things that we are talking about. Mr Lyons: The Member will probably be aware from the debate earlier that the investment strategy is still being discussed. Commitments have been made that, I hope, will be followed through not just on the money that has already been pledged but on the additional money that will be required to ensure that need is met. Mr O'Toole: Minister, we all know where Casement Park is — it is very well connected; it is next to a motorway and a train line — but it appears that that stadium is stuck in the limbo of Executive dysfunction. Months ago, in June, the Treasury committed an extra £50 million to build it using financial transactions capital (FTC). We understand that you met the Finance Minister only a couple of weeks ago. What is the status of Casement Park? When will construction begin? Do you support the project's being delivered? Mr Lyons: The Member will be aware that there is still a shortfall in funding: that is the gap that needs to be bridged. That is why I met the Finance Minister, and those conversations are ongoing. We also need clarity on exactly what financial transactions capital means in the context of the project. That is not the only element that has not been funded, of course. We have seen how the Northern Ireland Football Fund has not been funded to its need either. I stand ready to meet anyone about the project. As I have said, I want to make sure that strategic need for sport in Northern Ireland is met. Ms Forsythe: The Minister knows that I am progressing a Member's Bill on women and girls in sports in Northern Ireland. One of the themes of the feedback on it is that, when young girls turn away from sport, they rarely come back. Does the Minister agree that investment in grassroots sports facilities to ensure that young girls have safe spaces for changing and showering is critical and needs to be supported? Mr Lyons: I agree 100% with the Member. I was delighted to visit some local football clubs with her earlier this year, where I saw for myself the growth in the women and girls' game. They need those facilities. They need single-sex spaces as well, which is why the investment is so important. I am very supportive of her proposal. Musical Instruments for Bands: Criteria 2. Ms Hunter asked the Minister for Communities to outline any assessment that he has made of the effectiveness of the Arts Council’s mechanisms to withhold or withdraw funding through the musical instruments scheme if an applicant organisation does not meet its equality of opportunity and good relations duty. (AQO 2536/22-27) Mr Lyons: The Arts Council has mechanisms in place in relation to the governance and delivery of the musical instruments programme, including a process to withhold or withdraw funding. Ms Hunter: Minister, you said that the Arts Council can withhold funding. Are you are aware of any instances in which it has done so? Is it the case that those duties exist on paper only, with no real enforcement? What will your Department do to ensure that the Arts Council enforces its own standards? Mr Lyons: It is a requirement of the funding conditions that applicant organisations commit to equality of opportunity and a good relations duty. The Arts Council reports on those matters to the Equality Commission. Miss Brogan: The Minister will know that the all-Ireland fleadh is coming to Belfast next year. Will he outline what discussions he has had with the Arts Council about potential funding programmes for the bands that take part? Mr Lyons: I was delighted to meet the fleadh organisers and pleased with their commitment to making sure that it is a full demonstration of what we can do, not just in Belfast but across Northern Ireland, when it comes to music. There will certainly be further conversations with the organisers and the Arts Council. It is in our interest to make sure that that is a success and that it demonstrates the full range of musical talent that we have in Northern Ireland. I was pleased that they wanted to display the work of bands, because that is a significant part of our musical and cultural tradition here in Northern Ireland, and one that we should be proud of. Ms Nicholl: Has the Minister had any conversations with the Arts Council about any band or act's being involved in an activity that is perceived as being disrespectful to any tradition? Mr Lyons: I have had various conversations with the chief executive. We can certainly get you the minutes of those meetings. I cannot remember any specific incidents in that regard, but, if it is important to the Member, I am happy to get that information to her. Mr Middleton: Minister, can you confirm that the musical instrument programme is a cross-community programme and that it has had real positive benefit right across Northern Ireland? Mr Lyons: Absolutely. One of the reasons why I am proud of my record is that we have been able to deliver more money for musical instruments across Northern Ireland. It has gone to all communities right across Northern Ireland. In the past year alone, 4,500 people have benefited, which is why we put the budget up to where it is at the minute. It helps not only bands but individual musicians and other groups, including many school groups. It has been a good investment that has touched so many people. We often talk about the need for regional balance. This programme ensures that we can help people right across Northern Ireland. I will continue to make sure that we fund it, because I want to make sure that our money goes as far as possible. This is a brilliant way of ensuring that there is support. I am proud to be able to support our bands and others who benefit from the musical instruments programme. Benefits: Two-child Limit 3. Mr Durkan asked the Minister for Communities to outline any research that his Department has undertaken in relation to the impact of the two-child limit on poverty indicators. (AQO 2537/22-27) Mr Lyons: Mr Deputy Speaker, with your permission, I will answer question 3 and touch on question 5, which was withdrawn. I have repeatedly made clear my views on the policy. I am strongly opposed to the two-child limit. I do not believe that the policy has met its stated aims, and there is no doubt that it contributes to child poverty. Although the UK Government have previously indicated that they are considering the future of the two-child limit, there has been no confirmation of their intended approach. I am supportive of any measures to alleviate the impact of the policy or to remove it completely. I hope that we will soon see firm proposals to that end emerging from the UK Government. My Department has not conducted any research on the impact of the two-child limit on poverty indicators, but there is other research that indicates the impact that it is having. Mr Durkan: Minister, you referred, as I did in the debate earlier, to the wealth of evidence from local and national academic studies that demonstrates the negative impact of the two-child limit. Since that was published, I have commissioned a research paper into its impact in the North. Despite the Executive's stated commitment to tackling poverty, your Department has carried out no research of its own. Why not? Mr Lyons: It is for the very simple reason that we have an evidence base that demonstrates the issues that exist. Now, I am happy to update that as time goes on, in particular to research what the consequences would be for us, as an Executive, if we were to take steps on that. The Member was unable to say, in the previous debate, how much the child payment would cost. I am happy to tell him how much it would cost to mitigate the two-child limit in Northern Ireland: £91·5 million by 2027-28. We can have the debate and talk about whether we should do that. However, my energies and efforts have been used to speak to the UK Government and tell them that that policy is wrong for the whole of the United Kingdom and that it should go for the whole United Kingdom. I hope that others will recognise that and help us to ensure that we get it changed, because it is having an impact on children across Northern Ireland. Mr Brett: Does the Minister agree that one of the strongest messages that we could send to ensure that we remove the two-child cap would be for the questioner to contact his sister party in the UK Parliament, with which his party leader sits? Mr Lyons: Yes, absolutely. It would be helpful if the SDLP would put its focus, efforts and energy there. It was very keen that the Labour Government would get elected. It was very open about wanting to see a Labour Government in power at Westminster. I encourage the SDLP to lobby the Government on that issue. That is what I have been doing. I look forward to the Member's doing the same. Pensions: Early Access 4. Mrs Dillon asked the Minister for Communities whether any progress has been made on plans to allow early access to pensions for those who have a terminal illness diagnosis. (AQO 2538/22-27) Mr Lyons: It is compassionate and practical to allow early access to pensions for people who have a terminal illness diagnosis. That solution would offer dignity, financial stability and peace of mind to people in their final months. During the Assembly debate on 31 March 2025, I gave a commitment to advocate on behalf of the members of our society who have been diagnosed with a terminal illness. Subsequently, I wrote to the Minister for Pensions to call on the UK Government to act swiftly to deliver that change. Mrs Dillon: I thank the Minister for his answer. I am aware from his response to the debate that he is very understanding of the issue. He said that he would like to do something to ensure that people who are diagnosed with a terminal illness get early access to their pensions. What response was there from the British Treasury? Has there been any movement? Is the Minister able to progress that in his Department? Mr Lyons: Unfortunately, as of this week, I have not had any response from the Minister. I also raised it with Dr Suzy Morrissey, who has been appointed by the UK Government to complete an independent report to examine the issues that should be considered by the Government during the third review of the state pension age. The pension rules are exceptionally complex. There could be consequences for us financially in our block grant if we were to take that on. That is why the UK Government should do the right thing: give it proper consideration and ensure that it is explored. Mr Allen: The Minister may be aware that the Pension Schemes Bill is currently going through Parliament. We will receive a legislative consent motion (LCM) on it shortly. Can he look at whether that could be a vehicle by which to take forward the change? Mr Lyons: I do not think that the Bill would be the appropriate way in which to take it forward, because of the fundamental changes that it would make to pension systems and the economic impact that that would have. I will, however, do everything that I can to continue to push the Government on the issue. Irish Language Strategy: Update 6. Mr Kelly asked the Minister for Communities for an update on the Irish language strategy. (AQO 2540/22-27) Mr Lyons: I have no further info on that since the last time that I updated the House. Mr Kelly: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a fhreagra — [Translation: I thank the Minister for his answer] — I think. The Minister has been in post for 18 months, and, as yet, we have no date for the language strategy for the North. I can tell you that Gaeilgeoirí across the North are getting very frustrated and concerned that it will not come at all. Can he give a firm commitment, or tell me when he will be able to do so, on when that strategy will be brought to the Executive? Top 2.15 pm Mr Lyons: Of course, a cross-departmental working group is looking at that issue right now, so it is outside of my control while the Departments look at it and come back with advice on what is possible and what is credible. However, I have to say that, on the issue of the Irish language, I will not be taking any advice or instruction form Sinn Féin because its reputation on it has been absolutely appalling. It has recklessly imposed it on street signage, disregarding the clear opposition of the vast majority of local residents in some instances. It wishes to force it on to front-line council staff against their will at Belfast City Council —. [Inaudible.] Mr Lyons: It struggles to move away from the language of the past, which continues to haunt it to this very day. The Member is speaking from a sedentary position, but I cannot hear what he is saying. I do not really care either because I do not believe that he has anything to say that can add to this conversation. There is a process that is ongoing. That will continue, but I can assure him that — [Inaudible.] Mr Lyons: — when it comes to language — Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Kelly. Mr Lyons: — and when it comes to culture, I will support people, and I will uphold people's rights to engage in their own language and cultural traditions. What I will not do is impose language and culture on other people. Mr K Buchanan: Minister, do you share my concern that the use of lawfare is further weaponising the Irish language? Mr Lyons: I think that the key word there is "weaponising", and it is absolutely the case that Sinn Féin and others have been weaponising the Irish language. They want to use it against others, and I think that the way in which that has gone is really unfortunate. We should approach these issues on the basis of us collectively working together and of what works for everybody, rather than a majority imposing its will on a minority. Mr McMurray: The Minister referenced the departmental working group. Will he outline any meetings that have taken place of the departmental working group on the Irish language strategy? Mr Lyons: Yes, the group has been meeting. The Executive met on 15 May and agreed that that work would take place. That work is ongoing. At this stage, it is mostly the Departments coming forward with their own proposals and looking at how much those would cost, what is credible, how they will be meaningful and how those strategies could make a difference. That work is going on in the Departments, and I do not have an update on where that sits right now. Mr McGlone: Minister, we have heard quite a bit about the working group. In fact, we have heard more about the working group than its actual workings. Can you provide us with some information, at least, on when the information from respective Departments will be collated and will manifest itself into something tangible by way of work, by way of protocols and by way of a meaningful strategy on the way forward? Mr Lyons: That is out of my hands right now because we have the co-design group that brought forward recommendations, and each of the Departments is looking at those recommendations in detail to consider what they might cost, what the impact might be, what is credible and what is doable. It will be up to those Departments to bring that back so that we can get an understanding of how we progress those recommendations from here on in. Fuel Poverty Strategy: Update 7. Mr Allen asked the Minister for Communities for an update on the fuel poverty strategy. (AQO 2541/22-27) Mr Lyons: The fuel poverty strategy public consultation closed on 6 March. Analysis of the responses to the consultation has been completed, and a summary of responses document will be published in the coming weeks. Informed by the consultation and the significant stakeholder engagement, my officials are working to finalise the strategy. Mr Allen: I thank the Minister for his answer and the work that has been undertaken on that important strategy to date. Will the Minister commit today to ensuring that the fuel poverty strategy includes clear, measurable and time-bound outcomes to lift households out of fuel poverty? Mr Lyons: He will be pleased to hear that we will have those targets and timelines in place. This is where a lot of the misunderstanding of the anti-poverty strategy comes from because many of those targets and timelines will be found in those other strategies, such as the fuel poverty strategy and in additional action plans that we will introduce. Mr Clarke: Given the fuel poverty strategy and the importance of some elements of it, one of the things that has been really important to many of our constituents is the warm homes scheme. Can you give an update on whether that will continue to feature as part of the fuel poverty strategy or on what will happen with it in the future? Mr Lyons: Yes, absolutely. It is important that we not only make sure that we have new-build homes in the condition that they need to be but that there is extensive retrofitting and other support that will need to be available for homes that are already built. We will receive Barnett consequentials from the UK Government. A sum of £13·2 billion was announced for their warm homes plan, but that funding is unhypothecated, which means that the Executive have discretion to determine how funding is allocated. I want, as I hope other Members around the House do, to make sure that that money comes through for our own warm healthy homes scheme so that we can make sure that that money goes to those who need it most and makes a real difference to energy costs. Mr McNulty: Minister, the North remains the only part of the UK without a statutory target to reduce fuel poverty. Can you confirm whether you intend to bring forward such a provision within this mandate? Mr Lyons: I absolutely will bring forward a fuel poverty strategy. I said that I will bring that to the Executive by the end of the year, and I am still committed to doing that. Mr Mathison: Can the Minister outline how much resource his Department will need to implement the fuel poverty strategy? Mr Lyons: That will be subject to Executive agreement and what actions are put in there. Of course, we are already spending hundreds of millions of pounds every year to tackle fuel poverty. New actions will be put in place, and I have a number of actions that I want to ensure will be in that plan. I want to make sure that anything that we put in is costed. I have no interest whatsoever in putting a plan together that is not realistic and that we cannot achieve or deliver. Some other people want me to do that, but I am not prepared to do it. However, I will certainly bid for the resources that I need, because it is one of the most important interventions that we can make that actually makes a difference to people's lives and will lead to recurrent savings for people. I have seen in my constituency those who are dealing with the effects of poorly insulated homes. That is not just about people's comfort. It limits people's life chances and the educational attainment of children and is a huge contributing factor to poverty, so it is essential that we get this right and that we get the Barnett consequential delivered to the Department for Communities so that we can make a change in people's lives, which is what we are actually here to do. Renters' Settlement Status 8. Mr Frew asked the Minister for Communities whether any requirements are placed upon landlords or letting agencies to conduct a background check into renters' settlement status to ensure that a prospective tenant has the legal right to rent and live in the property. (AQO 2542/22-27) Mr Lyons: Currently, there is not a requirement on landlords or letting agencies to conduct a background check into renters' settlement status to ensure that a prospective tenant has the legal right to rent and live in the property. However, I have written to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Home Secretary to enquire about the extension of the right-to-rent scheme to Northern Ireland. Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for that clarification. Is the Minister aware of any legislation that would allow the right-to-rent scheme to extend to Northern Ireland? Mr Lyons: Yes, the Immigration Act 2016 allows that to be extended to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but it is up to the UK Government to extend those provisions. That is why I have written to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Home Secretary to request that extension. Communities Delivery: Foyle 10. Mr Middleton asked the Minister for Communities to outline what his Department has delivered for the people of Foyle since he took office in February 2024. (AQO 2544/22-27) Mr Lyons: Since coming into office in February 2024, I have delivered the following for the people of Foyle: £10 million of financial transactions capital funding for the north-west regeneration fund; £1·2 million to the Inner City Trust to enable the purchase of the former Austins department store building; £5 million for construction work on the Inner Walled City public realm scheme; and £1 million for the Harbour Square public realm project. I have worked closely with the Executive to enable the Londonderry and Strabane city deal to reach financial deal status. I have delivered £4·4 million for community and voluntary organisations; £12 million for the People and Place neighbourhood renewal programme; over £500,000 for improvements at libraries in his constituency; over £568,000 on labour market partnerships; 12 jobs fairs; and £9 million through the Supporting People programme. We have helped 1,178 people in Foyle to access additional benefits worth £2·6 million through the Make the Call service. We have delivered 47 co-ownership property completions and 345 social housing units, and we have improved 6,679 Housing Executive houses. I have delivered £5·1 million through the de-rating grant; almost £1 million in the rates support grant; £600,000 in the transferred functions grant; £2·6 million through the annual funding programme to 24 organisations; £33,000 for a musical instruments scheme to three organisations; £44,000 for musical instruments schemes for individuals; and £32,000 for small capital grants. Finally, the Housing Executive has funded over £7 million for the affordable warmth scheme in the Londonderry and Strabane council area. Some Members: Hear, hear. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Order, Members. I call Gary Middleton to ask a supplementary question. Mr Middleton: I thank the Minister for his delivery in the north-west. It flies in the face of what is said by those who continually criticise the DUP, and this Minister, who is delivering for that constituency. The Minister and his Department have made another welcome announcement, which is on the community wealth building pilot. Will he provide more detail on what that will mean for my constituency? Mr Lyons: On the Member's first point, it is not just that they criticise the DUP or DUP Ministers but that they talk down their constituency all the time, whereas I know that the Member is always keen to talk it up. I welcome that. Yes, there is something else that we are doing for his constituency. We are taking forward the community wealth building pilot scheme. There will be one in the north-west and one in Larne, which I am sure that the Member will be pleased to hear. Those pilots will explore innovative, place-based approaches to economic development. They are about building local capacity, strengthening community assets and ensuring that the wealth that is generated can be retained in the community. The partnerships will announce further plans in due course. Community Infrastructure Fund: Information Sessions 11. Mr McAleer asked the Minister for Communities whether additional information sessions in other localities will be arranged for stage 2 of the Northern Ireland community infrastructure fund. (AQO 2545/22-27) Mr Lyons: At stage 2, applicants who have been successful at stage 1 will receive invitations to attend online information sessions. Those sessions will cover issues specific to the stage 2 application, such as how to source quotations for proposed works. Mr McAleer: Go raibh maith agat. [Translation: Thank you.] The Minister will be aware that my constituency of West Tyrone is very rural. Will he commit to hosting or having events in the constituency, bearing in mind his responsibilities under the Rural Needs Act 2016? Mr Lyons: That is exactly why we have had those consultation events throughout Northern Ireland. Indeed, I launched the scheme in his constituency, or in what I believe will shortly become part of his constituency. I am sorry that he was not able to make it. Mr McAleer: It is in my constituency. Mr Lyons: It is. Pomeroy is in his constituency, but he was not able to make it, unfortunately. Neither was Mr McCrossan, who is nodding his head. It would have been great if they could have come along, because they could have heard about the Northern Ireland community infrastructure fund, the investment that we are putting in and the change that we will make not just to West Tyrone but to Northern Ireland. Those online sessions will be available. If there is a need and a demand for further information, we will certainly look at providing it. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): There are no supplementary questions to that question. Winter Fuel Payments 13. Mr Kearney asked the Minister for Communities when winter fuel payments will be issued to recipients. (AQO 2547/22-27) Mr Lyons: They will be issued from mid-November through to early December. Mr Kearney: Last year, the Minister launched a public consultation on the draft fuel poverty strategy. Will he provide an update on the progress that has been made and on how the strategy will alleviate the pressures on families who are getting it so tight at this time? Mr Lyons: That is why I am taking forward the fuel poverty strategy, which will be with the Executive by the end of this year, as promised. As I have said before, I am doing that because it is one of the best uses that we can make of government funding, owing to the changes that it will make and the impact that those changes will have on people's lives. Some people are living in horrendous conditions. They are spending huge sums of money on barely heating their home. That is why it is so important that we put in place the measures that can improve homes and retain heat. The strategy is something that will concern constituents across Northern Ireland. That is why it is essential that we get it right. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Trevor Clarke. You have one minute. Armed Forces Covenant 14. Mr Clarke asked the Minister for Communities to outline any action that his Department is taking to implement the armed forces covenant. (AQO 2548/22-27) Mr Lyons: The armed forces covenant duty, which was introduced under the Armed Forces Act 2021, came into force on 22 November 2022. It is a legal obligation on certain bodies, including the Housing Executive, to "have due regard to" the principles of the covenant. It requires decisions on the development and delivery of certain services to be made with conscious consideration being given to the needs of the armed forces community. I am committed to ensuring that we keep to the covenant duty. Some of the things that we have seen in recent weeks, including the attitude of local authorities, have been shameful. I will make sure that our armed forces are treated properly and in accordance with the covenant. Top 2.30 pm Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): That ends the period for listed questions. We now move to 15 minutes of topical questions. Topical questions 2 and 8 have been withdrawn. Houses in Multiple Occupation T1. Mr Durkan asked the Minister for Communities, given that residents of the university area in his constituency have concerns about the use of unregulated HMOs and he knows from debate in the Chamber that they are not the only ones, whether he is content that his HMO unit is adequately resourced and sufficiently empowered to carry out investigation and enforcement. (AQT 1671/22-27) Mr Brett: Welcome to the [Inaudible.] [Interruption.] Mr Lyons: My goodness, it sounds as though Mr Durkan has been listening to the legitimate concerns of some of his local residents. I am glad that, as Mr Brett said, he has now come on board. He recognises the issues that that is causing for local communities. Mr Durkan: What are you going to do about it? Mr Lyons: I will tell you what I am going to do about it. I will make a statement to the House very soon. The Member's question betrays a misunderstanding of how the system operates. There is a responsibility on councils and how they handle issues around HMOs. Therefore, I will bring a statement to the House, and I will outline the requirements and responsibilities on councils. I look forward to him engaging with that. Mr Durkan: I will tell him, as the Minister responsible for HMO policy, that some houses across the North have essentially had their kitchens closed off to avoid them being defined as an HMO and so that they remain immune from enforcement. Some properties are being used as temporary accommodation by the Housing Executive, which is awful for tenants, and they are often overcrowded due to the definition of "family" in HMO legislation. The Minister told us that he is aware of those issues. How aware is he? Does he find those issues acceptable? How does he intend to address those issues? Mr Lyons: I am aware of who is responsible. Councils have extensive powers in those areas, and there is a mismatch between what different councils are doing. I will clarify that when I bring that HMO statement to the House, and there will be an opportunity for us to discuss that further. However, first and foremost, we should make sure that we put the concerns of local residents first. There are theatrics on the other side of the House. The Member is playing with his hands. However, it is very clear that there is a role and responsibility for councils, and we have to have due regard for the law. Liquor Licensing System: Review T3. Miss Dolan asked the Minister for Communities when he will update the Assembly on his consideration of the recommendations contained in the independent review of the liquor licensing system. (AQT 1673/22-27) Mr Lyons: We will publish that very soon. Miss Dolan: Thanks, Minister. Obviously, it is clear that there is an urgent need to reform the liquor licensing system. How will you ensure that any reforms balance the needs of the hospitality sector with the protection of public health and community well-being? Mr Lyons: It is a difficult issue, because there are competing priorities and rights for the various interested stakeholders. We want to try to get a balance. I will bring the issue to the House, as I am required to do, and we will publish our response to that soon. I will look at what additional reforms may be required in due course. I hope to have that here for further discussion, debate and, no doubt, questions very soon. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Dr Steve Aiken is not in his place. Housing Executive: Tenancy Succession T5. Ms Flynn asked the Minister for Communities whether he has any plans to undertake a review of the Housing Executive's tenancy succession policy for properties, as she has been contacted by a number of constituents from her local area who have been impacted on by that policy. (AQT 1675/22-27) Mr Lyons: Some concerns have been expressed about that. We are trying to get a balance between making sure that those with the proper connection to the homes are able to stay in them and making sure that the right stock goes to those who need it most, which is a requirement for us. I will be happy to look into any specific issues that the Member has raised that can help to inform any wider work that may need to be done on that. Ms Flynn: I thank the Minister for that response. I am sure that he will appreciate the difficulty, which we all hear about in our constituency offices, particularly when a young person has lived their whole life in a family home, and then, sadly, a parent or relative passes away, and they have to leave their home. If there is a review of the issue, we need to try to take on board the experience of that cohort of young people who live their whole life in a home but then have to move out due to the current policy. Mr Lyons: I understand where the Member is coming from, and I have much sympathy for those who find themselves in that situation. I get that there can be family ties and connections, and we need to make sure we have a policy in place that is compassionate, not only to those in that situation but to those who need a suitable home. We need to make the most efficient use of our stock. Sometimes, no matter what policy is in place, people can fall out, or it might not work for them. However, I am more than happy to work with anyone to make sure we get it right, because we are talking about somebody's home, and I want to be as sympathetic as I can. Olympic Legacy Fund T6. Mr Harvey asked the Minister for Communities for an update on the Olympic legacy fund. (AQT 1676/22-27) Mr Lyons: I am pleased to say that the £1 million Olympic legacy fund is now open. We have grants available from £1,000 to £50,000, and it is 65% grant to 35% crowdfunding. It is an opportunity to make a real difference for those across Northern Ireland. I was asked about what we are doing to help the sports clubs and grassroots organisations that so often miss out. That is why I devised and developed this scheme. I encourage everybody to apply if they believe it can assist them in their local areas. Mr Harvey: I thank the Minister for this very positive fund, which builds on the legacy of our most successful Olympic games. Does the Minister feel that this investment could see more young people getting involved in sport? For example, might we see more Rhys McClenaghans? Mr Lyons: Yes. I hope that it inspires the next generation. Maybe even the Member will be inspired to take up a new sport; maybe he will be seeking Olympic glory as well. I certainly encourage him in that. However, I was in Paris in August 2024, and I met Hannah Scott outside a cafe. We sat down and had a conversation. She told me about some of the challenges that she had faced during her early days competing in the sport. I met her; I listened; I said that we needed to do something to help, and that is why we have introduced the Olympic legacy fund. I am also proud of the Olympic medallist fund. On Saturday, I was on the River Bann in a new boat that was bought with Hannah Scott's contribution from the Department for Communities Olympic medallist fund. It made a couple of things very clear to me — first, that there is no prospect of my competing in Los Angeles in 2028, but also how important it is to invest in grassroots sport and make sure we have the facilities. The big problem in all sports across Northern Ireland is that we do not have enough funding to support people at the grassroots level. How will people get to the elite level and the Olympics if we do not have funding in place? That is why I am doing something about it through the Olympic medallist fund and the Olympic legacy fund, and I hope that it inspires Mr Harvey, and many others as well. Local Growth Fund T7. Ms Mulholland asked the Minister for Communities, who will be aware of the huge concerns in the community and voluntary sector about the local growth fund, which is not in his remit, although the sector is, one of the main ones being how it will be split between revenue and capital funding, whether he has had any conversations about the fund with colleagues in either the Department of Finance or Westminster. (AQT 1677/22-27) Mr Lyons: Yes. The Member is right to say that it is a matter for the Department of Finance to take forward, but it impacts on all of us, and it is something that I am concerned about. I have raised the matter with Executive colleagues, and we have put those views across. We need certainty more than anything else; we do not have that. I am worried that we are going towards a cliff edge. However, I can assure the Member that we are aware of the issues and we are doing everything that we can at our end. The Government need to get to grips with this, because this sort of thing has been happening for too many years with those types of funding models, and everybody needs certainty. Ms Mulholland: Given that so many of the voluntary organisations that have been funded by the local growth fund are looking at disability and employment schemes, can your Department do anything in conjunction with the Department for the Economy, such as bringing in something that we have spoken about before around JobStart instead of the statutory programmes? Maybe that could be used to bolster some of the community and voluntary sector. Is there any way around that? Mr Lyons: I am happy to look at all the programmes that we have. I am driven by whatever delivers the results. I hope that the Government will follow through and give the funding to the projects that need it. We will, of course, look at the totality of what is offered to see what is best for people and how we can make sure that we help those who are in need. I will not be found wanting in that. Rental Properties: Carpet T9. Ms Nicholl asked the Minister for Communities, having had a number of constituents come into her office who, when moving into a property, have been faced with having to put in carpet because the landlord ripped up the carpet when the previous tenants left, whether there is anything that his Department can do to support such people, especially as he knows how tough it is for people right now. (AQT 1679/22-27) Mr Lyons: Is the Member referring to private rented tenancies? Ms Nicholl: Yes. Mr Lyons: I am disappointed to hear that that is your experience, as we also hear about it from time to time. I will be happy to raise that with officials to see what needs to be done and whether there are additional regulatory measures that we can take or other support that we can offer. If she has any specific examples of how she thinks that we can intervene, I will be happy to look at them. Ms Nicholl: I am not an expert on the matter, but some organisations are. A colleague who works with St Vincent de Paul tells me that it comes up regularly. If the Minister's officials are going to engage on the matter, I ask that they engage with the voluntary and community sector, which supports people and may well have solutions for addressing it. It just seems senseless to me. Mr Lyons: I am happy to ensure that officials engage with the sector directly to make sure that we scope out the problem and find the solutions, if there are any. Rural Housing Needs Assessment T10. Mr Gildernew asked the Minister for Communities to outline where the assessment of rural housing needs sits. (AQT 1680/22-27) Mr Lyons: That is an important part of the work that we do. You will know how the housing supply strategy addresses our rural needs. Ultimately, however, we have a shortage of supply everywhere, including in rural areas. We need to make sure that we fulfil the demands that are there. Mr Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat, [Translation: Thank you,] Minister. The Minister is well aware of the pressures on the waste water system, particularly in urban settings. There is, however, capacity in some rural settings. Will he ensure that, where social housing can be built in rural areas, that is the focus to ensure that that need is met? Mr Lyons: We are having those conversations. I want to see as many homes built as possible. Just because we are not able to build those homes where there is the highest demand due to waste water constraints, that should not stop us building as many houses as we can. The most important thing is that we have houses for people who need them. That is the challenge that we face, and I am committed to doing it. In the coming weeks, I will be bringing to the Executive new and innovative policy proposals about how we can build more homes. My priority is making sure that we have more homes. We had a very spirited debate here last week about the quality of those homes as regards energy-efficiency standards, and I will do everything that I can to maximise that. We are looking at the availability of waste water infrastructure and, of course, that is a big part of the housing supply strategy. That strategy has been successful, because Departments are now starting to talk to each other and work together to maximise output. The Member will see the benefit that comes from that very soon. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): That concludes — Dr Aiken: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I apologise for not being in my place for a topical question. I was, as I previously briefed, at the funeral of a very important member of the Ulster Unionist Party. We send our party's regards to his brother on this sad occasion. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, Dr Aiken. That point has been noted. That concludes topical questions to the Minister for Communities. Thank you, all, for getting the questions done in such a timely way, rather than having me say, "Time is up". That is thanks to the Members and the Minister, of course; it is nothing to do with me. Opposition Business Child Poverty Debate resumed on motion: That this Assembly expresses alarm at the rate of child poverty in Northern Ireland, with one in five children living in absolute poverty, as detailed in the 'Northern Ireland Poverty and Income Inequality Report, 2023-24'; expresses concern that the proposed anti-poverty strategy will have little impact on addressing that challenge, with no new policies, no timeline for delivery and no budget; and calls on the Executive to make the eradication of child poverty a cross-departmental priority and to develop a fit for purpose anti-poverty strategy, shaped by lived experience, including commitments on the creation of a new child payment, an enhanced childcare subsidy scheme and enhanced provision of free school meals. — [Mr Durkan.] Mrs Guy: The tone of the debate so far has been as it should be: muted and respectful. I think that, fundamentally, we are all quite ashamed that we have to have a debate on child poverty. Of course, child poverty does not exist in isolation from wider poverty levels. It is a deep-rooted and complex issue that requires a whole-government approach, hence the need to deliver a focused and impactful anti-poverty strategy. Let us take, for example, the crucial aspect of affordable and quality childcare. We have a system where the cost of full-time childcare makes it impossible for many parents to work full-time hours or access training and education. That impacts disproportionately on women, many of whom will give up on opportunities to change jobs, increase hours, take on training opportunities or start businesses simply because they cannot afford to do so. I fully acknowledge that the Northern Ireland childcare subsidy scheme is in place, but we need to think bigger than that and deliver a completely new system through the early learning and childcare strategy. Top 2.45 pm I want to focus on child poverty and education because, as the independent review of education highlighted, education can be the route through which people break out of the cycle of poverty and because of the impact that poverty has on a child's education. The Northern Ireland Audit Office report 'Child Poverty in Northern Ireland' states: "Evidence shows that the gap in attainment between children growing up in poverty and their peers starts early and lasts throughout school. By the time they reach primary school, children from low-income families are already up to a year behind middle-income children in terms of cognitive skills." The report adds: "Children receiving Free School Meals are twice as likely to leave school with no GCSEs as their more affluent peers." That entrenched link between educational disadvantage and economic circumstance has long been considered. We have the brilliant 'A Fair Start' report, which produced that rarest of things in Northern Ireland by way of a costed action plan, and the independent review of education, so we are not seeking policy answers. The experts have told us time and again what we need to focus on. So, too, have those with lived experience of poverty. For example, we know that educational attainment interventions start before a child is even born, ensuring that health support is there for women and families. Great work is going on in communities to ensure that, such as in my constituency, where Atlas Women's Centre and Resurgam Trust's healthy living centre wrap support around mums and families. However, that support needs to be expanded, and that can only happen in a reformed health system. Educational underachievement cannot be tackled through curriculum and assessment changes alone. School leaders will tell you that we need to focus on pastoral support and whole-community approaches. We need children who feel safe and secure inside and outside school. We need children who are not going hungry while trying to focus, which is one reason why the Alliance Party supports the expansion of free school meals. We need children who feel that they are getting the right support, whether from counsellors or speech and language therapists, and we need to reduce and remove the financial barriers that face families who are trying to access an education for their children. That means real action on the cost of school uniforms and other costs. I want to pick up on yesterday's debate on the School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill and the missed opportunity that the Bill represents. Most interventions to tackle poverty require investment, but that Bill could have delivered real certainty on affordability without costing the Department anything. We still wait to see the guidance, but, from what was said yesterday, it looks as though the Minister of Education is going to outsource responsibility for ensuring affordable uniforms to schools. I do not doubt anyone in the Chamber when they say that they want to reduce and end child poverty. The question is whether Ministers have the commitment to focus on the interventions that will make a real difference. We need money if we are to address those systemic issues. Ms Mulholland: Will the Member take an intervention? Mrs Guy: Yes. Ms Mulholland: Does the Member agree that that cash-first approach is really what families have told us that they need most? Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute. Mrs Guy: Thank you. I agree entirely with the Member. We cannot pretend that if you are going to tackle poverty, you do not need money and investment. Families and organisations are telling us that, and we have to acknowledge that that is a fact. In that context, where we need money if we are going to address those systemic issues, the urgency to integrate our society and public services and move away from the division and dysfunction that holds this place back becomes even more acute and necessary. We are up for that. I am not convinced that everybody else shares that conviction. Mr Baker: I thank the Members who tabled this important motion. In my time in the Assembly, we have had a number of motions highlighting the need to tackle child poverty. Sadly, the current anti-poverty strategy is another false dawn for hard-pressed families in the North. I will be clear from the outset: it is the Minister for Communities' anti-poverty strategy. This Minister simply took all the well-researched and co-designed work of his predecessor, Deirdre Hargey, and threw it in the bin. The key stakeholders are all of the same opinion: the current anti-poverty strategy will make no tangible difference to people's lives. Not only is there no consensus on the Minister's plan; there is absolute opposition to it. Organisations and individuals wrote to him outlining their concerns, but it seems that this Minister believes that the experts are wrong and his lacklustre plan is right. Whilst we in this place are under harsh financial constraints imposed by London, we could make important interventions that could have a significant impact on people's lives. My private Member's Bill to end holiday hunger is one step in the right direction in tackling child poverty. I hope to see my private Member's Bill in the Chamber very soon, and I hope that it will receive support from every corner of the House. We know that, when children are more food-secure, their educational attainment goes up and reliance on food programmes, such as food banks, reduces. Whilst ending holiday hunger is not a panacea for ending child poverty, it is at least an opportunity to support 90,000 children during the school holidays. This is a real, tangible change that we in the Chamber can make that would positively impact on people's lives. However, when it comes to legislation, we have already seen missed opportunities this week. The Education Minister's uniform Bill could have been a game changer for children and families. Sadly —. Mr Allen: Will the Member give way? Mr Baker: Yes. Mr Allen: Earlier in his remarks, the Member mentioned the "well-researched and co-designed work" taken forward by the Minister's predecessor. Will the Member enlighten the House as to what was contained in the previous Minister's work that is not in this strategy? Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute. Mr Baker: Deirdre Hargey's work was blocked at a certain point in the Executive. That is something that the Minister could probably outline in his closing remarks. The Education Minister's uniform Bill could, through amendments, have gone a lot further in ensuring equality and reducing costs. We could have been using the best practice that has worked elsewhere in the North across the board, delivering a comfortable, inclusive uniform for less than the price of a uniform grant. Let us be clear: the DUP has no interest in tackling the real issues that are putting families under pressure. All Ministers have budgets. They must prioritise: they cannot always blame and hide behind the Executive. My private Member's Bill will at least be a piece of the puzzle to end child poverty, and, with the support of the House, it can be delivered in time for next summer. Mr McGlone: Over a year ago, the Assembly debated a motion from our party on this very topic. The Northern Ireland Audit Office had just published a report on child poverty, and it found that one in five children in Northern Ireland was living in relative poverty and that nearly 10% of households were unable to afford basic goods. We called on the Minister for Communities to bring forward, by September last year, a comprehensive strategy that included specific and measurable targets to reduce child poverty. We also called on him to work with the Minister of Finance to agree an ambitious ring-fenced budget to deliver on those targets. As my colleague Matthew O'Toole said at the time, the Audit Office report was: "full of 'shocking' findings on the stubbornly high levels of child poverty in our society." — [Official Report (Hansard), 15 April 2024, p21, col 1]. He also said that one in five children in the North were living in relative poverty and nearly one in 10 were living in absolute poverty and that it showed that not only have we, collectively, failed to properly address child poverty but we have allowed the problem to get worse. We also highlighted the challenge that those levels of child poverty present for Northern Ireland in the long term. It is not only a moral challenge; it creates long-term costs for other public services. Child poverty levels impact directly on the education system, the health service and sometimes, sadly, on the criminal justice system and social services, as any Member will know from their constituency office. We believed then, as we do now, that there should be a binding target for child poverty reduction to judge the effectiveness of efforts to tackle it. Over a year later, child poverty levels in the North are still shockingly high, and what have the Executive done? Their anti-poverty strategy still sits in draft form. There are no new policies and no ring-fenced budget. There are no agreed targets to measure any eventual policy against. Their draft strategy cannot even name which Departments are to be responsible for its three key pillars. That is not good enough. Charities, campaigners and families are right to be angry, as we all should be. They have gone through the Executive's box-ticking exercise for a hollow draft strategy: an exercise that has clearly failed to meet the scale of the crisis. The Minister and the Executive have no new ideas, have no money and evidently see no need for urgency in dealing with the problem. Mr McCrossan: Will the Member give way? Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): Will the Member give way? Mr McCrossan: I thank the Member for giving way. I got in just ahead of the Minister. Does the Member agree that it comes down to a sheer lack of political will to tackle the problem in a meaningful way, that the Executive have been disastrous in dealing with the issue, and that, on the watch of the Minister and his colleagues around the Executive table, child poverty has got worse in Northern Ireland since the Executive's return? Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute. Mr McGlone: Thank you for that, Mr Deputy Speaker. My colleague makes the point that I was trying to make, and perhaps in a much more articulate way, as ever. In the meantime, community-sector organisations are telling us that they want to help develop a meaningful plan. We are therefore back in the Assembly and bringing their message to the Executive. Our motion calls for an anti-poverty strategy that is fit for purpose and that introduces proven interventions: interventions that have been adopted in Scotland and in the rest of Ireland that have reduced child poverty rates significantly. For example, a child payment for families on universal credit, tax credits or other qualifying benefits; accessible and affordable childcare; and expanded free school meals. Those are all policies that the Executive could and should be introducing. Our message is clear. If the Executive have no new ideas for tackling child poverty, we and the community sector do. The public, however, will be asking what the Executive parties can agree on if they cannot or will not agree to funding an effective strategy to tackle child poverty. Tacaím leis an rún seo inniu. [Translation: I support this motion today.] Ms Forsythe: Every child deserves the best start in life, and I believe that everyone in the Chamber agrees with that. Child poverty is devastating, but it does not exist in a vacuum. Rather, poverty affects families as a whole. Our aim should therefore be to address poverty in its entirety, and that is what the Communities Minister, Gordon Lyons, has done through the Executive's anti-poverty strategy. I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee, which undertook the child poverty inquiry. It is a bit disingenuous of the SDLP to use the findings of that inquiry to attack the Minister. The inquiry reflected on the 2016-2022 child poverty strategy, and, yes, it classed that strategy as a catalogue of failures and made a number of recommendations, but the Minister and his Department accepted nine out of the 10 recommendations and partially accepted the other one. After that strategy ended in 2022, there was a two-year gap until something else came forward. The Committee recommended that a new anti-poverty strategy be presented to the Executive as soon as possible, and Minister Lyons has done that. Mark Durkan said that the Opposition are serious about eradicating child poverty, but what evidence does he have of their doing that? The evidence for the DUP is that Minister Lyons has brought forward a strategy and is on the front foot in addressing child poverty. Children, by their nature, are vulnerable. They cannot support themselves by getting a job, so they rely on their parents and guardians to take care of them. The DUP has committed to standing on the side of families who are struggling, and Gordon's anti-poverty strategy is focused on tackling the issues. Mrs Dillon: Will the Member give way? Ms Forsythe: Yes. Mrs Dillon: Does the Member agree that, although she has said that children cannot take care of themselves and thus rely on other people to take care of them, many children are, in fact, carers for their parents? We therefore need to ensure that those children are looked after in any strategy. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute. Ms Forsythe: I thank the Member for her intervention, and I completely agree that, as we consider all the strands of the anti-poverty strategy, we should pull out the specific child-related issues that she mentioned. In the Chamber today, the Scottish child payment scheme has been mentioned as a potential option to be considered here. During the PAC inquiry, however, we heard evidence that the scheme had little effect on child poverty levels in Scotland and thus made very little difference to the situation. That huge spend of £471 million every year has barely moved the needle on child poverty, so the question is whether it is the right way forward for us. Top 3.00 pm It is simple for the SDLP and the Alliance Party to call for that scheme, but let us be honest with people: Gordon Lyons does not have an extra £471 million a year, and, if he did, would the best option be for him to put it into a scheme that has no proven track record of making a significant difference? It will be up to the Minister to assess different value-for-money options and how they align with different strands of his strategy. Mr McCrossan: I thank the Member for giving way. She is the Deputy Chair of the PAC, and I, as its Chair, agree that we have had a very worthwhile inquiry. However, one of the main criticisms and themes that came through was the silo working of the Departments. I understand that the Minister for Communities must lead on the strategy, but is it not regrettable, surely, from the outset that the First Minister walked backwards 10 minutes after the announcement? Ms Forsythe: I thank the Member for his intervention. I agree with that point. As we sat through the inquiry, it was devastating to hear about the plans and things that were outlined in the 2016-2022 child poverty strategy. The Member, the Chair of the PAC, was quoted as saying that it was a "catalogue of failures", which is a fair reflection of that. The key point to take forward from the inquiry is that we must learn the lessons from it and build them into the process. I am confident that Minister Lyons will do that. The Minister's priority has been to make a difference and do so now with the tools that he has had to hand. On that, he has brought forward the first Northern Ireland anti-poverty strategy, challenging though that may have been. It cuts right across. We need it to be cross-cutting in order to move away from the siloed nature of government in Northern Ireland, as Daniel McCrossan said. To fully address poverty, the strategy needs to hit every Department, and every Department needs to play its part. The Minister set out his commitment on the issue, and he is committed to helping every child in Northern Ireland. Unlike others, he does not stand on the sidelines criticising; he takes action. The Minister has a track record of delivery, and he cares about the people in Northern Ireland. He is serious in his approach to tackling child poverty. I support the Communities Minister in his work on that. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, thank you. That concludes the list of contributors. I call the Minister for Communities to respond to the debate. Minister, you have up to 15 minutes. Mr Lyons: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank all those who contributed to the debate. It is an important issue. It is probably one of the most important issues that we face, because poverty is a curse, and child poverty is particularly egregious. Poverty limits potential and harms people and their life chances. I am serious and sincere in my attempts to try to deal with that issue. For what it is worth, I believe that others in the Chamber are sincere as well. We all want to tackle the issue and to work together to make sure that we can make a meaningful difference in people's lives. The fact that we all need to work together on child poverty is the first thing to highlight. It is an Executive strategy. I emphasise that point not because I am trying to share any of the brickbats that are coming towards me but because it has to be done together. We have to do it in a joined-up fashion. Therefore, I take exception to some of the comments that have been made about the draft anti-poverty strategy, because I brought it to the Executive. I did not present it as my plan or proposals, because, first, we had the cross-departmental working group. We went out to all Departments and asked, "What can you do, and what do you think that we should have in the strategy that can make a meaningful difference?". The Ministers came back with their ideas. Those ideas were put into the draft strategy, and the Executive, as a whole, agreed that it should go forward to the next stage. That is why I take exception to some of the comments, particularly those made by Cathy Mason and Danny Baker, though I am pleased to engage with Mr Baker; I do not see him often at any debates that I am here for. One of the first things that he said was that there is nothing new in the strategy. He said that I had scrapped everything that the co-design group wanted. I think that he said that I had put it in the bin. That is just wrong. Let me go through some of the things that the co-design group asked for that are in the strategy. It wanted period poverty to be included. That is in there. It identified the need to tackle fuel poverty. That is in there. It identified the need to make school attendance cost-neutral. Work is ongoing on that. We have the continuation of the extended schools programme and the RAISE programme. We know about the legislation that has been brought in on school uniforms, which it asked for as well. The co-design group asked for mitigation payments to be extended. I have done that. The co-design group asked that we continue to pressure the UK Government on the pensions triple lock. I have done that. The co-design group highlighted the need for a childcare strategy. We agreed, and, within weeks, the Education Minister will introduce that. The co-design group raised issues of low pay and workers' rights. The Member's party colleague is addressing that, unless he is saying that that is no longer the case. The co-design group highlighted housing as an issue, and the Executive housing supply strategy is in there as well. Mr Baker: Will the Minister give way? Mr Lyons: Just one second. The co-design group asked that we maximise and improve access to benefits advice and support for older people. Those things are there. It is wrong of the Member to say that everything has been scrapped. Let me move on to something else that the Member is wrong on, and then I will take an intervention from him. This has been repeated ad nauseam by others: they say that there are no new actions in the anti-poverty strategy. We heard that again and again, and it is demonstrably wrong. There are new actions. Mr McCrossan, who is used to being wrong, is shaking his head. [Laughter.] There are new actions in there. There are new things that we have started since the Executive returned and new things that we are continuing to do, including the adoption of the housing supply strategy; the extension of welfare mitigation payments; the fuel poverty strategy; the £23 million subsidy for working parents; the childcare strategy that is coming forward; and all the other issues that I have just mentioned — Mr McCrossan: Will the Minister give way? Mr Lyons: — as well as the Healthy Child Healthy Future programme and the new People and Place strategy. I will give way to Mr McCrossan, but I need to give way to Mr Baker first. One action that came forward last week was a new employability programme worth £12 million that will target some of the hardest to reach in order to get them into work. I have seen the impacts of that first-hand, and it changes lives. There are new actions. I will come on in a second to some of the new things that we may be able to take on afterwards, but I will give way to Mr Baker first. Mr Baker: I thank the Minister for giving way. When things are good, you, like the Education Minister. always love a wee pat on the back. All the organisations are saying that this will make no tangible difference. How are you going to make that right with those organisations? They are not just making it up, Minister. Mr Lyons: You say that it will not make any difference. You do not think that welfare mitigations will make any difference? You do not think that the fuel poverty strategy, through which we will invest more than we have ever done before in retrofitting people's homes, will have an impact? What about the extended schools programme and the Make the Call service, in which I am continuing to invest? Mr McCrossan: Will the Minister give way? Mr Lyons: One second. The Make the Call service that I am continuing to invest in is important. It may seem small, but, in 2023-24, we generated £62·1 million of annualised benefits. You do not think that that will have an impact on poverty? I make no apology whatsoever for those things that we are continuing and the new actions that have been included, some of which, by the way, have already been delivered, as well as the housing supply strategy. I miss Mr McCrossan. He is not on the Committee any more. I am more than happy to give way to him. Mr McCrossan: Thanks, Minister, for giving way. I have to say that you really need to wake up on this. There is nothing new in what you are saying. It is as though you have taken everything from the cupboard, fired it in the basket and painted it as something new, which is not the case. Barnardo's said that the overall strategy, in draft form, is weak and lacking in action, with the need for more robust plans that include specific targets and commitments. Are you saying that Barnardo's, which is at the coalface supporting people who are struggling on a daily basis, is wrong, or are you in a dreamland? Mr Lyons: I will say two things. First, it is wrong to say that there are no new actions, because I have just read those out. It seems in this place that, no matter how often I give not opinion but fact, Members argue against that. OK, we will take that on board. Secondly, this is a plan that is out for consultation. Well, the consultation has now closed, but the plan was out for consultation. We have an opportunity to hear, and I have said from the start that we will listen to all the ideas, but what I was not prepared to do was introduce a strategy that was unaffordable and uncosted. It would have been the easiest thing in the world for me to bring forward a plan that included a child payment — Mr Durkan called for a child payment in his motion without even knowing how much it would cost — or more money for childcare, or which removed the two-child limit or included more free school meals or other free provision. I could have brought that forward, stuffed it all into the strategy, and then handed it over to the Executive and said, "There you go", but I am not prepared to do that. In the previous debate, the leader of the Opposition said how fed up he is with people bringing forward unrealistic proposals, and I am not doing that. What we have here is affordable and costed. We have gone out to consultation and asked, "Where do you think we fall short? What else can we do? What can we do to make a difference?". The Executive can consider that and decide what we can take forward. That takes me to the next issue that I want to address, which is the need for us to be grown-up. I have said how easy it would be for me to fill the strategy with all the wonderful things that we might be able to do, but it comes down to funding. We can have our priorities, but we have to recognise that they come with a price tag. Take the child payment of £300 million, for example. I do not think that the evidence from Scotland is convincing: it has not moved the needle beyond the margin of error for how to analyse those who may be in poverty in Scotland. Let us talk about the child payment. The Member included that in the motion, although he did not know how much it would cost and has no plan for how it could be funded. Perhaps we can find the money from somewhere. Perhaps there are other things that we can stop in order to enable the child payment to be introduced, but that would need to be tested. I want to make sure that we spend every pound that we have in the best possible way. I want every pound to have maximum impact. That is why I am so passionate about the fuel poverty strategy. So much of households' income goes towards keeping their homes warm. If we can put more investment into retrofitting and making them energy efficient, it will benefit our constituents not just for one year but every year after that. It is why I am so passionate about getting people into work. The disability and work strategy will take our employment rate up from 40% to 50% and get 50,000 more people into work. That is good for them and will help their life chances. Do you know what else it will do? It will allow us to have more money. With an average of £15,000 of savings per person to Treasury each year through National Insurance contributions and tax revenue, those 50,000 people getting into work will represent £750 million a year. Think of what we could do with that money, getting it to people who are in work and still need support. To the House and to all the groups that are interested in listening, I say that I am more than happy to explore those options. I will listen to what has been said during the consultation period and will take that on board, but I will be realistic. I will not support anything going through the Executive that I do not believe will work or make a difference or that is simply a wish list. I am not prepared to do that. I want delivery, not delusion. Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for giving way. We have already seen and heard how the Minister disregards evidence from experts in the sector, but now he is also dismissing evidence from the Scottish Government, who identify their child payment of £27·15 per week as having reduced the rate of children living in poverty by four percentage points. Mr Lyons: There he goes again: he is making it political. I have not disregarded the sector. I am not saying that at all, and I think that he is being disingenuous in saying that. I genuinely want to work with people to get this right. I have done nothing but set out facts. The Member quoted statistics from the Scottish Government. They might have a special interest in this — Mr Durkan: In tackling poverty? [Inaudible.] Mr Lyons: — but the information that we have is that it has not moved beyond the margin or error. However, let us have the debate. Maybe that was a good investment. Maybe the £490 million that went into the child payment would be the best way for us to spend money — Mr Durkan: Will the Minister give way? Mr Lyons: — or maybe it would be best to invest it in retrofitting or childcare or some of the other issues that we want to tackle. I will have that debate — Mr Durkan: Will the Minister give way? Mr Lyons: — but this draft anti-poverty strategy is affordable. The Member is getting very exercised. I am more than happy to give way to him. Mr Durkan: The Minister has accused me of not knowing the cost. In the past couple of speeches, the Minister and his party colleague have given four different costs between them. Top 3.15 pm Mr Lyons: I am not sure what the Member specifically refers to. It is clear, however, that his party tabled the motion without saying how it would pay for it. While we are talking about those who are wrong, I will add that Mr McCrossan said that child poverty has got worse in Northern Ireland, whereas, in fact, it has not changed over the past couple of years. The party got something else wrong: I think that Mr McGlone said that the Public Accounts Committee's recommendations were trashed, but they have been taken on, one of them partially and the rest in full. What I am saying, I hope, clearly, to the House is that we have a draft anti-poverty strategy that is costed and that, we believe, tackles some of the root causes of poverty in Northern Ireland. Mr McCrossan: Will the Minister give way? Mr Lyons: One second. Some of us want to go further. I would like to go further as well. I will work with all those who are interested and will look at what comes to us as we finish analysing the consultation responses and hear from the Committee and others. I am more than happy to look into that and see what can be taken on board, but, if Mr Durkan and others say that they would bring in a child payment, childcare and all the other things, we will need to be honest about that. Mr McCrossan: I thank the Minister for giving way. Minister, we all know that this will take collective responsibility from the Executive. We are not foolish in that regard. Did the First Minister agree with you at the Executive prior to the draft strategy being published and then walk backwards after the public backlash happened? Mr Lyons: I was in the Executive meeting, Mr McCrossan, when it was agreed that the draft strategy would go out to consultation. For weeks beforehand, Ministers had had the papers and had contributed to the action points. It was agreed. Questions were asked of me, I answered them, and we went out to consultation. It is fair to say, therefore, that, yes, I was surprised, standing beside the First Minister, to hear what she had to say, given that not only had the Executive signed off on the strategy but Sinn Féin Ministers had contributed to it. Mr Gildernew: Will the Minister take an intervention? Mr Lyons: I will, yes. Mr Gildernew: Minister, do you accept that the draft strategy that you presented to the Executive was greatly reduced from the draft that Deirdre Hargey had left on the desk in your Department when you took office? Mr Lyons: I have outlined how much is still in it. I do not really see the relevance of that point. That was and is the case. My time is almost up. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Minister, your time is up, I am sorry to remind you. Mr Lyons: We have had the consultation and we will see where we go from here. I am determined that we sort out this issue. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, Minister. I call Cara Hunter to conclude the debate and make a winding-up speech on the motion. You have up to 10 minutes. Ms Hunter: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to wind up the debate on this important motion. With one in five of our children living in absolute poverty, we are failing not just a statistic but an entire generation of young people in Northern Ireland. The latest Northern Ireland poverty and income inequality report, which is for 2023-24, confirmed that 21% of children living in the North are growing up in absolute poverty after housing costs. That is roughly 95,000 children — 95,000 young lives starting off from behind, through no fault of their own. In the SDLP, we know that poverty in childhood is not temporary. It sets the trajectory for health outcomes, and, as we have heard at the Education Committee, it impacts on educational attainment and access to life opportunities and job opportunities for years to come. A child born into poverty is more likely to fall behind at school. That is one of the driving factors that led the SDLP to introduce the Period Products (Free Provision) Act 2022 to provide free products to keep girls in the classroom and partaking in sport out on the pitch and to make sure that there are no barriers to education or extracurricular activities. Children in poverty are more likely to suffer poor mental and physical health and to struggle to find stable work as an adult. Every piece of research tells us that investing early saves money later in life, but we are still firefighting the consequences of poverty rather than tackling the root cause. The figures that I mentioned are shocking, but they are not evenly spread. As a representative for the north-west, I note that the highest rates of child poverty are in areas in the north-west, with parts of my constituency falling into the Derry City and Strabane District Council area, while other areas, such as Belfast, have persistent deprivation. Families in the north-west are among those hardest hit by rising food and energy costs and, of course, by the impact of welfare reforms. Mr McCrossan: I thank my colleague for giving way. Recent statistics from the Trussell Trust highlighted that, in 2024, 520,000 people across Northern Ireland, 130,000 of whom were children, lived in food-insecure households. That is 20,000 more children than in 2022. Does the Member agree that child poverty in Northern Ireland has got worse on the Executive's watch and that the Executive are full of daydream believers? Ms Hunter: I thank the Member for his intervention. Yes, I agree. I am sure that all of us, in our roles as MLAs or as individuals, have at some point been in homes where children struggle with poverty and lack of access to food, which is absolutely heartbreaking. We know that children who go to school on an empty stomach cannot focus in class as much as their peers who come from homes with a lot of wealth. It is important to note that. Child poverty is a choice: it is political-will choice and a policy choice. Our emphasis here is on the Executive's need to act. Regional balance must mean equal opportunity for every child, not postcode inequality. The proposed anti-poverty strategy gives little cause for confidence that anything will change. We feel that strongly because there is no clear delivery timetable and no dedicated budget. Mr Lyons: Will the Member give way? Ms Hunter: No, thank you: you have had your time. Without those things, it is not a strategy but merely a statement of good intent on paper. The Executive promised that eradicating child poverty would be a defining mission, yet the draft anti-poverty strategy falls short of what families urgently need. Those of us who were out in our communities and in our constituencies just before the school season know that it is about families who cannot afford new school shoes or to get a raincoat for their child or children. Santa is getting ready to come to town, and a lot of families are anxious about what Christmas Day will look like. Those families will be listening today, and they will demand answers. We know what works. As was mentioned, we know that Scotland's child payment is lifting thousands of children out of poverty. That is backed by statistics. We feel strongly that a Northern Ireland child payment could do the same here. Parents also speak passionately about the cost of childcare, which pushes them out of work and study and reduces families' household income. That is why we need to reinforce the importance of truly accessible affordable childcare in the North that reflects real costs and supports parents and families to stay in employment. We on the Education Committee have often spoken about free school meals. The SDLP firmly believes that that scheme must be expanded so that no child sits in class hungry or is embarrassed about their family income. Hidden poverty is massive in our society, with working parents who fall between the cracks making just enough money to not be able to access certain benefits while struggling profusely to make ends meet. Today, we must ask this: does the draft strategy truly meet need? Does it constitute a genuine, measurable plan of action, or is it simply a collection of worthy statements without the structure, targets or accountability that the law requires? The draft strategy lacks clear outcomes or milestones. Without those, how can it meet the statutory definition of a strategy — A Member: Will the Member give way? Ms Hunter: — No, thank you — let alone be based on objective need? What does "objective need" even mean here? The draft leaves it undefined, to be interpreted differently across different Departments. That is something that we talk about often: all political parties believe that cross-departmental engagement is a priority in the eradication of child poverty. It should not be just a Department for Communities issue. We need to see the Housing Executive and the Education, Health and Economy Departments play a role and all be on the same page. I will address Members' comments. Cathy Mason rightly mentioned that children are not in control of their circumstances, and we often see two types of childhood, one defined by poverty and the other entirely free from it. Linda Dillon and Diane Forsythe touched on the importance of highlighting the challenges and needs of child carers in the North. Sian Mulholland talked about the importance of having an intersectional strategy that is adequately resourced; I agree. That is a difficult issue, because, in this Building, we sometimes see fantastic strategies on paper but do not see the resource put behind them to get measurable outcomes. Colm Gildernew reiterated the paramount need for there to be accountability in the strategy and the Committee's stance that child poverty is a choice. If Budgets are moral documents, how we spend our money tells our children what we believe that they are worth. The cost of inaction is counted not just in pounds but in the lost potential — so much of it — of our young people. Today, it is important to be honest about where we are at and, more importantly, to be ambitious about where we can get to. Let us build a fit for purpose anti-poverty strategy that is shaped by lived experience, backed by appropriate funding and focused on outcomes. Every child deserves the same start in life and the power to shape their own future, rather than to be trapped by their circumstances. We had a number of young people here today. I am delighted that they could be present to be part of the discussion, because, ultimately, we are talking about them. The Executive hold the key to bringing about genuine change, but, Minister and Members, the draft strategy is nowhere near close to delivering for families and children right across the North. Question put and agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly expresses alarm at the rate of child poverty in Northern Ireland, with one in five children living in absolute poverty, as detailed in the 'Northern Ireland Poverty and Income Inequality Report, 2023-24'; expresses concern that the proposed anti-poverty strategy will have little impact on addressing that challenge, with no new policies, no timeline for delivery and no budget; and calls on the Executive to make the eradication of child poverty a cross-departmental priority and to develop a fit for purpose anti-poverty strategy, shaped by lived experience, including commitments on the creation of a new child payment, an enhanced childcare subsidy scheme and enhanced provision of free school meals. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, please take your ease while a change is made at the top Table. (Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair) Community Crisis Intervention Service: Closure Mr Durkan: I beg to move That this Assembly reaffirms its commitment to tackling Northern Ireland’s growing mental health crisis; expresses regret at the recent closure of Extern’s community crisis intervention service in Foyle due to funding cuts and the lack of action taken to develop a cross-cutting approach to funding by the Executive; and calls on the Executive to adopt a person-centred approach to the Budget that ensures that services such as this can continue to meet the needs of those who need them. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have five minutes in which to propose and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have three minutes. Mark, please open the debate on the motion. Mr Durkan: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle. [Translation: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.] Those of us who have experienced the heartbreak of suicide know that it never leaves you, with sleepless nights spent wondering what more you could have done, the guilt that gnaws away, the lives shattered and the families who are changed forever. We tell people who are struggling to reach out and seek help, but what happens when that help is not there, when people in crisis are told that they cannot access services for another six weeks at least or when the system that should catch them when they fall simply is not there? In the Chamber — more so than outside in the real world — we often see and hear division over the daftest of issues, and sometimes over fundamental political ideology. Suicide prevention and saving lives should unite us all, however, and it does. It united us five years ago, when we all stood here making the same argument to fund the critical community crisis intervention service (CCIS) in Derry, an area with a shamefully high suicide rate. It is shameful that we have a fight on our hands once more to reinstate a service that literally saved lives but that was forced to close a couple of months ago when funding from the mental health support fund ended. How can its closure be justified at a time when a mental health crisis is engulfing our communities? Where was the forward planning from the Department? From its establishment in 2018, the CCIS provided more than 3,400 one-to-one crisis interventions, many of which took place out of hours, which are the very hours when people are at their most vulnerable, at their darkest and alone with their thoughts. It was community-based and person-centred, and it worked. Do not take my word for it, because we have heard from service users who say that they would not be here today were it not for the service. The council led the way in securing the service. I recall, however, that we had to drag the Department and the Western Health and Social Care Trust to the table. We even had to get a significant financial contribution from Foyle Search and Rescue, a wonderful local charity, to make ends meet. Top 3.30 pm It is ironic that, on World Mental Health Day last week, the news broke that 80% of the mental health strategy has been shelved, basically — 80%. That did not, however, come as news to my party and others who have been raising the alarm for years. The problem is not a lack of knowledge: it is a lack of political will. Only a handful of the 35 flagship commitments that were made when the strategy was launched in 2021 have seen any tangible progress. Initiatives on early intervention, crisis response and workforce expansion have all stalled. If the strategy had been delivered properly, fewer people would be hitting crisis point and, in turn, the need for crisis services such as the one in Foyle would be reduced. As I said, the community crisis intervention service has been a success. It has been a success despite uncertainty over its future and staff's uncertainty over their futures. That is not the way in which to run any service, and especially not a service of that nature. The closure of the community crisis intervention service alongside the defunding of other vital supports in Derry — removal of the Northlands Addiction Treatment Centre's core funding and defunding of Men's Action Network — have left a dangerous void in the community, which is already struggling under immense pressure. The Western Trust, as we established during Question Time last week, has amongst the highest waiting lists for mental health support in the North and the fewest psychiatrists per head of population. The community crisis intervention service actually helped to cushion that system. It took pressure off emergency services. It gave people hope when all else had failed them. Now, they have been failed again. Now, where do people go? Who catches them before they fall? If we are serious about tackling mental health, every Department must be part of the solution, as is called for by the motion. Those community-based services are not optional extras; they are literal lifelines. I urge you, Minister, and your Executive colleagues, to give that lifeline a lifeline. Ms Ferguson: "Person-centred", "cost-effectiveness" and "life-saving" are just some of the terms that local people and Extern staff have used to describe the community crisis intervention centre in Derry. I thank the signatories to the motion and emphasise my support, and that of my party, for urgent, equitable investment in mental health and well-being. As Mark mentioned, the Foyle crisis intervention centre was born out of need in 2018. In 2021, research evidenced that crisis intervention was an important part of suicide prevention and that those services, when provided, were availed of and positively evaluated. In the same year, as you are, obviously, well aware, the service was able to secure funding through the mental health support fund, which was the COVID allocation. That gave some stability for the key service that was needed. Having worked in the community and voluntary sector for over 20 years, working closely with a range of mental health charities, service providers and staff who are on the front line in providing life-saving support for individuals and their families, I cannot commend enough their commitment, especially in the context of the complex trauma-related mental health issues that exist. I also commend Foyle Search and Rescue, whose volunteers gave up 12,500 hours in 2024, helping 234 people in the city and bringing three deceased loved ones back to their families. We all know the devastating statistics. We know that mental health exists on a complex continuum, so any adequate response should mean that those vital services are sustained and bolstered further by additional work across all our Departments. At any one time, individual and family relationships, community and structural inequalities can all interact to either protect or undermine a person's mental health and well-being. The more exposed that you are to adverse experiences and circumstances, the more challenging that it is to maintain resilience and bounce back from hardship. I do not want to take away from the primary focus of the motion other than to acknowledge that improving mental health requires a whole-of-government approach to address the root causes, rather than relying only on the health service and crisis interventions. I finish by stating that we all have seen how underfunded mental health systems fail our communities and how local community-based crisis intervention programmes save lives when they have the right support. The evidence is clear: investment in mental health is not a cost; it is a commitment to the well-being and safety of every citizen. Mr Middleton: Thanks to the Members for tabling this motion. We are all aware, some painfully so, that Northern Ireland continues to face a mental health crisis of unprecedented scale. Our region continues to suffer from disproportionately high rates of suicide, self-harm and depression, worsened by poverty, social isolation and intergenerational trauma. Extern's crisis intervention service in Foyle did not close because it was ineffective; in fact, the opposite was true. Since its launch, it supported over 3,500 individuals in distress in out-of-hours care. It was a critical support service that offered safety, listening ears, crisis de-escalation and links to longer-term support. Let us be straight in the Chamber: the intervention service closed because the temporary funding model was piecemeal. Someone needed to say, "We will make this work. We will make this a priority". In a system that talks endlessly about tackling the mental health crisis, the shutters came down. When all of us say that we care about mental health, what does that mean in practice? If it means warm words every few months in the Chamber but cold shoulders when allocating Health budgets, we are not being honest with the public. If it means leaving the community and voluntary sector to beg for survival, year in, year out, we are just adding to the deflation already felt in that sector. I have made the point before about how often we talk about the importance of mental health, about prevention, about the neighbourhood model and about the importance of having accessible services. Here we had a service embedded in the community and, rather than throwing the kitchen sink at it to retain it, it closed. Of course, what will happen is that further pressure will be placed on the health system, which is already bursting at the seams, adding even more pressure into the system. Minister, what alternative support will now be provided, or will our emergency departments, GPs and other services be squeezed even further? It feels that, when it comes to health, everything is now a priority and that therefore nothing is a priority. Extern's crisis intervention service was embedded in our community. It had the trust of the people who needed it most, and those are the very people who have now been let down. We often hear about prevention, but, in this case, short-term savings that come at the expense of long-term well-being are simply not savings at all. Minister, in response to a question for written answer, you said, on 8 October 2025: "The Community Crisis Intervention Service (CCIS) has had an important role in supporting vulnerable people, especially out of hours." Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Gary, your time is up. Mr Middleton: I urge you, Minister, to support the service going forward. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Much appreciated, Gary. Mr Donnelly: The closure of Extern's community crisis intervention service in Foyle is another symptom of a system that is entrenched in reactive policymaking, lurching from crisis to crisis without ever addressing the deeper issues. The services that Mark mentioned, many of them out of hours, represent many people who have been helped, and, undoubtedly, lives have been saved. We need a cross-cutting, person-centred approach to the Health budget. We also need the Minister to move beyond words and into actioned interventions to address the mental health crisis that we are facing. We have had a mental health strategy, launched in 2021, that promised genuine transformation, yet, just last week, on World Mental Health Day, it was announced that 80% of the strategy is now effectively shelved and only 16% of its planned funding has been delivered. Is it any wonder that our mental health services remain in a state of eternal crisis? The Department has placed regional crisis services among some of its better-funded actions, yet here we are watching a key regional crisis service collapse due to lack of funds. It is ironic in a sad way that most resources are put into crisis and firefighting while neglecting the very services that could prevent the crisis in the first place, allowing pressures to build up to the point where resources can no longer cope with the demand of patients in crisis. When we fail to fund intervention and we ignore prevention, the pressure does not disappear; it grows. That is not the fault of crisis services, which provide invaluable care and are a lifeline to many, but of a succession of Ministers and years of political instability in this place in which there has been a failure to address the deep-rooted problems. That is reflective of the health system as a whole in Northern Ireland: although the Department gets the lion's share of the Budget, it is a system that so blatantly ignores prevention that it buckles under the weight of its own inaction. Those are not unavoidable tragedies; they are a predictable consequence of years of short-sighted policy. I understand that the Minister has a limited budget, and I understand the pressure that he faces. I do not doubt the intention or sincerity in his words or his desire to improve the system. However, understanding the challenge is not the same as confronting it. If every Health Minister for the next 100 years stands in this Chamber, admits their faults and empathises with the people but continues to tackle each crisis as it comes, nothing will ever change. Without funding mental health strategies, setting aside pay provision for healthcare workers or changing policy to allow better career progression for nurses, nothing will ever change. We will face nothing but failure and disappointment from one generation to the next, Minister after Minister. The mental health crisis is about more than a cost with no context on a budget document. The cost of not preventing it is arguably much greater, and that needs to be addressed. It is so easy to view underfunding and cutting mental health services as budget lines on a spreadsheet, but, for the people who need them, those services are a lifeline, and they prevent so many issues further down the line. If we truly want to tackle Northern Ireland's growing mental health crisis, we must stop treating each service failure as an isolated event and start seeing the bigger picture. Mr Chambers: I am pleased to contribute to this important debate. I begin by recognising the deeply held commitment across the Chamber to improving mental health outcomes for our citizens. As the Minister said in the media only yesterday, there is now, thankfully, a much greater awareness and understanding of mental health in the Chamber and across broader society than there was only a decade ago. Few, if any, of us doubt the enormous role that the community crisis intervention service in Londonderry delivered in recent years. That service provided a vital lifeline to many people in distress, particularly in the north-west area. It undoubtedly helped prevent moments of crisis in people's lives from escalating, and it is not an exaggeration at all to say that it likely saved multiple lives. We must view the debate within the broader picture of mental health across Northern Ireland. Our region continues to face the highest rates of mental ill health in the UK — they are 25% higher than those in England — yet our spending on mental health services remains proportionately lower. That imbalance is unsustainable, and the Minister has said so. That is why he continues to press for budget allocations to be based on actual need. When it comes to mental health, our level of need is clear for all to see. However, we cannot ignore or underestimate the financial pressures facing the Department of Health. The difficult truth is that limited budgets mean that some things, no matter how worthy or valuable, do not receive the support that, otherwise, we would dearly love them to receive. While it is deeply disappointing that the CCIS has not been able to continue, I know that the Minister and his Department have had to make extraordinarily tough decisions, given the overall budget shortfall of around £600 million. The over £500,000 of funding that the CCIS received through the mental health support fund was a welcome reprieve, but it was always intended to be a one-off scheme. I acknowledge the Minister's efforts in extending that support through reallocating other small pots of available cash. Services such as CCIS demonstrate the immense value of community-based interventions. We must learn from what has worked and ensure that future models of crisis care continue to reflect that person-centred approach. The mental health strategy 2021-2031 provides the framework for that, with its vision of regional crisis support and home treatment services that are consistent, responsible and equitable. Progressing that vision, even in its now more targeted and focused form, must remain a shared priority across government. I end by recognising the CCIS staff and volunteers who have given so much. Their dedication changed and, indeed, saved lives. The people of Northern Ireland deserve a system that responds to them when they are in crisis, wherever they live and whenever they need help. That must remain our collective goal. Top 3.45 pm Mr Delargy: There is so much that I want to say on this, but the most important statistic is this: 3,500 people were helped in three and a half years. When Councillor Sandra Duffy and I met Extern representatives in July, they said something that I hear every week, every day and every month as chair of the all-party group on mental health. They said that the staff in those services do not want to hear platitudes. They want to see action, they want sustainability and they want a budget commitment. Those staff are being lost, and there is no sustainability, because they are constantly being put on notice because their jobs are always at risk. Therefore, we need to look at a sustainable and long-term funding model for all these services. The motion is particularly pertinent to Derry because, as has been mentioned, in the past year, funding has been cut for Northlands, and the Men's Action Network has closed. The recent closure of Extern's service in Foyle is just another example of the many services being cut. It is particularly pertinent in our area because people are being discriminated against because of not just their mental health needs but their postcode. That is not good enough. What solution to that is the Department of Health coming up with? Are people going to sit in A&E? This morning, I submitted a question for written answer to the Minister. On Sunday past, the waiting time at Altnagelvin A&E was three times the average of any other emergency department in the North. If the community crisis intervention service is not available for the people who want to use it, they are going to sit in A&E — as happens multiple times — with armed police officers beside them. That totally undermines and takes away from all the work that we have done to destigmatise mental health. It only increases the stigma, undoes the other work that has been done around the issue and undermines the mental health strategy. Mr Donnelly: Will the Member give way? Mr Delargy: I do not have time. I will quote from a response that was given to a question for written answer from Mr Middleton on this issue. The Health Minister said: "I will continue to press for adequate resources to protect and expand services in the North West". Why is that response coming from the Health Minister? The Health Minister is the person with responsibility for the service. It is not good enough to abdicate responsibility; it is not good enough to allocate 5% to 6% of the overall Health budget, which is over half of our entire Budget in the North, to mental health and then talk about needing more budget. This is about the fact that the Department of Health refused to prioritise mental health services, refused to prioritise intervention services and refused to prioritise services that are being cut in the north-west. When Members asked for meetings after the closure of Men's Action Network, and on the closure of this service, we were told, "No". I want to see what solutions the Minister has, and I want to see what is being done to support people in crisis in the north-west. Mrs Dodds: As others in the Chamber have done, I rise to express my disappointment at the closure of another community service. While this is specific to Londonderry and the north-west, and, no doubt, will be gravely missed in those areas, it is a symptom of a greater problem across Northern Ireland, where community mental health services are not being treated in a fair and equitable way, or in a way that acknowledges their extreme importance. Before they will enter into a formal medical process, many people with a mental health problem will go to the community resource because they know the person and the organisation. These are important issues and important facilities. Today, we are talking about one in the north-west, but if I talk to other people across Northern Ireland, I will find exactly the same issues. I also want to look at the problems with the mental health strategy. Last week, we were told about the scaling back of the mental health strategy. The Minister and his predecessor, Minister Swann, said that it would take £1·2 billion to implement the strategy. As far as I can gather from the figures that I have received, the combined total forwarded to the strategy, so far, is around £12 million. That is 1% of what the Minister and his predecessor have said is required. In Northern Ireland, we spend about 7% of our local Health budget on mental health. That is well behind England at 11·4%, Scotland at 9·4% and Wales at 13·3%. Like the previous speaker said, it is not good enough to blame other Ministers or Executive colleagues. It is about the priority that the Minister puts on mental health and the allocations that he gives to the mental health strategy. It is important to reflect on that today. This reflects the issues that we see. In answer to a question from me earlier this year, the Minister gave me statistics on the occupancy of mental health beds in hospitals. The latest statistics that were available then were from March this year — Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Diane, your time is up. Mrs Dodds: — and they varied from 102% to 123%. With the closure of community resources — Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Diane, your time is up. Mrs Dodds: — that will get worse. Sorry. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sorry about that. Mr Gaston: There is no doubt that the closure of Extern's community crisis intervention service will leave a glaring hole in provision in the north-west. I share the frustration of other Members at its closure, but, without immediate action, it will sadly not be the last. It opened in 2019 as a pilot project under the umbrella of Derry City and Strabane District Council. Media reports suggest that, in the following six years, the service was in receipt of approximately £650,000 from the Department of Health. No doubt, it was a worthy cause, yet here we are talking about the closure of that vital front-line community service, in parallel with the scaling back of Stormont's own mental health strategy. The House needs an urgent focusing of minds on the issue. Turning Point NI, which is a Ballymena-based charity in my constituency, also does vital work in crisis intervention. It faces the very same issues that led to the demise of the Extern service, yet it remains similarly unfunded and, regrettably, has never received monetary support from a Stormont Department despite lobbying from MLAs and even a visit from the Health Minister. Over a four-year period, Turning Point NI carried out 1,476 referrals from the trust at a cost of £400,000. While I welcome the Health Minister's commitment to sharpening our focus to maximise impact within the resources available, I again repeat my calls for Turning Point NI to be granted some of the resource that others have got, lest it suffers a similar fate to the group at the heart of the motion today. It is notable that other funders, such as the National Lottery, no longer provide moneys to support tier 3 and tier 4 work, which is the most urgent and critical work in the sector, and it is now more important than ever that our Departments recognise and react to that stark reality. Why should those organisations rely on grants to provide core NHS services? Northern Ireland has many organisations that work tirelessly every day, literally saving lives through crisis intervention. It is high time that the Health Minister found a lasting, strategic way to fund those organisations' efforts at the very heart of our communities. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call the Minister of Health to respond to the debate. Minister, you have up to 10 minutes. Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, and thanks to everybody who spoke in the debate. Let me be very clear that I very much regret what has happened to the community crisis intervention service. As has been pointed out, it has helped over 3,400 people through one-to-one interventions since 2021. Before turning to the detail of the situation, it might be helpful to speak to the wider context of mental health, given that so many Members have turned to it. Northern Ireland has the highest prevalence of mental health problems in the United Kingdom, with a 25% higher overall prevalence of mental health problems compared with England. The proportion of the Budget in Northern Ireland devoted to mental health is around 6%, which is half that in England. Underlying that are high levels of the social determinants of mental ill health, such as poverty, poor housing, domestic violence and economic inactivity. In 2008, 39% of the population in Northern Ireland reported experiencing a traumatic event related to our 30 years of conflict. Members will know that I am determined to do something about mental health, as I have campaigned on the issue since I was elected to the House in 2011, so everything points to the fact that we are facing a financial crisis in the Department of Health. Funding for the CCIS, as one Member pointed out, was initially provided by Derry City and Strabane District Council as a pilot from 2018 to 2021. The Health and Social Care Board provided £27,000 of support in 2020. Subsequently, my Department provided some funding to allow the project to continue. From autumn 2021 until March of this year, Extern received £504,989 from the mental health support fund via the Community Foundation. That money came out of a one-off, three-year scheme to support mental health organisations that was funded using unspent COVID-19 funds. Given the well-documented position of my Department's budget, with all the resources having been allocated, the scheme has now ended. My Department identified a further £42,300 of non-recurrent funding to allow for an extension until June of this year, but, unfortunately, given our ongoing extreme budget challenges, no further funds could be found. Via Extern, the CCIS applied to the core grant scheme for the 2025-26 funding round but was not successful. I will address that, because two Members said that the Department withdrew funding, as if it were a deliberate act. It is inaccurate and unfair to suggest that it was a deliberate act. I looked at the core grant scheme when I was appointed Minister, and it was frozen. I wanted to bring the scheme back into operation, but I also wanted to review it, because its application process had not changed in over 20 years, meaning that no charity set up in the past 20 years could apply to the old scheme. We worked with the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action (NICVA), which facilitated workshops at which the community and voluntary sector told us how the core grant scheme should be redesigned. It is an unfortunate fact that, when it applied, Northlands was unsuccessful. We did not withdraw funds from Northlands or the CCIS. Rather, their applications were simply unsuccessful. Mr Donnelly: I thank the Minister for giving way. Minister, you said that the Department did not remove funds from the core grant scheme. The core grant scheme had funding of £3·6 million a year when it was set up, but that was then halved to £1·8 million a year. Many groups and services that deliver vital services across Northern Ireland therefore lost the ability to continue to do their work. We have heard that Northern Ireland has a 25% higher prevalence —. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Danny, this is not a second opportunity to make a speech. Your intervention is too long. Mr Nesbitt: The Member either misinterprets me or misheard me. I said that we did not withdraw funding from Northlands or the CCIS, and that is the case. I will move on to what is available. The Western Trust's home treatment team offers crisis support alongside GP out-of-hours provision and people can access emergency departments. There is still a range of partners in the community and voluntary sector, and, of course, Lifeline provides round-the-clock community assistance. Over the summer, we saw the publication of the new Protect Life 2 action and implementation plans, which will substantially enhance our efforts to reduce suicide and self-harm. Budgets remain a significant challenge. I have reallocated around £300,000 of funding to year 1 of the action plan. That funding is to promote awareness raising and prevention and to support local work on delivering the Protect Life 2 strategy actions right across Northern Ireland. In addition, EY has reviewed the scale and scope of the community and voluntary sector across Northern Ireland in order to enable a greater analysis to be done of its provision and of how it can work in partnership to achieve positive outcomes. A regional mental health liaison and crisis response home treatment care network has also been set up. It has a focus on pathways, operating procedures, thresholds, documentation, information, training and equity. Top 4.00 pm Service improvements will be progressed in order to ensure timely mental health assessment of those who are presenting in need to emergency departments and to ensure that we have a regionally equitable crisis response and home treatment service that provides acute mental health care in the community as an alternative to psychiatric hospital admission. Mr Delargy: Will the Minister give way? Mr Nesbitt: Yes. Mr Delargy: I appreciate your comments, Minister, but how will that work in practice? People who present at Altnagelvin Area Hospital's A&E already wait three times as long. I appreciate that you are talking about emergency departments and emergency response, but that simply is not practical in Altnagelvin Area Hospital. I would be grateful if you could explain how that will work. Mr Nesbitt: I take the Member's point, but you have to separate what is happening in the community from what is happening in the hospitals. My overall aim, together with the permanent secretary, is to move health and social care as close as possible to people's front doors, if not delivering it at home. This is about trying to get services as close as possible to people's front doors and to keep them out of hospital. That is not something that we are going to be able to do in a day, a week or a year. A cross-departmental coordination action group was established by the mental health champion some time ago, in October 2023, in order to consider crisis services and suicide prevention in Derry/Londonderry and to develop actions to address suicide prevention, along with other relevant issues at the river and the bridges in the city. I campaigned for a mental health champion many years ago. Previously, I tabled a debate in the Chamber and was unsuccessful, but, when Robin Swann took over the Ministry, we were able to appoint Professor Siobhan O'Neill. The appointment of an independent mental health champion was no small thing. She is now able to stand up, as she did last week, and criticise the lack of the delivery of the mental health strategy. That happened only because I and then Robin Swann pressed for the appointment of a mental health champion, who turned out to be Professor Siobhan O'Neill. Lastly, I have to return to the Department's overall financial position. We are facing the most significant shortfall that the Department has ever faced: around £600 million. That is unprecedented and, frankly, unmanageable. I warn again that we need £200 million of that £600 million in order to action pay parity, which was, first, a commitment in New Decade, New Approach but was subsequently endorsed by the Northern Ireland Executive. If we cannot do that, we are going into the potentially uncharted waters of industrial and strike action. I apologise to Members that I am not doing as much as I would like to do in mental health, but it is not for lack of trying. It is because of a lack of resource and funding. There is no quick or easy fix. I had a meeting today to look at next year's financial position, which is bleak. There is no other way to put it. We are in for rough waters over the rest of the mandate. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister. I call Cara Hunter to make a winding-up speech on the motion. Cara, you have five minutes. Ms Hunter: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I will endeavour to cover as many Members' comments as I can in five minutes. I had the privilege of visiting the community crisis intervention service in different locations over the past few years, and I had the chance to meet staff at different times. They were absolutely exceptional, and I got to see what an unbelievable resource it was and how well used it was. One thing that I liked about it was that it was, at one point, open between 8.00 pm and 8.00 am. If somebody was facing a mental health crisis or having feelings of suicidality, the service offered a totally different and unique approach to best support them that was non-judgemental and was there at the point of need. On a night out, when a vulnerable young person had, perhaps, had too many drinks or had taken a substance, this was a place where they were not shamed or judged. The facility was extremely well used. Other Members quoted statistics that speak to the fact that the community loved having that resource and was devastated, as was I, on a human level, that it had closed. Our motion reaffirms a fundamental core value of the SDLP, which is a commitment to tackling the lack of mental health support in the North. Pádraig made a fantastic point about police time. If you speak to the police, so much of their time and effort goes into sitting in A&E. They know that that is not the most appropriate place for someone who is facing suicidality. The families of vulnerable individuals know that it is not the right place. The CCIS was the perfect location to take those vulnerable people at the lowest points in their lives and provide them with somewhere confidential and safe, where staff were well educated, were well connected in the area, were trained in de-escalation and could help acutely suicidal individuals. If you have lost someone to suicide, you can see painfully and clearly why resources such as that are crucial. When funding ends, support ends, and so many are left without support, feeling that nobody cares about them. The doors of that incredible facility closed, and I fear that that sent the wrong message for some. It validated their feelings that they do not matter, and that is the last thing that we want. CCIS was a de-escalation lifeline for the people of the north-west. If you have been in the north-west, you know that there is often a real sense of hopelessness. Recently, I attended Northlands. The Department used to fund it, and there were challenges with that. For the CCIS to close and for Northlands's funding to have dropped — for those who face the dual diagnosis of addiction and mental illness, that is just a nightmare. It is also a nightmare for the families who love them, and there are just so many struggles. The struggles of the people in the north-west are severe. Many vulnerable people in my constituency have experienced many issues and have gone to the community crisis intervention service, from family breakdown to enduring domestic violence, grief, young people in care, victims of sexual violence or, as Gary Middleton mentioned, those who have been impacted on by intergenerational trauma. The Minister referred to that as well. Danny Donnelly rightly spoke about feeling as if we are constantly firefighting. Ciara Ferguson mentioned how valued the service was by the people of Derry and how badly it is needed. Being a north-west representative, I feel that I cannot talk about mental health without talking about regional balance. It is important to highlight the long-standing inequalities that Derry and Strabane have faced. My father is from Strabane, and he would kill me if I did not mention Strabane. Those exposed to deprivation face the greatest mental health burden and are up to three times more likely to take their own life. I find that devastating. It ties in with our earlier debate on child poverty as well. Sadly, at a time when there is that sense of hopelessness in the north-west, we have seen the closure of that vital resource. Alan Chambers mentioned the importance of money. Minister, I know that your heart is in the right place, that you do not have a magic money tree, and that the pressure is on your shoulders, but I and my party are asking you to look urgently at restarting that lifesaving project to help the people of the north-west, who are facing poverty, mental illness and addiction and who are struggling to get detox services and feed their families. CCIS was a vital resource for people who were feeling suicidal. We will do all that we can to get it back up and running, and we need you to help us, Minister. Question put and agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly reaffirms its commitment to tackling Northern Ireland’s growing mental health crisis; expresses regret at the recent closure of Extern’s community crisis intervention service in Foyle due to funding cuts and the lack of action taken to develop a cross-cutting approach to funding by the Executive; and calls on the Executive to adopt a person-centred approach to the Budget that ensures that services such as this can continue to meet the needs of those who need them. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members, take your ease for a moment. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Dr Aiken] in the Chair) Motion made: That the Assembly do now adjourn. — [Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken).] Adjournment Woodlawn House, Dungannon: Post-19 Adult Respite Provision Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): In conjunction with the Business Committee, the Speaker has given leave to Colm Gildernew to raise the matter of post-19 adult respite provision at Woodlawn House, Dungannon. Colm, you have up to 15 minutes. Over to you. Mr Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. [Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.] I thank the Minister for attending the Adjournment debate. It is a really important debate, Minister, and I will give a bit of the background to put it in some context. Woodlawn House is the respite centre for adult learning disability in the Southern Trust. When I first became an MLA, significant issues were ongoing in that sector, with underspends and money going back. I worked with your colleague Robin Swann in our respective roles in Health and got at least a partial resolution to that issue. However, ever since, there has been a long-running saga of incidents with the centre. I underpin my remarks by saying that many of the families who badly need the respite are dealing with very complex loved ones, and that they themselves are now much older and really struggling in that context. A number of years ago, one of the issues that arose was a complete closure of Woodlawn, as a result of a person from children's disability needing to use the facility. All the families fully understand the need to meet other people's needs. However, that created a significant level of disruption, off the back of the underspend that I spoke about. It also led to the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority putting in a change-of-purpose request for the facility, which has never been fully addressed. Families feel that that is now detrimental to their care needs. On my way home from this Building on a Wednesday or Thursday, I have had families ring me to say that respite, which they had scheduled and agreed would happen on the Friday night, was being cancelled. That is just devastating for them. I do not even know what to say to them in those circumstances. I emphasise that neither I nor any of the families believe that that is to do with the staff. The staff do their absolute best. However, a series of complications and complexities have created a difficult situation. There has been a turnover of staff and management, and the pressures keep falling back on to the families. I am told that many families currently have reduced hours. One family, to whom I spoke today, was supposed to get four weeks this year but has only had two. Another family to whom I spoke recently was due to get in the region of 60 days in an allocated period but got only one third of that. It is really difficult. Families might get a phone call today or tomorrow and be told, "You can take some respite in two or three days' time. If you don't take it, it's gone". Therefore, they cannot plan, arrange holidays, have proper breaks and all the rest. I have raised it many times with the senior team in the Southern Health and Social Care Trust. I have met senior team members individually. Every time that I have met them, they have said, "Listen, we think that we have this problem reasonably well cracked. We're recruiting extra staff. We think that we have the management stabilised". We always accept that and say, "Hopefully, that is the case", because, like the families, we are really desperate for a solution. However, the problem continues to rear its head, and families continue to be let down. I am really concerned. One of the regrettable things is that, if any one of those situations were to break down irreparably, the cost would be so much greater than the cost of supporting the carers in the way that we do now. I get a clear sense, Minister, that you are aware of the issues and that you are concerned about them, especially given your focus on shift left, which I very much welcome. I have learnt, in the past few hours, that the Department is holding a consultation in Newry next week and that some of the families will be at it. I appeal to your staff to listen and talk to those families. I am also asking, which is my key purpose today, for you, Minister, to take a personal interest in this to see whether we can find a resolution. Top 4.15 pm I think that we actually need to over-recruit staff to some degree, to ensure that the cover is there. I know that, with all the budgetary problems, that is easier said than done, and I am not gainsaying that. However, a number of families here are being desperately badly let down, and I am concerned about them becoming burnt out. I think that, in certain situations, some of them have suffered burnout, and I am very concerned about that. I am asking the Minister to take a personal interest, to work with the Southern Trust, work with families and meet with families if he can. I know that the Minister's senior staff will be meeting some of them in the near future. Families in some situations are afraid even to engage, in case they get reassessed out of what they already have. They are in a very precarious position in that sense. I very heartily invite the Minister to come to Woodlawn House. I will go along with him to speak to staff, residents, service users and their families, if that is possible. Thank you, Minister. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Colm. I advise the remaining contributors that they will have approximately seven minutes in which to speak. Mr Tennyson: I begin by thanking Colm Gildernew for bringing this important Adjournment topic to the Assembly, and I also thank the Minister for being here to respond. It is an important issue that touches so many lives but often does not get the prominence that it deserves in public debate. Whilst I am not a Fermanagh/South Tyrone MLA, I am an Upper Bann representative, and many of my constituents also rely on the services at Woodlawn House. Like the previous contributor, I regularly hear stories from constituents about the challenges that they have faced in accessing respite care, the reduction in services at Woodlawn and the impact that it is having. Behind each of those stories is a carer who has not had a full night's sleep in months; a family juggling work, love and responsibility; and an individual with complex needs, who is not being treated with the dignity, joy and compassion that they deserve. For those families, respite care is not just a service; it is a lifeline. It is the difference between surviving and truly thriving. They are being failed, and we all have a responsibility to do better. I want to stress, as did Colm Gildernew, that it is no slight or criticism of the staff. Every constituent whom I have dealt with has been keen to emphasise that the staff go over and above to care for their loved ones in very difficult circumstances. I am also conscious of the challenges around staff recruitment and retention at Woodlawn, which piles additional pressure not just on the families but on the remaining staff, who are left to pick up the pieces and juggle that service. Earlier this year, I engaged with the Southern Trust about services at Woodlawn. It advised that, in the year up to June 2025, nine members of staff had left their posts at Woodlawn. That is a turnover of almost 30%. There has also been a significant reduction in service due to maternity leave and sickness absences. Whilst safe staffing levels must, of course, be our priority, I would be grateful if the Minister could outline what steps have been taken to gain insight into what is driving that significant turnover and what consideration has been given to other things, such as pay and conditions. I know that the Department has attempted to undertake recruitment at band 5 nurse level and band 3 healthcare assistant level. It has cited the challenges of people withdrawing before interview and even some post-interview challenges around overseas applicants having issues with visas and other matters. I am curious about whether the febrile atmosphere, febrile debate and toxic debate around immigration are having any bearing on our ability to attract overseas staff into that sector, because I know that the Southern Trust relies very heavily on overseas recruitment. Due to those critical staffing levels, the number of operational days at Woodlawn has reduced significantly. Since June, services have been reduced to five nights a week as opposed to the usual seven, with no clear timeline for a return to full service levels. Again, there seems to be a lack of clarity from the Department about what interim provision will be put in place to support families, or whether any alternatives could be made available, while those operational issues persist. Worse than the reduced operational days at Woodlawn, however, is the functioning of the cancellation policy. Again, like the previous contributor, I have spoken to families who have been given a glimmer of hope when they have secured a slot for respite, only for that hope to be dashed and that slot to be taken away at very short notice. That late cancellation makes it impossible for those families to plan, rest or, often, access the healthcare and support that they need, because we know that many of those families plan to put a loved one into respite care so that they can access their own healthcare appointments. I understand that there has been an endeavour to engage with and consult carers and families about the issues at Woodlawn House. Again, I welcome any update from the Minister on that process so far. Care as a whole is so often undervalued in our society, and respite is not a peripheral concern. It is central to the delivery of a compassionate health service, and it protects well-being and ensures that those with complex needs are not overlooked or left behind in our society. I urge the Minister to take a personal interest, commit to a clear time-bound plan for restoring full services at Woodlawn House and ensure that the cancellation policy is acting effectively and compassionately, with carers at its heart, and that the right support is made available in the interim and is communicated transparently. We owe it to those families to do better and to listen, act and deliver the care and dignity that they deserve. Whilst I accept that budgets are stretched, that can be no excuse for failing to deliver the very basics that those families deserve. I hope that this debate can be the start of setting us on a better trajectory on the issue. I look forward to the Minister's response. Mrs Dodds: Thank you to the Member for securing an Adjournment debate on a very important issue. My colleague Deborah Erskine would have liked to have been here to discuss it. Like the previous contributor, I am a Member for Upper Bann, and the facility caters for many of our constituents, including some from as far away as my home town of Banbridge. The facility is widely used by those from across the Southern Trust. The facility also provides a lifeline. I know that the Minister knows that and gets that it is a really important issue, but we need to look after the families who look after people in such challenging circumstances. Families will do their utmost for their loved one, but, sometimes, it is really important that they get that break from caring so that they can do other things for themselves. Ultimately, if that break from caring is not available, care in the family home can break down, and the ultimate consequence of that is that health services will have to assume responsibility. Having the situation that we face at Woodlawn House is almost unwise. Deborah provided me with some statistics that she had been looking at, and I reviewed them. In March of this year, 24 short breaks were cancelled at Woodlawn House, and another seven were shortened. In the following month, 23 short breaks were cancelled, and the length of stay was reduced for another five. Last month, 10 short breaks were cancelled, with six having the length of stay reduced. The reasons that were given for that were staff shortages, vacancies, sickness, maternity leave and supporting individuals who were doing other training. More worryingly, in a recent update, the Minister said that it was unlikely that eight posts at Woodlawn House would be filled in the near future. That comprises four band 5 nurses and four senior nursing assistants. That is extremely worrying, given the number of cancellations and the shortening of breaks and the impact that that has on families. I really want the Minister to address some of those issues in his response, because I know that some of those families will be listening to the debate and will want to hear something more than, "We are doing our best". I ask that the Minister explain the issues in the Southern Trust. The trust has been more successful than other trusts in introducing a wide range of breaks for families who are in need of respite. Minister, in response to a question that I asked earlier this year, you said that around a third of all the money that is allocated for respite went to the Southern Trust. It may be that the Southern Trust supports a wider range of people who require respite, but it would be interesting to get a further breakdown of the figures in order to understand why some of that money cannot be allocated to Woodlawn House, which is a really important facility. On a wider point, which is important, as it is linked to the issue, the Minister allocated £13 million earlier in the year to support families with really high support needs. It would be useful for the House to get a breakdown of how that £13 million is being spent, of how much of the, I think, £2 million was spent in the previous financial year and of the allocations for this financial year. It is fair to say that the people at whom the allocations are aimed were slightly annoyed, because they felt that they did not really address the issues. There have been some changes made to the number of short breaks that are available, but those changes have not addressed the issue of providing breaks for individuals and families who look after young people and children with very high and complex needs. It would therefore be useful to get some information about that £13 million. I fully acknowledge the intent behind getting out that money and the struggle that there is to find new money, but we really need to make sure that it is allocated in a way that best serves the needs of people with very high and complex needs. Minister, post-19 respite provision is one of the most important issues that we will debate in the House. There are many families across Northern Ireland who, during COVID, managed on their own 24/7 and never had any help. Again, I ask that you give the House information on how many respite facilities are now open, including those operating at pre-COVID levels. Ms Finnegan: I thank the Member for securing the Adjournment debate on an important topic that has caused real worry and distress for families in the Southern Trust area and that speaks to a wider failure in how we support people with additional needs and their carers. Just last week, an 80-year-old mother contacted me in desperation. Her daughter, who is 40 years of age, has complex and additional needs and attends Woodlawn House in Dungannon. For that mother, Woodlawn House is not simply providing a service. Rather, it is her lifeline. It is her only respite, as it provides her with a few hours of relief that allow her to keep going. She told me, however, that respite provision at Woodlawn is regularly being cancelled. Think about that: an elderly woman, who has devoted her entire life to caring for her daughter, now faces uncertainty and exhaustion every single week, never knowing whether the one short break on which she depends will happen. Her story is not unique. One of my constituents in south Armagh, a young man with additional needs, is regularly offered a dementia care unit for respite, which is not an appropriate setting for his needs. That highlights the lack of suitable, specialised provision for adults with complex needs. Families right across our communities — mothers, fathers, sisters and so on — are holding the line every single day. They do so out of love, but they cannot be expected to do so alone. When respite provision is withdrawn, placements are cancelled, and it is then the carers who carry the burden and the most vulnerable who suffer. Woodlawn is a vital facility. It was established to provide short breaks so as to prevent crises, but it is now under immense strain, not because of any failings on the part of staff, who do incredible work, but because the system is broken. That is not morally, financially or socially acceptable: it is not morally acceptable, because every person who has additional and complex needs deserves to live with stability, dignity and continuity of care; it is not financially acceptable, because out-of-area placements cost millions that could be invested in strengthening local services; and it is not socially acceptable, because families are being pushed to breaking point when they do not know whether they will get suitable respite provision for their loved ones. That is not what compassionate care looks like. Top 4.30 pm The situation is not suitable. It is not good enough. We need urgent action: not more reviews, but real investment and reform. Woodlawn needs guaranteed continuity of service and an assurance that respite will be protected and not treated as optional. Behind every statistic is a person. We cannot turn away from the issue. We owe it to those families to do better, to protect respite and to strengthen Woodlawn and other centres like it, making sure that every person with additional and complex needs is supported, valued and given the opportunity to live their best possible life. That is what those families deserve and what we must deliver. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call the Minister. Minister, you have up to 10 minutes. Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will cut straight to the chase. Mr Gildernew asked whether I will visit Woodlawn. Yes, of course I will. I will visit it and speak to the residents, the workforce, the carers and the parents. I get out and about every week. That is important to me. I can sit behind that desk in Castle Buildings doing paperwork and having internal meetings, but it is not real until I get out into health and social care delivery settings. I will be more than happy to do that. My diary is pretty chock-a-block, so it might take a bit of time, but it is important for me to do that. Mr Gildernew mentioned a meeting. Is that next week? Mr Gildernew: Yes. Mr Nesbitt: I take it that that is for the consultation that we are doing on the learning disability service model. That is important. I encourage everybody who has an interest in that to attend one of those public meetings, because that may set the template for how we do business for a good number of years to come. I speak to service users a lot. I speak to mums and the workforce that works in that area and to officials in the Department. When I speak to people about the state of the service, there is a common theme. It can be summed up in one word: fragility. It is really fragile. When people go off on sick leave or maternity leave, meaning that the workforce is unavailable, it is fragile, and it breaks down. If somebody with severe learning difficulties comes from out of the blue and needs residential care rather than short break care, the entire home, potentially, will then be closed to those needing short breaks. I agree with Mr Gildernew in that I am concerned about families and burnout. He knows, as I do, that, for those parents in particular, the biggest concern is, "What happens when I'm gone? Will my son or my daughter be OK?". That is what keeps them up at night. Of course it does, because those are their loved ones. Mrs Dodds will have to write to me about the £13 million that she mentioned, because I will not be able to give her chapter and verse on that. She is not, however, shy about writing to the Minister of Health. [Laughter.] Some of the circumstances of Woodlawn House are unique, but a lot of this is universal, based on the fact that it is a very fragile service in that it takes only very little of an unexpected nature to happen to throw it into chaos. Mr Gildernew said that it would be great if we had spare capacity, not least in the workforce. In an ideal world, of course, it would be great if we had beds, facilities and workforce to be tapped into when one of those things occurs. If, however, I were to go back to the Department —. Mr Gildernew: Will the Minister give way? Mr Nesbitt: I will give way in a moment. If, given the shortfall in the Health budget, I were to go back to the Department and suggest that we start having capacity sitting around and waiting, I think that I would be taken in for a random drugs test. I will give way. Mr Gildernew: That is not what I am asking for, Minister. I am asking for an appropriate number of staff to cover what we now know to be a pattern of failure. I am saying that, if the current cohort is not meeting needs and is collapsing on such a regular basis, that cohort is not enough. That is where I am looking for additional capacity to be assessed and recruited so that the facility continues to function, cancellations do not come in at the last minute and we do not see the whole place closing because of one or two members of staff being off. That is what I am asking for. Mr Nesbitt: I very much appreciate the clarification, and I apologise for misinterpreting. I thought that you meant that we would have additional capacity. Let me give an overview of the challenges that are faced by Woodlawn House in particular, of the action taken by the Southern Trust and my officials, and of the wider strategic work that is under way to address the clear gap between capacity and demand for short breaks for people with a learning disability. I will be clear to families, because they may well be listening, and to the people whom we support that we need to increase provision in Woodlawn House and, indeed, in overall residential short break capacity across Northern Ireland. A model and a plan have been developed to achieve that regional change. That is the learning disability service model that I have just mentioned, which is out to consultation. Woodlawn House is a nursing-led statutory facility that gives short breaks for adults with a learning disability. The purpose-built home has eight beds and includes a separate unit that can offer support to those with the most complex needs. It opened in 2008, and, since then, it has played a really important role in supporting adults with learning disabilities who have complex medical needs. That is why it is nursing-led. Of course, there can be a lack of alternatives when provision is impacted on. I am aware of Woodlawn's temporary closure in December 2023, which was to accommodate an emergency placement, as I said earlier. I will come back to that. Since March of this year, Woodlawn House has operated at a reduced capacity due to a staffing shortage. That is at the core of the issues there. At the time when the matter was escalated to the Department, the Southern Trust was reporting a staffing deficit — this is quite shocking — of 60% to 70%. There were multifaceted reasons, including staff being lost to sickness absence, maternity and career progression, but it was a really significant staffing gap, and, of course, it resulted in a reduction of service that was necessary to maintain the safety of the staff and of the people whom we were supporting. It was a regrettable decision, but we had to be mindful that Woodlawn supports people with very complex needs, and they require a fully staffed, multidisciplinary team. Since that point, the trust has undertaken several exercises to address the staff deficit, restore provision and, where possible, find alternative placements across other residential and nursing units. Officials have received an update from the trust on the current position and the work ahead to fully remobilise the service. Three additional band 5 nurses have been recruited, and they took up their posts this month. That is good news. The trust also used bank and agency staff. However, regulations and standards are clear that the service needs to be delivered by substantive staff to ensure continuity of care and reflect the complex medical needs that Woodlawn supports. The trust has plans for further band 3 recruitment, and an open day will be held in Woodlawn on 16 October, which is this Thursday. Band 2 trainee posts are also being introduced to recruit individuals who are keen to work in the care sector. It is envisaged that they will progress to become band 3 nursing assistants or healthcare assistants in due course. Additional processes have been put in place to promote the safety of the people who are supported and of the staff. Enhanced governance structures, senior management visibility and staff engagement have been put in place to better understand the staffing issues and to inform changes to the services and to future recruitment. Weekly allocation meetings are in place to ensure that provision is prioritised on a clinical and social basis. That is not a desirable position, but it is needed to ensure that people can access a short break where that need cannot be met elsewhere. Families were engaged in the process and will continue to be engaged. The trust has commissioned additional beds in other units. Those will not be suitable for all families, but they have been offered to and accepted by some. Lastly, where possible, self-directed support has been used to provide alternative support to families in lieu of short breaks. I assure Members that my Department will continue to monitor and request regular updates from the trust on progress towards restoring full service delivery at pace, but that has to happen with a safe and appropriate level of staffing. In my remaining time, I will turn to the impact of societal unrest on our international colleagues. I say to Mr Tennyson that we have yet to bottom out the potential impact of that, but, clearly, it gives me huge concern about the retention of international colleagues but also about their recruitment. We have recruited a lot of doctors from India to the Southern Trust in particular; I met a lot of them at Daisy Hill Hospital, and there are some who work at Craigavon Area Hospital, and they are really good people. If you are sitting in India or somewhere else, and you are asked by a recruitment campaign whether you would like to come to Northern Ireland, you will go on your social media or use your search engine and see that it is not a very attractive proposition. To have to put a sign in your doorway or front window that says, "I am a Filipino", or, "I am working for Health and Social Care", is truly biblical. It is the Passover, literally, to say, "Pass me by, please: I am OK". That is no way to run a health service. I will finish where I began. I look forward to working with Mr Gildernew and to visiting Woodlawn and speaking to the appropriate people. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Minister. Thank you, Colm. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Adjourned at 4.41 pm. Top
[ni-assembly-official-report][plenary_report] Official Reports https://aims.niassembly.gov.uk/officialreport/report.aspx?&eveDate=2025/10/13&docID=453674 Official Report: Monday 13 October 2025 Table of Contents Assembly Business Matters of the Day Naomi Long: Intimidation at her Home Gaza Ceasefire Agreement Members Statements South West Acute Hospital Borderland Podcast: Michelle Gildernew Downshire Primary School: Road Safety Northern Ireland Within the United Kingdom Community Transport Week Haemacrómatóis Haemochromatosis Double Standards Hazelwood Integrated Primary and Nursery School: 40th Anniversary Bernard Branagan: Lets Share Grief Breast Cancer Awareness Month Northern Ireland v Germany Assembly Business Standing Orders 10(2) to 10(4): Suspension Speakers Business Executive Committee Business School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill: Final Stage Oral Answers to Questions Justice Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Executive Committee Business School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill: Final Stage Legislation Programme 2025-26 Committee Business Water, Sustainable Drainage and Flood Management Bill: Extension of Committee Stage Private Members Business Irish Language Street Signage in Belfast The Assembly met at 12:00 pm (Mr Speaker in the Chair). Members observed two minutes' silence. Assembly Business Mr Speaker: Before we begin today's business, it is important that I, as Speaker, recognise that last week was extremely disturbing, with the despicable events of the bomb attack at the constituency office of Liz Kimmins and then the mob that gathered at the home of Naomi Long. The Assembly was established on the principle that, whatever differences we have — we have plenty of them — we express them through the democratic process in the Chamber; not on the streets through violence, intimidation, threats or harassment. The Assembly should, therefore, stand as one to condemn attacks on constituency offices and intimidation at people's family homes. Politicians are as entitled to privacy and a family life as any other member of the community. I wrote to Members on Friday about an event that I will be hosting with the PSNI next week to highlight its MLA safety strategy. Members will have the opportunity to seek advice from the PSNI and Assembly officials on the support available to them. I encourage all Members to take that opportunity. All parties agree that it is of serious concern that abuse and harassment and last week's extremist incidents have reached a point where they not only have an impact on serving Members but risk deterring people, in particular, women, from seeking election or re-election to this place. I will conclude by saying that we have to challenge the notions that politicians should somehow be able to accept abuse, attacks and intimidation as a normal part of their job. It is not, and it cannot be allowed to be, the case. Thank you, Members. Matters of the Day Naomi Long: Intimidation at her Home Mr Speaker: Eóin Tennyson has been given leave to make a statement on the intimidation towards Naomi Long at her home, which fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24. If Members wish to be called, they should rise in their place and continue to do so. Members will have up to three minutes to speak. I remind Members that there will be no interventions. Mr Tennyson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I utterly condemn the disgraceful intimidation that took place at the home of Minister Naomi Long and Councillor Michael Long last week. I also take the opportunity to express my solidarity to Minister Liz Kimmins and Dáire Hughes MP on the foot of the disgraceful attack experienced at their office. Last week was a shameful week for Northern Ireland. An attack on any politician from this Chamber is an attack on our democratic process. Naomi and Michael have been in public life for over 25 years. They are no shrinking violets. They have never shied away from robust debate, engagement with people from different perspectives and robust public scrutiny. When a mob of over 40 people — some of whom were in masks — gathered at their home in the dark of night, it was not protest or scrutiny. It was intimidation, abuse and harassment. The irony is not lost on me that many of those in that mob who intimidated a woman in her family home, a Minister with a stronger record than anyone in the Chamber on tackling violence against women and girls in our society, would have claimed to be defenders of women and girls. It is also true that the scenes last week have not developed in a vacuum. We have seen the rise of far right misinformation and disinformation, driven by malign elements, over months and years. We also have a responsibility in the Chamber. The words uttered in this Building are not without consequence. We all must now reflect on the tone and tenor of our contributions to public discourse. For our part, Alliance will not be deterred from working for everyone in our community and standing up for the shared, inclusive and united future to which I believe the majority of people in Northern Ireland aspire. My party is no stranger to intimidation and abuse. However, I am conscious that, in all those years of protests, attacks on offices and threats towards public representatives, a mob has never turned up outside the private sanctuary of one of our elected representatives. It is the first time that such an incident has occurred, and we must all resolve that it surely has to be the last. Ms Ennis: I utterly condemn the actions that occurred outside the home of Michael and Naomi Long last week. It was a dark week for politics here: as Mr Tennyson and the Speaker have said, there were attacks on my colleagues' constituency office and then the mob outside Naomi Long's home. There is no justification for that. It is completely unacceptable. I hope that we never again witness the scenes that we saw last week. Language and rhetoric have emanated from the Chamber in recent weeks that have not helped matters. Week in, week out, we have heard a bingo card of dangerous rhetoric from the unionist Benches. It is not enough to stand in the Chamber and condemn those recent actions. Condemnations with a "but" are not condemnations. What message are some Members across the Chamber sending out? Week in, week out, it is a message of fear and suspicion. Members have a responsibility to speak factually about the important issues that face our communities, not to send out lazy dog whistles. We have seen a rise in that over recent weeks and months. There can be no justification for the shameful actions that we saw last week. I hope that no one else, in the Chamber or anywhere else, has to suffer the attacks and abuse that our colleagues suffered last week. Mr Frew: I, too, condemn the intimidation that we all witnessed last week through not only the attack on Sinn Féin's constituency offices but the mob that turned up at a politician's private residence. Naomi and Michael Long have my sympathy, as do the Sinn Féin representatives. It is absolutely wrong to go to someone's sanctuary — their private family home. However, this is not the first time that it has happened. I recall when a mob surrounded the home of councillor Maurice Mills, a district policing partnership chairperson in Ballymena, way back in, I think, the late '90s. Sammy Brush is another person who comes to mind. No one has a monopoly on intimidation. Many unionist politicians from all ilks and parties have suffered intimidation. It is really important that the parties here do not use the atrocious behaviour of last week for political point-scoring. That is absolutely atrocious. Only last week, one of my colleagues had graffiti sprayed on his constituency office. That was not mentioned by this party. I was the victim of a libellous whispering campaign, also only last week. That was not mentioned in the Chamber. Why would I mention it? We all suffer the same activities. Parties should be very careful not to exploit such atrocious actions for political point-scoring. Even today, when we have the opportunity to unite, we have had attack. That is horrific, and I will tell you why: it is the Chamber that should fill any void or vacuum. The Chamber is where we hold Ministers and politicians to account. The Chamber is where there must be robust debate. The Speaker is a champion of robust debate in the Chamber, as I am. No political party should seek to score political points in order to diminish our role as scrutinisers of this place, of Departments and of individual Ministers. That is what concerns me about what I have heard this morning from the two Members who have spoken. It is wrong to use that atrocious behaviour for a political point-scoring manoeuvre. I ask the Members who have spoken to consider their wording and remember that the Chamber that we sit in is the champion of democracy, and that there should be robust debate. Mr Allen: Mr Speaker, I associate myself and my party with your remarks at the outset. Normally, on matters such as this, most Members say, "I would like to associate myself with the comments of all Members", but, unfortunately, on this occasion, I cannot do that. What we saw last week was wholly unacceptable. There is no justification whatsoever for it. The intimidation outside the Sinn Féin constituency office of Dáire Hughes MP and Minister Liz Kimmins was totally unacceptable. Those are actions of the past that nobody in this place wants to see happen now and many did not want to see happen in the past. I thank the Member for submitting the Matter of the Day. When I heard what had occurred outside Naomi and Michael Long's home, I was appalled. I am not often on Twitter, for some of the very reasons that have been discussed, but I immediately took to Twitter to show my solidarity with Naomi and Michael. In this place, we often have robust debate, and that is what it is: robust debate. Ministers, Members and parties are held to account, but there is no justification for the actions that we saw last week. Those who were responsible should not only desist from but reflect on their actions. Anybody who attempts to justify such actions is plainly wrong, and I challenge them also. Mr Durkan: Let me be clear: there is no place in our society, or in any democratic society, for threats, intimidation or harassment, especially against those who stand up and step forward to serve the public, and there never was. We may sit on different Benches and stand for different things, and we may disagree, often passionately, on direction, policy and approach, but there is and must always be one fundamental truth: violence and threats are not tools of political expression. They are tools of fear, division and destruction. Minister Long has shown strength, courage and dedication in her role. The recent intimidation of her at her family home and the recent intimidation of Minister Kimmins and her colleagues at their office are attacks not just on those people as individuals or on their political parties but on democracy itself. We in the SDLP have always stood against violence and threats, and we stand firmly with our colleagues from different parties and their families. I call on everyone here and on every leader in our communities to stand united not only in condemnation but in action. We must challenge the culture that allows and, sometimes, even encourages such behaviour to fester. We must ensure that voices of peace always shout louder than those of hatred. The Assembly must be a place of civil discourse even when our differences are huge. We owe that to one another, but, more importantly, we owe it to the people whom we represent. Top 12.15 pm Mr Gaston: I join Members in condemning the protest outside the home of the Justice Minister. Regardless of the public profile of any of us in the Chamber, we are all entitled to a private family life. There is a fundamental right to freedom of speech and to protest, and those are values that I will always defend, but I do not want to see protesters outside my house and will not defend anyone who goes to protest outside another politician's house. Of course, one cannot comment on such an event without noting the irony of some who have commented on that protest continuing to defend the murder of Rev Robert Bradford MP, who was shot while sitting behind a desk at a constituency surgery. It is the height of hypocrisy for Mrs O'Neill to express concern about protests being directed at politicians while she continues to defend the murder of Rev Robert Bradford and similar horrors. I must express my disappointment at the way in which the Alliance Party has sought to use the protest. As I understand it, the protest was about the housing of alleged sex offenders, yet the Alliance Party sought to use it to delegitimise criticism of their decision to side with Sinn Féin on the Irish language debate in Belfast City Hall and to attack those who pointed out their backing of an amendment in the House, tabled by the Old Bailey bomber, which removed from a motion the distinction between innocent victims and the Shankill bomber, who blew himself up. The incident outside Mrs Long's home was wrong, but it cannot be used to delegitimise and to silence criticisms in the Chamber. We have heard it from the Alliance Party today, and we have heard it from Sinn Féin — their little helpers — who like to try to use other means. I say this to the Alliance Party: what happened outside Mrs Long's house was wrong but do not bring in other decisions that you have taken in an attempt to muddy the waters. Mr Carroll: There is no doubt that the right to protest should be respected and protected for everyone. Protest is a human right and a vital mechanism for holding those who are in power to account. What happened outside the Justice Minister's house on Wednesday evening was no protest, however, and it was not legitimate protest. Individuals showing up in masks outside a family home is a blatant act of intimidation and harassment and should be condemned, as should the attack on the Infrastructure Minister's office last week. Everyone has the fundamental right to privacy. That right should extend even to those with whom we have significant political disagreements. It should extend to Ministers, MLAs, councillors and, most importantly, to citizens. Acts of personal intimidation are completely unacceptable and clearly cross a line. It is worth commenting on the fact that some parties think that it is OK for the Alliance Party to be upset as long as they do not dare to mention anything political that is obviously connected to the attack. It is political — of course it is. Shame on those who try to limit the conversation. We cannot ignore the role that far right agitators have played, in recent weeks and months, in whipping up fear and spreading misinformation in Belfast and beyond. A few ringleaders have repeatedly violated the right to peaceful protest in Belfast and beyond, going up to people's faces, filming them, jeering at them and harassing them in an attempt to provoke those peaceful protesters. They dox those protesters online and, quite often, publish personal information such as names and workplaces. That, again, is harassment and intimidation, and it needs to be condemned and called out. Those who engage in racist, far right dog-whistling instil fear in those whom they claim to protect with their vigilante patrols and protests outside family homes in east Belfast and elsewhere. I fully condemn those anti-democratic, cowardly acts of intimidation. I also condemn those who lead people to the top of the hill with their hate-filled, aggressive rhetoric and then, when the full consequences of their actions become apparent, walk away and say that it was nothing to do with them, whether that be in Belfast, Ballymena or elsewhere. Ms Sugden: I begin by expressing my solidarity with Minister Naomi Long and her husband, Councillor Michael Long. What happened outside their home last week was not a protest; it was intimidation, and it was wrong. A genuine protest is open. It is about conviction and ideas. Intimidation is about fear. When people cover their faces and target a private home, it is not about being heard; it is about silencing someone else. That is not democracy in action; it is an attack on it. We need to be honest about how we got here, however. As a society, we have started to dehumanise politicians and to forget that behind every decision and debate is a person: someone who goes home to a family who did not choose public life and did not sign up for the abuse that their loved one gets. No one — indeed, not politicians themselves — should have to make that sacrifice. I do not know a politician who came into this job without good intentions. We may disagree, sometimes strongly, but most of us are here to make things better from our perspective. When we strip away that humanity and start to see people as fair game rather than fair citizens, we cross a dangerous line. We have seen where that leads: the murders of Jo Cox and David Amess. As chair of the Women's Caucus, I have taken part in discussions about the growing abuse and intimidation that faces those in public life, particularly women. Mr Speaker, I appreciate your acknowledging that in your opening remarks and facilitating those discussions. It should never be normal for elected representatives to require security measures at their home or their offices, but that is now our reality. Across the world, politics feels angrier and more polarised. We need to take a collective step back, because, ultimately, most of us, from the left, right or centre, are trying to reach the same place, which is safer communities, strong services and decent lives for the people whom we represent. Those who resort to threats or intimidation do not defend democracy; they dismantle it. You can hold strong views and still show respect. That is what democracy requires: disagreement without dehumanisation. Let us send a united message that intimidation has no place in Northern Ireland politics and that our differences must never be met with fear. Let us stand up not only for Naomi Long, Liz Kimmins and Dáire Hughes but for every person who believes that democracy should be a contest of ideas, not a battle of intimidation. Mr Burrows: I also unequivocally condemn the terrible scenes outside the Justice Minister and Councillor Long's house, as, last week, I condemned the terrible attack at the constituency office of Minister Kimmins and the graffiti attack on Mr Frew's constituency office. I genuinely believe that an attack on one of us is an attack on all of us in this place and that we all have a responsibility to defend democracy. I am afraid, however, that democracy is under two attacks today: the attack from the mobs outside, and the attack from those in here who want to silence accountability and scrutiny and link the actions of a mob with the legitimate voice of people in the Chamber. That is shameful. Mr Carroll: Dog whistle. Mr Burrows: When democracy is attacked, the answer is more democracy, more scrutiny and more accountability. Ms Bradshaw: Not violence. Mr Burrows: Let me address something. I know what it is like to be attacked in your own home and not to feel safe in it. I lived under serious threat. I lived behind armoured glass. Members of my family sent me messages this week saying that an Alliance MLA had blamed me — Ms Bradshaw: Grow up. Mr Burrows: — for what happened outside [Interruption.] Dr Aiken: There we go. Typical. Mr Burrows: We talk about civility in the House, and I am told to grow up [Interruption.] [Inaudible.] Mr Givan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker: No points of order. Mr Burrows: For me, as someone who has crossed the road to help people and who has had bones broken for helping people in need, to be blamed for bringing scrutiny and accused that my solidarity with the Justice Minister was somehow "feigned" — that is the language that a Member used — went against every fibre in my body. My nieces and nephews read those tweets. They read the responses to them. I express my full solidarity with the Justice Minister. The people who gathered outside her house were a mob. I am sure that the Ulster Unionist Party gets no support from them whatsoever. I know that some of the very same people were highly critical of my party's role during COVID, because many of them are anti-vaxxers. I condemn outright what happened outside the Longs' house. I condemn outright what happened at Minister Kimmins's constituency office. Sinn Féin lectures us about our language and actions when it still defends the murders of thousands of people. Many people would have loved to have had only a protest outside their house instead of a masked man planting a bomb under their car or assassinating their father as he got into his car to go to work. Shame on you. We will defend democracy and challenge what happens out there, but we will also be robust in our scrutiny in this place. Mr Speaker: That brings that Matter of the Day to a conclusion. I encourage Members to reflect on all the issues. We need to ensure that such things do not happen and that our constituency offices and homes are safe places. We also need to ensure that we are able to engage fully in the Chamber so that people outside do not feel the need to vent in some way. There is not any justification for people having engaged in what they engaged in last week. We have this place, our council chambers, Westminster and so on to which people can come and debate issues on behalf of the public who elected them. That is where such things should happen. Mr Givan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Member for South Belfast Ms Bradshaw has now left the Chamber, but, during Mr Burrows's contribution, I am confident that I heard her say, from a sedentary position, as Mr Burrows reflected on the terrorist threats that he had to endure that caused him to have to move house, the words "Grow up". Mr Speaker, if possible, I ask you to detect whether that was said, confirm that it was the case and then rule on whether it was appropriate language to have come from the Member for South Belfast. Mr Speaker: The point has been noted. We will look at that. As we move forward, I encourage all Members to engage in a way that is constructive and, as far as is possible —. [Interruption.] Order, please. We are straying from the subject a bit here. I encourage all Members to engage in a constructive way. We do not want another week like last week. We need to send a very clear message from the Chamber that we do not want it and that it is not acceptable. We need to send a message to the community and to those who engage in such activity that it is not acceptable. That needs to be the clear message from the House today. Before we move on to the next item of business, I welcome back our colleague Ms Nicholl, who was off on maternity leave. Congratulations on the birth of your baby. I trust that you will be able to settle in once again and that we will be able to get on with business with you here. Gaza Ceasefire Agreement Mr Speaker: Timothy Gaston has been given leave to make a statement on the Gaza ceasefire agreement, which fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24. The usual rules apply. If Members wish to speak, they must rise in their place, and they will have up to three minutes in which to contribute. Mr Gaston: I welcome the fact that, over two years after Hamas started the conflict, which, my goodness, began with the biggest massacre of Jews since the Second World War, it is finally drawing to a conclusion. I commend the work of President Donald J Trump and his team, which was vital in getting us to this point. Although many in the Chamber have unjustly attacked him, with even the First Minister using Gaza as the pretext for skipping a state banquet that was held to mark his visit to the UK, it was his Administration, not speeches from Sinn Féin Back-Benchers, who got us to where we are today. What has happened today? The hostages who remain alive have returned home to Israel. At the conflict's outset, Israel made it clear that that was her objective. She has certainly achieved it. Now, with the return of the hostages, the war is all but ended. Those who have sought to slander the world's only Jewish state by suggesting that it had a policy of genocide towards the Palestinians have been proved wrong. Top 12.30 pm However, while I welcome the deal, I want to make it clear today that I recognise that it is not easy. The calling of the ceasefire has resulted in Hamas terrorists, once again, openly taking to the streets of Gaza. Hamas is the only army in the world that wears civilian clothes during the war and then puts on uniforms during ceasefires. Perhaps that is why it finds favour with fellow travellers in the House, but that must be very galling to the innocent victims of Hamas terrorism. My mind also turns to those who, as a result of the deal, will see the murderers of their loved ones released from the jails in Israel. That includes Mahmoud Atallah, who was serving a life sentence for killing a Palestinian woman whom he suspected of cooperating with Israel, and the members of the Hamas terror cell who carried out multiple bombings circa 2002 in east Jerusalem and elsewhere, some of whom are convicted of murder amongst other things. That reality is shamefully airbrushed by many, but I say to our friends in Israel that your pain and the injustice that you feel with that element of the deal resonates with many of us here in this part of the United Kingdom. Mr Kearney: We must hope that the ceasefire announcement in Gaza will now mark a step change in guaranteeing a durable peace process for Palestine and the Middle East. It must open up a pathway to Palestinian self-determination and national sovereignty. For two years, Israel has relentlessly bombarded the Gaza Strip, making it a graveyard for international law and the most dangerous place on the planet for a child to live. Israel has waged a genocidal war against the Palestinian people while being given political cover, funding and weapons by the US, Britain and other Western states. At the same time, annexation and ethnic cleansing are being systematically implemented in the West Bank and east Jerusalem. All of that must end if there is to be a permanent peace for Palestine and Israel. Therefore, the talks breakthrough presents a pivotal moment for the Palestinian people. It holds within it potential and significant challenges. The immediate focus must be to alleviate the suffering and the starvation of Palestinians in Gaza. A potential opportunity now exists to establish a peace process based upon continuing negotiations that address all issues. New phases of talks must address the root causes of Israel's illegal occupation and apartheid system in Palestine and the creation of a permanent peace process, established within the framework of international law. Success will depend on all sides committing to negotiate with good faith. Agreements made must be honoured, and guarantees on implementation will be essential. That extends to all guarantors, holding Israel to its commitments and ensuring a withdrawal of all Israeli forces from the West Bank and from Gaza and the demilitarisation of the overall situation. In the meantime, increased global pressure to ensure compliance with international law is more urgent than ever. Multilateral institutions, the Arab world and progressive Governments and parties throughout the international community must act together and speak with one voice to ensure that the Palestinian people and their thirst for peace and justice and national freedom will finally be achieved. Mr Givan: We remember October 7, when thousands of Hamas terrorists invaded the state of Israel. Over 1,200 victims were murdered, slaughtered — women and babies — by terrorism. Hundreds were taken hostage, held captive in the dungeons of Gaza. Israel rightly responded and mobilised the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). To the men and women of the IDF, we say, "Thank you". Israel and the rest of the world owe them a debt of gratitude for the work that they have carried out. They have decimated Hamas, and terrorists such as Al-Zawahiri have gone to face judgement in eternity. The Iranian nuclear arms have been destroyed — thank you, Mr Trump, for Operation Midnight Hammer, which destroyed their nuclear facilities. The Houthi leadership has been taken out. Hezbollah bleeped into eternity when their pagers went off. Thank you to the IDF. The lands of Canaan were given to the people of Israel by God. It is the Promised Land, surrounded by enemies, the only democracy in the Middle East. Dictatorship and authoritarian regimes abound in those Arab nations, which refused to open their borders to the people of Gaza to let them in. Israel, a diverse community — a pluralist, liberal community, because it is the only democracy in the Middle East — was failed by the United Nations. It was let down. It was let down by the Republic of Ireland and let down by the United Kingdom, who both recognised a Hamas-led Palestinian state. President Trump made the difference. He has delivered peace through strength. The operations in Iran, the work with the Arab nations — he brought them to the table and secured the concessions from Hamas. We now have hope for a better future for the people of Israel and a better future for the people of Gaza, free from the tyranny of terrorists who used their own people as human shields. There was no genocide. There was terrorism that used its own people. We are commanded to pray for the peace of Jerusalem. There is a season for everything; a time for peace and a time for war. I trust that the time for war is over and that we will now have that time for peace. Ms Nicholl: A Jewish woman approached me a few years ago and said, "What is happening in Gaza is not an orange or green issue: it is a humanitarian issue". As a mother of three children, when I started engaging in the conversations around what was happening in Gaza, the real turning point for me was the death of Hind Rajab. I think about that almost every week. I do not say, "Thank you" to the murder in a car of a terrified child who was waiting to be rescued. I do not say, "Thank you" to anyone who is responsible for the death of any person. You can condemn what happened on 7 October and condemn the genocide that ensued at the same time. It does not have to be either/or. What strikes me about this is that, so often in this Chamber, we hear about Christian values. I do not know, maybe I have not read the Bible that recently, but I learned from it about love and humility, not judging, and the importance of treating people with kindness and respect. There is no justification for what has happened. I started chairing an informal working group with members of the Palestinian community and interested MLAs and activists well over a year and a half ago. I remember a man who had just returned from Gaza coming to talk to us about what he had witnessed. It was harrowing. He talked about walking down a street with a child on his back and praying that the child would not see the dead bodies along the way. What sort of world are we living in where that happens; where children are exposed to that? What sort of world are we living in when politicians justify any violence? This is a moment of hope for Israelis and Palestinians. I watched on TV the hostages being released. I can only imagine what their families went through: the fear for their lives. I can only imagine what they went through. It is awful, but what has happened in Palestine — in Gaza — is also awful. We do not have to make it either/or; we can just make it about humanity. Several Members and I went to a very moving house of mourning with the Palestinian community. It ended in Muslim and Christian prayer, because it is not only Muslims who have been killed; Christians have been killed as well. I hope that this is the start of better for the people in Palestine and Israel. The only way that we can have lasting peace is if there is a two-state solution and people work for our common humanity. There is so much division in our politics and world. We need to remember our humanity, and we need to do better. Dr Aiken: Today — 13 October — is Hoshana Rabbah, the final day of Succoth. It is the day on which Jewish people everywhere pray and look to the fate of the new year. As we have seen from the joyous scenes in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, today is also one of significant hope. The 20 living hostages are being restored to their families, friends and loved ones after two years of horror, barbarity, torture, sexual abuse and mental torment. Their recovery will be long and arduous, but I am sure that all here will join me in praying for their eventual healing. It is also a time of immense sadness, not only for the families of the dead hostages who were murdered by Hamas and other Palestinians but for the millions across the world who were affected by the barbarity of 7 October. For them, there is no joy of reuniting and the resumption of disrupted lives. Instead, there will be further mourning and pain. They, too, are at the forefront of our prayers, and my prayers, today. The murder of those people, including women and children, will forever remain a stain on the Palestinian terrorists and those in Gaza who facilitated their murder and torture and the desecration of their remains. It is also a stain on those useful idiots and fellow travellers who chanted for global "infitada" and rivers to the sea while giving agency to the global surge of antisemitism, no less than on this Island. As we can continue to see, those lies are not only unproven but a clear example of propaganda and add to the Jew hate, which, ironically, purports to be the truth for far too many in the Chamber and elsewhere. For those who say that there was "no alternative" to terror, the reality is this: if 7 October had not happened, many thousands would still be alive. The paradox is that the Iranian-instigated Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, Sinn Fein's presidential-pick and friend, Assad in Syria and thousands of other useful idiots were all designed by Iran to destroy the Abraham peace accords and enable Iran to develop its nuclear bomb. Right now, Israel has restored deterrence; on 22 June, Iran's nuclear programme lay buried under 400 feet of rock; Hezbollah has been emasculated; the Houthi leadership has been destroyed; Assad, much to Catherine of Galway's chagrin, is gone; and Hamas has been crushed. However, more importantly, the restoration of the peace process and the normalisation of politics in the Middle East between the Gulf States and the Saudis has been achieved. That has been done by the support and help of one man: the president of the United States of America, Donald Trump, who several parties in the Assembly would not deign to meet during a trade mission. We all owe a debt of gratitude to Donald J Trump today. Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up. Dr Aiken: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr O'Toole: First, I pause and reflect on a moment of hope amid a world that is frightening, divided and full of destruction. The release of the hostages who are living, and, hopefully, the speedy release of remains, is something that any human being with an ounce of morality has to welcome. The actions of Hamas on 7 October were not just wrong but appalling and against the interests of the Palestinian people. I have no difficulty with saying that. It has to be said. However, some of the Members opposite who have made related points cannot bring themselves to acknowledge the more than 60,000 Palestinians, many of whom were children, who have been killed in the past two years. Frankly, I find it unconscionable that Members can fail to acknowledge those lost lives. We, as individual representatives, need to take a long, hard look at ourselves if we cannot acknowledge that scale of human loss. Top 12.45 pm The peace plan is welcome, but I will not say, "Thank you" to Donald Trump, as some Members opposite want us to. I think that President Trump is a force for destruction in the world. On this occasion, I welcome the fact that there has been specific progress in relation to peace, so I will not be churlish about that, but there is a long, long way to go. I hope that there is a glimmer of progress for peace and stability in that region and the pathway to a viable and just Palestinian state. Lots has been said about the security of Israel. It is important to say, although it has not been acknowledged, that many hundreds of thousands of Israelis have been wholly opposed to the regime of Benjamin Netanyahu. They have dissociated themselves from the genocide that has happened by their state — they have called it a genocide, by the way — but, for them to live in security, alongside that, there has to be a durable Palestinian state, living in peace and justice in Gaza and the West Bank. Gaza has been reduced to rubble. There will have to be accountability for the war crimes that were perpetrated against innocent Gazans. The West Bank is being systematically hollowed out by settler aggression and terrorism. Those issues will have to be dealt with going forward. Mr Givan was wrong, by the way, when he said that Hamas is in charge of the Palestinian state. That is incorrect. The Palestinian state is run from the West Bank and is led by Fatah, which is an entirely different political movement, but I am afraid that it just speaks to some of the misinformed polemic that we hear from across the Chamber when it comes to those issues. I hope today that there is a moment of peace for all those tens of thousands of Gazans who have lost their lives. I am glad to see the hostages returned. They should never have been taken in the first place. Like others, I hope and pray for progress. Mr Carroll: Despite the self-congratulatory scenes and the back patting in the Knesset, it is awful to see warmongers gloat and celebrate. It remains unclear, at this stage, whether it is a sustainable and long-term plan for peace and justice for Palestinians and everyone in the Middle East, but I hope that it is. Despite saying it a thousand times, it is worth repeating that the violence in the Middle East and the problems in and around Palestine did not begin on 7 October. They began in 1948 with al-Nakba, or the catastrophe, and the decades that preceded it, with the colonial expansion, settlement and theft of land, which was not owned by people who came to Palestine. It was all backed by colonial regimes in Britain, France, America and elsewhere. No doubt, the Palestinians hope and pray that there will be a lasting ceasefire and justice. However, early indications show already that the imperial meddling that has caused so much devastation and destruction for decades looks set to continue. The fingerprints of Tony Blair are all over the deal. He is a warmonger and should have no role in determining the future for people anywhere in the world, least of all the Middle East. In the hours after the deal was finalised, we saw Israel's intentions. Palestinians in Gaza who were relieved and celebrating the ceasefire were still being killed. We saw Palestinian journalist Saleh Aljafarawi slaughtered by Israel after the ceasefire was announced, bringing the total number of journalists killed to at least 223, which is higher than all journalists killed in all the wars combined in the 20th century. Journalists are killed because Israel does not want the truth to get out. On top of that, we saw 10 Palestinians killed in Gaza after the ceasefire was announced. There are huge questions about what happens now in the West Bank. Will settlers be allowed to continue their violence and the stealing of land or will that stop? I hope that the ceasefire remains, and despite the genocidal denial going on in the House, hundreds of millions of people across the world will not go back into their boxes and will not go back into their homes. They are awakened to the fight to end apartheid and for a free, sustainable Palestinian state. The Member to my right used the term "idiots". I would not be as ungracious to call anyone an idiot in the House, but I remind him that it is not "infitada". He should maybe go and learn some Arabic, as the word that he is looking for is "intifada", and it is Arabic for uprising, despite his propagation of mistruths. Ms Sugden: Like many across the Chamber, I welcome the reports of progress towards a ceasefire in Gaza. I do so cautiously, because hopes have been raised and dashed so many times that it is difficult to feel optimism without scepticism. However, if the agreement offers even the faintest possibility of ending the unbearable suffering that so many have endured, we must hold on to that hope. I have never taken a side in the conflict because, in truth, I do not know much about it and, also, because I feel quite hopeless about being able to change anything. However I have always looked towards the inhumanity of what we have seen and been on the side of the children who have lost their parents; the parents who are searching for children; the children who have been emaciated; and the families, on both sides of the horror, who have been torn apart by violence. The brutal attacks and hostage taking that happened on October 7 were inexcusable and horrific, but so, too, is what followed: the relentless destruction, the displacement of a population and the denial of basic human dignity to millions of people. When we look at the images coming out of Gaza, we are not watching a conflict between equals; we are witnessing people — men, women and children — who are trapped in a place where survival itself has become political. There are no winners in that, only loss. I give credit to the White House and others for the diplomacy that may have brought us to this point. It would be naive of any of us to think that the motives are entirely selfless, because geopolitics rarely is, but, if the consequence is peace or the beginning of it, that is a moment worth acknowledging. My hope, and the hope of all decent people, is that the ceasefire, if it holds, will be more than just a pause in violence and the start of a process that restores humanity; rebuilds lives; and allows Palestinians and Israelis alike to live free from fear and oppression and to build a future in which the atrocities that we have witnessed since October 7 are not repeated. Miss McAllister: Like so many in the Chamber, I welcome the ceasefire in Israel and Gaza, and I hope for a long and lasting peace. Over the past week and, indeed, the past two years, my thoughts have been with many people. I still think of the people who were attacked by Hamas on 7 October 2023 — over 1,200 people were murdered and over 250 were captured — and the families who have suffered the pain and loss of loved ones. My thoughts are with the people of the West Bank, who have suffered racial oppression, discrimination and land seizure, which has multiplied since October 2023. My thoughts have been with the aid workers, the journalists, the Palestine Red Crescent Society, which many of us know as the British Red Cross, and the health workers from around the world who flew to the war zone to help, literally running into the line of fire. I have often thought of the women who have waited, in their makeshift tents or lying on carpets on the road, for word from their families about whether they will return from trying to get a even morsel of food. Mostly, over the past two years, I have thought of the children. More than 20,000 children's lives have been lost — deaths caused by guns, bombs and man-made famine. I think of the many children who have expressed a desire to go to heaven so that they can be fed. I think of those children and hope that they have lasting relief from war. Peace in the Middle East is often seen as unachievable — a dream — but we cannot just hope. For the future of humanity, decency and morality, it must be a long and lasting peace. Members' Statements South West Acute Hospital Miss Dolan: I welcome the Western Trust's decision to end consultation on the permanent removal of emergency general surgery from the South West Acute Hospital (SWAH). The consultation was flawed from the start. It lacked real engagement and public confidence, and ending it was the right call. However, the uncertainty for our community continues. It is now nearly three years since emergency general surgery was temporarily withdrawn from the SWAH. There have been three years of anxiety for patients, families and staff, and there is still no clear plan for the future. The Western Trust's so-called vision plan contains no timeline, no detail and no urgency. The people of Fermanagh and of west Tyrone deserve answers, and they deserve them now. In the interest of transparency, the Western Trust should publish the independent analysis that, it says, shows improved outcomes since surgery was removed from the SWAH, as well as the data on efforts to recruit permanent consultant surgeons. The public have a right to see that evidence. I welcome the confirmation that the SWAH will remain an acute hospital, with a type 1 — 24/7 — emergency department, maternity services, an ICU and full resuscitation facilities. That commitment is essential and must be backed up with real delivery. Yesterday, I was made aware of a response to an FOI request from the local lobby group Save Our Acute Services (SOAS), which revealed that 26 new emergency medicine consultants are taking up post in hospitals across the North. That is welcome news, but the SWAH's type 1 emergency department is the only one that will not be getting any of those new consultants. Statistically, the SWAH treats one third of all emergency department patients in the Western Trust area. If there are to be three new emergency department consultant posts for the Western Trust, one of them obviously should be allocated to the SWAH. The decision is deeply unfair to the SWAH staff, who continue to deliver an outstanding service under increasing pressure and sends entirely the wrong message about the future of our hospital. As the Western Trust's eagerly awaited vision plan is developed, the SWAH must be fully utilised as a cross-border acute hospital, as was originally intended. People in Fermanagh and in west Tyrone have fought hard for our hospital. We are proud of it, and we deserve a service that reflects that pride: one that is safe, sustainable and local. Borderland Podcast: Michelle Gildernew Ms Forsythe: Last week, we heard some deeply disturbing comments from the former Sinn Féin MP Michelle Gildernew, who stated on a BBC podcast that IRA murders were "justified". No murder is ever justified. Sinn Féin's relentless justification of IRA murders and its glorification of IRA murderers and terrorism is disgraceful and scoffs at innocent victims across this country. For the self-proclaimed First Minister for all to state that there was no alternative to IRA violence is pure hypocrisy. I apologise for quoting Sinn Féin member Michelle Gildernew, Mr Speaker, but, on the same podcast, she went on to say that Northern Ireland is a "shithole". The mask truly slipped. Michelle Gildernew's outburst tells us everything that we need to know about Sinn Féin. The shock and disgust on the faces of the young people in front of whom she said that was clear. Her comment was unprofessional and disrespectful and showed outright hatred for our wee country, proudly spouted by a senior Sinn Féin member. It set out clearly what Sinn Féin thinks of this place and of the people here, including many of its own voters. Is that why its Ministers do not bother? Is that why the Minister for Infrastructure is happy to let the roads fall apart or why the Minister for the Economy fails to champion Northern Ireland, promote and support our businesses and celebrate their successes? Is that why the Minister of Finance sits back and blames British austerity for everything yet seeks to do little for people here himself? Let me be clear that Northern Ireland is an amazing country, which I am proud to call my home. From its natural beauty to its boasts of amazing tourist attractions — the Mountains of Mourne, the Giant's Causeway, Titanic Belfast, the Fermanagh lakelands and many more — it is a special place with good people. There are many key facts that Sinn Féin chooses to ignore in its opinion of this place. In education, our pupils lead the way, outperforming their peers across Britain and the Republic. In healthcare, our NHS is free at the point of need, unlike in the Republic, where a visit to a GP costs €80. The Northern Ireland economy exported £65 billion worth of goods last year. It has attracted world-class investors and, with its strong agri-food sector, is leading the way in farming and fishing. Unemployment is Northern Ireland stands at 2·6%, which is lower than the Republic's 4·6%. Housing in Dublin is in crisis, while homeownership here is still within reach for our working families. Northern Ireland benefits from being part of the world's sixth-largest economy, that of our United Kingdom. That is what Sinn Féin refuses to acknowledge. Northern Ireland works, and it works for everyone. I will always be proud to defend Northern Ireland and its place in our United Kingdom. Downshire Primary School: Road Safety Mrs Guy: I will highlight road safety issues outside Downshire Primary School in Hillsborough. The Department for Infrastructure does not take a risk-management approach to road safety. Rather, it waits for something to happen and then reacts. Well, something happened near that school. A child who was hit by a car is now recovering, and we are so grateful for that, but the school community is rightly demanding decisive action not just for its school but for others across Northern Ireland. In the past, parents vocalised the road safety risks at the school but concluded that it was going to take an incident to get change. We have now had a serious incident, but we cannot wait for a tragedy. Top 1.00 pm Active travel is a key objective for the Department, but, if we are to encourage more walking and cycling for our young people, it has to be safe. I hope that the Minister will instruct her officials to act with urgency to create a 20 mph zone at the school and to engage with the school, the PTA, the PSNI and elected representatives to deliver clearly marked and well-signposted pedestrian crossings near schools, parks and residential areas; lower speed limits in school zones and residential streets; the installation of speed bumps, raised crosswalks or other proven traffic-calming infrastructure; increased enforcement of speed limits and traffic laws during peak school commute hours; and prominent signage to alert drivers when entering areas of high child activity. As a parent said to me, this is not simply a matter of convenience; it is a matter of public safety and moral responsibility. No parent should have to fear for their child's life while they are walking to school. Northern Ireland Within the United Kingdom Mr Burrows: The best place for the people of Northern Ireland is within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for our peace, prosperity, safety and security. That is something that the people of Northern Ireland need to hear more. Members may have watched the recent BBC 'Panorama' programme that reported on how international drug cartels exploit the weaknesses of the Irish Defence Forces to flood Ireland and, by extension, the United Kingdom and Europe with cocaine. To hear the drug traffickers say, "Avoid British waters and focus on Irish waters, because the Irish have radios, but the British have ships", is a stark reminder of how vulnerable we and the entire west of Europe would be under a united Ireland. Thankfully, we have membership of NATO — the fifth largest military force in the world —— and we all live under the protection of our intelligence services, GCHQ and police services. By being in the United Kingdom, we are safer from international terrorism, organised crime and, indeed, all the threats from countries such as North Korea, Iran, China and Russia. Furthermore, our peace is best protected in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland because there is an agreement that, largely speaking, has ended all violence. The republicans have given up and stood roundly defeated by the forces of law and order. Aside from the desperate remnants of dissidents, we now live in peace. To upset that by having a risky constitutional upheaval would be madness. We are also better off as part of the UK with its big, deep and broad economy. The fifth largest economy in the world, it is a member of the World Bank and the IMF and is able to set its own interest rates and to deal with the shocks of things such as COVID or the credit crunch. That is why this country was able to give a preferential loan of £3·25 billion to the Irish Republic at a time when it needed it, which showed that we are always benevolent neighbours of the Irish Republic. The reality is that having a domestic market of 70 million people over a domestic market of five million allows the price of a chicken to be £5 in Northern Ireland and €8 in the Republic of Ireland. Young people were here with us earlier. In the Irish Republic, they would need an extra £25,000 to get on the housing ladder. It being 38% more expensive to live down south more than wipes out any increase in pay, and there is a huge risk of an economic shock from a united Ireland. As people begin to listen to the false narratives around a united Ireland, they will soon hear the facts that you are better off in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Community Transport Week Mr McNulty: This is Community Transport Week. Community transport is about so much more than a minibus. In rural parts of the North, distance can often be more than just miles on a map. It can mean the difference between getting the care that you need or going without. I will speak about those who bridge that gap: our rural transport organisations, in particular Armagh Rural Transport, which I visited last week. I give a shout-out to Dermot Mooney and Joanne Curran; two effervescent, relentless and determined live wires who make that organisation tick. Every week, Armagh Rural Transport quietly ensures that hundreds of local people, many of whom are elderly, isolated or living with mobility challenges, can attend hospital appointments and GP visits and get vital treatments. For them, these are not luxury trips; they are lifelines. Without those services, many simply would not get there. We are talking about 8,000 trips in one year. Where would those patients, families and communities be without those trips? Imagine being an older person living miles from the nearest bus stop with no family care and facing a hospital appointment in Daisy Hill, Craigavon or Belfast. That is where Armagh Rural Transport steps in, with accessible minibuses and volunteer drivers offering door-to-door support, kindness and dignity. That is community spirit in action. It is people helping people. However, make no mistake: it is also healthcare delivery, because, when transport fails, so too does access to care. Missed appointments become missed diagnoses, health inequalities deepen and the cost, human and financial, rises. That is why we must say clearly that community transport is not optional. It is a cornerstone of an inclusive health system, yet many of those organisations, including Armagh Rural Transport, are operating under growing financial pressures, rising fuel costs, ageing vehicles and insecure funding streams. Rural transport organisations need to be able to generate funds, and that can be done through group hire. They need sufficient capital funding to provide adequate buses, so, today, I make this call directly to policymakers and to the Executive parties: if we are serious about tackling health inequality, promoting rural inclusion and caring for all our citizens, sustainable funding for our community transport must be part of that commitment. Invest in it, protect it and build it into health planning, funding and rural policy, not as an afterthought but as a foundation. Funding levels must be increased to address unmet need, because every journey that Armagh Rural Transport and every rural transport organisation makes is more than a trip — it is statement that no one in our rural communities should be left behind. Haemacrómatóis Mr McHugh: Tá haemacrómatóis ghéiniteach orm, arb í an gearán géiniteach is coitianta i dtuaisceart na hEorpa í. Is féidir í a bhainistiú ach í a chóireáil in am. Ach tá mo dhála féin ar chuid mhór othar sa Tuaisceart, braitheann an cúram a fhaighimid ar an chód poist atá againn. Murab ionann agus i Sasana agus sa Bhreatain Bheag, áit a mbíonn coinní rialta ag othair le dochtúirí comhairleacha, níl aon chóras aontaithe sa Tuaisceart lena chinntiú go bhfuil maoirseacht rialta ó speisialtóirí ann. Tá maoirseacht rialta ó speisialtóirí ríthábhachtach le teacht roimh an ghalar, le deacrachtaí a bhainistiú agus le hothair a chur ar a suaimhneas. Níl sin cóir, ceart ná inghlactha. Chuir an Deisceart samhail náisiúnta chúraim don haemacrómatóis i bhfeidhm, samhail lena gcinntítear go bhfuil rochtain ag othair ar sheirbhísí féithligin faoi stiúir dochtúirí teaghlaigh agus altraí. Is léir ón tsamhail náisiúnta na buntáistí a bhaineann le cur chuige atá in ord agus in eagar, rud atá fíorthábhachtach, ós rud é go meastar gur in iarthuaisceart na hÉireann — Tír Eoghain, Dún na nGall agus Doire — is mó agus is minice atá haemacrómatóis ghéiniteach le fáil. Caithfidh an Roinn Sláinte samhail chaighdeánaithe don haemacrómatóis a bhunú anseo sa Tuaisceart. Ba chóir athbhreithnithe sainordaithe rialta le dochtúirí comhairleacha, conairí soiléire, agus teacht cothrom ar chóireáil chothabhála bheith sa tsamhail sin. Cuirfidh a leithéid de bhearta an cúram abhus ar aon dul le caighdeáin aitheanta ar fud na n-oileán seo, agus cuirfidh siad feabhas ar thorthaí sláinte fadtéarmacha. Bíonn athbhreithniú sainordaitheach le dochtúirí comhairleacha ann uair amháin i gceann gach aon trí bliana ar a laghad i ndlínsí eile. Creidim, ar mhaithe le sláinte an phobail, gur chóir dó sin bheith ina dhualgas orainn i dTuaisceart na hÉireann. Haemochromatosis [Translation: I live with genetic haemochromatosis, the most common genetic condition in northern Europe. With timely treatment, it is manageable; however, in the North, patients like me face a postcode lottery in care. Unlike England and Wales, where patients meet consultants at defined intervals, there is no unified system in the North for regular specialist oversight. Regular specialist oversight is crucial for early intervention, managing complications and providing patients with peace of mind. That is not fair, right or acceptable. The South has implemented a national model of care for haemochromatosis, which ensures that patients have access to GP and nurse-led venesection services. That shows the benefits of a structured, nationally coordinated approach, which is vital, given that Derry, Tyrone and Donegal are often referred to as the epicentre of the disease. The Department of Health must establish a standardised model for haemochromatosis in the North. It should include mandated consultant reviews at defined intervals, clear escalation pathways and equitable access to maintenance treatment. Such measures will align care with recognised standards across these islands and improve long-term health outcomes. In other jurisdictions, mandated consultant reviews happen at least once every three years. I believe that, in the interest of safety for all, that should be a ‘requirement in the North of Ireland.] Double Standards Mr Brett: The attack on the Irish language street sign at Shandon Park on Saturday was wrong and should be condemned. I say that without fear or favour. Attacks on all signs, and all criminality, should be called out at all times. I am able to say that, but other elements of the House, and, indeed, the media, seem not to want to say the same thing. They pretend that it does not happen and ignore it when it does not fit their narrow agenda. In a podcast last week, a former Member of Parliament for Fermanagh and South Tyrone claimed with a straight face that she had never seen the blacking out of "London" on a Londonderry sign. I do not know whether she drives around wearing a balaclava, but I do not know how she could not have seen those defaced signs. Where are the police investigations, the media outrage and the political statements? Where are the police investigations, media outrage and political statements condemning bullet holes in the "welcome" signs at our international borders with the Irish Republic? There has been no comment from other political parties in the Chamber. My community sees the double standards in the House and the media, and we will call them out. Just last week, the war memorial in Glengormley in my constituency was spray-painted and defaced. I am the only MLA who called that out. Where were the comments from the Member of Parliament for that constituency? Where was the media outrage? There was none. We see their double standards. Last week, a former Member of Parliament and Sinn Féin Member called this country — the country that I love — a "shithole". Had I appeared in a programme and called —. Mr Speaker: The Member should take his seat for a minute. Another Member referred to that incident previously. That is not the language that we use in the House. If other people use it outside, we do not quote it. I urge both Members to find another means of expressing that. Mr Brett: Had I used such derogatory language about the Irish Republic, it would be front-page news. The BBC would hound me at my house, and Stephen Nolan would discuss it every single day. However, that passed off without comment from any of the parties opposite. Had I said that about the Republic of Ireland, the Alliance Party, the SDLP and Sinn Féin would call for my resignation. We see your double standards. Later today, those parties can right their wrongs during the debate on our motion that calls for the removal of a discriminatory Irish language sign policy. The people of Northern Ireland will watch how their MLAs vote on that issue. The time for weasel words is over. Hazelwood Integrated Primary and Nursery School: 40th Anniversary Miss McAllister: I take this opportunity to pay tribute to and congratulate Hazelwood Integrated Primary and Nursery School on its 40th anniversary. Hazelwood and Forge Integrated Primary School were two of the very first integrated primary schools in Northern Ireland. Last Friday, I joined my colleague Councillor Sam Nelson in attending a fantastic celebration that was organised by the school to mark the occasion. It was also attended by some of the founding teachers and parents of children who attended back in 1985. Those parents and teachers demanded better for their children during what were some of the darkest days in the history of North Belfast and Northern Ireland. Local parents joined them and took inspiration from the bravery of those in South Belfast who had established Lagan College just four years previously. Asking for children from all backgrounds to be educated together was a bold move at the height of the Troubles. The founders chose the symbol of the dove to represent the peace and reconciliation that they hoped to be part of. That symbol is still part of the badge of Hazelwood Integrated Primary and Nursery School, and, on Friday, doves were released to mark the 40th anniversary of the school. Many in the community joined in that joyous occasion. Top 1.15 pm It was a bold move by the founders and parents back then to introduce integrated education to their local community. It feels as though the integrated sector should be further along than it is, 40 years later. That is the case not because of a lack of vision or lack of bravery from the many who took the step to introduce it in the early 1980s but because of a lack of support and vision from those in leadership. That is evidenced by the decision to turn down proposals for two integrated schools — Rathmore Primary School and Bangor Academy — despite 82% and 76% of parents, respectively, supporting the move. Integrated education plays a unique and significant role — Mr Speaker: I remind the Member that that matter is in court and is potentially sub judice. Miss McAllister: Apologies, Mr Speaker. Integrated education plays a unique and significant role in bringing together children from all backgrounds. Friday was a joyous occasion that was celebrated by all the children and the school itself. I pay tribute to all the teachers, past and present, at Hazelwood Integrated Primary and Nursery School and to the principal for continuing to stand up for our community 40 years on. Bernard Branagan: Let's Share Grief Mrs Mason: In our darkest moments, we all search for light, but it is a rare and extraordinary thing when someone takes their own darkness and heartbreak and uses them to help others to find their light. Following the sudden and devastating loss of his wife, Zipporah, Bernard Branagan was left to raise seven young, beautiful boys, with the eldest being just 10 years old and the youngest only five months old. It is impossible to imagine the pain and the weight of that loss, yet, in the midst of his grief, Bernard has found strength not only for himself and his family but for others who are walking the same difficult path. Rather than retreat from the world, Bernard chose to reach out. He decided that no one should ever feel alone in their grief. I have no doubt that Zipporah would be immensely proud of the strength that he has shown, the love that he continues to pour into their children and the compassion that he is now sharing with others in her memory. Out of love, loss and incredible resilience, Bernard has created an event, Let's Share Grief, which is taking place on Tuesday 28 October in the Burrendale Hotel, Newcastle. The event will bring together people from all walks of life — people who have lost loved ones, people who are still trying to make sense of that loss and people who simply want to listen and support. It will be a safe, gentle space where stories can be shared. I know from my experience that grief changes you forever and never fully leaves, but, in time, you can learn to carry it differently. When you meet others who understand that journey, it lightens the load just a little. That is what makes Bernard so special. He is creating a space where people can find comfort, connection and courage in one another. I have often heard it said that grief is the price that we pay for love, but, through Bernard's vision, we see that grief can also be a new source of compassion, connection and hope. The slogan for his event — "Let's turn grief into power" — is both powerful and profound. Those words capture the very essence of what Bernard has done. He has turned unimaginable pain into purpose. He has taken personal tragedy and transformed it into a movement of empathy, solidarity and healing. That is what true community looks like. Bernard is a beacon of light for so many, not because he has avoided pain but because he has embraced it with honesty and courage and shown that, even in loss, there can be life. Today, I pay tribute to Zipporah, Bernard and his children and to everyone who will gather at the Let's Share Grief event. Breast Cancer Awareness Month Ms Bunting: This is Breast Cancer Awareness Month, and it was a true joy to attend Cancer Focus' Pink Run yesterday. Well done and congratulations to all who were involved in that. Today, I commemorate those who fought bravely and lost; congratulate those who have come out the other side; pay tribute and give heart to those who are currently in the fight; and send my best wishes to those who are waiting for appointments or results to find out whether they, too, must enter the fray. While every journey is different, and some are more severe than others, each one is a warrior in her own way. Credit, too, to their families and loved ones, who swallow their own thoughts, fears and worries for those they love in order to better support them by keeping a positive outward appearance. They are the people who carry us through. I express gratitude to those in healthcare and the various charities and volunteers who conduct research and provide support and guidance to the many women and, indeed, some men who are afflicted by this horrible disease. Most importantly though, I want to call on all women and men, regardless of age, to check themselves. Do not wait until you are apparently the right age for a mammogram; build those checks into your routine now without delay. Get in the shower, lather up and start at your collarbone, feeling in small circles with your fingertips, including under your arms. Do not just feel the surface; press in, push and feel. You are checking for something that may feel like an apple or an orange pip. Pay attention to your body, and look to see whether there are changes to your nipples. Look for inversion, difference in shape, discharge, blood or even a persistent itch. If you notice any of those or find a lump, contact your GP immediately. Time is of the essence. There is no shame or embarrassment in being checked. In this case, it is absolutely better to be safe than sorry. Delay could mean the difference between having a lump removed or losing your breast or, indeed, your life. Forget about embarrassment or causing inconvenience to hard-pressed medical professionals. They have seen it all before, and they want people to come quickly. Delay could cost you dearly, so do not delay. I went to an information evening in the East Belfast Community Development Agency that taught us how to feel for lumps and check ourselves, and, honestly, that may well have saved my life. I never checked myself before that. I was too young for a mammogram, and, like we all do, I did not think that it could happen to me. It was a pure accident that I found my lump, but, by the grace of God, I did, only because of its location. It did not show up on mammograms, and that, alone, demonstrates the need to check. Members know, I hope, that it is not really my thing to share very personal things. The only reason that I ever have done so is to raise awareness about breast cancer. If, by sharing, I can encourage people to check themselves and it makes a difference to even one person, it is worth letting people know. Please, please check yourselves, and do it regularly. It could make all the difference in the world and save your life. Northern Ireland v Germany Mr Robinson: Tonight is not just another game. It is not just 90 minutes of football in Belfast. No, tonight, under the floodlights at Windsor Park, we welcome giants of world football, Germany. They are the 12th highest-ranked team in the world and have been world or European champions on seven occasions. They have done it all. Indeed, I read last night that Germany have lost only four of 107 World Cup qualifiers. However, let me say this: they have never faced the full-throttle passion of the green and white army in such a key game on our home turf. Germany will face our pride, and they will face serious noise — a noise that Windsor has never experienced before. Germany will walk out to a wall of green in Belfast. While we are not the biggest country in world football and do not have the biggest-name world stars, my goodness, we have the biggest hearts. Full credit to Gary McAllister and the Amalgamation of Official Northern Ireland Supporters' Clubs, who are campaigning to drive home the importance of our doing our bit tonight by wearing green and turning up the noise. I have experienced German fans at home and away games, and, to their credit, they have been nothing but friendly. While we go into battle on the pitch, our fans will again show that there is mutual respect off it. Our wee country has had highs and lows. We have seen lean years, cold nights and empty seats, but the green and white army never stopped turning up; they never stopped singing. Then, the magic started to come back. Having previously qualified for three World Cup Finals, at Euro 2016 in France, there were those goals against Ukraine — from Gareth McAuley's header and then Niall McGinn — the pride, the tears and the memories that live long. Tonight could be another of those nights — one of those games that you talk about for years. We go into the game with no fear. From Michael O'Neill, who will take charge of the national side for the 100th time, and from the lads who will wear that shirt — a shirt that we are so proud to wear all over the world — all we ask for is fight, belief and the never-say-die spirit that makes this place so special. Germany may bring the superstars, but we will bring something that cannot be trained for. We will bring spirit and the kind of fight that does not let up. As the hours count down to what is a David and Goliath moment, all that I have to say from the House to the changing room at Windsor Park is this: come on, the green and white army. Assembly Business Standing Orders 10(2) to 10(4): Suspension Mr Speaker: I call Robbie Butler to move the motion on behalf of the Business Committee. Mr Butler: I beg to move That Standing Orders 10(2) to 10(4) be suspended for 13 October 2025. Mr Speaker: Before we proceed to the Question, I remind Members that the motion requires cross-community support. Question put and agreed to. Resolved (with cross-community support): That Standing Orders 10(2) to 10(4) be suspended for 13 October 2025. Speaker's Business Mr Speaker: I wish to let Members know that I am speaking at a private engagement later this week. I will be travelling to it tomorrow, so I will not be in the Chamber. Executive Committee Business School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill: Final Stage Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): I beg to move That the Final Stage of the School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill [NIA Bill 12/22-27] do now pass. Mr Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time limit on the debate. I call the Minister of Education to open the debate. Mr Givan: I am pleased that we have now reached the Final Stage of the School Uniforms Bill. I thank each Member who contributed to its scrutiny. Even before I introduced the Bill on 18 February, the need to take action to address the affordability of school uniforms had been expressed from all sides of the House. Despite any misplaced narratives about a diluted Bill or missed opportunities to be prescriptive, the Bill that I commend to the House is strong and appropriate. Once again, I record my thanks to the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC) for its diligence and for the significant work that it put into the Bill. I make no apologies for my confidence that the Bill is a strong Bill that will make a difference for parents. At Second Stage, I set out the level of support for the proposals that underpin the Bill that was expressed through a policy consultation, which received over 7,500 responses. I repeat my thanks to those who responded to it. I thank the range of stakeholders that contributed at Committee Stage. Their voices are important, and I assure them that all voices have been heard. The principles of the Bill were agreed by the Executive prior to its introduction and then approved by the Assembly at Second Stage. Nothing since then has weakened its provisions. I know that the Committee for Education wanted to take more time to deliberate over the Bill, but the amendment that my party colleagues tabled on the timing of Committee Stage was important, and the fact that it was agreed to means that, subject to the voting today, the Bill can be in operation in time to make a difference for the 2026-27 school year, which is next year. Without that amendment, the Bill would still be in Committee for up to another two months. There would have been no benefit for parents from the legislation for a further school year. I therefore make no apology for putting the needs of hard-working parents before a leisurely analysis by the Committee, which I do not believe would have resulted in a materially different outcome. I repeat my thanks, however, to the Committee for reporting before the summer recess in the end. I know that Committee members took their scrutiny role seriously. No further amendments can now be made to the Bill. Either Members vote to support it as it stands and therefore help families that are struggling with the cost of school uniforms or they do not. That is the decision for the House to make today. Last week, the Committee discussed introducing an amending Bill, without its members taking on board any of the legal information that was provided throughout the process, without their understanding what the Bill enables guidelines to address and without their monitoring the impact of the guidelines once they are introduced. I am content that the Executive's Bill can deliver on the ambition that we set at the beginning of the process. I fully appreciate the Bill's impact on timing, given that school prospectuses will be published in the coming months. I wrote to the Committee to remind it of that. Whether its members are disgruntled about not having seen the draft guidelines, the guidelines will be shared with schools in the coming weeks as a matter of urgency. Guidelines follow the law. Today will determine whether the School Uniforms Bill becomes law. To be clear, I would not have introduced the Bill if I was not determined that the guidelines would work. I am absolutely satisfied that the Bill gives everything needed for the guidelines to work. Nothing is lacking in the Bill. No one should rush to judge its outcome without having the guidelines in operation first. That serves no one well, including parents. Top 1.30 pm Let me take Members through what the Bill will do. I will be brief, but it is important for Members, even at this late stage, to understand it. The Bill will make the departmental guidelines statutory. It will place a duty on schools not merely to have regard to the guidelines but to adhere to them. It will give a legally enforceable power of direction to the Department should any school decide not to materially follow the guidelines or decide to discipline or exclude its pupils for non-compliance with the uniform policy when they may not be able to afford it. I assure Members that, despite some suggestions to the contrary having been made at Consideration Stage and Further Consideration Stage, there will be no hesitation: where a direction is needed, it will be given. I trust in the professionalism of our schools. I know that schools want to do the right thing for their pupils. The guidelines that the Bill requires will be strong, and I trust that schools will follow them fully. The concern about pupils not meeting the full uniform requirements because of cost should not be an ongoing issue. The Bill requires guidelines about school uniform policies to explicitly address a range of matters. That will result in there being more affordable uniforms, designed in consultation with those wearing them and those paying for them. The Bill requires that parents and pupils must be consulted by a school when its uniform policy is being devised, that guidelines must specify how often the policy is to be reviewed and that that, again, requires consultation. All existing human rights and equality legislation applies to how the Department writes the guidelines and how schools implement them. The Bill requires that "unfair costs aspects", which it defines, must be addressed. That is explicitly set in the context of affordability for lower-income households. There should be no doubt that the Bill addresses affordability. That is fundamental to how it has been drafted. The Bill also requires that the comfort, practicality, nature and adequacy of clothing being required for a range of school-based activities must be addressed. Uniform policies must address value for money, the lending of uniform and the use of clothing banks. Uniforms must be available from more than one supplier unless evidence is provided that a single-supplier agreement secures value for money for parents. A range of information must be published so that transparency is secured. That will include the rationale for uniform design, the cost of uniform items, where the uniform can be purchased from and a range of other matters. The Bill allows for a cap to be set on the number of branded items and/or the cost of uniform items or the total uniform. I have made it clear that further consultation on those details will take place and that the outcome of that consultation will inform the setting of any cap. That is to ensure that any cap is agile and fit for purpose and will remain so. In addition to a cap, the Bill allows for uniform guidelines to set out what is reasonable or unreasonable for branded items, limited or single suppliers, daywear and PE kit and allows for differentiation to be applied by school type, year group and Key Stage. That is all set out in the Bill's provisions. To say that the Bill has been "diluted" or is a "missed opportunity", as some Members have done, is to misunderstand the strength of the legislation and what it can deliver. The Bill extends eligibility for the uniform grant to pupils in independent schools who cannot currently receive it. It future-proofs, through draft affirmative regulation-making powers, so that, if needed, guidelines can be applied to preschool providers. Guidelines will be laid before the Assembly, and a report will be completed at least every three years. Members can be assured that, even without the provisions, I and my Department will monitor the impact of the Bill. I have worked to make a difference by introducing the legislation. Monitoring the impact of the Bill and the associated guidelines is critical to making sure that that happens. I return to my earlier point, which is that I am confident that the impact will be positive for parents. The Bill delivers. My confidence is based on legal expertise: not mine or any other Member's but professional expertise. The School Uniforms Bill is strong and will be effective. If Members vote to support it, it will take effect from the 2026-27 school year. I am also confident that every Member wants to see that for every family in their constituency. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education): I will contribute to the Final Stage debate first in my capacity as Chairperson of the Education Committee, and then as an Alliance Member. After the Bill passed its Second Stage in March, with broad welcome from across the House, albeit with caveats around the need to get into the detail of what the Bill would deliver, we moved into Committee Stage, where the detailed scrutiny work began. I take issue, probably on behalf of the whole Committee — it may be that we all agree on this — with the characterisation of there being a desire to have a "leisurely" Committee Stage. That is not an accurate reflection of the situation. I think that the Minister knows that every undertaking that the Committee gave was around wanting to deliver the Committee Stage as quickly as possible, while building in the time required to ensure that proper scrutiny was done. We never set a date for the conclusion of Committee Stage with the intention of it being a target to be reached; we were clear that the Bill needed to be delivered quickly. It is a clear principle — there are precedents for this — that a Committee decides the time frame and parameters for its work and creates its own framework for engagement with the people whose lives will be impacted on the most by the proposed legislative change. That is a Committee's statutory responsibility, and it must be given the time that it needs to report on its findings, fully satisfied that the appropriate level of scrutiny has been applied. In the case of this Bill, there seemed from the outset to be an interest from the Minister and the Department to attempt to directly influence the timescales for Committee scrutiny. As Chair of the Committee, I find it regrettable that a decision was taken, at the outset of the Committee's work, to so significantly reduce the timescale for Committee scrutiny of the Bill. It was put to the Committee by the Minister that it was vital that the Bill be enacted in time for the deadline for schools to publish school uniform policies in their prospectuses, and the date of November was repeatedly highlighted in that regard. The Minister raised that again today, yet we are in the middle of October, and schools have had no sight of the promised guidelines that the Bill will give rise to. That is, ultimately, the legislative effect of the Bill: to create guidelines to which schools must adhere. All Committee members felt that the timescale for scrutiny was, ultimately, curtailed, whether or not they felt that it was justified — there were different opinions on that. I take the view that a more rigorous Committee Stage could have been delivered, had we had more time. I reiterate, for clarity, that the Committee never sought to delay or obstruct the timescales for moving the Bill through the Assembly. The Committee understood the absolute imperative to deliver quickly for parents. If the cost of moving quickly is a Bill that does not deliver effectively, however, we must ask whether we have carried out our role as effectively as we could have. In any case, with the changed timeline, the Committee maintained its engagement with stakeholders and acted as an honest broker for their concerns. Without sight of the guidelines, the Committee gave a clear steer on what members felt the content of those guidelines should be. The Committee completed its task with full transparency, so the public is aware of the issues that the Committee sought to prioritise in the future guidelines and of what is in the final Bill. The Committee for Education took its task seriously. At times, it felt like many aspects of its work were being frustrated. Regrettably, the Bill that is before Members today does not reflect the majority of the Committee's priorities or the amendments that it worked on, and I suggest that the Bill is the poorer for it. All Committee members absolutely and unequivocally agreed that uniform should be affordable and that the cost of attending school should not be a barrier for any pupil, regardless of what school they seek to attend, in which sector, or where they are in Northern Ireland. A uniform is to be worn every day, so it should be suitable for all school activities and should resist wear, reducing the need for additional clothing to be purchased. At its best, uniform can give pupils a sense of community and belonging, creating a level playing field for learning on an even footing, regardless of economic background. On affordability, the Committee was very clear that there was a need for clearer interventions. Challenges were identified with implementing a cost cap, with limited evidence being available on how it would operate in practice. It is regrettable that the Committee's attempt to amend the Bill to mandate the Department to limit branded items, rather than to create an enabling power, was unsuccessful. It is those branded items that are seen by many parents as a real cost driver. It is regrettable that that did not make its way into the Bill. We are left simply with enabling powers, which may —. Mr Speaker: Order, Mr Mathison. Please take your seat. You are coming very close to challenging the authority of the Speaker. I will say this before the House: I have been here considerably longer than anybody else in this room. I have dealt with more legislation than anybody else in the Building, let alone in the Chamber, having been a Minister in four Departments. If you want to challenge my authority, go ahead, but there will be consequences. That applies to all Members. Continue. Mr Mathison: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Affordability is at the heart of the very idea of school uniform and of the Bill, but, in the Committee's view, uniform should also be seen to change with the times, so the Committee prioritised listening to the views of the people who wear school uniform: young people. Young people were very clear in their evidence to the Committee on their experiences of how school uniform can impact on different aspects of school life. They were clear about the things that were priorities for them. They were concerned with issues of equality, comfort and practicality, and it is deeply disappointing that the Minister's Bill did not take those issues forward. Youth engagement is not just about listening to young people, ticking a box and then doing what was originally planned regardless. Many young people will be disappointed that their evidence was not taken up by the Minister, as it seems that the Bill reflects very few, if any, of their concerns. The Committee heard from young people on a range of issues connected to uniform, covering a desire not to limit choice based on gender; sensory issues arising from special educational needs; the higher cost of uniform for girls than for boys; period dignity; uniform that makes PE participation accessible; warmth and comfort; access to outdoor learning and play — the list goes on. Young people consistently raised those things with us as being important to them. I sincerely hope that some of those themes will be addressed in the — I trust — soon-to-be-published guidelines, but that is ultimately entirely in the gift of the Minister. One of the Committee's concerns throughout the process was that the Bill as drafted, and as it has come before us today, ultimately leaves all that at the will of the Minister in deciding what goes into the guidelines. I will be clear: I want the guidelines to be effective. The Committee was clear that it wanted the guidelines to be effective, but we do not know what they will look like or whether they will address any of the issues that young people raised. It is over to the Minister now to assure the Committee and the Assembly that the guidelines will make a real difference on not just cost but the wider issues that the Bill strays into. It was never just about affordability. The explanatory and financial memorandum (EFM) for the Bill was clear that issues of comfort and practicality were also to be considered. The Bill before us today has not addressed those issues as comprehensively as it could have done. It is worth noting in particular that the Committee heard evidence from primary-school children who were award-winning activists, describing their campaign for school uniform policies to allow girls to wear trousers. We hoped that the Minister would take up some of that evidence and reflect at Consideration Stage or Further Consideration Stage on whether there was scope to bring forward a proposal on that, but, ultimately, we have not landed in that position. We also heard from Menstruation Matters. Its evidence pointed to some issues of self-consciousness and potential school withdrawal and of attendance at and participation in PE that can arise from school uniform policies not taking proper account of period dignity or other menstruation issues. Again, we do not see the Minister's taking any of those issues forward today. I hope, again, that the Minister can assure us that the guidelines will address some of those concerns. The Committee was cognisant of gender budgeting issues. While the period poverty legislation made in the previous mandate is one helpful measure to remove some of the systemic barriers from girls' equal access to education, dropping the requirement to wear skirts and allowing girls to wear trousers would certainly have been another. Again, I am keen to hear from the Minister about the guidelines: perhaps he can give us some assurance and confidence that we will see in them a really progressive intervention in that space. I acknowledge Claire Sugden's contribution to the debate on that issue in particular. Witnesses across the spectrum went further, saying that uniform options should be capable of being worn regardless of gender. Again, we do not see that in the Bill. Not for the first time, the Committee reflected on the potential for policies that address the needs of minority students to improve conditions for all students and considered a whole range of inclusive options with that end in mind. Top 1.45 pm I feel strongly that, ultimately, we have potentially done our young people a disservice, as the evidence that we heard and discussed does not seem to have been reflected in the legislation that we are debating. I hope that, in the Committee Stage of future Bills, young people will still have the confidence that the evidence that they give and the time that they take to make their views known will actually be taken on board, and that it will not just be the adults in the room nodding politely, patting them on the head and then continuing to do what they had already intended. I think that Committee members across the board would not want to be in that space when we deal with draft legislation in the future. We all know that, on the Education Committee, essentially anything that we do is likely to impact on the lives of young people in school, so it is important that we get that right. I am really keen to hear the Minister provide clarification as to what will be done with the Bill beyond affordability — we all know that that is important — to try to address those concerns for young people. The Committee saw sustainability as another aspect of the affordability issue. Just as schools should facilitate the provision of second-hand or hand-me-down uniforms, and also that that practice should be encouraged within families, the Committee was clear that, by reducing the gendered aspects of uniforms, you could encourage that practice rather than restrict it. It was also clear that school communities should facilitate the reuse of uniforms by providing uniform banks that parents and pupils could access without feeling any shame or stigma for doing so. It is important to put on record that we know of many excellent examples across the school system where those schemes are run very effectively. The Committee welcomed the explicit reference to that in the Bill but had hoped for a clearer requirement for schools to participate in such a scheme, not just that it would appear in the guidelines in some form, because, again, we are not sure exactly how that will look. It is a shame that the Bill, in its final iteration, does not reflect the views or needs of the stakeholders who gave evidence at Committee. I am pleased, however, that the principle of one key Committee amendment has made it into the Bill, which was highlighted by the Minister in his opening remarks; namely the principle of reporting on the progress of the legislation to deal with affordability and accountability on the impact on the cost of uniforms, the need to review that regularly, and to review regularly the need to implement a cost cap. That, at least, ensures accountability even if, ultimately, members may be sceptical about the clear effects of the Bill on parents' pockets and on the young people who wear the uniforms. I have no doubt that my Committee colleagues will have more to say about all those issues, as we covered a huge amount of ground in the evidence sessions on the Bill. I will conclude my remarks as Chair simply by saying that I want the Bill to deliver. I think that everybody in the Assembly wants to the Bill to deliver. We all have parents in our constituencies who need it to deliver. I hope that it does not prove to be a missed opportunity where improvements that were considered did not end up being reflected in the legislation. We need to ensure that the Bill is genuinely impactful. That will be in the detail of the guidelines. We all await those with interest and hope that their publication happens quickly. I will now make remarks in my capacity as an Alliance member. As you have already highlighted, Mr Speaker, I am a newly elected Member to the Assembly, and this was my first run through legislation at Committee Stage. It was my first opportunity to see a Bill go through each stage of the process. When I came into the Assembly, I had originally intended to table a private Member's Bill on the school uniforms issue. However, the Minister was there with the Bill early on when the institutions were restored, so I did not have the opportunity to bring my proposals forward in more detail. We all know that the cost of school uniforms has been highlighted repeatedly as causing significant financial strain on families. I do not need to rehearse those arguments or convince anybody of that fact. That was clearly amplified when we began to hear directly in Committee from those who are most impacted on by the cost-of-living crisis. Parents get into debt in order to pay for school uniforms. Parents will talk about skipping meals in order to be able to afford something that is required simply for their child to be able to attend school. That cannot be an acceptable state of affairs. The Bill was our opportunity to ensure that parents did not have to face those kinds of scenarios again — it does not matter which school their children go to, or in which sector: the uniform should be affordable — and to ensure that effective and robust measures were introduced not only to support families but to ensure that schools could be held to account for their approach to their uniform policies if they did not prioritise driving down costs. We are all aware that the Bill will create guidelines that schools must adhere to and that those will be the instrument by which changes can be introduced. However, without sight of those guidelines and while we wait for the Minister to publish them— I know that this is rehearsing things that have been raised in the Chamber and in Committee on many occasions, but it does bear repeating — we remain largely in the dark. I do not doubt that the Minister wants a Bill that is effective; I do not know any Minister who sets out to deliver legislation that will not deliver. However, at the moment, we just do not know what those provisions are, so we are operating entirely on trust. I wait with anticipation, as I am sure all colleagues do, to see exactly how the guidelines will deliver on the promise to reduce costs. While there is a fair bit in the Bill, ultimately, when you strip it back, what the Bill does is create guidelines that schools have to adhere to. Until we see those guidelines, we will be guessing about what the impact will be. I know that parents will be watching with the same anticipation to see what the guidelines actually say. For the school that their child attends, which sets the cost of the school uniforms that they have to pay, what will the guidelines actually do? It is vital that we do not let them down, because they are watching. While circumstances have meant that the Bill is not what some Committee members would have wanted, I want to go back to one of the amendments that I referenced in my remarks as Chair: the amendment on accountability. As I have said, parents are watching. They want to know, clearly, what it will mean for them. After the Bill passes Final Stage, lots of statements will no doubt be made that we have now dealt with the cost of school uniforms and we can close that chapter. However, parents want to know what is actually going to change. In that scenario, where there has been some doubt about and a question mark over what the change will look like, it is essential that there is a mechanism to create really clear accountability mechanisms in the Bill. I am pleased that that is in the Bill today, so that we know that the Assembly will have to be updated routinely — at least once a mandate — on whether the Bill has delivered or not; told whether a cost cap will be introduced or not; and, if it is not going to be introduced, told why not. A cost cap is the key mechanism that will deliver meaningful change in this area. It is the Department that has the resources and the ability to deliver that sort of radical legislative intervention. I hope that the Department is taking that work forward meaningfully and seriously. During the Committee evidence sessions, as I referenced in my remarks as Chair, certain school uniform policy themes came through repeatedly. I want to go back to the issues that were raised by children and young people. I will not go through the areas that they highlighted, but I want to address some of the things that have been said in other debates on the matter. It has been said that it is a distraction to talk about SEN and the impact of uniform on young people who experience discomfort; about whether or not girls should be assured of their right to wear trousers rather than skirts; or about issues concerning the outdoor curriculum. On whatever issue, arguments were put forward that that is a distraction and not what the Bill is about. However, the Department's own explanatory and financial memorandum for the Bill states: "The aim of the Bill is to ensure that school governing bodies put affordability, comfort and sustainability at the centre of their decision-making when they set their school uniform requirements." Therefore, as soon as the issue of comfort was introduced, we were quite right to ask questions about what makes a school uniform comfortable and sustainable — affordable, yes, but also comfortable and sustainable. As legislators, it is our job to listen to the evidence and act on it. Again, I urge the Minister to keep in mind, when the guidelines are being drafted, the evidence that the Committee heard. The Bill remains light on detail of how those aspects, which were raised particularly by young people, will be reflected in the guidelines. It is light on that detail, and I am really keen to hear more from the Minister on that. The issue of timescales has been raised, and I want to revisit how the Bill progressed through the Assembly. The Committee was, undoubtedly, put under significant pressure from the Minister around our timescales for scrutiny. The Minister made it very clear that he wanted us to work to a timescale in order for the Bill to be completed before November of this year, and that is where we are. It was always highlighted that that was because of the key date of when schools publish their prospectuses. November was highlighted repeatedly as the critical date by which schools needed to have that work done. Alliance was the only party in the Assembly to question the Minister of Education's assurances on the timescales and their deliverability. Others fell into line and backed the Minister without question, but Alliance was always sceptical that that date would be deliverable, and I am keen to be proved wrong. We are in the middle of October, and the Bill has reached Final Stage. That is welcome. Parents, who are keen to see interventions in the affordability space, will be pleased to see that we are here on this date and not waiting for another year. We are, however, also in a position in which November is just a couple of weeks away, with still no clarity for schools on what will change next year. We were told that November is a critical deadline. Schools will be writing and publishing their policies, so I ask genuinely — I am not attempting to score a political point — whether the Minister can clarify what schools are meant to be doing in this scenario. Can he provide clarity on when they will get the guidelines? I ask that because, once they are published, schools will need to start thinking about consulting parents and pupils and about engaging with their suppliers. Suppliers will have to start looking at their arrangements and at the uniform stocks that they hold. We are being told that the new policies are deliverable in the prospectuses in November. I would love that to be the case, but I want to hear how the policies will be delivered, because —. Mr Givan: Will the Member give way? Mr Mathison: I will give way. Mr Givan: I indicated in my remarks that the guidelines will come within weeks. I also said that my permanent secretary will be issuing communications in anticipation of the Bill's being passed today. What the Chair of the Committee is not highlighting, however, is the fact that the lengthy Committee Stage process was not due to be completed for another number of months. He is holding me to account by saying that I need to get the guidance out right now, yet his Committee's own timescale was to kick the Committee Stage two months down the road. I welcome the challenge that I need to get the guidelines done now, but that was not the degree of urgency that the Committee was looking for when it set out its time frame. I welcomed Sinn Féin's supporting me when the amendment brought forward the period extension. Mr Speaker: I remind the Chair that we have to start Question Time at 2.00 pm, so I will interrupt you about 30 seconds before then to allow Dr Aiken to take the Chair. Mr Mathison: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I may be able to get through my contribution before 2.00 pm regardless. I thank the Minister for his intervention. Yes, I was concerned about the timescales but simply because, as I highlight now, if the guidelines arrive in the next two or three weeks — we are being told that November is the key date for their publication — it seems unrealistic to expect schools to implement a significant policy change in that time. My point when we looked at the timescales was always about how on earth we could ask schools to turn it around in that time frame. It therefore does not feel deliverable to me. I sincerely hope that it is, however, because we need to see the costs dealt with. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Dr Aiken] in the Chair) There was an insistence that that quick turnaround was needed. Undoubtedly, it impacted on the timescale that we had in which to scrutinise the legislation. I therefore hope that the rush to deliver the legislation does result in a positive impact and not in a scramble, in which schools are put under pressure to come up with new policies overnight just to meet the imposed timescale. We all want costs to be dealt with, but they need to be dealt with effectively and in a way that will result in the right impact on parents. Parents desperately need to see costs come down. I hope, come September 2026, that that is what we will see, but the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. Assurances from the Minister that the Bill delivers will be meaningless if parents do not see a change in the money that they need to spend in order to send their child to school. Briefly, I put on record some concerns that local suppliers have raised with me about the slightly complex position in which they find themselves. They are already facing increasing pressures from their suppliers to commit to orders for next year so that they can secure the best possible prices. Again, the rush that there has been to deliver the guidelines within a timescale of what I can only assume is weeks is potentially putting those businesses under pressure, and their relationships with schools as a result of the need to deliver on policies could be put under threat. Again, I would like clarity from the Minister on that. I will conclude by saying that Alliance will support the Bill at Final Stage today, as we will not countenance blocking any intervention to bring down costs. It is now over to the Minister, however. The Committee worked harder, as the Minister urged us to do. We listened to the evidence. The processes have brought us to this stage. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I ask the Member to draw his remarks to a close. Mr Mathison: I will be very, very brief, Mr Deputy Speaker. Top 2.00 pm Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): You will have to be very, very brief, Nick. Go for it. Mr Mathison: Minister, this is your Bill, and it is you who will be held to account for delivery. I hope that you make the most of this opportunity. The guidelines must be robust and effective, and, for parents, they cannot come soon enough. The debate stood suspended. Oral Answers to Questions Justice Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): We will start with listed questions. I call Claire Sugden. Claire, over to you. Prisons: Emotional Support Animals 1. Ms Sugden asked the Minister of Justice to outline the internal policy and legislation that facilitates emotional support animals in Northern Ireland prisons. (AQO 2506/22-27) Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): The provision of emotional support animals within Northern Ireland Prison Service establishments is an operational matter for the Prison Service. It is more than 20 years since the service introduced support dogs into the prison setting, and it is not aware of a single occasion when a dog has been placed at risk. Support dogs are highly valued and well-cared-for team members and have helped countless prisoners who have been in crisis. That is the same for all support animals within prisons. Every day, prison officers perform their roles with judgement, diligence and care. I have been disappointed and surprised that others think that those same officers are not up to the job of introducing an emotional support dog at Magilligan prison. If a policy is required to satisfy the ongoing interests of all animals within prisons, I am certain that Prison Service and its staff have the measure of that task. However, that work will be appropriately prioritised among the many other challenges that face the service at this time, not least the rising prison population and the increasingly complex needs of that population. Legislative matters relating to animals are not the responsibility of my Department. Ms Sugden: I thank the Minister. We made a mistake in respect of the dog that has been in the news recently: that dog should not have been in the prison. Its placement did not fall within the policy and legislation, which, I believe, needs to be reviewed and updated. The Minister received correspondence, as recently as this morning, in which concerns relating to how we dealt with that particular animal continue to be raised. Will the Minister give a commitment that that will not happen again and that she will review what is happening operationally within the Northern Ireland Prison Service? I appreciate that it is not directly her responsibility, but it falls within her remit. Mrs Long: I disagree entirely with the picture that has been painted by the Member when she says that the way in which the situation was dealt with by the Prison Service, originally, was wrong. What is scandalous is the whipping up of false information, misinformation and disinformation in the public domain — in social media and the wider media. The truth is that, when the dog was inspected in place, it was found to be in excellent condition, happy, well adjusted and enjoying the work that it was doing. Sadly, because of the hysteria that was whipped up outside, a threat was received regarding Bailey, and he was removed from the prison for his own safety, because, let us be clear, the welfare and safety of the animals in our care are our primary concern in all these matters. Mr Burrows: Does the Minister not have any concern that, after 20 years of putting dogs in prisons, there is no legislation; no definition of what an emotional support dog is; no pre-suitability assessment was done of that particular dog; and there is a made-up policy of putting a pet dog in prison without any safeguards? That was confirmed to me by the director general of prisons in Northern Ireland and the prison governor at Magilligan. Mrs Long: My greater concern is the amount of time that has been consumed by Prison Service staff in responding to an issue that was based on nothing but lies and smears. In fact, the Member himself had to admit in public that he had not even read the independent welfare report, despite tweeting consistently and persistently about the matter for, I think, over three weeks. If we want to be serious about our concern for animals, the first thing to do is to look at what the animal welfare experts said about Bailey. They said that he was a dog in excellent condition, well adjusted and well cared for. These are not working dogs in the traditional sense. The training that goes with them is for those prison officers who deploy them in certain circumstances. They are treated, for all intents and purposes, as a family pet would be treated. That is why we are able to do this. To say that there was no pre-assessment of suitability is, again, factually incorrect. There was one issue around whether the dog was well socialised with men, and that was dealt with before the dog was selected and brought to the prison. Those are further facts relating to further misinformation, and they show the further inability of some to accept a detailed and evidence-based response and to take it into account. Ms Hunter: I am in solidarity with you, Minister, following the mob at your house, last week. We are all thinking of you. Following up on the previous questions, will the Minister confirm whether emotional support animals, particularly dogs, receive specific training before being placed in a prison? Do prison officers receive any kind of specific training regarding being assigned responsibility for caring for an animal? Mrs Long: As I have just said, prison officers are trained in the deployment of emotional support dogs, which is pretty much like looking after any other dog in that environment. The dogs are not there for protection, for guarding or to work as sniffer dogs, where there is a particular skill engaged in training the dogs and a particular level of vigilance required of the dogs. The dogs are simply there to show companionship to prisoners. The dogs do not need specific training, but they need to have a particular temperament. They have to be good around people, and they have to be calm and assured. Bailey fitted all those categories. Sadly, now, his life has been disrupted due to a threat received from outside the prison. If anybody actually cared about dogs and their welfare, they would not want to see a happy, well-adjusted and well-cared-for dog taken out of its routine environment. Alcohol: Public Consumption 2. Mr Durkan asked the Minister of Justice to outline the powers that the PSNI has in relation to the drinking of alcohol in public places. (AQO 2507/22-27) Mrs Long: Police powers around drinking in public in Northern Ireland derive from a mix of local by-laws and broader public order legislation. Councils can prohibit drinking in designated public areas by way of local by-laws made under the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 1972. Consuming alcohol in those areas is an offence. Police can take an offender's name and address. However, prosecutions are brought by councils. The PSNI can address several alcohol-related public order offences via penalty notices for disorder provided for by the Justice Act 2011. That allows officers to quickly address offences such as being drunk in a public place, disorderly behaviour or conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace. In addition, the Confiscation of Alcohol (Young Persons) Act 1997 gives police the power to require those under 18 to surrender alcohol in public, with refusal constituting an offence. I am aware that there is a desire for the legislative framework to be updated, and, as that is likely to be a cross-cutting issue, my Department is working with the PSNI and the Department for Communities to ensure that it is fit for purpose, with a view to bringing forward legislation, if needed, in the next mandate. Mr Durkan: I also express solidarity with the Minister. Parts of Derry city centre at times now resemble the Wild West, with groups of vulnerable individuals drinking and engaging in antisocial behaviour. It is not only putting them at risk; it is impacting negatively on locals, tourists and the local economy. Police have lamented the lack of legislation that would permit them to confiscate alcohol from adults and believe that that would be a game changer in tackling the issue. Will the Minister update us on the work that she and her Department are doing with others to close that legislative loophole? Mrs Long: Conversations with partners are ongoing. The previous joint consultation with DFC on the issue indicated a strong desire for change. We are proposing providing PSNI officers with the additional power to seize and dispose of alcohol in exceptional circumstances, such as certain public order situations. We are also exploring whether any other agencies may wish to use enforcement powers, although it is important to note that any power of seizure would be limited to the PSNI. The overall aim is to deliver a modern, enforceable and proportionate framework that balances effective enforcement with individual rights and signposting to support services. There is no desire to penalise vulnerable individuals. However, as I said, it will be a cross-cutting matter, given that the powers lie between legislation that we can create in the Department of Justice and work that can be done by the Department for Communities. Mr Dickson: Will the Minister outline the role that policing and community safety partnerships (PCSPs) have in tackling drinking in public and alcohol misuse? Mrs Long: Policing and community safety partnerships are jointly funded by my Department and the Policing Board, and they lead on the Department's operational response to specific concerns at a local level. They work with designated partners, local statutory bodies and agencies, and the voluntary and community sector to tackle community safety issues right across the community. They can fund and support initiatives such as awareness campaigns, diversionary programmes for young people and local addiction initiatives. In a number of areas, PCSPs also help to fund community safety wardens to help ensure that our towns and cities are safe. Through those PCSPs, communities have a direct voice in shaping responses to alcohol misuse and ensuring that local concerns are reflected in practical actions. Victims/Perpetrators: Court Support 3. Mrs Cameron asked the Minister of Justice to outline any differentiation in the nature of support that her Department provides to innocent victims and the perpetrators of crime for accessing justice via the courts. (AQO 2508/22-27) Mrs Long: My Department funds support services to assist all victims of crime on an equal basis. The entitlements and services that victims of crime in Northern Ireland can expect to receive from criminal justice organisations are set out in the statutory Victim Charter. The Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service is responsible for administering the courts. It is impartial in upholding the rights of all to seek justice through the court system. Mrs Cameron: I put on record my utter condemnation of the incident that took place at the Minister's home last week. There is no justification for that kind of intimidating behaviour. Private homes must be off limits. I thank the Minister for her answer. The Minister will know that the victims' campaigner Ann Travers has asked for a public apology to innocent victims for the removal of the word "innocent" from the recent motion in the House. Does the Minister understand the hurt and anger felt by the families of innocent victims, and will she take the opportunity to apologise? Mrs Long: I certainly understand the hurt felt by victims' families and the sensitivity of the issue, which is why it is particularly disappointing that there has been so much politicking, particularly around the interview that I gave after the event. What I said has been thoroughly and deliberately misrepresented. To provide reassurance, I will put on record what I actually said about the difference between victims. I will read the part of it that was curiously edited out of what was shared on social media: "It doesn’t change the moral authority around whether or not what somebody did was right or wrong. That’s unquestionable. If people were doing things that were wrong, they should be held to account for that, and we’re clear about that". Hopefully, that provides the reassurance that Members and families are looking for. Nothing that we did in that debate, and nothing that we voted for or against, in any way changes our view that those who go out with the intent to cause harm should be held accountable for their actions, and that there is no moral equivalence between those who go out to cause harm and those who are harmed by their actions. I was simply pointing out a matter of fact: at different points in a person's life, they can be both a victim and a perpetrator. It is important that we provide trauma-informed support based on what will lead to reconciliation and recovery and will end the cycle of intergenerational trauma that blights this community. Ms Egan: Minister, will you outline the support that your Department provides for the victims of sexual offences? Mrs Long: We provide over £2·4 million of funding for the general work that we do to support victims, and to ensure that victims and witnesses of crime can access the support services that they need. Those services are delivered by Victim Support NI and the NSPCC's young witness service. Through the witness support services, victims and witnesses get emotional support, information and practical assistance, which helps them to give their best evidence. It includes opportunities to visit court before giving evidence; an explanation of the court process; accompanying the victim or witness into the courtroom, live-link room or remote evidence centre; and offering the opportunity to talk to someone when the case has ended. In addition, for those who are victims of specific sexual offences, we have sexual offences legal advisers and child sexual offences legal advisers, who can give pre-court and pre-trial legal advice to victims to help to guide them through the many requests that they will face around issues such as disclosure. Mr McNulty: Minister, you mentioned ending "the cycle of intergenerational trauma". What about ending the trauma experienced by victims who were maimed and attacked in their own home by the IRA but cannot access the pension scheme because they were maimed and attacked by members of their own community? What is your assessment of that reality? How does that level with ending intergenerational trauma and the trauma experienced by the victims? Mrs Long: I have raised the treatment of those people, particularly in cases of paramilitary-style attacks, in writing with the UK Government and the president of the Victims' Payments Board. Shootings and beatings by paramilitary organisations, whether they are intra-community or inter-community, need to be addressed in the same way. Unfortunately, that is not how the legislation sits. It would require amendment at Westminster. However, I have raised my concerns about the differentiation between victims who were beaten by people who ostensibly came from the same community versus those who were beaten by people viewed as being from a different community. Top 2.15 pm Sectarian Hate Crimes 4. Mr Delargy asked the Minister of Justice to outline any work her Department is carrying out to tackle sectarian hate crimes. (AQO 2509/22-27) Mrs Long: There is no place in society for that type of hate. Every person and every family, regardless of religion or background, is entitled to feel safe and free from threat or intimidation. My Department is engaged in a wide range of work to respond to sectarian hate attacks and to strengthen support for victims of hate crime or for people who feel vulnerable to attack, whether at home, in school, at work or on our streets. What is always evident is that sectarianism, racism and paramilitarism do not help our communities. Paramilitary organisations are an unwanted relic of a troubled past and hold no legitimacy. As I have said many times before, they should disband and allow our communities to move forward. It can be difficult to draw a direct evidential line between paramilitary groups and hate crimes, but let us be clear: communities know what is going on and who is involved. They feel it and see it, and that speaks to the coercion that paramilitary organisations and those who are linked to them still choose to force on people and communities who want nothing to do with racism and hate. Legislative provisions in the proposed sentencing Bill and victims and witnesses of crime Bill will modernise our hate crime law in Northern Ireland and will provide a more robust system to sanction offenders. Direct support for victims of sectarian hate crime is provided though the hate crime advocacy service, which supports victims through the criminal justice process and signposts them to relevant support services. Sectarianism and racism are two sides of the same coin. The work of PCSPs includes actions to tackle hate crime at that local community level. The question of addressing sectarian hate is, however, not solely the role of my Department. That also requires sustained cross-governmental action beyond the criminal justice system if we are to prevent harm from occurring. We all need to redouble our efforts to tackle not just hate crime but the attitudes and language that are the root causes of hate and prejudice and to promote more positive community relations proactively. Mr Delargy: I begin by offering my solidarity to the Minister and her husband after the incident outside their home, which was completely wrong and should never have happened. Our thoughts are with you today. I thank the Minister for her answer. We are hearing that when people report those crimes, there is often little or no outcome, which is quite worrying for them. What can be done to make that process more accessible and to ensure that sectarian behaviour, from wherever it emanates, is challenged? Mrs Long: Like many other crimes that are committed by cowards under cover of darkness to intimidate and threaten, it can be very difficult to identify the individual perpetrators or actors in those situations. I encourage people to continue to report, because patterns of reporting can, in themselves, help the PSNI when it decides where to deploy resources, where needs more attention in order to protect the public and what may be able to be done. It is important that people report crime, because without those reports we are unable to measure what is happening. I understand the Member's concerns, given the rate of hate crime in his city, and particularly around the increase in sectarian hate crime. It is not acceptable. It is completely unacceptable in today's society that people still find themselves intimidated because of who they are or how they are perceived by others. Unless we are all consistent in that message and unwavering in our condemnation, there is no point in us telling victims to have any kind of confidence in the system that, ultimately, we are the face of. Mr Carroll: I extend my best wishes to the Minister and her husband, Michael, after what happened last week, which was disgusting. In a general sense, Minister, what is your assessment of how closely the far right and paramilitary groups are working in unison to harass and intimidate people? You said that sectarianism and racism are two sides of the same coin. That is right, and those who perpetrate one are doing the other. Mrs Long: The PSNI's assessment is that, whilst there are individuals who are connected to existing paramilitary organisations and are engaged and active in a number of those protests, there is less evidence to substantiate any claim that those organisations are orchestrating or organising those protests. In addition to the more traditional actors in that space, groups of people are being radicalised online by far right organisations and networks. They are often lone actors, who do not have a network of support or a traditional base in Northern Ireland, but they are being activated online and are finding their community there and acting in that sense. There are two separate dynamics happening, particularly with the far right threat. It is far more likely that somebody will be radicalised individually, in the privacy of their own home, than in a more public way. Undoubtedly, however, both will take to the streets, and both will use muscle to intimidate people who are vulnerable in the community or those who dare to have the audacity to speak up on their behalf. Mr Brooks: It was interesting to hear the Minister speak about the tightness of resources in the context of what we have heard in the past day about the PSNI opening a hate-crime investigation into damage to a sign at Shandon Park. Can we be assured that there will now be investigations into any similar damage to signs across the country, including at the PSNI's initiative? Mrs Long: Damaging street signs in general is one of the most petty and childish acts that a person can undertake. If you cannot drive past a sign that you do not like without feeling the need to take an angle grinder or a bucket of paint to it, you need to take a long, hard look at yourself. I will not be providing any assurance in the Chamber as to how the PSNI will prioritise investigations. As you will be well aware, it is for the Chief Constable to direct the resources of the PSNI, not me as Minister. Mr O'Toole: Minister, it goes without saying that I and my party stand in solidarity with you. Democracy means you being robustly held to account in the Chamber, and you are more than able to deal with that. However, what happened was contemptible. A family home is sacrosanct, so we stand in solidarity with you. In relation to sentencing provisions in the Bill, are you and your officials looking at the intersection between racism and the continuing prevalence of paramilitarism? Will there be an attempt to create compound sentencing provisions and aggravating factors for membership of proscribed organisations? What message is being sent by the continued engagement of your ministerial colleagues with organisations such as the Loyalist Communities Council? Mrs Long: Intersectionality forms part of the hate-crime legislation that we hope to bring forward, and there will be aggravating factors where a hate-crime motive for the signalling offence can be proven. We will also prosecute those as stand-alone offences so that, if a hate-crime motivation cannot be proven, a person can still be held accountable for their crime. Membership of a paramilitary organisation is a criminal offence. It can be prosecuted, and jail terms for it are available in legislation. If somebody is arrested for a hate crime, and they are also proven to be a member of a paramilitary organisation, there is nothing to preclude the two offences from being taken through the court together, as is the case in circumstances where somebody is arrested for an offence and there is also a paramilitary link to the crime. We will also be bringing forward, through the Bill, additional means of sentencing and additional offences around participating in and directing organised crime. That is important because, whilst all paramilitary organisations have a finger in organised crime, not all organised crime organisations are involved in paramilitarism. We need to untangle all that, so it is important that we look at those issues as well. When it comes to my views on the legitimising of illegal groups by those kinds of engagements, whether of other Ministers or an interlocutor appointed by the two Governments, I have been clear that that is unhelpful. The confidence of a community is shaken when they see people being treated as the spokespeople for a community but that community sees those people very much as having a jackboot on their neck. Criminal Damage Compensation Scheme 5. Mr Stewart asked the Minister of Justice for her assessment of the criminal damage compensation scheme. (AQO 2510/22-27) Mrs Long: The criminal damage compensation scheme provides important financial support to victims where there has been physical damage to a property or a vehicle in Northern Ireland and where it can be shown that the damage was caused unlawfully, maliciously or wantonly by an unlawful assembly of three or more people or maliciously by a person acting?in connection with?an unlawful association such as an act of terrorism. Compensation may also be payable for agricultural property or property that is free from rates, if the damage was caused maliciously or deliberately. Most commercial insurance policies should cover businesses for damage to their premises, including interruption to business operations. Some policies will also cover businesses that are not damaged but whose trade is affected in the aftermath. Where insurance is in place, companies will be available to provide immediate support to victims of criminal damage. If unable to secure support from an insurer, the criminal damage compensation scheme provides an important source of assistance for victims. As with all schemes, it is important to keep them under review. Consideration is being given to the need for any changes to the scheme to ensure that it meets the needs of victims. Any proposals for change would be subject to consultation. Mr Stewart: I echo the comments of others, Minister, by saying that our thoughts are with you. What happened last week was totally disgraceful and unacceptable. Minister, in the past 18 months, several people whom I represent in my constituency have been victims of a confirmed hate crime. Their property has been damaged, and the incidents have been deeply traumatising for them. When, however, they have sought compensation, which you referred to in your answer, they were unable to claim it, because the police could not confirm that three or more people were involved in that hate crime. That is unacceptable. A hate crime is a hate crime, regardless of how many people are involved. Will you look at changing the policy so that those people can claim compensation? Mrs Long: I understand the Member's point, because it has been raised with me before. We have to go back to what the purpose of the compensation scheme is, however. It was introduced at a time when businesses and individuals were often unable to get insurance because of the level of property damage that was being inflicted during the terrorist campaign here. Compensation Services was therefore designed to deal with such incidents, as opposed to incidents of simple criminal damage or even simple hate crime offences. For example, for the civil disorder in Ballymena, 27 claims were submitted to Compensation Services. Of those, one claim has been paid out, one has been withdrawn, 15 are awaiting police reports and 10 are awaiting further documentation that is needed to support the claim. Compensation Services does all that it can to progress such claims as expeditiously as possible, but, when it is waiting for police reports, information from the applicant or further evidence such as deeds, insurance information and any business interruption information, that is often outside its control. Some cases will not meet the threshold of three or more people being involved, but the scheme is meant to cover "riotous assembly". If it is not proven that that was the case when the criminal damage happened, it will therefore be down to the individual insurer for that particular business or home to step in. 'Domestic Abuse Incidents and Crimes Recorded by the Police in Northern Ireland' 6. Ms Forsythe asked the Minister of Justice for her assessment of the 'Domestic Abuse Incidents and Crimes Recorded by the Police in Northern Ireland' bulletin, published in August 2025. (AQO 2511/22-27) Mrs Long: The most recent PSNI bulletin, which was published on 28 August, shows that, in the 12 months up until 30 June 2025, 29,740 domestic abuse incidents and 18,246 domestic abuse crimes were recorded. That represents decreases of almost 7% and 5·5% respectively on the previous year. Although those reductions may appear encouraging, they should be treated with caution. Recorded statistics reflect only those cases that were reported to the police, and reporting can be influenced by a range of factors, including whether victims feel able to come forward and have confidence in the system. A fall in recorded incidents and crimes does not necessarily mean that domestic abuse is happening less frequently. What is clear is that domestic abuse continues to take place on a significant scale. Tackling it cannot be achieved by the Department of Justice alone. A cross-Executive and community-wide response will be required if we are to prevent abuse, protect victims and, ultimately, reduce the harm caused across society. The domestic and sexual abuse strategy provides us with a cohesive direction by enabling the necessary change to happen through partnership working. Ms Forsythe: Like others, I send my best to the Minister and her husband following the absolutely appalling attack outside their home. I offer my continued support to her for her strong work on the abuse of elected representatives, particularly female ones. Minister, in light of the figures, some support groups recently expressed concern at the all-party group (APG) on domestic and sexual violence — you touched on this — that the PSNI's reporting of a reduced number of offences is painting a picture that the number of incidents and the number of crimes have reduced, yet agencies and groups such as Women's Aid are reporting higher numbers of self-referrals. Minister, is there any forum in which we can bring together the different support groups, alongside the PSNI, to paint a full picture of what is happening here? Mrs Long: That is difficult, because the bulletin looks only at reported incidents and reported crimes, yet we all know that there will be instances in which those crimes are not reported. Many victims, for good reason, will choose not to present to the PSNI. Although I always encourage people to report crime, I understand the complexities involved in doing so in a domestic violence context, because most people's priority is simply to extract themselves and their loved ones from a dangerous situation. We have the opportunity, through the work that we do with partners in the community and voluntary sector, to get some sense of the direction of travel, but it is hard to quantify that in a way that is robust enough for us to provide formal statistics. We will continue to explore doing that with our partners, because, again, we know that there will be under-reporting for a number of reasons, and even those who make initial contact with charitable organisations may not follow through on it later. Some of those reports may be —. Top 2.30 pm Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Minister, will you draw your remarks to a close? Thank you. Mrs Long: Some of those reports may be as a result of other family members who are raising concerns. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): That ends the period for listed questions. We move to 15 minutes of topical questions. Topical question 2 has been withdrawn. Extremism: Sentencing and Interventions T1. Mr McGlone asked the Minister of Justice, having condemned outright the disgraceful behaviour outside her home — any Member who has been in politics for a while and has seen intimidation and crime of that nature knows that it is abysmal that it should happen to her, an elected representative, outside her home, which should be private to each of us — having expressed solidarity with her and condemnation of the thugs who stood there and tried to intimidate her as she went about her normal daily work, and having listened carefully when the Minister mentioned the types of measures that could be taken by her Department and in collaboration with other Departments to help to tackle the scourge of extremism, which often manifests itself as right-wing, sectarian and racist, how she sees the increase in sentencing and the collaboration with other Departments panning out? (AQT 1651/22-27) Mrs Long: There are two elements to it. The degree to which sentencing is a true deterrent is questionable, because most people who commit crime never consider being caught. Many of them do things on the spur of the moment without giving any due regard to what the outcome for them might be, and many are completely reckless with respect to their own behaviour. I hear Members chunter from the sidelines that that is nonsense, but, if you talk to those in the legal profession, they will tell you that that is part of the problem. However, with the right sentencing framework in place, we can show, when those cases come to court, that we are serious about tackling it. That is an important message. The law will not change people's minds, but it will change their behaviours over time. We need to identify much earlier, before harm has been caused, the issues, means and methods that are being used to radicalise individuals. We need to seek to intervene much earlier in the chain, before those individuals themselves become radicalised and end up undertaking actions that will bring them into conflict with the law and place others in the way of harm. Mr McGlone: I thank the Minister for that. I agree that sentencing is one part of it. Minister, you mentioned the radicalising of individuals. Could you elaborate on how you see your Department working, perhaps with other UK Departments, to stymie the influence particularly of social media on radicalising people who, previously, may well not have been radicalised and got themselves into such a mess? Mrs Long: The Online Safety Act is but one of the tools available, and, obviously, my Department has made representations to the Home Office, which leads on communications and telecommunications because it is a reserved matter. We continue to feed in our concerns in that space. Through the tackling paramilitarism programme, we are about to trial some desistance programmes for people who have already been radicalised into either paramilitary or organised crime but, we believe, are still reachable and teachable in that space, to get alongside them in order to start to change their attitudes and to offer them an alternative route forward at the very earliest stage of conflict with the justice system. That is one of the things that we can do. We also look at what is available in other places. There is a suite of interventions that are available when young people become radicalised. Where it differs from the traditional radicalisation that we have seen in our community over many years is that those individuals tend to be lone actors and radicalised in their own home. Therefore, it is only when their behaviours reach a certain level of danger that we become alert to their involvement or, alternatively, when they have undertaken an offence, which makes it slightly more complicated to address. One of the things that we need is for not just my Department but Education, Health and others to look at it as part of our wider safeguarding approach. The other thing to say is that many of the people who are being radicalised are very young. Criminal Legal Aid Fees: Uplift T3. Mr Mathison asked the Minister of Justice to provide an update on her plans to uplift criminal legal aid fees by 16%. (AQT 1653/22-27) Mrs Long: I remain committed to delivering the uplift to remuneration that I set out in the Chamber in December last year. Officials across the Department are continuing to progress the business case with the Department of Finance that covers the wider enabling access to justice programme, not just the increase in legal aid fees. Progression of the business case was delayed to enable further amendments to legal aid fees that have been developed through the criminal legal aid working group that was established in March to be included in this round of change, and it was further impacted on by the fact that officials had to react to the impact of some emerging issues on the wider reform programme. However, I expect the legislation to be brought forward immediately once the business case is completed and to come into effect within six weeks, respecting the legislative process. In anticipation of the introduction of those new rates, the Legal Services Agency (LSA) has updated its case management system to ensure that the increased fees can be claimed as appropriate from the date on which the fees come into operation. It is also looking at how it will then be able to process, without requiring application from the practitioners, the additional back payments that I promised to the date in December last year. Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for that update. Can she provide a further update on the progress in increasing the fees that are payable under the County Court scale? Mrs Long: The County Court rules committee has proposed a 23% increase to fees under the County Court scale to address inflation's eroding their value since 2017. The proposed amendments have undergone consultation, economic appraisal and policy screening, with no anticipated impact. The draft rules are subject to negative resolution procedure and are scheduled to be considered by the Justice Committee on 16 October. Pending the outcome of that, we will take them forward, as is appropriate. PSNI Pay Award T4. Mr Clarke asked the Minister of Justice, after, like other Members, condemning outrightly what happened outside her house last week, which, although not the first attack on a politician, demonstrated that things have stooped to a new low, to state, in light of the fact that quite a lot of Members are starting to receive correspondence from police officers about this year's pay rise, when the negotiations are likely to conclude. (AQT 1654/22-27) Mrs Long: Like the Department of Health and the Department of Education, the Department of Justice has a projected overspend. There is a deficit of around £23 million for the PSNI. Until we have a plan in place to deal with that, a pay rise has been deemed unaffordable, although it has been approved in a value-for-money business case. At the moment, I am working through that with my Executive colleagues so that there is a consistent approach to pay. I set aside 3·5% for pay at the start of the year in order to ensure that that money was available. However, the recommendations that came to me were between 1% and 1·5% higher than that, which means that there is still a shortfall. I know that some other Departments did not ring-fence anything for pay at the start of the year. We did, but affordability will still be a challenge. The contractual element of the pay went ahead, as it should, at the start of October. I am hopeful that we will get to a point where we are able to pay the rest of the pay as soon as possible, as I say, subject to affordability. We will, sadly, be starting next year's pay round pretty soon, so, hopefully, we will be able to move that forward. Mr Clarke: I thank the Minister for her answer. I note from her answer that, unlike the other Departments, your Department set aside 3.5%. Is that included in the £23 million overspend, or is that money still protected? When are officers likely to know the outcome of the pay rise? Mrs Long: The money was set aside and ring-fenced at the beginning when I was budgeting, which is why, at the beginning, I had quite limited budgetary concerns. I have had to take some fairly difficult decisions to live within the budget. My overspend at the moment is pretty much entirely with the PSNI. That is where the majority of DOJ's overspend is happening. We are working with the PSNI to try to find ways of managing that overspend. We have already reduced it by about half, but we need to reduce it further still for the Department of Finance to judge it as being affordable. I will continue to work with colleagues to find a way through. Just because police officers and, indeed, prison officers do not go on strike does not mean that they should be any less worthy of receiving their pay when it is due. They do a difficult job and should be remunerated fairly. Speeding Up Justice Programme T5. Mr Donnelly asked the Minister of Justice for an update on her speeding up justice programme. (AQT 1655/22-27) Mrs Long: The programme is an example of cross-justice collaboration to try to resolve what is a key issue. The Criminal Justice Board comprises all the senior leaders in the justice system, and they have prioritised that programme of work. It takes a whole-system approach; focuses on reducing avoidable delay, reducing demand, freeing up capacity and facilitating more proportionate and effective responses to offending behaviour; and aims to take advantage of technological developments to improve operational processes and communication between criminal justice organisations. Funding of £20·5 million from the public-sector transformation board is enabling work to progress on early engagement and out-of-court disposals. There are regular updates to the Criminal Justice Board, as well as interim updates to the programme board, about how we are making progress. Given the existing financial pressures, that funding is a boost and will enable us to do some essential work to progress efforts and reduce avoidable delay. Part of that will be the work that we are doing around collating responses to the out-of-court disposals consultation. We will publish the findings of that and recommendations in due course. There is an early engagement project, which has seen the commencement of a gateway initiative to seek to enhance communication and file-preparation quality between the PSNI and the PPS at the earliest point in a case. There is also work towards a pilot of new case-management processes for courts. In addition, work is continuing on the implementation of a second phase of committal reform — direct committal — which is planned for November 2026. There is still a lot more to be done, but what we are seeing in departmental statistics is that the average or median time taken for a case to be dealt with from the date on which the offence is reported to the police was 189 days in the most recent bulletin. That was an 8·3% improvement over the past two years, and will be a key measure of how the system is performing overall and a sign that efforts to speed up justice are having an impact. Mr Donnelly: I thank the Minister for her answer. Will she provide an assessment of the impact that budgetary pressures are having on justice system transformation? Mrs Long: There is a long-standing and ongoing funding challenge for Justice, which is well recognised by everyone in the House because I repeat it frequently enough. It will undoubtedly impact on what we can deliver. The DOJ's share of the Northern Ireland block grant has fallen continually over the past 14 years, from just under 11% in 2011-12 to just over 8% in 2025-26. That underfunding hampers our efforts to do transformation as funding is, quite rightly, prioritised to demand-led front-line activities, including policing, prisons and courts. We have less than 0·5% of discretionary spend, which makes it increasingly difficult for us to engage in that kind of system-wide transformation. There is an appetite, however, for change right across the justice system, and so bids to initiatives such as the public-sector transformation board are crucial because they will allow us to fulfil that appetite to fund some of those endeavours and, hopefully, make further savings in the future if we can make those changes. All of us around the Criminal Justice Board table recognise that there needs to be transformation for us to be more effective and efficient. That investment now will help us to save money in the future. Speeding Up Justice: Bereaved Families T6. Mrs Dodds asked the Minister of Justice, after, as other Members have, expressing her solidarity with her and condemning what happened at her home last week, whether, given that she is committed to the strategy of ending violence against women and girls, and given that we have had a huge number of women murdered in Northern Ireland, and that many of those cases have taken a very long time to come to court, there is anything practical that can be done to ensure that families who have suffered the most awful of harms in the death of their loved one can see justice at an earlier stage. (AQT 1656/22-27) Mrs Long: I have just set out the work that we are doing on speeding up justice. One of the particular reasons that we are looking at, for example, changes in the jurisdiction of the courts, as well as more out-of-court disposals for lower level offences, is to ensure that court time at the High Court is reserved for the most serious of offences, which will allow us, hopefully, to move more swiftly. Committal reform, for example, has already delivered hugely for victims of sexual offences and domestic abuse cases, whereby they do not have to give evidence potentially twice, which is a deterrent to people's coming forward. We have also used the remote evidence centre; there is a judge-led pilot there, which has domestic abuse contest cases heard. In the first tranche of eight cases that went through, all eight victims turned up and gave evidence, and all eight perpetrators were happy to concede guilt at the outset, so, just by the victims being there and having the confidence to come to court, the perpetrators pled guilty. We have seen that repeated. In domestic abuse contest cases where victims are able to give remote evidence, the success rate is well over 90% conviction. There are things that we are doing that will speed up justice and also make the process better. Finally, every domestic homicide is a tragedy. Top 2.45 pm Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Minister. Will you draw your remarks to a close? Mrs Long: I will. We are also looking at domestic homicide reviews. I am happy to provide the Member with further information on that. Mr Burrows: Can I make a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker? Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Not at the moment. Minister, while we wait for the next Minister to come in, I put on record that my personal thoughts are with you and Michael following the horrible attack your home. That should not be the case for anybody. Indeed, it is important that we recognise that. On a slightly lighter note, there seems to be an acoustic anomaly in the Chamber today. Yes, you two, esteemed Members from the SDLP: please be aware that your voices carry from that particular corner and that that can interfere with other Members' contributions. You have ample opportunity to contribute at any given time. Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): We will start with listed questions. Questions 1, 6 and 9 have been withdrawn. Shaping Sustainable Places: Budget Distribution 2. Ms Murphy asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs how he will ensure that the proposed £150 million budget for Shaping Sustainable Places will be distributed equitably between urban centres and remote rural areas. (AQO 2522/22-27) Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): At the outset, I record my concerns about recent events concerning public representatives and my complete solidarity with Naomi and Michael Long, my ministerial colleague Liz Kimmins and Dáire Hughes MP. It is important that we all stand full square in defence of democracy in this place and that all Ministers record their support for their colleagues who have faced appalling intimidation. My Department previously supported regeneration activities in rural settlements with a population of 5,000 and below on behalf of the Northern Ireland Executive through successive European Union rural development programmes. Following the UK's decision to leave the European Union, I have welcomed the opportunity to collaborate with the Department for Communities, as lead for regeneration policy, and the Department for Infrastructure, as lead for active travel, in the proposed Shaping Sustainable Places programme. Together, we are collectively implementing a long-term, community-led approach to support regeneration initiatives in our village, town and city centres across Northern Ireland. My intention is to propose that my Department invest £50 million into the £150 million fund that will be earmarked for spend to support regeneration activities in rural settlements with populations of 5,000 and below to ensure that no rural community is left behind. Ms Murphy: I thank the Minister for his answer. I notice that the consultation documents mention of the possibility of a "Centre First policy". How does that align with your responsibilities in DAERA for rural affairs? Mr Muir: We are very conscious of our lead responsibility on rural affairs. I am proud to hold that Ministry and have that lead responsibility. Each Department has a duty to serve rural communities in Northern Ireland. It is a demonstration of how we can collectively come together and ensure that the needs of rural communities are reflected. We have lost out through the loss of the rural development programme, but, hopefully, we will see a new approach to ensuring that people in rural areas are properly served through Shaping Sustainable Places and other initiatives that will flow from the new rural affairs policy, on which we will consult early in the new year. Mr McNulty: Does the Minister agree that, in addition to rural and urban balance, there needs to be regional balance in the allocation of that £150 million? What will he do to ensure that that happens, given the fact that it is a joint scheme with the Department for Infrastructure and the Department for Communities? Mr Muir: Councils have a key role in that. They play a central role in identifying and prioritising regeneration initiatives. I fully support the empowering of councils to lead that effort. They have been encouraged to take a strategic, place-based approach and to work closely with local communities in order to shape proposals that reflect local aspirations and challenges. Bathing Water Sites 3. Ms Brownlee asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, given the concerns regarding pollution in Belfast lough, whether he will commit to expanding formally identified bathing water sites to include areas such as Carrickfergus, where open water swimming is becoming increasingly popular. (AQO 2523/22-27) Mr Muir: I share the Member's concern about water quality in Belfast lough. I am also aware how popular sea swimming has become, which is why I formally identified seven new bathing water sites on 1 June this year. I have recently committed to a new bathing waters policy review for Northern Ireland, which will commence shortly. The review marks a significant milestone in our ongoing commitment to safeguarding public health, enhancing water quality and protecting our natural environment. New bathing water sites will be considered as part of the review. The review will also look at the length of the bathing season, as I recognise that a lot of bathing takes place outside of the current bathing season, which runs from 1 June to 15 September. Ms Brownlee: I thank the Minister. Sea swimming is incredibly popular in the likes of Fisherman's Quay. We have a triathlon, sea swimmers, sea dippers and everything in between. Mid and East Antrim Borough Council nominated Fisherman's Quay, but the Department turned it down. Areas such as Carrickfergus are being left behind in that regard. What more can the Minister and the Department do to ensure that that area is included and safe for everyone to use? Mr Muir: Thank you, Cheryl. I understand that there were lots of nominations during the previous review. As an MLA for North Down, I nominated areas, as did many other Members. The new review that is coming up will be an opportunity for us to take forward nominations, but it is crucial that we work in conjunction with councils on that, because they have a responsibility for it. We will work closely with councils. We have ongoing engagement, and it is important that we look not just at which sites are designated but at the season, because we are seeing a lot more people swimming outside the designated bathing season. Mr Dickson: Minister, what action are you taking to address waste water pollution in Carrickfergus and Belfast lough? Mr Muir: Thank you very much, Stewart. Waste water pollution is of significant concern to me. I have responsibility for regulation for and enforcement on pollution. I am on record and will say again that it is unacceptable that a separate arrangement is in place for Northern Ireland Water whereby, since 2007, it has, in many instances, got a bye ball when it comes to pollution. I will be taking proposals to the Executive on that, because it is important that we regularise enforcement on sewage pollution in Northern Ireland. The other issue is the investment that is required for waste water infrastructure. I will be really honest with Members: I am fast losing patience over the need to take tough decisions on waste water infrastructure. It impacts not just on our environment but on housebuilding and economic development. As Minister, I am taking the tough decisions and putting my head above the parapet to turn around the situation in Lough Neagh, but others need to do the same, particularly the Department for Infrastructure. Mountains of reports are gathering up about the inadequacy of our waste water infrastructure. We need to turn the sewage pollution tap off, take brave decisions and end sewage pollution not just in Belfast lough but in many other waterways across Northern Ireland. Mr Stewart: I share my colleague Cheryl Brownlee's concerns about Fisherman's Quay not being selected by the Department. Minister, you have talked about the impact of the horrendous amount of waste water that is being pumped into Belfast lough and have said that it is the next Lough Neagh waiting to happen. That is deeply worrying. What conversations have you had with Northern Ireland Water to see what more it can do to reduce the waste water that is being pumped into Belfast lough? What further investment and projects need to happen to protect that vital asset? Mr Muir: My role as Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs includes regulation and enforcement. I have made it clear how I want to strengthen the sewage pollution situation. I want to end Northern Ireland Water largely getting a bye ball, if that is due to historic underinvestment. The issue is that we need to face up to tough decisions about our waste water infrastructure. As an MLA for North Down and as Minister, I know the dire state of Belfast lough, and I am taking action, for example, on the designation of sensitive areas (SAs) that require more investment. I have also set out more on the statement of regulatory principles and intent (SORPI), but, fundamentally, the issue sits with the Department for Infrastructure. If Members want to improve water quality, we have to face up to the issues and look at how we fund our waste water infrastructure in the future. The current situation is not sustainable. Ms Hunter: Minister, sea swimming is popular in my constituency from Portrush to Coleraine, Benone and beyond. We even have groups such as the Menopausal Mermaids and Salty Sea Sisters. What action are you taking to maintain areas that are used for bathing? Have you identified any parts of the North that do not have any and, if so, how we can improve things to have more? Mr Muir: Councils often manage areas where people bathe. That is why we have a partnership arrangement with them for water quality, testing and all the rest of it. It is therefore important that people engage with their council. Some areas, such as Crawfordsburn Country Park, sit under the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA), and we have management responsibilities for such areas. Often, however, they are, as I said, councils' responsibility, which is why we want to work in partnership with them. Bovine TB 4. Mrs Mason asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to outline the steps that his Department is taking to tackle the impact of bovine TB (bTB) on farmers and the wider agri-food sector. (AQO 2524/22-27) Mr Muir: Since becoming Minister, I have been clear that we must do more to reverse the increase in bovine TB in Northern Ireland. In January, in response to a recommendation from the Chief Veterinary Officer (CVO), I established a TB partnership steering group — a new body that is made up of farming, industry, veterinary and environmental stakeholders — to work with my Department to develop the actions that are needed to get rates of the disease to fall. I was therefore very pleased to endorse the group's agreed 'Bovine Tuberculosis in Northern Ireland — Blueprint for Eradication', which was published in April. The blueprint document sets out the necessary priorities under three key themes: people, cattle and wildlife. My Department has a new TB eradication transformation programme in place to deliver the actions in the blueprint. Initial priorities include work on wildlife intervention options. I have therefore asked officials to prepare a new public consultation on options. Other priority work streams include work to ensure that TB testing is carried out to the required standard, work to progress a potential regionalisation pilot, work to provide on-farm biosecurity advice and work to expand the use of the supplementary interferon-gamma (IFN-g) blood test. I am committed to progressing the new measures in order to tackle the disease as quickly as possible. It is clear that only by working together can we tackle all the factors that contribute to the spread and endurance of that costly disease. Mrs Mason: I appreciate that answer, Minister. I have written to you on the subject, and I appreciate your response and the fact that you sent out the Chief Veterinary Officer. Farmers tell me that they are heartbroken. While their herds are being wiped out, they feel very left behind, and their families face huge mental and financial strain. I understand that many of the farmers who have been directly impacted on feel that their voice is not being heard on the stakeholder engagement group. Minister, will you commit to holding meaningful engagement with farmers on the ground, as they want to work with you to help out? Mr Muir: I fully understand the challenges that bTB presents for farm families in Northern Ireland. It creates mental anguish, but there is a cost associated with it as well. Although the Department is upholding the 100% rate of compensation, I understand that that does not reflect the whole associated cost loss. I will continue to engage with relevant representatives. I thank people for taking part in the stakeholder forum, as it is important for finding a way forward. The issue is not confined to Northern Ireland. Rates of infection pose a challenge in England, Wales and the South. Fundamentally, the only way through this is to work together, and that is what I am committed to doing. Mr McGlone: Minister, you mentioned the transformation programme. Can you give us some detail on its specifics and on what targets it will set to address the awful scourge of bTB that affects livelihoods and infects herds? Mr Muir: We are under obligation to work towards eradication, and I am keen to do that, but it will take time. Fundamentally, as I said, it is based on the three pillars of people, cattle and wildlife, and that is what we are investing in. It is important that we take forward those actions. My Department bid for some of the transformation funding that is available in Northern Ireland. We were not successful in the first round, but we have submitted a second bid. It is important that we support that work so that we can drive down rates of infection, not just because of the impact that bTB has on farm families but because of the impact that it has on my Department's budget. That is why we want to turn the situation around. Mr McMurray: The Minister mentioned infection rates in other jurisdictions. We share a border with the Irish Republic. What engagement has he had with the Irish Government on working collectively to eradicate bovine TB on the island? Mr Muir: I have spoken to Minister Martin Heydon on the issue, as I did to his predecessor, Charlie McConalogue. It is a key topic in the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) work plan, and I look forward to having continued engagement. I note with interest the publication of the robust new TB action plan from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (DAFM) and its proposed additional measures. On Friday, I was pleased to announce, alongside Minister Heydon, a new cross-border project as part of the Shared Island initiative to tackle the growing impact of bTB on farms in a pilot area. That new cross-border initiative is aimed at taking a regionalised approach to tackling bovine TB. Both Departments will engage in developing the overall approach for the cooperation project, which is to focus on implementation of measures on a coordinated regional basis to support reduction of bovine TB incidence and transmission. I am glad that we got that over the line: we will continue to work on roll-out, and I am confident that it will make a tangible difference in what is a key issue for farming communities, North and South. Top 3.00 pm Mr T Buchanan: Minister, given that scientific evidence from other jurisdictions shows that culling wildlife has a positive impact on the reduction of bovine TB, what consideration have you or the partnership group that has been set up to look at eradicating bovine TB given to that? Mr Muir: There is no primary or secondary legislation in operation that explicitly provides for the culling of badgers in Northern Ireland. Following the judicial review decision, there is no departmental policy in place on wildlife intervention. I assure you that I will proceed with a consultation on potential wildlife intervention measures as soon as I can. I advise Members that the judicial review was split into two parts, the second of which was on the legislative basis for wildlife intervention. Officials are therefore exploring all potential avenues that may form part of the legislative basis for any wildlife intervention in order to ensure that our position will be robust in any future legal challenge. Any decision that I make on wildlife intervention will include preferred legislative means and be based on science and evidence. We need wildlife intervention, but it is important that we do it right. Mr Gaston: Minister, it is past the time for honeyed words and more talking shops about an issue that affects people's livelihoods. If the science points to a badger cull, will you introduce the necessary legislation to put it in place during your time as Minister? Mr Muir: I have been consistent, unlike many others in the Chamber, in respecting science and evidence. We will follow a process; we will do this right. We will consult on the wildlife interventions, and we will take decisions on the way forward. We have to learn lessons from how we did it previously, and we have to respect the science and evidence, not, as some people have done, cherry-pick. Mr Butler: Following Friday's announcement on the cross-border initiative, will the Minister be more explicit about the target zone for the pilots? Will there be a regional assessment, or will it be in the border regions? Mr Muir: We will continue to work through that. The announcement was significant and something that I was keen to achieve. We now have to work together, North and South and with stakeholders, on where that will be. It is likely to be in a border area because it is a Shared Island initiative. It is a good example of where we can work North/South to deal with something that is a challenge in both jurisdictions. Derelict Properties 5. Mr McNulty asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to outline any guarantees contained in the Dilapidation Bill [NIA Bill 21/22-27] that will avoid local councils being left with costly and lengthy legal cases when recovering money spent on repairing or demolishing derelict properties. (AQO 2525/22-27) Mr Muir: Whilst the Bill does not specifically contain such guarantees, the provision of robust and effective measures to ensure that the appropriate person or organisation pays for the necessary remedial actions is key to minimising cost to the public purse. Councils will not be expected to take remedial action in every case. The Bill seeks to ensure that those with an interest in a property take on the liabilities associated with it. Councils will need to use a common-sense approach on a case-by-case basis in deciding whether to begin enforcement proceedings if the likelihood of recovering costs is minimal. It is considered reasonable to assume that a council would adopt an approach that does not put its finances at risk and that ensures that it maximises its success in the interests of its ratepayers. The Bill will also give councils the power to put a charge on the land where costs cannot be recovered immediately, ensuring full cost recovery. Mr McNulty: Minister, you seemed to outline a take it or leave it approach there. The Bill's explanatory and financial memorandum says: "It is not anticipated that the Bill will have any financial effects on the Department." Does the fact that no funding is attached to the Bill not mean that councils will be reluctant to spend their scarce resources? Will you consider a small budget to support councils? Mr Muir: Thank you, Justin, for your question. I take a more positive approach to life when it comes to this. The legislation will give councils the power to act, and it will be up to them to decide. There are many examples of where the power will allow councils to take action and say to the owner of the building, "You fix it, or we will fix it, and we will send you the bill". It is good legislation. It is going through a scrutiny process, which I welcome, because it will allow us to tease out some of the issues that we are getting feedback on and to understand whether we will want to table amendments at Consideration Stage or Further Consideration Stage. I want to work with people to make sure that this makes a difference. It has been a long time coming, and, hopefully, we will be able to get it scrutinised and on to the statute book. Mr McAleer: Minister, given the hugely central role of councils in the Bill, can you give a firm guarantee that your Department will consult councils, NILGA and other stakeholders during the legislative process? Mr Muir: Thank you, Declan. My officials have liaised with councils throughout the policy consultation process. Since the restoration of the Assembly, several councils have contacted my Department asking for updates on the Bill. My officials have also contacted the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE) on the Bill's progress. SOLACE has confirmed that local government remains supportive of the Dilapidation Bill's introduction to the Assembly. Draft statutory guidance has now been shared with SOLACE and the Northern Ireland Local Government Association (NILGA) for comment. The permanent secretary has reached out to SOLACE and offered a meeting to discuss any concerns that it has. We need to work with people on this, and that is what we are committed to doing. Mr Robinson: In a similar vein, how will the Minister ensure that any legislation that is brought forward is operable and workable with local councils? Mr Muir: We will take into account the feedback that has been received, particularly by the Committee as a result of its call for evidence. I have been looking at some that has come back. Councils have it coming onto their agendas, so I look at their reports. I have also looked at the RaISe report that the Committee commissioned. We will take all that into account and try to find a way forward that assures councils that the draft legislation is going to enable them, because revitalising our villages, towns and city centres and dealing with dereliction is good not just for the residents and businesses of those areas but for the council's rates base. If an area is dilapidated, the rates base is not what it should be. It is a good opportunity for everyone. Ms Mulholland: First, thank you, Minister, for joining me to visit the Antrim Arms Hotel in Ballycastle during the summer to see just how much impact dilapidated buildings can actually have, particularly on small rural towns. Secondly, I agree with your positive outlook on life, so do you agree that the Dilapidation Bill will make a significant difference to people who live with the consequences of derelict buildings? Mr Muir: Thank you, Sian. Yes: there is far too much negativity in the Chamber. We need a bit of positivity. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): What a good answer, Minister. Mr Muir: Yes. We need to show people in Northern Ireland that this can be a place for good. Far too often, and even from the start of today's business, there has been negativity. We can scrutinise and examine, but we also need to show people a bit of hope. This legislation will allow councils to have the powers to intervene, and often in a situation where that dilapidation is just starting. It will allow fixed penalty notices to be issued that will incentivise the people who own those buildings to address their condition. I visited Ballycastle and could see places where it would help. You want people to be able to invest in areas and have confidence that, where dilapidation is starting to occur, councils have the powers to intervene. Belfast Lough: Pollution 7. Mr Chambers asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to outline his strategy to prevent pollution in Belfast lough reaching the levels being experienced in Lough Neagh. (AQO 2527/22-27) Mr Muir: I recognise the critical importance of safeguarding water quality in Belfast lough and affirm my strong commitment to implementing comprehensive measures to improve water quality in Northern Ireland's water bodies. My Department's corporate plan 2025-27 contains a specific pledge to deliver an improvement in water quality. Significant pressure in Belfast lough's catchment is from waste water. Although waste water infrastructure falls within the Department for Infrastructure, my Department is engaging with it and Northern Ireland Water to enhance the regulation, monitoring and treatment of waste water. I am progressing plans to identify inner Belfast lough as a shellfish water protected area — that is a sensitive area that I referred to earlier — under the Urban Waste Water Treatment Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2007, subject to Executive approval. Additional waste water treatment will be required as a result of the identification. I am aware of the need to progress that important area as a matter of urgency. Above all, addressing the issue depends on proper investment. I will continue to support the need for investment in waste water infrastructure in Northern Ireland and take the tough decisions that we need to take to ensure that we have sustained long-term investment. Mr Chambers: Last November, I brought to your attention in the Chamber, Minister, a whistle-blower who had reported to me that Belfast lough had the potential to become the new Lough Neagh within the next 10 years. Part of your reply to me that day was this: "I feel that, sadly, we are on course for seeing Belfast lough become our next Lough Neagh, with serious and substantial water quality breakdown." — [Official Report (Hansard), 4 November 2024, p28, col 2]. Is that assessment still your position, or are things improving? Mr Muir: As a Minister, and also as a representative for North Down, I am very worried about the state of Belfast lough and where we are heading. That is why I am losing patience over the need to take difficult decisions on investment and waste water infrastructure. We cannot dodge tough decisions in this place. I am prepared to take them, and I am taking them, but they need to be taken across the Executive. The situation that is unfolding in Belfast lough is a real concern. I will take whatever actions I can on regulation and enforcement to make it clear that it is not acceptable, but I find it strange that other people do not show that level of concern. We are pumping sewage into Belfast lough and other waterways, and we are seeing the consequences of that with the pollution that is occurring. Mr O'Toole: Minister, I share your concern about a lack of clarity on investment in NI waste water, which is why I hope that you and your party will support our Opposition motion tomorrow on the need for an investment strategy to deal with these things. Another document that was published very quietly on Friday a week ago was the legislation programme for 2025-26. Your Department has only one Bill proposed in it. That goes right up until the end of 2026, so, presumably, that is the last iteration of current Executive legislation. It says that there will be a fisheries and water environment Bill. It does not specifically say that that will include provision for an independent environmental protection agency (EPA), but, presumably, that will be the last legislative vehicle for such a body to be created. Can you confirm whether the ship has now sailed on an independent EPA's being legislated for in this mandate? Mr Muir: We have progressed or are progressing three Bills. The Agriculture Bill is now in law as the Agriculture Act, and the Dilapidation Bill is progressing. The fisheries and water environment Bill will strengthen regulation and enforcement around water pollution. It is out for consultation, so, if you have any views, please do feed back. It will allow us to issue fixed penalty notices and to increase the maximum fine from £20,000 to £50,000. It is an important piece of legislation. I commissioned a panel to look at the issue of an independent environmental protection agency, and it will report back very shortly on that. When the opportunity came up to legislate for that through an amendment that was tabled to the climate change legislation, your party did not even turn up. Decisions are made by people who turn up, Matthew. Mr O'Toole: This mandate. You are the Minister. I am asking you about this mandate. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Matthew, behave. I call William Irwin. William, much better behaviour, please. Mr Irwin: I thank the Minister for his responses so far. We are aware of the reports that thousands of tons of raw sewage has been pumped into Belfast lough. Does the Minister agree that that is totally unacceptable and that something needs to be done as soon as possible? Mr Muir: I entirely agree. Ms Egan: Minister, I share your concern about the unacceptable levels of pollution in Belfast lough. Will you provide an update on the investigation into the sources of pollution in Ballyholme bay? Mr Muir: Northern Ireland Water initiated work with the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) in May 2024. Samples were collected from over 20 stations covering the marine environment and the catchment. There were approximately 15 sampling points along the Cotton river. Northern Ireland Water agents also found a number of unidentified pipes discharged into the Cotton river by walking its length. That has revealed a large number of misconnections in drains that should contain only surface waters. That typically happens when householders retrofit a downstairs toilet to an existing property and connect to the surface water drainage system rather than the sewer. Initial observations are that Northern Ireland Water assets along the Cotton river are operating as intended and are overflowing only in extreme conditions. Event and duration monitors have been installed at those sites. Northern Ireland Water has advised that misconnections have been investigated at 164 properties in total. Seven misconnections have been confirmed, and a further 34 sites have been classified as highly likely. All those have now been referred to the Northern Ireland Water misconnections and blockages team. Misconnections to a DFI-culverted stream were also detected and have been reported to DFI Rivers. Other observations from the data are that ruminant influence is strongest at the top end of the catchments and that the human signal increases as the eastern and western tributaries move through the town, as would be expected. We need to raise awareness of the implications of misconnections. Two pieces of legislation are being progressed: the Water, Sustainable Drainage and Flood Management Bill, which will help to deal with misconnections, and the fisheries and water environment Bill. RV Jocelyn Bell Burnell 8. Mr Tennyson asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs how the RV Jocelyn Bell Burnell will assist the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute in carrying out research into the marine environment. (AQO 2528/22-27) Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Minister, you have 30 seconds. Mr Muir: The research vessel Jocelyn Bell Burnell will give AFBI a step change in how it observes and protects the marine environment. It will be able to gather high-quality data and samples across the marine environment whilst reducing disturbance to marine life and lowering emissions. It will strengthen AFBI and DAERA's ability to understand marine ecosystems, detect climate signals and help the marine industries to adapt. It will also help us join up land and sea, recognising that what happens on land also affects the ocean, and that a healthy ocean, in turn, supports our coasts, climate and economy. With a 30-year design life, the ship equips the next generation of marine scientists and secures the long-term evidence base needed to make sound decisions. Top 3.15 pm Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Minister. That ends the period for listed questions. We now move on to 15 minutes of topical questions. Topical question 1 has been withdrawn. Farm Estates: Inheritance Tax T2. Ms Flynn asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, given the British Government's potential to rethink inheritance tax changes, to ensure that the specific needs of farmers in the North of Ireland are fully taken into account in any revised tax proposals. (AQT 1662/22-27) Mr Muir: I have been consistent in my opposition to the family farm tax because of the disproportionate and detrimental impact that it would have on farmers in Northern Ireland. As a result, I have made representations to the UK Government on multiple occasions. I will, again, make representations to the UK Government this week because it is important that they listen to farmers on the impact that it is going to have. A useful report came from the Centre for the Analysis of Taxation (CenTax), an analysis and tax advisory centre. It has a lot of merit, and I wish that the UK Government would take that up. Ms Flynn: I thank the Minister for that response. He touched on my next question: does the Minister accept that, without changes to the British Government's inheritance tax proposals, the future sustainability of family farms here could be undermined? Will he give that commitment to continue to press the British Government to rethink those plans? Mr Muir: The impacts have been numerous, particularly in relation to the mental health of farmers and the concerns and anxieties that they have and on the sustainability of farming in Northern Ireland, with the potential land issues and how it could be broken up. I will continue to make representations to the UK Government because it is the wrong way to go, and it is important that people listen to the implications for Northern Ireland. Rural Entrepreneurship T3. Miss Dolan asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs what steps are being taken to encourage rural entrepreneurship beyond traditional farming. (AQT 1663/22-27) Mr Muir: We have a role to play, not just as the Department with the lead responsibility for rural affairs but in working with the Department for the Economy. If there are specific issues that the Member wants me to progress, I am happy to do that. Innovation is a key part of our Department, and we have a division dedicated to it. We want to support people in the time ahead, and one of the ways that we will do that, particularly in relation to farming, is the sustainable farming investment scheme, which we will launch in the next financial year. Miss Dolan: Minister, you have touched on this, but are you in a position to provide additional funding or mentoring for small, rural start-ups? Mr Muir: We have a number of schemes through the tackling rural poverty and social isolation (TRPSI) framework, which is a rural micro-capital support scheme to support small businesses in rural areas. I can send the Member more details on that. It has been very popular. Animal Welfare Pathway T4. Miss McAllister asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs for an update on the implementation of the animal welfare pathway, given that he cares about animal welfare and that it is an issue about which her constituents are regularly in contact. (AQT 1664/22-27) Mr Muir: In May, I published my animal welfare pathway. It represents the most ambitious package of reforms for this area in over a decade, the majority of which will be taken forward through secondary legislation, which is a quick and effective way to improve protection for companion animals in Northern Ireland. The animal welfare pathway includes several key initiatives, which have the potential to transform companion animal welfare. Those include a review of dog breeding and canine fertility services, the regulation of the sale and supply of pups and kittens, and a consideration of issues associated with a ban on aversive training devices. Over 480 responses to my consultation document were received, containing proposals to regulate the supply and sale of pups and kittens, which also outlined my aspiration to ban third-party sellers. My officials continue to analyse the submissions received, and I hope to be able to publish a formal consultation response soon, which we will use to set out the final way forward. An expert adviser group has also been established to review the operation of current dog-breeding regulations here and examine the provision of canine fertility services. Work is well under way, and we understand that the group has been gathering evidence and has met a wide range of stakeholders. Finally, my officials have commenced initial policy development work on the remaining reforms in the pathway, which has been examining the case for the mandatory micro-chipping of cats, regulating rescue and rehoming organisations, and exploring potential changes to the operation of the current animal boarding regulations. While that work is in an early phase, I still hope to be in a position to initiate public consultation on all those issues around the end of this year. Those actions demonstrate my ongoing commitment to strengthen the protections for companion animals across Northern Ireland. Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for that comprehensive answer. It is clear that animal welfare is an issue that you are passionate about, and on which you are taking action in your Department. Minister, will you provide an update on where you are on banning shock collars? Mr Muir: Thank you, Nuala. I thank the all-party group on animal welfare, which is ably chaired by John, for its engagement on these issues. We want to do these things together and collaboratively with stakeholders. The Department's code of practice for the welfare of dogs recommends to the public that only positive reward-based training should be used and that potentially painful or frightening training methods, such as electric shock collars, should be avoided. I recognise that the use of shock or e-collars is not explicitly banned in Northern Ireland, but an animal fitted with a collar remains protected by the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011. That means that a person can use an e-collar on an animal if it does not cause the animal any unnecessary suffering. If a person sets the level and intensity of the signal that is given to the pet too high, they could be causing unnecessary suffering to the animal. That is an offence under the 2011 Act. Nevertheless, I am aware of the merits of banning the devices. I want to see them banned — I have set that out in the animal welfare pathway — and I am keen to explore how we can do that. My Department will explore the bans in other jurisdictions, such as Wales, where they have been banned since 2010, and engage with stakeholders on how we can effectively implement a ban. Late-night Public Transport T5. Mr Brett asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, given that encouraging more people on to public transport is an important way to help meet our environmental targets, to outline whether he has been involved in Executive discussions about ensuring that Belfast is no longer the only city on these islands not to have year-round, late-night public transport. (AQT 1665/22-27) Mr Muir: Thank you, Mr Brett. I take my responsibilities as Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs very seriously. We have an environmental responsibility to move more people out of the private car and on to buses or trains. That is a good way to go. We also have an opportunity to encourage active travel — something that I am keen on. A challenge in Belfast city is that people are struggling to get home later at night, and the associated issues relate not just to the environmental implications and increased car usage but people's safety. I am engaging with the Minister for Infrastructure and the Minister for the Economy on an initiative for late-night transport that will provide enhanced Metro and Ulsterbus services on a number of key routes so that people can get home. Mr Brett: The Minister will be aware of my ongoing desire, and that of his party colleague, to get that service in place and delivered before Christmas. Will the Minister fulfil the Christmas wish of Miss McAllister and I for Santa to put the support in place so that we can have late-night public transport before Christmas? Mr Muir: I hope to get it over the line this week, but there is one thing, Phillip: Santa only comes to good boys and girls. [Laughter.] Climate Action Plan T6. Mr Tennyson asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to provide an update on the development of a climate action plan, after having apologised for being late for his listed question. (AQT 1666/22-27) Mr Muir: As an Assembly and Executive, we committed to delivering a climate action plan in the climate change legislation and in the Programme for Government. Developing a climate action plan has been a significant amount of work, and I thank officials for that. The policies and proposals laid out in the draft plan are expected to be sufficient for Northern Ireland to meet its first carbon budget. The consultation closed recently. There has been a significant number of responses and engagement at the events, and I thank people for that. It is important that we take time to consider the responses. We will bring a paper to the Executive for approval as soon as possible. There are many challenges in relation to climate change — we know them, and we see them play out in Northern Ireland by way of more severe storms and the situation with Lough Neagh — but there are also opportunities. I am meeting many businesses that are investing in decarbonisation, and I want to make sure that we can create those good green jobs in Northern Ireland. Mr Tennyson: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. Minister, what is your assessment of the importance of ensuring that young people are included in conversations about protecting our environment and tackling climate change? Mr Muir: Thank you, Eóin. The journey to net zero is the defining challenge of our generation. It is important to listen to the views of young people. The Department has reached out to young people in our local schools to ask them for their views. The feedback from children and young people has been excellent, with participants offering highly insightful and detailed contributions. As a local MLA, I have met a lot of eco-committees in schools, and I find their insights into the issue and their understanding of it to be really impressive. It is important that we listen to young people. That is what we are doing as a Department, and I am proud of that. Digital Transformation Flexible Fund T7. Ms Brownlee asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs whether, as a part-funder of the digital transformation flexible fund (DTFF), he is as concerned as she is that, out of 18 successful applications, only two were from Carrickfergus, while none were from Larne, thus leaving East Antrim significantly under-represented out of the fund. (AQT 1667/22-27) Mr Muir: It is important that everyone get a fair crack of the whip and that that be done through having a proper process in place. I am happy to look at that issue, but it is important that, when we are evaluating applications, we do so in a fair manner. Ms Brownlee: I appreciate that, and I know that you are only a part-funder of the scheme, but what really concerns me is access to funds, particularly in rural areas. Anything that you can do to promote the scheme and to encourage as many people in East Antrim to apply to it will be much appreciated. Mr Muir: I am happy to have a look at that, and I will respond to the Member in writing. Mobuoy Site: Remediation Strategy T8. Ms Ferguson asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs for an update on the outcome of the recent public consultation on the remediation strategy for the Mobuoy site and welcomes his meeting with local representatives in the Guildhall in Derry many weeks ago. (AQT 1668/22-27) Mr Muir: I thank officials who organised that engagement and consultation with local people. I also thank the Member and other public representatives — other MLAs, the local MP, the mayor and council's chief executive — for engaging directly with me on the issue. We will consider the feedback that was received. I have given an undertaking to representatives from the area that I will go back up to Derry and speak to them all about the proposed way forward once we have analysed and considered that feedback. I also need to give the Committee its place, but you are among the people who represent the area that is affected by Mobuoy, so it is important that I engage with you all directly. I also want to engage with you a bit more on the public inquiry and on the way forward. You have my assurance that I will be back up in Derry talking to you all about what we are considering as the way forward. A key issue will be finance, because remediation costs are significant. That is why we have to engage with the Minister of Finance. Ms Ferguson: Thank you, Minister, for the update. As you are well aware, local people, organisations and groups are very keen to continue to engage with you and the Department. Do you have any timescales for when there may be further public engagement with local organisations and residents? Mr Muir: I will need to engage with my officials to determine the outcome of the consultation, which recently closed. I will do that, and I will then write to you setting out some envisaged timescales. We have to make sure that we are doing remediation correctly, because the site is very complex. We will be guided by experts. I thank Derry City and Strabane District Council for appointing the consultants that it did. They fed back to us, which allowed us to have expert feedback on the way forward. That has been very useful. We will come back to you setting out the way forward, however. I know that the site is a concern. In conclusion, if the situation at Mobuoy, at Lough Neagh and at other precious landscapes in Northern Ireland is not a clear example of why I need support from my Executive colleagues to set up an independent environmental protection agency, I do not know what is. Multi-year Budget: Departmental Priorities T9. Mrs Guy asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs what his Department's funding priorities will be under a multi-year Executive Budget. (AQT 1669/22-27) Mr Muir: Thank you for your question, Michelle. We have to make tough decisions to ensure that we balance our departmental budgets. As Minister, I think that it is important that we do that. On the opportunities that lie ahead, we will have a three-year resource budget and a four-year capital budget. I have been engaging with the Finance Minister about DAERA's bids. Out of the resource budget, first and foremost, it is about meeting our statutory obligations, which are TB compensation, pay awards for staff and tackling episodic diseases such as avian influenza and bluetongue. It is important that we meet those obligations. Alongside doing that, we want to continue to invest in farming and agriculture in Northern Ireland. That is why it is important that that funding remain ring-fenced. We also need to invest in environmental improvements, in Lough Neagh, in climate change delivery and in our food strategy framework. Mrs Guy: How will a just transition fund for agriculture benefit farmers while delivering nature recovery and climate action? Mr Muir: Money for the just transition fund for agriculture is something that I bid for from the UK Government last year. We were not successful, so I engaged with the Finance Minister, and we got £12 million this year. I want to see funding for a just transition increased, not just to tackle climate change but to tackle wider environmental issues such as our water and air quality. I am concerned about the budgetary situation in Northern Ireland and the impact that potential overspends in other Departments could have on my Department. It is important to have fiscal discipline in Northern Ireland, and, when you are given a budget, you should stick to it. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Time is up. Top 3.30 pm Mr Burrows: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am concerned that the Justice Minister may have misled the Chamber in her answer to questions about Bailey the dog: specifically, that prison officers are and were trained in the deployment of emotional support dogs, including Bailey; and, secondly, that a suitability assessment was carried out before Bailey was placed in the prison. I engaged with the director general of the Northern Ireland Prison Service and the governor of Magilligan prison, and they said that that was not the case. The Minister needs to clarify and correct the record, if appropriate. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much for your remarks, Mr Burrows. The Speaker's Office will review the Hansard report and respond, if appropriate. I have already said that time is up. Members should take their ease before the next item of business. (Mr Speaker in the Chair) Executive Committee Business School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill: Final Stage Debate resumed on motion: That the Final Stage of the School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill [NIA Bill 12/22-27] do now pass. — [Mr Givan (The Minister of Education).] Mr Speaker: We return to the Final Stage of the School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill. I call Cara Hunter. Cara, I offer you my congratulations on your recent marriage. Some Members: Hear, hear. Mr Speaker: We noticed that you were missing, and, when I enquired about that, I was told that you were getting married. I wish you many years of happy marriage and offer my congratulations. Ms Hunter: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am not changing my name just yet. I am still a Hunter, which is very good. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the School Uniforms Bill. I have to be honest: I am disappointed that the Bill, in its current form, does not engage with issues specific to women and girls. Today, I am wearing a suit. I am wearing dark trousers, and I feel comfortable and confident: that is not a luxury; it is a right. I am sad that that right has not been extended in this case to women and girls of school age across the North. I am disappointed and disheartened that the Bill did not take the necessary steps that many members across the Committee wanted to see. That said, the SDLP shares the Committee's sentiment that, ultimately, we want the Bill to lift the burden of the cost of school uniforms in order to help parents and families across the North. However, our support comes with real frustration, because what is before us today is a far slimmer, safer version of what it could have been. The Bill was introduced because we acknowledge that the average cost of preparing a child for school is close to £1,000. Pivotal, the public policy think tank, found that one in 10 schoolchildren in the North has missed school because they do not have the right kit. That is simply unacceptable. The SDLP will support the legislation today, as the principle is to make school uniforms more affordable and measure fairness into what, frankly, has been an unchecked system for far too long. However, I cannot ignore the fact that the Bill has become watered-down through its passage to the Final Stage. At the earlier stages, Members across the House, including those of us who sit on the Education Committee, listened to hours and hours of debate and put forward constructive amendments that would have made the legislation stronger, more inclusive and more accountable. We engaged on a cross-party basis and had a lot of conversations about what we could do to make the Bill the best that it could be. Sadly, many of our amendments were withdrawn, ruled out or replaced. I particularly note the absence of any commitment to gender-neutral uniform options, which is a real missed opportunity. It is the Committee's duty to listen to the stakeholders that it engaged with and to put forward the needs and wants of our young people. We did a good job of that, and I feel frustrated, as do many members of the Committee. We wonder about the point of the Committee's level of engagement and of listening directly to young people. As the Committee Chair said earlier, what really resonated with us was that this was about comfort and, more importantly, period dignity. I reiterate that it is grossly unfair that, in the 21st century, young women and girls across the North cannot be afforded the same choice in the right to wear trousers. If I am being honest, I find that frankly absurd. Schools should be places of comfort and inclusion, not conformity for conformity's sake. Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): I thank the Member for giving way. Does she accept that it is entirely within the gift of a school, even today, to make provision for the very issues that she has just articulated, and that that, indeed, will continue to be the case? Through the guidance, schools can consider all those matters and can engage and consult with parents and pupils. Within this, there are references to issues around comfort, and that has to take all those issues into account. Ultimately, however, it will still be for the school to decide. There are schools that have already decided to allow girls the opportunity to wear trousers, if that is what the school wants. The difference here is that some Members wanted to make that mandatory for every school in the legislation, which is a slightly different proposition. Schools can certainly do what the Member has articulated. Ms Hunter: I thank the Minister, and I take his point and understand his position. For me, however, this is about equality in all schools. It is about the rights of every young woman or girl at a particularly vulnerable time in their life, when they are starting puberty and managing periods for the first time. It does not go far enough, and I believe that making that mandatory is the way forward. The Committee heard from Menstruation Matters, and I got feedback from parents in my constituency office. Embarrassing moments happen, and periods are a part of life. I have to say, Minister, that this was a missed opportunity, and it was within your gift —. Mr Sheehan: Will the Member give way? Ms Hunter: Yes, I will give way to the Member. Mr Sheehan: The Member may recall the evidence that we heard from a very articulate primary-school child who attends a rural school. Sometimes the class is taken into the field beside the school, and that child said that she has to wear a skirt, whereas the boys can wear trousers, and there are nettles and thistles and so on in the field. It is just not fair and does not provide equality for that girl. Does the Member agree with me on that? Ms Hunter: I thank the Member for his point and wholeheartedly agree. That speaks to the issue of equality and the things that the Bill could have done. I understand the Minister's position that this is ultimately about affordability, but it could have been so much more. As Pat mentioned, it should be about equality and access to education. Girls are going to have a different educational experience, compared with their male peers. We have been talking so much in the North recently about women's health and women's rights and what equality looks like, and this Bill could have done so much more. The Committee heard from specialists such as Menstruation Matters about where the Bill could go and what it could do. When the SDLP introduced the Period Products (Free Provision) Bill, we heard feedback there. I was really disappointed that that was not highlighted here. Our young people expected the Bill to modernise our approach and not just tidy up the guidance. Today, I feel as though they have not been listened to. A disservice has been done here. For a Bill that promised to deliver fairness, we feel strongly that it leaves far too much discretion in schools' hands and, with respect, far too little accountability in the Minister's hands. As the Bill passes today, the SDLP asks the Minister for clear commitments. First, we are asking that the Department collect and publish data on uniform costs every year, not every three years. Secondly, we ask the Minister to review the guidance within the first year of implementation in order to address the issues that we have discussed today, with matters such as inclusivity, gender neutrality and reasonable adjustments for children with special educational and sensory needs. Those are not add-ons but are central to what a fair uniform policy should mean. At its best, a school uniform should remove barriers and should make every child feel equal, confident and part of their community and their classroom. When the cost of a uniform keeps a child at home, however, it becomes the very opposite of what it was meant to be. Families do not want speeches about affordability: they want to see prices fall, and that will depend entirely on how the Department enforces what is passed here today. Without strong guidance, regular reporting and visible accountability, I fear that the Bill, while well-intentioned, could be somewhat ineffective. Today, the SDLP will support the Bill, but let us be honest: it could have been braver. It could have delivered real accountability, real transparency and comfort, particularly for pupils who have special educational needs. As the Committee Chair rightly mentioned, until we see the guidelines, it is hard to know what things will look like moving forward. However, we, as a Committee, and we in the SDLP, will hold the Minister to his word when he says that the legislation will make a practical difference for families. We will continue pressing, inside and outside the Chamber, for policies that truly reflect fairness, inclusion and compassion. That is what families deserve, and what the Assembly should deliver. If I were to grade you, Minister, it should have been an A*, but, today, you get a C-. Mr Sheehan: From the very beginning, Sinn Féin approached the Bill in good faith, and, on that basis, we accepted a shorter Committee Stage. We engaged constructively, tabled amendments to make the legislation stronger, and took Department of Education officials at their word when they told us that the draft guidelines would be shared with us before the summer recess. We were told that, once we saw the guidelines, we would be assured that there was no need to amend the Bill, only to discover that the Minister never intended to give us sight of anything. The Minister then mocked that process in the Chamber. He laughed off the commitments that were made to Committee members by his senior officials. He laughed to himself as he confirmed that we were never going to see the guidelines, despite the promises of those senior officials. I do not believe that the officials had an axe to grind or had skin in the game; I believe that they were just following instructions. That is not good faith. This is serious lawmaking. It is disrespectful to the Assembly and the legislative process, but, more importantly, it is disrespectful to the hard-pressed families who were hoping for meaningful legislation that would give them a break from the spiralling cost of school uniforms. We do not have faith in the Minister's legislation because we do not believe that he is one bit serious about significantly cutting the cost of uniforms. For example, on a radio programme some weeks back, he did not even mildly criticise a school's practice of introducing a separate elite-tier uniform costing £180 to distinguish its high achievers. The Chair said that he does not know of any Minister who would want to bring forward legislation that is not effective. I sort of concur, but I believe that the intention of the Minister is to bring forward light-touch legislation. Families will not notice any significant difference next year or the year after. Families across the North are struggling. They wanted the Bill to deliver relief and fairness. Instead, it was a missed opportunity. The DUP Minister has produced a weak, light-touch piece of legislation that does little to bring prices down, nothing to protect parents from excessive branded demands, and nothing to promote equality or fairness for children and young people. Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way? Mr Sheehan: Yes. Mr Brooks: Does the Member accept that the vast majority of schools are already doing the right thing on uniforms and that it is a minority of schools that are abusing the system, and, therefore, for the vast majority of families, the schools that serve them are already trying their best to keep the cost of uniforms down? Mr Sheehan: I thank the Member for that. I am not sure that I agree that it is just a minority. School uniforms are one of the biggest costs for families throughout the year, especially families who have maybe two or three children going to post-primary school. We mentioned on a number of occasions the example of Craigavon Integrated College, which, in consultation with parents and students, recently designed a new school uniform. That will come in at £2 under the school uniform grant. That is the type of radical thinking that we need, and which we expected here, but we now know that we are not going to get it. When we are talking about reducing costs, that is what we are talking about. We are not talking about reducing something by a fiver. We want a significant reduction in costs for hard-pressed families and parents. Top 3.45 pm Working with others, Sinn Féin tabled sensible, practical proposals that would have done all that — not once, but twice — and they were blocked from even being debated. Let us recap on some of those proposals. One was limiting the number of branded or bespoke items that a school could require. Another was the right for girls to wear trousers if they want to, not at the whim of a principal. I agree with the Minister that there are schools that currently permit girls to wear trousers, but there are also schools that will not permit girls to wear trousers. Every one of us sitting here knows that. There are schools that will refuse girls the right to wear trousers, even during menstruation or when they are uncomfortable because of other issues. That is another opportunity that the Minister missed. There was also the issue of ensuring comfort and practicality of uniforms for our children and young people with additional needs. Some children become stressed or anxious because of the type of materials that uniforms are made of or because of the style of uniforms — for example, ties and shirts closed up to the neck. There is also the issue of supporting schools to facilitate more uniform banks and swap schemes. It is missed opportunity after missed opportunity. We will allow the legislation to pass today because families deserve something rather than nothing, but make no mistake: families deserve better than this. That is why, at Sinn Féin's request, the Education Committee has now agreed to begin exploratory work on a Committee Bill that will correct the Minister's homework, close the loopholes that he left wide open and deliver real affordability, fairness and equality for children and young people. We will not rest until that happens. Families have waited far too long for action, and Sinn Féin will make sure that they get it one way or another, regardless of how long it takes. Mr Brooks: I do not intend to draw my remarks out for too long, because it would be repetition of a lot of what has been said at previous stages. Nevertheless, I am pleased to support and welcome the School Uniforms Bill at Final Stage. This is a positive moment for the Executive, the Minister and the House but, most importantly, for families across Northern Ireland. It goes without saying that I do not share some of the undue pessimism or critique from some of my Committee colleagues. The Bill represents exactly the kind of practical, people-focused legislation that our communities expect from the Assembly, and it addresses real issues faced by ordinary families in a sensible and balanced way. For many parents across Northern Ireland, the cost of school uniforms has been a growing concern. We have all heard from constituents who have struggled each August to meet those costs, and we have heard some examples at the Committee. The one that sticks out for me is the girl — I met her again, in another context, more recently — who felt that she could not engage in school sports because of the prohibitive cost of the uniform. We all see that kind of thing as unacceptable and want to address that. Mr Sheehan: Will the Member give way on that point? Mr Brooks: Yes. Mr Sheehan: The only way to ensure that that situation is rectified is by ensuring that, by right, girls are allowed to wear trousers. They do not have to wear them. They could still choose to wear a skirt. However, if you want to ensure that that young girl whom you are talking about is able to do sport — I mentioned a young girl who has to go into a field with nettles and thistles wearing a skirt — that situation can be changed by bringing equality legislation in here. We all know — I said it earlier — that there are principals who, on their own whim, will not allow girls to wear trousers to school. Mr Brooks: I thank the Member for his point. The point about trousers is, no doubt, applicable to his argument, but I am not sure that it is the most applicable argument to the girl about whom I was speaking. That is more about the fact that she had joined the school the year before and felt that the cost would be prohibitive to her parents given that she only had a couple of years left in the school. That was more about the cost of a PE outfit than about trousers. The Member's point about trousers is on the record, and we can debate that. I have confidence about the Minister's intention, which he appears not to have. I know what the Minister wants the Bill to do, and I am sure that the guidelines will see to that. What the Bill achieves, through greater transparency, affordability and fairness, is a system that works better for everyone. It does not seek to remove local decision-making from our schools, as outlined by the Minister. Instead, it ensures that every school, in setting its uniform policy, must consider the financial realities that families face. The Minister has been clear that schools will face consequences if they do not and that he has every intention of giving those directions where necessary. Some, I understand, have reservations about what the guidelines will say and bring. However, as I said, I am sure that the Minister will show the same drive and determination to make family-focused improvements as he has done on childcare, curriculum and SEN education, and that he will continue to deliver change across the priorities that this party outlined to the public at election time. The DUP has always believed in supporting our schools to make the right choice for their pupils, while ensuring that the policy serves the wider community fairly and responsibly. The Bill achieves that balance. A school uniform should be a source of pride, not pressure. It should bring young people together and not highlight difference. By keeping uniforms affordable and accessible, we make sure that every child can stand on the same starting line, ready to learn and achieve. I pay tribute, therefore, to the Minister for the determined way in which he has steered the legislation through its various stages, and how he has challenged the Committee and Assembly not to dither or delay but to advance as soon as possible, so that families can see the benefits of the legislation, while allowing schools and local businesses adequate time to prepare. Good governance is not about grand gestures or big speeches but about delivering practical results for the people we serve. I trust that that is what we are about to complete our part in doing today and that the outcome will be positive. It shows that the Assembly, in particular with a DUP Minister, can, through common-sense politics, deliver common-sense solutions for local families. I am pleased to support the Bill and commend the Minister and his departmental team on what, I believe, will be the passing of the School Uniforms Bill today. It will be good and fair legislation, and it is proof that the Assembly works for all the people of Northern Ireland. Mr Burrows: I was not present for the evidence sessions or the scrutiny as the Bill went through Committee Stage, but, I know, from what I have heard since, that all the members of the Committee are sincere and passionate about doing what they believe is right for children and parents. That common purpose is refreshing. Not everybody gets what they want in a Bill: the Ulster Unionist Party voted at times with the Minister and at times against him, because we judge things on their merits. Our purpose was to ensure that the core aims of the draft legislation were met: that school uniforms are more affordable and that comfort and practicality lie at the heart of school uniform policy, but that that is tempered with flexibility and discretion for schools in doing nothing that undermines the esprit de corps that comes from wearing a uniform. Therefore, we will vote for the legislation. We think that it is a positive step. Maybe some of the issues that have been raised can be revisited at future times and in future debates. However, it is a good day for parents and young people. Much has been said about the guidelines not being published in advance of the legislation. We take the Minister's word for it: he has obtained legal advice that the best thing is for the guidelines to follow the law. However, that is not to give the Minister a blank cheque. That is not how we interpret it. Clearly, the guidelines have to be of sufficient quality and clarity to achieve the core purpose of the Bill. That is why we have stated many times, conscious of the interpretive rules that courts can use, under the famous case of Pepper v Hart, that we must look at the purpose of the legislation, which is to bring affordability to the very centre of everything that schools do. Its purpose is also to ensure — this is a rigorous red line — that no child is stigmatised, disciplined or excluded because their parents cannot afford kit or uniform. That is why we have put that clearly on the record. Ultimately, that is the litmus test on which the legislation will be judged. We therefore hope, expect and, at this stage, trust, although we are verifying it through the available mechanism, that that is what the guidelines will do. It is a positive day. Mr Sheehan: Will the Member give way? Mr Burrows: Yes, I will. Mr Sheehan: I wonder, because I did not hear this articulated in any of the debates, either in Committee or in the Chamber, where the Ulster Unionist Party stands on the issue of girls having the right to wear trousers to school. Mr Burrows: That is a very good question. There is a need for schools to develop such policies with boards of governors and parents, to consult on them and to come to their conclusion. What we do not want to do is to adopt an ideological position that prescribes what schools do. A sensible balance needs to be struck between having legislation that places a legal duty on schools to ensure that uniforms provide comfort, affordability and practicality — to me, that is the most important "CAP" — and having legislation that gives schools flexibility and discretion and provides for common sense, without that legislation being onerous and overly prescriptive. Let us judge the legislation and the guidelines on their outcomes. The opportunity to do that will be through a review. We are therefore happy to support the Bill. It is a positive day for schools, children and parents. Mr Baker: Minister, let me be clear from the outset that, because of how everything has played out, this is your Bill. It is not the Executive's Bill, the Committee's Bill or even the Assembly's Bill. Rather, it is yours and yours alone. From the beginning, you and your officials have not acted in good faith. The Education Committee, along with its staff, worked around the clock to scrutinise your Bill in a very short time. We did so in good faith, and I regret that now. You have mocked —. Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way? Mr Baker: Yes. Mr Brooks: The Member says that he does not believe that officials acted in good faith. His party colleague said that he thinks that they did. Is there therefore a difference of opinion? Mr Baker: It all boils down to the fact that we were promised the guidelines but never got them. We were told, "You will have them next week or the week after", but we never saw them. Mr Sheehan: Will the Member give way? Mr Baker: Yes, Mr Sheehan: We were misled by officials. I do not believe that they had skin in the game, but I believe that they were acting under instruction from those higher up the food chain. There is therefore no contradiction in what my colleague has just said. Mr Baker: Thank you. As I say, Committee members worked around the clock, because the Minister took the line that we had to work harder. He has mocked our Committee quite a number of times in the Chamber, particularly about its relationships and sexuality education (RSE) inquiry, on which he did not seem to place any value. Mr Givan: Have you finished it? Mr Baker: We have finished our inquiry report. Mr Givan: When is it being published? Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Baker: If you want me to give way, I will give way. You do not have to shout across the Chamber. It is no problem. Had you followed the inquiry and listened to the evidence that we took, particularly from our young people when they talked about violence against women and girls and misogyny — some Members in the Chamber would do well to learn from that evidence — perhaps you would value it, but, then again, you probably would not, because you do not like the voice of equality, Minister. Minister, you asked for trust and faith in your Bill. In reality, everyone in the Chamber will be voting blind today, because your Bill is light on detail. Everything will depend on guidelines that no one has seen, even though they were promised. The Committee will not rest on its laurels. It has agreed to scope out the policy intent of a Committee Bill to amend your School Uniforms Bill. I am disappointed, because the evidence that we heard in Committee did not make it into your Bill. Minister, you will be judged by parents next year. You will have no protections then, and you will not be able to blame anybody but yourself. Our young people have been silenced on equality through the Bill. The Minister and the DUP know that the Committee amendments that were not selected for debate would have been passed by Members and would therefore have been made to the Bill. Everything now depends on the guidelines, but, at this stage, there has been a massive missed opportunity. It is no day for celebration here. We should have been changing mindsets together today, but, unfortunately, we are not. Top 4.00 pm Mr Middleton: On this, the Final Stage of the School Uniforms Bill, I take the opportunity to reaffirm my support for the legislation and to commend the Minister of Education and his officials for showing leadership and bringing forward tangible action to try to make a difference to people in our communities. One of the key commitments of my party was to make a difference for working families. The Assembly and Executive will be judged on what they do and what they bring forward to try to make a difference, and I am pleased that the Minister has brought forward something that will benefit not only my constituents but parents and children right across our communities. The Bill has been the subject of scrutiny at the Committee and in the Chamber. What we have now is a practical piece of legislation that will bring greater fairness, transparency and accountability to school uniform policy across Northern Ireland. The Bill will enable change for the better, whether that is the meaningful consultation with pupils and parents and the requirement that policies are reviewed regularly, or the guidelines that will, hopefully, address key concerns around affordability and practicality, highlighting the importance of access to clothing banks and uniform lending schemes, tackling the issue of exclusive supplier arrangements or, indeed, addressing issues around the eligibility of the uniform grant. Mr Sheehan: Will the Member give way? Mr Middleton: No, thank you. The issue has been well debated. This is legislation that will make a difference. It is right that it now proceeds without delay. I thank the Education Minister for taking action. It is about seeing fair and consistent policy right across Northern Ireland and supporting those families who need it most. It respects school autonomy whilst ensuring that no child is left behind because of what they wear. I am pleased to support the legislation. I believe that it will make a difference, and I urge all Members to unanimously pass the legislation. Mrs Guy: Legislation to tackle the cost of school uniforms has been long-awaited. When the Minister signalled an intention to do so, we welcomed it. When we saw the Bill, it is fair to say that our response and the response of others was, "Is this it?". The truth is that every Member who stands here to speak about the Bill has no idea of whether it will make a financial difference to families. That is the honest truth, and every Member should be honest about that fact. They may believe that it will, but they absolutely cannot know that it will. That is because, despite assurances that we would, we have yet to see the guidelines that the Bill will give statutory force to. Those guidelines and the Department's work to enforce them will be the ultimate test of success. Through the legislative process, we received clear assurances from the Minister that schools that do not comply will be directed to. There can be no scope to allow any school to disregard the guidelines, and we will be watching that space going forward. The Education Committee originally agreed to a longer scrutiny period to be completed by December 2025 at the latest. When it came to the debate on that, it is on the record that Members from different parties changed their position, and we worked to a shorter time frame. "Work harder" was the message from the Minister to the Committee. I do not think that we realised at the time that he was being ironic, as it soon became evident that his Department had done little substantive work to deliver the promised draft guidelines. In fact, we were told that the Department was only starting to seek legal advice and feedback from schools at the Committee Stage. Officials could not answer basic questions on how affordability would be defined. Work on a potential cost cap appeared not to have been started. As we debate the Final Stage of the Bill, it appears that a fair bit of work is still to be done. In that context, I acknowledge the work of my fellow Committee members, the Clerks and the Bill Office team, who pulled out all the stops to do the very best that we could in the time that we had. I want to recognise, in particular, the work of the Committee Chair, my colleague Nick Mathison, who distinguished himself in how he led our work. I cannot help but lament the kind of private Member's Bill that he would have brought had the Minister not taken up the mantle. That is something that we will never know. What we are left with is very much the Minister's Bill, and its impact and effectiveness will ultimately come down to what the Minister chooses to include in the guidance and what definitions he chooses to adopt. Year after year, MLAs have been outraged at the schools that continue to charge excessive amounts for items of school uniform, essentially placing an additional barrier in the way of children accessing an education and requiring families to go into debt in order that their child can go to the school that they choose. I continue to question the mentality of that approach. Ultimately, when the guidelines are published, I will look to see whether they reflect the evidence that the Committee heard and the views that were provided throughout the Department's consultation. Mr Sheehan: Will the Member give way? Mrs Guy: Yes. Mr Sheehan: We have mentioned the guidelines and the lack of integrity that there appeared to have been in the whole process numerous times. Can you think of any reason why draft guidelines could not have been shown to the Committee? The Minister could have said, "This is what I have in mind. Take a look at those and discuss them. If you think that you can do better, come back to me, and we will have a larger discussion about it". That would have been a good way to move forward. We all agree that we need to have greater affordability when it comes to school uniforms and other connected issues. Instead, we have this debate today. Although we are all going to vote in favour of the Bill, we all know that we are divided on its efficacy and on concerns that, when it comes to affordability and equality, it is not going to butter the parsnips. Do you agree with that? Mrs Guy: I thank the Member for his intervention. I agree with much of what he said. I am not going to speculate on what may or may not have been the reason. I can look at the evidence, however, and, as I outlined, the evidence is that the work was not done. Draft guidelines did not come before us because the preparation and work were not done to deliver something that would have been meaningful. It was not put in front of us. I appreciate that one can speculate that the guidelines will perhaps be a disappointment to us, but we will wait and reserve our judgement until we see them. I entirely agree with the points that the Member made about equality. We heard directly from young people and those with additional needs who should have accommodations made. We heard from young girls who wanted to have the option to wear trousers. For the last debate on this, I chose to wear trousers. Today, I have chosen to wear a skirt. The point is that I had a choice. The Bill shies away from giving girls and women the same choice when it comes to school uniforms. I hope that the clear evidence that we heard at the Education Committee from young people and others will give the Minister the impetus to ensure that his guidelines provide that schools must consider menstruation needs and the impact on access to education and physical activity, because, in 2025 —. Mr Mathison: I thank the Member for giving way. Lots of Members have referred to the evidence that the Committee heard from young people. Do you agree that it potentially sets a dangerous precedent if Committees listen to young people and tick the box to say that they have done so, but then produce legislation that seems to pay no heed to a single thing that they told us? It may reduce young people's enthusiasm to engage in the legislative process. Mrs Guy: I thank my colleague for that intervention. I agree entirely. We encourage young people to come, and we assure them that their voices will be heard in policymaking and legislation. Completely disregarding their time and their evidence is hugely disappointing, and it absolutely is a worry that they will just give up, because they will assume that we are just paying lip service to their contributions. Those contributions should be heard and taken seriously. I hope that the clear evidence that the Education Committee heard encourages the Minister to take action on that. Of course, we heard about the urgent need to address costs and their drivers, most notably branded items, excessive PE kits and single-supplier agreements. I am glad that there is some provision in the Bill to tackle the latter. Minister, if the guidelines are good and adequately address the issues that I have raised, I will say that they are good. I want uniforms to be more affordable. I want uniform prices to be fair and to promote equality. What is good about the legislation in some ways is the fact that families will either feel its impact, or they will not. Those who have to pay excessive prices will be able to tell us directly whether prices have come down. Those girls who are being told that they cannot wear trousers will either be able to do so after the legislation is enacted, or they will not. Ultimately, it does not matter what I say here. The judge will be families in Northern Ireland. I genuinely hope that the Bill does not let them down. Mrs Mason: Like many others across the Chamber, I came to the Bill with the real hope that we might see legislation that would make a tangible difference for families who are struggling with the rising cost of school uniforms. I began working on a similar Bill as a private Member, with a real will to help people. I am genuinely gutted at how the Bill has turned out. From day 1, we tried to engage constructively, taking officials and the Minister at their word. We were told to trust the process and wait for draft guidelines, and that, once we saw them, everything would become clear. Well, we are still waiting; we still have not seen them. What did we get instead? We got a Minister who, rather than working with Members, decided to mock the process that we entered into in good faith. He laughed off promises that were made by his officials, as if it were all some kind of joke. There is absolutely nothing funny about parents lying awake at night, wondering how they will afford another branded jumper or PE kit. There is nothing amusing about families having to choose between heating their home and paying for a school crest, wondering how their child will feel in the morning when they have to put on a woollen blazer that makes them distressed due to their sensory needs, or about the guilt that they will feel because they cannot afford to send their child to the school that they want to go to. The Bill could have brought about real change and fairness. Instead, we have been handed something weak, vague and half-hearted. It does not limit the number of branded items or protect parents from excessive costs. It does not guarantee basic equality for girls who want to wear trousers, or for children with additional needs who need comfort and flexibility built into their uniforms. I have heard Members from across the Chamber say that some schools allow girls to wear trousers, and others do not, but we have missed the opportunity to ensure that they all must allow that. Let us be honest: that was not an oversight; it was a choice. The truth is that the Minister has shown no real interest in tackling the root of the problem. As my colleague Pat Sheehan mentioned, only a few weeks ago, when the Minister was asked about a school that introduced a so-called elite uniform to single out top performers, he could not even bring himself to condemn it. If that is the standard of leadership, it is no wonder that we have ended up with a Bill that falls so far short of what families really need. As a mother and someone who hears every week from parents who are exhausted, stretched to their limits and doing their very best, I cannot pretend that the Bill is good enough. It is not. Having listened week in, week out to witnesses at the Committee, including parents, students, suppliers, school leaders and human rights advocates, Sinn Féin and others in the Chamber tabled practical, fair and deliverable proposals that could have made the Bill work; proposals that were designed to bring down costs, promote equality and support schools to set up more uniform banks and swap schemes. Those ideas did not make it into the Bill. That is not democracy, and it is not partnership. That is a Minister closing the door on the people to whom he should be listening. We will allow the Bill to pass, because families deserve something, but let us not pretend that it delivers what they were promised. Mr Carroll: Like many others, I feel that the Bill is a waste of an opportunity to take quick and meaningful action to make school uniforms more affordable. The fact that the Education Committee is considering its own Bill to strengthen the legislation is clear evidence of this Bill's weakness. I do not know whether that is unprecedented, but it is certainly unusual. Some modest proposals in the Bill may — I emphasise the word "may" — have positive impacts. Collecting and analysing data on the cost of school uniforms is worthwhile, but having information on just how extortionate school uniforms are and how quickly prices are rising will mean very little unless something is done to cut costs. The Bill will impose reporting duties, compelling schools to explain why uniforms cost the amount that they do, and it gives the Education Minister the power to cap prices at some future date, if he ever chooses to do so. In short, the Bill does very little to help the hundreds of thousands of families who are struggling here and now. Each year, families fork out hundreds of pounds before their child even starts the new school term. For families with multiple children, that goes into the thousands. Between blazers, jumpers, ties, PE kits and deals with specific suppliers, the cost of sending a child to school is eye-watering. That is before adding in the cost of school trips, meals, travel, technology and all the rest. Last year, a UK-wide report found that families spend upwards of £400 on secondary-school uniforms and nearly £300 on primary-school uniforms. When you take into account PE kits and the unnecessarily high number of branded items for many grammar schools, you see the true price is much higher. The current school uniform grant, at roughly £42 for a primary-school pupil and £67 for a post-primary-school pupil over the age of 15, covers only a fraction of that cost, leaving families having to fork out hundreds of pounds every year. Top 4.15 pm Last year's Parentkind survey found that 66% of families were worried about the cost of uniforms. Uniform costs were by far the source of most anxiety for parents, many of whom were forced to make unacceptable sacrifices just to send their kids to school. If you look at poverty levels, you will see that 41% of parents ration heating, 19% skip meals, and more than one in 10 takes out loans and credit cards to pay for school costs. Families are being put through unacceptable levels of stress and anxiety, and the worst part of it is this: it is entirely unnecessary. There is no need for expensive blazers or branded PE kits, which serve nobody and nothing except the bosses of the companies involved and the outdated sense of prestige that comes with a fancy uniform. I pay tribute to everybody in my constituency who challenges that, in fighting poverty and advocating for people ripped off by expensive uniforms and for those in poverty. The Executive should be ashamed that so many are in poverty and that that has become normalised. There are significant equality issues with uniform policies that the Bill fails to address. Members have mentioned that too many children with special educational needs and female, transgender and non-binary pupils are forced to wear uniforms that are not comfortable or suited to their specific needs, which is cruel. No child or young person should face barriers to education, whether they are related to cost or to accessibility. The state can and should intervene to curtail uniform costs. Although the Bill lays the groundwork for that intervention, I have no confidence that it will result in any meaningful change for families. I would be happy to be proved wrong. Mr Speaker: I call the Minister to make a winding-up speech. Mr Givan: I rise to make the final speech in the Final Stage of the School Uniforms Bill. I thank each Member who has spoken today. At the start of this element of the debate, I pay particular thanks to my officials in the Department of Education for their work. The Bill has involved a significant amount of work, which I prioritised when I first came into office. We needed to make available the necessary support in the Department in order to assemble the team to do that work. That team has engaged in good faith and diligently throughout the process. Officials made themselves available to the Committee: at every request that was made of them, they were there, and they answered the questions to the best of their ability. I put on record my thanks and appreciation for the work of my departmental officials in helping me to get the Bill to this stage. Addressing the cost of school uniforms is something that should garner support across the Chamber. Broadly speaking, I believe that it does, but I find the narrative from some Members and some parties disappointing, though, I have to concede, not surprising. I began the process with an intention to introduce good legislation that would make a difference to families struggling with cost-of-living crises and the cost of school uniforms. That is what I introduced: good, effective legislation that is informed by experts and does what it needs to do but does not replicate or conflate existing law and does not place in primary legislation requirements that render guidelines unworkable in the real world. Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for giving way. I hope that I have been clear that I really want the legislation to be effective. I will be the first to pay tribute to you if it is, but you are making big statements that it will be effective. We will know whether it is effective only when we know what the guidelines do, because that is what the legislation delivers: guidelines that schools must adhere to. How can we be assured that it will be effective when we do not know what the guidelines will ask schools to do? Mr Givan: The Member does not have long to wait for the guidelines to come into effect, but, as I indicated in opening the Final Stage debate, we have already engaged with school principals. The Bill will not come as a surprise to schools; indeed, it was a year ago, on 24 September 2024, that we corresponded with all schools, setting out the anticipated requirements of the Bill and associated guidelines and advising schools to get ready. Some schools have already made changes in anticipation of the Bill; indeed, it has already had an impact. We have kept schools informed, so the guidelines coming into being will not come as a surprise to schools. The Member wanted to put specific detail in primary legislation — this is the difference in some of the approaches that Members have articulated. In order to make changes to that, you would need more primary legislation. Guidance, however, can be updated, evolved and changed much more speedily. In the event that guidance is found not to be effective, it can be changed without having to bring forward primary legislation. If other parties get their way and decide, after the next election, to take the Education Department, a new Minister can bring forward guidance and that can follow a process that will not necessitate primary legislation. Our job is to give the legal force behind that guidance, which then has much greater flexibility to incorporate the points that Members have made. The problem with other Members is that they wanted to put things into primary law, which is not as easily changed and amended. Indeed, the Assembly, having put things into primary law, had to change them because they were not effective. That process has been found to be a suboptimal way in which to create effective legislation. That is a broader point about how this place should, in my view, conduct its business. The guidance will be effective and the Member will not have long to wait. I know that he wants to come back in. I am happy to give way. Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for giving way. Throughout the process, you have been very willing to take interventions as we have debated the draft legislation. Given that it was clear that Members had concerns that they were in the dark about what the guidelines would be, would it not have been helpful to bring us some sort of sense of your intention in order to ease those concerns? There was debate and back and forth in the Committee about how prescriptive primary legislation should be. As those concerns were being highlighted, would that not have helped to ease those concerns and smooth the process to get it over the line? Mr Givan: The Bill's broad purposes were there. They were in the Bill, which Mr Baker says is not the Executive's Bill or the Assembly's Bill, but my Bill. Well, I do not have the power to create a piece of legislation with only one vote out of 90. Mr Baker can vote against the Bill, and then it will not be his Bill. In fact, if he does not vote against it, it will be his Bill. I will watch for you going through the Noes Lobby. Mr Baker: Will the Minister give way? Mr Givan: I will happily give way. Mr Baker: Minister, this is your wee trick that you do all the time. You will take all the praise for yourself when you think that everything is going to go right, but, when it is going to go wrong, regardless of what it is, you want to place the blame on everybody else. Make no mistake: this is your Bill. Mr Givan: Mr Baker has just confirmed that he will vote No. Let us wait and see. When the Division is called, I will see whether Mr Baker votes No and offers himself up as a Teller, or whether he just meekly allows the Bill to go through and then comes off with his highfalutin language that it is all about me. I look forward to his voting No. In fact, not only will he vote against the Bill but he will bring forward a vote of no confidence against the First Minister. That has to be what the three Sinn Féin Committee members do now, because the Bill was brought to the Executive and agreed to by the First Minister — it was placed on the agenda and voted for at the Executive by the First Minister. Then, when it came to Second Stage, it was voted for by Sinn Féin. Mr Baker will now vote against the Bill and lead the charge internally to get rid of his First Minister who allowed a "defective, weak piece of legislation" to go through on this, "no day for celebration". I look forward to seeing how brave Mr Baker is. I think that I already know the answer to that. When it comes to making the legislation, I have made it clear that I am not a legal expert. Others in the Chamber have said that they are not legal experts. On recent evidence, that can hardly be gainsaid. It has been said that mistakes have been made in legislation previously. Again, to be sure, there is evidence of that, but that does not make it acceptable. Such a description does not apply to the School Uniforms Bill. Members have talked throughout the amending stages of the Bill's scrutiny about its being a missed opportunity. Any missed opportunities relate to Members' misunderstanding of the coverage and strength of the draft legislation. It does not simply require a set of guidelines to be sent to schools, which they may, or may not, follow. Prescription of the extent that was sought by Members approaching Consideration Stage and Further Consideration Stage would not have delivered benefits for parents. Placing existing legislation in the Bill is contrary to good drafting conventions and neither strengthens nor provides clarity about how other legislation works with regard to new primary legislation. That the Education Committee is talking about scoping amendments through a Committee Bill before the Bill even comes into operation and before the guidelines are produced — I have assured Members that the guidelines will be shared with schools as a matter of urgency in the coming weeks — demonstrates to me that some of its members have not managed to understand fully what the Bill does. Many of the proposed amendments that did not make it on to the Marshalled List at Consideration Stage were, in my view, technically flawed, conceptually misguided, largely unnecessary and, indeed, potentially unworkable. They are therefore simply not suitable as the basis for legislative provisions if they are ever to reappear in their own Bill. This is about ensuring good law, not wider gestures. It is a matter for the Education Committee to decide how it proceeds with the Bill. Mr Baker was a little bit sensitive to my criticism of the Committee, but I believe that that criticism is well founded. I look forward with interest to the outcome of the Committee's RSE inquiry, which has taken 18 months now. It was meant to be a micro inquiry, yet we are still waiting for its report. We have not yet had a debate on that in the Assembly, and I look forward to responding to it. Its micro inquiry has taken 18 months, yet I am supposed to have confidence in the efficiency and efficacy of the Education Committee to draft its own Bill. Seriously? Perhaps when I am to appear before the Committee next week, it will again be a Star Chamber attacking a Protestant school for two hours. That is all that the members were interested in when I appeared before it the previous time. Some Members: Hear, hear. Mr Givan: I think that the Education Committee is having me appear before it next week, and we will see what areas it covers then. The last time, it certainly did not cover special educational needs or the budget problems that we face. It did, however, cover one school in particular. That is what it spent all its time on. Mr Brooks: Will the Minister give way? Mr Givan: Mr Baker should understand my scepticism about this Education Committee. I will give way to Mr Brooks. Mr Brooks: Will the Minister agree with me that members of the Committee often talk about priorities but that they do not always practise what they preach? Mr Givan: That is a matter for the Committee. I do not want to interfere in how the Education Committee handles its affairs. We will wait and see how, when I appear before it, it handles them. I will move on. I have indicated that it is not for me to dictate the direction in which the Committee goes. We should, however, allow the Bill and the guidelines to become operational and then review how the guidance gives effect to the legislation. That would be a much more appropriate action for the Committee to take. It would allow it to carry out its proper scrutiny role, and I would support it in doing so. It should then reach a decision on whether it wants to introduce its own Bill, but that, again, is a matter for the Education Committee. Let me remind the House that the Bill contains strong duties and powers. It works in conjunction with all existing legislation, including human rights and equality law. It is focused on ensuring that the guidelines cover affordability, comfort and practicality, and it allows for provisions to be put in place to cap costs or the number of branded items, to differentiate between school types, year groups and Key Stages and to support uniform banks or the lending of uniform items to pupils. Ms Sugden: Thank you, Minister, for giving way. I apologise for not having been able to contribute to the debate. I was at another engagement. On the point about equality and what the guidance might do, the Minister will be aware that I tabled an amendment about girls being allowed to wear trousers. To give him an idea of from where that came, an eight-year-old child was so concerned about upskirting that she asked to be allowed to wear trousers. Despite having taken that suggestion to her school principal, he was not having any of it. Can you therefore give a commitment that, in developing them, your guidelines will address that specific issue on the basis of equality, which you have just outlined. Mr Givan: I thank the Member for her intervention. A number of Members have touched on that issue, and I addressed it earlier in the debate. I am getting to the point at which I will speak about equality-related matters. The Bill speaks about comfort and practicality. Those measures are in the Bill and will be reflected in the guidance. The guidelines will not, however, mandatorily require every school to make such provision. That will still be a decision for schools. Top 4.30 pm There is always a balance to be struck as to where that should lie. Should we force that uniform policy on all schools, or do we allow them to develop it, engage with parents and pupils on it, and come forward with it? I err on the side of allowing our schools to navigate the issue, but it is part of the guidance when it comes to comfort and practicality. They should engage on those issues as part of that process. Mr Sheehan referred to it, saying, I think, that it should not be subject to the "whim" of a principal. That is not correct. No principal operates on a whim. Every principal has a board of governors. Every principal is accountable to the school's board of governors. They have to have policies in place. It cannot just be the case that somebody decides one day, "This is the policy, and I am going to enforce it in my school setting". That is certainly not the practice that I had from principals when I was on the boards of governors for schools. Ms Hunter: Thank you, Minister, for giving way. Can you understand that some of us may be a bit perplexed when we talk about equality and the rights of girls to wear trousers and are told that that is already in place and that it is up to schools? That still leaves some schools where girls are allowed to wear trousers and other schools where they are not. How is it true equality, if every girl and every young woman in every school does not have that choice? Mr Givan: Again, I say this to people: campaign on those issues when you are being consulted in your school setting. Change the policy of your school, if you feel that that is the most appropriate for your school setting. That is a matter that is entirely for schools. There is a degree of autonomy — I call it "appropriate autonomy" — in matters of education, where schools should be able to take those decisions. They now have a clear framework through which those decisions have to be taken. Therefore, engage with your schools. Make sure that your pupil voice is heard, because the law now requires that school to take into account the voices of pupils and parents. The fundamental purpose of the Bill is notable. Some Members have majored on the gender-related issue — should it be trousers or a skirt? — when, actually, the biggest issue for hard-working families is affordability. It is the cost; [Interruption] it is the financial burden that is placed upon them. Sinn Féin can shout at me if it wishes. That is fine. Sinn Féin does not believe in school uniform at all. I have heard the Member Mr Sheehan say that he believes that you should not have school uniform. [Interruption.] Well, I have heard the Member say it. Mr Sheehan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has just made an allegation that is completely untrue. I have never uttered the words that he said there. Mr Givan: I stand corrected. Mr Speaker: Mr Sheehan has provided clarity there. If the Minister has evidence otherwise, he can provide it. Mr Givan: I may have misheard the Member before. It was my recollection that that comment was made. I am happy to retract it on the basis of the Member's testimony. Let me make some progress so that we can bring the matter to a conclusion. The Bill contains strong duties and powers. It works in conjunction with all existing legislation, including that on human rights and equality law. As I said, it focuses on ensuring that the guidance has to cover affordability, comfort and practicality, and it allows for provisions to be put in place to cap costs or branded items. It also differentiates between school types, year groups and Key Stages and supports uniform banks or the lending of uniform items to pupils. If Members are looking to see scope for reasonable adjustments to be made for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities, the Bill covers that. If Members are looking for school uniform equity, regardless of gender, the Bill works in tandem with existing human rights and equality legislation. In addition to that, schools will have to consult with their pupils and parents. There are no barriers to uniform equity on any grounds in the Bill. Information will have to be published about the consultation process and the outcome, about costs and about rationale for uniform design, which, again, I remind Members, parents and pupils will be consulted on. It seems somewhat odd to suggest that the Bill lacks anything that is needed in good legislation to deliver the purpose for which it has been introduced: addressing the affordability of school uniforms. I would not introduce legislation unless I were absolutely confident that it will deliver. Let me say that I am confident that it will deliver. It will make a difference for parents, and I can assure Members that it is effective legislation. I had to bring a number of tidying-up amendments through at Further Consideration Stage to ensure that it can work. I have consistently worked at pace to bring the legislation to the Assembly — not to rush, but to make a difference for families who need us to do so and need us to do so now, not in two school years' time. The best interests of the child and the voice of the child are already enshrined in other provisions. They already apply to any departmental guidance that is produced. To suggest that they will be missing from the statutory guidelines on school uniform policies that will follow this Bill is misleading and simply wrong, regardless of whether Members have had sight of draft guidelines. As I have stated, the Bill will operate in the context of existing law, including all existing human rights and equality legislation. The Department of Education is bound by law to act reasonably in exercising its statutory functions, and it should be borne in mind that that necessarily informs attitudes towards fairness, dignity and equality. That is based on legal expertise; it is based on fact, not misunderstanding of legislation. As we prepare to vote on the Bill, let me say this: there is nothing that should concern Members about the content and coverage of the School Uniforms Bill. I brought the Bill in to address the affordability of school uniforms. It will address the affordability of school uniforms. It has all the necessary powers and duties to ensure that it will do that. In addition, comfort, practicality and the adequacy of uniform requirements to support pupils in their learning and to participate fully in all aspects of school life are provided for in the Bill. The Bill places a duty on school managers to adhere to the guidelines, and it will be reported on at least every three years. It appears to me that Committee members who are most exercised would benefit from going through Hansard and looking at what has been shared about what the Bill will do, remembering that those points are all based on legal advice. I keep saying how important words are. Every word in the Bill following Further Consideration Stage has purpose and is important. Those words are not there to take up space on a page but to make a real difference. I welcome the fact that Members will be reviewing how the Bill is implemented. I will be reviewing its impact for parents. I would welcome a greater focus from Members on that impact, because that is the area that I believe that we agree on: the need to address the affordability of school uniforms for parents. I assure the House that it will. I urge Members to vote in support of the Bill. I am confident that scrutiny of its impact will bear out everything that I have said throughout the debates in the Chamber. It is time to put aside party politics. Put parents first. That is what we will achieve in voting for the School Uniforms Bill. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr Sheehan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the course of his hectoring of members of the Committee, the Minister made reference to "a Protestant school". I am not aware of a Protestant school sector. I know that we have the controlled sector and the maintained sector. I believe that what the Minister was trying to do was sectarianise a serious issue that was discussed sensitively in the Committee. That is conduct that is unbecoming of any Minister, and the Minister should withdraw the comments that he made. Mr Speaker: That is not a point of order. We have controlled schools, maintained schools, integrated schools, Irish-language schools and special schools. I might have missed one out, but I do not think that I have. We have schools that are mainly attended by Protestants, we have schools that are mainly attended by Catholics, and there are others that are entirely mixed. The Member has put his case on the record, and it is for the Minister to deal with it. Mr Givan: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am happy to correct the record. I am very clear. The Member knows entirely why he went after Lisneal College: because it caters for a mainly Protestant community. I stand over that. Mr Speaker: OK, Members, we are getting into another debate that has already happened. Question put and agreed to. Resolved: That the Final Stage of the School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill [NIA Bill 12/22-27] do now pass. Legislation Programme 2025-26 Mrs Little-Pengelly (The deputy First Minister): I beg to move That this Assembly notes the Executive Committee’s legislation programme for the 2025-26 session of the Assembly, published in a written ministerial statement on 3 October 2025. Mr Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to two hours for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who speak will have five minutes. Please open the debate on the motion. Mrs Little-Pengelly: Thank you, Mr Speaker. We are pleased to present to the Assembly the Executive Committee's legislation programme for the 2025-26 session. On 3 October, the First Minister and I made a written ministerial statement to advise the Assembly of the legislation that Ministers of the Executive Committee intend to introduce in the 2025-26 session of the Assembly, subject to Executive agreement on the underlying policy and content of each Bill. Ministers believe that the proposals are important and can be introduced as Bills this session. However, while each Minister is fully committed to their delivery, it is important to note that the policy proposals for each Bill will be carefully considered by the Executive ahead of drafting and before introduction to the Assembly, in line with the agreed legislative process. It is important that the House fully understands the process involved. At this stage, it represents the four parties in the Executive and the individual Ministers putting forward their policy proposals for legislation. As yet, the Executive have not seen the policy content of most of those proposals, so our role as First Minister and deputy First Minister is simply to receive those proposals and put them together into a legislative programme. In addition, it is not the responsibility of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to bring those forward; that is the responsibility of the individual Ministers. We will, of course, work with Ministers to encourage them to bring those forward in a timely way, to identify whether there are any challenges to bringing those forward, to find out what the barriers are, and to see whether we can meet what has been set out. As we move towards the end of the mandate, achieving all that we wish to do in legislation will, undoubtedly, be challenging not just for Ministers but for the Assembly and its Committees. That may, in due course, require a further prioritisation of Ministers' proposals to ensure that the legislation that is most needed, with the greatest positive impact on our community, or the most urgent generally, is successfully enacted before the end of the mandate. It will also require all partners in the legislative process — Departments, Ministers and Members — to work together not only to provide effective and workable legislation but to ensure that it is progressed efficiently to meet the needs of those whom it is intended to help. I will now briefly set out the purpose of each Bill as outlined in our statement. The Minister for Communities intends to bring forward five Bills. The Northern Ireland debt respite scheme Bill will aim to establish and implement a scheme to ensure that legal protections are in place for debtors requiring breathing space from credit enforcement. The housing miscellaneous Bill will aim to implement proposals relating to antisocial behaviour. The pensions parity Bill will ensure that pension savers and providers here will benefit from measures included in Westminster legislation. The public authorities fraud, error and debt Bill will aim to correspond to equivalent Westminster legislation to combat fraudulent activity in the welfare system. In order to implement recommendations from the independent review of charity regulation, the Minister also proposes to introduce a charities amendment Bill. The Minister for the Economy recently introduced a Bill to make provision in relation to the renewable heat incentive (RHI) scheme, which is listed in our programme. In addition, a Utility Regulator decarbonisation powers Bill will aim to provide a new advisory function for the Utility Regulator to enable it to support the Department for the Economy in the delivery of the Executive's energy, strategy and targets under the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022. The Minister will also bring forward an onshore petroleum licensing Bill to enact new policy, a Bill to establish a legal framework for a renewable electricity support scheme and an employment Bill to help to increase the proportion of working-age people in good jobs. The Minister of Education will aim to introduce Bills to strengthen provision on inspections, to establish an effective and outwardly-focused professional body for teachers, and to provide for all learners to participate in education, apprenticeships or training until they are 18. The Minister of Finance will introduce the normal Budget Bills as part of the annual financial cycle and will aim to introduce a marriage and civil partnership Bill that will include belief marriages and civil partnerships. The Minister of Health proposes to introduce two Bills on staffing and the control of data processing. The safe and effective staffing Bill will ensure and assure the provision of high-quality care, workforce planning and staff governance. The Health and Social Care (HSC) control of data processing Bill will amend and update existing legislation to protect the privacy of confidential patient information. The Minister for Infrastructure will aim to introduce a ports Bill to provide new and additional powers across several areas of harbours and trust port provision. The Minister of Justice plans to introduce Bills on sentencing and on victims and witnesses of crime. The sentencing Bill will implement decisions from the review of sentencing policy, the consultation on Charlotte's law and the statutory model for hate crime. The victims and witnesses of crime Bill will introduce measures to enhance the experience, protections and outcomes of victims of crime as they engage with the criminal justice system. Top 4.45 pm Finally, as First Minister and deputy First Minister, we will seek to introduce a race equality Bill to ensure that racial equality legislation fully reflects and responds to the needs of our minority ethnic communities and offers them the best protections from racism and discrimination in the environments in which they live and work. On behalf of the Executive Committee, we commend the legislative programme to the Assembly. We hope that Members and Committees will now engage positively with the Ministers responsible for the Bills as we seek to impact positively, in a practical and meaningful way, on the communities that we have been elected to serve. Mr O'Toole: You could have knocked me over with a feather when I saw, on a Friday, 10 days ago, that the legislative programme had arrived in my inbox. If the Executive are, according to their own Programme for Government, "Doing What Matters Most" and, as the deputy First Minister told me from the lectern just a few, short days ago, delivering for the people of Northern Ireland, and if they want to get out and tell people about all the positive things that they are doing, I would have thought that they would have issued a press release, held a press conference or come to the Chamber before now to explain their ambitious legislative programme. No, they did not even issue a press release for the media. The famously publicity-shy First Minister and deputy First Minister did not even issue a press release on the legislative programme. Is it any wonder that they did not? The motion that has been brought to the Assembly today does not ask Members to endorse the legislative programme. The motion does not say that the Assembly "supports" the legislation programme; it says that it "notes" the legislation programme. Does that look as though the Executive are confident in their delivery for the people of this region? They have brought forward a legislation programme and cannot even ask an Assembly that they dominate — nearly 80 out of the 90 MLAs in the Chamber represent Executive parties — to support their legislation programme. No wonder the First Minister has not even turned up today for the debate. Let us go through what is in the motion. Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for giving way. It was remiss of me not to refer to the fact that the First Minister has a family emergency and asked me to step in and cover this item of business. We were to share it, with one opening the debate and the other winding it up. That is not the case due to her family circumstances. Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute. The Member was not in the Chamber when I said that he had five minutes, and that gives him six minutes. Mr O'Toole: I am happy to receive the clarification from the deputy First Minister. We wish the First Minister well. However, the point remains that an Executive should be able to come to the Chamber and say, "Here is our legislative plan for the people of Northern Ireland. Yes, we have different views on the constitution. Yes, we face different ways on the left and right, but we have agreed on a set of priorities. We have agreed on what we need to deal with. We agree that we want to rescue Lough Neagh. We agree that we want to improve the health service. We agree that we want a more productive economy and better jobs for our workers, and that is what we will deliver". They cannot even do that. Not only that but the Executive were late. According to Standing Orders, it is supposed to be within, I believe, 14 or 20 days — I forget which — but they missed the deadline for tabling the legislative motion before the Assembly. Let us look at what is in this "ambitious" legislative programme from the Executive. Most of it is technical or carry-over legislation. Indeed, some of it was carried over from the Executive's legislative programme in 2024. The First Minister and deputy First Minister have a penchant for long delays when it comes to implementing things. They certainly have a penchant for long delays when it comes to responding to Members' questions. However, when I first saw the legislative programme, back in 2024, I did not know that we would be looking at implementing it in 2026. Who knows? When we move on to some of the things that are supposed to be substantive, ambitious and reforming, there is no clarity about whether the Executive will support the legislative programme. For example, we know that workers' rights in this place have been left to languish for a very long time, while other parts of the island have updated workers' rights and employment legislation. There is no clarity yet from this document as to whether the Executive parties are going to support the long-delayed employment Bill from the Economy Minister. I am happy to give way to the deputy First Minister if she will confirm to me now that her party will support that Bill. Mr Brett: Will the Member give way? Mr O'Toole: I am happy to give way to the Chair of the Economy Committee if he wants to tell me. Mr Brett: It is very hard to give support to a Bill that has not even been drafted yet. It would be remiss of me or my party to give carte blanche approval to a Bill that we have not even seen. Mr O'Toole: Well, there we are. The appearance of unity from the Executive crumbles as soon as a question is asked. The DUP Chair of the Economy Committee stands up and says, "No, we cannot agree to this landmark employment Bill, because we have not seen it yet". What are the people of Northern Ireland to think? We had politics students in the Gallery earlier today: what example is it for them that they cannot even rely on an Executive being able to agree their own legislation programme? Earlier, when I asked the Environment Minister, Mr Muir, a direct question about an independent environmental protection agency, which will have to be legislated for — it cannot be done via a memorandum of understanding (MOU) or a written ministerial statement — he said that he wants one. It was in the Alliance Party's manifesto, and there is a review to look at it. I asked him whether it was going to be legislated for — because, if it is, it has to be in this legislation programme unless it is going to be introduced in January 2027 — but he did not tell me, and he responded with a churlish remark about my party. Legislating is a profound trust that is placed in us by the people when we stand for election. It is at the core of our job title: "Legislative" is the middle bit. It should be at the core of a reforming Executive, but they are not a reforming Executive; they are a listless, limp Executive who are addicted to photo ops and chaos. The people of this region deserve better. The Opposition oppose the legislation programme, because it is absolutely pathetic. Ms Bradshaw (The Chairperson of the Committee for The Executive Office): As Chair of the Committee for the Executive Office, I welcome the opportunity to address the Assembly on the legislation programme motion. As this is my first opportunity to speak in this capacity since Ms Bunting's promotion to junior Minister, I congratulate her and thank Pam Cameron for her work in that role. The Committee welcomes the Executive's legislative intentions for the rest of the current mandate. We acknowledge the ambition that is reflected in the 21 Bills that are being proposed. Those span critical areas, from environmental protection and fisheries reform to debt respite and social inclusion and protections for victims of crime. We commend the Executive for setting out a clear framework, but we must now ensure that ambition is matched by action, and our Committee stands ready to play its part. We look forward to hearing more details of the upcoming race equality Bill, which, given recent events at home and abroad, will be vital legislation. The Committee will work to ensure that the legislation is not only well-intentioned but workable, inclusive and responsive to the needs of our diverse communities. Racial equality is one of the most important issues in our society today. It is central to building a fair and compassionate society. I urge the Executive Office and the wider Executive to maintain transparency and engagement throughout the legislative process. The public must see not just what is being proposed but how it will be delivered and evaluated. I reaffirm the Committee's commitment to constructive scrutiny and partnership. Let this legislation programme be a turning point, where words become action and action delivers real change. I will now make some comments in my capacity as an Alliance Party MLA. We welcome the legislation programme. We recognise that it contains 21 Bills across Departments. While it looks impressive on paper, I concur with the leader of the Opposition's concerns that some Bills are a carry-forward from last year's legislation programme. What matters now is that those listed Bills are brought forward. I want to focus on the long-overdue race equality Bill. It is now almost 30 years since the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 was introduced. Northern Ireland has changed profoundly in that time. We are now a more diverse and multicultural place, as I can see clearly in my constituency of South Belfast. As was reported in the media today, almost 2,300 hate crimes were recorded in Northern Ireland last year. As is often noted in the Chamber, those statistics are but a shadow of the true number of people who suffer from and live with discrimination and marginalisation in their communities. The race equality Bill is essential, because it will update and strengthen race equality legislation. There are other legislative priorities that deserve attention. The fisheries and water environment Bill will help to modernise the management of our water systems, improve quality and protect Lough Neagh. That is an example of how lawmaking can match ambition to delivery when Departments work together. I remain concerned, however, about the pace at which some Bills make progress. For example, a public consultation on belief marriage and on raising the minimum age at which people can legally marry ran from November 2021 until February 2022. That was several years ago, which underlines the gap between consultation and legislative delivery. A consultation on divorce and the dissolution of civil partnerships that was launched in June 2025 shows that some of those elements are still under review. People expect follow-through and delivery after a consultation. The legislative programme gives the Executive a real opportunity to deliver for people and communities, but only if ambition is backed by delivery. The proposed Bills require every Department to work to the highest standard and to introduce legislation that is well considered, well drafted and fit for purpose. When we get legislation right, it lasts. It builds confidence, not only in government but in politics itself. People want to see that the Assembly can work and that we will listen, act and deliver laws that make their lives better. This year's legislative programme is a chance to prove that we can move beyond division and deliver practical and progressive outcomes. I want to see an Executive who deliver with purpose, a Committee system that holds them to account and an Assembly that can be proud of the work that it produces. Mr Kearney: To strike a positive note, I welcome the legislative programme that has been outlined and today's debate on it. As legislators, we must grasp every opportunity to improve the lives of the people whom we represent. In the Executive legislation programme for 2025-26, there is very worthwhile legislation from every Department. The Executive Office's proposed race equality Bill, for example, is much-needed legislation. It must be conscientiously progressed at a time at which we face increased racial and sectarian tensions in some parts of society. As Sinn Féin's workers' rights spokesperson, I particularly welcome the proposed 'good jobs' employment rights Bill, which the Minister for the Economy will introduce in the Assembly in January. My party has consistently advocated for stronger workers' rights. That Bill will be the most progressive workers' rights legislation ever introduced in this state. Its strong workers' rights provisions will protect the most vulnerable workers, among them young people, women and citizens with disabilities. It is designed to support workers who find themselves bearing the brunt of unfair and unequal employment practices. They are those whom we describe as the "precariat": those who endure precarious working conditions. That progressive legislation promises to transform workplaces positively through proposals that will bring tangible benefits not only for workers and families but for employers and businesses. The legislation will come at a time when cross-border and all-Ireland economic activity increases to record levels. In that context, the need to build a well-paid, secure and highly skilled workforce to support that continued economic growth is key. Stronger trade union organisation is a foundation on which to maximise productivity and shared prosperity. The 'good jobs' legislation will address fair play in benefits, terms of contracts, leave entitlements, flexible working arrangements and protections from redundancy, thus strengthening union organisation and improving collective bargaining arrangements. The proposed Bill is premised on four key themes: terms of employment; pay and benefits; voice and representation; and work-life balance. It will, for instance, allow workers on zero-hours contracts to move to banded-hours contracts. It will tackle fire-and-rehire practices, ensure that tips are passed on in full to the workers who earned them and give workers a right to disconnect from workplace demands. It will also expand trade union membership rights, strengthen collective bargaining, provide better leave entitlements for carers and implement neonatal pay and leave entitlements for the parents of newborn children. Those elements are among the proposed legislative improvements to modernise our workplace and our economy. The legislation is focused on improving the lives of all our workers and families across our entire community. It is so important that we get it right. I hope that, in the months ahead, the legislation will be scrutinised in a non-partisan way and, moreover, that its focus on strengthening the economy and making life better for workers and families will be supported right across the Assembly. Top 5.00 pm Mr Brett: First, I thank the deputy First Minister for moving the motion. When the Executive present their legislative programme, it is the opportunity for the "constructive" Opposition to tear into the Executive, highlight their failings and set out the Opposition's alternative legislative programme. It will not be lost on the people of Northern Ireland that we have one Member from the Opposition present in the Chamber now. We have one Member from the SDLP. Others came, read out their pre-scripted remarks and then left the Chamber. The opposition that sit on the left of me cannot even bother to turn up either. Therefore, when those parties call out and challenge the Executive parties, which turn up and speak up for the people of Northern Ireland, let them look at the empty Benches, and that will give them the answer. [Interruption.] Do you want me to give way? [Pause.] That is another helpful intervention from the Member for Newry and Armagh. I want to put on the record the Opposition's obsession with legislation. Legislation does not always mean good government. We have witnessed legislation passed in the House that has not been good legislation. The Climate Change Act, to which Members of the House tied themselves, is the very reason for the A5 project now being stalled, and our investment strategy needs to be under review because that Act is hampering growth. One of the first acts of this Assembly mandate was to undo a private Member's Bill that introduced free parking at hospitals, and that was necessary because Members lined up behind a populist cause to try to get that legislation passed before the election, even though they knew that it could not be delivered. I have a message for the Opposition: when you win elections, you get to set the legislative agenda. Our Ministers have the right to bring forward whatever legislation they see fit, because that mandate was given to us by the people of Northern Ireland, who placed us in government. I want to speak about a number of the Bills that are included in the programme, the first of which relates to the Department for the Economy. I welcome the Minister's progress on the RHI closure Bill, the detail of which, as we have seen to date, reflects a good deal for those who entered the scheme in good faith and those in the public who want to see a value-for-money scheme. I also welcome the Utility Regulator decarbonisation Bill, though I will look, in my roles of Chair of the Committee and DUP economy spokesperson, to expand the role of the Utility Regulator, who plays an important role here in Northern Ireland. In my view, the Utility Regulator's advice should not just be confined to the Department for the Economy, because the Utility Regulator has a vital role to play in advising other Departments so that we can meet as many of our legislative targets as possible. The 'good jobs' Bill has been mentioned already, and, as a party, we want to see the rights of workers being strengthened and workers across Northern Ireland being treated fairly. We will ensure that any Bill that comes forward from the House has the support of workers and our business community. I have not seen the detail of that Bill, but, once it is published, we will look at it in great detail and consult stakeholders, those in the workplace and businesses, to ensure that we have legislation that is fit for purpose. I thank the First Minister, the junior Ministers and the deputy First Minister for setting out the legislative programme. The leader of the Opposition criticised them for not giving a press conference or issuing a press release on this issue, yet he would be the very first person to stand up and criticise the First Minister and deputy First Minister had they not brought the issue to this very place first. You cannot have it both ways, and it is clear that there is no constructive Opposition in the House, just one Member from Newry and Armagh who shouts out random statements. Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): I will contribute to this debate on the Executive Committee's legislation programme. This is not about debating the merits of any individual Bill: it is about how we legislate, balance ambition with realism and uphold the standards of scrutiny that the public rightly expects. The Communities Committee faces an intense legislative workload. We have five more Executive Bills, added to a number of legislative consent motions, a constant stream of statutory rules and an unknown number of Members' Bills. I declare an interest in that I am working on a Member's Bill on homelessness. The message from the Committee for Communities to the Departments is simple, and I can distill it into three key asks. First, provide clear information early. Departments must share legislative proposals, intent, consultation responses, draft clauses, delegated powers maps and policy intent before formal introduction. Secondly, they must start pre-legislative scrutiny now. Whether agreement has been reached with the Executive should not be used as a reason to delay engagement with the Committee. Thirdly, they should not rush the legislation. Time needs to be built in for proper calls for evidence, equality screening and testing of delegated powers. The legislative workload for the Communities Committee is as follows. The Executive statement of 3 October sets out an ambitious 21-Bill programme and acknowledges the significant commitment that this will require from Committees. For Communities, that includes five more departmental Bills, including a debt respite scheme Bill, a miscellaneous housing Bill, a pensions parity Bill and a charities amendment Bill. That is before we count Members' Bills, all of which deserve the same open, evidence-based scrutiny. Meanwhile, the delegated legislation pipeline remains heavy. In the previous session, the Communities Committee handled 38 SL1s and 35 statutory rules (SRs), covering everything from welfare mitigations to regular pension upratings. Members may recall the Social Fund Winter Fuel Payment Regulations 2024. Then, I made the point that the absence of an equality impact assessment left the Committee having to approve a rule without the full information that it wanted. That is not a position that we should ever be in again. Adding to that, there is a number of legislative consent motions (LCMs), including the current live one on pensions, and it is clear that the scrutiny system for the Committee for Communities is already running at full stretch. Therefore, it is important that we manage this load responsibly. The Committee's capacity is finite and we will prioritise legislation, but this cannot be done at the expense of rigour. The public interest is not served by cramming complex Bills into shortened or truncated windows. We therefore ask the Minister for Communities and the Executive to match this legislative ambition with practical support and transparency. Specifically, as a Committee, we ask for early sight of draft clauses, explanatory and financial memoranda and any intended amendments; a delegated powers memo or map for each Bill to show what will be done by statutory rule and when; a forward plan of SRs, affirmative and negative; realistic expectation for Committee Stages, allowing adequate time for public consultation, equality screening and clause-by-clause scrutiny and forward or advance consideration to be given to resourcing, both within the Department and across the arm's-length bodies, advice sector and community and voluntary sector organisations, some of which are on a funding precipice and may be needed to deliver future legislative change on the ground. That is a clear ask from the Committee. The Executive have acknowledged the load on Committees, and we now need that recognition to translate into realistic timetables, early engagement and openness with information from the Department. If Departments share material in a timely way, Committees can work constructively and improve legislation. If they hold back until the last minute, scrutiny can become a box-ticking exercise and the public will lose out. The Communities Committee will be constructive, fair and rigorous. We will listen, test and amend where necessary. Our aim is good law that works for people and communities across the North. I will make a few remarks, briefly, as Sinn Féin spokesperson. While I appreciate that several important Bills are coming forward from the Department for Communities as well as the Sign Language Bill, which is already with the Committee, it is disappointing that there is no planned legislation in a number of key areas — for example, in the area of gambling reform, where there is an urgent need for legislation. When I pressed officials on that, they said that they were postponing it until the next mandate. That further delay will only serve to ensure that the North falls further behind in mitigating the harm caused by gambling. We also need to see further work done to build on the work that Deirdre Hargey did on private tenancies; a second tenancies Act is needed to complete that work. Finally, the Committee will also play a vital role in scrutinising a number of very important Members' Bills, including, as I mentioned, my Bill and Ciara Ferguson's Bill, which will tackle unfair letting fees. Mr Butler (The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs on the legislative programme. I will take a few short moments to comment on that, as it seems that DAERA has only one further Executive Bill to come forward in this mandate — the fisheries and water environment Bill — which has already been outlined by some Members in the Chamber. The Committee spent some time scrutinising and helping the Minister to deliver the Agriculture Bill, which has received Royal Assent. We are now looking at the Dilapidation Bill in Committee Stage. The Committee's call for evidence closed on Friday, and we have commenced our oral evidence sessions. We are holding an online event with the Youth Assembly tomorrow night, so I say this to any members of the AERA Committee who are here: I want to see you online tomorrow night with our young people. The AERA Committee recognises that, beyond our usual stakeholder group, it is really important to get the views of young people when creating legislation. The consultation on the fisheries and aquaculture policies for the development of the fisheries and water environment Bill closed on 11 September. Previous correspondence to the Committee on 3 July 2025 indicated that it was the intention to consult on the water quality element separately and that both consultations would inform the drafting instructions for that Bill. On 18 September, the Committee was briefed on the policy proposals and the underlying intent of the protection of the water environment aspect of the Bill. The public consultation process is live and will close on 6 November 2025. We await the outcome of that consultation. We understand that the aim is to introduce the Bill in mid-2026. The Committee certainly hopes that it will be no later than that, because we want to have time to scrutinise in detail such a wide-ranging and important Bill. We note that the Department continues to apply the Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966, which, I am sure, most accept is relatively dated primary legislation. The Committee recognises that the issues relating to fisheries and the water environment have changed significantly since 1966, and that a new Act is required to fully consider the wider ecosystem and sustainable development. The Committee has highlighted the importance of growing the aquaculture industry in Northern Ireland and the impact that water quality has on that sector. We commissioned research from RaISe, and we have taken evidence from the aquaculture sector. We hope that the forthcoming Bill will assist the growth of aquaculture in Northern Ireland and, helpfully, improve water quality. Speaking of dated legislation, we would like to have seen a new agriculture Bill, but, unfortunately, it does not seem as though that will happen. Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way? Mr Butler: Yes. Mr O'Toole: I will be brief. He talked about the Bill that he wanted to see. Lots of us wanted to see a Bill to create an independent environmental protection agency. I think that we had it confirmed today that the opportunity for that has timed out and that it cannot happen in this mandate. Is that his understanding as Chair of the relevant Committee? Mr Butler: I obviously cannot speak for the Minister in my capacity as Chair, but given the truncated timescales that we have left, it is very unlikely that something of that significance will see the light of day. However, I am sure that all those things are up for discussion in the Chamber. The present Agriculture Act dates from 1949, which trumps 1966. Indeed, a new, comprehensive agriculture Act was one of the options that was considered prior to DAERA's deciding on the small Agriculture Act that was recently passed to amend the two legacy EU common market organisation (CMO) schemes. However, we heard that scoping on the need for a comprehensive Northern Ireland agriculture Bill was at only an early stage and that gaps exist in the primary powers that are needed for the Department's new farm support and development programme. The Department is using those powers actively at the moment in the development of some of its SRs. To conclude, the Committee has seen DAERA recently run into problems in making regulations for the new farm support and development programme under the powers in the 1949 Act. DAERA was advised by the Examiner of Statutory Rules to bring forward amending regulations to ensure that it remains within the vires by amending the definition of "authorised persons" and removing offences and penalty regulations in the Horticulture Pilot Scheme Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025, the Beef Carbon Reduction Scheme Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2023 and the Suckler Cow Scheme Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025. That ends my comments as Chair of the AERA Committee. I will make a few closing remarks, if that is OK, Mr Speaker. I thank the deputy First Minister for moving the motion this afternoon and the junior Ministers. I express my party's concerns to Sinn Féin and the Sinn Féin leader about what may be a family matter. I will make a few points about the Executive's legislative programme. It should be one of those flags that we put in the ground early in any mandate to indicate to people that we are serious about making changes here and that the legislative programme matches up with the provisions in our Programme for Government. It could be argued by some, and probably will be by the Opposition in the coming weeks and months, that it probably does not. Top 5.15 pm What we are witnessing is stovepiped scrutiny, stovepiped delivery and, as the Member for North Belfast pointed out, some of the last legislation that we made in the previous mandate should not cover us all in glory because when we have compressed times in which to legislate, it is really difficult, not just for legislators and Committees to scrutinise the legislation but for those who are drafting the Bills and giving the legal oversight. I hope that we are learning lessons. We have come back from two truncated periods when we did not have an Assembly, and that is why we faced those periods in the previous two mandates of having to do rushed legislation, and that should never be the case. I know that the Committee on Procedures did a piece of work with you, Mr Speaker, to make sure that the legislative programme is actually an important step at the start of every mandate. Let us hope that, in 2027, after the next election, that is what we do. Mr Martin (The Chairperson of the Committee for Infrastructure): I will make a few short points as the Chair of the Infrastructure Committee. DFI has brought forward one Bill on the legislative programme, which is the ports Bill. It is intended to provide new or additional powers to several harbours and trust ports. There were consultations on that in 2006, 2014 and 2024, which raised the issue of the reclassification of trust ports in Northern Ireland. The Committee has undertaken some pre-legislative scrutiny on the proposed legislation, from departmental briefings in October 2024 and September 2025 and also visited Belfast harbour in May of this year. The Committee looks forward to receiving the Bill and scrutinising it as appropriate. I will say a few words as the DUP lead on infrastructure. As has already been noted, the Minister intends to bring forward the ports Bill. We will scrutinise that when it comes before the Committee. Note should also be made that we have, at the moment, the Water, Sustainable Drainage and Flood Management Bill, which we are scrutinising. We certainly hope to have that scrutiny finished by the summer recess. The Department is facing a range of challenges. We have issues with miscommunication in our sewerage systems, and the current impact of that is a build-up of difficulty with new housebuilding. There is no legislation from DFI on that particular issue. Perhaps, to be fair, legislation may not be the issue, but it certainly lies with Northern Ireland Water and will be problematic if not solved in the future. It is also worth reflecting on the impact of previous legislation, as was noted by my colleague. For example, the Climate Change Act is proving particularly difficult. We are more than aware of the A5 judgement and the case surrounding that. I certainly remain concerned that, as it stands, that judgement and, in particular, the Climate Change Act, will not just affect the A5. The Committee knows that there are about £1 billion-worth of priority infrastructure projects in the pipeline, and some, if not all, of those could be negatively impacted on or wholly stalled in the future. To be fair, that is not particularly within the Infrastructure Minister's vires. Any alteration to climate targets lies with the AERA Minister to take action and bring that to the Executive. I remain concerned that, without significant change, major infrastructure in Northern Ireland could well be impacted on in the future. I will now make some brief comments on behalf of Education colleagues on the plan for the Department of Education's legislative programme. There are three pieces of legislation that the Department plans to bring forward, and I will deal with them briefly. First is the schools inspections Bill, which was a direct recommendation from the independent review of education in December 2023. It will bring this place in line with every other area in the United Kingdom and, for that matter, the Republic of Ireland. The impact of the situation as it stands is that 75% of school inspections in the past eight years have been impacted on by action short of strike, which is deeply concerning. In fact, an official said that that means that the Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI): " is unable to provide assurance to parents, carers, school communities and all stakeholders on the quality of education" that is provided to pupils, because it is unable to evaluate the outworking of the safeguarding arrangements. The Bill should take care of that. I also note the improvement in relationships between schools, the unions and ETI over the past number of years. The second piece of legislation is the General Teaching Council Northern Ireland (GTCNI) reform Bill. I have some personal experience of that area from when I was in the Department. It will reconfigure the GTCNI, and it should not be contentious legislation. Finally, the 16-18s in education and training Bill will provide learning for everyone in Northern Ireland all the way up to age 18. I warmly welcome all three of those Bills. I commend the Minister for bringing them forward. On a passing note, I also congratulate him for the School Uniforms Bill's passing at Final Stage. Mr Dickson: As a member of the Executive Office Committee, I welcome the publication of the Executive's legislation programme. It is right that the Assembly debates it today and that we do so with honesty, because, despite all the talk of ambition, the programme is remarkably light on legislation. Of course, some legislation is already in play, but it is certainly not an exhaustive list of what the Executive need to do. In fact, in the programme that has been presented, only one Bill remains for the Executive Office Committee, which is the race equality Bill. It falls directly within the Executive Office's remit. At a time when equality gaps persist and measures to deal with key shortfalls in gender, disability and age discrimination legislation remain stalled or buried in consultation papers, that is not the level of drive or ambition that people expect to hear from the Executive. Northern Ireland's equality law is now badly fragmented and far too complex. There are major gaps and inconsistencies across the system. Different equality laws provide different levels of protection, creating a hierarchy of rights that means that some people are better protected from discrimination than others. Over time, those gaps have only widened, leaving us lagging behind international standards and behind our neighbours in Great Britain and Ireland. After almost two decades of promises, we still await the single equality framework that everyone knows is needed. The Equality Commission has already set out five priorities for change to our race equality laws: the harmonisation and expansion of the scope of racial grounds; the extension of protection against discrimination and harassment by public bodies; the introduction of combined discrimination provisions; the protection of workers against third-party racial harassment; and the widening of the scope of positive action. The road map is clear; what is missing is the political will. It matters, because we do not debate the programme in a vacuum. Recently, we witnessed what might have been called a "summer of discontent", a period during which racial hatred was dragged into the open for all to see; families were driven from their homes; election posters were burned as usual; and flags and effigies were used to intimidate. The PSNI's latest report makes for grim reading, with 2,049 racist incidents and 1,329 race hate crimes in the past year. Those are the highest figures since records began in 2004. Behind those numbers are, regrettably, our neighbours, our colleagues and children who are forced to live in fear simply because of the colour of their skin or where they were born. Amnesty International described this year as one of "hate and fear" in Northern Ireland and warned: "Hate crime thrives when politicians deliver words but no action." This is not a sudden spike but the result of years of complacency, inaction and the Assembly's absence. The race riots and violent attacks on migrant families in June were not isolated events; they are a symptom of a society that has failed to confront racism honestly and a warning of what happens when leadership goes missing. Our ethnic minority communities have had an understandable loss of faith in government, and they deserve much better. We need bold programmes, not sticking plasters. We must finally bring our law into line with the rest of these islands and go further. We need to close the gaps in the Race Relations Order 1997 and explicitly honour those requirements and obligations under article 2 of the Windsor framework. We need to build a Northern Ireland that genuinely protects and celebrates diversity. We want to see a Bill that is introduced early, consulted on widely and drafted in such a way that it has the lived experience of minority ethnic communities at its heart. The Department of Justice is bringing forward further legislation, but I will highlight two areas that connect directly to that work. The forthcoming sentencing Bill will bring in Charlotte's law, implementing a statutory aggravator model. The victims and witnesses of crime Bill will complement those reforms by ensuring that there are automatic special measures for hate crime victims through prohibiting in-person cross-examination and establishing the post of a commissioner for victims and witnesses of crime, who will be able to assist victims and witnesses. Ultimately, the Executive legislation programme will be judged not by the number of Bills that are introduced but by the substance of what is delivered. A race equality Bill will give the Executive a chance to prove that equality is not an afterthought but a foundation: a chance to rebuild trust, to show courage and to state clearly that every person who calls Northern Ireland home belongs here in full and equal measure. Ms Murphy: I welcome the motion on the Executive legislation programme, which sets out an ambitious and wide-ranging future legislative agenda. I will take a moment to highlight some of the priorities that are coming forward. As a member of the AERA Committee, I welcome the inclusion of the fisheries and water environment Bill. It is an important and timely step in modernising how we manage and protect our aquatic environments. As we take it forward, it is essential that DAERA's approach be balanced and proportionate. Protecting our environment must go hand in hand with supporting our rural communities, which already play a central role in maintaining and improving environmental standards. As a member of the Committee for the Executive Office, I welcome the inclusion of the race equality Bill. That long-awaited legislation carries huge importance for communities across the North. The disgraceful riots that we witnessed in the summer show just how necessary such protections are. With families having been intimidated from their homes in parts of Belfast even in recent weeks, we must send a clear message to our minority ethnic communities that we stand firmly with them and that everyone has the right to live safely, peacefully and with dignity. That Bill will ensure that our racial equality laws fully reflect and respond to the needs of minority ethnic communities. I look forward to supporting that legislation though Committee Stage and seeing the positive impact that it will undoubtedly have on all our communities. It would be remiss of me not to mention the onshore petroleum licensing Bill that my colleague the Economy Minister, Dr Caoimhe Archibald, will be bringing forward. Although it will not fall within the remit of my Committee work, it is an issue that is close to my heart. One of my first acts when I joined the Assembly back in 2021 was to introduce a private Member's Bill to ban fracking, continuing the work of my predecessor, Seán Lynch. I have seen at first hand in my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone the anxiety and disruption that even the threat of fracking has on a community. Sinn Féin has been steadfast in its support of those communities by standing firmly against fracking. Taken together, the Bills that I have mentioned, alongside the wider Executive legislation programme, reflect a shared determination to deliver meaningful change. I look forward to working with Ministers, Committees and Members from all parties to ensure that the Bills deliver tangible benefits for the people whom we represent. Mr T Buchanan: I will focus my remarks on the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. It is disappointing that the only legislation in the Executive legislation programme for 2025-26 that the AERA Minister has brought forward is the fisheries and water environment Bill. Although that is important legislation, the Committee is looking at other issues, which the Chair of the Committee outlined. There are issues of equal and greater importance that still appear to be sitting on the shelf rather than being included in the legislative programme. I refer, first, to the bovine TB crisis. That is still a huge burden on the agriculture industry, yet it is somewhere in the abyss, costing the Department in excess of £60 million a year, which is increasing year-on-year, with Northern Ireland facing one of the highest rates of bovine TB in Europe. A new TB partnership steering group has been established to explore proposals to eradicate bovine TB, but it has no powers. In fact, it is just a further stalling exercise. What is required is for the Minister to bring forward a delivery plan and legislative proposals that will reduce the high level of bovine TB in Northern Ireland and the associated cost incurred. Not to have such legislation is therefore a failing on the Minister's behalf. Top 5.30 pm We then have the ammonia issue, which is a serious hindrance to farm businesses expanding or upgrading their buildings, and all because no balanced approach has been taken or common sense applied and unachievable targets have been set by the Department. Rather than farm businesses being able to upgrade their buildings and, by doing so, significantly reduce their ammonia levels, they have to continue with outdated buildings, thus creating much higher ammonia levels. It is time that the AERA Minister took a common-sense approach to the issue and put forward balanced and workable legislative proposals that will see a significant reduction in ammonia levels, rather than working with unachievable targets that are causing untold delays by the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA), as it grapples with planning applications that seek to provide consultation responses based on such unworkable targets. The Department really needs to begin to focus on what is achievable, workable and important to the agriculture community. The just transition for agriculture raises huge concerns about value for money. With climate change targets set at a level that not only is unachievable and unworkable but has detrimental consequences for large capital infrastructure projects, such as the A5, which was mentioned, and all future infrastructure projects, it is disappointing but not surprising that the Minister has failed to bring forward legislative proposals to reduce those targets, which were set by all parties in the Chamber apart from ours and the TUV. We need targets that are more realistic and achievable and that do not have detrimental consequences for infrastructure projects that are so important to the people of Northern Ireland. I hope that the AERA Minister is listening and will begin to focus on the issues that matter rather than on the continual rhetoric of climate change that cannot and will not deliver the positive outcomes that we, the people of Northern Ireland, require. Mr Chambers: With a reduced mandate, the Assembly and the Executive, right from the restoration in February 2024, were on the back foot with the time available to consider and pass legislation. Nevertheless, I welcome today's publication of the legislative programme. The list is likely to be accompanied by a range of Members' Bills. As a Back-Bench MLA, I respectfully suggest that it would be helpful if Members were to receive a written update at some point as to the range of Members' Bills that are being considered and the indicative timescales of some that are coming forward. I speak primarily to support two critical Bills in the Executive programme: the safe and effective staffing Bill and the HSC control of data processing Bill. Taken together, the two Bills will strengthen the safety of health and social care services and the integrity and trustworthiness of how we use and protect healthcare data. As Members, many of us are well aware of the background to what was previously referred to as the safe staffing Bill. It was a key element of the framework agreement that led to the suspension of the industrial dispute that was secured by my party colleague Robin Swann in 2020. We cannot expect excellence in patient care if our workforce is under-resourced and unsupported. Passing the Bill will send a clear signal that patient safety and dignity, staff well-being and service integrity are not discretionary but statutory. I am therefore pleased to see Minister Nesbitt deliver on that. However, we also need to be clear that, while legislation will help, what would most help and reassure members of our workforce right now would be to give them the pay award that we all know that they fully deserve. Whilst the Chamber has the ear of the First Minister and deputy First Minister, I will say that it is most regrettable that we are still waiting for the Executive to consider and agree the Health Minister's ministerial direction request to deliver this year's pay award. With every day that passes without a resolution being found, our workforce becomes increasingly demoralised and frustrated. We are staring down the barrel of widespread industrial action that is likely to be much more significant than the 2020 action that spurred the development of the Bill. The HSC control of data processing Bill is about ensuring trust, accountability and lawful use of deeply personal health information in an era of digital care. It also presents Northern Ireland with a further important opportunity to align with wider legislative frameworks, such as United Kingdom data protection law and, importantly, ethical frameworks for AI and digital. Both Department of Health Bills are essential if we are to modernise Health and Social Care in a safe, transparent and effective way. I look forward to their coming to the Chamber and the Committee. Miss Brogan: I am pleased to welcome the legislative programme from the Executive Committee. It is an ambitious body of work for the session and one that I am sure that we are all eager to get our teeth into. As a member of the Communities and Infrastructure Committees, I am glad to see several pieces of legislation come our way that will be warmly welcomed and will require detailed and careful scrutiny in each Committee. In addition to the Bills in the Executive Committee programme, we are already working on several other Bills, such as the Sign Language Bill, which the Communities Committee is scrutinising. That Bill will give long-overdue support and recognition to our deaf community. We also have the Water, Sustainable Drainage and Flood Management Bill, which the Infrastructure Minister, Liz Kimmins, introduced. That forms part of Minister Kimmins's three-pronged to tackling water infrastructure issues across the North. It will integrate innovative and sustainable drainage solutions into housing developments and provide grants for measures to protect domestic buildings from flooding. I am particularly pleased to see the ports Bill in the legislative programme. That has been the subject of significant work by Ministers Liz Kimmins and Caoimhe Archibald. They recently met representatives of Belfast harbour on the subject, and the general feeling is that the proposed changes are urgently needed if our ports and harbours are to remain competitive. The work and operation of ports have changed over the years, and they now face additional costs, such as high supply-chain inflation and the requirement to decarbonise. The new and additional powers outlined in the ports Bill will allow Belfast harbour and other harbours to grow while maintaining appropriate safeguards so that the Department can ensure that ports are efficient and competitive while still operating in the public interest. There is a lot of work ahead of us. With this ambitious programme to work through, it is crucial that we do not become complacent. We must continue to listen to the concerns of our constituents and forge ahead with additional projects and legislation that will support workers, families and communities. Miss McAllister: I will speak first about a number of pieces of Health legislation that are in the programme and some that are not in the programme but which have previously been outlined to Members, particularly those on the Health Committee, as part of our first-day brief. I echo the sentiments expressed by Members, particularly my colleagues on the Health Committee, about the safe and effective staffing Bill. It is very important that we have a health workforce that is able to carry out its duty without fear that its members do not have the appropriate help on hand to deliver the job. It is long overdue, having been initially proposed by Minister Swann for nursing staff in 2020 and expanded to all professional groups in 2022. The consultation closed a year ago, so we are eager to see the report and a summary of the responses to it. What will be most important, as with a lot of the Bills, is its implementation: what it actually means on the ground for the people who are affected. Another Bill that we wanted to see come to the Assembly before the mandate ends is the minimum unit pricing Bill. It is very unfortunate that we will not see it any time soon. It was stated in the first-day brief that it was in the pre-drafting stage for introduction early next year. I am disappointed that it seems as though that will not happen. It has been stated numerous times at Committee that the duty of candour Bill is being progressed by the Department. However, we have learnt that it has been paused. Although the Hillsborough law is being moved through Westminster, there is still an element of playing catch-up. That comes in the organisational duty of candour meeting the individual duty of candour. It is important that we continue to engage on those issues. There is no point in making promises that cannot be kept, or which you had no intention of keeping from the very beginning. I am looking forward to seeing elements of a number of other Bills, particularly around Charlotte's law. The disclosure of the location of victims' remains is so important to everyone in society, despite the fact that, thankfully, it affects only a very small number of people. We cannot overestimate the effect that it has. I look forward to seeing Charlotte's law introduced here in Northern Ireland. I am also particularly looking forward to the later stages of the Justice Bill. I will table amendments to the Bill that have already been consulted on at the Policing Board and by the Department. It is really important that all Members participate eagerly in all pieces of legislation so that we can improve them where necessary and can also bring our ideas to the table. Something that I am proud to be part of in a working democratic Assembly is the passing of legislation. I will touch for a moment on the independent environmental protection agency. Alliance completely supports an independent environmental protection agency. Minister Muir has taken decisive action to see that delivered. [Interruption.] The Member can laugh and smirk. It is not churlish to point out the hypocrisy of the SDLP. When it comes to an independent environmental protection agency, Minister Muir has delivered more in a short mandate than the SDLP did in the five years that it held the post. Mr Durkan: Will the Member give way? Miss McAllister: Yes. Mr Durkan: Will the Member tell me what Minister Muir has delivered on an independent environmental protection agency that had not previously been done or delivered? Miss McAllister: I did not say that he had delivered the independent environmental protection agency; I said that he had taken steps to do that. I think that you misheard me. We know that it has not been finalised yet, but we look forward to the finalised report's coming out. I am sure that the Minister can give an update on that. The interim recommendations in the report that was commissioned by Minister Muir highlighted the fact that an independent environmental protection agency should be established. Many parties in the Chamber missed the opportunity to vote that into the Climate Change Bill in the previous mandate. I welcome the many elements of animal welfare legislation from Minister Muir. It is an issue that all Members across the Chamber are contacted about every single day. We know how passionate people are. We are passionate about protecting animals, which cannot speak up for themselves. I look forward to the many pieces of animal welfare policy that will be implemented through legislation from the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. Another Member mentioned Members' Bills. Another opportunity that I welcome as an individual MLA is to bring forward legislation in the House, because it is not only about the Executive's programme but about using our powers as individual MLAs to change issues. I hope to pursue a Member's Bill on private cemeteries and burial grounds. I know that I am diverging from the subject of the debate, but it is important that we use all the power that we have as MLAs in the power-sharing Executive, in opposition and as individuals — Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up. Miss McAllister: — to progress legislation. Top 5.45 pm Mr Durkan: I would say that this legislative programme is as weak as water, but that would probably give it too much credit. What happened to "Doing What Matters Most" and making government work? It is almost symbolic that this publication has landed after the deadline, typical of the delay and dysfunction that has become a hallmark of this Executive. What we have heard so far from contributors from Executive parties is how brilliantly their Ministers are doing and how badly all the other Ministers are doing, but they will all still vote for it. Other Members have lamented the truncated terms that we have had inflicted on us as MLAs and that some parties here have inflicted on the public of the North or Northern Ireland over the past decade. Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Member for giving way. As you know, my party is keen to see large-scale institutional reform of the Assembly and the Executive. Are you saying now that you would be fully supportive of us in changing the way that we do government here so that we cannot have that stop-start approach to government here? Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute. Mr Durkan: The Member, in part, pre-empted my point: where is the legislation, albeit it may be required from Westminster, or where is the will to prevent parties from pulling down these institutions on a whim again, trying to punish each other but ending up punishing everyone? Looking specifically at the Communities brief in my capacity as Opposition spokesperson, it is deeply disappointing that the programme does not even begin to scratch the surface. It is far removed from what was promised under the Programme for Government and by previous Ministers. This is a Department at the heart of social justice, the Department that touches every household: housing, welfare, culture, sport, the community sector, local government and more. It should be the beating heart of social change. Instead, it is flatlining under the weight of broken promises. Let us take housing. The only proposal here is a proposal to address antisocial behaviour. Seriously? That is, sadly, necessary, but it is really surface-level stuff. The fundamental review of social housing promised major systemic reform — making the system fairer, better use of housing stock, a focus on homeless prevention — none of which we see here and none of which we will see for the rest of the mandate. There is nothing on tackling the hundreds of millions being spent on emergency housing, addressing empty homes or making use of publicly owned land. There is nothing that will actually address the 50,000 people- or household-long waiting list, and it is growing. Where is the reform of the private rented sector or the Housing Executive's ability to borrow and build? Assurances were made in the previous mandate that they would be a day 1 priority for the incoming Executive. The North remains the only region in the UK — we discussed this last week — without a statutory fuel poverty target: another promise seemingly quietly dropped. Then, there is welfare. The debt respite scheme is welcome, but it is a carbon copy of that which was introduced in England four years ago. It is a catch-up measure, not a policy breakthrough, but it is typical of the copy-and-paste approach of much of this legislative programme. Meanwhile, there is still no plan to mitigate the two-child limit or to tackle food insecurity, child poverty or the widening gaps in universal credit. On pensions, we get another parity Bill. More reaction, no transformation. What happened to the promises of new gambling legislation, the reform of private rent, the implementation of the welfare mitigations advisory panel recommendations or the full suite of promises made under the perennially delayed fundamental review of social housing allocations? This is what passes for ambition from a Minister and an Executive that should be leading the fight against poverty, not simply ticking boxes. What we have before us today will not change lives. It will not lift families out of poverty, build homes or restore confidence in public services. This reads a bit like late homework thrown together at the last minute in a half-hearted attempt to submit something. While I have been lamenting the lack of legislation, I have not even started on the quality of the legislation that we eventually get. Today's very underwhelming School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill is a classic case in point: all mouth and no trousers — quite literally, in some instances. I would expect better from my children. Our expectations of the Executive were certainly not high, but we are still disappointed. Is this the best that you can do? Is this the best that people can expect? Mr McGuigan (The Chairperson of the Committee for Health): I welcome the publication of the Executive's legislative programme. I thank the deputy First Minister for bringing it to the Chamber today. As the Cathaoirleach [Translation: Chairperson] of the Health Committee, I welcome the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Health Committee on the Executive Committee's legislative programme for 2025-26. The Health Committee welcomes the publication of the programme, and particularly the two Bills outlined under the Department of Health: the safe and effective staffing Bill, which is a Bill that will help ensure the provision of high-quality care, workforce planning and staff governance; and the Health and Social Care control of data processing Bill, which is a Bill to make a statutory provision to protect the privacy of confidential patient information. The Committee particularly welcomes the forthcoming introduction of the safe and effective staffing Bill, which has been a long time in the making. The most important part of our health system is our dedicated and professional workforce, and we need to provide the support and structures to ensure the health, well-being and safety of all health and social care staff and patients. The Committee looks forward to engaging with the Department, stakeholders and staff in relation to that Bill. I encourage the Minister to introduce the Bill at the earliest possible stage in this session. It would be remiss of me not to mention, as others have done, other Bills that the Committee has been advised will be introduced before the end of the mandate. In addition to the adult protection Bill, the safe and effective staffing Bill and the HSC control of data processing Bill, the Committee has been advised that there are to be three Bills introduced: the duty of candour Bill; the alcohol minimum unit pricing Bill; and the pharmacy technician Bill. Indeed, the duty of candour issue was subject to a written ministerial statement just a couple of weeks ago. The Committee has been advised by officials, in the past couple of weeks, that proposals for a duty of candour Bill will be introduced in the coming months, although it is not on the programme for introduction. Therefore, I have concerns that the Committee will get a number of Bills to scrutinise late in the mandate and that pressure will be put on the Committee to ensure that those Bills pass the necessary stages before the end of the mandate. I assure the Assembly and the Minister that the Committee will take its statutory duty very seriously, and we will apply the level of scrutiny that is necessary to each of those Bills. I, therefore, encourage the Minister to introduce those three Bills at the earliest opportunity, and to engage with the Committee to allow pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bills. Mr McMurray: I wish the First Minister well in her absence. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this. It is a new experience for me, not least as some of Bills come from the then Infrastructure Minister O'Dowd's departmental legislative programme in March 2024, which preceded my coming here. The then Minister listed a number of pieces of legislation, at the time, of which one of the two main pieces was the Water, Sustainable Drainage and Flood Management Bill, which was introduced in the summer and passed its Second Stage a few weeks ago. We are beginning to scrutinise that in Committee now. I am looking forward to hearing the evidence from a range of stakeholders. I said in its Second Stage debate that I welcomed that important Bill. It is an important Bill, not least for my constituents who, unfortunately, are no strangers to flooding. I hope that that Bill progresses without undue delay. The current Minister intends to introduce the ports and harbours Bill in this session. I know that preparations are being made for that. The Infrastructure Committee has already received evidence in relation to that Bill. We are broadly supportive of the Bill, not least because of the financial designation to allow the trust ports to invest more. With that, we hope to see a bit more investment in offshore energy. Hopefully, that will come to my constituency. It could lead the way in offshore renewables and boost the blue-green economy by bringing in good, skilled and well-paid jobs. I have a few concerns about the Bill, however. It seems to take some oversight away from the Department in order to give the trust ports directions. The Department has never used those powers and has declined to interfere in matters, despite there being substantial local discontent. I am keen to better understand what those powers entail and what circumstances would trigger their use. I want to see safeguards in place to ensure that the interests of local communities are not compromised. Finally, other proposed Bills have not been progressed too far, namely the rail and road transport Bill and the transport decarbonisation Bill. The Committee will be looking to see how those Bills are progressed in due course. Mr McNulty: I will keep this short, as I know that some Members are trying to get off to the Northern Ireland match. The team had a great win on Friday, and I bet that the Member for North Belfast is now sorry that he tabled his anti-Irish language motion. I speak today with a deep sense of frustration that is shared by communities across the North. There is frustration at promises made and commitments repeated. Years later, delivery remains absent. We were told that the Programme for Government and the associated legislative programme would represent a new approach. It was to be one based on outcomes, collaboration and tangible progress, yet the gap between the Executive's commitments through their legislation programme and actual delivery could not be more stark. Nowhere is that more evident than in the failure of the legislative programme to advance major infrastructure projects that are not only long overdue but vital to our region's economic, environmental and social well-being. Let me begin with the A5 western transport corridor. The project was first proposed over 15 years ago. That critical arterial route was meant to better connect the north-west, save lives on a notoriously dangerous road and open up economic opportunities for one of our most neglected regions. The A5 remains in limbo, however. It is mired in consultations, legal challenges and delay after delay. Meanwhile, the communities that it was meant to serve are left waiting and mourning, as fatalities continue to mount. How can we speak of balanced regional development while such a major transport project remains stalled for over a decade? The Executive's so-called ambitious legislation programme is late and thin on delivery. What about our waste water infrastructure? The North is facing a crisis that threatens housing, investment and the environment. From Newtownards to Newry and on to small rural villages, waste water systems are at or beyond capacity. Developers are being told that they cannot build. Businesses are being denied opportunities. Raw sewage is being discharged into our rivers, lakes and seas. The Executive have known about our waste water infrastructure for years, yet strategic investment continues to be deferred. We remain dangerously behind the rest of the UK and Ireland in modernising that critical infrastructure. Sadly, the legislative programme is a symptom of an Executive who cannot agree, cannot prioritise and cannot deliver. Now consider the all-island rail review. It is a visionary proposal with the potential to reconnect communities, reduce our dependence on cars and slash emissions. The review report was published and welcomed, but, since then, what have we seen? A lot of goodwill but precious little commitment to action. The hourly Enterprise service is a huge success. It was something that I campaigned for vociferously since I was first elected. It remains one of the Executive's single big achievements. While the Republic of Ireland moves ahead with its rail ambitions, the North risks being left behind once again, still stuck using diesel trains, with crumbling stations and minimal connectivity west of the Bann. Sadly, much of what is in the legislative programme is a tidying-up exercise rather than a programme for change. There is then Casement Park. It was once a symbol of regeneration and inclusion, but it is now a monument to delay. It was promised, planned and even politically agreed, yet it has still not been built. With Euro 2028 gone, the Executive have squandered not just a major international sporting opportunity but their credibility. Casement Park should have been a beacon of progress, but it is instead a case study in dysfunction. When will Casement Park be built? The A5 project, waste water reform, rail connectivity, Casement Park, crumbling roads and bus safety are not isolated failures but symptoms of a legislative programme that is too often paralysed by division, walkouts, short-termism and administrative inertia. They represent commitments that were made to the people and not kept. We cannot afford to keep —. Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way? Mr McNulty: No. Top 6.00 pm We cannot afford to keep kicking the cans down the road. Infrastructure is not a luxury; it is the foundation of a functioning, fair and forward-looking society. Delays cost money, yes, but, more than that, they cost lives, opportunity and public trust. I say this directly to the NI Executive: your legislative programme is only as credible as your ability to deliver it. The legislative programme exposes a lack of joined-up government, with key Departments — Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up. Mr McNulty: — moving in isolation and — Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up. Mr McNulty: — Ministers likely to be divided on — Mr Speaker: Mr Gaston. Mr McNulty: — key areas of policy. Mr Buckley: Sit down. Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up. Mr McNulty: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. [Translation: Thank you, Mr Speaker.] [Laughter.] Mr Gaston: Even the cheerleaders who cried the loudest to bring back Stormont, with the promise that all our woes would be forgiven and a distant memory, must be very underwhelmed by the legislative programme that we have in front of us today. It is a lacklustre programme, which will just about keep the lights on, along with the non-binding motions that we debate in the Chamber. For the sake of time, I will confine my remarks to three of the Bills that are included. First up is a fisheries and water environment Bill. We are told that it will be about: "protecting fisheries and the aquatic environment, strengthening regulatory powers to enhance enforcement, deter non-compliance, and support the delivery of key initiatives such as the Lough Neagh Action Plan". I have no doubt that the farmer will, once again, be in the sights of the Minister. If the Minister is serious about tackling those issues, I trust that he will tackle the scandal that surrounds the Loughs Agency, a body that seems to be exempt from the norms of fiscal responsibility, transparency and the proper stewardship of public funds. From the Minister's answers to questions for written answer, I know that the approved staff complement for the Loughs Agency stands at 53 full-time equivalents, a figure sanctioned by the North/South Ministerial Council and designed to ensure efficient, accountable operations. However, what do we have in reality? The agency currently employs 68 individuals: 44 are permanent, 21 are temporary and three are externally funded project staff. That is a 28% overrun with no apparent approval for the expansion. The Minister assures us that a review of the staff complement is under way, subject to approval from both sponsoring Departments. One must wonder whether that review would have happened were it not for the questions for written answer from this Back-Bencher? Despite the swollen ranks and staff, successful prosecutions for illegal net use have plummeted from 15 in 2015 to zero in 2022 and zero in 2024. In truth, the Minister does not need a Bill to deal with those issues; all that he requires is the interest to do what he should be doing. He needs to carry out an audit and put a pause on recruitment. Next, I look at the Department of Finance. The Executive have agreed to introduce a Bill: "To include belief marriage in marriage legislation and to reform the law relating to the age of marriage (and civil partnership)." I ask the Members to my left whether they are happy with that language. I remind them that marriage has been redefined in Northern Ireland. Whatever the Bill will do, it will operate within those parameters. While I appreciate that there are moves to increase the age for marriage across the UK in order to prevent child marriages, I observe that some in the House have pushed, through the so-called gaps in equality legislation, to hold an inquiry into lowering the age of consent. Calling for that, while pushing for the age for marriage to be raised, would be hypocritical, and I trust that no one in the Assembly will find themselves in that position. Finally, I will comment on the race equality Bill. As it will come through the Executive Office, I will have the opportunity to pay particular attention to it. From the outset, however, despite all the cheerleading from the Front Bench this afternoon, I am concerned about the concept of the Bill. Members may cite the recent unrest in our Province, but the reality is that there was not a single case where the alleged lack of legislation would have made any difference. The law provides protection for people in any walk of life from discrimination or racism. When it comes to attacks on individuals or homes, a racial motivation is, rightly, already considered as an aggravating factor. Article 2 of the Criminal Justice (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004 makes that abundantly clear. Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up. Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank Members for their contributions to the debate. I do not intend to speak for very long, but I will touch on some common points that were made across a number of contributions. I welcome the fact that we heard from so many Members. I know that the nature of our legislative process in Northern Ireland is challenging. We are a coalition Government of four parties that have been forced together into that arrangement. Therefore, we adopt a particular approach to the legislation programme, which is to respect each Minister as they put forward their proposals for inclusion at an early stage. We do not police that from the centre, nor do we ask Ministers to put forward detailed policy proposals for those pieces of legislation, because we know that they must come to the Executive for discussion and decision. Therefore, it is on that basis that the debate is happening today. If, indeed, we were a Government like most other Governments, I would be standing here proposing how my Government would put in place the manifesto that we stood on in an election, as would any other Minister in this place. We cannot do that, however, because that is not the system that we have. It is incredibly important to be very clear about that. We have not rejected a proposal from any Minister. Indeed, I believe that there is ambition within these proposals as well. A number of common themes emerged across the Chamber. Members wanted to see ambition in a legislation programme and wanted the Committees to be engaged. I welcome the fact that so many Committee Chairs spoke about the particular issues that will be coming up in their Committees over the next 12 months — those core concepts of early engagement, transparency and scrutiny. If we are being honest, as a number of Members mentioned, we have to admit that we have some quite frankly appalling pieces of legislation or legislation that contains some quite frankly appalling clauses. I am a small government person. I do not believe that there should be unlimited amounts of legislation, nor that legislation is always necessary in order to effect change or to realise what we want to achieve. It is important to say that. As my colleague from North Belfast Phillip Brett pointed out, ultimately, the quantity of legislation does not in any way demonstrate its quality or benefits, or the productivity of this place. Passing legislation is, of course, an important function of the Assembly, and it is really important that there is proper scrutiny. Good legislation takes time; that is the reality. In my view, everyone in this place should look very carefully at the A5 judgement and at what happens when legislation is rushed or when substantial amendments are accepted from the Floor of the House without proper consultation and consideration. Mr Sheehan: Will the deputy First Minister give way? Mrs Little-Pengelly: I will. Mr Sheehan: You should maybe tell that to the Education Minister who, today, was talking about rushing his own legislation through. He wanted the Committee Stage to be compressed so that he could get his legislation done as quickly as possible. Maybe you should have a word with him. Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his contribution. He should also recognise the importance of having that legislation in place in advance of the next term. We need to ensure that affordability for parents is at the heart of that Bill. It is important to get those things done before the beginning of the next school term in order to allow parents, hopefully, to make those savings. That is an issue that has put a lot of pressure on many hard-working and hard-pressed families. Of course, there will be examples of where we need to push things through as quickly as possible, but good legislation takes time, scrutiny and all of us working together to make sure that it is the very best that it can be. It also takes us all to recognise that, if things are not working as originally envisaged, they should be changed. We should be looking at some of our legislation and addressing some of the issues outlined in the courts, not least the recent decision on the A5. I am not going to go into all the many contributions in detail, but I will touch on a number of them. We are getting close to the spooky season. In 'Harry Potter', there is Moaning Myrtle, but we have our very own moaning Matthew every single day. [Laughter.] He stands in the Chamber and he moans and moans and moans. Does the Member know how many pieces of legislation the first Executive, who were led by the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP, brought forward in year 1? Mr O'Toole: I am sure that she is going to tell me. Mrs Little-Pengelly: I will give way —. Mr O'Toole: No, I do not know, so —. Mrs Little-Pengelly: They brought forward nine pieces of legislation, of which seven received Royal Assent. In the second year, it was 18. In the third year, just shortly before the collapse, of course, it was in single digits again. He and other SDLP Members decry this legislative programme, but I say to him gently that it has more ambition than previous programmes did. It has more pieces of legislation in it. There is a range of legislation, some of which, understandably and logically, will bring us into line with the UK, just as was the case with the legislative programme that was brought forward by his party when it jointly led the Executive. Mr O'Toole: I thank the Minister for giving way. I appreciate the fact that she is at least engaging in debate, unlike some of her counterparts. I do not have a copy of the Hansard report, but I am fairly certain that, when the SDLP and the Ulster Unionists brought forward their legislative programme way back 20-odd years ago, Seamus Mallon was able to say, "Yes, I will indeed vote for this legislation". I am afraid that you cannot do that today, deputy First Minister. Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his contribution. I have outlined the process. It would not be practical or realistic to ask Ministers to bring forward detailed policy proposals for a yea or a nay from the First Minister and me before they would make their way into the programme. That is a well-established practice. I will not be signing up to legislation until I see its content. That is a core principle of mine, and one that we should all adhere to. The task that we have is to work with our Executive colleagues and look at the proposals that are brought forward. We will work with them to see whether we can reach consensus. That is the duty that we have. If we cannot get consensus on big, important issues, such as employment legislation, they will not proceed. That is realistic. That is the system that we have. We must work together to get those things into a state that people can support. I am clear about that. I thank all the Members for their contributions. I listened to them all, and have taken on board many of the key issues that were raised. A number of pieces of legislation were referred to. I have had the benefit of seeing the policy content of some, but not of others. I look forward to engaging with Committees throughout the year. My commitment to the Chamber is that we in the Executive Office will be working with ministerial colleagues on a regular basis to assess the progress of the Bills that we have set out. If there are challenges or problems in bringing them forward, we will work with Ministers to see whether we can unblock them and get them moving. We want to fulfil what we have set out today. We want to reach consensus on a range of Bills. If we can reach that consensus, they will certainly get Executive agreement, and we will bring them forward for Committee scrutiny, which we in the Executive Committee so very much welcome. Question put. The Assembly divided: Ayes 63; Noes 7 AYES Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Mr Baker, Mr Blair, Ms Bradshaw, Mr Brett, Miss Brogan, Mr Brooks, Ms Brownlee, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mr Burrows, Mr Butler, Mrs Cameron, Mr Chambers, Mr Clarke, Mr Delargy, Mr Dickson, Mrs Dillon, Mrs Dodds, Miss Dolan, Mr Donnelly, Mr Dunne, Ms Egan, Ms Ennis, Mrs Erskine, Ms Ferguson, Ms Finnegan, Ms Flynn, Ms Forsythe, Mr Gildernew, Mrs Guy, Miss Hargey, Mr Harvey, Mr Irwin, Mr Kearney, Mr Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mr Kingston, Mrs Little-Pengelly, Mr Lyons, Mr McAleer, Miss McAllister, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Mr McMurray, Mr Martin, Mrs Mason, Mr Mathison, Mr Middleton, Mr Muir, Ms Mulholland, Ms Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr O'Dowd, Ms Reilly, Mr Robinson, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Mr Stewart, Mr Tennyson Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Brett, Ms Ferguson NOES Mr Durkan, Mr Gaston, Ms Hunter, Mr McGlone, Mr McNulty, Mr O'Toole, Ms Sugden Tellers for the Noes: Mr Durkan, Mr O'Toole Mr Clarke acted as a proxy for Mrs Erskine. Question accordingly agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly notes the Executive Committee’s legislation programme for the 2025-26 session of the Assembly, published in a written ministerial statement on 3 October 2025. Mr Speaker: I ask Members to take their ease while we change the personnel at the Table. (Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair) Committee Business Water, Sustainable Drainage and Flood Management Bill: Extension of Committee Stage Mr Martin (The Chairperson of the Committee for Infrastructure): I beg to move That, in accordance with Standing Order 33(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 33(2) be extended to 3 July 2026, in relation to the Committee Stage of the Water, Sustainable Drainage and Flood Management Bill. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed that there will be no time limit on the debate. I call the Chairperson of the Committee for Infrastructure to open the debate on the motion. Mr Martin: Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Apparently, there is a very important football game this evening, so I will try to keep my remarks to an hour. As Members will be aware, the Water, Sustainable Drainage and Flood Management Bill was formally referred to the Committee for Infrastructure for its scrutiny on 17 September. As I outlined at the Second Stage debate, the Committee undertook some pre-legislative scrutiny in April 2024 to examine the key areas that were being proposed by the Department prior to the Bill's formal introduction just before summer this year. At its meeting on 17 September, the Committee received oral evidence from departmental officials on key aspects of the Bill and noted that it seeks to amend and enhance existing legislation in the following areas: to decrease pollution in watercourses; to enhance our ability to withstand extreme weather events, particularly flooding and drought, through strengthened flood resilience; to encourage the use of sustainable draining systems, commonly known as SuDS, as a preferred method for managing surface water; and to improve water resource management through the introduction of more environmentally friendly solutions for managing water resources. In essence, it is quite a small Bill, with 16 clauses, but its reach is quite wide, with measures that aim to support our resistance to the above events. It forms part of the Infrastructure Minister's three-pronged approach to improve waste water infrastructure in Northern Ireland, and, therefore, it has a broader strategic reach into our communities. At recent meetings, the Committee has received procedural advice from the Bill Office and has considered its approach and with whom it might wish to engage during that key phase of scrutinising the legislative proposals. The Committee notes that many of the provisions give the Department with regulation-making powers. I am sure that the Committee will want to examine the scope and intended use of those powers when considering each element of the Bill. We want to ensure that the Assembly has sufficient understanding of the issues to support the appropriate scrutiny of the resulting delegated legislation. The Committee will be keen to ensure that the right balance is struck between supporting efficient delivery by the Department and ensuring credible oversight. At its subsequent meetings on 24 September and 1 October, the Committee gave further consideration to the list of stakeholders who could provide valuable insight into the issues that the Bill seeks to address and how it will work in reality. In addition, the Committee considered an outline timetable for its scrutiny, having noted during oral evidence on 17 September that the Department was in the process of finalising a consultation on the use of SuDS in new housing developments, which will fall under powers proposed in the Bill if it is successfully enacted. That consultation is due to conclude on 19 December. Given the consultation's relevance to the Bill, the Committee considers it essential that sufficient time is factored into its scrutiny to allow for the consultation to conclude and for the Committee to consider any policy proposals made by the Department. That approach will provide the Committee with sufficient opportunity to examine such details and any proposed policy direction for the regulation-making powers arising from the consultation. Examining those aspects in tandem will help the Committee to consider the Department's response and assist with suggestions that will strengthen or enhance the Bill and, where necessary, to seek assurances from the sponsoring Department. At its meeting on 1 October, the Committee agreed its timetable, which proposes that the Committee Stage be extended to 3 July 2026. I wish to provide some reassurance about that date. The Committee fully intends to report comfortably in advance of that, if everything goes to plan. We are working to a timetable on that assumption, and we intend to give the Bill priority and to be efficient and effective in our approach. We hope also to have a ports Bill, as indicated in the Executive's legislative programme that I spoke about a couple of hours ago, as well as other business to conclude in the remainder of the mandate. It is often said that the end date is a limit, not a target — in fact, the Chair of my former Committee made that very comment in relation to another Bill. The Committee will work closely with the Department and with stakeholders to conclude the process robustly and efficiently. While there is a clear expectation that the Committee Stage will conclude much earlier, the date of 3 July 2026 gives the Committee a sufficient safety net to allow for thorough scrutiny of all dimensions of the Bill, should deeper examination of some aspects be necessary. The Committee's call for evidence was also agreed. I encourage everyone to reflect on their views on the Bill to enable the Committee to use the time available and to help to shape the Bill accordingly. Question put and agreed to. Resolved: That, in accordance with Standing Order 33(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 33(2) be extended to 3 July 2026, in relation to the Committee Stage of the Water, Sustainable Drainage and Flood Management Bill. Private Members' Business Irish Language Street Signage in Belfast Mr Kingston: I beg to move That this Assembly deplores that, since 2022, only 12% of applications for Irish language street signs approved by Belfast City Council commanded the majority support of residents living there, according to recent media reports; contends that, with the wishes of the minority trumping the view of the majority in almost nine out of 10 cases, the policy is undemocratic and oppressive; is alarmed that, in a number of cases, residents have been surveyed repeatedly in an attempt to garner the necessary support; condemns the marking of territory in this way, as well as the imposition of minority rule on residents from all backgrounds and traditions; and calls on Belfast City Council to urgently review, and replace, its policy that Irish language street signs can be imposed upon communities with just 15% support. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes. Brian, please open the debate on the motion. Mr Kingston: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Our motion asks Members to recognise that Belfast City Council's current policy on dual language street signs is flawed, disrespects the views of residents, damages community relations and needs to be urgently reviewed and changed. When I commenced on Belfast City Council in 2010, there was a dual language street sign policy and a steady flow of applications under it, most adding the name in Irish but some adding the name in Ulster Scots. The thresholds then were that a petition from one third of residents in a street triggered a formal survey and that the agreement of two thirds of residents was required for a dual language sign to be approved. In 2020, Sinn Féin sought to change those thresholds, and, with the support of the SDLP, People Before Profit, Alliance and the Green Party, they were drastically reduced. That has resulted in a policy that disrespects residents' views and, as I said, in our view, has damaged community relations, particularly in streets that are quietly mixed and where residents from different community backgrounds otherwise live side by side peacefully and with a large degree of tolerance. I was present at the council's strategic policy and resources committee meeting in October 2020 when the new draft policy was tabled. It was astonishing to hear the Sinn Féin group leader proposing an ever-reducing percentage of residents that would be required for approval of a dual language sign, which the Alliance Party group leader kept agreeing to as though it were a reverse auction. They were asked, "Would you accept one third?", then, "Would you accept 25%?", and then, "Would you accept 20%?". Finally, they consented to just 15% of residents. The new policy was forced through the council by Sinn Féin, the SDLP, People Before Profit, Alliance and the Green Party despite opposition from all unionist councillors from the DUP, UUP and PUP. The new policy is that a survey can be triggered by a request from just one resident in a street or by a councillor for that district electoral area (DEA) who does not even have to live in the street. As a result of that drastic change, the system has been overwhelmed with requests for surveys, at a rising cost to ratepayers. Let me be clear: where residents consent to an Irish language sign with no or little opposition, the DUP does not oppose the request. However, we oppose, and will continue to oppose, applications for which a majority of residents who have responded to the survey say that they do not want a dual language sign in their street. It should be noted that, in most cases, the majority of residents do not even respond to the survey. Residents are given only 14 days in which to respond. The DUP tried to increase the deadline to 28 days, but nationalist parties would not support that. In the early days of the new policy, councillors adopted a convention of not approving an Irish language street sign where more residents voted against than for. However, since March this year, nationalist councillors, supported by Green Party councillors, have been forcing applications through, ignoring the majority wishes of residents and the objection of unionist and even Alliance councillors. In my constituency of North Belfast, for Sunningdale Park North, 22 residents voted for an Irish language sign, but 33 voted against it. Some 60% of respondents were against, yet the sign was forced through by nationalist and Green Party councillors. Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way and for highlighting how a system can be abused and create tension in otherwise settled communities. Does he agree that the imposition of Irish language signage, without cross-community consent, is an exact example of the kind of significant and controversial issue that should always be referred to the Executive in this place and to ensure community consent in council settings? Mr Kingston: Indeed. We remember the calls of those who said that we could not have majority rule when unionists had a majority in councils and in the Assembly, but how things change when other parties have the majority. Top 6.45 pm I was also going to give the example of — Mr Baker: Will the Member give way? Mr Kingston: — Ben Madigan Park South. I will give way briefly. Yes, Danny. Mr Baker: Does the Member know that this is about dual language signage, in English and Irish, and that nothing is being forced through, because, democratically, that is the policy of Belfast City Council? Mr Kingston: The point is this: residents' wishes should be listened to. People have a right not to have an Irish language sign if they do not want one. If they do not want that cultural branding, they have the right not to have it. I will come on to that point. Mr Baker: Will the Member give way? Mr Kingston: No. I need to make progress. Ben Madigan Park South is another example in North Belfast: 23% were in favour, but 26% were against, and, again, the sign was forced through, disrespecting the majority wishes of respondents. I have been visited at my office by residents who are outraged by such outcomes, which have confirmed our fears about an unfit process causing resentment and damaging community relations on streets that are quietly mixed. Some have said that it has caused them to seriously consider moving. Many have said that it will reduce the value of their property by reducing potential interest from the unionist community — [Interruption.] Some might laugh at that, but it is a reality. It is widely viewed as cultural branding of their street, the equivalent of painting kerbstones red, white and blue or, in this case, green, white and gold. The 'Belfast Telegraph' reported two weeks ago that, since the rules came into force in 2022, fewer than one in eight Irish language street signs approved in Belfast — just 12% — were supported by 50% or more residents of the street. The same article revealed that, out of 228 streets approved for Irish language street signs, the level of support among respondents in 42 of the streets was 25% or less. A recent LucidTalk poll for the 'Belfast Telegraph' found that less than a third of voters agree with the current council policy. As we know, in Northern Ireland, there is a strong overlap between community identity, culture and politics; I am not saying that they are one and the same, but there is a strong correlation. Irish language street signs are viewed as indicating a nationalist-majority area. Whether we like them or not, we have a number of arrangements in Northern Ireland regarding where cultural expressions can or cannot take place; where parades can and cannot take place; and where flags can be flown and where they would be considered contentious. Location is paramount in these cultural matters. Residents who are surveyed expect their views to be respected. When they are ignored, residents feel aggrieved, outraged and imposed upon. Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way? Mr Kingston: I will, for the last time, briefly. Ms Bradshaw: Thank you. I am pondering your words about areas where flags go up. As you know, I am bringing forward a Member's Bill. Are you saying that, where the majority of people in an area do not approve of flags going up, they should not go up? Mr Kingston: What I am saying is this: if you attend meetings with the police, they will tell you that location is important. Union flags and bunting are, thankfully, welcome on the Shankill Road, but I accept that there are areas where they would not be welcome. Location is important. It is important to listen to the views of the local community and not to impose things from afar. Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way? Mr Kingston: No. I am going to run out of time. In reality, most unionists do not wish to have a dual language street sign on their street, and they have the right to not want it. Those who say that no one should oppose an Irish language sign expose only their own arrogance and their dismissal of the wishes of residents. To be clear, everyone who speaks Irish can speak English perfectly well, so the requests for those signs are not based on necessity, nor are they based on historic roots, because the majority of Belfast street names do not come from Irish; some do, but the majority do not. In closing, I expect that the Alliance Party will point out that its councillors have voted against adding an Irish language street sign where a majority of residents are against it. The problem is that such signs are being pushed through by nationalist and Green Party councillors. The Alliance Party voted in a policy that it cannot control. The policy needs to be reviewed and changed. I strongly believe that the policy is damaging community relations in Belfast, particularly in mixed areas. I therefore urge Members to support the motion's appeal to Belfast City Council to carry out a review and change its unfit policy. Mr Sheehan: Is iarracht eile é an rún seo ón DUP lenár dtarraingt ar gcúl. Níl suim dá laghad ag bunús mór na ndaoine in iarrachtaí den chineál seo. Tá formhór mhuintir Bhéal Feirste, agus, leoga, formhór mhuintir an Tuaiscirt, ag iarraidh sin a fhágáil ina ndiaidh. An frith-Ghaelachas atá taobh thiar den rún seo. Tá sé seanaimseartha, agus tagann sé salach ar an Bhéal Feirste atá againn inniu. Insíonn na fíricí a scéal féin. Ó tugadh an beartas isteach, agus ó ceadaíodh na chéad sráideanna i mí Eanáir na bliana 2023, chuaigh suirbhé ar bhreis is 530 sráid ar fud Bhéal Feirste. Níor chuir ach fíor-bheagán i gcoinne an bheartais. Níor easaontaigh ach 2·9% de na cónaitheoirí uile a ndeachaigh suirbhé orthu. [Translation: The motion from the DUP is yet another attempt to drag us backwards. The vast majority of people are not interested. Most people in Belfast, and indeed across the North, have long moved on. The sentiment driving this motion is anti-Irish. It is regressive, and it is out of step with the Belfast that people live in today. The facts speak for themselves. Since this policy was introduced, and the first streets were approved in January 2023, more than 530 streets have been surveyed across Belfast. Opposition has been minute. Only 2·9% of all residents surveyed expressed any opposition.] Mr Kingston: Will the Member give way? Mr Sheehan: Yes. Mr Kingston: I heard the statistic of 2·9%. Does the Member accept that there are a number of streets where a majority of residents have opposed the signs? We have said that we will not oppose Irish street signs where there is no opposition to them. However, there are streets where a majority of residents are against them. Should the wishes of those residents not be respected? Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: You have an extra minute, Pat. Mr Sheehan: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle. I thank the Member for that. He will know that international best practice with regard to visibility for minority languages is the basis for that policy in Belfast City Council. I know that the DUP is totally opposed to Irish in any form whatsoever, but you need to get used to it. It is a minority language here and needs to be helped and supported. That is exactly what is happening. Ó tugadh an beartas isteach, agus ó ceadaíodh na chéad sráideanna i mí Eanáir na bliana 2023, chuaigh suirbhé ar bhreis is 530 sráid ar fud Bhéal Feirste. Níor chuir ach fíor-bheagán i gcoinne an bheartais. Níor easaontaigh ach 2.9% de na cónaitheoirí uile a ndeachaigh suirbhé orthu. Ar an meán, sin 1.7% in aghaidh na sráide. I níos mó ná trí cheathrú de na sráideanna a ndearnadh suirbhé orthu, níor easaontaigh oiread is aon chónaitheoir amháin. Fiú má fhágtar an Cheathrú Gaeltachta ar lár, tá an patrún mar a gcéanna. Ar fud 244 shráid, níor vótáil ach 3.9% de na cónaitheoirí i gcoinne na comharthaíochta dátheangaí, agus vótáil naonúr as gach 10 ar a son. Ar níos mó ná leath de na sráideanna uile - 54% - ní raibh aon easaontú ann, agus, i 96% de chásanna, bhí níos mó cónaitheoirí i bhfabhar na comharthaíochta dátheangaí ná a bhí ina coinne. Ar fud na 536 shráid a ndeachaigh suirbhé orthu, ní raibh oiread is aon sráid amháin ann nach rabhathas sásta leis an chomharthaíocht dhátheangach. Insíonn sin rud tábhachtach dúinn: ní beartas conspóideach é seo; tá sé cuimsitheach. Léiríonn sé gur cathair nua-aimseartha fhéin-mhuiníneach é Béal Feirste. Ní bagairt í an Ghaeilge d’aon duine. Is í teanga dhúchais an oileáin seo í, agus is cuid den oidhreacht chomhchoitianta í ag gach duine sa chathair seo, beag beann ar chúlra nó ar chreideamh. Tá na mílte ag foghlaim na Gaeilge gach seachtain. Is linn go léir í. Tá beagnach 40 bliain ó shin, cuireadh Máirtín Ó Muilleoir amach as cruinniú comhairle cionn is gur labhair sé Gaeilge; caitheadh amach é cionn is gur úsáid sé a theanga féin. Tá an éadulaingt chéanna le feiceáil inniu nuair a loitear comharthaí sráide Gaeilge. Tá an éadulgaint sin le feiceáil i rúin den chineál atá idir camánaibh againn inniu. [Translation: Since this policy was introduced, and the first streets were approved in January 2023, more than 530 streets have been surveyed across Belfast. Opposition has been minute. Only 2·9% of all residents surveyed expressed any opposition - an average of 1·7% per street. In more than three quarters of streets surveyed, not a single resident objected. Even if you exclude the Gaeltacht Quarter, the pattern is the same. Across 244 streets, only 3·9% of residents opposed dual-language signage, while around nine out of 10 people who responded supported it. On more than half of all streets — 54% — there was not a single objection, and, in 96% of cases, more residents supported dual-language signage than opposed it. Across all 536 streets surveyed, not a single street — not one — returned a majority opposed to dual-language signage. That tells us something important: the policy is not divisive; it is inclusive. It reflects the modern and confident city that Belfast has become. The Irish language is not a threat to anyone. It is the native language of this island, and it is part of the shared heritage of everyone in this city, regardless of background or belief. Thousands of people are learning Irish every week. It belongs to all of us. Almost 40 years ago, Máirtín Ó Muilleoir was removed from a council meeting for daring to speak Irish; he was expelled for simply using his own language. The modern-day equivalent of that intolerance is the vandalism of Irish street signs; it is to be seen in motions such as the one that we are debating today.] Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way? Mr Sheehan: Yes. Mr Burrows: Will the Member condemn the defacing of Londonderry signs? Will he support people being arrested by the PSNI for that offence? Yes or no? Mr Sheehan: You, as a former police officer, should be able to tell us whether the police carried out any investigations. Mr Burrows: I am just asking whether you will condemn it. Mr Sheehan: I am here to talk about Irish language street signage and dual language street signage, so — [Interruption.] Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Pat, take your seat. I have asked you before, and you as well, Timothy, as well as others, not to shout at people from a sedentary position. Everybody has a right to be heard, even if you do not like what is being said. It is just common courtesy. Thank you. Pat, go ahead. Mr Sheehan: Agus nuair a bhaintear feidhm as na cúirteanna le bac a chur ar an dul chun cinn; tá an éadulgaint sin le feiceáil in athbhreithniú breithiúnach cráiteach i ndiaidh athbhreithnú breithniúnach cráiteach eile arb aidhm dóibh toil mhuintir Bhéal Feirste, agus na gcomhairleoirí a thogh siad, a chur ó mhaith. Is minic an DUP ag caint ar airgead poiblí á chur amú ar an Ghaeilge. Cá mhéad airgid phoiblí a chuir siad féin amú agus iad ag tacú le hágóidí dlí gan dealramh? Airgead a d’fhéadfaí a chaitheamh le feabhas a chur ar sheirbhísí nó le tacú le comhphobail. [Translation: When attempts are made to block progress through the courts, that intolerance can be seen in the stream of vexatious judicial reviews that are designed to frustrate what the people of Belfast and their democratically elected councillors have clearly supported. We often hear talk from the DUP about wasting public money on the Irish language. How much money has it squandered on supporting those hopeless legal challenges? It is money that could have been spent on improving services or supporting communities.] Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: A Phat, tá do sheal cainte istigh. Pat, time is up. Miss McAllister: I will outline Alliance's position on the DUP motion and also set the record straight on what has become a widely distorted and, at times, misinformed discussion about dual language signage, particularly in Belfast. First, however, I remind people that use of the Irish language is not an attack on anyone's identity and that this policy in particular is about protecting and promoting an important part of our cultural heritage: a heritage that belongs to everyone, not just those in Belfast but those across the whole island. We should all be aware by now of the role that the Presbyterians played in keeping the language alive in the 18th and 19th centuries. I also highlight the role of the Grand Master of Belfast from 1885 until 1898, the Rev Dr Richard Rutledge Kane, who was a patron of the Belfast Gaelic League, which was founded in 1895, and who signed the lodge meeting minutes in Irish. Mr McMurray: Will the Member give way? Miss McAllister: Yes. Mr McMurray: The Member mentioned the role that Presbyterians played. Will she agree with me that the Rev William Neilson's publication 'Introduction to the Irish language' highlights how much of a shared cultural background we have on the matter? Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute. Miss McAllister: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I absolutely agree. It emphasises how the Irish language is a shared part of our heritage. Just today, I was also informed that there is, I believe, a Presbyterian church in west Belfast that still hosts the odd meeting in Irish. A Member: Will the Member give way? Miss McAllister: No, not at this time. I am going to make some progress. It is incumbent on all of us as elected representatives to lead by example and show respect for all cultures in Northern Ireland. Irish is an indigenous, native and minority language, and, whether we like it or not, there is a need to protect and, indeed, promote such languages. When we talk about the Irish language, we are not talking about an abstract idea. We are not talking about a departmental-specific policy that requires years to research and develop. The Irish language has existed for more than 2,500 years. The oldest written examples date back to the 5th and 6th centuries. Even the Normans began to speak Irish. The Lord Mayor's chain, which many of us in this Chamber have worn, has "Erinn go bra", which means "Ireland forever", written on it in Irish. I say that because it is important. The Irish language is part of our history. It belongs to all of us, not to one party and not to one side of the community. Alliance policy on the Irish language has been consistent since the time that unionist parties on Belfast City Council would not get on board with our initial proposal. I say to the proposer of the motion, because both of us were on the council at the time, that we did put forward an initial proposal for 50% support, but we then supported the current policy, and we have stuck to that ever since. We outlined how we would not and should not support any street signage to which the majority of respondents do not agree. That that is wrong is something that we agree with in the motion. That deal, however, was reneged on by Sinn Féin, the SDLP and the Green Party. If we are to bring people along with us when it comes to preserving identity for all of us, how can we then stamp on the expressions of difference of others? Top 7.00 pm Mr Kingston: Will the Member give way? Miss McAllister: Yes. Mr Kingston: I said that I recognise that Alliance is not supporting applications where a majority of residents have indicated that they do not want it. The point, therefore, is this: should that not be included in the policy, rather than its being left to the whim of how parties choose to vote and how they would change how they vote? It needs to be included in a review of the policy. Miss McAllister: The 15% is based on international best practice; it is based around practice on these islands, in the UK and further afield. We brought proposals to you — the DUP — and you would not accept them. It is important that we all work together. It is shameful that, up until a year ago, Sinn Féin, in Belfast, set aside its respect for the democratic process when it came to individuals and residents living on a street. I agree that those who do not respond should not automatically be included as a negative, but ignoring the wishes of people who do respond, and igniting flames and tension in communities, is not about being a First Minister for all, and it is not about protecting and promoting the Irish language. It is about getting your own way. Over the past few weeks, we have seen a ramping up of the irresponsible rhetoric around the Irish language. It is important that we take a step back. It is a language and a culture that belongs to all of us. I condemn all the defacing of signage. I condemn the defacing of any sign, whether it is on my street or yours. We need to work together and ensure that, when we bring responsible decisions to any Chamber, be it here or Belfast City Council, we do not ignore the wishes of the residents with whom we all live. Hopefully, we can move forward together when it comes to promoting the Irish language, because it is important for all in Northern Ireland that we see that it is our shared heritage and shared culture. Mr Allen: No doubt, as we have heard already, those of us who speak in support of the motion will be labelled as intolerant, regressive or anti-Irish. Those are labels that I do not agree with, but, perhaps, in supporting the motion, I will be adding my name, and those of my colleagues, to the list labelled as such. However, we do not agree with those labels. Public policy should seek to unite communities, not divide them. At its core, the motion highlights that, since 2022, only around 12% of Irish language street sign applications received by Belfast City Council had majority residential support. In preparing for the debate, I spent time going through the various people and communities committee documents that contain the streets on which the signage was proposed and analysing that information. Yes, there were streets that had over 50% support, but the majority were within the range of 20% to 40%. There were also many that did not have the majority support. We have heard about those streets from other Members. We can look at Shandon Park, in my constituency, where 49% — 121 people — of the people surveyed did not support the imposition of a dual language sign on their street, and many fewer did support it. However, that was railroaded through. The crux of the issue before us is not the Irish language. I go back to my comments. I will perhaps be labelled as anti-Irish, but that is not the case. When the Shandon Park street sign was vandalised, just recently, I highlighted in my comments of condemnation that it was wrong — unequivocally wrong. I served in an Irish regiment, and I am proud of the regiment that I served in. Its regimental motto, "faugh a ballagh", has its origins in the Irish language. We cannot deny the fact that the Irish language has been weaponised by some. There may be people who will laugh at that or try to dismiss it, but that is the reality. I speak to many who identify as unionist, as nationalist, as other or none of the above, and they do not support the approach around the dual language signage. That is a fundamental issue when signage is being railroaded through and people do not support it. It further entrenches communities, it sows division, and it does a disservice to the language. What good is that? It is no good. Fundamentally, we have to look at the policy. The policy is, in part, to blame. To reduce it to the 15% and then to go beyond that, as we have heard from other Members who have said, "You know what? Actually, we are not even happy with the 15%. We will just disregard that because, in reality, the 15% threshold has been met, but the majority in the street do not support that approach, but we will push it through", is wrong. We would be much better served by investing in promoting the language, not railroading it on to communities and not through the current policies of Belfast City Council. I am not anti-Irish. I support those who wish to speak the language. I personally do not wish to speak it, and I know many who share the same views. Equally, I know people who do wish to speak it. I have met Linda Ervine, who is a massive promoter of the language, and I have engaged with her. I have heard about how the Irish language is intertwined throughout the fabric of our city. I have no difficulty with that. However, you have to recognise that there are many in our communities who do. Their voices are as important as those who wish to have Irish, and to dismiss them is doing them a disservice. I will finish on this: those who have used the language as a political tool, or, as I refer to it, as weaponisation, should reflect on the disservice that they have done and why we are where we are now. I support the motion and call on Belfast City Council not only to review the policy but to redouble its efforts as to how it can build community cohesion. Mr McGlone: Níl a fhios agam cé acu ar chóir an díospóireacht seo bheith ar cois i gComhairle Cathrach Bhéal Feirste nó anseo. Tá me cinéal idir eatarthu. Cibé, tá súil agam, an méid atá le rá agam go mbeidh sé oideachasúil. Tá an Ghaeilge ar cheann de na teangacha scríofa is sine san Eoraip, le fréamhacha ag síneadh siar níos mó ná 2,000. Tháinig sí chun cinn as an tSean-Ghaeilge a labhraítí in Éirinn, Albain agus Oileán Mhanann, a d’fhorbair ón Cheiltis a tháinig go hÉirinn timpeall 500 R.Ch. Le himeacht ama, d’fhorbair an Ghaeilge a cuid scríbhneoireachta féin, go háirithe leis an Ogham ón chúigiú haois ar aghaidh — an chéad chóras scríbhneoireachta dúchasach in iarthar na hEorpa. Le linn na Meánaoise, bhí an Ghaeilge ina teanga riaracháin, dlí agus léinn in Éirinn, agus d’imir sí tionchar suntasach ar theangacha eile, go háirithe ar Ghaeilge na hAlban agus ar an Mhanainnis. Tháinig meath uirthi tar éis an Choncais Angla-Normannaigh agus go háirithe le linn na 17ú agus 18ú haoiseanna, nuair a tháinig an Béarla i réim mar theanga an chumhachta, na trádála agus an oideachais, ar an drochuair. Mar sin féin, mhair an Ghaeilge mar theanga phobail i gceantair thuaithe agus i measc na ndaoine coitianta, ag coinneáil beo gné thábhachtach, gné iontach tábhachtach de chultúr, d’fhilíocht, d’amhránaíocht agus de shainfhéiniúlacht na hÉireann. I gcomhthéacs Thuaisceart Éireann, tá an Ghaeilge ina comhartha tábhachtach d’oidhreacht chomhroinnte agus d’aitheantas cultúrtha. Mo chultúr féin, rud atá comhroinnte le daoine eile agus le daoine ó chúlraí éagsúla. Cé gur cuireadh faoi chois í ar feadh tréimhsí fada, tá sí anois á hathbheochan tríd an oideachas, na meáin chumarsáide, ealaíon agus saol poiblí. Cuireann pobail Ghaeilge in áiteanna mar Bhéal Feirste agus Doire go mór leis an athfhás seo. Tá aitheantas oifigiúil don Ghaeilge i dTuaisceart Éireann anois mar chuid de na gealltanais faoi Chomhaontú Chill Rìmhinn (2006 [Translation: I do not know whether this debate should be held in Belfast City Council or here. I am kind of in two minds. Anyway, I hope that what I have to say will be educational. Irish is one of the oldest written languages in Europe, with roots stretching back more than 2,000 years. It evolved from Old Irish, spoken in Ireland, Scotland and the Isle of Man, which itself developed from the Celtic language that arrived in Ireland about 500 BC. Over time, Irish developed its own writing system, notably in the Ogham script from the 5th century onwards — the first indigenous writing system in western Europe. During the Middle Ages, Irish was the language of administration, law and scholarship in Ireland and had a significant influence on other languages, particularly Scots and Manx. It declined after the Anglo-Norman conquest and especially during the 17th and 18th centuries, when English emerged as the language of power, trade and education, unfortunately. However, Irish has survived as a community language in rural areas and among the common people, keeping alive an important part of Irish culture, poetry, song and identity. In the context of Northern Ireland, Irish is an important symbol of shared heritage and cultural identity. Although suppressed for long periods, it is now being revived through education, the media, the arts and public life. Irish-speaking communities in places such as Belfast and Derry are contributing significantly to that resurgence. Official recognition of Irish in Northern Ireland is now part of the commitments under the St Andrews Agreement (2006).] Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way? Mr McGlone: Yes. Mr Brooks: I am listening to the Member, and I do not disagree with much of what he is saying. He clearly has a love for the language. However, does he believe that the optimal way to promote the language is to impose it on streets where 16% say that they are in favour whilst 50% say that they are against it? Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: You have an extra minute, Patsy. Mr McGlone: Go raibh maith agat. Thank you for that point. I would delight in hearing what percentage the DUP has proposed at Belfast City Council. I have searched for it, and I cannot find a percentage — 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0. All I have heard is mention of majority rule. Mar is eol dúinn uilig, ní oibríonn sin. [Translation: As we all know, that does not work.] Mar a bhí mé a ra, tá aiteantas oifigiúil don Ghaeilge i dTuaisceart Éireann anois mar chuid de na gealltanais faoi Chomhaontú Chill Rìmhinn (2006) agus na socruithe deireanacha faoin Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Act 2022. Tugann an reachtaíocht sin creat don chomhionannas teanga, don rochtain ar sheirbhísí trí Ghaeilge, agus do chead don phobal a bhféiniúlacht Ghaelach a chur in iúl go poiblí. Tá níos mó i gceist leis an Ghaeilge ná teanga amháin, nó is siombail bheo í de leanúnachas stairiúil, cultúrtha agus spioradálta an oileáin. Trína cur chun cinn agus trí áiseanna córa a chur ar fáil di i dTuaisceart Éireann, aithnítear ní hé amháin teanga ársa, teanga an-ársa mar atá léirithe agam, ach cuid dhílis de chomhthéacs comhaimseartha agus todhchaí chomhchoiteanta na ndaoine uile ar an oileán. Ar ndóigh níl mé ag tacú leis an mholadh ach arís eile, iarraim ar dhaoine a ghabháil agus bheith ag foghlaim na teanga agus foghlaim cúlra na teanga, agus feicfear go bhfuil cuid spéise inti do gach aon duine. An t-iolrachas cultúir agus an cóimheas, sin iad na dóigheanna ar féidir linn cónaí le chéile agus meas a bheith againn ar a chéile. [Translation: As I was saying, official recognition of Irish in Northern Ireland is now part of the commitments under the St Andrews Agreement (2006) and the more recent arrangements under the Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Act 2022. That legislation provides a framework for language equality, access to services through Irish, and the ability for the public to express their Irish-speaking identity publicly. Irish is not just a language; it is a living symbol of the island's historic, cultural and spiritual continuity. By promoting it and providing it with fair facilities in Northern Ireland, we recognise not only an ancient language but an integral part of the contemporary context and shared future of all the people on the island. Of course I do not support the motion, but I am asking people to learn the language and learn its background, as there is something of interest in it for everyone. Cultural pluralism and mutual respect are the ways we can live together and respect each other.] Mr Kearney: Caithfear bheith soiléir: ní bhaineann an rún seo ón DUP le comharthaíocht. Ní bhaineann sé le beartas. Níl ann ach iarracht eile lenár bpobail a tharraingt ar gcúl. Bhog daoine ar aghaidh; bhog an tsochaí ar aghaidh. Tá muintir Bhéal Feirste, ó gach pobal, ag iarraidh dul chun cinn a fheiceáil. Tá urraim agus comhionannas uathu. [Translation: We have to be clear: this motion from the DUP is not about signage. It is not about policy. What it is, is simply another attempt to drag our communities backwards. People have moved on; society has moved on. The people of Belfast from every community want progress. They want respect and also fairness.] Mr Kingston: Will the Member take an intervention? Mr Kearney: Gabh ar aghaidh. [Translation: Go ahead.] Mr Kingston: I appreciate that it was not the Member's speech, but the last speech did not address the topic, which is about street signs. What is the Member's message to residents of a street where the majority have voted against having the street sign added in Irish? What is his message to those residents? Should they just suck it up, or will their wishes be respected? Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Declan, you have an extra minute. Mr Kearney: Go raibh maith agat. Tuigim go bhfuil mo chara anseo ag iarraidh cor a chur ar an díospóireacht. Le scéal fada a dhéanamh gairid, glacaimid go bhfuil ceart ag gach saoránach. Ceist agam ortsa: an dtuigeann tusa anois go bhfuil aitheantas bainte amach ag an Ghaeilge mar theanga oifigiúil sa stát seo? Maith thú. Tá daoine dubh dóite de pholaitíocht seo na deighilte atá cuid páirtithe a chur chun cinn. Is é fírinne an scéil nach bhfuil suim ag formhór mór na ndaoine sna cogaí cultúrtha bréagacha seo. Tá siad ag iarraidh feabhas a chur ar sheirbhísí poiblí. Tá siad ag fanacht le páirtithe cur lena bhfocal agus an comhionannas a chur i bhfeidhm. Tá an beartas atá idir camánaibh againn inniu bunaithe ar chomhionannas, ar an smaoineamh go bhfuil sé de cheart ag gach duine a bhféiniúlacht agus a gcultúr a fheiceáil sa tsaol phoiblí. Ní bhaineann an rún seo ón DUP le pobail a chosaint. Sin cur i gcéill. Baineanna sé le heagla agus teannas a chothú inár bpobail. Céim ar gcúl atá ann, tá sé frith-Ghaelach, agus tagann sé iomlán salach ar an chomhionannas féin. Léiríonn an chomharthaíocht dhátheangach urraim, agus tugann sí le fios do mhórán daoine ar fud na cathrach go bhfuil urraim agus fáilte roimh a bhféiniúlacht anseo. Ní beartas ar chomharthaí amháin atá sa bheartas seo; léiríonn sé an cineál cathrach atáimid ag iarraidh a dhéanamh — cathair do chách, atá dearfach, measúil, atá forásach. Níor chóir do dhuine ar bith eagla a bheith air roimh an Ghaeilge; ní bagairt í an Ghaeilge. Is linn go léir í, beag beann ar chúlra nó ar chreideamh. Is teanga bheo í. Beatha teanga í a labhairt. Ní aniar aduaidh a tháinig an beartas seo. Is toradh é ar na blianta de rannpháirtíocht pobail, eagrú agus comhairliúchán ar leibhéal an phobail, agus níl an tacaíocht dó teoranta do aon chuid amháin dár gcathair. Ar an drochuair tá an chomharthaíocht dhátheangach á loit go fóill, agus caithfear deireadh a chur leis sin. Caithfear deireadh a chur leis na hathbhreithnithe breithiúnacha costasacha atá cuid daoine a úsáid le bac a chur ar an dul chun cinn. [Translation: Thank you. I understand that my friend here is trying to change the course of the debate. To make a long story short, we accept that every citizen has rights. My question to you is this: do you now understand that Irish has achieved recognition as an official language in this state? Good for you. People are tired of the politics of division being put forward by some parties. They simply want politics that deliver. The reality is that the vast majority of people are not interested in these manufactured culture wars. They want public services improved. They want to see what all parties have said they will deliver: equality in action. That is exactly what this policy is about: equality and fairness. The policy that is being debated here today is a policy rooted in equality, in the idea that everyone has the right to see their identity and their culture reflected in public life. The sentiment behind this DUP motion is not about protecting communities. That is mere pretence. It is about stoking up fear and tension across our communities. It is regressive, it is anti-Irish, and it is completely out of step with equality itself. This policy is not simply a policy on signs; it symbolises what kind of city we are trying to build — a city for all, a city that is positive, respectful and progressive. The Irish language is not something to fear; it is not a threat. It is the native language of this island. It belongs to us all regardless of background or belief. It is a living language. A language thrives by being spoken. This policy did not appear out of the air. It has come after years of community engagement, grassroots organising and consultation, and support for it is not confined to one part of our city. Unfortunately, what we still see, and what we need to put an end to, is the vandalism of signage or the costly judicial reviews taken by some to block progress.] Top 7.15 pm Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way? Mr Kearney: Níl an t-am agam, gabh mo leithscéal. Bíonn an DUP ag caint arís agus arís eile ar airgead poiblí bheith á chur amú. Ba chóir fiafraí díobh, áfach, cá mhéad airgid a chuir siad féin amú agus iad ag troid i gcoinne an bheartais seo sna cúirteanna — ba chóir an t-airgead sin a chaitheamh ar sheirbhísí a fheabhsú. Ná bíodh aon amhras ann: is í an urraim an t-aon rud amháin atá á héileamh: urraim ar an Ghaeilge; urraim ar na daoine a labhraíonn í agus ar mian leo í a fhoghlaim. Deirim seo leis an DUP tráthnóna: tá aimsir an leithcheala thart. Tá aimsir na scoilte thart. Tá an t-am acu bheith ag obair leis an chuid eile againn ar mhaithe lenár bpobail uilig in ionad bheith ag iarraidh scoilt a chur eatarthu. Tapaígí an deis. [Translation: I am sorry, but I do not have time. This issue or concern about public money comes up time and time again from the DUP. The question that should be put to them is how much has been wasted fighting this policy in the courts — money that could have been spent in improving services, supporting communities or addressing real issues that the public have? Let us be clear: the only thing being demanded is respect: respect for the Irish language; respect for the people who speak it and want to learn it. I say this to the DUP: the time for exclusion is over. The time for division is over. It is time they join with the rest of us for the betterment of all our communities instead of driving a wedge between them and stoking up fear and tension with these cultural wars. Seize the opportunity.] Mr Brooks: I suggest that the only people who are driving a wedge between our communities are those on the opposite Benches. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important issue concerning Irish language signage being imposed in parts of Belfast, particularly in areas where there is little demand or support for such measures. Let me say at the outset, as clearly as I can, that this is not about hostility to the Irish language. No one in this party objects to anyone learning, speaking or celebrating Irish as part of their cultural heritage. What we do object to is the use of language as a political weapon and as a means of advancing a nationalist agenda in communities that do not identify with it and did not consent to it. That is what we have seen at Belfast City Hall. Again, the parties that most strongly champion the Good Friday Agreement so easily set aside the fundamental principle of consent when it concerns unionists. That is not cultural respect: it is cultural imposition. Let us be honest: were the situation to be reversed and another community was being subjected to cultural symbols that they did not identify with, there would be outrage, protests and endless calls for respect. Indeed, a five- or 10-minute parade past a nationalist community once or twice a year is often deemed too much for nationalist parties in this place to stomach, much less the permanent imposition of divisive symbols in their communities. Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for giving way. There has been commentary — in fairness, not by the Member, yet — by unionist politicians, including party colleagues of his that demonstrates that it is not just Irish language signage that the DUP is opposed to. A few years ago, I put a proposal to the then Infrastructure Minister about changing the name on road signage from Londonderry to Londonderry/Derry in a bid to incorporate both names. It was received with opposition from his party. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mark, you need to take your seat. It is not a speech. Honestly, come on ahead, seriously. Mr Kingston: An extra minute. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: You have an extra 15 minutes. [Laughter.] Mr Brooks: Thank you. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I am only joking. You have an extra minute. Mr Brooks: The official name of the place is Londonderry, although I understand that some do not wish to use it. I hope that a similar attitude will be taken to the continuing damage to signage that has the name Londonderry on it, which has been happening for years across the Province, in light of what happened, for instance, in Shandon Park. I want to address a particular element of the debate that, I think, grassroots unionism is sick and tired of: the disproportionate weight given to outlying examples from a unionist or Protestant background as if they are examples of what unionism really desires or are paragons of what unionism ought to be; the suggestion that unionists resist only because they do not know. I have heard the usual things invoked today, including the history of the Presbyterians in the Irish language, which I respect. We have heard talk of Linda Ervine, who is no doubt passionate about the Irish language. As a unionist, however, I know that many people whom I represent are sick of having those examples thrown at us as if they mean that we must adopt it as our culture. Do not tell me what my culture is. Do not tell me what my language is. I respect your right to speak Irish if you so wish, but I will not be told that it must be my language. That is what is happening to communities in Belfast: they are being told that they must have the Irish language whether they like it or not; that is the reality. If people in the 18th or 19th century, such as Douglas Hyde, had an interest in the language, that is interesting. It is often quoted that King William had backing from the Pope. Those are interesting quirks of history, and some are vital to the history of the language, but they are not reasons why unionist communities today must identify with it. I tell you: 30 years of being bombed, murdered and maimed by people who stand and sit in front of tricolours and tell us that every word spoken in Irish is a bullet for Irish freedom will affect people's attitude. Therefore, when you find that unionist and Protestant communities in Belfast are resistant to the language, perhaps some people — particularly those on the Benches opposite — will look closer to home for the reasons. The Members of this place and of councils — the Alliance Party, the SDLP and Sinn Féin — and the Irish language lobby can engage in their culture as they wish, but they should rid themselves of the sanctimonious idea that they get to say what others identify with and how others celebrate their culture. I respect the right of all to engage in and express their identity, but we should not have the voices of 16% of people in a street being granted more weight than the majority, as we saw in Shandon Park. Since 2022, 228 streets in Belfast have been approved for Irish language signage, yet only a small fraction of those had the backing of a majority of residents. We are told that bilingual signage promotes inclusion and diversity, but inclusion cannot be achieved by coercion. Belfast is a shared city with shared spaces and is welcoming to all. It should not be dominated by one cultural narrative or another. Imposing Irish language signs in strongly unionist areas does not promote harmony; it drives division. It tells one community that its sense of British identity is secondary and that its voice can be overridden by political symbolism. The DUP will always support genuine cultural expression, but it must be done with consent and context. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Your time is up, David, with your extra minute. Mr Brooks: Thank you. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Ms Mulholland: I rise as someone with giota beag Gaeilge — a little bit of Irish. I am an aspiring learner; it is something that I have tried to do. I think of Béal Feirste — Belfast; the heart of my constituency, Ballymena — an Baile Meánach — the Middle Townland; and Loughguile — Loch gCaol — River of the Narrow Water. For me, all those things are part of the story. My favourite is somewhere that I pass every day as I come to Stormont: Knocknagoney — Cnoc na gCoiníní — Hill of the Rabbits, so called because, once upon a time, before Tesco was there, it was hiving with rabbits apparently. Bilingual street nameplates do not replace anyone's identity. We are not asking people to take on the culture as if it is their own. We are asking for respect. There is a myth about Alliance that we want everyone to be put into a big pot of homogenous beige; we do not want that. We want people to be able to celebrate and respect the culture of others. Mr Brett: Will the Member give way? Ms Mulholland: Yes, go on ahead. Mr Brett: I appreciate the Member articulating her remarks, but we are now into the second Alliance speech, and we still have not heard how you are going to vote on the motion. Will the Member articulate to the House and the watching public how the Alliance Party will vote on the motion? Ms Mulholland: I will continue with my speech and get to that. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sian, you have an extra minute. Ms Mulholland: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. What first struck me about the motion, aside from the fact that we are spending time discussing the outworkings of a council policy, not just the policy detail or lack thereof, was the tone. Using terms such as "oppressive", "marking of territory" and "imposed upon" is not the way in which to lower the temperature and open a door to our shared history, which is a history that also includes "others" and Presbyterians at its croí [Translation: heart] , no matter how unfortunate that may be for people to hear. The motion states that only 12% of applications for Irish language signs — in fact, they are dual language signs — are approved by the majority of residents who live there. That is a distortion of the facts. The policy focuses on respondents, not on the total number of residents. That is a key distinction to make. On the motion's assertion that, in nine out of 10 cases, the wishes of the minority are trumping those of the majority, I would like to know from where those figures come, because I am not clear on that. Our peace settlement and international standards state that minority cultural rights matter. For years before 2022, a supermajority was required for the introduction of Irish signage. In practice, that meant that that visibility was kept, and refined, in areas that had already fully embraced the language. The more recent policy —. Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way? Ms Mulholland: I want to continue, because I do not have an awful lot of time. The more recent policy aimed to remove an unreasonable barrier while maintaining discretion, precisely so that we could weigh up local feeling and good relations, but community bridges will hold only if they are built with consent. Trust is built by talking to residents, answering questions and demystifying what a bilingual sign is, and that sometimes does mean saying, "Not here, not now, not yet". The point is to bring people along. As has been mentioned, councillors can still exercise discretion, including through a good relations test. My party, unlike the SDLP, Sinn Féin and Green Party groupings on Belfast City Council, has stuck to its position that a sign should not be put in place if a majority of residents respond against it. Indeed, in the words of a DUP councillor in Belfast City Hall: "To be fair to the Alliance Party, they have stuck to their position, which was that if the majority oppose a street sign in their street, then we are not going to force it on them." We want to clarify our position. We believe that the policy is not the problem. Rather, the problem is the way in which a number of cases have been approached. If we are to listen to the calls of the Irish language community, which wants to depoliticise the language, we have to do that on every level and from every side. A Member: Will the Member give way? Ms Mulholland: Just a second. To be clear, my children singing 'Baa, Baa, Caora Dubh' [Translation: 'Baa, Baa, Black Sheep'] is not a bullet for any cause, and nor should it be a reason for intimidation of others. Where therefore should we land? First, there is the potential for Irish and other minority languages to promote our common culture, and street signage can help to do that in a modest, everyday way. Secondly, it should not go where local people do not yet particularly want it. Consent and context matter. If a clear majority of residents on a given street are not interested, for whatever reason, it simply may not be the right place or the right time to introduce it. Thirdly, the way in which support is built is through respectful engagement, conversations, outreach and practical reassurance, not through street-by-street trench warfare, as the motion may have us believe. Fourthly, we should be proud of Belfast's progress. More people from different backgrounds are dipping a toe in the Irish language, even if it is just a wee one. That is a positive story that we should nurture, not politicise. That brings me back to tone. Calling neighbours' cultural expression "oppressive" or considering it territorial does nothing but harden hearts. It is not a zero-sum exercise. If we talk about the issue in that way, we will guarantee division and not achieve anything. This is not about forcing anyone to adopt the language as their own but about respect. There is also a practical path that we can take. The council committed to a two-year review of the policy, so let us wait for that in good faith. Let us look at the response rates and the engagement quality. Let us improve the information. Let us use our discretion, which we already have, to say when good relations would plainly be hindered. The choice today is not between Irish and English or between culture and consent. Rather, the debate is about seeing a Béal Feirste [Translation: Belfast] and a Tuisceart Aontroma [Translation: North Antrim] that are quietly, confidently proud — Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Your time is up, Sian. Ms Mulholland: — of all their voices. Mr O'Toole: I also have very few focail [Translation: words] . I am a very poor Irish speaker. I am not ashamed of that, but it is something that I would love to rectify, and I intend to do so. I want to learn Irish. I am trying to learn it with my kids. Like Sian Mulholland, I have very young children who are looking at the Irish language, exploring it, learning it and thinking about the place names — the places and the people — of the city that they live in and of other places that they visit on this island. In a strange way, thinking about it from first principles is important. It allows us a way into the debate. Top 7.30 pm It would be easy for me to castigate the DUP for the terms of the motion, because it is irresponsible and not really about getting to a place of greater understanding or discussion. It is about forcing a confrontation. However, before I come to that, I will acknowledge something that has been said, so that I am not accused of distorting views. It is obviously true that there are many unionist communities, especially working-class unionist communities, that are not greatly enthused about the Irish language. That is an obvious statement of fact. It is also true that, in communities that I represent in South Belfast, lots of people are not all that enthusiastic about the fact that flags fly, all the time, all year round, on the streets where they live. They go to their elected representatives, but they have no means of ensuring that the flags come down or even of ensuring that there can be an agreed way of regulating them. Constituents often come up to me, as I am sure that they do with all Members, in the shop or even the pub, to talk about issues. Flags is one of the things that people regularly come up to me to talk about, sometimes in quite colourful language. They use words that are not necessarily as Gaeilge [Translation: in Irish] — sometimes they use words that have an Anglo-Saxon origin — and they ask, "What about those flags in the street? I do not mind if they go up in July and there is an agreed process for getting them down". Those people are asking for a process and system of regulating a cultural expression that is not theirs. Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way? Mr O'Toole: I will, Mr Brooks, in a second. What Belfast City Council agreed was a policy to accommodate cultural expression. By the way, it is not exactly the same thing: they are not parallels at all. Many people who enjoy, celebrate and want to learn the Irish language are from unionist backgrounds. They are there, by the way, Mr Brooks. They are British and have that identity. However, there is no means of me regulating, for my constituents, the flags on the street corners, whether they are national flags or paramilitary flags. I put that point to some of the Members opposite. I presume that they will now enthusiastically support a system that allows for majority referenda for flags in streets. I will give way to Mr Brooks. Mr Brooks: When I was a councillor in Lisnasharragh, and even in my role today, communities like that came to me — I have spoken to members of Mr O'Toole's party on those issues as well — and we tried our best to have flags removed from areas where there is not consent and to engage with communities. However, we did not vote for a policy that allows 15% of an area to impose its will on the rest of it. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Matthew, you have an extra minute. Mr O'Toole: Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Mr Brooks, you have just established one of the problems with that situation, which is that it relies on an informal system, effectively a client system, whereby people go and there is a boy whom they know who can have it —. [Inaudible.] Mr O'Toole: You may not, but that is what you imply. We cannot get an agreed system for dealing with flags. Flags are not the issue that we are talking about: we should be talking about the Irish language. Some Members: You are talking about flags. Mr O'Toole: The DUP tabled a motion about an aspect of cultural expression. [Interruption.] It talked about regulation and deeply objected to it. A Member: Will the Member give way? Mr O'Toole: I will give way in a second —. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Matthew, take your seat for a minute, please. David, you were the one who introduced flags. You introduced parades, Brian. All I say is that —. Mr Kingston: No. That is not [Inaudible.] Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Excuse me. I was about to advise that Members should stick to the wording of the motion as best they can. Some Members: Hear, hear. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: And do not "Hear, hear" me, please. [Laughter.] Thank you. A Member: Would you rather have it in Irish? Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: It is just that it is not courteous. Go ahead, Matthew. Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I acknowledge that many people do not feel attached to the Irish language. I say two things to that. The first is that our job as political representatives is not simply to reflect the worst fears of the people who elect us; sometimes, it is to reassure and even to challenge people. I can tell you — I mention the flag parallel briefly — that, when people talk to me about that, I say to them, "Bear in mind that this means something deep to your neighbours". Therefore, let us have a bit of empathy and grace and think better of one another. The Irish language is a part of us all, whether we like it or not. The Member mentioned the name of his DEA, Lisnasharragh: where does that come from? If the place name "Shandon Park" was translated into the English language, it would be "Old Fort Park." At a certain point, we have to be honest with ourselves and honest with the people who represent us. I am not suggesting that absolutely everybody in unionist communities is thrilled about the Irish language, but, first of all, they are dual language signs and, secondly, there are many people in those communities who are open-minded about the language and want to learn more about it. Just for a change, rather than reinforcing people's worst fears, why not say to them — Mr Brooks: Will the Member take a point? Mr O'Toole: No, I do not have time. Why not say to them, "You do not have to be afraid. We can build something together in this place. It does not always have to be zero-sum."? That is what I say to my constituents when I talk about a new Ireland. I say, "Flags and British cultural expression are at the heart of my vision for a new Ireland." Would that all of you were a little bit more optimistic and hopeful for the people whom you claim to represent. Mr Gaston: I start tonight by looking at the facts. Since 2022, only 12% of applications for Irish language street signs in Belfast have secured majority support from residents. That means that, in nearly nine out of 10 cases, minority wishes have trumped the view of the majority. That is not cultural expression; it is, indeed, imposition. It is undemocratic, oppressive and designed to subjugate one community in our capital city. In Belfast, the tyranny of the minority has been permitted. Take Shandon Park: under 17% of respondents supported Irish language signage, yet the signs went up anyway. Given the outrage over alleged damage to Irish language signs, I look forward to the wall-to-wall coverage when the next "Welcome to Northern Ireland" or "Londonderry" signs are defaced. Let me be clear: this is not about language per se. It is about imposing minority rule, territory marking and shifting community composition. That is not rhetoric; it is fact. The survey commissioned by Analogical Research via LucidTalk in March showed a clear chill factor amongst unionist and Protestant residents, with 71% of unionists saying that Irish language signage in their street would make them more likely to move away, 88% of unionists saying that they would avoid a street with Irish language signage and 75% of unionists saying that they would be less likely to use leisure centres featuring Irish language signage. If many in a community are being chilled out of civic spaces, what kind of shared society is that? The effect is, indeed, obvious. Unionist households leave or avoid certain areas, and sympathisers then gravitate there. Over time, the balance shifts, not necessarily by force, but by exclusion. That is a form of non-violent ethnic engineering. The council's new citywide Irish language policy makes it even worse. Alliance, a party that calls itself a united community, has championed that divisive policy at every stage. However, let me make this clear: while some here rightly condemn Belfast City Council, the DUP sit in an Executive who are recruiting a language commissioner. A fanatic is the man touted to be the new Irish Language Commissioner. By all accounts, he thinks that the law does not go far enough and intends to impose an Irish cultural identity across Northern Ireland. If, indeed, you oppose what is happening in Belfast City Council, use your powers in the Executive to stop the next phase of this republican project. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Timothy, please take your seat for a moment. It is my understanding that the name of the Irish Language Commissioner has not been announced, even though there is a lot of speculation. I think that you need to be very careful, even though that speculation is out in the media. You are now disparaging someone's character. I think that you need to think carefully, and if you continue, I will ask you to take your seat. Thank you. Mr Gaston: I will take your guidance on that, Principal Deputy Speaker, and finish the point that I was making: presiding over not only the protocol but an Irish language enforcer is not any record — Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Timothy —. Mr Gaston: — that a unionist should want to defend. I did not mention any names, Principal Deputy Speaker. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: No, but the protocol has absolutely nothing to do with the motion. I respectfully ask you —. Mr Gaston: I am coming back to the motion. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Yes, and if you do not come back to the motion, I will move on. Mr Gaston: Do I get an extra minute for that intervention? [Laughter.] Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: No, you are all right. Mr Gaston: Although the headline in 'The Irish News' screamed: "Nine out of 10 Belfast residents support dual language signs", that is a statistical sleight of hand. In the early phase, applications came from overwhelmingly nationalist areas, where unionists raised no objection. Now, applications are targeting mixed or majority unionist streets, and residents there are rejecting Irish language signage, sometimes at a rate of 3:1, yet the signs go up anyway. There is a remedy. I am glad that the Communities Minister has come into the Chamber. Under section 111 of the Local Government Act (Northern Ireland) 2014, the Minister for Communities has the power to issue guidance to councils. Surely the time has come, Minister, — Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Timothy, your time is up. Mr Gaston: — to exercise that power and bring Belfast City Council — Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Your time is up, Timothy. Mr Gaston: — back to operating under the law. Mr Carroll: It is pathetic but not surprising that we are dealing with a DUP attack on the Irish language once again. When unionism is in crisis, it seeks to sectarianise things. It is like clockwork, or, as we say in Irish, iontas na n-iontas. [Translation: That comes as no surprise.] Is cuid lárnach dár gcathair iad pobal na Gaeilge. Tá na mílte daoine óga ag freastal ar scoileanna lán-Ghaeilge. Tá tuismitheoirí ar fud na cathrach cosúil liomsa, ag tógáil a gcuid páistí trí mheán na Gaeilge. Is ceart agus is cóir go raibh an Ghaeilge le feiceáil i mBéal Feirste. Is ceart agus is cóir go raibh sí in úsáid ag an chomhairle, ag an stát. Agus tá focal coitianta ann a dhéanann cur síos ar ionsaí an DUP: seicteachas. Mar a dúirt mé, nuair a bhíonn an DUP faoi bhrú, déanann siad an druma seicteach a bhualadh. [Translation: The Irish language community is a central part of our city. Thousands of young people attend Irish-medium schools. Parents throughout the city, like me, are raising their children through the medium of Irish. It is right and just that the Irish language should be visible in Belfast. It is right and just that it be used by the council and by the state. There is one word to describe the DUP’s attack: sectarianism. As I said, when the DUP is under pressure, it beats the sectarian drum.] Mr Kingston: Will the Member give way? Mr Carroll: Bomaite beag. [Translation: One moment, please.] Agus cén t-iontas ann sin nuair a bhíonn bagairt lofa ar chéad leathanach na nuachtán? Dílseoirí le gunnaí, ag rá go ndéanfaidh siad ionsaí ar an chomhairle, ar oibrithe, mar gheall ar an Ghaeilge. [Translation: That should come as no surprise when there are shocking threats on the front pages of the newspapers. Loyalists with guns saying that they will attack council workers because of the Irish language.] Go ahead. Mr Kingston: Does the Member consider every resident who objects to having an Irish language street sign added to be sectarian? Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Gerry, you have an extra minute. Mr Carroll: Go raibh maith agat. [Translation: Thank you.] No, but I believe that your party's motives are sectarian. I remind Members that, across 536 streets in Belfast where there is approved street signage, only 3% of residents opposed the use of Irish. I think that you are trying to make an exception for a small minority that you, as a party, have tried to elevate. When unionism has spent months and years whipping up hysteria about the language, which it has done quite well, it is no surprise to see armed threats on the front pages. The deputy First Minister tried to downplay those threats and say that they do not exist, but the evidence is there for every single one of us to see. A sectarian agenda gives confidence to and legitimises loyalist paramilitaries [Interruption] — you can tut all you want — as does working and sitting down with the Loyalist Communities Council. We have heard much in the debate about cost. I remind Members that the DUP should not be trusted on accounting matters. The spirit of the RHI scheme is still alive and well in that party. Sa dara háit, mar a deir an seanfhocal atá scríofa ar an bhealach isteach go Coláiste Feirste: Is fiú ór í an fhoghlaim. Is fiú ór í an méid atá le foghlaim faoin Ghaeilge sa chathair seo. Is fiú ór í Béal Feirste ina bhfuil an Ghaeilge lárnach inti. Is fiú ór í an infheistíocht a dhéantar sa teanga. [Translation: Secondly, as the proverb written over the entrance to Coláiste Feirste states, "learning is worth gold". Learning about the Irish language in Belfast is worth its weight in gold. A Belfast in which the Irish language plays a central role is worth its weight in gold. Investment in the language is priceless.] Top 7.45 pm Let us be clear: the DUP is trying to sectarianise the Irish language by talking about costs, trying to whip up racism and talking about transphobia, because working-class communities are suffering, and they are angry. The Executive share a lot of the blame for that stuff. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Gerry, can you get back to the substance of the debate, which is the Irish language street sign policy? Mr Carroll: Sure. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Más maith leat, go raibh maith agat. [Translation: If you please, thank you.] Mr Carroll: Tá fáilte romhat. [Translation: You are welcome.] Those ridiculous and embarrassing attacks on the Irish language are designed to distract from that reality and keep working-class people angry at the wrong things. Sectarianism lets the whole establishment off the hook. Nationalist parties here are right to defend the language — we all agree on the need for that, obviously — but, in the same breath, all Executive parties implement a neoliberal agenda that punishes working class Gaeilgeoirí and working class people in general. They are complicit in the crises in our public services and housing. Mar a deir muid i nGaeilge, tá siad ag baint ó Pheadar le tabhairt do Phól. [Translation: As we say in Irish, robbing Peter to pay Paul.] We have to reject the DUP's sectarianism. The rights of Irish speakers should be respected and resourced. Narrow nationalism will not serve the needs of working-class Gaeilgeoirí in Belfast or anywhere else. We need to take a socialist approach to the questions of the Irish language. There has been a lot of talk about the Irish language being weaponised by some people. I will make a point of who is doing the weaponising tonight: it is the DUP. DUP Members are clearly vexed at the sight of bilingualism and of Irish anywhere. They are the biggest culprits when it comes to weaponisation and negative politicisation. I will address some points that were made in the debate. Unionists may be in the minority in the House, but they are not an oppressed minority. Despite what spin Members try to put on it, unionists are not an oppressed minority. Of all the issues that the DUP could have brought to the Chamber tonight on poverty or inequality, they, instead, try to stir the pot of sectarianism. Shame on them for that. Mar fhocal scoir, ba mhaith liom mo bhuíochas a ghabháil leis na hateangairí don díospóireacht seo. [Translation: Finally, I thank the interpreters for facilitating the debate.] Mr McNulty: There is a wonderful saying in Ireland that I love: ar scáth a chéile a mhaireann na daoine. It means, "in the shelter of each other, people live" or, "in each other's shadow, we survive". That Irish wisdom highlights the importance of community and mutual reliance, emphasising the fact that we all need shelter and give shelter to one another. It is sad that that that generous and protective philosophy is not embraced here. The Irish language threatens no one. It is the indigenous mother tongue of this land. It belongs to us all and can be cherished by us all. Just last week, a friend of mine bought me a beautiful book by Manchán Magan, called 'Ninety-Nine Words for Rain (and One for Sun)'. I will borrow two words from that book and say: enough of the néaladóirí [Translation: cloud watchers] ; let us all be réadóirí [Translation: stargazers] . Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Phillip Brett. You have 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. Mr Brett: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. The debate brought little that was surprising. Sinn Féin Members articulated their long-held position. Let us make it clear: Sinn Féin's position, which it is entitled to hold, is that there should be dual language street signage across Northern Ireland and in every corner of it. That is what it wanted from its stand-alone Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Act 2022, but that is what it did not get. Despite that, the TUV has to take this opportunity, at a time when unionists should be standing together on the issue, to attack a fellow unionist. There was no mention of the fact that it was a unionist politician who tabled the motion. Mr Gaston has to read from his scripted remarks, which were given to him before he came into the Chamber, and there were no compliments, no thanks and no talk of unionists working together. We hear of unionists standing together. I am very happy to stand with him, but I will not sit here and take attacks from one party that then expects us to roll in behind it on another. Our agenda on the issue is clear. The debate was an opportunity for unionists to stand together. Instead, Mr Gaston wasted half his time attacking the DUP. The DUP did not deliver the stand-alone Irish language Act that the party opposite wanted. The very people who may be appointed to those roles attack the party for not being able to achieve it, yet you, Mr Gaston, come to the Chamber and attack me. In the 14 minutes during which SDLP Members spoke in the debate, they did not make one remark about the motion. They could not articulate one sentence in support of the 15% policy that has been put in place by their party. Mr McGlone made excellent remarks. I have a lot of time for Mr McGlone, and he gave a great history of the Irish language, but it is of absolutely no relevance to the issue before us. The leader of the Opposition decided to speak about flags and the chats that he has in cafes on the roads of South Belfast, but he could not articulate why his party voted for Belfast City Council's policy. Justin McNulty — well — [Laughter.] Mr Lyons: Move on. Mr Brett: I will move on. We will aim for the stars on that one. In the 10 minutes in which Alliance Members spoke, they did not articulate how they will vote on the motion. I am happy to give way to them now, if they wish to clarify to the public who are listening how they will vote and the reason for that. Miss McAllister: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. We outlined — my colleague did so particularly well during her speech — that there are problems with the motion. There is a distortion in the facts and figures that you have in front of you. We agree with one line in your motion — just one line — but we will not support the motion, and that was made clear during my comments and my colleague's comments. Mr Brett: It is now clear that the Alliance Party could not make it clear that it will not call for a review of the position in Belfast. Listen: that is its prerogative. It needs to own that. We have been accused of whipping up tension, but this is the very place where such discussions and robust debates should happen. We are the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland, and this is where their discussions should happen. Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way? Mr Brett: I will happily give way. Mr Gaston: Maybe Mr Brett has rid his guts at everybody who has spoken on the motion. What I want to put to you, Mr Brett, is this: the DUP has the power to do something about the issue, so please share with us what you intend to do. I was not taking aim at the DUP; I was simply pointing that out. Let us judge you by your actions. What will the DUP do to stop the republican agenda and the republican project? I am all ears, Mr Brett. Mr Brett: You must not have read your speech very well, Mr Gaston, before you read it out, because half your speech was dedicated to attacking the DUP. We have made it very clear what we have done. First, we tabled the motion on which you have just spent six minutes speaking. Secondly, although you lambasted the issue of the Irish Language Commissioner, we did not consent to having a stand-alone Irish language Act or an all-encompassing Irish Language Commissioner that would have delivered what Sinn Féin wanted, which was a requirement for a percentage of Irish language speakers in the Civil Service and for dual language street signs and road signs all over Northern Ireland. In your determination to discredit and attack the DUP, Mr Gaston — in your dedication to that — you missed those facts. You are perfectly able to do that, yet you set out to attack us. I just ask how your remarks have served the cause of unionism standing together, and I ask you to reflect on that. Mr Gaston went on to discuss the power of the Communities Minister to issue guidance. Guidance is guidance and has no legal impact, and the Member knows that very well. When parties on this side of the House should be standing together, Mr Gaston's speech was an attempt to throw mud in the air and confuse. Mr McMurray: Will the Member give way? Mr Brett: I will happily give way. Mr McMurray: The Member talked about guidance from the Minister not being possible. That is fair enough, but a lot of the context for dual language signage refers to Westminster legislation. Is the Member content with the fact that there is an obvious name for denying something that has been legislated for? Mr Brett: There is no legislation from Westminster on dual language street signs. My view on the matter is clear. I was on Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council when it introduced its policy, which was that, if a majority of residents want to have a dual language street sign in whatever minority language that is, fair play to them: go ahead and do that. We voted that through. A Member: Will the Member give way? Mr Brett: I will not give way any further. We have had an argument. It is clear how the votes will be cast. The Alliance Party has admitted that, in the deal that it did with its friends in Sinn Féin and the SDLP, it was done over. However, rather than vote with this party to get the review, it will just vote with them again. The people of Northern Ireland will see from the vote tonight that the Alliance Party had the opportunity to ensure that the voice of the people of Belfast was heard by saying that we need a review of the policy, but, rather than vote for that, its Members will vote with their friends in Sinn Féin and the SDLP. Question put. The Assembly divided: Ayes 28; Noes 41 AYES Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Mr Brett, Mr Brooks, Ms Brownlee, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mr Burrows, Mr Butler, Mrs Cameron, Mr Chambers, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mrs Erskine, Ms Forsythe, Mr Gaston, Mr Harvey, Mr Irwin, Mr Kingston, Mrs Little-Pengelly, Mr Lyons, Mr Martin, Mr Middleton, Mr Robinson, Mr Stewart Tellers for the Ayes: Ms Brownlee, Ms Forsythe NOES Mr Baker, Mr Blair, Ms Bradshaw, Miss Brogan, Mr Carroll, Mr Delargy, Mr Dickson, Mrs Dillon, Miss Dolan, Mr Donnelly, Mr Durkan, Ms Egan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Finnegan, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Mrs Guy, Miss Hargey, Ms Hunter, Mr Kearney, Mr Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mr McAleer, Miss McAllister, Mr McGlone, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Mr McMurray, Mr McNulty, Mrs Mason, Mr Mathison, Mr Muir, Ms Mulholland, Ms Murphy, Mr O'Dowd, Mr O'Toole, Ms Reilly, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Mr Tennyson Tellers for the Noes: Miss Hargey, Mr McNulty Mr Clarke acted as a proxy for Mrs Erskine. Question accordingly negatived. Adjourned at 8.05 pm. Top
[ni-assembly-official-report][plenary_report] Official Reports https://aims.niassembly.gov.uk/officialreport/report.aspx?&eveDate=2025/10/07&docID=452298 Official Report: Tuesday 07 October 2025 Table of Contents Assembly Business Standing Order 1(2) Members Statements St Conors Primary School, Omagh: Car Parking Police Officer Numbers: Alliance Party Tweet Winter Preparedness Plan Hamas Terrorist Attack: 7 October 2023 Play Park Provision in East Derry St Patricks Grammar School, Armagh Hamas Terrorist Attack: 7 October 2023 Nurses: Pay Award St Malachys Primary School, Kilclief Windsor Framework: Terminology for Vegetarian Products Newry, Mourne and Down District Council: Council of Sanctuary Ministerial Statement Avian Influenza: Suspected Outbreak Executive Committee Business Coronavirus Act 2020 (Registration of Deaths and Still-Births) (Extension) (No. 2) Order (Northern Ireland) 2025 Private Members Business Mother-and-baby Unit Oral Answers to Questions Infrastructure Question for Urgent Oral Answer Tenant Intimidation: DFC/NIHE Support Private Members Business Mother-and-baby Unit Household Energy Costs Adjournment Apple-growing Industry in Newry and Armagh The Assembly met at 10:30 am (Madam Principal Deputy Speaker [Ms Ní Chuilín] in the Chair). Members observed two minutes' silence. Assembly Business Standing Order 1(2) Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members, before we begin today's business, I want to briefly return to our rules and conventions in relation to the authority of the Chair. You may remember that, on 9 September this year, the Speaker reminded Members: "Standing Order 1(2) is clear that the ruling of the Chair is final in all matters of procedure. Regardless of a Member's view on how a Speaker or Deputy Speaker has dealt with something, it is out of order to ... challenge whomever is in the Chair." — [Official Report (Hansard), 9 September 2025, p31, col 2] The Speaker made clear that there is no discussion to be had on the issue. The Speaker also pointed out that there is a precedent for Members not being called to contribute to further business if they continue to challenge the authority of the Chair. If that is clear, I will move on. Members' Statements Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I remind Members that, if they wish to be called to make a statement, they should rise continually in their place. Members who are called will have up to three minutes to make their statement. The Speaker previously reminded Members that Members' statements are for a single issue and not for a series of issues. Members have previously been reminded of Standing Order 24A, which states: "A statement must relate to a topical matter of public interest and" should not "be used to impugn or to attack another member." Members should be mindful of that when making their contributions. I also remind Members that interventions are not permitted and that I will not be taking any points of order on this or any other matter until the item of business has finished. St Conor's Primary School, Omagh: Car Parking Miss Brogan: I take the opportunity this morning to raise the very serious issue of inadequate car parking and drop-off points and facilities at St Conor's Primary School in Omagh and to urge the Education Minister to support the school in its efforts to resolve the matter. The issue is causing serious safety concerns in the area, particularly for the safety of schoolchildren attending the primary school but also for local residents and pedestrians in the area. St Conor's is an excellent, thriving primary school, with a bustling school community of around 450 pupils. It is located between two very busy through roads that are used by many drivers to bypass Omagh town, causing increased traffic. Both roads are lined with housing developments that have hundreds of residential properties. There is huge disruption in the morning and afternoon when parents drop off and pick up children. Many parents end up parking at the side of the road, blocking other road users and even blocking access to some homes. The issue has been ongoing for some years and has been a matter of great frustration and worry for the school leadership, staff and local residents, who are impacted on by the huge volume of traffic in the area. It is obviously a serious concern for parents too, who worry about the safety of their children going to and from school. The school leadership has worked incredibly hard over a number of years to find a solution to the issue and to ensure that pupils are safe. It has worked alongside Fermanagh and Omagh District Council, local residents and local elected representatives to highlight the serious risks that are associated with the issue to the Department of Education, the Education Authority (EA) and DFI and to urge all involved to find a solution quickly. It is my understanding that the council and the school have identified a suitable area of land that the Department of Education can develop into a safe space for parents to drop off and pick up children from St Conor's. I again urge the Department of Education and all relevant stakeholders to work together and to make the necessary changes so that children can attend the school safely and residents do not face that level of disruption on a daily basis. The council recently invited the Education Minister to St Conor's to see for himself the disruption that is faced there daily. Unfortunately, he has been unable to attend so far, but I again extend an invitation to him to come to the constituency and see for himself the risks that are involved. Police Officer Numbers: Alliance Party Tweet Mr Clarke: When I looked at the tweet last night from the Alliance Party, its content reminded me of the Oompa Loompas from 'Charlie and the Chocolate Factory'. On a more serious note, it is disappointing that the Alliance Justice Minister choose that attack on policing, given that, because of the numbers, it is vulnerable at the moment. If the Minister, who is attacking the DUP, thinks that we are wrong to stand up for policing, we are wrong. However, we will continue to stand up for policing, whereas the Minister has let down policing in Northern Ireland. There are some who claim that the collapse of devolution was the cause of the decrease in numbers. What utter nonsense. Had the Minister left the Department in good shape, the trajectory would have been that police numbers continued to increase. Let us look at the record of the Minister. The Police Federation for Northern Ireland has come out and taken a shot, and it has not missed in what it said about the Minister. It has rebuked the Minister, because she is utterly wrong. Utterly wrong. Let us look at the record. The current Chief Constable has been vociferous in his fight for policing and has made the strongest possible case for numbers, because the Minister has failed to do anything. The Chief Constable made that case directly to Downing Street. What happened to him for that? The Minister and her little helpers rebuked him, but, of course, he ignored that, because he wanted to put the police in the strongest possible position. I and my party will not take any lectures from the Minister, who is normally missing in action. She comes in here merely for Question Time and is not seen amongst us for any other debate. However, she puts out tweets and Facebook posts claiming that we are responsible for the decrease in police numbers. Of course, the Minister has been back in post for a considerable time, but the numbers have not gone up. The Chief Constable is now at risk of overspending the budget, because he took the pause off recruitment. He started recruiting on the basis of a funding package that was promised by the Minister but that he still does not have. The Minister promised more money in the next monitoring round, but that has not taken place. The Minister references her "business case". She has no business case. The business case squarely belongs to the Chief Constable, who has made the case and fought for policing, while the Minister has been absent. Winter Preparedness Plan Mr Donnelly: All Members should agree that a winter preparedness plan published on 31 December 2025 is not just slightly delayed but a complete failure, yet, by the Department's own metric, according to the business plan that it presented to the Committee for Health last week, publishing the plan on the very last day of the year will still be marked amber and considered to be experiencing some delays but still on track to be met for the end of the year. That is a system that is designed to tick boxes, not to save lives. I know that the Minister of Health is probably sick of hearing me raise this, and, to some, it may sound inconsequential, as it is just another delayed plan, but I have lived the impacts. I have seen them at first hand, and I am telling him that it is not just a delay on paper. It will potentially lead to loss of life and to a loss of workforce. That is real. Last year, the winter preparedness plan was not published until mid-November, and the Minister will be well aware that pressures had started long before then. At the time, the Royal College of Emergency Medicine judged it as being "too little, too late". Publishing a plan at that stage of the year is simply inadequate. How can one claim to be preparing for a storm when already standing in the eye of it? We were promised a winter preparedness plan in August, then in September. It is now into October, and still there is no plan. Can we really trust the Department's commitments when that is the case, or are those commitments just vague promises that are designed to give the illusion of progress, when, in truth, targets are being missed and people are being harmed? The Minister disagreed with me yesterday when I said that delays in publishing the plan will have an impact on workforce retention. As a nurse, I must wholeheartedly disagree with him. Every consultation, every review and every report highlights the same challenges, and workforce is always one of the biggest ones, coming up again and again. Does the Minister really believe that the delay is not contributing to the problem? Does he really believe that leaving staff without a plan by publishing it late is not adding to the already crippling pressures on the workforce and pushing nurses and other healthcare staff out of the service? It may be just one issue from a long list of issues, but it still has a very real and damaging impact that should not be dismissed. Perhaps the Minister does not believe that the delay impacts on staff, but what about the impact on loss of life? The Royal College of Emergency Medicine estimated that 818 excess deaths in Scotland last year were linked to long A&E waits. For Northern Ireland in 2022, it suggested that more than 1,400 excess deaths had occurred. We are two years behind on the data, and Scotland has three times our population, yet excess deaths here are approaching double what Scotland's are now. The resulting excess deaths and dangerous delays cannot be dismissed as just a late policy paper. This is not about paperwork or process, as the delay has real and hard-hitting consequences for our health service, our healthcare workers, our patients and the people whom we are here to represent. Every week without a plan means that patients are waiting longer and that staff are being pushed further, and that is resulting in unnecessary loss of life. Something needs to change, and I encourage the Minister to act with urgency. Hamas Terrorist Attack: 7 October 2023 Dr Aiken: On 7 October 2023, 1,189 Israelis and people of other nationalities were murdered by Hamas and other Palestinian terrorists. A further 251 were taken hostage in Gaza. The United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, which could hardly be credibly described as being supportive of Israel in any way, reported that there was considerable evidence of murder; torture; sexual violence; the rape of men, women and children; mutilation; beheading; burning to death of children, of old and young and of men and women alike; and other horrors that are too graphic to relate to the Assembly. There is no justification under any terms for such attacks, none that even the most anti-Israeli or antisemitic of commentators could justify having read the UN report. Day in, day out, however, we still hear calls for support for the global intifada, and how often do we see and hear on our streets, "From the river to the sea"? Both mean death to all Jews everywhere. The fact that that barbarity can occur in the 21st century is not a surprise. Similar horrors, including actual genocides, are happening in Darfur, Myanmar, Sudan and Syria to the Yazidis and the Druze, as well as in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Equally appalling acts of humanity have occurred and are occurring there. There is, however, never a cheep or even a tweet from the anti-Israeli brigade at any cost to them. Remember that if it is not about Jews, it does not count. There is a prayer that our Jewish friends say for the dead called the Kaddish. There are a few of us here, so, in accordance with Jewish tradition, I ask you to bow your heads and join me in prayer, commemorating the victims of 7 October and asking for a more tolerant nation: "Magnified and sanctified is the great name of God throughout the world, which was created according to Divine will. May the rule of peace be established speedily in our time, unto us and unto the entire household of Israel. And let us say: Amen." "May there be abundant peace from heaven, with life’s goodness for us and for all thy people Israel. And let us say: Amen. May the One who brings peace to the universe bring peace to us and to all the people Israel. Amein, Shalom, v'al kol Yisra'eil v'al kol yosh-vei tevel. Amen, Peace upon all Israel, and upon all the inhabitants of the world." Shalom, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Top 10.45 am Play Park Provision in East Derry Ms Hunter: I rise to speak passionately about play and the provision of play parks in my constituency. I call on the Communities Minister to work closely with our councils on the provision of sport and play. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is clear that every child has the right to access play. Play is not a privilege; it is a right. Regrettably, however, across our towns and villages in East Derry, from Limavady to Greysteel, from Castlerock to Coleraine and beyond, we have seen that play parks have been left to fall into neglect and disrepair. I think particularly of Kylemore in Coleraine. Parents there tell me of broken swings and rusty slides, and glass and litter that have been thrown across play areas that once brought joy but are now overrun with vandalism. In Mountsandel, residents have said that the park is unchanged since they were children, and, sadly, we saw a complete absence of a play park in Greysteel for a number of years. I have particular concerns about the lack of play provision for our children in rural areas. The play park beside the Mall car park in Coleraine, which is just a few yards from my constituency office, was described by one constituent as "unusable". From my observations, it is indeed unused. That is what happens when play parks are treated as an afterthought and as something that is nice to have, should budgets allow it, instead of the core part of our community life that they are. We would not leave our roads, schools or libraries to rot, yet we do that with our play parks. We need to fundamentally rethink how we approach play and play parks and where they are placed across our council areas. Every child in every community, regardless of whether it is urban or rural, should have access to a modern, fun, safe and inclusive play park within a reasonable distance of their home. That requires strategic thinking and proper investment. For all those parents who have children with additional needs, inclusive design must be the standard, not the exception. Every play park should be accessible to all our children. I call on the Communities Minister to work very closely with all council areas on those matters. St Patrick's Grammar School, Armagh Mr Boylan: Last week, I met staff from St Patrick's Grammar School in Armagh. That school has a long history in Armagh, as it was established in 1838. The school building has been developed and added to over the years. It is now home to over 850 pupils and 120 staff. However, with any long-standing building come issues to do with maintenance and upkeep. St Patrick's is no different. Both the original school building and the two-storey wing that was added to the school in 1907 are uninsulated. Therefore, they are having an adverse impact on the school's interior. Areas of the external render are cracked, and moisture has subsequently been trapped and sealed in the walls, causing issues internally with dampness. The school's windows and heating system are in much need of major attention. The heating in the school is primarily a one-pipe system, and it is inefficient to operate. The boiler and pumps are far away from the 1907 block, and it requires a large volume of water to be heated and fed through the system. Staff tell me that the radiators never get hot; they are tepid at best. Following the meeting on 26 September 2025 with the architects, the design team and the Education Authority (EA), it was noted that the team had explored various options that will be issued to the DE for consideration. I am therefore using my Member's statement to call on the Education Minister to urgently review the recommendations that have been made and to work with the school to overcome the issues that it faces. In closing, I commend the staff for their best efforts to ensure that the issues do not affect the learning needs of their pupils, who deserve a safe and healthy environment to learn and study in. The need for the Department and the EA to provide a comfortable environment is paramount, and I will continue to work with the school to achieve that development. Hamas Terrorist Attack: 7 October 2023 Mr Frew: Like Steve Aiken, I stand in reflection on and remembrance of the day two years ago — 7 October 2023 — that changed the world of every Israeli citizen and every Palestinian in Gaza and sent shock waves through the world. My heart goes out today to all the people affected by that terrorist attack and the war that ensued. They have my sincere, mindful thoughts and prayers at this time. That Hamas attack on innocent civilians has absolutely no comparison to anything that it has done in its history, which is saying something. That terrorist organisation used barbarism on a new scale — an evil that had no limits and absolutely no control. It was barbarism all unbound, and it brought destruction on so many people, so many who were living peacefully in their kibbutz and so many young people who were attending the Nova music festival. I had the honour of visiting the Nova festival site six months after the atrocious attack. It was impactful for me, my experience and my world view to see all the young faces stand tall in remembrance and reflection, each one of them having lost their life. What struck me that day in that mournful scene was that, in each of the images of those who, I knew, had left the scene at that time, every face was smiling. Hamas took not only their lives but their dreams and hopes and not only their dreams and hopes but those of their families. Every day since then, there has been a missing person, an empty chair around a dining table and a member of the community lost who put in so much effort in their kibbutz. It was a surreal experience and one that will never leave me. I stand here today in solemn remembrance of all those who lost their lives in that atrocious terrorist attack and the war afterwards. Nurses: Pay Award Mr McGrath: Once again, we find ourselves in the deeply regrettable but, frankly, avoidable position in which our nurses, the backbone of our health service, are forced to consider strike action. The Royal College of Nursing has begun balloting its members on whether to take to the picket line not out of choice but out of sheer frustration and necessity. It is a disgrace that, six months into the financial year, our nurses still wait for their pay uplift. They have cared for us through crisis after crisis, through the pandemic and the worst winters in living memory, yet here we are again, watching the Executive dither and delay while those dedicated professionals are left wondering when they will be paid what they are rightly owed. I recently wrote to the First Ministers to ask for an update on the pay award: I never received a reply. I asked the Finance Minister for an update on the pay award: he was cautiously optimistic. I asked the Department of Health permanent secretary, who was hopeful. In the Chamber yesterday, I listened carefully to the Health Minister's response to my question. I wanted to hear a clear answer — a date, a commitment, a sense of urgency — but there was none. That silence speaks volumes. At this rate, with the way that the Executive are going, we will be in the next financial year before nurses see a penny of what is due to them this year. That is simply unacceptable. Should it come to strike action, let no Member from an Executive party have the gall to stand on a picket line. They cannot preside over the delay, dither and indecision and then turn up for a photo opportunity to show their so-called solidarity. Nurses do not need empty words or sympathetic tweets from the Executive; they need fair pay and action. It is time that the Executive stopped making excuses and started making payments. If the Executive truly value our nurses and want to avoid strike action, they must pay nurses what they are owed — what they have worked for and what they have been promised — and they must do it now. St Malachy's Primary School, Kilclief Mrs Mason: We all know that a school is so much more than a building; it is the hub of childhood memories; Christmas plays fill the assembly hall; fundraisers bring the school community together; and lifelong friendships begin within the school gates. St Malachy's Primary School in Kilclief is the perfect example of that. It is so much more than just a school. It sits at the very heart of village and parish life. Generations of our families are connected to it. The potential closure of St Malachy's has, therefore, come as a great shock to the parents, staff and, most important, the children who call it their school. Recently, I met parents and the principal of St Malachy's. It is clear that they are deeply committed to securing its future. Their message is very simple: the school matters not just to Kilclief but to the wider community; it provides high-quality education in a caring community setting; and its loss would be felt far beyond the school gates. Following those discussions, I wrote to the Education Minister and the Education Authority (EA), urging them to work with the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools and the school to ensure that every possible option is fully considered before any decision is taken. One option is to have specialist provision in mainstream schools (SPiMS) on the Kilclief site. The school has already made it known to the Education Authority that it is willing to host such provision, but, to date, has received no response. That is simply not acceptable, given that the EA seemingly blames schools for not stepping up, and it is particularly not acceptable given that the Downpatrick area has been identified as one of the areas that is most under pressure from need for special educational needs placements. At a time when children have to travel to Belfast to access specialist support, it makes absolutely no sense to overlook a school that is just a few miles up the road and has the space, the facilities and the willingness to help. Let me be clear: SPiMS should never be used solely as a mechanism by which to keep a school open, but is that not common sense? It is a child-centred solution that could address a clear need in the system. Rural schools such as St Malachy's are the backbone of communities across the North. Once they close, they do not come back. We must do everything in our power to protect them and to ensure that decisions are based not on numbers alone but on people, potential and community value. I will continue to stand with the parents, staff and children of St Malachy's Primary School in their campaign to keep their doors open. I will continue to make sure that their voices are heard. Windsor Framework: Terminology for Vegetarian Products Mr Gaston: Tomorrow, the European Parliament is expected to pass an amendment to a Bill that would ban the use of meaty terms for vegetarian products. If that should come into law, companies would no longer be allowed to market things such as vegetarian sausage rolls or veggie burgers. That has real consequences for Northern Ireland. Under the Windsor framework, EU regulations continue to apply here. That means that Northern Ireland producers could soon be banned from calling a vegetarian sausage roll a vegetarian sausage roll, while the exact same product made in Great Britain could be sold under its familiar name; in other words, the famous Greggs vegan sausage roll would remain perfectly legal so long as it arrived via the Windsor framework screened lane. Assuming that the amendment is, indeed, passed, the same roll baked in Belfast would need a new name — perhaps it could be "plant-based pastry tube" — to satisfy EU sensitivities. Top 11.00 am That neatly illustrates the democratic deficit and commercial distortion created by the Windsor framework. Once again, Northern Ireland finds itself bound by rules that it did not make and subject to decisions on which no one in Northern Ireland has a vote. While the European Parliament debates what a sausage roll can be called, businesses here must brace for yet another layer of regulation that applies in Belfast but not in Birmingham. That is not the unfettered access that we were promised. It underscores how the so-called green lane is, in fact, a border within our own country. If the amendment passes, it will be one more reminder that the people of Northern Ireland are governed by laws that are made elsewhere, right down to what we can write on a bakery label. Even in our own Stormont canteen, the famous beetroot burger faces the chop. That may seem a small matter, but it speaks volumes about sovereignty, equality and common sense, all of which are missing from that arrangement. Newry, Mourne and Down District Council: Council of Sanctuary Ms Forsythe: Last night, my constituency of South Down was severely affected by a council decision. The majority of Newry, Mourne and Down District Council voted that Newry city and our district should become a city and council of sanctuary. Out of 41 councillors, the five DUP councillors have stood firm throughout in their opposition to that, alongside the single UUP councillor. However, they are hugely in the minority. The process by which we have arrived here is shameful. Time and again, we have seen the legitimate concerns of local people on issues surrounding immigration being disregarded, ignored and, in fact, openly mocked in council last night, which was another episode in an unfortunate series. The council decided to progress on that path. It did not provide answers or clear information to local councillors with concerns. There was no public consultation. The public learned of it in the press and had many questions. They went to councillors and Council Direct and received nothing. The council then issued a scant "frequently asked questions" document answering the questions that, the council decided, needed to be answered, not those of the public. The people arranged a public meeting in a local place, inviting the council to outline the plans and what they meant. The council blocked the meeting, and it did not occur. The people then took to the streets of Newry city to voice their concerns. Only two DUP councillors went along to speak and share the concerns of the wider public. Newry, Mourne and Down District Council needs to be honest about the practicalities and costs of what it means for the people of the district. We need to have the details to address the legitimate concerns that have been raised by many. Where people are ignored and silenced, trust is lost. Our DUP team has significant concerns about what the charter might mean for encouraging illegal immigrants to come to this country. It could create a barrier to lawful and justified removal of those who come here illegally. The fact is that legitimate concerns are ignored and swept under the carpet time and again in the House and throughout councils. The lack of respect serves no good end. It is commonplace in our Sinn Féin-dominated council, where our unionist councillors, who are severely in the minority, are, time and again, shut out, cast aside and shown a huge lack of respect. Council needs to tread carefully. A council that ignores genuine concerns and local people is one that is destined for a difficult path. We in the DUP will always speak up on that, even if we stand alone. We will speak up for common sense and for the ratepayers of our district, who have legitimate concerns. They deserve to be heard. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Diane. That ends Members' statements. Members, take your ease while we change the top Table, please. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Dr Aiken] in the Chair) Ministerial Statement Avian Influenza: Suspected Outbreak Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Speaker has received notice from the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs that he wishes to make a statement. Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that they must be concise in asking their questions. This is not an opportunity for debate, and long introductions will not be allowed. Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to make a statement to the Assembly on the recent suspected case of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) at a commercial poultry premises outside Omagh, County Tyrone. A veterinary investigation was instigated on Friday 3 October 2025 at a commercial broiler breeder poultry premises outside Omagh, County Tyrone, after a number of mortalities. Samples were taken for testing at the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI). Following the preliminary results from AFBI, which indicated the presence of HPAI H5N1, the Chief Veterinary Officer took the decision, based on a number of factors, including the preliminary results, clinical signs and the epidemiological picture, to establish two temporary control zones (TCZs) centred on the infected premises. A 3-kilometre TCZ A and a 10-kilometre TCZ B were introduced on Sunday 5 October 2025, effective from 9.00 am. It is the first suspected case of HPAI in a commercial poultry premises in Northern Ireland since the last confirmed case on 24 February 2025. I am sure that you will agree, Mr Deputy Speaker, that that is devastating news for the premises owner concerned and for the wider industry. The last confirmed case of HPAI H5N1 in a wild bird that was collected in Northern Ireland was on 24 July 2025. England continued to have cases of HPAI in poultry premises throughout the spring and summer of 2025, with the most recent case confirmed on 28 September 2025 in a commercial poultry premises in Cumbria. Avian influenza, commonly known as bird flu, is a highly contagious viral disease affecting the respiratory, digestive and/or nervous system of many species of birds, and it is essential to emphasise that failure to report it constitutes an offence. The advice from the Public Health Agency (PHA) notes that avian influenza is primarily a disease of birds and that the risk to the general public’s health is very low. The advice from the Food Standards Agency (FSA) notes that avian influenza poses a very low food-safety risk for UK consumers and that properly cooked poultry and poultry products, including eggs, are safe to eat. Northern Ireland relies heavily on the wider agri-food industry as a source of employment. Poultry and egg production contributes significantly to the agri-food economy and is valued at over £600 million, and it is vital that we protect that industry. I will outline the actions and measures that are being taken by my Department in response to the incursion. My Department commenced a full depopulation of the site on Tuesday 7 October 2025. I put on record my thanks for the engagement and cooperation of the flock owner during a time that, I recognise, is incredibly difficult for them, the staff and their families. My Department has also implemented disease control zones around the premises, and the necessary surveillance activities are ongoing. All flock keepers within the disease control zones will be contacted with information on the restrictions and the requirements that have been laid down by my Department for the moving of poultry and poultry-related products. A movement-licensing centre has been established to facilitate those movements. My departmental officials, including the Chief Veterinary Officer, remain in close contact with colleagues across the other jurisdictions and will keep key stakeholders in the industry updated. On the next steps and communications, I will keep in regular and close contact with my colleagues in Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland. I will ensure that updates are provided as necessary to my Executive colleagues and, very importantly, to the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee in the first instance. I will be happy to return to the House if there are any further significant and serious developments in the time ahead. My officials will continue extensive ongoing engagement with officials across all jurisdictions. They will also ensure regular and timely updates to all our key stakeholders. My Department will also continue to deploy wide-ranging communications, reminding all flock keepers of the necessity of adhering to high levels of biosecurity. Comprehensive biosecurity guidance is available on the DAERA website, and adhering to that protects against disease spread. It emphasises the importance of maintaining high biosecurity standards to help to reduce the risk of transmission of those diseases. Continued vigilance is paramount, and it is essential that private veterinary practitioners and flock keepers remain alert to any unusual symptoms and immediately report such symptoms to a veterinarian or directly to DAERA. Further detail, including photos of clinical signs, is also available on the DAERA website. We must continue to convey clear messages of maintaining high biosecurity standards and promptly report any unusual symptoms in order to help protect Northern Ireland's farms and the wider industry. At this time, I request that Members assist us in disseminating key messages about maintaining vigilance and high biosecurity standards and about the need for farmers to report any unusual symptoms immediately. Taking such steps will further help ensure the protection of our livestock and of the agriculture sector, which is vital to our economy. Mr McGlone: I thank the Minister for his statement. Our hearts go out to any farming family affected by this particular outbreak, or by any outbreak that affects their flock or herd, as the reinstatement of their business will take a number of months. There was a particular anomaly previously, whereby, from notification to verification of the disease, there was a lapse period in which compensation was not necessarily available to the farmer. Has that anomaly been rectified? Mr Muir: As I outlined, this has been reported to the House as a suspected case, because we still need to get the results back from the National Reference Laboratory (NRL). We therefore have to follow a process. If, however, a notifiable strain of avian influenza is confirmed on a premises, compensation, based on current market value, will be payable for all poultry culled at the Department's direction. Mr Butler (The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Like the Minister and the Member who spoke before me, I say that the depopulation of the farm is happening as we speak. Our thoughts are with the farmer, because that will have wide-ranging implications. The Minister said that this is the first outbreak in Northern Ireland since February 2025. There have, however, been outbreaks in England and in other jurisdictions. Can the Minister outline whether any cross-jurisdictional intelligence gathering is going on to try to prevent outbreaks and to better coordinate earlier identification of outbreaks in other jurisdictions? Mr Muir: Significant engagement occurs North/South and east-west by veterinary service colleagues in the Department. I reassure the Member that that engagement is ongoing. I have also contacted my ministerial counterpart in the South, Martin Heydon, and I spoke to the Scottish and Welsh Ministers on Sunday at the Anuga conference in Germany, so there is significant engagement ongoing. There is a real need for us all to accentuate the importance of biosecurity, because that is our best protection method against the risk of avian influenza. I echo the comments made so far about our concern for the affected premises. In some ways, it is an exemplar premises, practising the best biosecurity methods. That, however, emphasises the challenges that we face, the impact that an outbreak can have and the need for us collectively to do what we can to try to protect agri-food in Northern Ireland from avian influenza. Mr McAleer: I thank the Minister for his statement. As a rep for the local area, I have been speaking to poultry farmers, who are extremely concerned about the outbreak and the potentially devastating consequences that it will have. I note from your statement, Minister, that a full depopulation commences today that may involve up to 20,000 birds. I will double back to support measures. Can you confirm that financial support will be provided to the farmer affected, given the huge and devastating impact that the outbreak will have on that farmer's business and livelihood? Mr Muir: There will be compensation payable for the birds that are culled at the Department's direction. We will also cover the cost of the initial disinfection that takes place. The depopulation will start late this morning. Approximately 23,000 birds will be depopulated, but I repeat the assurance that we will cover the cost of the birds that are being depopulated at our direction and also the initial disinfection cost. Miss McIlveen: I thank the Minister for his statement. Can he detail the budget that he has available to deal with this type of outbreak? What departmental mechanism is in place to deal with crisis incidents and to support financially those who have been adversely affected across sectors, be that the horticultural sector, the poultry sector, the fishing sector or others? Mr Muir: The budget position in-year in Northern Ireland is extremely challenging. I understand that there will potentially be only one monitoring round coming up, which will be in December, so the challenge will be to meet the costs out of that. I give the Member and the House an assurance, however, that we will meet the costs. That means that it will be tough for us internally, but it is important that we meet the costs of compensation, because there is a significant impact on the premises holder. The veterinary service is adept at responding to such crises and has been very prompt in dealing with this, to the extent that it was meeting at 8.00 am on Sunday to deal with the issue, and it will continue to work through this. It is important that the Department, collectively, supports the agri-food industry. I am proud of the veterinary service and the work that it does, but it is important that Members accentuate the importance of biosecurity. Top 11.15 am Mr Blair: I thank the Minister for the statement. I am also thinking of those impacted on at the infected site; I put that on the record. However, will the Minister inform us or remind us, as the case may be, whether there is a legal requirement for all bird keepers to register their birds and whether there will be ongoing communications about registration? Mr Muir: Thank you, John. It is a mandatory legislative requirement that all keepers of birds, except keepers of pet birds that are kept in the owner's home, must be registered with DAERA. That registration enables DAERA to communicate with bird keepers quickly to manage potential disease outbreaks. Registered keepers will receive important information on biosecurity rules and disease outbreaks to help protect their flocks from the threat of avian influenza. Having information on the location of all susceptible kept birds also allows for more effective surveillance in disease control zones and, for trade purposes, enables disease-freedom requirements to be met following an outbreak of disease in Northern Ireland. The message is that, if you are not registered, do it today. Miss Brogan: I thank the Minister for his statement. As he will know, I am a representative of Omagh. This is, obviously, concerning for our poultry farmers and farmers across the constituency, so I am glad to see that swift action has been taken. The Minister mentioned two temporary control zones: one of 3 kilometres and one of 10 kilometres. Diseases do not understand borders, so I am glad that the Minister is working with his counterparts in the South on this. Are the temporary control zones still in effect since Sunday? How long will they be in place? Mr Muir: They are still in effect. We will take advice from the Chief Veterinary Officer on any movements to relax those restrictions. There are two zones in place, and it is important that we manage movements in the area so that we can restrict the spread. Avian influenza does not respect borders. That is why it is important that we cooperate North and South. The Chief Veterinary Officers from the North and South are cooperating on it, and I have reached out to my counterpart in the South. They have issued messaging around the issue down South. It is important that I came to the House to update Members on the issue. If the issue occurs again, I will write to the Committee and keep it apprised. As we move into the winter months, there is a likelihood that we may see more of this, so it is important that we accentuate the importance of biosecurity. Mr Donnelly: I thank the Minister for his statement. Obviously, this is a serious issue. How can the spread of disease be minimised? Mr Muir: The spread of the disease can be minimised primarily through the biosecurity measures that I have outlined. They are available on the DAERA website. The premises that have been affected have excellent biosecurity, to the extent that anyone coming in and leaving the premises has to go through relevant checks. It is important that that is done at all premises. People also need to be conscious of the risk of ingress that can occur during storms. It is important that people evaluate their premises now, when storms are not occurring, to make sure that they are protected against water ingress and access from rodents. They are key issues on which we can take action. Ms Murphy: I thank the Minister for his statement. How does DAERA intend to escalate disease control measures, if the outbreak intensifies? Supplementary to that, how will those steps ensure that the wider poultry industry is not affected? Mr Muir: We can take a number of steps in addition to those that I have outlined. We will take advice from the Chief Veterinary Officer. There are additional actions that we can take to make Northern Ireland an entire control zone. We have done that previously. We can take that step, but we need to do so in the context of the risks that we face. We can also issue a housing order. We can step through those. I will be advised by officials in that regard, and officials will continue to engage with industry on the issue. I am conscious of the impact on the industry. That is why we continue to engage with it. The best thing that we can do collectively is to accentuate the important point around biosecurity and, as a Department, fulfil our duty regarding compensation for the birds that are culled at our direction. Ms D Armstrong: I thank the Minister for his statement. I share Members' concern, and I think of the producer affected. Minister, the vaccination of poultry and most captive birds against avian influenza is not currently permitted. Why does DAERA continue to prohibit avian flu vaccination for poultry in Northern Ireland despite the threat of outbreaks and the economic importance of the poultry industry? Mr Muir: Thank you, Diana. It is DAERA's policy not to permit the vaccination of birds outside of zoos as an immediate disease control response. Stamping out is the most effective means of controlling an outbreak. A high standard of biosecurity, separation of poultry from wild birds and careful surveillance for signs of disease also remain the most effective means of controlling the disease and protecting other animals. Due to the role of zoos in global conservation, the vaccination of zoo birds is permitted in Northern Ireland. To date, no zoo birds have been vaccinated. The UK continues to invest in avian influenza research. We monitor current vaccine usage in Europe and globally, as well as the effectiveness of any disease control measures taken, including vaccine deployment. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), in conjunction with the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, will continue to monitor the development and availability of vaccines for their utility in preventing and responding to avian influenza outbreaks as they are put forward for market authorisation by vaccine manufacturers. Any future decisions on disease control measures, including vaccination, will be based on the latest scientific and veterinary advice. Mr McMurray: I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, what signs of avian flu should a keeper of birds look out for? Mr Muir: The main clinical signs of HPAI in birds are a swollen head; blue discolouration of the neck and throat; loss of appetite; respiratory distress; diarrhoea; fewer eggs being laid; and increased mortality. Low pathogenic avian influenza (LPAI) is usually less serious. It can cause mild breathing problems, but affected birds will not always show clear signs of infection. The severity of LPAI depends on the type of bird and whether a bird has other illnesses. Mr Gaston: Minister, we know that HPAI is caused by an airborne virus. Concerns have been raised with me that it has taken the Department until today to cull the remaining birds on-site. The delay may have allowed the virus to spread, especially during the storm, due to the ventilation in poultry houses. Poultry farmers tell me that the Department is short-staffed and slow to respond. Why has it taken four days to depopulate the remaining birds on that site? Mr Muir: Mr Gaston, gas has arrived on-site, and depopulation is occurring this morning. I thank veterinary service staff for their work on that. The situation on the affected site is challenging, but depopulation work is under way. Mr Irwin: I thank the Minister for his statement. My thoughts are with the farmers involved. While farmers will be compensated for their birds, there is no compensation for loss of income, which is a big issue for them. Loss of income can be very detrimental to a business. Given that there have been no outbreaks of bird flu in Northern Ireland since February 2025, do we have any idea of the source of infection? For instance, are there any outbreaks in the neighbouring jurisdiction of the Republic of Ireland? Mr Muir: On compensation, we are guided by the Department's legal vires. As I have outlined, we will compensate farmers for the birds that are culled at our direction and for the initial disinfection of premises. The wider issue of how the outbreak has occurred highlights the challenges posed by avian influenza. It is a real issue for us. Biosecurity is important, but businesses operating an exemplar premises with the highest biosecurity can still be affected by the disease. The veterinary service will continue to investigate the outbreak, and we will continue to do our work of depopulating the site. Collectively, we can send a message that biosecurity is important and it is important to adhere to the advice that is issued. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): That concludes questions on the statement. We will take our ease for a few moments while we find the Chair of the Finance Committee. Executive Committee Business Coronavirus Act 2020 (Registration of Deaths and Still-Births) (Extension) (No. 2) Order (Northern Ireland) 2025 Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The next item of business is a motion to approve a statutory rule (SR). Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): I beg to move That the Coronavirus Act 2020 (Registration of Deaths and Still-Births) (Extension) (No.2) Order (Northern Ireland) 2025 be approved. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time limit on the debate. I call the Minister to open the debate on the motion. Mr O'Dowd: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. [Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.] As Members will be aware, the order seeks to extend powers introduced in the Coronavirus Act 2020 relating to the registration of deaths and stillbirths for a further six months from 24 September 2025 to 24 March 2026. The specific powers included in the order concern the way that the registrations are conducted. First, they enable individuals to choose to register a death or stillbirth remotely. Although they can opt to come to a registration office in person, the provisions give the next of kin a choice to do it over the telephone in their own environment, recognising that it can be a hugely stressful and distressing time for family members. Secondly, the powers enable participants in the registration process to exchange important documents electronically between doctors and the registrar and between the registrar and the undertaker. Those exchanges can happen electronically, lessening the burden on family members. It will be clear to the Assembly why the provisions were important in the context of the pandemic. The temporary changes to the registration process reduced the need for face-to-face contact for grieving and, sometimes, vulnerable members of the public and for registration staff. They enabled the registration system to continue to operate even when their services were, sadly, under significant pressure. In the five years that have passed since the start of the pandemic, those arrangements have become the normal means by which the vast majority of registrations take place. They have helped the registration process to be more empathetic and efficient, and they carry the support of stakeholders. Most important, the provisions ease the burden on grieving members of the public. When someone is coming to terms with the death of a loved one, it is right that we should not burden them unnecessarily. While offering them a choice about how to register a death and conducting some of the paperwork electronically might seem like a small thing, it can make a big difference. In short, although the powers were introduced as the pandemic took hold, they have become the established means by which deaths and stillbirths are registered, and they have helped the registration service to become more empathetic, more modern and more efficient. Given the positive effect of the provisions, it is right that we should make the temporary powers permanent rather than continue to depend on the Coronavirus Act. The Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill, which recently completed its Committee scrutiny, will provide for the electronic transfer of documents between stakeholders and for the registration of deaths and stillbirths by telephone. The Bill will also enable me to progress a baby loss certificate scheme that recognises the suffering of families who endure the pain of pregnancy loss before 24 weeks. Today's extension order will consequently provide the time required for the Assembly to consider the Bill and, I trust, make permanent the temporary powers of the Coronavirus Act. In bringing the extension order, I recognise that it is not desirable to continue to depend on the powers of the Coronavirus Act. However, I hope that the Assembly will be reassured by our determination to end the use of the orders by the work that is under way to make the relevant powers permanent, and that they will look favourably on the motion. Should the extension not be approved today, the existing powers will fall, requiring a return to pre-COVID death and stillbirth procedures. Relatives would again be required to attend registration offices, irrespective of their personal circumstances, and to transport paper forms between doctors, registration staff and undertakers. As set out in earlier debates on those matters, that would be a retrograde step that is not in the interests of the public, the registration service or funeral directors. I hope that the Assembly will concur. I consequently recommend a further extension of the powers included in the order. They have enabled the provision of a modern, empathetic registration service over the past five years. By extending the provisions today, we will be able to continue to provide that service, which has been welcomed by stakeholders and creates space for permanent legislation to be put in place. I commend the order to the Assembly. Top 11.30 am Mr O'Toole (The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance): I will reflect on the Committee for Finance's deliberations on this secondary legislation. The Committee has had written and oral briefings on the legislation and the Department's work on several occasions in the past. The Committee previously agreed a number of statutory rules made under the provisions of the Coronavirus Act 2020, which relate to recording deaths and stillbirths. I note that the extensions, provided for by the statutory rules, will be rendered unnecessary, as the Minister said, when the Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill receives Royal Assent. I am delighted to confirm that the Committee has completed its report on the Bill. Hopefully, the Minister will give us the date for its Consideration Stage. The Committee is keen for that to be brought to the House as soon as possible. On 10 September 2025, the Committee agreed that it was content with the proposed statutory rule and to extend the temporary provisions under the Coronavirus Act until 24 March 2026. The Department has indicated that the Bill will have completed its legislative process by that time, and no further extensions will be required. The Committee considered the statutory rule on 1 October 2025. The Examiner of Statutory Rules recommended that the rule be approved by the Assembly. As we hope this is the last time that the regulations will be brought to the Assembly, I thank the departmental officials for keeping the Committee abreast of the laying of regulations and the development of the Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill. I put on record a particular acknowledgement of our erstwhile colleague Mr Paul Frew MLA, who is most assiduous in following these matters, to put it diplomatically, and it is somewhat strange that he is not here to debate the rules. I thank him for his contribution and the close attention that he has paid to these matters over the past number of years. Hopefully, we will have primary legislation on the statute books very soon. I acknowledge the good collaborative working between the officials, the Minister and the Committee to progress the Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill. It is a positive piece of legislation, particularly as Baby Loss Awareness Week starts either tomorrow or on Thursday. It is a positive example of the Committee, Minister and officials working together. The Committee supports the motion to approve the regulations. Ms Forsythe: I will make a point that, as the Chair said, has been consistently made by my colleague Paul Frew — we are thankful for his time on the Finance Committee, and he has moved to Chair the Justice Committee — which is that we are disappointed that, some four years on from the pandemic, we still operate under the rules of coronavirus regulations, and we would like to see them removed as soon as possible. It is disappointing to be here for another extension. However, we fully accept that the regulations for the electronic registration of deaths and still births are good, practical law, which, as the Minister outlined, helps to keep the process efficient and reduce the trauma for families at a difficult time. I thank those who have worked in the Minister's Department and the General Register Office for bringing forward the legislation at pace and being available to the Committee at every opportunity. Also, in Baby Loss Awareness Week, it is great to see an extension to include the baby loss certificates when the legislation passes. We remember all those lost babies and pray for the families throughout this week, and we are there for them throughout the rest of the year. The DUP supports the extension in the expectation that it will be the last one. We welcome the fact that permanent legislation has been brought forward. Miss Hargey: I thank the Minister for bringing the motion to the House. As other Members have said, it is progressive legislation that was brought in during COVID, and its functions will be made permanent because of the moves that the Minister has made. It is just that the moves have taken place during Baby Loss Awareness Week. The Committee heard a lot of the lived experience of parents who have suffered the loss of a baby, and the addition to the permanent legislation, which will include a baby loss certificate scheme, has been welcomed by those parents and, more generally, the public. It is good that we have progressed to this stage, and I hope that we will see the progressive legislation made permanent without further delay. Mr O'Dowd: I thank the Members who commented on the order, and I welcome their remarks. I also thank the Chairman and the members of the Finance Committee for scrutinising the order. As Members reflected, our objective in bringing forward the order is to continue to provide a registration service that meets the needs of the public and allows time for the permanent legislation, in the form of the Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill, to replace existing Coronavirus Act provisions. The Chair asked when the Bill's next stage will take place. I expect Consideration Stage to take place later this month. How we move forward will then be in the hands of the Assembly, but, with a fair wind behind us, I hope that the Bill's legislative journey in the Assembly will be completed around December. As many Members commented, it is fitting that, as we enter Baby Loss Awareness Week, we are moving forward with legislation that will help families in those awful times to mark the loss of their baby. Mrs Dillon: I appreciate the Minister's taking an intervention. You mentioned Baby Loss Awareness Week, which begins on Thursday. Will the legislation provide for backdating to ensure that mothers and families who lost babies in the past are able to get a baby loss certificate? Will that be at least considered as part of the legislation? Mr O'Dowd: I thank the Member for her intervention. Yes, that will be part of the legislation. It is only right and proper that we do that. In conclusion, a number of Committee members thanked Mr Frew. I thought that you were going to say that you were thankful that he had moved on. [Laughter.] Maybe you were just thinking it. I also thank Mr Frew for his contribution to the Committee. He always had clear views on the use of the Coronavirus Act. I share some of those views. We have to move beyond the Coronavirus Act in that regard, and the legislation is now in place to do so. I commend the order to the House. Question put and agreed to. Resolved: That the Coronavirus Act 2020 (Registration of Deaths and Still-Births) (Extension) (No.2) Order (Northern Ireland) 2025 be approved. Private Members' Business Mother-and-baby Unit Ms Flynn: I beg to move That this Assembly recognises the importance of a regional mother-and-baby unit to support mothers with postpartum mental health issues; acknowledges that such a unit would enable mothers to remain with their babies while accessing specialist inpatient care; notes that giving birth can be one of the most fulfilling and joyous times in a mother's life; further notes that some mothers experience serious mental health challenges after birth, including postpartum psychosis; affirms that mothers deserve access to inpatient care that allows them to stay with their babies while receiving the support that they need; further acknowledges that we remain the only part of these islands without a dedicated mother-and-baby unit; expresses concern at the ongoing lack of provision; calls on the Minister of Health to provide an update on the current business case for the establishment of a mother-and-baby unit; and further calls on the Minister to put in place interim measures, including a dedicated ward with staff trained in conditions such as postpartum psychosis, to ensure that mothers in crisis can access appropriate support until that unit is developed, and to engage with his ministerial counterpart in the Department of Health in Dublin to ensure that services in that unit will be available to support mothers and babies throughout Ireland. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. Two amendments have been selected and are published on the Marshalled List, so the Business Committee has agreed that 30 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate. Órlaithí, please open the debate on the motion. Ms Flynn: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. [Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.] The motion calls for the urgent establishment of a dedicated mother-and-baby unit (MBU) here in the North of Ireland. It is about compassion, equality and the basic right of every woman to access the specialist care that she needs during one of the most vulnerable and transformative moments of her life. It is about ensuring that no mother ever again has to recover from birth in a psychiatric ward without her baby by her side. Bringing a child into the world should be a time of joy, safety and dignity. It should mark the start of a hopeful new chapter in a mother's life, not one defined by fear, isolation or trauma. Sadly, however, for too many women in the North, that is not the reality. No mother should ever be separated from her baby in the days and weeks after birth, yet that remains the reality for women in our communities who experience acute perinatal mental illness. Those women are separated from their newborn babies and placed in general psychiatric wards. That is not compassionate care. Rather, it is a system that is failing women at their most vulnerable. Let me be clear about the severity of what we are dealing with. One in five women will experience mental health problems during pregnancy or after birth. That is very common. In the North, around 1,000 women each year will develop a severe postnatal illness, which can include postpartum psychosis, severe depression, anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorder. Devastatingly, suicide is the leading cause of maternal death here, but with timely and appropriate care, such deaths are preventable. I am thinking today about a particular family in my constituency of West Belfast who, tragically, have already experienced that type of loss. They lost a loved one to suicide not long after she gave birth to a baby. I try to put myself in that family's shoes and think about how they are feeling. As time passes, there is bound to be frustration about the lack of progress made on the establishment of the MBU. I therefore hope, for that family and all the families who have lost loved ones in that way and who are struggling, and for all the families who have gone through the experience of having someone placed in a psychiatric ward without their baby, that, when he responds to the debate, the Minister may give them a wee bit of hope about what comes next. Women who have experienced postpartum psychosis have described themselves as feeling like prisoners, having been abandoned in a psychiatric ward without their baby. They have spoken about enduring isolation, confusion and trauma at the very moment that they should be bonding with their newborn child. To illustrate that point further, I will share some testimony. A young mother from Belfast reached out to me in the past week when she saw that today's debate was coming up. Her name is Leah, and I had not spoken to her before. She reached out to me to share some of her experience. Leah's case is very current, as she began going through the process a short number of months ago and is still going through it. I send her and her wee baby my best wishes. When she reached out to me, she explained that, very recently, when her baby was just three weeks old, she began to experience severe postpartum depression. She was told that it was just the baby blues and that she would be fine in a few weeks. A few weeks came and went, and, instead, her condition deteriorated. She became suicidal, lost the precious bond that she had formed with her baby and was admitted to the mental health unit at the City Hospital. That was the first time that she had ever been apart from her newborn baby. In her own words, she described being forced to choose between stopping breastfeeding and starting to pump every four hours. Having to make what may seem like a very small decision, either to stop breastfeeding or to start pumping, imposes an unimaginable emotional burden and takes its toll on a woman who has just given birth to a baby and is already dealing with mental illness. That is on top of being separated from her baby. She told me that the staff were very kind and very good to her. That is an important point to make. I know that the staff in that unit are very good to their patients, and that has to be recognised. Not all of them, however, are trained or equipped to manage a postpartum mental health crisis specifically. The Assembly's all-party group (APG) on women's health has heard from numerous mothers who had been through the similar experience of being placed on a general psychiatric ward. I previously spoke about the matter at Members' statements. They were placed beside a smoking area and did not have access to the one of the basics that a woman deserves, which is proper bathing facilities to get a bath after going through childbirth. Top 11.45 am In 2025, the island of Ireland, North and South, remains without a specialist mother-and-baby unit. Not one exists anywhere on the island, and that is a shameful distinction when compared with England, Scotland and Wales, which provide dedicated therapeutic spaces where mothers can recover alongside their babies, supported by teams of perinatal psychiatry specialist nurses, nursery nurses, psychologists and occupational therapists. That is what best practice looks like, and it is what women here deserve. We have been told — I am sure that we will hear an update on this from the Minister — that the Belfast City Hospital site has been chosen for a mother-and-baby unit and that work on the business case is well advanced. It is my understanding that the draft business case is now with the strategic planning and performance group (SPPG), which is very welcome, but I am hoping that we hear from the Minister and the Department today about a more definitive time frame for delivery. Women cannot wait for another five years. We heard of 2030 as a possible opening date, and that is simply indefensible. We remain cautious about short-term interim units, and we will get into a discussion on that with the UUP amendment. However, you do not want a short-term interim unit to become a good enough long-term solution. That is the problem with calling for that. What is clear is that we need to see some of that sort of action now to prevent further trauma being inflicted on women in those situations. The Exeter MBU featured in the BBC 'Spotlight' programme shows how a temporary unit, although not perfect, can provide safe, specialist care that keeps mothers and babies together during recovery. Hopefully, that can be put in place while plans for a permanent facility progress. Interim measures are welcome but cannot replace a properly resourced specialist mother-and-baby unit. Anything less continues a legacy of neglect that we should all be determined to end. There are legitimate questions about whether our system is meeting clinical and ethical standards of care for women with severe perinatal illness. Training remains inconsistent, especially among GPs, emergency staff and first responders. Equally concerning is the lack of reliable data. We do not know how many women in recent years have experienced postpartum psychosis or tragically died by suicide during or after pregnancy. That gap is not just a failure of record-keeping; it is a failure to fully value women's health and lives. We cannot change what we refuse to measure. Furthermore, we need to take a wider all-island view. Progress that is similar to ours is being made in the South. Their business case for a mother-and-baby unit at St Vincent's University Hospital, Dublin, is more or less ready to go but has not made it to the next stage, so we are still without a unit anywhere across the Thirty-two Counties. We now have an opportunity and, indeed, a responsibility to do things differently. This issue sits within a broader picture of delay and underinvestment in women's health. We have multiple debates in the Chamber on women's health issues. It was endometriosis last week or the week before. We have had conversations around gynae stuff. Hopefully, there will be good announcements around that, and we look forward to hearing those. This is basically about giving women, and mothers in particular, the dignity, safety and care that they deserve after having their babies. It is so important for a mother and baby to have that period to nurture and bond. Mothers and their wider families deserve that type of healthcare. I acknowledge and thank the groups and campaigners who have kept this issue to the fore, including clinicians, advocacy groups and family members. I am thinking of the maternal advocacy and support (Mas) project, the Maternal Mental Health Alliance, Action on Postpartum Psychosis, and journalists such as Marie-Louise Connolly, who continues to expose the reality that is faced by mothers. Their determination has ensured that this issue remains on the public and political agenda, but they should not have to fight so hard for something so basic. We now have the opportunity to put things right, to deliver a mother-and-baby unit on this island and to build compassionate perinatal mental health care. Mr Robinson: I beg to move amendment No 1: Leave out all after "remain the only part of" and insert: "the United Kingdom without a dedicated mother-and-baby unit; expresses concern at the ongoing lack of provision; calls on the Minister of Health to provide an update on the current business case for the establishment of a mother-and-baby unit; and further calls on the Minister to put in place interim measures, including a dedicated ward with staff trained in conditions such as postpartum psychosis, to ensure that mothers in crisis can access appropriate support until that unit is developed and to engage with his ministerial counterparts in Great Britain to ensure that services in that unit apply best practice to best support mothers and babies living in Northern Ireland." Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you. You have 10 minutes in which to propose the amendment and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. Please open the debate on amendment No 1. Mr Robinson: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the proposer of the motion. I will speak on the need for a regional mother-and-baby unit. Bringing a child into the world is often described as one of life's most fulfilling, joyful experiences. I can think of the happiness of my wife and I when our little girl was born on New Year's Eve in Causeway Hospital. It is an emotion that I recall well of being overwhelmingly joyful, yet, for some mothers, it can also be a time of overwhelming emotional turmoil, fear and isolation. Postpartum mental health challenges, including the deeply distressing and frightening condition of postpartum psychosis, can arise suddenly and with devastating impact. Indeed, every year, around 35 women in the Province experience this condition. No mother should have to face such a crisis alone, and, crucially, no mother should be forced to choose between accessing life-saving treatment and staying with her baby. We in this region remain the only part of the UK without a dedicated MBU, with us being told that an MBU will not be operational until at least 2030, even though it is a topic that has been recognised as a need as far back as 20 years ago. As of 2023, there were 22 accredited units in the UK — two in Scotland and one in Wales. You could therefore safely say that this is a shortfall in our healthcare system. Mothers here deserve the same level of support that is afforded to families elsewhere. My understanding is that there is no MBU in Ireland also, but work is under way. However, it appears that they too are no further forward than we are. A mother-and-baby unit is a place where mothers can receive specialist expert inpatient care while remaining close to their babies, preserving that vital bond that is central to maternal recovery and infant well-being. Research states that some women feel lifelong trauma and guilt as a result of being separated from their newborn baby. Other research found that women who have been treated in MBUs recover better and feel more satisfied with their care, keeping mums together in a safe and supportive environment. The status quo, where mothers are placed in acute psychiatric wards separated from their newborns in settings that are neither designed nor resourced to meet their unique needs, just is not fair. Indeed, it is estimated that around 35 women will require hospitalisation every year for postpartum psychosis. It is deeply tragic for those women. The death in 2018 of Orlaith Quinn, who took her own life on a ward at the Royal Jubilee, saw the coroner call for an MBU in 2022. We cannot see another tragic case such as that. I look forward to the Minister updating the Assembly on the current status of the business case for establishing a mother-and-baby unit at Belfast City Hospital. We submitted an amendment as some members of a local peer support group support the need for the Minister to put in place an interim measure that will provide specialist care while the unit is being created. Some others would prefer women to travel to the mainland for gold standard care, but an interim measure cannot be a replacement for the funding and building of a specific MBU. Some others suggest that a dedicated ward, properly staffed and properly treating conditions like postpartum psychosis, would be better that what we currently have on offer. Mothers deserve better than what is currently offered, families deserve better, and our newborn babies in their first few days in this world deserve better. Mr Chambers: I beg to move amendment No 2: Leave out all after "lack of provision;" and insert: "regrets that the clinical advice is that there is no safe way to provide an interim arrangement; calls on the Minister of Health to provide an update on the current business case for the establishment of a mother-and-baby unit; and further calls on the Minister to commission a short, urgent review of possible alternative options before finally committing to the proposed site at Belfast City Hospital." Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Alan. The Assembly should note that the amendments are mutually exclusive, so, if amendment No 1 is made, the Question will not be put on amendment No 2. Alan, you will have 10 minutes to propose amendment No 2 and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members will have five minutes. Please open the debate on amendment No 2. Mr Chambers: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important topic and to once again place on record my party's strong support for the establishment of a regional mother-and-baby unit here in Northern Ireland. As the motion states, bringing a new life into the world should be among the most joyous and fulfilling experiences that a person can have, yet, for some women, that joy is reduced by the devastating impact of mental ill health. Poor mental health during pregnancy or after birth is not particularly rare and, thanks to the efforts of some people and organisations, there is now much greater awareness, but, for a small number, the symptoms are so acute that they require inpatient care. It is for those women and those families that a unit here in Northern Ireland would be so important. There is not an MLA in the Chamber who believes that giving new mums the impossible choice of either being admitted to a general mental health ward and separated from their baby or travelling much further afield to access specialist support is really the right or even humane thing to do. Either option is deeply distressing and compounds trauma at a time when those new mums are already fragile. That is why such a service cannot come a day too soon. To be fair, progress has been made, and it is right to acknowledge it. Under former Health Minister Robin Swann, the Department of Health delivered a regional perinatal mental health service. That was a major step forward that brought specialist community teams into each of our health and social care trusts. For the first time, we had a dedicated structure of expertise and care specifically for women who were experiencing perinatal mental health difficulties. That service is now well embedded, with professionals providing invaluable outreach and support across maternity and mental health settings. It represents a tangible, life-changing improvement. I pay tribute to former Minister Swann and the many clinicians, campaigners and families who championed that cause for years. Today, under the drive of the current Health Minister, that foundation is being built upon. He has made clear his determination to complete the journey to ensure that the regional service is complemented by an inpatient mother-and-baby unit that is capable of providing the highest level of care when community support is no longer sufficient. While I note the call for "interim measures" to be developed, which I would dearly wish to see if they were deliverable, in reality, the clinicians who are the experts in this field have already said that there is no way to do that. It is not just a case of repackaging a few beds or a ward and putting a new sign outside the front door. This is an incredibly complex and sensitive area of healthcare, and a wholly inadequate or wrongly located unit could even prove to be worse than no unit. In that regard, I will listen to the experts. We should keep an open mind on how to do things more swiftly, where it is safe and feasible to do so. That is why we have tabled amendment No 2, which asks for a rapid review of all options. The way that I see it, there are only two possible outcomes: ether a chance to do something different will emerge, or the assessment will tell the Minister to stay on the current track. Either option will not see time lost, but, crucially, might see some time gained. We have seen, in recent years, that progress is possible. Now, we must deliver this final but important step of a regional unit as quickly as we can, whilst always keeping the safety of mums and babies to the absolute fore. Ms Mulholland: It is lovely to hear a nod to how motherhood can be joyful and fulfilling. That sometimes gets lost in these discussions. I thank Ms Flynn for recognising it. I speak as a mummy of three, who was one of the one in five, and also as an MLA for North Antrim, where too many mothers face this time with fear rather than joy because specialist help is either too far away, too hard to reach or simply not there at all. In February 2024, I used my maiden speech in the House to highlight the lack of an MBU; in May 2024, I highlighted the issue of perinatal mental health during Mental Health Awareness Week; and, in March 2025, I engaged with the Minister about this very issue. Therefore, I look forward to hearing what has changed and what improvements have been made. Addressing perinatal mental health is not just about adequate medical care; it is about ensuring that mothers and their babies receive compassionate, comprehensive support during such a vulnerable time, and there has to be equity with what is available in other regions. The motion is simple, humane and about human beings, so I will ground my contribution to the debate in lived experience, about which I have already engaged with the Minister. I have a constituent called Laura who gave birth to a healthy baby girl in February 2023. Two days later, she was detained to a general psychiatric ward. She would not spend a full night at home with her daughter for over seven weeks. On the ward, communication was fragmented. So many teams were involved that it was often unclear who was responsible for the decision-making, who could authorise visits and who could tell Laura whether she could take a short walk outside. Visits with her baby were supervised, limited to one hour and sporadic; they were not routine. That is not how to help a mother bond with her child, especially a mother who is in the grip of a mental health crisis. Top 12.00 noon Breastfeeding became an exhausting obstacle course. She had a lack of access to sterile pumps, no proper storage and no process for accessing basic equipment. At one point, Laura was sterilising her own kit in a staff microwave, albeit whilst being supervised. She had to call the trust breastfeeding support team herself to get help during visiting hours. She was given the wrong supplements, or her supplements were forgotten on medication rounds, because they just did not think of the postpartum supplements that a mother needs. The physical recovery expected after birth, such as having access to a bath to help with healing and cleaning, a bin to dispose of used maternity pads and a clean space to change, became just a series of indignities, but Laura said that the hardest part of being separated from her baby was that it directly harmed her recovery. She struggled to build an emotional connection and learn the day-to-day skills of caring for her newborn. She felt that she did not know her daughter at all and that she was not fit to be her mother. At her lowest, she even considered giving up her parental rights. That is the very opposite of what is needed to help new mums with mental health issues. Those little babies need their mums, but mums also need their babies, especially during that time. As things stand in Northern Ireland, if a mother becomes severely unwell after birth, she is likely to be admitted to a general psychiatric ward without her baby. The case for an MBU has been well established. It is evidence-based care. There has been progress, with all five health trusts now having a specialist community perinatal mental health team in place. That is a foundation that we should welcome, but mothers in crisis cannot wait for a capital project alone. Minister, from Laura's experience, the measures that they need are practical and potentially life-saving, and not all of them cost money. For example, a dedicated warded space within mental health services where postpartum mothers are not treated as an inconvenience; routine — not rationed — visits with babies; safe, private space for feeding and family contact; baby-friendly facilities embedded in the ward environment; proper breastfeeding support on wards; a single point of contact for every mother to coordinate that care and reduce anxiety; and data that counts what matters. Postpartum admissions have to be recorded. They have to be reported so that services can plan and measure progress. Standardised reporting and recording within and across trusts are key to building up a full picture. The motion is more about giving frightened new mothers the care that helps them heal and giving a tiny baby the secure bond that shapes a lifetime. Until that unit opens, we need to do everything that we can to make our existing wards kinder, safer and truly perinatal-ready, so that no mother is ever again asked to recover whilst apart from her baby. Ms Hunter: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion today and thank Órlaithí for her continued work on the issue. I am in firm support of the motion, because it is about justice, health, dignity and the future of mothers and babies across the North. Giving birth can rightly be one of life's most fulfilling moments, yet, for too many, it is followed by anguish, fear and crisis. Postnatal depression, anxiety and, in extreme cases, postpartum psychosis strike swiftly without warning and without mercy. No woman should face that peril isolated and unsupported, but today, we face a glaring failure in our system. Northern Ireland remains the only part of these islands without a dedicated mother-and-baby unit. That means that, when a mother suffers a severe perinatal mental health crisis, she may be admitted to a general psychiatric ward, separated from her newborn and placed in an environment without the specialist training or facilities to meet her needs. We heard the story recently about Shelley Browne. She was admitted to a general ward and separated from her baby for five weeks — a deeply distressing example but, sadly, not unique. We also recall the tragedy of Orlaith Quinn, who died by suicide just two days after giving birth. An inquest called her death "foreseeable and preventable" and recommended the establishment of a mother-and-baby unit in Northern Ireland. Those stories, sadly, are not anecdotes to be glossed over; they are warnings, and they cry out for urgent action. Let me be clear about what, the SDLP believes, must happen. First, the Department must publish the long-overdue business case for a regional MBU, with full transparency on timescales, budgets and risk assessments. Many organisations from Action on Postpartum Psychosis, whose tireless advocacy has provided vital awareness and support for families, to Aware NI have called for immediate action. Secondly, the Department must immediately allocate capital and revenue funding, with clear delivery timelines, so that the facility moves from idea to reality. Thirdly, we must institute interim measures now. Let me be clear: such measures cannot become long-term measures, but it is vital that we take the necessary steps to support mothers and babies in the interim. Mothers in crisis must never face separation or inappropriate care while waiting for a permanent unit. One option that the Department should urgently consider is repurposing an existing empty ward as a temporary mother-and-baby unit. That option may not be perfect, but it would at least allow mothers and babies to remain together, which is so important. We have seen that done before in Exeter, where a temporary ward was successfully set up while a permanent mother-and-baby unit was being built and created. Fourthly, we need cross-jurisdictional cooperation on these important matters. Mental illness respects no border. I urge the Minister of Health to coordinate with his counterpart in Dublin to ensure that, once established, the unit can serve mothers and babies across the island as needed. Specialist mother-and-baby units have a strong evidence base. They improve clinical outcomes, reduce trauma and protect the mother-infant bond, which is so important. We know that such units save lives. The issue also exposes a wider crisis in women's health in Northern Ireland. There is no reliable record of the number of women diagnosed with postpartum psychosis or admitted to psychiatric wards in the postpartum period. We really do not know how many mothers and babies have been separated. There is no record of severe adverse incidents (SAIs) relating to maternal mental health. Perhaps most shockingly, there is no reliable record of how many women die by suicide in the year after giving birth. Data collection is truly vital when seeking to adequately address sensitive issues such as the one that we are discussing. It is unacceptable that that information is not being collected; indeed, it is unfathomable. We cannot allow bureaucratic delay, a lack of political will or poor record-keeping to stand between a suffering mother and the care that she and her baby so desperately need. Women who are already vulnerable and terrified should not be told to wait while the machinery grinds. Every mother deserves to heal in the presence of their child. Every family deserves the certainty of knowing that, should a crisis strike or arise, there is a safe, specialist and compassionate place of care in our jurisdiction. There can be no more delay or excuses. We must deliver the regional mother-and-baby unit that mothers across the region so urgently deserve. We must take immediate steps to protect mothers and babies across the island. Mr McGuigan: Each year, 1,000 women develop a severe postnatal illness. It is estimated that around 35 women across the North experience postpartum psychosis: a severe, frightening and potentially life-threatening mental health emergency that devastates those women and their families. With the right treatment and support, women can fully recover, but getting that right treatment and intervention at the right time in the right environment is critical. I acknowledge the ongoing work of the perinatal mental health care pathway. Its roll-out across trusts is a welcome development and a testament to the commitment of those who work in perinatal mental health. However, the second phase of that model — the establishment of a dedicated mother-and-baby unit — remains an outstanding commitment. Postpartum psychosis is a mental health crisis that typically cannot be managed at home, especially when the mother is caring for a newborn baby. A dedicated mother-and baby-unit, with specially trained staff and integrated services, is crucial to ensuring that women receive the medical intervention and compassionate support that they need without being separated from their baby. The recent BBC 'Spotlight' programme, 'Mums in Crisis', made the case for urgent action very effectively. I commend the courageous women and families who have spoken out about their experiences. Their voices have rightly brought the issue into the public eye and highlighted the devastating impact of inadequate support. It is clear that the current system does not meet the needs of mothers in crisis. Sinn Féin calls for the mother-and-baby unit to be delivered without further delay. We must ensure that mothers are not separated from their newborn babies while receiving mental health support. We need clear answers from the Minister today on the time frame for the unit's delivery. If, as previously stated, it remains a longer-term strategic objective, we must look at interim measures, such as having a dedicated ward with specialist staff, to ensure that mothers in crisis can access appropriate care now. As other Members have said, an empty ward could be repurposed as a mother-and-baby unit. Such a unit would keep mums and babies together in perhaps less than ideal conditions, but at least they would be together. Similar things have happened in Wales and in England, so, if the Minister thinks that that cannot happen, I really want to hear from him exactly why he believes that to be the case. I commend Action on Postpartum Psychosis and other advocacy groups for the vital support and advocacy that they provide to women and families affected by the condition and highlight their call for tailored peer support to be embedded in care pathways. As other Members have said, we also need comprehensive data. It is essential that we capture data on the numbers affected and on treatments. As the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych) has said, the data gap needs to be addressed. This is the second debate in just over a week on a serious illness that affects only women. As a man, I am embarrassed by that. In the North and, indeed, across the island, it is clear that we have a way to go to ensure that women's health issues are addressed and that women get the services that they desire. If the issue affected men, I suspect that the specialist unit would already have been built. That is a serious indictment of our health service. I hope that progress on the mother-and-baby unit can be made in order to deliver that vital service, ensuring that women across the island of Ireland get the healthcare that they need and deserve. Mrs Cameron: I thank the proposer of the motion for raising this really important issue today. I have been here for many years, so I know that we have had such discussions before. It really is time that we moved the subject on and time that women and their children received the appropriate care that they absolutely require. I fully support the motion. We know that one in five women will experience mental health problems during pregnancy or in the first year after birth. It is distressing to realise that we do not appear to collect and produce data on that. That is really important, so I urge the Minister to deal with that issue in particular. With Encompass, we have great new systems in place, so there is more than enough opportunity to ensure that, going forward, we have the data to put the appropriate provision in place. Sian Mulholland mentioned Laura Orr and how she has bravely talked about her experience. I will also touch on Laura's experience, because it is really important that mothers' testimony be heard in the debate. Laura gave birth to her lovely daughter in 2023. Sian outlined much of what Laura has gone through, which is pretty horrific, and I will not repeat it. I will point out, however, that Laura stated that being separated from her daughter in a psychiatric ward was the hardest aspect of her experience and that the act of separation directly affected her recovery. She said that it was almost impossible to build an emotional connection, acquire practical parenting skills and navigate the new phase of family life with ease. Laura felt as though she did not know her daughter at all and that she was not fit to be her mother. She felt that someone else would be better placed to take care of her daughter and, at one point, considered giving up her parental rights. That is horrific. It is not what we want to hear or read about, but, unfortunately, it happened in the recent past: it is experience from 2023. Top 12.15 pm I will quote Laura directly. She said that one of the things that she found most difficult was not knowing: "how long we might be separated. How much of the first few weeks would I miss?" Those are Laura's words. She continues: "What milestones would go marked without me? It felt utterly surreal to be a bystander in my daughter's life, to parent vicariously through voice notes, photos and sporadic updates from the staff team. I was the only new mum on the ward. I had no one to advocate for what I needed: access to breastfeeding supplies, postnatal check-ups or even the time and space for the small but vital things that come with new motherhood. Postpartum mental ill health does not affect only one person. My admission affected my whole family and my husband in particular. He did not expect to be left alone with a newborn baby to take extended time off work to coordinate visits and updates amidst all the chaos of new parenthood. I cannot overstate how much a mother-and-baby unit would have helped my practical, emotional, physical, familial and mental well-being. It's not a luxury; it's a necessity." It is important to put those words of a mother on the record. I take the opportunity to raise another mother's experience: Alex Bartholomew. Her experience is from August 2018 — not very recent but the same problem in the past. Alex was admitted to an acute psychiatric ward. Her son was eight weeks old and still breastfeeding. During her time on the ward, Alex's symptoms worsened. Staying on a mixed ward heightened her anxiety, and it was unsafe for her children to visit. Throughout her three weeks on the ward, there was no safe place there for her to meet her children. Alex had been separated from her newborn son with no indication of when she might see him again. The baby was eight weeks old and had to be weaned overnight. Her toddler daughter asked daily where her mum was and has since undergone counselling for separation anxiety. In the first couple of days, she —. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Pam, will you draw your remarks to a close, please? Mrs Cameron: I will indeed. Those testimonies outline the importance of the mother-and-baby unit. I urge the Minister to act quickly on the issue to ensure that the services are put in place. Miss McAllister: I thank the proposer for tabling the motion. She has spoken at length about the issue in Committee and asked questions on it, and there are Members from all our parties who have done the same. I thank my colleague Sian for taking it on for us, because it is important that it is addressed as a cross-party issue. I speak as a mum who was separated from her baby when they were just six days old, not for mental health reasons but for physical health reasons. Difficult as that was for me, I cannot imagine how difficult it is for any mother who does not have an end in sight. Those of us with physical issues have an end in sight and know when we will see our babies again. It was not acceptable in my case, and it is not acceptable in any other mother's case. I pay particular tribute to Shelley Browne, who was on the 'Spotlight' programme. I have read a lot about her circumstances. It is such a sad and emotive issue that it is hard, at times, to listen and to take it all in, because we are so affected by it. We have to listen to women and mothers, however, because they have been going through this for years. The 'Spotlight' documentary stated that around 100 women a year in Northern Ireland are admitted to adult psychiatric wards without their babies for similar care. We cannot get hold of the exact figures from the Department. We have submitted questions for written answer but have not had answers for some of the trusts. I understand that there may be issues relating to Encompass, but we need to move past using that as a reason to not give the data, because data informs policy. We know that the trusts receive around 250 referrals for community service. At this time, I pay tribute, as many Members have done, to the perinatal mental health team, who do fabulous work and look after women. Even the team has approached us to say that it does not always work and that specialised inpatient care is needed. In September, we tabled a question asking on an update on the business case. I was glad that the Department wrote back and said that there was confirmation of a six-bed facility with the business case due for completion by 22 September. Hopefully, the Minister has a further update on that. Many Members have mentioned a number of organisations today. I pay particular thanks to Action on Postpartum Psychosis, which has been in touch with Members over the past few weeks to ensure that we are aware of all the information behind the scenes about the women who feel that they cannot reach out individually to elected representatives — maybe it is too fresh, raw and new for them — but want to do something. That organisation has been leading on the cause for many years. In 2008, there was a visit to England to look at mother-and-baby units there, and we are no further on. My party does not feel that we can support the UUP amendment, because we are concerned about the issue that there cannot be an interim arrangement. Some of that is due to what was exposed — "highlighted", I should say — in the 'Spotlight' documentary, in particular about Exeter. We want a bit more elaboration on what exactly the clinical advice is. It is important that we listen to it. From our understanding and research, it appears that the clinical advice is perhaps not coming from the Royal College of Psychiatrists. If we are wrong, I am happy to be corrected. It is important that we get it right. There is a question around community treatment. Is that clinically the safest option, compared with interim measures? Those questions should be asked. Why are we asking those questions? We need to remember why we are talking about this: because mothers and their babies deserve the best care and resources and to be treated together and not miss out on those first crucial days, weeks and, for some, months. Mr Carroll: I thank the Member for West Belfast for tabling this important motion, and I thank everybody who has spoken in the debate. As we have heard, as many as one in five women experience mental health problems in pregnancy or after birth, and around 100 women are admitted to general psychiatric wards, with 35 being admitted for postpartum psychosis. In large part, that is because we do not have a mother-and-baby unit where women can receive the care that they need while pregnant or in the first 12 months of their baby's life. That is shameful. It speaks a lot to how we view and treat mental health generally and how women, in particular, are viewed and treated in the healthcare system and in society. As has been stated, there are 22 mother-and-baby units in Britain, but Ireland has zilch. Successive Health Ministers have agreed that we need a mother-and-baby unit. Families have been waiting at least 20 years for that life-saving service, but, as with many things here, it is like waiting for Godot. It is an embarrassment and a source of shame that we have made no material progress. A mother-and-baby unit is a space where mothers can foster and build the mother-infant bond that would otherwise be harmed by separation. Separating women who need hospital admission for mental health from their young babies is inhumane. It is inhumane, yet that is what happens to dozens of women every year. Women have described that experience as "disorientating" and "traumatising". As Members have said, the story of Shelley Browne, which was covered by 'Spotlight', speaks to that. Shelley was separated from her newborn baby and admitted to a general psychiatric hospital for five weeks. She reported feeling like a prisoner after giving birth. That is totally unacceptable. Other mothers refuse the hospital treatment that they need and instead rely on specialist community teams in order to stay with their newborn children. As has been mentioned, Orlaith Quinn died by suicide at the Royal Jubilee Maternity Hospital less than 48 hours after giving birth to her daughter. I believe that she had no previous mental health issues. Four years later, an inquest found that her death had been "foreseeable and preventable"; really cruel and shameful stuff. The same inquest also recommended that a mother-and-baby unit be established, yet, four years on, there is nothing. The debacle of our absent mother-and-baby unit is yet another symptom of our mental health crisis. Our legacy of conflict, inequality and poverty means that people with poor mental health in the North suffer from more severe and debilitating conditions than in Britain and Ireland. Despite that well-known fact, we continue to spend less on mental health services than other regions, with £157 per capita spent in the North compared with £252 in England. Our mental health strategy needs £42 million of funding, but, last year, actual funding was just £5·9 million, a paltry sum. Part of that money delivered perinatal mental health teams across all five trusts, as has been stated, and the strengthening of those services is to be broadly welcomed. However, the Maternal Mental Health Alliance reports issues with it, including a lack of variation of services and a lack of implementation and funding of the mental health strategy. Each health trust receives more than 250 referrals for community perinatal services each year, but, because of staffing pressures, only 70 patients are accepted — women being failed again. The interim temporary units are far from a perfect solution and are no substitute for a permanent mother-and-baby facility designed according to the needs of families, but an interim unit where mothers could receive the care that they need without being cruelly separated from their newborn child would provide some hope for mothers. Like the Member for North Belfast, I question the logic of the clinical advice that the Minister states for why they cannot be used. The business case for a mother-and-baby unit is almost a year overdue. I suspect that the Minister will tell us today that the case is finalised or close to being finalised but that any future funding depends on funding being identified. That is a line that is continuously rolled out by his Department. Strategies without funding are nothing more than abstract reports, and business cases without funding are absolutely meaningless. We do not need another review, however short. Those who support families and newborn baby organisations, such as the Maternal Mental Health Alliance, the Maternal Advocacy and Support (MAs) project, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, Action on Postpartum Psychosis and TinyLife, have been campaigning on the issue for decades. Women and families tell us that we urgently need a life-saving mother-and-baby unit. It is time for the Health Minister to deliver on it, and it is time for the Executive to fund it. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Minister, you have up to 15 minutes. Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): Deputy Speaker, thank you very much. A mother-and-baby unit is not overdue or long overdue: it is long, long overdue. Mr Robinson took us back 20 years: I will see his 20 years, and I will up it by 10. On 27 January 1995, my first son was born in the Royal Victoria Hospital. The first clinician to come in and examine his mother wanted to separate the two. They wanted to keep the baby, PJ, in the Royal and send Lynda to Knockbracken. I will never, ever forget the look of horror on her face. I found the strength from somewhere to call for a second opinion, and the two were not separated that night. Sian Mulholland talked about the joy and the life-affirming experiences that women have when giving birth, and we should remember that. It is pretty joyous for dads as well, by the way. However, one in five is a huge number that we need to address. Please be in no doubt that I consider the absence of a dedicated mother-and-baby unit in Northern Ireland to be an absolutely glaring gap. As many Members have said, we are the only part of the UK without such a facility; indeed, there is none in the Republic of Ireland, and I will come back to that. We have to go straight to the finances. Members are well briefed on the context in which I operate. The health service is under immense pressure, with unprecedented demand across all areas and resources stretched thin. The funding gap of £600 million is unprecedented, and, at the moment, I am finding it unmanageable. To establish a mother-and-baby unit, we will require significant capital and revenue investment, because it is not just about infrastructure; it is about staffing, training and ongoing service delivery. Let me be clear that I am fully committed to establishing a regional mother-and-baby unit. We began with an outline business case, which was submitted to the Department by the Belfast Trust on 22 September this year. That led to economic and financial analyses. Normally, those are done first by the Belfast Trust and then by officials in my Department. To minimise further delays, my officials are already working in parallel to review and assess the business case. Top 12.30 pm I want that to be done at pace, but I also want it to be done accurately. Members will be aware that the Department of Health and Health and Social Care have not exactly had a glowing record with capital projects in recent years. However, when the new, interim permanent secretary took up his post and came to see me, he asked, "What do you expect of me?". I said, "I will tell you in one word, Mr Farrar: urgency. I want to see urgency". My officials know that I do not believe that I have seen urgency — or sufficient urgency — in developing the business case for the mother-and-baby unit. One of the big delays was a debate over whether it should be a six-bed unit or a seven-bed unit. The conclusion is six beds. The projected capital cost began at £11 million. As part of developing the business case, that has to come under review because we know that building costs continue to rise in the current environment. My officials recently secured Department of Finance approval to increase the delegated limit for capital projects. That involves hospital development, so the good news is that that means that time will not be spent on securing Department of Finance approval for the mother-and-baby unit project. However, following the announcement, in June, of the outcome of the UK-wide 2025 spending review, the Department of Finance has commissioned a Budget exercise that will determine the capital budgets for Northern Ireland's Departments for 2026-27 to 2029-30, so my ability to commit funding for any new capital projects will depend on my Department's capital allocation from that Budget process and the identification of sufficient additional recurrent funding to meet any additional resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL) costs associated with a capital project. We do not expect the draft Budget outcome to be confirmed until later this year, but it will inform the development of the Department of Health capital investment plan, and that will set out the projects to be taken forward over the next 10 years. However, let me emphasise again that, in my assessment, a mother-and-baby unit is right at the top of that list. The trusts and my other arm's-length bodies have identified capital funding requirements of around £3 billion over the next four years. That is more than £1 billion higher than the capital funding that we expect to receive. That suggests that the capital budget outcome may only be enough to address inescapable pressures. I simply want to manage expectations here. While I hope that the Budget outcome agreed by the Executive will also allow some partially committed projects, including the mother-and-baby unit, to be taken forward as planned, the possibility remains that there will need to be some form of delay. The position will be confirmed as part of the development of the capital investment plan, with a number of other important projects also to be taken into account. Those include the Antrim Area Hospital mental health inpatient unit, the Cityside Health and Care Centre in the north-west and Altnagelvin's new emergency department. However, before I finally commit to the proposed Belfast City Hospital site, I have asked officials to undertake a short, urgent review of possible alternative options. I want to be absolutely certain that we have considered all possible options, and I stress that that will not cause a further delay. It will be done as work continues on the business case. Ms Mulholland: Will the Minister give way? Mr Nesbitt: Yes. Ms Mulholland: Minister, we all know the budgetary constraints that you operate under. In my communication with you on this particular case, I outlined some things and some changes that could be put in place that will not require capital. Is your Department considering those at this time? Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for the intervention. Yes, we are considering them. We are considering all options. On an interim fix, I will first put on record the best practice requirements, as defined by the Royal College of Psychiatrists. A mother-and-baby unit should be co-located with a mental health acute inpatient unit; located close to an obstetric-led maternity unit; capable of facilitating a six-bed unit, which is the current plan; capable of facilitating all clinical services on the ground floor; have dedicated direct access to secured and exclusive outdoor space, desirably gardens; and offer easy access to wider public open spaces and amenities. As I have said, the Department received clinical advice, including from the SPPG, that there is no such facility that we can use as an interim location. If Members want to challenge that and say that they know of a location, I am all ears. If Members want me to overrule clinical advice, I am very nervous — very, very nervous. Mr Carroll: I appreciate the Minister's giving way. I am not on the Health Committee, but I was previously. Has that evidence been publicly provided to the Health Committee? If not, can it be provided to the Health Committee and the Assembly? Mr Nesbitt: For clarification, does the Member mean the best practice from the royal college? Mr Carroll: The clinical evidence. Mr Nesbitt: I can check whether the clinical evidence has been provided to the Committee. Maybe the Chair of the Committee knows. If it has not been, we are more than happy to provide it, as well as the criteria, as defined by the royal college. As I say, we are going to look in order to be sure and potentially rule out any other long-term venues. Ms Flynn: Will the Minister give way? Mr Nesbitt: Yes. Ms Flynn: Sorry, Minister, I do not want to take up too much of your response time. On the interim measures, have you looked at the model, which was referred to by a couple of Members, that appeared in the BBC 'Spotlight' programme — the temporary ward that was set up in Exeter? Have you or your officials looked at that? Mr Nesbitt: What I have asked the officials to do is broader than that. I have asked them to look at whether there is any possibility of an alternative venue that could be an interim base for a mother-and-baby unit, and the answer that I have got back is, "No, there isn't". If Members wish, I will ask them to look yet again, because it is an incredibly important issue to me. Several Members mentioned the fact that we are not trapping the data. A group has been set up to try to look at how we start to do that. There had been some coding issues. I do not want to get too technical, and I certainly do not want to hide behind technicalities, but it seems that Encompass should be able to help us in achieving that goal. Transferring a mother and baby to a specialist mother-and-baby unit elsewhere in the UK under an extra-contractual referral has been considered for some cases. However, many mothers have talked about the emotional stress of being separated from their families, friends and local support networks. Often, those considerations outweigh the potential benefits of receiving care further afield. Members talked about building a mother-and-baby unit that would accept mothers and babies from across the island. I have asked officials to check whether there is any legal impediment to a child being transferred into our jurisdiction. I am not entirely confident that there is a solid answer to that, but it is certainly something to be explored. I confirm to Members that I explored with the previous Health Minister in the Government of Ireland the possibility of working together and, perhaps, tapping into the Shared Island Fund to secure a mother-and-baby unit. Unfortunately, those discussions did not produce a positive outcome. We are, therefore, basically on our own in that way. I thank Members who have acknowledged that the Department has been working to strengthen community-based perinatal mental health services across all five of our geographic trusts. We have invested in community-based specialist services, ensuring that mothers can access support close to home. Alongside that, we have been upskilling clinical staff, including midwives, mental health nurses and health visitors, so that they are better equipped to identify and respond to perinatal mental health issues. For my family, one of the saviours — I use the word "saviours" deliberately — was the community psychiatrist nurse, who was incredibly important in the journey that my wife had to go on. I ask the Members who tabled the motion to exert their influence over their party colleague the Minister of Finance, because we need the money — not just the capital, as I said — to make the mother-and-baby unit a reality. It is not just a clinical necessity but a statement of our values and of the extent to which we value one another. The Chair of the Health Committee made the point that if the issue were to affect only men, we would not be talking about a 20- or 30-year wait but, rather, would be celebrating the fact that the unit is in operation and would instead be examining and scrutinising how well it is delivering. I will finish where I began. The mother-and-baby unit is not overdue or long overdue but long, long overdue. If it is the will of the House, I see no reason that we cannot get on with it, but doing that will take time. If we can find a way of doing it somewhere else more quickly, we will do that. If there is a way of putting in place an interim arrangement, I am open to that idea. I will not go against clinical advice, but I will ask the clinicians and others to have one final look at providing an interim solution. I have no confidence, however, that the answer will change from being one of it is not possible. My focus is on making the mother-and-baby unit happen, because I have a vested interest. For 30 years, mothers have been going through the experience that I witnessed in January 1995, and that, by definition, is simply not good enough. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Minister. I call Robbie Butler to make a winding-up speech on amendment No 2. Robbie, you have five minutes. Mr Butler: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister for sharing so openly his familial testimony. It is not easy for anyone to share such testimony. We have also heard Members share testimonies today, particularly from constituents. Before I address the detail of the motion, I will take a moment to pay tribute to some of the people whom I consider to be the early champions of raising the profile of perinatal mental health. Long before it became a topic with which we wrestled more readily, they forced us to understand it better, stood their ground and demanded change, and the Minister has outlined where some of that change has happened in the past 10 years. Back in 2016, a number of us were elected as MLAs, and we were collared — literally — by a determined group that refused to let perinatal mental health remain under the radar. They set sail firmly towards a future in which mothers in Northern Ireland could safely and humanely receive care without being separated from their babies and in which they would not have to fight for that clinical care. I acknowledge Lindsay Robinson and Nuala Murphy in particular, whose passionate lobbying from those early days helped shape the conversation on perinatal mental health, not just in the Chamber but across our health system and in communities. Their courage, persistence and honesty about their lived experience changed awareness for good. They allowed and gave confidence to pregnant mums all over Northern Ireland and more widely to speak up and demand better from us. I also pay tribute to Julie Anderson, the chair of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, for her partnership and leadership. Her steady guidance and professional expertise have helped keep the vision rooted in clinical best practice and compassion. Thanks to those early voices, we are no longer debating whether mothers should be supported to stay with their babies but, rather, how we make that a reality. The level of awareness has changed, as has the tone, and the direction of travel is firmly set. I hope that the Minister's response to some excellent speeches today has given confidence that our amendment is not one of dither and delay. It really is not, because I assure Members that I would hold the Minister's feet to the fire on the issue. I think that I have some vires to speak about mental health. We need to establish the mother-and-baby unit, and we need to get it right, because we cannot fail those mums and their babies again. We tabled a common-sense amendment to a motion on what is a hugely important and sensitive matter. We really need to get the mother-and-baby unit done, but the direction needs to be rooted in deliverability and make clinical sense. Top 12.45 pm Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for giving way. For clarity, I think that I said that the interim advice came from the SPPG, but I misspoke. The interim advice came from the Public Health Agency. Its lead on those issues is a clinician. Mr Butler: Thank you, Minister. Hopefully, that will help some of the Members who have asked questions. I thank Órlaithí Flynn, in particular, from the Sinn Féin team for tabling the motion. Órlaithí has walked the path with me since 2016 and has been relentless. Some of us move about portfolios, but Órlaithí has been on this one from the start. I thank Sinn Féin, and I hope that it does not see our amendment as taking away in any way from its motion. I think that it adds to the clarity, the purpose and the deliverability of what we are speaking about, because it is far too important to take any chances. I will give a shout-out to the guys: Alan R, Alan C and Philip. We recognise the impact on mums and their babies, but dads and the wider family are also impacted on. That awareness around young men as they grow up to be the fathers that they should be is really important. We talked about that being picked up in the RSE education piece, because the awareness around perinatal mental health still needs to be driven. Thanks to Cara Hunter and Pam Cameron who spoke passionately and gave instances of testimony of those who have suffered and where their testimony is driving the change that, hopefully, we are going to bring about. Nuala McAllister's questions were good. It is one of the debates where we drop the politicking, and the questions are absolutely fair. They bring a focus to the reality of the fiscal situation, the clinical guidance and getting it right first time. I think that the Minister has given enough in his response today to convince Members that the amendment brought by the Ulster Unionist Party is not only fit for purpose but worth supporting. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Cheryl Brownlee to make a winding-up speech on amendment No 1. Cheryl, you have five minutes. Over to you, Cheryl. Ms Brownlee: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I commend every Member who has spoken in the debate. It is a such a serious and emotional topic for us all, and I feel that there is real, genuine compassion. Speaking freely today about perinatal mental health is critical. For all mothers, the birth of their baby is meant to be the best day of their life, but, sadly, the reality and the statistics show that one in five women will have mental health problems during pregnancy and, for five out of 100, that will be very serious. It is important to say that birth is not easy. For many of us, it does not really work out the way that we have dreamed about or how we have seen it in the movies or on social media. When that happens, the right support needs to be there for women and their babies at the most vulnerable time of their life. Today, one thing that has hit me the most is the horrific thought that any mother would be separated from their baby and not know when they would be reunited. I cannot imagine anything worse. In this day and age, as my colleague said, our mothers, babies, fathers and families deserve so much more than that. The fact that Northern Ireland is the only region in the UK without a unit is simply unacceptable. Many very good points were made in the debate, and I will touch on a few of them. Órlaithí detailed the experience of mothers being removed from their baby and having to choose between stopping breastfeeding or pumping, even being placed beside a smoking area and not being able to wash or get a bath. The inability to have those simple things is just horrific, and no mother should ever have to go through that at their most vulnerable time. My colleague Alan Robinson raised the lifelong trauma and guilt of being separated from your baby. Research has shown that mothers and babies who are kept together through those times have a much better recovery rate. We all agree that that needs to happen. It is not an "if", a "maybe" or a "but": it needs to happen now. He also noted the very tragic death of Orlaith Quinn, who sadly took her life while experiencing postpartum psychosis. The coroner is calling for the mother-and-baby unit urgently. Alan also talked about the success of the regional perinatal mental health service, the amazing work that has happened and how we need to get it right and ensure that it is safe. Robbie touched on the amazing work of campaigners. When I was pregnant during COVID, the 'Have you seen that girl?' movement was something that I constantly looked at on social media. It helped me during that time to understand that what I felt was common, other parents were going through it, and there was support there. Women who have come out and given their lived experience is critical for all of us in moving forward and making sure that we do the right things. Sian said that motherhood is a fantastic time and a joyous time, but we also have to make sure there are kinder and safer facilities. It is those small practical things that we can do, without massive costs, to make the experience a lot better for parents. Cara drew attention to the need for clear records and data, which is needed not just in the Department of Health but throughout the government of Northern Ireland. We need clear data and records moving forward. I welcome the Minister's raw honesty. He came to the Chamber today having experienced that in his life, and he will obviously understand the genuine need and the passion of us all. We understand the budgetary concerns, but, in some cases, it is a matter of life and death to ensure that parents and their babies have the right facilities in Northern Ireland. There was a discussion about clinical advice, and I am not on the Committee, but it would be good to touch base to ensure that that information is provided to it. The interim unit in south Wales was discussed. It is not ideal, but it is safe and provides the high level of 24/7 care that is needed. One of the things about postpartum psychosis is that parents do not sleep, and they need constant medical supervision to keep themselves and their baby safe. I thank everyone who has spoken today. The lived experience of mothers from across Northern Ireland shows that they need the support of a dedicated mother-and-baby unit. We should not be discussing the issue in 2025. I fully support the motion. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Linda Dillon. Linda, you have up to 10 minutes. Mrs Dillon: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. [Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.] I thank everyone who contributed to the debate on the motion today. One of the sad things that we are saying is that women and babies are still being failed on this island. In 2025, mothers are still forcibly separated from their babies, and I do not say that for the shock value; I say it because it is the truth, and it is a sad truth. I do not doubt everyone's commitment to changing the situation. I thank Sian and the Minister for sharing their personal experiences, which is not easy, but it shows that it affects every single person. People in the Chamber are affected by all the things that we talk about. Sometimes people forget that, but we are impacted on, and we have very real and relevant experiences. It is important to acknowledge that. My colleague Órlaithí Flynn, Robbie and others spoke about the advocacy groups, clinicians and families who have kept the campaign alive, and that is very true. I pay tribute to my colleague Órlaithí Flynn, because I do not remember — I think that Robbie mentioned this as well — a time when she was not raising the issue of perinatal mental health, and specifically the need for a mother-and-baby unit. Even before we were elected, when we both worked for the party, I remember being at Sinn Féin meetings, and Órlaithí was banging the drum about the issue at that time. I appreciate that she has stuck with the issue, no matter what brief she has been in, because she sees it as really important. I will throw the safety issue back to the Minister, because it has been raised in the amendment. It is important to get an understanding of what is best practice and what is safe. I accept that an interim measure will not be best practice, because it will not be a mother-and-baby unit or what we have envisaged, and, more importantly, what the advocacy groups and the families who have suffered in the system want. "Suffered" is probably the right word, because it has not just been an experience: it has been suffering. We need to understand what can be put in place, which probably will not be best practice, but will be safe. I am making that challenge for positive reasons, and I am not criticising for the sake of it, because none of us wants to do that today. I will go back to the point that was raised by Órlaithí and, potentially, Nuala about whether what is in place in Exeter and other places in England and Wales has been looked at as possible practice, if not best practice. I listened to Julie Anderson say this morning on 'Good Morning Ulster' that she is concerned that the unit will not be built during her time as chairperson. She did not talk about interim measures being unsafe. That does not mean that, if we looked at what is possible, we would find that they are not unsafe, but we really need to look at what is possible. As Sian Mulholland and others said, the current fragmented, complicated service, or lack thereof, is causing additional harm to mothers, their babies and their wider families. We need to remember that, very often, in cases involving a mother and a baby, there are other children as well. Pam spoke about those other children. It is traumatic for a mummy to be separated from any of her children, not just her new baby. That is really difficult. I understand that best practice allows those children and that family connection to be part of the service. That is really important. Órlaithí, Cara and others referred to the failure to collect data. They talked about it being a barrier to addressing the need for a mother-and-baby unit. I do not think that it is necessarily a barrier to that — I think that the Minister has accepted that we need a mother-and-baby unit — but it is a barrier to our understanding of exactly how many women out there are impacted on. We talked about the non-collection of statistics for women who die by suicide within the first year after having a new baby. That is a real problem. There are many women who suffered undiagnosed postpartum perinatal mental health disorders or postpartum psychosis — perhaps the medical profession did not even know about them — who may not be included in the stats that we are talking about today . They may not have taken account of serious adverse incidents in which mothers died. There is potentially a problem out there that we do not even know about. Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for giving way. Just to be technical about it, deaths by suicide is a matter for NISRA — the Statistics and Research Agency — rather than the Department. Mrs Dillon: I accept that it does not all fall to your Department. It is also an issue for the Coroners' Court and others. There is a wider issue, but we need Departments to work together to gather that data. There will be an effect on your Department. Although others may collect the data, there will be a real issue for your Department. Pam outlined the impact on the entire family and other children. Many Members also referenced the approach to women's healthcare. Over the past number of weeks, we have spoken about a number of areas in which, effectively, we have seen neglect in women's healthcare. In this case, that extends to the wider family, the children and the baby. Minister, I am in no doubt that you see the need for a mother-and-baby unit. I accept what you have said about that. You said that you spoke to the previous Health Minister in the South, but I would like to see a conversation between you and the new Health Minister, even about interim measures. Is there the potential for all-Ireland interim measures? I do not know whether that is possible, but the conversation needs to happen. It is a challenge to see what can be done. We ask that your Departments, including the clinicians, work together and see what is possible. Mr Donnelly: I thank the Member for giving way. She will be aware that this issue has been raised at joint North/South Health Committee meetings here and down south, at which she spoke very well, and at the North/South Inter-Parliamentary Association, where we had a day's worth of debate about it. There is certainly interest down south in working together on a shared solution. I hope that the Minister will take forward the view that that avenue is not shut off, and that we can explore it. Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for his intervention. That is right. At the end of the day, clinicians serve their patients; they want to do the very best for mothers, babies and their families. They do not care about borders or how the service is delivered; they just want to be able to deliver the best care. All that we are asking is that we look at the possibilities. I do not doubt that there will be challenges, but we all need to work together. We, as a Health Committee, will certainly support you, Minister, in that regard. I ask the Minister to come back to the Health Committee, first, to tell us what "safe" looks like or why it would be unsafe now to provide an interim service. What conversations, then, can we have with counterparts in the South and across these islands around best practice? We have said that interim measures are in place in England and Wales, so we need to speak to people there to find out what a good interim measure might look like and what the best possible practice is, right now, for women and their babies. I accept what was said about care in the community, and it is vital that we have that. We have talked consistently here, as has the Minister, about health inequalities and the shift left. It is really important that women get the care that they need closest to home when that is the suitable care. We know, however, that there are women who need 24-hour care with their babies, with all the services that have already been outlined, including support from different types of clinicians. I have no doubt that the staff who work in our psychiatric units to treat women with postpartum psychosis and serious mental health episodes after the birth of their baby are doing the very best that they can, but they can only treat the mummy and the mental health disorder that she has at that moment. They do not have the expertise, the skills, the time or the resources to deal with her as a new mother or to deal with her baby and her family. I am asking that we do our best as soon as possible. If we cannot have a mother-and-baby unit soon, what can we put in place that looks after those mothers and their babies? I know that that is what everybody in the Chamber today wants. I ask that we all work together to deliver the best for them all. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Linda. Such was the quality of the debate that I forgot to look at the clock. Thank you very much indeed for continuing. I apologise to the Business Committee. The Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The Question on amendment No 1 will be put after the question for urgent oral answer. The debate stood suspended. The sitting was suspended at 1.02 pm. On resuming — Top 2.00 pm Oral Answers to Questions Infrastructure Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Questions 1, 2, 14 and 15 have been withdrawn Road Infrastructure Projects: Climate Change 3. Mr Buckley asked the Minister for Infrastructure for her assessment of how climate change targets will impact on the delivery of major road infrastructure projects. (AQO 2493/22-27) Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure): My Department's major project portfolio is complex, with a range of projects at various stages of development and delivery. Every project will have specific considerations, but, in common with all Departments, I am very mindful at present of the impact of the judgement on the A5 western transport corridor, which was extremely disappointing and against which I recently lodged an appeal. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the judgement in detail while the appeal remains live. As my officials work extremely hard to prepare for the hearing, I will take the necessary time to consider carefully the potential impact of the judgement on other projects as they move through the next stages of their delivery. Mr Buckley: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. I have said previously that current climate change targets are an act of infrastructural vandalism when it comes to delivering timely projects. Notwithstanding what the Minister said about the A5 and her inability to speak specifically to that — I welcome the fact that there is an appeal — has the Minister, her Department or, indeed, her party given consideration to amending current climate change targets to ensure that, in the future, unrealistic targets are not a noose around the neck of infrastructure projects in Northern Ireland? Ms Kimmins: I appreciate the Member's comments. As I said, as the appeal remains live, that is the ultimate focus of my officials at present. I want to ensure that we submit an extremely robust case for that appeal to maximise our ability to succeed, get it over the line and get the road built at the earliest possible stage. However, I am mindful that nothing is guaranteed, so it is important that we have a contingency plan, which we are also working on. Mr McNulty: Minister, according to the Mineral Products Association, the A5 could have been a low-carbon project if proper procedures had been followed. What procedures were not followed, who was responsible and what are the implications for other major road projects? Ms Kimmins: I am aware of the comments from the Mineral Products Association, which I met recently. I acknowledge the views expressed by the regional director, but, respectfully, I would like to offer a different perspective. I have covered some of this in previous discussions in the Chamber and in response to questions for written answer. Since its inception, the A5 scheme has adhered to appropriate procedures on carbon management and greenhouse gas (GHG) assessments. Those procedures have consistently reflected the application of evolving relevant standards, best practice guidance and legislation. However, that did not conclude in a carbon-neutral dual carriageway. Those procedures instructed the assessment and reporting of climate-related impacts in the environmental documentation for public consultation and the identification of proposed mitigation measures to reduce the impacts. However, on the basis of the size and nature of the scheme, it is expected that the construction and operational phases will generate emissions, as reported in the GHG assessments prepared by my Department. To mitigate the impacts further in order to achieve full carbon neutrality through balancing the emissions from the construction, operation and use of the road by removing a corresponding amount of GHGs from the atmosphere would require extensive mitigations, such as vesting significant areas of additional land for planting etc. Such measures would be disproportionate when compared with the land that is required to construct the A5. Such an approach would be neither practical nor reasonable, and it would be unrealistic to achieve. Section 7.3 of the departmental statement, "Carbon Management Process", has been developed in line with PAS 2080:2023, which is the industry standard for managing whole-life carbon in buildings and infrastructure. It sets out the requirements for the contractors, designer and asset owner, with the aim of achieving carbon reduction. That process aims to minimise the carbons associated with the scheme. Ms D Armstrong: The issue of major infrastructure projects has been raised. I will raise again the major infrastructure for the people of Fermanagh: the Enniskillen southern bypass. Minister, what assurances can you give them that the project will be expedited as quickly as possible? Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for her question. I know that she has previously asked questions on the subject. The A4 Enniskillen bypass, which is a £36 million project, will provide a new transport link to the southern side of the town and improve the connection for the A4 Dublin Road and the A4 Sligo Road. As the Member may be aware, the scheme is at the tender assessment stage, and I am taking the opportunity, as I do with all such schemes, to consider appropriately the impact of the A5 ruling on it before determining the next steps, because I want to be assured that we can move forward with the scheme with no further delays. Unadopted Developments: Update 4. Ms Murphy asked the Minister for Infrastructure for an update on her guidance on unadopted developments. (AQO 2494/22-27) Ms Kimmins: Earlier this year, I gave a commitment to the House to provide updated private streets enforcement guidance to staff in an effort to reduce the risk of developments entering the Department's backlog of unadopted private street sites. On 25 September this year, I announced the introduction of the new private streets enforcement guidance. The guidance establishes a threshold for the initiation of enforcement action of two years, following 80% occupation of houses in the development. My Department also published new developer information that amends the bond release thresholds. That change will ensure that my Department has the funds to bring new development roads infrastructure up to an adoptable standard should enforcement action be necessary. The new guidance, implemented alongside the changes to the bond release thresholds, will protect homeowners by greatly reducing the risk of new developments remaining unadopted. Ms Murphy: I thank the Minister for her answer. It is welcome news that will be reassuring to many homeowners, particularly those living on sites newly built since 2024. Minister, can you elaborate on what the changes to the bond release thresholds are exactly? Ms Kimmins: Yes. I appreciate the Member's comments. I know that it is an issue that has a huge impact, particularly on residents who are greatly affected by unadopted roads. Many have been for many years, and I hope that, in some way, the new guidance will give them comfort that efforts are being made. I know that the guidance will not address all the outstanding issues for the many people affected, but it will hopefully make a real difference. The bond release thresholds specify the volume of work that the developer needs to complete before part of the bond is released, and the historical bond release thresholds were 50%, 70% and 90%. We have now changed those thresholds. There will be only two thresholds, which are 50% and 90%. The developer is now required to complete all works that were previously within the 70% threshold in order to release 50% of the bond; in other words, my Department now holds more funding to complete potentially less work. That will greatly reduce the risk of new developments lacking the funds to complete the roads infrastructure. The 90% threshold requires the developer to have completed all roads infrastructure works, with the remaining 10% released following a one-year maintenance period. Mr Clarke: Minister, your guidance does not go far enough. Many people who have been left abandoned prior to 2024 will be disappointed with the guidance. Can you not relook at the retrospective nature of the guidance, particularly for people living in private streets? There are hundreds upon hundreds of people across Northern Ireland who are living in private streets today, and your policy will make no difference whatever to them. Ms Kimmins: As I said in my previous answer, I recognise that people will be disappointed. That is unfortunate, but the responsibility lies with the developer. We are trying to work out some way in which to deal with the issues as best we can. As I said and as you reflected in your question, the new guidance uses the two-year initiation of enforcement action and the increased funding retained in the bond to complete enforcement action using external staffing resource, should it be required. Many of the developments that were started prior to January 2024 have been completed or have already received bond reductions in line with the old developer's information. That means that a greater proportion of the bond has been released, significantly reducing the funding necessary to engage that external research. What I have done here is within my remit and within the serious financial constraints that I face. I have tried to make the best use of the funding available to me to ensure that we make an impact, and I take on board and acknowledge the significant challenges that many of the homeowners face. I appreciate that not everyone will benefit from this, but I hope that the Member understands that we try to do as much as we can with what we have. Mr Mathison: The Minister is aware that the issues of adoption also apply to sewerage infrastructure and that NI Water has no budget to carry out some of those works. I think of Magheraknock Park in Ballynahinch, which the Minister knows of. In the Minister's plans, where there is no developer to make liable — in that instance in my constituency, the developer has passed away — is there any scenario where she can see funds being released to NI Water to allow the works to bring sewerage systems up to standard? Ms Kimmins: That is similar to the issue in the question asked by the previous Member. The bonds release will impact on all those schemes within two years. I am familiar with that issue. If the Member writes in with specifics on that case — it is a very unfortunate case with unforeseen circumstances — I will provide a fuller response on what we can do on that. Mr Burrows: My constituents in the Sourhill development of Ballymena have a problem with an unadopted road. Minister, can you understand their frustration? The developer went bust many years ago; there is an unadopted road; and trees are literally growing into their property. That will cause structural damage. It is causing health issues with mould, and nobody will fix it. The council will not cut down the trees; the DFI will not do it; and the Crown Estate takes no interest. Someone, through no fault of their own, will have to pay thousands of pounds to cut back trees that a bust developer has left. Ms Kimmins: I completely empathise with those people. It is something that every Member of the House has had experience of. It is a huge issue. However, it is like many cases where we cannot just go in and start taking on issues that have been caused by a private developer. The updated guidance that I have recently announced goes some way to address it. We have to balance that against how much we can do with the funding envelope that is available to the Department. If we start to deal with all the issues that have been caused by private developers, it will take a significant chunk out of a budget that is already constrained. That is notwithstanding the fact that I recognise that it is hugely challenging for all the people affected. However, the onus in those cases is on a private developer. I know that, in some cases, legal action has been instigated. There are potentially other ways in which the problems could be addressed. We have to remember that ours is public money and we cannot always fix problems caused by private developers. Night Buses 5. Ms Flynn asked the Minister for Infrastructure for an update on late-night public transport. (AQO 2495/22-27) Ms Kimmins: I recognise the benefits that late-night public transport services provide for the night-time economy and those working and socialising in the city. Members may be aware that I have been working with my Executive colleagues and other stakeholders, including Translink, to support the extension of late-night public transport services. The extension of night-time services falls beyond the current public service agreement between Translink and my Department, and those services are not currently funded in the Department’s budget allocation. Therefore, I have been working with Executive colleagues and seeking support for a collaborative funding approach and with Belfast City Council. Subject to the necessary funding being in place and confirmed, I hope that the services will commence later this financial year. Ms Flynn: I thank the Minister for her response. Will she elaborate on the expected benefits of the pilot for late-night transport? Ms Kimmins: There are many benefits, and that is why I and the Economy Minister sought support from other Departments and the council. There are benefits across government and at local government level. Late-night public transport services are generally run in the lead-up to the Christmas period and prove to be popular with the public, with approximately 17,000 passengers using the services in 2024. The extension of the late-night bus service to all year round will also provide a safer and more reliable means of getting home for those working or socialising in the city. From speaking with local business representatives, local communities and elected reps for the Belfast and surrounding areas, I know that it will ensure that people can get home safely. They will have a guaranteed way of getting home, and it will encourage them to come into the city centre more often in the evening. That will also benefit the growth of the night-time economy and could potentially add between £1 million and £2·5 million to the city's economy annually. Top 2.15 pm As well as that, from my Department's perspective, it has the potential to encourage and increase public transport usage and get more people out of private cars and using the services. One other thing that is important to reflect on — we have heard this from the taxi sector, which is already under severe capacity pressure — is that this will not impact on them in a negative way; it will actually complement their ability to deliver the services that they provide. There are many far-reaching benefits, and I hope that, once we get the funding in place, we will see this in place at the earliest possible stage. Mr Brett: At the outset, I condemn the disgraceful attack on the Minister's constituency office yesterday. My thoughts are with the Minister, her staff and her family. I also thank the Minister for her commitment and support to this scheme; it is greatly appreciated. Can the Minister articulate the outstanding support from Executive colleagues that she requires to move it forward? I understand that a number of Departments have already signed up to it. How quickly can we start the process to ensure that this is in place before Christmas? Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for his very kind comments, and I think all Members across the House. The support over the past day or so has been really welcome, particularly for my staff and their families, who have been very shaken up by what has occurred. I reiterate the point that, as public representatives, we put our names forward to represent our communities to the best of our ability. For those who do not agree with us, we are happy to sit down, engage and talk through dialogue. However, that attack was not the answer. I really convey my thanks and appreciation on behalf of me and my colleague Dáire Hughes MP. On Executive support, the Member may be aware that I have sought support of approximately £92,300, or about 14% of the total cost, each from a number of Departments, including Communities, Agriculture and Justice, as well as from Belfast City Council, and we are in the process of finalising that. A similar request has also been made to the First Minister and deputy First Minister's office. Minister Archibald and I have each committed to £94,900 towards the cost of extending the services, and that is based on the business case that was provided by Translink. There will potentially be a bit of a lead-in time because Translink will obviously have to get the operational issues in place. However, as soon as we can, we hope to get that operational, because we recognise how beneficial it is for the city centre, particularly coming into the Christmas period and beyond. It is a really good opportunity to enhance the existing service provision, but, for all the reasons outlined in my response to the previous Member, it will be beneficial right across the city and beyond. Ms Hunter: I also offer my solidarity to the Minister and her colleague. No violence or threat of violence is ever acceptable towards elected reps. I thank the Minister for her update on late-night transport today. For many women in my constituency, when using late-night transport, they often say that they feel unsafe due to areas not being well lit. Will the Minister share with the House today some steps that her Department is taking, recognising the role that she can play in making areas better lit and making sure that women feel safe when using late-night transport? Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for her comments. This is an issue that I have been particularly cognisant of, not just as a woman but with regard to our overarching work in ending violence against women and girls. For many, it will come as a surprise just how women think when they are out and about, trying to get from place to place, whether that is walking or using public transport. It is something that I have been working on with my officials, but also reflecting on what we have done around the late-night transport piece, working with other Departments to try to achieve the objectives that we have set out in relation to the issue. The Member will know from some of the work that we have been doing on active travel that street lighting forms a key part of that, and that is exactly the reason why. It is one thing to put in new active travel routes that will encourage people to walk, wheel or cycle, but if they do not feel safe to do so, they will not be able to fully utilise those routes. That is a key component of those schemes, and that is why I am keen to see that they are properly lit so that they are accessible to all, and particularly women, given the challenges and some of the statistics we have sadly seen in recent years. Flood Forecasting Centre 6. Mrs Mason asked the Minister for Infrastructure for an update on the establishment of a flood forecasting centre. (AQO 2496/22-27) Ms Kimmins: The Department is actively exploring the creation of a flood forecasting centre. We recently completed a strategic outline business case, which demonstrated that it would provide benefit here. On that basis, I approved funding for this financial year to further explore flood forecasting capabilities here. That investment marks a vital first step towards building a state-of-the-art flood forecasting service that will strengthen our resilience and help to protect communities across the North. The next stage of appraisal is the production of an outline business case in the hope of securing the necessary financial approvals to advance to subsequent stages of development. The development of flood forecasting services is complex, with several interdependent strands, including data requirements; new hydrometric infrastructure and IT systems, such as communication platforms; and forecasting model builds. For example, my Department identified the need to expand our existing hydrometric network in support of flood forecasting services. The network will collate data over an extended period to improve and validate data quality. A long period of records is required to understand hydrometric relationships and to be able to predict future forecasts with an acceptable degree of confidence. Given the frequency of flooding now in all our constituencies, including the Member's and mine, we know just how important the opportunity to plan and forecast and put responses in place is. That work will be critical. Mrs Mason: I thank the Minister for that answer. Minister, you have been very supportive of residents in Newcastle and businesses in Downpatrick, which have been severely impacted on by flooding. Will you give us an update on the Department's collaboration with regional community resilience groups (RCRGs)? Ms Kimmins: Yes. Thank you for your comments. I met the Newcastle RCRG, which does phenomenal work in responding to flooding, particularly given the frequency of the incidents that they have experienced and the severe impact that those incidents have caused. My Department continues to work very effectively with all multi-agency partners, including our local councils and the RCRGs, to provide support to local communities that are affected by flooding. The RCRG, which my Department co-chairs with local government representatives, works with communities at risk of flooding to help them prepare for and respond to weather-related emergencies, including flooding. That work helps to build resilience in communities. It is not that the Department is stepping away from its responsibilities; rather, it is about developing an extra layer of support that is proposed for those who are impacted on by flood events. It is really important to note that that work helps to ensure that we hear the real experience, expertise and thoughts of people on the ground, because they have become experts on those issues and the best solution. That grassroots approach to collaboration is really important, and we have seen the benefit of it. At present, the RCRG is working with 50 communities to help them to improve their preparedness and resilience when it comes to severe weather. Another good example of that work can be found in Newry in my constituency. As a result of the flooding in autumn 2023, the Department established the very first business-led group with the Newry business improvement district (BID). That group is a real template of what else we can do. The impact on businesses cannot be overstated. You mentioned the example of Newcastle, where the surface water flooding protocol by NI Water has been established and used in recent months. However, it is important to recognise the fact that residents in particular have some nervousness, because it is a temporary measure. NI Water is working on modelling to find a more permanent solution. Ms Forsythe: Minister, I echo the comments of others in condemning the attack on your office. I know how busy your office is, given that it is in the heart of Newry and so close to Daisy Hill Hospital. It was unacceptable. Minister, hearing those updates on what is happening with the flood forecasting centre on that wider scale is welcome, but I want to bring it back to basics. On Friday, when the storm was coming in, I was out and about in the Mournes area. Flash flooding occurred simultaneously between Newcastle and Annalong at Bloody Bridge and between Gamekeeper's Lodge and Moyad in Kilkeel, which made it quite difficult to access the entire Kilkeel area. A lot of that might have been down to drainage and run-off. Are those basic things being reviewed hand in hand with the higher-level strategy? Obviously, everything comes into play when we see severe storms. Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for her kind words. Yes, they absolutely are, particularly in areas that are hotspots for flooding. I am aware of the impact of the flooding at Bloody Bridge. The key areas are drainage and gully cleaning, but I am happy to write to you with a more detailed response on the specifics to update you and, hopefully, give you confidence that the Department has been monitoring that and continues to do so, particularly as we head into the autumn/winter period during which such episodes are likely to be more frequent. Flash flooding and periods of instant heavy rainfall can be difficult to manage. We see that across the board, but the higher-risk areas are monitored closely, and we work extremely hard to ensure that drainage and gully cleaning work is carried out regularly. Mr McMurray: It is good to see you, Minister. You mentioned the outline business case (OBC) for a flood forecasting centre. Does that attribute a cost to the centre, and how confident are you of securing that, given that your predecessors' bids were unsuccessful in previous monitoring rounds? Ms Kimmins: As the Member will be aware, there will be a number of processes to go through, and we will get the costings at each stage. I am fairly confident that we will be able to secure the funding, because, regardless of what we in government do, flooding is a massive issue that is growing, and we all need to take it very seriously. A huge amount of work has gone into the development of the flood forecasting centre, which will help improve our resilience and our response to such issues. When there is a flood such as the one that we experienced in the autumn of 2023 — I know that your constituency was badly affected, as mine was — the impact and aftermath of that could cost a hell of a lot more than the cost of being more prepared and having foresight of it. We have a strong evidence base and a strong argument in the cost-benefit analysis to ensure that the funding is secured. Road Safety 7. Mr Carroll asked the Minister for Infrastructure to outline how her Department links statistics on road traffic collisions with her Department's plans for road safety measures. (AQO 2497/22-27) Ms Kimmins: My Department's road safety programme and actions are data-driven and are managed through an evidence-based approach, delivering engineering, enforcement and education initiatives to address issues that will bring the greatest road safety benefit. Officials use PSNI collision data and reports from the Department's analysis, statistics and research branch to set priorities, target high-risk locations and evaluate outcomes. My Department's road safety strategy and accompanying action plan and targets have been developed following extensive research and consultation, and, indeed, the yearly action plan is refreshed following analysis of my Department’s annual road safety strategy statistical report. Officials also publish additional monitoring reports and problem profiles, focusing on, for example, excessive speed, pedestrian casualties and drink-driving. Using those valuable pieces of research and working alongside our partners in the blue-light organisations, we have produced a forward-looking and strategic action plan with clear direction on how we aim to meet its key targets and address emerging trends and issues. The action plan is monitored and reviewed annually by the road safety strategic forum and is an important living document that keeps our focus on reducing the number of people killed or injured on our roads. Trend analysis underpins the ongoing speed limit review and guides where education and enforcement, in conjunction with the PSNI and the road safety partnership, will have most impact. Once PSNI data is received, the Department completes an annual collision review that ranks sites and routes identified as being of concern and programmes local transport and safety measures to bring safety benefits to those locations. Post-scheme monitoring compares trends before and after collisions and feeds into the following year's priorities. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Gerry Carroll for a short supplementary question. Mr Carroll: Thank you, Minister. I echo everybody's comments. I am concerned that things are not matching up and that data is hard for MLAs and reps to get hold of. My understanding is that it is your Department's policy not to provide mirrors for people to see their way out of very busy junctions. Is the Minister interested in looking at that policy again so that people are not in a dangerous situation at junctions where traffic is heavy and there are a lot of collisions? Ms Kimmins: I am happy to give you a more detailed response on that. As a constituency MLA, I previously raised the issue, because many people ask for that; however, I am confident that the rationale for not being able to provide mirrors stacks up, and I am happy to provide further detail on that. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): That ends the period for listed questions. We will move to 15 minutes of topical questions. Top 2.30 pm Armagh City: Congestion Mr McNulty: Minister, I offer my solidarity to you, your colleagues and your staff following the planting of a bomb outside your office in Newry on Sunday night. It must have been terribly frightening for you and everybody involved. Thank God that the bomb did not go off. I hope that everybody is OK. T1. Mr McNulty asked the Minister for Infrastructure to outline what steps she will take to address the traffic congestion in Armagh city — the forgotten city and only city on the island without a rail link — that causes delays and tailbacks on the main routes into, out of and through the city, which, in turn, cause headaches for local people and businesses. (AQT 1641/22-27) Ms Kimmins: I thank my constituency colleague for his kind words and support today and over the past 24 hours. That is welcome, particularly for my staff. I refute the point that he made about Armagh city being forgotten. It is part of my constituency and is a city that I visit frequently, particularly for matches. I am very aware of the congestion issues and the frustrations felt by local people in particular, as well as those who travel to and from Armagh city. The Member mentioned the rail link. He will be aware that we are considering the feasibility studies from the all-island strategic rail review for a rail link for Armagh. I hope to be able to publish the outcomes of that in the coming weeks. Traffic and congestion measures are constantly under review, and there are things that we can look at. I am happy to consider anything new, and the Department can look at that. We are cognisant of the challenge of congestion. We are working together on that, as well as looking at public transport options. Mr McNulty: I thank the Minister for her answer. Last week, the Infrastructure Committee was updated on the progress of the A28 Armagh east link and A3 Armagh north and west link road schemes. It appears that those vital road projects, which could alleviate congestion in Armagh city, have been shelved and that there is no timeline for their delivery. Why is that? Will the Minister commit to getting those projects back on track and progressing them? Ms Kimmins: As the Member knows, those projects were paused some time ago, before I came into post, for various reasons, including lack of funding. As he was updated on the prioritisation of major road projects, he will know — I reflected this in my responses to other questions today — that the A5 judgement is having an impact on all road schemes at present. I have to consider that, in particular, for the projects that are already moving through the stages of delivery, while keeping under review all the other projects that have been paused, such as those that the Member mentioned. The impact of the ruling will ensure that I am responsible in my decision-making when progressing any such schemes so that we do not hit the challenges that we have at this point. It will be kept under review. When I have a further update, I will be happy to update the House. Grand Central Station: Irish-language Signage Mrs Cameron: My thoughts are with the Minister and her staff, and I utterly condemn the actions of the small-minded people who sought to attack her constituency office. T2. Mrs Cameron asked the Minister for Infrastructure when she intends to bring the issue of Irish-language signs at Grand Central station to the Executive for discussion and decision. (AQT 1642/22-27) Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for her kind words. As I have stated, I am absolutely committed to dialogue and to avoiding the unnecessary use of public funds for litigation, which, unfortunately, we currently see. The issue could have been resolved long ago. Unfortunately, however, we are going through legal proceedings, and, with that in mind, it would be remiss of me to make further comment until those proceedings conclude. Mrs Cameron: I thank the Minister for her answer. It is clear that the Minister's decision on the signage at Grand Central station is cross-cutting, which, in itself, requires it to be referred to the Executive. I respectfully ask which part of the controversy around her actions convinced the Minister that her decision was not controversial. Ms Kimmins: The Member will not be surprised to hear that I do not agree with the claim that my decision was cross-cutting or the claim that it was controversial. If I felt that either was the case, I would not have taken the decision. That is the bottom line. I stand over the fact that I could take that decision as the Minister for the relevant Department, and I will continue to do so. As I said, there is a legal case under way, unfortunately. Another Minister is involved in it. It is important that we allow the case to run its course. Cross-pavement Charging Solutions T3. Mr Sheehan asked the Minister for Infrastructure for an update on her recent announcement on cross-pavement charging solutions. (AQT 1643/22-27) Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for his question. The ability of people who do not have a driveway to charge their electric vehicle (EV) is currently restricted, as it is an offence to lay a cable across the footway or road under the terms of the Roads Order 1993. Departmental officials have explored how cross-pavement charging solutions might be provided to enable electric vehicle owners without access to a driveway to charge their vehicle at home and access cheaper home tariffs. Officials have identified two solutions. The first is the installation of a permanent channel, which involves the cutting and reinstatement of the pavement. That engineered channel, through the use of the street works licence process, can be used to facilitate the placing of permanent engineered channels into footways. A director of engineering memorandum has been finalised to provide engineering staff and applicants with guidance on the new process and to outline standards and specifications for channels. There is a cost involved with that option, with the total bill being approximately £2,393. The Office for Zero Emission Vehicles (OZEV) offers a range of grants for EVs and EV infrastructure. The electric vehicle charge point grant for households with on-street parking can provide up to £350 towards the cost of installing a charge point at a property. The second solution is the use of a temporary cable protector, which can be allowed under current legislation through an application process for consent that permits the Department to track usage. That is a cheaper option that will help meet duties under the Climate Change Act 2022, which requires just transition principles to be considered. The solutions are being facilitated through a six-month rolling pilot, which I announced on 1 October, that will allow for ongoing monitoring and evaluation. If there is evidence that the use of the solutions causes undue harm or that consent conditions are not being adhered to, consent will be withdrawn and the pilot stopped. Mr Sheehan: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a freagra. [Translation: I thank the Minister for her answer.] Does she agree that any changes to decarbonisation must be in line with just transition principles? Ms Kimmins: Absolutely. As the Member will be aware, the Department has identified its key policies for decarbonising the transport sector. In doing so, we have taken account of the just transition requirements in the Climate Change Act 2022. As transport decarbonisation policies and actions are further progressed, we will take into account the needs of all transport users, including those with a disability, and continue to engage with people with a disability and the key stakeholders who represent them. Vehicle Damage Compensation Mr Irwin: As a fellow representative of Newry and Armagh, I add my condemnation of the attack on the Minister's office. T4. Mr Irwin asked the Minister for Infrastructure whether, given that she is aware of the issues around vehicle damage compensation and the fact that, on many occasions, the money handed out to cover the cost of damage to vehicles from a single road defect far outweighs the cost of a timely repair by DFI Roads, she will fully commit to reducing the bill for vehicle damage compensation payouts by ensuring that road defects are repaired in a timelier manner to avoid the colossal overspend on compensation. (AQT 1644/22-27) Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for his kind comments. In relation to road defects and their impact on road users, particularly where a vehicle has been damaged, it is my objective to reduce the need for compensation and, instead, see proper investment in our roads, including rural roads, which, as the Member will be aware, are a key element of our shared constituency. There is a need to invest better in order to have better road surfaces. The Member will be aware that the Department is finalising the road maintenance strategy, which looks for smarter decisions to be taken that will result in more resilient road maintenance. That will hopefully address some of the issues that the Member and many others across the House have described. As I have said previously, it has already been piloted in one council area, and we have seen the benefits of that, including improved and more resilient road surfaces. My focus is on seeing that investment directed into the network, including for maintenance and for ongoing work on tackling the defects. Mr Irwin: I thank the Minister for her response. Can she confirm that, over the past year, over £5 million has been paid out to vehicle owners for damage? Ms Kimmins: The figures for the compensation that has been paid are publicly available, and I have shared them with Members in response to questions for written answer. That is a huge amount of money, and I would rather it was invested in our road network. I am determined to see that happen in the time ahead. Traffic Congestion; Belfast T5. Ms Flynn asked the Minister for Infrastructure, while conscious that this is her second question that focuses on Belfast, to provide an update on her measures to keep Belfast moving in the run-up to Christmas. (AQT 1645/22-27) Ms Kimmins: As the Member is a representative for Belfast, I would expect nothing else. As the Member will know, I recently announced some of the measures that I have been working on alongside many representatives of local businesses and communities across Belfast, following the hugely challenging situation that we saw in Belfast city centre last year. We were trying to learn from what happened and were listening to the people on the ground about how we can make a difference this year on traffic congestion and keep Belfast moving. That is the key message. I announced the introduction of measures yesterday, and those will be aimed at improving bus reliability, including the extension of bus lane hours to provide them with enhanced priority. Extended bus lanes will be introduced on the first Monday of November in several of the key arterial routes to the south of the city, which were worst affected with traffic congestion in the run-up to Christmas last year. The roads where that will be introduced will include Ormeau Road, Botanic Avenue, Malone Road and part of Lisburn Road, and signs to alert the public to the new bus lane times that will operate from 7.30 am to 9.30 am and from 3.30 pm to 6.30 pm on both inward and outward journeys will be erected in advance of implementation. Where the buses share road space with general traffic, I am hopeful that the reopening of Durham Street, which is planned for before the end of November, will help to ease the general traffic flow around the city. It is also important to say that, on the basis of the feedback that I have received from key stakeholders in the city centre and the surrounding areas, those measures will, I hope, go some way to alleviate congestion but will not eliminate it, because we are indeed coming into the festive period. A lot of people will start their shopping earlier than in previous years, and we have to remember that in the time ahead. We have implemented a number of measures, and I hope to see a real improvement. Ms Flynn: I appreciate that update from the Minister. Does she agree that it is about getting the message out to people that those measures are genuinely about giving people an alternative to sitting in traffic and that that is the message that she wants to promote? Ms Kimmins: Absolutely. If you are sitting in traffic and are seeing buses whizzing by you on the bus lanes, that means that the people in the buses are getting to their destination much more quickly than you are. I hope that the measures will encourage more people to use our public transport. We have quite good public transport services, particularly around the city centre, and I would like to see increased utilisation of that in conjunction with the late-night services that we hope to see in the near future. Those measures also help us to encourage more people to use public transport more regularly, and I hope that we can use them to see that going forward. Translink: Pride Events T6. Mr Frew asked the Minister for Infrastructure to outline the spend by Translink, our public transport provider, on pride events over the past two years, which, as the Minister will know, have turned political over the past two years. (AQT 1646/22-27) Ms Kimmins: In the past four years, Translink has provided £19,912 in financial support to the Belfast pride parade towards the costs of registration, branding and materials. The funding for each year is broken down as follows: 2022-23, £5,427; 2023-24, £4,375; 2024-25, £5,397; and 2025-26, £4,713. Mr Frew: Given the political nature of the events and the problems that we have with our public transport, does the Minister think that that is a wise spend of money? Ms Kimmins: Translink operates under a public service agreement with my Department that sets out service delivery expectations and performance indicators. As a public corporation, Translink has substantial operational independence, but my Department retains oversight through governance frameworks and performance reviews. My Department assesses value for money through key performance indicators, including customer satisfaction; inclusion and community engagement, which, I think, those events reflect; compliance with 'Managing Public Money NI' principles and corporate governance codes; and annual audits and financial reporting requirements. Whilst DFI does not directly approve individual event expenditures, it expects Translink to demonstrate that such activity aligns with its strategic goals, including equality, inclusion and public engagement. Top 2.45 pm Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Minister, your time is up. That concludes questions to the Minister for Infrastructure. Just take your ease while we hand over the top Table. (Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair) Question for Urgent Oral Answer Tenant Intimidation: DFC/NIHE Support Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members, Colm Gildernew has given notice of a question for urgent oral answer to the Minister for Communities. I remind Members that, if they wish to ask supplementary questions, they should continually rise in their place. The Member who tabled the question will be called automatically to ask a supplementary question. Mr Gildernew asked the Minister for Communities to outline the support that his Department and the Housing Executive is providing to tenants who have been forced to leave their homes as a result of sectarian or racist intimidation, given reports that these families are being housed in unsuitable and inadequate accommodation. Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): As I said during a motion in this place just a few weeks ago, I condemn the recent attacks that have forced victims of racist and sectarian intimidation from their homes. Everyone is entitled to live in peace and feel safe in their home, free from threat. My Department, along with the Housing Executive and all registered housing associations, is committed to delivering a safer community for all. That includes ensuring that support and protection is provided for victims of race and sectarian hate crimes. In its role as the strategic housing authority for Northern Ireland, the Housing Executive has the responsibility for assessing those presenting as homeless due to sectarian or racist intimidation. Its duties can include the provision of temporary accommodation to ensure that people are safe and removed from any immediate threat. Normal housing processes — the assessment of need and allocation of points — come later, after the emergency. The Housing Executive may make referrals to relevant floating support services to help address any particular support needs arising as a result of hate incidents. That can include information regarding self-referral hostels and referrals to floating support services. The Housing Executive recognises that some of those impacted by the recent disorder may not have eligibility for housing and homelessness assistance and is currently working with a number of partners to explore what additional support can be provided beyond any assistance that can be provided in line with homelessness legislation. I reiterate my condemnation of the violence, which exacerbates our housing crisis by driving people from their homes. Intimidation contributes directly to housing need, increasing the number of families who have to resort to temporary accommodation to feel safe in their homes. It is not acceptable. I will continue to condemn such activity and push for greater investment in our housing stock to tackle the housing crisis and improve the standard of available housing. Mr Gildernew: I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, I am sure that you aware that a 'Spotlight' programme will tell the story of a number of families who have been subjected to sectarian and racist hate crimes and forced from their homes over the summer. It has become clear that they sought emergency assistance and were given that. However, many of them have ended up in unsuitable accommodation, causing a great deal of stress and anxiety and, indeed, causing families to be under severe pressure. As the Minister responsible for housing, what have you done personally to support this family and other families who have been affected by the recent racist and sectarian intimidation? Mr Lyons: I am not aware of exactly what was said during that programme, but I look forward to hearing all the details, verifying the timelines and seeing what else we can do. However, action has been taken by the Department and by Clanmil, the housing association responsible in that instance. It is important that, as a Department, we give the appropriate support. Immediately after the events of that time, officials were directly in contact to offer appropriate advice and support. Clanmil has been doing its best to help. The real problem that we face, apart from the appalling attacks that have been taking place, is a lack of housing. We need to address that urgently. I hope that the Member will encourage his party colleagues on the Executive and other Executive members to fulfil the bids that I make so that we can start making progress on the issue and make sure that we have enough homes. That will mean that, when people find themselves in that situation, accommodation that is suitable for their needs is available. Mrs Cameron: What message does the Minister have for those who think that it is acceptable to intimidate, in any form or fashion, residents from their homes? Mr Lyons: My message is clear. It is on the record, and it is on the record with Executive colleagues when we put out a joint statement. It is not acceptable; it never has been acceptable; and it never will be acceptable. People should not be intimidated from their home, full stop. Ms Mulholland: When it comes to working with other agencies, particularly in emergency situations, what role do councils play? What engagement do the Minister and the Department have when situations such as those that we have seen over the past few months occur? Mr Lyons: I am aware of no particular role for councils in this circumstance, but I am happy to clarify that if that is wrong. I believe that Clanmil was able to secure temporary accommodation for those who were affected. I can clarify that for the Member if that is incorrect. Mr Allen: I echo the comments of others that intimidation is wrong. There never was a place for it, and there never will be a place for it. I have been contacted recently by constituents who are concerned about the number of houses in multiple occupation (HMOs). While it is important that we provide temporary accommodation for those who need it, there is concern in communities about the number of HMOs that are popping up. Where does the Minister see the balance between HMOs and the delivery of temporary accommodation? Ultimately, we want to deliver more long-term, sustainable accommodation, rather than having to place people in temporary provision. Mr Lyons: I share some of the concerns that have been expressed about HMOs, because they have the potential to change the character and make-up of an area. We have seen that in places where there were traditional family homes but HMO processes have changed that. I hope to make a statement to the House in coming weeks about HMOs and where we go from here, because there is huge concern about them. It is appropriate that I set out what I can do and, importantly, the roles of councils. I look forward to doing that soon. Mr Durkan: I express solidarity with all of the people and families who have been forced to flee their homes due to hate. The Minister has made a virtue of coming down hard on benefit fraud. In extension to that, if a social housing tenant is found guilty of being involved in or, more so, orchestrating such intimidation, should it have implications for their tenancy? Mr Lyons: Everybody should be treated equally under the law. If you have been found guilty of a crime, you should feel the weight of that and bear the consequences. I am more than happy to put it on record that I will treat everybody equally and hold everybody to the same standard, because we want to maintain the rights of people. If others breach the rights of those people, there should be consequences. Mr Carroll: Unfortunately, this points again to the need for the reinstatement of intimidation points, which I have requested be in place umpteen times. Will the Minister clarify to the House — this is, obviously, connected — why, when loyalist paramilitaries have stated publicly to journalists that they will torch buildings and vehicles because there is Irish language on them, his party goes into overdrive to say — Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Gerry. Mr Carroll: — that no threat exists? Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Minister, you can respond to that if you want. It is not related to the question. It is up to you. Mr Lyons: I am always happy to condemn any violence or threat of violence, wherever that comes from. Unfortunately, not everybody in the House has done that in the past, but it is certainly my position. Mr Kelly: Minister, as was mentioned by the previous Member who spoke, intimidation points were done away with in, I think, March. I agree that they were being abused, but, in situations such as the recent case, in which it is obvious that there was intimidation — indeed, the police have said that the UDA was involved in such intimidation — and a specific threat, is there a method of accessing housing? Obviously, we need the points process for everything else, but I am worried that, having removed intimidation points, we have nothing with which to replace them. Mr Lyons: Removing intimidation points was the right thing to do because they were being abused. Everybody will now be treated equally. I have spoken to the housing associations about intimidation points, and they were fully supportive of the move that was made. I am determined to make sure that everybody has access to the accommodation that they need and am working towards that. Mr Kingston: I welcome the Minister's reiterating his condemnation of the acts of intimidation and violence that have occurred. We will all agree with that. I met affected families this summer and with Clanmil, in particular, pushing for rehousing to be done according to those families' wishes. Clanmil tells me that it is working hard but that rehousing depends on the availability of social houses in the desired areas. Does the Minister agree that, as a point of fact, the more restrictive people are about where they want a new social house of the appropriate size, the longer it is likely to take to meet their requirements? Mr Lyons: Yes. That is part of it. Flexibility is the key to getting permanent accommodation. Ultimately, however, it comes down to our need for more social homes across Northern Ireland. Even in circumstances such as the ones that have been highlighted, it is difficult to get suitable accommodation that is available. That is why we need to significantly increase the number of social homes that are built in Northern Ireland, and it is why I appeal to colleagues to ensure that we in the House speak with one voice and call on my Executive colleagues to make sure that we have the funding that we need to meet our social housing targets. Ms K Armstrong: Minister, I condemn racism in all its forms. The violence that we saw against some people in Ballymena and other areas was a disgrace. The victims have now been moved out of the area because of that attack. Following on from Mr Gildernew's comments, what housing have the victims been placed in? You said that some of them were not eligible for housing help: why? Mr Lyons: I do not think that I said that at all. I did not mention any individuals. I talked about the assistance that is available more generally, because Mr Gildernew's question was not specific to any incident. It was a wide-ranging question about the help that is available, which is why I outlined that. I have not commented on the individual circumstances of those whom the Member has mentioned. Mr McHugh: Minister, you will know that many families have been forced from their homes. Why have many of them not been offered appropriate accommodation? Will you explain that, and do you have an estimate of how often that happens? Mr Lyons: It is simply because we do not have the supply right now. If we could do more, of course we would do it, but, given that the social housing is not available, there is nowhere for us to place people. That is why we have such extraordinarily long lists for social housing and such high bills for temporary accommodation. Again, I urge all Members to get behind my appeals to Executive colleagues to make sure that we have the funding in place to build more social homes. Mr McMurray: I thank the Minister. I can only imagine the trauma of being forced out of your home on the basis of your religion or race, so to hear the universal condemnation of that is good. Will the Minister ensure that rehousing offers dignity and safety and not just a roof over people's heads? Mr Lyons: Yes. Miss Brogan: The Minister will know that it is not just about one family. Many families have been victims of racist and sectarian intimidation. Has he held regular meetings with the Housing Executive about those families? Has he personally met any of the families affected by intimidation? Mr Lyons: I have not, although I regularly speak to the Housing Executive about the issues. I have spoken in particular to Clanmil, which is the housing association that is involved. I have offered to meet those who have been affected, and, tomorrow, I will meet some of the staff who have been dealing with the issues. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, everyone. That concludes this item of business. I ask Members to take their ease while we change the Table and before we go back to the votes. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Dr Aiken] in the Chair) Private Members' Business Mother-and-baby Unit Debate resumed on amendments to motion: That this Assembly recognises the importance of a regional mother-and-baby unit to support mothers with postpartum mental health issues; acknowledges that such a unit would enable mothers to remain with their babies while accessing specialist inpatient care; notes that giving birth can be one of the most fulfilling and joyous times in a mother's life; further notes that some mothers experience serious mental health challenges after birth, including postpartum psychosis; affirms that mothers deserve access to inpatient care that allows them to stay with their babies while receiving the support that they need; further acknowledges that we remain the only part of these islands without a dedicated mother-and-baby unit; expresses concern at the ongoing lack of provision; calls on the Minister of Health to provide an update on the current business case for the establishment of a mother-and-baby unit; and further calls on the Minister to put in place interim measures, including a dedicated ward with staff trained in conditions such as postpartum psychosis, to ensure that mothers in crisis can access appropriate support until that unit is developed and to engage with his ministerial counterpart in the Department of Health in Dublin to ensure that services in that unit will be available to support mothers and babies throughout Ireland. — [Ms Flynn.] Which amendments were: No 1: Leave out all after "remain the only part of" and insert: "the United Kingdom without a dedicated mother-and-baby unit; expresses concern at the ongoing lack of provision; calls on the Minister of Health to provide an update on the current business case for the establishment of a mother-and-baby unit; and further calls on the Minister to put in place interim measures, including a dedicated ward with staff trained in conditions such as postpartum psychosis, to ensure that mothers in crisis can access appropriate support until that unit is developed and to engage with his ministerial counterparts in Great Britain to ensure that services in that unit apply best practice to best support mothers and babies living in Northern Ireland." — [Mr Robinson.] No 2: Leave out all after "lack of provision;" and insert: "regrets that the clinical advice is that there is no safe way to provide an interim arrangement; calls on the Minister of Health to provide an update on the current business case for the establishment of a mother-and-baby unit; and further calls on the Minister to commission a short, urgent review of possible alternative options before finally committing to the proposed site at Belfast City Hospital." — [Mr Chambers.] Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Before I put the Question on amendment No 1, I remind Members that, if it is made, I will not put the Question on amendment No 2. Question put, That amendment No 1 be made. The Assembly divided: Ayes 41; Noes 32 AYES Mr Allen, Ms D Armstrong, Ms K Armstrong, Mr Beattie, Mr Blair, Mr Brett, Mr Brooks, Ms Brownlee, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mr Burrows, Mr Butler, Mrs Cameron, Mr Chambers, Mr Clarke, Mr Donnelly, Mr Dunne, Ms Egan, Mrs Erskine, Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew, Mr Gaston, Mrs Guy, Mr Honeyford, Mr Irwin, Mr Kingston, Mrs Little-Pengelly, Mr Lyons, Miss McAllister, Miss McIlveen, Mr McMurray, Mr Martin, Mr Mathison, Ms Mulholland, Mr Nesbitt, Ms Nicholl, Mr Robinson, Mr Stewart, Mr Tennyson Tellers for the Ayes: Ms Brownlee, Mrs Cameron NOES Dr Archibald, Mr Baker, Mr Boylan, Miss Brogan, Mr Carroll, Mr Delargy, Mrs Dillon, Mr Durkan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Finnegan, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Miss Hargey, Ms Hunter, Mr Kearney, Mr Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mr McAleer, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Mr McNulty, Mrs Mason, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs O'Neill, Mr O'Toole, Ms Reilly, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin Tellers for the Noes: Miss Brogan, Mrs Dillon Mr Clarke acted as a proxy for Mrs Erskine. Question accordingly agreed to. Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly recognises the importance of a regional mother-and-baby unit to support mothers with postpartum mental health issues; acknowledges that such a unit would enable mothers to remain with their babies while accessing specialist inpatient care; notes that giving birth can be one of the most fulfilling and joyous times in a mother's life; further notes that some mothers experience serious mental health challenges after birth, including postpartum psychosis; affirms that mothers deserve access to inpatient care that allows them to stay with their babies while receiving the support that they need; further acknowledges that we remain the only part of the United Kingdom without a dedicated mother-and-baby unit; expresses concern at the ongoing lack of provision; calls on the Minister of Health to provide an update on the current business case for the establishment of a mother-and-baby unit; and further calls on the Minister to put in place interim measures, including a dedicated ward with staff trained in conditions such as postpartum psychosis, to ensure that mothers in crisis can access appropriate support until that unit is developed and to engage with his ministerial counterparts in Great Britain to ensure that services in that unit apply best practice to best support mothers and babies living in Northern Ireland. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Take your ease while we move to the next item on the agenda. (Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair) Household Energy Costs Ms K Armstrong: I beg to move That this Assembly acknowledges the role that poorly insulated and energy-inefficient social housing plays in driving up energy costs, thus contributing to fuel poverty; notes the benefits of reducing carbon emissions from the housing sector; recognises the value of interventions, such as retrofitting, which will deliver affordable warmth and reduce household energy bills; further recognises the role of renewables in creating energy security and the value of the targets and objectives for electricity consumption from renewable sources outlined in the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 and agreed by all Executive parties; and calls on the Minister for Communities to bring forward proposals for the redesign of social homes, incorporating higher energy-efficiency standards and renewable energy integration. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Kellie. The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. Three amendments have been selected and are published on the Marshalled List, so the Business Committee has agreed that 45 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate. Kellie, please open the debate on the motion. Ms K Armstrong: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I rise not just to propose the motion but to issue a call to action, because, behind every statistic on fuel poverty, there is a person; behind every cold, damp wall, there is a child doing homework in a coat; behind every outdated boiler, there is a pensioner rationing heat to make ends meet. The motion recognises this simple truth: we cannot afford to keep building homes that belong in the past. The homes that we construct today must be fit for the future, energy efficient, affordable to heat and resilient in the face of climate change. Let us be honest: we have known for years that our housing stock is among the least efficient in the islands. We know that retrofitting is expensive and disruptive and can be slow, and we know that every home that we build today is a retrofit waiting to happen at a cost that we cannot afford, so why are we still building homes that will need fixing? The motion calls on the Minister for Communities, the Minister who is in charge of housing, to bring forward proposals that will embed higher energy-efficiency standards and renewable energy integration into the fabric of our social housing. Those should be the foundations that inform the next building regulations, because that is where real and lasting change happens. Alliance believes that we will continue to fail to deliver the housing that Northern Ireland needs unless leadership is shown. I am calling on the Minister for Communities, as the Minister responsible for housing, to stop dithering and to take forward actions. Whilst I appreciate that the Departments of Finance and Infrastructure would take forward the building regulations, there is an opportunity for the Minister for Communities to be proactive and drive changes by producing a blueprint for what people require homes to include. We have the technology and the expertise. What we now need is the courage to lead. By raising standards, we can slash energy bills for families who most need it. We can cut carbon emissions to meet our legal obligations under the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022. We can create thousands of skilled jobs in construction, green technology and energy services, and we can build homes that are warm, dry and dignified, not just for today but for generations to come. This is not about insulation and solar panels; it is about social justice, fairness and ensuring that social housing tenants, who are often the most vulnerable in society, are not left behind in the transition to a low-carbon future. I went to Four Winds to look at a private development that is up to Passive House standard. In that development, the average general running costs for a month is £80, and that is for a four-bedroom home that charges electric cars. Heat, light, everything — £80. How much would it help vulnerable families if they had to pay only £80 to run their household? We cannot continue to treat energy efficiency as a luxury. It is a necessity, and it is a right. Let me be clear: this is not about adding cost; it is about adding value. The upfront investment in better standards pays for itself many times over in lower bills, healthier homes and a cleaner environment. We have a moral obligation to act, because every delay means more families trapped in fuel poverty, more emissions locked in and more public money spent on retrofitting homes that should have been built right the first time. Imagine a Northern Ireland where every new social home was a model of sustainability, where our buildings delivered energy efficiency, ensuring that fuel poverty became a problem of the past, and we were known not for lagging behind but for leading the way. That vision is within reach but only if we choose it. Instead of building homes that are obsolete on the day that they are finished, let us build homes that are warm, affordable and future-proofed. Let us pass the motion and ensure that the next building regulations reflect the ambition, urgency and compassion that our citizens need. Those building regulations need to be driven by communities, as they know what people who live in those homes need. I do not want to have to look back in 10 years and regret the houses being built today. Let us not have to explain to future generations why we chose short-term savings over long-term energy security and sustainability. The question before us is not whether we can afford to raise our standards; it is whether we can afford not to. Indeed, today, at the launch of the Simon Community report 'Childhood Adversity and Homelessness in Northern Ireland', it was confirmed that we can no longer afford to have the housing system that we currently have. We are going to be the first Assembly that will see 100,000 people on a waiting list for a social home. That is shameful. That is a record-breaking shame. The question before us is not whether we can afford to raise our standards; it is whether we can afford not to. I do not think that we can. It would be shameful if the only things growing in this mandate were waiting lists. We need to ensure that what we build is sustainable, and, Minister, this is where you have to act. I do not want to hear, "Building regulations are not my responsibility". I want to hear how you are making sure that the significant investment being made in new homes is on residential properties fit for the future and not based on out-of-date standards. It may fall to another Department to take forward the regulations, but surely Communities should be driving the need for better housing standards and design. If the Assembly agrees the motion, it will send a clear message to the Executive to work to shape the next building regulations with ambition and ensure that every home that we build is a promise to keep to our people, to our planet and to the future. I will make a comment about the amendments that are before us today. I cannot accept the DUP amendment because it shows lack of courage and a lack of ability to accept the law that is already in place about climate change. I cannot accept the Ulster Unionists' amendment because, to be honest, it is so far away from the initial intention of the motion that I have no idea why it is there — perhaps another motion on another day. I can accept the SDLP amendment because it talks in the same frame as Alliance, and the SDLP may as well have lifted the wording from the presentation that we got at Committee last Thursday, so well done on that one. That is it, Principal Deputy Speaker. It is over to the House to debate. Dr Aiken: I beg to move amendment No 1: Leave out all after "energy security" and insert: "and recognises the considerable vulnerability in our grid infrastructure; stresses the need for an independent review of SONI and NIE Networks’ failure to properly invest in our grid and the exorbitant prices paid for grid connection by consumers and renewable generators, in comparison with Great Britain; further recognises the need for green hydrogen and anaerobic digestion electricity incentives; advocates for the early building of a second east-west interconnector, in light of the earliest in-service date of 2031 of the North/South interconnector and the virtual-only operation of the integrated single electricity market (I-SEM); and calls on the Minister for the Economy to outline any discussions that she has had with her Executive colleagues on the possibility of joining Ofgem to ensure the continuity, security and appropriate regulation of our electricity supply and to allow the opening up of our renewable market." Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Steve. You will have 10 minutes to propose amendment No 1 and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. Steve, please open the debate on amendment No 1. Dr Aiken: Thank you very much indeed. The importance of this amendment is to talk to the cross-cutting example of the issues that we have before us. I welcome the Minister's being here, but the main issues will also refer to the Minister for the Economy, the Minister for Infrastructure and the Executive. These are all cross-cutting issues, and if we are to be able to deliver what we need to for the people of Northern Ireland, we need to work across Departments. We cannot talk about energy at home without identifying the interconnectivity of all these issues, and we need to be able to recognise some very significant points that, unless we deal with them, we are never going to get there, as Ms Armstrong kindly pointed out. There is considerable vulnerability in our grid infrastructure, and, on several occasions, our party has written to the Economy Minister and stated that these are problems that need to be resolved if we are to sort out or move towards a more electric economy. Unbelievably, the Economy Minister has written back to me on several occasions, stating that there were no problems, yet we have the example of what happened when the permanent secretary went in front of the Economy Committee and identified the fact that we nearly reached a "dark amber" condition for our electricity market. That sounds like "red" to me, which means that we are about to have systemic failure. We keep on talking about this, but we are missing some of the fundamental points, because we get to a point where we have electricity grids that are ready to fail because there are too many single points of failure in the system, including Coolkeeragh, which is owned by the NIE parent company ESB and always seems to be down for maintenance. You would wonder why nobody is taking any particular interest in this. We know that what we need to do is sort out these cross-cutting problems, but we also know that the Executive recently had an emergency meeting — or should I call it an urgent meeting? — to deal with the fact that the lights were about to go out. Very much to the fore in the main motion and what the Alliance Party has brought forward before is the fact that all Ministers had to agree to a significant increase in the amount of carbon derogations just to keep the lights on. If that is not germane to this debate, I have absolutely no idea what is. Top 3.30 pm We need to understand that it is well beyond time that we had an independent review of the System Operator for Northern Ireland (SONI) and NIE Networks's failure to invest properly in our grid. We talk time and again about small-level electricity and the ability to use, in particular, photovoltaics (PV) and other technologies to make things work. However, we cannot do that if we do not have a grid that is capable of withstanding the amount of PV energy that is likely to go on it. Equally, we cannot do that with a grid that has extremely large connection charges to meet up with it in order to try to make it work. Pardon the pun: this is not rocket science. It has been done successfully in Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, Devon and the Republic of Ireland. What lessons have the Executive taken from the process and what we are trying to do? What lessons are we taking on investment in the grid? The questions that we have to ask are fundamental. We need to undertake an independent investigation into the costs of doing those things. We hear you say, quite rightly, that we need to invest heavily in our housing stock in order to bring it up to net zero standards, but why would a contractor do that in Northern Ireland when, with the same materials, planning constraints and contractors, it costs two to three times as much in Northern Ireland as it does in Scotland, England and Wales? Why are we not investigating that? That is a part of our amendment. Do you not think that that is germane to what we are discussing in this debate? It is fundamental to what we are trying to do. It is not about saying, "I do not understand why the Ulster Unionist Party is raising this issue. It should have been raised under something else". That is pathetic. We also need to look very closely at how we can add to the process. It is not just a question of reducing the amount of emissions that are required to keep our homes warm. It is also very much about how we can use the rest of the systems that we have. The Alliance Party talks time and again about getting towards net zero carbon and the approaches that are needed for that. There is great opportunity to do that. We can look at things such as anaerobic digestion and injecting green hydrogen into the grid, but then we would need changes in the regulatory process to increase the amount of green hydrogen in the grid, which would enable us to have a much more dynamic power system altogether. We should be in a position where people can self-generate electricity and sell it to the grid. Again, that needs grid to make it work. Of course, unless we have a grid that works, all the things that the Alliance Party talks about will have no impact whatsoever, because if you cannot import or export power, it just does not work. We also need to look closely at pricing and pricing structures. We are part of the integrated single electricity market (I-SEM). If you listen to people who talk about the I-SEM, you will hear them say time and again how important it is for energy security in Northern Ireland. Anybody who understands electricity — it is a pity that Mr Frew is not here — will tell you very clearly that the I-SEM is a virtual-only market. We are not connected North/South. We are connected east-west, because every time that there is a power outage or shortage in the Republic of Ireland, it imports energy from Wales, and every time that we need to keep the lights on, we have to import power from Scotland. One of the most important things that we need to be able to make any form of reliable energy and get towards net zero carbon in our housing stock is another interconnector. There is a large volume of cheap or even negatively priced renewable energy in the GB market. We cannot get that for two reasons. First, we do not have sufficient interconnection, which is vital to what we are discussing here. Secondly, we have a monopoly in Northern Ireland. We have a monopoly from ESB and EirGrid, aka Northern Ireland Electricity Networks and SONI. Our prices are fixed by the ability of the infrastructure to deal with the systems that we are dealing with. Unless we can sort that out, we will not get anywhere. Our party is fully supportive of doing everything that we can to improve our housing stock, insulating homes sufficiently and fitting them with PV. However, unless we sort out the grid infrastructure, it is absolutely pointless. It will just be window dressing. It will just be greenwashing. Rather, we need to be able to make everything work. That is why I am being encouraging instead of listening to the rhetoric of the Alliance Party, which would rather just bash unionists, but that seems to be its modus operandi at the moment. Ms K Armstrong: Really? Dr Aiken: Really. Why did you say what you said when I explained why it is vital —? Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Excuse me. I ask that comments be made through the Chair, please. Dr Aiken: Certainly. Sorry, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: If you do not mind. Dr Aiken: I do not mind at all. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Dr Aiken: I do not mind at all making that remark about Alliance. That is why I recommend that Members accept our amendment, because it will significantly improve part of the motion. Mrs Cameron: I beg to move amendment No 2: Leave out all after "energy security" and insert: "but expresses concern at the undeliverable nature of emissions targets, and sectoral objectives for electricity consumption from renewable sources, outlined in the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022, particularly in light of the major infrastructural challenges facing the Executive; and calls on the Minister for Communities to bring forward proposals for the redesign of social homes, incorporating higher energy efficiency standards and renewable energy integration." Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Pam. You will have 10 minutes in which to propose the amendment and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. Please open the debate on amendment No 2. Mrs Cameron: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. The DUP amendment aims to bring a sense of balance and realism to the debate, particularly in light of the serious infrastructure and affordability challenges facing Northern Ireland. I begin by saying that I fully recognise and welcome the intention behind the motion. We can all agree that fuel poverty is a very real and pressing issue and that poorly insulated homes place an unfair burden on families. The call to improve the energy efficiency of our social housing and to explore renewable integration is sensible and timely. Every one of us wishes, for every constituent and even for ourselves, for homes to be energy-efficient, to be as environmentally friendly as possible and to be warm and healthy. Our amendment reflects growing concern that some of the emissions targets and central objectives set out in the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 may simply not be deliverable in the time frame to which we have committed, given the very real infrastructure and financial constraints that we face. We have seen, for example, a decision to extend operating hours at Kilroot power station. That is a necessary step in order to maintain energy security but is one that involves increased use of fossil fuels. That points to the gap between policy ambition and operational reality, and it is something that we cannot ignore and, instead, must take seriously. Dr Aiken: I thank the Member for giving way. As the Member will be aware, this is not the first time that that has happened with Kilroot power station. It has been an ongoing problem. Does there seem to be a lack of strategy to deal with the issue? Mrs Cameron: I thank the Member for his intervention. Similarly, we have had the recent court judgement on the A5 project, which highlighted how climate targets have had unintended consequences. In that case, they are potentially delaying or even preventing vital infrastructure projects. We need to ensure that such flagship projects can still go ahead without our breaching emissions limits or putting other sectors under pressure. Ms K Armstrong: Will the Member give way? Mrs Cameron: I want to make some progress, if you do not mind. Much of what we will be debating today relates to other Departments as well. For example, the responsibility for renewable energy sits with the Department for the Economy. We know that that Department has a statutory obligation under the Climate Change Act to ensure that at least 80% of electricity consumption comes from renewable sources by 2030. Significant investment and reform are needed in that area, particularly around grid capacity, planning and skills development. I ask therefore this question: where are we with meeting those targets? Are they even achievable? Are we being disingenuous by not raising concerns over our ability to meet what are incredibly challenging targets? Ms K Armstrong: I thank the Member for giving way. It is because our houses are not ready to receive electricity. We poured £94 million worth of renewable energy away in quarter 1 and quarter 2 of this year. We did not use wind energy. We can do this. Mrs Cameron: I thank the Member for her intervention. We also have to be —. Mr Brett: Will the Member give way? Mrs Cameron: I will. Mr Brett: Does the Member agree that, in order to ensure the drawdown of that supply, a grid connection policy is needed? One does not currently exist. Ms K Armstrong: Nor does a battery. Mr Brett: Ms Armstrong wants to shout from a sedentary position about batteries. As such, does the Member further agree that the Alliance motion has not outlined a single cost of introducing its proposals? Mrs Cameron: I thank my colleague for his intervention. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members, please do not speak from a sedentary position. It is disrespectful, and the shouting out is off-putting. Pam, maybe you will get through the rest of your contribution without any more interventions. Go ahead. Mrs Cameron: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I appreciate your intervention. We must be mindful of the wider costs. DAERA's draft climate action plan has been estimated to cost a whopping £1 billion between now and 2027. That is, of course, an incredibly eye-watering figure. Our amendment does not seek to weaken our commitment to addressing climate change; rather, it asks us to proceed with care and pragmatism. We really need to look at the issues through a realistic lens. We need to be honest about what we can and cannot achieve right now with the available resource. We must be sensible while seeking to achieve real and lasting benefits for Northern Ireland. I am sure that none of us wants to unintentionally place additional pressures on households, businesses and our ability to deliver key public services in what are already very challenging times. I encourage Members to support our amendment. It keeps intact the core of the motion, which is about improving homes and lowering bills, whilst acknowledging the complex and sometimes competing demands that we now face. I ask the Minister in his response to the debate to update the House on the affordable warmth scheme and any plans that he has to upscale that scheme, which helps low-income households to improve energy efficiency through a range of measures. I also want to hear more on what social housing providers are able to do and what is happening around the Department's review of the decent homes standard. I respectfully ask the Minister to address where the private rented sector fits into all of that and what other schemes are in the mix and to update us on the progress of the fuel poverty strategy. I am aware that I am giving the Minister a lot of homework. I will leave my remarks there, and I look forward to hearing more contributions from Members across the House. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the Minister has got it all scripted there, Pam, so you are grand. I call Mark Durkan to move amendment No 3. Mr Durkan: The importance of a warm home —. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Are you going to move the amendment, Mark? [Laughter.] Mr Durkan: I beg to move amendment No 3: Leave out all after "Minister for Communities" and insert: "to work with Executive colleagues on the introduction of a low carbon housing road map, with measurable time-bound targets to increase retrofitting, improved energy efficiency standards for new builds and targeted support to improve energy efficiency for low-income households." Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Assembly should note that the amendments are mutually exclusive. If amendment No 1 is made, the Question will not be put on amendment Nos 2 or 3. If amendment No 1 is not made, the Question will be put on amendment No 2. If amendment No 2 is made, the Question will not be put on amendment No 3. Mark, you will have 10 minutes in which to propose amendment No 3 and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other contributors to the debate will have five minutes. Mark, open the debate on the amendment. Mr Durkan: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle. [Translation: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.] As I was saying, the importance of a warm home cannot be overstated. We often talk about home as a place of comfort and warmth. Many of us look forward to this time of the year, as the darker evenings draw in and people think about going home and getting cosy. However, for a growing number of households in the North, the fall of autumn leaves signals not comfort but fear. It signals fear of the colder weather, higher bills and having to make that invidious and impossible choice between heating and eating. That is not the opening line of a Dickens novel but the grim reality that faces thousands of families across the North in 2025. My constituency office is already inundated with calls from people seeking support with heating their homes. The latest data from National Energy Action shows that 40% of people here are living in fuel poverty. That is over 300,000 households. For those in social housing, that figure rises to 55%. Food prices are climbing, despite global energy costs stabilising, and the pressure on family budgets is relentless, yet we have seen very little in the way of leadership from the Executive on tackling those fundamental cost-of-living issues. The crisis has not gone away, you know, even if the term itself appears to have fallen out of fashion. Top 3.45 pm It is not just about energy bills. We also need to look at the wider picture of poverty and at the provisions that are already in place: what works, what does not work and what could work better. In my constituency, I have seen so many homes — social homes, private rented homes, homes of every kind — riddled with damp. Westway in Creggan is one area that comes to mind. Older Northern Ireland Housing Executive stock there has been left to mould and decay because necessary insulation works have been delayed time and time again. Tenants pay through the roof in a fruitless effort to keep their homes warm. Heat seeps through uninsulated walls and poorly fitted windows. Many of those whom I have spoken with suffer from persistent coughs, COPD or asthma. That cannot be a coincidence. Over the past three years alone, 40,000 reports of damp have been made to the Housing Executive. That shocking figure does not include housing association homes or private tenancies, where conditions are often much worse. I recently got a photo of shocking damp, mould and leaks in private accommodation provided to a young mother and her newborn baby. Here is the kicker: I instantly recognised the property in the photographs, because, just last year, I had complained about the same property on behalf of a previous tenant. That family was moved out, but, instead of fixing the problem, another tenant was simply moved in. That is a disgrace. While Awaab's law, vital legislation to protect tenants in such conditions, is set to move through the House of Commons in the weeks ahead, the Communities Minister keeps referring my questions on the matter to a response that he gave me in March 2024. Since then, we have had no update and no progress, with no evidence of work being done. Cold, damp homes can have serious health and financial implications that hit hardest at our most vulnerable and at-risk groups: children and older people. Of households here, 31% reported health and well-being impacts because of rising energy costs, and one in four people who died here in 2022 were in fuel poverty. That should shame every one of us into action. We also see failure in how resources are used. The affordable warmth scheme, which should be our front-line defence against fuel poverty, remains underfunded and overwhelmed. In 2023-24, the scheme received over 11,500 applications, just 24% of which ended up receiving support, despite millions of pounds in Barnett consequentials flowing from Whitehall's £3·2 billion warm homes plan. Why is that money not being ring-fenced by the Executive? We need investment in our older stock of social housing, not just new builds; we need to fix what we already have. The cavity wall action plan launched in 2019 found that 63% of Housing Executive properties were not compliant with current standards. Only 9% of its stock was deemed to have sufficient cavity wall insulation. The scheme was designed to boost efficiency, yet underinvestment means that it has supported only 203 homes in four years, none of which are in Derry and Strabane — I point that out to the Minister — the area with the highest reports of damp and deprivation. I hear from social housing tenants that their long-delayed and long-awaited switch from oil to gas did not include the installation of a combi boiler, so they still have to heat water separately, at greater cost to them and to the environment. If we are serious about energy efficiency, we must be serious about value for money and outcomes, not just ticking boxes on paper. I turn to the Opposition amendment that was tabled on Wednesday, prior to the Communities Committee meeting; it is always refreshing to discover that the experts are on the same page as the SDLP. [Laughter.] The ideas contained in the SDLP amendment are not exactly brand new; they are in our housing report, which was launched in February. The SDLP has long championed the green new deal approach: a comprehensive, low-carbon energy strategy that includes retrofitting, renewable integration and energy efficiency as central pillars. It is crucial that we have targets, timelines and accountability. Therefore, we will not support the two mutually exclusive amendments. Our focus — I am not saying that it is not other parties' focus — is steadfastly on solutions that deliver. We support calls for a just transition — Mr Brett: I appreciate the Member giving way. Does the Member honestly believe that the legal target set by the previous Assembly will be met? Mr Durkan: I have no confidence that any target set by this Executive on anything will be met. Do I believe that it could be met with the proper ambition and investment and the correct attitude? I absolutely do. We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars. We support calls for a just transition, one that ensures that low-income families are not left behind as we decarbonise. That means introducing a statutory fuel poverty target, such as those that exist elsewhere in the UK; a social energy tariff, so that those on low incomes automatically pay less for essential energy; and proper funding for retrofitting programmes. We cannot remain the only part of these islands without a statutory commitment to end fuel poverty. As the Opposition, we are not here simply to oppose things or to be negative, as we were accused of being yesterday; we are here to offer solutions and to support the Executive to do better for the people we all represent. Every cold home, every child living in damp conditions and every pensioner who is afraid to turn on the heating represents a direct failure of policy and delivery. Let us change that and make warmth a right, not a privilege. Mr Gildernew: I thank the Members for tabling the motion, which is on a topic of huge importance. As we all know, over the past number of years, the cost-of-living crisis has had a particularly severe impact on family household bills, particularly food prices and housing costs. Perhaps one of the most punishing impacts of the cost-of-living crisis, however, has been the runaway increases in household energy costs. Although energy prices have mostly stabilised, the past few years highlighted just how volatile the energy market is and how global events taking place thousands of miles away can have a material impact on the standard of living that people experience here in the North. One of the biggest knock-on effects of the energy crisis has been the significant rise in fuel poverty, particularly for those on low incomes. A 2024 survey by National Energy Action (NEA) found that roughly 40% of people in the North experience some level of fuel poverty. In practice, that means families having to choose between heating and eating; children sleeping in cold, damp bedrooms; and more stress and anxiety and a lower quality of life for all those who are impacted. Those statistics bring into sharp focus the urgent need for a modern, fit-for-purpose fuel poverty strategy that will make a meaningful impact on reducing fuel poverty. We also need to see the urgent delivery of an ambitious anti-poverty strategy, as fuel poverty is intrinsically linked to wider poverty and one cannot be tackled without the other being tackled. It would be helpful if the Minister could set out timelines for both. The Department consulted on a draft fuel poverty strategy earlier in the year. Sinn Féin responded to that consultation, and I was glad to see some positive proposals. It is vital that we make our current housing stock more energy-efficient. Poor insulation in homes is one of the key drivers of fuel poverty, and that is particularly true of older properties. In recent years, there have been uplifts to building standards, and they have reduced energy costs dramatically for newer homes while ensuring that homes are warmer. We must move forward with the next phase of the planned uplifts. It would be good if the Minister could give an update on when that is likely to go ahead. We also need to see a retrofit strategy for older homes. Some older properties are so energy-inefficient that it will take considerable investment and innovative solutions to bring them up to modern standards. That will, however, benefit us all in the long run. Sinn Féin has called for an uplift to the minimum energy efficiency standards in the private rented sector. At last week's Communities Committee, members received a briefing from departmental officials that included an update on the new warm healthy homes scheme, which is due to replace the affordable warmth scheme in 2026. The affordable warmth scheme has been a lifeline for many families in combating the worst impacts of fuel poverty over the past decade, with over 25,000 homes receiving upgrades at a cost of over £100 million. The new scheme needs to be even more ambitious and be open to more people. It would be helpful if the Minister could share some of the details of the new scheme. We also need to see greater protections for consumers from energy companies. One of the lessons from the cost-of-living crisis is that price rises will always fall on the consumer, and energy companies often seem to take advantage of that by announcing unfair price hikes. Sinn Féin would like to see the introduction of an energy price cap in the North, as already exists in Britain, as well as price protections for home heating oil customers and social tariffs for the most vulnerable. Before I conclude, I want to flag with the Minister a significant issue with the recall of home heating pumps in the South. I am not sure whether the Minister is aware of that. If he is not, I will pass on information. I would just like to check whether there is any impact in the North. Mr McHugh: Beidh cluasáin de dhíth. [Translation: Members will need their headphones.] Tacaím leis an rún, mar gur gruama í an fhírinne: tá na mílte teaghlach faoi bhochtaineacht breosla ag tithíocht shóisialta atá inslithe go dona agus go neamhéifeachtúil ó thaobh fuinnimh de agus is siocair í le billí teaghlaigh a bheith ag ardú. [Translation: I support this motion because the reality is stark: poorly insulated, energy-inefficient social housing drives up bills and locks thousands of families into fuel poverty.] Tá éagsúlacht idir na figiúirí. Sin ráite, áfach, deir an Ghníomhaíocht Náisiúnta ar son Fuinnimh linn go bhfuil 27% de theaghlaigh faoi bhochtaineacht breosla de réir an mheastacháin is déanaí ón tSuirbhé ar Bhail na dTithe 2016. Ar an drochuair, tá an teachtaireacht soiléir: tá rogha an dá dhíogha os comhair barraíocht teaghlach: iad féin a chothú nó a théamh. [Translation: Figures vary. However, National Energy Action NI tell us the most recent official estimate of fuel poverty was 27% based on the 2016 House Condition Survey. What this tells us is sadly clear. Too many households face the cruel choice between heating and eating.] I commend the tireless work of the community and voluntary sector and charitable organisations. Their advocacy, practical help and compassion makes a real difference to families who would otherwise have nowhere to turn. They are an essential avenue of support in our communities. Tá a fhios againn go gcuireann an tithíocht go mór le hastaíochtaí carbóin. Chan amháin gur riachtanas comhshaoil é tithe a iarfheistiú le hinsliú, le córais téimh éifeachtacha agus le teicneolaíochtaí in-athnuaite; is riachtanas eacnamaíochta é. Léiríonn fianaise ón Roinn Pobal gur féidir le huasghráduithe fuinnimh na céadta punt a bhaint de bhillí tí gach bliain, rud a sholáthraíonn teas ar phraghas réasúnta do na háiteanna is mó a bhfuil gá leis. [Translation: We know that housing is a major contributor to carbon emissions. Retrofitting homes with insulation, efficient heating systems and renewable technologies is not just an environmental necessity; it is an economic one. Evidence from the Department for Communities shows that energy upgrades can cut household bills by hundreds of pounds each year, delivering affordable warmth where it is needed most.] Tá caighdeáin níos láidre á gcur i bhfeidhm ag comhairlí fosta trí phleananna forbartha áitiúla, trí bhéim a chur ar thábhacht fabraice maithe agus tithe á ndéanamh, trí shochar a bhaint as teas na gréine agus tríd an chomhtháthú in-athnuaite. Is féidir leis na beartais sin, atá fréamhaithe sa ráiteas beartais ar phleanáil straitéiseach, is féidir leo sin tithe a chur in éifeachtacht, ach iad a chur i bhfeidhm go réadúil. Ní mór fíorthairbhe a bhaint as beartais ar pháipéar do theaghlaigh. [Translation: Councils are also embedding stronger standards through local development plans, promoting fabric-first design, passive solar gain and renewable integration. These policies, rooted in the strategic planning policy statement, can shape new housing to higher efficiency, but they must be applied realistically. Policies on paper must translate into real benefits for households.] Mar sin féin, ní féidir an bhochtaineacht breosla a laghdú trí bhearta tithíochta amháin. Tá athchóiriú agus caighdeáin níos fearr ríthábhachtach, ach is den bhochtaineacht féin an bhochtaineacht breosla. Tá teaghlaigh ag streachailt, ní hamháin de dheasca tithe a bheith faoi bhun caighdeáin, ach de dheasca ioncam íseal, obair neamhchinnte, costais atá ag ardú agus éagothroime chórasach. Sin an fáth a bhfuil straitéis fhoriomlán frithbhochtaineachta riachtanach le haghaidh a thabhairt ar na bunchúiseanna. [Translation: However, tackling fuel poverty cannot be reduced to housing measures alone. Retrofitting and better standards are vital, but fuel poverty is fundamentally about poverty itself. Families are struggling not only because of substandard homes, but because of low incomes, insecure work, rising costs and systemic inequality. That is why an overall anti-poverty strategy is essential to address the root causes.] Top 4.00 pm We cannot ignore those contradictions. Cuts to winter fuel payments or benefit entitlements undermine any effort to support vulnerable households. It is simply wrong to withdraw support while outdated homes remain unfit for purpose. In supporting the motion, we must combine higher housing standards with a broader anti-poverty strategy. Only then can we reduce bills, tackle fuel poverty, meet climate change obligations and deliver dignity for families across the North of Ireland. Mr Honeyford: Energy security is one of the defining issues that we need to deal with. Families across Northern Ireland feel the cost of energy in their pockets every single day of the week. That is one the biggest pressures that households face, and it becomes even more acute in low-income households. As an Assembly, we have a responsibility to act to deliver lower costs in order to help hard-earned money stay where it belongs, which is in people's pockets, and to insulate our economy from global shocks. We have seen the price of electricity, gas and everything else, whether it comes from America, Russia or China, rise recently. Only last week, as has been referenced, members of the Economy Committee met the Utility Regulator, which told us just how close Northern Ireland came to an energy blackout very similar to the one that hit Spain and Portugal. That should be a wake-up call for us all. At present, we are dangerously reliant on two out of three of our power stations operating at any one time to keep the lights on. When faults occur, as they have recently, a commercially owned generator can effectively hold the public and the system to ransom. That is not resilience, and it is not security. Why has that happened? One of the biggest issues was not referenced at all by Steve earlier, and I will come on to the Ulster Unionist Party's amendment in a second. As we on the Economy Committee discussed with the Utility Regulator, the biggest single reason is the failure to deliver the North/South interconnector, which would connect the two markets. Every year, that delay costs every household in Northern Ireland around £100 in its bill. Dr Aiken: Will the Member give way? Mr Honeyford: Yes. Dr Aiken: He is correct. The North/South interconnector is the one fundamental failure of the whole I-SEM system. Without the North/South interconnector, it will not work. Burying the cable is being presented by some parties in the Chamber as a way ahead, but that is just going to put the cost up so much that it is never going to happen. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute. Mr Honeyford: I will come on to the amendment, because that is factually not true. How confidently you speak. Last week, you told us, very confidently, that it takes seven hours to go to Dublin to get an aeroplane. That is nonsense as well. This is not a battle between linking with GB and linking with the South. The Ulster Unionists have a tendency to do that in every debate. We need an interconnector to Scotland, and we also need an interconnector to the South. The key difference is that the interconnector to Scotland, as we were told by the experts, will not give us stability on our network. We will still need power stations. To have stability on our network, we need the North/South interconnector to be delivered. We need to have that connection not only to save money but to make us more resilient and to give capacity and stability to our network. Dr Aiken: Will the Member give way? Mr Honeyford: Yes. Dr Aiken: I do not know where the Member gets the idea that we are against the North/South interconnector. I have been one of the strongest advocates for the North/South interconnector for nearly 10 years and, indeed, before that when I was the chief executive of the British Irish Chamber of Commerce. I do not know where you are getting that from, but so what? Mr Honeyford: I am expecting him to declare an interest. The interconnector was not referenced at all. In fact, you have made it about having a Scottish one instead, when one would not be quicker than the other. This is about creating better for people. It is about delivering better stability and cheaper prices. Everywhere in Europe is connected, yet we seem to have a problem here. It is utterly ridiculous. On the DUP amendment, I say that we cannot support moving away from the ambition contained in the climate targets. To move forward, turning back the clock is not the answer. We need to make up the time that has been lost, and the Department for the Economy needs to act with urgency in order to deliver on renewables. Mr Brett: I appreciate the Member's giving way. I agree with him about the Department for the Economy, but why is no mention of that Department included in the motion that is before us today? Mr Honeyford: The motion is to the Minister for Communities. That is the problem, and I raised it yesterday in the Chamber. Every issue that we deal with cuts across multiple Departments, and they all need to work together if we are to deliver any of this. That is a fundamental problem with the Assembly. We have one Minister in front of us, and I thank him for being here, but he is not in control of the energy side. A fundamental problem is that Committees cannot scrutinise all the issues. We have to listen to the science on where we are going, but we also have to look at the economic issues and be on the right side of them in order to deliver better and cheaper energy for everyone. We have constantly called for such reform, and that has to be the way forward if we are to allow change to happen and for issues to be scrutinised and delivered on. This is not only about retrofitting existing homes but about designing for the future by building every social home to the required standards. On the Public Accounts Committee, we recently heard about the Strule campus in Omagh. We are building schools — we have not even started to build some of them — that already need to be retrofitted. That is bonkers. Tens of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money will be wasted because we allow things to proceed without their having that as its basis. My time is up, however. Miss Brogan: The issues of housing, fuel poverty, energy costs and climate change are all deeply interconnected. That is why it is so important that the overarching, cross-departmental Climate Change Act was created. The truth is that there are very few issues here that are not in some way affected by climate change. Climate change is perhaps felt nowhere more acutely than in the home. Hotter summers and colder winters mean that older housing stock is simply not suitable for the current climate, with such houses requiring more heat in order to keep them warm. Energy producers are fully aware of that, yet they have been consistently increasing the cost of energy for years now, despite their record profits and huge windfalls. That has led to shameful situations in which low-income families and pensioners are having to choose between eating and heating. That is shocking and completely unacceptable. Greater extremes of drought and flooding put more pressure on the family home, with, for example, insurance prices in flood-prone areas adding to the ever-mounting costs that people must pay in order to keep a roof over their head. People are paying more to be less comfortable and less secure in their own homes. That is why the steps proposed in various climate action plans are important. It is not just about reducing emissions, although doing so would help stabilise the extremes of climate change. As the producer of up to 14% of the North's total greenhouse gas emissions, housing can play a vital role in our fight. The actions we take to reduce emissions will have other positive effects and open up new avenues of opportunity. Retrofitting will not only make our homes warmer but reduce energy costs. Moving to new ways of heating our homes, such as the use of heat pumps, will reduce our reliance on multinationals. Transitioning to renewable forms of energy production will free us from the volatility of the fossil fuel market. Embracing Ireland's abundant natural resources, such as wind and wave energy, can help reduce our reliance on imports. The shift to renewables can also open new avenues of economic opportunity for us, such as through the development of new, renewable technologies, which is something that we are already seeing happen as Ireland becomes an industry leader in areas such as zero-emission vehicles and wind energy. That is not to say that doing any of that will be easy, but if we ensure that the steps that we take are founded on just transition principles, we can ensure energy safety, security and prosperity for generations to come, as well as benefit from the effects of having cleaner air, soil and water that accompany making such changes. Housing has a huge role to play, so there is an immense responsibility on the Minister for Communities to seize the opportunity and begin laying the groundwork to make homes safer, warmer and more affordable. Mr Allen: I thank my Committee colleague for proposing this important motion. It goes to the core of an urgent social and economic issue, which is fuel poverty. We all know that rising energy prices have become unaffordable, pushing many households beyond the brink. They have also exposed a deeper problem: the poor condition of too many of our homes. When a house is cold, damp, poorly insulated or a combination thereof, people pay more to heat it, yet they still live in the cold. The result is predictable. It impacts on health and well-being and drives higher costs. While there have been slight reductions in energy prices, they remain far beyond what many households can reasonably afford, especially when combined with homes that are energy inefficient. According to the Department for Communities' draft fuel poverty strategy, around 27% of households in Northern Ireland are in fuel poverty, but National Energy Action puts the figures much higher — about 40% overall, and over half of all social tenants. Those are not abstract figures. They represent individuals and families who are making impossible choices. One in 10 is cutting back on food, and over a quarter has gone without heating or electricity at least once in the past two years. The draft strategy reminds us that the energy efficiency of our housing stock is among the lowest in Europe. It also highlights why. A typical uninsulated home loses around 33% of its heat through the walls, 25% through the roof and another 10% to 20% through the floor. Add to that draughty windows and doors, and you will see that much of the heat that we pay for simply escapes. Poor insulation and energy inefficiency, which the motion references, trap people in a cycle of high bills and low comfort. The Department's stakeholder engagement report, which involved more than 365 organisations and individuals, reinforced that message. Participants were clear that we need sustained investment and a whole-house, fabric-first approach — one of insulating walls, lofts and floors, improving ventilation and modernising heating systems together, rather than in isolation. The consultation also proposes new standards that deserve our full support. I look forward to hearing more detail from the Minister today and in response to my question for oral answer, next week. There are sensible and pragmatic steps that we can take, but they will need coordination across Departments. The strategy stresses the need for joined-up delivery, consistency and better public awareness so that households know what help they can access. In June 2025, the UK Government announced £13·2 billion for their warm homes plan, bringing significant Barnett consequentials to Northern Ireland. While I appreciate that that funding is not ring-fenced, it offers a crucial opportunity for the Northern Ireland Executive to invest in retrofitting and home energy-efficiency schemes. Boosting support programmes such as the affordable warmth scheme or its planned successor, the warm healthy homes scheme, would help more households, whilst cutting energy bills and carbon emissions. Our amendment raises important points about grid infrastructure and energy regulation. A secure and affordable energy supply matters, and reform is needed, but the truth is that energy security begins at home. A strong grid and an ambitious renewables target are extremely important, but so too is supporting households that cannot afford to turn the heating on because the heat leaks straight out through the roof and walls. The two approaches — system reform and household efficiency — must go hand in hand. One without the other will not solve the problem. Fuel poverty is not inevitable. It is the result of poor housing, high costs and years of underinvestment. The consultation and stakeholder report make clear what needs to happen. I believe that the will is there. We just need the funding to do it. Let us make sure that no one in Northern Ireland has to choose between heating and eating. Mr Blair: I rise mindful of the fact that I was recently appointed chair of the all-party group on climate action. However, I speak primarily as Alliance Party spokesperson on the environment and to express my support for the important Alliance motion. The motion does not just prioritise urgent climate action but emphasises achieving a just transition, particularly for those in society who are most vulnerable to the effects of climate change as well as energy poverty. The housing sector, whether we like it or not, is responsible for a significant proportion of our carbon emissions, but addressing that challenge can bring wide-ranging benefits. By reducing emissions from our homes, we can deliver affordable warmth, lower household energy bills and improve the health and well-being of the most disadvantaged members of our community. For example, introducing large-scale retrofitting schemes such as upgrading insulation, replacing fossil fuel heating systems with other, low-carbon technologies and improving the energy efficiency of windows and roofs can help alleviate fuel poverty while cutting emissions. Such interventions are essential in combating social inequality alongside achieving environmental goals. Top 4.15 pm As has been mentioned, we have a statutory duty set out in the Climate Change Act, which was supported by all Executive parties. The legislation commits us to ambitious renewable energy targets. Recent data from the Department for the Economy shows that Northern Ireland currently sources approximately 45% of its electricity from renewables. Whilst that is a commendable achievement, we cannot be complacent, especially when neighbouring regions such as Scotland have surpassed 60%. Northern Ireland should strive not just to meet but to surpass those targets by leveraging our landscape, which is conducive to clean energy innovation, to become a leading example for all of the United Kingdom and Ireland. Addressing those ambitions, Alliance will continue to urge the Minister for Communities to introduce comprehensive proposals for redesigning and constructing social homes to be fit for a net zero future. That means integrating higher energy-efficiency standards, which are vital for residents who are already struggling to pay their bills. That would also make a significant contribution to meeting our emissions targets. Hopefully, when the Minister responds today, we will hear more about current and future plans. I turn to the amendments. Amendment No 1 fails to properly address the immediate threats posed by climate change. Amendment No 2 is similarly problematic, especially the claim about the "undeliverable nature of emissions targets" in the Climate Change Act, an agreement that was forged collectively by all parties here. We must uphold our shared commitments and not retreat from hard-won progress simply because implementation poses challenges. We must prioritise urgency, not half measures or backtracking. I read those two amendments, and I listened to them being proposed. I heard from Dr Aiken about the lights going out, and I read the amendments again. I concluded that the lights are on but there is nobody at home — not over there, at least, and not with that level of climate denial. In contrast, amendment No 3 is supportable, because it preserves the core aim —. Dr Aiken: Will the Member give way? Mr Blair: I am going to continue. Amendment No 3 is supportable, because it preserves the core aim of the motion and especially its focus on bridging the gap between ambitious climate measures and assisting those who are most affected by rising energy costs. I am happy to give way now, if Dr Aiken wants me to. Dr Aiken: Speaking as the deputy chair of the climate all-party group, I remind its chair that we have advocated for a long time that we should get to net zero carbon as quickly as we can. Part of that is making sure that the grid works effectively and correctly. An Alliance Member said earlier that we are not interested in the North/South interconnector or an all-Ireland connection — I can point that way, too, John — but, in fact, that is fundamentally wrong. Will the Member correct that? Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute. I remind Members —. Mr Blair: I thank the Member for the intervention. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Excuse me, John. Just a wee minute. You have an extra minute. I remind everyone, and the two Deputy Speakers in particular, that they need to be sensitive and ensure that their points are political, not personal. Thank you. Go ahead. Mr Blair: I thank the Member for the intervention and congratulate him on his appointment as vice chair of the all-party group on climate. Hopefully, the sentiments, targets and aspirations of that group will be reflected in future motions. In closing, let me be clear: any shortcuts that we make today will only increase the cost, both financially and environmentally, for future generations. We must act decisively to ensure that every household in Northern Ireland can be assured of a warm, energy-efficient home, affordable energy and a cleaner, greener future. I urge all Members to support the Alliance motion, to reject the amendments that I outlined as being incompatible with it and to consider the other amendment, which is probably compatible. Mr Carroll: I support the motion and its call for social housing redesign and renewable energy integration. Not only do we need a mass expansion of social housebuilding, but those homes should be built to modern, energy-efficient standards with the lowest carbon footprint possible. It has been referred to that Britain has a £2 billion green homes grant, while, in the South, there was a €90 million fund for retrofitting, but, once again, in the North, there is nothing. There is no plan or funding to make the massive improvements that are needed to provide energy-efficient homes and affordable energy bills. It has also been stated that over 40% of people here are fuel poor, spending over 10% of their total household expenditure on energy costs. Some 27% of households went without heating or electricity in the past two years as they simply could not afford the bills. That is an increase of 8% from the previous year. Every day, people are wearing coats indoors, staying in bed to keep warm, showering in work, skipping meals, taking out loans and getting into debt just to manage their energy bills. That is totally unacceptable. Everyone has the right to secure, warm, energy efficient and affordable housing. Unfortunately, that seems more like a distant pipe dream than a reality. On the private rented sector and temporary accommodation, it should be noted that energy efficient standards in private rented properties are often exceptionally poor, and it can be argued that they do not exist at all. For example, 75% of housing association stock here is at an energy performance certificate (EPC) rating of C or above. By contrast, in 2023, Ulster University found that just 25% of private rented properties have a rating of C or above. Not only are landlords ripping tenants off with extortionate rents, but they are content to let their tenants live in leaky, energy-inefficient homes. When those tenants report inevitable issues with damp and mould, they are often threatened with eviction or rent hikes. It is not just private tenants who are paying the price for energy-inefficient homes. Damp and mouldy single lets are bought or rented out from private landlords by the Housing Executive, Mears and other temporary accommodation providers. Families are expected just to be grateful to have a roof over their heads and to stay silent about a house that is falling apart around them. Again, that is totally unacceptable. I have been contacted by a family with mould growing in their oven due to structural damp in the kitchen. Another constituent could not keep a wooden wardrobe in one of her children's bedrooms because the wood kept rotting. I have been contacted by multiple residents who are dealing with insect infestations due to persistently damp conditions. All those families are living in single-let temporary accommodation and spending a fortune on heating homes that are incredibly energy inefficient and probably need to be razed to the ground and rebuilt. When those tenants report to the Housing Executive or other temporary accommodation providers, they are told — A Member: Will the Member give way? Mr Carroll: No, sorry. They are told to keep the windows open, including in the middle of winter, or keep the heating on longer, without a thought for how a homeless family can afford to keep the gas running all day. That amounts to nothing more than victim blaming. Asylum-seeking people and migrant families are often met with institutional racism. They are told that they just do not understand the climate here. I have also been told directly by housing providers that people from the Middle East, in particular, have a cultural habit of just throwing water all over the place in their homes, when, in fact, it is that their homes are inefficiently protected and energy inefficient. That is just the definition of victim blaming and racism and is totally unacceptable. With regard to price caps, in the absence of the Executive launching a mass social housebuilding programme, retrofitting homes across all tenures and cracking down on neglectful, exploitative, private landlords and temporary accommodation providers, which seems exceptionally unlikely at the minute, we need to tackle the problem at its source. It is profiteering private companies that are behind high energy costs. Our energy system has been privatised at nearly every stage from generation to supply. It is time that the energy sector was publicly owned. There should be a windfall tax on big oil and gas companies that pollute our planet, such as Shell and BP. Energy price caps should be implemented to cut out-of-control energy bills. That is clearly a matter for the British Government, but the Executive need to recognise the clear link between fuel poverty and corporate profiteering and to push Starmer's Government to do something about it and give more power to the Utility Regulator. Given our high reliance on fossil fuels and the fact that Coolkeeragh — I hope that I have said that correctly — is down for maintenance at the moment, I am concerned that Kilroot and Ballylumford, which are owned by EP UK Investments, are demanding £2 million per hour for the use of their equipment. The question is this: will the Department for the Economy pay that extortionate fee? Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call the Minister for Communities to respond to the debate. Minister, you have 15 minutes. Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank the Members who tabled the motion and brought it to the House today. There is much that I agree with in the motion; there is some I disagree with, which I will come to. My focus is on putting people first and making sure that we reduce fuel poverty across Northern Ireland. That is why I have instigated work on a new fuel poverty strategy, which I look forward to presenting to the Executive for approval by the end of the year, as I pledged to do. I acknowledge the role that poorly insulated and low-energy-efficiency homes play in increasing costs for householders. We have all agreed on that today. Enhanced energy-efficiency standards will undoubtedly reduce heating costs, and that is crucial to tackling fuel poverty. The proposals for a long-term framework in the draft fuel poverty strategy are intended to improve energy efficiency in homes, reduce energy costs, support those in fuel poverty and ensure consumer protections. Of course, we know that warmer homes contribute to better health outcomes for physical and mental well-being, and the implementation of higher standards will stimulate the demand for skilled labour in the construction, retrofitting and renewable technology sectors, which supports job creation. I welcome the collaborative engagement across government to develop the strategy. We now have a real opportunity to address the scourge of cold, damp homes. I recognise the need to improve the minimum housing standards, and therefore one of the three themes of the draft fuel poverty strategy is to make homes more energy efficient. The setting and enforcing of new standards appropriately will also help protect those most at risk from the costs and impacts of climate change, in line with the just transition principles. To support low-income households, my Department is continuing to deliver the affordable warmth scheme for low-income owner-occupiers and those in the private rented sector to provide energy-efficiency improvement measures, such as cavity and loft insulation, replacement heating systems and windows, where appropriate. Since the scheme began in 2015, it has supported over 30,000 households with an investment of over £136 million. When I was making decisions about this year's budget, £7·5 million was allocated to the scheme. However, I made a bid in the June monitoring round to the Department of Finance for an additional £3·75 million, but the bid was unsuccessful. I will continue to seek opportunities and press for additional funding to be made available for this vital scheme. In addition, I have asked my officials to bring forward a new, more ambitious fuel poverty scheme: the warm healthy homes scheme. The new scheme will continue to offer low-income households a range of energy-efficiency measures, such as insulation. However, in recognising the need to move towards renewables, it will also include low-carbon heating solutions and renewable technologies. Of course, interventions should not cause a detriment to those who are less able to engage with or invest in the changes, and it should not cost householders more to heat their homes after the installation of renewable technologies and decarbonisation measures. As I have said, the new warm healthy homes scheme will be more ambitious than its predecessor, and it will require significantly more investment to ensure that it can balance assisting the households most in need while contributing to a reduction in emissions. The private rented sector is a key component of a thriving housing market, but too many people who rent privately are falling into fuel poverty, and that is why consideration is being given to how any new energy-efficiency scheme could support that sector. The overarching themes are to reduce energy consumption, introduce lower carbon options for heating and raise standards, with policies and proposals being brought forward by my Department, along with the Economy, Finance and AERA Departments. There is a responsibility on social housing providers to ensure that they have strategies in place for the long-term management of their homes, by maintaining and improving their stock. The work includes updating insulation, doors, windows and heating systems, which will contribute to increasing the energy efficiency of social homes and, consequently, reduce the energy usage and related cost for tenants. My officials are reviewing the Decent Homes Standard, which is a minimum standard for existing social homes and is designed to trigger landlord interventions. That review will consider how an updated standard could enhance and improve the quality and sustainability of existing homes, improve thermal comfort for residents and potentially reduce their energy usage. Top 4.30 pm The Northern Ireland Housing Executive has a 400-unit thermal improvement pilot under way. That £14 million investment from the Housing Executive's own income stream will be located across all three Housing Executive regions. The focus on improved energy efficiency measures includes low-carbon heating, the adoption of renewable technologies, electric tariff changes and improved household education. Of course, the Housing Executive is not the only social housing provider. The Housing Executive has invited registered housing associations to bring forward energy efficiency innovation pilot schemes for new-build homes through the social housing development programme. I note the request to bring forward proposals for the redesign of social homes, incorporating higher energy efficiency standards and renewable energy integration. I think that we are all in favour of that. We want to see those higher standards. However, those come at an immediate capital cost. The Member may be aware of the homes that were constructed in north Belfast to Passivhaus standards In some cases, we are talking about an extra 25% to 35% cost for those houses. We had that conversation in the Committee before, and she said that that will pay off over time. That may be the case, but are we prepared to cut back on our social homebuilding in order to build homes to that higher standard? It is a legitimate point that she makes. I do not know whether she is calling for that today. I am happy to take an intervention. Is she saying that we in the Department for Communities should build all future social homes to Passivhaus standards? Ms K Armstrong: I thank the Minister very much for giving way. Minister, how many houses have been started this year when you have the budget? The answer is one. Can we just move something forward? If 2,000 houses were built to Passivhaus standards or to a level close to those, it would save tenants a clean fortune. People would have more money in their pocket to spend in the local economy. We need to be innovative and future-proof homes, and we need to build them to a better standard, or are we saying that people who live in social homes are worth less than the people who can afford a Four Winds home that costs £80 a month to heat and light? Mr Lyons: No, but there are decisions to make. My principal concern is about the tenants to whom Mr Durkan referred. He talked about old Northern Ireland Housing Executive stock. Where do we put our resource? We should put it where it makes the most difference. Of course, we should set our standards as high as possible, but that comes at a cost. If there is a decision to be made, I would rather support those who are currently living in houses in which you can see mould and damp and the immediate health impacts of both. I think that the Member underestimated the savings. The savings are far higher when you construct homes to Passivhaus standards. I think that only £3 or £4 a week was estimated for those homes in north Belfast. However, the residents whom Mr Durkan mentioned are not found in new social homes, which are already built to a high standard. Could they be better? Yes. However, each time that you raise the standard a little higher, huge sums of money are needed that could be better invested in the Housing Executive stock to retrofit some of the older homes. Mr Durkan: Including the homes in Westway. Mr Lyons: I am sorry? Mr Durkan: On the street that I spoke of. Mr Lyons: On the street that he spoke of. I can take you to Housing Executive homes in my constituency that are exactly the same. Ms Armstrong talked about the houses that we will start this year. Are we better building the 1,000 homes that we are going to start — I think that that number will increase — to a relatively high standard, or do we build only 500 or 600 homes to a much higher standard? Those are the choices. When you sit where I have to sit day after day, those are the choices that you have to make. It is not as simple as saying, "Go ahead, get it done. Have a bit of vision. Show some bravery". It is about choices. It is about what we do with the money that we have. Ms K Armstrong: Thank you very much, Minister, for giving way. We should build social homes to the highest possible standards, because people deserve nothing less than the best. Why not build houses to the higher standards now, however, rather than spend more public money in five or 10 years' time to bring them up to those standards then? The current building regulations are of the past. They do not look forward. Why not design houses that will meet the required standards and pass the plans on to the Minister for Infrastructure or the Minister of Finance for one of them to make sure that future building regulations are at the standard that we want for everyone in Northern Ireland? Mr Lyons: We can do that, but doing so will come at a cost right now. You will be the first to criticise me when I do not meet my housing targets. Is it Alliance Party policy that everything should be built to Passivhaus standards? That is an interesting one, but a balance needs to be struck, because I am genuinely concerned about the people who are languishing on housing waiting lists or in temporary accommodation. The issues are complex, and Members on the other side of the House are often experts at making complex issues sound simple. People come here with plenty of platitudes and only a spoonful of substance. There are real decisions that need to be made. Frankly, we have to be honest about cost. The Member therefore accepts that we will have to have fewer social homes. Ms K Armstrong: I do not. Mr Lyons: She says that she does not. I am sorry, but my social housing development programme budget could be trebled, yet the same issues would still be there. Are we going to build fewer houses to a higher standard? That is a perfectly legitimate argument, if the Member wants to make it. Alternatively, are we prepared to build homes to a slightly lower standard but be able to build more homes? That is the question in front of us. There is a middle way, however. I am not giving up on meeting those higher standards to achieve more energy efficiency — Members can see the work that we are doing — but my focus will be, first and foremost, on retrofitting homes that are absolutely appalling, in which people live in horrific conditions and spend huge amounts of money just to keep their home at a barely warm temperature. I struggle to support the Alliance Party motion, because it contains a contradiction. I strongly disagree with what has been said on the other side of the House. I agree with my colleague Pam Cameron about the targets in the Climate Change Act 2022. Yes, those targets were agreed by all Executive parties, but remember why that was the case. They were agreed in the face of even worse legislation from the Green Party that spooked Alliance, the SDLP and Sinn Féin into going against the advice of the Climate Change Committee (CCC). We were not prepared to accept that. Yes, a compromise was made at the time. Kellie Armstrong shakes her head, but the Assembly went against the CCC's advice at the time, and, as a result, we are now tied down to targets that are simply not achievable. Here is the thing: everybody knows that those targets are not achievable and that it will be impossible for us to meet them as they stand. I have been clear and will say in the Chamber that they need to be reconsidered. Do I believe that we need to move towards a new future? Do we want to proceed along the path to net zero? Absolutely. Mr Carroll: Will the Minister give way? Mr Lyons: I will give way in a second. My fear is that, by going at this speed along that path, it will come at people's expense. We will sacrifice people in order to meet targets. We will be more interested in getting as fast as we can down the road of achieving targets than we will be about looking after our population. Mr Carroll: I thank the Minister for giving way. How does he propose that we build social housing if half the city and half the country is under water? Mr Lyons: I assure the Member that what we do in Northern Ireland will make no difference whatever to the climate worldwide. We are responsible for such a tiny proportion of the world's emissions. Should we do our part? Yes. Should we harm ourselves in the process? Absolutely not. I am putting people first, but the policies that the Member advocates will do more damage to people across Northern Ireland. Mr Carroll: Climate deniers. Mr Lyons: I will do what I can to make sure that we support those who are in need. We will retrofit where we can. We want to have homes built to the highest standards, but I will not hurt people along the way. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Colin McGrath to make a winding-up speech on amendment No 3. Colin, you have five minutes. Mr McGrath: Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Thank you, again, to the Members who tabled the motion and to colleagues across the Chamber for their contributions to what has been a constructive debate. We may not agree on all the details, but there is quite a lot that we agree on, and that, in this place, is something to grasp hold of. Much of what was said reflects what I have been hearing in my constituency, namely that fuel poverty, poor insulation and rising energy costs are not an abstract policy issue but the lived realities for far too many of our constituents. Members on all sides will agree that the condition of our housing stock is simply not good enough and that tackling that has to be a priority if we are serious about climate action and tackling poverty. A number of Members highlighted the importance of driving down energy costs through renewables and energy security. That is vital. As others pointed out, however, if the heat generated is simply escaping through poorly insulated windows and walls, we are setting people up to fail. As an MLA for South Down, I see that every day. A moment during one of the colder elections has stayed with me. I spoke to a woman who, due to being so cold, was wrapped in two blankets, and she begged me to take her gas canister with me when I left because it was doing absolutely nothing for her. The real issue was that her windows would not close properly, and any heat in the home was simply escaping. That was a problem not of poor heating but of poor insulation and shoddy housebuilding. As many Members will have heard in their constituencies, that story is not unique. Several colleagues rightly drew attention to the longer-term impact on health, poverty and economic inactivity. We know that prolonged exposure to cold contributes to illness. It keeps people out of work and locks families into poverty. That is why the SDLP tabled its amendment. What we are calling for is clear: it is cross-departmental working, because this is not an issue for one Minister alone. It demands cooperation between Communities, Economy, Infrastructure and Finance, and it demands more than words. It demands a credible, low-carbon housing road map with measurable targets for retrofitting, improved standards for new builds and targeted support for low-income households. The amendment that we have proposed is based on detailed proposals set out in the SDLP's 'Building Firm Foundations' paper on housing, which was a plan to deliver warmer, more affordable and more sustainable homes across the North. It reflects our approach as a serious and constructive Opposition, one that brings forward new ideas and credible policy solutions and not just criticism. Some Members spoke about the scale of the challenge, and they are right: it is absolutely enormous. In 2021, the UK's Construction Leadership Council estimated that it would take 20 years and cost around £525 billion to retrofit Britain's 29 million homes. Those figures underline the scale of what is ahead but also the scale of ambition that we must bring to the issue. While the North is, of course, smaller in scale, the challenge here is just as urgent. I want to echo points made by others about the future. The reality is that we are still building the houses of the past even as we move into the future. Grainia Long of the Housing Executive has been absolutely clear: "We need action now, and a retrofitting fund to support it. If we do not invest today, we will only pay more tomorrow." I urge Members to support the amendment. Now is the time to set out a credible, coordinated and ambitious road map for low-carbon housing to give people homes that are warm and affordable and to show that, in tackling the climate crisis, we are also tackling fuel poverty, economic inactivity and inequality. This is not just about climate policy: it is about dignity, health and the futures of the people whom we all represent. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Phillip Brett to make a winding-up speech on amendment No 2. Phillip, you also have five minutes. Mr Brett: Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. The public, when they hear debates in the Chamber, are used to parties — normally us — being accused of gaslighting them, but we have just had people stand and read scripted remarks that, they know, are factually incorrect. Let us introduce some facts into the debate. We are getting lectured by the Alliance Party on meeting legal targets by 2030, but, just last week, that party's own Minister approved 1,000 additional hours of fossil fuel production. The Alliance Party now comes to this Chamber, lectures the DUP and calls the DUP climate change deniers. The ones who are continuing —. Top 4.45 pm Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I think that it was Gerry Carroll who called you that, Phillip. I do not think it was the Alliance. Mr Brett: Actually, it was a Member from the Alliance Party, but I appreciate your commentary, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, during my remarks. The Alliance Party's position on this is clear, but let us introduce some facts. What is the current percentage of renewable energy produced here in Northern Ireland? I will give way to the proposer of the motion if she knows the answer. See, she does not know the answer. The current position is that it is 43%. Ms K Armstrong: Will the Member give way? Mr Brett: I gave you your opportunity, Ms Armstrong. You did not take it. The Alliance Party is now saying in this motion today that we are going to get to 80% in less than five years. What is the great solution that the Alliance Party is putting forward to achieve that? It is going to redesign future social homes. Ms Armstrong went on to articulate how we are going to do that, and it is by putting a battery in the roof of those homes. Therefore, the Alliance Party's action as to how we are going to double our production of renewable energy is to change building regulations, which do not even come under the remit of the Minister whom it is attacking today, and put a few batteries in the roof of homes. That is not a sustainable position, and the party needs to be honest with the —. Ms K Armstrong: I thank the Member very much for giving way. I think that the Member is trying to misrepresent the motion that has been laid before you today. We need homes for the future that will help people living in Northern Ireland, not in fantasy land. We dumped £94 million of wind renewable energy in quarter 1 and quarter 2. Why was that not pumped into the homes of people who are living in the most vulnerable conditions? Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute. Mr Brett: I wholeheartedly agree with the points that you make in relation to the grid connection here in Northern Ireland and the ability to draw that down, but your motion does not mention any of that, because that falls under the Department for the Economy. I am not a climate change denier, but I am going to set out why we are not going to meet the targets. It is because our energy policy in Northern Ireland is an absolute basket case. We have no renewable energy support scheme. It was promised that the legislation would be introduced this year and that the auction would take place. That has been delayed. We have no long-term storage policy for energy, which the Member has articulated the need for but does not mention in the motion. We have no grid connection policy, so, even if we do produce that energy, it cannot be drawn down. We have no socialisation policy, which was promised last year, and that means that, even if we do try to build those new homes, they could not even benefit or connect to it. Let us deal in facts. This was a perfect opportunity. Mr Honeyford gets this issue, and he had a really good opportunity to bring forward a cross-cutting motion that we could all have supported that called for the Minister for Communities to play his role, the Minister of Finance to play his role in relation to regulations, and the Minister for the Economy. Mr Honeyford and I bang our heads off the wall at Committee week after week. This is a complex issue. Dr Aiken gets criticised by Members in the House, but he gets it. Putting a battery in a roof or changing the future design of houses is not going to meet this target. When we do not meet these targets in 2030, it will not be this party that lied to the public. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I do not think that you should accuse anybody of lying, Phillip. Mr Brett: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Can you outline who I accused of lying? I said that this party did not lie. I did not accuse anyone of lying, so I ask you to withdraw that remark. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: No. I appreciate you saying that, but, in keeping with the debate, you should not really say it. That is fair enough. You have said it now. It is on the record. I call Diana Armstrong to make a winding-up speech on amendment No 1. Diana, you have five minutes. I remind Members that, when Members are speaking, they must be heard. Ms D Armstrong: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank the Members who tabled the motion and the amendments and those who have contributed to the debate. I emphasise that the debate addresses a matter of energy security. Amendment No 1 strengthens the crux of the motion and the underlying structural issues that must be addressed to ensure affordable and secure energy for all. Yes, the motion is about affordability and fairness to households and businesses, which is critical to address fuel poverty, but the UUP amendment speaks to the reality of energy constraints across Northern Ireland. We cannot continue to accept vague reassurances from the Department that there is no problem with our infrastructure. Recent security of supply issues at Kilroot suggest otherwise. We have long acknowledged the importance of tackling fuel poverty whilst reducing emissions, but we cannot achieve that if our grid remains outdated and underinvested in. It is unfit for the scale of renewable energy that we need, and, in the process, it is failing consumers. The call for an independent review of SONI and NIE Networks is not about apportioning blame but about ensuring that the infrastructure that underpins our energy system is robust and delivering value for money. We must understand the disparity in the connection costs between here and Great Britain and why our progress on grid updates continues to lag behind. The public is forced to bear the brunt of the costs. They deserve transparency on the state of our grid. Our amendment highlights the need for clear incentives for green hydrogen and anaerobic digestion. Those technologies require a route to market and a framework that supports the innovation. I thank Members for their contributions. Mr Honeyford: Will the Member give way? Ms D Armstrong: Yes. Mr Honeyford: I want to ask the Member one simple question. Amendment No 1 talks about joining Ofgem. Do the Ulster Unionists seriously believe that we would be better served by going to the regulator in London, which looks at England, than having our own people look after us? Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Diana, you have an extra minute. Ms D Armstrong: I do. Thank you for the intervention. I thank Members for contributing to the debate. I urge you to support amendment No 1. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Sian Mulholland to conclude the debate and make a winding-up speech on the motion. Sian, you have 10 minutes. Ms Mulholland: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I start by echoing the points made earlier, especially by my colleagues, that this is about fairness, social justice, value and the urgent need for leadership and co-working. Before I wind up on the debate, I will address a specific point as a representative for North Antrim, which is one of the region's most rural constituencies. I see the reality of energy costs every week. Rural households face a double burden. The first burden is the fuel type. Nearly half the homes in Northern Ireland heat with oil, which is a far cry from the position in Great Britain. However, in rural areas, that figure is typically four in five homes. If they are off the gas grid, families have to rely on oil; there is no other option. Unlike gas or electricity, where you can spread the payments, perhaps monthly via a bill or on a metre, oil usually has to be bought up front and with a minimum order. The costs per litre of the smallest drum or in emergency top-ups are so much higher, and those often come with call-out fees. On top of that, prices swing with the global markets. As Mr Durkan commented, there is no social tariff for heating oil. There is no way to smooth those costs through a metre and no effective price cap. That is the very essence of a poverty premium. Dr Aiken: Will the Member give way? Ms Mulholland: Yes. Go on ahead. Dr Aiken: Thank you very much indeed. There was a degree of guffawing and laughter from your party when we talked about Ofgem. Ofgem insists on minimum and maximum prices. Would that not be appropriate for where we are? Ms Mulholland: There is no laughter from where I am sitting, but that is fine. Thank you. It is the poverty premium: the people with the least pay more and have the least secure form of heat. The second rural issue is bricks and mortar. Rural dwellings are typically older, larger and far less energy efficient than their urban counterparts. Only a small fraction of rural social homes achieve the top EPC ratings. The motion rightly recognises the link between poor insulation, rising energy costs and fuel poverty. In rural constituencies such as mine, that link is painfully clear. The redesign of social homes has to be about not just bricks and mortar but fairness; the ambition and innovation that we talked about; and delivering the most affordable warmth to those who need it most. I look forward to hearing more about the Minister's warm healthy homes scheme at Committee, and how ambitious it is. I hope that a tangible impact will be seen by those who need that intervention the most. The human impact of all this is measurable. Where I come from, I always try to bring the human element of things to everything that we talk about, because, at the end of the day, it is the people we represent who matter the most. Warmer energy-efficient homes are linked to better physical health and better mental health, especially for vulnerable households. Local retrofit evaluations show upgrades that keep average indoor temperatures at around 21°C, cutting energy bills by about one third and reducing household emissions by about two thirds. Fabric improvements and low-temperature, continuous heating can reduce the damp and mould that Mr Durkin referred to. However, if improvements are not rolled out on a wider scale, it will end up costing the public purse in the long run. Cold homes mean more pressure on health and social care services, and while that scale of improvement is not within the gift of the Minister's Department, it is in the gift of the Assembly with joined-up-working approaches. As Kellie highlighted, the upfront investment in better standards is not just a luxury; it is a necessity that pays for itself many times over in lower bills and better health outcomes overall. We know what works. The Housing Executive and the housing associations have trialled retrofits, and with proper insulation, airtight seals, triple glazing, air source heat pumps and solar PV, tenants have seen their bills fall. Scaling that across the province will not only cut our bills and emissions but will create good local jobs, joined-up government and fairness for every constituent, no matter where they live. I want to make a couple of references to the Climate Change Act. Yes, it sets binding targets, but, unfortunately, we cannot move away from those ambitious targets — we simply cannot. As David Honeyford said, they are ambitious targets for a reason. The Minister has said in the past that he would rather avoid targets than risk missing them. My party and I believe in setting ambitious targets and ambitious goals because, if we do fall short, we are still moving forward. That is the point. If we inspire effort, we drive progress and achieve so much more than we would by playing it safe. You are shaking your head, but it is the same thing with child poverty. We talk about the risk of missing targets. Why not aim for more? Why not aim for ambitious targets and actually achieve more than just playing it as we have always played it? In reference to Mrs Cameron's comments about the climate action plan financial assessment, there is an overall neutral financial impact from the policies and proposals that are outlined in the draft climate change plan; that is anticipated, so an overall positive and social economic impact with minor effects is to be expected. Northern Ireland is actually predicted to make a net saving by the fourth carbon budget. Is that not worth continuing to strive for, if we can actually start to make a net saving? The reality is that the climate change actions are a spend-to-save exercise. We cannot afford, on so many levels, to walk back from those targets, not just financially but for our society. I am not sure that I would go quite as far as Mr Carroll in saying that half of the properties will be underwater. That is perhaps a doomsday position, but there is some risk there, and, as someone who lives on the coast, even more for me. For us, the target is not an abstract number. There are commitments to protect people from the actual cost of inaction because if we fail to meet energy efficiency and renewable goals, it does not spare people: it just leaves them colder, poorer and further behind. It is my belief that we have to commit to two tracks in parallel. Mr Carroll: Will the Member give way? Ms Mulholland: Are you going to talk about houses being underwater, Gerry, because I am not sure that we need that right now? [Laughter.] Mr Carroll: That was very Deputy Speaker-esque of you — no offence — in general. [Laughter.] The point that I was going to make is that the Minister said earlier, basically, how can we build homes and build homes that are energy efficient? Does the Member agree that we could, maybe, do that if we reduced rents over time? Obviously, there is a lot of money going to landlords through universal credit and support systems through housing benefit. Ms Mulholland: There are ways that we can look at it. I am not entirely sure that what the Member has outlined would be the best way forward, but there are ways. Again, for me, it is about working together. It is about the joined-up nature of work across Departments. For me, it always comes back to one of the failings and weaknesses of this place, which is that we work in silos. So often, Ministers are scrutinised only for their Department's actions. However, when it comes to things that are so cross-cutting, such as fuel poverty and saving money for people in poverty, scrutiny is difficult because of how the Assembly is made up. Top 5.00 pm On the two tracks that I mentioned, we have a choice. We can retrofit the homes that we have, particularly those that are coldest and costliest to heat and, from my point of view, the rural stock. We can also build the new social houses that people need to be low energy and renewable ready from day 1. As Kellie said in proposing the motion, and as I always mention when we talk about poverty, it is not about whether we can afford to do both things; it is about whether we can afford not to do them. On the spend-to-save model, I understand what the Minister said about the budgetary constraints that his Department is under, but is there not a way to do it? We are asking for him to work across Departments to look at where savings can be made right across the board. It is not just about the Minister's Department. I understand that that is the only scrutiny that we can do, particularly those of us on the Committee for Communities, but there has to be a joined-up approach to all that. That is where there is a missing link. If the Assembly passes the motion, it will send a clear message to the Executive about the need to align budgets, work across Departments and improve skills and procurement so that retrofitting and new builds can both move forward. That will turn fuel poverty into affordable, safe, warm homes and waiting lists into house keys in pockets. I look forward to the warm healthy homes scheme that the Minister will bring forward, and I implore Members to support our motion. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Sian. Before I put the Question on amendment No 1, I remind Members that, if it is made, I will not put the Question on amendment Nos 2 or 3. Question put, That amendment No 1 be made. The Assembly divided: Ayes 27; Noes 43 AYES Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Ms D Armstrong, Mr Beattie, Mr Brett, Mr Brooks, Ms Brownlee, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mr Butler, Mrs Cameron, Mr Clarke, Mr Dunne, Mrs Erskine, Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew, Mr Gaston, Mr Irwin, Mr Kingston, Mrs Little-Pengelly, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Martin, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Robinson Tellers for the Ayes: Dr Aiken, Ms D Armstrong NOES Dr Archibald, Ms K Armstrong, Mr Baker, Mr Blair, Mr Boylan, Miss Brogan, Mr Carroll, Mr Delargy, Mrs Dillon, Mr Donnelly, Mr Durkan, Ms Egan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Finnegan, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Mrs Guy, Miss Hargey, Mr Honeyford, Ms Hunter, Mr Kearney, Mr Kelly, Mr McAleer, Miss McAllister, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Mr McMurray, Mr McNulty, Mr McReynolds, Mrs Mason, Mr Mathison, Mr Muir, Ms Mulholland, Ms Murphy, Ms Nicholl, Mr O'Dowd, Mr O'Toole, Ms Reilly, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin Tellers for the Noes: Mr McMurray, Ms Mulholland Mr Clarke acted as a proxy for Mrs Erskine. Question accordingly negatived. Question put, That amendment No 2 be made. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I have been advised by the party Whips that, in accordance with Standing Order 27(1A)(b), there is agreement that we can dispense with the three minutes and move straight to a Division. The Assembly divided: Ayes 21; Noes 43 AYES Mr Brett, Mr Brooks, Ms Brownlee, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mrs Cameron, Mr Clarke, Mr Dunne, Mrs Erskine, Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew, Mr Gaston, Mr Irwin, Mr Kingston, Mrs Little-Pengelly, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Martin, Mr Robinson Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Brett, Mrs Cameron NOES Dr Archibald, Ms K Armstrong, Mr Baker, Mr Blair, Mr Boylan, Miss Brogan, Mr Carroll, Mr Delargy, Mrs Dillon, Mr Donnelly, Mr Durkan, Ms Egan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Finnegan, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Mrs Guy, Miss Hargey, Mr Honeyford, Ms Hunter, Mr Kearney, Mr Kelly, Mr McAleer, Miss McAllister, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Mr McMurray, Mr McNulty, Mr McReynolds, Mrs Mason, Mr Mathison, Mr Muir, Ms Mulholland, Ms Murphy, Ms Nicholl, Mr O'Dowd, Mr O'Toole, Ms Reilly, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin Tellers for the Noes: Mr Blair, Mr McMurray Mr Clarke acted as a proxy for Mrs Erskine. Question accordingly negatived. Question put, That amendment No 3 be made. The Assembly divided: Ayes 47; Noes 21 AYES Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Dr Archibald, Ms D Armstrong, Ms K Armstrong, Mr Baker, Mr Beattie, Mr Blair, Mr Boylan, Miss Brogan, Mr Butler, Mr Carroll, Mr Delargy, Mrs Dillon, Mr Donnelly, Mr Durkan, Ms Egan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Finnegan, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Mrs Guy, Miss Hargey, Mr Honeyford, Ms Hunter, Mr Kearney, Mr McAleer, Miss McAllister, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Mr McMurray, Mr McNulty, Mr McReynolds, Mrs Mason, Mr Mathison, Mr Muir, Ms Mulholland, Ms Murphy, Mr Nesbitt, Mr O'Dowd, Mr O'Toole, Ms Reilly, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin Tellers for the Ayes: Mr McGlone, Mr McNulty NOES Mr Brett, Mr Brooks, Ms Brownlee, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mrs Cameron, Mr Clarke, Mr Dunne, Mrs Erskine, Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew, Mr Gaston, Mr Irwin, Mr Kingston, Mrs Little-Pengelly, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Martin, Mr Robinson Tellers for the Noes: Mr Brooks, Mr Martin Question accordingly agreed to. Main Question, as amended, put. The Assembly divided: Ayes 45; Noes 21 AYES Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Dr Archibald, Ms D Armstrong, Ms K Armstrong, Mr Baker, Mr Beattie, Mr Blair, Mr Boylan, Miss Brogan, Mr Butler, Mr Delargy, Mrs Dillon, Mr Donnelly, Mr Durkan, Ms Egan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Finnegan, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Mrs Guy, Miss Hargey, Mr Honeyford, Ms Hunter, Mr Kearney, Mr McAleer, Miss McAllister, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Mr McMurray, Mr McNulty, Mr McReynolds, Mrs Mason, Mr Muir, Ms Mulholland, Ms Murphy, Mr Nesbitt, Mr O'Dowd, Mr O'Toole, Ms Reilly, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Donnelly, Mr McMurray NOES Mr Brett, Mr Brooks, Ms Brownlee, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mrs Cameron, Mr Clarke, Mr Dunne, Mrs Erskine, Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew, Mr Gaston, Mr Irwin, Mr Kingston, Mrs Little-Pengelly, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Martin, Mr Robinson Tellers for the Noes: Mr Kingston, Mr Martin Mr Clarke acted as a proxy for Mrs Erskine. Main Question, as amended, accordingly agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly acknowledges the role that poorly insulated and energy-inefficient social housing plays in driving up energy costs, thus contributing to fuel poverty; notes the benefits of reducing carbon emissions from the housing sector; recognises the value of interventions, such as retrofitting, which will deliver affordable warmth and reduce household energy bills; further recognises the role of renewables in creating energy security and the value of the targets and objectives for electricity consumption from renewable sources outlined in the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 and agreed by all Executive parties; and calls on the Minister for Communities to work with Executive colleagues on the introduction of a low carbon housing road map, with measurable time-bound targets to increase retrofitting, improved energy efficiency standards for new builds and targeted support to improve energy efficiency for low-income households. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I ask Members to take their ease before we move to the Adjournment debate. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Dr Aiken] in the Chair) Motion made: That the Assembly do now adjourn. — [Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken).] Adjournment Apple-growing Industry in Newry and Armagh Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): In conjunction with the Business Committee, the Speaker has given leave to Justin McNulty to raise the matter of supporting the apple-growing industry in Newry and Armagh. Justin, you have up to 15 minutes. Over to you. Mr McNulty: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. [Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.] I am grateful for the opportunity to bring this Adjournment topic before the Assembly today on a matter that is close to the heart of many families and communities in Armagh, and that is the future of our apple industry. I am standing here beside a Derry girl, and Diona Doherty, another Derry girl, spoke on a recent podcast about a most enjoyable experience with her family picking apples in an "Orchard County" orchard. I fully agree with Diona, as, just a few weeks ago, my son and I joined the McGleenan family on the Tullysaran Road near Blackwatertown to help collect a few tons of Armagh's famous Bramley apples. Doing so was wonderful for the mind, the body and the soul, and I also enjoyed some of the apples that we picked, which were uniquely fresh, with a distinct taste. Top 5.45 pm We are proud to call Armagh the "Orchard County". It is a name steeped in heritage, having been built on generations of hard work, skill and care. Armagh can trace its relationship with apples back as far as 1,000 BC, because there is evidence that they grew close to our historic Navan Fort. For centuries, families across our county have planted, tended to, harvested and sold the finest apples in Ireland. Armagh's Bramley apples hold protected geographical indication (PGI) status, which they share with Comber potatoes, Lough Neagh eels and champagne. Despite that PGI status, 90% of the apples consumed here are imported. Just 10% are home-grown. Anyone can import apples, but not everyone can plant, grow, nurture and harvest them and then bring them to market. That takes experience, patience and a deep local knowledge. It is part of the culture. It is a proud tradition. The apple orchards are an integral part of whom we are in Armagh. Today, however, our apple growers are struggling, not because of a lack of passion or skill but because they have been left behind by a system that gives them no support. In the Republic, apple growers can access between 20% and 40% grant aid. They also receive support for plant and equipment. That assistance is helping the Republic's growers and processors expand, modernise and stay competitive. In the North, however, there is no equivalent support. There is zero. Our growers have been forced to compete on an uneven playing field. Some of our growers are even planting new orchards in the South simply because the support is there and not here. They are upping sticks and moving to the South. That cannot be right. Minister Muir met growers and industry representatives, and I acknowledge the engagement that took place, but, since the positive words, there has been no progress, action or tangible support. Meanwhile, the pressure on our growers is only increasing. Minister, where is the support for new orchards? Where are the incentives for new entrants to the industry? Supermarkets across Ireland are crying out for Irish-grown produce. There is a massive appetite for local apples, but our producers simply cannot meet the demand, not because they do not want to but because they cannot afford to. They are crying out for help. Many of our local orchards, which gave us our heritage, need to be grubbed out and replanted. The market has changed. There has been a generational shift. People are not baking apple tarts any more. The cider market, which many relied on, has dropped off dramatically, with Clonmel now taking only 30% of what was expected from the 2025 harvest. The juicers and dicers need only so much. Years ago, a grower could get £100 for a bin of apples, but they are now lucky to get £50 or £60. That is not sustainable. One grower told me recently, "Justin, I could plant 1,000 acres of Gala apples and still not have enough". The potential and the ambition are there, but, without support, our growers simply cannot make it happen for them. Setting up even a basic grading and flotation system can cost three quarters of a million pounds, and that is out of reach for most small, family-owned orchards. The apple-growing industry section of DAERA is, in the industry's own words, the "forgotten section". The research capacity in the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) has effectively downed tools when it comes to orchards and apple production. There is no pipeline of innovation or technical support to sustain, modernise or reinvigorate the industry. When we compare the support structures in the North with those in the South, the difference is stark. If a storm hits in the South, there is an immediate relief fund set up, but there is nothing provided here. Even the paperwork for getting support from Invest NI is so complicated and cumbersome that many small agribusinesses take one look at it and say, "Sod this. I will try to figure out a way to raise the money myself". That is not how to encourage growth or innovation. It is disappointing that the Economy Minister is not here to hear the debate. Ireland is far too small an island to have two completely different regimes when it comes to agriculture and agri-food support. Minister, what are you doing and what is the Economy Minister doing to mirror the regulatory and support systems for farmers, growers and associated agri-businesses? A "little North" status quo approach will not save an industry that is on its knees. The truth is that the apple industry in Armagh, which was once vibrant and financially sustainable for the parents, grandparents, uncles and aunts of growers and producers, is now struggling to survive. It does not have to be that way. We need a clear policy shift: a strategy to move from an over-reliance on Bramleys to eating different apple varieties, which will ensure that our growers can compete fairly across this island. We need DAERA and the Minister to engage seriously with the industry to put in place targeted support, grants, research, investment, and growing and production assistance to rebuild confidence and capacity in that proud sector. I say this to the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and the Minister for the Economy: please think big. Please demonstrate some vision. Please show some pride in our people and place. Please support an indigenous industry that is just waiting to take off. Give people, businesses and families hope. Can you imagine Armagh apples glimmering freshly on the shelves of every supermarket in Ireland and beyond? That is the potential. That is the BHAG — the big, hairy, audacious goal. It is achievable if this place, for once, ignited a spark of hope that could reverberate through the generations. How do you like them apples, Minister? It is not about just apples; it is about sustaining family farms, rural communities and a piece of our cultural identity that has shaped Armagh for generations and centuries. Let us make sure that the "Orchard County" lives up to its name, not just in memory but in reality. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): All other Members who speak will have approximately seven minutes. Mr Boylan: I thank the Member for bringing the issue to the Chamber today. Those of us from the "Orchard County" know that apple-growing here in the North has huge potential not just for our economy but for our environment. Local orchards are part of our rural heritage, and they can play a real role in tackling the climate change crisis through carbon capture and reducing food miles. I and my party also recognise the challenges that come with the conventional farming methods used by the apple industry, such as pesticide use and nutrient run-off. That is why more and more growers are turning to sustainable practices, such as integrated pest management and organic methods, to protect biodiversity and improve soil health. Therefore, I welcome the recent announcement from the AERA Minister about the £300,000 investment that is headed for Armagh. I also welcome comments that were previously made by the Minister about his Department's working with the apple industry through the College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise (CAFRE) in the delivery of industry training and knowledge and technology transfer to meet its needs. I know from conversations that I have had with those working in the industry that labour shortages are impacting on them at present. One person with whom I spoke put it simply: the shortage of labour since Brexit has been a disaster for the sector. There must be a concerted effort to support the industry to recruit the workers needed to ensure that the industry thrives. I want to see the apple industry in Armagh and across the North flourish. We in Sinn Féin will continue to support farmers and orchard owners, who are leading the way in building a cleaner, fairer food future. I look forward to the comments from the Minister. Mr Irwin: With between 4,000 and 5,000 acres of orchards dedicated to growing apples in the Armagh area, it is clearly an important local element of the horticultural sector in the region. Unfortunately for me, boundary changes moved about 90% of apple growers into my colleague's constituency. [Laughter.] That having been said, securing PGI status for the Armagh Bramley in 2012 was hard worked for and very welcome. That has been a valued and unique selling point, not only for the Bramley variety in the Armagh area but for apples generally in all their varieties, as well as apple-based products. Whether it is the unique and very tasty Bramley apple tart, or the various apple juices and ciders that are produced in the area, I wholeheartedly commend all those who are associated with the sector for making their apple produce such a success. Of course, many difficulties and challenges exist for the sector, as they do in all food-related sectors, and market forces play a very important role in the profits and losses that are associated with the apple harvest each season. I recall from my discussions with growers that last year was a reasonably good year. There was high demand for the produce, and with that came a return for the growers. Their efforts associated with the harvest saw [Inaudible] for the crop. This year, the crop is significant, with the very favourable growing conditions that were enjoyed throughout the summer. That has had a major impact on the market, with an abundance of supply meaning that prices have taken a downward turn. That has undoubtedly caused concern for producers. The Bramley variety is only one of the three products in Northern Ireland that has achieved PGI status. Whilst that status is very welcome, it is very important that a massive amount of work, energy and resources is put into growing and harvesting apples. The vast majority of apples are processed by a number of local processors and sold in the UK mainland market and in the Irish Republic to bakeries to produce tarts and the like. The Minister has previously referred to support schemes, including the farm sustainability transition payment and the sustainable agriculture programme. He has highlighted the moneys that are paid against land and area that is registered as commercial orchards. There is a concern — I have heard it directly from growers — that this year's harvest, whilst plentiful, will be of a much lower value than previous harvests. That is a worry for growers, and I ask the Minister to explain to the House what measures he can deploy in order to assist growers in what is a challenging time. Mr Blair: As Alliance AERA spokesperson, I sincerely thank Mr McNulty for highlighting this important and overlooked industry by securing this Adjournment debate. Our local growers and horticultural sectors must always be recognised amid large-scale production, as they are essential for local communities as well as the local economy. I observed that first-hand during a recent AERA Committee visit to a farm garden in Carrickfergus, which underscored the significance of locally produced, sustainable food for consumers and chefs in that region. There are examples of that, of course, across Northern Ireland. County Armagh in particular is renowned locally and internationally for its world-class apple orchards. Those apples are essential ingredients in products such as ciders, juices and sauces. They support countless local families, sustain many small businesses and preserve cultural traditions that span generations. The orchards also serve as a major tourist attraction and are central to festivals such as the Armagh Apple Blossom Festival. This vital industry faces significant challenges, however. Climate change is altering rainfall patterns and increasing extreme weather events. Rising input costs are also a challenge, as are labour shortages, and market fluctuations strain the sector further. The Ulster Farmers' Union reports that over 75% of Northern Ireland's apple growers saw reduced profitability in 2023. I know, however, that the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs is dedicated to promoting and supporting local produce, as shown by the funding that was recently allocated to the sector through the sustainable agriculture programme, as well as through his ongoing commitment to nature-friendly farming schemes. I look forward to hearing more details from the Minister about the efforts that are being made to support this sector, which is so vital to our economy and our environment as well as to biodiversity, in particular. Apple growing is not just fundamental to our rural economy; it is key to food security and ensuring that high-quality, home-grown produce reaches tables across Northern Ireland. Too often, we overlook the journey that our food takes and the dedication of those behind the scenes. Thanks again to the Member for raising the matter and for giving us the opportunity for this important reflection. I look forward to hearing from the Minister. Top 6.00 pm Mr Buckley: I had not planned to speak, but, as a proud son of the "Orchard County", it would have been remiss of me had I not added something to the debate. I thank the Member for Newry and Armagh for bringing the debate. Like me, he probably has many fond memories of growing up in the "Orchard County" and knows how important the apple has been to our county for generations and how symbolic it is of our county. Mr Irwin alluded to the fact that about 90% of apple growing now takes place in my constituency of Upper Bann. I have effectively lived among the orchards all my life, and they are a cause for immense pride locally. North Armagh has certainly demonstrated its worth in its growing potential, and its fertile ground has sustained many generations. I have picked apples, and my father and grandfather picked apples. It was an infamous task among local families at this time of year. I think of the many farmers who are performing such a task even as we speak. Apple growers face significant issues. The big one, which we in the Chamber cannot solve, is weather conditions. The industry suffers from weather volatility, which can affect crops and prices year-on-year. It is hard for apple growers to have a steady and sustainable income when there is such volatility. We have price volatility based on demands elsewhere. It was alluded to that, whilst we produce a large tonnage of apples locally, we are largely susceptible to global forces when it comes to the import of apples. The age of orchards is also an issue. When I was growing up, there were orchards everywhere in and around my home area. Some of them were old by the time that I grew up and have, therefore, been replaced. The problem is that many in the industry took the decision not to replace old orchards with new orchards, and farm diversification has led many away from the sector. However, many proud families are still determined to ensure that the industry survives. Much good work has been done locally to enhance the tourism opportunities related to the apple, particularly the Bramley, including the Apple Blossom Sundays and accompanying tours. My wife is from Lisburn. She had never seen an orchard until we started to court and she came down to County Armagh. I thought to myself, "That's very strange", because I could not have imagined life without them, given my locality. In recent times, the attraction for people across Northern Ireland of coming to orchards to view what produce they have to offer and the spin-offs such as cider production has been a source of real encouragement. Wildlife has prospered in many areas due to the significant presence of orchards. Before the debate, I spoke to apple growers and asked them, "If one thing could be done to help you, what would it be?". My colleague alluded to the variety of support schemes that are in place or could be in place and the need to integrate something related to the planting of orchards into the single farm payment. We know that planting trees has a significant positive spin-off for wildlife and the environment. There is a significant case to be made that such an intervention should be targeted at those who replant orchards for the benefit of the apple industry. There is also a great need to get that small number of producers together in a room — I know that that has happened previously — to try to ensure that the processors do not have the whip hand when it comes to setting a price for their product. That is important and is certainly something that government can do to help. I look forward to what the Minister has to say. I again thank the Member for securing the debate. If we are to ensure that the industry not only survives but thrives, there must be tangible support packages in place to benefit the growers who will stick with the industry. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Minister, you have up to 15 minutes. Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. As Minister, I am very aware of the importance of the apple harvest to growers in County Armagh and the positive impact that it delivers for the economy, the environment and biodiversity in the region. Before taking up this post, I often visited the "Orchard County". I have bought apples from the "Orchard County" and made apple pie and apple crumble. In 2020, I planted an apple tree in my garden, and those apples have been used for consumption at home, in an amazing apple crumble that my mum made, but they have also been given to Hydebank Wood Secure College for consumption by the horse on site, and they have been eagerly taken up. Therefore, I am very aware of the benefits of apples. I have been down to Armagh as Minister and have met the producers and processors. I understand the importance of the industry to agriculture, the local society and the economy. I want to outline that land use for the commercial production of apples is eligible for financial support under my Department's farm sustainability transition payment. It will continue to be eligible as the scheme transitions to the farm sustainability payment within the sustainable agriculture programme in 2026. On 1 September this year, my Department commenced the 2025 farm sustainability transition payment to farm businesses. A total of £299,388 was paid against land in County Armagh registered for use as commercial orchards. That includes payments to commercial apple growers. Since 2015, funding totalling £123,758 has been awarded for projects delivered through my Department's Northern Ireland regional food programme for promotional activities associated with the annual Food and Cider Weekend, which I enjoyed recently. That funding has supported a wide range of activities, all of which focus on celebrating the region's PGI status for the Armagh Bramley apple. As part of this year's Food and Cider Weekend festival, as I said, I recently attended the apple spirits tasting masterclass in Armagh, and I was pleased to learn more about the journey of the apple from the orchard to a range of finished products. This year's festival was awarded £14,100 from the regional food programme. My Department is also working with the apple industry, through CAFRE, in the delivery of industry training and knowledge and technology transfer to meet its needs. The support includes disseminating modelling reports to growers on the influence of environmental conditions on pest and disease risk. CAFRE's Loughry college also helps the top-fruit industry by providing technical support, advice and training relating to the processing and packaging of apples and apple products. Commercial apple growers who hold a category 1 or 2 farm business ID can also avail themselves of support through the horticulture pilot scheme. The scheme, which will be delivered as part of the sustainable agriculture programme, comprises three pilot subschemes: the sustainable sector growth groups pilot scheme; the growers training and support pilot scheme; and the innovation driver and support pilot scheme. Public awareness sessions to publicise the scheme are ongoing and have included sessions with apple growers. Mr Buckley: I thank the Minister for giving way and for highlighting what potential support is there, but will he accept that, whether it is the farm sustainability transition payment or others, the feeling among the industry is that the support available is far below the costs associated with both production and price volatility and that, if we want to ensure the growth and sustainability of the industry, there needs to be more intervention? Is that something that the Minister will consider or has considered during his time in office? Mr Muir: I have, and I am coming on to that. Applications for the sustainable sector growth groups and growers training support schemes will open on 31 October. In addition, under the sustainable agriculture programme, my Department is developing the sustainable farming investment scheme, which will provide financial support for equipment and technology to improve environmental performance and business efficiency. It is proposed that the scheme will be open to all primary production sectors, including apple growers. I have been engaged with the Minister of Finance about funding for the new scheme. More information will be announced in the coming months. Mr McNulty referred to arrangements in the South of Ireland, and perhaps that gets to the core of his contribution. I will peel back that issue and highlight the point that, while I am aware of the support schemes that are available in the South, if Members have noticed the Budget from the Irish Government today, they will know that the South struggles with surpluses, whereas we struggle with deficits. The financial position in Northern Ireland is challenging. I continue to engage with the Finance Minister so that we can deliver support, most particularly through the sustainable farming investment scheme. As Minister, I will continue to engage with the sector. I understand the importance of doing so and am keen to see apple-growing expand. Armagh is indeed known as the "Orchard County", and we should celebrate it. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Minister, and thank you, everybody. That concludes the Adjournment debate. Adjourned at 6.11 pm. Top
[ni-assembly-official-report][plenary_report] Official Reports https://aims.niassembly.gov.uk/officialreport/report.aspx?&eveDate=2025/10/06&docID=452297 Official Report: Monday 06 October 2025 Table of Contents Matters of the Day Explosive Device at Sinn Féin Newry Office Global Sumud Flotilla: Israeli Interception Manchester Synagogue Attack: Implications for the Jewish Community in Northern Ireland Assembly Business Members Statements Brain Cancer: Research, Funding and Access to Care Comhairle Cathrach Bhéal Feirste: Beartas Gaeilge Belfast City Council: Irish Language Policy Belfast City Council: Irish Language Policy Maternity Leave Jim Dixon: Enniskillen Bomb Survivor Manchán Magan Belfast City Council: Irish Language Policy Cycling Ireland Jim Dixon: Enniskillen Bomb Survivor Rubys Law Education Authority: Notice of School Closures Committee Business Committee Membership Ministerial Statement Disability and Work Strategy Oral Answers to Questions The Executive Office Health Question for Urgent Oral Answer Justice Assembly Business Ministerial Statement Disability and Work Strategy Executive Committee Business RHI (Closure of Non-Domestic Scheme) Bill: First Stage Private Members Business Regional Imbalance Assembly Business Standing Order 10(3A): Extension of Sitting Ministerial Statement JobStart Scheme Private Members Business Criminal Justice System: Failure to Transform The Assembly met at 12:00 pm (Madam Principal Deputy Speaker [Ms Ní Chuilín] in the Chair). Members observed two minutes' silence. Matters of the Day Explosive Device at Sinn Féin Newry Office Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sinéad Ennis has been given leave to make a statement on an explosive device being left at the office of Sinn Féin representatives Liz Kimmins MLA and Dáire Hughes MP, which fulfils the criteria that are set out under Standing Order 24. If other Members wish to be called, they should rise in their place and continue to do so. All Members who are called will have up to three minutes to speak on the subject. I remind Members that interventions are not permitted, and I will not take any points of order on this or any other matter until the item of business has finished. Ms Ennis: I condemn utterly the disgraceful and cowardly overnight attack on the office of my Sinn Féin colleagues Liz Kimmins and the MP for Newry and Armagh, Dáire Hughes. As the Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle mentioned, and as the PSNI has confirmed, a viable explosive device was left at their shared office in the heart of Newry city. I send solidarity to Liz and Dáire and their families, and also to their hard-working staff who, no doubt, will have been left shaken by what occurred overnight. This despicable and cowardly act is an attack not just on Sinn Féin and our representatives but on the wider community in Newry and Armagh. Liz and Dáire's office is a busy and much-relied-upon community resource and hub. They and their staff assist huge numbers of people, day in, day out. I say this to the person or people who were behind the attack: Sinn Féin will not be deterred from supporting our communities. We will not be deterred from delivering change. This attack will not derail us. The attack was an attempt to threaten democracy and the democratic process. That cannot be allowed to happen. Any attempts by criminal gangs or by anyone else to thwart the democratic process or interfere in democratic decisions must be called out and must be condemned roundly by everyone in the House. Sinn Féin will not be deterred, and we will not be intimidated from continuing our work to better the lives of the people in Newry and Armagh and across Ireland. I urge anyone with information about the attack on my colleagues' constituency office last night to come forward and contact the PSNI. Mr Clarke: I also condemn the attack. Of course, this is not the first attack that we have seen in Northern Ireland. We are all too aware of many attacks across Northern Ireland, going back a long time, 30 to 40 years, into its history. On every occasion, every attack was wrong then, as it is now with this attack. The Member who spoke previously is right: it is an attack on democracy. There has always been an alternative. There has been intimidation, bomb attacks, bullet attacks and murder and mayhem for many years, and, on every occasion, that has been wrong. We on the Benches on this side of the Chamber have always condemned outright all of those incidents as being wrong. I put on record my thanks for the work that the army technical officers have done. We are very fortunate to have them here. Unfortunately, we require them here, but we are fortunate to have their services. They can come along and make those devices safe, and I hope and pray that intelligence is used from this to bring those responsible for this attack to justice. Like the previous Member who spoke, I call for those with any information to bring that to the PSNI to ensure that this is the last time that we see this on our streets. Mr McMurray: I, too, join in the condemnation of those who left an explosive device outside the offices of Ms Kimmins and Mr Hughes. Placing explosive devices in the streets was always wrong, is wrong and will continue to be wrong. That bears being said. We all have constituency staff, and we know of the pride that they take in their roles. I know that the staff involved run a good constituency office, and my thoughts are with them. My thoughts are also with the people of Newry more widely. There is no justification for the attack, but it does point to the polarisation and the increasingly difficult discourse that the political sphere in which we operate is currently undergoing. That is relevant too. Thanks to the PSNI and the army technical officers who responded, and I echo the calls for any information that is forthcoming to be passed on to the PSNI. Mr Burrows: On behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party, I condemn unequivocally the terrible attack on Liz Kimmins and Dáire Hughes. It was a despicable attack, and I agree entirely that it is an attack not only on the entire community but, in fact, on our democratic system. I am a great believer that an attack on any one of us here is an attack on all of us and on what we are trying to do to represent people across Northern Ireland. I give my full solidarity to Liz and Dáire, to their constituency workers and, indeed, to their families, who will be frightened. I do hope that the Police Service of Northern Ireland, supported by our security services, particularly MI5, which supports the work that the PSNI does in dismantling those who commit terrorism, is successful in bringing the people who did this to justice. I salute the police and the ammunition technical officers, and I hope that there are forensic opportunities from the device. We as a party, of course, know very well the price that terrorism brings to innocent people. Edgar Graham and Robert Bradford were wickedly murdered by terrorists, and, thankfully, we see far fewer of those kinds of despicable attacks. Those attacks were wrong then, they are wrong today, and they will be wrong in the future. Unequivocally, I stand with Ms Kimmins and Dáire Hughes, as does the entire Ulster Unionist Party. Mr McNulty: I am shocked and appalled at the news that a bomb was left at Sinn Féin's office in Newry. The bomb threat, on one of Newry's busiest streets, posed a serious danger to the public and is a total disgrace. My thoughts are with Sinn Féin's office staff, who were put in harm's way at their place of work. That is completely unacceptable. I offer my support to Sinn Féin's local representatives: Dáire, Liz and all the councillors who use the office regularly. They were democratically elected to represent their community yet have been targeted with violence and intimidation. There never has been, and there never will be, any place for that type of violence, thuggery and intimidation in our society. I condemn that atrocious act. Those behind it should be ashamed of themselves. I urge anyone with information that can assist in identifying those responsible to come forward to the police. Mr Gaston: I join other Members in condemning the pipe bomb attack in Newry. Such activity has no place, and it never had a place, in any democratic society. Today, although we rightly think about what could have happened but for the prompt action of the security forces, and of the British Army bomb squad in particular, my mind turns back to the events on this very day half a century ago, 6 October 1975. On that date, a 45-year-old RUC detective constable, David Smyth Love, responded to reports of a robbery at a bar on the Dungiven Road, 3 miles outside Limavady. The criminals held staff and customers at gunpoint — Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Timothy. Mr Gaston: — and demanded the contents of the till. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Timothy, I appreciate that you are trying to expand your contribution because of the date on which another person lost his life, but I respectfully ask you to return to the content that is central to the Matter of the Day, please. Thank you. Mr Gaston: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. What I said will bring me on to where I was going with it. As the men fled, they told the barman that they had left a 10-lb bomb that would go off in 10 minutes. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Timothy, if you do not —. Mr Gaston: With all due respect, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, what I am saying is relevant to what we have, which is the hypocrisy of Sinn Féin. It is experiencing today what it inflicted on many people up and down this country through its years of terrorism. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Timothy, take your seat, please. Mr Gaston: With all due respect, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I would like you to let me finish what I was going to say. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: No. I think that you have exhausted your opportunity to speak, so take your seat. Mr Gaston: I strongly disagree. Sinn Féin is feeling today what it inflicted on many people during the years — Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Timothy, you are challenging the authority of the Chair. Please take your seat. Mr Gaston: — of terror in Northern Ireland. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Timothy, please. If you persist, there will be consequences, so thank you very much. Mr Carroll: I unequivocally condemn the actions of those who left a deadly device outside a Sinn Féin constituency office. It is the office of an MP and a Minister. It is an office, like my own and that of others, that no doubt offers constituency advice and support on a range of issues. My thoughts are also with the staff, who do a difficult and challenging job, as staff in all constituency offices do. I do not know how they are feeling today, but I send my thoughts to them. I totally and utterly condemn that action. I do not know the motives of those who carried out the threat by leaving that device, but one can speculate. One wonders whether it is connected to the statement that the UDA and the UVF put out at the weekend to say that vans with bilingual signage on them would be torched. [Interruption.] That is completely unacceptable. It poses a dangerous threat, and all parties, instead of shouting out as one to my right is doing, should be speaking out clearly and saying that that type of violence and intimidation should not be happening. Instead of clamping down on peaceful protesters, the PSNI should be going after the people who are doing that —. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Gerry, take your seat. Mr Carroll: — so I condemn it. Ms Sugden: I add my voice to the condemnation of the incident in Newry. No elected representative, no member of staff and no member of the public should ever face intimidation or threat because of political work that is being done. My thoughts are with Minister Kimmins, Dáire Hughes and the local community for having to endure what happened. Whatever our political differences, we share a common duty to protect the safety of those who serve the public. There can be no place for violence in political life — not here, not anywhere. Top 12.15 pm Many people will feel unease that this is happening against a wider backdrop where hostility seems to be rising again, not just here but globally. In recent days, we have seen violence on the international stage, with attacks on places of worship. I wholly condemn the attack on the Manchester synagogue, and my thoughts are with the Jewish community and Manchester. With such acts of aggression against political figures, the tone of public life has become sharper, volatile and, at times, dangerously personal. That matters, because what happens elsewhere always has a way of seeping into Northern Ireland. The language that we use, the behaviour that we tolerate and the boundaries that we set determine the kind of politics that we have at home. It feels, at times, as though anger has become the default setting in many parts of the world, but anger solves nothing, and violence solves nothing. Politics, for all its frustrations, must always be the alternative to both. We should stand together against intimidation and for democracy, dialogue and decency. We should stand for the idea that change must be achieved through words, not weapons, argument or aggression. That is how we preserve the peace that we fought so hard to build in Northern Ireland. Mr Butler: I add my support and solidarity to Minister Kimmins; the Member of Parliament Dáire Hughes; their families, in particular, because this extends way beyond the political sphere and the individual who has, potentially, been threatened; and, as has been picked out, the staff who work in the office. I am sure that I do not need to remind Members of the fact that, over the past couple of years, sadly, we have been involved, through the good work of the Assembly Commission, in having to look at the security arrangements around all our offices and in reminding Members, including myself, that the platform that we have to speak on comes with significant responsibilities. This country suffers from PTSD because of the violence of the past. There are two plaques at the entrance to our Chambers, one at each Chamber. One plaque is for Senator Wilson, a nationalist who was murdered by loyalists, and one is for Edgar Graham, a unionist who was murdered by republicans. We need to own the words that we say, and we need to ensure that the words that we speak impact positively by, perhaps, bringing a little bit of peace and stability to a world that is struggling. I pay my respects to the PSNI and the ammunition technical officers who respond, at times without political support, in the most dangerous of circumstances because they are apolitical. They provide safety for the public and for us. It is not so long ago that we were having debates about Jo Cox and David Amess, so it is not just in Northern Ireland that politicians face threat. There is global instability. It was really sad to wake up this morning to read that, once again, Northern Ireland was seeing the threat of violence. I condemn it unreservedly, and I ask Members to speak with one voice in opposing it. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Before I go to the next Matter of the Day, I remind Members that, if you stray off-topic, I will ask you to take your seat, rather than give you two, three or four opportunities. You can protest all you want, but it will not make any difference. The other announcement that I want to make is that, when I am in the Chair, I will chair. This morning has been like the video of the woman who cannot drive her car unless her husband is sitting beside her, telling her to turn left or right. I do not need that. I know what I am doing. If you have an issue with the way in which I am doing it, take it up afterwards. Global Sumud Flotilla: Israeli Interception Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Pat Sheehan has been given leave to make a statement on Israel's interception of the Global Sumud flotilla to Gaza, which fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24. If other Members wish to be called, they should rise in their place and continue to do so. All Members who are called will have up to three minutes to speak. I remind Members that interventions are not permitted. I will not take any points of order on this or any other matter until the item of business has finished. Mr Sheehan: The Global Samud flotilla is made up of 500 activists from 44 countries in 40 vessels. It was trying to break the illegal blockade of Gaza and the Israelis' use of starvation as a weapon of war. The flotilla was carrying baby formula and medicines for children who are being starved and whose mothers cannot feed them because they do not have milk in their breasts. The activists on the flotilla are the best of us. They are the best of humanity. Given that the Israelis have attacked other flotillas, in particular, the Mavi Marmara ship, on which 10 activists were murdered by the Israelis in 2010, it was an act of great courage for those 500 activists to join the flotilla and try to break the illegal Israeli blockade of Gaza. There are Irish activists on the flotilla, not least our comrade and colleague Senator Chris Andrews and Tadhg Hickey, who is a well-known activist from Cork. Reports have come out about the brutality and ill treatment that the 500 activists have received from the Israelis. Remember: the seizure of those vessels in international waters is a war crime. It breaches international law. Of course, the Israelis do not care about international law. They have consistently broken international law; they have used starvation as a weapon of war; and they are involved in the genocide of the Palestinian people. Steve Aiken can sit and laugh all he wants — I have no doubt that he will get up and defend that genocidal regime — but, perhaps, some day, he will show one small bit of humanity. Contrary to what his colleague Doug Beattie said the last time that we talked about this, the attacks on the flotilla came from Israeli drones that dropped flash grenades on to some of the ships, not flares, as Doug Beattie tried to assert in the Assembly. I send my best wishes to all who were involved in the flotilla and those who are still illegally imprisoned at the hands of the Israelis and are receiving ill treatment and brutality. It is time for the world to stand up against the Israelis to end the genocide now. Mr Carroll: As we have heard, on Wednesday evening, Israel intercepted ships belonging to the Global Sumud flotilla, and Israeli warmongers abducted over 400 peaceful activists on board 41 ships. The purpose of the trip was to deliver aid to Gaza, where Israel has imposed an illegal blockade since 2006. Since October 2023, Israel has tightened its blockade, which it declared publicly, and it cruelly denies Palestinians access to food, fuel and medical supplies. Israel's aim is to destroy Palestinians in Gaza and bring about a humanitarian disaster; in other words, as declared by the UN Commission, it is continuing to try to commit genocide. The activists on the ships were attempting to break the blockade and to stop the genocide. Some have been deported, while others remain in a prison in the Negev desert that is notorious for its inhumane treatment of Palestinian prisoners. Look at how the only democracy, so to speak, in the Middle East is treating Greta Thunberg, a brave 22-year-old-woman, who is a shining light in a dark and gloomy world. They have subjected her to oppressive, inhumane treatment, as well as bullying and harassment. As we have heard, there were 16 Irish citizens and 13 British citizens on board the flotilla. The message from Amnesty International is that the interception was a clear illegal act of aggression, and it called it "a calculated act of intimidation". The authorities began deportation proceedings without giving notice to the activists' lawyers and denied them access to legal advice. Israel's National Security Minister, Ben Gvir, disgracefully filmed himself taunting captured flotilla members, whom he labelled as "terrorists", while he was surrounded by an armed guard of Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers. Make no mistake about it: Israel is definitely the terrorist state, and the world knows about it. We have also seen 15,000 people marching through Barcelona in recent days in response to Israel's actions and 3,000 people outside the European Parliament buildings calling on the EU to break — Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Gerry, will you stick to the flotilla, please? Mr Carroll: — the siege of Gaza. It is very important. In response to the siege, we saw walkouts in Italy and two million workers participating in other places across the world. In Dublin, at the weekend, I joined tens of thousands of people protesting to mark two years of genocide and calling on the state to sanction Israel. After that march, activists rallied to shut down Dublin port, where they were pepper sprayed and subjected to disgraceful — Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Gerry, come back to the flotilla or take your seat. Mr Carroll: — police brutality. We need to cut all ties with Israel and isolate that brutal regime. Mr Buckley: What we have heard so far is an act of disinformation, to begin with. First, illegal kidnapping? Not just because the Member for West Belfast says that it is. The truth is that the interception was under maritime law. That is the first bit of disinformation that I would like to debunk. The second bit is that those participants were held in brutal conditions. That does not bear out when we look at some of the footage of those who intercepted the vessels. If we want to talk about brutal conditions, there is no mention of some of the hostages who have been kept in tunnels since 7 October. If we want to talk about brutal conditions, what about those who are still suffering the impact of the war in the Middle East? That is where the focus should be. If the noble aspiration of the flotilla was to deliver aid — it is a very noble aspiration, by the way, to deliver aid to anybody in distress — another piece of disinformation is that there was no mention of the fact that, prior to being intercepted by Israeli forces, there was a call for people who wished to have aid distributed to go by the legal route, which was to the Israeli port where the aid would be looked at and be provided to the people of Gaza. Those are the facts. That was on a loudspeaker for all to hear. The participants knew before they even got aboard the flotilla that they would not be allowed to breach the blockade. They were told where they should go to ensure that their aid would have an impact. Those are the facts. We can get into a debate about disinformation and what occurred, but if we are serious, and if the flotilla's point was to bring about an end to the conflict in the Middle East, why are we not talking today about the potential genesis of a global peace plan that could potentially end the conflict in the Middle East? It is a peace plan that has been endorsed by the Arab countries in the region and the participants in the conflict. That is where the focus should be. As we listen to some of the rhetoric surrounding what was a stunt —. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Jonathan, get back to the subject of the Matter of the Day. Mr Buckley: Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I say clearly that the flotilla was a stunt. If we talk about the stunt, it is in these terms: if you want to deliver aid, deliver it through legal routes that can have a genuine impact and help get the peace. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Kate Nicholl. Cuirim fáilte romhat ar ais, Kate. [Translation: I welcome you back, Kate.] Ms Nicholl: Thank you. I think that it is good to be back. Thank you very much, Principal Deputy Speaker; it is. I am really delighted to speak on this subject. Pat Sheehan and I have done quite a lot of work with the Palestinian community, and that is what I want to bring the issue back to. This is not an orange or green issue. There is a genocide going on. It is a humanitarian issue, and it is something that we need to speak out about. One of the Palestinians whom I have been working with in Belfast has lost so many family members, and I knew that the narrative would be that this was a stunt, so I asked him what the flotilla meant to Palestinians. He said that, for four generations, his people have been suffering. He said: "For us, the recent flotilla represents a message of hope from many nations around the world. When our families and loved ones are dying every day, either on the streets or in tents in so-called safe zones — as a result of Israel’s daily bombardment of Palestinian homes...killing doctors, nurses, journalists, and ambulance crew — this act of solidarity matters deeply. The flotilla brings the message that the unjust siege on Gaza can be broken, especially at a time when our families are starving and basic necessities have vanished. When baby formula and essential food are unavailable, and families are forced to pay prices twenty times higher than normal — when the mothers and fathers have one meal or no meal a day without knowing if they will survive the night — the flotilla stands as a powerful symbol that the world has not forgotten us. It is a reminder that hope and humanity persist, even in the darkest times. We need our families brought to safety and protected because we can't live more loss of loved ones. Our families and loved ones deserve to live in dignity like any other human being". Real people are suffering, and, to them, the flotilla represented the fact that people care. I am inundated with messages every day from people from across my constituency who are desperate for us to do something. Real people are dying; real people are being impacted. I stand with my constituents and the people on the flotilla who are taking action when so many people feel helpless. Top 12.30 pm Dr Aiken: I make a declaration of interest as someone who has conducted maritime blockades in several places around the world. The Gaza Mediterranean maritime blockade is recognised as a method of warfare that has developed in the context of international armed conflict legislation, which states: "A blockade is a belligerent operation intended to prevent vessel traffic from all States from entering or leaving specified coastal areas that are under the sovereignty, occupation, or control of an enemy. Such areas may include ports and harbors, the entire coastline, or parts of it." For the blockaded territory, crucially, enforcement focuses on vessels' destination, not their cargo. If a vessel breaches or attempts to breach a blockade, that is enough to make that vessel liable to capture. The law on blockade is generally considered to reflect customary international law. Its landmark text, the London declaration of 1909, contains several provisions that help define the law, which is mostly contained in maritime military manuals, maritime law and soft law instruments. It states that a maritime blockade is established lawfully if the following requirements are met: "A blockade must be declared, and the international community must be duly notified. The declaration must include the date the blockade commences and its geographical limits." It was. The declaration also states: "The blockade must not bar access to neutral ports." It does not. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Steve. Dr Aiken: Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, this is relevant to the Gaza debate. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Actually, it is not relevant. Maritime law is not one of the Matters of the Day; the debate is about the interception of the Global flotilla. If you could return to the subject, I would appreciate that. Dr Aiken: Maritime law is exactly what it is about, because that is what the Israeli Navy followed. I accept your judgement. I will sit down, because it cannot be appropriate to talk about the matter without talking about international maritime law. That does not make any sense. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Had you mentioned the Global flotilla, I would have allowed you to continue, but you did not. On that basis, I move on to Mark Durkan. Mr Durkan: Last month, I said that we stood at a moment that demanded moral clarity and political courage. Recent events have brought into sharp focus the suffering, the injustice and the obligation to act that we all share. The Global Sumud flotilla, which was carrying humanitarian aid bound for Gaza, was intercepted in international waters. Reports — no one can dispute or has disputed the reports — indicate loss of life, detainees being transported and confessions being demanded in foreign ports. Those actions cannot be dismissed as mere collateral damage; they raise fundamental questions of international law, human rights and collective responsibility. Such a blockade, enforced with lethal force, amounts to the collective punishment of civilians, many of whom lack safe passage or recourse. We cannot pretend to be neutral when human beings suffer under a siege. We cannot remain silent in the face of force being used against vessels bearing aid for starving and suffering people in Gaza. The images that we have seen should stir our consciences; the stories that we have heard should move us all; and the calls that we receive from grieving families should break through any political reticence. Any investigation into those events must be international, independent and fully transparent. All detainees must be released unconditionally. Diplomatic pressure must be brought to bear. Our Governments, North and South, and those in the UK and Europe must press for accountability, not complicity. Economic and political levers must be used to demand compliance with international law. Finally, we must recommit ourselves to the principle that human dignity is universal, not selective. It must reach those in need. Dialogue must replace dominance. Peace must be forged in justice, not imposed through force. Silence is not a neutral act — it is a choice — and denial is a despicable one. Let us choose justice and solidarity. Let us choose a future and a present in which no people are punished because of their borders or their plight. Let those who govern know that we will hold them to account in the name of human rights, compassion and the common good. Manchester Synagogue Attack: Implications for the Jewish Community in Northern Ireland Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I give the same warning that I gave at the start of the previous Matter of the Day: if Members do not stick to the content of the Matter of the Day, I will ask them to take their seat and will move on to the next Member. Timothy Gaston has been given leave to make a statement on the attack on the Manchester synagogue and its implications for the Jewish community in Northern Ireland, which fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24. If other Members wish to be called, they should rise in their place and continue to do so. All Members will have up to three minutes to speak on the subject. I remind Members again that interventions are not permitted and that I will not take any points of order on this or any other matter until the item of business has finished. Mr Gaston: The attack on the Manchester synagogue on Thursday was an outrageous assault on the Jewish community, occurring on the holiest day of the Jewish calendar. Yom Kippur, which is better known to Christians as the "Day of Atonement", is a time when sin is recalled and repented for. In the Old Testament, we remember the slaughter of a goat on that day and the sprinkling of its blood in the Holy of Holies. Last week, Jewish blood stained the streets of Manchester as two men were murdered and three others were seriously injured. I pay tribute to the courage of those who died protecting their family, friends and neighbours, but there is a need for more than words. The attacker was a Muslim who was out on bail for an alleged rape. Although he was a British citizen, he was of Syrian origin. The danger of Islamic extremism can no longer be ignored. The climate in which the attack took place also needs to be acknowledged. For years, anti-Israeli protests have featured antisemitic slogans and placards perpetuating harmful Jewish stereotypes. Even after Thursday, that rhetoric did not stop. On Friday, I wrote to the Chief Constable after being advised that, at an illegal roadblock at York Street, there were chants of, "We got two". Shame. I regret that Members of the House, including a Member for South Belfast from the Alliance Party, sought to contextualise those illegal protests. Decency should have kept the protesters in the house on Thursday evening, of all nights. It is shameful that the Member for South Belfast could not even bring herself to say that. Let us also recall that, just last week, a Member's statement was used by a Member for West Belfast to laud Kneecap, after the case against one — Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Timothy. Mr Gaston: — of its number collapsed. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Timothy. Mr Gaston: What were they accused — Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Timothy. Mr Gaston: — of, Principal Deputy Speaker? Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Timothy, take your seat. Mr Gaston: Displaying a Hezbollah — Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Take your seat. Mr Gaston: — flag. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Take your seat. Mr Gaston: It seems, Principal Deputy Speaker — Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Take your seat. Mr Gaston: — that you do not want to hear from — Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Take your seat. Mr Gaston: — people who have opposing views on the subject. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Take your seat. Mr Gaston: You cannot be neutral on this. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Take your seat. Mr Gaston: You have done this a number of times today, Principal Deputy Speaker. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Take your seat. Mr Gaston: You do not deserve to be in the Chair if you cannot be neutral. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: OK. That is your opinion. [Inaudible.] Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order, everybody, please. You brought this very important Matter of the Day to the House. Mr Gaston: Absolutely, and you will not even let me —. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Excuse me. Have a bit of manners, please, and let me finish my point. You are the one who disrespected the rules. I seriously advise you to think again. The Matter of the Day should be about the attack in Manchester rather than your using it to attack other Members. I am therefore going to move on. Mr Kearney: The attack in Manchester against the Jewish community was horrific. It was a despicable, murderous attack on innocents. That heinous event was made all the more vicious and appalling because it occurred on the holiest day of the Jewish calendar. It has, understandably, caused huge pain and torment for Jewish people everywhere. On behalf of Sinn Féin this afternoon, I extend our thoughts and solidarity to the Jewish community, not just in Belfast and in the rest of the North but everywhere. It is at times such as this that we must speak with a united voice. There can be no room for hatred. We must oppose antisemitism, Islamophobia, racism and sectarianism from whatever source. Sadly, what happened in Manchester is a reminder that we must continue to campaign for a world in which everyone, regardless of religious belief or ethnicity, can live in dignity, with respect, equality and freedom. Mr Kingston: Last Thursday, the Hebrew congregation of Heaton Park in Manchester was targeted in a diabolical act of terrorism on Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish religious calendar. The attacker drove a vehicle into pedestrians, then launched a knife attack on worshippers, two of whom were killed, with others injured before the attacker himself was shot dead by the police. The victims have been named as Adrian Daulby, aged 53, and Melvin Cravitz, aged 66. Tragically, one of the victims was hit by police gunfire as worshippers held the synagogue door closed in order to save lives. The 35-year-old attacker came to the UK from Syria as a child, along with his family. His father issued a statement condemning his son's terrorist attack last Thursday. It later emerged, however, that the father had previously posted on social media praising the terrorist actions of Hamas on 7 October 2023, saying: "Men like these prove that they are Allah's men on earth". In all debates about the situation in Israel and Gaza since October 2023, I and others have warned that strong words here will have little impact on the situation there but will have a major impact on community relations here, particularly for our vulnerable Jewish community. Mr Martin: Hear, hear. Mr Kingston: What happened in Manchester is a realisation of those worst fears of antisemitism: Jewish people killed purely because of their religion. In Northern Ireland, we have also witnessed terrorist attacks on places of worship. We think of the appalling murders at Darkley Pentecostal Church and the murders of Gerard Kiely and Kevin Ballentine outside St Brigid's Church in Belfast, and we remember Mary Travers. Our Jewish community in Northern Ireland is small but vulnerable. Phillip Brett and I greatly value the synagogue in our North Belfast constituency, and we have been honoured to attend events there over the years. Since last Thursday, I have spoken to members of the Hebrew congregation to reiterate our support and to the PSNI commander for north Belfast about security arrangements for that community. Sadly, we have witnessed antisemitism in Belfast, with attacks on the headstones of Jewish graves in Belfast city cemetery and the removal by a community group of a blue plaque in Cliftonpark Avenue marking the birthplace of —. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Brian, please return to the events in Manchester. Thank you. Mr Kingston: This is relevant to that, in that words have impact here. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: No. I ask you to return to the events in Manchester. Mr Kingston: The blue plaque marked the birthplace of Chaim Herzog, who served two terms as president of Israel, an honoured position that is now held by his son Isaac. Let us not be blind to the dangers of intolerance and antisemitism in society in Northern Ireland. Let us be mindful of the impact of words, and let us support the needs of our cherished Jewish community. Top 12.45 pm Ms Nicholl: What happened in Manchester at Heaton Park synagogue was horrific, and I have no hesitation in condemning the antisemitism and hatred. My heart goes out to the entire congregation, particularly to Melvin Cravitz and Adrian Daulby, and to the incredibly brave people who saved countless lives. I believe in our common humanity, and I believe that everyone should be treated equally and live in safety and peace. It is shameful to use such an awful attack to score political points. You can care about people on one side of the world and care about people in Manchester just as much. It is not an either/or. I am in politics because I care deeply about people and about peace, equality and humanity. I want to set the record completely straight by saying that I and my party completely condemn the attack in Manchester. It was wrong, and it was awful. We stand against antisemitism and hatred, and we always will. Our hearts go out to that community and to every Jewish person in this society who is living in fear as a result of that attack. Dr Aiken: I will try to make sure that I stick strictly to the horrific attack in Manchester. Yom Kippur is the holiest day in the Jewish calendar: the day of atonement, when members of the Jewish faith fast from sunset to sunset, pray, repent, reflect and seek closeness to God. Last Thursday, that holy day was desecrated by a vile antisemitic attack in Manchester. There is no context, hand-wringing, whataboutery or claim that "It is part of a justified resistance" or whatever to explain those antisemitic murders. The Heaton Park synagogue was attacked simply because it contained Jews at worship. Why did it occur? That is the question that we should all ask. Why is our much-valued Jewish community on the island of Ireland and elsewhere in our nation in so much fear? It is because of the oldest hatred, that most insidious example of racism: the evil of antisemitism. It is the oldest sectarian trope in the world, and it has been given agency by those who march shouting support for a global intifada, the literal translation of which means the murder of all Jews everywhere. What does "from the river to the sea" mean, if it does not mean the death of every Jew in Israel? If you will not listen to my reason, listen to the words of the Chief Rabbi, Sir Ephraim Mirvis, about the Heaton Park synagogue attack: "For so long we have witnessed an unrelenting wave of Jew hatred on our streets, on campuses, on social media and elsewhere — this is the tragic result. This is not only an assault on the Jewish community, but an attack on the very foundations of humanity and the values of compassion, dignity and respect which we all share. ... I pray that this tragedy strengthens our collective resolve to confront antisemitism, in all its guises, once and for all." I hope for all our sakes that everybody takes heed, especially on this island, where the scourge of antisemitism is among the vilest anywhere. May we also never again have to hear the Jewish prayer of Kaddish, which is the prayer of the dead, said in our nation for the murder of our Jewish friends. However, until we recognise the disease of antisemitism that is endemic across these islands and take action to do something about it, I fear for the future, not just for the Jewish community but for all of us. Shalom. Mr O'Toole: Like others, I express my condolences to the families of Adrian Daulby and Melvin Cravitz, who were murdered at the Heaton Park Hebrew congregation in Manchester in the most grotesque and evil act of antisemitic hatred. There are, as the Member who spoke previously said, no words of context that mitigate, contextualise or justify what was unmitigated antisemitic hatred turned into a murderous act. Those words have to be absolute, complete and definitive. That act of hatred and evil was made worse by the fact that it happened on a holy day — the holiest day for people of the Jewish faith, Yom Kippur. In expressing condolences to the families of the immediate victims, let me also express my and my party's solidarity with the Jewish community in Manchester but also with the Jewish communities here in Northern Ireland, on the island of Ireland and across these islands. Let me say that we understand and acknowledge the real fear that they feel at the minute. It is real, and we will not minimise it. What we saw on Friday was utterly depraved. The evil of antisemitism is pernicious, timeless and has to be stood against, as all forms of hatred, racism, prejudice and Islamophobia must be stood against. It is important to say that there can be no context for the people who carried out that act. There is no cause that justifies or mitigates that appalling, depraved, evil act. It is also true that people are entitled to make criticisms and observations about what is happening in the world. The appalling events in Manchester should in no way be conflated, as one or two have done today — I do not want to get into that debate because it is not appropriate — with people standing against horrific events in another part of the world, because there is no justification or context for those evil acts. The Jewish community in Belfast is very small, and those people will, I am sure, feel vulnerable at this time, so let me say this clearly and personally to them: we hear you. You are part of our community. You are wanted, you are treasured and you are part of this city and this community. The acts on Friday were utterly repellent, and I am glad that we have had the opportunity to stand against them today. Mr Carroll: I want to say unequivocally that I totally and utterly condemn the disgraceful attack and the killing of two members of the Jewish community outside a synagogue in Manchester last week. Nobody should be killed in that manner but especially not as they are leaving a place of prayer and worship. People obviously feel frightened and under pressure, and I extend my solidarity to them. I also strongly suggest — this comes not from me but from Jewish groups in Britain and elsewhere — that people should refrain from suggesting or trying to tie all Jewish people to Israel. That is historically inaccurate, because not all Jewish people have always supported the creation of Israel, but, today, we see large contingents of Jewish people on demonstrations in America, Britain and Ireland who are against Israel and support the freedom of Palestinians, so it is important that people do not conflate the two, which would be, by definition, antisemitic in and of itself. We should also recognise where antisemitism comes from. Despite some of what we have heard today, antisemitism is a disgusting, poisonous, racist ideology that was created in Europe and was backed and funded by European believers in warped ideas about racism and racial hierarchies and stereotypes. People should not blame Muslims, people on the left or people standing against genocide for antisemitism. It is inaccurate, but it is also disgusting, frankly. I should also point out that is the far right and billionaire owners of the media —. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Gerry, can you return to the events in Manchester, please? Mr Carroll: Yes. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Mr Carroll: I will, Principal Deputy Speaker. I am not challenging you at all, but I am talking about antisemitism and where it comes from. We see modern elements of the right and far right —. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Gerry, I am asking you again, and, if you cannot do it, take your seat. Mr Carroll: I am talking about antisemitism, Principal Deputy Speaker. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Matter of the Day is about the events in Manchester and the impact on the Jewish community. [Inaudible.] Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: No, listen, do not be smart. If you cannot —. Mr Carroll: I am not being smart at all. I am talking about the issue —. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Take your seat. Mr Carroll: All right. OK. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Take your seat, OK? Mr Martin: First, I condemn the attack that resulted in such dreadful loss of life at the Manchester synagogue, which, as others have said, happened on Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar. I extend my thoughts and prayers to all the families who have lost loved ones. May their memory be a blessing. I have spoken to a couple of Jewish friends who live in Great Britain, and they are fearful but stoic about the situation that they face. They reflect that, given the marches over the last number of years and the increased hatred that they have faced, this is hardly surprising. I was in the synagogue earlier in the year and, at that point, the fear among Jewish folk living in Northern Ireland was already tangible. However, when you speak more widely to Jewish people — this is in complete contrast to what was said by Mr Carroll — they tell you that the threat that they face in the UK now is exclusively from the far left and Islamist groups. That comes directly from Jewish people. One of those groups organised a protest less than 12 hours after the attack on Thursday on the Manchester synagogue. During that protest, demonstrators clashed with police near Downing Street, and the 'Telegraph' reports that one gave a report that said: "I don’t give a f--- about the Jewish community". I therefore call on the Prime Minister to do more to protect this marginalised community, who live in such fear of attack that they need security guards to protect their schools and synagogues. I repeat that: they need security guards to protect their schools and synagogues, the elderly and children. That is standard for Jewish people living in Great Britain. I make it clear to any Jewish people listening that this party will always stand up for you and will always oppose the rise of antisemitism in this country. We will never abandon you. Shalom. Miss McAllister: Let us be clear from the very start: we all should and must condemn the attack that took place last week on the synagogue in Manchester. I put my thoughts with the families of the victims who were killed: Adrian Daulby and Melvin Cravitz. First and foremost, our thoughts must be with those families. However, I also want to express my sympathies to the serving officers on the ground on that day. I do not doubt that it was a difficult and intense situation that will leave lasting trauma. The attack on the Manchester synagogue on Yom Kippur is just horrific. It is about targeting not just one religion but all religions. It is an assault on the freedom of religion and all our shared values. It is not just the climate around this conversation that needs to be addressed but rather the issue of violence. It is never the answer, and it is never an excuse for anyone. My constituency, North Belfast, has the only remaining synagogue in Northern Ireland. The community is small, but it is mourning massively. Our thoughts are with those people today, as they also fear for their safety and future amid the toxic debate and culture when freedom of religion is attacked. I express again our solidarity not just with the Jewish people of Manchester but with all Jewish people who feel frightened in our society today. This could have been much worse. There could have been many more deaths. I pay tribute to all the emergency services that responded and thank them. It further highlights the importance of democracy and standing up for our shared values and beliefs. Hopefully we will not have this situation again. Top 1.00 pm Mr Brett: Representing North Belfast has many honours, but one of the greatest, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, is that we are the home of the Jewish community. As has been articulated by my colleague Mr Kingston, we have a proud record of supporting that small but important community. Just two weeks ago, I attended a packed event at the synagogue as the community raised money for important local causes and charities. One of the most shocking things about attending the synagogue was that there had to be police protection outside. The location of the fundraiser could not be released for fear of attack. Weekly, when our small but important Jewish community goes to carry out their acts of worship, they have to do so under the protection of security. If that were any other religion anywhere else in Northern Ireland, it would be a national disgrace. Political parties of all traditions and none would stand up weekly and call it out. However, it seems that the Jewish community gets support only when attacks like this take place. The local community has organised a vigil for 6.30 pm on Wednesday at the memorial on the Shore Road as an opportunity for everyone to come together to remember the victims of the attack but, more important, to show solidarity with that small but influential Jewish community. I am sure that the warm words in the Chamber today will be matched by action. I look forward to seeing all Members there on Wednesday evening. Mr Buckley: There is universal condemnation of what happened in Manchester. It was a horrific attack on a vulnerable community. We must set it in context: those people were murdered because of their religion. It is every community and every family's worst nightmare, and we are thankful that it did not result in further deaths. One of the most horrific aspects of what happened in Manchester is that, had it not been for the brave actions of one of the victims, who essentially barricaded the door, countless more deaths could have occurred. It is relevant to Northern Ireland because, regardless of our community background, we all know the trauma caused by terrorism. Many of our families have been affected by it. We know that actions taken in a moment can haunt and traumatise a family for years to come. As has been mentioned, we know the scars that many of Northern Ireland's law enforcement personnel continue to bear because of the things that they witnessed as a result of terrorism in Northern Ireland. We have a vulnerable Jewish community in Belfast. Anybody who takes the time to talk to them will understand their sense of vulnerability. They have been subject over many years to, in some cases, low-level antisemitic attacks and, in other cases, horrific forms of antisemitic behaviour. There have been headstones defiled, attacks on businesses and online antisemitic rhetoric directed at a small and vulnerable community. As has been mentioned, we stand in full solidarity with them not just today but in the days to come. I remind Members across the Chamber that, just because somebody is Jewish, that does not necessarily mean that they agree with the actions of the Israeli Government. Just like people in Northern Ireland, they can have all types of opinions, which they are entitled to hold, but they should never become the focus. They should never be drawn into what is, in many cases, antisemitic behaviour that spills out from what may have been, at the beginning, well-intentioned protest. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Your time is up, Jonathan. Mr Buckley: I encourage Members to understand that and stick to that principle. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Much appreciated; thank you. Members, please take your ease while we make a change at the top Table before Members' Statements. Assembly Business Mr Buckley: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I seek clarity from the Speaker's Office. The Business Committee allocates up to 30 minutes for Members' Statements. If a Member rises during that 30-minute time slot and there is still time remaining, will that Member be called or not? Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Jonathan, it is usually the process that lasts 30 minutes. That is why, at times, as you will have noticed — you might even have been subject to this — a Member might have only one minute, one and a half minutes or two minutes. While Members have up to a certain number of minutes in which to speak, we ask people to not go over that but to go under that. We, at the Table, try to get as many people in as possible, but the whole process lasts 30 minutes. If Members feel that they have not been called within the time, they should let the Speaker's Office know, and we will examine the Hansard report. Mr Buckley: Further to that point of order, for clarity, if a Member rises to their feet, and there is still time left in the 30 minutes, they would be called, but it might be for a shorter time under the 30 minutes. Is that right? Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That is what I have done in the past. If the Member is not content, he should go to the Speaker's Office with specifics, and we will look at the Hansard report. Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. In fact, I have two, but I will try to get them in briefly, and you can shut me down if I —. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sorry, Matthew. It is not two points of order. You either have a point of order, or you do not. Mr O'Toole: OK, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. On Thursday, I received a response to a question for written answer that I submitted in February 2024. I asked when a Programme for Government would be published. A draft Programme for Government was published in September last year, and it was finalised in March this year. Standing Orders provide that a written answer should be given within 10 days. It has taken 20 months. Will the Speaker's Office advise whether that is acceptable? Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I can advise. I will come back with advice. Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Your first point was not a point of order, but you have put the issue on the record. Will you make sure that your second is — Mr O'Toole: It was under Standing Orders. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: — actually a point of order. Mr O'Toole: With the greatest of respect, it is in Standing Orders, so I think that it was in order to ask that question. My second point of order relates to the Executive legislation programme, which came out via email to Members of the Assembly on Friday. It is supposed to be the legislation programme for what is left of this year and next year. Given what the Speaker has said about statements being brought to the Assembly, it is highly unacceptable that it was emailed to us with no oral statement from the First Minister and deputy First Minister. Will the Speaker's Office advise on whether it is comfortable with such an important document being emailed to Members on a Friday as if it were correspondence about a lunch event? Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: First, I will go back to your first point of order. Just because something is in the Standing Orders does not give you the right to use whatever Standing Order it is to try to make a point. Your point is on the record. Secondly, in relation to the statement, Ministers should come to the House. It is my understanding that the First Minister and deputy First Minister have tabled a motion, which was circulated to you last week. I assume that you missed that. I ask Members to take their ease. Mr Gaston: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Further to your response to Mr Buckley, I signalled a number of times to get in to speak on the Matter of the Day regarding Gaza. I believe that we were well within the 30 minutes. Will you clarify to the House that you chose not to call me to speak, even though time remained? Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I will clarify to the House. I asked you on three occasions to take your seat, and I advised you that there would be consequences. I did not call you, and I was not going to do so until I got advice. It has happened with you and me before. You have shown continual disrespect, particularly to me. It is not about me; it is about the Chair and what it represents. I believe that you have disrespected the office of Speaker. On that basis, I did not call you, and I told you that there would be consequences. I am going back to get further advice, and when I get it, I will decide whether it is appropriate to share it with you. Mr Gaston, today's Hansard report will show that I asked you on at least three occasions to desist, and you did not. I felt that you were very disrespectful. On that basis, I decided that you should not be called to speak on something. Thank you. Mr Carroll: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I do not think that I have ever challenged your ruling or been disrespectful — passionate, probably, but disrespectful, I do not think so — but may I have some clarity? I was trying to connect the issue of the attack on the Jewish synagogue in Manchester to the issue of antisemitism. Like other Members, I believe that the two are connected, so I tried to give some explanation for that. Can you advise me, now or later, in order to keep me right, on how they are not connected? Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I can advise you, Gerry. I knew that you were trying to talk about the ugliness of antisemitism. I felt that you had done that, but you kept on, and I asked you to return to the subject. I tried to give everybody the same latitude, but, when I felt that people were pushing it, I called them out. To be frank, I felt that you were pushing it. You were not being disrespectful, but, when I asked you to return to the subject, you did not, so I moved on. I said before each Matter of the Day that I would do that. I am not saying that you did this, Gerry, but it is very disappointing that, when such matters come to the House, particularly on the first sitting of the week after such horrendous times for people, some Members choose to score political points. That is regrettable. I will move on. Members, take your ease. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Blair] in the Chair) Members' Statements Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): If Members wish to be called to make a statement, they should indicate that by rising in their place. Those who are called will have up to three minutes in which to speak. I remind Members that interventions are not permitted, and I will not take points of order on this or any other matter until the item of business is finished. Brain Cancer: Research, Funding and Access to Care Mr Dickson: As Members will be aware, I chair the all-party group (APG) on cancer. Today, I bring the House's attention to a cancer that desperately needs our focus: brain cancer. I will tell you about Rachael, who is in the Public Gallery. Rachael is just 23 years old and the mother of a two-year-old. Last year, she was diagnosed with an inoperable brain tumour. She has already outlived her initial prognosis yet continues to endure distressing and debilitating symptoms. Despite that, Rachael and her family have chosen not to remain silent but, rather, to campaign for change. On her behalf, I therefore ask Members to sign the United Kingdom Government and Parliament petition on brain cancer. I will send the link to all Members after I have made my statement. Rachael's call is not only urgent but justified. Brain tumours are the biggest cancer killer of children and of adults under the age of 40 in the United Kingdom. They kill more men under 70 than prostate cancer, more women under 35 than breast cancer and more children than leukaemia. Every day, 33 people in the United Kingdom will be diagnosed with a brain tumour, and over 5,000 will die from one each year. Brain cancer is indiscriminate, affecting anyone at any age. There is no preventative measure and little benefit from early detection. Without research, funding and innovation, brain tumours will remain a death sentence for many. Overall cancer death rates have fallen by 20% in recent decades, but that is not the case for brain cancer. The United Kingdom now ranks close to the bottom of the list of wealthy nations for five-year survival rates, while, interestingly, Ireland is in the top five. We must ask why that is, because the situation in the UK is simply unacceptable. Between 2018 and 2022, more than 800 people in Northern Ireland were diagnosed with brain tumours, which is an average of 160 a year. Survival rates have barely improved, however. Top 1.15 pm Our Health Minister has a duty to act. We need a cancer care strategy that treats brain tumours not as an afterthought but as a priority. We need to end the lottery for rehabilitation and psychological support, so that survival is not only about extending life but about ensuring quality of life. We need to support Brainwaves, Northern Ireland's only voluntary brain tumour research and support charity. What steps will the Minister take to prioritise brain cancer and tackle waiting times, which cost lives? How will he ensure that people can access cancer trials despite continual hold-ups to clinical trial sign-offs? What plan will he bring forward to overcome barriers that deny patients equal access to care and support? This is about people such as Rachael, her two-year-old child and families across Northern Ireland. They deserve more than our sympathy; they deserve action. Brain tumours are among the most devastating forms of cancer, yet that area remains underfunded, under-researched and misunderstood. Without investment in research, brain tumours will continue to be a death sentence. It is time to end delays to funding, diagnosis and treatment. Research and prompt treatment paths offer the only real hope for transforming survival — Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up. Mr Dickson: — and quality of life. Comhairle Cathrach Bhéal Feirste: Beartas Gaeilge Ms Reilly: D’aontaigh Comhairle Cathrach Bhéal Feirste beartas nua Gaeilge an tseachtain seo caite. Is é is aidhm don bheartas cearta Gaeilgeoirí a neartú agus infheictheacht na teanga a mhéadú ar fud na cathrach. Tá Ghaeilge agam ón chliabhán. D’fhreastail mé ar scoil lánGhaeilge. D’oibrigh mé in earnáil na Gaeilge, agus úsáidim Gaeilge gach uile lá. Is Gaeilgeoir fosta é mo nia. Tá sé ceithre bliana d’aois. Is mór idir an saol a bhí agamsa mar Ghael óg agus an saol a bheidh ag mo nia, agus a bhuíochas sin ar an obair a rinne Sinn Féin agus páirtithe eile, ar an obair a rinne grúpaí agus gníomhaithe teanga, orainne uile a tháinig amach ar na sráideanna — ar ghrúpaí a throid go dian, sa Teach seo, i gcomhairlí áitiúla, agus i ngrúpaí pobail — dá thairbhe sin, fásfaidh mo nia aníos i sochaí ina n-aithneofar agus ina mbeidh meas ar a theanga. Ar an drochuair, i ndiaidh an chinneadh sin a ghlacadh, rinneadh bagairt ar áiseanna de chuid Chomhairle Cathrach Bhéal Feirste. Ba cheart na bagairtí a rinne grúpaí paraimíleata dílseoirí inné a cháineadh go soiléir neamhbhalbh. Ní mór do cheannairí polaitíochta seasamh le chéile i gcoinne na mbagairtí sin, go huile agus go hiomlán. Ní bagairt í an Ghaeilge. Ní bagairt é an comhionannas. Is cinneadh stairiúil é cinneadh na Comhairle, cinneadh dearfach. Thiocfadh le beartas Chomhairle Cathrach Bhéal Feirste a bheith ar cheann de na beartais teanga is forásaí ar an oileán seo. Is tiomantas é do chearta Gaeilgeoirí, d’fhorbairt ár bpobail, agus do theanga atá mar chuid den oidhreacht chomhchoiteann againn a chur chun cinn. Is cúis dóchais é comhaontú na comhairle. Tá an beartas ina chéim chun tosaigh, céim i dtreo Béal Feirste a thugann daoine le chéile, cathair ina ndéantar an Ghaeilge a chaomhnú agus a cheiliúradh. Belfast City Council: Irish Language Policy [Translation: Last week, Belfast City Council approved a new Irish language policy. The goal of the policy is to strengthen the rights of Irish speakers and to raise the language’s visibility across the city. I have spoken Irish since I could walk. I attended an Irish-medium school. I have worked in the sector, and I use Irish every day. My four-year-old nephew is also an Irish speaker. Thanks to the work of Sinn Féin and other parties, of Irish language groups and activists and of all of us who marched on the streets — groups that have fought tooth and nail in the House, in local councils and in community groups — my experience as a young Gael and my nephew’s experience will be vastly different. He will grow up in a society in which his language is acknowledged, recognised and respected. Unfortunately, after the council’s decision, threats were made against Belfast City Council facilities. The threats made by loyalist paramilitary groups yesterday should be clearly and unequivocably condemned. Political leaders must stand united in their opposition to such threats and make no bones about it. The Irish language is not a threat. Equality is not a threat. The council’s decision is historic. Belfast City Council’s policy could be one of the most progressive on this island. It is a commitment to the rights of Irish speakers, the growth of our community and the promotion of a language that is part of our shared heritage. The council’s agreement offers hope. The policy is a step forward towards a more inclusive Belfast, a city where Irish is preserved and celebrated.] Belfast City Council: Irish Language Policy Mr Brett: In Belfast, household and business rates continue to soar, our city centre looks like a bomb site, and our basic services cannot be delivered. Instead of addressing those issues, however, the parties opposite thought that it would be a good idea to commit at least £1·9 million of hard-pressed taxpayers', ratepayers' and businesses' money to enforcing a divisionary and discriminatory Irish language policy. Not content with enforcing unwanted signage in residential streets across our city, the council's latest act has been to target council facilities and staff uniforms. Despite a survey of Belfast City Council staff members showing that the majority of staff oppose the introduction of bilingual signage to their place of work or branding on their uniform, the parties opposite united to vote down a DUP amendment at last week's council meeting. Fear not for those staff, however, because, page 4 of the 19-page policy document that was agreed by those parties states: "The Council will provide ... cultural awareness training" to staff members. This, clearly, is not Northern Ireland; it is North Korea. If a member of staff disagrees with the policy to wear Irish language-branded uniform, they will be sent on cultural awareness training. Do you think that householders across Belfast, who pay hundreds of pounds on rates each month, want to see their rates spent on that? Do businesses in the Tribeca area, which see the city centre collapsing around them, want to see the thousands of pounds that they spend monthly spent on that? The political commentary around it is that unionists should not feel intimidated or aggrieved. Let me be very clear: Sinn Féin, the SDLP and the Alliance Party do not get to tell unionists and the people whom we represent how to feel. The policy is utter discrimination. That is why we, along with our colleagues in the Ulster Unionist Party and the TUV, have called it in. We will bring it to court. We will ensure that there is equality in Belfast. The unionist minority in Belfast will not sit down and be quiet in the corner as some of the parties here expect us to be. Maternity Leave Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Kate Nicholl. Welcome back. Ms Nicholl: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I feel as though I have been here for months now after this morning. It is 2025, and I stand here as the first MLA to have taken proper maternity leave. New rules that allow proxy voting and maternity staff cover came in just before I went off. That support simply did not exist when I had my second child, Étaín. Back then, I had just finished my term as Lord Mayor of Belfast and had been elected to the Assembly, which was suspended. Even though we were not passing legislation or scrutinising in Committees, we were all still busy with casework in our constituency offices. There is a picture of me with Étaín, who is a week and a half old, and I am wearing her in a baby carrier. Back then, I wore that as a badge of honour because I had gone back to work so quickly, as though I were saying, "Look how dedicated I am to my job". It is only now that I see that, actually, I was undermining the importance of maternity leave. I feel so sad when I see that picture for Étaín, for me and for any mother whom I unwittingly put pressure on to feel that it was normal. Maternity leave matters. It matters for mums, babies and families, and it benefits society by promoting equality and helping women to stay in the workforce. Too many women face impossible choices between career and family. So much of that is due to the cost of childcare. That really has to change. Six months ago, my husband, Fergal, and I welcomed our beautiful baby boy, Dara. It is his first day at day care today, and my first day back at work. I am a little sad about it, I have to say. Rather than wearing the badge of honour of going back to work really early, this time I wear the badge of honour of focusing on my child and on me. I thank my amazing team, particularly Curtis Irvine, who held everything together. I also thank colleagues in the Chamber. So many people reached out to me from across the political spectrum to check on us. It was greatly appreciated. It has reminded me that caring is not a distraction from leadership; it is part of what makes us better at it. I hope that any woman MLA feels empowered to take whatever time they need when the time comes. I hope that more women see that you can have a young family and a career in politics, because, when our institutions reflect real life, we make better decisions for real people. I am back, Mr Deputy Speaker, and more motivated than ever to work on the issues that really impact on family life: childcare, the cost of living and opportunities for the next generation. Those are the issues that unite us and that we can work on together. While I miss Dara so much today and feel really sad about it — Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up. Ms Nicholl: — I know that, if we are working for him, it is worth it. Jim Dixon: Enniskillen Bomb Survivor Mr Burrows: I acknowledge the passing last Thursday of Jim Dixon, who was the most seriously injured survivor of the Enniskillen bomb. Jim Dixon died aged 88. That bomb, which was detonated on 8 November 1987, murdered 11 people and injured over 60. I will read into the record what Jim Dixon said to the 'Belfast Telegraph' in 2009 when he described his injuries that day: "I suffer horrendously every day, life is a living hell for me. My skull was fractured in a number of areas. My eyes were sitting down on my cheeks when the doctors found me. They had to put my eyes back into place. My mouth was blown out. My jaw was missing on the right hand said. I was split open nine inches from my chin to my ear. My face and tongue were paralysed. I had nine broken ribs. My pelvis, two hips and one leg were smashed. Three surgeons told me I wouldn’t live. It’s a miracle I survived. The time I spent in hospital was horrendous. I was in intensive care for a very long time." Mr Dixon was an innocent victim, and the people who committed that terrible atrocity were victim makers and can never be described as victims. I do not want to politic about the pain and misery that people have lived in and the death and destruction that was inflicted on the people of Northern Ireland, but I take incredibly seriously my responsibility never to let history be rewritten, including by some people in the Chamber. Those who went out to murder and maim, whether they were loyalists or republicans, were victim makers. The people who were blown up, bereaved, widowed and orphaned were the victims. We will never remove the word "innocent" from the front of the title "innocent victim", and we will never play into a narrative, no matter how persistently it is propagated. The people who committed those terrible atrocities were wrong. I was glad to condemn the terrible attack on Liz Kimmins's office. I find it difficult that, in a democracy today, having heard the words of Jim Dixon, there are people who sit in the Chamber, whose words matter to young people, who cannot simply say, "That was wrong. There was an alternative, and we are deeply shamed about what we did to the people of Northern Ireland". Manchán Magan Mr Durkan: Tá meirg ar mo chuid Gaeilge, ach, mar a deirtear, is fearr Gaeilge bhriste ná Béarla cliste, agus déanfaidh mé mo dhícheall anois. Is le croí trom a labhraím inniu faoi bhás Mhancháin Magan, scríbhneoir, iriseoir agus fíorurlabhraí ar son na teanga agus ar son an dúlra. Ní hé amháin gur scríobh sé faoin Ghaeilge agus faoin dúlra, is amhlaidh a mhair sé iad. Bhí sé ina ghuth acu sin nach raibh guth acu agus ina sholas acu sin a tháinig roimhe agus a thiocfaidh ina dhiaidh. Mar a dúirt sé féin: "Níl muid scartha ón talamh ná ó chéile. Is leanúnachas beo sinn ar na daoine a tháinig romhainn agus beatha na ndaoine a thiocfas inár ndiaidh." Is focail iad sin ba chóir dúinn a choinneáil beo inár gcroí agus inár ngníomhartha. Tá Éire níos boichte inniu gan é ach níos saibhre mar gheall ar a rian. Go ndéana Dia trócaire ar a anam uasal. [Translation: My Irish is rusty, but it is said that broken Irish is better than eloquent English, so I will now do my best. It is with a heavy heart that I speak today about the death of Manchán Magan, writer, journalist and advocate for the Irish language and for the environment. He did more than write about the language and the environment: he lived them. He was a voice for the voiceless and an inspiration for those who came before him and those who will come after him. As he said himself: "We are not separated from the land nor from one another. We are part of a living continuum of those who came before us and of those who will come after us." Those are words that we should keep in our hearts and in our deeds. Ireland is the poorer without him but richer for his work. May God have mercy on his noble soul.] Belfast City Council: Irish Language Policy Mr Gaston: Last week, we saw another stage in the ongoing process of the erosion of and, indeed, the attack on one identity in Northern Ireland for the promotion of another. I refer, of course, to the decision by Belfast City Council to impose a radical Irish language policy across our capital city. Once again, those who preach tolerance and equality have found themselves on the same side as Sinn Féin, giving no thought to those they refuse to tolerate and those they deliberately exclude. Having joined hands with republicans in 2012 to tear down the Union flag from City Hall, Sinn Féin's little helpers in the Alliance Party once again aligned themselves with republicans, this time to impose Irish citywide. Just a week earlier, in the House, Alliance backed an amendment, which was tabled by a convicted IRA bomber, to strip the word "innocent" from a motion about victims. That amendment removed the distinction between the Shankill bomber, who took his own life, and the nine innocent people whom he murdered. A Justice Minister who cannot distinguish between a victim and a victim-maker is a Justice Minister who should be shown the door, yet the TUV's motion of no confidence in Minister Long sits in the Assembly's Business Office, signed only by me. I ask myself, "Why?". To rebuke Mr Clarke: Mr Clarke, it is no stunt; it does exactly what the DUP has failed to do; it puts an action to the DUP's empty rhetoric. Top 1.30 pm Then, there is the wider issue of the Irish language across Northern Ireland. Even as the issue plays out, the DUP and Sinn Féin are engaged in appointing an Irish Language Commissioner — a person who will enforce the language across the public sector in every corner of Northern Ireland. If reports are correct, Pól Deeds will be appointed. We know from the evidence that he presented to the Executive Office Committee in Stormont that he is a fanatic. He is already on record as saying that even the sweeping legislation does not go far enough. There is no point in attacking Alliance on victims' issues while maintaining the Alliance leader in office. To the DUP — Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Gaston. Mr Gaston — Mr Gaston: — you cannot criticise Belfast City Council — Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Gaston, a pattern is emerging — Mr Gaston: — while recruiting an Irish language enforcer — Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Gaston, when the Speaker gets to their feet, you desist from speaking and you resume your seat. Any pattern-setting that has happened today — as I witnessed earlier when I was on the Back-Benches — will not be carried on into this setting. There is a standard and a guideline that Members' statements are on a topical matter — not matters, plural, Mr Gaston. There is an even clearer guideline that there will not be a direct attack on a Member or Members. Cycling Ireland Mr McGuigan: Last week, Cycling Ireland sent a team of 20 junior and under-23 riders to France for the European Road Cycling Championships. They all represented themselves and this nation exceptionally well. I put on record special congratulations to Conor Murphy, who won silver in the junior time-trial event; David Gaffney, who won bronze in the junior road-race event; and Edendork's Adam Rafferty, who won bronze in the under-23 time trial. All those results were achieved against the best cyclists in Europe. The European Championships came a week after the Road World Championships in Rwanda, where the Irish team helped Ben Healy to win bronze — our first medal in cycling at that level since 1989. As a cycling fan, I am well aware of Tadej Pogacar and Remco Evenepoel — two of the greatest athletes, not just cyclists, of this generation — who came first and second respectively, so, for Ben Healy to come third is an exceptional achievement. All of that has come after a wonderful season for professional Irish cyclists. Seven male and three female riders have excelled at world tour level, representing Ireland at races such as the Giro d'Italia, the Tour de France, the Tour de France Femmes and the Vuelta a España, as well as the many one-day cycling classics across Italy, France and Belgium. I pay special tribute to Mia Griffin, Fiona Mangan and Lara Gillespie, who, this year, became the first three Irish cyclists to take part in the Tour de France Femmes. Irish cycling is in a great place. I am old enough to remember the golden generation of Sean Kelly and Stephen Roche, and that is where we are at once again. I not only put on record the achievements of all those Irish cyclists, which they have earned as a result of dedication and hard work — they are doing this nation proud — but acknowledge that those achievements provide a road map to allow others to dream of following suit by representing their nation and to aspire to emulate their heroes at that level one day. Again, I congratulate all of those who have been representing this nation at World Tour and world professional cycle races across Europe this season. Jim Dixon: Enniskillen Bomb Survivor Mr T Buchanan: It was with sadness last Thursday that I learned of the passing of Mr Jim Dixon, a well-known, highly respected businessman from Enniskillen. At the outset, I tender my deepest sympathies to his wife, Anna, and daughters Suzanne, Sharon and Serena and their respective families. I trust that they will find the needed grace and strength from the God of all comfort in the days to come. As most will know, Jim was seriously injured in an IRA bomb attack on 8 November 1987 while in attendance at the Poppy Day wreath-laying service at the cenotaph in Enniskillen. Unknown to Jim, he was only 10 feet away from the no-warning explosion that killed 11 people, injured more than 60 and left many others, including women and children, traumatised to this day. Let us not forget that that was an atrocity and that the First Minister stated that there was no alternative to that type of action. I ask the House to reflect on that statement. Jim was the most seriously injured person to survive the bombing that day and was told by three surgeons that he would not survive due to the extent of his injuries. In 2009, recalling his injuries in the 'Belfast Telegraph', Jim said: "My skull was fractured in a number of areas. My eyes were sitting down on my cheeks when the doctors found me. They had to put my eyes back into place. My mouth was blown out. My jaw was missing on the right hand side. I was split open nine inches from my chin to my ear. My face and tongue were paralysed. I had nine broken ribs. My pelvis, two hips and one leg were smashed." I know that that was said earlier today, but it bore repetition. What horrendous injuries he suffered as an innocent victim of IRA terrorism. Those who carried out that atrocity are not victims, but victim makers. The House needs to be clear on that. Amid all of his suffering, it was Jim Dixon's faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as his personal saviour that gave him strength, wisdom and compassion and bore testimony to great Christian values and fortitude throughout the next 38 years of his life, during which he never had a day without pain or suffering. For Jim, his suffering is over — he is now with his Saviour — but, one day, there will be no hiding place for those who carried out the atrocity. We are reminded in the word of God that: "Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." Ruby's Law Ms Sugden: I rise to speak about the Ruby's law campaign. Ruby's law seeks to close a serious gap in our legal system, one that, too often, leaves victims of domestic abuse facing an impossible choice between their own safety and the safety of their pets. At present, our law treats animals as property. In domestic abuse cases, that means that a pet can be used as a tool of control that can be threatened, harmed or withheld to intimidate a partner to stop them leaving. Those working in the area will tell you that it happens much more often than people realise. Some victims remain in dangerous situations because they fear what will happen to their animals if they leave. Ruby's law would change that. It would allow our courts to include pets in non-molestation and occupation orders, recognising them as part of the household and ensuring their protection when a person seeks safety. It would also create clearer routes for emergency fostering or temporary care when someone has to leave home urgently. It is not just about animal welfare; it is about human welfare and closing another avenue of coercive control. Where animals are at risk, people are often at risk too, and that link has been proven. In England and Wales, the Ruby's law campaign has already prompted serious consideration of changes to the Family Law Act 1996 to allow courts to protect pets through non-molestation and occupation orders. Westminster has already passed the Pet Abduction Act 2024, which recognises animals as sentient beings, rather than mere property, under theft law. That is a significant step forward in how the law views the bond between people and their animals. Across the UK, police guidance on coercive control already acknowledges threats or harm to pets as a recognised form of abuse. The Republic of Ireland has begun to examine that connection as well. Research has shown that over half of women using refuge services reported harm or threats to their pets as part of domestic abuse. In my constituency, Causeway Coast Dog Rescue has been leading the conversation, not just locally but across the UK, by highlighting the realities and calling for legislative change. Its work has given a voice to victims who have stayed silent out of fear of what would happen to their animals if they left without them. Ruby's law is about recognising that link and saying clearly that abuse in whatever form it takes will not be tolerated and that the justice system will respond to the full reality of coercive control. I urge the Executive, through the Minister of Justice, to bring forward the reform and to engage directly with those who have been campaigning for it. It is a practical and compassionate change that would make a real difference. Northern Ireland should protect the vulnerable in every sense of the word. If we bring in the law, our laws will reflect the realities behind closed doors. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Nick Mathison. You have two minutes. Education Authority: Notice of School Closures Mr Mathison: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will speak today about the problems that schools, pupils and parents faced as a result of the handling by the Education Authority (EA) of school closures arising from Storm Amy. Everyone here will agree that pupil and staff safety on school premises is key, but the timeline for arriving at the school closure announcements on Friday caused unnecessary pressure to come to bear on school leaders and parents. Despite an amber weather warning being in place from 1 October, schools began to receive contact about closures only on the day of the storm, at a point at which kids were already in school, parents were already at work and the school day had started. School leaders simply needed time to manage the closures. I understand that not every weather event affords them that time, but, in this case, we had ample notice, so it is hard to understand why a call was not made the previous day so that schools had time to plan and communicate clearly and effectively, also allowing parents to plan. The breaking down of the closures by county created confusion. Parents were uncertain whether Belfast was included, and, despite the Met Office's weather warning map not covering all of County Antrim, the EA's closure had a blanket effect. That could have been avoided by earlier and clearer communications. To add to that, some communications on transport and meal provision did not land until the closure time of noon was imminent, with mixed messaging coming from different EA departments. There were further delays in information about transport and meal provision arriving on social media. Again, all of that could have been avoided had early decisions been taken on the previous day in order to allow our schools to prepare. I could go through a timeline of the pressures that school leaders faced in trying to manage the situation. They were receiving contact on all fronts: from social media, from school apps, from phone calls to the office and from parents at the door. They also had to manage their staff's childcare needs on the day. In short, we have an efficient, timely weather warning system in place. The EA had time to utilise it and give proper notice. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Mathison, your time is up. Mr Mathison: I hope that lessons are learned for the next time. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): That concludes the time for Members' statements. Committee Business Committee Membership Resolved: That Mr Jon Burrows be appointed as a member of the Public Accounts Committee. — [Mr Butler.] Ministerial Statement Disability and Work Strategy Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Speaker has received notice from the Minister for Communities that he wishes to make a statement. Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that they must be concise in asking their questions. This is not an opportunity for debate, and long introductions will not be allowed. Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): I will make a statement to the Assembly on my plans to bring forward a new disability and work strategy for Northern Ireland. Disability influences lives in many unique and personal ways, and the issues that disabled people face can be complex and intersectional. Given that one in four working-age people in Northern Ireland is disabled, few of us are untouched by disability, yet many disabled people and people with health conditions face multiple barriers that can lead to poverty, social exclusion, inequality and disadvantage, among a range of other challenges. Employment can offer a means to help address and overcome many of the challenges faced, yet, despite the representation of disability across society, only 41% of disabled people in Northern Ireland are in work. That is the worst figure in the UK. Top 1.45 pm Furthermore, disabled people who are in employment tend to occupy lower-quality jobs, earn less and find it harder to progress in their careers. Put simply, Northern Ireland’s performance in disability employment has not been good enough. I want us to do better. I am, therefore, bringing forward a new disability and work strategy for Northern Ireland. Co-produced by a wide range of partners, including those with lived experience of disability, the strategy sets out a clear commitment to see an additional 50,000 disabled people in the workforce by 2036 and a disability employment rate of 50% and growing. That will ensure that more disabled people and people with health conditions have access to, can sustain, and can thrive in quality employment in an inclusive Northern Ireland labour market. The work intersects with a range of strategic agendas, such as the Executive's anti-poverty strategy, the skills strategy, the autism and mental health strategies and the review of special educational needs provision. Of course, it also aligns with our forthcoming Executive disability strategy, which I plan to bring forward in the coming weeks. In co-producing the strategy, we have placed people with lived experience of disability at the centre, involving them at every stage to ensure that we have identified and shaped the change needed to achieve better outcomes. We have a wealth of experience in our voluntary and community sector, which has delivered close support to disabled people for many years. The sector's insight and value cannot be overstated, alongside the contributions of all partners across the disability and work agenda. We have worked with a diverse group of over 100 stakeholders, including disabled people, community and voluntary organisations, employers and their representative bodies, central and local government, academics and trade unions, each contributing their views, experiences and priorities to help inform and shape the strategy and its actions. That partnership working will continue as we move forward through detailed design, implementation and monitoring of interventions. The strategy is constructed around four themes. Under a personalised support theme, the strategy recognises that each person has unique circumstances, needs and ambitions when it comes to work. So much good work is already being delivered by many dedicated and expert individuals across our disability and work ecosystem. The theme aims to build on those foundations to ensure that we meet the diverse needs of disabled people, whether through light-touch interventions or through more specialised, long-term and ongoing interventions such as the supported employment model. Our support must work for everyone. We will achieve that by having more and better engagement by our front-line teams; by identifying improvements and ensuring stability in our pre-employment and in-work supports; and by further integrating health and employability provision to create clear employment pathways for disabled people, working closely with the Department of Health. Under a second theme of inclusive skills, careers and educational transitions, we will ensure that skills provision and careers advice is accessible and tailored, that support is available for those who wish to pursue self-employment and that young people with special educational needs are supported during key educational transition points as they begin their employment journeys. We will continue to work closely with the Department of Education, the Department for the Economy and wider partners in the space to ensure a joined-up approach that removes cliff edges and delivers continuous support. The strategy's third theme focuses on supporting and enabling employers. While employers play a crucial role in the agenda, we need to recognise that they, too, need support to help them to shape our workplace cultures and employment practices and contribute to more disabled people finding, sustaining and flourishing in employment. We will advocate for the benefits of disability employment, help build employer awareness of best practice and make it easier to navigate and benefit from the support available. We want to see workplaces where disabilities and health conditions can be disclosed with confidence and where line managers are supported to respond to the needs of their staff effectively. The fourth and final theme consists of a range of actions that are deemed to be strategic and structural enablers. The theme enhances partnership working, drives and informs our activity, sets out commitments related to the public sector leading by example and delivers clear reporting and monitoring of progress under the strategy. For the first time in our history, we are proposing a disability and work council for Northern Ireland, which will have oversight of delivery against our commitments. It will be tasked with coordinating and supporting delivery, engaging with disabled people and employers and co-producing interventions. Its membership will comprise a wide representation of expert partners, and, alongside my Department, it will be jointly chaired by a disabled person. During the lifetime of the strategy, its delivery will be continuously monitored, with annual progress reports and a midpoint review to ensure that we are responsive to any wider influences and opportunities that may arise. Today, I am launching a 12-week public consultation on the disability and work strategy. The wide-ranging conversation with society provides an opportunity for everyone to contribute their views and highlight any areas that can be strengthened further. As part of the process, we will host a series of roadshow events, and documents will be available in a range of accessible formats to make it as easy as possible for everyone to contribute to the consultation. I will take a moment to stress the need for adequate resources to implement the strategy. Disability employment is not a challenge that my Department can solve in isolation. We have worked closely across the Departments to commit to actions under the strategy, and the Executive have given their endorsement, but, without additional resources to implement actions, we will not see the important changes that we all want to see or the wider positive impacts on economic inactivity, poverty, health and well-being, social inclusion and our economy. Our forthcoming three-year Budget provides the opportunity to kick-start the momentum. I intend to include the resourcing requirements for the strategy in my departmental bid, and I encourage other action owners to do the same. It is essential that the resourcing bids are met in full, or we risk continuing to see many disabled people excluded from the labour market and deprived of the opportunity to fulfil their career ambitions. The support of my Executive colleagues and Members of the Assembly is essential to secure the necessary resources to deliver the strategy in full. I sincerely thank everyone across the disability and work ecosystem who has contributed to the development of the strategy. Your insight, experience and commitment have shaped a vision that is ambitious, inclusive and achievable. To disabled people and those with health conditions across Northern Ireland, I say this: I see your talent, your drive and your aspirations. The strategy is about matching your ambitions with real opportunities and creating the conditions for you to thrive, not just survive, in the workplace. You deserve nothing less. No single person or organisation owns disability or employment. Real change will come only when we work together as government, employers, the voluntary and community sector and society as a whole, sharing the responsibility and pushing each other to go further. In bringing forward the strategy, I am committing to action. We will build on what works, change what does not and ensure that every disabled person has a fair chance to access, sustain and progress in quality employment. It is not just a strategy; it is a promise: a promise of progress, partnership and possibility. Together, we will deliver change that is felt in workplaces, communities and lives. Let us get it done, and let us make a difference. I commend the statement to the House. Mr Durkan: The disability and work strategy is an extremely important piece of work. I hope that the co-design is meaningful and that disabled people and the representative organisations are listened to and heard, unlike many of those involved in the co-design process for the anti-poverty strategy. Minister, you called this a "promise", but you said that it can be kept only with the support of your Executive colleagues and Members of the Assembly to secure the necessary resources to deliver the strategy in full. What are the necessary resources to deliver the strategy in full? Mr Lyons: I do not want to jump ahead of the consultation process that will take place. It is the same as with the anti-poverty strategy, which he mentioned: we genuinely want to hear from people about what they want to prioritise and what, they think, should be put in that may not be in there yet. I give this commitment: I will fund everything that I am able to fund. I have already set aside funding and made bids for some of the actions that I can take. That is why I believe that it will make a difference. Some of it will require investment, but we will get a return on some of that investment as well. Much of it is also about a culture change that we need to see. I will make sure that I put the funding in place, and I call on Executive colleagues to do the same not just because we will get that economic and financial return on it but because of the difference that it will make not just to the lives of disabled people across Northern Ireland but to wider society and to employers, who will have the opportunity to open themselves up to that incredible talent pool which, right now, is not being accessed. Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): I thank the Minister for the statement on this very important work. I really welcome some of the elements of it, particularly the strong co-production and co-design that is woven through it and the Minister's commitment to extensive engagement through the consultation. I also thank the Minister's officials for briefing the Committee on this important work. One of the things that I am most pleased about is the inclusion of targets. That would have improved the anti-poverty strategy. The target that I will ask about is that of 50,000 additional disabled people in work by 2036. How was that figure arrived at? What modelling or evidence underpins its feasibility? Mr Lyons: That was a topic of extensive debate during the co-production process with those involved. That figure was landed at because people believe that it is ambitious but achievable. It takes us up to where the rest of the UK is. I want to remove the disability employment gap entirely and ensure that everybody has the opportunity to thrive in work, but we have to be realistic about what is achievable. It is an ambitious target: for context, an additional 50,000 people in work is the equivalent of everybody in the Civil Service and the entirety of those working in the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust. That shows how ambitious the target is. It is something that those involved in the process were very supportive of. I highlight to the Member that there will be annual reports and that midpoint review five years in. If that target needs to be changed, it is certainly something that we are happy to look at. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Minister and Members, as you are aware, Question Time will begin at 2.00 pm. Questions on the statement will resume after the question for urgent oral answer this afternoon, and the next Member to be called will be David Brooks. Members should take their ease while there is a change at the Table. The business stood suspended. Top 2.00 pm (Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair) Oral Answers to Questions The Executive Office Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Question 13 has been withdrawn. HIA Redress Scheme 1. Ms Egan asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on securing contributions from religious orders and institutions towards the financial redress scheme and specialist support services for victims and survivors of historical institutional abuse. (AQO 2461/22-27) Mrs Little-Pengelly (The deputy First Minister): Victims and survivors of historical institutional abuse (HIA) have endured unimaginable pain and suffering over many years. We are committed to ensuring that they get the redress that they deserve. Payments have been received from the Good Shepherd Sisters, Barnardo’s, the De La Salle order and the Diocese of Down and Connor in respect of the De La Salle-run homes. Engagement with those institutions will continue in order to finalise their contributions. Constructive discussions are ongoing with the Irish Church Missions, the Sisters of Nazareth and the Sisters of St Louis. Details of the amounts received will be published once the process is complete. Ms Egan: I thank the deputy First Minister for her answer. What learning is your Department taking from the process with regard to securing contributions for support services and redress for those impacted by mother-and-baby institutions, Magdalene laundries and workhouses? Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. It is incredibly important that we learn everything that we can from this process and roll that forward. There have been some significant successes in the process across many areas. I would have liked the institutions to have stepped up to make contributions earlier, but we are where we are, and we continue to work with those institutions. The Member is absolutely right: there is a lot of commonality in the issues of HIA and those of mother-and-baby homes. We are acutely aware not just of the importance of contributions from the institutions in light of their part in the harms that were caused but of the strong message that it sends about an acknowledgement of wrongdoing by those institutions. Such an investment is required to support people with redress and, as you rightly pointed out, for services to meet their needs today. As you will know, the junior Ministers are taking that work forward. They are, I understand, engaged in reaching out not just to the Irish Government to talk to them about their experiences of trying to get contributions but across the UK. We will take that learning and ensure that we maximise the opportunity to get contributions. Miss Brogan: Is the deputy First Minister able to provide an update on a memorial to victims and survivors? Mrs Little-Pengelly: Thank you. Yes. I am pleased to say that we are making positive progress on that important issue. We are trying to maximise consensus among victims and survivors. We acknowledge that victims and survivors do not speak with one voice; that is completely understandable. However, we want to move forward with the maximum consensus that we can achieve. I have previously extended my thanks and do so again to the Speaker's Office for all of the help and support that has been given to us to identify a suitable location for the plaque. We are working with a range of individuals and organisations to ensure that they are content with the draft wording of the plaque. We are making significant progress on that, and we hope to be in a position to place the plaque very shortly. Mrs Cameron: The deputy First Minister will, I know, agree that there is a moral responsibility and not just a legal responsibility on the institutions to step forward and provide contributions. Does she also agree that voluntary contributions by the institutions would be seen as a sign of good faith? Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. I record my huge thanks to Pam for her work as a junior Minister. She was involved in a significant number of meetings and engagements and on the detail of these matters. You were key in pushing the process forward and getting it to where it is, and I thank you for that work. You are absolutely right. Discussions are ongoing with the mother-and-baby homes about how we can legally require institutions to give contributions. I believe that they should. The Member will be aware that, internationally, there are no examples of other places being able to legally require institutions to make a contribution. The moral obligation, however, is at the heart of this. It should not take legislation to force the hands of the institutions. Those institutions should step forward and step up, acknowledge their role in the significant harms that were caused and come forward with those contributions as soon as possible to avoid us having to take action to force them to do so. Mr Gaston: This issue has been a real frustration for me and, indeed, the Committee. Victims are wondering whose side the person appointed by the Executive Office to carry out the negotiations is on. Are they on the side of protecting the institution, or are they there to get value for money for the state? If money is not forthcoming for redress, will the Executive consider going after assets so that victims get money out of the institutions that caused the problem? Mrs Little-Pengelly: Important issues are at play. At this stage, we have paid out just over £108 million in compensation to well over 5,000 applications received. The scheme is now closed, and only a small number of those applications are left. Those are being assessed, and it is anticipated that the panel will finish that work by November, when the assessment of those remaining applications will be completed. That is the aim. Discussions with the institutions have been ongoing. There are legal challenges, there is no doubt about that. I assure the Member that we have pushed as hard as we can to make it clear that we believe that the institutions must contribute. We believe that there is an absolute moral responsibility as well as an acknowledgement of fault. There are real legal challenges, however, which is why, internationally, no other state has been able to legislate to compel institutions to make contributions. I asked specifically about assets and was advised that asset transfer can sometimes be a liability for the Government due to contamination or the state of premises. Therefore, we need to be careful, if we are to go down that route, that it provides value and additional resources for victims and survivors. Of course, all that is underwritten by the state, and that is the challenge. That £108 million is rightly recognising what people went through. That is going out through the state at the moment with a small contribution from the institutions. We continue to pursue that, but it has been a challenging situation legally. Ending Violence Against Women and Girls: Update 2. Mr McGrath asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on progress on the implementation of the strategic framework to end violence against women and girls. (AQO 2462/22-27) Mrs Little-Pengelly: With your permission, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I will ask junior Minister Bunting to answer the question as the very first in her new role as a junior Minister. Ms Bunting (Junior Minister, The Executive Office): By way of context, the framework is based on four themes with six outcomes, eight guiding principles and 19 priority areas. It sits alongside an initial two-year delivery plan comprising 14 actions, all of which are progressing well. We are determined to do everything that we can to stop the harm and abuse faced by women and girls, who, we know, are disproportionately affected by violence, abuse and harm. The Member will know that we are two years into a seven-year framework, and a crucial area of work at this stage is prevention. A key area of focus is challenging the harmful attitudes, cultures and behaviours that can escalate and lead to actual violence. We allocated £3·2 million to the ending violence against women and girls (EVAWG) change fund. We were delighted to secure an additional £2·2 million that will further advance work in that area because some council work was oversubscribed. Councils are embedding action to end violence against women and girls in their service delivery and are developing signposting and resourcing for local communities. Each is running numerous projects for women and girls, but men and boys are included. In addition, eight community and voluntary sector expert organisations are delivering activity that will strengthen the impact and reach of ending violence against women and girls expertise and programmes to support schools, tertiary education, communities and workplaces. By way of further information, the Power to Change campaign, jointly launched by TEO, the Department of Justice and the PSNI in January, targets harmful attitudes and behaviours of men and boys and uses the active bystander approach, whereby people are taught how to intervene safely if they see inappropriate or unwanted behaviours. I presume that my time is up. Mr McGrath: I thank the Minister for her first answer to the House. I appreciate that is on an issue of great importance and one that she will fully endorse and support. Given that the framework states that the responsibility for the strategic framework's implementation "lies with everyone", and given that leadership starts at the top, will the junior Minister agree that it should be a standing item on the Executive's agenda so that every Minister can take responsibility for what they need to deliver in the area in order to ensure that the strategy will not be left on a shelf and that we will have more than just words for women who need to be protected by it? Ms Bunting: I fully appreciate where the Member is coming from, but it is abundantly clear that the Executive take the issue seriously. Although the strategy sits with TEO, it has been agreed by the entire Executive, and there are indeed regular updates. There are also oversight bodies to which other Ministers contribute. I highlight to the Member the fact that all of government and society working better together is one of the six outcomes of the strategic framework, and that is embedded in the Programme for Government (PFG). We are therefore working collectively with Executive colleagues in a number of key work areas in the delivery plan, which include sectoral groups on safer socialising, the workplace, tertiary education and the healthy relationships forum. Successful delivery of the strategic framework is clearly reliant on close collaboration with a range of Departments, including Education, Health and Justice, and we remain committed to taking that approach with all Departments. The Department of Health and the Department of Justice jointly lead on the domestic and sexual abuse strategy, which was published in September 2024 and is aligned with the framework. Officials are represented at a senior level on the governance structures for the domestic and sexual abuse strategy, and DOJ and DOH are represented on the governance structures for the ending violence against women and girls strategic framework. That is to ensure alignment and augmentation and also to avoid duplication of effort. I hope that that answer helps the Member. Ms Sheerin: Minister, will you give us an update on the Power to Change public awareness campaign? Ms Bunting: I thank the Member for asking that important question. The Power to Change campaign is really important, because it urges men and boys to play their part in effecting a cultural and societal shift. That cannot be done by women and girls alone. It challenges men and boys to check and change unwanted behaviours and attitudes towards women and girls, including those activities that demean and inhibit women. The campaign uses the active bystander approach, as I mentioned earlier, to challenge men and boys to step away from negative attitudes, to challenge their friends and to have the confidence to step in safely and put a stop to behaviour that may escalate or that may put their friends at risk of offending in the future. The campaign had a wide reach right across Northern Ireland, with targeted messaging on social media, posters, billboards and buses and in pubs and restaurants, as well as on the radio. The campaign toolkit has been delivered to teachers for use in schools right across Northern Ireland, and that is starting a conversation that needs to be had right across society to encourage men and boys to be part of the solution. The next phase of the campaign will be developed with input from young men, and that will help us reach a younger audience in a way that will make sense to them and equip them to make better decisions when they witness challenging behaviour towards women and girls. I highlight the fact that, through the local change fund, a lot of councils are doing great work in that area. There are a lot of projects that engage not just women and girls but boys and men in the areas of understanding and prevention. Mr Dickson: I warmly welcome the new junior Minister to her role. Junior Minister, I am pleased to hear that Queen's University has been asked to carry out research to identify gaps in legislation, particularly on the attitudes of men and boys to violence against women and girls. Will that research include work with people who are currently held in prison? Ms Bunting: I will outline some aspects. The research has been commissioned to identify evidence gaps, as the Member outlined, in understanding attitudes and behaviours of men and boys in the subject area. The research will focus on boys and young men aged 16 to 24. The research process is under way and includes engagement with stakeholders, interviews with organisations that work with young men and boys, focus groups and a survey. The research process will be advised by a young people's advisory group and an international expert advisory group. On prisons, I am aware that work has been undertaken in Hydebank. I understand that it was conducted by White Ribbon NI. During a briefing, I heard that that work was incredibly successful, had a tremendous impact on those young men and made them reconsider their views and actions when it comes to how they behave towards women and girls. Top 2.15 pm Executive Approval Threshold 3. Mr Stewart asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for their assessment of the threshold for matters to be cross-cutting, significant or controversial, therefore subject to Executive approval. (AQO 2463/22-27) Mrs Little-Pengelly: Under section 20 of the Northern Ireland Act, matters that are considered to be cross-cutting, significant or controversial should be referred to the Executive for discussion and agreement. Under the ministerial code, Ministers have a duty to refer to the Executive matters that are considered to be cross-cutting, significant or controversial. Whether a matter is cross-cutting, significant or controversial is, in the first instance, for Ministers to judge after due consideration and acting in good faith in the context of the matter in question. Mr Stewart: I thank the deputy First Minister for her answer. Does she agree that the Infrastructure Minister's decision to introduce bilingual signage in Grand Central station is not only costly but controversial and cross-cutting? In light of the judge's damning comments last month, have there been any attempts to resolve the matter at the Executive? What would the deputy First Minister like to see being introduced in future to prevent that type of incident from happening again? Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his important question. It is absolutely clear to most people who look at the issue that the way in which the Irish language is displayed in public places, and this proposal in particular, is controversial. It has caused controversy. There are a number of strong views across the piece on the matter. The test that the Minister ought to apply her mind to is whether it is cross-cutting, significant or controversial. In this case, in my view, it is not only significant but particularly controversial and cross-cutting. Those are the two arguments that are currently before the court. The judge made clear his frustration that the matter had not been resolved by politics. I therefore believe strongly that the Minister ought to bring the matter to the Executive for discussion and decision. Issues around the Irish language brought this place down. They were used as a reason to keep this place down for many years. That is a demonstration of the controversy. Some people have speculated that an Irish Language Commissioner would be supportive and that Irish language signage is therefore not controversial, but of course an Irish Language Commissioner would support Irish language signs everywhere. That is not the test. The test is whether it is controversial across the range of different views, and it clearly is. We know that the Minister has no vires to take a decision that ought to have been brought to the Executive. In my view, the decision needs to be brought to the Executive, and the Minister should do so. Ms Ennis: Will the deputy First Minister outline why the ministerial code has not been amended following the passage of the Executive Committee (Functions) Act 2020? Mrs Little-Pengelly: The matter was under consideration, as the Member may be aware, but it was not laid in time while these institutions were in operation. However, the courts have made it clear that the ministerial code is guidance. What matters is the primary legislation. The primary legislation endures, which means that the test remains the same: a Minister must bring for a decision to the Executive any matter that is significant, controversial or cross-cutting. Indeed, the judgements, legal cases and jurisprudence in all such matters also make clear that the Minister has no vires to make a decision that ought to come to the Executive on any of those grounds. Therefore, the Minister cannot make that decision alone, and, in this case, she absolutely should take the matter to the Executive for discussion and decision. Mr K Buchanan: Given the comments that we have heard in court, and to follow on from John's question, which raised that point, is there any indication that the Minister will bring the matter to the Executive table? That is the place to sort out such things and have everybody in the Executive agree them, rather than take them through the courts. Mrs Little-Pengelly: Absolutely. When we look back to the origin of that requirement, we find that it arose from the further negotiations in St Andrews. It is now part of the infrastructure and the processes around the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, as amended by the St Andrews Agreement. It is there to stop Ministers having solo runs on significant, controversial or cross-cutting issues. It is a safeguard for the Executive in recognition that they are a multi-party Executive and, therefore, on key issues, must act as one. They must try to build consensus as one. In this case, there is clearly a range of views. Regardless of the substance of the issue, it is incredibly important that we protect the integrity of those processes. We should protect the decisions that ought to be made by the Executive. Importantly, it does not matter whether a particular Minister feels that they will not get the outcome that they want if they bring an issue to the Executive, because that is not the test. The test is whether the issue is cross-cutting, significant or controversial. If it is any one of those three things, it must be brought to the Executive for discussion and decision. Mr McGlone: Ba mhaith liom fáil amach cá huair a bheas an coimisinéir teanga in oifig. [Translation: I would like to know when the language commissioner will be in office.] Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Patsy, that is not related at all to the question. I will move on. Questions 4 and 6 have been grouped. Bank of America: Jobs 4. Mr Brett asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the announcement that Bank of America intends to create new jobs in Northern Ireland. (AQO 2464/22-27) 6. Mr Burrows asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for their assessment of the benefits associated with the creation of new jobs by Bank of America in Northern Ireland. (AQO 2466/22-27) Mrs Little-Pengelly: I was delighted to recently meet representatives of the Bank of America, along with junior Minister Bunting, to hear first-hand about its exciting plans to establish an office in Belfast. Those plans will create up to 1,000 new jobs, which is hugely significant, sends a powerful signal about the strength of our professional services sector and represents a real vote of confidence in our local workforce. The investment reflects Bank of America’s continued commitment to the local economy, building on its previous partnership with Belfast Met to support the digital skills and employability programme — an initiative that has empowered individuals from diverse backgrounds to gain valuable qualifications. The latest announcement adds to a growing list of global firms, such as Evri, Sysco, Sensata, Seagate and EY, which are choosing to invest locally, reinforcing our position as a competitive and attractive location for international business. Mr Brett: Does the deputy First Minister agree that that investment in Northern Ireland shows the strength and importance of having a joint head of Government that turns up, stands up and speaks up for Northern Ireland on the international stage, and will she commit to continuing to represent everyone in Northern Ireland whilst others boycott their duty to the people of Northern Ireland? Some Members: Hear, hear. Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his important question. There is no doubt that, if we want Northern Ireland to thrive, we must grow our economy. Growing our economy has two distinct aspects. One is about supporting our local and indigenous businesses, and we must do that. I know that it has been a very challenging business environment for people to trade in. However, importantly, we must attract foreign direct investment. We have been very successful in doing so, particularly from the time of the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement and the St Andrews Agreement. We should build on that. It has had its challenges, and that is why it is particularly important that we absolutely welcome that huge announcement by Bank of America. As I said, the junior Minister and I met Bank of America last week, and we emphasised our absolute support. It is absolutely important that all Ministers step up, regardless of personal views or political opinions. These are good jobs for people from a great company that has invested in places all over the globe, including in other parts of the UK and Ireland. They are very welcome here. I will continue to do everything that I can to champion our local businesses and to push forward in all sectors where there is the opportunity for growth. Mr Burrows: The Ulster Unionist Party certainly welcomes the high-quality jobs that will come from that investment. Does the deputy First Minister agree that the investment not only brings high-quality jobs but increases tax revenues, which will help the most disadvantaged in our society, and, therefore, anyone in the Executive should put the public interest before their narrow political interest and welcome and encourage that kind of investment? Mrs Little-Pengelly: Absolutely. The people who will take up these jobs will be from all parts of Northern Ireland and from all political views in Northern Ireland, and they all have a right to access good jobs. I really welcome the announcement. It is a confident show of the potential in our economy in Northern Ireland, and that is in the context of it being quite globally challenging for a whole range of reasons. Indeed, it was not the first time that I had met Bank of America. We participated in an investment breakfast at the UK global investment conference in London last year, where we had the opportunity to make a pitch about Northern Ireland. We talked about our younger workforce, our highly-qualified workforce and the fact that we had pushed ahead to develop expertise, particularly in back office and professional services. Of course, that first link from Bank of America into Northern Ireland, through the previous ambassador, Jane Hartley, with the collaboration of Belfast Met really helped people who are most in need. It is really good to see that they have taken the next step. Politics should play a role in encouraging that kind of investment and jobs for everyone, because that is the way that we will be able to make this place thrive and succeed. Mr Delargy: Does the deputy First Minister agree that regional balance across the North is key when it comes to economic growth and investment? Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. Of course, if we are to grow the Northern Ireland economy, it is important that all parts of our economy can grow and are given the support and tools to do so. Along with the First Minister, I attended the opening of the digihub in Omagh. It was fantastic to see so many people already taking up those spots. I think that there were almost 20 companies within that digihub, where they are able to have a workplace and to have access to the tools that they require in order to run their businesses from somewhere close to where they live. That is really important. I attended the Queen's University Belfast AI conference, and one observation that was made at that conference was that the more that we go into the digital space and have companies around that technological and digital advancement, the more that people are able to work from all parts of the world. It does not have to be in those big hubs of, for example, London and Paris. It can be from every town and village throughout. We absolutely want to encourage that. Executive Delivery 5. Miss Hargey asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for their assessment of the delivery of the Executive’s key priorities since February 2024. (AQO 2465/22-27) Mrs Little-Pengelly: The Executive have made a strong start and continue to work together to progress the key priorities outlined in the Programme for Government. For example, we secured an additional £1·3 billion in funding to support vital public services. Working parents have already saved around £8 million since the launch of the Northern Ireland childcare subsidy scheme in September 2024. The scheme's coverage has increased from 15,000 to approximately 24,000 children, thanks to a £55 million investment in early years and childcare this year. Nearly 59,000 additional outpatient, diagnostic and inpatient procedures have been delivered through the ring-fenced funding of over £200 million for health waiting lists. That puts us well on track to meet the Programme for Government target of 70,000. We delivered not only the strategy to end violence against women and girls but a delivery framework, with actual money going out the door to work with organisations and change people's lives on the ground. We have committed substantial investment to protecting and restoring Lough Neagh. Over last year and this year, more than £20 million has gone into work to tackle the big issues that face Lough Neagh. We have agreed our transformation board, and we have established a delivery unit and an AI and digital unit. We are driving forward transformation, with the first £129 million of the transformation fund already out to reform and transform the public sector. Those are just some examples of the work that is happening across Departments. While some do not want to acknowledge that work, I am very proud of the start that we have made. However, we are not complacent. We know that there is much more to be done, and that is why we are driving forward delivery in the Executive. Miss Hargey: Thank you for that comprehensive list. The Programme for Government also outlines the need for an Irish language strategy, including promotion and greater visibility across the public sector. Will the deputy First Minister join me in acknowledging and recognising the vibrancy of the language and in unequivocally condemning any intimidation, threats or criminality in response to the democratic decision that was taken last week by Belfast City Council? Mrs Little-Pengelly: In our Programme for Government, we focused on nine key priorities. For me, that is about driving forward the big issues that really impact on people's lives: tackling health waiting lists, improving our education system, mending holes in school roofs and trying to ensure that there is economic growth right across Northern Ireland. It is about championing what we are doing here. I recognise that many people love the Irish language. They want to celebrate and speak the language that they love. I took the opportunity this morning to speak to the Chief Constable about the story in the Sunday papers. Indeed, he confirmed to me that, at this stage, the police are not aware of any allegations or any evidence of that. We will have to see how that develops. It goes without saying — I have said it in the House many times — that any threat, violence, intimidation or breaking of the law is wrong. That is my stance, no matter where it may happen. In this case, an allegation has been made. I have spoken to the Chief Constable. There is no evidence of such activity, but, as I said, we will continue to keep an eye on that situation. Top 2.30 pm Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That ends the period for listed questions. We will move to 15 minutes of topical questions. Loyalist Communities Council: DUP Engagement T1. Mr O'Toole asked the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, after noting the deputy First Minister's comments on the status of allegations relating to the recent decision by Belfast City Council, given that the allegations are serious and have put a chill across the Irish language community and given in particular the hostility that the deputy First Minister's party expressed at the democratic decision of Belfast City Council, whether the deputy First Minister's party's continued engagement with the Loyalist Communities Council is deeply inappropriate at a time when organisations that are apparently represented by that entity continue to use threats or implied threats of violence to get their way. (AQT 1621/22-27) Mrs Little-Pengelly: In reality, as I said, we are focused on the issues that really matter to people. I find it frustrating that, when I stand here telling you about the huge amount of work that has to be done to reduce health waiting lists, support people to get the operations that they need, transform the health service, fix the challenges in special educational needs and grow our economy, you constantly want to bring it back to matters of political disagreement on certain issues. I cannot be clearer about this: all paramilitarism is wrong. It always was, it still is, and it will be in the future. There was never any justification for it. There was always an alternative. I could not be clearer about that. Mr O'Toole: To be absolutely clear, deputy First Minister, I asked you an entirely legitimate question. Do not lecture me or the Opposition about delivery [Interruption] — Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr O'Toole: — when your party and others in the Executive have abysmally failed on delivery. [Interruption.] Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr O'Toole: Please answer my specific question: is continued engagement with the Loyalist Communities Council appropriate in that context? Further to that, will you demonstrate that you agree that delivery on the Irish language is legitimate and appropriate? [Interruption.] When will an Irish Language Commissioner be appointed and in office? Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sorry. There were two supplementaries. The answer will be to the first supplementary. You cannot have another one; that is not what topical questions are for. Furthermore, any Member who asks a question will be heard: OK? Go ahead. Mrs Little-Pengelly: Thank you. That is perfectly legitimate answer to you, if your party criticises others for, allegedly, not focusing on the big issues, yet, week in, week out, you come to the House and try to find political wedge issues to get a headline or a tweet with a social media post that shows [Interruption] only your question and never the answer. The reality — [Interruption] Mr McGrath: Distraction. Answer the question. Mrs Little-Pengelly: — is this: [Interruption] you are from a party that engaged with people — [Interruption.] Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order. Mrs Little-Pengelly: — who were not on ceasefire. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order. Mrs Little-Pengelly: Your party engaged — [Interruption.] Mr McGrath: Rubbish. You cannot even answer the question. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order. The Member will take her seat. Mr McGrath: She cannot even answer the question. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: You too. She has answered the question. I call Cheryl Brownlee. Mr McGrath: Will she answer this one? Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Knock it on the head. I am sorry. Go ahead. Jewish Community: Protection T2. Ms Brownlee asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, in the certainty that the deputy First Minister joins her in sending sympathy and solidarity to those impacted by the synagogue attack in Manchester and knowing the impact that that attack will have on our small local Jewish community, what the Executive can do to ensure that the Jewish community and their places of worship in Northern Ireland are protected. (AQT 1622/22-27) Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. It is timely and reminds us of the serious issues that we face, which do not include only those that I outlined regarding what we need to do about public services. There are serious issues that should be approached in a serious way, and this is one such issue. Like so many, I was appalled to see the scenes that played out in that terrorist attack. The First Minister and I took the opportunity that we were offered of a briefing on it from the UK Government. One of the questions that we asked was what further support could be given to protect our small Jewish community in Northern Ireland. It should be horrifying to everyone that our small Jewish community would feel such fear and threat, but, undoubtedly, they do. I reached out to the community to send my solidarity in what they are going through. We were advised that the Home Office has a number of schemes, including the Jewish Community Protective Security Grant, which is managed on behalf of the Home Office by the Community Security Trust to protect synagogues, Jewish educational establishments and community organisations. It is a tragedy that such schemes are needed to protect people in that community as they try to go about the core protected right to worship in whichever faith they choose to worship. I will follow up with the Jewish community here to make sure that it maximises its use of the support that is available to it. In advance of the anniversary of 7 October, which is tomorrow, I send my solidarity to those who are still without their loved ones who are hostages in that region and to call again for the release of all of those hostages without reservation or condition. Ms Brownlee: I thank the deputy First Minister for her answer. Beyond addressing the immediate and serious security concerns, what steps can be taken to promote a greater understanding of and respect for our Jewish community in Northern Ireland? Mrs Little-Pengelly: So many issues come into play in that. We often talk about being responsible in what we say and how we say it. That is said an awful lot, yet we see so many examples, particularly in relation to the Jewish community across the UK, not just of carelessness but of deliberate attempts to intimidate and create hostility towards people. Of course, that community should be valued and protected in the UK. The emergence of social media has been toxic. We see antisemitic and other abuse on social media: not just a handful or hundreds of messages but thousands and thousands of messages daily, spewing hate, intolerance and bigotry. Everybody has a responsibility, and I would like to think that we could stand in solidarity across the House to condemn clearly antisemitism, wherever it occurs. New Decade, New Approach Commitments T3. Mr Allen asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to outline what recent engagement the Executive Office has had with the UK Government on the delivery of the commitments in 'New Decade, New Approach' (NDNA), which Members, no doubt, recall. (AQT 1623/22-27) Mrs Little-Pengelly: To be brutally honest, once such agreements are made in which people make promises, the challenge is to make sure that they follow through with those promises. For example, a key issue in the Member's constituency that was included in NDNA and other agreements is Craigavon House. I want to see Craigavon House developed. The UK Government gave commitments that they would support that, and that has not happened. There is a range of outstanding commitments. I raise them continuously with the UK Government directly; indeed, MPs raise them at Westminster. It is important that the UK Government step up and honour those commitments, because to do so is to approach such significant agreements, which often precipitate action, in good faith. To not fulfil what is promised in such agreements is to act in bad faith. Mr Allen: The deputy First Minister referenced Craigavon House, which is the subject of one of the commitments that I was thinking of. It is a shame that the UK Government have not delivered on that commitment. What engagement is the deputy First Minister having with Executive colleagues to ensure that Craigavon House is restored and protected from further vandalism such as we saw recently? Mrs Little-Pengelly: I reached out to the Somme Association about the recent vandalising of the house. The house still has a number of its original features, and those need to be protected. The house is not in a great state of repair and requires support to bring it back. It is a house with incredible history and heritage. It would be a good centre for tourism, as people want to visit a place in which so many historic events happened, as well as for education, enabling people to better understand its history. Just last week, we celebrated Ulster Day — 113 years since the signing of the Ulster covenant. When I post about such things, I am always shocked at responses from people in Northern Ireland, albeit they have the confidence to respond, that clearly demonstrate that they do not understand what that was all about or about the history and heritage of this place. A lot of bigotry and intolerance can be caused by a simplistic, one-dimensional approach to our past and to who people are. There is huge potential in Craigavon House. I want the UK Government to step up and support it. Departments can play a role as well. I have spoken to my colleague in the Communities Department to see what opportunities may exist to push it forward, with support from the UK Government and the NIO. Public Services: Future-proofing T4. Ms Sugden asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, given that public services are overwhelmed because of the ongoing failure to prepare for an ageing population, what the Executive Office has been doing to future-proof Northern Ireland's public services since the inclusion of that in the Programme for Government. (AQT 1624/22-27) Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her important question. As she is aware, we take a life-cycle approach to all public services and, indeed, to most of our key priorities. There will be some that are less relevant than others, but I would argue that even the like of affordable childcare has a big impact on our older population, because many of those people are stepping in to provide unpaid childcare in much greater numbers than ever before. It is an incredible thing that they do. It is also a demonstration of the active lives that people can now have into much later life. The Member is absolutely right: it is important that we continue not only to monitor the situation but to project forward our needs. We know that there will be needs in Health and Social Care (HSC) owing to the types of illnesses that people are facing, not least Alzheimer's disease and dementia. Local councils are taking an age-friendly approach. I had the opportunity in Lagan Valley to attend Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council's age-friendly event with so many organisations that work with our older people across the constituency. Lagan Valley is a good example of a constituency that has an ageing population with needs. That approach has to be mainstreamed into everything that we do. We need to ensure that we take that fully into account in all our equality impact assessment (EQIA) screening — as you know, we have recently appointed our new Commissioner for Older People — and in the reporting on and monitoring of our Programme for Government. Ms Sugden: I appreciate the Minister's agreement on how important that is for moving forward. We need a tangible plan, however, and we need to recognise that. I think that it was Chris Whitty who said that we need to design our public services to reflect the population that we serve. How are the Executive doing that in particular so that we do not find ourselves in a much worse situation than we are in now? Mrs Little-Pengelly: As I said, that approach is mainstreamed into Departments' policy development. One of our initiatives is to push forward better data analytics, particularly through the work that our Chief Scientific and Technology Adviser (CSTA) is driving. One thing that we have identified that could help policymaking is for us to have a better understanding of the data behind everything and, importantly, to ensure that it is linked to what we do. There is no point in having all those fantastic datasets if we are not putting the data into practice. We are therefore pushing forward with a range of strategies, including a data strategy. That presents a really good opportunity to ensure that the analytics are taken fully into account in policy development and, importantly, in service delivery. McCullough Report: Public Inquiry T5. Mr Chambers asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister whether they concur with the recent decision by the Northern Ireland Policing Board (NIPB) to reject calls to support an immediate public inquiry in the wake of the McCullough report. (AQT 1625/22-27) Mrs Little-Pengelly: Often, as in this case, there are questions to be answered. It is important that, when we approach all the issues, we find the best way in which to get answers. From a personal and party perspective, I do not support holding an unlimited number of public inquiries. They are not necessarily the best way to get outcomes. They tend to be costly and bureaucratic and to take an awfully long time. We should always look pragmatically at what is the best intervention for getting to the truth of the matter, to get to the answers and to reach the desired outcomes. At the moment, the matter is being considered by a range of people. Hopefully, there will be some conclusions provided shortly. Mr Chambers: Does the deputy First Minister then agree with me that the call for any public inquiry does not always meet the test of whether it is in the public interest to go down that road, given the cost to the public purse, among other considerations? Mrs Little-Pengelly: It is important to take all matters into consideration. As I have said, I am a great believer in a range of options being available; indeed, if the legislation is not there to provide for those options, we should consider introducing it. At the moment, we have the Inquiries Act 2005, and public inquiries can be activated under that Act. As we have seen with the historical institutional abuse inquiry and the inquiry into mother-and-baby homes, however, it was felt that the Inquiries Act was not fit for purpose for either, and we therefore we had to enact a tailored legislative option to take more fully into account what we wanted to do. There is a range of options: it does not have to be one massive public inquiry or nothing. That needs to be looked at actively across the system. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That concludes questions to the Executive Office. Mr McMurray: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I will not take a point of order during Question Time, Andrew. I will take it afterwards, if that is OK. Top 2.45 pm Health Nurses: Pay Parity 1. Mr McGrath asked the Minister of Health for an update on a pay parity award for nurses for 2025-26. (AQO 2476/22-27) Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): As Members are aware, I issued a ministerial direction to implement the pay recommendations for 2025-26. That has been referred to the Executive for consideration and decision. The decision has not yet come. I have raised the issue at several meetings. Two weeks ago, I stood in the Chamber and was quite optimistic. I am not just as convinced today, but let me be clear: if we do not act soon, there will be strike action. I understand that the Royal College of Nursing (RCN) has a key meeting this Thursday that will, I anticipate, rubber-stamp strike action. Mr McGrath: It is obvious that we are dithering in delivering the payment that was promised to nurses. The frustration among nurses is absolutely palpable, to the point that they are going to strike because they cannot get the money that is owed to them. That will have a detrimental impact on our health service. The Minister says that it is the responsibility — Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Question. Mr McGrath: — of the Executive; the Executive say that is the responsibility of the Health Minister and the Finance Minister; and nobody is paying our nurses. For openness and transparency, when will see the payment for our nurses? Mr Nesbitt: I hope that the Member recognises that I cannot answer that question, because my permanent secretary has made it clear to me that we do not have the funds available, hence the ministerial direction. I have to say that I disagree with the term "dithering". Every Minister and every Department is struggling badly with their budget allocation, and that has an impact on service delivery across the board. However, on the list of our priorities, paying our nurses, doctors and other Health and Social Care (HSC) workers must surely be the number-one priority. Mr McGuigan: I echo the Minister's comment that it must be a priority that our healthcare workers get their pay. Further to the issue of nurses and doctors, Minister, in January, you stated that you would ensure that social care workers received a real living wage, and I think that the deadline for that was September. When will social care workers, who have had to wait for a long time to see that commitment, see their pay? Mr Nesbitt: That is a valid question from the Chair of the Health Committee. I did, indeed, commit to providing the real living wage for social workers from September, so we are through that deadline. Unfortunately, that has become part of the mix in how we address what is a £600 million funding gap for the Department of Health. I understand the real living wage to be a commitment at Executive level, and I have discussed at Executive level whether my colleagues want to prioritise honouring the real living wage commitment or, perhaps, to delay the real living wage for social workers until the start of the next financial year. That would put some £25 million towards that £600 million shortfall. Mr Donnelly: There is real frustration among healthcare workers, who are left out of pocket again. Will the Minister commit to prioritising pay awards in his budget for 2026-27 to avoid the repeated delays in healthcare workers receiving their money? Mr Nesbitt: I am open to doing that as we move into a multi-year, presumably three-year, Budget. We will certainly run that as an exercise, and we will have to make a best guess at what the pay bodies will recommend, because the Budget will come ahead of next year's pay award recommendations. We will then have to see what services will be included and what impact that will have on health and social care delivery. I am positively minded to what the Member suggests. Mr Carroll: Minister, it is concerning to hear that you are not optimistic about resolving the pay demands. Can you detail why that happens, seemingly, every year and why parity is not automatically accounted for in each year's budget? Mr Nesbitt: To be clear to Mr Carroll, I am less optimistic than I was a couple of weeks ago, but I still think that the situation will be resolved. Even if it leads to strike action — I pray to God that it does not — at some point, the pay issue will have to be resolved. If we allow it to go to strike action, it will have an impact on service delivery, on waiting lists and on staff morale. The bottom line is that, when it is resolved, it will cost more than it would cost to sort it out today. Why does it happen year-on-year? Despite the fact that there is £8·4 billion in the budget, it is not sufficient, and we need to reform how we deliver health and social care so that we can be more efficient, which will make those pay awards more affordable. Mental Health Services: Mid Ulster 2. Mr K Buchanan asked the Minister of Health to outline any actions that have been taken to enhance mental health services in Mid Ulster. (AQO 2477/22-27) Mr Nesbitt: In the mid-Ulster area, mental health services are provided by the Northern and Southern Trusts, as well as community and voluntary groups. Both trusts provide community mental health teams and teams that look after the mental health of older people. In the Mid-Ulster Hospital site, patients can access crisis resolution or home treatment services, community addiction services, perinatal mental health services, psychological therapy services and, where appropriate, the Regional Trauma Network. A recovery coach with lived experience offers one-to-one sessions, and an opiate substitute treatment clinic operates once a month in Cookstown. The Recovery College and Bereaved by Suicide services are also available locally, while a child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) team is based in Magherafelt to care for our younger population. Mr K Buchanan: I thank the Minister for his answer. Several people in Mid Ulster followed advertisements on television — that is the right thing to do — and reached out but did not get the help that they needed: help came too late. Further to the answer that you gave me, have there been any improvements in the past number of months, or is that is what is there? Have there been any improvements in the service? I ask because, when they reached out, the help was not there. Mr Nesbitt: I believe that I have given the Member quite a long list of services that are available in that area. The people in the workforce who deliver those services are extremely committed and dedicated. However, as with most if not all of Health and Social Care, demand currently outstrips capacity. I do not see that ending any time soon. The focus also has to be on demand, and the Department will, before the calendar year is out, look at ways in which we ask the public to look at the demands that they are putting on the Health and Social Care service. Mr McGlone: Minister, you rightly outlined a significant list of services being provided. I am sure that the Member opposite will agree that it is getting access to those services in time that is the issue. That is not to query the people who deliver those services; they are very good at what they do. Can the Minister confirm whether the10-year mental health strategy is being properly funded, or are Mid Ulster communities being let down by underinvestment? Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his comments. The mental health strategy was published alongside a 10-year funding plan. That plan outlined that, over 10 years, £1·2 billion was needed to implement it in full, so the direct answer to the direct question, "Is it being funded in full?", is "No". Ms Mulholland: Something that would greatly improve the services in Mid Ulster and across the Northern Trust area is the construction of Birch Hill Centre for Mental Health in the Northern Trust. Can the Minister give us an update on the funding position for that or the timeline for that mental health provision in the Northern Trust? Mr Nesbitt: I have been to Holywell Hospital and looked at the plans. There is a mock ward that you can walk around and view. A world-class facility is being planned. Can we afford to fund it? I do not know the answer to that, because we have yet to see the capital budget's release from the Department of Finance. When we do, we will have a better idea, but I have to manage expectations and say to the Member that it is a very costly project. To do it on the timeline that currently exists is doubtful. I anticipate that there could well be a delay of, perhaps, a year, maybe even more, so I want to manage the expectations. However, the current facility is not really fit for purpose; it is way past its use-by date. That is one of the many challenges that we face with our capital build. Ms Sugden: To go further than what you have said, Minister, I understand that the plans for Birch Hill have been paused, with no date for them to start. How, then, are you increasing capacity in other units, such as the Ross Thomson Unit in Coleraine, given the shortage and the wait lists that exist in those units? Mr Nesbitt: I assure the Member that thought is being given to alternative arrangements in the event that Birch Hill does not go ahead as planned. I was at a meeting in that regard as recently as late this morning. However, I will not go into detail at this stage, because I do not want to raise false expectations. Social Work Training Places 3. Mr Butler asked the Minister of Health for an update on the roll-out of additional social work training places across Northern Ireland. (AQO 2478/22-27) Mr Nesbitt: I am pleased to say that the Department is steadily increasing investment. First, there were 15 additional places at the Open University in 2019, and, in 2021, 10 more were added, bringing the total to 285 per year. Since then, I have secured additional investment to further increase social work training places. In September, we commissioned 163 places at Ulster University, 127 at Queen's and 54 at the Open University. That is a very significant total of 344 — the largest number commissioned to date. That is from a baseline of 260 in 2019. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Connie Egan for a supplementary — sorry, Robbie for a supplementary. Mr Butler: Connie is one of my favourites too, but we will keep that between us. I thank the Minister for his answer. He will know that social work is close to my heart, particularly in and around children's services and looked-after children. The Minister has given us good news about the training places, but those training places need to be transformed into paid work opportunities. Have the Department and the Minister any updates regarding employment opportunities for those trainees? Mr Nesbitt: I am pleased to say that we have. We have been successful in recruiting newly qualified social workers into trust vacancies, particularly in the past three years. My Department continues to work closely with senior managers in the trusts, and we are developing a recruitment process for social workers that is both quick and efficient. It has resulted in almost 700 newly qualified social workers taking up post in trust services since June 2023. That is an unprecedented number. We hope to repeat the mass recruitment of newly qualified workers in the coming years in order to bring some relief to workforce pressures. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Definitely Connie Egan for a supplementary. Ms Egan: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Minister, do you agree that the reason why there are so many vacancies in social work is that many social workers feel that there is a bureaucratic overburdening on them? What is your Department doing to ensure that they can have more face-to-face time with their clients? Mr Nesbitt: One of the other issues is the real living wage. I am keen to secure that for social work. I will make a general point to the Member on bureaucracy. Health and social care can be a complex area to work in, but I am very much of the opinion — I have stated this almost from the get-go — that we have overcomplicated how we deliver health and social care. Therefore, any moves that we could take to remove democracy — bureaucracy, rather, and make it simpler to deliver would be welcome. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Perish the thought that we would remove democracy, Minister. [Laughter.] Mr Nesbitt: That is my secret. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I know. Autism Assessments: WHSCT 4. Miss Brogan asked the Minister of Health for an update on the current waiting time for an autism assessment in the Western Health and Social Care Trust (WHSCT). (AQO 2479/22-27) Mr Nesbitt: My secret is out, obviously. As is the case across other areas, the Western Trust continues to experience significant demand for autism assessments. I am afraid that the latest figures show that just over 3,000 people are awaiting assessment. That includes 2,517 children. The trust currently completes around 420 child and 50 to 60 adult assessments each year. Therefore there is a huge mismatch between demand and capacity, and, of course, the result is growing waiting times, with some people now waiting for over three and a half years for assessment. I fully recognise the impact that delayed diagnosis can have on individuals and on families, and I am committed to trying to reduce those waiting times. Miss Brogan: I thank the Minister for his answer, but to hear that 3,000 people are waiting for an autism assessment is really stark, and it puts such stress on lots of families. Will the Minister give an indication of how autism assessment waiting lists in the Western Trust compare with those in the other trusts in the North? Will he outline what he is doing to ensure that children and adults in West Tyrone and the Western Trust are treated fairly? Mr Nesbitt: The Western Trust undertook a waiting list initiative last year. That delivered 20 additional assessments for individuals who were approaching 18 years of age. It plans to use identified non-recurrent investment this year. That should help deliver a further 13 assessments across children and adults. Its autism services for children and young people and adults maintain highly efficient processes for organising clinics and appointments. All assessments follow National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) criteria, and vacant posts are filled as quickly as possible. I hope that that provides some assurance to the Member that her trust is doing what it can in that area. Top 3.00 pm Mr Robinson: Minister, what is your advice to all those families who will potentially wait years for such an assessment in the Western Trust? Mr Nesbitt: I say to them that, while the waiting lists are not what they should be, the services are of a very high quality. Some people say to me that Health and Social Care is broken; I do not agree with that. However, I accept that some of the pathways and access into Health and Social Care are very badly damaged. I assure them that autism is on my radar. It is in my family community, if I may put it that way, so it is not as though I am unaware of it or uncommitted to trying to do what we can to tackle the waiting lists, which are quite shocking. Mr McCrossan: Minister, in the US, there have been trials of an autism medication called — I do not know whether I am pronouncing this right — leucovorin, which has been proven to have a very positive impact on children, particularly non-verbal children. Has there been any exploration of that medication by your Department? Mr Nesbitt: I am unaware of that medication. I will certainly take that question away and ask the Chief Pharmaceutical Officer and other senior colleagues. We will get back to the Member. Perinatal and Paediatric Pathology Services 5. Mr Beattie asked the Minister of Health for an update on an action plan for perinatal and paediatric pathology services in Northern Ireland. (AQO 2480/22-27) Mr Nesbitt: Members will be aware that perinatal and paediatric pathology services are provided through a service-level agreement with Alder Hey Children's Hospital Foundation Trust in Liverpool. That has been the case since January 2019. I accept that it is not the preferred service model, but I assure the House that it is delivering in a timely, sensitive and appropriate manner. My Department commissioned an evaluation of the service that was completed earlier this year by Queen's University Belfast. The work was supported by my Department and the Public Health Agency (PHA), as well as by stakeholder representatives, including Sands and Cruse Bereavement Support. The report contains 21 recommendations that are aimed at improving the service and care, including enhancements to reporting, communication, clinical education and follow-up for parents. I have accepted the 21 recommendations, and those are being actioned. Mr Beattie: First, I welcome the fact that the Minister and his Department have accepted the 21 recommendations in full. Does the Minister have further information on potentially offering families access to approaches that are less invasive than a post-mortem? Mr Nesbitt: I am very keen that we explore that area, because there have been developments that could be of great benefit to families who go through such a traumatic time. They involve using imaging and other approaches, rather than a full post-mortem examination. I should stress that the approaches are relatively new and are used in a small number of specialist centres, but I am keen to understand the feasibility of adopting those in Northern Ireland if they can mitigate the need for remains to be transported to Alder Hey. I have asked a task and finish group to consider the feasibility of non-invasive and minimally invasive techniques. I will provide further advice as it emerges. Miss McAllister: Minister, this is a very difficult and sensitive subject. I do not know whether you are aware that some of our hospitals do not even have a dedicated space for doctors and nurses to tell families that their little one has died or the way in which they passed away, or for families to be with their young in very limited circumstances. It may be a small number, but it is very important. Minister, will you commit to looking at that issue and the capacity in our health estate in order to ensure that parents have the space to grieve and that doctors and nurses feel empowered to give them the information and support that they need? Mr Nesbitt: I agree with the Member that it is an incredibly sensitive and, potentially, traumatic moment for families, and they certainly should have a dedicated space where their privacy and dignity are respected. I have visited some of those areas in some of our hospitals. I know that I have responded to questions for written answer on the facilities that are available across Northern Ireland. If the Member knows of specific hospitals or health facilities where that does not happen, I encourage her to write to me, and I can use that. However, I will separately task officials with a full review across Northern Ireland. ENT Appointments: SEHSCT 6. Ms K Armstrong asked the Minister of Health for his assessment of the waiting time for a child, with an urgent referral from Scrabo Children’s Centre, to get a first appointment with an ear, nose and throat specialist in the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust. (AQO 2481/22-27) Mr Nesbitt: My Department is very aware of the challenges facing the South Eastern Trust in providing ear, nose and throat services. The trust has had difficulty recruiting consultants in recent years, and, in July 2025, there were three vacancies. To address that, my officials have been working closely with the Belfast Trust and the South Eastern Trust to develop a greater Belfast ENT service. I am pleased to advise that that collaboration has recently secured the recruitment of four new consultants. In time, they will provide significant additional capacity in the wider Belfast Trust and South Eastern Trust catchment area. Ms K Armstrong: Thank you, Minister. I could have saved you from getting up to give me that answer because I received it in writing at 2.48 pm. What support can you provide to children who have been waiting to see an ear, nose and throat specialist for 180 weeks, given that they are heading into school with deafness, and their development and communication skills are falling way behind? Mr Nesbitt: I accept that the waiting times for services and treatment are extremely frustrating for patients and their families. I assure the Member that my officials and I have been working to address paediatric waiting lists and to modernise and standardise practices and pathways right across Northern Ireland. The Belfast Trust and the South Eastern Trust have validation exercises under way. Those lists are being amalgamated. As well as validating lists, the exercise involves consultants clinically e-triaging referrals. That is to determine whether the referral requires the patient to see a consultant in outpatients or whether they could go directly to surgery, diagnostics, audiology or to another professional, or, indeed, whether they should be returned to primary care, where they might be managed by primary care with advice. It means that only patients who need to see an ENT consultant will remain on the waiting list. It is a standardisation of clinical pathways. It is being implemented by the Belfast Trust and the South Eastern Trust but will be rolled out right across Northern Ireland. Therefore, we are doing what we can. Nurses: Career Progression 7. Mr Donnelly asked the Minister of Health whether his Department has carried out any assessment of the impact on workforce retention and patient outcomes in relation to the lack of progression from band 5 to band 6 for many registered nurses, compared to colleagues in other healthcare professions. (AQO 2482/22-27) Mr Nesbitt: I acknowledge that that is key, and I do so with pay on the agenda, which is clearly the headline in the court of public opinion. Everybody should have a reasonable expectation of career progression during their time, and the evidence very much suggests that that is not the case for band 5 nurses. Mr Donnelly: Thank you, Minister. I am sure that you will agree that workforce retention is at the heart of safe care. Do you accept that the ongoing delay in the winter preparedness plan will have an impact on staff retention levels? Can you commit to when that plan will be published, given that it was promised in August, then September, and we are now well into October? Mr Nesbitt: I share the Member's frustration with the delay in the winter preparedness plan's being published. The fact of the matter is that I saw a draft, and I wanted some work completed on that. I am very optimistic that it will be published this month, that is, October. I am not sure whether I agree with the Member that the delay is having an impact on staff morale. We are way ahead of where we were last year, but are we in the right position? To manage expectations, we are not simply looking at making everything right this winter. That is an overly ambitious position to take. Some proposals that have come out of the big discussions that took place this year may not see the fruits returned this winter, but it is important that we look at short-, medium- and long-term actions that can be taken to relieve those additional winter pressures. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Before I call David Honeyford, I remind Members that their supplementary questions need to be related to their primary questions. They cannot be completely different. Nurses: Recruitment 8. Mr Honeyford asked the Minister of Health for an update on work to secure specialist nurses in an effort to reduce waiting lists. (AQO 2483/22-27) Mr Nesbitt: I want to see an expansion of the number of specialist nurses and advanced nurse practitioners, because that will improve patient care. It will reduce the waiting lists for assessment and treatment. I have visited primary care surgeries at which advanced nurse practitioners are making a magnificently positive impact. Additional funding has been identified through the elective care framework implementation and funding plan to help increase the numbers of specialist nurses, particularly in the areas of cancer and urology. Other specialist nursing areas, including advanced nurse practitioners, will be considered, but that is subject to the consideration and approval of fully costed business cases. Mr Honeyford: I want to see Santa come at Christmas, but it may not happen. Minister, your party has been in control of the Department for many years. When will we see delivery and waiting lists driven down? Mr Nesbitt: We have increased numbers of specialist nurses. The Member is making a party political point. Vascular Varicose Vein Waiting List 9. Mrs Guy asked the Minister of Health to outline the number of patients who have been removed from the vascular varicose vein outpatient waiting list due to a change of criteria in the past 12 months. (AQO 2484/22-27) Mr Nesbitt: In the past 12 months, 2,142 patients have been removed from the vascular varicose vein outpatient waiting list owing to a change of criteria, with 976 patients remaining on it. I recognise the disappointment of the patients who were removed from the waiting list. The fact that many patients had been on it for a number of years, however, is evidence in itself of the pressures and demands on the service. Similar to other services, waiting times for vascular surgery are lengthy and, sadly, growing. In 2022, the Department of Health updated the effective use of resources policy, following a review of the evidence-based commissioning position across a broad range of procedures and treatments. Subsequently, certain procedures are commissioned in Northern Ireland only for patients who meet the criteria. Mrs Guy: Minister, it is very concerning that some 2,000 patients have been removed from the waiting list owing to a change of criteria. I can evidence that using the experience of one of my constituents, who has painful varicose veins. She was on a waiting list for four years and was removed owing to the criteria change. She was then re-referred by her GP but was again declined for a place on the waiting list. Can the Minister give an assurance that changing the criteria is not a tactic to reduce waiting lists while not treating patients? Mr Nesbitt: I can assure the Member that the clinical guidance — CG168 — from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, as well as the views of a range of stakeholders, clinical and non-clinical, informed the effective use of resources policy for the treatment of varicose veins. NICE interventional procedures guidance was also considered. Further to the direction outlined in 2022, owing to pressures, a decision was taken in 2023 that assessment and treatment could be provided only to patients with severe varicose veins. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Linda Dillon is not in her place. Thrombectomy Service 11. Mr Dunne asked the Minister of Health to outline any plans that his Department has to introduce a 24/7 thrombectomy service. (AQO 2486/22-27) Mr Nesbitt: A costed model is being completed that estimates that just over £5 million of recurrent funding is required in order to deliver a 24/7 service. That funding could deliver up to 160 additional procedures every year and increase capacity in other areas, such as stroke and interventional neuroradiology. My officials are developing a strategic outline case to refine the estimate further. It is important to note, however, the current financial challenges that my Department faces. Following the approval of the final Budget for this year, my Department was left with a funding gap of over £600 million. In that context, and although I remain committed to introducing a 24/7 thrombectomy service, I am currently unable to allocate the required additional funding. Mr Dunne: I thank the Minister for his answer and for his recognition that it is a real issue. It is a concern in my constituency, where there are over 2,000 stroke survivors. Given that a thrombectomy is most effective within six hours of a stroke, can the Minister outline how he will address the inequality in treatment for those unfortunate enough to have a stroke outside of current treatment hours? Furthermore, how will he tackle the regional variation? Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: You have less than 30 seconds, Minister. Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his supplementary question. The hyperacute stroke project board is currently leading on the process to identify the optimal configuration for any future hyperacute stroke services in Northern Ireland. We have worked with the University of Exeter on that. Given the current financial pressures, we have to take a forward-looking and strategic view of how we deliver those services in the future. Top 3.15 pm Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That ends the time for listed questions. We now move to topical questions to the Minister of Health. Maternity Hospital: Opening T1. Mr McGrath asked the Minister of Health to tell Members, in the interests of openness and transparency, when the new maternity hospital in Belfast will finally open, given that, in June, they learned that it could be delayed by a further 28 months or more. (AQT 1631/22-27) Mr Nesbitt: Some weeks ago, a number of options were put to me for how we fix the water issues at the maternity hospital. I was not content to simply accept the advice that I was given, so I asked the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust to commission an independent review of that advice. That has now completed. The independent reviewer concurred with the option that the trust had come forward with. That is now in the design phase. The trust is commissioning the design for the remediation work, which will include a separate water system for the neonatal unit, where the most vulnerable babies will be, so it is incredibly important that we get that right. That is the chief reason why it will take so long to complete. I have asked officials to look at a phased opening and to explore whether there are services that could be started in the new hospital before it is fully open. I have not had a definitive answer to that. Certain services have been ruled out, but some are still in play. I discussed that as recently as lunchtime today with the key officials. I remain optimistic that we will see some services rolled out on a phased basis. Mr McGrath: Minister, in light of the recommendations from the Belfast Trust, you said that its reputation was in the gutter, and you requested that a further review take place. That further review concluded that the Belfast Trust's recommendations were sound and that its governance is acceptable. Who got it wrong: you or the trust? Did we need the delay that has been caused by the additional review, not to mention the additional cost, given that it changed nothing? Mr Nesbitt: For clarity, I do not think that any review that I have commissioned has caused a day's or even a minute's delay in the process. Even when I said that I wanted an independent assessment of the trust's preferred option, the trust was given permission to go ahead and plan the design phase as if the option were going to be confirmed. It now has been confirmed. The trust has been working on that. Another report, which is looking at the timeline, is not complete. I put a lot of store by that. I am hopeful that that will answer the Member's question about where any finger of blame should be pointed. I asked officials today to ascertain when that report will be complete. As the Member may know, there have been some difficulties with compiling all the information and evidence. I talked about a phased opening of the maternity hospital. In order to manage expectations. I will clarify that, if there is to be a phased opening, it will be for ambulatory services only. Cervical Screening Information T2. Ms Egan asked the Minister of Health, given that September was Gynaecological Cancer Awareness Month, whether he is able to commit to updating cervical screening information to make it clear that such screening does not detect ovarian or any other gynaecological cancers, as was the case in England in July this year. (AQT 1632/22-27) Mr Nesbitt: That is quite a technical medical request. I am not sure that I am equipped to answer it, so I commit to the Member that I will take it away. Perhaps, in her supplementary, she will be as specific as possible about the information that she seeks. Ms Egan: I thank the Minister. I am concerned that Target Ovarian Cancer has found that 50% of women in Northern Ireland think that their cervical smear test will detect ovarian cancer. Will he commit to meeting me and Target Ovarian Cancer to discuss that further, as well as other action that we can take in order to improve outcomes for women who are diagnosed with ovarian cancer? Mr Nesbitt: I can certainly make that commitment, yes. Puberty Blockers: Harmful Alternatives T3. Mr Beattie asked the Minister of Health whether his Department has carried out any assessment of the use of potentially harmful alternative medical drugs, which are not covered by the puberty blocker ban, to suppress the effects of puberty. (AQT 1633/22-27) Mr Nesbitt: It was essential to secure the indefinite ban on the supply and sale of puberty blockers to under-18s. That ban was based on expert advice, which very clearly cited the insufficient evidence of the safety and effectiveness of those puberty blockers. I would be concerned by any efforts to bypass that ban by using alternative medical drugs, especially those that are based on very little medical foundation. One of the reasons for my going for a gender service is that, when I spoke to the families of young people who were on or wanted to be on puberty blockers, they told me that, because the service does not exist except in name, we were effectively forcing them to seek out international providers. There is absolutely no safety regime that we can put in place in order to guarantee the safety of those medications. Mr Beattie: I thank the Minister for his answer. GenderGP, which is based in Singapore, is promoting alternatives to puberty blockers online that may well be harmful to very vulnerable individuals without a GP's prescription. Is there anything that the Department of Health can do in collaboration with others in order to address that? Mr Nesbitt: That is the exact point that I was trying to hint at in my first answer. I am not sure whether that organisation, the Singapore-based GenderGP, is the same as the one that I had in mind, but, as I was working my head around the puberty blocker ban, I was made aware that there was one prescriber who, I believe, was a native Spaniard but was based in Romania and was prescribing through Singapore. How on earth do you exercise any quality control or safety over that? As with all medications, it is particularly important to take great care when buying medication online. Many websites that sell medicines online are based overseas and are not regulated by the UK authorities. Obtaining prescription medications from unauthorised sources will significantly increase the risk of getting substandard and fake medicines. To answer the Member directly, I say that my Department's medicines regulatory group works with partners across government and policing in order to combat the unlawful trade in medicines. The medicines regulatory group monitors online channels for evidence of illegal activity. It takes proportionate enforcement action, and I will ask that the content of GenderGP is reviewed with immediate effect. GP Appointments: Online Booking T4. Mr Brooks asked the Minister of Health to indicate, in light of the UK Government mandating GP surgeries in GB — certainly in England — to allow access to online booking of appointments throughout the day, whether he has any plans to do the same here. (AQT 1634/22-27) Mr Nesbitt: The Member will be aware that the BMA General Practitioners Committee is in dispute with my Department over contract arrangements for the current financial year. On that basis, I would wish to try to encourage that committee to come back and start talking about next year's contract and about my desire to introduce a neighbourhood model that will facilitate the shift left that I talk about, which will put care as close to people's front doors as possible. I do not want to say anything prescriptive today that might discourage the GPs from re-engaging. Mr Brooks: I thank the Minister for his understandable response. I look forward to seeing his plans being progressed. I noted the BMA's concern about the risk of patients facing harm or serious issues being missed. Does he agree that there can be few systems worse than the current system, whereby we have an 8.00 am lottery, with patients having to ring 700 or 800 times? Mr Nesbitt: I am not aware of the 700 to 800 figure, but access is not what it should be. As a matter of principle, online has an important part to play going forward. I was in Sheffield and London looking at examples of the neighbourhood model, and there is no doubt that online triage is a thing. It seems to work well in the GP practices and primary care networks that we looked at, and I see that being part of the future. As a matter of principle, it would be fantastic if people were able to go online and book an appointment for the next day, or the next week if it was a non-urgent case. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Trevor Clarke is not in his seat. Health: Spending on Information Systems T6. Mr Honeyford asked the Minister of Health, after making clear that his question was not party political, what had changed for patients and staff as a result of his Department, according to the auditor, having poured £2·5 billion into IT systems over the past three years alone, including all the overruns and failures. (AQT 1636/22-27) Mr Nesbitt: The Member will be aware of Encompass, which is a new electronic patient record. It is now rolled out across all five geographic trusts, from Northern to Southern, Western to South Eastern and Belfast. The potential for public health initiatives from trapping that data is immense. As for a working practice for an individual, you might not notice much at the moment, but some of the doctors, clinicians and consultants who I meet weekly have said that they had been working in healthcare delivery in the health and social care system for two or three decades and that this was the best thing that had ever happened. Yes, it is extremely expensive, but it is not only the future, it the present. As people get more and more used to it and the functionality within it, it will switch from being simply an electronic patient record for an individual patient to a magnificent tool for delivering public health initiatives at scale. Mr Honeyford: It is £2·5 billion. Can you give me a concrete example of where that IT system allows you to realign resources and take away back-office stuff and put more doctors, nurses, consultants and front-line staff in to address waiting lists and the needs of our constituents? Mr Nesbitt: It is an electronic patient record system. It is doing away with paperwork. That frees up efficiencies. It is not designed for what you have just said that you want to see. Belfast Health and Social Care Trust: Public Confidence T7. Mr Allen asked the Minister of Health, given that issues that arose in the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust in the recent past impacted on public confidence, what steps the Department has taken to restore public confidence and ensure that an early alert mechanism is in place so that the Department is made aware of issues. (AQT 1637/22-27) Mr Nesbitt: On the last point, I assure the Member that an early alert system is in place, and not just for the Belfast Trust. I have put it into the intervention framework at level 5, which is the highest level. I have sent in two experts — one clinical and one an expert in organisational culture. I have just received their interim report, and I hope to have a verbal briefing on that tomorrow. Jennifer Welsh took up post as chief executive on 1 October, and we are in the process of beginning to advertise for a new chair of the Belfast Trust. I think that that combination of measures and interventions by me and the Department will yield fruit, and part of that fruit will be an increase in public confidence in what is delivered by the Belfast Trust. Mr Allen: I thank the Minister for his answer and the intervention that he and his Department have made. Minister, I recently corresponded with you on behalf of a constituent regarding transport issues within the trust, and there does appear to be an issue that has not been rectified. Will the Minister commit himself to meeting me and my constituent, and indeed with the Belfast Trust, to better understand those concerns, even though it is not directly within his remit? Top 3.30 pm Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Minister, you have 10 seconds. Mr Nesbitt: In that case, Principal Deputy Speaker, I suppose that the answer has to be yes. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you. That ends topical questions. Andrew has a point of order. Mr McMurray: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Apologies for my premature point of order earlier. This is under Standing Order 65(1)(a). I have no skin in the game during Executive Office Question Time, but there were times when, because of chuntering in the House, I could not hear the deputy First Minister or the leader of the Opposition. Is there a ruling on that? Is there guidance on that? When political discourse is really coming to the forefront day to day, it is unbecoming. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: There is guidance on it, and we are all expected to behave ourselves. The majority of Members do, but, as you have seen, some Members disrespect their colleagues across the Benches and their colleagues cannot be heard. It is disrespectful to them, but it is also disrespectful to the people who are watching and listening in. Thank you. Mr Clarke: On a point of order, Principal Deputy Speaker. I apologise to the House for missing my question. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: No bother, Trevor. It happens to the best of us. Question for Urgent Oral Answer Justice PSNI Support at London Protest Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Gerry Carroll has given notice of a question for urgent oral answer to the Minister of Justice. I remind Members that, if they wish to ask a supplementary question, they should rise continually in their place. The Member who tabled the question will be called automatically to ask a supplementary question. Mr Carroll asked the Minister of Justice for her assessment of the PSNI providing support to the Metropolitan Police at a Defend Our Juries protest in London on Saturday 4 October. Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): The deployment of additional officers to other regions of the United Kingdom requested under mutual aid arrangements is an operational matter for the Chief Constable, who is accountable to the Northern Ireland Policing Board. It is in the best interests of the public generally that all police forces across the UK can call on support to help maintain safety and public order. Mr Carroll: Minister, I am bit disappointed but not surprised by that answer. Were you or your officials made aware of the PSNI's decision to deploy officers to London? How many were deployed? Do you think that it speaks volumes about whom the PSNI views as threats in society when we have paramilitaries threatening to burn city council vans, a violence against women epidemic and racist violence on the rise, yet the people who are targeted and arrested by the PSNI are peaceful protesters in London? Mrs Long: First of all, I would be surprised if the Member was surprised at me stating the fact that the police are operationally independent of me and my Department. That begs this question: why did the Member ask the question in the House at all? It is clear from previous Speaker rulings that I am not answerable for the operational decisions of the PSNI. I and my officials were was not consulted because it is solely an operational decision. The Member commented on the policing of threats from paramilitary organisations. The Member will be well aware of my view of such threats. There should be no paramilitary threats, no paramilitary intimidation and no attacks on either politicians or public servants who are working for the council. There is no excuse for that happening. I look forward to the police being able to resolve who made those threats and deal with the matter appropriately, but they will do so independent of my direction. Mr Kelly: While I understand that the PSNI also requires mutual aid to come here on occasion, the sight of the PSNI being used to arrest peaceful protesters in London at the weekend has given rise to deep concern. That is especially so given that senior members of the Conservative and Labour parties are talking of increasing draconian measures against protesters in Britain and possibly here. I understand what the Minister said, but can she give her view on any further proposed legislation to attack the right to peaceful protest, especially by rolling back human rights safeguards, which was discussed by both parties in the media over the weekend? Mrs Long: The right to peaceful protest is an intrinsic part of living in an open and free society, and it is important that people are free to engage in such demonstrations. It is, however, a qualified right, as are all such rights, and it is one that requires a balance in its impact on competing rights that are being exercised in the same space at the same time. It is not for me to opine whether the Met Police did their job correctly. Most people, even those who mock the fact that the police are operationally independent of me as Justice Minister, accept that directing the Met is well outside my remit. However, it is a matter for the Met, and, when PSNI officers are deployed under mutual aid, they act at the direction of their commanding officers in the force to which they are deployed. It is not a matter for us. With respect to rolling back on protests, parades and other gatherings in Northern Ireland, we have no plans in the Department of Justice to do that. Mr Clarke: I thank the Minister for coming to the House to tell us today about her role in operational policing. That has been useful. Is she concerned, like some of us on these and other Benches, that Members are insinuating that it is unfair for the police to police parades that support proscribed organisations? Mrs Long: At the end of the day, it is not for me to decide what the police do and how they do it; it is for the Chief Constable to decide that. They are proscribed organisations, and that is the rationale for the arrests that took place. Again, it is not for me to defend the policy, because it was not made here. It was made in Westminster. It is a reserved matter, so I will not opine on it. However, it remains the law across the whole jurisdiction, whether in Northern Ireland or in the rest of the UK. When it comes to policing, as I said, officers act at the direction of their commanding officers on the day, and that would be the service to which they are deployed, which, in this case, was the Metropolitan Police, which was acting to deal with the protest issues that it had on Saturday. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Connie Egan. No? OK. Nuala McAllister. Her name is down, so take it up with your Whip. Miss McAllister: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Apologies for that. As a member of the Policing Board, I will raise the issue at the board, and it is important to do so, particularly when the Chief Constable of the PSNI has raised issues of stretched capacity in the service. I understand that the Met will reimburse the PSNI, but still, it stretches officers' time. Does the Minister agree that the Policing Board is the best place for all political Members to raise those issues? Mrs Long: The Member will not be surprised when I say yes. The Policing Board is the correct place to raise those issues and to hold the Chief Constable operationally accountable for his decision-making. Sometimes, in the desire to be critical of the answers that Ministers give, there is an intention to encourage Ministers to step outside the strict responsibilities that they have: I warn people against doing so. Were I to behave in a politicised manner — directing the police, telling them where to go, what to investigate, whom to charge, how to handle cases — you can just imagine the reaction that I would get in the Chamber on a week-to-week basis. Not everything that I might prioritise would be what you or the police might prioritise. Inviting me to step into a space into which I will not be drawn sets a dangerous precedent. We see political policing in other places. We understand from our own history the dangers of it, and that is why we have a Policing Board and a separation of powers. Members should be wary of trying to undermine it. Mr Burrows: In fact, we have seen political policing here in recent times. Mr Kelly will know, because he rang the previous Deputy Chief Constable, on 5 February 2020, asking for a prisoner to be released in live time. His boss, then the deputy First Minister, now the First Minister for all, Michelle O'Neill, rang the Chief Constable — Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sorry, could you make your question relevant to the — Mr Burrows: It is about political policing. [Interruption.] Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Will you make your question relevant, please, and do it now? Mr Burrows: I certainly will. As a former PSNI officer, I hope that the Justice Minister agrees that mutual aid is vital for the PSNI. You cannot expect to get resources when you really need them if you are not prepared to give resources when you are able to. It is part of being in the United Kingdom. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Is there a question? Mr Burrows: Does the Minister agree that mutual aid is a vital resource that we must support? Mrs Long: As I stated in my original answer, it is in the best interests of the public generally that all police forces across the UK can call on support to help maintain safety and public order. The PSNI provided mutual aid assistance to the Metropolitan Police at the weekend. Requests for such assistance are coordinated by the National Police Coordination Centre (NPoCC), and I believe that it is important that the PSNI have recourse to that resource when it is required. Mr McGrath: When a murderer was being held down in the street in my constituency, it took the police 28 minutes to respond, yet we can send officers over to London to help arrest people for wearing a T-shirt. Does the Justice Minister not accept that there is some lunacy in taking that approach that we, as political leaders, need to address here? Mrs Long: The Member sits on the Policing Board, so he will have every opportunity to ask that of the person who made the decision. If the Member wants me to make the decisions here in the Chamber, that will mark a departure from the view of his predecessors, who jealously guarded the tripartite arrangements for policing in order to prevent political incursions into the operational space. It seems that the SDLP is more concerned with scoring cheap political points than it is with the substance of the issue, which is that the Member sits on the Policing Board and has every opportunity to challenge the Chief Constable, both about the speed of response in the Member's constituency and about his decision-making on mutual aid. Mr Martin: Does the Justice Minister agree that prosecuting those who support proscribed terrorist organisations such as Palestine Action is important in a lawful democracy, or does she agree with the head of nations and regions at Amnesty International UK, Patrick Corrigan, who thinks that it is a pointless use of resources? Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Minister, do not respond. Mrs Long: I think that my —. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Minister, resume your seat. I am instructing everyone to ask a question that is relevant to the question for urgent oral answer. You have been at this all day. Mr Martin: It was relevant. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Excuse me. Please ask a question that is relevant to the question for urgent oral answer. Mr Martin: Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, as far as I am aware, the question was relevant —. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: It is not. Mr Martin: OK. I will take your ruling on that. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Mr Dickson: Minister, you have clearly set out to the House the responsibilities that you have for policing in Northern Ireland and the operational responsibilities that the Chief Constable has. For the slow learners in the House, will you set out the consequences of the alternative, were you to have operational responsibility? Mrs Long: I am well aware that matters to do with policing can become politically fraught. It is therefore important that the decisions on the allocation of resources to policing and policing structures, and the prioritisation and distribution of those resources, remain a matter for professional police officers. As armchair generals, we may all wish to give our opinion on what we see as priorities, but I prefer to leave that to the professionals, who have to do the job and who can be held accountable at the Policing Board for how they do it. Mr Brett: I agree with every single word that the Justice Minister has said in today's replies. Does she agree that it is vital not only that she respect the operational independence of the Police Service of Northern Ireland but that every single political party and Member respect the settlement also? Mrs Long: I am not sure whether the Member or I should feel queasy if we are in such complete agreement today, but, yes, I agree that every Member has a duty to uphold the operational independence of the PSNI and to hold it accountable through the appropriate structures. Those are the arrangements that were put in place to build confidence in policing, and part of our role, as political leaders, is to build that confidence through using the structures properly. Mr Chambers: For some in the House, including Mr Carroll, it seems to me that their issue is with what the officers were doing rather than with the fact that they were in London. Does the Minister agree that the purpose of a call for mutual aid is not a matter of consideration for the Chief Constable on whether to meet that call but, rather, is a matter of operational capacity at a particular time and that the Chief Constable is best placed to make that call? Top 3.45 pm Mrs Long: I agree that the Chief Constable is best placed to make that call. That is what I have said throughout my response to the question for urgent oral answer. It is not for any of us to decide, based on whatever perspective we might have, whether it is appropriate for officers to be deployed in any situation. Making those decisions is for the Chief Constable, who is ultimately accountable to the Policing Board. By all means, Mr Chambers, as a member of the Policing Board, you can hold him to account as well as its other members can. Mr Kingston: Does the Justice Minister agree that the mutual aid arrangement is a positive for law enforcement across the United Kingdom and that, at times, we in Northern Ireland have to be prepared to give as well as to receive? Mrs Long: We benefited from mutual aid in the summer, when, sadly, we had to call on those arrangements. Of course, it is not free. It comes at considerable expense. The force that requests mutual aid has to pay for it. There is a full-cost-recovery system. However, it is important that, at times — for example, when the police are stretched thinly because of a number of competing operational demands — we can make that call and have that additional support. For me, the fundamental issue around policing is that we have a shared objective, which is to keep people safe. That is what needs to be upheld, whether by bringing police officers to Belfast or by using officers from Northern Ireland elsewhere on occasion. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister. Assembly Business Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Before we move to the next item of business, which is the conclusion of the statement by the Minister for Communities, I want to say a couple of things. If Members are not happy with some of my rulings, they should go to the Speaker's Office. I, too, will examine Hansard. I find it very misogynistic that, even though I have taken the time to look at Standing Orders and have given Members flexibility in asking their questions, when I point out that they are not keeping to the topic, I get kickback. That is their prerogative as elected representatives, but I find it disrespectful. I also find it very disrespectful to refer to any Members as "slow learners". That language should be consigned to the past. Members, take your ease. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Blair] in the Chair) Mr Dickson: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I did not get the chance to speak to the Principal Deputy Speaker as she left the Chamber. She corrected me on and chided me for the tone and language that I used. I wholeheartedly apologise to the House. Please pass on my apologies to her. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, Mr Dickson, that is noted and will be passed on. Ministerial Statement Disability and Work Strategy Business resumed. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): We return to questions on the ministerial statement. Mr Brooks: I thank the Minister for his statement. What are the implications of the 'Pathways to Work' Green Paper? How does the strategy ensure that disabled people who are impacted on by any reforms will be supported? Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): I am grateful to the Member for his question. I understand the concerns that have been expressed about the Green Paper. Hopefully, Members across the Chamber will be aware of our efforts to encourage the UK Government to reconsider their proposals. While many of the initial proposals have been removed, the nature and impact of the remaining proposals are still unclear. The disability and work strategy does not propose any legislative changes or welfare reforms, but it offers employability support on a voluntary basis to disabled people and those with health conditions. What is important is that we support people into work and give them a helping hand rather than pulling the rug out from underneath them, which is exactly what, I think, the Labour Government are trying to do. Ms K Armstrong: I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, as you pointed out, being in employment is a key thing for people with disabilities. One of my concerns is that such employment should be fairly paid and sustainable. What work can be done with employers to ensure that pay will be appropriate for the positions that are offered and that those positions can last for a longer period? Mr Lyons: Employment law is still in place, and employers will be required to make sure that they treat their employees fairly and pay them the proper wage for their job. The Member can be assured that making sure that that is the case will be a focus of ours, because it would be outrageous if someone who was doing the full job were to be paid less simply because of their disability. I am trying to help people into employment, but that is certainly not so that they can be taken advantage of. Mr Allen: I thank the Minister for bringing forward the draft strategy and for the work that the Department has undertaken on it to date. His statement referred to the desire: "to see workplaces where disabilities and health conditions can be disclosed with confidence". It is concerning that individuals might not have the confidence to raise the issue of disabilities or conditions that may impact on their employment. What aspects of the strategy does the Minister foresee as addressing that? Mr Lyons: Absolutely. That is part of the wider work that we will do with employers to give them confidence to hire staff who are disabled and to show them how they can help current staff. I have seen first-hand in businesses that I have visited how employers can be helped to make minor changes — reasonable adjustments — that come at no cost or a relatively small cost but that open up huge opportunity for better productivity and an improved workforce. Broadly, we will help with what needs to take place for what is a culture change. Again, I do not see any of that as burdensome; rather, I see it as unlocking potential and opportunity for employees and employers. Miss Brogan: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire [Translation: I thank the Minister] for his statement. I am sure that the Minister agrees that the principle of co-design and co-production with the disabled community is essential if we are to have a strategy that is fit for purpose and supported across the board. Will the Minister confirm whether the co-design group has been involved in that part of the process in the past weeks and whether it has seen the draft strategy? Mr Lyons: Yes. I can confirm that disabled people have been part of the process at every stage and have been aware of the document. I draw the Member's attention to pages 8 and 9, where she will see endorsements from a number of groups that will be involved in this daily. The strong support that we have had from stakeholders and all those involved in the process is testament to how simple and straightforward it was to identify the challenges. There was no disagreement on those, nor was there much disagreement on what we need to do to make them right; I assure her of that. I emphasise again that the draft strategy is going out to consultation. I do not believe that it is the finished product. If we can make improvements to it, I absolutely want to see them happen. Mr Robinson: I thank the Minister for his statement. What impact will the plan have on those who will be assisted into work? Mr Lyons: The Member is absolutely right to raise the issue and, in doing so, to first make the distinction that people will be assisted into work. It is about helping, supporting and encouraging people, which is very different from the approach that the Labour Government have taken in their botched attempts to deal with those issues since they came into office. There will be huge benefit for the people who are helped into the programmes. We know the benefits of work. We know that it is important for people to get into work, with the impact that that can have on their physical and mental health and well-being and on their economic situation. That is why this is so positive. It will be beneficial for the individuals concerned, but it will also be beneficial for the employers that open themselves to another pool of talent, and, of course, it will be better for society as a whole. Ms Mulholland: Thank you very much, Minister; we welcome the announcement of the consultation. You spoke about supporting and enabling employers to take on more staff with disabilities. That is really important. How will that work align with the Department for the Economy's skills strategy and employer engagement programmes so that businesses receive coherent and joined-up support rather than a patchwork of schemes? What conversations have been ongoing with the Minister for the Economy and the Department for the Economy about embedding disability inclusion? Have you put in any joint bids for the multi-year funding? Mr Lyons: That is the whole point of bringing forward the strategy: it is not a DFC strategy but a cross-departmental strategy. Departments have fed into the process to make sure that we work together. When the Member sees and, I hope, responds to the consultation on the strategy, she will see that there are some actions that we will be taking collectively with other Departments; other Departments will be doing things individually as well. There is significant work for the Department for the Economy to do. That can be seen throughout the document and particularly in relation to skills. I hope that this will just be the start of Departments working more closely together. These strategies matter. We saw that with the housing supply strategy, which led to an increased focus on developing relationships. The same needs to happen here. Members can see in the draft strategy, and will see in the action plans to follow, that there will be significant cross-departmental working to tackle some of the challenges that we face. Mr McHugh: Minister, you mentioned that the strategy will interconnect with other strategies such as those on anti-poverty, skills, autism and mental health. Does the disability and work strategy connect with the Sign Language Bill, which is going through its Committee Stage, and the gender equality and sexual orientation strategies? Mr Lyons: The intent of the sign language legislation is to ensure that there is greater access to public services in particular, and a better understanding of sign language. You will certainly see some interconnectedness with this. The Member will be aware that I am still considering next steps on what was called the sexual orientation strategy and the gender equality strategy. I will have further meetings about those this week and hope to be in a position to make an announcement soon. Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for his statement. Can he advise why the disability unemployment rate is so high in Northern Ireland compared with the rest of the United Kingdom and what this strategy will do to address that? Mr Lyons: There are a number of historical reasons for that, which are to do with some of the issues that we have relating to economic inactivity, poverty, social exclusion and health and well-being. That is why we are where we are. We need to bridge the gap, and that is exactly what the strategy aims to do by getting an additional 50,000 people into employment over the next 10 years. I would like it to be the best in the UK. We will certainly do everything that we can to achieve that, and we will change it if needs be. Fifty thousand more people into employment in the next 10 years is an ambitious target to start off with. To put that into context, that is the same as the number of people who are employed in the Northern Ireland Civil Service and the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust combined. It is ambitious, and we should all want to work together to bring Northern Ireland up to where the rest of the UK is. Mr Butler: Credit where it is due, Minister. As the chair of the all-party group on disability, I am delighted to see this strategy and will take some time to read it. Does the Minister have an understanding at this stage of how the new disability and work council will ensure that public bodies and Departments implement the recommended changes? Does the Minister envisage there being any powers to hold it to account in achieving the targets? Mr Lyons: I am grateful to the Member for raising that point, because it is important that we have that in place. It is one of the first of its kind, and it is the first time that we have done something like this in Northern Ireland. It is important that it is in place, because I genuinely want to make sure that we monitor progress, that people are held to account, that failings are identified and that improvements can be suggested. I look forward to that being in place almost immediately following the launch of the final strategy, subject to consultation and Executive approval. It is important that we have oversight if for no other reason than we want to monitor progress so that we can change that target of 50,000 if needs be. Top 4.00 pm Ms Ferguson: I welcome the Minister's disability and work strategy and note that you will launch a disability strategy in the next few weeks. That is very welcome. Obviously, it is essential that the strategy receives the appropriate funding to support its implementation. Will you confirm what additional investment there will be alongside the investment for existing programmes? Will they remain? Do you expect additional investment? What is needed, and have you had any conversations with the Finance Minister on multi-year budgeting? Mr Lyons: Absolutely. I will certainly submit bids, because we need to ensure that we have sufficient investment in it. By the way, it is investment: we will get a return on it. We will get a return because money will then not be spent on benefits and welfare and instead be spent on increased provision for those who are in employment. It is really important that we see that money as an investment. I certainly intend to put additional resource where it needs to be. I hope that Executive colleagues will follow suit and ensure that they put in the money that needs to go into it. Of course, we already spend tens if not hundreds of millions of pounds in the area. If some of that money can be diverted into something that is more beneficial and brings greater bang for the buck, I am happy to look at that as well, because we have an opportunity here to make a real difference. The strategy will be part of conversations that I have with counterparts in the UK Government, because, as is the case with what I am doing on welfare fraud and error, we often do the work and Treasury gets the benefit from that. It could be the same with this strategy: we can put in the investment and get more people into work, but the primary beneficiary of that in financial terms will be the Treasury. There should be sharing of that benefit so that we can reinvest it here and ensure that we help more people. That is what I intend to do. I will certainly not be found wanting when it comes to putting in that investment from my budget and baseline. I hope that Executive colleagues will help me out in that. Mr Bradley: I thank the Minister for his statement and congratulate him on bringing the strategy to the House. Can you tell us why the strategy has taken so long to prepare, given that the previous strategy expired in 2021? What has caused the delay? Mr Lyons: I would like to have seen the strategy launched much earlier, but I had to deal with the situation that I found when I came into the Department. I made it a priority to progress the strategy. Since I have been in office, we have had to allow the time to gather evidence, co-produce actions and quality-review its content. Actions are owned by multiple Departments as well, so I have had to ensure that we had Executive buy-in and support for future funding bids. I reassure the Member that we have got to this stage because I made it a priority. I wanted to ensure that we delivered it because I know the change that we can make and the real impact that we can have on people's lives. The House and the Executive get a lot of criticism for things that we do not do. I did not want that to be the case in this mandate. That is why we now have one of the most comprehensive strategies for disabled people that we have ever had. I will follow that up shortly with the wider disability strategy. Mr McMurray: I thank the Minister for his statement and all that is included in it. Will the disability and work council contact participants throughout the year and afterwards to determine the success of the strategy? What safety nets and measures are there for participants who may find that, with the best will in the world, the work is overwhelming? What welfare benefits will be there for them to return to? Mr Lyons: Obviously, we want the disability and work council to be as effective as possible, which is why we will ensure that it has access to the people and information that it needs to make the necessary recommendations. This is new for us and has been widely welcomed, so I want it to be a success. We will do everything that we need to do in that regard. On the Member's other question, I hope that we do not get into that circumstance, because, even if one or two things do not work, I would like to think that we will be able to find the help that individuals need. That is why it will be so tailored in the first instance, so that we are not going down the wrong path or doing something that does not work. It is about putting in the work early on to make sure that it is a success for all who need help. Mr McGrath: Minister, while we all want to see this succeeding, because it is important work, just an hour ago, we heard from the Health Minister that he does not have enough money to fund the mental health strategy, and that is a major barrier to getting people into work. Under this strategy, what sort of cross-departmental work will take place to help people to get back into work who are not being helped due to the lack of investment in the mental health strategy? Mr Lyons: Of course, all of those issues intersect. Improving people's mental health and well-being is really important, and I may have another announcement for the Member later today, if he would like to come back to the Chamber, where I will be able to give more information. For me, this is about priorities, and it is a priority for me to make sure that we can support and help people. That will require funding, and I am stepping up to the plate on that. I am prepared to get the funding that is necessary, and I am prepared to make the case to Executive colleagues and to the Treasury that this is an investment on which we will get a huge return and where we can prevent some of the other problems that people face. I often say that giving money to the Department for Communities can help all of the other Ministers in the Executive because of the positive impacts that we can have on people's lives early on. Getting into solid, sustained employment is a good way to help people with some of the mental health issues that they face, so I stand ready to do whatever I can and to work with whomever I need to work with to improve outcomes for people in Northern Ireland. Mr Middleton: I thank the Minister for his welcome statement on the new disability and work strategy. Minister, there is an opportunity for the public sector to lead by example to support more disabled people in work. Can the Minister outline what more can be done from within the public sector? Mr Lyons: Absolutely. We have to lead by example, and it would be wrong of us, as an Executive, to ask employers to do something that we are not prepared to do ourselves. We have taken the lead on that. The Department of Finance has been involved in the development of the strategy, and, as an employer, it has set out its five-year people strategy that will ensure initiatives around guaranteed interview schemes, reasonable adjustment policies and training. I am delighted that, through the Department for Communities' JobStart programme, we have been able to support people into employment, including supporting people into the Northern Ireland Civil Service. I think that I have told this story before, but it is one of the things that have stayed with me most during my time in the Department. I met some of those who were helped through the JobStart scheme, including one individual who had autism and felt that the workplace was never going to be for him because he would never be able to fit in. However, he got a job working in the Civil Service in data input, and it was perfect for him. He loves it, and he told me how proud he was that he was able to get a job and to sustain employment. He said how proud his parents were that he had been able to do that. That is genuinely life-changing, and I am delighted that the Northern Ireland Civil Service is able to create such opportunities. There are so many people who have potential, talent and ability, but barriers — sometimes very small barriers — stop them getting into employment. I do not want that to be the case. Let us break those down and open up a reservoir of talent and potential. That is what I am determined to do. Mrs Cameron: I thank the Minister for his really important statement to the House. You have just touched on one example, and many of our disabled population, including those with autism, have much talent to offer employers, so I very much welcome the strategy and the consultation announcement. Would the Minister like to tell us some more about what engagement there has been on the development of the strategy with disabled people in particular? Mr Lyons: I am grateful to the Member for her question and for the really important work that she has been doing for many years on behalf of people who have autism. It is important that the issues be raised and understood. To understand the issues with disability and work, we need to talk to others. We need to hear from those who are at the coalface: employers and those who have lived experience of disability. The strategy was co-produced with a diverse range of over 100 partners, from central and local government, the community and voluntary sector, employers and their representative bodies, statutory bodies such as the Equality Commission, and those with lived experience of disability, both individuals and organisations. We have therefore accurately captured the views of disabled people locally to ensure that their issues are understood and, importantly, that actions are targeted and effective. That is why it is so important that we will have a disability and work council, as it will have disabled people on it. It will also have a disabled person as its chair. The council will give disabled people a real insight into what is happening and real controls over governance. Ms Brownlee: Thank you, Minister. It is fantastic that you have brought the matter to the House today. You touched on barriers. Accessible transport is a huge barrier to people getting into and staying in work. At this stage, what communication has your Department had with other Departments to ensure that community transport is accessible and inclusive for all? Mr Lyons: The Member is absolutely right to raise that issue. Together, we recently met South Antrim Community Transport and saw at first hand the important work that it is doing in our constituency. Further work on accessible transport will be done, because, in a number of weeks, I will be bringing out the disability strategy, which will focus more widely on transport and accessibility issues. I am keen to break down barriers to disabled people getting into employment. Transport is rightly one such issue that we need to address. That will form part of the wider disability strategy, but I encourage the Member and anyone else who is interested to respond to the consultation on the disability and work strategy and make their views known so that we can see how those views can be incorporated, because what is the point in people having a job to go to if they cannot get to it? We therefore want to make sure that there is a focus on that as well. Mr Gaston: Minister, I certainly welcome your disability and work strategy. I will take a moment to praise a scheme that is currently being run between Mid and East Antrim Borough Council and Castle Tower School in Ballymena that is preparing young people with special needs for the world of work that lies ahead of them. The pathway that you have set out is the correct one. You have given us your promise in the statement. I want to know what the other Ministers have promised you by way of resource and money before the strategy goes out to consultation in order to ensure that what you have told us today is deliverable. There has to be buy-in from everybody, as responsibility cannot be left solely to the Department for Communities. Can you therefore outline what the other Ministers have committed to providing so that, when the strategy goes out to consultation, people will know what to expect? Mr Lyons: I completely agree with the Member that this is not just for the Department for Communities to do. Rather, it is a cross-departmental, cross-Executive strategy. We need to make sure that everybody buys into it and that everybody is prepared to work together. I am doing my part. I have set aside funding for the strategy. I have bid for more, and I continue to do what I can. I would be more than happy to get the Member's support to lobby my Executive colleagues to make sure that they take forward, and take seriously, the actions to which they have committed themselves. We have set a target. I do not want just to meet that target. I would love my successor in five years' time to come along and say, "The strategy has been such a success that we are now going to increase the target and close the disability employment gap even more". As I said, I would therefore welcome the Member's assistance in lobbying my Executive colleagues. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): That concludes questions on the Minister's statement. I ask Members to take their ease before we move on to the next item of business. Top 4.15 pm Executive Committee Business RHI (Closure of Non-Domestic Scheme) Bill: First Stage Dr Archibald (The Minister for the Economy): I beg to introduce the RHI (Closure of Non-Domestic Scheme) Bill [NIA 22/22-27], which is a Bill to enable the Department for the Economy to make regulations to close the non-domestic RHI scheme. Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed. Private Members' Business Regional Imbalance Ms McLaughlin: I beg to move That this Assembly notes with concern the recent resignation from the Invest NI board due to concerns regarding regional imbalance; further notes that recent Executive decisions, including the allocation of the Northern Ireland Football Fund, appear to have paid little regard to the need for regional balance; calls on the Minister for the Economy to urgently publish an assessment on the progress of the subregional economic plan; and further calls on the Minister to outline what steps she will take to ensure that all Departments contribute to its successful implementation, including any proposals that aim to strengthen accountability where regional balance is not being delivered. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes. Ms McLaughlin: I speak in the interests of fairness and opportunity for people across Northern Ireland, because fairness — the basic promise that everyone should have a fair crack of the whip and a fair shot in life — is at the core of the motion and at the heart of regional balance. However, the reality of our economy is that wealth is dictated more by postcode than by merit or talent. Let us begin with the facts: people in Derry face a gap of around 10% in employment and economic activity compared with other areas across the North; average wages are almost 30% lower than in Belfast; the rate of poverty in our north-west communities is double that of some other parts of Northern Ireland; the rate of drug deaths in the most deprived parts of the Western Trust area is almost two and a half times the trust average; and from 2019 to 2021, people in the most deprived areas of Derry and Strabane were likely to die seven years earlier than the Northern Ireland average — a gap that has widened since 2015. It is a problem that is felt passionately by many people west of the Bann who are locked out of opportunity, including by embarrassingly poor transport links. In 2012, we had a regional development strategy that emphasised the importance of modern infrastructure, but, 13 years later, look where we are. The European Commission's regional competitiveness index ranked the north and west of Ireland at 218th out of 234 EU regions for infrastructure. We have failed to move the needle, and people west of the Bann still pay the price, not least through the failure to deliver the A5, a project that is vital not just for the north-west but for Fermanagh and Tyrone. Its completion would open up access to jobs, trade and investment across the region. The failure to deliver the A5 is not just incompetent but a betrayal of the families who have lost loved ones on that road. It is regional imbalance writ large. Modern roads are not just tarmac; they are the arteries of economic growth. Regional imbalance does not stop at the Bann, however. Some of the 10 most deprived wards in Northern Ireland are in the North Belfast constituency of my Economy Committee colleague, Phillip Brett, and in West Belfast. Members across the Chamber can attest to the impact that that has in their constituencies every day. This is not a question of west versus east; it is about fairness and building a Northern Ireland that works for everyone. A report by the International Longevity Centre UK recently measured local authorities by inequalities in health, wealth and opportunity. Derry was ranked the third worst in the UK. It was 357th out of 359. When we talk about deprivation, we must also talk about air quality. Poor air quality is a serious yet often overlooked indicator of poverty and health inequality. It is of little surprise then that Foyle is above the Northern Ireland average for respiratory conditions such as asthma and COPD. Those facts tell the real story of Northern Ireland today, and it sits totally at odds with what we hear from Ministers in the Chamber. Regional balance is not about pitting one area against another. What is good for the west should be good for Northern Ireland as a whole. That is the challenge, and it is our responsibility as legislators. Despite the rhetoric, regional balance remains a claim on paper — just warm words. For too long, it has been used to pacify the long-standing demands of people who have been denied the university that they were promised, the investment that was pledged and the economic justice that they deserve. We welcome the recent progress on Magee. The number of higher education students in Derry now stands at around 6,000. However, when you set that against the 46,000 students in Belfast, you see that it is not balanced. The resignation of Kieran Kennedy from the board of Invest NI was a stark warning and a damning indictment of the Executive's failure to deliver for regional economies, especially in the north-west. Kieran is a respected voice who understands what is at stake. His decision speaks volumes about the lack of urgency and cultural change at the heart of Invest NI. It was interesting to read about an hour ago that Invest NI has just advertised a new role for the head of regional business in Derry. What a coincidence. Given the decisions on the football fund that left clubs such as Derry City Football Club and Coleraine Football Club out in the cold, it is clear that regional balance still is not embedded across Departments. So what needs to change? We need an economic strategy that drives growth in every part of the region, recognising the comparative disadvantages of each area and ensuring that no community is left behind. We need a skills policy that links education with opportunity and seizes the jobs of the future, from green energy to AI. We need to see progress on the subregional economic plan and a whole-government approach to make it work. That is why our motion calls on the Minister to ensure that every Department plays its part. It is why I have brought forward a proposal for a regional balance Bill, which has now been formally submitted to the Speaker's Office. I look forward to engaging with the Speaker and hope that the Bill will be granted approval to progress to the drafters. It is in the interests of every Minister in the Chamber that the legislation goes forward, because poverty does not care about borders or council areas. We should all want a society where our chances of a good education, access to healthcare and a prosperous future for our children are not decided by our postcode. The First Minister recently told us that the north-west is thriving. I will never stop speaking up for the north-west. I am probably like a broken record at this stage. I will also never stop being honest. Walk around the streets of Derry and ask people whether they think that our city is thriving and whether they feel the difference of government in their wage packet or their daily life: "thriving" is not the word that you will hear. One year ago, the subregional economic plan declared a new, strategic approach to economic policy that placed regional balance at its heart. One year later, people still wait to see and feel the difference and to even understand what the purpose of the plan is. That needs to change. With a different approach that is grounded in fairness, evidence and ambition, it can change. I put the motion to the Floor. Mr Delargy: Regional balance underpins Sinn Féin's economic strategy, which is a commitment to making the North work for all its people. The basis of our economic strategy is to make the economy work for ordinary people, not just for ordinary people to work to boost the economy. It is only when our economy is delivering real change at a grassroots level that that becomes a reality. That is why Minister Archibald's 'good jobs' Bill and myriad other progressive legislation advance that agenda. The key reason why Sinn Féin took up the Economy portfolio last year was to address and improve regional balance. That is why we made regional balance a key pillar of the Department's economic strategy. That is why it underpins the other three priorities, and that is why we insisted that regional balance be a shared Executive priority. In delivering regional balance, people want to hear what has been achieved. They want to hear tangible outcomes. Today, I will outline what Sinn Féin has already done. Let us talk about Derry. Let us talk about the A6, which was a transformative project for regional balance delivered by former Sinn Féin Infrastructure Minister Chris Hazzard. Let us talk about the decentralisation of the Civil Service under current Finance Minister John O'Dowd and former Finance Minister Conor Murphy, which has brought jobs to the heart of many of our communities. Let us talk about the transformation of Magee. Other parties talked about a policy, but Sinn Féin Minister Caoimhe Archibald and former Minister Conor Murphy delivered on it. Let us talk about Ebrington, Meenan Square, the North West Cancer Centre, City of Derry Airport and a plethora of new schools. Let us talk Derry up. Everyone here knows that Derry and other regions, particularly those west of the Bann, have experienced chronic underinvestment under decades of the unionist party. My grandparents and their generation, who came out on our streets as part of the civil rights movement, marched with a vision to talk not only about the problems but about the solutions. They created the framework where I can stand in the Chamber today as an equal to everyone else here. My generation no longer has to experience the neglect and lack of opportunity that their generation faced. The campaign that they talked about and that they marched for was about talking Derry up. It was about selling Derry's story to people across Ireland and the world. Derry's story is changing, and regional balance is changing under Sinn Féin's leadership. That leadership is focused on delivery, it is focused on opportunity, and it is focused on building a positive future for all. It is also an opportunity and a vision for everyone else in the Chamber to get behind that and to work together to build that. It is not a partisan issue; it is about fairness and ambition for our whole economy. When we work together and push in the same direction, we can achieve real change. However, it takes everyone to work together. It takes collective leadership from the north-west and, particularly, from our political representatives. The people of Derry and the entire North deserve that. They deserve a society where investment reaches every corner and where no young person feels that they need to leave Derry to succeed. The same goes for young people in Donegal. Regional balance can never be addressed while our country is partitioned and while Derry is cut off from its natural hinterland in Donegal. Of course, there are challenges. No one here is denying that. However, when we hear all about the challenges and not about the opportunities, businesses and those hoping to invest in Derry will naturally switch off. When they do not see a collective political will, that is extremely problematic for investment. The collective leadership coming from Derry businesses, the chamber of commerce and, most important, the people of Derry is that we have a collective cause and must row in the same direction. I agree that we should encourage regional balance across all our Departments, but that is what we are already doing. We consistently ask questions about why Altnagelvin Hospital does not have an adequately sized or resourced emergency department and about the funding for mental health groups and charities. We champion organisations and leaders from the north-west and hold Ministers to account, but we are so much stronger when we do that together. Top 4.30 pm Mr Middleton: The DUP wants all of Northern Ireland to succeed. We want every part of our country from east to west to thrive within the United Kingdom. We committed to addressing the challenges of regional imbalance in 'New Decade, New Approach' (NDNA), and we remain in support of that commitment. Of course, the focus to date has been on the Foyle constituency, but I recognise that regional imbalance goes well beyond that area, and my colleague, Maurice Bradley, will speak to that fact. I hope to address a number of points in the motion as best I can. First, there is the resignation of a member of the Invest NI board. Kieran Kennedy was appointed by the then DUP Minister, Diane Dodds. At the time, it was argued that he was a champion for the north-west and had a track record of growing a local company into a huge success. Of course, we wish Mr Kennedy well and thank him for his time on the board, but we recognise that the board is much bigger than one individual. We need to work with the board members who continue to do good work, and we should not use the resignation of a board member for our political purposes. The motion states that recent Executive decisions appear to have paid little regard to the need for regional balance, and the football fund was mentioned specifically. Of course, I am on record about the disappointment of clubs, such as Institute Football Club in the north-west, but the fund was not based on geography; it was based on other criteria. Therefore, rather than being a politician who moans and complains about it, I sought meetings with the Minister, officials and the council to bring about a resolution and further investment for the north-west. Increasingly, over the past number of months, it appears that the SDLP is allergic to positivity. DUP Ministers and the Executive have been delivering for the north-west, and that is clearly recognised by business representatives and those involved in leadership. Let us take some time to look at the delivery over the past 12 months. There was the Derry-Londonderry North Atlantic (DNA) Museum, a £15 million investment supported by DUP Ministers. The SDLP attended the launch and welcomed the project, but there is no recognition of that today. The north-west regeneration fund is a £10 million fund announced by the DUP Minister, Gordon Lyons, to deliver key projects, such as the regeneration of Austins in the city centre. Again, that was welcomed by the SDLP, but there has been no delivery other than that from our party. The creation of 270 new jobs in Londonderry through the Department for Communities: again, that is a DUP Minister delivering for our constituency. There have been significant public realm works, again brought forward by DFC, and thousands of pounds of investment in Londonderry's city centre. Again, that was welcomed by the SDLP, but no credit has been given to the DUP Minister. Millions of pounds have been spent through Urban Villages, an initiative brought forward by the now deputy First Minister, Emma Little-Pengelly, when she was in the Executive Office. There has been £300 million in city deal funding for Londonderry and Strabane, again delivered through DUP MPs. There has been £20 million of towns funding for Londonderry and Coleraine that was, again, delivered through DUP MPs. The SDLP is playing politics for politics' sake. The party's negativity does not reflect the work to address regional imbalance; in fact, in areas where the SDLP has power, such as the council, it has failed. The SDLP's MP has disappeared: he has failed. When opportunities come forward from the defence sector, the party opposes them. It is a party that has lost its way and lost credibility on those issues. I support the Minister for the Economy in bringing forward the subregional plan. We need to see progress on that, and we will hold her to account, but to play politics with it is downright shameful, and nobody is buying into it. Mr Honeyford: I thank the proposer of the motion, Sinéad McLaughlin. It is an important issue that we need to discuss honestly. Alliance believes that economic regional balance means that every person, no matter what their postcode, will have equal access to skills training, jobs and opportunities. That, however, has to mean much more than numbers on a map and be about more than a binary argument that pitches Belfast against Derry. For Alliance, regional balance must mean that every person, whether they live in Derry, Coleraine, Enniskillen, Omagh, Lisburn, Dromore, Newry or Belfast, has the same chance to succeed. As the proposer referenced, some of the most deprived areas are in the constituencies of North Belfast and West Belfast. For us, prosperity must be shared. The wealth gap between the rich and the poor must be reduced in order to bring about a shared society. All of that requires government to work together across Departments, not in silos. None of the issues that we are dealing with fits neatly into just one Department. The motion calls on the Minister: "to ensure that all Departments contribute to its successful implementation". I sit on the Public Accounts Committee. It does my head in, and I will keep raising this point, that, although there is barely an issue that we deal with that does not cut across multiple Departments to deliver on, we have only one Minister to scrutinise what we want taken forward. The Department of Health is probably the only Department in which issues are self-contained. Most issues are not, however. Skills cuts across the Department of Education and the Department for the Economy. Adult reoffending, at which the PAC looked recently, cuts across the Department for Communities and the Department of Education. Jobs and mental health are also factors involved. Everything has to be considered if adult reoffending to be addressed, but our Committee structure is based on scrutinising one Minister's Department, with Committees powerless to scrutinise wider issues, which makes delivery slow and difficult to achieve. Looking at that is a major part of the reform that the Assembly needs to undertake. We need to achieve regional balance in order to make sure that every community in every town and village across Northern Ireland sees the benefits of prosperity and economic growth. We must raise the value of the money in everyone's pocket, not just in the pockets of those in the wealthy suburbs of Belfast or in my constituency of Lagan Valley. I agree with the need to have regional balance, but, with all due respect, what I struggle with is what the SDLP often means by "regional balance". It simply means Derry, not anywhere else. I absolutely agree that regional balance has to include Derry, but it also has to include everywhere else. Lagan Valley is, wrongly in my view, included in the Minister's definition of the Belfast metropolitan area. Invest NI has zero land in my area to bring jobs to or for companies to expand, however. The DUP continues to block Maze/Long Kesh development, which leaves us with nothing, and with no way in which to bring new jobs to the area. We are located in the M1/A1 corridor, yet my constituents are left without any hope of jobs or opportunities being expanded locally. The M1 continues to be a car park into Belfast in the morning. I am being let down by Invest NI and by the Minister's definition. Part of achieving regional balance is having the ability to move stuff to where business is looking to position itself. I have been calling for ages for a Northern Ireland-wide development plan — a master plan, if you like — to sit above councils' individual local development plans (LDPs). Such a plan would shape our economy, give us locations for energy and renewables sites and plot the major infrastructure that we need, such as the A5 and the implementation of the all-island rail review. Without such a plan, we cannot deliver regional balance. If we do not have the infrastructure, such as the A5 and rail networks, we cannot deliver it. Without the road network —. Mr O'Toole: I thank the Member for giving way. To that end, does he agree that we therefore really need to see the investment strategy published? Is his party asking for that at the Executive? I have no idea where it is. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute. Mr Honeyford: Investment is part of it, but I am talking about having an overall plan in which we see the A5 upgraded and all the other bits of major infrastructure that we need plotted. In the west, you cannot ask for health reform if you do not allow people to access hospitals quickly and simply via road or rail networks. That has to happen. Regional balance cannot be about winners and losers. It cannot be about Belfast versus Derry. Rather, it has to be about fairness for every community, from the largest city to the smallest village. We owe it to every young person, family and business to create an economy in which prosperity is genuinely shared. I believe completely in a shared future. I believe in a shared island economy. Providing opportunities for everyone is fundamental to what Alliance wants to see, but that has to work everywhere, not just in Belfast and Derry. Ms D Armstrong: I will put forward a perspective from the south-west. I thank Sinéad for proposing the motion. The Ulster Unionist Party shares the concerns around regional imbalance that are raised in the motion. However, we believe that regional balance should be tailored to benefit all of Northern Ireland. While investment in the north-west is welcome and necessary, it must not come at the expense of other regions such as the south-west. The story in my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone has been one of cuts and job losses in recent years. Last year, BT axed 300 jobs, and this year, jobs were lost at Severfield, which is a leading employer in Ballinamallard. Those are only a few cases from the south-west that have exacerbated the feeling of neglect and avoidance. Mr Gildernew: Will the Member give way? Ms D Armstrong: Certainly. Mr Gildernew: Does the Member agree that the A5 is an absolutely essential element in creating regional balance in our constituency? Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute. Ms D Armstrong: I thank the Member for his intervention. When we look at the A5, we also need to consider our spending priorities. The A5 is an Executive flagship programme, but other Members have mentioned an all-Ireland rail strategy. Where is the magic money tree for everything that we need? I am, of course, looking for jobs for the south-west. At the moment, businesses in the south-west have to deal with lacklustre infrastructure, yet they still manage to export globally. I want to see that being improved. The north-west has already been earmarked a £290 million investment package through the Derry City and Strabane region city deal. On the other hand, the Mid South West growth deal's investment of £252 million is spread across three council areas — Fermanagh and Omagh District Council, Mid Ulster District Council and Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council — meaning that funds need to be stretched further in order to support real economic development. Invest NI has reported that, in 2024-25, it supported 236 investments in the north-west, with £22 million in financial support and £165 million in total investment. That level of investment has simply not been replicated in the south-west. The local press recently highlighted the lack of funding for sports and community organisations in the area. Over the past three years, Sport NI has allocated a total of 3·25% of its funding to the Fermanagh and Omagh area. The lowest allocation was this year, with 1·3% for 2024-25. For regional balance to work, people in all corners of Northern Ireland need to feel that the economy is delivering for them. I echo the call for the Minister for the Economy to publish an assessment of the progress that has been made under the subregional economic plan, in order to give a true picture of economic progress. The local economic partnerships are vital for assessing barriers to and opportunities for economic growth, but we desperately need to see some form of outcome from those partnerships and a clear plan from the Department as to how it intends to support them. The recent resignation of Mr Kennedy from the Invest NI board has, rightly, raised questions about how regional economic interests are being represented here. A recent response to a question for written answer that I posed to the Minister for the Economy assured me that the appointment to the vacant post would be made on merit. I welcome that, but the Invest NI board needs greater regional representation in order to have a voice from areas such as the south-west. Representation from all regions would demonstrate regional balance in economic policy that is fair to and inclusive of all regions in Northern Ireland. In short, we support regional balance, but it must work for the entirety of Northern Ireland. Let us ensure that every community has a fair shot at growth, investment, opportunity and prosperity. Miss Brogan: As a representative for West Tyrone, I am very aware of the damaging effects that regional imbalance has had on services, infrastructure and communities west of the Bann. For generations, indifferent British Governments and Stormont regimes have starved the west of resources and infrastructure, but that tide is turning. Sinn Féin Ministers have made undoing the damage of regional imbalance a key focus of their delivery. As First Minister, Michelle O'Neill ensured that regional balance was a Programme for Government commitment for the Executive. Minister Archibald is carrying on the work of her predecessor, Conor Murphy, who made regional balance one of the four pillars of his Department, and she has built on that foundation, not just with words but with a £45 million regional balance fund that will benefit every council area across the North. Top 4.45 pm In addition to that, Minister Liz Kimmins has been fighting tooth and nail to ensure the delivery of the A5, which not only represents a massive investment in Counties Tyrone, Derry and Donegal but is a vital piece of national infrastructure that will have significant investment, economic and, most importantly, safety benefits for communities in the north-west of Ireland. Minister Kimmins also announced recently that the A32 Cornamuck project is to progress to the procurement and construction stage. That is an important road for people in my constituency who travel between Omagh and Enniskillen, particularly those trying to reach the South West Acute Hospital. As a member of the Committee for Communities, I share the motion's concerns about the distribution of the football fund. The Committee will continue to scrutinise Minister Lyons on the matter. Given the recent announcement of other sporting and cultural funds from the Department for Communities, I again remind the Minister of the regional balance obligations that his party signed up to as part of the Programme for Government. For a long time, communities in the west just had to accept that, when it came to investment, all that they were going to get was scraps from the table. Times have changed, however, and we will no longer accept that. Sinn Féin is committed to equality, and regional balance is a crucial part of that commitment. That is why our representatives will continue to fight for marginalised communities all over Ireland. Mr Bradley: I agree with the broad principle of the motion. We have heard a lot about regional balance, but, when we hear the north-west mentioned in the Chamber, what is really meant by the north-west is Foyle. The truth is simpler, however, and far more uncomfortable, which is that there is no real regional balance in Northern Ireland. One of the most glaring victims of that imbalance, rarely mentioned and even more rarely supported or prioritised, is the Causeway Coast and Glens council area, where there are two highly deprived areas. The Minister can cite quite a few millions for Londonderry — funding that we all welcome — yet fail to explain why the Causeway Coast and Glens area, with its world-class potential, continues to be overlooked. We hear about support for Magee, but what about Coleraine? It is the home of Ulster University's flagship biomedical research centre, a campus of equal academic standing, yet it receives no comparable commitment or dedicated task force and no strategic investment. The truth is that no major new investment has been announced for the Coleraine campus in years. Let us talk about the subregional economic plan, which is now a year old. It was launched with £45 million in funding, but how much has actually been spent and where? It means that businesses in the Causeway Coast and Glens are waiting for support that never arrives, so what happens? The better resourced areas pull away, and our region is left behind again. The SDLP rightly focused on Foyle; I, in turn, am rightly focused on the Causeway Coast and Glens, East Londonderry. In the Chamber, when we speak about the north-west, we leave out the Causeway Coast and Glens. Do not forget that the Causeway Coast and Glens area is the largest council area in the country, stretching from Waterfoot to Greysteel. The motion is not about taking away from Londonderry, Belfast or anywhere else. It is about finally recognising that regional balance must mean more than a two-city strategy. If we truly believe in balanced economic growth, let us see it. We want to see a dedicated investment plan for Causeway Coast and Glens and other council areas, a task force for the Coleraine campus just like Magee, and an update on how the £45 million subregional plan will be spent, with real deadlines and delivery. The Causeway Coast and Glens has the talent and ambition. What we lack is the attention of the Executive; that needs to change, and it needs to change now. Regional balance is for all, not just a few. We lost out, as did Derry City, Institute and other clubs, through the football fund. However, we are trying to address that. I have had meetings with the Minister and Coleraine Football Club, and the club is due to meet officials from the Minister's Department tomorrow, so all is not lost. Regional balance is for everybody, not just a few. Ms Nicholl: I had written my speech, and it says: "I am delighted that the first thing I'm speaking on is regional balance" but this is the fourth time that I have spoken since coming back. One of the things that I did not say earlier today — the Minister is here now with members of her party — is that I am so sorry for the attack on your colleagues' office. I want to put that on record. I am delighted to speak on the motion. Sinéad McLaughlin is the queen of regional balance and never misses an opportunity to champion it. I will not repeat a lot of what has been said, but there is one thing that I was thinking. Sometimes, regional balance and what it means gets lost in political discourse. For most people, it just means not having to move away from home to access good jobs, services or opportunities because those things are shared out more fairly. I am married to a Fermanagh man. By way of regional imbalance, there is no way that he would have left Fermanagh if he could have helped it. I have benefited from it. We need to see fairness, fair distribution of investment and support for all people across Northern Ireland. Regional balance is vital. I am an unapologetic champion for Belfast. It is and always will be a key economic driver for the region. It is the capital and is actively competing with other large cities across these islands for investment and exposure. However, we can and absolutely should have other economic drivers in the region, including Derry, the south-west, mid-Ulster and more. Regional balance is not just about economics. Economic levers without social and community infrastructure around them will not deliver the kind of sustainable region that we should be aiming for. Transport, education, health, housing, infrastructure and access to high-quality, affordable and flexible childcare are all vital. I am also not really sure that the word "balance" does this debate justice. Ultimately, it is about unlocking and releasing the full potential of all our parts of home and providing the best opportunities for all our people across Northern Ireland. As my colleague David said, for regional balance to be delivered, there has to be a joined-up, whole-of-government approach. That is not something that we are that good at in this place, but we are really good at innovation. In our tech sector, the connections between industry, academia and government perfectly position us to take advantage. Just look at the trailblazing success in cyber and screen. I am really interested in the potential of AI. The Artificial Intelligence Collaboration Centre (AICC) outlined in its recent capability census: "Whilst Belfast emerges as our AI hub, democratising AI access across all of Northern Ireland remains central to our mission." Its presence in Derry helps to serve businesses across the region, from what it describes as: "Fermanagh's agritech innovators to Mid Ulster's manufacturers", ensuring that they: "can access the tools, skills, and support needed to thrive." The growth of AI firms and firms that make use of AI presents a real opportunity to create more evenly spread opportunities across the whole region. It is really great to see the AICC leading by example. Regional balance must be delivered, but it needs to be holistic, and if there is one message that comes from my speech, I want it to be that. It requires a joined-up approach right across government, and we need to see more sustainable long-term opportunities and investment in all parts of Northern Ireland. Ms Sheerin: I am struck by the commonality across the Chamber during this debate, and I welcome that. As others have said, the Members for Foyle often talk about Derry, but it strikes me that we have something in common when it comes to how Derry is discussed. We are all saying the same thing but are just saying it differently. Our language differs when we refer to Derry, and it differs when we talk about what we see as the priorities for regional balance. I am also from Derry, albeit a different part of Derry, and this is one of the most frustrating parts of my life. When I meet somebody new and tell them that I am from Derry, I get two common retorts. One is, "Is it 'Derry' or —?" I immediately cut that off, because if I called it something other than "Derry", I would have done so. They also then assume that I am from the city, which I am not. I am from mid-Ulster, which has also suffered very badly as a result of a lack of investment down through the generations. We in Sinn Féin want to change and address that, and that has been pursued by our two Ministers who have held the Economy brief since we took that on. As I have said, it is a priority for everybody in this Chamber and in the Executive, and addressing regional imbalance is mentioned in our Programme for Government. We should all support that. When we look specifically at the north-west of the country, it would be remiss not to refer to the fact that partition has had a very negative impact on and really serious implications for that part of Ireland. My colleague Mr Delargy has already outlined the fact that the natural hinterland for Derry city is Donegal, and a barrier has been put in place there that is still having ramifications today. We need to address that. Realistically, we are not going to see the economic prosperity that we all want to see until we are in a new and revised Ireland. That is something that we have to battle with. However, it should not mean that we cannot make progress in the interim. That is what my party colleagues are trying to do. As others have outlined, areas of the North that traditionally did not receive investment or support were oftentimes left to their own devices. In that gap, we have seen a lot of very impressive indigenous businesses thrive without support. I see that in my own area. Mid-Ulster has a massive engineering sector. Most of the crushing and screening equipment produced in the world comes out of our wee part of the country. That has been done without proper infrastructure or government support. Those firms have worked away on their own, and that ingenuity is amazing. The message from across the Chamber is that we all support this and want to see it prioritised. Our Minister is committed to that. Mr Brett: I start by saying that, although I am a representative of Belfast, I am the party's economic spokesperson, so I am committed to ensuring that we have a Northern Ireland that works for everyone, in every corner. I welcome Ms Nicholl back to her place. She will bring a much-needed calm and zen back to our Committee deliberations. She is very welcome back. I thank the Member for Foyle for the debate. Although the tone or content of the discussion has drifted away from the motion, a number of issues in it are worthy of discussion, not least the subregional economic plan that was announced by the Minister's predecessor more than a year ago. I am on record as having criticised that plan when it was launched, because I believed that it had failings. Those have been played out to date. The exclusion of Ards and North Down from the renewed focus by Invest Northern Ireland under the Minister's instruction is, in my view, completely unacceptable. In the rankings of labour productivity and median wages, that council area ranks worst and second worst in comparison with other parts of Northern Ireland. The Minister at the time could not justify the creation of a false Belfast metropolitan area plan area to exclude funding or support from that council, and, to date, neither has the new Minister been able to do that. I also said that, in many ways, plan would not be worth the paper that it was written on if the proposals were not advanced. Unfortunately, that is now the case. Within the document, page 9 is dedicated to the Invest Northern Ireland regional property fund. That new approach was taken forward by the Minister to ensure that Invest Northern Ireland would invest in new properties and business parks. To date, the Minister has allocated zero pounds to that programme. If it were a Minister from these Benches who allocated zero pounds to that fund, we would be accused of sectarianism and anti-Foyle sentiment. The previous Minister's approach to the subregional economic plan was the economic partnerships: some £45 million has been allocated to that to date. How much of that vital £45 million of resources has been spent? Absolutely zero. Again, if this party had behaved in that way, we would have been, rightly, criticised. I will pick up on some of the points made by other Members who spoke, who blamed the lack of investment in parts of Northern Ireland on the big bad unionists. The message for the Benches opposite is that you have jointly run this place for 25 years. No longer can you criticise Ministers. You have had the joint head of Government since 2003. You now hold the Economy, Infrastructure and Finance portfolios. You can no longer blame failings on the big bad unionists. Had we presided over the shambles that is the A5 court case, this party would have been hounded by our political opponents and the media. You cannot blame that on the big bad unionists. I also want to pick up on Mr Honeyford's point. He incorrectly stated that the DUP is holding up the economic development of the Maze/Long Kesh site. I will go tomorrow with Mr Honeyford and a digger to clear that site completely and open it up for economic development. What Mr Honeyford did not say is that the DUP will not support a shrine to terrorists on that site. If Mr Honeyford wants to join me with a digger tomorrow, we can go and clear the site. Top 5.00 pm Mr Honeyford: Will the Member give way? Mr Brett: Mr Honeyford. Mr Honeyford: There is no shrine. There never was a shrine, and there never will be a shrine. Why can we not get on with opening the place up for everyone? Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): With the intervention and the general theme, we are some way off the basis of the motion. Mr Brett: I take it that Mr Honeyford will not be taking up my offer that we clear the site with a digger tomorrow. My party remains committed to ensuring that we have regional balance in all parts of Northern Ireland. It is worth reading into the record some figures relating to the points raised by my colleague, Mr Bradley, who is an articulate champion for the people whom he is honoured to represent. Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council Area is ranked ninth out of 11 for labour productivity, tenth out of 11 for median wages, ninth out of 11 for subregional employment rates and ninth for greenhouse gas emissions. That is where the focus of this place should be: ensuring that people of all backgrounds and communities in the Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council area receive the support that they deserve. Mr Bradley can be assured of my support in ensuring that he gets a fair case for the people whom he represents. Ms Sugden: I support the motion, because regional imbalance is one of the most serious barriers to opportunity across Northern Ireland. This summer, a member of the Invest NI board resigned, stating that the organisation was failing to deliver genuine regional balance, particularly for the north-west. That resignation was a clear signal that the problem runs deeper than process or policy; it is a mindset. It is not perception; it is culture. It reflects that decision-making still defaults to Belfast first and everywhere else after, if at all. As others have said, when discussion turns to the north-west, attention often centres on Derry city. I know that those who tabled the motion mean it sincerely and constructively. However, like others, I want to speak for the wider north-west and north coast and, indeed, every part of Northern Ireland beyond Belfast, because that is where regional imbalance is felt most sharply. Coleraine, Limavady, Ballykelly, Garvagh and rural communities in between: those are the areas that are often bypassed when investment decisions are made. My constituency of East Londonderry is in a policy blind spot, not because of distance but because of direction. Northern Ireland is a small place. You can travel between its furthest points in two to three hours, so geography is not a barrier; connectivity is. When transport links, digital infrastructure and investment pipelines all flow inward to Belfast, opportunity cannot spread outward. Until we fix those connections — physical, digital and economic — we will never achieve real regional balance. The issue is not how far we are from Belfast; it is how far decision-making is from everywhere else. The Department for the Economy's subregional economic plan confirms that reality. As Mr Brett said, Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council area has one of the lowest shares of good jobs in Northern Ireland and among the lowest median wages. That is not a coincidence; it is the result of years of underinvestment in infrastructure, skills and enterprise. Yet, East Londonderry, like other constituencies, is a place of opportunity, with a world-class university campus; expertise in life sciences; renewable energy potential; thriving small businesses; and the strongest tourism brand across the UK and Ireland. Potential is not our problem; political attention is. Announcements alone will not change that. Yes, we have seen the growth deal, and we are optimistic, but it is being delivered slowly. We have seen investment frameworks with no subregional targets. Meanwhile, economic inactivity remains high, wages are stagnant and too many young people are leaving the north coast for their futures. East Londonderry has one of the strongest political representations in local government and at Westminster, yet, despite that level of access and influence, our constituency continues to record some of the poorest outcomes in Northern Ireland. It has among the highest inactivity rates and deepest deprivation and some of the lowest pay levels across the region. That should concern every Member of every constituency, because, if a constituency with that level of representation falls that far behind, something in the system is not working. I appreciate that the problems did not appear overnight. They have taken years to build up, but the same parties have held power for most of that time. They have had the opportunity to fix them. While the imbalance is long-standing, the failure to correct it is not inevitable; it is a choice. It is not one Department's problem. Every Department —. Ms McLaughlin: Will the Member give way? Ms Sugden: Yes. Go ahead. Ms McLaughlin: I totally agree. Let me be clear: when I talk about regional imbalance, I am talking about places that have been left behind. Obviously, Derry is in my heart, and it is in the constituency that I represent. If we fail the people of my constituency, that is a tragedy, but failing the people in the Causeway Coast and Glens area or Fermanagh is also a tragedy. The area west of the Bann has not had the investment that it needs. It has been left behind. It has potential, opportunity and ambition, and it has been failed year after year, decade after decade. If regional balance is good policy, it is good law, and it should apply to all places here that have been left behind. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Interventions should be brief, Ms McLaughlin. You will run the Member out of time. Ms Sugden, you have an extra minute. Ms Sugden: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I appreciate the intervention. I agree 100%, because, to get to Derry or other parts of Northern Ireland from Belfast, you have to go through East Londonderry. I reiterate the point that it is about connectivity. It is about looking at Northern Ireland as a corporate plan and ensuring that every part of it is connected. By not doing that, we fail Northern Ireland, not just its individual parts. We fail to get the opportunities that we could have as a region. Again, Northern Ireland is not a huge place. It has a population of about 2 million people. Huge opportunity comes with that, and the Government need to do so much more to realise that opportunity. I will touch on the point about the other Departments. I appreciate that the Minister for the Economy will respond to the debate, but it is not just about her Department. It is a cross-cutting issue. Other Members talked about the Department for Communities and the Northern Ireland Football Fund. I appreciate that that was not a geographical application, but it has created a geographical problem, because the north-west is not represented. That in itself is something that we need to reflect on. I think of the Department for Infrastructure in relation to transport and of the Department for the Economy in relation to Coleraine. I reiterate Mr Bradley's point about how it should not be a competition between the campuses at Coleraine and Magee. It should be about them complementing one another so that we can realise our potential in higher education. I support the motion. It is important not just for East Londonderry but for everyone in Northern Ireland that we support it. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up. Ms Sugden: I look forward to hearing the plans to do so. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call the Minister for the Economy to respond to the debate. Minister, you have up to 15 minutes. Dr Archibald (The Minister for the Economy): Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. [Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.] I welcome the opportunity to speak about this important issue. The geographical imbalances in our economy have deep roots, as Members have said. Historical patterns of underinvestment tend to become self-reinforcing, as investment is drawn towards areas that are already economically strong. Overturning that legacy requires political commitment and determined action over time. This is the first time that my party has controlled the Economy Department, and we have brought a new strategic focus on regional balance. It is one of our four key objectives. In October last year, my Department published its subregional economic plan. The plan committed to the creation of 11 local economic partnerships to identify the main barriers to economic development and the interventions needed to unlock it. Those partnerships have all been established, and they are now developing their action plans. As far as I am aware, a number have already signed off on their draft plans, including Causeway Coast and Glens, Maurice. Departments will be asked to work with the partnerships to deliver those plans. My Department has also established a £45 million regional balance fund to help partnerships with delivery that has been profiled over the three years. The subregional economic plan also set a regional balance target for Invest NI for the first time. The target is to increase the number of investments outside the Belfast metropolitan area from 56% to 65% over three years. Having hit 59% in year 1 of the strategy, Invest NI is on course to achieve that ambitious target. The lack of land is a major barrier to regional balance. Invest NI is therefore implementing a new regional property programme. While infrastructure challenges exist, key projects have been identified, including a new business park at Desertcreat that aims to promote green growth and address the shortage of industrial land in mid-Ulster. The north-west has a particularly high level of unrealised economic potential and is therefore a particular area of focus for my Department and Invest NI. The most significant project is the Magee expansion. That is a huge undertaking, involving investment in infrastructure, teaching facilities, new courses, new staff, marketing initiatives and student accommodation. The task force was established to bring together business, the university, students and the community sector in a citywide effort. To date, all the land needed to reach the 10,000 students target has been acquired. Since the Magee task force was established, my Department, in partnership with Ulster University, has committed almost £21·5 million of capital funding, which is more than in the previous 10 years. Student enrolments at Magee have increased by 44% since 2021, and the university is confident that the number of students will reach 6,300 this year. As people see that progress being made, those who previously doubted now believe in the project and are giving their support to it. That momentum will be invaluable in reaching 10,000 students by 2032. In addition, £3 million of annual funding from my Department has helped to secure important routes for City of Derry Airport, and FinTrU, Seagate, EY and Alchemy Technologies have announced significant investments in the area. With the support of Invest NI, however, we have seen investments across the North. To bolster our creative sector, we have developed Studio Ulster to support further investment in the future of film, animation, immersive installation and gaming. Studio Ulster receives £25 million of investment through the Belfast region city deal, which demonstrates our strong commitment to creating high-value, high-paying jobs. In Newry, McGuinness Mechanical Engineering is investing over £3 million to double its workforce. That will enable it to grow its maintenance division and increase sales in the South. In Dungannon, Mackle Snacks invested over £6 million to expand its factory, enhance automation, boost productivity and create more good jobs. That was the first investment to be supported by Invest NI's new agri-food investment initiative. In Omagh, almost £3 million of investment by Lagan Energy will grow its team by 30 roles over the next few years as it continues to expand its footprint in the global renewables sector. In Kilrea, Hutchinson Engineering has invested almost £12 million in new equipment that will further boost its productivity and support growth. In Ballymena, Invest NI has supported CIGA healthcare to secure almost £3 million in international contracts. The investments in Belfast, Newry, Dungannon, Omagh, Kilrea, Ballymena and Derry help to deliver well-paid, highly skilled jobs in every town, city and rural community. As Economy Minister, I will build on that positive momentum, because everyone, no matter where they live, should have an opportunity to build a life here at home for them and their family. My focus on supporting our tourism sector is also key to achieving regional balance. Of all employment in our tourism industry, 70% is based outside Belfast. The tourism vision and action plan, which was co-designed by my Department in partnership with the industry, is being implemented. As part of that plan, my Department is working with Fáilte Ireland to ensure that the North can benefit from its all-island regional brands. Significant investment has already been made to support the joining of the Wild Atlantic Way and the Causeway coastal route. That will help to bring more tourists to our amazing coastline. My Department's officials are also working closely with their counterparts in Fáilte Ireland on Ireland's Hidden Heartlands to bring together the Shannon-Erne waterway and allow the Fermanagh region to benefit from that popular tourism route. The legacy of underinvestment will not be fully addressed overnight, but my Department and I have put a credible plan in place to promote regional balance, and progress is being made. That work will continue, because everyone should share the benefits of prosperity. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, Minister, for that response. I call Mark Durkan to conclude the debate and make a winding-up speech on the motion. You have up to 10 minutes. Top 5.15 pm Mr Durkan: The motion goes to the heart of something that we in the north-west have been saying for years and that many Members here have been hearing for years, which is that regional imbalance is not an accident. It has been baked into decision-making at every level of government for a long time, and it will be hard to unpick that. Regional balance is not a slogan; it is a formula for fairness, equal opportunity, a stronger, more prosperous Northern Ireland and a stronger, more prosperous Ireland, because, as has been said — I was going to make this point — partition has not worked for Derry or for Donegal. Contrary to the First Minister's belief, the north-west is not thriving, and neither are most council areas outside Belfast. That mindset, which is so detached from reality, demonstrates just how Belfast-centric politics have become here and how out of touch many of our political representatives have become. It is not about just Derry. The SDLP — the Opposition — will tomorrow call for support for the apple-growing industry in Armagh. We are told, however, that Derry is the second city, and we continue to receive second-class treatment. There is nowhere where that imbalance has been more pronounced or more painfully felt. We are not alone, as I have said, and it is brilliant to hear so many voices around the Chamber speak in so many different accents in support of the motion. It is clear that Belfast work has not worked for anywhere else or for anyone else. Last week, I spoke about how the north-west had been left behind, with flagship arts organisations such as Echo Echo Dance Theatre and the Waterside Theatre closing and about 80% of arts funding being concentrated in Belfast. There are places that get a rawer deal than Derry in that regard, with some councils receiving less than 1% of the overall arts funding, yet the Communities Minister and the Executive have done nothing to address that. The crisis intervention service in Derry was left to collapse, despite Derry having one of the highest suicide rates on these islands. When BT jobs were stripped away from Derry, the lucky workers were told to move to Belfast, following which thousands more jobs have been announced there. That is not balance; it is the opposite of balance. I feel that I may be playing into the image that Gary Middleton tried to portray of the SDLP when he said that we seem to have become "allergic to positivity". Given what else Gary Middleton said, I fear that the DUP and he may be becoming allergic to reality. Of course, we welcome any and every investment in Derry and the north-west, but he cited the example of the 270 jobs with the Department for Communities. I was firmly under the impression that those were through the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), not DFC. There is the £15 million for the DNA museum, which will be a brilliant asset to the tourism product in Derry, as well as the whole of the North and specifically the north-west, but all that money did not come from Executive Departments. That is the kind of gaslighting that goes on. People are not stupid; they see through it. Mr O'Toole: I appreciate my colleague giving way. Does he agree that, while lots of things that have been described today are positive in and of themselves, there is a little bit of what he calls "gaslighting" — it could also be referred to as "snake oil" — going on, with people listing things that are happening, some of which were agreed years ago, long before the Executive were restored. They are good things in and of themselves but are being described as if they were huge, revolutionary plans for regional balance when, in fact, they were announced years ago. Positive as those things are, our job as official Opposition is not to cheerlead for them. Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for his intervention. Those are things that happened long ago and things for which we have been waiting a long time. Mr Delargy gave the example of the Meenan Square development, of which we have heard much but seen little. Gary Middleton also accused us of "playing politics". Being accused of playing politics by the DUP is like being lectured on workplace safety by Homer Simpson. I struggled to find a comparison there, because I had to think of someone whom I would not offend by comparing them to the DUP. The resignation of Kieran Kennedy from the Invest NI board is not an isolated act but a symptom of a wider and deeper malaise in government. The Department for the Economy's data admits that. We have heard the figures cited by a number of contributors. Labour productivity in Belfast City Council area is 31% higher than it is in Derry and Strabane District Council area. Median wages are 44% higher in Belfast than in Ards and North Down Borough Council area. The Northern Ireland Football Fund debacle laid it bare. Clubs like Derry City FC, Institute FC and Coleraine FC were promised funding, played for fools and got zero. That decision was political. It was not independent, and it mocked any claim of regional balance. Do not forget that the first thing that the Minister did with regard to that fund was to change its name from the "subregional stadia programme fund". Representatives from all parties have expressed criticism and concern. Even the First Minister and the Economy Minister called, in the press, for full scrutiny and transparency, but, when push comes to shove, no Member from any of the Executive parties has supported our bid to ensure full scrutiny and transparency. They have just shrugged their shoulders and circled the wagons. People are not stupid, as I have said. They see through this ruling by fooling. I appreciate that Maurice Bradley and Gary Middleton have both said that they are working with the Minister and the respective clubs to sort that out, but we will not hold our breath. The rates support grant, which was meant to — invented to, actually — support poorer councils has been slashed by 75% since 2008. Ratepayers in struggling council areas now pay far more for basic services while wealthy areas are cushioned. Those with less get less. Recently, Derry and Strabane ranked 357th out of 359 UK councils for quality of life, a fact that is ignored when Ministers boast that we are thriving. Regional imbalance is not just about money but about mindset. The A6 upgrade has not been finished. The A5 has not been started. We cannot tell people to leave the car at home when one in five rural bus services are cancelled and rail investment bypasses the north-west. We still have not received from DFI an explanation for the blatant timetable discrimination that we see every Sunday especially, never mind the relatively small investment that would be needed to put it right. Over 100 areas face waste water constraints, and 55 projects have been lost because of it. We are also the worst in the west for health outcomes: we have the lowest psychiatrist numbers and the longest waits for surgery, autism assessments and mental health support. The people who live in the Western Trust area and the people who work for the trust are being failed by an outdated capitation formula that does not recognise social need. One in four children live in poverty. Homelessness has doubled in a decade. We welcome progress on Magee, but where is the funding not just to enable that expansion but to facilitate it causing less friction in neighbouring residential communities? We need everyone to buy in, yes, but we also need every Department to pay in. We in the Opposition are not just cursing the darkness but trying to provide light. My colleague Ms McLaughlin has outlined again the SDLP's intention to enshrine in law, through her private Member's Bill, an end to outside of Belfast being an afterthought. Mr Delargy spoke of the need for everyone to work together to ensure regional balance. We do and we will need all parties to do that. However, we cannot merely encourage every Department to ensure regional balance; we will have to force them to do that through law. The motion is about more than economics; it is about equality. We call on the Minister for the Economy to compel every Department to deliver real, measurable regional balance. Our message is simple: we do not want pity or platitudes; we want parity. Question put and agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly notes with concern the recent resignation from the Invest NI board due to concerns regarding regional imbalance; further notes that recent Executive decisions, including the allocation of the Northern Ireland Football Fund, appear to have paid little regard to the need for regional balance; calls on the Minister for the Economy to urgently publish an assessment on the progress of the subregional economic plan; and further calls on the Minister to outline what steps she will take to ensure that all Departments contribute to its successful implementation, including any proposals that aim to strengthen accountability where regional balance is not being delivered. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, please take your ease before we move to the next item. (Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair) Assembly Business Standing Order 10(3A): Extension of Sitting Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I have received notification from members of the Business Committee of a motion to extend the sitting past 7.00 pm under Standing Order 10(3A). Resolved: That, in accordance with Standing Order 10(3A), the sitting on Monday 6 October 2025 be extended to no later than 9.00 pm. — [Ms Ennis.] Ministerial Statement JobStart Scheme Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Speaker has received notice from the Minister for Communities that he wishes to make a statement. Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that they must be concise in asking their questions. This is not an opportunity for a debate or long-winded introductions. Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): On 2 June, I made a statement to the Assembly regarding my Department's 2025-26 budget allocation. In that statement, I conveyed my desire to increase opportunities and life chances for everyone in Northern Ireland and announced my intent to invest in a multimillion-pound employment programme that would support all age groups and help to tackle the barriers to economic activity. For too long, we have had the highest rates of economic inactivity across the UK. Too many of our citizens of working age are not able to enjoy the benefits of fulfilling, quality employment. Earlier today, I launched a public consultation on an ambitious 10-year disability and work strategy, and I encourage responses to that. However, that is not all that I am doing. I want to tackle the full range of issues of unemployment and inactivity, and I want to break down those barriers to employment. That is why, today, I am also announcing a £12·4 million investment in employment support, the biggest single programme that my Department will deliver, in addition to existing employability provisions across my Department. That programme is JobStart, Creating Work Opportunities. The new employment scheme is wider-ranging than ever before. It will provide flexible, responsive support to those who need extra help to enter or re-enter the labour market. The scheme will build on the successes of previous JobStart programmes, but it will go further. It will widen access to all working-age benefit claimants and will include more flexible options to respond to the needs of people who have additional barriers. I have had the pleasure of meeting participants from previous schemes, and they have told me how that support has changed their lives. Many had low confidence, no experience or multiple barriers to employment, yet employers across Northern Ireland were willing to give them a chance. Their faith in those participants has paid off: 96% of previous employers were satisfied with the scheme, and many have found excellent employees. Many participants did not have the confidence to find employment on their own; indeed, the participants who are now working in my Department told me that they thought that they would never get a job in the Civil Service. When those young people arrived, they struggled to make eye contact with anyone, and their confidence was low. What a difference a training plan, a patient line manager and a supportive team make. My Department recruited nine young people at the end of the first JobStart scheme. Two years later, they are thriving in their roles. Their confidence levels are through the roof. One has already secured a promotion. Top 5.30 pm As is the case with the programme that I am launching today, the previous schemes were open to the public sector, the private sector and the community and voluntary sector, and there are many good news stories. Let me share a couple. A 16-year-old who was not in education, employment or training was placed in a local GP surgery, supporting the team in an administrative role. She tells us that JobStart helped her find a job that she truly loves. It uncovered skills and qualities that she did not know that she had and gave her the confidence to come out of her shell. She said that the belief that was shown in her gave her hope in herself. Her employer was so impressed by her performance that she secured a permanent role on the team two months before her placement was due to end. Another participant was a new mother. Following her involvement in the JobStart scheme, she shared how it gave her access to a wide range of training, built her confidence and provided her with the experience that she needed to apply for future roles. She also told us that JobStart had not just helped her professionally but helped her become a financially stable new mother. That is the power of high-quality employment support. I want to see more people have those opportunities to participate in work, to develop and build new skills and to have a better future for themselves, their families and their communities. I am committed to delivering long-term, sustainable solutions to poverty across Northern Ireland. The Executive's anti-poverty strategy identifies work as one of the most effective ways out of poverty for working-age people. The programme that I am announcing today promotes access to good, inclusive employment, particularly for those who face barriers in the labour market. The opportunity to participate in supportive employment improves people's health and well-being, protects them against social exclusion and provides them with income, an identity and a sense of purpose. It helps to drive us towards having a more productive and competitive economy. That approach is central to the third pillar of the anti-poverty strategy, which is to support people to exit poverty. It helps ensure that we tackle the root causes of poverty in a sustainable way. To all those who questioned the anti-poverty strategy, I say that that is just one of the many actions resulting from that strategy. JobStart, Creating Work Opportunities opens today. We have employers already applying to offer the quality work opportunities to which so many of our citizens need access. I look forward to hearing about many more transformational experiences, and I commend my statement to the House. Mr Durkan: We welcome any initiative to help people into work. The Minister says that this will build on the success of previous JobStart programmes: can the Minister qualify that success? Aside from some of the individual anecdotes, which we welcome, he tells us that 96% of previous employers were satisfied and that many found excellent employees. How many employees were satisfied and have found meaningful employment? Mr Lyons: I am happy to get the exact figures from the previous schemes for the Member. I shared some of the data in the past with Ministers in the UK Government. I specifically remember sharing data with Liz Kendall when she was in post in the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). She was shocked and surprised at just how successful the retention of people in employment had been. It was at over 70%, which is a huge percentage compared with that for some other programmes, so that is really positive. I can get the Member the specific information that he is looking for, but the reason that I have invested so much of my budget for this year in the programme is that it has previously been a success. It has worked. It is an investment in people that has paid off. That is why I will continue with it. Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): I also welcome the Minister's statement. The scheme is important. The Committee expressed regret when the previous scheme ended, so I welcome the fact that the Minister has brought this forward. Are there any measures over and above those in the previous scheme that might ensure the continued success of placements and greater numbers of people remaining in their employment after the scheme ends? Who will have strategic oversight of the scheme as it rolls out? Mr Lyons: The Department will continue to oversee the scheme. There have been changes. One of the changes that might be most interesting to the Committee Chairman is the introduction of a new option. Previously, the scheme was for 25 hours' work per week, but we have now included a 15-hour week option, because it was seen as being quite a big jump for some people to go from not working, perhaps for many years, to working 25 hours a week. That is why there is a second option that allows people to work for 15 hours. Hopefully, that will be a stepping stone to further success. Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for introducing the scheme. There has been criticism from others, but I like his focus on real-life examples and the people who are at the heart of the matter. It is not just about putting in money and about the numbers but about real-life examples and improving lives. I will speak specifically about the example of a new mother. Feedback from working mothers often relates to the barriers around childcare. Working mothers who are on benefits and are coming off benefits are trying to access childcare schemes. Will the Minister liaise on the anti-poverty strategy and the development of the early years and childcare strategy to ensure that working mothers get the best from the scheme? Mr Lyons: That is an important point. I am trying to make sure that we break down barriers to employment. The Member is right to raise childcare as one of those barriers. That is why childcare is prominent in the anti-poverty strategy. The Member will be aware of the Education Minister's work in that regard, and we look forward to the publication of the childcare strategy soon. Childcare is an important element of the scheme, because we are trying to break down barriers to employment entirely. It is important that we highlight that barrier and take action on it. Ms K Armstrong: Minister, I welcome the £12 million that you have announced, but will you clarify whether that money has to be spent within this financial year? How do you hope to roll it out this late in the year? Mr Lyons: I believe that most people who will benefit from the scheme will start in this financial year, but there will be a tail from that. That £12·4 million will be spent over the next two financial years to keep them in employment. Mr Allen: In his statement, the Minister referenced barriers on several occasions. He has highlighted to the Committee Chair the options around working hours. Will the JobStart scheme remove any other barriers that were identified under previous iterations of the scheme? Mr Lyons: It is important that we do everything that we can to make the scheme more accessible for people. In addition to changing from having only one option of 25 hours to having another for 15, there will be a change insofar as all ages will be able to benefit from the scheme. The previous scheme was for 16- to 24-year-olds, and there was an over-55 pilot. Both of those elements have been changed. Having heard about the experience of the previous scheme, we have taken those further steps to make the experience more positive for those who want to take part. Miss Brogan: In keeping with the previous debate, will the Minister outline how he will ensure that regional balance is factored into the scheme so that everyone across the North can benefit from it? Mr Lyons: Absolutely. I want people across Northern Ireland to benefit from the scheme. That is why we have gone out to employers who were in the previous scheme and are looking for new employers to take part. I encourage everybody to take part. It does not matter where you are from: if you are looking for employment, if you want those barriers broken down and if you want a bit of support, we are here to help. I encourage people who want to avail themselves of the scheme, be that in the Member's constituency of West Tyrone or anywhere else, to apply through their jobs and benefits office (JBO) or work coach. Mrs Cameron: I thank the Minister for the incredibly welcome £12·4 million investment in employment support. Will he confirm that that action is a result of the anti-poverty strategy, in spite of the fact that some people insisted that there were no new actions in it? Mr Lyons: We heard people say a few times that there were no new actions. I pledged in a ministerial statement earlier this year and in the strategy itself that new actions would come forward. One of those was an employability programme, and this is the employability programme that we are bringing forward. I look forward to more actions being realised and bringing forward the action plan for the anti-poverty strategy so that we can put even more meat on the bones. Ms Mulholland: Minister, given that there is evidence that community-led employability schemes have comparable costs and sometimes achieve higher retention, some people have implored us not to establish stand-alone government or statutory schemes but instead to scale up the voluntary and community sector-led employability delivery around the existing models that you have in your Department. Have you considered allocating new employability funding through existing voluntary and community sector networks, rather than developing new government-led schemes? Mr Lyons: As the Committee Chairman said, the scheme was successful, and many people wanted to see it continuing. I do not see it as pitting one against the other in any way. The Member is absolutely right to say — I agree with her — that many good employment schemes are provided in that way, but JobStart served a specific purpose at that time, and we want to build on that success. Of course, I am always open to hearing other ideas about how we can use the budget that we have to even greater effect. This is one of the best ways in which we can spend the money that we have, because we get such a significant return on the investment, not just in pounds and pence but through the impact that it has on people's lives. I have evidence from the previous schemes that I want to present to the Treasury, because I want to be clear with it that this is of huge benefit to it. I hope that we will be able to get something similar in place as we negotiate on welfare fraud and error, because we are going to great lengths and great expense to put the measures in place. The Treasury is the primary beneficiary of that financial benefit. I want to share that so that we can go even further and create more opportunities for people across Northern Ireland, including through some of the programmes that the Member mentioned. Mr McHugh: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a ráiteas. [Translation: I thank the Minister for his statement.] Minister, will the JobStart scheme interact with the disability and work strategy that you announced earlier? Will disabled people be eligible under the scheme? Mr Lyons: Yes, absolutely. In fact, the scheme is now available to all eligible benefit claimants. That has been flexed so that people of all ages can benefit from it. That was not previously the case. Of course, it absolutely ties in with the disability and work strategy that I announced earlier. In many cases, the people whom we have taken into the Civil Service and directly into the Department for Communities have a disability, and I want to see that continue. The two are closely linked. One will continue to impact on the other. I certainly hope that we can continue the funding in the future, because it will make a huge difference to the work that we are doing and the target of getting 50,000 more disabled people into work over the next decade. Mr Bradley: I thank the Minister for his statement, which is his second statement about delivery today. Minister, who can participate in the JobStart scheme, and where can they apply? Mr Lyons: I want to be absolutely clear that it goes further than the schemes that we had in place that were age-specific. We saw huge demand and interest from other age groups, so we have opened it up to all eligible benefit claimants, regardless of age. Those who are interested can apply through their work coach, via their local jobs and benefits office, if they do not have a work coach, or via the JobApplyNI website. I hope that that will be of benefit to people across East Londonderry as well. Ms D Armstrong: Minister, I welcome your statement and the funding for the scheme. You stated that the scheme will include more flexible options to respond to the needs of people who have additional barriers. What steps will be taken to ensure that rural employers and jobseekers can access the scheme equitably, given that there may be transport and digital connectivity problems? Top 5.45 pm Mr Lyons: As I said to the Member for West Tyrone Ms Brogan, I want to make sure that this has an impact right across Northern Ireland. The scheme is all about breaking down barriers. She is absolutely correct to identify that, for many people in rural areas, you will see barriers in respect of connectivity and transport and, sometimes, digital connections. That is why we will look at all those issues, together with their work coach, to see what needs to be done to help in those areas and to make sure that we can get as many people in as possible. I encourage the Member to get in contact with the Department if she has constituents who are perhaps having some trouble or feel that additional support is necessary, because we want to hear about that and learn from it. I would love it to be a rolling scheme that meets the needs of people right across Northern Ireland, and I am happy to work with her on that. Mr Dickson: Thank you, Minister, for your statement. It is very welcome. Will people who have been accepted on to the scheme be eligible for the Chancellor's right to try with regard to employment? Mr Lyons: We still need to do some work on that to see what the connections between those are. We will work with the Department for Work and Pensions and the Treasury, where necessary, to see what needs to be done. I can provide the Member with further information when we get that clarity. I just do not have it at this moment in time. Mr Gaston: I feel slightly uneasy that, for the second time today, I get to my feet to welcome a statement from the Minister, but there we are. A key component of the delivery and success of the scheme will be the ability of people to work 15 hours per week so that they can work around family life. Due to the cost of childcare, it is no longer financially viable for many of us to have households with two working parents. This is a £12·4 million investment. At this stage, can you quantify how much return the Treasury, the Department of Justice and the Department of Health will see at the other end? I know that it is early, and I know that you are going out, but do you have any idea what your investment will deliver on the far side? Mr Lyons: I am more than happy that the Member is in agreement with me twice in one day. We even had the Justice Minister agreeing with Phillip Brett today and vice versa, so something must be breaking out. We will see how long that lasts. [Inaudible.] Mr Lyons: I will not go that far, but the Member is right to raise the impact that this will have. We looked at some of the figures that were available, and I am not able to break those down by the impacts on Departments, but if you take someone who is not in work and bring them into work, on average, it saves £15,000. That is a direct financial benefit to the Treasury because of what will not be paid out in welfare and benefits and what the Treasury will be bringing in through National Insurance contributions and income tax. That is a considerable sum of money, but it goes even further than that. We know that if somebody is in work, they are better off. It is better for their physical and mental health, and I suspect that it has potential justice outcomes, education outcomes and health outcomes. Therefore, it is the right thing to do, not just because of the money that it will save and the benefit that it will have for the individuals concerned but because of the impact that it will have on society as a whole. That is an argument that I will be making very strongly to the UK Government. They need to invest more in programmes like this, not by pulling the rug out from underneath those who are disabled and need support but by helping those who can get back into work, whether they are disabled or not. This is a far better approach to take, and there are significant financial savings. I want to share in those so that I can do even more. Ms Sugden: I really welcome the scheme. Businesses seemed to know that it was coming, and they seem really content about it. However, ultimately, it comes down to the people who will be employed. Minister, how are you promoting the scheme to help employers to identify talent and ensure retention? For example, neurodiverse individuals are proven to really thrive in the tech industry and the creative industries. How are you promoting this to those types of businesses so that we can get those people into those jobs? Mr Lyons: Absolutely. That is what we are continuing to do. You can see the success rates both for the individuals who have been employed and the companies that took them on and said, "This is absolutely brilliant". Earlier today, I told the story of someone who came to work in my Department. The individual has autism, and he absolutely thrived in the environment. He was in a data input job, and he was so well suited to the role because he knew exactly what to do. He was able to tell me what other people were doing wrong, and how he was able to correct some of their mistakes. He thrived in that environment, and I loved hearing his story. He has got a promotion. He has talent, ability and potential. There are so many other people out there — some who have a disability and some who do not — whose talent and potential is untapped. We are spending this money to help them to get into employment, and we should promote and celebrate that. I will do everything that I can to promote the scheme to employers and potential employees, and I hope that other Members will do that. The programme has made a real difference in the past, and I believe that it can continue to make a difference. I hope that everyone will join me in making sure that it is a success. Mr Kingston: I join others in welcoming the Minister's announcement of the new £12·4 million initiative. Will the Minister tell us more about the differences between this JobStart scheme and the past programme? Mr Lyons: Above all, there are additional flexibilities in place in this programme that were not there in the past. I have already mentioned the two different strands. The previous scheme was for 25 hours per week, and that option is still available, but there is also a 15-hour-per-week option. The scheme is open to everyone, regardless of age. One of the previous scheme's limitations was that it was age-specific: it covered the 16-24 and over-55 age groups. However, the scheme has been successful. We are creating additional flexibilities. We will continually monitor the scheme to see whether anything else needs to be changed to make it even more accessible. We have listened to the feedback from stakeholders, and that is why the changes have been made. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister. That concludes questions on the statement. Members can take their ease while we make a change at the top Table. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Blair] in the Chair) Private Members' Business Criminal Justice System: Failure to Transform Mr Frew: I beg to move That this Assembly expresses concern that the Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (CJINI) report 'Transforming the Criminal Justice System in Northern Ireland A Strategic Overview', published in November 2024, found limited improvement in performance, or the experience of victims, witnesses and staff, since the devolution of policing and justice; is alarmed that that outcome was reported despite numerous strategies and policy development; notes, in particular, the increasing need to tackle the factors that contribute to delay, including long police investigations, slow prosecutorial decision-making and cases not ready to proceed at court; further notes that delay may have the perverse effect of allowing alleged serious offenders, ordinarily held on remand for the purposes of public protection, to develop a strong claim for bail, or for those remanded to be released for time served at the time of sentencing; highlights the negative impact that that has on victims and on wider public confidence in the criminal justice system; believes that transformational change must be system-wide, rather than the product of many, often disparate, strategies or work streams; and calls on the Minister of Justice, more than nine months on from the CJINI recommendations, to outline her action plan and timeline to reach agreement with members of the Criminal Justice Board on a shared future vision and aligned strategic priorities for improving the effectiveness of the criminal justice system without further delay. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who speak will have five minutes. Before I call the Member to open the debate, I remind Members to be careful not to stray into any specific cases where there are active legal proceedings and are, therefore, sub judice. Please open the debate on the motion, Mr Frew. Mr Frew: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I propose the motion with genuine concern. The House should also be genuinely concerned, not from a party political stance but because of an absolutely damning report that was published in November 2024 by CJINI, an organisation that exists to inspect the criminal justice elements of the Department of Justice. The House should be concerned that, since that report was published nearly a year ago, very little, if anything at all, seems to have been done to try to improve the situation in our criminal justice system. That is damning in its own right. Not only do we have a report that is damning, but we have inaction from the Justice Minister on trying to improve things. If a state cannot protect its people, it has a massive problem. One of the priorities of any state should be to keep its people safe. That is why the criminal justice system is so important. That is why it will always be a priority in a Programme for Government. There are two Programme for Government priorities in that regard: ending violence against women and girls, and safer communities. All the indicators for the safer communities priority are going in the wrong direction. On personal safety, there is no change. On worrying about crime: no change. Crime prevalence rates are worsening. Processing times for criminal cases: worsening. Safe town and city centres: worsening. That is the Programme for Government. Then there is the CJINI report. The purpose of the criminal justice system is to reduce crime, bring offenders to justice, protect the public, provide victims of crime with justice and ensure that justice is administered in a fair and just way. If that is going wrong, what is the point of a Department of Justice, or the Minister of Justice? She is presiding over failure. The Assembly must step up and take notice, which is why we have tabled this motion. Change has been slow, and strong leadership is not there. The inspectors made three recommendations for improvement, including one at a strategic level, which is: "Within six months from the publication of this report, the Department of Justice should facilitate Criminal Justice Board members' agreement of a shared future vision and strategic priorities to deliver transformational change and innovation across the criminal justice system. These should be clearly communicated and reflected appropriately in organisations' Corporate and Business Plans." Where is that? Why has that not been done? It is now over nine months since that damning report was published. Where is the action? Where is the urgency from the Department and the Minister? We see none of it. Top 6.00 pm Another target that relates to the Department of Justice is: "Within six months from the publication of this report the Department of Justice, members of the Criminal Justice Board, the Director General of the Northern Ireland Prison Service, and the Chief Executives of the Probation Board for Northern Ireland, the Youth Justice Agency and Forensic Science Northern Ireland should review the purpose and membership of existing programme and project boards, working groups and other fora with the aim of reducing duplication to release capacity. This should be aligned with the prioritisation outlined in this report's Strategic recommendation. Appropriate staff resource capacity and skills required for meaningful participation and decision-making authorities should also be considered." Where is the action on that target? Why have we not seen it? Why has it not been published? Why has the Assembly not seen any purposeful action from the Minister of Justice and the Department? That is failure. Not only is the report from CJINI damning but the inaction from the Minister is damning. It demonstrates nothing but failure. A lot of people criticise the Executive, me being one of them, for having a silo mentality and for parties working in different ways, but here we have a Department that is working in silos. The PSNI, the Public Prosecution Service (PPS), the courts, Forensic Science Northern Ireland (FSNI), the Northern Ireland Prison Service (NIPS), the Probation Board for Northern Ireland (PBNI) and the Youth Justice Agency (YJA) all come under —. Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): Will the Member give way? Mr Frew: Yes, I will give way. Mrs Long: To correct the Member, the PPS is not part of the Department of Justice. Mr Frew: I stand corrected by the Minister. Thank you very much for that education. I would, however, like to hear from you what actions you have taken as a result of the CJINI report. I see nothing being done. That is damning. That is why I stand here today asking the Minister to bring forward her plans to try to fix the justice system. Mr Tennyson: Will the Member give way? Mr Frew: No, I will not give way, because I am going to run out of time. Where are the Minister's plans to do away with the silo approach? All those organisations play a fundamental role in the Department of Justice and in everyday life. They deal with victims of crime, yet the Department and the Minister are letting those people down. We know that criminal justice is not easy to address. We know that things are really difficult and challenging in the criminal justice field, but it seems that no work is being done to address the findings of CJINI's report. The report basically states that we are presiding over failure: a failure to transform the criminal justice system. Technology has moved on, and it should be being used for the benefit of victims, witnesses and everyone else associated with the criminal justice world, but it is not. If anything, there is a perverse realisation that technology is slowing down and thus hurting the criminal justice system. It is wrong that the technology that is in place to make things efficient is being used incorrectly, thereby creating inefficiencies. That is how perverse the situation is, and it should not be the case. Something is going badly wrong. We want to be assured that the Minister of Justice has things in hand, has both hands on the steering wheel and is delivering the transformation that everyone, including CJINI, wants to see, yet, we are seeing nothing happen. It is therefore really important that the Minister of Justice spell out today to the Assembly what moves she has made and is going to make in response to the CJINI report on transforming the criminal justice system. It is unforgivable that parts of her Department do not work well together or do not come together to create efficiencies. The buck must stop with the Minister, however. She must be the one who is held accountable for the failures of her Department. That is what we want to hear from her today in the House. It is what the public and all the people who are caught up in the criminal justice system waiting for their day in court or all those who are on remand and need to get through the system want to hear. It is really unfair on victims when they finally get to court and realise that, even though a sentence has been handed down for a criminal act, that person can walk free because of the time that they have spent on remand. Even when people are on remand, they do not get the support from the Prison Service that they need for rehabilitation and justice for the crimes that they have committed. Mrs Long: Will the Member give way? Mr Frew: No, I will run out of time, Minister, but you will have plenty of time to address the House and the points that I make. The report is damning. I hated reading it. I read it, and it is damning. I want the Minister to bring to the Assembly proposals that will improve things. It is on the Minister of Justice and the Department of Justice, and it is about time that the victims of crime saw results. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up. Ms Ferguson: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion. First, I acknowledge the core point that the Chief Inspector of Criminal Justice here made in November 2024: ""If there ever was a time for more cohesion and shared priorities it is now." We all know the pressures on our justice system, and the pressures on delivering timely access to justice are well known. As of the week ending 19 September, our total prison population was 2,102. That is over 200 higher than the comparative total for last year. Our overall average daily prison population, average daily custody population and remand population have all increased by over 10% on the previous year's data, and 40% of our prison population are in prison without having stood trial or received a conviction. Our case-processing times remain concerning, with the average time for a charge case to be dealt with at the Crown Court being 542 days in 2024-25 and 630 days where the case relates to a sexual offence. To deliver transformational change in justice, goodwill is not enough. A focus on internal improvements in our justice partners is not enough. We need our justice partners to no longer operate and make decisions independently. That is not good enough. Siloed working will only ever be capable of delivering the status quo. However, the transformational change of our justice system is not just within the remit of our Justice Department and justice partners; it is the responsibility of every Department and will require a collective, coherent and coordinated approach in conjunction with our justice agencies, organisations and legal representatives. I therefore commend the Programme for Government commitment to: "have an Executive agreed approach to reducing offending and reoffending, contributing to delivering improved outcomes for those who engage with the justice system". Our reoffending rate stands at 17·4% and has remained largely static at 16% to 18% over the past decade. There have been some excellent projects for reducing reoffending rates and easing some of the pressure on the justice system, which I welcome, such as a pilot rehabilitation project with the Nexus crisis de-escalation service for survivors of domestic abuse. We have had innovative prison rehabilitation projects with community benefits, a cross-departmental commitment to addressing chronic homelessness and strengthening restorative justice efforts through projects such as Complex Lives. Those are welcome developments. As members of the Justice Committee, we have witnessed the expansion of remote evidence centres and advances in technology using live links to courts. We have had upskirting and cyberflashing laws coming into effect and the launch earlier this year of an advice scheme for child sexual abuse victims. We need to work further to deliver a much stronger child-centred justice system, but, as the report acknowledges, some fantastic work has been done by the Youth Justice Agency. Miss McAllister: Will the Member give way? Ms Ferguson: Yes. Miss McAllister: Does the Member agree that there is a direct contradiction when it comes to Lakewood and Woodlands? Young people in Woodlands are treated exceptionally well and given all the resources that they need, but the young people in Lakewood, who are there for their own safety and mental health, do not get the vital resources and help despite the dedicated staff there. It has been said in the public forum that young people are better off in the criminal justice system than in our health system. That should not be the case, but it should be applauded. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute. Ms Ferguson: I agree with the Member. I have heard many parents talk about the accessibility of support in the community and say that support in our Prison Service is more readily available. As the Minister will be well aware, I have submitted questions to her on a Barnahus model for the North, which would bring together a multidisciplinary team of professionals from health, justice, education and child welfare all under the one roof to prevent re-traumatisation and enhance access to justice for children. Additionally, we all know too well the significant links between adverse childhood experiences and offending, as evidenced in the landmark study that was published at the beginning of the year. I want to emphasise that it is important for Departments such as Communities, Health and Education to work collectively with our Justice Department and the range of partners in the justice sector, because, given their remit, they have a significant role to play in breaking the cycle of crime and disadvantage. We all have important work ongoing with the Justice Bill, which includes proposals for legislative change to criminalise the creation and sharing of sexually explicit deepfake images and to improve services for victims and witnesses. I look forward to ongoing work to improve opportunities for our children and citizens and to enhance public safety, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister about what support and assistance is coming forward from our Communities Minister, our Health Minister and our Education Minister to support our justice partners in securing transformational change in our justice system. Ms Egan: Shared goals and a shared vision across all criminal justice agencies is essential for delivering effective public services and building safer communities in Northern Ireland. Any transformation or change to our criminal justice system must have the needs of victims and the public at its heart. That is how we will ensure full confidence and trust in the system for years to come. I and my party sympathise with the elements of the motion that embody that perspective. However, Alliance is not in a position to support the motion as it stands. It does not encapsulate the full picture of progress at hand. A motion entitled "Failure to Transform the Criminal Justice System" is one that focuses on blame rather than on the real-time progress that is being made. Inspections are about continuous progress and improvement and building on the learnings of the past to ensure a better future. That was emphasised by the Chief Inspector of Criminal Justice when I met her earlier this year. The work that her office completes is vital for proper assurance for the systems that govern criminal justice. The CJI report that the motion references intends to provide a high-level strategic overview of transformation work across the criminal justice system. Its publication was welcomed across the spectrum of parties in the Assembly, including my party, Alliance. It also reiterates what so many of us already know, namely that silo working across government or partners of government can contribute to problems with its effective functioning. Justice agencies that are unable to be consistently funded to the level of actual need can create delays and long-lasting damage that cannot be undone in one Budget cycle. The report also shone a light on examples of where collaboration and shared goals have persisted and where improvement has occurred: for example, modernising systems through impactful digital platforms or the transitioning to the youth justice strategy. Following the publication of the Criminal Justice Inspection's report, it is on public record that the Minister and her officials carefully considered the recommendations and, in May this year, accepted the strategic recommendation that iterated the need for shared strategic priorities across the criminal justice sector. That acceptance shows the Minister's willingness to reflect on the expertise and findings of the inspector and shows her Department's dedication to delivering real transformation. The Minister is also on public record on numerous instances stating that the work is under way and will be shared when complete. However, that work can take time, particularly when it involves consultation with operationally independent bodies that have competing work priorities, all with their own needs and budgetary asks. Whilst it is work in progress, good work is being done. Top 6.15 pm As it stands, the Criminal Justice Board is brought together by terms of reference rather than through a specific, shared vision piece as the report recommended. Therefore, whilst it does not have executive decision-making powers, it has an excellent foundation of positive relationships between senior leaders across justice agencies. Their openness to collaboration with each other and with the DOJ has resulted in action where cross-system response is most needed. A particular example is the Department's work on speeding up justice, as in the Programme for Government, to enable efficiency and deal with the delays that the motion mentions. The report also outlines some of the difficulties that the criminal justice system has experienced since the devolution of policing and justice, none of which should sound particularly unfamiliar to any of us. Some of those noted include Executive collapse, which resulted in gaps with no ministerial leadership; the Department of Justice's historically lacking budgetary position; and challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic. What do all those difficulties have in common? It is that they also rely on the actions and agency of other political parties across the Chamber. The motion seems to neglect that. If we really want to commit, as an Assembly, to transforming the criminal justice system, there should be a commitment to staying in government to give all this work the best chance at success. I want to be clear. The motion does not come across as a criticism of the Justice Minister or the Department of Justice as a whole, but in fact of all justice agencies that sit on the Criminal Justice Board. It neglects the specific progress that has been made, as referenced in the report, or others, including the unannounced inspection of Hydebank Wood Secure College, which was published in the same month and highlighted Hydebank as "an impressive institution". I do not accept that the report is damning, as the proposer puts forward. As such, Alliance will not vote in favour of the motion. Mr Burrows: There is a grave crisis facing our justice system, which is now the softest and slowest in the United Kingdom and which lets down victims. A dangerous culture has emerged that puts perpetrators first and victims last. I will particularly look at violence against women and girls, sexual violence and domestic violence against women. This is a case study of what is wrong in our justice system. I say at the start that you cannot have transformational change without transformational leadership. That will not be delivered by the current Justice Minister, who has failed to grip the issues at hand. Let me talk about domestic violence for a moment. Delay is described as anathema to justice, but when it comes to domestic violence, delay is deadly for women. At every point where there is a delay in a domestic violence case, the chance of the woman dropping out of the case increases exponentially. Suspects in domestic violence, as a tactic, plead not guilty until the very last moment, hoping that the victim will drop out. It is also the case that the judges give bail to people because the case is so delayed that they cannot justify holding them on remand. So you have a case where either the victim drops out or the suspect, who has terrified the victim, gets out and kills the victim, as has happened numerous times, or else the victim drops the case. Mrs Long: Will the Member give way? Mr Burrows: Yes, I will. Mrs Long: If we are talking about reform and transformation of the justice system, does the Member accept that the trial that has been done about using the remote evidence centre for domestic abuse contest cases has been an outstanding success, with well in excess of 95% conviction rates, because the victim is empowered to turn up, as they would not have been before, there is often a guilty plea immediately on them doing so, and those who have been asked for their views of how it has worked have said that it has been very impressive? Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute. Mr Burrows: I am afraid that, for many, it is too little, too late. I have been calling for these things for years. The Minister needs to take responsibility for her —. Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. Will he agree with me that, in one example recently, it was released by the Justice Department that one case in particular has been waiting to go to trial for 15 years? Mr Burrows: It is unjustifiable and beyond refutation that we have a slow criminal justice system. However, instead of dealing with it, we have talked around the edges. Here is how you deal with it. You change the sentencing guidelines to make it the case that, if you do not plead guilty until the last minute, you get no credit. In fact, you should get an exemplary sentence so that everybody knows —. Mrs Long: Will the Member give way? Mr Burrows: No, I will not give way again because my time is short. Delays are anathema. We are also the softest justice system in the UK. Consistently, the figures show that our sentencing is soft and getting softer. The number of sexual crimes has gone up by 50%, but the number of those who are found guilty of those crimes and end up in prison has gone down by 50%. There is a clear trend. Again, victims of domestic violence or domestic assault not only say, "Look, this is going to be a long trial" —. The Justice Minister is chatting while I am speaking, but these are really important issues, Justice Minister. We do not see you often in the Chamber, so it would be good if you listened about domestic violence, because it is a really important issue. Sexual assault — Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Burrows, will you make your remarks through the Chair, please, and restrict them to the terms of the motion? Mr Burrows: I apologise. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. We are getting softer, and victims see a long process with very little outcome. That dissuades victims from making statements and staying the course. These are things that we can change. Often, the PPS sends things to the wrong court. Time and time again, the PPS sends things to the Magistrates' Court that belong in the Crown Court. I have seen cases where the maximum sentence available by law is 14 years, and a prosecutor sends it to the Magistrates' Court, where, to begin with, you start with a one-year sentence. A culture has crept in whereby the perpetrator comes first and the victim comes last. The PSNI is affected by it. Just today, it has announced that it will not release the mugshot of someone who was convicted of rape and is on the run. Why? It is because the human rights aspect has been interpreted wrongly. It is the same with smoking in prison: long after it was banned in Great Britain, our prison officers' lungs are subject to passive smoking, because the Northern Ireland Prison Service has not banned smoking; it put the prisoner before the prison officer. That is what is wrong in our system. It needs transformational leadership, and we are not going to get it. It is time that we stood up for the victim and made people pay for their crimes. Mr McGlone: We welcome the motion and the opportunity to highlight concerns about the criminal justice system and the experiences of victims and witnesses of criminal activity, since the devolution of policing and justice. The DUP motion, as we now expect from a motion tabled by another Executive party, blames the Justice Minister for almost everything. However, it is, ultimately, the Minister's responsibility to set the agenda and to ensure that strategies are in place to achieve her vision for her Department. Perhaps that is where the problem lies, because the criminal justice system is in need of transformation. Like the Executive, it is not entirely working. The Police Service is understaffed and underfunded, and is not representative of the community. There have been systematic abuses of police surveillance powers, and arrests often seem arbitrary. Prosecutions take too long to go to court, and, when they do get to court, sentencing often appears to be unduly lenient, even to the Public Prosecution Service. The Prison Service, the Probation Board, the Youth Justice Agency and Forensic Science all face staffing and resource pressures. The Minister's promise in 2020 to address hate crime as a priority was suspended along with the Executive. The stand-alone hate crime Bill, which was proposed in Judge Marrinan's review of hate crime legislation, has been dropped, as the Minister informed the Assembly in September 2024, because of a lack of time and resource. Over a year later, the Marrinan recommendations that she is bringing forward remain in draft form. That is not the new start that was promised by the Good Friday Agreement, and certainly not the new start that was promised when policing and justice were eventually devolved. All that has an impact on public confidence in the criminal justice system, and that is the responsibility of the Justice Minister. As the motion points out, it is more than nine months since the publication of the recommendations in the Criminal Justice Inspection report. That report made recommendations for system-wide improvement. It called for the Minister to agree, along with the Criminal Justice Board, a shared future vision and strategic priorities to deliver change across the criminal justice system. To date, it has not happened, and I look forward to the Minister's response on that. Until the shared future vision is agreed, the corresponding strategy, objectives and actions cannot be properly developed. Again, it would be helpful if the Minister were to explain where any current disagreements on the future vision remain. The Minister previously stated that the CJI has been informed of and accepted her position on the timescales. The Minister has, of course, argued that, given the scale of the ambition and the complexity of the system, it is important to do it right, and so it is. Again, I look forward to hearing from the Minister as to how that intention is going, as it is the Minister's role to lead. Transforming the criminal justice system needs a Minister who is determined to drive the necessary transformation, convince others of the need for reform and get agreement on the way forward. That is where the Minister is failing in her duty to the Assembly and the public. There is as yet no shared future vision, action plan or strategy. There must be no more delay. The Minister needs to explain what her vision for the future criminal justice system is. She needs to explain to the Assembly what she plans to do to reach agreement with the Criminal Justice Board on that vision and when. Then, and only then, can effective strategies, objectives and actions, to which my party and I look forward, to achieve that vision can be properly developed. Miss Hargey: I also welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion. Sinn Féin believes in a justice system that works for all in a timely manner and that is human rights-compliant and, importantly, victim-centred. We also believe in effective rehabilitation in order to build healthy and safe communities, where reoffending and crime are reduced. Our engagement at a constituency level and our work on the Justice Committee show that many people in our communities believe that the justice system is too slow in delivering fairness, timeliness or accountability. That undoubtedly impacts on public confidence. We all have a duty to address that issue collectively in the Chamber and outside it. The CJI report last November was timely, as the Justice Committee had been looking at those issues and raising concerns around delays in the system, the impact of that on victims and witnesses and, of course, the ongoing dispute around legal aid. It is important to restate, however, that the report also recognised that, with the transfer of policing and justice powers to the Assembly, it also: "inherited a criminal justice system that already had historic significant areas for improvement". Those included delays, access to justice, rehabilitation and the impact on victims and witnesses. At that time, the transfer was not matched with the adequate resources to tackle those historical gaps that were left under direct rule. It is also concerning that, as the report laid out, we have seen limited improvements in performance and, more importantly, little or no improvement in the experience of victims, witnesses or front-line staff. Those areas must be a priority, and we want to work with the Minister to address them. I know that she is bringing legislation forward in this mandate in that area. The report rightly highlights long police investigations, slow decision-making by the PPS, cases arriving in court that are not ready to proceed and continued issues around legal aid. Those issues are not new. They have been raised time and again by the legal profession and, more importantly, by victims and families. We have seen the development of a number of strategies since 2010, but the report, rightly, highlights that, despite those changes, change has often been slow. Despite areas of investment, outcomes have been static. That needs to change. The real concern with all that is a lack of joined-up thinking or a clear coherent strategy and, importantly, an agreed strategic vision. We know that CJI gave the Department six months to allow for the development of a shared future vision. The Committee has been asking for updates on that. I am keen to hear from the Minister about a timeline for the publication of that vision. As others stated earlier, a lot of that work includes recognising the importance of cross-departmental working, whether it is the Health Department, the Education Department or the Department for Communities. Slippage in any of those areas in relation to housing or access to a social worker further feeds the delay in the justice system. Top 6.30 pm One of the most concerning issues highlighted in the report is the delay in establishing a proper needs assessment service for victims and witnesses. The consequences of that can be devastating. Not only are victims left re-traumatised by drawn-out, complex processes but there is the knock-on effect of a growing lack of trust in the system. Notwithstanding those challenges, it is important to recognise that last year's CJI report identified areas of improvement and key achievements, such as the reform of youth justice, a reduction in the numbers of children in custody and in the Youth Court and, of course, the importance of investing in data sharing across the agencies. Sinn Féin stands ready to play our part in building a justice system that reflects the values of fairness, equality and accountability. We will work with the Minister and across the Chamber to deliver that. Consistent access to justice, including legal aid, is a core public service, not a privilege. We must ensure that the justice system is properly resourced and that the agreements that are being negotiated with the profession are implemented as soon as possible. Defending the rights of all in the justice system is important, so — Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member's time is up. Miss Hargey: — we are keen to work with the Minister, and — Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up. Miss Hargey: — I am keen to get the update. Mr Kingston: As a new member of the Justice Committee, I am doing a lot of reading to better understand the operation of the various agencies in the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland. It is certainly a complicated structure, and, it has to be said, our justice system is not performing efficiently compared with justice systems elsewhere in the UK. The Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) report 'Speeding up justice: avoidable delay in the criminal justice system' stated in 2018: "Crown Court cases in Northern Ireland typically take more than 500 days from the date an offence is reported until a verdict is delivered in court, twice as long as in England and Wales." Those figures have not improved. DOJ figures for 2024-25 show that Crown Court cases in which someone had been charged with an offence in Northern Ireland took an average of 542 days to complete. That is still over twice the UK average of about 225 days. Summons cases in the Northern Ireland Crown Court last year took twice as long again, an average of over 1,200 days, to complete. Our motion focuses on the Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland report 'Transforming the Criminal Justice System', which was published in November last year. The report was certainly critical of our criminal justice system. Chief Inspector Jacqui Durkin wrote in her foreword: "Transformational change needs transformational leaders who have the courage and capacity to take risks and deliver the improvements needed to our criminal justice system that the public expects and service users deserve." The executive summary begins by describing the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland as: "a system that is difficult to navigate even for those who work within it. It involves a collection of organisations and leaders that have operational independence, different operating models, workforces, budget and governance arrangements." It is now 15 years since justice was devolved to the Northern Ireland Executive and the Assembly in 2010, so the inspectorate and the public will rightly ask what improvements have been made to reduce delays. The inspection report, however, states that there has been: "limited improvement since 2010, in how the criminal justice system was performing and the experience for victims, witnesses and defendants as well as those working in the criminal justice system." The report concludes that the Criminal Justice Board, which, I understand, the Minister chairs, is: "uniquely placed to provide the direction and decision-making needed to agree criminal justice system-wide strategic priorities aligned to achieving better outcomes for service users and the public with available funding levels". The report is helpfully brief. It makes just one strategic recommendation and two operational recommendations in order to focus minds. Its single strategic recommendation is that, within six months of the publication of the report last November, the Criminal Justice Board, which the Minister chairs, should agree: "a shared future vision and strategic priorities to deliver transformational change and innovation across the criminal justice system." There are two operational recommendations. One of those is for the PSNI's strategic transformation board. The other is: "Within six months ... the Department ... the Criminal Justice Board" and various chief officers "should review" various elements of the criminal justice structure "with the aim of reducing duplication to release capacity." In other words, an efficiency drive. Now that it is 11 months since the report was published, our motion asks the Minister what progress has been made, whether the recommendations have been achieved — if not, why not — and what the action plan and timescale are for achieving: "a shared future vision and aligned strategic priorities for improving the effectiveness of the criminal justice system without further delay." I am astonished that Alliance has said that it will vote against the motion. Does it reject the CJI report? The actions called for in our motion are the actions called for in the CJI report. Scrutiny, criticism and recommendations are the pathway to improvement. When criminal justice does not perform effectively, there is a significant impact on victims, defendants, witnesses and their families. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up. Mr Kingston: We all, and the Minister —. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): No, your time is up, Mr Kingston — Mr Kingston: We have a duty to deliver that strategic change. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): — and I call Nuala McAllister. Miss McAllister: There is an urgent need to transform public services across the board in Northern Ireland. I am all too well aware of that from my role as a member of the Health Committee. The criminal justice system is not exempt from that need, and the CJINI 'Transforming the Criminal Justice System in Northern Ireland' report was welcomed by Alliance when it was published last year. We recognised the need for timelier progress to be made in the areas that were highlighted in the report. We are concerned that the proposers of the motion have missed some of the important content of the report. There is some irony there. Members might not like its being referenced on page 18 of the report, but the fact is that, since the devolution of policing and justice in 2010, this place has spent one third of its time in collapse. The report highlights and criticises that fact. We are well aware that responsibility for that falls not just at the DUP's door but at Sinn Féin's. Mr Kingston: Will the Member give way? Miss McAllister: Yes. Mr Kingston: I listened to what the Member said about the Assembly being down. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that the current Justice Minister has been in post for all but 16 months of the time since January 2020. That is over 75% of the time. That is my reading of the dates: she has been Minister for three quarters of that time. Miss McAllister: The Member will be aware that the Minister was a caretaker Minister for some time. Those figures are not correct, but I will move on to highlight some of the positive things that were done in those years. If parties are to be serious about supporting the Department in its work to progress the recommendations of not only the CJINI report but any report or strategy related to the Department of Justice that the Minister has accepted, resources and commitment from all Executive parties to the funding that is required to carry out the work must follow. Just 0·5% of the Department's budget is discretionary: that is the money that is left over after everything for which funds are tied up is dealt with. I will, however, highlight the positives that the Minister has achieved with just that 0·5%. It is also important to highlight the fact that, during the years in which the DOJ budget started to flatline and then decline, a DUP Finance Minister was in a position to allocate those resources. Despite that, the Minister and the Department have shown willingness to make progress, and I will touch on some of that progress, particularly for victims and survivors. Some Members mentioned the progress on digital strategy and youth justice, but I will highlight victims' issues. The Domestic Abuse and Civil Proceedings Act (Northern Ireland) 2001, the Protection from Stalking Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 and the Justice (Sexual Offences and Trafficking Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 are just three pieces of legislation that are the outworkings of this mandate. Just last week, at the Policing Board, the PSNI highlighted positive figures from being able to use those new powers. In almost 200 instances — not 200 victims, but instances, although some, not many, would have involved the same victims — officers were able to protect victims because of the powers handed to them; all those powers at a time when we see instances of domestic abuse increasing. We know and the PSNI has said that we are one of the safest places in Europe. However, we do not take our eye off the ball, and we do not forget about victims. I thank the Minister for calling for a review of the Jonathan Creswell case, because, when other parties were calling for apologies and criticising other Members for scrutinising and holding to account the very people and institutions that failed to protect a young girl, my Minister stood up and said, "Something went wrong, and it has to be sorted". I also want to mention the multi-agency risk assessment conference (MARAC), which nobody else in the Chamber has mentioned. Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way? Miss McAllister: Yes. Mr Burrows: I clearly called out that mistakes were made in the Creswell case. He was a wicked and evil man. However, it was inappropriate to name John Caldwell, a victim of terrorism, as having done something wrong when the ombudsman found no wrongdoing by Mr Caldwell. Miss McAllister: I will say that the Katie Simpson investigation is not finished, and we need to see the outworkings of the Creswell review and everything that comes out of the Policing Board and PONI. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): There should probably not be reference to any live case. Even more importantly, it is necessary that we now return to the terms of the motion. Miss McAllister: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will just highlight that the Katie Simpson case is finished, and, unfortunately, the perpetrator evaded justice. I accept the Deputy Speaker's point. There is no denying that the pace needs to speed up. That was why, when it comes to MARAC, it was my Minister who forced others to get on board to change the system. Other Departments, particularly under the UUP, have failed to protect victims in that regard. There is no denying that the pace needs to change. However, there is also no denying that Alliance does not just talk about action and let strategies gather dust on the shelves. The Justice Minister takes action and protects victims. She has put her money and priorities where her mouth is. I welcome the change in tone from the proposing party and other parties that have criticised and said that their Departments need all the funding. I look forward to when they put pressure on the Finance Minister and the whole Executive to allocate adequate resources to the Department of Justice. Mr O'Toole: I will try to speak briefly to the motion. As my colleague Patsy McGlone said, the SDLP will support it. My party does not agree with the DUP all too often, but it is a totally reasonable motion. The point of its being reasonable is made ever so starkly obvious by what, it has to be said, has been, frankly, an intemperate response from members of the Alliance Party to a reasonable motion. We just heard the spokesperson from the Alliance Party referring to something called "my Minister". We were told about "my Minister". I did not realise that, when the Justice Minister took the Pledge of Office, she was pledging to be their Minister. They have all come here to —. Miss McAllister: Will the Member take an intervention? Mr O'Toole: I will give way in one second. They have all come here to do justice to their master's voice. It is a completely ridiculous way, frankly, to do government and politics. The motion —. Mrs Long: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr O'Toole: Sorry: I am in the middle of my speech. Do you want an intervention? OK. Mrs Long: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. On the point that has just been made, I would be grateful if you could review the transcript because it seems to suggest that I dictate what party members ought to say on the Floor of the House. I also do not appreciate the reference to "their master's voice", because it is certainly not how we operate as a party. Those disparaging and personal remarks are inappropriate. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): It can be checked and reported on. Mr O'Toole, you have an extra minute. Mr O'Toole: First — I am not in the Chair — I am sure that that was not a point of order, but the Member is entitled to stand up and make it. The Alliance Party has demanded, effectively, the privatisation of the Justice Ministry for the past decade and a half while devolution has been in operation. Sorry: I am afraid that that is a fact. Mrs Long: It is not. Mr O'Toole: It is a fact. It was funny to hear Alliance members stand up and talk about —. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr O'Toole, may I intervene briefly? You are one minute and 15 seconds into your time — now more than that, in fact. I do not think that you have referred to the wording of the motion at all. I ask you to address it. Top 6.45 pm Mr O'Toole: I have, actually, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I will not challenge your ruling. What I will say is this: the Criminal Justice Inspection report came out in November 2024. It was clear that it wanted a vision document published within six months. That is at the heart of the motion. That has not yet been published. A written answer was given to Miss McIlveen, a DUP Member, just a couple of weeks ago. It was a long answer, but it offered no clarity on when that vision would be published. That is why the motion is here today, and I recognise that there are certain Members in the Chamber who do not like accountability. We as the Opposition do accountability without fear or favour, and it has to be said that Members from across the Chamber have simply asked today for accountability on a vital matter of criminal justice policy. It is true to say that, since the devolution of policing and justice 15 years ago, there are real structural problems that have not been resolved and, in many cases, have got worse. Mr Kingston referred to the time that it takes to get through Crown Court cases. The most famous aphorism of all is that justice delayed is justice denied. When Crown Court cases take twice the length of time of those in other parts of the UK, that is a fundamental structural problem in our criminal justice system. It is why we need to see a response from the Department and clarity. I acknowledge that it is cross-cutting and that it involves other Departments and Ministers from other Departments supporting the Justice Minister. That is, why, frankly, I was pointing out that it was so absurd to hear phrases such as "my Minister" when you are, on the other hand, calling for cooperation. Miss McAllister: Will the Member take a point? Mr O'Toole: I will take a point briefly in the spirit of constructive debate. Miss McAllister: It is not really constructive. Does the Member accept that we often just say things like "my Minister"? It is all our Minister. The Minister is my party leader, but it is a rather petty issue to get at. I remember you doing the same on social media many times. Mr O'Toole: I am delighted that my social media content is so popular. We will move on from that point and go back to the main thrust of the motion, which is about criminal justice. I mentioned the delay in Crown Court cases, and there is also the matter of reoffending rates. I can genuinely say that the Justice Minister and her party are committed to rehabilitation and to reducing reoffending. I think that they are. Our reoffending rates are not coming down. Adult reoffending rates are actually slightly up from where they were when justice was devolved. I think that youth reoffending rates are slightly down. Those are things that we are entitled to hold the Minister accountable for. Given that, for the whole time that policing and justice has been devolved, in large part one party has held that post when devolution has been in operation, it is not churlish or unreasonable to ask for accountability on that, specifically when that transformation report called for it within six months and that was nine months ago. It is a fair point, made by Alliance Members, that the DUP, as always, and, indeed, Sinn Féin talk about delivery on these things and then collapse the institutions. That is why I want to see reform of the institutions. I share that with the Alliance Party. Last February, that should have been —. A Member: Will the Member take a point? Mr O'Toole: I am afraid I do not have time to take an intervention. That is why it should have been a priority for the Alliance Party when it went back into the Executive. It appears that it was not, but I am sure that it can account for that. I share with others in the Chamber a desire to see the justice system improved and what was called for in the CJINI report reflected on. That is why we support the motion, and I hope that it can be taken forward in a constructive spirit. Mr Gaston: This evening has been insightful. There has been insight into the mindset of the Alliance Party. As well as hearing "my Minister", we have now found out that the Justice Minister appears still to be in caretaker mode. If the Member for North Belfast wants to tell her that caretaker season is over, we can now get a Justice Minister who will take control of her entire Department, instead of passing the buck at every opportunity that she gets. The Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland report that was published in November 2024 raises a litany of serious and significant issues, none greater than the delays in the justice system. Ecclesiastes chapter 8, verse 11 reads: "Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil." Therefore, I believe that there is a direct correlation between delay and an increase in lawlessness. Despite or perhaps because of 15 years of devolved policing and justice and despite countless strategies, endless policy papers and millions of pounds spent, the report makes it plain that there has been limited improvement. It catalogues systemic failure to deliver. We have a justice system that is plagued by delay at every stage. Criminal cases now take on average 769 days to complete; that is up from 527 days just five years ago. It means that victims wait two full years for justice. Delay is not a neutral matter. It has real and dangerous consequences: victims wait in anguish; witnesses lose faith; and public confidence evaporates. In the midst of that failure, alleged serious offenders who should be held in remand for public protection use the delays to argue for bail. For others, by the time that their case crawls to a conclusion, they have effectively served their sentence already. The perverse outcome is that our justice system rewards delay rather than punishing wrongdoing. That is not justice; it is dysfunction. The report also lays bare how victims are treated. Too often, they are left in the dark and not informed about key decisions or changes in bail conditions. They feel forgotten by a system that was supposed to stand with them. A justice system that cannot deliver for victims is a justice system that fails its most basic moral test. What has Stormont done in response? Another round of strategies, more working groups and more transformation proposals on glossy paper that will never materialise in practice. One of the key problems is that we have a Justice Minister who, when asked about areas within her remit, is only too keen to say that it has nothing to do with her. The caretaker role very much suits this Justice Minister. She fobs off MLAs in the House in a manner not seen in any other Department. She hides behind operational independence as a convenient shield against scrutiny. When Members ask legitimate questions about how her Department functions, she points them elsewhere — Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Come back to the motion, please. Mr Gaston: — telling them to contact agencies that sit directly under her Department. That is not accountability. Mrs Long: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The matter of accountability mechanisms in the Chamber and those that lie elsewhere has been ruled on by the Speaker in the past. I ask that the Speaker reviews the comments that have just been made with respect to my accountability to the House. They are wholly inappropriate and disingenuous. They also misrepresent an established rule by the Speaker. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Yes, we can take note of those comments. As for your continuation in the debate, Mr Gaston, will you go back to the terms of the motion, as I have asked you to do previously? Mr Gaston: Absolutely. I trust that that will — Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): You have an extra minute. Mr Gaston: — be taken as an intervention and an extra minute will be applied. That is not accountability, and it is time that the Minister renounced her throne. I will vote in support of the DUP motion because the failures that it highlights are real and serious. However, I must ask this: for all the warm words and all the bluster coming from the Benches about Mrs Long's failures, do you still have confidence in her? Is this another motion and another social media post with no meaningful action? I put it to the DUP and the Ulster Unionists that, if they feel that what they have outlined today is a resigning matter — Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Gaston, what you are referring to — Mr Gaston: — and that there is no confidence in the Minister — Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Gaston, resume your seat. Mr Gaston: — I trust that they will sign my motion of no confidence, and I thank them for their — Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Your time is up. Stop. You know and I know that what you are referring to has absolutely nothing to do with the motion in the Order Paper. You left it to the end deliberately, but it will not wash with me. I call on the Minister to respond to the debate. Minister, you have up to 15 minutes. Mrs Long: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I very much welcome the Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland report, 'Transforming the Criminal Justice System in Northern Ireland: A Strategic Overview', which was published in November 2024. I acknowledge that it provides a challenge to the justice system to reflect on our pace and approach to change and transformation. The report, however, also acknowledges the difficulties that the system has faced in making such progress, including the inheritance of issues that existed prior to devolution, such as delay, access to justice, victim and witness care and the effective rehabilitation of offenders. The combined absence of the Northern Ireland Assembly for prolonged periods, poor annual budget allocations year-on-year and the challenges of business continuity during the COVID-19 pandemic added to the challenges that the criminal justice system has faced in recent years. It is worth noting that work to speed up justice was starting to reduce the time that it took for cases to proceed through the Crown Court in the first two quarters, until COVID hit in 2019. It is also important to acknowledge that the CJINI report highlighted a number of notable achievements in recent years, including the reform of youth justice, which reduced the number of children in custody and the number of cases prosecuted at Youth Court. That, in particular, will have long-term implications, because a reduction in youth offending among our young male population will feed through the system. We know that young people will graduate from one part of the system to another, so that is critical. The achievements also include the continued development of the Causeway system to facilitate the electronic sharing of information on criminal cases between key justice agencies and the use of live links, to name but a few. The use of live links is critical when it comes to discussing not only the speeding up of justice but the impact on victims and witnesses. It is also important to note that the nature of the crime that the criminal justice system is dealing with is not standing still. The Chair of the Committee asked how we can have all of this technology and not make efficiencies. Of course, the criminals also have access to all of that technology, which makes the investigation of many offences much more complex and time-consuming. I would have thought that that was apparent without my having to spell it out. Cases are becoming ever more complex. The increasingly digital world in which we live is reflected in investigations, where, often, technology is used in the commission of offences and digital devices need to be analysed for evidential material that may be relevant to deciding whether to prosecute. Those are significant challenges that create pressure across the system. I will look back slightly further. Since devolution, a number of measures have been introduced to help improve the system. New measures were introduced to simplify the summons process and to encourage earlier guilty pleas. I will come to the issue of early guilty pleas, because, of course, there is a court ruling that constrains the amount of credit that a judge can give, depending on the timing of the guilty pleas. That is something that we are actively looking at. More proportionate forensic reporting and the first phase of committal reform have been delivered. It was not thanks to the Chamber that we got there on committal reform, because, in 2015, the first attempt by an Alliance Minister to come forward with committal reform was shot down in the House by one of Mr O'Toole's colleagues at the time and Mr Gaston's colleague. However, we managed to get there eventually. Its removal for victims and witnesses meant that they would not have to give oral evidence more than once during committal proceedings. Measures were also introduced to divert low-level cases from the formal criminal justice system through the use of penalty notices in 2012 and community resolution notices in 2016. However, despite efforts to date, the number of cases prosecuted in court remains relatively high, which is having an impact on the finite Justice resources and contributing to pressure on the system. Of course, that is not helped when people make a clamour and say that every case must go to court, irrespective of whether it is serious or otherwise or when people argue that every criminal must go to jail, because anything that is not jail is not effective. All of that noise affects the risk appetite of justice partners in the system. It does not affect my risk appetite, because I recognise that it needs to happen. Miss McAllister: Will the Minister give way? Mrs Long: I will indeed. Miss McAllister: Does the Minister welcome the comments made by the Chief Constable and Assistant Chief Constable last week at the Policing Board, when they welcomed the options on out-of-court disposals, including those for lower-level offences and, furthermore, highlighted that they were a key contributing factor in developing the proposals? Mrs Long: Absolutely. They led the working group that led to the proposals on which I am now consulting on behalf of the Criminal Justice Board. We try to be collective, but some people will try to unpick even that. The long-standing and ongoing funding challenges for Justice are also well articulated in the Chamber. They will, undoubtedly, impact on what can be delivered. To be clear, I cannot do everything with nothing. I either have the resources or I do not, and that will have an impact on what the Department can achieve. The DOJ's share of the Northern Ireland block grant has fallen continually over the past 14 years. It has fallen from just under 11% in 2011-12 — I would argue that that was not sufficient, given that there was no anticipation that we would still be dealing with the overhang of legacy at this remove — to just over 8% in 2025-26. That underfunding continues to hamper efforts to transform the justice system, as funding is, quite rightly, prioritised to demand-led, front-line activities, including policing, prisons and courts. It is also in contrast with the Department of Education and the Department of Health, which have seen massive increases in the proportion of the block grant that they get, yet they have delivered precious little by way of transformation. Some Members: Hear, hear. Top 7.00 pm Mrs Long: That leaves the system with less than 0·5% of discretionary spend, making it extremely difficult to engage in meaningful transformation and to sustain that transformation. Although we have an appetite for change, it is only now, through successful bids and through initiatives such as the public-sector transformation board that we can find the significant funding that is needed to sustain our endeavours. It is important to raise those issues for context, but I want to focus on key developments in the Department and in the wider justice system that I believe will address the questions posed and allay some of the concerns that have been raised, assuming, of course, that Members raised them in good faith. I, along with colleagues across the criminal justice system, recognise that long-term sustainability is dependent on reform and modernisation in order to enable the optimisation of resources to deliver a more efficient and timely service. In response to the strategic recommendation in the CJINI report, my Department is leading on work to develop a criminal justice vision that will be used to define system-wide strategies, objectives and actions. The shared vision and priorities, when finalised, will be communicated and embedded in justice organisations' planning in order to provide a shared sense of direction. CJINI recommended that the work be completed within six months. Given the scale and significance of the ambition, however, combined with the complexity and independence — yes, independence — of independent parts of the system, it is important that it be done properly, that we do not encroach on their independence sphere by bringing it forward and that they all buy into the vision. That work is therefore ongoing, and CJINI is aware of that work and is being engaged as part of the wider consultation process to develop the shared vision. It is important that the process be collaborative and inclusive but also that it recognise the independence of the constituent members of the justice system. Mr Frew: Will the Minister give way? Mrs Long: Not at this point. CJINI accepts that position, and we will have the work finalised in the coming months. The vision will be key to embedding a collaborative, cross-justice approach to issues affecting the criminal justice system. The Chair of the Committee also asked about the review of the purpose and membership of boards and fora aimed at reducing duplication and freeing up capacity. That was undertaken in May, and no significant issues emerged as a result of the review. Most people felt that the work that was being done by the boards that they sat on was sufficiently different and distinct from the work of some of the other boards that it would not be —. Mr Burrows: Will the Minister give way? Mrs Long: I will not at this point. As I was saying, they felt that their work was sufficiently different and distinct from the work of some of the other boards that it would not necessarily be appropriate to make changes to them, but we are revisiting some of the review's findings at the moment. The CJINI report also noted a lack of cross-justice investment in and development of technology and that individual organisations did not always consider the impact of specific changes on other organisations in the system. In the coming months, my Department will publish a new digital justice strategy to tackle those issues. It is a pivotal initiative that aims to support the delivery of a modern digital justice system. In this age and at this time, we recognise the necessity of providing secure, trusted and user-friendly technology to support those working in the justice system and those who need to engage at any point with justice organisations. It is a cross-justice strategy that has been developed in partnership with stakeholders right across the system and aims to ensure that technological developments are used to enhance processes and access to services and to embed a culture of digital transformation in years to come. In addition, we are continuing to progress work across a range of topical issues that the report highlighted as being long-term issues for the system. Delay is one of the biggest challenges that the justice system faces, and it has been identified as a key priority by me as Minister and, indeed, by the Criminal Justice Board and other justice agencies. Delaying criminal cases has a negative impact on those who come into contact with the system, as well as on wider confidence in the community. The speed with which cases progress is of huge importance to victims, witnesses, the accused, their families and wider society. The delivery of a speeding up justice programme is a Programme for Government commitment under the safer communities priority. The programme is a joint, cross-justice, collaborative effort under the direction of the CJB, on which senior leaders of the criminal justice system are represented, including me, the Lady Chief Justice, the Chief Constable, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the director of the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunal Service, as well as a number of senior officials, including the Commissioner Designate for Victims of Crime, who, I believe, has to be at the heart of transformation because of my personal commitment to ensuring that the system services victims. The programme takes a whole-system approach and focuses on reducing avoidable delay, reducing demand, freeing capacity and facilitating more proportionate and effective responses to offending behaviours. It also aims to take advantage of technological developments to improve operational processes and the communication between justice organisations and the public. Earlier this year, the Department successfully secured £20·5 million of transformation funding to support the programme's delivery. That has already been used to accelerate ongoing work in the early engagement and out-of-court-disposals projects. It is a significant boost to progressing the important programme of work, but, ultimately, progress will be dictated by decisions made in the House, and whether those decisions are based on evidence or populism will be a test for the Assembly, not solely for the Department. The Department is also finalising the new victims and witnesses of crime strategy. Our mission statement is: "providing victims and witnesses, including children, young people and vulnerable users, with tailored support and effective communication in a transparent, rights-compliant way". In recognition of the fact that victims and witnesses are impacted on across many areas of justice, the strategy and action plan that are currently in development have been planned in collaboration with criminal justice organisations, Victim Support NI, the NSPCC and the Commissioner for Victims of Crime and will complement and inform related work streams, including tackling delay, which, I believe, will support ongoing system-wide improvement. As I pointed out, significant improvements have already been made as a result of the remote evidence centres, which I also championed. It is important to recognise that that breakthrough technology will allow people to have their cases heard and to get the outcomes that they want. I recognise that delays in the justice system can contribute to pressures elsewhere in the system. For example, long case-processing times can result in individuals spending longer in custody on remand, awaiting trial. That not only puts a strain on our prisons but can have a detrimental impact on the individuals involved, the victims, their families and, indeed, those who are on remand. Contrary to what was said, the Prison Service does not deny support for people who are on remand. It is not the case that there is no support. In fact, on the contrary, the Prison Service strives to encourage individuals who are held on remand to engage in purposeful activity whilst they are in custody. However, the reality is that the engagement can often be seen as an admission of guilt, and many fear that it will impact on their court outcomes. That, combined with the long case-processing times, can lead to individuals being released with their time having been served on remand with little to no rehabilitative work completed. We cannot compel people to engage when they are on remand. They are not guilty until the point of conviction, so we cannot compel them, but the offer is always there if people want to take it up. It is also a driving factor to progress the speeding up justice projects at pace, and I welcome the work that has been completed to date. That is why I am also keen, where it is appropriate and possible, to offer the judiciary viable alternatives to remand in custody, including a new bail support scheme that we hope to pilot in early 2026. That will initially support women to remain in the community while awaiting trial and will provide them with wraparound support to live independently while addressing their offending behaviours. It is notable that, despite that backdrop, some of the best prison inspection results that we have seen have happened in the past number of years. Our prisons, which were treated as basket cases and were among the most dangerous prisons in Europe, are now among the best. They are seen as exemplary, so let us not say that things have not and cannot change. A key priority for the Department is the reduction of offending and reoffending. I am more than happy to go to the Committee and give an account of the work that we are doing in that space. A significant range of measures have been implemented over recent years to contribute to the transformation and modernisation of the criminal justice system. Undoubtedly, challenges remain, not least in light of the funding challenges that we face. However, at the end of the day, money that is invested in other Departments is not invested in Justice. Every time a Minister makes a call for additional resource, that is money that could go into the justice system to speed up justice, improve outcomes and give better support to victims and witnesses. When people come to the House, make demands and want to see things change, I hope that they will also go to their colleagues in the Executive and make it clear that the funding needs to follow what we want. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, Minister, for that response to the debate. I now call Maurice Bradley to conclude the debate and make a winding-up speech on the motion. You have up to 10 minutes. Mr Bradley: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will try my best not to take the full 10 minutes. It has been a lively debate, and sometimes a wee bit fractious, but that is the nature of politics. I return to where we began: the uncomfortable truth that, 15 years after the devolution of policing and justice powers, Northern Ireland's criminal justice system remains mired in the same systemic failures that we were promised would be fixed. The Criminal Justice Inspection's report of November 2024 could not have been more stark. Its verdict is that there has been "limited improvement". Those two words capture a decade and a half of drift. There has been limited improvement in performance, outcomes and the lived experience of victims, witnesses and staff alike. If that is the best that we can offer after countless reviews, strategies and transformation programmes, something deep in the system is badly broken. We have been told again that leadership is lacking, that strategic vision is missing, and that siloed working, overlapping work streams and fragmented digital investments have produced a justice system that is inefficient, inconsistent and, too often, unjust. I give credit to the Minister for saying that her Department is vastly underfunded, as is the PSNI. That is a matter for the Executive as a whole. However, the Audit Office warned us in 2018, and CJINI warned us again in 2024. The pattern repeats: recommendations are made and strategies are launched, but outcomes remain unchanged. Transformation has become a slogan, rather than a standard. In closing, I echo the questions that still demand clear answers: where is the shared vision? When will a fully aligned, cross-sectoral strategy be published, with measurable goals and timelines? When will the Assembly and the public see not just promises —? Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way? Mr Bradley: Yes. Mr Burrows: Does the Member concur that it is concerning that, although the Justice Minister frequently says that she cannot answer something because of operational independence, she revealed in an answer to a question that I submitted that she has never once sought legal advice about what operational independence involves and what the boundaries of it are? Mr Bradley: I thank the Member for that intervention. That is —. Mrs Long: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I draw to your attention the remarks that have just been made, which, again, directly challenge the advice that was provided to Members by the Speaker on the matter. It is a challenge not to my authority — I know where the boundaries are, and I can read the legislation — but to the ruling of the Speaker. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, Minister. That can also be checked by the Speaker's Office, and Members can be given the advice if appropriate. Mr Bradley: I thank the Minister for answering the question that Mr Burrows asked me. That was very kind. Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. Does it not alarm the Member that, when the Minister had the opportunity during her 15 minutes' speaking time, she did not even outline a deadline of when her vision, which is her operational responsibility, will be finished? Mr Bradley: I thank the Member for that intervention. I mentioned that that vision needs to be produced. We all need to see it. We look forward to it. Finally, I call on the Minister to make three firm commitments before the year's end: publish the criminal justice vision and digital strategy; align all justice partners, including the PSNI and the legal profession, under a single accountable framework; and centre every reform on victims, witnesses and public confidence, not as an afterthought but as the very test of success. Members, transformation cannot be another word for delay. Justice cannot be something that we continually promise but never deliver. The public, and especially victims of crime, deserve better. I commend the motion to the House. Question put. The Assembly divided: Ayes 48; Noes 12 AYES Ms D Armstrong, Mr Boylan, Mr Bradley, Mr Brett, Miss Brogan, Mr Brooks, Ms Brownlee, Mr K Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mr Burrows, Mr Butler, Mrs Cameron, Mr Chambers, Mr Clarke, Mr Delargy, Miss Dolan, Mr Dunne, Mr Durkan, Ms Ennis, Mrs Erskine, Ms Ferguson, Ms Finnegan, Ms Flynn, Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew, Mr Gaston, Mr Gildernew, Miss Hargey, Ms Hunter, Mr Irwin, Mr Kearney, Mr Kelly, Mr Kingston, Mr McAleer, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Miss McIlveen, Mr Martin, Mrs Mason, Mr Middleton, Ms Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Ms Reilly, Mr Robinson, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Frew, Mr Kingston NOES Ms K Armstrong, Mr Dickson, Mr Donnelly, Ms Egan, Mrs Guy, Mr Honeyford, Mrs Long, Miss McAllister, Mr McMurray, Mr Mathison, Ms Mulholland, Mr Tennyson Tellers for the Noes: Ms Egan, Mr McMurray Mr Clarke acted as a proxy for Mrs Erskine. Question accordingly agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly expresses concern that the Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (CJINI) report 'Transforming the Criminal Justice System in Northern Ireland A Strategic Overview', published in November 2024, found limited improvement in performance, or the experience of victims, witnesses and staff, since the devolution of policing and justice; is alarmed that that outcome was reported despite numerous strategies and policy development; notes, in particular, the increasing need to tackle the factors that contribute to delay, including long police investigations, slow prosecutorial decision-making and cases not ready to proceed at court; further notes that delay may have the perverse effect of allowing alleged serious offenders, ordinarily held on remand for the purposes of public protection, to develop a strong claim for bail, or for those remanded to be released for time served at the time of sentencing; highlights the negative impact that that has on victims and on wider public confidence in the criminal justice system; believes that transformational change must be system-wide, rather than the product of many, often disparate, strategies or work streams; and calls on the Minister of Justice, more than nine months on from the CJINI recommendations, to outline her action plan and timeline to reach agreement with members of the Criminal Justice Board on a shared future vision and aligned strategic priorities for improving the effectiveness of the criminal justice system without further delay. Adjourned at 7.29 pm. Top
[ni-assembly-official-report][plenary_report] Official Reports https://aims.niassembly.gov.uk/officialreport/report.aspx?&eveDate=2025/09/30&docID=450896 Official Report: Tuesday 30 September 2025 Table of Contents Members Statements Schools: Voluntary Contributions Irish Language Signage Active Travel National Nonspeaking/Non-verbal Awareness Day North-west Economy Bowel Cancer Active Travel Scheme: A2 Clooney Road, Ballykelly All-Ireland Coastal Rowing Championships Minister of Justice Seachtain Deonaithe Orgán 2025 Organ Donation Week 2025 A5 Project Baby Loss Awareness Month Committee Business Northern Ireland Fiscal Council Bill: Extension of Committee Stage Administrative and Financial Provisions Bill: Extension of Committee Stage Private Members Business Skills Gaps between Young People and Businesses Drug-testing Schemes Oral Answers to Questions Finance Private Members Business Drug-testing Schemes Ministerial Statement Northern Ireland Community Infrastructure Fund Adjournment Tribeca, Belfast: Development The Assembly met at 10:30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair). Members observed two minutes' silence. Members' Statements Schools: Voluntary Contributions Mrs Mason: Many families across the North are being approached by schools for voluntary contributions. We know the financial pressures that many schools in constituencies right across the North face in ensuring that they provide good learning environments for our children and support their development. However, the reality for many families is that those contributions are voluntary in name only. Many feel obliged to make the payments. Voluntary contributions can add hidden costs that disproportionately affect already struggling families and create inequality. When back-to-school costs are already sky high, with parents facing astronomical costs when buying school uniforms and PE gear, those hidden fees can be the straw that finally breaks the camel's back for many households. At the moment, there is no statutory regulation on how schools request voluntary contributions and how they spend them. Guidance from the Department of Education and the Education Authority is very limited, leaving schools to set the level of contributions that are to be requested of parents. For many, that is an additional financial burden that they cannot, or struggle to, meet. Stronger guidance would provide transparency. It would give parents confidence that they will not be penalised for non-payment, create a level playing field across all schools and support a fairer and more inclusive education system. I urge the Education Minister to listen to the concerns of hard-pressed families and offer a consistent and fairer approach to voluntary contributions. Irish Language Signage Mr Brett: For decades, those on the Benches opposite lectured the people of Northern Ireland against majority rule. They told us that it was unfair, undemocratic and oppressive, yet, today, in Belfast City Council, with the help of the Alliance Party, they will impose minority rule on the people of Belfast by introducing the scandalous policy that says that Irish language street signs can be imposed upon communities with just 15% support. Yes, that is right, Mr Speaker — just 15% support. As revealed in the 'Belfast Telegraph' yesterday, since 2022, 228 streets have been approved for Irish language street signs, yet only 12% of those applications had the majority support of residents who live in those streets. In nearly nine out of 10 of those cases, the views of the minority trumped the view of the majority. That is not democracy; it is imposition. Let us look at the facts. Signs were approved on Malone Valley Park and Eliza Street Close with support from just 15% of residents. On Upper Stanfield Street, it was 16%, and, at Wolfhill Gardens in my constituency, barely 17% of residents supported the change in signage. In each of those cases, the vast majority of local people did not back the change, yet the policy, championed by Sinn Féin, the SDLP and the Alliance Party, was pushed through. I have been contacted by residents from across North Belfast, from all backgrounds and traditions, telling me that they do not want that territorial marking. They want to be left alone by Belfast City Council, and they want the council to get on with its job of emptying bins, cleaning streets and proper play park provision. While the flawed policy rolls ahead, the cost continues to spiral. To date, £170,000 has been spent on those signs, with 1,200 still to be erected. That is money that should have been spent on overcoming the crumbling of Belfast city centre, where shops are closing and businesses are leaving. Parties talk about respect, but the policy delivers the opposite of that by forcing minority rule on streets, when the majority have been ignored. When they do not like the answer that they get from the resident survey results, do not worry; they will resurvey until they get the results that they want. Our message to Belfast City Council is clear: although we are a minority, we will continue to speak up for the majority. I trust that the Alliance Party will once again U-turn on this disgraceful policy. Active Travel Mr McReynolds: As chair of the all-party group on active travel, I will respond to today's Northern Ireland Audit Office report on active travel in Northern Ireland. Sadly, the findings were precisely what we expected. Under the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022, the Department for Infrastructure is required to spend 10% of the transport budget on active travel. If that had been done, £85 million would have been spent annually, but it has spent a total of only £50 million to date. Moreover, we see that the Department is taking a creative approach, with street lighting repair and footpath repair considered to be appropriate spend from the active travel budget. I see what the Department is doing with that approach, but, unfortunately, that will not increase the number of people walking, cycling or wheeling to get around. Active travel has the ability to make a positive impact on how we move around our towns and cities. It has benefits for health, the environment and our economy, but those benefits are going unrealised as they are repeatedly forgotten and ignored. Underinvestment and lack of targeted investment make it obvious why targets are not being met. Although £50 million has been put towards active travel, what has it actually achieved? The 2015 bicycle strategy aspired to: "20% of all journeys less than 1 mile, to be cycled" by 2025, but, unfortunately, the figure is presently only 1%. COVID represented an opportunity for us to reimagine how we get around, given that there were fewer cars and other vehicles on the roads. In Paris, where I used to live, the mayor ordered immediate changes, and it is now completely unrecognisable from what I used to know. In Belfast, we got some cones on Hill Street, which were driven over, and pedestrianisation is only now, five years later, being presented as an experimental scheme. I commend the active travel and cycling lobby, which is calling for strategic investment and collaboration with key stakeholders to ensure the success of active travel, but to do that will also take the will of the Assembly and of departmental officials. Having active travel in a place the size of Northern Ireland should be a no-brainer, but we instead see a failure to get the basics right early on. We are cobbling together things that we know work later and at expense. I call on the Infrastructure Minister to read to the Audit Office report and to work with the all-party group on active travel, the lobby and the Infrastructure Committee to deliver the necessary changes that will make getting around easier, safer and cleaner through active travel. National Nonspeaking/Non-verbal Awareness Day Mr Butler: I mark National Nonspeaking/Non-verbal Awareness Day. I want to be absolutely clear that we must not allow this to become just another date in the calendar of which we raise awareness and move on. I want to issue a challenge to all Members and to those beyond the Chamber. Stop for a moment and recognise perhaps the most undervalued human right of all: the right to communicate. We must remember that, just because someone cannot speak, it does not mean that they do not understand. We wake up every morning and speak without thinking, which is blatantly obvious sometimes, perhaps even from me. We debate; we interrupt; we shout across the Chamber. We treat speech like air: invisible, automatic and always available. However, for thousands across Northern Ireland, including children with autism, stroke survivors and people with degenerative conditions, speech is not guaranteed, and for some, it is impossible. It is a work. It is a frustration. It is silence, misunderstood sometimes as disinterest. It is intelligence trapped behind a barrier that others mistake for absence. Let me say it plainly: we do not value communication until it is taken from us, so this day serves as a reminder to support and advocate for non-verbal individuals, ensuring that their voices are heard and that their rights are respected. Today is not just about empathy but about urgency. Urgency for better access to assisted technology; urgency for training so that our public services can truly listen, even when no words are spoken; urgency to treat non-speaking individuals not as silent but as unheard. On National Nonspeaking/Non-verbal Awareness Day, I ask not for sympathy but for accountability and some awareness-raising. If we pride ourselves in the Assembly on giving voice to the voiceless, let us begin by ensuring that silence is not mistaken for invisibility. North-west Economy Mr Durkan: Last week in the Chamber , the First Minister said: "The north-west is thriving". — Official Report (Hansard), 22 September 2025, p30, col 2]. The response from my constituents in the interim has been one of disbelief. We do welcome any positivity for Derry. Last week, we welcomed four Ministers to mark the start of work at the DNA Museum, but let us be honest: we are not thriving. We are barely surviving, and we are surviving despite the Executive, not because of them. If anything has happened, it has at least shown the public how detached the Executive are from reality. This week, Echo Echo Dance Theatre Company, one of our flagship arts organisations, will close its doors. Arts investment in the west is woeful. The legacy of the City of Culture has never been built upon, but sure, "The north-west is thriving". The Executive have ignored calls to save our crisis intervention service, despite the fact that we have among the highest statistics for suicide on these islands, but sure, "The north-west is thriving". When Derry jobs were cut at BT, there was no intervention to save them. Staff were let go, or the "lucky ones" offered roles in Belfast. In recent weeks, thousands of new jobs have been announced in Belfast. For Derry, nothing, nowhere near anything in that stratosphere. That is not regional balance: that is the exact opposite, but sure, "The north-west is thriving". One in five children across the North lives in poverty. That is a disgrace in itself, but in Derry, that rises to one in four. The addiction centre promised under New Decade, New Approach has not been delivered. Funding has been stripped from the Northlands centre, and the Minister of Health has yet to meet that organisation. Football clubs across the north-west have been strung along for years with the promise of funding from the Northern Ireland Football Fund. They have been handed the grand sum of zero pounds, but sure, "The north-west is thriving". Homelessness in Derry has doubled in the past decade. We are a housing crisis hotspot, with £6·5 million spent on temporary accommodation last year, but we are "thriving". My constituency has the highest unemployment rate, the highest claimant count, the highest household overcrowding. Derry City and Strabane ranks 357th out of 359 UK council regions for quality of life. How, then, is it that we are "thriving"? The First Minister seems to think that if you say something often enough, it will become reality. That is not a fact. We are far from thriving, but we will continue to work, we will continue to fight and we will continue to overcome. Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up. Bowel Cancer Ms Ferguson: I rise to speak on bowel cancer, something that is quite personal to me, as I lost my father in 2002 to bowel cancer two weeks after his diagnosis. Bowel cancer is treatable and curable, especially if diagnosed early. Nearly everyone survives bowel cancer if it is diagnosed at the earliest stage. Survival rates drop significantly as the disease develops, however. Early diagnosis saves lives. While bowel cancer is most common in people over the age of 50, it is important to emphasise that it can affect anyone, whatever their age, gender or ethnicity or wherever they live. Top 10.45 am In Ireland, around 2,500 people develop bowel cancer, also known as "colorectal cancer", each year. The Public Health Agency (PHA) in the North has indicated that one in 20 people here will develop bowel cancer. While bowel cancer is the fourth most frequently diagnosed cancer here, it is the second-biggest cause of cancer-related deaths. Symptoms of bowel cancer include blood in the faeces; rectal bleeding; changes in pooing habits; loss of weight for no obvious reason; feeling more tired than usual for some time; pain in the stomach or bottom; and a feeling of not having emptied the bowels after going to the toilet. If people have even one of those symptoms or are worried about any changes that they have noticed, they should ask their GP about accessing an at-home test kit, which is something that I received recently. Our cancer strategy 2022-2032 has committed to reducing the sensitivity levels of faecal immunochemical tests (FITs), which check for hidden blood in stool samples. The strategy has also committed to lowering the age eligibility for our bowel cancer screening programme to 50. Screening is currently offered to those aged 60 to 74. I recently asked the Minister of Health about those commitments. He said that work is ongoing and will be reviewed in the context of financial and capacity challenges in supporting services. I remind the Minister that the fact that the fourth most common cancer is the second-biggest cancer killer here is evidence enough of the need to expand urgently what is a life-saving screening programme. Active Travel Scheme: A2 Clooney Road, Ballykelly Mr Robinson: In early autumn 2024, the then Minister for Infrastructure, John O'Dowd, announced a £2·6 million active travel scheme for the A2 Clooney Road in Ballykelly. The scheme commenced in late 2024. The 2·6 kilometre-long scheme was touted as one that would improve facilities for pedestrians and cyclists. Furthermore, the carriageway was to be resurfaced. Minister O'Dowd said that the scheme would increase opportunities for walking, wheeling and cycling. He also asked road users for their patience while the scheme was being carried out. To facilitate the work, temporary traffic management measures were to be in place for a period of 33 weeks. The scheme removes what was once a hard shoulder that, on many occasions, has been used by vehicles to pull over to allow ambulances and other emergency vehicles to pass on that exceptionally busy and key route in the north-west. The scheme is to create a cycle path on a road that has an estimated 18,000 vehicles on it every day. There is not a day that passes that I or any other public rep does not receive complaints from road users about the traffic delays on the Ballykelly to Greysteel road. In my 20 years in public life, I cannot recall so much frustration and anger at a road scheme. So many members of the public have described it as a total waste of public money. The huge tailbacks are hurting the people of Ballykelly, Greysteel, Londonderry and everywhere in between. With recent news indicating that the scheme had been extended into early 2026, it is incumbent on the Department to act now to put measures in place to mitigate further daily delays for fed-up drivers. I ask the Sinn Féin Minister why the completion of the Clooney Road active travel scheme cannot be done in the evenings. Unlike other traffic schemes carried out in the evenings that subsequently met with objections due to late-night noise, the scheme does not impact on any populated residential areas and would therefore not face similar public anger. The public anger in the region is palpable. Public representatives are in post to act in the best interests of the public. The Minister's Department said recently that it will assess the traffic management: the Sinn Féin Minister needs to do more. She needs to listen to the people of the region and act urgently. Rather than have more active travel schemes, we need our potholes fixed. All-Ireland Coastal Rowing Championships Mr Donnelly: It really was a summer for sport on the Antrim coast. In my East Antrim constituency, Glenarm held the thirty-third All-Ireland Coastal Rowing Championships. The event returned to the North for the first time in 12 years and delivered one of the most successful weekends in memory. It was entirely volunteer-led, delivered by the Antrim Coast Rowing Association and the Irish Coastal Rowing Federation, both of which put in over a year of work to make it happen. Five hundred and fifty crews from 36 clubs travelled from across the island, bringing with them their families, supporters and spectators. Ten thousand people attended across the weekend. The impact was felt throughout the village and along the coast. The scale of the event also drew significant media attention, with two featured pieces on BBC News; coverage across local and regional press; and pieces on Radio Foyle and Radio Ulster. The Department for Communities featured the occasion on social media and in two promotional videos that were full of positive reflections from members of the clubs who had travelled. They praised the organisation, the setting and the welcome that they had received, and they promised to return. Every local business felt it. Accommodation was booked out all along the coast, and there was a real buzz from the first race until the final medal. The impact goes way beyond money and promotion and right to the heart of communities, not just in my constituency but across the island. Local clubs were central to that success. Castle Rowing Club made history this year as the largest club in the competition, entering a record number of crews and taking home 13 medals. The Whitehead Coastal Rowing Club crews added seven more medals, with Carnlough Rowing Club securing three and Glens Coastal Rowing Club and Glenarm Rowing Club getting two each. Clubs have already told me that the event has generated a huge increase in interest for next season, which is an amazingly positive result for our community. This year's efforts were supported by a Mid and East Antrim Borough Council grant that made a real difference but did not cover all the costs. Ongoing support is essential, if we want to see such volunteer-led events, with real community impact, return. Locally, Castle, which is one of the biggest clubs on the island, has struggled to get facilities for years, and newer clubs such as Glens need support to get equipment. Clubs such as Carnlough, which has been around since the 1800s, need support to retain their legacy and heritage. The success of this year should not be the exception, nor should it take another 12 years for the championships to come back. With the chance that it may come back in 2027, we need to use the time to invest in the sport and our clubs, especially when they can offer our communities so much and bring so much positive recognition to our coastline through such events. I thank everyone who made it happen. Our local community did us proud. I have no doubt that the legacy of the championships will last for many years. Minister of Justice Mr Gaston: I begin my remarks by reading into the record an open letter that Mr Paul Toombs sent to the Justice Minister last week: "Dear Minister Long, I am writing to express my profound disgust and sense of betrayal regarding your comments on the Nolan Show … I was horrified to hear you … equate the actions of terrorists with the experience of innocent victims ... You … said: ‘When you talk about people who have done really bad things, often really bad things have also been done to those people and that’s part of the point where they were willing to do those things.’ This view is not only factually wrong, but deeply insulting to my family and to countless others who have suffered at the hands of those who chose to inflict pain and misery. My family … never had a choice ... We never" — lifted — "a gun or planted a bomb ... my father, Ivan Toombs" — who was murdered — "served his community and sacrificed his life to keep the peace … True reconciliation can only ever be built on … truth and justice. Your" — words — "and actions … have only served to deepen mistrust". Doug Beattie called Mrs Long's words an "appalling contribution" that: "tried to blur the lines between victim and perpetrator." My North Antrim colleague, Mr Frew, described her position as "diabolical". I agree with both statements. My question today is this: do the DUP and the Ulster Unionists still have confidence in the Justice Minister? I remind the House that Mrs Long is unique in the Executive. Mrs Long is Minister of Justice because the Assembly voted to make her Minister of Justice. The record shows that only Jim Allister opposed her appointment. What now? Are the DUP and the Ulster Unionists happy to sustain a Justice Minister who cannot grasp the difference between a victim and a victim maker? Act or own it. In championing Stormont, you own a First Minister who said that "there was no alternative" to IRA murder. You own an Irish Language Commissioner who was imposed upon unionists. You own a Justice Minister who equates terrorists with their victims. Own it or do something about it. Yesterday, in the Business Office, I lodged a motion of no confidence in the Justice Minister. If colleagues agree that she should not hold office, go and sign my motion, or, indeed, table your own, and I will sign it. If you do nothing, you will own — Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up. Mr Gaston: — yet another failed feature of the Stormont Executive. Seachtain Deonaithe Orgán 2025 Mr Gildernew: Bhí Seachtain Deonaithe Orgán 2025 ar siúl an tseachtain seo caite; seachtain a dtugtar deis dúinn lena linn ár ndúthracht a athneartú do chinneadh a shábhálann beatha daoine. Is mór agam cúis an deonaithe orgán, nó ó bhuail mé le Dáithí Mag Gabhann agus lena mhuintir sa bhliain 2020, is mór agus is rómhór a chuaigh sé i bhfeidhm orm. Gheall muid dóibh go ndéanfaimis gach a raibh ar ár gcumas leis an dlí nua a chur i bhfeidhm, agus tá mé bródúil go ndearna muid, chomh maith le daoine eile, an gealltanas sin a chomhlíonadh. Cuireadh dlí Dháithí i bhfeidhm, agus is céim ollmhór chun tosaigh é. Ná bíodh aon amhras ann: tá dlí Dháithí ag sábháil beatha daoine. Ní hé sin deireadh an scéil, áfach: tá 163 dhuine ar ár liosta feithimh ó bhí anuraidh ann. Ó chuir an Roinn Sláinte stad sealadach le feachtais feasachta poiblí faoi láthair, tá sé ríthábhachtach go n-úsáidimidne, mar ionadaithe poiblí, ár nglór agus ár ngléas cainte le cúiseanna a shábhálann beatha daoine a chur chun cinn. Bhí dhá ghníomhphointe ann i Seachtain Deonaithe Orgán 2025: ní mór do dhaoine smaoineamh ar chlárú mar dheontóirí orgán; agus ní mór do dhaoine a mianta maidir lena n-orgáin a chur in iúl dá ngaolta. Organ Donation Week 2025 [Translation: Last week marked Organ Donation Week 2025; a week that allows us to re-energise our commitment to a life-saving decision. The cause of organ donation is one that I hold dear, as, having met young Dáithí and his family in 2020, they left a lasting impact on me. We promised that we would do everything that we could to make the new law a reality, and I am proud to say that we, along with others, delivered on that promise. Dáithí’s law has been introduced and is a monumental step in the right direction. Let us be clear: Dáithí’s law is saving lives. However, it does not end there: as of last year, there are 163 people on our waiting list. With the Department of Health’s current pause on public awareness campaigns, it is vital that we, as public representatives, use our voices and platforms to promote life-saving causes. Organ Donation Week 2025 had two action points: we need people to consider joining the organ donation register; and we need people to share their wishes with their loved ones.] A5 Project Mr T Buchanan: The A5 has been the subject of much debate in the House in recent weeks and months, and it bears mentioning again today. The ongoing delay as we await the outcome of the appeal by the Minister and her Department against the court judgement is causing uncertainty for farm businesses and much concern for the families who have lost loved ones on the road. We can never mention the A5 without, first and foremost, thinking of the families who, today, have a silent voice and an empty chair in their home. Every day, as we travel that road, we are reminded of the devastation caused to many families, and our sympathies are with them today. However, there is a second set of victims who are so often overlooked, and that is the farming community. The livelihoods of landowners and farm families have been placed in limbo for well over a decade, with third- and fourth-generation farming families facing great uncertainty for their future business. Their lands were vested and groundwork undertaken, which saw land left in such a state that it is unable to be farmed and disruption above measure caused to many of those businesses. Driving through the constituency of West Tyrone, it is devastating to see the hundreds of acres of farmland that has been left in such a deplorable condition. No one can deny that the A5 project is a key economic driver for the west, bringing with it regional balance, better connectivity and employment. However, our farmers, our businesses, our victims and our local people need clarity on the future of the project. Millions of pounds have already been spent, and all that we see for it is the devastation to hundreds of acres of farmland. That is not good enough and is totally unacceptable. It has to be recognised that the handling of the scheme by the Minister and her Department has been deeply flawed, and seeking information from the Department that will provide clarity for the farming community is like trying to take blood from a stone. That is totally unacceptable. The Minister must come to the House, step up to the plate and provide clarity on the issue. Top 11.00 am Of course, we also have the Agriculture Minister, and there has been little engagement by him with farm businesses. He has been so keen to set net zero targets, supported by Sinn Féin and the SDLP, that the project has been brought to a halt. When will they come back to the House with proposals to reduce those targets so that such projects can proceed? If it happened in any other business — Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up. Mr T Buchanan: — or any other political jurisdiction, heads would roll. Baby Loss Awareness Month Mr Speaker: Ms Armstrong, will you confine your remarks to two minutes, please? Thank you. Ms K Armstrong: Due to the state of my voice today, I will not take too long. Tomorrow is 1 October. It is amazing how quickly the years pass by, but starting tomorrow is Baby Loss Awareness Month. I talk about it, because, as others have heard in the House, it is important to recognise the number of children who are born asleep or too early. It is important to break the silence about baby loss. I have been open about my history and my 14 children. Sadly, 13 have not made it to be with us, but I have one very special daughter, and I hold her close to my heart. However, for all the families and all those mums and dads who do not get to hold their children to their hearts but hold them in their hearts because they are not with them, it is important that, this month, we take the time to recognise the hurt and pain and the one in four pregnancies that end without a baby. It is sad that October is the month in which this happens. It is when the dark nights start to roll in and we start to think about wrapping up warm. It is the time when we want to be with family, but, for some of us who have been through baby loss, not being able to talk about that loss means that there is a silent grief that causes a lot of pain and anguish. This month, I ask you all to look to your loved ones and ask them how they are. How long has it been? What would their name be? Tell them that you are sorry for their loss. We are not alone. There are many of us out there, and we share the grief together. Committee Business Northern Ireland Fiscal Council Bill: Extension of Committee Stage Mr O'Toole (The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance): I beg to move That, in accordance with Standing Order 33(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 33(2) be extended to 27 March 2026, in relation to the Committee Stage of the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council Bill. Mr Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed that there will be no time limit on the debate. Mr O'Toole: The Committee welcomes the fact that the Bill has been published, as we did when it was introduced and at Second Stage. In tabling the motion, the Committee sees the new date of 27 March 2026 as a limit rather than a target, and I underline that point for both Bills that we will discuss. I am keen for the Committee not only to do its scrutiny rigorously and to have the time to do that but to do it expeditiously. The Committee aims to complete its report on the Bill without any undue delay prior to that date. I will not set out the provisions of the Bill, beyond noting that the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council was established on a non-statutory basis in March 2021 as part of the New Decade, New Approach agreement. The rationale behind the council is that it: "bring greater transparency and independent scrutiny to the current and future state of" our public finances. It was: "established based on the nine broad principles recommended by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development ... for Independent Fiscal Organisations. In accordance with these principles and in line with international best practice, the [NI] Fiscal Council Bill ... now establishes the Council on a statutory basis and provides a legislative framework to underpin its work." The Bill was introduced to the Assembly on 23 June 2025. It completed Second Stage on Tuesday 1 July, with the Committee Stage beginning the day after, on Wednesday 2 July, immediately prior to the summer recess. As Members are aware, Standing Order 33(2) states: "A statutory committee to which a Bill stands referred under this order, may, within the period of 30 working days from the date of referral, consider and take evidence on the provisions of the Bill, and report its opinion thereon to the Assembly." Without an extension to the Committee Stage of the Fiscal Council Bill, the last day of Committee Stage will be Tuesday 7 October. That is next Tuesday, when the Committee would be required to lay its report on the Bill. To meet that deadline, the Committee would be likely to have to forgo the appropriate level of scrutiny of the Bill, which may well result in the Committee receiving criticism for not sufficiently scrutinising the Bill. On the establishment of the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council in 2021, its chair and members developed a communications and engagement plan to clearly articulate the remit of the Fiscal Council and engage with relevant stakeholders, including through consultations with the Minister of Finance, the Finance Committee, other Members of the Assembly, government officials and economic commentators. The council had its third or fourth — I do not know which — annual conference the week before last. I encourage any Members who want to attend one of those conferences to get in touch. There will not be another one for some time, obviously, but it is doing good work in communicating its work and its role. As the policy consultation carried out by the Fiscal Council was extensive, no further consultation was carried out. It is imperative, therefore, that key stakeholders be approached to give evidence on the Bill. The stakeholders are time-constrained individuals and organisations, so the Committee must offer them a level of flexibility in giving evidence and appearing in front of it. That represents a certain risk, as the Committee must have scope to consider responses to the call for evidence, and there may be a need to call further witnesses. Additionally, to allow the Committee to deal with any issues raised, the extension to the Committee Stage must recognise the Halloween and Christmas recesses. It is also important to reflect the Committee's wider work programme, which includes, we hope, scrutiny of the first multi-year Budget in a decade and supporting other Committees in their scrutiny of the five-year business plans; the Administrative and Financial Provisions Bill, which we will talk about next; an inquiry into Civil Service reform; and several other bits of pressing scrutiny. The calculation of a Bill's scrutiny timetable generally includes an eight-week call for evidence with, hopefully, written submissions and survey responses being received and a number of in-person evidence sessions at Committee meetings. Sufficient time needs to be built into the timetable, particularly given issues that may arise in oral evidence that require further investigation. As well as thorough consideration of the Bill, the other business of the Committee needs to be progressed in a timely manner. Members will be aware that the Committee will be scrutinising simultaneously the Administrative and Financial Provisions Bill, so, by requesting that the Assembly support the extension, the Committee is asking that Members give the Committee the flexibility that we need to discharge our statutory scrutiny role with respect to the Bill. At its meeting on 17 September, the Committee agreed the motion to extend the Committee Stage along with a revised Committee timetable. We believe that the extension is necessary in order to give the Bill the time and scrutiny that it deserves, but I underline that, in my role as Committee Chair, I am strongly of the view that it is a limit, not a target. Rather than seeking any further extension, I do not expect or want to come anywhere near the Chamber again to do anything but debate amendments. We commend the motion to the House and seek Members' approval. Question put and agreed to. Resolved: That, in accordance with Standing Order 33(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 33(2) be extended to 27 March 2026, in relation to the Committee Stage of the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council Bill. Administrative and Financial Provisions Bill: Extension of Committee Stage Mr O'Toole (The Chairperson of the Committee for Finance): I beg to move That, in accordance with Standing Order 33(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 33(2) be extended to 27 March 2026, in relation to the Committee Stage of the Administrative and Financial Provisions Bill. Mr Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time limit on the debate. I call the Chairperson to open the debate on the motion. Mr O'Toole: The Committee welcomes the Administrative and Financial Provisions Bill. Such Bills come along once in a while, but we have not had one here for more than a decade. For that reason, this is a more substantial one than most. The Committee sees the proposed new date of 27 March 2026 to end the Committee Stage as a limit rather than a target, as we did with the Fiscal Council Bill. We aim to complete our report on the Administrative and Financial Provisions Bill without any undue delay prior to that date. I will not go through the provisions of the Bill beyond noting that, as I have just said, financial provisions Bills, which deal with administrative matters or give Departments powers to spend money or levy fees in certain ways, come along at semi-regular intervals to deal with routine financial matters that require amendment to governing legislation. During debates on Estimates documents, many of you will have heard complaints about the use of the black box, which is a device to use Budget Acts to authorise spending where no free-standing legislative provision exists. These Bills are designed to tidy up those anomalies and to minimise the use of what is called the "sole authority" of the Budget Act. In developing the Bill, the Department of Finance sought inputs from other Departments. A number of Departments indicated miscellaneous administrative matters that they wished to have included in the Bill. Therefore, the Bill gives effect — this is where it is different from the Fiscal Council Bill — to policy proposals from DAERA, DFC, DFE, DFI, TEO and DE, as well as policy proposals from DOF itself. The Bill was introduced in the Assembly on Monday 23 June 2025. It completed its Second Stage, as with the Fiscal Council Bill, on Tuesday 1 July 2025 and moved to Committee Stage on 2 July 2025, just before recess. I will not read Standing Order 33(2) into the record again, because I did it for the Fiscal Council Bill and I am sure that Members can refer back to what Standing Orders say about Committee extensions. As I said, however, without extending this Committee Stage too, it would end next Tuesday, 7 October, and we would not have enough time to scrutinise the Bill in detail. We would have to forgo oral evidence sessions, and neither I nor the Committee thinks that we would have sufficient time to scrutinise all of the substantial measures in the Bill. Many are technical, but they still require further detailed scrutiny, while some are not that technical. Not seeking an extension to Committee Stage would, quite possibly, result in criticism of the Committee and, indeed, the broader Assembly for not sufficiently scrutinising the Bill. It has already become apparent to the Committee that the clause that deals with the transfer of the procurement and management of external auditors for the Audit Office from the Department of Finance to the Assembly's Audit Committee is a subject of live dispute between the Audit Committee and the Department of Finance. That is just one issue on which further evidence needs to be taken. We need to understand exactly the appropriateness of that power. The Audit Committee does not believe that it has the capacity or, indeed, the vires to undertake that role — the Bill would give it the vires — while the Department believes that the Audit Committee does or should have the capacity. The Audit Committee has sought legal advice on the matter, and the Committee for Finance will do the same. Part of the purpose of our extended Committee Stage will be to allow us to consider that advice and work towards a resolution. Additionally, the extension will allow the Committee to deal with any issues raised by other Committees. We have written to all of the other relevant Statutory Committees to ask them for their views on the issues raised by the Administrative and Financial Provisions Bill. As with the Fiscal Council Bill, an extension would recognise the Halloween and Christmas recesses and the Committee's broader work programme, which includes the Fiscal Council Bill; Budget scrutiny, including, we hope, a multi-year Budget; and work on Civil Service reform; as well as all the ongoing other work that Statutory Committees have to deal with. We have a busy schedule. I listed the calculations for Bill scrutiny that Committees include in their schedule in the previous motion, so I will not list them all again. While requesting that the Assembly supports the extension, however, the Committee asks that Members give us the flexibility that we need to discharge our statutory scrutiny role in respect of the Bill. At our meeting on 7 September, the Committee agreed the motion to extend Committee Stage. We believe that it is necessary, but I reiterate and underline that the extension date is a deadline and a limit rather than a target. As Chair, I am very much committed to that. The Committee commends the motion and asks the House to approve it. I will now make a couple of brief comments in a party capacity. The Administrative and Financial Provisions Bill is extremely important. We passed it at Second Reading because it is important that we look at some of the powers being taken here. There is a range of things that the public will expect us to have scrutinised. I will say gently to members of other Committees that they should not expect the Finance Committee either to simply wave the Bill through or to do their job of scrutiny for them. Top 11.15 am I will pick a few aspects out of the Bill. The Minister happens to be in the Chamber for another item of business, but I am not going to ask her to respond. The Bill, however, gives her Department the power to grade tourist facilities and to levy certain charges on tourism providers for training. It gives TEO sweeping powers to spend money to end violence against women and girls. That is a huge and important subject, but we need to understand what those powers are. The Bill contains powers to address housing association fraud. It also gives the Department for Infrastructure the power to levy charges on SmartPasses, which is somewhat interesting for Members and people who are over the age of 60. Those are really big powers, so it is really important that we scrutinise them. We know that we have had a lot of people criticise the Assembly's capacity and ability to scrutinise — I say that diplomatically — so we need to get this one right. I therefore say gently to members of all Committees and Members from all parties that the Bill needs to be scrutinised properly and that it is not just the Committee for Finance's job to do so. I beg the indulgence of the Speaker to make that point. I ask the Assembly to pass the motion. Question put and agreed to. Resolved: That, in accordance with Standing Order 33(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 33(2) be extended to 27 March 2026, in relation to the Committee Stage of the Administrative and Financial Provisions Bill. Mr Speaker: I ask Members to take their ease before we move on to the next item of business. (Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair) Private Members' Business Skills Gaps between Young People and Businesses Mr Honeyford: I beg to move That this Assembly notes the importance of promoting economic opportunity to deliver social justice and a truly reconciled society; recognises the significant job creation delivered by investment in Northern Ireland over the past few years; acknowledges that a lot of that investment was based on the linkage in skills development between higher education and businesses in receipt of investment; regrets that opportunities are being missed because too many skills gaps remain and there are too many occasions when that skills linkage does not exist; expresses support for prioritising support into skills development and employment for the 19,000 young people in Northern Ireland not in education, employment or training; and calls on the Minister for the Economy to establish a talent development agency, similar to Skillnet Ireland and other agencies in Europe, to ensure greater alignment between skills development in further and higher education and what businesses actually require. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. An amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List, so the Business Committee has agreed that 15 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate. David, please open the debate on the motion. Mr Honeyford: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. The latest figures, released this week, show that almost 25,000, or 10%, of our young people between the ages of 16 and 24 are not in education, employment or training (NEET). They are without hope and have had their futures put on hold. Rather than table one on culture wars or the constitutional battles that we have week in, week out in this place, Alliance tabled this motion, which speaks to our core values of social justice, reconciliation, building a shared society, working to share this island and just making life better for everyone. To do that, we cannot leave 25,000 young people behind. It is an issue that the Assembly must tackle. It is fundamentally wrong to complain that our young people are lazy. We heard that narrative earlier this morning. If, however, we are not going to give them the help and the hand up that they need in order to align their skills with the requirements of business and industry to get opportunities, we cannot move forward. From examples across the border — very close to us — we can see that far more people move into employment if the right connections are in place or built to enable them to do so. I will provide some context for our economy here. Our economy is crying out for an additional 5,000 skilled workers each year just to stand still, yet we are failing our young people and our business community. Alliance therefore tabled this motion as the party of opportunities. We want to see the region flourish. We want people to have opportunities, skills and qualifications. Their not having them is a barrier that must be addressed. Prosperity must be shared. Everybody must be given opportunities to better themselves. Job opportunities, skills and social justice for all must be delivered. As industry moves quickly with the advancement of AI and advanced manufacturing, it is becoming increasingly difficult for our young generation to secure training and employment opportunities, because opportunities are either limited or in high demand. No young person should be left without hope or have their future blocked by barriers, and no business should be held back by a broken skills system. Skills are the foundation of any economy, and an ever-growing skills base is vital if we are to deliver the economic and social transformation that Northern Ireland needs. We have to create opportunities, give hope and fundamentally ensure that we stop leaving young people behind. We must make sure that delivery opens up pathways for young people from disadvantaged backgrounds, empowering them and offering them a better future. We have to remove barriers for people who did not pass GSCE maths and English at the age of 16 to give them a future and enable them to hope for better. This must include people with additional needs. I commend Alma White on the work that she has done with Caleb's Cause to help a generation of young people who also need our support. That is why Alliance is calling for the extension of what already exists in the South and what our local business organisations have been calling for. Let us learn from what works and implement it here. Alliance wants to see the Skillnet Ireland model implemented in Northern Ireland, working together North/South as needed. That is a flexible model that links business and industry with colleges, universities and schools. It is based around a sector or a geographical area. Having a Skillnet Ireland model would enable cross-border, all-island economic cooperation, and, as I said, we should work on a North/South basis to help remove some of the mobility and skills issues that we hear about repeatedly in the Economy Committee and that arise when somebody lives on one side of the border and the business is on the other side, whichever way round it is. We must focus on making sure that we put the appropriate training courses in place to match what industry needs, thus creating opportunities and empowering people. I must note that I am concerned about the approach of the Department for the Economy and the Department of Education to working together in this area. That concern comes from a recent Public Accounts Committee (PAC) investigation into skills, which found complete breakdown in this area, with fragmentation and substantial amounts of money being wasted through duplication. One of the recommendations was about ensuring that funding for further and higher education bodies is directed towards the provision of courses that address the skills need and adapt quickly to provide the growth areas in our economy. By further working with the Department of Education, the Department for the Economy must do more to raise awareness and incentivise the uptake of those courses to reduce the skills gap. What the motion calls for would deliver that specific action and join the work of the two Departments so that we are not wasting money and resources by duplicating different courses at different times for the same people. Local business organisations are calling for that. NI Chamber has been leading the shouts and campaigning for that, and we are calling for it to be implemented right now. I want to give an example of how this would work. I recently met a large IT company in Belfast that employs graduates. Once they are employed, the company has to put them on an intense internal training course for 12 weeks. Why is that? It is because their degree does not cover what the business needs. There are other examples. Businesses tell me all the time that they want to create apprenticeships but do not have a link to a training course in a technical college to enable students to get the qualification that the business needs. What is currently being done needs to be adapted to meet what businesses need. Doing what we have always done will not cut it. The skills gap must be addressed urgently. Businesses are calling for that, and our young people deserve it. Alliance is calling on the Minister for the Economy to establish a talent-developing agency that is modelled on Skillnet Ireland and other proven European approaches. By doing so — this is at the heart of the motion — we will create better opportunities for young people that deliver prosperity and give hope and, ultimately, deliver for our workforce and local employers and raise standards of living for our population. This is about putting more money into people's pockets, giving them opportunities and allowing them to work in jobs in which they can thrive and grow; a shared future; a reconciled and practical example of a shared island, delivering social justice — integration that delivers better. I cannot support the SDLP amendment, as it changes the call of the motion by removing the extension of Skillnet Ireland to Northern Ireland. I have addressed how it would and should work on an all-island basis. The same system should work, but the amendment simply says that the Minister should pass responsibility to a new body that does not exist. Importantly, there are no plans in the South even to make that body exist, and so the amendment puts ideology in front of the betterment of the people. Alliance wants that betterment right now. Sharing this island is fundamental to me and to Alliance, but it means providing leadership and government here and now to deliver what our young people and business community need right now. That cannot be ignored or bypassed. Ms McLaughlin: I beg to move the following amendment: Leave out all after "employment or training;" and insert: "and calls on the Minister for the Economy to work with her counterparts in the Irish Government on the creation of an all-island talent development agency, to ensure greater alignment between skills development in further and higher education and what businesses across the island of Ireland actually require." Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Sinéad. You have 10 minutes to propose and five minutes to wind. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes. Please open the debate on the amendment. Ms McLaughlin: I thank the Member for proposing the motion, and I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important issue, which goes to the heart of Northern Ireland's economic future: how do we equip our young people with the skills that they need to succeed in a changing economy? We should begin by recognising that, in recent years, investment has delivered important job creation in Northern Ireland. That is welcome, but, if we are also honest, it is not enough. Too many opportunities are still being missed; too many people are left behind; and too often investment is not regionally balanced. If we are serious about delivering not only prosperity but social justice and reconciliation, every community in Northern Ireland must share in the benefits of growth. Opportunity cannot be confined to the few, and investment cannot be concentrated in one corner of our region. Invest NI has an important role to play in securing investment for the North, but it must also be accountable for delivering it to all our regions. That is why the resignation of Kieran Kennedy from its board should concern all of us. He has made it clear that he felt that the north-west was being discriminated against and that the organisation was not committed to achieving regional balance. Our higher education institutions are central to that mission. Across the island, in Derry, Belfast, Coleraine, Jordanstown, Donegal and Galway, our university colleges are not just centres of learning but economic engines, hubs of research and innovation and drivers of social progress. However, they are under enormous strain, and they are being asked to do more with less. The Department for the Economy too often skirts round its responsibilities, and the crisis of funding is real. That cannot and must not be solved by raising tuition fees and shifting the burden to our students. The SDLP led the charge against those proposals, and we continue to oppose them. Instead, the Minister must bring forward a sustainable funding model that supports our universities, protects access and allows our young people to thrive. The ongoing review of higher education is critical and must be used to set out a bold vision, not to manage decline. Yet, as we debate this, 19,000 of our young people in Northern Ireland are not in education, employment or training. That is 19,000 lives and futures. It is not just a statistic; it is a moral and social failure of this place. We need urgent action to expand apprenticeships, strengthen pathways into further education and break down the barriers that stop so many of our young people reaching their potential. Alongside that, we urgently need progress on the careers portal, which is being designed to link education, skills and employment. It must be delivered as soon as possible so that young people can see clear pathways from study to work and so that employers can have the confidence that their skill needs will be met. That is why the expansion of Magee university to 10,000 students remains a priority for us. It is not simply about numbers; it is about transforming the economy and society of the north-west. It is about saying that young people's future does not have to be elsewhere but can be built at home. Top 11.30 am Every day in my constituency and throughout Northern Ireland I see businesses and higher education working together. In my city, Alchemy Technology Services is creating meaningful careers that power economic and social recovery. Allstate's future innovators competition has given 3,500 young people in Derry and Strabane a chance to build vital digital skills. That is exactly the collaboration that we need. We must also be clear, however, that individual businesses cannot do it alone. That is where government must step up. The SDLP agrees with the Member who moved the motion that the best way forward is to establish a talent development agency. Mr Honeyford highlighted the work of Skillnet Ireland, and I agree with him. It is an exemplar organisation that steers and supports skills training programmes in partnership with the education sector and industry. Skillnet has a really good record of improving competitiveness, productivity and innovation in Irish businesses. Our amendment: "calls on the Minister for the Economy to work with her counterparts in the Irish Government" and with higher education institutions "across the island of Ireland" to create: "an all-island talent development agency". That could be Skillnet Ireland; we are not prescriptive about it. It is important that that happen, because the challenges that we face as an economy do not stop at the border. Skills gaps and business needs do not stop at the border. We already have economic corridors that need to be unlocked. It is time that we created educational corridors too. In the north-west, there is no reason why Ulster University at Magee and Atlantic Technological University (ATU) in Donegal cannot work hand in hand to develop the skills of the future workforce; in fact, they do, and they do it effectively. Mr Honeyford: I appreciate your giving way. I agree with everything that you have said to this point, Sinéad, but was there anything in what I said or any part of the motion that says that we would not work together to deliver for people on a cross-border basis? Ms McLaughlin: No, but your motion refers to creating: "a talent development agency, similar to Skillnet Ireland", but we are saying that we need: "an all-island talent development agency". That could be Skillnet, because it is there, it is an exemplar, and it delivers best practice. There are other talent agencies throughout Europe that do really good work and work across jurisdictions in order to meet the needs of businesses in those countries. That kind of cooperation is not really a luxury or even an aspiration; it is a necessity. Our businesses are crying out for workers. Our hospitality sector is struggling. Brexit has made recruitment even harder, particularly for the skilled labour workforce. If we fail to invest in our people through, for example, apprenticeships, further education, higher education and cross-border collaboration, we will continue to hold ourselves back. The truth is that the island of Ireland has extraordinary potential, but, too often, we choose to neglect the opportunities that lie right here at our back door and across the border. That has been a fatal mistake and one that we can no longer afford to make. By creating an all-island talent development agency — you can call it "Skillnet Ireland" if you want — we can ensure that skills development is aligned with what businesses need and give our young people the best chance of building a career here at home. We can send a clear message that regional balance and cross-border partnerships are not optional extras but essential elements of our future success. I urge colleagues to support our amendment and to see it as an enhancement of the substantive motion. Let us commit not just to more investment and more apprenticeships and to funding our universities properly but to doing those things in a way that works across the island, supports every region and ensures that no young person is left behind. Now is not the time to fail the 19,000 young people who are waiting for us to act. It is time to unlock the full potential of Magee campus, to protect our universities and colleges and to ensure that investment is fair and regionally balanced. It is time to deliver a careers portal and to seize the opportunities presented by an all-island approach to skills, education and the economy. That is the vision that the SDLP offers through the amendment. Mr Delargy: I thank the proposers of the motion and of the amendment. The conversation has been good so far. The keyword that has jumped out at me from it is "collaboration". That is collaboration in the North between the Department for the Economy and the Department of Education; collaboration with employers, schools and colleges; and collaboration across the country on making sure that there is a role for the Government in the South and for agencies. We know that there are regional disparities, particularly in border communities such as mine. A few months ago, the Assembly passed a motion calling on the Department of Education to reform its funding model for sixth-form colleges. That is the crux of the issue, because, fundamentally, if students in schools do not have the same access to further education and other opportunities as they do to staying in school, skills gaps are created and the skills gaps that are already there are enhanced. That issue needs to be progressed. We need to continue to work on that, and I appreciate that the Committee has been working on that as well. Schools are compelled to keep students because of the current funding model. If we were to change that, it would enhance schools' ability to offer more focused courses and enhance our further education colleges' offering and ability to enhance the skill sets that are there. The Committee has also heard from colleges and employers who have difficulty accessing schools. As a Committee, we need to do a lot of work on that, because we know that a lot of the new, emerging jobs come from outside the traditional routes. Engagement with employers and innovators is key to building on that. Further education was omitted from the motion. That was probably unintentional. The motion focuses more on higher education than on further education. We need to be cognisant of that, going forward, because we all recognise the role that colleges play in our communities, particularly in addressing skill gaps. Skills academies build on and bring that as well. I speak from my experience with FinTrU, Alchemy Technology — which Sinéad mentioned — and other companies in Derry that have benefited from the responsiveness of the colleges in bringing forward those academies to address the skills gaps. As many of you know, I completed a SKILL UP course on productivity, because, when I came into this role, that is something that I was not sure of. That proves that SKILL UP can be useful for people across all sectors and of all ages: young people, people who are in part-time employment, people who are in full-time employment and, as has been said, people who are yet to be employed and are on that journey. It is important to recognise that there are opportunities for people across our society but particularly for those who are struggling and are outside that system at the moment. That is one piece of work that has been brought forward to address that skills gap, but another piece that has been working really well is higher-level apprenticeships. I regularly meet businesses and students who tell me how well they are getting on with those. I totally understand and appreciate what the motion and amendment bring forward, but we have to appreciate that a huge amount of work already goes on in our schools, colleges, communities and universities. Recently, we have seen the launch of quite a few tech clusters in the north-west. Huge amounts of work have been ongoing between ATU, North West Regional College, Education and Training Boards (ETBs) and Ulster University. We need to foster and encourage that, and that speaks to the motion. The digital hubs will increasingly become a part of that as we move forward. Members will know — it is in the motion — about the all-Ireland work that Sinn Féin already does as a party. I have worked extensively on trying to get alignment with Central Applications Office (CAO) result dates and ensure easier access to the South for students from the North and vice versa. The reality is that we have an all-Ireland economy. We have similar skill gaps, and we need to address those on an all-Ireland basis. I will support the motion and the amendment, because it is important that we look at this in an all-Ireland context and at the skills gaps that we have across the bases here. Mr Brett: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. The manner in which Members have contributed so far reflects the consensus that exists on our Committee. We want to see the best possible opportunities for all our young people in every corner of Northern Ireland. Yes, that includes the north-west, Sinéad: 100%. As Mr Honeyford said, at the heart of the motion is the simple truth that, if we want to continue to grow our economy, we must invest in our people. Northern Ireland has been fortunate in attracting significant investment in recent years, ranging from advanced manufacturing to fintech and from aerospace to the creative industries. New jobs and opportunities have come to every corner of Northern Ireland, but opportunities are too often missed by our young people because the skills are not in place. The statistics that have been outlined by all previous contributors are stark. According to the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA), 25,000 young people in Northern Ireland are not in education, employment or training. That is more than one in eight young people between the ages of 16 and 24. That is not a sustainable position, because behind those figures are lives on hold and the potential of those young people being wasted. They are not feeling their actual value and are unable to utilise their full potential. At the same time, nearly 40,000 job vacancies were reported here in 2022, with more than a third left unfilled due to a lack of skills or qualifications among applicants. That mishmash must be addressed urgently. It was the DUP Minister who delivered the 10X skill strategy, which set out a road map for how we could upskill and retain our workforce to meet the demands of the modern economy. Already, some contributors have articulated some of the outworkings of that strategy. It recognised the need to rebalance education towards STEM — the Minister of Education continued that through last week's announcement of additional bursaries for teachers who are in prime and important subjects — expand technical and professional pathways and embed a culture of lifelong learning. I encourage everyone, be they as young as Mr Delargy or older, to take advantage of the SKILL UP programme. The Member for East Antrim who will speak later also engaged in one of those courses, which are supported by the Department for the Economy and are an excellent resource. Regrettably, however, the Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) and the Public Accounts Committee have highlighted the slow pace of delivery of that strategy and pointed to a lack of alignment between Departments, which Mr Delargy has articulated in this debate and regularly at Committee. The issue needs to be fixed, but, in our view, the answer is not to abandon the 10X strategy or create another new layer of agencies and structures in an already crowded landscape; instead, we should focus on implementing the strategy properly and coming forward with additional support mechanisms for how we can do that. That is why we support the Alliance motion. We also need to look at our apprenticeship scheme in Northern Ireland. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I am sure that you, like me, are contacted almost weekly by young people who are unable to secure an apprenticeship place. It is now a case of it being not what you know but who you know. Apprentices tend to be those who have family connections or know someone in that trade. As a Committee, we need to continue to focus on how we ensure that all young people have the opportunity to get the apprenticeship that they deserve, and I know that the Minister is committed to that. We will support the motion. That is how we build a stronger economy and a fairer society and ensure that Northern Ireland works for everyone. Ms D Armstrong: The Ulster Unionist Party wants to see a prosperous Northern Ireland where the economy works for everyone by providing access to good jobs, fair wages and opportunities that are extended to all. Skills development is key. It is a natural conduit between potential and opportunity. When skills match business needs, everyone benefits: the individual, the employer and Northern Ireland as a whole. Top 11.45 am It is right to acknowledge the success of Invest NI, which has made significant progress in the past year. Invest NI has invested £631 million in our economy across over 2,000 projects, exceeding its targets by 20%. Those projects are expected to create 3,020 new high-quality jobs across Northern Ireland. In 2024-25, 73% of those jobs paid above the Northern Ireland private-sector median wage. Yes, many of the jobs stem from existing linkages between further and higher education and industry, but that is tangible evidence of the valuable collaborative work that is being done between our education institutions and the business sector. According to the UK employer skills survey 2024, however, about 33,400 employees in Northern Ireland have skills gaps. Employers have told me that graduates often lack sufficient practical skills for the roles that they enter and therefore require significant induction training. That suggests a clear gap in identifying and developing on-the-job aptitudes, even among our graduates. We have also heard that 25,000 young people, which is equivalent to 12·4% of all 16- to 24-year-olds in Northern Ireland, are not in education, employment or training. We want to see that potential developed. The Ulster Unionist Party can see merit in the motion, but we cannot support the amendment, because what it proposes would add yet another layer of unnecessary bureaucracy. Are we not in danger of diverting scarce resources in order to create yet more agencies that would replace local enterprise partnerships and the labour market partnerships that were established under the previous Minister's subregional economic plan? Any new learning or initiatives to support skills development in Northern Ireland should feed into those established local partnerships and build on local knowledge and collaboration. We already have the Northern Ireland Skills Council (NISC) in further education and the Hospitality and Tourism Skills (HATS) initiative in tourism. We call for collaboration between the Department for the Economy and the Department of Education to develop the careers portal and take that work forward. A quick search of the Shared Prosperity Fund for Northern Ireland reveals that at least 18 agencies or programmes across the Province support skills development for the economically inactive: 16- to 24-year-olds from disadvantaged backgrounds; women; the over-50s; and those with disabilities or health conditions. The programmes offer flexible upskilling and training. That is not to say that we cannot learn from the outworkings of Skillnet Ireland, which supports over 18,000 businesses in the Republic, but why deviate from our largest jobs market, which is the United Kingdom? We must support those who are disconnected from work or education. We cannot accept persistent skills gaps when employers are crying out for talent. We must use the resources that are already in place and build a skills ecosystem that is rooted in local engagement and that targets those most in need. Ms Sheerin: Like others, I support the motion and welcome its coming before the House. It is on an issue that we all deal with when we are contacted by constituents, and it is important that we highlight the role of Alma White's campaign for support for young people with special and additional educational needs, because that support often falls between two stools. My colleague Mr Delargy outlined how the Department is working on that, and we want to see progress made. Change is needed to the Department of Education funding models under which our schools are almost pressured into keeping on for A levels students who perhaps know that doing A levels is not the right fit for them. I commend schools, particularly those in my constituency, that think outside the box and engage with local businesses to show our young people opportunities beyond the traditional academic route. I think particularly of St Colm's High School in Ballinascreen, which, last year, held a job fair. It invited local employers and got young people talking to people whom they will potentially work with in future. It was about showing young people that there are different routes to success and different career paths open to them and that it is not always about following the GCSE, A-level and university route, which often does not work for people. I also highlight the work of South West College (SWC) in the Mid Ulster District Council area. It does a lot of work on apprenticeships. I was delighted to attend its open day back in the spring, and meet so many really inspiring young people who are refreshing in their outlook, taking the bull by the horns, learning new trades and getting into fields of work that were not even in existence when I was at school, such as robotics, AI and different technologies, and learning how to adapt and develop their skills in all that. I will not repeat everything that has already been said. This has been a collegial debate. We are all on the same page. We all want to see our young people afforded more opportunities and improve their skills. In that regard, I support the motion and the amendment. Ms Brownlee: I am delighted to speak on the motion. Whilst I am not a member of the Committee for the Economy, the Public Accounts Committee discussed the issue and had an inquiry. It was extremely interesting. Recently, we got the memoranda of reply (MOR), which was also very interesting. Obviously, we really want to build a thriving society in Northern Ireland. Addressing the skills gap for our young people and businesses is, of course, at the heart of that. We have had significant investment into Northern Ireland. Despite that, opportunities continue to be missed. The skills gap remains wide and, in many cases, is not closing. As part of the Public Accounts Committee inquiry into skills, we heard very powerful and concerning evidence from the Youth Assembly. One of the things that really stuck out for me was the fact that the young people did not know what skills the Northern Ireland economy needs, and that the careers advice that they receive, whilst it is clearly well intentioned, is inconsistent across the region. Whilst some schools offer really good careers advice, we saw that others really lack the capacity and resources to do that. That will have a massive impact on the economy further down the line, and especially on those young people. We also discovered that there is a clear mismatch between supply and demand, with many young people applying for courses that are already oversaturated whilst the critical skills areas, where jobs are waiting, remain short of applicants. Another really clear takeaway struck me. After the discussion with the Youth Assembly, we sat down as a Committee and talked. We could not clearly define the skills that Northern Ireland needs to thrive. That was a real wake-up call for us all. Regardless of how many strategies that we have or action plans that we write, the simple question is this: how do we communicate what skills are needed to build our future here and for Northern Ireland to thrive? I have been a huge advocate of the Skill Up programme. I took part in the women in leadership course. I was provided with professional coaching. I would not have been able to access that otherwise. I was shocked at what courses are available, the level of those courses and the fact that they are all free and accessible for everyone. I am aware of that and tell everyone whom I speak to how amazing it is, but how do we get the message out? I have seen billboards and social media advertisements, but how do we target it so that everybody has access to that incredible resource that Northern Ireland offers? I am really pleased that special educational needs and disabilities were mentioned at the start of the debate. One of the figures that we looked at in the Committee's work was the number of young people with SEN who are not in education, employment or training, which is almost five times higher than the figure for the general population. Too often, the voice of those young people is forgotten in debates like this. I am really glad that, today, it has not been forgotten and that we are talking about them. There is enormous talent within that community. Children with autism have incredible strengths in pattern recognition, attention to detail, logical reasoning and other skills for which many employers are crying out. Those are skills that employers need. I have looked at companies, such as Microsoft and JPMorganChase in America, that have built autism-at-work programmes, not just because it is the right thing to do but because they have seen employees with autism outperforming their peers. We should lead on that and tap into that incredible talent, and give businesses the tools and confidence to do the same. It is also about a mindset shift: it is not an add-on or an addition but an incredible skill that we already have in Northern Ireland. The Committee also recommended that the Department establish a data-sharing agreement, and we have discussed data today. We really need to get a grip on that. It is not just about what we are discussing in the motion; we need quality data across everything that we are discussing, and we need a timetable and transparency as we move forward. We have discussed the figure of 19,000 young people who are not in education, employment or training. That is not just a societal problem but a crisis. I will finish with this: I was given the opportunity of an internship, and I think that it is absolutely critical that we support our young people with internships and apprenticeships and that we value every single skill that is available and that we help them to ensure that Northern Ireland continues to lead the way. Mrs Guy: I really love this motion. It has ambition, it seeks to emulate best practice, and it is focused on giving young people hope and opportunity and, in some circumstances, a reason to stay in Northern Ireland. That speaks to me both as a parent and as an elected representative. When asked what motivates me to be in politics, my answer is often that I want Northern Ireland to be a place that my kids do not have to leave to be successful. To realise that ambition, we need exciting, dynamic and innovative educational and training opportunities that cater for different aptitudes and interests of learners, matched to the needs of businesses and critical public services, such as healthcare. Right now, those opportunities simply are not there in the way that we would like, and I caution against anyone seeking to demonise young people as lazy or unmotivated when the pathways to succeed simply are so limited. I especially want to highlight, as others have done, young people with special educational needs and disabilities, who often need extra support to realise their potential. Right now, they have limited opportunities available. Northern Ireland continues to have the largest disability employment gap of all the regions across the United Kingdom. The latest figures report that the employment rate for disabled people in Northern Ireland is 38·3%, while the rate for those without a disability is 85·9%. Addressing the needs of those young people must be central to any approach, and I echo the recognition of Alma White and her work on Caleb's Cause, which highlights the neglect of our post-19 SEN young people. The motion recognises that some great work has happened in linking business investment with skills development. We have seen that through the skills academies, for example. However, every Member, when we go into local businesses, will hear that we have huge skills gaps that are stifling growth. When we take that fact and set it beside the fact that we have 25,000 16- to 24-year-olds not in education, employment or training, we have to see that for what it is, a red flag telling us that we need to do something different if we are to meet this challenge. It has never been more important to get the structures right around skills development. Things are changing so fundamentally with AI that it is impossible for government, which reacts slowly, to respond quickly enough to the needs of businesses and other industries. That is why the motion proposes a talent development agency to emulate Skillnet in the South. We have a huge number of innovative businesses that want to develop staff. They want to build skills and expand, however they need support to link with our training providers. We have also, time and again, talked about the need for parity of esteem between schools, further education and higher education. We need collaboration, not siloed working as we have now. That vision is driven by the top at ministerial level. The independent review of education provided clear recommendations for how that could be done and a vision of what could be achieved. For example, that report spoke of young people from the age of 14 onwards being able to participate in a wide range of education pathways, including vocational and technical education, and work-based learning. That requires collaboration between education providers and workplaces of all kinds. There are examples of that happening across Northern Ireland. Recently, David and I visited local manufacturing company Leprino in Magheralin, and we saw how it is bringing together young people through vocational opportunities, such as apprenticeships, as well as offering placements to university undergraduates and upskilling existing staff members to ensure that they have right mix of skills and experience to meet its business need. Not all businesses are at the scale to provide such a range of opportunities, so our version of the Skillnet model can provide a vital role, matching the needs of SMEs with trainees seeking employment opportunities or opportunities to learn. Seeking to leverage opportunities across the island of Ireland is a no-brainer, and we have spoken repeatedly about the need to work on a cross-border basis, especially in further and higher education. That will continue. Top 12.00 noon The SDLP amendment effectively removes the central tenet of the motion, which is a call on our Economy Minister to take focused action and establish a local agency here. There is nothing in our motion that would stop a talent development agency working in partnership with Skillnet Ireland. We would, of course, expect nothing else. We would also expect the talent development agency to work in partnership with similar organisations in Scotland, Wales and England. I hope that Members across the Chamber embrace the vision of the motion today. I worked in the private sector here for years in the technology sector, and I know the talent and vision of our business leaders, who are capable and eager to expand our economy. However, government must act as an enabler. Developing skills is essential and must be a shared aspiration for us all. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Michelle. Mrs Guy: No problem. Thank you. Mr Baker: I welcome the debate today, because it goes to the very heart of what we want for the next generation: opportunity, fairness and a future in which they can thrive — a future for all our young people. When we talk about addressing skills gaps, we are not just talking about statistics or strategies; we are talking about the lived experience of our young people in our schools, colleges, apprenticeships and workplaces across the North. A significant step has been the ongoing review of the Careers Service. Too often, young people and parents have told us that careers advice can feel inconsistent or too narrow and does not reflect the opportunities in the modern economy. By carrying out that review, the Minister has ensured that the service is being reshaped, giving young people the best possible guidance grounded in the real needs of our economy and the ambitions of our communities and young people. The Minister has also taken forward the 14-19 strategy, which is about creating clear and flexible pathways for young people as they move from school into further education, training and employment. That strategy recognises that not every young person takes the same route and that success should not be defined by a single path. Whether it be through A levels, apprenticeships, vocational courses or degrees, every young person deserves that support to follow their talents. Skills are not the responsibility of the Department for the Economy alone. They are shaped in our schools, communities and the support services that are available to our young people. Young people are ambitious. They want to contribute and succeed, and they see a future here. It is our responsibility to ensure that the structures are in place to support them. That means having careers advice that is modern and relevant. It means that strategies such as the 14-19 strategy should give choice and flexibility and that Departments should work together and not in silos. That is the work that the Minister has been delivering on and the work that is already making a difference. It deserves our full support. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Minister, you have up to 15 minutes to respond to the debate. Dr Archibald (The Minister for the Economy): Go raibh maith agat, a Phriomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle. [Translation: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.] I really welcome the opportunity to respond to the motion today, and I welcome any opportunity to speak about skills. I say this all the time because it is true: skills underpin and are critical to the delivery of all four of my economic objectives. Skills are a key driver of productivity, developing people's skills and helping people to take good jobs. New skills will be needed to deliver on the transition to net zero, and, by ensuring that we invest in skills across the North, we can improve regional balance. That is why, last year, we invested £250 million in our universities, including £13 million specifically for the Magee expansion and £310 million for our colleges. I have continued, despite our challenging budgetary situation, to prioritise investment in skills development and to fight for as much funding as possible to put towards it. My Department provides a range of skills programmes. Last year, £12 million from the skills fund supported 20 projects, including Step Up, which provides training, mentoring and careers advice for young people not in education, employment or training. We have committed a further £7 million this year to continue and expand that important work. I was also delighted to launch the apprenticeship inclusion challenge fund in October last year. Funding of up to £100,000 over 18 months will go to six successful applicant organisations from across the business, community and education sectors. Just last Friday, I was in Derry for the opening of the new WOMEN'STEC facility in the north-west, which is delivering on one of the challenge fund projects. Significant investments are also being made to boost digital and cyber skills across the region. They include Allstate's £16 million upskilling initiative and Queen's University's new cybersecurity AI tech hub. Apprenticeships have seen impressive growth, with a 39% increase since 2019, and higher-level apprenticeships having increased eightfold since 2017. In addition, new initiatives, such as the apprenticeship inclusion challenge fund and the apprenticeship action plan, ensure that apprenticeships are more accessible and inclusive. In recent months, I published the green skills action plan, which provides a clear framework for collaboration on future green jobs. That approach will help to create clearer pathways into training and employment, particularly for young people currently not in education, employment or training. I am concerned, as other Members are, by the recent increases in the number of our young people not in education, employment or training. I have asked officials to look at the potential reasons behind that. We have increasingly seen that in our schools, with more young people facing challenges in going to school. There are more young people with anxiety and in the school-refuser category. There is a challenge for us across the board in addressing those issues. Ensuring that we have pathways for people who face barriers, whatever those barriers may be, is a priority for me. It is important that we work not just across Departments but with community organisations, which often have people on the front line supporting individuals on their journeys. Members referred to the fact that there are challenges relating to our young people with special educational needs and people with disabilities particularly. Michelle talked about the fact that we perform poorly compared with other regions. I am keen to look at how we can address that, not just through ensuring that the pathways are there but through looking at whether there is work that we can do with employers to remove barriers, helping people into jobs. Cheryl mentioned the work that is being done by some companies in the States. We have companies here that do similar things in supporting people with neurodivergence and creating the right circumstances and environment for people to take up post. That is work that we can build on, ensuring that we mainstream good practice. My Department will soon publish its skills action plan, which will outline the concrete steps that my Department will take, along with our partners, to continue to build the dynamic, innovative and highly skilled workforce that we need in the North. The social enterprise sector also plays a vital role in bridging skills gaps. Recent research indicates that 11% of social enterprises provide access to education and improve skills development and that over half are located in areas of high deprivation. Greater cross-departmental collaboration is also under way, with the Department for the Economy and the Department of Education working together on shared priorities such as careers, special educational needs and post-16 pathways. I assure the proposer and other Members that I see that as being absolutely vital, particularly in the financially constrained environment that we operate in and are likely to continue to operate in. I will meet the Education Minister in the coming weeks on that agenda and how we can work together. I believe that he, too, is committed to that work and to greater cross-departmental collaboration. Despite the good work that we are doing, challenges remain. The proposer mentioned the skills barometer and the projections of job growth to a million by 2033. That is a good thing, obviously, but we face an annual shortfall of 5,400 workers and significant skills gaps, particularly in AI, digital, cybersecurity and green industries. The recent rise in the number of young people not in education, employment or training is a real concern. Such initiatives as the Open University and Libraries NI pilot help at-risk pupils develop study skills — a first step towards re-engaging in education — and programmes such as Skills for Life and Work, which is delivered flexibly by FE colleges, support those with low or no prior achievement in progress towards further education, employment or apprenticeships. While higher education is not always a direct route for young people, I will launch a public consultation this autumn on a new widening participation strategy to make higher education more accessible. Supporting our young people to gain the skills and qualifications that they need is essential in widening our talent pool and ensuring equal access to quality employment. The motion proposes establishing a talent development agency similar to Skillnet Ireland or other European models. The amendment suggests that I work with my counterparts in the Irish Government on the creation of an all-island talent development agency. My Department is already engaged in constructive dialogue with Irish Government counterparts through a range of cross-border initiatives. One great example of cross-border collaboration is the PEACE PLUS programme. Through that, my Department is working closely with colleagues in the South to build a stronger all-island skills system. Our further education colleges and universities are working closely with partners in the South to deliver training in key areas such as green skills and digital technologies. We have also seen strong engagement between the Northern Ireland Skills Council and the National Skills Council in the South, helping to shape shared priorities across the island. Green skills have been identified as a promising starting point, with further potential in areas such as AI. I am keen to explore additional collaborative approaches to skills development. In the meantime, our current approach remains guided by the principle of sectoral alignment. The Skillnet model's strength lies in its sector-based collaboration, bringing together businesses and education providers to address evolving skills needs. It is worth saying that our colleagues in the South very much view the relationship as a mutually beneficial one. They take learning from us as well. They are keen to learn from initiatives that we have and to see whether they can be similarly delivered in the South. Skillnet Ireland's approach to sectoral collaboration closely aligns with the Department's sectoral action plans that were launched by my predecessor, Minister Murphy, last year to support seven of our most innovative sectors. Addressing the skills gap, of course, is not a single intervention; it is a system-wide challenge. It requires collaboration, as my colleague said, across government, education, business and communities. Therefore, I am happy to look at what more we can learn from the Skillnet model. I share the Assembly's ambition to make economic opportunity the foundation of social justice and reconciliation. That is why I will continue to prioritise investment in skills; support for young people and those with specific needs; and deeper collaboration with business. I look forward to working with Members, stakeholders and communities to build a skills system that is fit for the future and works for everyone. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister. I call Cara Hunter to wind up on the amendment. Cara, you have five minutes. Ms Hunter: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. The SDLP firmly believes that young people are the foundation of our future and must have access to the right skill sets to help them and our businesses to prosper. Upskilling the thousands of young people across NI is key to unlocking and creating a stronger and more resilient economy across the North. I welcome the opportunity to wind up on our amendment, which strikes at the heart of the future of our economy here and the urgent need to address the skills gap and uplift the lives and minds of our young people. For years, I, like many, have watched family members, cousins, friends and school classmates move to Australia, America, Canada and beyond to seek opportunities, job vacancies, higher wages and easier access to upskilling and learning. Those people all love where they are from and are proud to be from the North, but they cannot see themselves building a life here for themselves or their families due to a number of contributing factors from rising childcare costs to the cost of living. For many, it is also about the challenge of accessing a university course that they desperately want to do here at home. Our young people face many challenges, and the duty is on us to figure out how we can keep them at home and help them prosper. It is important to highlight the need for regional balance, which many Members in the House have mentioned. The benefits of growth belong to us all. I feel strongly, as does my colleague Sinéad McLaughlin, that not enough is being done to achieve regional balance, with a particular focus, of course, on the north-west, which is greatly felt by our constituents. Top 12.15 pm I will move quickly on to other Members' contributions. David Honeyford made an important point, which is that we must all look to our future and not back at our past to ensure that our young people have access to opportunities and, more importantly, that they feel empowered. Moreover, both he and the Minister mentioned AI, so I feel it necessary to declare an interest, as I do an hour a month of consultancy work on AI ethics. Other comments from across the House included those from Pádraig Delargy, who said that it is vital that we acknowledge that work is being done by our schools and universities but that there is more left to do. Phillip Brett detailed something very important, which is that many people feel that it is not what you know but who you know. I do not think that any of us in the House backs that kind of environment. It is not fair, and it is not what we want to see. We want our young people to feel empowered, to have the necessary skill set and to have access to opportunities based on merit and education. Diana Armstrong from the UUP stated that greater collaboration is needed between the Minister of Education and the Minister for the Economy on these matters, and we wholeheartedly agree. I will briefly touch on our amendment. We do not seek to be pedantic, but we feel that it really reinforces the need for collaboration and connection, given the mutual benefit on an all-island basis and given that our lives, our families, our employment and our opportunities do not recognise a border. For example, if people live in Newry, and there is access to jobs or opportunities in Drogheda or Dundalk, or if there is a skills gap, we feel that our approach through the amendment will assist in addressing such issues. To conclude, the SDLP calls on the Economy Minister to work closely with her counterparts on the island to ensure that we close the skills gap and give each and every young person across the North the best opportunity to build a life for themselves right here at home, whether that is north or south of the border. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Kellie Armstrong to conclude the debate and make a winding-up speech on the motion. I advise you that you have 10 minutes, Kellie. Ms K Armstrong: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. It is not too often that we come to the Chamber to debate a motion on which we all agree. As a mum and someone who loves living here, I think that giving our young people opportunities to remain here, to have something that they can value, to earn money and to enjoy life is key. All of us in the Chamber want that for our young people. As the motion indicates, we have already started off well. Employment is going well, but 25,000 young people in Northern Ireland are currently not in education, employment or training. What are we going to do about that? The work on skills that the Minister is doing will pay dividends, but there are a few things that we need to look for. I thank David Honeyford, Michelle Guy and Kate Nicholl, all of whom have been working on skills issues for the past while. I also thank those Members around the Chamber who have spoken today on the issue. Our young people are key to our economy, and we need to give them hope, opportunities and chances in life. I am very concerned about what Labour is doing. It is talking about young people who are not in employment having their benefits taken away from them if they do not find work within 18 months. That is concerning. As somebody who sits on the Committee for Communities, I say, "Really?". We should be looking to support those young people rather than talking about taking benefits away from them. The Minister of Education is consulting on keeping children in school until they are 18. That will require them to participate in education, training or an apprenticeship. We look forward to hearing the outcome of the consultation, because it is another step forward. It cannot, however, result in what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has talked about, which is the youth guarantee that young people will be put into work. That work could involve doing nothing in which they are interested and not be related to their skills. It might also be for the most minimum wage possible. That would take the heart out of any young person. Let us therefore think about the opportunities. Skillnet Ireland is a good model to follow, but we need to work hard not just North/South but east-west. We also need to look to Europe and other places to see what models we can work towards having in order to deliver better for those 25,000 young people. As Sinéad McLaughlin said, skills gaps do not stop at the border. We need to think about the successes of others and move forward. There needs to be greater alignment between skills development and further and higher education. What skills does Northern Ireland need? As we heard from Cheryl Brownlee, the Youth Assembly said that it did not know what skills Northern Ireland needs. That goes back to the cooperative partnerships that we need to see established between Departments. Why are we allowing young people to choose GCSEs without telling them what they will get from those GCSEs? Instead of giving them career advice when they are 15 or 16, we should talk to children and their families as soon as they start big school. We should advise 12-, 13- and 14-year-olds before they pick their GCSEs. I was delighted to be involved with a number of schools that had started to bring employers in before the GCSEs were picked in order to give young people ideas about what the future could hold, what jobs pay and what might be an option for them. For some young people, especially vulnerable young people who live in disadvantaged communities, we need to grow their ability to see beyond the present. We need to give those young people opportunities. When we ask what skills Northern Ireland needs, it is over to the Department for the Economy. Where are the businesses that are coming forward? What do they tell us that they need now and will need for the jobs that will come in the future? When I was at school, every Tom, Dick and Harry wanted to be a nurse, and then it was, "Nobody become a nurse. We have far too many nurses". Today, there is AI, cryptocurrency, cybersecurity and all of that stuff — my goodness, we did not really have computers when I was at school — and our young people need to know about the jobs of the future. The careers services in our schools need to take a big step up. Careers teachers are not necessarily the right people to tell children about the careers that are out there. If you have been to school, university and teacher training colleges and then gone to work in a school, you have not experienced the outside world. I would love to hear more about businesses coming forward to help with careers advice by going into schools to talk about the options that are available. There was news about apprenticeships on the radio this morning. I have had plenty of emails from my constituents on the issue. Some young people are accepted by further education colleges, but they do not have a business to give them a placement. We need to identify placements to ensure that the young people are trained for a job for the future, potentially in the business with which they have their placement. We need to provide a talent pool for businesses, but we also need businesses to be part of the development process for apprenticeships to ensure that apprentices are trained with the skills that they will need for their jobs. As regards children with physical or special educational needs, we have far too many young people who do not see work as an opportunity for them because of their disability. From my prior life, I know that most of the barriers to work for such young people are not their skills; they are transport. The Department for Infrastructure needs to be included in the debate. Look at any of the surveys of young people that are done. The all-party group on disability visited Fleming Fulton School. The young people talked about work placements and told us that they need to get a bus, for instance from school to the centre of town, but, because they are wheelchair users, only one of them could use the bus at a time. It is very isolating. We need to think more about the whole-life experience of young people with special educational needs or physical disabilities and about how we can help them get to work. We need to ask ourselves whether the qualifications that we provide for young people through schools, further education colleges and higher education will provide the skills that our employers need. I admit that I am the one and only Byzantine studies graduate from Queen's University in 1993. Something that I share with Simon Hamilton is that we were both ancient history students. What job was I going to get with that? My postgraduate training in the graduate management development programme is the qualification that took me into sales and marketing, because, let us face it, I was not going to get a job in Byzantine studies. Some people may say that I am still talking about ancient history. We need to look at our skills. I remember sitting in a room with a lot of people from the transport sector — because I ended up working in transport, as you do with a Byzantine studies qualification — and a person at the front asked, "What do you get if you have a degree in ancient history?". I said, "Well, I am sitting beside you giving legal advice to the Department". Learning for learning's sake is important, but training for a job is equally important. We need to see whether our qualifications are providing the skills that we need, and whether we are supporting children and their families to think about the choices that will provide them with the best opportunities. My education in Latin was handy for doing legal work, but are we teaching the right languages? Are schools teaching the right IT skills, AI skills and all of that? I am glad to hear that the Minister is talking about a skills action plan and that she has included social enterprises in that. I had the absolute pleasure of talking to Edith and the guys at Mind the Gap about the cross-border work that they do for people with disabilities. That includes looking at how businesses can improve their understanding of the needs of people with disabilities, and making sure that those people's skills align with potential work opportunities. A skills action plan that ties all that together is important if we are to achieve social justice. No young person in Northern Ireland should be let behind. We do not want to hear that Protestant boys or disadvantaged communities have been left behind; we want opportunities for all. The motion calls on the Minister: "to establish a talent development agency ... to ensure ... alignment between skills development in further and higher education", and to identify what businesses here require. I would love to keep as many of our young people here as possible, earning, working and spending their money here in Northern Ireland. When Northern Ireland is busy and at peace with itself, we do much better. We have seen that before. Of course, we want to work with the South, but we also want to work east-west and with Europe. We want to work with anybody who will help us to bring forward the jobs that our young people will need. Question, That the amendment be made, put and negatived. Main Question put and agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly notes the importance of promoting economic opportunity to deliver social justice and a truly reconciled society; recognises the significant job creation delivered by investment in Northern Ireland over the past few years; acknowledges that a lot of that investment was based on the linkage in skills development between higher education and businesses in receipt of investment; regrets that opportunities are being missed because too many skills gaps remain and there are too many occasions when that skills linkage does not exist; expresses support for prioritising support into skills development and employment for the 19,000 young people in Northern Ireland not in education, employment or training; and calls on the Minister for the Economy to establish a talent development agency, similar to Skillnet Ireland and other agencies in Europe, to ensure greater alignment between skills development in further and higher education and what businesses actually require. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members should take their ease before the next item of business. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Blair] in the Chair) Drug-testing Schemes Ms Flynn: I beg to move That this Assembly recognises the role of harm reduction initiatives in preventing drug-related deaths at festivals and concerts; acknowledges that the Health Service Executive’s (HSE) rapid drug-checking schemes have operated successfully at events such as Electric Picnic for a number of years, providing warnings to concertgoers on potent and potentially lethal substances; notes the ongoing work between the PSNI, Forensic Science Northern Ireland (FSNI) and Queen’s University to develop a rapid drug-testing scheme that would enable harmful drugs to be identified and public alerts issued within 24 hours; further notes that we remain the only part of these islands without such provisions; stresses the need for collaboration between the forensic science laboratory at Seapark and the Health Service Executive, which has developed the capacity to deliver onsite drug testing at festivals across the rest of the island; and calls on the Minister of Health to confirm when those schemes will be rolled out by his Department in conjunction with the relevant agencies. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. An amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List, so the Business Committee has agreed that 15 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate. Please open the debate on the motion. Ms Flynn: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. [Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.] At the heart of the motion in my name and those of my Sinn Féin colleagues is a simple but powerful principle: harm reduction saves lives. We are here today to discuss an issue that is not abstract but real, immediate and deeply human. Top 12.30 pm Each year, young people across these islands attend festivals and concerts to celebrate music, community and joy, yet, too often, those events are overshadowed by tragedy, with lives being cut short due to the consumption of unregulated and dangerous drugs. Harm reduction initiatives, particularly rapid drug-checking services, have been shown to save lives. The question that is before us is not whether those schemes work, because they do, but whether we are willing to act with the urgency and compassion that are needed to bring them here. Too many families across the North know only too well the devastation of losing a loved one to drugs. As Sinn Féin's spokesperson on suicide prevention, alcohol and addiction issues, I regularly meet families and community organisations who can see and feel the crisis up close. Their message is always the same: many of these tragedies are preventable if we are willing to act. In previous debates in the Chamber, we have discussed the Jack's Promise campaign by the Brennan family from Lenadoon in west Belfast and the specific issue of residential rehabilitation and providing services for people who are battling with addiction issues. We can pick that up in another conversation with the Minister of Health and his officials following today's debate. It is important, however, to illustrate that the scale of the crisis goes wider than people accidentally dying as a result of taking harmful drugs but encompasses wider drug use and addiction issues and the need for rehabilitation. The point is that we cannot underestimate the scale of the crisis. The Department of Health's figures show that, in 2022-23, nearly 3,000 people across the North sought help for problems with drug or alcohol use. The detail is stark. More than a third were struggling with drugs alone, and over half were using drugs daily. They were not occasional users but people who were caught in the grip of addiction, living with risk every single day. That is why harm reduction measures, such as rapid drug testing and drug checking, are urgently needed. It is important to be clear about what we mean. Drug checking allows people to anonymously surrender substances at festivals or concerts for on-site analysis. Dangerous or contaminated pills can then be identified, and public warnings can be issued within hours. Rapid drug testing is lab-based, confirms what is circulating more broadly in society and enables health authorities to issue alerts quickly across the community. Both are essential. One protects individuals in the moment, while the other protects the wider public. In recent correspondence that we shared, the Minister acknowledged the issues and the difficult situation that we are faced with. Even as far back as the launch of the new substance use strategic plan last November, I think that it was, the Minister pointed out that deaths from drugs misuse are almost six times higher in the most deprived communities than in the least deprived areas. He pointed out that really important fact and described it as unacceptable, and he was completely right. However, if we accept that as the unacceptable reality, we must also accept our collective responsibility to act. We need to try to do more and put more measures in place that might save lives. That is the context of the motion. We are calling for the introduction of rapid drug-testing and drug-checking services across the North. We do not need to look too far to see the benefits of such schemes. The Health Service Executive's Safer Nightlife programme has been running successfully at the Electric Picnic festival in County Laois for four years. Festivalgoers can surrender substances for testing in a health-led, non-judgemental space. Last year, the system identified MDMA pills that contained three times the adult dose. Those were pills that were already causing seizures and admissions to hospitals. Within hours, an alert was issued through the festival app to all attendees, preventing critical harm. That is the point of our motion: to try to prevent deaths by introducing some of those schemes. That form of testing is referred to as back-of-house testing, where people can drop the drugs off anonymously. It enables the medical experts to see what is circulating and to act quickly, without exposing festivalgoers to criminal risk. That is what a public health intervention is, but the safest choice is not to take drugs. That is why I warmly welcome the DUP 's amendment, especially its first line. It is the most important amendment that could have been made to our motion, and I thank you for that. It points out how harmful and dangerous drugs are. That is an important message that we need to get out to the members of the public who may be watching the debate. The reality for those who choose to take a drug, at whatever stage in their life or in whatever circumstance, is that we are basically trying to provide a safety net that might mean the difference between life and death. Scotland has established a rapid action —. Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. One of the key points that she raised is the desire to ensure that we prevent deaths. Just this morning, I spoke to a mother who lost her young son at a concert in Belfast due to drugs. She talked about the qualifications of those who were employed on-site to monitor the drug overdose, which were wholly inadequate — in fact, some training was lacking. Also, the transportation from the festival to the hospital was so bad that she believes that it contributed to her son's death. Does the Member believe that that issue should also be looked into with urgency? Ms Flynn: Yes, I do, and I thank the Member for that intervention. It is important that we pick up on that type of feedback, such as from that family, who, sadly, have already gone through that devastation. We absolutely need to put in place all the measures that we can to try to prevent those deaths. It was worrying to hear about that young person possibly not being transported to hospital in a timely manner. Training is critical. When we talk about introducing such schemes, we need to introduce them in the right way, and whoever is involved in that work needs to be required to have sufficient skills to deal with such a situation. Thank you very much for providing that wee bit of feedback, Jonathan. We know that those models are already in place across Britain and in the South. I have spoken to the Minister and to his predecessor about the Queen's University pilot model that was put in place by the university, Forensic Science NI and the PSNI, all of which have been part of the discussions up to this point. Queen's University indicated that equipment for the rapid drug-testing pilot and the testing facility could be procured for a relatively modest capital investment of £220,000. Comparing that with hospital beds makes it clear that that investment is feasible. Some positive steps have been taken. Critically, the Public Health Agency has rolled out a nitazene testing-strip programme across all needle exchange sites and, more recently, it introduced fentanyl strips in areas where those drugs are most prevalent. In response to a question recently, the Minister gave an update on NSPdirect, which is the confidential postal service that is now available. Those are all very important initiatives, and all those measures show what can be done and the difference that we can make to try to protect people. Basically, the motion calls for additional drug-testing and drug-checking schemes. The important thing is to get real-time analysis, particularly at large scale-events where substances can circulate very quickly and the risk therefore increases. The motion also calls for a joined-up system that can identify dangerous substances within hours and issue alerts to protect the public. It is not about condoning drug use but facing the reality that people will take drugs in certain circumstances and that we need to make their doing that as safe as possible. The Minister has often spoken about tackling stigma, and I completely agree with him on that. He is totally right that stigma will drive people into further harm, making it harder for families to get support. If we are serious about moving beyond stigma — Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up. Ms Flynn: — we need to embrace evidence-based, public health approaches. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you. Mr Frew: I beg to move the following amendment: Leave out all after "this Assembly" and insert: "recognises that there are no safe ways of taking illegal drugs; acknowledges the role of harm reduction initiatives in preventing drug-related deaths at festivals and concerts; believes that this must complement the existing PSNI approach of identifying, arresting and placing before the courts those involved in the supply of illicit drugs; further acknowledges that the Health Service Executive’s (HSE) rapid drug-checking schemes have operated successfully at events in the Republic of Ireland, such as Electric Picnic, for a number of years, providing warnings to concertgoers on potent and potentially lethal substances; notes the ongoing work between the PSNI, Forensic Science Northern Ireland (FSNI) and Queen’s University to develop a rapid drug-testing scheme that would enable harmful drugs to be identified and public alerts issued within 24 hours; further notes that we remain the only part of these islands without such provisions; stresses the need for collaboration between the forensic science laboratory at Seapark, the Health Service Executive in the Republic of Ireland and the Home Office, in relation to developing the capacity to deliver, and license, onsite drug testing at festivals across Northern Ireland; and calls on the Minister of Health to confirm when these schemes will be rolled out by his Department in conjunction with the relevant agencies." Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you. You have 10 minutes to propose the amendment and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes. Please open the debate on the amendment. Mr Frew: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing that time. I applaud the proposers of the motion on drug-testing schemes. This is a vital issue that affects so many families and puts families into absolute despair. Families are in despair when are dealing with addiction; families are in despair when they get involved in the criminal justice system; families are in despair when they are involved in health emergencies; and families are in absolute despair when they lose a loved one. We all know someone who has been affected in some way by drug abuse, so it is really important that the Assembly and the Executive tackle this very important and critical issue. We should be here to save lives, and this is one topic on which we could do something good. We in the DUP think that the issue is so important that we had it in our manifesto: "We will invest in anti-drug programmes, through both justice and education, to tackle the scourge of drugs in all their forms, in our communities, and provide greater support for those at risk of suicide." We also thought it important to build on the motion. I appreciate the kind words from the proposer of the motion about what we have done to add to the motion through our amendment. The first line of the amendment changes the motion to make it read that the Assembly: "recognises that there are no safe ways of taking illegal drugs", and that any: "harm reduction initiatives ... must complement the existing PSNI approach of identifying, arresting and placing before the courts those involved in the supply of illicit drugs". There was a wee bit of uproar in my constituency a number of weeks ago when the Public Health Agency (PHA) put out its drug-taking advice. In one way, I can understand why the PHA felt that it needed to offer that advice. It used the words: "If you choose to use drugs: Dose low and go slow Stick to one drug Never use alone". I suppose that it is important that that message gets out there, but there are so many people in my community who thought that that was irresponsible, because those are words that you would imagine a drug addict using to advise a fellow drug addict on how to take drugs. That may well be something that they would say to a fellow addict. There is a very fine balance, and I am not sure that the PHA got it right. It caused a lot of alarm in my community. It illustrated to the public out there that, in some quarters of governance, there is nearly an admission of defeat when it comes to law enforcement addressing drug taking and drug abuse. Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. I share the concern about encouraging anybody to take drugs, no matter whether it is one type or another. I raised the example earlier of the death of my young constituent. The mother described to me how the police action has been limited due to lack of resource and how authorisation is pending from a senior officer on whether to allocate funds to take on the case. Does the Member agree that that is a wholly inadequate approach for a mother who is grieving the loss of a son? Mr Frew: Yes, I do agree, for one simple reason: when you speak to the police commanders and officers, no matter in what guise, whether through the district policing partnerships, as they were known in my time, or the policing and community safety partnerships, they always talk about going to the market and to the place where they believe that criminals are active or where a police presence is needed. I cannot think of anywhere more important than at a festival. There should be a police presence at that festival to investigate, detect and remove drugs. Let us be under no illusion: the people who the criminal justice system should target are the drug dealers. They peddle that poison in our communities, destroying lives and people, because, inevitably, people die because they take drugs. Top 12.45 pm The harm caused by drugs is very real for individuals, families, communities and public services. There were 1,771 drug-related deaths in Northern Ireland between 2013 and 2023, including 169 in 2023 alone. Furthermore, in the 12 months ending on 30 June 2025, there were 6,769 drug seizures and 3,049 drug-related arrests. Behind each of those statistics is a personal story: the pain of the families left bereaved; the grief that never ends; and the endless lives ruined by addiction or by involvement in criminality. We accept that there is a role for taking a harm-reduction approach, but that must not cross a line or be perceived to be condoning or normalising illicit drug use in any setting, let alone settings in which children or young people are found. Drugs that are seized must not be returned, and in no circumstances should advice be issued on the so-called safe use of drugs. That is where such approaches cross the line. A strong police response, targeting the sources of supply, disrupting drug trafficking, prosecuting those responsible and ensuring that the courts have the tools and guidance to hand down appropriate custodial sentences, must also be a priority. Arrangements for testing must not fetter police investigations or, indeed, be viewed as cause for police visibility to be reduced in concert spaces. I raise that point following the intervention from my colleague Jonny Buckley earlier. The police should not leave the scene because there are medical experts on-site. Rather, the two must work hand in hand, complementing each other in order to keep people safe. Moreover, we need to see a prevention-first response from the Executive. The motion deals with the final stage of the journey. It assumes that illicit drugs are in circulation. We know that they are. That should not be the extent of our ambition, however. It is simply not good enough to say, "There are drugs out there, and people will always take drugs illegally, so what can we do about it?". The truth is that we can do a lot more. We can do a lot more to keep people safe through police enforcement, but we can also do more in a medical context. Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. I totally agree with him on the point about having a police presence, but, after concerts, they often fail to follow up on evidence for prosecuting those who peddle drugs to vulnerable individuals. Mr Frew: That absolutely needs to be addressed. We know that there are multitudes of young people at festivals at which drugs are in circulation. From time to time, there are really dangerous substances out there that are stronger than other drugs. Although we must get the message out that all drug taking is wrong, irresponsible and dangerous, there are occasions on which lethal batches of drugs are out there that will do massive damage to our young people and even kill them. More intelligence gathering has to be done. There therefore should be collaborative working undertaken between medical and education experts and the police enforcement agencies. At no time should anyone surrender drugs and then be given them back. Once we get drugs out of circulation, we should keep them out of circulation. Every pill that is taken out of circulation could save one person's life, so it is worth it. We support the motion and hope to see real progress made in future. It would be good to save a family from going through the pain that we have all witnessed families go through. It is awful for them to watch a family member experience addiction. Support is then needed. A criminal sanction may be required, so — Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member's time is up Mr Frew: — that young person then enters the criminal justice system. They may even die. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): OK. Your time is up. Mr Donnelly: I thank Órlaithí and the other Sinn Féin MLAs for tabling this important motion. We have attended many events at which we have spoken to people who have lost loved ones to drugs and substance overdose. It is a serious issue across our society, so it is good that we are debating it today and thinking about what we can do about it. I also thank the DUP for tabling its amendment, which we will support as well. We all know that illegal drugs should be condemned. I unequivocally believe that the first approach should be to recognise their harm and not partake. That is the ideal. The reality, however, is that drug use happens no matter how much we disagree with it. We cannot deny that, so, if we want to save lives, we need to give serious consideration to how models such as drug checking can be adapted and introduced in Northern Ireland in a meaningful way to tackle the crisis that we face. We need to face facts. Northern Ireland has the second-highest rate of drug-related deaths in the UK after Scotland. Young adults aged 25 to 34 account for the largest share of drug-related deaths in Northern Ireland, and the death rate in that age group has more than doubled in the past decade. We cannot ignore the fact that that is happening. While I agree that there is no safe way of taking drugs, and I urge anyone who is considering taking drugs never to do so, I recognise that it is easy for us to say those words and consider our moral slate clean without taking real and holistic steps to address the wider issues in society. Without testing, you can never be sure of what is in a substance or be sure of its strength. That is the point of testing: it is done so that people can make an informed decision. No one deserves to die because they have made a mistake or a bad decision. This is not about international drug gangs and the mass supply of illegal drugs; it is about young people at festivals who are not educated on the harm of drug use and who, if they spoke to someone in a safe environment, free from judgement and harm, may make a more informed decision. Research by Queen's University has made it clear that there is an urgent need for enhanced services, including immediate access to drug testing. Preventative measures such as that are health-centred rather than punishment-centred and are based on evidence rather than fear. In a survey of nearly 1,200 Irish festivalgoers that was conducted by the Irish Journal of Medical Science, 87% admitted to using more than one substance. Strikingly, 93% said that they would be willing to use independent drug-checking services. That willingness tells us something important, which is that people are open to making safer choices when they are given the tools and the information to do so. Drug checking acknowledges the reality that people take drugs and that young people will experiment. It provides people, especially young people, with the chance to make informed decisions. Education about risks will always be vital, but so, too, is empathy and honesty. Drugs are easily available across all our communities, whether rural or urban. They are imported into Northern Ireland in huge amounts every week and are taken by many people across our society. There is a huge black market industry here; ultimately, if there were no market for drugs, that would not exist. I encourage young people in particular to seek out reliable information on drugs, and I highlight Talk to Frank as a confidential website on which to do so. Initiatives such as The Loop, the UK's first systematic drug-checking service, have shown what can be achieved by analysing substances and providing tailored advice. That service not only helps individuals to avoid immediate harm but collects intelligence that can inform wider public health responses. Even the police, who are experienced in drug crime, back that stance. Jason Kew, the former violence reduction unit, drugs, exploitation and harm reduction lead — Miss McAllister: I thank the Member for taking a quick intervention. Does he agree that sharing such information is vital and that recent police initiatives to alert people when they get access to drug dealers' communications have been positive? Does he also agree that the police should be commended for taking a different approach because it is not always just a criminal justice matter and that it has to be done in conjunction with health? Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute. Mr Donnelly: Thank you. Yes, I absolutely agree, and I will add that rapidly getting the alarms out and getting the information to the public can save lives. The quicker that those messages can be put into circulation, the quicker that people can be informed to avoid making the wrong decisions. Jason Kew, from Thames Valley Police, said: "Drug checking is reducing drug use through knowledge, harm reduction and welfare, and for a considerable number of people who are receiving this information for the first time in their lives, drug checking is crucially saving lives. This approach isn't about acquiescing or normalising drug use, this is about proactive harm reduction and it is achieving positive results. A single drug related death is one too many." There is a lot to be said about that response. Essentially, it is not about morality; it is about protecting life. Drug checking is health-centred and evidence-based, and it deserves serious consideration here in Northern Ireland. If even one life can be saved, it is worth it. Mr Chambers: From the outset, something that can never be overemphasised is the fact that there is no such thing as safe drug taking. Every illicit drug carries with it the potential to harm and devastate families. Too many lives in Northern Ireland have already been cut short by substances, for which society may have thought the risk was limited, but, in reality, are laced with danger. As a parent or grandparent, watching our loved ones excitedly leave the house to go to a festival is a common occurrence. For some people, it is a rite of passage. In that excitement, we also consider what would be any family's worst nightmare — young people whose promise will never be fulfilled because of a single pill swallowed in a field or a powder taken at a party; a moment's action with potentially life-changing consequences. As far as I am concerned, there is no such thing as too much awareness or too much focus placed on preventing those drugs from being consumed or brought to festivals in the first place. Yet, as legislators, we are also confronted with the stark truth that drugs are present at concerts, festivals and a multitude of other social locations. They are circulating, and they are being taken. To pretend otherwise would be to close our eyes to the reality on the ground. That is why the debate matters. We have seen in the Republic of Ireland, through the Health Service Executive's drug-checking scheme, that rapid testing at festivals can identify highly potent or contaminated substances. Importantly, those warnings are not a green light for drug use; they are a red light flashing urgently to tell as many people as possible who might pick it up that this substance could kill you or at least cause you some serious harm. That is the distinction that we must grasp. Instinctively, the call for a similar service in Northern Ireland is compelling, and I note the important work under way here between the PSNI, Forensic Science Northern Ireland and Queen's University. However, of course and understandably, any decision or process about a Northern Ireland testing scheme is likely to be much more complex than it may at first appear. We could do nothing without the necessary expert Home Office approval, and, again, I stress that our first and foremost priority should remain on the prevention of drug taking in the first place. The safest option is never to take drugs at all. That message must remain at the heart of our public health strategy. Alongside prevention, education and enforcement, we must be responsive to other steps that can demonstrably save lives. That is why my party and I are happy to support the motion and receive an update from the Minister. In the meantime, I hope that the PSNI will continue to pursue those evil people who are making fortunes out of peddling a range of addictive poisons to our citizens. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Business Committee has agreed to meet at 1.00 pm today. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The debate will continue after Question Time when the next Member to be called will be Colin McGrath. The debate stood suspended. The sitting was suspended at 12.58 pm. On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) — Top 2.00 pm Oral Answers to Questions Finance Casement Park: Financial Transactions Capital 1. Mr Frew asked the Minister of Finance to outline all conditions placed on the £50 million of financial transactions capital (FTC) provided by His Majesty's Government in June 2025. (AQO 2446/22-27) Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): The £50 million of financial transactions capital to support the redevelopment of Casement Park has been provided to the Executive for the period from 2026-27 to 2029-2030 subject to sufficient finance being raised elsewhere to deliver the project. That £50 million was over and above what the Executive's allocation of FTC would have been in the spending review period, so it can be used only for Casement Park. The profile of funding is also to be agreed with the British Government. The additional £50 million of FTC has been provided on a net basis, which means that it does not need to be repaid to the Treasury. No further conditions are attached to the funding. In my view, the GAA community has waited far too long for the reconstruction of Casement Park. I met the Communities Minister yesterday to discuss the next steps in the delivery of the project. I made it clear that I stand ready to offer whatever support my officials and I can to help make it happen. Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for his answer to my question. Where does he think the other finance for Casement Park will come from? Does he think that that departure from the usual arrangements for financial transactions capital, meaning that we will not have to pay it back, could be explored further for other projects funded by financial transactions capital? Mr O'Dowd: I will deal with those questions in reverse order. I am on record saying that I support investment in sport regardless of the size and shape of the ball or who does or does not play it. I will work with whomever to ensure that we get investment in sports and other areas in this place. However, I remind Members that Casement Park is the outstanding part of the jigsaw of the three stadia that were promised at that time. The other two have been built: Casement Park has not, so that is the starting point. You asked where the rest of the money will come from. That is a matter for the GAA, the Communities Minister and others. You will be aware that the Irish Government have contributed and that the Executive have made a commitment, as has the GAA. If there are to be increases in those commitments, I stand ready to play my part. Miss Dolan: Minister, will you join me in welcoming the investment in Casement Park? Mr O'Dowd: It is a very welcome investment. It provides another piece of the jigsaw of getting Casement Park up and going. The investment from the British Government, the Irish Government, the Executive and the GAA is now bringing the project forward. It is now time to move forward with a definitive plan, and, as I said to the Communities Minister yesterday, I will play my part in that and offer whatever assistance I can to ensure that the project is delivered. As I have been on record saying many times, I will play my part with other sporting organisations as well. Dr Aiken: Minister, the FTC is not to be repaid to the Treasury as a loan, so will it be treated as a loan in your accounting processes? How will we account for it? Mr O'Dowd: I am of the view that the money is from the British Government. It is up to the British Government to account for it. The Executive will make their own contribution to Casement Park. The Secretary of State's announcement and, in fairness, the work that he has done — that part of the equation — were on British Government investment, so how the British Government treat that is a matter for them. Financial Information 2. Mr McHugh asked the Minister of Finance to outline any steps that his Department is taking to help make information on government spending more accessible. (AQO 2447/22-27) Mr O'Dowd: Good financial information is critical to informing public debate. It can support and guide the difficult decisions needed to manage a constrained Budget and, ultimately, to help shape a more sustainable future for all. The Executive's Budget sustainability plan committed us to the development of a future work plan in that area. One strand of that work plan was the Budget improvement plan road map, setting out short- and longer-term action on areas of improvement and further development. As part of that work, my officials published draft and final Budget 2025-26 fact sheets, providing stakeholders with user-friendly, high-level information and infographics outlining the Budget position. NISRA has developed a new web page that sets out breakdowns of departmental expenditure over the period 2016-17 to 2024-25. I launched that new resource at the Fiscal Council conference on 12 September 2025. Its aim is to provide greater transparency on Departments' spending and make information on government spending more accessible. I believe that it is an important resource that will make information on government spending more accessible and provide the public with a clearer view of the cost of delivering public services here and where their money goes. Mr McHugh: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire. [Translation: I thank the Minister.] Minister, why was the NI Executive spending web page developed? Mr O'Dowd: It was developed to provide the public and others — I encourage MLAs and others to visit it — with easily accessible information, including a breakdown of how and where we use public expenditure. It is only right and proper that the public have as much information as possible about where their taxes go, and the web page is a great step in that direction. Before I came to the Chamber today, I went through it: it is a really useful source of information. Mr Speaker: Ms McLaughlin is not in her place. Baby Loss Certificate Scheme: Consultation Update 4. Ms Ní Chuilín asked the Minister of Finance for an update on the baby loss certificate scheme public consultation. (AQO 2449/22-27) Mr O'Dowd: The public consultation on the baby loss certificate scheme closed on 12 September. I am extremely grateful that over 1,100 people and organisations took the time to respond to it. Every response received provided us with valuable insight and clarity to help us to develop a scheme that meets the needs of those who have been impacted by the devastating loss of a baby. My officials are working to analyse the responses. Once that work is complete, I will publish the consultation report setting out what we have learnt. Once the Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill completes its passage through the Assembly, I will bring forward the required secondary legislation to specify the details of the scheme as soon as possible. Ms Ní Chuilín: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an fhreagra sin. [Translation: I thank the Minister for that answer.] Minister, I thank you for that overview. You outlined the fact that you will need legislation. Bearing that in mind, when do you anticipate that the scheme will become operational? Mr O'Dowd: I hope that the scheme will be operational within this financial year. It is important that we move forward as quickly as possible to respond to the demand for the scheme and recognise that many people came forward to respond to the consultation. I am sure that that was not easy for those who had experienced baby loss, and I want to ensure that we react and meet their needs as quickly as possible. Miss McAllister: Minister, data collection is important to informing policy, particularly on women's health. Knowing how many miscarriages take place in our society is a way of understanding and helping the women affected. Will the Minister's proposals for recording miscarriage include data collection by the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA)? Mr O'Dowd: Part of the consultation was on how we use the data that is collected. I am sure that the Member will agree that we need to understand the sensitivity in using terms such as "data" and "collection of information" when talking about families' personal stories. We have consulted on how we use that and how it would be best used to support and develop health policy etc. We will examine the consultation responses carefully and then decide on the most sensitive way forward in the use of that information. Rates Recovery: Update 5. Mr K Buchanan asked the Minister of Finance for an update on the recovery of unpaid rates. (AQO 2450/22-27) Mr O'Dowd: On 31 August 2025, the unpaid rates carried forward from previous years had reduced to £145·4 million, a 20% reduction from the position at 31 March 2025. Of the amount remaining, £59 million is moving through legal recovery channels,; £73·6 million is being examined for potential legal action within the current rating year; and £12·8 million is the subject of an active payment plan. Extensive work continues on further reductions to the amount outstanding. That includes issuing an additional reminder to ratepayers who may have genuinely overlooked payment but still have rates to pay. Cases of persistent non-payment or failure to engage constructively with Land and Property Services (LPS) will be considered for legal recovery actions. Land and Property Services has strengthened its approach on legal enforcement processes to increase efficiency in progressing cases that have already been subject to legal processes to the next stage of recovery. It is anticipated that more cases will progress through the Enforcement of Judgments Office and bankruptcy channels in 2025-26. Mr K Buchanan: I thank the Minister for that answer. You mentioned, I think, £145·4 million: what is that figure like going back over a number of years? Has it increased, decreased or stayed the same effectively? What is the history on that figure, broadly? Mr O'Dowd: I do not have the exact figures in front of me, but I understand that we are improving year-on-year in those matters. Over the past number of years, there has been specific focus in the rates collection agency on ensuring that we collect the maximum amount of rates possible and that, where we need to, we challenge those who are not paying their rates robustly, including through the courts, and work with those who are genuinely attempting to pay their rates but face difficulties for whatever reason. Everybody has to make a fair contribution. The rates collection agency is working its way through that. I will provide the Member with the actual figures in writing, but I think that there has been an improvement over the past number of years. Ms Bradshaw: Minister, can you give us the 2025-26 target for rates collection? Mr O'Dowd: Well, the target is 100%, but, given the scale of collection and the amounts involved, that would not be achievable in any organisation. I will just see whether I have the target figure for rates collection. I just cannot spot the exact figure in front of me, but it is extremely high. As I said to the previous questioner, we are and the rates collection agency is achieving significant return on the collection of rates. It is worth pointing out that, while we do and will take legal action against those who are not paying their rates, it is no one's ambition to bankrupt any individual or business. It is never a nice position to be in. We will work with individuals and businesses, but, at times, we have to reach that position, and we will do that, unfortunately. Mrs Dillon: Minister, can you tell us how much LPS collected in 2024-25? Mr O'Dowd: In the 2024-25 financial year, Land and Property Services collected £1·63 billion in rates. That was the largest amount of rates ever collected in a single rating year. That money provides funding for essential public services etc. I commend the rates agency for its endeavours to collect that funding, which is used in front-line public services. Budget 2026-29: Update 6. Mr O'Toole asked the Minister of Finance for an update on the 2026-29 multi-year Budget. (AQO 2451/22-27) Mr O'Dowd: Work is under way on the development of the Executive's multi-year Budget. My officials are currently collating and considering departmental returns. It will be the Executive's first multi-year Budget in over a decade. It will provide funding certainty, enabling Departments to plan on a longer-term basis, and create the conditions to drive real transformation in our public services. My officials are also supporting Departments to develop their five-year financial sustainability plans and are reviewing departmental returns to the multi-year Budget information-gathering exercise. That information will inform the recommendations that I will bring to the Executive later in the autumn for setting the multi-year Budget. Top 2.15 pm Mr O'Toole: Minister, will the multi-year Budget that you will bring forward, we hope, later this year be produced alongside an investment strategy? The Programme for Government (PFG), which was finalised earlier this year, promised an investment strategy. It is clear that we need one to sit alongside the Programme for Government and the multi-year Budget. When will it be published? Mr O'Dowd: The Member will appreciate that the investment strategy does not necessarily fall within my Department's remit, although I do accept that it is the collective responsibility of the Executive. I hope that the strategy will be published as soon as possible, but my current focus is on delivering a multi-year Budget. Miss Hargey: Minister, given that there are financial challenges ahead and that we will have to wait to see what the British Chancellor comes up with at the end of November, what will you be prioritising in the multi-annual Budget? Mr O'Dowd: I thank the Member for her question. We await the Chancellor's Budget, which is scheduled for late November. It is probably wise for us to await the outcome of that Budget before I lay a final draft of my multi-year Budget before the Executive. My priorities for the Budget are transformation so that we can ensure that we are delivering efficient, effective public services at the point of need and focus on what elements of delivery matter most out of the Programme for Government. We must focus on delivering improvements to public services for the citizens who rely on them and ensure that those public-sector workers who deliver public services are supported. Mr Tennyson: Minister, what are the greatest pressures that you have identified ahead of the multi-year Budget, and will that multi-year Budget include any real revenue raising? Mr O'Dowd: There are pressures across all our Departments. The growing demand for public services is significant. It is there for all to see. Matching that demand to a constrained comprehensive spending review over the three-year period for resource and the four-year period for capital is a challenge for all Departments and a collective challenge for the Executive. It is up to each Department to come forward with revenue-raising proposals. I will be making proposals on rates to the Executive, and I encourage Executive colleagues to look at their respective Departments to see where fair and progressive revenue-raising measures can be taken. Local Growth Fund 7. Ms Murphy asked the Minister of Finance to outline any engagement that he has had with the British Government in relation to the local growth fund. (AQO 2452/22-27) 13. Mr Blair asked the Minister of Finance for an update on discussions with the UK Treasury on the local growth fund. (AQO 2458/22-27) Mr O'Dowd: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 7 and 13 together. I may need some extra time, if that is possible. I have serious concerns about the approach that the British Government are taking to local growth funding here. My officials have been advised that the £46 million announced in the spending review is mostly capital funding. The Secretary of State had previously assured me that there would be flexibility with the local growth fund, and I am deeply disappointed that that is not the case. If the British Government proceed with their approach, it will have serious implications for our community and voluntary sector. I have been pressing British Government Ministers for clarity on the local growth fund for many months. The issue was raised when the deputy First Minister and I met the Chancellor in August. I raised my concerns and frustrations with the Secretary of State when I met him earlier this month. I was due to meet the Secretary of State and the then local growth Minister, Alex Norris MP, at the start of September. Owing to a Cabinet reshuffle, that meeting was postponed. On 16 September, I wrote to the new local growth Minister seeking an urgent meeting alongside the Secretary of State. Yesterday morning, I reiterated my request for an urgent meeting. My officials continue to press for urgent clarity on local growth and have urged Whitehall officials to consider contingency plans for organisations currently delivering Shared Prosperity Fund projects here. That the latest information is being drip-fed does not instil me with much confidence. I have serious concerns for the sector, for people’s jobs and for all the vulnerable people in our society who rely on the services daily. The Government must step up and make this right. There can be no more delay. They need to enter into meaningful engagement with the community and voluntary sector and the Executive to design a scheme that meets the needs of communities here. I will continue to push for that. Ms Murphy: I thank the Minister for his substantive answer. Minister, you have, no doubt, acknowledged the important part that the community and voluntary sector plays in our rural communities. Can you update us on any engagement that you have had with the sector? Mr O'Dowd: I had a positive meeting with leaders of the sector hosted by CO3 on 17 September, in which I provided an update to 41 representatives of the sector and listened to their many concerns. I hope to meet representatives of the sector tomorrow for further engagement on the matter. Engagement between the community and voluntary sector and me is not the problem; lack of engagement from the British Government is the problem. There is no point in it having the title of "local growth fund", when, from what I can see of it thus far, it is designed for the needs of constituencies in England and Wales. I do not know the needs of constituencies in England and Wales, but, collectively — around the Executive table, in this Chamber and elsewhere — we know the needs of constituencies here. The British Government need to start listening to us and to the community and voluntary sector here, rather than imposing on us a scheme that has no relevance to the needs of people here. Mr Blair: I thank the Minister for the reply to my question. May I ask the Minister for some more specific information on his conversations with the UK Government? Will he outline whether there will be a transitional arrangement in moving from the UK Shared Prosperity Fund to the local growth fund? Mr O'Dowd: At this stage, it does not appear that there will be. It appears to be the view of Whitehall that the social protection fund is coming to an end; that this is a completely new scheme; that everybody should be aware of that; and that they have made their position clear. I disagree completely. It has been handled in a shambolic fashion, which has been disrespectful to the sector and to the Executive. The Executive submitted proposals and a framework to Whitehall several months ago. I have sought meetings with Ministers since then, and I have received one lame excuse after another. It is time for them to listen to locally elected representatives here and to work with us to deliver a scheme that meets the needs of people here. Mr Kingston: As the Minister is aware, among the projects currently receiving Shared Prosperity Fund funding are community-based employability projects, which formerly had European social fund funding. They face an uncertain future, yet we hear employability support being lauded as a key theme at the Labour Party conference. Has the Minister raised with the Westminster Government the needs of those projects and the uncertainty of their future funding? Mr O'Dowd: Yes, I have, and I will continue to do so. The Member gives the example of a good scheme that is working well with people who need support in employment or in getting back into employment. That scheme is about bringing people back into the workplace, which is right and proper and beneficial not only to the individual but to the economy. I suspect that some of that support will be stripped away as a result of proposals designed for elsewhere being imposed here. It would be wrong of our Executive, including me, to design schemes for Birmingham, for instance, but it appears that schemes that are designed for Birmingham will be imposed on us, which is completely wrong. Shared Property Management Report: Publication 8. Mr Butler asked the Minister of Finance, pursuant to AQO 2316/22-27, when the report relating to the issue of shared property management will be published. (AQO 2453/22-27) Mr O'Dowd: The scoping report was commissioned for internal use in the first instance in order to determine the issues relating to shared property management and to consider various options for policy development and future reform. I can update the Members today by indicating that I have asked officials to take steps to put in place a small team with appropriate skills and expertise to carry out further work. I expect resources to be available and a team to be in place for the start of the new financial year. I further expect that considerable progress can be made during the mandate, and that legislative reform can take place early in the next mandate. Given that, I have asked officials to make the scoping paper available on the Department's website. That will be accessible shortly. Mr Butler: I thank the Minister for his answer. That is work that was commissioned by Minister Archibald, when she held the position. Work in that space has been delayed for around 15 years, and there is advice from legal counsel on the need for us to do that work. In the interim, can the Minister offer any succour or recourse to the people who are being impacted on by those property management companies, notwithstanding the fact that he has put on the record today that legislation is possible and will be brought forward in the next mandate? Mr O'Dowd: Some of these cases can be very complex and have their own unique issues, and some of them involve leases, which do not fall under the remit of my Department. I advise anyone who has concerns or is facing challenges in relation to their current shared property management arrangement to seek independent legal advice. Mr Gildernew: What plans are there to involve stakeholders, including homeowners, as that work gets under way? Mr O'Dowd: As further work begins on the issue, officials will liaise closely with a wide range of stakeholders, building on the initial engagement that took place as part of the scoping report. Homeowners, as well as other interested parties, will be able to engage with my Department, set out their concerns and raise relevant issues as it takes this work forward. That will inform an important part of the policy development process and help shape future legislation. Healthcare Staff: Contract Dispute 9. Mr McGrath asked the Minister of Finance whether his Department has explored providing additional resources to the Department of Health to resolve the current contract dispute with healthcare staff. (AQO 2454/22-27) Mr O'Dowd: We all want health workers to get the pay rise that they deserve. They should not be in the position of having to consider strike action to get the pay awards that they are entitled to. I am acutely aware of the demands that are placed on our health and social care system and the financial pressures that it faces. Those financial challenges are not confined to one Department, and we cannot view the health pressures in isolation. I am committed to working collectively with my Executive colleagues to resolve the current issues. I have been working with the Health Minister, and my officials are actively engaging with senior officials in Health to look for ways of securing the pay uplift for health workers. The fundamental challenge remains that the British Government are failing to provide sufficient funding for public services, but health and social care workers here should not be the victims of that. Mr McGrath: I felt like going, "Blah, blah, blah" with that answer, as we simply blame everybody else for not taking responsibility. You said that our healthcare workers "deserve" this money. It was promised to them. It is their pay uplift. It was due on 1 April, and tomorrow is 1 October. The Health Minister says that it is not up to him and that it is up to you as the Finance Minister. Do you have the money? Will our nurses get their pay rise? Mr O'Dowd: The Member clearly had his piece for camera worked out before I read out my answer, because I did not blame anybody and I did not point the finger at anybody. I listened very carefully to the Health Minister when he responded to the Member at previous Question Times, and he did not point the finger at anybody. Ministers have to work together. That is what Ministers are doing on this issue. We are working together, and I have no doubt — this may come as a disappointment to you — that we will reach a successful conclusion to the issue, and health workers will get their pay rise. Mr McGuigan: I completely welcome your last commentary, Minister, and the fact that you and the Health Minister are working together to, as you say, successfully resolve the issue for health workers. How have you, as Finance Minister, worked to ensure priority for the Health budget in the Executive? Mr O'Dowd: The Health budget continues to take up a significant proportion of our overall Budget. It is sitting at around 47% of our overall spend. Undoubtedly, there is a growing demand due to healthcare needs as our population gets older, and, as new medicines and new treatments are introduced, we want to keep apace with those. As Finance Minister, it is my duty to ensure that there is effective, efficient use of public funds. The work that I and the Health Minister have done and that my senior officials have done with the Health Department over the last period of time has proved beneficial. I will continue that work. As I said to the Member who asked the previous question, I have no doubt that the issue will be successfully resolved and that the pay rise for health workers will be delivered. Top 2.30 pm Civil Service Recruitment 10. Ms Sheerin asked the Minister of Finance to outline any measures that the Civil Service is undertaking to recruit more young people into its workforce. (AQO 2455/22-27) Mr O'Dowd: As one of the largest employers here, the Civil Service is committed to building an inclusive workforce that is reflective of the society that it serves and to increasing the representation of young people in our workforce. My Department has introduced a range of measures to recruit more young people, including the use of social media, radio and digital advertising to target younger audiences and the expansion of apprenticeships and traineeships as an entry route to the Civil Service, with 14 schemes launched during 2024 and a further 13 commenced or planned in 2025. An operational delivery apprenticeship scheme will launch soon, offering approximately 200 apprenticeships across Civil Service Departments. There will be the launch of a Civil Service skills academy for trainee civil engineering assistants in summer 2024, offering full-time and part-time pathways for participants, and the expansion of the Civil Service student 51-week placement programme. I recently hosted an event to welcome the 2025-26 intake of students to the Civil Service placements, with almost 100 students being placed across the nine Civil Service Departments. The Civil Service has also participated in the JobStart programme, which offers young people aged between16 and 24 and at risk of long-term unemployment a nine-month paid placement in the Civil Service with the potential for a permanent appointment on successful completion of their placement. Mr Speaker: It is time to move on to topical questions. A5: Capital Funding T1. Mr O'Toole asked the Minister of Finance, after stating that, with little more than 18 months until the end of the mandate, the public are shocked by the lack of delivery on several key projects that have the Minister's fingerprints directly on them, such as the A5 and Casement Park, whether the nearly £200 million in capital spending that the Minister allocated to the A5 project earlier this year will be handed back or lost, as it presumably cannot now be spent in this financial year. (AQT 1611/22-27) Mr O'Dowd: I am acutely aware of the fact that the A5 case is before the Court of Appeal and that there will be an appeal hearing on it. I look forward to the outcome of that appeal hearing, because the issues around the A5 deserve very careful scrutiny and require a legal determination by a court. I am more than satisfied that I acted in a responsible and reasonable manner on the basis of legal advice that I received from a barrister who is now a High Court judge. I do not know what decisions a High Court judge would come to now on the information presented to him and given the different arguments, but that was the level of legal advice that I received at the time. As for expending £200 million, you cannot, on the one hand, criticise me for not delivering projects and then, on the other hand, criticise me for investing to move a project forward. Those two things do not balance. The A5 is a flagship programme for the Executive. Any moneys not used this year will have to be returned to the Executive, and the Executive will decide how those moneys are redistributed. Mr O'Toole: Minister, you talk about careful scrutiny. There are people who wish that you, as Minister, and perhaps your officials had given more careful scrutiny to the planning application that went in. We and the people who want the A5 built would perhaps then not have been in this situation in the first place. Specifically on the money that could be handed back, you are the Finance Minister and are responsible for that reallocation and underspend. How much will that be, and what will be done with it? Please be specific. Mr O'Dowd: I reject your comment about the lack of careful scrutiny. In my experience of being a Minister in three different Departments, no project has received more careful scrutiny and examination than the A5 at ministerial and official level. I commend the officials who are involved in it. They are dedicated public servants who want to do the best for the public and for the communities of which they are a part. We have a judgement on a number of pieces of detailed law, and, as I said to you, the person who advised me on that law is now a High Court judge. Do you include him in your criticisms? Mr O'Toole: You are the Minister. You are accountable. Mr O'Dowd: I am accountable, and I am not shirking my responsibilities. Do not dismiss people who work diligently for the community just because you want a headline or your 15 minutes of fame or whatever you get on this evening's news. Mr O'Toole: I am challenging you. You are the Minister. Mr O'Dowd: I do not mind being challenged, but, if you are going to challenge me, leave the comments to me; do not expand them out. As Chair of the Finance Committee, you know that the Executive have to decide on the future use of any returned funds. Those funds will be returned in the October monitoring round, and the Executive will decide how best to reallocate them. Northern Ireland Civil Service Estate T2. Mr Blair asked the Minister of Finance to provide an update on the rationalisation of the Northern Ireland Civil Service office estate. (AQT 1612/22-27) Mr O'Dowd: The Civil Service has been going through an extensive rationalisation of its estate and rightly so. We have an expansive estate. My Department has been working through a plan to look at the viability of each building, its energy efficiency and its usage. My Department has been planning that estate management process. On a number of occasions, we have started to sell off buildings. The money from those sales goes back into the public purse and is reinvested in other public programmes. Mr Blair: I thank the Minister for that answer. How does his Department intend to make any retained estate more energy-efficient and modern? After any review or rationalisation, there will still be a considerable estate, so is there an action plan or a programme to do that? Mr O'Dowd: Yes. One reason why we are looking at our estate buildings is that some of them are outdated and to invest in them to make them energy-efficient would simply not be a good use of public funds. We are moving people out of some of those buildings for that reason and other reasons. We are attempting to invest in buildings that could be sustainable with good use of public funds. Road Repairs: DFI Budget T3. Mr Irwin asked the Minister of Finance, given that will be aware from his previous ministerial role that the road network is a source of concern for the motoring public, whether he will commit to increasing DFI's budget for road repairs. (AQT 1613/22-27) Mr O'Dowd: The Minister for Infrastructure regularly engages with me — rightly so — as other Ministers do, lobbying me on their budgets so that they can invest in a wide range of areas, including repairs to the public highway network. I will continue to work with her to do what I can to ensure that investment is targeted in that direction. Mr Irwin: Last year, over £5 million, I believe, was paid out in compensation to motorists whose vehicles were damaged as a result of defects on our road surfaces. Do you agree that the rising spend in compensation would be better directed to road repairs? Mr O'Dowd: Using the simple equation of paying compensation or fixing the roads, yes, but, unfortunately, the Infrastructure Minister faces significant difficulties in making the budget go around, as did the previous Minister. Despite the increase in funding for road repairs that there has been, I think, in this financial year, there are still significant challenges. As I said, however, I will continue to work with the Minister for Infrastructure and other Ministers to ensure that we get the maximum amount of public funds out to where they are needed, including road repairs. Strategic Rating Review 2025-26 T4. Mr Mathison asked the Minister of Finance to provide an update on progress on the planned strategic rating review for 2025-26. (AQT 1614/22-27) Mr O'Dowd: I have a paper with the Executive on the cap and the discount for early payment that I am looking for the Executive to endorse. Over the summer, my officials worked closely with key stakeholders on business rates relief and other issues. They are now preparing a paper for me that I hope to bring to the Executive for the next steps. Work is progressing on rates in a number of areas, and it is important to keep it under constant examination because it is our only major revenue-raising lever. Mr Mathison: Does the Minister still intend to go to out to public consultation on small business rate relief and the non-domestic vacant rating in October? Mr O'Dowd: Yes. I will bring proposals to the Executive with regard to the work to date on those matters, and I hope to go out to consultation. Baby Loss Certificate Scheme: Consultation Update T5. Mr Frew asked the Minister of Finance why, in his answer to question AQO 2449/22-27, he appeared to row back from his previous commitment that the baby loss certificate scheme would start during this calendar year, saying instead that it would start in this financial year. (AQT 1615/22-27) Mr O'Dowd: It is not a deliberate attempt to row back. I would like to see the scheme delivered in this calendar year. There are a number of factors at play, and a lot of it lies in the hands of the Assembly. I note that the Committee has now completed its examination and report, and I thank the Committee for that. A lot of it rests in the hands of the Assembly and how quickly we can get the regulations through. It is not a deliberate intention to roll back the scheme. When I look at the work programme my Department is delivering, I think that the scheme will definitely be in place by the end of the calendar year, but, if I can get it in place earlier, I certainly will. Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for his answer. Does what he has said mean that a further extension of the COVID regulations will be needed from March? Mr O'Dowd: Let us not look that far ahead: we are only at the end of September. Let us work through the legislative process and not look that far ahead just yet. Budget: 2025-56 T6. Ms Forsythe asked the Minister of Finance, after thanking him for regularly making his officials available to brief the Finance Committee, what steps he has taken to ensure that a balanced Budget will be delivered for 2025-26, given that the out-turn returns up to the end of August show that Civil Service Departments are overcommitted by over £700 million. (AQT 1616/22-27) Mr O'Dowd: In fairness, they are not Civil Service Departments. They are ministerial Departments, and, at the head of each Department, is a Minister who is responsible for managing the budget along with their senior civil servants. At this stage, we have a forecast overspend, with pressures across a number of Departments. However, the Ministers are there to make decisions. I always say that civil servants advise and Ministers decide, and the Ministers have decisions to make. Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for his answer. At a recent briefing by your permanent secretary, he detailed that well over 70% of our public spending is administered through our arm's-length bodies. Is it time for a widespread financial review of our arm's-length bodies in terms of how many there are, the administrative cost and whether there is a real opportunity for public-sector transformation? Mr O'Dowd: That is a definite "Yes". Ms Ferguson: What impact is the 2025-26 Budget allocation having on our public services? Mr O'Dowd: I am on the record as saying that all the Departments are dealing with a constrained budget, and, as I have just said, Ministers have difficult decisions in front of them. None of the Departments are easy at this time, and the forecast for the next three years is also challenging. However, we are making a difference. One only has to look at the recent welcome reduction in the waiting lists: that is a direct result of the Executive working together and investing in tackling waiting lists and putting a specific focus on them. We have invested £55 million in the early years childcare strategy, which is a new departure for the Executive. Again, we have worked together to push a positive agenda forward. We have invested an additional £15 million in special educational needs, £15 million in building skill sets in our current and future workforce and £5 million in making communities safer. I have listed only a few, but there is a range of areas in which the Executive, working together, and Ministers, working individually, are making a positive difference. Top 2.45 pm Ms Ferguson: Will the Minister outline where we are currently at with the public-sector transformation initiatives? Mr O'Dowd: The Member will be aware that the first round of funding has been distributed. The public-sector transformation board is now examining bids from Departments for the next round of funding. I hope to be in a position to bring the board's recommendations to the Executive later in the autumn. Mr Speaker: That concludes questions to the Minister of Finance. I will not be in the Chair during the two plenary sittings next week. My deputies will be filling in for me. I ask Members to take their ease. [Inaudible.] Mr Speaker: I should have said that I will be away on Assembly business. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Blair] in the Chair) Private Members' Business Drug-testing Schemes Debate resumed on amendment to motion: That this Assembly recognises the role of harm reduction initiatives in preventing drug-related deaths at festivals and concerts; acknowledges that the Health Service Executive’s (HSE) rapid drug-checking schemes have operated successfully at events such as Electric Picnic for a number of years, providing warnings to concertgoers on potent and potentially lethal substances; notes the ongoing work between the PSNI, Forensic Science Northern Ireland (FSNI) and Queen’s University to develop a rapid drug-testing scheme that would enable harmful drugs to be identified and public alerts issued within 24 hours; further notes that we remain the only part of these islands without such provisions; stresses the need for collaboration between the forensic science laboratory at Seapark and the Health Service Executive, which has developed the capacity to deliver onsite drug testing at festivals across the rest of the island; and calls on the Minister of Health to confirm when those schemes will be rolled out by his Department in conjunction with the relevant agencies. — [Ms Flynn.] Which amendment was: Leave out all after "this Assembly" and insert: "recognises that there are no safe ways of taking illegal drugs; acknowledges the role of harm reduction initiatives in preventing drug-related deaths at festivals and concerts; believes that this must complement the existing PSNI approach of identifying, arresting and placing before the courts those involved in the supply of illicit drugs; further acknowledges that the Health Service Executive’s (HSE) rapid drug-checking schemes have operated successfully at events in the Republic of Ireland, such as Electric Picnic, for a number of years, providing warnings to concertgoers on potent and potentially lethal substances; notes the ongoing work between the PSNI, Forensic Science Northern Ireland (FSNI) and Queen’s University to develop a rapid drug-testing scheme that would enable harmful drugs to be identified and public alerts issued within 24 hours; further notes that we remain the only part of these islands without such provisions; stresses the need for collaboration between the forensic science laboratory at Seapark, the Health Service Executive in the Republic of Ireland and the Home Office, in relation to developing the capacity to deliver, and license, onsite drug testing at festivals across Northern Ireland; and calls on the Minister of Health to confirm when these schemes will be rolled out by his Department in conjunction with the relevant agencies." — [Mr Frew.] Mr McGrath: I am glad to have the chance to speak to the motion today, because it is about something that really matters, which is keeping our young people safe. Over the summer, we witnessed some heartbreaking incidents in which young people went out to enjoy themselves at festivals and concerts and some did not come home. Families were left devastated and communities were left asking why more was not done. The motion is about doing more. It is about putting in place harm reduction measures such as rapid drug testing at events so that, if dangerous substances are circulating, we can act fast. That has worked well at Electric Picnic and other festivals in the South, which have been able to test drugs on-site in order to warn people when something lethal is going around, and that ultimately saves lives. The motion is not about encouraging drug use but about facing reality and protecting people. Here in the North, we have that expertise, with the PSNI, Forensic Science NI and Queen's University working on a rapid testing scheme, but we remain the only part of these islands without the necessary infrastructure in place. That is not good enough. We need the Minister of Health to step up and tell us when that infrastructure will be rolled out. The health service and the Executive need to get it done. I will speak directly to young people who had bad experiences over the summer. You deserve better. You deserve to feel safe when you go out with your friends. You deserve support, not stigma. Your lives are worth protecting. The amendment takes a tougher line on drug use. I get it that nobody wants to see drugs at festivals, but just being tough does not always work. Sometimes, that pushes things underground and makes them more dangerous. We need to be smart; we need to be compassionate; and we need to meet people where they are. I would like to see more joined-up work across this island and these islands, because drugs do not know borders, and they surface in all places. It is about sharing expertise and knowledge. If that little bit of sharing of expertise and knowledge can help one young person, it is worth doing. The SDLP is happy to back the motion. We welcome it. We do not have any real issue with the amendment. All of us working collectively will, hopefully, help to make the community safer for our young people. Let us protect young people and give them the support that they need and, ultimately, the future that they deserve. Ms Ferguson: I thank my colleagues for tabling the motion on harm reduction initiatives and the need for rapid drug-testing schemes at festivals and concerts. No drugs are safe in our communities, yet, sadly, too many lives are lost due to drug and alcohol misuse. Harm reduction initiatives such as rapid drug testing can help prevent families losing loved ones as a result of avoidable deaths. We are the only part of these islands without such provisions. Citizens here deserve equal protection. As my colleague Órlaithí mentioned, the Health Service Executive Safer Nightlife harm reduction programme has been on-site at Electric Picnic for the past four years, offering free and confidential back-of-house drug checking. In many other European countries, drug checking can be made a condition of licensing for major events and festivals. I will be interested to hear from the Minister whether he has had any conversations with the Communities Minister or councillors about that issue. Rapid drug-testing services save lives, identify emerging trends and enable alerts to be issued. We are all too aware that, sadly, the number of drug-related deaths has more than doubled over the past decade. Harm reduction initiatives are needed urgently alongside, as many colleagues have mentioned, investment in addiction services and compassionate, trauma-informed rehabilitation services, and the tackling of drug dealers with tougher sentencing in our criminal justice system. Harm reductionists, academics, policy reform activists and people who are on the front line have repeatedly urged that action be taken. We cannot allow young people to play Russian roulette with their lives when there are practical steps that could prevent accidental poisoning. Inaction is unethical and unacceptable. Back in 2018, my party colleague in Dublin Fintan Warfield outlined that such measures are sensible and proactive and that, by responding to the realities of life, they have the potential to save a life. In the Minister's response, it would also be welcome to hear whether any consideration has been given to securing funding opportunities, for example, and whether those could be achieved through the North/South Ministerial Council. Saving lives must be our top priority. We need a humane and compassionate approach to addressing the issue. That should include concrete proposals for the roll-out of harm reduction initiatives to prevent avoidable and agonising drug-related deaths. Mr Carroll: I thank the Members on the opposite Benches for tabling the motion. It is very important that we discuss the topic, as well as the fact that the state's current zero-tolerance approach to drugs is not working and that the war on drugs has categorically failed. Criminal penalties for drug possession are not working. There is no evidence that the small reduction in illegal drug use since the 90s is related to criminal penalties for personal drug possession. People who are suffering from poor mental health and addiction do not need our judgement, condemnation or criminalisation. Drug-use deaths are almost six times higher in the areas of highest deprivation than in the areas of lowest deprivation. I commend my GP, Dr McKenna, who recently spoke out in 'The Irish News' about the links between deprivation, poverty and bad health outcomes. Too many people who are experiencing addiction are trapped in a chaotic cycle of imprisonment and release, often into homelessness, and the risk of overdose is hugely increased for prisoners when they are released. I and many others believe that criminalisation and a zero-tolerance approach to drugs is harmful. It also deters people from coming forward for treatment if they want it. To put it mildly, there are therefore problems with the amendment, and I will not be supporting it for that reason. It also completely ignores the reality that people do take drugs, and many of them do so at events such as festivals and concerts — not just young people, but, in many cases, young people. Drug consumption is a fact of life, and lecturing people — young people in particular — will not work. A public health harm reduction approach acknowledges that fact and operates in a different format. A harm reduction approach to drugs in our society would be transformative, especially for working-class communities. It would require formative change across the health service and broader society. If harm reduction was given proper attention and funding, which, unfortunately, it is not, front-line workers could proactively engage with known drug users to distribute essential items such as clean needles and other products. Health workers and volunteers could be trained in administering naloxone to temporarily reverse the effects of opioid overdose. Medically supervised injection facilities could be established in every trust area for everyone who needs them, but that is not the case. Back-of-house drug testing should be available not just at festivals but at all hospitality venues where drugs are likely to be consumed. Somewhat connected to the debate, all venues should be commanded to provide anti-spiking facilities. They are not expensive, and responsibility for providing them should be put on the venues, nightclubs, bars and so forth, because we have seen an increase in spiking. Festivalgoers at the likes of Electric Picnic have access to free and confidential back-of-house drug checking. Those are non-monitored safe spaces where people can submit substances for analysis without any judgement. That is really important. Festivals have seen a 10% to 25% reduction in drug-related harm because people have come forward when voluntary drug-testing facilities have operated on-site. Drug testing, despite the propaganda against it, saves lives. The Culture, Media and Sport Committee noted that, since 2016, there had been no drug-related deaths at festivals that had drug checking. That is really important. Plenty of other countries have moved further towards the legalisation of recreational drugs. Uruguay, Canada and Germany are just some examples. Portugal has employed the decriminalisation — Ms Flynn: I thank the Member for giving way. He is giving examples from around the rest of the island and in other countries. Has he been following the work of the citizens' assembly in the South on drug use and the issues surrounding it, and does he agree that we should harmonise across the island the outcomes in the Twenty-six Counties on the harm-reduction approach? Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute. Mr Carroll: Thank you. I thank the Member. I have not been following that as closely as she has, but if there is a citizens' assembly gathering evidence, undertaking research and making recommendations, the Health Minister and the Committee should absolutely look at that, so thanks for that intervention. I think that the Minister challenged the Portuguese model in answer to a question that I asked him a few weeks ago about endometriosis. I am happy to give way if he wants, but Portugal employed a decriminalisation approach and saw a significant fall in drug deaths and infectious transmission. That is important stuff. Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): I thank the Member for giving way. I think that he is right to say that when Portugal introduced that regime, the number of deaths and medical incidents did drop significantly, but that was because the new policy was matched by very heavy investment in resources within the community. That investment has dried up, and the trend is now reversing. That is my understanding. Mr Carroll: Thanks, Minister, for that. That is useful. That is an issue, but the policy obviously worked. It was not matched by the funding, and that is an issue for the Portuguese Government and other Governments who are not investing where it is required. It speaks more to the funding not being put where it is needed rather than the policy. I thank the Minister for that. We need to look at the models that are working in reducing harm and deaths in Portugal and other countries. The citizens' assembly talks about that. Anything less will mean that we will consign users of drugs to more decades of failure and misery. I support the motion — Top 3.00 pm Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up. Mr Carroll: — and the amendment. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call the Minister of Health to respond to the debate. Minister, you have up to 15 minutes. Mr Nesbitt: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I thank those who tabled the motion and the amendment and everybody who has contributed to the debate. Let us pause and think about the human cost of what we are talking about. Clearly, the debate was sparked by events at summer festivals such as Emerge. The investigations are ongoing, so it remains unhelpful to speculate, but all our thoughts should be with the families and friends of those who were most affected and the loved ones of those who tragically lost their lives, no matter what the cause may turn out to be. I also acknowledge the pain of anyone who has lost a friend or family member to substance use. In 2023, we had 169 drug-related deaths and 341 alcohol-specific deaths. Those deaths were all preventable, and we need to recognise that they are driven by wider social, environmental and economic issues. To prove that point, here is a fact: substance use-related deaths are over five times higher in areas of greatest deprivation. That takes me to my passion of health inequalities. We have to work collectively across government to address not just the causes of health inequalities and substance use but their underlying drivers — in other words, the causes of the causes. It is not enough to say that substance use can cause severe physical and mental issues up to and including death. What causes people to use those substances in the first place? We have to do more to understand the causes of the causes. The Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) examined the personal, household and area characteristics associated with drug-related deaths. That NISRA report highlights the disproportionate impact of factors such as economic inactivity, poor housing, unemployment, disability, poor mental health and living alone on drug deaths. For example, unemployed males were more than twice as likely to die from drug-related deaths as employed males, and social housing residents accounted for 39·3% of deaths despite making up only 12·8% of the population. I acknowledge that, given the legal position of many of the drugs, what we are talking about can be a sensitive and controversial area, so it might be helpful to provide a brief overview of how the issue sits in our substance use strategy, 'Preventing Harm, Empowering Recovery'. The strategy was agreed by the Executive and recognises the importance of reducing the availability of and access to illicit and illegal drugs. I acknowledge the strong collaborative work by the PSNI, the organised crime task force's drugs subgroup and the Department of Justice in that area. Think about the phrase "preventing harm". If you move from the purist position of saying, "All these substances are illegal, so it is purely a criminal justice matter to be led by the Police Service of Northern Ireland", you get into an area in which you are making judgement calls. If you want to prevent harm, do you provide services for people who are taking illegal substances? I believe that that is the right approach, but it is ultimately subjective. It is a judgement call, as I say. Harm reduction has become key to the Department's work. We deliver a number of harm reduction services including opioid substitution therapy; a needle and syringe exchange, which we are always seeking to expand and develop; take-home naloxone kits; low-threshold outreach services; and rapid drug disposal bins. The Public Health Agency also offers nitazene, fentanyl and xylazine testing strips at all needle exchange sites across Northern Ireland. In addition, a number of years ago, as part of the needle and syringe exchange service (NSES) scheme, we worked with the UK Government to allow foil to be handed out, encouraging people to move away from injecting substances to inhaling them. That harm reduction method reduces the risk of blood-borne viruses or infections and discarded paraphernalia. From 1 April last year to 31 March this year, 3,829 packs of foil were dispensed across needle exchanges across Northern Ireland. At a recent four nations meeting on drugs held in Scotland, Scottish officials said, I believe, that, in one year, they handed out 400,000 foil dispensers to encourage people to smoke rather than to inject. That was about reducing harm. Most pertinent to today's debate is the drug and alcohol monitoring and information system known as "DAMIS". The system, which is operated by the Public Health Agency but overseen by a cross-departmental steering group, allows individuals including service users, peers, the PSNI, Forensic Science Northern Ireland, prisons, probation, treatment and support services and homeless service providers to submit information to a central contact about substances of concern. The information is considered and noted for prevalence information, or further information is sought or, indeed, alerts issued to those likely to come into contact with substance users who may be at risk of harm. Importantly, through DAMIS, we have the ability to proactively seek the testing of substances that are seen to cause harm. That comes up through our partnership working with the PSNI and Forensic Science NI. That information is used to inform related advice and alerts to service users, vulnerable groups and those in key services. I am aware of the outline proposal that has been put forward by Queen's University Belfast for a rapid drug-testing model, but I understand that there are still resourcing, licensing and operational queries with it and that further thought and consideration will be needed. It is important to note that, as it is currently set out, the proposal is not for a model for on-site testing at events such as festivals; instead, it is focused more on wider prevalence testing of drugs that are in circulation. The proposal is not just for my Department and the PHA to consider: there are enforcement issues for the PSNI and Justice colleagues, and conversations may also be required with local government colleagues. Operationally, any drug testing, be it on-site at festivals or off-site, would need to be subject to licensing by my Department. Any proposal and resulting application will need to demonstrate compliance with licensing requirements. I want a review of DAMIS to begin shortly, and the intention is to build on the existing testing infrastructure and consider regional needs for enhanced testing possibilities as part of that work. It is important that we understand the accuracy of any testing service. We do not want to give false positives or false negatives. In addition, any on-site testing would not address the issue of drugs that have been taken before people enter the sites. I understand that that has been an issue at such events. We have not properly acknowledged in the debate that on-site testing will not save the life of somebody who may have imbibed their substances before they got to the concert venue. Mr Donnelly: I thank the Minister for giving way. Does he think that, if there were on-site testing facilities and people knew that they were going somewhere where they could get the substance tested and make an informed decision, that could encourage them not to imbibe substances before they went to a festival? Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his intervention. If he can bear with me, I will come to that later. It is a very important point. Any alert system is only as useful as the advice that it generates. I know from Assembly questions that concerns have been raised about the harm reduction advice that the PHA has provided before and after festivals. Mr Frew mentioned that when moving the amendment. The PHA takes a public health approach to the prevention and reduction of harms that are associated with substance use, enabling it to work with partners across Northern Ireland to promote key prevention messages that are sent to individuals, families and communities so that the population is as aware as it can be of the inherent dangers of substance use and can make informed choices. The messaging notes the health and legal risks of taking any illegal or illicit drug. However, the PHA also acknowledges the fact that illegal substances are available and that a proportion of the population actively use them. Therefore, the PHA's social media substance use messaging, alongside harm reduction advice, plays a critical supporting role as part of the overall prevention approach, enhancing public understanding of substance use and related risks, encouraging safe behaviours and facilitating community-led prevention efforts. We know that stigma can stop people from seeking help, so it is vital that we provide evidence-based information that people can use and that can support them to engage with services. That can and does save lives. The motion also calls for greater collaboration with the HSE in the Republic. We fully recognise that the issue knows no borders. What happens in Ireland, the UK, Europe and, indeed, around the world has clear implications for here. I therefore reassure Members that we work closely with our colleagues in Ireland, sharing information as appropriate; in fact, we will be meeting colleagues to get a better understanding of their Safer Nightlife programme, which includes testing at festivals in Ireland. PSNI colleagues also share information and take joint action with their counterparts through the joint task force. We also work closely with colleagues across the UK, and we share information and alerts where concerns exist. The Justice Minister and I recently met the four UK Ministers, as I said, and it was a helpful meeting to share learning and best practice and to look at where we can do more collectively. It is also important to be clear about what is available in this area across the UK and Ireland. The approaches in England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland are different, and it is not fair to say that we are the only place across the UK and Ireland without a testing and alert system. As I have clearly set out, we can do that when required under DAMIS, and, while festival testing is undertaken in England and Ireland, I am not aware of it happening in Scotland or Wales. We can all learn, however, and we will continue to explore all available possibilities, including future cross-border and UK initiatives where they offer the potential to reduce harm. That will, of course, take resource. As yet, the substance use strategy is not fully funded. That is important, as the wider budget position means that we cannot fund any such development. Any resources would have to come from existing services that already support people in need. I will make a commitment, however, to ensure that our precious resources are used to best effect. This is not an issue for my Department to lead on in isolation: we need to work with our partners in Justice, the community and voluntary sector and local government and with people with lived and living experience of substance use to make a real difference. The question has arisen of whether, if testing were available on-site, that would encourage people not to indulge in substance use until they got there. That would depend very much on what type of testing we put in place. Are we talking about somebody giving a sample of their substance to be tested in real time and being given a result there and then? That is one thing, but it might be difficult to achieve. Alternatively, is it more about issuing a more general warning, perhaps on big screens, to concertgoers that a certain substance is in circulation and people need to be wary of it? We really need to tease that out. If it were the former, where you might be saying to somebody, "The substance that you had me test is OK for you to take", that would raise an ethical issue, a moral issue and a legal issue. It would also raise an issue about possible false negatives and false positives. There is a lot of consideration yet to be given to that issue. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Minister, thank you for that response. I call Alan Robinson to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. You have up to five minutes. Mr Robinson: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Every summer, thousands of people attend festivals and concerts. They go to enjoy music, have fun and make memories. Those events are fantastic and tend to be well run. I think of the Stendhal Festival in my constituency. People go for the music, the beer and the craic. I encourage anyone in the Chamber to attend at least once. We know, however, that, for some, the night at a concert or festival does not end safely; indeed, drug-related deaths and medical emergencies are becoming all too common. Paul Frew, who moved the amendment, laid bare the startling figures on drug seizures and deaths. I will repeat the figures: in a 12-month period up until the end of June 2025, there were 6,769 drug seizures and 3,049 drug-related arrests. Top 3.15 pm I echo Paul Frew's comment that it is important to point out that there are no safe ways of taking illegal drugs. Although we recognise the role that harm reduction measures can play, such measures must always be complemented by the police identifying people who are involved in the supply of drugs, arresting them and bringing them before the courts. Mr Carroll: Will the Member give way? Mr Robinson: I will not today, because I am late for another event. We must not normalise drug use, especially at events that so many young people attend. It is wrong for drugs to be returned or for advice to be given on their so-called safe usage. There are no safe illegal drugs. The motion, unfortunately, makes no reference to whether the expectation will be that those providing rapid on-site testing at festivals and concerts will have to procure a licence to operate in advance. That is why we tabled an amendment to the motion. The Home Office has governed the issuing of such licences in GB, and it would be an oversight for this part of the UK to go it alone and take a less stringent and less safe approach. The HSE in the Irish Republic, which operates such testing at concerts, has described its services as: "safe spaces where people can discuss a range of issues". That begs the following questions. What issues can be discussed? What training do staff have? Does so-called confidentiality prevent onward referral to the police of information that is likely to lead to prosecutions? The DUP supports protections for young people who attend concerts and wants there to be effective means of alerting concertgoers about dangerous substances that are in circulation. We have to be careful, however, not to compromise the integrity of taking a criminal justice approach to the supply and possession of illegal drugs in order to drive down the number of families left devastated, and, in some cases, with an empty chair. Again, that is why we sought to amend the motion. In doing so, we wanted to strengthen it. I will not rehash Members' comments. I thank the proposer, Órlaithí Flynn. She referred to how harm reduction measures save lives, and I am glad that she also talked about how dangerous drugs are. I say again that we cannot normalise the taking of illegal drugs. I also thank Paul Frew, the proposer of the amendment. He pitched his comments at a level on which we can all agree: we need to save lives. He also focused on how taking illegal drugs is wrong. No one should have drugs returned, and I will repeat that there are no safe illegal drugs. Before I conclude, I thank the Minister for acknowledging the pain of families. It is always important to inject a human touch into what sometimes can be very stale debates in the Chamber, and he certainly did that today. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Deirdre Hargey to conclude the debate and make a winding-up speech on the motion. You have up to 10 minutes. Miss Hargey: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank my party colleagues for tabling this important motion and, indeed, those Members who tabled the amendment. I also thank Members from all parties for their contributions and the Minister for taking the time to come along to the debate. Unfortunately, I have seen at first hand in my constituency of South Belfast the impact of illegal drugs and, indeed, other substances, including legal drugs, and the effect that their use can have on families, communities and society as a whole. I am sure that other Members can say the same thing, and they have. Sadly, too many people, especially younger people, have lost their lives recently as a result of drug and alcohol misuse. Over the summer, along with other Sinn Féin representatives in South Belfast, I joined Ógra Shinn Féin on the Boucher Road, where concerts were taking place. On one night, over 40,000 people were out to enjoy a night out. The atmosphere was amazing. The sun was out, and there was a great buzz in South Belfast. People were ultimately going to enjoy their night, but we were there to hand out anti-spiking kits in order to raise awareness of the dangers of drugs, of how they can be misused and also of how spiking can be done maliciously. We were there to warn those concertgoers to be alert and to keep safe. That was a great initiative from a group of young people in our party. I am sure that it can be replicated by other young people throughout the city and beyond. It really highlights what agencies could do at events such as concerts. If Ógra Shinn Féin can hand out a couple of thousand anti-spiking kits at one event, I am sure that all our agencies and Departments, including Health, Justice and Communities, could work together to do so much more and have a huge impact. On that night, the response from the concertgoers was really positive. People were glad to see somebody there who was making some type of intervention. Whilst they might not have thought about spiking as they were going out, just handing them the kit made them think and might have sparked something in their heads. We are not saying that it will be the panacea, but, if any mitigation or intervention saves one life, it is ultimately worth doing. Sinn Féin is absolutely committed to tackling drug use through an evidence-based and public health-led approach. We want to ensure that we reduce the harm, and, from what we heard in the debate, I think that everybody wants that. We recognise that criminalisation alone does not save lives. What saves lives are interventions that are rooted in harm reduction, education and practical support and help on the ground. Many of the contributors spoke of that today. I will highlight the example of the Market community where I live. The Market Development Association is working with Queen's University Belfast on its QCAP — Queen's Communities and Place — initiative. That is a community initiative that looks at substance misuse and the health inequalities that the Minister touched on. It is looking at how it can break the stigma in that community; the impact of addiction, suicide, trauma, mental health issues and inequality; and the importance of working-class communities coming together, having a sense of pride in those communities and showing their resilience. Importantly, it is about showing that communities coming together can be an important driver in mitigating and reducing harm. Mr Carroll: I appreciate the Member's giving way. She is much more courteous with giving her time than the previous contributor. She mentioned the fact that the criminalisation approach alone does not work, and I agree with that. Does she have concerns about the amendment, which mentions: "that there are no safe ways of taking illegal drugs". If that approach were to be adopted, we would never be able to locate particularly toxic and dangerous drugs. Do she and her party have concerns about that approach? Miss Hargey: We are pushing for a health-led harm reduction approach. That is what we want to see, which is why we tabled the motion. From listening to all the contributions, I think that we have a broad unity of purpose. There may be some areas in which we want clarity or in which we may not fully agree, but I sense that there is a broad unity of purpose in the Chamber. That is the important message that we want to send out from the Chamber. We need to break the stigma and silence. I commend to the Minister a play called 'The Black Dog', which was produced by the Market community that I spoke about. That piece of theatre was shown over the summer in the Waterfront Hall, which was packed out on the four nights. The play talked about these very issues and the impact of health inequalities on working-class communities, particularly the Market. However, it could also have been about communities in the Shankill, Donegall Pass, the New Lodge, Derry and other places. That production will be shown again, so I commend it to the Minister so that, when he gets the invite, he goes along. It is a really powerful piece of theatre that shows how the arts can be used to break the stigma and to build a sense of community, connection and resilience. When we look internationally to areas such as Portugal and the Netherlands, which were touched on, we see that other Governments have introduced models of on-site drug testing, pill checking and drug information services, particularly at musical events. Many contributors touched on the Electric Picnic event and how its organisers introduced drug testing on-site this year. We in the North are the only part of these islands that does not have such a scheme in place. The Minister has not said that he intends to introduce such a scheme here, but I implore him to make sure that there is unity of purpose across the islands. Colm and others touched on the need to see greater collaboration across the island and these islands. We need to see more joined-up working not only in our Departments but across jurisdictions. With ours being the only jurisdiction to lag behind in a scheme or initiative such as that, again, I recommend that the Minister look seriously at the issue. Minister, you touched on DAMIS and said that there already is testing, but we hear from those who work in the field that that is too slow. It takes days to get results from DAMIS, and not every service user feeds into it, which is another issue. We support the Queen's pilot and its partnership work, because we need more rapid drug testing. Communities such as the Market also call for that, because they know that the quicker that we can get results, the quicker that we can alert the public and, potentially, save lives and mitigate future harms. The Minister talked about giving the model careful thought and consideration. Is there a timeline for that? Will it be part of the review of DAMIS? The practitioners and the communities on the ground do not want to just hear our words about a unity of purpose. They want timelines and firmer commitments. I am keen, if the information is not available today, to know when firmer commitments will be realised. The PSNI needs to be part of any harm reduction framework — one that involves community outreach and collaboration. That is important in working with event organisers to ensure that visible safeguarding and other measures are in place. Paul and Jonny touched on that. Of course, there must be training for the on-site staff to ensure that emergency services and infrastructure are in place so that, if something goes wrong, there is quick and easy access to medical assistance. That reinforces and highlights the fact that we need to see community-led policing: policing with the community and in the interests of the community. Let us be clear, however: policing alone will not prevent drug-related deaths. That is not a criticism but a statement of fact. It is clear that on-site testing at all major music events and festivals, with protections for those who use it, should be introduced, and we urge the Health Minister to do so as a matter of urgency. I take your point, Minister, that investigations into the incidents in the summer are ongoing, but, in the commentary that emerged from them, the Public Health Agency said that it is open to exploring that. We urge you to look at the expansion of rapid drug testing and to look again at initiatives such as the anti-spiking initiative, because they prompt the public to think about the issues and maybe take interventions and mitigations into their own hands. In supporting such initiatives, we are empowering our local citizens. It is not about condoning drug use; it is about facing reality. Young people and, indeed, many adults in our communities will continue to attend festivals and events. Some will experiment, and some will make mistakes, but our duty is to — Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up. Miss Hargey: — ensure that those mistakes are not fatal and that we prevent harm. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you for concluding the debate. Question, That the amendment be made, put and agreed to. Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly recognises that there are no safe ways of taking illegal drugs; acknowledges the role of harm reduction initiatives in preventing drug-related deaths at festivals and concerts; believes that this must complement the existing PSNI approach of identifying, arresting and placing before the courts those involved in the supply of illicit drugs; further acknowledges that the Health Service Executive’s (HSE) rapid drug-checking schemes have operated successfully at events in the Republic of Ireland, such as Electric Picnic, for a number of years, providing warnings to concertgoers on potent and potentially lethal substances; notes the ongoing work between the PSNI, Forensic Science Northern Ireland (FSNI) and Queen’s University to develop a rapid drug-testing scheme that would enable harmful drugs to be identified and public alerts issued within 24 hours; further notes that we remain the only part of these islands without such provisions; stresses the need for collaboration between the forensic science laboratory at Seapark, the Health Service Executive in the Republic of Ireland and the Home Office, in relation to developing the capacity to deliver, and license, onsite drug testing at festivals across Northern Ireland; and calls on the Minister of Health to confirm when these schemes will be rolled out by his Department in conjunction with the relevant agencies. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, take your ease before the ministerial statement. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Dr Aiken] in the Chair) Top 3.30 pm Ministerial Statement Northern Ireland Community Infrastructure Fund Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I have received notice from the Minister for Communities that he wishes to make a statement. Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that they must be concise in asking their questions. This is not an opportunity for debate, and long introductions will not be allowed. Minister, over to you. Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wish to make a statement on the launch of the Northern Ireland community infrastructure fund, which is a major new investment supporting the refurbishment and improvement of community buildings and facilities right across Northern Ireland. In June, I provided a written ministerial statement to the Assembly setting out my intention to launch a scheme in support of the halls, hubs and centres that rarely make headlines but that make an enormous difference in sustaining local life across Northern Ireland. I have moved at pace, so tomorrow, the Northern Ireland community infrastructure fund will open. Last Wednesday night, at an event in Pomeroy, I was pleased to be joined by fellow elected representatives, voluntary and community leaders and other funders to launch the fund. It was great to see the energy in the room and recognition of the importance of halls and community buildings and of sustaining them, and, importantly, it was great to get feedback from sectoral leaders endorsing this timely intervention that responds to need in our communities. My vision for the fund is not just about bricks and mortar; it is about people, places and potential. In my role as Communities Minister, I have seen at first hand how vital community buildings and local halls are — they could be church halls, Orange halls, sports clubs or village halls — as the beating heart of our cities, towns and villages. They are the places where children learn, where people gather and where faith, sport, culture and heritage are celebrated. Across Northern Ireland, from Strabane to Strangford and Portrush to Pomeroy, they bring people together not because they are grand or state of the art but because they are the thread that weaves our communities together. They are where communities gather, grow and support one another, where a teenager discovers confidence, where those who are isolated find friendship, where neighbours become volunteers and where the fabric of our communities is knitted together. Many of those buildings are under strain. They are ageing and tired. I have seen that at first hand in my visits across Northern Ireland. Many Members have told me of the importance and constraints of those facilities in their constituencies. In too many cases, they are no longer fit for purpose. They are cold in winter, inaccessible for some people, outdated and inefficient. Volunteers and trustees are stretching themselves to keep the lights on or to make the most of spaces that are inadequate or limiting. I think that we can all agree that that is not good enough. Those experiences have convinced me that the Government need to step in with practical support. I have chosen to act with urgency and ambition in establishing the Northern Ireland community infrastructure fund, which will disburse £4·3 million to our grassroots and local communities. That is a direct response to the challenges that face our communities. It is a significant and timely investment and is proof of me delivering, not just discussing. The fund will provide grants of up to £40,000 for over 100 individual projects. That is more than 100 opportunities for local communities to improve, adapt and flourish. I know that the funding will not meet every need. Demand will undoubtedly outstrip what is available. This is a pilot that will provide an opportunity to build understanding of need and impact and learn lessons. To help to deliver the fund effectively and with impact, we have partnered with Co-operation Ireland to administer the scheme in partnership with my officials. That is a voluntary organisation with a proven track record of expertise, networks and trusted relationships. My aim is that the Northern Ireland community infrastructure fund will support voluntary and community organisations to sustain their buildings and ensure that they are ready to serve for years to come. However, it is also about the potential to better serve their community. That could be the church hall that has upgraded its kitchen and now runs a weekly community cafe that brings people — young parents, pensioners and newcomers to the area — together. Such examples are not just upgrades; they are transformations. There is another vital part of the story: local suppliers. My fund will allow community groups to work with local SMEs and microenterprises. By using experienced local tradespeople, builders and service providers, we will support small businesses and maintain jobs. This investment will not just improve buildings but multiply its impact by supporting livelihoods and building pride. It will be social value in action. The fund will be open to voluntary and community groups, including faith-based organisations, sports clubs, church halls, village halls, Orange halls and other centres that provide a wide range of community activities. I will take a moment to highlight the role of faith-based organisations. Church halls have long served as more than places of worship. For generations, they have provided an inclusive space for many, from parent-and-toddler groups to lunch clubs and Scouting and Guide groups. One of the real strengths of the fund is the fact that it is open to a wide spectrum of community spaces across Northern Ireland, whether that be a community centre in Londonderry, a faith-based group in Portadown, a sporting club in Omagh or an Orange hall in Carrickfergus. Those buildings may look different, serve different purposes and be rooted in different traditions, but they can all play a vital role in community life in which they are open to and used by the wider community. The scheme will provide funding towards repairs to existing community buildings. That could include refurbishment or structural repairs; small-scale refurbishment or renovation works to improve communal facilities such as kitchens and toilets, or changes to enable multiple uses for premises; capital works for accessibility improvements, including upgrades such as ramps or lifts; and energy-efficiency measures such as boiler replacement, window upgrades and solar panels. The first stage of the application process opens tomorrow. The fund will award successful applicants up to 95% of the cost of their capital project, to a maximum value of £40,000. We are asking organisations to contribute 5% of the project cost, whether that is through fundraising, reserves or loans. That is not a barrier but a way to strengthen ownership and sustainability. That modest contribution ensures that groups are actively invested in their projects, encourages local fundraising and partnership and helps to stretch public funding further. Over the next fortnight, we will hold a range of information sessions, including in-person events in Belfast, Larne, Newry, Enniskillen, Dungannon and Londonderry, as well as online events, to help groups to learn more about eligibility for the fund and about the application process. The application process will be clear and transparent, with robust criteria to ensure fairness and value for money. Stage 1 of the process is an expression of interest. That will open tomorrow and run until 29 October 2025. Stage 2 of the application process will begin on 19 November and run until 9 January 2026. I encourage all Members to engage with the guidance, which is now on my Department’s website, and to signpost prospective applicants to the support that is available. Change does not always begin with sweeping reforms. Sometimes, it begins with a new roof, a new boiler or a new kitchen, but those changes unlock so much more. With the fund, we are investing not just in buildings but in our communities — community capital and infrastructure. I look forward to seeing the fund deliver for communities across Northern Ireland. I commend the statement to the House. Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for the statement. It is vital that we maximise the uptake and impact of any available funding across all our constituencies and communities. What measures will be put in place to ensure fair geographical distribution of the funding — you will not be surprised to hear me raise that, Minister — and fair distribution by community background? What checks and balances will be in place to ensure value for money as well? Mr Lyons: The fund is open to all eligible voluntary and community organisations across Northern Ireland, regardless of geography, tradition or type of activity. There are no predetermined targets or preferential criteria. We have developed clear eligibility and assessment criteria, as set out in the guidance notes. Grant applications will be assessed on the basis of evidence, need, capacity, readiness, impact, sustainability and, yes, value for money as well. Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): I thank the Minister for his statement. I welcome the fact that the scheme will assist communities and I welcome the spread of areas that are being engaged with through information sessions. That is really useful. However, Minister, this has not come the length of the Communities Committee. Therefore, given that there have been recent concerns around the soccer funding that was announced, what can you tell us about the qualifying process? Who will have the final say on who does or does not get funding? Will it be Co-operation Ireland or you? What due diligence was done in relation to the process that Co-operation Ireland will use in distributing the money? Mr Lyons: First of all, a written ministerial statement was provided in June. On the back of that, the Committee asked for more information. I was happy to get that briefing organised, and it will happen shortly. However, I highlight the fact that all members of the Committee — indeed, all MLAs — were invited to the launch last week, where they would have been able to hear more about the fund. Unfortunately, the Committee Chairman did not make it. In fact, none of the Members on the other side of the House were able to make it to that information event. It would have been useful to have heard more about the fund. Ultimately, it is not the role of the Committee to decide policy; it is the role of the Committee to scrutinise and to assist me in the development of policy. There will be an opportunity as we assess the evaluation of the uptake, and you will have the opportunity to ask those questions at Committee. As for his other question about how the assessment will be carried out, that will be done by Co-operation Ireland because of the experience that it has in those matters. That, of course, will be done against the assessment criteria. My advice to him and everyone else is this: instead of quibbling about the process, to make sure that you are aware of the process and can help to provide the necessary support to those who apply so that we can maximise our understanding of the need. I would like to see the fund rolled out further in the future, and that information will be useful. Ms Brownlee: I am delighted to see more delivery for our grassroots organisations, but, Minister, I understand that the funding will be paid out retrospectively. How will the Department address the worries of smaller organisations, which may struggle with cash flow if they have to pay up front? Mr Lyons: There will be flexibility, because we understand that some applicants may not have the capital available to be able to draw that down immediately, so we can work on a case-by-case basis with those who need additional help, and we will be happy to provide that at a further stage of the process. Ms K Armstrong: Minister, I am interested to find out, as the previous Member mentioned, that it will be a retrospective grant. That was not included in the statement today. Minister, may I ask you about the works going forward? You talked about future-proofing, which is very welcome, but will any criteria be provided for groups to ensure that they do not, for instance, replace an oil boiler with an oil boiler, when we are actually looking to reduce emissions? Mr Lyons: First of all, I hope that the Member listened to the answer that I gave to Ms Brownlee, where I made it clear that there would be flexibility. More information on that will be available. We are trying to make sure that we help people and facilitate improvements in a number of areas, such as the physical condition, accessibility and usage buildings. Applications will also be scored on energy efficiency and reduced maintenance costs, so, of course, those things will be taken into consideration as well. However, let us be aware that, in many rural areas, it is simply not an option to have any other form of heating system in place. All that needs to be taken into consideration. The Member specifically mentioned oil. Sometimes, oil is the only option that is available. Top 3.45 pm Mr Butler: I thank the Minister for his statement. He will be aware, as will many MLAs, that there are groups that are proficient in the application process. Often, however, there are groups, particularly in rural areas, that do not have the capacity and knowledge to fill out their applications in such a way as to score highly enough. Has the Minister anything in place to encourage groups that have been on the fringes previously to avail themselves of funds that have been closed to them in the past? Mr Lyons: Yes, we are doing a number of things. First, we are putting the screening process in place at the beginning. That means that those who are not eligible, because they do not meet the basic criteria to start off with, will not then spend a lot of time and energy filling out an application form. Secondly, information sessions will be available online, during the day and in the evenings, and there will be sessions that people can go to in person, again during the day and in the evenings, to make sure that they have all the information that they need. Officials will be on hand to answer any additional questions that people may have. We are not trying to exclude anybody. Rather, we are trying to help everybody. I say this to all groups and organisations: answer the questions that are in front of you and provide as much information and evidence as you can. We are ensuring that the process is as simple and straightforward as possible. We are not trying to exclude anybody or trip anybody up. Rather, we are trying to make sure that people have the ability to articulate their needs, and the criteria of need will then be applied to assess the applications. Mr McHugh: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a ráiteas. [Translation: I thank the Minister for his statement.] He will be well aware of the vital role that the GAA plays in communities, particularly in rural communities. Across the North, GAA clubs are often the hub for other cultural activities, over and above just our Gaelic games. They are used for dance events, our music and so on. They fulfil another role, however. For instance, when it comes to a bereavement, and visitors to a community have to be accommodated for, say, tea after a funeral, the GAA club will be used, as it is perhaps the only facility available in certain rural communities. Will the Minister confirm that GAA clubs and halls will not be excluded from the fund? Mr Lyons: As I have stated, any community buildings that are operated by sporting organisations and are available as community venues for non-sporting activities will be eligible for funding. That is set out clearly in the guidance. It will be up to all organisations to demonstrate their need, meet all the criteria, explain why the funding is necessary and show that there is no other funding in place of which they can avail themselves. Mr Brooks: I thank the Minister for his statement. The Member who spoke previously talked about exclusion. I am delighted to see that this is a scheme that can offer support from which, for the first time on many an occasion, churches are not excluded. What is the Minister's assessment of the impact that the fund will have on our many churches and faith-based groups, considering the money that they save the Government through the services that they offer to our local communities? Mr Lyons: I am grateful to the Member for raising that issue. It is difficult for me to answer the question, because the community, social and economic benefits that churches and faith-based organisations bring to Northern Ireland are almost unquantifiable. They are often the unsung heroes. They put on events, run clubs and host youth groups that young people attend and at which their characters and futures are shaped. I am grateful to the Member for having raised in the past with me the approach taken by some organisations. The way in which they are prepared to exclude and discriminate against those who operate in faith-based environments is absolutely disgraceful. That will never happen when I am in this Department. Mr Brooks: Hear, hear. Mr Lyons: I will ensure that those from faith-based organisations are able not only to continue their work but to avail themselves of government support and funding where that is appropriate. I look forward to faith-based organisations being able to apply to, and take advantage of, a scheme that will help build community infrastructure so that they can continue to have an impact on the lives of young and old across Northern Ireland. Ms Mulholland: I thank the Minister for his statement. I am interested in the local economic impact that the fund may have. I am particularly interested in the reference that was made to the benefits for local SMEs and tradespeople. How will the Department monitor whether contracts are awarded locally? Will there be safeguards in place to ensure that individual tradespeople and smaller companies will be able to compete fairly with the larger companies that we so often see tender for such work? Mr Lyons: Ultimately, it will be down to the organisations that apply to source the quotes and source the people who will do the work. Given the small nature of some of the works that will be required in the grand scheme of things, local organisations and local employers will be able to benefit. Of course, we expect all projects to be costed appropriately and all project costs to be within an appropriate cost range for the type of works that are proposed. Any works must be properly procured, and we need to make sure that the procurement exercises are fair, open and transparent, because public funds are at stake, and we need to make sure that there is value for money. There will be £4·3 million going into local communities across Northern Ireland, and that will be of benefit. Of course, we will look at that issue when it comes to the monitoring and reporting of the scheme overall. We will want to keep an eye on that, because I hope that we can bring forward the scheme on a rolling, permanent basis, and that information will be useful to demonstrate its positivity. Mr Martin: I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, I note that you mentioned sports clubs in your statement. At this point, I should thank you for coming to my constituency to see Bangor Swifts Juniors in training. What funding can sports clubs apply for under the fund? Mr Lyons: I am grateful to the Member for inviting me to see the work that goes on there. Sporting organisations are able to apply for funding for the community buildings that they operate, but they must be able to demonstrate the work that they do for non-sporting activities. I draw the Member's attention to the Olympic legacy fund that I announced last week. It is also there to help sports clubs that are in need of funding. I am sure that the Member will help the people in his constituency who need it. He should be aware of both of those funds that I have made available to clubs in his and, indeed, all constituencies. Ms D Armstrong: I thank the Minister for his statement, which will be welcomed in the many small, rural community halls that span Fermanagh and South Tyrone. Minister, you mentioned that you have partnered with Co-operation Ireland. Will you detail any engagement that your Department has had with Co-operation Ireland on the Northern Ireland community infrastructure fund? Mr Lyons: Yes, of course. We engaged with Co-operation Ireland throughout the process. We appointed it because of its expertise, the established systems that it has in place and the trusted relationships that it has with the sector more widely. It is well positioned to provide the additional support that is available. Another reason is that it is the most cost-effective and efficient delivery route. That means that we can invest more in the community sector itself. Mr Harvey: I welcome the Minister's statement. Will he expand on the social value piece and the impact that that will have on local communities? Mr Lyons: Yes. Again, that is almost unquantifiable, because, yes, we are releasing £4·3 million into local communities across Northern Ireland, but the impact of that will go on and on, not only through the extra work that the community facilities will be able to provide but in the stability that that will bring for many jobs, employers and employees and in the additional money that we will invest in our economy. In short, it is very difficult to give a precise figure, but there is no doubt that it will continue to have a ripple effect across communities. Mr Bradley: I thank the Minister for his statement. He has partly answered my question already. People who run halls for faith-based organisations have been unwilling or unable to apply for funding that is attached to lottery sources, because of their faith. Can the Minister confirm that this is government funding through his Department and is not lottery supported? The fund will be highly beneficial to faith-based communities and faith-based organisations. Mr Lyons: I appreciate the fact that that point has been raised, because it seems that some in our society today think that the last acceptable form of discrimination is that against faith-based organisations. Many feel that that is OK and that faith-based organisations can be discriminated against. However, I can confirm for him that there is no lottery-sourced funding for the project. It is coming entirely out of the capital budget of my Department. Mr K Buchanan: Obviously, the scheme will cover rural and urban halls. In the past, a previous AERA Minister supported 113 rural halls. I questioned the Minister yesterday in the Chamber, and he indicated that he was having conversations with you about supporting the fund. Do you see the AERA Minister putting his hand in his pocket and supporting you when you step in to support rural communities? Will he support you financially to cover more halls than you have talked about with the figure that you referred to? Mr Lyons: Well, I certainly hope so, and I am very grateful to the Member for asking that question in the Chamber yesterday. When the Agriculture Minister left the Chamber, I bumped into him. I did not do it on purpose, but I just happened to bump into him as he came out, and I hope that he will not mind me saying that we had a brief conversation about it, and he committed, as he did in the Chamber, to working with me on it. It is important that proper support is provided in rural and urban areas. He clearly has a direct responsibility for rural communities, and I would be more than happy if he could assist me in what we are trying to do because it would benefit rural communities across Northern Ireland. I look forward to his support, and, in particular, I look forward to some financial support from him so that we can deliver even more. Mrs Cameron: I thank the Minister for his statement to the House. It is a really important programme, and I am sure that my constituents in South Antrim and those great organisations will be keen to avail themselves of it. Will the Minister consider making it a rolling programme so that community assets can be maintained well into the future? Mr Lyons: What a good idea. Absolutely. We need to wait to see the evidence of need. We need to see exactly how much is needed, where that need is and how many applications we get etc. However, from the conversations that I have had already, from the response in the Chamber and from the numbers that have signed up — significant numbers of organisations are coming along to the information sessions right across Northern Ireland — I know that there is a huge demand for it. Those community halls, church halls, Orange halls and village halls right across Northern Ireland make a huge impact but are in huge need. It is a pilot. We are testing it. I am doing what I can with what I have right now, but I would very much like to see it become a rolling programme. We will take lessons from the pilot scheme, and, hopefully, we will be able to extend that out. I would appreciate Members' support in that. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Ladies and gentlemen, that concludes questions on the statement. Take your ease for a few moments before we move to the Adjournment debate. Motion made: That the Assembly do now adjourn. — [Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken).] Top 4.00 pm Adjournment Tribeca, Belfast: Development Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): In conjunction with the Business Committee, the Speaker has given Phillip Brett leave to raise the matter of the lack of development of Tribeca, Belfast. Phillip, you have up to 15 minutes. Mr Brett: Like Members on all sides of the House, I got involved in politics because I love my community and the city that I am honoured to represent. It would be churlish of me not to recognise the massive progress that has been made in our city, particularly in North Belfast, over many years. A constituency that was once blighted by sectarian violence has been transformed, and, while we in that constituency face unique pressures, we continue to build back in the positive image that we all want to see. North Belfast now leads the way in our city's night-time economy offering. It is a cultural capital part of our city, and it has an offering for tourists and those who call North Belfast "home" alike. In recent years, Crumlin Road Gaol has been redeveloped, and there is ongoing investment at Clifton Street Orange Hall, the forthcoming development of Belfast Stories, as well as the MAC, the Oh Yeah centre and the Cathedral Quarter. I could go on and on. Those places are the result of the dedication of the business men and women who have taken the lead and rebuilt our city. The actions of government since the return of this place have also been welcome. I massively welcomed the huge progress that has been made on providing year-round, late-night public transport, which will be a massive regeneration for our part of North Belfast. When the Minister speaks, he might wish to say a little about his support for that initiative. The pedestrianisation of Hill Street next month, while a small step forward, shows the ambition of all sides and that, when we work together, we can deliver. Although all that progress has been made, there is a glaring omission. The once bustling heart of inner-city North Belfast — North Street and the surrounding streets — now looks like a bomb site. It is a stain on our capital city, and I am, frankly, embarrassed by the current condition of what is now called the "Tribeca" site. Such blight would not be accepted in any other part of Belfast. I am not saying it just because the leader of the Opposition is here, but, if that site were on the Malone Road, it would have been dealt with a long time ago. The clear message from those who are honoured to represent North Belfast is that the issue now needs to be tackled. It is a citywide interest, and I thank those from other constituencies who are present. Progress has clearly been achieved in some aspects with Belfast City Council's decision to purchase the Assembly Rooms. That is a welcome step forward, but we need more details on it. If we are providing £2 million of ratepayers' money in Belfast to Tribeca's owners, Castlebrooke Investments, what conditions has Belfast City Council placed on it to develop the rest of the site? Handing over £2 million to a development company that clearly has no interest in taking the rest of the development forward is yet another waste of ratepayers' money. Other businesses in that area deserve a medal for how they have managed to continue operating, trading and investing in that part of the city despite the horrendous conditions in which they work. At the weekend, I walked up Lower Garfield Street. I know that the Deer's Head has spent hundreds of thousands of pounds to ensure that it has a great offering for locals and tourists. Yet, when people walk out of its doors, they are hit in the face with scaffolding, falling bricks and a disgraceful sight. The businesses in the area pay tens of thousands of pounds in rates every year. They employ our constituents, and the conditions in which they operate would not be accepted in any other part of our city. They say that success has many mothers and fathers, but, on this occasion, maybe failure does as well. I pay tribute to all political parties for their work on the issue. It is not an issue of my or my party's making, but there is genuine interest, from all sides of the House, in trying to move the situation forward. I pay tribute to our group leader on Belfast City Council, Sarah Bunting, who organised a number of meetings between me and Castlebrooke, so that I could make the need for development clear. Séamas de Faoite, Brian Smyth and Sinn Féin have all been involved in trying to move the situation forward, as has Michael Long from the Alliance Party. I give credit to all political parties for that. I think that we will hear colleagues say that that cross-party message is the strength of the case as we try to move it forward and have it delivered. I also pay tribute to some of the business organisations that continue to raise this vital issue daily: the Belfast One business improvement district (BID) and Martina Connolly, who continues to champion the need for the redevelopment; the Cathedral Quarter Trust; Save CQ; and the Cathedral Quarter BID, led by Damien Corr. As I said, progress has been made on the redevelopment of that part of North Belfast, but we need to see strong leadership from central government and the council. A clear message needs to be sent to Castlebrooke that it must use its development rights and planning permission, or it will lose them. As I have continually said, in no other part of the city would such a situation be allowed to drag on. I perfectly understand that market conditions have changed since the initial planning permissions were granted, but people can be expected to wait for only so long for the development to take place. We were told that it would be retail-led, but that changed to it being office space. The newest incarnation may be a housing-led development. All those uses are important and welcome, but the redevelopment needs to be delivered. People, frankly, are fed up. It is not my job to make excuses for Castlebrooke; my job is to stand up for the people who elected me. They want to see action taken on the site. We should send a strong message from the Chamber today so that Castlebrooke is put on notice. It needs to get on with developing the site and stop expecting the people of North Belfast and our wider city to accept second best. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): All other Members who are called to speak will now have approximately five minutes. Members should not accept any interventions, because that will cut down their time. Ms Ní Chuilín: I thank Phillip for bringing forward the Adjournment topic today. I am from the area. I still occasionally call over and go for a walk with my friends and their dogs around there. I do not stray into the Deer's Head, but I have seen some of you at the Duke of York when we have walked up there with the dogs. Those are great establishments, by the way. Phillip is 100% right that all that you are met with around there is dereliction and scaffolding. No attention or care is paid, and that sends out a message to residents, and, potentially, to developers. One of the most iconic parts of the city, including its architecture, is being lost. I remember — this is not a dig at the SDLP, Matthew — the announcement in 2003 about Royal Exchange. It was really ambitious. Phillip is right: it was retail, and then it became office space. Hopefully, it will end up as a mixture of both. Following the awful fire in North Street Arcade in 2004, there has been mission creep. Royal Avenue used to be bustling, from Lower Donegall Street through to Donegall Place, but now it is not. As someone who has been there in the evening, on dark nights, I can say that it is a scary place; even the businesses there say that. I completely agree with everything that Phillip said about Castlebrooke. Deirdre and I, along with our team, have been involved. Phillip is right about the cross-party team in Belfast City Council that has led the charge on that. Our party is adamant about the Assembly Rooms. The cross-party support to try to get the whole thing done is sustaining us all, to be frank. Castlebrooke need to be put on notice. I am not getting stuck into South Belfast, but this would not be allowed to happen in BT9 or elsewhere. It should not be allowed to happen anywhere, regardless of postcode. I would like the Department to use its regeneration powers and act as the leadership on the matter. I know that businesses pay a lot of money in rates, but Belfast ratepayers have coughed up more than anyone else. The developers have led us all a merry dance. We have all been clear about what we want and what we do not want. Every time you think you are getting somewhere, they come back. I would go as far as to say that, in my experience, they have been very disingenuous. I can only imagine the frustration felt by potential developers. We have had meetings with housing associations and other housing providers, as well as developers, to look at using the 80:20 social/private ratio. Everybody has stretched themselves and then some, and it is still sitting there. The engagement all depends on correspondence from Belfast City Council's planning committee, which reminds the developers that they need to engage. Engagement and communication should be a constant. We know that in this place. Even if it is good — we have good days and bad days — most people know exactly where they stand. We thought that we knew where we stood with Castlebrooke. I hate the name "Tribeca"; it is just rubbish. That whole development needs lifted, and we would all welcome the opportunity to do that. The only body that has the ability, the authority and, indeed, the credibility to do this is the Department for Infrastructure. It can bring other agencies to a round-table discussion to bring everyone together. It has regeneration powers, with the kudos of acting on behalf of the Assembly and the Executive, even just to lever other Departments. I am glad that Hill Street is to be pedestrianised. It has taken too long. If developers are watching how we do things, they will do nothing in haste. We all need to be honest about that. There is an opportunity for us all to come together and put Castlebrooke and others on notice, along with our community, business and statutory partners. I am up for that. Thank you. Phillip, for securing the Adjournment debate today. Miss McAllister: Thank you, Phil, for securing the debate. There is nothing that we disagree on. It is really important to note the cross-party working, particularly on Belfast City Council. Since I moved on to the Assembly, our party group leader, despite being an East Belfast elected rep, has been very invested in the Assembly Rooms in particular. Cross-party working is important in moving forward. Much of what you said, Phil, at the start of your speech I had in mine: the MAC, Crumlin Road Gaol, Duncairn arts centre and Ulster University. North Belfast is thriving, and there is redevelopment going on. When you go into the city centre and then beyond the Cathedral Quarter into North Street and the Tribeca site, it is absolutely depressing. I get a wee bit scundered too when I call it by that name, but that is what everyone knows it as. There was supposed to have been a £500 million investment in the area, but, so far, what has it achieved? Tumbleweed, dilapidation and disrepair. It is an absolute disgrace that it has been allowed to remain like that for so long. It is really important to note that, whenever any of us have a meeting or any correspondence with Castlebrooke, I question where it is moving to in future and what the area will look like. We have to be honest about that, because we do not really have the full picture. I know that there are planning proposals on the table at the moment and there are a lot of changes, but forgive me for remaining sceptical as to what it will look like. We need to learn from those lessons. We cannot allow developers to come in and buy up land but not do anything with it or perhaps get planning permission and sell it on in a constant "rinse and repeat" cycle. The area is steeped in history. It has one of the oldest churches in Belfast. It has a small congregation, but it has a lot of history — the United Irishmen, the Belfast Harpers' Assembly. There is lot to be proud of that we can sell not only to Belfast but to wider Northern Ireland and tourism. If it had not been for a handful of local businesses that remained, saying, "No, I'm not shutting up shop and moving on" and "I'm staying here", the area would be in a much worse state. Top 4.15 pm When the university was relocating, we had a massive opportunity for Castlebrooke to play ball and get on board with the community and change the area for the better, but that opportunity was missed. We should get back on track. Hopefully, the Minister, who will respond to the debate, can think about working with Andrew Muir, the AERA Minister, on the Dilapidation Bill. We should use whatever powers will come from that to force developers, in particular, and property owners to look after sites so that they do not fall into further disrepair. I welcome the council's move to take over the Assembly Rooms. I welcome the pedestrianisation of Hill Street, but, as Carál said, that took too long, and we cannot wait any longer. What can that part of North Belfast look like? It can be lively and bustling. It should be a mix of private, public and retail businesses. It should have more pubs and restaurants. It should be a hub to bring people together. All parties, led by the Government and Belfast City Council, should be working towards achieving that. My party is prepared to work with every party in the Assembly, with every party on Belfast City Council and with any Minister who is involved to get what we need, which is the thriving redevelopment of the Tribeca area in North Belfast. I again thank the Member who secured the debate. I am grateful to have been able to contribute, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. Mr Kelly: Consensus has broken out, so I will keep this short. There were a couple of points that I really wanted to make, but some of them have already been made. I thank Phillip Brett for bringing the topic to the Chamber. It is opportune. Planning permission was granted in 2020 for what was sold as a £500 million regeneration scheme of the Cathedral Quarter, whereby 12 acres of the city centre were meant to be brought back to life with homes, offices and shops. Five years on, however, nothing has happened, as other Members have said; in fact, planning applications have only been withdrawn. No real step forward has been taken; promises have not been kept; and the site lies idle. I agree with all that has been said about Castlebrooke Investments. Unfortunately, that probably goes for a lot of huge investment companies. Nuala mentioned — she did not use the term — land banking, and that is what Tribeca appears to be. Land banking does not only happen here, but the Tribeca site is a huge example of it. Companies will flip the land when the price goes up, after which somebody else will hold on to it for a long time, waiting for the right opportunity to make the most money from selling it on. We have to look at that and see what we can do about it. I read some of Castlebrooke's stuff. The company said that it was frustrated: it is not as frustrated as the people of Belfast. Who pays the price for the delay? It is not the developers in London but the people of the Belfast. As has been mentioned, small businesses have been pushed out of the area. Others have been brave enough to stay, and fair play to them for doing so. The area is a site of absolute dereliction. The Assembly Rooms is one of the most historic buildings in the city, and it was left abandoned while developers chased profit. The building is where Henry Joy McCracken was sentenced in 1798, and it should be restored and respected as an important part of our history, whatever our view of history is, not left to fall into disrepair. Belfast City Council, as I understand it, is at the contract stage of purchasing the building and bringing it back into the ownership of the people of Belfast, which is what we should see done with the entire area, at least where that is possible. We expect completion soon. That is the leadership that we need. Community groups have also stepped up where developers have failed. Save CQ has sent thousands of letters objecting to the wrong type of development. The group is advocating for social homes and safe play areas to be included in any development and for developers to engage with artists and with the culture sector, which is essential to our city. Save CQ is rightly calling on developers to develop, not demolish, a lot of our heritage. The Department for Communities and the Minister have the vesting powers and the regeneration powers. I think that the Minister spoke about that earlier. I agree that the matter is not just for the Assembly and the Minister; it is also for the council, which has showed leadership on all of it. If the developer cannot develop what it promised, those powers should be used. The failed Tribeca — I hate the name as well, just for the record — development is a lesson in what can happen when development is handed over to private businesses without accountability. The people of this city deserve better. We deserve a city centre that belongs to us. It will have a snowball effect. It is a huge site of 12 acres that will spread out and attract tourism, nightlife and all the rest of it. I think that everybody is united in arguing for that. Mr Kingston: I thank my colleague Phillip Brett for bringing the debate to the Assembly Floor. I note the high level of agreement from all parties about the frustration at the lack of progress with the development. North Belfast has the highest level of dereliction in the city centre area. I acknowledge that we have had investment and progress, particularly with the new Ulster University campus. It is a pleasure to see the young people and the new student accommodation in that area. We will see the new Belfast Stories visitor attraction, which the council will bring forward. As others have done, I acknowledge the progress at Hill Street, the MAC, St Anne's Square and the work of the Cathedral Quarter Trust and BID. Moving towards the river, there is the impressive City Quays development by Belfast harbour. However, the derelict sites are very evident when you come into the city centre from the Shankill, Clifton Street, Donegall Street and York Street/York Road. The non-development of the Tribeca site has been a huge blight and cause of frustration. It did not progress when it was known as "Royal Exchange", and, when Castlebrooke bought it, we expected rapid progress. I understand that the name "Tribeca" comes from New York, where it means "Triangle below Canal Street". I do not know about Belfast: I think that I once heard that, here, it is an abbreviation of "Triangle beside the cathedral" or "Triangle below the cathedral". Castlebrooke has expanded the site by buying up more land and property on the other side of North Street between Rosemary Street and Lower Garfield Street. It has created a 12-acre site — a significant chunk of the city centre. That would be good news, if it was progressing, but, instead, we have seen frustrating years of delay and a lack of physical progress. Castlebrooke points to wider circumstances that have impacted on its plans. Originally, the site was meant to be retail-led and a John Lewis store was touted, but the growth of online and out-of-town shopping seems to have damaged that prospect. Likewise, Castlebrooke thought about creating a more office-led development, but COVID and the growth of homeworking impacted on those plans. We are told that it is now meant to be residential-led, including some student accommodation and possibly still a hotel, but we hope that there will still be retail uses and public spaces, especially on the ground floor. We welcome the move by Belfast City Council to purchase the historic Assembly Rooms and other buildings in the car park behind it. We trust that that will come to fruition and kick-start the redevelopment of the wider site. Castlebrooke tells us that a new planning application is being prepared and that it plans to carry out briefings around the end of next month. North Belfast DUP representatives — Phillip Brett and I and our councillors — will continue to push for progress and for early actual progress, not land banking, which is what it seems to be currently. There have been changes in the economic landscape, but this is prime real estate that connects the city centre to the North Belfast and greater Shankill area. The university campus and Belfast Stories attraction lead the way to a brighter future for this city-centre quarter. Let us see Castlebrooke and Tribeca adding to that regeneration, not holding it back. Ms D Armstrong: I thank Mr Brett for securing the Adjournment debate. I have certainly learnt a lot about the area and the problems with Tribeca in North Belfast. I hope that Members will not mind if, coming from Fermanagh and South Tyrone, I contribute to the debate. Belfast's dereliction and lack of development affects every part of Northern Ireland, and Tribeca, unfortunately, has become a symbol of delay and, possibly, missed opportunities. Having heard Members speak today, I am encouraged that the resolve is here, and, with the work and the consensus of Belfast City Council, that is positive. I hear good notes on that subject. Dereliction in Belfast city centre and the lack of development, particularly around the Tribeca site, demands urgent attention. What should have been a symbol of regeneration, as others have pointed out, became and has remained a site of neglect, impacting on the city's appearance and affecting the economy in the retail and tourism sectors. Community pride, in particular, has been affected, and Members have spoken movingly about the impact on the communities living there. Derelict properties and vacant land result in lost revenue from unpaid rates, which are funds that could support essential local services. That impacts on footfall, harming businesses and undermining Belfast's potential as a vibrant hub of activity for the entirety of Northern Ireland. A proactive approach to tackling the issues is essential, and it is encouraging, as I have said, to see that consensus. Progress is needed in Tribeca. I have seen the plans: it is a promising development that can unlock further massive opportunity for Belfast. On the wider issue of dereliction, we should continue to press for greater mechanisms to tackle it, such as introducing a vacant land tax that may incentivise property owners to develop or release unused sites, unlocking opportunities for investment and growth. However, such proposals must be examined in detail to avoid any adverse impacts or unintended consequences that could cause a chill factor. We are seeing progress in the long-overdue Dilapidation Bill, which I am keen to see progressed, and there is an expectation that it will become a catalyst for growth in our communities. I commend Belfast City Council for the Vacant to Vibrant programme. From what I hear, it has been broadly welcomed across the city and perhaps could be a model for elsewhere in Northern Ireland. We must see progress on Tribeca. For too long the site has seen little or no progress, but, with determination and vision, it can become a reality. My friend Mr Brett wants the development over the line, and, if he puts as much passion into it as he put into getting Hill Street pedestrianised, he will see progress. Some Members: Hear, hear. Mr O'Toole: I am pleased to speak on the subject. It is one that Mr Brett and I have talked about a lot, and we share some of the same priorities on the city centre. I am glad that he has proposed the debate. The pedestrianisation of Hill Street and the introduction of night buses are all things that we need in order to maximise the amazing potential of our city centre as a cultural, historic, economic driver not just of this city but of the region and the entire northern part of the island. The further development of what is shamefully and irritatingly known as "Tribeca" is one of those things. I agree with basically everyone that that is an ahistorical, vulgar and preposterous title to give such a brilliant and historic part of Belfast. However, given that I am the leader of the Opposition as well as a representative of Belfast — I want to talk about the Belfast context — I will inject a little bit of dissent. That is important because dissent is that great, radical, Presbyterian quality that we associate with the Assembly Rooms in that part of Belfast. I will inject dissent into the consensus in the debate because, while we agree that something must be done, someone watching this debate from outside might think that we are a bit like Mark Twain talking about the weather: "Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it." Nearly a year ago, on an Opposition day, the Opposition brought a motion to the Assembly about Tribeca and the preposterous failure to deliver on ending the dereliction there. That motion asked the Minister of Finance to look at city centre dereliction and at a vacant land tax, which Ms Armstrong just referenced. It also referred to doing something about the historic significance of the Assembly Rooms, and I am glad to say that some progress has been made and that the council is moving towards acquiring that site. We called on the Minister of Finance to do a full rates review of what was happening across the site, because responses to questions for written answer from me revealed the fact that widespread and apparently inappropriate rates reliefs were being given to properties that were falling into dereliction on that site. That was discovered because I asked questions about it. We also called on the Minister for Communities and the Minister for the Economy to work with the Finance Minister and Belfast City Council to further proposals for the site. Top 4.30 pm I want to see all that happen, but it is important to say that the Assembly passed a motion last November to do all those things. The public out there do not want us just to show up and talk about these things again and again; they want something to happen. I am therefore glad that we have consensus today. Whether it comes from an Adjournment debate today or an Opposition day debate last year, let us see some progress being made. I hope to hear from the Minister. I welcome the fact that he is here to talk about it, because, in May and June 2024, I asked him two questions for written answer about the meetings that he was having about Tribeca and potential regeneration work. He said that he had not had meetings but that he planned to have meetings with the chief executive of Belfast City Council. I would like to hear an update on what happened in those meetings and whether there have been any further meetings, because not only is the site full of potential but we have wasted two decades of potential. As politicians and political parties, we have all had some hand in that, but we all now have responsibility, and some of us have more than others, because some of us do not hold ministerial office to deliver on it. It will require a joined-up effort. One option that we, as the Opposition, put forward last year was that the Executive, working with Belfast City Council, should create something like the Laganside Corporation. There were some objections to the way in which Laganside worked, and I am not saying that it was perfect, but it was a company that vested land and delivered a regeneration project. It is perfectly within the Executive's legal powers to do that. Why not? We could use financial transactions capital (FTC). FTC is already being used — I hope — to deliver Casement Park, and I think that the Minister wants to use it to deliver other football stadia. I have no problem with that. Why not use it for this purpose? That is something that we could explore. If not that, what? We cannot go on like this. We cannot have any more debates, whether they be Opposition debates or Adjournment debates, or questions in which we talk about something being done only for nothing to happen. I see people looking around the room and thinking, "This guy is being annoying again. He is standing up and making a nuisance of himself", but I do not care, because that is my job. For too long in this place, we have stood up and all agreed with one another, and then — guess what? — nothing has happened. On the question of whether we are talking about North or South Belfast, here is the point: it is Belfast. Most people who walk down Hill Street, have a pint of Beamish or Murphys in the brilliant Duke of York and then walk round to Donegall Street and North Street say, "Why is this like this? We are in the middle of one of the most happening cities in Ireland and one of the most interesting cities in Europe. Why is there this block of derelict land?" To be honest, guys, we are all worried about where our constituency boundaries lie, but people are not aware of whether they are in North, South, West or East Belfast; they just know that it is Belfast and that it is brilliant and full of potential. As public representatives, we need to get behind it, deliver on it and not let it fall into more dereliction. I commend the Cathedral Quarter BID. Save CQ has been amazing at campaigning on the issue. Individual reps from a load of parties have worked hard on it. Let us do right by them. Let us deliver it, let us be specific and let us have no more debates in which we all agree with one another. Let us actually do this and make the project and that part of the city thrive again. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Matthew. Just before I call Deirdre Hargey, I will say that I find it very upsetting that nobody has mentioned my favourite pub, the John Hewitt. Deirdre, over to you. Mr O'Toole: I had my 40th birthday there. Ms Ní Chuilín: Twenty years ago. Miss Hargey: I probably will not mention it either. I welcome the debate and thank Phillip for securing it. I had it in my notes that we debated the topic last year. I was here talking about it. When we look at the city centre, we see it as one city centre that impacts on all the communities, but, whilst the Tribeca site is, to be fair, probably the largest in the city that is lying in dereliction, other derelict parts of the city centre border various communities. In South Belfast, areas such as Ormeau Avenue and Cromac Street have large swathes of land just like those in the Tribeca scheme that have been lying derelict for decades. We need to look at those. Obviously, we have had the impact of conflict. That is one of the reasons why our city centres and cores do not have people living in them in the way that other cities do. We also have a legacy of defensive planning that segregated communities and severed them from the city and from one another. I see that when I look at maps of Belfast. Before the 1960s, Belfast worked on a grid system, but from the 1960s and 1970s, it started to become segregated and communities were severed from the city centre and from one another. I live in the Market, and we are segregated from Donegall Pass, which is segregated from Sandy Row. That continues around the city centre. Belfast city centre is unique in that it is surrounded by inner-city working-class communities that have been there for generations, staying there through even the worst days and contributing to building our city with its unique aspects. Whatever development happens on the site and on other derelict sites, we need to make sure that it happens alongside those communities, so that they are at the heart of the engagement and consultation, and that we build up greater community and public ownership of land and assets. Matthew O'Toole mentioned the Laganside Corporation. Looking at it broadly, good things were done on the regeneration of the river — new footways and all of that — but Laganside did not engage with communities. It actually cut off communities. In one of the Laganside reports, a red line was drawn around all the communities. The multimillion-pound investment did not touch the working-class communities that needed it the most: Laganside drew a red line around them. There is one regeneration project in South Belfast, which is the reopening of the old traditional tunnels. A report by Laganside said that the tunnels were bricked up in the '90s to stop people from the Market community from coming over and breaking into cars. Whatever the way forward is, we have to make sure that communities are at the heart and that there is no class severance or segregation. That is what we saw happen in New York. Tribeca in New York was gentrified. Low-income and working-class families were pushed out of the Tribeca area, and we need to make sure that whatever scheme takes place here integrates the communities. The developer here tried to do the same thing: it tried to put the social housing in Academy Street, away from the overall development, and to have only higher-end housing options at the centre. We need to make sure that we do not segregate on the basis of social class, or have any other type of segregation. We need to make sure that we build places that are inclusive of all our communities. Developer-led regeneration on its own is not working. It has clearly failed here. We need a people-centred and people-focused approach to regeneration. It is not just down to the Communities Minister to do that; the Economy Minister, the Finance Minister, the Infrastructure Minister, the AERA Minister and others need to be involved. I would much prefer that there was a Minister-led approach to taking this forward. That could be a few Ministers taking the lead, but I would like to see some form of ministerial group being established. We did that in the city a number of years ago in the case of the Holylands intervention, and I think that something similar could be done in this case. We need to include the communities, the arts groups, the cultural groups, the universities and, obviously, the businesses in the area, because we need to make sure that the local economy, people and communities benefit. This is a huge opportunity for that to happen. We have the business improvement districts, but there is a democratic deficit to those, which I ask the Minister to look at. No communities are involved in those BIDs, yet huge swathes of public money go into them. Communities that live in and around those BIDs, and which are part of the BIDs, are not part of the decision-making processes. I ask the Minister to work in partnership with others when taking the scheme forward. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call the Minister for Communities. You have up to 10 minutes. Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank Mr Brett for bringing the issue for an Adjournment debate, for his passion for his constituency and the city centre, and for outlining, clearly, what needs to be done. He mentioned the extension of late-night public transport services. I am happy to confirm to him and the House that I have committed funding to that. I know that other parties are being asked for that as well. He can be assured of my support and the support of my party to ensure that the funding is made available, so that we can continue to ensure that the city centre is supported. I look forward to making a further, more detailed announcement on that in the time ahead. The site, which I am scared to call the Tribeca site, because of the disapproval across the Chamber, is situated in the heart of our capital and represents a significant opportunity for economic, cultural and social regeneration. However, as Members around the Chamber and the wider community have rightly observed, progress has been disappointingly slow. As Minister for Communities, with responsibility for regeneration and heritage, I must express my concern at the lack of meaningful advancement by the developer. The continued stagnation of the site is not just a missed opportunity; it actively contributes to the deterioration of a key part of the city. That blight is undermining the physical and socio-economic recovery of the city centre and, by extension, the wider city. The Tribeca scheme, led by Castlebrooke Investments, was originally heralded as a transformative £500 million regeneration project, spanning approximately 12 acres. Planning permission was granted in 2020 for a vibrant mixed-use development incorporating residential, office, retail, leisure and cultural spaces alongside the conservation and regeneration of listed buildings. However, despite early momentum and public anticipation, we are yet to see any meaningful construction activity on the ground. In recent months, Castlebrooke has withdrawn several planning applications for the wider site, citing concerns around commercial viability. That development, or lack thereof, has understandably led to growing frustration among key stakeholders, including Belfast City Council, local businesses and residents. The site remains largely derelict, and its current condition contributes to a growing sense of stagnation in the city centre. Belfast City Council has publicly voiced its concerns and is actively exploring a range of options, including vesting or acquisition by agreement, either in whole or in part. The Assembly Rooms and adjoining properties, for example, have been a focus for such intervention. Therefore, I have instructed officials in my Department to engage constructively with the council to help to identify and deliver a viable plan for the regeneration of the Tribeca area. However, let me be clear that it is a complex issue and will require time, resources and input from a wide range of professional disciplines and stakeholders in order to develop a fully costed and deliverable alternative. Belfast City Council is preparing a paper for submission to my Department, seeking support for what is envisaged to be a regeneration and planning framework for the Tribeca site. That framework will aim to provide the basis for statutory intervention, be that through purchase or the vesting of lands in part or in full. It will set out clear steps for the delivery of a viable regeneration scheme. Crucially, the framework must also address the financial realities of any proposed intervention. It must present viable delivery routes, whether led by the public sector, the private sector or a combination of both. Let me be clear: the status quo is not acceptable. I fully share the concerns that have been expressed by Members and the public. The current impasse cannot be allowed to persist. We are committed to working in partnership with all stakeholders to unlock the potential of this strategically important site. We are also open to exploring innovative and practical solutions. One such avenue is the potential use of financial transactions capital to support partial public ownership or partnership models. The precedent that was set by the Laganside Corporation offers a valuable reference point for how targeted public intervention can act as a catalyst for urban renewal and bring together public ambition and private enterprise to deliver real change. In the coming weeks, my Department will continue its dialogue with Belfast City Council on the proposed regeneration and planning framework. We will also continue our engagement with Castlebrooke Investments to seek clarity on its intentions and timelines for the site. Importantly, as we move forward, we will work to ensure that any future development reflects the unique character and heritage of the Cathedral Quarter and surrounding areas. It is essential that regeneration delivers not only physical transformation but real and lasting benefits for the city and its communities. Ms Ní Chuilín: Minister, I really appreciate your giving way. Can we make sure that the regeneration is not developer-led and that the Departments, communities and residents are at the heart of it? We have had development companies for a long time, but we have had nothing back, and communities have been shut out again. Mr Lyons: I will address that in my closing remarks. North Belfast deserves better. The Tribeca site must not remain a symbol of missed opportunity and stalled ambition. My Department is firmly committed to playing its part in delivering a vibrant, inclusive and sustainable city centre that reflects the pride, potential and resilience of the city. Top 4.45 pm I have listened to Members' comments and heard the passion with which many expressed them tonight. With that in mind, I can confirm that some meetings have taken place in the past number of days. It is now my intention to bring together all interested parties and make sure that we can sit down in the same room and find a way forward. I want those parties to include political representatives, Belfast City Council, other Ministers and the developers. It is important that we all get together so that the matter can be thrashed out. I do not pretend that it is exclusively my responsibility, but I am prepared to step up and make sure that the meeting happens. I am willing to stand up now, just as I have done in the past. I did so with the issue of defective premises when no one else was willing to take it on. I am willing to get everybody in the room so that we can find a way forward. I will do that as quickly as I can, because I know that people have been waiting for far too long. At the very least, we need to get together to plot a way forward. That is my commitment to the House this afternoon. Adjourned at 4.46 pm. Top
[ni-assembly-official-report][plenary_report] Official Reports https://aims.niassembly.gov.uk/officialreport/report.aspx?&eveDate=2025/09/29&docID=450895 Official Report: Monday 29 September 2025 Table of Contents Matter of the Day Digital ID Scheme Members Statements McCullough Review Ulster Day: Carrickfergus Commemoration Northern Ireland Environment Week McCullough Review Weekend of Sport South West Acute Hospital: Future of Emergency General Surgery Matthew "Bam Bam" Boreland Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh Innocent Victim: Definition Drone and Cyberattacks Sectarian Abuse in Football: Shelbourne Football Club and UEFA Mórshiúl Chearta ar son na Gaeilge Cearta March for Irish Language Rights Executive Committee Business School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill: Further Consideration Stage Oral Answers to Questions Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Education Executive Committee Business School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill: Further Consideration Stage Assembly Business Standing Order 10(3A): Extension of Sitting Private Members Business Endometriosis Care Aviation Strategy for Northern Ireland The Assembly met at 12:00 pm (Mr Speaker in the Chair). Members observed two minutes' silence. Matter of the Day Digital ID Scheme Mr Speaker: Paula Bradshaw has been given leave to make a statement on a digital ID scheme, which fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24. If other Members wish to be called, they should rise in their place and continue to do so. All Members will have up to three minutes to speak. I remind Members that there will be no interventions. Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for accepting this Matter of the Day. On Friday, the Prime Minister announced plans for a UK-wide digital ID card scheme — a so-called BritCard — that people would need in order to prove their right to work. My honest interpretation is that the scheme is trying to fix a problem that does not really exist. There is no wave of people slipping through the net that justifies such a heavy-handed approach. To me, it looks less like a practical solution and more like a political gesture that plays into an ever-growing and dangerous anti-immigrant agenda, rather than dealing with the real issues that people face here and across the UK. We do not need a digital ID card to tell us who can work and who cannot; that system already exists. Right-to-work checks, visa controls and employer liability rules address the majority of that perceived problem. Furthermore, making it a mandatory requirement will not automatically prevent fraud: it will just promote a dangerous narrative and shift the blame. I think that most people here can see straight through that, and that it will just not work for Northern Ireland. In fact, in the past few days, I have been struck by how many people in the Chamber and beyond, in political parties, have commented on the issue. It is infrequent that we see so many politicians here singing from the same hymn sheet. I look forward to hearing other people's contributions. We have a particular settlement here in Northern Ireland. People are entitled to be British, Irish or both. It is an individual's prerogative. That sits at the heart of the Good Friday Agreement. Forcing everyone into a single UK identity card system risks completely cutting across that right, reopening questions and tensions that should be left protected and untouched. Furthermore, there is the blatant issue of practicality in day-to-day living here in Northern Ireland. Thousands of people live in the South and work in the North, and vice versa. As we often see with UK legislation that is applied to Northern Ireland, none of that appears to have been thought through with regard to the realities of our existence here. Finally, there is the question of trust. If all the data is put in one place, it will be a huge target. People are right to ask who will hold the information, how secure it will be and what it will be used for, but perhaps those questions are for another day. The proposal may be worth pursuing by others across the UK, but it is an issue of identity and everyday life here. At the weekend, we saw what people in Northern Ireland think of the proposal. While social media posts and press statements are important and influential in a way, it is important that we address the issue in the Chamber so that we, as elected representatives to the Assembly, can put our opinions on the record. I thank everyone in advance for their contributions. Ms Ennis: The British Government are never not at it, and they are at it with this ludicrous and ill-thought-out scheme to introduce a so-called BritCard. The proposal demonstrates to people in the North that the British Government either do not understand the protections and rights enshrined in the Good Friday Agreement, of which they are a co-guarantor, or simply do not care about them. No British Government have the right to impose identity on Irish citizens. The right to: "identify ... as Irish or British, or both" is a foundation of the Good Friday Agreement. The proposal is a clear attempt by the British Prime Minister to deflect from his political failings in Britain. The proposal for the mandatory BritCard is an attack on Irish citizens in the North. We in Sinn Féin will make it our business to stand up for and continue to defend the rights of Irish citizens in the North. The scheme is a non-starter, and Keir Starmer and his British Government should immediately pause it and reconsider. Mr Frew: I have no doubt that, if the scheme is wrong for Northern Ireland, it is wrong for the rest of the United Kingdom. Everyone who speaks on the subject should say so and defend the United Kingdom from this potential tragedy. The scheme is a so-called solution that is trying to find a problem, and the Government just happen to have selected the number-one issue that has been vexing so many British minds of late. Do not be fooled: illegal immigration and illegal working are totally unacceptable, and the issues need to be resolved immediately. They need to be resolved across the UK, including Northern Ireland, but the scheme will not do that. It is not even designed to do so. This is state overreach, and, as is always the case, it is about making people millionaires. Over 70 million people do not need to be given a digital ID to stop 0·05% of that number arriving illegally. We already have a visa system through which people's right to work is displayed, but it is not enforced. If employers do not check visas, why would they check a digital ID card? A digital form of ID is not a harmless card in your hip pocket that can be shown to a person in authority. The British people have balked at such a proposition even in the worst of times. Such measures can and have been used, even in recent history, to coerce people into a position that they did not wish to be in. They enable the Government to widen the scope to cover all other matters and to control what people can and cannot do. That is what vaccine certification did during the pandemic. The Government could easily change the scope of and conditions in every sphere of life, and we would have no say in it and no choice but to comply. Members may say, "It couldn't happen like that in a civilised country", to which I reply, "Look at Canada". There, the protesting truckers and everyone who supported or funded them had their bank accounts blocked, because Trudeau did not like their opinions. The first question in the debate should be this: why is the state making it mandatory? The state should not force people to do anything that could put them and their private information in jeopardy. I hear Members say, "But I have a digital wallet for all sorts of services on my phone. I hand over personal information all the time, and it makes my life so handy". Yes, we give data to private organisations, but they cannot compel us to do so. We have a choice. Only the Government of the day can pass laws to control people's lives and use the digital ID — Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up. Mr Frew: — to make us comply. Dr Aiken: The Ulster Unionist Party, not surprisingly, vehemently opposes any attempt to introduce digital ID. Far from being the "bedrock of the modern state", as Labour's new enforcer in the Cabinet Office, Darren Jones, called it, it is designed to act as a control mechanism, and it is fundamentally un-British. However, knowing how our Government manage to do contracts and things with IT — I am glad to see that Mr Carroll is here — they will probably give the contract to Fujitsu, so it will cost billions and not work. As to employers and employment, it will not stop employers on the grey and black employment trail. They will still employ workers without looking at the right digitisation or documentation. We know that; they do it now. That will not change, so it is a red herring. The scheme will also — if it comes into force, which I do not think it will — create a digital passport border in the Irish Sea. That will add to the internal trade border that was created in the Irish Sea by the Windsor framework. That is completely unacceptable. It is unacceptable to me as a unionist; it should be unacceptable to anybody who believes in the United Kingdom; and it should be unacceptable to anybody who believes in the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement. Finally, let us be honest: this is blatant political posturing by the Prime Minister. He did not even give the message to his own Ministers. Anybody who listened to the Minister on the 'Today' programme will have heard her say, "No, this will not be a mandatory issue". About 20 minutes after she came off the air, the Cabinet Office and the Prime Minister's Office came out and said, "It will be mandatory". Go and talk to Labour MPs: none of them was told. This is just a blatant attempt by Keir Starmer to grab headlines. Like most of the things that our Prime Minister has done recently, it is badly and poorly thought-out. I think I speak for every Member of the Assembly when I say this is not a good idea. It should be buried as quickly as possible. Ms McLaughlin: It will be no surprise to hear that the SDLP, too, thinks that the scheme is not a good idea. We reject — [Interruption.] Sorry? Who is shouting? Mr Speaker: Please continue. Ms McLaughlin: OK. We reject the Government's proposal for the so-called BritCard. I am an SDLP MLA for Foyle, and our constituency lives and breathes cross-border cooperation every day. I find it really hard to see how such a scheme could work within the common travel area. In Derry, our lives are shaped by the open border with Donegal. Families, workers, students, patients and shoppers move freely back and forth, often several times a day. A one-size-fits-all digital ID imposed from Westminster ignores that simple reality. It is a risk to the flow of daily life and the economic and social ties that we depend on. The proposal also cuts across the hard-won rights enshrined in the Good Friday Agreement, including the right of people here to identify as British, Irish or both and to have those identities respected. Imposing a BritCard undermines that delicate balance and the progress that we have made over the past 27 years. Let us be clear: the scheme does nothing to address the real challenges that people face, whether that is access to public services, the cost-of-living crisis or the need for genuine immigration reform that respects human rights and dignity. The SDLP will continue to argue for solutions that are practical, rights-based and reflective of Northern Ireland's unique circumstances. We will also table urgent Assembly questions to establish what engagement, if any, the Executive had with the UK Government before the announcement. People here deserve transparency and a say in policies that affect their daily lives. We need to see a collective response from the Executive on digital ID cards. The Executive must articulate Northern Ireland's position: that is what it means to be leaders. The absence of a co-ordinated, unified response from the Executive is a failure and lets down people in all of our communities. I join my colleague, SDLP leader, Claire Hanna, in calling for Northern Ireland to be exempt from this unworkable scheme. Our community cannot be treated as an afterthought or perhaps not be thought of at all in decisions that threaten the very fabric of cross-border life. Top 12.15 pm Mr Gaston: Keir Starmer has shown that he is a Prime Minister on his way out, after once again showing us all that he is out of touch with our cherished British values. He has ensured that many of his MPs will rightly receive their P45s at the next election through his foolish attempts to introduce mandatory digital IDs. It shows a Prime Minister who is out of touch with public opinion and a Prime Minister with no answers on how to stop the boats. If the Government are truly committed to stopping illegal crossings, direct measures are required to stop the boats in the Channel before people reach the UK shores. Quitting the European Convention on Human Rights would be the first logical step; freezing non-essential immigration would be the second; and immediately deporting those who arrive here illegally, rather than accommodating them in hotels, would be the third. I share people's genuine concerns about the proposed centralisation of personal data. Collecting and storing all citizens' personal information in one digital system carries clear risks — risks of misuse by the Government and data breaches by hackers. Most important, the introduction of digital IDs will have ramifications for the civil liberties that we all enjoy, and they must be resisted. The TUV is clear: this is a cynical ploy to fool voters that something is being done about illegal immigration when the reality is that there are genuine fears that it will impinge further on the freedoms of UK citizens. The digital ID debate raises another equally serious question regarding the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom. Digital ID is a national matter. There can be no Irish Sea ID border. I am glad that my party leader will oppose the scheme's introduction at Westminster, but there must be no question of yielding to Sinn Féin's anti-British agenda by exempting Northern Ireland from a UK-wide system. Doing so would create a dangerous two-tier approach to citizenship: one for Great Britain and another for Northern Ireland. I caution unionist colleagues in the House. Our legitimate concerns over ID cards must not be exploited to drive yet another wedge between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. We must not allow constitutional integrity to be undermined for political convenience. Mr Carroll: It is worth emphasising that this terrible idea has its origins in the days of Tony Blair and his Government, who began a serious crackdown on civil liberties 20 or so years ago. Keir Starmer — a willing follower and student of Blairism and Tony Blair — has taken his warped ideas of restricting people's rights to another level and different terrain. It should be opposed outright. If the Government in Britain want to plough ahead with it, I strongly encourage people here and in Britain to oppose it and not to take part in the proposed scheme. Some of this is about Labour trying to show that it is tough on migration and asylum seekers. It shows how little a clue Keir Starmer or even Morgan McSweeney have about immigration. The latter is being accused of not declaring £700,000 of public money that was gained by his Labour Together group, which, allegedly, came up with this bonkers policy. The proposal is not fully about immigration; it is about a huge expansion of the digital infrastructure for a surveillance state, for which a huge corporate organisation is likely to be paid. This is a state that already clamps down, spies on and arrests campaigners and activists. The scheme will create even more barriers to public life for racialised minorities and those who are already digitally excluded. During a cost-of-living crisis, ongoing genocide in Gaza, climate breakdown and rampant homelessness, this is the last thing that the Government should plough ahead with. Members have said that the scheme is very un-British. There is a rich history in Britain of challenging monarchy and aristocracy, with the Chartist movement fighting for votes for working-class people. However, the scheme is very "British Government", who, in the past, have always talked about decency and democracy but have clamped down on activism and campaigning left, right and centre. There are huge questions about who will administer the scheme. Will it be, as has been suggested, Fujitsu, a company that has gained hundreds of millions of pounds in public money despite being mired in scandal? Will it be Palantir, with which the British Government already have a cosy relationship and which has been accused of all sorts of horrible things? The scheme should be opposed and challenged. If the Government try to plough ahead with it, I encourage people to resist taking part. Mr Speaker: I call Claire Sugden. Ms Sugden: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I hope that you are feeling better. The announcement by the Labour Government of a UK-wide digital ID raises immediate and obvious concerns. A centralised system of that kind concentrates personal data in a way that inevitably increases the risk of government overreach and surveillance. It creates a single target for hackers and comes with enormous cost at a time when our public services are already stretched. I share the criticisms that others have expressed. From listening to everyone's contribution, it is clear that there is unanimous opposition to the proposal in Northern Ireland, which in itself is significant. What concerns me further is that the proposal fails to take into account the Northern Ireland context that is not only about the constitutional question and people's identity but about the practical realities of living in a part of the United Kingdom that shares a land border with Ireland. The movement of people and services across the border is a daily fact of life, yet the policy reads as though it was designed for England, without thought for how it will work in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. Beyond that, there are issues that must be recognised. A digital-only identification system risks excluding significant parts of our population. It presumes universal access to smartphones, reliable broadband and digital confidence. Those are not realities in Northern Ireland. Many older people do not use digital devices, and many rural areas do not have adequate connectivity. The consequence is that those who are most in need of public services will be the very people who are least able to access them. The justification by the Prime Minister does not stand up to scrutiny. He said that the digital ID will help address undocumented migration, but undocumented migrants, by definition, remain outside official systems. They will not register for digital ID; instead, the burden will fall to ordinary citizens who already comply with the law. If someone intends to avoid the system, they will. The policy fails its own test. People want effective border management, fairness and public services that work. They do not want another layer of bureaucracy. I am left wondering what the justification for the ID is, because on no level does it seem like a popular or sensible policy choice. It is not a new idea. Labour pushed ID cards nearly two decades ago and failed, because they were expensive, intrusive and ineffective. Repackaging them in a digital form does not solve those problems; it amplifies them. The question, therefore, is not whether the scheme is workable but why Labour is pursuing it at all. Why prioritise an old, failed policy when health, education and basic public services are in urgent need of investment? There is no clear rationale, no convincing evidence and no public demand. Mr Buckley: I am not too old to remember a time in the House when Alliance, Sinn Féin and the SDLP were drooling at the prospect of a Labour Government. How has that worked out for them? Farming has been destroyed; businesses have been taxed to death; pensioners' pockets have been targeted; the economy is on its knees; illegal immigration is soaring; and now digital ID. Who could not have seen that one coming from the sister party of the SDLP, which called for nurses to be sacked during the COVID pandemic? Who do you think you are kidding, Mr Starmer? We see through every element of the flawed policy. I have a passport, a driving licence and a National Insurance card. I have the basic apparatus that allows me to be a citizen in this United Kingdom. To introduce such a policy is evidence, if it were ever needed, that the PM is everything that George Orwell predicted: a pound-shop Tony Blair. My reasons are clear: the DUP opposes digital ID cards because we do not want to be part of big-government, invasive, snooping technology that has the potential to be abused. Alliance, the SDLP and Sinn Féin oppose the cards because of four letters: Brit. That is not lost on us. The DUP will oppose the policy because it is not in the national interest: the interest of the people of the entirety of the United Kingdom. To say that it would reduce illegal immigration is utter gaslighting. If the PM were serious about addressing illegal immigration, he would deploy strong border enforcement; he would stop boats; and he would stop the abuse by the legal profession in making a mockery of UK law by interpreting policy and legislation on asylum seekers in such a way as to enable them to come by the boatload. I notice that there has been nothing about immigration from Sinn Féin, the SDLP or Alliance. That does not bother them. They want to cover it all in the word "Brit". Be under no illusion: we will oppose that system. There should be no carve-out for Northern Ireland under a policy that should not exist in the entirety of the United Kingdom. However, what would Sinn Féin say if the Republic of Ireland were to make such a statement? Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up. Mr Brett: They say that a week is a long time in politics. Mr Starmer's most recent announcement has sent political opponents of the DUP into a tailspin. Last week, when changing her latest deadline for a united Ireland and a border poll, Mary Lou McDonald said that decisions made at Westminster did not impact on the people of Northern Ireland, yet she flew off to the mainland United Kingdom to set out her opposition to the policy. The irony of that will not be lost on the people of Northern Ireland. Last week, in a radio debate with me, the leader of the TUV made it clear that he wants the Assembly collapsed and powers handed over to Keir Starmer. Now, Mr Gaston has articulated his opposition to Mr Starmer's remarks. [Interruption.] Again, the TUV is in a tailspin on that issue. [Interruption.] I am absolutely delighted that the DUP has been consistent and robust in its opposition to the policy. [Interruption.] Since 2006, the party has been on the record, with our speeches and votes in Parliament making it clear that we will never support mandatory ID for the people of any part of the United Kingdom. In North Belfast, which my colleague Mr Kingston and I are honoured to represent, over 3,000 members of the public have signed a parliamentary petition opposing the introduction of the scheme. It is a matter of deep regret for me and for those whom I represent that their voices will not be heard in a vote on the issue. Our Member of Parliament is more interested in pursuing his legal career than representing the people of North Belfast. Let me be clear, however: Mr Kingston and I, and the Democratic Unionist Party, will be a voice for people of all traditions and none in North Belfast in making it clear that we oppose the scheme. The DUP will oppose it and ensure that it is voted down in Parliament. Mr O'Toole: I will be very brief. I will make two quick points. First, the ID card policy is completely misguided. As others have said, it is not necessary, because in-work checks already exist. It is completely misguided because of the conditions on this island, with the cross-border life that people already lead and the all-island economy that we hope to build. It is wrong-headed, it is impractical, and it is completely misguided. Claire Hanna and Colum Eastwood will take their seats, and they will argue against it. They will oppose it in general, and, if it is to be applied in Britain, they will call for Northern Ireland to be exempted. Let us be absolutely clear about that. I asked to speak because we have in the Assembly today something that we do not have very often: complete unanimity. Not just the four Executive parties and the Opposition but the TUV and People Before Profit all agree it is a bad idea. [Interruption.] Mr Frew: I am glad that you have come onside. Mr O'Toole: There is heckling from the DUP. [Interruption.] We all agree that it is a bad idea. All the Executive parties agree that it is a bad idea. [Interruption.] The public of Northern Ireland — [Interruption.] Mr Frew: Vaccines certificates — Top 12.30 pm Mr O'Toole: Stop chuntering. You have had your say. The public of Northern Ireland watching this might wonder, "We have a devolved government here. What is their position?" It has consistently been the case that, when Northern Ireland's interests are at stake, even if for different reasons — we know that our party disagrees with this for a different reason than the DUP — we oppose it. The Executive parties all oppose it. So do not come into the Chamber and stand up and say, for different reasons and facing different directions, that we all oppose it. Do your jobs. [Interruption.] Lead. I went on the Executive Office website this morning, and there is nothing on there other than waffle and photo opportunities. The Executive parties, rather than coming in here and picking fights with one another, should do their jobs. They take their salaries and they take their ministerial cars. Do your jobs, work together for the people of Northern Ireland and do not just come in here and throw around bickering waffle. Members' Statements McCullough Review Mr Kelly: Let me begin by stating that I am a member of the Policing Board, but I do not speak for it today. The McCullough review report sets out a stark assessment of the PSNI's practices around the surveillance of journalists, lawyers and others. Sinn Féin welcomes the depth of his work in uncovering the scale of activity and also recognises the limitations of what he could access. It is now clear that some elements of the PSNI's defensive operations include: "two specific periods in which there was wholesale cross-checking of police communication systems against a list of journalists' telephone numbers". Those were unnecessary, disproportionate and, therefore, unlawful. The report identified 24 applications that appear to have been made with the purpose of identifying journalists' sources. The applications relate to nine investigations that involve 1,014 telephone numbers. The deliberate use of covert intelligence to identify journalistic sources, and surveillance activity in and around court buildings, are particularly egregious. Policing can never be above the law. Recognising the gravity of what has been revealed, the Policing Board, on a cross-community basis, has treated this as a section 59 report from the Chief Constable, which is unprecedented and underlines the seriousness of the failings identified. There is much more to consider in the 200-page report, including lack of disclosure and candour. Public trust, especially among those targeted, has been badly damaged. That trust will only be rebuilt by firm, transparent and time-bound accountability. The Chief Constable has stated that there are no criminal and no misconduct issues. However, given the gravity of these issues, it is my view that the Policing Board should follow through with a section 60 inquiry under the Police (NI) Act 2000 to fully examine the issues that have arisen in the section 59 report that we have received. I believe that we need the whole truth to restore public confidence in policing. Sinn Féin also believes that implementing Patten's recommendation number 40 on enhanced oversight — that there should be a commissioner for covert law enforcement in the North — would add a layer of scrutiny and could be a practical safeguard against further unlawful practices. Ulster Day: Carrickfergus Commemoration Ms Brownlee: This past weekend, we celebrated Ulster Day, commemorating 28 September 1912, when almost half a million men and women took an oath opposing an all-Ireland Parliament by signing the Ulster covenant. Ulster Day is a foundational event in the history of Northern Ireland's unionism, symbolising the collective will of so many people to remain part of our United Kingdom. It was fantastic to see so many community events and parades right across Northern Ireland this weekend to commemorate the milestone event in our history. My constituency of East Antrim put on a wonderful show. In Carrickfergus, I give a special mention to Carrickfergus Historical Re-enactment Group and the Ulster Grenadiers Flute Band, whose efforts ensured a packed day of family fun and historical, educational activities, including a live re-enactment of the signing and a 1912 tea party and parade through the town on Saturday evening. Despite the horrific weather, the crowds were out in numbers to enjoy the events, and it was great to have our party's deputy leader, Michelle McIlveen, and East Belfast MLA David Brooks in Carrickfergus for the occasion. While we commemorate the events of over a century ago, the underlying principle remains the same, and the unionist community of Northern Ireland remains as loyal to the Union and as firmly opposed to Dublin rule as we were in 1912. The Ulster covenant remains a symbol of loyalty, resistance and unity. It is a reminder of the sacrifices that were made to preserve our place in the United Kingdom. Even in today's political climate, it serves as a historical anchor that reminds us of the enduring values of democracy, sovereignty and constitutional integrity that we in this party will continue to uphold. Northern Ireland Environment Week Mr Blair: As Members may already be aware, today marks the beginning of Northern Ireland Environment Week, which is a crucial week of concentrated effort in our environment sector. I was glad to attend Northern Ireland Environment Link's launch event this morning alongside some of my Alliance Party colleagues. The theme for this year's Environment Week is peatlands, a subject that is of vital significance in Northern Ireland. Our peatlands are immensely valuable for biodiversity, carbon storage, water quality and flood protection, yet those unique habitats have been under immense strain for years owing to factors such as overgrazing, drainage and burning. That is why I was glad to hear that the Alliance Party Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs has successfully published the long-awaited peatland strategy. That long-overdue document sets out five strategic objectives and 26 ambitious actions to restore damaged peatlands and secure a future for those vital ecosystems. It is crucial that we move swiftly from strategy to action, harnessing partnership and collective expertise to ensure delivery on the objectives. Protecting and restoring our peatlands is essential if we are serious about achieving our climate targets and safeguarding our environment for future generations. I encourage all Members and the public to participate in Environment Week. A variety of public events will take place throughout the week to raise awareness and to promote conservation efforts. They include training sessions, talks, guided walks and volunteering opportunities that focus on specific sites, species and local landscapes. Before I finish, I sincerely thank everyone involved in the environment sector: our remarkable NGOs, hard-working volunteers and dedicated organisers. Their efforts are greatly appreciated and do not go unnoticed. We should all feel inspired by their commitment and consider how we can contribute more to safeguarding our natural landscape in Northern Ireland. Hopefully, we can match that real and sincere sectoral effort and the public interest in protecting our natural environment with the political will that will be required in the future to produce the much-needed outcomes. McCullough Review Mr Burrows: I will address the findings of the McCullough review. I am afraid to say that the commentary in the media, by political parties and, indeed, by some firms of solicitors — I will not mention any of them — has been misleading and distorted. Let me be clear: the Ulster Unionist Party believes that a free press is a cornerstone of our democracy and that police surveillance powers should be used with great care, in accordance with the law, should be proportionate and should be used only when necessary. There are some lessons to be learned from the McCullough review, but I very much doubt that all those who have spoken so excessively about its findings have read the report. The McCullough review report clearly states that there was no evidence whatsoever of systemic surveillance of journalists by the PSNI. Mr Kelly said that there were issues with the Police Service's candour. Mr McCullough, an eminent KC, said that he had unfettered access and that everything that he had asked for was given to him. Some things that have been said are simply misleading. There are lessons to be learned from what are called the "defensive operations" used by the police. There is, however, a suggestion that the police were running taps on hundreds of journalists' phones and interrogating them. Perhaps it should not have done this, but the police had numbers that journalists had given to them, which were put in a spreadsheet and checked against officers' call records to see whether they had rung those numbers. The PSNI did not access the journalists' numbers. There is a minor issue about whether the journalists gave the PSNI their numbers for that purpose, but there was no unlawful surveillance of the journalists' phones. The Alliance Party has called for a public inquiry. In advance of the McCullough review's findings, the Justice Minister said that it would be "premature" to call for a public inquiry, and that we should wait and see what McCullough reported. McCullough reported that there was no systemic surveillance of journalists, but the Alliance Party still calls for a review. It is interesting that two Policing Board members call for a review. My understanding is that the Justice Minister has the power to instigate a public inquiry under the Inquiries Act, so we will see whether she lives up to that power. I will ask her a question later today in that regard. We have heard from Mr Kelly about freedom of the press. He is from the party that leads on slap actions, the party that tried to take — Mr Kelly himself brought the case — the house from Malachi O'Doherty for publishing an article, and the party that has an army of trolls on social media, which creates a chill effect for everybody. We do not need lessons from Mr Kelly on freedom of the press. Weekend of Sport Mr O'Toole: Before I get into the meat of my remarks, I reflect on the sad passing of a young man named Oisín Johnston, who was just 18 years of age. He died very suddenly in heartbreaking circumstances. He was the son of Denise Johnston, a councillor of ours in Mid Ulster District Council. The funeral was yesterday. It was extraordinarily sad. It was attended by people from across that community. I know that the family is very appreciative of the words of consolation and condolence that it has received from across politics and society. It reminds us all of the preciousness of life and the very serious issues around young people, their mental health and minding them. It is an extremely sad time for that family. I will come on to talk about sport, but some of what Mr Burrows said about the McCullough findings was quite remarkable. Trivialising and minimising what was done to the free press is not the way forward in debating these things. What I want to talk about this afternoon is a terrific weekend for Irish sport. People will have seen what happened at Bethpage State Park Golf Course in New York, where once again, an Irishman — this time Shane Lowry, following in the footsteps of Darren Clarke, Philip Walton and Eamonn Darcy — closed out and secured victory for Europe. I am sure that even the Members from the DUP and TUV were pleased to see Europe win that match. We also saw, for the very first time, an NFL game happen in "Croker" — Croke Park — in which the Pittsburgh Steelers were victorious. The Steelers owners have their roots in Newry, County Down. However, the really big sporting event that happened on this island at the weekend was, of course, the Down Ladies' Senior Championship final at Páirc Esler in Newry. It was contested between two terrific teams from my constituency: Bredagh and Carryduff. Those two teams are a remarkable reflection of the growth of Gaelic games and the huge growth of women's Gaelic games, particularly in the county of Down. Many of the people on both panels were on the Down ladies' panel that won the All-Ireland just a couple of years ago. We had a terrific weekend of sport on the island of Ireland, with Shane Lowry and Rory McIlroy bringing home the Ryder Cup for Europe; the Pittsburgh Steelers and the Minnesota Vikings showing us their wares in Croke Park; and, most importantly, two teams from my constituency — Bredagh and Carryduff — producing a terrific display while competing for the Down Ladies' Senior Championship. The latter is huge testimony to the growth of Gaelic games in the constituency and Belfast generally. We are very proud of them. The winners on this occasion were Bredagh, but it is very clear that we have great and growing teams from across the constituency. I am delighted to see it. Mr Speaker: Before I call Jemma Dolan, I remind Members that Members' statements are for an issue, not a series of issues. South West Acute Hospital: Future of Emergency General Surgery Miss Dolan: I speak today about the future of emergency general surgery at the South West Acute Hospital (SWAH) in Enniskillen and the paused consultation on the permanent removal of the service. SWAH is a lifeline for people in Fermanagh and west Tyrone. Its location was chosen to ensure that rural communities in the west could access high-quality healthcare without having to travel unreasonable distances. The removal of emergency general surgery has created real fear and uncertainty. People are, rightly, concerned about patient safety, travel times and whether our hospital is being slowly stripped back. The current consultation cannot be seen as the end of the story. We need the Western Health and Social Care Trust to publish a clear, ambitious and deliverable vision plan for SWAH, a plan that reassures staff, patients and the wider community that the hospital has a sustainable future at the heart of our health service. That vision must set out how the SWAH can be developed to meet the needs of our population in the years ahead, including investing in cross-border services. Top 12.45 pm The people of the west deserve the same commitment and investment as any other part of the North. Our health system must not leave rural communities behind. The Western Trust has a duty to listen to local people's voices and show leadership by producing a plan that gives confidence in the long-term future of the SWAH. Matthew "Bam Bam" Boreland Mr Bradley: I rise to congratulate Coleraine's first professional Irish boxing champion, Matty "Bam Bam" Boreland. Matty's remarkable victory at Windsor Park is a source of great pride for the entire Coleraine community. In a fierce and closely contested bout, the reigning champion, Rudy Farrell, was unable to continue into the seventh round. In the sixth round, Matty began landing powerful combinations that ultimately turned the tide. His precision and power earned him a crucial knockdown and a dominant finish, thereby sealing his place in Coleraine's sporting history to earn the first Irish superbantamweight title to be brought back to the town. Matty is a down-to-earth young man whose dedication, discipline and passion for his sport began at the Golden Gloves club in the town under coach Michael Fleming. Matty has become a role model for the aspiring athletes in our area, showing what can be achieved through hard work and dedication. The title was also a first for former world champion and coach Ryan Burnett, as Matty became the first boxer whom he has coached to a title. Theirs is an amazing combination, and long may it continue. As Matty paraded his newly won belt in front of the Coleraine faithful at the game against Glentoran, it was a joy to watch the supporters show their appreciation for their new champion. We look forward to celebrating many more of Matty's successes in future and, who knows, maybe a celebration or two for Coleraine Football Club as well. On behalf of the people of Coleraine, I extend congratulations to Matty on his outstanding achievement. Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh Mr Sheehan: Tarraingíodh siar na himeachtaí dlí in aghaidh Liam Óig Uí Annaidh, feibh is cóir. Bhí Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh os comhair na cúirte in Westminster arís an tseachtain seo caite, ar chúiseamh a cuireadh go héagórach ina choinne. Arís eile, sheas Feisirí de chuid Shinn Féin i gcuideachta na gcéadta eile taobh amuigh den chúirt le tacaíocht a thabhairt do Liam Óg. Theip ar ionsaí polaitiúil na Breataine ar Kneecap mar ghuth i gcoinne an chinedhíothaithe. Tugadh triúr ball den ghluaiseacht Baghcat, Dífheistiú agus Smachtbhannaí (BDS) os comhair na cúirte an tseachtain seo caite i mBéal Feirste as damáiste coiriúil ó tharla iad a bheith ag agóid i gcoinne earraí Iosraelacha agus na siopaí a dhíolann iad. Sin ceartas na Breataine agaibh, coir a dhéanamh den agóid i gcoinne cinedhíothú. Rinneadh ionsaí arís ar Global Sumud Flotilla an tseachtain seo caite, agus tuairiscíodh gur buamáladh 11 cheann de na longa a bhí ag iompar cabhrach, cabhair a bhfuil géarghá léi in Gaza. Ba é freagra na Breataine ná "aitheantas" a tabhairt do stát na Palaistíne ar mhaithe le: "seans na síochána agus réiteach an dá stát a choinneáil beo". Tá cinedhíothú ar obair le dhá bhliain anuas. Tá i bhfad níos mó ná aitheantas stáit de dhíth. Ba chóir don Bhreatain tacú le feachtas BDS ar a laghad, in áit coir a dhéanamh de. Ba chóir don Bhreatain a bheith diongbháilte i dtaca le lucht déanta an chinedhíothaithe a thabhairt chun cuntais, gan bheith comhpháirteach ann. Mar a dúirt Liam Óg agus é ag labhairt leis na meáin agus lena lucht tacaíochta i ndiaidh an cháis: "má tá aon duine ar an phláinéad ciontach i sceimhlitheoireacht, is é stát na Breataine é. Saoirse don Phalaistín". Cé go bhfuil teip ar Rialtas na Breataine maidir lena ndualgas morálta cur i gcoinne an éagóra uafásaí seo, is féidir linn ról a imirt. Ba mhaith liom aird a tharraingt ar an fheachtas Troscadh ar son na Córa agus an iarracht is déanaí acu Troid i gcoinne Mhaoinitheoirí an Chinedhíothaithe, troscadh 24 uair an chloig a bheidh ann go náisiúnta an 10 Deireadh Fómhair, ag comóradh dhá bhliain ó na hionsaithe is déanaí, agus a mbeidh agóidí lena linn ag oifigí na ndaoine a éascaíonn an cinedhíothú seo. Go dtí seo, tá breis is €200 míle bailithe ag Troscadh ar son na Córa do UNRWA. [Translation: Legal proceedings against Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh have rightly been dropped. Last week, Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh was once again before the courts in Westminster, on a charge that was unjustly placed against him. Sinn Féin MPs, once again, stood with hundreds of others outside the court in solidarity with Liam Óg. The British state’s political assault on Kneecap as a voice against genocide has failed. Last week in Belfast, three members of the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement were brought before the courts in Belfast on criminal damage charges for protesting Israeli goods and stores that supply them. This is what British justice looks like: attempts to criminalise those who speak up and protest a genocide. The Global Sumud Flotilla was attacked again last week, it is reported that 11 of the ships carrying much needed aid to Gaza were bombed. The British response was to "recognise" the Palestinian state in an effort to: "keep alive the possibility of peace and a two-state solution". We are two years into a genocide. State recognition falls far short of what is needed. What is really needed is that Britain should join the BDS campaign, not criminalise it; Britain should be resolute in holding the perpetrators of genocide to account, not be complicit in it. As Liam Óg said when addressing the media and supporters after the case: "If anyone on this planet is guilty of terrorism, it’s the British state. Free Palestine." While the British Government are failing in their moral duty to oppose this appalling injustice, we can play our part. I want to highlight the Hunger for Justice campaign and its most recent endeavour Fight the Financiers of Genocide, a 24-hour nationally organised fast on the 10 October, marking two years of the most recent attacks with protests at the offices of those who are facilitating this genocide. To date, Hunger for Justice has raised over €200k for UNRWA.] Innocent Victim: Definition Mr Buckley: I begin by placing on record my deepest sympathy to the family of Ian Milne, who passed away suddenly just yesterday. Ian was a big character who often went above and beyond. He was known across the Chamber, and he will certainly be missed. Our thoughts and prayers are with his sons Andrew and Stuart. Last week, the House stooped to a new low. The Alliance Party helped and voted to remove the word "innocent" from a DUP motion rejecting amnesty for terrorists. We all know that Sinn Féin and Alliance are like Siamese twins when it comes to voting in this Building. However, to side with convicted bomber Kelly's definition of a victim really is a new low, and for Naomi Long, the Justice Minister, to have doubled down on that definition on the radio really does beggar belief. Does the Alliance Party really believe that a paramilitary bomber, regardless of their creed, is in some way to be equated with an innocent victim of terrorism across Northern Ireland? If we follow its logic to its natural conclusion, we find that it really is a sad indictment of how far that party has travelled. No longer is it the party of the middle road but a party that is prepared to put the victim maker on an equal footing with the innocent victim. Banbridge is a major town in my constituency. In 1982, the Provisional IRA detonated a no-warning car bomb there. It killed 11-year-old Alan McCrum. Are we in some way to believe that the man or woman who planted the bomb is equal to young Alan McCrum? Are the 10 victims of Kingsmills, Protestant men who were lined up on a road in south Armagh and killed because of their religion, in some way to be equated with the very men who shot them? What about 22-year-old Mary Travers, who was murdered by the Provisional IRA as she left Mass with her family? Are we in some way to believe that the Alliance Party, in supporting Gerry Kelly's amendment — Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up. Mr Buckley: — believes that that is in some way on an equal footing? Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up. Mr Buckley: Shame. Drone and Cyberattacks Dr Aiken: Last week, Denmark had to consider declaring a state of emergency as drones closed airspace and airports across the country, causing millions of kroner worth of disruption. In Sweden, drones flew over the Karlskrona naval base. In Norway, drones interrupted flights at Bardufoss and Oslo. Cyberattacks have been occurring across the continent, with Jaguar Land Rover having to receive a £1·5 billion loan to stop vital supply chain suppliers going bust. Many other companies have been targeted and quietly decided to pay a ransom in Bitcoin to cyberterrorists, many of whom are based in St Petersburg, rather than admit that they have lost control of their systems. Factories in several places across Europe, including in our nation, have been subject to arson attacks. Airport check-ins, including in Dublin, Berlin and Heathrow, have been cyberattacked with malware. Our media point to the suspicious activity of the Russian research ship Yantar, which has been visiting nodes of key cables off our coasts as well as the coasts of Ireland and Norway over the past few months. The recent elections in Moldova have been plagued by interference, with fake news and false flag, social media and tear-gas attacks at polling stations and outright attempts to ballot-rig being played out. Nightly, hundreds of drone and air attacks are made against Ukraine. Those attacks are not against military targets but are designed to undermine the civilian population and terrorise. The common denominator is Russia, which is playing its hybrid warfare card, trying to impose its will on Europe and to push Putin's desire of nationalistic totalitarianism everywhere. Europe's leaders, or nearly all its leaders, are standing firm against that onslaught. However, there are a few exceptions: Viktor Orbán for one; the AfD in Germany; Slovakia; and, believe it or not, Sinn Féin's candidate for the forthcoming Irish presidency, Catherine Connolly. She recently remarked: "NATO has played a despicable role in moving forward to the border and engaging in warmongering" towards Russia. She also compared Germany's move to increase its defence spending as something akin to the 1930s and the rise of Hitler. That is from somebody who visited President Assad's Syria in 2018 at the height of his murderous campaign. In light of what is happening across Europe, Lenin's phrases of "useful idiot" and "fellow traveller" very clearly come to mind. While it is up to the Irish people to decide their next president, Ireland and Europe deserve better than that apologist for totalitarianism. Sectarian Abuse in Football: Shelbourne Football Club and UEFA Mr Dunne: I rise to address a concerning issue that has, understandably, provoked anger and frustration in the local community and was, rightly, highlighted at the weekend by former football manager David Jeffrey MBE in the 'Belfast Telegraph': the message that UEFA, the governing body of European football, sent out by not punishing sectarian abuse at a recent UEFA Conference League fixture in Dublin between Shelbourne and Linfield Football Club. During that game at Tolka Park, Linfield's Matthew Fitzpatrick, who is a former Gaelic footballer at inter-county level for Antrim, was subjected to chants branding him an "Orange b—". That vile, offensive abuse was broadcast across the world. The Linfield manager, David Healy, was subject to similar abuse. The situation was so serious that the BBC commentators felt compelled to issue on-air apologies to viewers, yet UEFA has chosen to do nothing — nothing to sanction Shelbourne Football Club and nothing to send a message that such behaviour is unacceptable and wrong. By contrast, earlier this summer, Linfield found themselves sanctioned by UEFA after some of their fans engaged in sectarian chanting. The club acted swiftly to condemn those responsible and, understandably, faced the consequences. The question that we must ask today is this: why is it one rule for one club and another rule for Shelbourne? Why is it that, when players and supporters from one background, or perceived background, are targeted with hateful sectarian abuse, UEFA seems to turn a blind eye? It also raises very important questions about the monitoring of such matches. Let us be clear: sectarian abuse is sectarian abuse, and it is wrong, whether it is directed at Catholics, Protestants or any other group or race. There can be no hierarchy of hatred and no acceptable targets. The principle of equality rightly demands that all abuse be treated with the same seriousness, no matter what direction it comes from. UEFA has sent out a very dangerous and shameful message that Protestants, or those perceived to be Protestant, are somehow fair game. That cannot be tolerated. It is unacceptable, undermines confidence in football governance and deepens divisions across our communities. UEFA, rightly and understandably, talks about the Respect campaign, but, unfortunately, this incident reminds us of the need to do much better. There must be respect for all cultures and backgrounds. I call on UEFA to urgently review the matter, hold Shelbourne to the same standards as any other football club across the world and send out a clear and unambiguous message that sectarian abuse, in all its forms, is wrong and will be punished. Mr Speaker: You have a couple of minutes, Mr Carroll. Mórshiúl Chearta ar son na Gaeilge Mr Carroll: Bhí mé féin, agus mo chlann, ar an mhórshiúl sin Cearta an tseachtain seo caite. Bhí muid ann leis na mílte eile ar na sráideanna agus muid "dearg le fearg". Fair play do na daoine sin a chuir an léirsiú ar cois. Tháinig pobal na Gaeilge le chéile ó gach aon chearn den tír. Bhí daoine feargach. Is é rud atá siad feargach. Tá siad feargach faoin easpa maoinithe don teanga. Tá Gaeilgeoirí ó Thuaidh go fóill ag fanacht le stráitéis. Tá siad feargach faoin ghéarchéim sa Ghaeltacht agus an ghéarchéim thithíochta go háirithe. Tá siad feargach faoin easpa measa ar an Ghaeloideachas. Tá an Roinn Oideachais ó Thuaidh ag caitheamh go maslach leis an Ghaeloideachas. Agus tá siad feargach faoi easpa Cearta teanga. Caithfidh pobal na Gaeilge ó Thuaidh a bheith buartha faoin DUP go fóill. Tá muid sa bhliain 2025 agus tá crosadh go fóill ag an DUP: maidir leis an Choimisinéir, maidir leis an méid atá san Acht, tá crosadh ag an DUP go fóill. Ba mhaith leis an DUP crosadh a chur ar chomharthaí dátheangacha in Grand Central Station fosta. Tá pobal na Gaeilge tinn tuirseach de Rialtas ó Dheas nach gcaitheann pingin rua leis an Ghaeilge. Agus tá siad tinn tuirseach den DUP ag déanamh ionsaí ar an teanga. Ná géilligí don DUP. Top 1.00 pm Ach ní leis an DUP amháin a bhaineann. Tá ceisteanna le freagairt ag Airí de chuid Shinn Féin. Tá fadhbanna le heaspa spásanna agus easpa maoinithe i nGaelscoileanna iarthar Bhéal Feirste. Sin ceist mhór ar an Aire Airgeadais agus ar an Chéad-Aire: cad é atá sibh a dhéanamh faoi sin? Tá súil agam go n-éistfidh Stormont leis na mílte a bhí ar na sráideanna i mBaile Átha Cliath ar an mhórshiúl sin Cearta. Cearta March for Irish Language Rights [Translation: I was at the Cearta march last week, along with my children. We were there with thousands of others on the streets and we were "red with anger." Fair play to those who organised the demonstration. The Irish language community came together from every corner of the country. People were angry. They are angry. They are angry about the lack of funding for the language. Irish speakers in the North are still waiting for a strategy. They are angry about the crisis in the Gaeltacht, especially the housing crisis. They are angry about the lack of respect for Irish-medium education. The Department of Education in the North is treating Irish-medium education with disrespect. They are angry about the lack of language rights. The Irish language community in the North must still be concerned about the DUP. Here we are in 2025, and the DUP still has a veto: on a commissioner and on the contents of the Act, the DUP has a veto. Still. The DUP would like to veto Irish language signage in Grand Central station as well. The Irish language community is sick and tired of a Government in the South who will not spend a pittance on the Irish language. It is sick and tired of the DUP attacking the language. Do not give in to the DUP. However, this does not concern the DUP alone. Sinn Féin Ministers have questions to answer. There are problems with a lack of spaces and a lack of funding in Irish-medium schools in west Belfast. This is a question for the Finance Minister and for the First Minister: what are you doing about it? I hope that Stormont listens to the thousands who took to the streets of Dublin for the Cearta march.] Executive Committee Business School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill: Further Consideration Stage Mr Speaker: I call the Minister of Education to move the Further Consideration Stage of the School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill. Moved. — [Mr Givan (The Minister of Education).] Mr Speaker: Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of Amendments detailing the order for consideration. The amendments have been grouped for debate in the provisional grouping of amendments selected list. There are two groups of amendments, and we will debate the amendments in each group in turn. The first debate will be on amendment Nos 1, 5 and 7 to 12, which deal with the monitoring and enforcement of guidelines. The second debate will be on amendment Nos 2, 3, 4 and 6, which deal with the content of the guidelines. I remind Members who intend to speak during the debates on the two groups of amendments that they should address all the amendments in each group on which they wish to comment. Once the debate on each group is completed, any further amendments in the group will be formally moved as we go through the Bill, and the Question on each will be put without further debate. Members should note that a number of the Minister's amendments remove amendments made at Consideration Stage and offer alternatives at different places in the Bill. Specifically, amendment Nos 1 and 11, amendment Nos 3 and 4 and amendment Nos 5 and 12 are linked. If that is clear, we shall proceed. Clause 1 (Guidelines as to policies on school uniforms) Mr Speaker: We now come to the first group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 1, it will be convenient to debate amendment No 5 and amendment Nos 7 to 12. I call the Minister of Education to move amendment No 1 and to address the other amendments in the group. Mr Givan: I beg to move amendment No 1: In page 2, line 13, leave out subsection (6). The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List: No 5: In clause 5, page 3, leave out clause 5. — [Mr Givan (The Minister of Education).] No 7: I clause 8, page 4, line 31, leave out "as follows to a manager of a school" and insert "to a manager of a school as follows". — [Mr Givan (The Minister of Education).] No 8: In clause 8, page 4, line 36, after "to" insert "undue". — [Mr Givan (The Minister of Education).] No 9: In clause 8, page 5, line 9, at end insert— "(iii) a report of an investigation relating to the school if sent to the Department under section 43 of the Public Services Ombudsman Act (Northern Ireland) 2016." — [Mr Mathison.] No 10: In clause 8, page 5, line 34, leave out from "to" to end of line 35 and insert— "under this section, the Department must publish the text of them within 3 months of giving them." — [Mr Givan (The Minister of Education).] No 11: New Clause After clause 14 insert— "Chapter 3 LAYING AND REPORTING FORMALITIES Laying of guidelines 14A. Guidelines under Chapter 1 must be laid before the Assembly by the Department of Education as soon as practicable after issuing or reissuing them." — [Mr Givan (The Minister of Education).] No 12: New Clause After clause 14 insert— " Reporting on guidelines and costs 14B. —(1) At least once every 3 years, the Department of Education must publish a report— (a) setting out the Department’s plans for— (i) reviewing (and revising) guidelines under Chapter 1, and (ii) guidelines under Chapter 1 to include provision, or to have no or altered provision, as to capping of expense, and (b) containing broader information in accordance with the following subsections. (2) The report must— (a) summarise— (i) as the Department’s best estimates, the typical or average costs of school uniforms and individual pieces of such uniforms, and (ii) so far as known to the Department, the various factors contributing to such costs rising, remaining unchanged or becoming lower, and (b) the Department’s assessment of the impact of provision as to capping of expense for the time being included in guidelines under Chapter 1. (3) The report must, if no provision as to capping of expense is for the time being included in guidelines under Chapter 1, state the Department’s explanation for this. (4) The report may reflect the distinctions, as appearing to the Department, between uniforms worn— (a) at particular types or descriptions of schools, or (b) by pupils— (i) in particular age or year groups, or (ii) receiving primary education or secondary education as construed in accordance with Article 2(2) of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986." — [Mr Givan (The Minister of Education).] We begin Further Consideration Stage of the School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill with the amendments voted through at Consideration Stage now forming part of the Bill. I thank Members for their engagement with the legislation throughout the process so far and record my thanks to the Office of Legislative Counsel for the pace and professionalism with which its staff have again worked to enable amendments to be tabled for Further Consideration Stage. I will speak to the amendments in this group, but let me briefly preface that with the context of why I have tabled the 11 technical amendments that we debate today. I have been clear about two points throughout the process. The first is that the reason for introducing this legislation is to address the affordability of school uniforms for parents and families who, I know, struggle with the cost of living. The Bill contains many more powers than those recognised by the media coverage reflecting some Members' comments following Consideration Stage. Let me be clear that the Bill has the power to make a difference. The second point that I have consistently made is that the legislation that we make in the House needs to be excellent in how it is worded and structured to deliver the various intentions towards an overall resulting effect. As a Minister, I take seriously my duty to ensure that we make sound, accessible and workable legislation in all respects. Therefore, while I might have done things differently, I fully respect the decisions of the House in voting through 12 amendments at Consideration Stage. However, I considered it my duty to look at the provisions in the Bill as amended and have therefore taken a fresh look at how those amended provisions will be capable of being read and applied in practice. To make a difference for parents, the guidelines that will stem from the Bill must be workable for our schools, so, today, I propose a number of technical amendments that ensure that the legislation is left in the best shape that it can be. As well as the technicalities of my amendments, they are designed to ensure that positive differences can be made for families. I am sure that Members will agree that sound and workable legislation is vital to supporting families, and I trust that Members will support the technical amendments that I have brought to the House at Further Consideration Stage on the advice of my officials, including those with expertise in legislative drafting. How the Bill flows is important, as are the words that it uses to achieve the policy intention that Members voted through. I reassure Members that the changes that will be made by the amendments that I have tabled, whether to language, style or structure, are designed to make the best legislation that the Assembly can produce. In all of this, I do not seek at all to undermine the intentions behind the relevant amendments that were made at Consideration Stage. Rather, I seek to make them effective. Amendment No 1 is necessary in order to allow amendment No 11 to move the requirement to lay guidelines before the Assembly to a new chapter dedicated to laying and reporting. Amendment No 1 lays the necessary groundwork for removing the requirement to lay the guidelines from where it currently sits in the Bill. To be absolutely clear, the requirement to lay the guidelines in the Assembly remains. My amendments give it greater prominence in a new chapter and by way of an independent clause. I trust that there is nothing in that to which Members will object. Amendment No 11 makes minor adjustments to the language used in order to provide legal clarity, by, for example, referring to the chapter rather than to the section, given the moving of the provision under amendment No 1, but the new clause still requires the Department of Education to lay the school uniform guidelines before the Assembly. The amendment also extends the reference to when guidelines are issued in order to recognise the subtle distinction between when they are issued and when they are reissued. Again, in order to have clear legislation, I trust that there is nothing in there to which Members will object. Amendment No 5 serves a similar purpose to amendment No 1 for the reporting clause that was voted in at Consideration Stage. It needs to be moved from its current location in clause 5 in order to allow amendment No 12 to place it in the proposed new chapter on laying and reporting. It will thus be a separate clause in that new chapter. The House will note in amendment No 12 some changes in language, which are to provide legal clarity while giving effect to the policy intent set out at Consideration Stage. To be clear, there is no attempt in amendment No 12 to dilute the impact of decisions that were taken at Consideration Stage. Under the amendment, the Department of Education must still publish a report: "At least once every 3 years", and the clock will begin once the Bill obtains Royal Assent. The requirement to set out the Department's plans to review and revise guidelines is still explicit. The requirement to report on a cap or to provide the reasons why if no cap is in place is still explicit. Albeit in a different place, the requirement for the report to set out plans to include provision or an explanation of why no provision or an altered provision for a cap remains. That was previously covered in clause 5(1)(c)(ii) after Consideration Stage. I understand that some Members have concerns about what the Department's report will cover, given any changes in language that are made. I assure the House that any difference in terminology is to provide legal clarity and not to reduce reporting requirements. The departmental report has to focus on the Bill's provisions and impact, which means the impact that it is having on the cost of school uniforms. The term "best estimates" needs to be read against the remainder of that new subsection, as "best estimates" simply means departmental officials utilising the information available on school uniform costs and the typical or average cost of uniforms either in total or for individual items. That is explicit in the wording of the amendment. In real-world terms, using the Department's "best estimates" instead of its "assessment" makes no difference other than to be more consistent with wording used in legal drafting. My officials will collect and analyse school-level data in order to provide a report every three years. The terms "mean costs" and "median costs" now read as "typical or average costs", with greater clarity being provided that the report can differentiate between the cost of a uniform for different types of schools or year groups. That will allow for a more meaningful report. As I said at Consideration Stage, we know that costs at post-primary level are normally higher than at primary level. Being clear in the Bill that the Department's report can look at the average cost of a primary-school uniform or uniform items, and separately at the average cost of a post-primary-school uniform or uniform items, provides for much more meaningful information for everyone but especially for parents. The requirement for the Department to report on the various factors contributing to such costs remains but with greater detail, in that the amendment states that the factors can relate to increased costs, static costs or decreased costs, insofar as the contributory factors are known to the Department. The slightly different wording replaces the wording stating that it is the Department's "assessment" of the contributory factors that will be included in the report. Nothing will be lost by making amendment No 12. Rather, the amendment simply uses language that is consistent with that already used in the Bill and provides greater legal clarity. Amendment No 7 is a minor correction that moves the words "as follows" to the same place in the sentence as in clause 8(1) and 8(2). It is a very straightforward matter that, again, I trust no one will find difficulty with. The House will recognise amendment No 8. It is the amendment that I tabled at Consideration Stage but that was mutually exclusive with a Committee amendment that was agreed to and, therefore, could not be called. I will reiterate my reasons for tabling this relatively minor amendment. Simply put, it provides consistency with the materiality consideration in clause 8(1). It also seeks to ensure balance for pupils and schools. I assure Members that the amendment is not there to seek to avoid giving a direction; it is only to enable schools to operate their day-to-day running and discipline policies effectively. Members, I am sure, will all have heard of instances where schools are trying to manage pupil behaviour that may manifest in rebellion against school rules, including uniform policies. It is important that we take every step to allow schools to manage such situations appropriately. However, it is equally important that behaviours, such as a school not allowing a pupil to participate in PE or games because they do not have the right black leggings, for example, are not permitted to go unchecked. I understand that some Members have questioned the need for this amendment, given that clause 8(2) remains a "may" provision rather than a "must". However, to be clear, where direction is needed, it will be given regardless of whether the provision is "must" or "may". Amendment No 8 seeks only to ensure that cases raised to be considered for direction relate to actual issues with affording or tolerating — with regard to comfort, practicality and sensory issues, for example — the uniform that is required. It seeks to protect pupils and schools in allowing genuine matters of running the school to be addressed by that school in the context of uniform, whilst ensuring that pupils are not prevented from taking part in any aspect of school life due to expensive or rigidly applied uniform requirements that do not take account of the practical realities for a pupil or their family. Including the parameter of the word "undue" with regard to pupil discipline or participatory disadvantage is a small but important change, and I hope that the House will support it in the interest of balance. Amendment No 9, which has been tabled by Nick Mathison, seeks to make explicit reference to the Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman (NIPSO) as a source of evidence for the Department in assessing whether a direction is needed, and does not cause me particular concern. I do not think that it is needed; however, I do not intend to oppose it. The Education Committee wrote to me asking me to outline how the Bill works with the role of NIPSO on complaints, and how I envisage the complaints procedure in clause 8 working. Whilst I do not intend to digress beyond the focus of Further Consideration Stage, in considering amendment No 9, I trust that any concerns about the visibility of NIPSO as a complaints handler are now addressed. To be clear, there is nothing in the Bill, either as introduced or as amended at Consideration Stage, that I consider creates a tension with the role of NIPSO. That role is enshrined in other existing legislation and does not benefit from being repeated in this Bill. Amendment No 9 does not do that; rather, it highlights that a NIPSO report can also be a source of information when the Department is making an assessment about whether to give a direction. My assessment is that that was always going to be the case, which is why I stated that I do not think the amendment is necessary. However, I have also stated that I do not intend to oppose its inclusion. Amendment No 10 simply tidies language relating to the requirement that the Department must publish directions within three months of giving them. The wording in this amendment — "must publish the text of them" — relates to the full text of the direction, as it was made explicit at Consideration Stage that that is the will of the House. The fact that I do not support the naming and shaming of schools in that way is not relevant to the wording of amendment No 10, and I trust that the House will support the tidying up of the language that it delivers. I have spoken to amendment Nos 11 and 12 in relation to amendment Nos 1 and 5, which I remind Members leave provisions relating to the laying and reporting out of their current place in the Bill, and thus allow for amendment Nos 11 and 12 to be placed in a new chapter, with new clauses, for clarity and flow. Each amendment that I have tabled has been tabled in good faith to ensure that the language and structure, on the location of provisions and the overall style of the Bill, support us in making good legislation. I trust that Members will enter the debate in the same spirit of working towards that common goal — a common goal that will ultimately benefit parents who are struggling with the cost of school uniforms. Top 1.15 pm Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education): I will speak first in my capacity as Chair of the Education Committee on the group 1 amendments for Further Consideration Stage of the School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill. As the Minister set out, group 1 addresses the monitoring and enforcement of guidelines and includes the introduction of some new clauses. The Committee received notice of the Department's amendments just before its meeting on Wednesday. It did not take a briefing on them, given the demands of previously scheduled business. However, my understanding is that officials have assisted individual members in the meantime, and I thank officials for engaging, often at short notice, with me and my party colleagues on queries about the amendments tabled by the Minister and the Department. There is, therefore, no agreed Committee position on the amendments, but I can comment on some of them to the extent that they relate to the Committee's processes up to this point and are intended, as the Minister set out, to tidy up and implement the amendments made at Consideration Stage. I will speak to them briefly unless there is any need for more detailed comment. Amendment No 1, along with amendment No 11, deletes and replaces the Committee-led requirement for guidelines to be laid in the Assembly at a more appropriate location in the Bill. As the Minister set out, it seems to me that it makes no material change to the effect of the original amendment. I can see no reason that any Committee member would feel the need to object to it. Amendment No 5 proposes to delete clause 5 as amended. The content of that is now imported via amendment No 12 through a new clause. That requires some discussion from the Committee's perspective. The Minister set out the detail of why he has chosen to table the amendment regarding the new clause and the new location. I was going to refer to some correspondence that the Minister had sent the Committee on that point, but, at this stage, that is probably overkill. Committee members will, I think, recognise the key elements of their amendment, which was made at Consideration Stage, but it will be for individual Members to decide whether they are content with the newly worded clause. I might speak to some of those issues as an Alliance Member later. Amendment No 7 is a minor textual amendment so that the language at clause 8(1) and (2) scans similarly. Again, I see no issues arising from a Committee perspective. Amendment No 8 reruns a ministerial amendment that was not put to a vote at Consideration Stage, because it was deemed to be mutually exclusive to the amendment that was passed. It inserts the word "undue" on the grounds of giving legal balance to the expectations around the policing of school uniform policies. I quote directly from the Minister's correspondence to the Committee on that: "The amendment simply places a consistent parameter in clause 8(2) that pupil discipline and participatory disadvantage should not be undue, the parameter being consistent with the materiality parameter already set out in clause 8(1). I think this is important to both protect pupils from disadvantage and allow schools to operate their discipline policy appropriately." Those were the Minister's comments in his letter to the Committee. In many of our meetings at Committee Stage, the Committee was very clear that it did not want to see the disproportionate disciplining of pupils on the basis of factors that are beyond their control, particularly for reasons related to the affordability of uniforms. The Committee was similarly concerned about exclusion, attendance at school and participatory disadvantage being linked to any breach of school uniform policy, particularly if it were on the grounds of affordability. I will speak further to that amendment in my capacity as an Alliance Member in due course, but, at this stage, I ask on the Committee's behalf whether the Minister — he referenced this, but I ask for a little more specifically — can assure me that his planned guidelines will clearly and unequivocally inhibit schools from imposing participatory disadvantage in relation to uniform policy, as I think that that will impact on whether Members are content with the insertion of "undue". I will reserve my remarks on that to my contribution as a private Member later, when I will cover my views on that. Amendment No 9 has been tabled in my name. It would delineate and give legal clarity to the respective complaints jurisdictions of the Department and the Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman (NIPSO). The Committee had some back and forth on that with NIPSO, but we were unable to reach any clear resolution on a suitable amendment by the time that we reached Consideration Stage. The Minister mentioned that the Committee wrote to him directly seeking a range of assurances on NIPSO's role. I note that the Minister has made it clear that he sees no conflict with the Bill and the arrangements already set out in legislation. However, with regard to amendment No 9, which I will speak to in a personal capacity a little later, there was a possible oversight in NIPSO's not being included as a source of evidence that the Department could use when making a decision on issuing a direction. I will speak to that later. Amendment No 10 deletes and inserts text about the publication of directions. The Minister proposes that it make no substantive change to the intention of the Committee's amendment. Again, I will quote from the Minister's letter to the Committee: "This is merely to tidy the language used in the Consideration Stage amendment. The Department must still publish the full text of the direction within three months of it being given." I will speak to that briefly from the Committee's perspective, because it was clear at Committee Stage and at Consideration Stage — not unanimously but as the ultimate will of the Assembly — that it was considered appropriate that schools be named when there has been a material breach and that that should be published. The Minister referenced that, but I will say this just so that Committee members can have clarity: amendment No 10 will still require a school to be named. It will not just be the text of a direction that is published in some sort of vacuum but the individual school will be named. Members have been clear at Committee that, when there has been a material breach of the guidelines that the Department has published, naming really should be at the end of a process of trying to resolve that but, if a school remains wedded to the notion that it wants to breach those guidelines, naming is appropriate. Again, it was agreed by and large, with the exception of DUP members on the Committee, that that was the direction of travel. Other Members can speak to that. The final amendment in the group, amendment No 12, deals in one place with the reporting on guidelines and costs. I am aware that it is convention for the Department to tidy up amendments at Further Consideration Stage and that that should be done without malice to the intention of any amendments made at Consideration Stage. The Minister set out that that has been his approach. I am open to the arguments of any of my colleagues on the amendment. However, as I set out when referring to amendment No 5, it appears to me that the expectation has been met on this occasion. The Minister has addressed specifically the use of the phrase "best estimates" in the new clause, but he can perhaps provide further clarity on it. I would like to be clear that we will not be in the space of looking at guesswork or anecdotal evidence. He has referenced utilising school-level data, so I want to have it clearly on the record that that is what we will deal with in the report. While best estimates of the costs of school uniforms may produce a general picture, it would be helpful if could have assurances that the report that is set out in the duties in amendment No 12 will capture whether there are consistent outliers and schools that consistently arrive at higher-costing uniforms in comparison with other schools that are able to deliver them for a much cheaper cost. I just want to make sure that, if there are outliers, that is captured in the report. Perhaps the Minister can speak to that and provide clarity on those Committee concerns about the need for accountability. I will now speak to the group 1 amendments in my capacity as an individual Member and as an Alliance education spokesperson. I will pick up on the issues with amendment Nos 5 and 12, which have been highlighted. As I mentioned, they are the final outworkings of the Committee amendment that was concerned exclusively with accountability. There has been scepticism — there is no point trying to gloss over that — about what the Bill's ultimate impact will be. Given those concerns, Committee members and I, as the individual member who brought the original amendment forward, were clear that accountability needed to be in the Bill. I have sought assurances in my capacity as Chair on best estimates and the kind of data that would be used. I hope that we can get that information. However, I want to be clear that, given that there is uncertainty about what will be in the guidelines — I will not rehearse those arguments today — we need a mechanism that delivers clear accountability. The Bill has to deliver on costs for parents, so amendment No 12 is critical. I hope that the assurances from the Minister will go far enough. I have no desire to vote down amendments that have been drafted to tidy up wording or relocate an amendment. However, the key is that it delivers genuine accountability. I hope that, in his winding-up speech, the Minister can speak to that again. I am content that I covered most of the other amendments in the group in the remarks that I made as Chair of the Committee, but I will revisit amendment No 8, which will potentially insert the word "undue" into clause 8(2), relating to "disciplinary measures or participatory disadvantages". I disagree with the Minister's remarks on that point. I understand the thinking behind it, which is to avoid the Department getting embroiled in the minutiae of the day-to-day running of schools — nobody wants departmental officials to be caught up in that — but I emphasise the importance of its being a "may" power and the Minister's assurances that, if directions are needed, they will be given. If that is the case, the use of the word "undue" just adds another layer and, potentially, another barrier to directions being issued. The Department can consider internally whether the participatory disadvantage is "undue", and I am reluctant to see another hurdle to be got over before the Department may intervene on participatory disadvantage or disciplinary measures. I am not, therefore, minded to support the amendment, but I will listen carefully to the Minister's winding-up speech to hear whether he says any more to allay those concerns. I tabled amendment No 9 as a private Member. It reflects concerns brought to the Committee by NIPSO that clause 8 is not clear enough on NIPSO's role and could cause confusion for parents. I do not pretend that the amendment addresses all NIPSO's concerns. NIPSO has engaged with the Department through correspondence, and there appears to be a difference of opinion on the extent to which the Bill interacts with NIPSO's powers. The amendment at least clarifies that evidence provided by NIPSO to the Department in a report is one of the types of evidence that the Department is permitted to consider when deciding whether to issue a direction. My concern is that the Bill as drafted and as amended at Consideration Stage could be interpreted as not permitting the Department to use a report from NIPSO to reach a decision on direction, and that seemed to be a significant oversight. I hope that Members can support amendment No 9 on that basis. Mr McGrath: I have been called to speak a lot earlier than I had expected, so I will gather myself. We welcome the Bill's progress. We all understand the absolute need for it in our community and for our constituents. They face crippling school uniform costs, and we need to do all that we can to address that issue and make life easier for people. We are a little concerned, however, that the Bill that we are considering today, compared with the Bill as it was at the start of its journey, is weaker and a little hollowed out. A stronger, more modern framework could have been put in place. The first group of amendments relates to oversight and transparency. Those are not just woolly words; they are essential if the Bill is to make the difference in the real world that we want to see. Too often, parents are left in the dark, not knowing how uniform costs in their schools are made up or how they compare with those of other schools. They do not know whether the Department has even looked at affordability in any serious way. When schools set out policies that burden families, there is little confidence that the Department will intervene. As we have rehearsed in previous debates, that lack of oversight leads to blazers costing over £100, jumpers costing £40 and PE kits running to over £70. Those are the prices per child. For families with a number of children at school, the costs are massive. That is why the reporting duties, with independent oversight and published directions, really matter. They shine a light on practices that would otherwise remain hidden. They put pressure on schools and the Department to act fairly and give parents confidence that their concerns are not just filed away in a drawer. Amendment No 1 would remove subsection (6) of clause 1, which requires the Department to consider the affordability of uniform and PE clothing when drafting guidelines. We feel that taking that subsection out would narrow the Bill from the start. In its place, the Minister has proposed amendment No 11, which alters the way in which the Department's report would be laid before the Assembly. While that change seems small, it softens, in effect, the accountability mechanisms in the Bill, so we have difficulty with it. Affordability, transparency and accountability are not optional extras. Top 1.30 pm Amendment No 8 is a helpful amendment, providing a degree of flexibility where it is needed. It will ensure that the Department's enforcement powers applied only where pupils are subjected to undue disciplinary disadvantage. Again, we are concerned that that narrows the scope. It protects pupils from unfair or disproportionate sanctions because of uniform costs, while recognising that schools must retain the right to enforce reasonable uniform rules. We would like to see that balance. Amendment No 9 adds an additional trigger for departmental intervention, allowing the Department to act if the ombudsman reports on a school policy under section 43 of the Public Services Ombudsman Act 2016. That is a valuable safeguard, ensuring that independent scrutiny feeds directly into uniform policy enforcement. While some may think that it is not much use, it is there; it is another avenue; and it provides an additional opportunity. Therefore, we welcome it. Amendment No 10 strengthens transparency. If the Department issues directions to a school, it must publish the text of those directions within three months. That is a clear, unambiguous obligation, and we will therefore support it. The real concern in the group is what will be removed. Amendment No 5 from the Minister deletes clause 5 entirely. Clause 5 was on the hard reporting duty that required the Department to publish detailed information on uniform costs every three years and to explain whether expense caps were being used and why or why not. That was one of the strongest accountability tools inserted in the Bill. We feel that, by removing clause 5, the Minister is, again, hollowing out that duty. In its place, we are offered amendment No 12, which creates new clause 14B. That amendment weakens the obligation. Yes, it stills require a report every three years, but it waters down the detail. The mandatory detailed reporting in clause 5 is gone. Families deserve transparency that they can rely on, not vague summaries that depend on ministerial discretion. While we support amendment Nos 7, 8, 9 and 10, we have concerns with amendment Nos 1, 5, 11 and 12. Parents need genuine transparency, not the watered-down version that is being offered. We must remember the purpose of the Bill. It is supposed to make school uniforms more affordable, to bring transparency into school policies and to ensure that no child's education is compromised because their family cannot meet unfair costs. Every amendment should be judged against that purpose. The amendments that we support move us closer to the goal, and the ones that we have difficulty with move us away from it. Families across the North expect the Assembly to ease the burden, not to entrench it. That must remain our guiding principle with this and other legislation that we bring to the Floor of the House. As we step back, we feel that that is a problem with the Bill as a whole. The safeguards are not strong enough, and too much has been left to ministerial discretion. Whilst this Minister may be forthright and offer his views on it, that is not to say that, in the future, with different Ministers, the priorities might not change, and that might mean that that discretion will change. We feel that the principle is right but the product is weak. It is disappointing that much that could have been put in place to strengthen the Bill never even made it to the Floor of the Assembly. The SDLP will do what it can to strengthen the Bill, but parents and pupils deserved a stronger, bolder piece of legislation than the one that is progressing today. Mr Sheehan: I take the opportunity to speak in opposition to amendment Nos 5 and 8 and in support of amendment Nos 1, 7, 9, 10 and 11. Two weeks ago, at Consideration Stage, the Assembly supported measures that gave the Bill some teeth. Throughout our scrutiny of the Bill in Committee and as we engaged with the public, families were clear: they wanted fairness. They will not get fairness if there is no scrutiny, no reporting and no enforcement. We are content to support the relocation of the scrutiny duty as proposed in amendment Nos 1 and 11. Amendment No 5 and its relationship with amendment No 12 is concerning. The Minister seems to be trying to dilute his own Bill, attempting to strip out the strong reporting duty agreed at Consideration Stage and replace it with a weaker version under amendment No 12. That is not good enough. Mr Givan: Will the Member give way? Mr Sheehan: I will give way. Mr Givan: I would be interested in hearing the Member give detail on how amendment No 12 is in any way weaker than what was passed at Consideration Stage. I have outlined the purpose of amendment No 5 and of replacing clause 5 through amendment No 12. Doing so gives greater clarity and strengthens the provision, as opposed to what the Member has just articulated. I would be interested to hear him pinpoint the evidence for what he has said. Mr Sheehan: Very well. The Minister has a view on how the provision is being strengthened. In our view, however, the amendment does not strengthen it; it dilutes it. Members just have to read the amendment. It is crystal clear to us that it does not, in any way, strengthen the Bill. As far as we are concerned, amendment No 12 is a weaker version of what was agreed at Consideration Stage, and that is not good enough. Parents who are struggling to pay for a blazer or a PE kit deserve clear evidence that costs are being driven down. We do not see how that will happen. We have still not seen the guidelines, of course. Clause 5 as ordered to stand part at Consideration Stage will give parents factual information on costs. Amendment No 12 enters the realms of aspiration and warm words rather than action. Does the Minister not agree? Families need real evidence that costs are coming down, not just the Department's best guess. Amendment No 8 is another attempt by the Minister to weaken his own Bill by slipping in the word "undue". That would create a loophole that could be easily exploited. The Bill is meant to be about fairness and should therefore be about protecting young people and their families. The current wording does that. It makes clear that no child should be disadvantaged because of uniform rules. We will not support any weakening of those limited protections. We have no issue with supporting the technical tidying-up in amendment No 7, and we welcome amendment No 9, which will insert a Public Services Ombudsman report as a trigger for departmental action. That gives parents another credible route for redress. If the Bill is to have any degree of success in cutting costs for families, we need to see real accountability and transparency. Scrutiny, reporting and enforcement are key areas of the Bill, and they should be enhanced, not undermined. Mr Burrows: The Ulster Unionist Party and I will not play politics with something as important as education. We restate our commitment to the need to support children and young people, our commitment that they will have affordable school uniforms and our commitment that the overriding purpose of the Bill — I asked the Minister on a previous occasion to state this clearly so that it was captured for Hansard and, if need be, for a court — is to make sure that no child is excluded or disciplined because their parents cannot afford an item of uniform. That is its fundamental purpose. It is useful to restate that, and I will explain that as I go on. I am satisfied with amendment Nos 1, 5, 7 and 12. They are tidying-up exercises. I do not share the concerns that I have heard. Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. Does he agree that, as well as not being disciplined or excluded, no child should be humiliated? If there is concern about a child's uniform, it is easy for a teacher to have a simple conversation with that child before or after class and not to humiliate them in front of their classmates. Mr Burrows: I know a lot of teachers: I do not know many who are in the business of deliberate humiliation. We need, however, to give teachers the discretion to have on-the-spot conversations without being worried about some onerous legislation coming down on them. We need to trust our teachers, albeit the Bill provides strong guidance. If teachers engage in humiliation, that should be dealt with through disciplinary measures. It is not something that I recognise in the hard-working teachers across Northern Ireland. Amendment Nos 1, 5, 7 and 12 are tidying-up exercises. I do not see any malice in what the Minister has done or any dilution of the effect of the legislation. On amendment No 8, I agree with the insertion of the word "undue". It gets the balance right and affords common sense and flexibility in order to allow minor issues to be dealt with quickly by a school. That is why I said that it was important at the outset to say what the fundamental purpose of the Bill is. If schools started to try to expand the word "undue" in order to frustrate the purpose of the Bill, that clearly would not be permissible. That is why it is so important that we have stated so many times that the purpose of the Bill is to make sure that nobody is excluded or disciplined because their parents cannot afford something. We need to make that clear. Amendment No 9 is useful. It just clarifies that NIPSO can be a source of evidence in determining whether to make a direction. There is nothing controversial in that. On amendment No 10, whilst I still have some uncertainty about naming schools, that was the clear wish of the Chamber at Consideration Stage. It is important that we have clarity that the Department can name a school but it should be done as a last resort. Again, we do not want to be involved in humiliation, and that works both ways. It is about education and prevention. I am happy to support the amendments. Mr Givan: I will get straight into addressing some of the questions that Members raised. Mr Mathison asked whether, under amendment No 10, it will still be a requirement to name a school: I can confirm that, yes, it will be a requirement. I indicated that, whilst I do not agree with that, I respect the will of the House. That amendment will require that to occur. I do not know whether there is some confusion about amendment No 5. Mr McGrath spoke to it, as did Mr Sheehan. If Members have a copy of the Bill as amended at Consideration Stage, they might want to turn to page 3, where they will see clause 5 and the heading: "Reporting on school uniform costs and capping of expense". That is what I seek to omit from the Bill by way of the amendment that I have tabled. I seek to replace it, through the amendment that I have tabled, with a new clause titled, "Reporting on guidelines and costs". The new clause is more expansive and goes into greater detail. I outlined in my contribution that the Bill as amended at Consideration Stage does not, for example, make the distinction between a primary school and a post-primary school. It does not allow for that differential so that we can look at the increased cost at post-primary schools. That is where we have branded PE kits, multiple PE kits, blazers, which are a much greater expense, and distinctive blazers that are based on whether you are in an honours choir, your academic success or the sport that you play. I know of no primary school that engages in that kind of activity. Without that change, the Bill will not go into that level of detail. Rather than, as Mr Sheehan said, weakening the Bill, I have enhanced and strengthened it. However, if I cannot convince Members of that and if they do not want to have a stronger Bill in that area, they will vote against it. The intent behind the new clause is to make that much clearer and give more detail. Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for giving way. My sense from the debate is that the concern lies with the use of the phrase "best estimates". Members may feel on the basis of the everyday usage of that term that the Department will be guessing or relying on something more anecdotal. I said that I was largely content with what the Minister had laid out in his opening comments. Some assurances on the use of "best estimates" and what information the Department is likely to rely on in producing a report would be welcome. Mr Givan: I thank Mr Mathison for that point. On "best estimates" and the information that we will gather, he asked whether we would capture outliers and whether we would be able to identify schools whose uniform costs were excessive and beyond the norm or the medium range: the answer is, "Yes, we will be able to do that". There is a subsequent question around whether that will be published and whether we will be able to identify schools in the way that we have talked about the direction naming. Will we be able, through "best estimates", to gather that information and data? Yes, we will. Will that allow us to have those outliers? Yes, it will. That is the intent behind "best estimates". Top 1.45 pm Sinn Féin and the SDLP might want to reflect on what I have said. The amendment is longer than what is currently in the Bill. It is more detailed, and it will allow us to be more effective in determining the issue between primary settings and post-primary settings, which the Bill, if it goes through unamended, will not allow us to do. I give way to Mr Sheehan. Mr Sheehan: You mentioned in your response to Nick that this is about identifying outliers, but the Bill should not be about identifying outliers. The outliers, of course, should be tackled to make sure that they make their uniforms affordable, but quite a few more schools than just the outliers need to be brought to a position where school uniforms become affordable. Our difficulty is that we do not believe that you are intent on tackling the main offenders. There are some outliers whose uniform costs are really prohibitive — we are talking between £600 and £800 for a school uniform — but there are others at a level just below that that also need to be tackled for their uniform policies. There is no indication in what the Minister is doing with the Bill that he is intent on doing that. I ask him to look at schools, such as Craigavon Integrated College, which is able to provide a uniform for £2 less than the uniform grant. If you are really serious about driving down uniform costs, that is what you need to do. There is no indication here that "best estimates" and so on will make any real, concrete difference to the cost of uniforms. Mr Givan: I do not think that the Member has any genuine interest in trying not to understand it, whether that is deliberate or not, but the Bill, as currently proposed, talks about the Department's "assessment": I seek to change the wording around "assessment" to "best estimates". I think the point that he is making is that what I am doing will not address the wider issue, but neither will the Bill as drafted, which he supported. We have taken advice on the terminology around "assessment". We believe that that wording should be replaced with "best estimates". I have outlined the purpose of what we are going to do. He misses the point that I have raised, which is that that section of the Bill, which, as currently drafted, is around 13 lines in length — not that we should use quantity to judge quality — and we are replacing it with a longer, more detailed clause that allows the assessment or, with the change of terminology, the "best estimates" to include a differential approach for primary and post-primary. The Bill currently does not do that. I have enhanced the provision to make it stronger, and I trust that the majority of Members will understand the purpose of what I am trying to do in respect of that. Those were the key issues that were raised. Members commented on the word "undue". I have given the reasons why I think that that is appropriate. Mr Burrows gave a good explanation of why he supports that. The argument will remain around the necessity for the word "undue". That is the position that I take in respect of it. To summarise, I have tabled 11 amendments, which we have debated. They are technical amendments. They improve the language, style and structure of the School Uniforms Bill following Consideration Stage. They are technical amendments that deliver the intention that was stated by Members at Consideration Stage when we debated them and what the impact of those amendments would be. Within the group, amendment Nos 1 and 5 leave out a subsection and a clause in order for the subsequent amendments, which are Nos 11 and 12, to place them elsewhere in the Bill in their own clauses and in a new chapter. Language has been updated throughout the Bill by my amendments, which provide greater legal clarity and greater consistency in the existing clauses in the Bill and other existing legislation. Nothing has been taken away from the intentions that were voted through in the amendments at Consideration Stage; in fact, in places, I have expanded references to them so that they are included and more effective. Amendment No 7 moves the words "as follows" for absolute consistency. Amendment No 8 re-tables that minor amendment from Consideration Stage on the word "undue" as the parameter when directions are being considered. That has been done to be consistent with the materiality parameter at clause 8(1), which is to help protect pupils and schools. I indicated that, while I do not think that amendment No 9 is necessary, I will not oppose that amendment from Mr Mathison. Amendment No 10 simply tidies language and relates to the requirements that the Department "must publish" directions: "within 3 months of giving them." It is incumbent on every Member to pay heed to the need to make good, workable legislation. I have taken that responsibility seriously and have tabled the necessary amendments. They are technical amendments that do not interfere with the impact of decisions that were taken at Consideration Stage. It is parents who are placing their trust in us as legislators to make legislation that will work. Supporting my amendments today is an opportunity to do just that. It is an opportunity that, I trust and hope, Members will take, and I commend all the group 1 amendments to the House. Mr Speaker: Members, as we will not have time to vote on the amendments between now and Question Time and given that the next item of business in the Order Paper is Question Time, I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The debate stood suspended. The sitting was suspended at 1.51 pm. On resuming (Mr Deputy Speaker [Dr Aiken] in the Chair) — Top 2.00 pm Oral Answers to Questions Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Rural Community Halls: Funding 1. Mr K Buchanan asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to outline any financial assistance that he plans to provide to rural communities to support rural community halls. (AQO 2416/22-27) Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I fully acknowledge the importance of sustaining community buildings. On 24 September, the Department for Communities launched the pilot Northern Ireland community infrastructure fund, which includes provision for the refurbishment and improvement of community buildings in rural and urban areas across Northern Ireland. It would therefore not be justifiable at present to develop another, similar scheme specifically for rural areas that would target the same outcomes as the DFC pilot. However, my officials are closely engaging with the DFC team, and I have indicated that I would welcome the potential for future collaboration in this area. I have also recently launched the rural micro capital grants scheme to provide small but important capital grants to the voluntary and community sector to address locally identified poverty or social isolation issues. The scheme closes for applications on 20 October 2025, with more information available on the DAERA website. Mr K Buchanan: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. You rightly referenced the scheme that Minister Lyons launched last week. Your predecessor launched a rural community halls scheme, which supported 113 halls. Do you envisage giving financial support to Minister Lyons to do more with his scheme, bearing in mind that it takes in rural communities, which are within your remit? Mr Muir: Thank you for your question. I am going to be open about this. We were looking at doing a rural halls scheme, but we found out that the Department for Communities was looking at developing a scheme for rural and urban areas, so I am happy to support Minister Lyons in the work that he is doing in relation to that. We will develop a new rural policy in the time ahead, which will be about ensuring that all Departments play their role in relation to rural communities. It is important that we consult on that, which will happen early in the new year, to get people's views so that we can shape policy. I will continue to work with the Department for Communities on this issue and many others. Mr McMurray: Minister, will you provide an update on any actions that you are taking following the closure of the rural development programme? Mr Muir: The rural development programme was a popular support arrangement that was funded through the European Union. Unfortunately, it was one of the many casualties of Brexit, but I have taken action in response. I established a new rural policy unit on 1 April 2024 and tasked it with developing future rural policy for Northern Ireland. I recognise that all Departments are responsible for exercising their functions in urban and rural areas and for developing their rural policy. My Department is engaging with other Departments to explore future opportunities for supporting rural communities and to help identify how DAERA can work more effectively with them in the future to deliver better outcomes for rural dwellers. I have also engaged closely with rural stakeholders, providing an opportunity for them to inform future rural policy through a co-design process. That includes input from local government, academics and section 75 groups. It is my intention that a draft rural policy for Northern Ireland will be consulted on early next year. Mr Butler: The Minister's answer was very honest. He will be aware that a number of conversations are happening at the moment about the lack of cross-departmental cooperation. This is an example of where perhaps that could have been better, given the rural aspect of the question from the DUP Member. Rural halls very often lack capacity. Will the Minister engage with the Minister for Communities in that regard specifically around rural halls, even though it is a project that is being led by a different Minister? Mr Muir: I am very conscious that, in my role as Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, I have lead responsibility for rural affairs, but each Department has responsibility around this, including duties in legislation. If we all work together, we are going to achieve a better outcome for rural communities. I am happy to talk with you afterwards about what your specific ask is. I can then meet Gordon and discuss that with him. Collectively, we can all do a lot more for rural communities. I am glad to see that the Department for Communities is taking forward its scheme, and I am happy to work with any Minister who is going to help to deliver for rural communities. Lough Neagh Report and Action Plan: Update 2. Mr Honeyford asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs for an update on the delivery of the Lough Neagh report and action plan. (AQO 2417/22-27) 15. Mr Clarke asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs for his assessment of any blame being apportioned to farming families in relation to the challenges facing Lough Neagh. (AQO 2430/22-27) Mr Muir: Mr Deputy Speaker, with your permission, I will group questions 2 and 15 together for answer. Of the 37 actions in the plan, 14 have been delivered, 22 are actively progressing, and one is pending because it is contingent on another action's being taken forward first. I remain committed to driving forward the delivery of the remaining actions at pace. Progress to date reflects coordinated efforts across key themes, including scientific research and innovation, enhanced monitoring and enforcement, education and stakeholder engagement, regulatory reform, and strategic communications. Although important strides have been made, it is essential to recognise that the lough's recovery requires sustained, long-term action. Given the depth and complexity of the problem, substantial recovery will take many years, if not decades. Mr Honeyford: What further support does the Minister need from his Executive colleagues over the next year as he addresses the crisis in water quality across Northern Ireland? Mr Muir: Thank you for your question, David. I was glad to get Executive support in July 2024 for the Lough Neagh report and action plan, and I have focused on delivery of that plan. Many actions have been achieved, while others are progressing, but I will need support from my Executive colleagues on some key interventions, one of which relates to waste water infrastructure in particular. I will be looking at strengthening regulation and enforcement for sewage pollution, and I will need support for that. I have been very clear in putting on the record that we will need to be brave in stepping forward to look at the investment that is required in our waste water infrastructure. I am happy to support any proposals that the Minister for Infrastructure brings forward. Another element is climate change. We have had the warmest summer on record, which is not unrelated to the scenes that we have witnessed in Lough Neagh. We are out to consult on the climate action plan, and, once we conclude the consultation, I will finalise the action plan and bring it to the Executive for agreement. Hopefully, people can support me. There are opportunities to take climate action, but there are also moral and legal imperatives to do so. A further element relates to environmental governance. We are the only part of the UK and Ireland that does not have an independent environmental protection agency. I commissioned an independent panel to look at the issue, and it came back to me with an interim report in June that recommended the establishment of an independent environmental protection agency. I met the panel last week, and its final report is coming in the next number of weeks. The report will need support so that we can strengthen environmental governance in Northern Ireland. The final element concerns agriculture. Everyone has to play their part in improving water quality in Northern Ireland. I put on record my thanks for the good work that farmers did in previous decades. They are fantastic custodians of the countryside, and we need to help them on the road ahead. I have therefore been working with the Minister of Finance, because I will need support for a just transition fund for agriculture. We also need to get around the Executive table to finalise an agreed scheme of measures for the nutrients action programme, consult further and get agreement to move forward with it. I believe that we can. If there is a will, there is a way. Mr Clarke: I agree with the Minister, as do we all, that there is no doubt that there is an issue with Lough Neagh. It is interesting, however, that, in his answers, he talks about all the assessments that have been carried out. That suggests to me that he is not clear as to what the real issue is in Lough Neagh. What is his or his Department's assessment of the effect that his direct attack on farmers and their families is having on their livelihoods and lives? Mr Muir: We all know what the problem is in Lough Neagh. Anyone who does not has probably been living under a rock. There is an issue with pollution of the lough, and we need to address that. We have climate change, so the water has therefore got warmer. Invasive species have made the water clearer. We therefore have a situation in which we have had blue-green algae over three successive summers. There has now been advice issued against bathing on the north coast, while the brown eel fishing season has been halted. We have real problems, but I am focused on turning them around. The years ahead will provide a three-year resource budget and a four-year capital budget. I need that funding for a just transition fund for agriculture so that we can assist farmers on the journey that lies ahead. I am determined to do that, and the type of funding that we are going to need will be put towards low-emission slurry-spreading equipment and many other technologies that are available. If people want to support me and the farming community in Northern Ireland, let us see the budget. Mr Gaston: It has been widely reported, Minister, that 200,000 tons of raw sewage are being pumped into Lough Neagh every year by Northern Ireland Water. Are you able to share the commitments that you have received from the Minister for Infrastructure to reduce that amount significantly, and by when? When can we see the figure of 200,000 tons of raw sewage being halved or eradicated? It is all very well and good your going after farmers and putting targets on them, but when will targets be put on Northern Ireland Water? Mr Muir: I have been crystal clear about the sewage pollution situation. Let me set it out yet again. The situation whereby we are pumping raw sewage into Lough Neagh, Belfast lough and other waterways is not acceptable and needs to be dealt with. My role covers regulation and enforcement. It is not acceptable that there is a separate arrangement in place for NI Water that gives it a bye ball if it can outline how an incident is as a result of historical underinvestment. I have written to NI Water and to the Infrastructure Minister to seek their views on that. I will be bringing proposals to the Executive so that we can strengthen the regulation and enforcement of sewage pollution. What is happening is not acceptable, and it needs to change. I have been clear about the need to invest in waste water infrastructure. I do not have responsibility for NI Water. The Minister for Infrastructure does, and I am waiting for those proposals, which are a long time coming. Mr McCrossan: Minister, is the discharge of liquid digestate from anaerobic digestion plants contributing to the eutrophication of Lough Neagh? If so, what action is being taken to address that problem? Mr Muir: Thank you, Daniel. Anaerobic digesters and how we manage their growth is a big challenge. We need to make sure that anaerobic digesters are not adding to the problem but alleviating it. I am not going to give you statistics off the hoof in the Chamber, but it is a key challenge. There was a conference last week. There is an opportunity for anaerobic digestion, but that should not be to the detriment of the environment. Nutrients Action Programme: Farmer Consultation 3. Mrs Dillon asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, following the decision to hold a further consultation on the nutrients action programme (NAP), how his Department will ensure that farmers’ evidence and practical solutions are fully considered to deliver fair and effective policies for improving water quality. (AQO 2418/22-27) Mr Muir: To support the development of the revised nutrients action programme, I have established a stakeholder task-and-finish group of organisations that represent a range of interests across farming, agri-food and the environment as well as DAERA officials. The group will consider the key findings from the recent NAP consultation, including alternative solutions and evidence submitted through the consultation, and propose evidence-based measures that are workable at farm level, provided that they meet legal obligations to improve water quality and have workable time frames. In addition, I have asked my Chief Scientific Adviser's office to establish a science subgroup, which will assist the work of the task-and-finish group in ensuring that the final NAP proposals are scientifically robust and evidence-based. The subgroup will have representation from the Agri-food and Biosciences Institute, AgriSearch and other relevant organisations. The aim is to strike the right balance between meeting our legal obligations, which we must do, and improving water quality, whilst supporting the long-term sustainability of Northern Ireland's farming sector. That is key. I believe that, by working collaboratively and constructively, we can achieve those outcomes. Mrs Dillon: I thank the Minister for his answer. I agree that working collaboratively and constructively is exactly the way to go. Having spoken to some farmers, I think that they feel that they are now being listened to, so I appreciate that. Will you confirm whether there has been a formal meeting of the nutrients action programme stakeholder group? Given that DAERA's 2019 review showed that nitrate loss was less of an issue in the North due to our soil profile, and that phosphorus run-off is a primary threat to water quality, will you commit to a more flexible approach to the 80%-grassland rule for derogated farms in the upcoming nutrients action programme, allowing farmers to grow crops such as clover or protein mixes to help to reduce phosphorus loss, improve water quality and cut reliance on imported feed? Mr Muir: There was an informal meeting of the group a few weeks ago. We are seeking to schedule a formal meeting. Hopefully, we will be able to make announcements, ideally this week, on the appointment of an external facilitator, get that meeting scheduled and start the work. I can feed back the issue that you outlined to the external facilitator. Through that group, there is an opportunity to chart a way forward. From the informal meeting of the group, I know that there is a will to find a way forward and solutions that are workable at farm level, with realistic time frames that meet our legal obligations. We will need funding in order to have a just transition, but I am confident that, if the politics are taken out of it, we can find a way forward. Miss McIlveen: Will the Minister finally admit that he got it wrong when he prematurely launched the NAP consultation without prior engagement with industry? Will he apologise for the annoyance that he and his Department caused as a consequence of those actions? Mr Muir: We went out to consult on proposals for the nutrients action programme. If we now cannot even consult and discuss the issue, that is quite serious with regard to our democracy and how we deal with the seriousness of Lough Neagh. I am glad that the consultation is completed. I thank the thousands of people who responded to it. We are considering the responses. The group will consider those responses alongside any other suggestions that are made during the process. Hopefully, we can get to a place where we ensure that we support farmers on the road ahead. However, we must also recognise that the nutrients action programme does not sit in isolation from issues such as sewage pollution. I have been very clear, and will be clear again today, about the need to act on that and also to take climate action. These issues are all interlinked, and we have to take those actions together, because we cannot have the same scenes playing out every summer in Lough Neagh. Top 2.15 pm Mr O'Toole: Minister, I admire your optimism when it comes to taking politics out of this. We are politicians. The public elect us to take decisions and hold one another to account. Given that both Sinn Féin and the DUP have, at different times, effectively opposed the core plank of the Lough Neagh improvement and, therefore, opposed improving our water in general, have you had any specific indication from either the Finance Minister or the Infrastructure Minister that they have any plan to coherently increase investment in NI Water over the next number of years? I have not heard anything. In fact, when it comes to the now Finance Minister, who was previously Infrastructure Minister, I heard opposition when he was asked whether he would increase investment — Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Question, Mr O'Toole. Mr O'Toole: — in water. Have you had any indication — Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr O'Toole. Mr O'Toole: — that he will actually increase investment? Mr Muir: Thank you, Matthew. The proposal to consult on the nutrients action programme was contained in the Lough Neagh report and action plan, so it is no surprise that we consulted on that, and it is also a legal obligation. I have reached out to all political parties asking them to engage with me on these key issues and to give me the support that I will need in the time ahead. I thank you for meeting us recently to discuss that, and I look forward to meeting all the other parties. I also met Mike Nesbitt, the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, and Robbie Butler last week. I need to meet the DUP and Sinn Féin, and it is important that I do that. The Budget for Northern Ireland is critical. It is a four-year capital budget and a three-year resource budget. We can shape a Budget that will transform the lives of people in Northern Ireland, but that means facing up to difficult issues. We have to ensure that we are spending our money wisely and using it to transform public services and improve the environment. Time will tell whether we are prepared to do that. ‘Acting on methane: opportunities for the UK cattle and sheep sectors’ 4. Ms Finnegan asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs whether he has considered the findings of the British study ‘Acting on methane: opportunities for the UK cattle and sheep sectors’. (AQO 2419/22-27) Mr Muir: My officials and I have taken cognisance of that report and other relevant research in that area. The report recognises that better animal health and welfare have positive impacts on sustainability, the environment, climate change and productivity. A range of DAERA policies align with the recommendations in the report on improving animal welfare, health and efficiency. In the sustainable agriculture programme, those include the bovine genetics project; the beef sustainability package, which comprises the beef carbon reduction scheme, the suckler cow scheme and knowledge programmes targeted at reducing the slaughter age of beef cattle and calving intervals of suckler cows; as well as exploring options around feed and slurry additives. My Department, alongside key stakeholders, is committed to advancing the 'Bovine Tuberculosis in Northern Ireland: Blueprint for Eradication', which was published last year. Ms Finnegan: I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, given the report's finding that animal health diseases such as bovine TB and sheep scab not only harm productivity but drive up greenhouse gas emissions, and given that climate change and the environment are your top two priorities, how can your Department justify the ongoing delays in tackling bovine TB? Mr Muir: Thank you. In my original answer, I said that the blueprint was published last year: it was published in April 2025. It was the Chief Veterinary Officer's report that was published last year, and we then worked with stakeholders to agree a blueprint. The Member will be aware that the issue of TB predates my time as Minister. I inherited an absolute mess in that regard. A successful judicial review had been taken against the Department, and I had to shape a way forward. This is not unique to Northern Ireland. It is a challenge in the South and across the water. We are focusing on implementing the blueprint, which is based on three pillars: people, cattle and wildlife. I have talked a bit about that in the Chamber in recent weeks and have outlined my belief that there needs to be a wildlife intervention. We will consult on that in the time ahead. We also need to support farmers in building the confidence to deal with this issue and to change the fatalism that sometimes exists, because this issue is having a real effect on farmers' mental health, and we need to be able to support them in the measures that can take place. We also need to continue to support 100% compensation, and I have been doing that in conjunction with the Finance Minister. Believe me, I understand the importance of the issue and the impact that it is having on farmers in Northern Ireland and on my Department's budget. We will focus on delivery over the time ahead, but we need to get people to support the measures and the interventions required. Mr Dickson: Minister, all of this feeds into the importance of climate action. Will you tell us what is happening and give us an update on your first climate action plan? Mr Muir: The climate action plan is out for consultation, and part of that is on agriculture. However, agriculture is only one sector; many other sectors have a role to play in the climate action plan, such as transport, energy, housing and many others. Although climate change sits in and is a lead responsibility of my Department, I cannot be left to do all the heavy lifting on it. Other people have a responsibility to take actions forward. Through the sustainable agriculture programme, we support farmers on what lies ahead, and it is really important that we do, because, by taking action on animal health and welfare, we can ensure better outcomes for our environment and climate and deliver a decarbonised future. Ms Brownlee: Will the Minister provide a timescale for the establishment of a dedicated co-design group to develop support measures for the sheep sector? Does he have adequate resources in his Department to progress that work? Mr Muir: I have been very clear that sheep support is a priority for me and my Department. Once we get the farm sustainability payment and farm sustainability standards in place — hopefully, we can get that done this year, because people have been trading entitlements on the basis that that new payment arrangement will come into place from 1 January — we will be able to move resources towards the sheep support scheme and the roll-out of Farming with Nature. We do not have infinite resources, but I am very clear that it is a priority for us to establish that support. Once we get the farm sustainability payment and farm sustainability standards in place, resources can move to it. Planning Application Delays: NIEA 5. Mr Irwin asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to outline the steps that he is taking to address the delays in the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) responding to planning application consultations. (AQO 2420/22-27) Mr Muir: As a statutory consultee in the planning system, DAERA's performance is measured against a duty to respond to a statutory consultation within 21 calendar days or an otherwise agreed timescale. I am aware of the frustrations that are caused by the time that it takes my Department to respond as a statutory consultee to some planning consultations. Ongoing measures that are already being prioritised include a review and update of internal processes and procedures; a review of the standing advice and guidance that are available on the DAERA website, with the aim of improving the quality of applications that are submitted and encouraging councils to consult us less frequently; analysis of consultations that are being receipted to inform targeted measures to reduce the level of re-consultation and improve the quality of information that is submitted with a consultation; engagement with other jurisdictions; exploring prioritisations for exceptional cases with planning authorities; and staff resourcing in my Department, which includes seeking to recruit additional staff for that work area. My officials are working to deliver a planning improvement plan during 2025-26. That plan will include a range of measures to improve planning performance and service and will cover the following five strands: technical advice and guidance; caseload management; monitoring and reporting on performance; process and IT systems; and communication and stakeholder engagement. In addition, my Department is working in collaboration with the Department for Infrastructure's cross-governmental planning statutory consultee forum and has contributed to a number of exercises that are aimed at driving forward continuous improvements in the planning system. Mr Irwin: I thank the Minister for his response. Does he accept that, despite his past promises, the NIEA is still not meeting its consultation response time frames? Mr Muir: It is a fact that we do not meet those targets, and one of the key issues in that is resources and recruiting people into the role. We are continuing to focus on that. I understand the concerns about the matter, and we continue to work at it. Mr Blair: Further to the Minister's replies, have efforts been made to recruit more NIEA staff in order to improve response times to planning applications? Mr Muir: The Department is actively seeking to recruit nine new staff members to support the planning function in the natural environment division of NIEA. It is hoped that, once in post, those new staff will add resilience to the DAERA planning function in order to support a reduction in response time frames. Mr McGlone: Minister, may I add to that? I am glad to see that there is a programme of action for rectifying some of the deficiencies. When will the programme that you just outlined be fulfilled? Will part of that include at least responses to elected representatives that give some clarity on where in the process an application is? What part of the process that you outlined will include improvements in communication and training for councils? I accept that, in many cases, councils refer stuff to NIEA that they should not. Mr Muir: The time frame for delivery relies largely on resources. Every time that I receive correspondence from Members, MPs or councillors asking for an update, it breaks my heart to have to reply, "That was the last time that we received something. We cannot give you any further update". We need to do better in that regard. We need to turn responses around. That is why we are focused on developing a programme to improve response times. There is an issue with how we engage with councils, and that is a key measure to take forward. As I said, however, the key point is that we need resource. Meat: Illegal Imports 6. Mr Butler asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs for his assessment of the food safety risks in relation to the threat of illegally imported meat into the UK, as outlined in ‘Biosecurity at the Border: Britain’s Illegal Meat Crisis’. (AQO 2421/22-27) Mr Muir: Responsibility for assessing and managing the risks from illegally imported meat rests with the UK Government through the border target operating model (BTOM). I continue to engage with UK Government counterparts and have emphasised the importance of implementing the BTOM at the earliest opportunity to strengthen biosecurity and safeguard public and animal health. Mr Butler: I thank the Minister for his answer. It did not have a lot of detail. When it comes to smuggling illegal meat or smuggling anything, smugglers will look for the easiest route. What do we do here to protect ourselves from illegal meat-smuggling through the Republic of Ireland into Northern Ireland? Mr Muir: I have engaged significantly with the UK Government on the issue on the back of recent reports, including the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA) Committee report that came out on 8 September. Movements of meat products between GB and NI largely sit with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but I have made my case on the issue. I have also had conversations with my counterpart in the South about the importance of the issue, and he has reassured me about the interventions that his Government are making. My ultimate message to people is about the importance of vigilance and ensuring that meat is not illegally imported into Northern Ireland. Mr Buckley: Has the Minister any statistics on the quantity of illegal meat entering Northern Ireland and on the route by which it comes? Is it by sea, by air or principally by land through the Republic of Ireland? Is he aware of any attempts to bring in live animals by smuggling? Mr Muir: That is slightly complicated because of the Secretary of State's direction and control powers and the differential that sits in my Department. As Minister, I am aware of concerns that have been raised about movements of products from outside the European Union into the European Union and then across from Calais to Dover. They should not have come through Dover. Products have come through GB and have been stopped at the border control point at, for example, Belfast or Larne. We have had a situation in which illegal meat imports were stopped. It is good that they did not get in. We have also had a report, of which you are probably aware, of sheep being brought through illegally. I commend the Ulster Farmers' Union's leadership in joining us on the message about the importance of that not happening and the importance of biosecurity. I have focused very much, as many other people have, on reducing the friction between GB and NI. One of the issues arising from that is with border security at Dover. It is therefore important that I engage with the UK Government in advance of those checks being removed or reduced, so that the BTOM is in place and we do not have those movements from Calais to Dover. Mr Donnelly: I ask the Minister for an update on the sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) veterinary agreement between the UK and the EU. Mr Muir: The agreement was reached in May of this year. The UK Government are working through the negotiation of the legal text. We understand that implementation will take place in 2027. It will have real benefits for us when it comes to the movement of agri-food products between GB and NI. I have made it clear to the UK Government that the agreement should extend beyond that and that they should have an ambition for a customs agreement between the UK and the EU. They have said that that is not on the agenda and is a red line, but I am clear on the substantial benefits that it would have for Northern Ireland and the UK economy, and I continue to make that case. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Carál, if you can get your question in in 30 seconds, go for it. Clean Air Strategy: Belfast 7. Ms Ní Chuilín asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs how the clean air strategy will address emissions hot spots in Belfast to ensure measurable improvements in public health. (AQO 2422/22-27) Mr Muir: My Department continues to finalise the actions in the draft clean air strategy. The strategy's focus will be on improving air quality across Northern Ireland, including Belfast, with a focus on human health. Whilst my Department will lead on the work, there is an important role for other Departments to play to ensure that, together, we bring about the change that is needed to improve air quality. By working together, we can deliver a strategy that will further address air pollution emissions and hotspots to ensure that there are measurable improvements, to the benefit of public health. I am conscious that air quality often affects those who are least well off in Northern Ireland. That is why it is important that we get out and consult on the issue. It is also important that other Departments, and the Department for the Economy and the Department for Communities in particular, play their role. We have a role to play. Let us get this agreed, get it out to consult and deal with the air quality issues that are affecting far too many people in Northern Ireland, particularly people in the Member's constituency. Top 2.30 pm Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Minister. That concludes the period for listed questions. We now move on to 15 minutes of topical questions. A5: Freedom of Information T1. Mr McCrossan asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, whose Department admitted to Patsy McGlone that it had 13 meetings with DFI on the A5 between 2022 and 2024, why the Department's response to a freedom of information request was almost entirely redacted, why DAERA is obstructing public scrutiny of its role in the long-delayed project and whether he will finally publish the full details of his interactions with the Department for Infrastructure. (AQT 1591/22-27) Mr Muir: The request for freedom of information was processed and responded to in line with the relevant legislation. The relevant exemptions were applied in respect of withheld or redacted information, and that was fully outlined in the response. As Minister, I do not get involved in deciding what is released and what is not released with regard to freedom of information, and that is the right approach. Mr McCrossan: Minister, that does not really answer the question. I understand that private information that could identify individuals must be redacted, but almost all of the document was redacted, including conversations or approaches to dealing with the A5, if there were any such discussions. Will the Minister confirm to the House that he will revisit it in the interest of transparency, and can he give an assessment of why it went so badly wrong in court? Mr Muir: Mr McCrossan, I do not get involved in freedom of information requests to the Department. If I, as the Minister, were doing that, you would be the first to say that it was totally inappropriate. You have the right to appeal the decision. I am not going to say to officials, "Release this and do not release that"; that is not the way to run a Department. One of the issues about the A5 is the appeal that is under way. I have been clear that I have intervened with regard to that. It is important that I do that, because I believe in taking action on climate change. It is important that we implement the legislation as it was intended, and I have intervened in relation to the appeal in furtherance of that. Rural Crime Partnership T2. Mr McAleer asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, given that we recently marked Rural Crime Action Week, whether he has any update on the Rural Crime Partnership. (AQT 1592/22-27) Mr Muir: Yes, I engaged with the Justice Minister on the importance of Rural Crime Week, and we profiled that because, collectively, working across government and with the Police Service of Northern Ireland, it is important that we raise awareness of those issues and encourage people to come forward and report them. The Member knows that there are many issues in rural communities. Naomi and I gave a focus during the launch to the issue of domestic violence. It is an issue that has touched far too many homes in Northern Ireland and has a particularly acute impact on rural communities, where the feeling of isolation can be acute and the importance of support services is absolutely key. I will continue to work with my partners, particularly the Justice Minister, in that regard. Mr McAleer: I thank the Minister for his response; indeed, I share his view that crime in rural areas is compounded by the sense of isolation. In his engagement with the Rural Crime Partnership, would it be possible or desirable to target resources into areas where there is a particular identified need and high risk? Mr Muir: That is something for which, thankfully, we have arrangements in place. We have the policing and community safety partnerships (PCSPs) in Northern Ireland that can shape local responses. I am happy to discuss with the Member any particular concerns that he has and relay those to my partners in the justice system. Pollution of Waterways: Northern Ireland Water T3. Mr K Buchanan asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs why he is letting the agriculture sector be vilified for the pollution of our waterways, given that, over the last number of months, the Member has witnessed and seen on social media NI Water failures directly related to waterways, as has probably every Member in the Chamber. (AQT 1593/22-27) Mr Muir: I am the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, and I have been clear that water pollution needs to be dealt with. I will again say today, in case people were not listening, that sewage pollution of our waterways is not acceptable. I want to strengthen regulation and enforcement on that, because the situation in Lough Neagh and other places, such as Lough Erne and Belfast lough, is not acceptable. Belfast lough is fast becoming another Lough Neagh. Soon, it will be nothing short of an open-air sewer. I am very clear that, with regard to NI Water, we need to strengthen regulation and enforcement. I will continue to do that, and I look forward to having the Executive's support on that. Mr K Buchanan: Minister, we have heard the magic numbers of 62/24/12 from agriculture, sewage and septic tanks respectively. Can you provide evidence for those numbers, or were they part of a desktop exercise to point the finger at the industries involved? Mr Muir: There have been two reports. The Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute's (AFBI) 'RePhoKUs' study came out in 2020. That peer-reviewed science has been published. More recently, New Harmonica research has pointed towards the sources of pollution. Such research allows us to target our action. I will say two things. We can go through the statistics and talk numbers and all the rest of it. Belfast lough is in a dire state. Lough Erne is in a desperate state. Lough Neagh has been green for the past three summers. There is a ban on bathing on the north coast. There is only so far that people can go in debasing science and evidence before it catches up with them. It is clear that we have a problem. It would be great if we could accept the problem and work together to address it. I am working really hard to address the issue and am trying to work with people to do so. If people do not want to support me in that, that is fine, but they need to take ownership of the consequences of their actions. Sheep Farming: Sustainable Agriculture Programme T4. Ms Finnegan asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, having noted the ongoing delay with the sheep-focused co-design process, whether he can give concrete assurances to the sheep sector, which is the backbone of upland and marginal farming, that it will not be treated as an afterthought in the development and roll-out of the sustainable agriculture programme. (AQT 1594/22-27) Mr Muir: Unlike my predecessor, that is a priority for me. When the measures under the sustainable agriculture programme were announced in March 2022, that matter did not feature. I have been clear that, once we get the farm sustainability payment and farm sustainability standards in place, we will move resources to support the roll-out of a sheep support scheme and to support Farming with Nature. I cannot be any clearer. Ms Finnegan: Minister, do you acknowledge the real risk that the sheep sector, which already faces challenges, could be further disadvantaged and left vulnerable by competing departmental priorities and a policy process that appears to be increasingly disconnected from the realities on the ground? Mr Muir: Once I have the resources, I will put them towards the development of the scheme. When I read the 'Irish Farmers Journal' every Wednesday evening, the North/South differential is not lost on me. Part of that is a result of leaving the EU. I am left with the consequences of that and have to develop new farm support policies for Northern Ireland. Leaving the EU has been a monumental disaster for Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. We are grateful for the benefits that we have through the Windsor framework, which allows us to trade with the rest of the UK and the EU. Without the Windsor framework, the dairy industry would be destroyed. I am very focused on delivering support for the sheep sector, but we have to focus on delivery on the ground and on having the resources to do that. Farmers: Demonisation T5. Ms Brownlee asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs whether he will admit that the continued demonisation of farmers has caused a widespread scepticism of his agenda when it comes to the future of farming's viability and well-being. (AQT 1595/22-27) Mr Muir: I must have been the subject of this morning's DUP team meeting on its strategy for questions. The answer to your allegation is a complete no. As Minister, I have been out and about, and your representations of me and the Alliance Party could not be further from the truth. As Minister, I am focused on delivery on the ground. The DUP offers negativity, wedge issues and culture wars: negative, negative, negative. Some Members: Hear, hear. Ms Brownlee: I really do not think that the farmers will find Members' laughter to be a very good response to the topic. Over the weekend, the Ulster Farmers' Union (UFU) expressed its frustration about misinformation on how the NAP group has been working with no chairman or terms of reference. Will the Minister be clear about the status of the group and apologise to the stakeholders involved? Mr Muir: I made it clear that we hope to make an announcement about an external facilitator this week. Hopefully, we will be able to have a meeting of the group in the time ahead. I am grateful for the role that everyone has played. It has been challenging — that is people's job — but it has been constructive, and we will work to deliver on it. The negativity from the DUP comes daily in this place, but the positivity comes from these Benches. Peatland Strategy T6. Mr Donnelly asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, noting that today marks the start of Northern Ireland Environment Week, which has a particular focus on peatland restoration, to update the House on the peatland strategy. (AQT 1596/22-27) Mr Muir: Recently, I was delighted to launch the peatland strategy to 2040. It is Northern Ireland's first peatland strategy. It offers five strategic objectives and 26 actions that will allow us to move forward with the benefits of peatland restoration. The benefits are clear in carbon storage, nature restoration and improved water quality. I am very grateful for all the stakeholder engagement in the process to date and to the stakeholders who came along to the launch. It offers us many benefits, including, in particular, the opportunity to create good green jobs in Northern Ireland. Mr Donnelly: Will the Minister develop further how peatlands can help to tackle the climate and biodiversity crisis? Mr Muir: The overwhelming majority of our peatlands in Northern Ireland are in a degraded state. Many of them are emitting carbon rather than capturing it. By restoring our peatlands, we can turn that situation round and offer benefits to local communities. It is a win-win. I am grateful for the support that we have got through the Shared Island Fund and PEACE PLUS. I will continue to engage with the Finance Minister on additional support for that. Climate Targets and Farm Sustainability T7. Mr Bradley asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs how he will balance climate and biodiversity targets with the need to keep family farms sustainable. (AQT 1597/22-27) Mr Muir: My Department is doing that through the roll-out of the sustainable agriculture programme. We want to build resilience in farming and a successful future for it while ensuring that we meet our environmental goals. The idea that environmental protection and farming do not go hand in hand is untrue. We see it happening daily on farms in Northern Ireland. I am grateful for the great work that is being done. I want to be able to support farmers on the road ahead. A lot of myths are being perpetuated about farming in Northern Ireland, including in the Chamber today. It is a success story. Good work is being done. We want to support farmers on the road ahead. Mr Bradley: Minister, how will you ensure that farm families are supported with grants and advice to meet climate targets, rather than being penalised? How will you prevent blanket measures that could drive smaller farms out of business? Mr Muir: A key, fundamental issue is that, when we were in the EU, we had ring-fenced funding support for agriculture, agrienvironment, fisheries and rural development but that ended at the end of March 2025. I was the only Minister in the UK to secure ring-fencing of that funding in this and future years. It is absolutely critical that we have that funding support in place. We have been rolling it out through the farm sustainability transition payment. We will continue to do that in the years ahead. We need to support farmers to build resilience and have a successful and sustainable future. We are doing just that. Dilapidation Bill T8. Mr Frew asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to explain how the Dilapidation Bill will have a positive impact on the great constituency of North Antrim. (AQT 1598/22-27) Mr Muir: It will have a very positive impact not just in North Antrim but in North Down, South Belfast and West Tyrone. That is what this place should be known for: delivery. The Dilapidation Bill will say to people who own the buildings, "Either you fix it, or the council will fix it and send you the bill". It will be an example of good legislation being passed in this place. It will turn the situation around and bring back vibrancy in neighbourhoods, villages, towns and city centres and will help to support councils and build their rates base. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Mr Frew for a quick supplementary question. Mr Frew: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I really appreciate that. Can the Minister explain how the Bill will affect domestic property, privately owned property and commercial and business property? Mr Muir: The Bill is wide-ranging with regard to the properties in question. There are already powers in place, but the legislation is outdated. The Bill will give much more flexibility with regard to potential fixed penalty notices. All MLAs in the Chamber will know of buildings that cause real dilapidation in neighbourhoods, affecting neighbours and all the rest of it. The Bill will allow councils to move in to address that. Hopefully, that will turn the situation around quickly from the beginning. It will be important legislation. It has been a long time coming. I am grateful to the Committee, ably chaired by Robbie, for its scrutiny of the Bill. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Tom Buchanan. You have about 30 seconds. Bovine Tuberculosis T9. Mr T Buchanan asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, having noted that he likes to talk a good talk, what positive action he has taken since coming into office to curb the tuberculosis crisis in Northern Ireland. (AQT 1599/22-27) Mr Muir: I inherited unparalleled challenges. We commissioned the Chief Veterinary Officer to tackle TB. On his first day in work, I said, "Congratulations," and gave him the task of reviewing the issue and finding a way forward. He did that, managing to get agreement from all the stakeholders around the table on a blueprint for the way forward. We are focused on delivering that. One of the fundamentals — Top 2.45 pm Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Minister. Time is up. That concludes questions to the Minister of Agriculture. Education AS-level Applicants: Central Applications Office 1. Mr Durkan asked the Minister of Education to outline any consideration given to the impact that the removal of AS levels will have on students from Northern Ireland applying to higher education through the Central Applications Office (CAO) process in the Republic of Ireland. (AQO 2431/22-27) Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): My Department’s consultation on the future of the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment's (CCEA) GCSEs, AS levels and A levels is an opportunity for students, parents, educators, employers and other stakeholders to contribute by sharing their views on how to improve the structure, content and assessment of those qualifications. The consultation includes a proposal to remove AS levels in order to reduce pressure on students and teachers and to free up time for teaching and deeper learning. My proposals reflect a clear ambition to ensure that CCEA's GCSEs, AS levels and A levels remain relevant, nationally and internationally relevant. On the concerns about applying for higher education in the Republic of Ireland, I can confirm that, if the decision is made to remove the CCEA AS levels, stand-alone AS levels from other awarding organisations will still be available for the very small number of students who require them. Consideration will be given to any concerns that are raised through the consultation process. Mr Durkan: I am glad to have received some clarification from the Minister. Obviously, the consultation is ongoing, but will he elaborate on which AS levels would still be available and acceptable to the CAO? Mr Givan: If they wish, schools would be able to bring in other awarding bodies and qualifications. It is a consultation exercise. I have listened to principals, some of whom are very passionate about removing AS levels because of the increased time that is spent preparing for tests and the pressure that that puts on teachers and pupils. I have also heard from principals who are strong advocates for the retention of AS levels. I have gone out to consultation to get the views of the sector. Where there would be implications for entry into courses in the Republic of Ireland, that would need to be taken into account before any decision were taken on the matter. I have an open mind on this, but I see the merit in the proposals in that they would reduce the number of times that our young people are tested and increase the amount of time that they get to learn and be taught in the classroom. Mr Bradley: Will the Minister tell us the timeline for the decision on AS levels? Mr Givan: I intend to confirm my policy framework intentions in early 2026. Following that, CCEA Regulation would be required to prepare a regulatory framework from which CCEA, being the awarding organisation, would undertake a full revision of its qualifications. Prior to the roll-out of new specifications, that process took a minimum of two years. Once we get the consultation responses, we will assess them and determine the way forward. I intend to do that in early 2026. Mr Carroll: Minister, you alluded to the concern about how the removal of AS levels might impact on the health and well-being of young people. Have you or your Department engaged with the Children's Commissioner, the Secondary Students' Union or the mental health champion on the proposals? Mr Givan: There is an opportunity for everybody to participate in the consultation. The process that was followed before we went out to consultation included engagement with a range of stakeholders, including pupils — their voices were heard on the matter — and teachers. I recognise that there is increased anxiety in relation to the issue, given the amount of testing of our young people that takes place, particularly in years 11, 12, 13 and 14. They are on a constant conveyor belt of examinations. They are prepped for those examinations and are often taught to the test. We need to recalibrate that so that they have the opportunity to engage in a rich curriculum and gain a detailed understanding of the subject matter. Assessment will, of course, always be a part of our qualifications system. Take AS levels as an example. Preparations for those examinations happen within months of starting lower sixth. Schools will then often have the young people off to prepare for their mocks. That could be for two or three weeks. The AS levels are then completed in May. Some schools do not bring the children back for the entire month of June. It can be up to seven weeks in the life of those young people that they are not in the classroom and are not being taught because they are subject to an examination process. I see the merits in the arguments of those who say that we should remove those exams, but I am also alert to some of the arguments that are made to me about why there is an opportunity for their retention. That is because it can be a wake-up call for some young people if their results do not go as they intended, so that can help to motivate them. It is also concerning to me that we have a very small number of schools that withdraw the opportunity for those young people to complete their A levels, in that they allow them to do only one year of study and then abandon them. That is not appropriate either, so there is a mixed environment on which to take a view. I genuinely hope that we will get a range of views and that we can then proceed on what we have determined as the best way forward. Dean Maguirc College: Capital Investment 2. Mr McAleer asked the Minister of Education for an update on plans for capital investment in Dean Maguirc College, Carrickmore. (AQO 2432/22-27) Mr Givan: The major capital project for Dean Maguirc College was announced in 2022. It remains on hold. As I previously said, I will continue to keep all projects that were announced under the major capital works programme in March 2022 and that are currently on hold under review. However, the delivery of all announced projects will very much be dependent on securing additional and significant sustained capital funding. Mr McAleer: I thank the Minister for his response. Minister, has your Department engaged with the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS) on moving forward on and developing proposals for Dean Maguirc College? Mr Givan: The Member has advocated on behalf of the college consistently over the past year and a half. Currently, the college has approved admission and enrolment numbers of 80 and 440 respectively. However, as I previously advised, CCMS is seeking to increase those numbers through the development proposal (DP). In the interim, the school can continue to request additional places on an annual basis through a temporary variation process until a DP is brought forward. I understand that CCMS wrote to the school in April 2025 and provided an update on the progress of the development proposal submission. However, obviously, as I will be the decision maker when the development proposal comes across my desk, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further. Mr T Buchanan: Minister, which schools that were announced to have work done under the major capital works programme in March 2022 have now progressed through planning? Mr Givan: An extensive list — there were well in excess of 20 schools — was published back then. We were able to move forward on seven projects. Those were Carrickfergus Academy; Dromore High School; Edmund Rice College; Loreto College in Coleraine; Malone Integrated College; Mercy College; and Portadown College. In each of those seven, the integrated consultant teams have been appointed and the initial feasibility studies to explore potential accommodation options for each school are under way. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Question 3 has been withdrawn. Children Missing in Education 4. Mrs Guy asked the Minister of Education when statutory guidance will be introduced on children missing in education. (AQO 2434/22-27) Mr Givan: My officials are reviewing potential legislative gaps and are working to develop departmental guidance on the issue of children missing in education. Addressing that issue effectively requires a coordinated multi-agency approach. To that end, my officials continue to engage with colleagues in the Department of Health and the Education Authority (EA) to explore opportunities for improved information sharing and collaborative action in that policy area. Work is under way to examine the processes and policies that are in place across other jurisdictions, with a view to identifying best practice and informing local approaches. In parallel, consideration is being given to the range of data sources that may be required to support a more effective response to children missing in education. Mrs Guy: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. The issue of children missing in education is a serious one and a genuine safeguarding concern, so thank you for the work that you are taking forward in the Department. I first asked the question in relation to the tragedy of Kyran Durnin in the South, and I was so concerned about the answer that I got that I had to do everything that I could as a private Member to try to address the issue. As the Minister with the power to act, can you give assurances that, in this mandate, there will be movement and progress on legislation on guidance and data sharing? Mr Givan: I thank the Member for her question. Her concern is one that I share. When it comes to attendance levels, for children who are enrolled in a school but do not attend, there is a process involving education welfare officers (EWO). We know that, after the first four weeks of the academic year, there are children who have still not gone to school. They are actively being pursued by the EWOs in the Education Authority and by the schools. What we do not know is this: parents have a responsibility to pursue a place in education for the children in their family, but there is no legislative requirement on the parent to inform the Department of Education or the EA if they decide not to register or enrol their child in a school, because they are going to be homeschooled, for example. If a child has been registered and deregistered, we know that they have been deregistered. However, there is a challenge in sharing information. We know how many people are born in Northern Ireland — we have a record of that — but, if a child subsequently leaves the jurisdiction with their family, we do not know that. There is, therefore, a lack of information, which, as I referenced in my response to the original question, requires collaboration between Health and the EA. We need to be able to determine, with clear and factual information, how many children are missing in education. I have outlined where I believe there are gaps in the information and that that has an impact on how effective we are in addressing those concerns. It is something that the Department is actively working on. Whether I can give the Member a guarantee that that will lead to legislation in this mandate remains to be seen. However, I assure the Member that there is an urgency to making sure that we have as much information as possible to help us. Mrs Mason: I will ask about another group of children who are not able to access education: those who experience emotion-based school non-attendance. Recently, I met parents who are experiencing that with their children — they told me heartbreaking stories. What steps is the Minister taking to make sure that those children receive the right support and that schools receive the right resources to respond? Mr Givan: The range of reasons why people do not attend school can be multifaceted. The Member has outlined one reason why a child may not be in attendance at school, and there are many others. If they are registered but not attending, we know that. There is support. Yes, the question, "How effective is it?" could be asked, but education welfare officers can proactively engage with the families. I am happy to look in more detail into that particular issue, but I assure Members that we want our children to be in school. It is where they are safest, and it is where they are best placed to gain an education. It is in nobody's interests for them not to attend school. Miss McIlveen: In a previous mandate, I raised serious concerns about children missing from care and the lack of data on that in the Department of Health. The lack of accurate data relating to this issue is, as another example, also very alarming. Who has responsibility for monitoring protocols for children missing in education? Mr Givan: The education welfare service within the EA has operational responsibility for children missing in education. A number of procedures and protocols are in place for such children, including protocols involving colleagues in other jurisdictions that relate to children missing in education, because that is also an issue for us. The education welfare service has operational responsibility in that area. Members have highlighted particular examples, and the information that was published in a media article is a result of the Department's work to understand what data is held by GPs and the health service and what information we lack as we try to move forward on this. That has generated a fair degree of interest, which is welcome, but we need to move beyond that kind of scoping work to real, meaningful processes to help identify children who are missing and to do what we can to make sure that they are engaged in education. Post-19 SEN Education 5. Mr Butler asked the Minister of Education to outline his engagement with the Minister of Health and the Minister for the Economy in relation to post-19 education for young people with special educational needs. (AQO 2435/22-27) Mr Givan: Whilst my Department has no remit for education provision for young people with special educational needs beyond the age of 19, I am committed to working with the Economy and Health Ministers to ensure that young people with special educational needs are supported as they transition out of the school system into adult life. In July 2025, I responded to Minister Archibald's paper to the Executive on post-school provision for young people with special educational needs. I have confirmed my broad support for her proposals and signalled my commitment to working with her Department in taking forward the proposals. Top 3.00 pm In addition, my officials have engaged extensively with colleagues in the Department for the Economy and the Department of Health through a cross-departmental working group on transitions as part of the end-to-end review of special educational needs. As we move forward, one of the actions in the SEN reform delivery plan is the development of a transitional support programme, and collaborative working across the three Departments is expected to continue. Mr Butler: I thank the Minister for his fulsome answer. There has been a lot of debate about this since we returned to the Assembly. Families struggle to understand what the timescale for delivery might look like. I understand that that perhaps lies more with the Minister for the Economy. From my perspective, given the work that you have undertaken in the SEN space, you have a significant part to play. Is there any timescale that you can add for when delivery might happen and change might occur? Mr Givan: The work of trying to ensure that the transition process is better is active and ongoing. That is why we need to ensure, under the legislation that we have, that people stay in the education settings until the academic year in which they turn 19. After that, there is the transition process that Health and Economy are involved in. We need to ensure that that works better than it currently does. There are good examples of where it works, but there are areas of concern where it does not work as effectively as it should. A big focus for our three Departments is how we effectively manage the transition process. I have a particular interest in ensuring that that is effective, because we have thousands of children who need entry to our special schools at ages three, four and five and then into post-primary-type settings. We need to make sure that there is a flow of young people leaving education settings and transitioning, with Economy and Health playing their role in that; otherwise, we will not be able to accommodate all the children who rightly want their place confirmed in those settings. The transition process is hugely important for us to make that more effective. The Minister for the Economy is leading in that area, but I assure Members that I will play my full part in supporting the proposals that she has brought to the Executive. Mr Mathison: This question highlighted the cross-cutting nature of this, and that is absolutely right. However, as for your Department's responsibilities, it is my understanding that, as of April this year, 9,000 young people in the system needed to avail themselves of the EA's transition service. Can you assure the Assembly that that service is properly resourced to meet the demand that is clearly in the system? Mr Givan: I thank the Member for that question. The transition service currently supports over 11,000 young people. As with all SEN support, the transition service — he is right — is stretched, given the unprecedented increase in the number of young people with special educational needs. I referenced the reform agenda and the delivery plan that I published in respect of that. That includes an action to implement a transitional support programme that builds on the EA's existing service. Full implementation of that action requires some additional funding that is over and above my current budget. However, there are certainly plans there, if we can effect them, that will assist the EA's transition service in managing those issues. Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member across the way for asking the question. Minister, do you agree that the transition process at whatever stage, whether it is going to primary school from nursery school or to secondary school, is really traumatic for parents, because it is so poorly managed? Have you had any conversations with the Health Minister about providing a health and care plan from birth to post-19 for children with additional needs to ensure that they all achieve the most that they can and that we remove that trauma for families? Mr Givan: The Member rightly outlines the emotional distress that is often experienced by families who rightly campaign and care for their loved ones. While there are challenges, the school environment is effective at supporting those young people. As they approach 19 years of age, there is a fear about the level of support or, indeed, the lack of support that will exist in the post-19 experience. That is why there needs to be a more effective process for allowing our young people to move from a special educational needs-type setting into other areas for which the Department of Health and the Department for the Economy have responsibility. I agree that that transition needs to be processed and managed in a better way. It is the parents who often carry the burden of responsibility, because they want the very best for their child. We need to give effect to the ambitions and hopes that they have for their young people by supporting them. We need to ensure that we give effect to that support where it is best placed. My Department has a role to play, but two other Departments have a key role to play. It cannot be left to Minister Archibald, to Minister Nesbitt or, indeed, to me. There is a collective responsibility on all of us to do better in the area. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Question 6 has been withdrawn. Literacy Development 7. Mr Martin asked the Minister of Education whether he has any plans in relation to literacy development in children. (AQO 2437/22-27) Mr Givan: Literacy is the foundation of all education. Proficiency in reading, writing and spoken language is vital for pupils' success in school, training and work. I have signalled my intention to develop a new strategy for literacy that is grounded in international best practice and the latest evidence. The strategy will be developed in parallel with the work of the curriculum task force and will provide guidance to support schools in developing pupils' reading, writing and oracy skills. It will also set out a comprehensive programme of action to support teachers across Northern Ireland. In advance of that, I plan to issue a literacy circular to outline the key principles for effective literacy instruction, alongside practical strategies to enhance literacy development. That will be supported by professional learning opportunities in areas such as the science of reading, spelling, writing and oracy. Through the RAISE programme, I have introduced a "Reading with AI" research project that will provide schools with an opportunity to see how AI tools can support literacy. The study is led by Oxford Brookes University using Amira learning, which is a reading support tool that is aligned with research-informed approaches to early literacy and is powered by AI. Mr Martin: I thank the Minister for his answer. What does the research tell us about current literacy outcomes? Mr Givan: While schools will hold their own rich data on pupils' progress and attainment, our system has limited publicly available national data on how children are performing in literacy throughout primary school and Key Stage 3. End of Key Stage assessment arrangements were not widely operational from 2014-15 right through until 2023-24, but, in the 2024-25 academic year, we saw a return of end of Key Stage assessments for the first time since the COVID-19 pandemic. Assessments were based on teacher judgement against the levels of progression in communication and in using mathematics. That gave us a clearer understanding of where our education system stands following the challenges of recent years. The data published by CCEA shows that nearly three in 10 pupils are not achieving at the expected levels in literacy and numeracy by the end of primary school. That is a significant concern, particularly as those foundational skills are essential for pupils' future learning, well-being and life opportunities. It is also a stark reminder of the challenges that we face, and it highlights the urgent need for a renewed focus on literacy and numeracy in our schools. The new data provides a vital baseline for informing targeted support and future interventions. Mr Donnelly: The Minister will be aware that the importance of reading is promoted through the Sure Start programme. Does he have any plans to expand that provision further in Northern Ireland as part of the forthcoming early learning and childcare strategy? Mr Givan: Not only have we expanded Sure Start through the early years funding for which the Executive provided ring-fenced support but we were able to stabilise the organisation and expand its reach. Where there were temporary schemes in place, we have been able to mainstream them into a permanent zoning of areas where Sure Start operates, and there can now be referrals into Sure Start areas from neighbouring areas as well. We have therefore been able to enhance Sure Start, but we have also provided early years funding through initiatives such as Bookstart. The Member rightly highlights how it is important not only that young people be proficient in reading and develop the skills but that they get a love for reading. I was not someone who really enjoyed reading, and I did not do enough of it when I was at school. We need to cultivate an environment in which there is a love of reading, because all the evidence shows that that can have a really significant impact on the academic success of young people as they progress through our education system. SEN Settings: Modular Classrooms 8. Mr Tennyson asked the Minister of Education to outline the measures that his Department will implement to ensure that delays related to construction of modular classrooms do not further impact on the commencement of the academic year for pupils in special educational needs settings. (AQO 2438/22-27) Mr Givan: Where the delivery of specialist provision accommodation has been delayed, the Education Authority has been working with affected schools to ensure that contingency arrangements are in place to mitigate the impact on pupils and their families. Each individual capital work project is overseen by a dedicated project manager to monitor the delivery programme. However, unforeseen circumstances can still arise, such as the discovery of a live electrical cable at Ceara School in the Member's constituency, that will inevitably impact on the delivery programme. My Department, working with the Education Authority, continues to monitor active capital work schemes to reduce delays as far as possible. Mr Tennyson: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. You referenced Ceara special school, where a number of children have faced delay. That has left their families feeling let down and as though their children are at the back of the queue. What assurance can you give that progress will be made towards Ceara having a second campus, so that we do not see a repeat of the issue in future academic years? Mr Givan: There are two points. He rightly highlights that delay, which was caused by a live cable being identified. As regards trying to resolve the issue in that example, the modular accommodation has been constructed off-site and is ready for installation once the site is fully prepared. The contractor has indicated a projected completion date of 5 December, but the Education Authority is actively working to accelerate the programme to get progress in advance of that date. As regards a new build, the Member will know that, only last week, we had a statement around special educational needs capital investment. The EA has produced detailed plans in which we have mapped out the provision that every special school needs. That is before the Executive as part of the 10-year plan for investment. It is through that long-term approach to investment that we will be able to address the capacity issues that the school that the Member referenced is dealing with; indeed, schools across all Members' constituencies face capacity challenges. Mr Middleton: Minister, it is important that we mitigate all the delays where possible. Will you outline why specialist provision accommodation is delayed? Mr Givan: The delay in the delivery of accommodation to provide placements for SEN pupils can occur for a number of reasons. I outlined in the Assembly on 16 September that the number of children with SEN requiring placements far outstrips the number of available places. That can cause delay in naming a school where a placement can be provided. Working with the EA, we engaged with schools over the past year and a half, and that has identified the potential solutions. However, in some instances, it has been possible to confirm those only at a very late stage. That resulted in a compressed timeline for delivery, despite every effort being taken to expedite completion. That must also include necessary approvals and tender processes, and, unfortunately, it is not always feasible to deliver accommodation in time for the commencement of the academic year. There can be unforeseen events, such as the discovery of the electrical cable that I referenced, but the issue that we face is a lack of capacity across our school estate, particularly for special schools but also when it comes to specialist provision in mainstream settings. I outlined on 16 September a clear plan that will address that in the long term. We still have to react to need, which varies in certain parts of Northern Ireland — there is a higher level of need in some areas. We engage with schools, and I welcome the positive engagement that I have had with a number of school principals and the National Association of Head Teachers trade union, which has been proactive in seeking to engage with principals at a much earlier stage in the process. It is only through a collective effort by all of our schools, the Education Authority and my Department that we will be able to provide the right support for young people, who deserve it. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Colin McGrath, you have 30 seconds. SEN Statements 9. Mr McGrath asked the Minister of Education to outline the proportion of statements of special educational needs that are currently being issued outside the 26-week timeline for the statutory assessment process. (AQO 2439/22-27) Mr Givan: Of the statements completed in August 2025, 44% were issued outside the 26-week time frame. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): You may ask a supplementary question very quickly, Mr McGrath. Mr McGrath: That is not great. What are you doing to improve that? Mr Givan: I am glad that the answer was short enough for the Member to get a response in. I agree with him: it is not an acceptable time frame. We have new special educational needs regulations, which will reduce the timescales associated with statutory assessments. We aim to reduce the process from 26 weeks to 22 weeks, but that will be a positive outcome only if 100% of assessments are carried out within the 22 weeks. We are finalising those regulations, and I will bring them to the Assembly in due course. Top 3.15 pm Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): That ends the period for listed questions. We now move to 15 minutes of topical questions. Special Educational Needs: Capital Investment T1. Mr O'Toole asked the Minister of Education about his desire to get £1·7 billion to invest in special educational needs facilities and schools, given that his party's deputy leader, his predecessor as Education Minister, Michelle McIlveen, announced an £800 million capital works programme for schools three and a half years ago, and the majority those schools are still waiting for confirmation or progress on that; and whether it is cynical for the Minister to simply come to the Chamber and throw around numbers when there is no clarity about when or how the investment will be delivered. (AQT 1601/22-27) Mr Givan: The Member knows the cynical comment that he made about AI during questions on the SEN statement. In his response, he has an opportunity to retract his false allegation and apologise. We will wait and see whether he decides to take that opportunity. The Member is right to highlight the extreme capital needs that exist in the education estate. There is a crumbling school estate and an inability to carry out maintenance — we are down to doing only essential repairs to keep the schools open and safe — and we are unable to provide the level of investment that we need. However, it would be wrong and inappropriate for a Minister to say that we are not going to carry out the detailed work, which we endeavoured to do, to identify the special schools where specialist provision can be expanded. The principals responded in a hugely positive way to the statement that I made in the Assembly, which is with the Executive, and they were part of the process. Absolutely, the funding needs to be secured to deliver on that, but it would be a failure on my part not to commission the work and publish it, and, of course, I need to get the associated funding. The answer was not generated by AI. I trust the Member will now retract and apologise for his false allegation last week. Mr O'Toole: Since we are here — I was not going to raise the subject — I will not retract or apologise. My job is to ask the Minister questions. I make zero apology for that. The Minister is more than capable of coming in here to defend himself. With the indulgence of the Deputy Speaker, since the Minister raised the issue, I asked a question for written answer, which stated: "To ask the Minister of Education whether any artificial intelligence tool has been used to generate or edit all or part of any statement he has made to the Assembly." The answer from his Department was: "No information is held". He cannot be definitive in his denial. I will infer from his statement that some tool was used, but I will leave the matter to one side. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Matthew, supplementary question. Mr O'Toole: I want to ask about delivering on promises made. Have there been actual, practical conversations with the Finance Minister about the multi-year Budget that we expect later this year? Will what he has called for be backed up in a multi-year Budget? That is his responsibility too. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Minister, you can answer whichever part of that multiple selection you see fit. Mr Givan: Never mind artificial intelligence, I am concerned about actual intelligence when the Member raises those questions. I have spent £110 million over the last two years to provide support and ensure that we have nearly 3,000 places for our young people who need them. I have engaged proactively with the Finance Minister, and he is working with me on the 10-year plan. I am engaging in proactive work. What I say to the Member who raised AI is that his party put out a statement welcoming the use of AI. His party member for Foyle pays a subscription for AI to assist her with her job. If there is a cynic in the Assembly, it is the Member for South Belfast, leader of the so-called Opposition. Mr Brooks: Constructive Opposition. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Butler. Mr Butler: Mr Deputy Speaker, it seems a shame to break that one up. A Member: They do not like questions. [Laughter.] Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Back to Education questions. Thank you. Paracetamol in Schools T2. Mr Butler asked the Minister of Education, given that the one-man wave machine that is President Trump punched down on the autistic community when he said that paracetamol consumption leads to autism, and given that many families who are concerned because some of the advice is neither fit nor fair have been in contact, whether he can give confidence to parents whose children are administered paracetamol in school that there is no link to autism. (AQT 1602/22-27) Mr Givan: I am nowhere near qualified enough to comment on medical and health issues. I did not follow in detail what President Trump said, but I believe that it was in reference to pregnant women. I am pretty sure that I am never going to be in that position. I have listened to some health professionals in Northern Ireland who dismissed what President Trump said. I defer to those medical experts. I certainly will not be saying anything that is contrary to their opinion. Mr Butler: Thank you, Minister. The president further claimed that the MMR vaccine, which is a school-administered vaccine, should be taken separately. Will the Minister defer —? Mr Brooks: This is Education questions. Mr Butler: Yes, it is given in schools. Does the Minister have confidence in the MMR vaccine that is given to our schoolchildren? Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Before we continue and the Minister decides whether to answer, these are questions to the Minister of Education. Mr Butler, I am sure that you, more than anybody in the Chamber, know what Health questions are about. Minister, you can choose to answer that, or we can move on. Mr Givan: I am happy to move on. SEN Provision T3. Mr Allen asked the Minister of Education, given that SEN provision is something about which Members are contacted regularly and that it was the subject of the previous listed question, which the Minister did not get time to answer, whether there is anything that the Department is doing about the regulations that he mentioned to reduce the waiting time for statements and whether he can say when Members are likely to see those regulations. (AQT 1603/22-27) Mr Givan: I have said before in the Assembly that, when we get to the stage where young people and families have to go through a statementing process, we have failed them. We should not have to go through a statementing process in order to make the appropriate provision to meet their needs. We are trying to take forward changes for special educational needs so that we can identify the requirements of those young people and provide the appropriate support for schools to meet that need. That is part of the work that we are seeking to take forward as part of our special educational needs transformation programme. Mr Allen: I thank the Minister for his answer. It highlights many more questions, two of which I will ping out, if I may. Minister, what interim support is being provided to schools for a child who is waiting for that educational statement? I appreciate that you said that that is not the approach that we should be taking, but it is the current approach. What support is available to parents who are going through that statementing process to allow them to interact and make sure that the statement best meets the child's needs? Mr Givan: Obviously, there will be support throughout the process. The Member will know the various ways in which you can be referred into that. It can be through parental referral, through the school or through educational psychologists or paediatricians. They can all make referrals, and an assessment process can then take place. Having engaged with a lot of principals on that area, I know that they feel that it would be better for them to have resources in the school so that they can have some autonomy in how best the needs can be met. The various needs present in different ways; the presentation can be in speech, communication or behaviour. Schools say to me that, if they were able to have a resource, they could utilise support in a way that would be more effective for the whole school population, not just those young people who have a statement. There are thousands of children who have additional needs but do not have a statement. We need to empower schools with a degree of autonomy, accompanied by resource, in how best that support can be deployed. That could involve employing a full-time teacher so that there are smaller class settings. It could be through a youth worker. I have been in schools that have employed youth workers. I have been in schools that employ counsellors. We need to find a better framework for our schools to operate in and in a way that will be more beneficial for our children and young people in achieving better outcomes. Curriculum Review T4. Mr Clarke asked the Minister of Education, after stating that he does not want to waste his own time talking about AI or asking Health questions, for an update on the review of the curriculum, given that it is very important for education. (AQT 1604/22-27) Mr Givan: I thank the Member. On 27 August, I announced the establishment of the curriculum task force advisory committee, which will oversee, direct and lead the reform of the Northern Ireland curriculum. It will be led by Christine Counsell, with Lucy Crehan as the deputy. The committee includes a wealth of experience of curriculum design, classroom practice, evaluation and implementation. The task force will commence work in October. Its role is to guide the development of a new, coherent and knowledge-rich curriculum framework. Following that, a new framework will be presented by spring 2026 and will then be subject to public consultation. It will be an ambitious and challenging framework, but I am confident that the task force will deliver and that the new curriculum framework will be operational by September 2027. That is what I have set out in my delivery plan. Mr Clarke: Whilst we expect the curriculum to be important, Minister, teachers also have an important role to play. What engagement will you have with teachers as part of the review? Mr Givan: The Member is right to say that teachers are hugely important. I have noticed the cynical way in which the SDLP leader of the Opposition has responded to the question. He does not have a particular interest but questions the merit and validity of it. Curriculum reform is fundamental to an effective education system. Do not take my word for it: this morning, I opened a conference at the La Mon hotel in Belfast with over 400 post-primary-school teachers who have a real desire to engage in the topic. Tomorrow — the Member is welcome to join me if he wishes — I will be hosting 600 primary-school leaders, which represents a remarkable level of participation. That is testament to the passion and commitment of our education workforce. Those teachers are from every sector of the education system, all united behind the common belief in and desire to have an effective curriculum that enables them to educate our children and young people. Some Members may not realise what is going on in the education system, but what is happening is transformational, and it will be to the benefit of every single child, particularly those who have disadvantage, in providing greater equity and inclusion. No child being left behind: that is what we are engaged in when it comes to TransformED, the transformational programme that we are delivering in education. Parentkind Survey T5. Mr Frew asked the Minister of Education whether he has had the opportunity to consider the findings of the recently published Parentkind survey as they relate to Northern Ireland. (AQT 1605/22-27) Mr Givan: I have, and I welcome the survey's findings. I am pleased that parents in Northern Ireland were included in the survey, and I am grateful to Parentkind for providing insight into the issues that are important to parents and their children. The Northern Ireland report gives a clear indication of matters that are of relevance to our parents today, such as, for example, parental fears about children's safety, special educational needs and the overuse of mobile phones, and of parents' general views on school and home life and some of the broader challenges that they face. I have asked officials to consider the survey's findings as part of their work on policy areas. Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for his answer. Is he able to outline anything in particular from the findings in relation to the use of toilets? Do those reflect the common sense of Northern Ireland people? Mr Givan: Yes. The survey findings reflect the common sense of the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland. In particular, two thirds of parents who were surveyed indicated that the use of toilets should be determined by biological sex. Regulation 10(2) of the School Premises (Standards) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1973 states: "For all pupils above the age of 6 separate sanitary fittings shall be provided for boys and girls." The survey findings reinforce the point that there is wider public support for the policy statement that I issued on 8 September, particularly on the use of toilets and changing facilities. I was confident that the overwhelming majority of the people of Northern Ireland supported my common-sense position when it comes to biological sex. The survey findings affirm that I am right and that other Members in the Chamber are completely wrong and out of touch. Childcare Subsidy Scheme: Expansion T6. Mrs Cameron asked the Minister of Education whether he recognises that the very welcome expansion of the childcare subsidy scheme has led to practical challenges for schools and nurseries in catering for much-increased numbers of children. (AQT 1606/22-27) Mr Givan: Under the expansion of the childcare subsidy scheme, we moved from 0-5 years of age to all school-age children up to the age of 11 in primary schools. We know that 72 schools in Northern Ireland are registered on the UK tax-free childcare allowance system. We have been working with those 72 schools in order to make sure that they can make the childcare subsidy scheme available, because that provides an additional 15% reduction in bills. We provide the finance to support the schools so that any administration costs can be dealt with; indeed, those costs are minimal. I would like to see even more schools provide that support, because we will support them to deliver it. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Time is up, Minister. Mr Givan: Thank you. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): That concludes questions to the Minister of Education. I ask Members to take their ease while we get ready for the next item of business. (Mr Speaker in the Chair) Executive Committee Business School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill: Further Consideration Stage Clause 1 (Guidelines as to policies on school uniforms) Debate resumed on amendment No 1, which amendment was: In page 2, line 13, leave out subsection (6). — [Mr Givan (The Minister of Education).] The remaining amendments in the group stood on the Marshalled List. Amendment No 1 agreed to. Clause 2 (Particular matters for inclusion in guidelines) Mr Speaker: We now come to the second group of amendments for debate regarding content of guidelines. With amendment No 2 it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 3, 4 and 6. I call the Minister of Education to move amendment No 2 and to address the other amendments in the group. Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): I beg to move amendment No 2: In page 2, line 21, leave out paragraph (b) and insert— "(b) nature and adequacy of clothing for pupils when engaging in particular parts of the curriculum by doing or through involvement in things such as— (i) classroom or academic subjects, (ii) informal or play-based learning, or (iii) recreational, sporting or outdoor activities," The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List: No 3: In page 2, line 28, leave out subsections (3) to (6). — [Mr Givan (The Minister of Education).] No 4: New Clause After clause 2 insert— "Clothing supplier agreements in guidelines 2A.—(1) Guidelines under this Chapter must include provision— (a) containing a statement to the effect that school uniform policies are to be designed so as to ensure that all items or sets of clothing needed by pupils at a school are available for purchase from at least one supplier who is not party to an agreement for the sale of items or sets of clothing for the school’s pupils, but (b) making an exception in relation to a school uniform policy applying at a school which is accompanied by a declaration by a manager of the school to the effect that such an agreement secures value for money with respect to items and sets of clothing needed by pupils at the school. (2) Guidelines under this Chapter must include provision requiring a manager of a school to publish, on the school’s website, information (to be updated at least annually) about any such agreement except a pre-commencement agreement. (3) For the purpose of this section— (a) an agreement is an agreement (whether contractual or otherwise) entered into in the name of or on behalf of the school, and (b) a pre-commencement agreement is an agreement so entered into before this section comes into operation." — [Mr Givan (The Minister of Education).] No 6: In clause 6, page 4, line 14, at end insert— "(e) referring to Foundation Stage, or Key Stage 1, 2, 3 or 4, as mentioned in the Education (Curriculum Minimum Content) Order (Northern Ireland) 2007." — [Mr Givan (The Minister of Education).] As we move into the group 2 debate, I reflect on the importance of the task in hand: making good legislation to enable effective guidelines that will make school uniforms more affordable for all. We have only four of my technical amendments to debate in the group, so I will move straight to them, while reminding Members that none of the amendments attempts to dilute the impact of what was done at Consideration Stage. Rather, any changes that they will make again relate to language, style and structure in order to make the best legislation possible. I am sure that Members will happily share with me the responsibility of making the best legislation possible in such aspects. Amendment No 2 amends the wording of the amendment voted through at Consideration Stage while delivering the intent. That amendment used terms that are not used in other education law and are not commonly used in day-to-day school practice. Amendment No 2 therefore removes wording such as "play-based curricula" but replaces it with "play-based learning", which is a term more commonly understood in education. It expands the reference to outdoor learning so that it now reflects that the guidelines need to provide for uniform policies to address recreational, sporting or outdoor activities. I see benefits in doing that, particularly so that it does not bear to focus too narrowly on one aspect of the curriculum. You will note that it additionally refers to normal classroom and academic matters, as it would seem odd in this context not to refer to them as well. It considers the reality of a school day and applies it to the intent articulated at Consideration Stage, namely that schools consider how children learn and what activities they participate in as part of that learning and, therefore, consider how their uniform requirements need to support their pupils in that. Amendment No 2 works alongside amendment No 6, which places the specific Foundation Stage reference more appropriately in clause 6. Again, I see benefits in broadening that out. It is preferable not to focus too narrowly in referring to one stage of education, noting that clause 6 already allows more generally for different provision for different age and peer groups, so clause 6 is the appropriate place to set the Foundation Stage reference. The House will note that it goes further by explicitly referencing Key Stages 1, 2, 3 and 4 as well. In addition, the opening words of new paragraph (b) are adjusted to reflect that practicality, along with comfort, is already covered by paragraph (a). As ever, it is the combination as well as particularity of provision that matters. Taken together, amendment Nos 2 and 6 are consistent with the Consideration Stage amendment while reflecting language that is more consistent with other legislation and education practice. I trust that the House will support the amendments. Amendment No 3 merely paves the way for amendment No 4, just as there were similar paving amendments in group 1. Amendment No 3 leaves out provisions inserted into clause 2 at Consideration Stage so that amendment No 4 can place them in a separate clause with its own heading to index them. Amendment No 4 further refines the language in the Consideration Stage amendment, but the same matters are still provided for: limiting or ruling out single suppliers unless they demonstrate value for money and ensuring that information about any agreements, contractual or otherwise, is published at least annually, unless the agreement was in place before the Bill gains Royal Assent. Again, I understand that some Members may be concerned that a declaration made by a school manager that single suppliers give value for money could simply state that. I assure Members that that is not the case. The ordinary meaning of the word "declaration" is a: "formal or explicit statement or announcement". The amendment has been drafted by experts, recognising that, unless a specific definition is inserted, the ordinary meaning of a word has effect. I would not accept a declaration from a school manager that provides no information about exactly how using a single or limited supplier equates to being value for money. I do not consider that to meet the requirements of the Bill. Evidence will have to be provided about how exactly it delivers such value for money. Amendment No 4 sets out the reporting requirements voted for at Consideration Stage in a more clear and consistent legislative framing, including to give some weight to the definitions of terms used: for example, being explicit that an agreement can be contractual or otherwise and that a pre-commencement agreement is one in place before the Bill comes into operation. In my view, that makes the detail in the new clause easier to follow. I trust that Members will recognise the work that has gone into all the amendments that I have tabled to ensure that they deliver better flow but do not stray from the intent that was voted for at Consideration Stage. I also trust that Members will vote today for all my amendments, which, I remind the House, are technical in nature in order to provide consistency in language, style and structure in the Bill. I commend all my group 2 amendments to the House. Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education): As Chair of the Education Committee, I will speak to the group 2 amendments. They are amendment Nos 2, 3, 4 and 6, all of which relate to the content of the guidelines. Amendment No 2 relates to the Committee amendment that was made at Consideration Stage to provide that school clothing is appropriate for the full range of activities that can be undertaken in a school day and within the curriculum, highlighting play-based learning and outdoor education. I was particularly struck by evidence from stakeholders about the limitations that can be placed on play-based learning if the clothing is not sufficiently suitable for that purpose. All members were engaged in framing that amendment at Committee Stage, with an emphasis on outdoor learning experiences. I will pick up on some comments that were made about the amendment at Consideration Stage. I emphasise that it was never the Committee's intention that the amendment would require clothing additional to the core uniform; rather, it was to mean that the core uniform should be fit for purpose for all the activities that children take part in during a school day. It was absolutely never intended to place any additional burden on parents. The Department proposes some revised wording, which I have no objection to. It appears to me that the proposal adheres to the Committee's intention, and I hope that it will get support on that basis. That, however, will ultimately be for Members to decide, as the Committee did not have the opportunity to come to a formal position on the amendment. I particularly welcome the reference to "play-based learning" in the revised wording in the amendment that the Minister has tabled. In fact, the wording has been broadened. It is important that we have confidence that school uniforms are appropriate for the whole range of activities that pupils undertake. Linked to that, there was a reference in the Committee amendment on the foundation curriculum, which Cheryl Brownlee contributed. That has been re-termed in amendment No 6, relaying the Committee's intention into the finalised Bill. Again, I have no issues to raise on that. Amendment No 3 proposes to delete four subsections of clause 2, and amendment No 4 then inserts them into a new clause. The Minister wrote to the Committee, and I will quote from that letter: "This allows for clarity about the purpose of the provisions rather than simply setting them in among a list of other matters at clause 2 as would currently be the case." On that basis, when we consider the issue of single-supplier arrangements, with which the amendments are concerned, it is good and appropriate to see them in their own space in the Bill. That provides clarity on their importance and effect. However, I emphasise that the Committee was always clear that single-supplier arrangements should only ever be permitted when the school manager provides a clear explanation of how they deliver value for money. The original Committee amendment was clear on that point: that an explanation would be required of how value for money would be achieved by the single-supplier arrangement. The Minister highlighted the fact that the new clause uses the word "declaration" as regards how it will meet that test of value for money, rather than "explaining". I note the Minister's comments on that and welcome his assurances that evidence needs to be supplied and that a school manager cannot simply declare that something is good value and provide no evidence. We all want to avoid a scenario where a school charges hundreds of pounds for a blazer and simply says, "Yes it is a single-supplier arrangement, but I declare that it is good value", if anyone looking at it objectively could see that that is not the case. I welcome the assurances that evidence would be required. On the basis of those assurances from the Minister, I am content to accept the new amendment, but other Members may well take a different view from the Committee. The Minister has provided assurances that any declaration would require evidence of how it delivers good value for money. I sincerely hope that the Minister acts in good faith on that and, when we see the guidelines, it is clear that that will be required. When it comes to the publication of the guidelines, the Minister should clarify further what the expectations will be around the "declaration" that amendment No 4 would introduce. It is vital that there is no uncertainty on that point. Those assurances are absolutely critical to my support for the amendment. I will conclude by making some brief remarks as an Alliance member. This group of amendments is really about the content of the guidelines that we will end up with, which is ultimately what will make the difference to the cost of school uniforms for parents. I, along with a number of my Committee colleagues, would like to have seen — indeed, we sought to amend the Bill to ensure it — that the Bill included clear provisions to address affordability much more explicitly. That is not the Bill that is before us today. I therefore await the guidelines in the sincere hope that they are robust, enforceable and clear. The outcome that I want is that no parent is placed in financial hardship to send their child to school. The Bill and, ultimately, the Minister will be judged on its success or otherwise in ensuring that that outcome is delivered. On the content of the guidelines, I would have liked to see a rights-respecting framework in the Bill to ensure that uniform policies are fit for purpose for the 21st century as regards choice, gender, disability, special educational needs (SEN) and cultural difference. Despite our efforts to amend it at the previous stages, again, that is not the Bill before us today. I hope that the guidelines, when published, do more than permit schools to adopt progressive uniform policies and clearly require them to do so. We will watch how this progresses with interest. Our children and young people deserve uniform policies that respect their rights and support them to attend school and learn in comfortable practical uniforms that are fit for 2025. Mr McCrossan: As my colleague outlined, the SDLP welcomes the progression of the Bill, but we are clear that its success will be measured in affordability. The second group of amendments goes to the heart of that question. If families are to feel any real difference in their pockets, it will be because the guidelines that are set out here make uniforms more affordable and practical and because they do so transparently. The SDLP has always said that parents should not be priced out of education by the cost of a blazer, jumper or PE kit. Every amendment that Members consider today should be tested against one simple question: will it help to make uniforms more affordable for families, or will it weaken the protections that they deserve? We have applied each of those tests to the amendments in the group. I start with amendment No 2, which improves clause 2 by broadening the requirement to consider the "nature and adequacy of clothing" across different parts of the curriculum. That means that uniforms must be practical not only for classroom learning but for play-based activity, sport and outdoor work. It is a sensible, child-focused amendment, and the SDLP fully supports it. Top 3.45 pm Amendment No 6 adds further clarity by explicitly linking guidelines to Foundation Stage and Key Stages 1 to 4. Again, that is useful, and we support it. The real battle in group 2 is over supplier arrangements, because those are key to the overriding consideration of affordability. At Consideration Stage, the Bill gained stronger provisions. It required schools to ensure that uniform items would be available from "at least one" open supplier. It also required schools to publish their contracts with preferred retailers. Those clauses would give parents a guarantee of choice and transparency. The Minister's amendment No 3 risks changing that. In place of those provisions, amendment No 4 inserts new clause 2A on 'Clothing supplier agreements'. At first glance, it looks similar: schools must ensure that uniform items are available from one non-contracted supplier unless a school manager signs a declaration that an exclusive deal represents value for money. The new clause may make it easier for schools to justify exclusivity, while parents will not have the same rights to see the details of contracts that drive up their costs. While the SDLP supports amendment No 2 and amendment No 6 for making the guidelines more practical and comprehensive, we have concerns about amendment No 3 and amendment No 4, because they risk weakening some of the Bill's most important elements. The amendments that we support will make uniforms fairer and more affordable for families. The amendments that we oppose will undo those necessary and long-awaited protections. For us, the choice is simple. Families deserve to have enforceable rights, not vague promises; they deserve choice and transparency, not loopholes or hiding places; and they deserve a Bill that delivers on the promise of affordability. That is our wider criticism of the entire Bill. While it offers some improvements on what went before, it falls far short of what parents and pupils need and deserve. The Bill could have been a landmark from the Assembly in tackling the cost of school uniforms, but, instead, it risks becoming another missed opportunity. Mr Sheehan: The issue of guidelines has been raised on a number of occasions during the debate. The content of the guidelines will be critical, because that is what will ultimately dictate whether the Bill will make any difference to hard-pressed families. As a member of the Education Committee, I place on record again my frustration at the fact that we have still not seen draft guidelines, despite having been promised sight of them before recess by senior officials from the Department. I will speak in support of amendment Nos 2 and 6 and in opposition to amendment No 3. Amendment No 2 is straightforward. It broadens the guidance on practicality to cover academic work, play, sport and outdoor learning. That is sensible, and we can support it. Amendment No 6 is similar. It is a technical addition to link guidance to Key Stages; again, there is no difficulty there. The real battle is over amendment Nos 3 and 4. At Consideration Stage, we agreed a strong package to end the rip-off of single-supplier arrangements and the sweetheart deals that some schools and suppliers enjoy at families' expense. Schools would have been required to ensure that at least one independent retailer could sell every item, and they had to publish their supplier contracts. That is how you bring real competition into the system and stop families being ripped off. Amendment No 4 is offered as a replacement, but it is clearly weaker. It allows exclusive supplier deals to continue so long as a school says that a deal offers value for money. The Minister made a case about having listened to experts and about experts having said that the term "declaration" has a legal meaning that means that schools would have to provide evidence of value for money, but I do not accept that. I am not an expert, but for the ordinary person on the street, the word "declaration" has a particular meaning, and it does not mean, in any definition that I have seen, that the school would have to provide evidence. That, therefore, is not real accountability; it is a loophole, and the sweetheart deals could effectively continue, as will the rip-offs. Parents will be left carrying the cost. Families are watching the debate. They want to know whether we in the Assembly are serious about cutting costs or whether we are content to let schools and suppliers carry on as before. Our job is to stand with those families, and that means keeping the protections and provisions that were agreed at the previous stage. I agree with the other Members who said today that we have lost an opportunity. There is a missed opportunity. We had a real chance of bringing forward a strong and robust piece of legislation that would have driven down the cost of uniforms and made them more affordable for hard-pressed families. Unfortunately, the Bill has been weakened to such an extent that we are not confident that that will happen. Mr Speaker: I call the Minister to make his winding-up speech. Mr Givan: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will go straight to some of the comments and questions that Members raised in order to aid them in their consideration of how they will vote. I welcome Mr Mathison's approach to play-based learning. He could have taken the view that the amendment that he tabled on that had to stand and that he was right, but he has actually listened to how we can make legislation more effective. He has reflected on that and acknowledged that, actually, the amendment that I tabled broadens the provision on that as well. That is a demonstration of an MLA who can bring forward an idea, get support in the Assembly, which I objected to at the time but have now refined, and recognise that it will make the Bill better. That is what Members are meant to do. I am concerned, though, that some MLAs come in with a predetermined position and a script that they already have and from which they will not deviate. They acknowledge that they are not experts, but the ordinary person on the street will not know what a declaration means. Take advice from the experts. Do not necessarily take advice from me if you do not want to, but take it from the experts who actually know what they are talking about in those areas. Mr Sheehan acknowledged in the previous debate that legislators make mistakes and that it happens all over the world as though it is OK for us to continue doing that. He has an opportunity, and Sinn Féin has an opportunity, to actually put effective law into place, which I believe that those in that party all want to do. I believe that they want the legislation to be effective, but, for whatever reason, on a couple of amendments, they are determined to say, "I am going to get my way, and I am not going to listen to the Minister." Mr Sheehan: I just do not think that you are serious. Will the Minister give way? Mr Givan: Mr Sheehan has made the point for me from a sedentary position. He would rather make a point than listen to the experts. I will give way to the Member in a moment. I welcome that approach to play-based learning, therefore. Mr Mathison has rightly identified the issue on the declaration and value for money. I have highlighted why a school manager, who is responsible for getting in the uniform, could just make a declaration and say, "We have value for money" without having to provide any evidence. I tabled an amendment that will actually ensure that they have to provide evidence of that. My amendment is stronger than the position that Sinn Féin and the SDLP outlined. They want to let schools off the hook, and I do not know why — maybe it is because they have a misconception about my motivations. I will say this to them: listen, you are going to let schools off the hook by not supporting the amendment on this issue if that is the approach that you take. Evidence will be required. I assure Mr Mathison that I will ensure that we affirm that providing such evidence will be required and that that will be placed into the guidance. Daniel McCrossan spoke on behalf of the SDLP and, again, outlined the fact that he does not want loopholes and or vague wording in amendment No 3. I am sorry; he is not actually in the Chamber. OK. If that is the case, the SDLP will vote against those amendments. When it comes to it, it will vote to stop getting clear legislation in place and will seek to retain vagueness and loopholes, such as a loophole that means that a school can declare that it has achieved value for money without having evidence of that. Those were the two main points about that group. Mr Sheehan: I thank the Minister for giving way. One of the reasons why we are so sceptical is that there was so little integrity in the process. The only real integrity in the whole process came into it at the Committee Stage, because we were misled on a number of occasions. We were told that guidelines were imminent and that they would be with us the following week, but they never arrived. Of course, Minister, you gave a different account of that at Consideration Stage, during which you said that the guidelines would follow the legislation. We were misled in that sense. Other issues have arisen. For example, Minister, half an hour before Consideration Stage, you called the Chair of the Committee in to ask him to withdraw the Committee amendments, but you did so in the knowledge that he could not do that. There is no point in saying, "Trust me". Trust has to be built, and you did not try to build a relationship with the Committee in any way during the whole process. I reiterate this point: there has been a lack of integrity at every single stage of the process, except the Committee Stage. Mr Givan: The Member is absolutely flat-out wrong. I appreciate that he has never been a Minister in the Executive. I do not think that anyone currently on the Sinn Féin Benches has ever been a Minister, but some of them have been the Chair or Deputy Chair of a Committee, and they know how the process works. This discussion might be more for the Final Stage of the Bill, because we have not talked about the actual amendments; it has been more about sentiment and concern about the process. However, when a Bill is brought to the Executive, all Executive parties participate in that and see what is in it. They are given the opportunity to ask for information, as the First Minister often does, and to seek to shape the legislation. Every Executive party — I will give the SDLP a bye ball on this, because it is not on the Executive — had an opportunity to shape the Bill. It was then introduced in the Assembly and voted on at Second Stage, and it was voted through. There was absolute integrity in the progress of the Bill through the various stages of Assembly scrutiny. When I was able to provide information to the Committee, I did so as soon as I could. I could not engage with the Committee Chair or Deputy Chair until I knew what amendments had been selected at Consideration Stage. I was not aware of that until the Friday evening or Saturday morning, when Consideration Stage was to take place on Monday. I immediately put pen to paper and advised the Committee. Similarly, when it came to Further Consideration Stage, as soon as I could table the amendments, in advance of the Speaker's selection of amendments — he did not select some of them — I sent a letter to the Committee to advise it at an early opportunity, saying, "Here are the amendments and the reasons for them". I have sought to engage with the Committee throughout the process. My officials have always been available to the Committee collectively and, indeed, to individual members. I reject Mr Sheehan's assertion. I appeal to Members to reflect on the substance of what we are debating and our role as MLAs. We are here to put into law clear wording that gives effect to what we want to do. I believe that we all want to make good legislation on this matter. The four amendments in group 2 that we debated seek only to provide greater legislative clarity in the language used and through the placing of provisions in the Bill. Amendment Nos 2 and 6 address an amendment from Consideration Stage by providing language that is more consistent with existing legislation, the Bill and day-to-day school practice. They deliver the intent from Consideration Stage that school uniform should support pupil learning. They place the explicit reference to "Foundation Stage" in a more appropriate clause in the Bill, which provides powers for differentiation, as needed, across school types, pupil age groups and, as the amendment makes explicit, Key Stages. When taken together, amendment Nos 3 and 4 move provisions that were voted on at Consideration Stage from clause 2 to a separate clause with a heading that signposts their purpose. Amendment No 4 further tidies language whilst delivering the Consideration Stage intention to limit or rule out single suppliers unless they demonstrate value for money and to ensure that information about any agreements that a school enters into is published unless they are put in place before the Bill comes into operation. That refines the Bill and ensures greater legal clarity in order to deliver the intention of the House. I commend those amendments to Members. Voting in support of them will demonstrate that we can work together and take our collective responsibility to the statute book seriously, and that we can deliver good legislation that is fit for purpose. Top 4.00 pm In conclusion, I will come back to my opening point, which was that my reason for introducing this legislation — indeed, Mr Mathison described the same objective, which he has shared throughout the process — was to address the affordability of school uniforms for parents and families who I know are struggling with the cost of living. This Bill will make a difference. If it passes Final Stage, it will make a difference to the cost of school uniforms from the 2026-27 academic year. I thank each Member for their contribution. I look forward to receiving the House's support when voting for these technical amendments. Doing so will put families first. Fundamentally, that is what the legislation is all about. Amendment No 2 agreed to. Amendment No 3 made: In page 2, line 28, leave out subsections (3) to (6). — [Mr Givan (The Minister of Education).] Amendment No 4 made: New Clause After clause 2 insert— " Clothing supplier agreements in guidelines 2A.—(1) Guidelines under this Chapter must include provision— (a) containing a statement to the effect that school uniform policies are to be designed so as to ensure that all items or sets of clothing needed by pupils at a school are available for purchase from at least one supplier who is not party to an agreement for the sale of items or sets of clothing for the school’s pupils, but (b) making an exception in relation to a school uniform policy applying at a school which is accompanied by a declaration by a manager of the school to the effect that such an agreement secures value for money with respect to items and sets of clothing needed by pupils at the school. (2) Guidelines under this Chapter must include provision requiring a manager of a school to publish, on the school’s website, information (to be updated at least annually) about any such agreement except a pre-commencement agreement. (3) For the purpose of this section— (a) an agreement is an agreement (whether contractual or otherwise) entered into in the name of or on behalf of the school, and (b) a pre-commencement agreement is an agreement so entered into before this section comes into operation." — [Mr Givan (The Minister of Education).] Amendment No 5 made: In clause 5, page 3, leave out clause 5. — [Mr Givan (The Minister of Education).] Amendment No 6 made: In clause 6, page 4, line 14, at end insert— "(e) referring to Foundation Stage, or Key Stage 1, 2, 3 or 4, as mentioned in the Education (Curriculum Minimum Content) Order (Northern Ireland) 2007." — [Mr Givan (The Minister of Education).] Amendment No 7 made: In clause 8, page 4, line 31, leave out "as follows to a manager of a school" and insert "to a manager of a school as follows". — [Mr Givan (The Minister of Education).] Amendment No 8 proposed: In clause 8, page 4, line 36, after "to" insert "undue". — [Mr Givan (The Minister of Education).] Question put, That amendment No 8 be made. The Assembly divided: Ayes 32; Noes 43 AYES Dr Aiken, Mr Beattie, Mr Bradley, Mr Brett, Mr Brooks, Ms Brownlee, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mr Burrows, Mr Butler, Mrs Cameron, Mr Chambers, Mr Clarke, Mr Dunne, Mrs Erskine, Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew, Mr Gaston, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Irwin, Mr Kingston, Mrs Little-Pengelly, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Martin, Mr Middleton, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Robinson, Mr Stewart Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Brooks, Mr Middleton NOES Mr Baker, Mr Blair, Ms Bradshaw, Miss Brogan, Mr Carroll, Mr Delargy, Mr Dickson, Mrs Dillon, Miss Dolan, Mr Donnelly, Mr Durkan, Ms Egan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Finnegan, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Mrs Guy, Miss Hargey, Mr Honeyford, Mr Kearney, Mr Kelly, Mr McAleer, Miss McAllister, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McMurray, Mr McNulty, Mr McReynolds, Mrs Mason, Mr Mathison, Ms Mulholland, Ms Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Ms Nicholl, Mr O'Toole, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Mr Tennyson Tellers for the Noes: Mrs Guy, Mr Mathison Mr Clarke acted as a proxy for Mrs Erskine. Ms Bradshaw acted as a proxy for Ms Nicholl. Question accordingly negatived. Amendment No 9 made: In page 5, line 9, at end insert— "(iii) a report of an investigation relating to the school if sent to the Department under section 43 of the Public Services Ombudsman Act (Northern Ireland) 2016." — [Mr Mathison.] Amendment No 10 made: In page 5, line 34, leave out from "to" to end of line 35 and insert— "under this section, the Department must publish the text of them within 3 months of giving them." — [Mr Givan (The Minister of Education).] New Clause Mr Speaker: I remind Members that amendment No 11 is linked to amendment No 1 and offers alternative wording in a different place in the Bill. Amendment No 11 made: After clause 14 insert— "Chapter 3 LAYING AND REPORTING FORMALITIES Laying of guidelines 14A. Guidelines under Chapter 1 must be laid before the Assembly by the Department of Education as soon as practicable after issuing or reissuing them." — [Mr Givan (The Minister of Education).] New Clause Amendment No 12 made: After clause 14 insert— " Reporting on guidelines and costs 14B. —(1) At least once every 3 years, the Department of Education must publish a report— (a) setting out the Department’s plans for— (i) reviewing (and revising) guidelines under Chapter 1, and (ii) guidelines under Chapter 1 to include provision, or to have no or altered provision, as to capping of expense, and (b) containing broader information in accordance with the following subsections. (2) The report must— (a) summarise— (i) as the Department’s best estimates, the typical or average costs of school uniforms and individual pieces of such uniforms, and (ii) so far as known to the Department, the various factors contributing to such costs rising, remaining unchanged or becoming lower, and (b) the Department’s assessment of the impact of provision as to capping of expense for the time being included in guidelines under Chapter 1. (3) The report must, if no provision as to capping of expense is for the time being included in guidelines under Chapter 1, state the Department’s explanation for this. (4) The report may reflect the distinctions, as appearing to the Department, between uniforms worn— (a) at particular types or descriptions of schools, or (b) by pupils— (i) in particular age or year groups, or (ii) receiving primary education or secondary education as construed in accordance with Article 2(2) of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986." — [Mr Givan (The Minister of Education).] Mr Speaker: That concludes the Further Consideration Stage of the School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker. Assembly Business Standing Order 10(3A): Extension of Sitting Mr Speaker: I have received notification from members of the Business Committee of a motion to extend the sitting past 7.00 pm under Standing Order 10(3A). Resolved: That in accordance with Standing Order 10(3A), the sitting on Monday 29 September 2025 be extended to no later than 9.30pm. — [Ms Ennis.] Mr Speaker: I ask Members to take their ease while we make a change at the Table. (Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair) Private Members' Business Endometriosis Care Mrs Dillon: I beg to move That this Assembly notes that endometriosis is a serious, chronic inflammatory disease affecting at least one in 10 women across the island, with evidence suggesting that the number may be higher; further notes that the disease often causes severe pelvic pain, infertility, internal scarring and damage to multiple organs, yet it takes an average of eight to nine years for patients to receive a diagnosis; acknowledges that the neglect of endometriosis care highlights wider systemic failures in women's healthcare; recognises that international best practice confirms that specialist-led excision surgery, delivered within a multidisciplinary model of care, provides the best outcomes; calls on the Minister of Health to urgently look at the potential for specialist services with targets for diagnosis and treatment; and further calls on the Minister to engage with his ministerial counterpart in Dublin to develop a joined-up, cross-border approach to endometriosis care that can harness the relevant medical expertise on the island for better women's health outcomes. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Linda. The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. As an amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List, the Business Committee has agreed that 15 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate. Linda, please open the debate on the motion. Mrs Dillon: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle. [Translation: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.] I propose the motion and accept the amendment that our Alliance colleagues have tabled. I must be honest and say that the issue makes me really angry. I am angry on behalf of the many women and girls who have been disbelieved about their real and severe pain, which is minimised, discarded and ignored. Endometriosis is not rare; it is a serious, chronic disease that affects at least one in 10 women, and we know that it affects probably more than that. It tears lives apart and causes excruciating pain, infertility, internal scarring and damage to organs. The disease affects every element of life: education, employment, fertility and relationships. What is the response from our health systems? Women wait years just to get a diagnosis, and treatment plans are either non-existent or far from the recommended standard of best practice. That is not good healthcare; it is cruelty. I have sat in rooms across this island with women who have told their stories of suffering with endometriosis through tears, anger and exhaustion. Girls are told to tough it out. Similar words were used recently on the issue of women's health by a certain US president. Women are forced on to the pill for years to mask the pain, not treat it, and undergo unnecessary surgeries. Expert evidence says that short-term treatment options — ablation surgery, chemical menopause and contraceptives — mask the disease and allow it to spread, often with significant damage to organs, including the bowel and bladder. All those options are still offered as first- and second-line management of the condition. There are women who had no choice but to leave this island and spend thousands of pounds to undergo major surgery abroad because there was nowhere here for them to turn. That is the reality for thousands of women across the island today. This is not just about endometriosis; it is about how women's health is treated across the board, how pain is minimised and symptoms are dismissed and the fact that there are no services, with women left to rot on waiting lists. It is about a health system that still treats women as an afterthought, and that needs to end. The motion is a demand for justice and dignity and for women to no longer be left behind. International best practice is crystal clear: the gold standard is specialist-led excision surgery delivered within a full multidisciplinary team (MDT). That means proper imaging, pain specialists, colorectal and urology care, fertility services and psychological support all working together. The women on this island deserve nothing less. I understand that the Minister and his Department are under pressure not only financially but due to the number of specialist surgeons and specialist nurses who are required. The obvious answer is to work together, North and South and across these islands, to pool expertise, share infrastructure and make sure that, no matter where you live on this island, you get the same care. That is what an all-island health service should look like. It is not just sensible; it is urgent. The same challenges are faced. I welcome the Alliance amendment on the women's health action plan; in fact, this is exactly the kind of case that proves why a women's health action plan is so desperately needed, not as a glossy document that gathers dust on a shelf — I appreciate that the Minister has outlined that that is why he wants it to be an action plan — but as a living plan with targets, timelines and accountability that delivers change for women. Sinn Féin is fighting for action on endometriosis and women's health across the island. In the Dáil, we have taken the issue directly to the Minister for Health. We have stood with women outside Leinster House. We have forced the issue on to the agenda, and we will do the same here. Women have waited long enough. Their lives have been put on hold long enough. Every month that passes without action means more women and young girls suffering in agony, more women having fertility problems and more families broken by the silent suffering that the disease inflicts. I ask the Health Minister to listen and to act. Do not leave those women floundering, relying on Facebook pages to get advice on how to cope — not to thrive but just to cope. I ask Members to stand with those women, support the motion and the amendment and send a clear message by calling on the Minister and the Department to bring forward a specialist service with targets for diagnosis and treatment; work with your counterparts in Dublin to build a joined-up, all-island approach that uses every ounce of the expertise that we have for better outcomes; and bring forward a women's health action plan as a matter of absolute urgency. Women here have been ignored for far too long, and their pain has been written off. They have been made to feel invisible. Today, we have a chance to change that. The motion must be more than words on a page. I know that motions are non-binding, but, Minister, you can choose to be bound; you can choose to do something. If you truly want to tackle health inequalities, give us the plan that shows us that women's health and well-being matters and that it will not be only the women who have the financial means who get the treatment and care that is so badly needed. I reached out to a number of women and girls whom I have been in touch with over the past few years — I know that all Members have been in touch with many women in this circumstance — and asked them for their thoughts on what they would like to be reflected today. They are the ones who are living it. It is they who will suffer if nothing is done, but it is they who will benefit if we get it right. Olivia said that we need: "More information in schools for young people, more research and funding and to start understanding this disease". Cara told me about having to go private to be seen, having to attend A&E on a number of occasions and being discharged with pain relief that made her sick and did not deal with the excruciating pain. She said: "We need clear pathways for diagnosis and treatment of endometriosis". Anne was a teacher who was passionate about her job and her students. She had to leave her job and was left almost completely immobile as a result of endometriosis. She wrote this to her younger self: "I’m glad at 14 you didn’t know what was ahead of you. When every girl around you celebrated their change into adulthood, the giggles … innocent comments — the hushed word ‘period’ — your demon had begun. I'm glad you didn’t know how strong you would have to become. How it would embed itself into every part of your life. While at 14 you were winning cross country medals, dancing medals, fighting with your brothers that you were the better footballer and spending as much time in your kayak at the beach — jumping off piers and cliffs … hard to feed and exceptionally active and fit, by 6th form you would struggle to get off the sofa and be confused by the physical pain. I'm sorry that you had to watch your parents cry. Watch them fight for you. Organise full body MRI scans — a young healthy girl at 16 years of age — top grades, head prefect — all of a sudden changes and is experiencing pain and no one thinks it is weird or listens to you? Yet this is when you would learn that no-one would believe your pain and how your body was attacking itself. I'm sorry that you struggled to walk to your A level English literature class on the third floor of St Marys and when you did you would struggle to catch a breath. It will be years — and I mean years — before you recognise this as your normal and a result of living with endo and you will have to accept it. I'm sorry that you felt less. That you felt not tough or strong enough. I'm sorry that during this process none of the professionals who should have supported you showed up". That is only a short excerpt of a brave, articulate, heartbreaking letter written by an amazing woman who became a shell of herself and had to spend thousands of pounds to go to England for surgery to try to become the woman that she wanted to be and was meant to be — the mother, the wife and the daughter that she aspired to be — and not the burden that, she felt, she had become. I urge you all to read that letter. The Minister's officials were given a copy of it at an event in the Long Gallery. Top 4.30 pm I will finish with the words of Mary Lee, a Monaghan-born woman who became one of the most fearless suffrage campaigners over a century ago. She said: "My cause is the cause of womanhood, and no bluster or denunciation will silence me while one wrong to womanhood exists of which I have knowledge or against which I have the power to protest." Today, I am protesting, not for the sake of protest but in the genuine hope that the Minister, our health service and our clinicians will work together to do better for women with endometriosis right across this island. Miss McAllister: I beg to move the following amendment: At end insert: "; and calls on the Minister to urgently bring forward the women's health action plan." Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: You will have 10 minutes to propose the amendment and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes. Miss McAllister: Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker, and thanks to my colleagues for tabling the motion. We are absolutely going to support it, and I think that it is a very worthwhile topic for focus in the Assembly Chamber. Apologies. Can I have a moment, please, Principal Deputy Speaker? [Pause.] First and foremost, I want to say that around one in 10 women here suffers from endometriosis, but we know that those statistics are quite low compared with the true number. We know that there are many women who are yet to be diagnosed and treated for endometriosis and that specialists in endometriosis care simply do not exist. Minister, I have been working for the past few months with a number of medical professionals in the Belfast Trust, and I have brought this debate to you on many occasions, both in the Health Committee and in the Assembly Chamber. The issue of the diagnosis and treatment of endometriosis goes much beyond one trust, but we know that, in one trust, there is what amounts to what I can describe as medical misogyny. There is currently a robotics device that sits in the Belfast Trust that is used primarily to treat men. I am not saying that they should not be treated, but the statistics on the vulnerabilities and inequalities around women's health are overwhelming. In the past two years, over 600 men have been treated using that robotics device but under 50 women, despite medical professionals in the Belfast Trust telling us that they have banged down the door every year asking that they have more access to it. It is not about specialist training or about the availability of consultants. It exists, and it could treat endometriosis. We know that it can assist in hysterectomies, and we know that it can treat gynaecological cancers. I hope today, Minister, that you are able to actually answer the questions that I have brought to you on this issue. Moving on to the debate on the motion itself, I will highlight a number of points that Mrs Dillon made. I will not reiterate them, but I want to pick up on some of the words that she used: "dismissed", "ignored" and "belittled". We have all heard those more than once today. We have all heard those words in our constituency offices, we have heard them in Committees and we have heard them on the doorsteps. Too many women are suffering from this every single day. Imagine, every single day, waking up in extreme pain, not knowing what it is about. For those who have had a diagnosis, imagine waking up in pain and also bleeding every single day but still having to look after your children, still having to go to work and still trying to have a social life, have friends and be happy, masking the fact that there are other issues going on. That is the case for many women here in Northern Ireland. Too many women are forced to go to GPs, to A&E and to gynaecologists to try to understand and figure out exactly what is wrong, and they cannot get an official diagnosis. We know that many today, who are making their first appointment with a GP, will wait upwards of nine years. They are faced with endless tests, they are faced with waiting lists and they are often faced with medical gaslighting: professionals telling them that there is nothing wrong and that the severe pain that they are experiencing is normal and is just what it is like to be a woman. That is why it is so important that medical professionals receive the proper training and education, and that is why, Minister, we want that specialist training and service to exist right across Northern Ireland today so that women do not have to wait for years to get medical help. I thank the proposer of the motion for highlighting the experience of a number of her constituents. I was going to mention some as well, but I start by thanking my party leader, Naomi Long, for speaking out and sharing her experience of endometriosis, because, like too many women, she had to wait almost two decades before receiving a diagnosis, and it was received only after she had collapsed in severe pain. Sometimes, it is important for people to speak out, but some women feel that it is a private issue. I say to them that they should not be ashamed or hide behind their door. Speak out and advocate. We will continue to do so for you. I am glad that we will get a ministerial response to the debate. I want to see how we can move forward right across Northern Ireland. As I mentioned, this is not just about Belfast or my constituency but about every single woman in every trust area in Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, as we have seen with breast cancer and gynae waiting lists, treatment really can be a postcode lottery. We tabled the amendment not to detract or take away from the motion but simply to add to it. The first motion that the Alliance Party chose for debate when the Assembly returned was on a women's health action plan. At the time, we said that it was important to have a strategy and to have statistics but that it was also important to have an achievable outcome. Robin Swann, the Minister of Health at the time, said that he would bring forward the women's health action plan that was being developed. That was on 13 February last year. A year and a half on, and, despite hope being given at the time, we have still not seen an action plan. I thank Queen's University and the Derry Well Woman Centre for the survey that they are undertaking on a women's health action plan. It was the Department of Health that commissioned it. Women, however, have been surveyed for decades. They have spoken up and shouted, and the community and voluntary sector has carried out surveys that reveal what we all have said for years: we do not need or want platitudes; seven-year waits are not good enough; living in crippling pain is not good enough; and being dismissed is not good enough. Women have had enough. The process is being dragged out for far too long. We understand that, although the action plan is important, it alone will not deliver. Every organisation and every trust must work together. As we highlight the issue in the Chamber today, however, the reality is that women and girls in our society are struggling to use their voice to fight for their health. Hopefully, after today, we will see urgent action taken that will result in a women's health action plan and then see its actions implemented. I am thankful that the voice of every woman who has been mentioned so far today has now been heard in the Chamber. It is important that we all work together so that all those women can receive a diagnosis and access the treatment that they need. Mr Robinson: Data suggests that one in 10 women in Northern Ireland is affected by the condition. From my maths, that translates as approximately 96,000 women living with a condition that currently has no cure. The figures are very similar to the UK average. It is further estimated that around 200 million women worldwide are affected, yet endometriosis remains one of the most common conditions that women face without its attracting the high-profile public attention that other conditions tend to attract. The problem with endometriosis is with the diagnosis. It is shocking that it can take eight or nine years from the onset of symptoms for a woman to receive a formal diagnosis. In Northern Ireland, that is compounded by already-long waiting lists, with some patients even reporting that their symptoms have been misdiagnosed for many years. There is no specialist centre operating in the Province, so the problem is compounded even further. Any delay in receiving a diagnosis can lead to worsening symptoms, permanent organ damage and even infertility. There is no doubt that endometriosis is a chronic and debilitating condition that has profound physical, emotional and social implications for those who are affected. It is a disease — I have to be graphic — in which tissue, similar to the lining of the uterus, grows outside the uterus, often on the ovaries, the fallopian tubes or the bowel. That tissue tends to behave as it would inside the uterus — it thickens, breaks down and often bleeds — but it has no way to exit the body, so it can cause severe inflammation, scar tissue formation, adhesions and often extreme pelvic pain. Anxiety and depression are said to be very common amongst those living with the condition due to the constant pain and the frustration of trying to obtain a diagnosis. Women with the condition suffer from intense chronic pain that can make everyday activities, such as work, socialising and even basic self-care, feel impossible. Those symptoms can lead to absenteeism from work and school, which, in turn, has an obvious impact on the economy. Research tends to show that excision surgery, which involves the removal of tissue, is the most effective treatment for women with the condition, offering them better long-term outcomes. It is clear that specialist care is key to managing the condition effectively, and that the current system in Northern Ireland falls far short of offering the required levels of specialist service. Women who are affected want to see investment in the creation of specialist clinics to provide expert care. In areas of the UK, including Scotland and Wales, accredited specialist care has been shown to improve outcomes, including better public awareness. As with the issue of the chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cells that we debated last week, Northern Ireland should not be left behind. As I said in last week's health debate, we have some of the very best hospitals; in fact, some are world class. We also have world-class staff. We should, therefore, be on a par with the very best. Given the importance of the issue, we felt that the original motion was a little bit narrow in scope. Although we support cross-border cooperation, we need to ensure that women have the best care here locally, wherever and however possible. Mr Chambers: I welcome the opportunity that motions such as this give us to discuss and highlight important medical issues faced by citizens across Northern Ireland. Endometriosis is not a rare or fringe condition but one that affects a great number of women: our mothers, daughters, sisters, colleagues and friends. However, for far too long, their pain was often minimised or misunderstood. The condition can mean years of severe pain, repeated hospital visits and the very real fear and anxiety about the hugely sensitive issue of fertility, and yet, as the motion highlights, there are still challenges with finally getting a diagnosis. We know that our health service is under immense pressure, but women's voices in decades gone by were not always listened to. That must change, and, thankfully, it is changing. There is now much better awareness and understanding of the condition compared with even a relatively small number of years ago. Awareness is growing. Health professionals and patients have worked tirelessly to ensure that the condition is no longer dismissed as just bad periods but is recognised as the serious health condition that it is. That change in understanding has given hope to thousands. I commend the women who have spoken out about their experiences. Campaigners and charities, including many here in Northern Ireland, have done so much to raise awareness and push the condition up the public and political agenda. Their work has brought us to the much higher level of understanding that there is today. With improved awareness has come improved outcomes: diagnosis is now an alternative to the endless years of uncertainty that many once endured. Better treatment pathways, supported by research and investment, are allowing patients to manage their condition more effectively. Workplaces and schools are also beginning to adapt and are acknowledging the reality of the condition, offering flexibility and support. Of course, there is still much more to be done, which is why I welcome the efforts that are under way in the Department of Health. The upcoming publication of the women's health action plan will be an important step. I very much welcome the other, wider efforts that are already under way, not least those informed by the getting it right first time (GIRFT) review. Top 4.45 pm Of course, women's health is about so much more than one condition. It must be part of a much-needed, broader recognition that women's health matters and must be central to health policy in Northern Ireland. From this condition to menopause and fertility services, we need to listen and continue to act where necessary. I am confident that Minister Nesbitt is across the issues. Ms McLaughlin: A few months ago, I joined other Members in a round-table discussion in the Long Gallery on endometriosis hosted by the all-party group (APG) on women's health. On that day, I heard some of the most heartbreaking stories from women living with the condition, one of which — Anne's story — Linda read out today. That was absolutely heartbreaking. There was not a dry eye in the room. Every story was different, but one thing was consistent: those women were being failed by our health service. They were told that their pain was not real, that it was in their head or that it was just women's things. Some even underwent surgery in an attempt to ease their pain only to be left in unimaginable agony. As the motion states, at least one in 10 women across the island lives with endometriosis. That represents over 200,000 women across the island, which is a significant number. Yet, it can take up to 10 years on average for a diagnosis. Think about that: a decade or more of lost education, missed work, disrupted family life and untreated suffering. For me, this is very personal. I first experienced my symptoms back in the 1980s, when I was 16. I was not diagnosed until the 1990s at the age of 27. Tragically, as I listened to people discussing their situation in 2025, I found that nothing had changed. When you look at the advancements in healthcare from the 1980s and 1990s to today, you see that the world is unrecognisable but that things in women's healthcare have not changed. That is just a tragedy. The economic cost is also enormous. Studies across the UK and Ireland have shown that delayed diagnosis and inadequate treatment lead to repeated GP visits, hospital admissions, lost productivity and workforce absenteeism. It sometimes keeps families in poverty, because there is a real barrier for women in going to work and contributing. Every year of untreated endometriosis represents a real financial and social cost to society. International comparisons show that, when specialist-led, multidisciplinary care is available, outcomes improve dramatically. Countries such as Germany, the Netherlands and Australia have structured care pathways that reduce the time to diagnosis and improve treatment success. They are chronic diseases that, when left undiagnosed and untreated, have absolutely life-changing impacts. Women in Northern Ireland deserve nothing less than structured care pathways. Specialist-led excision surgery that is delivered in a multidisciplinary model provides the best outcomes. That is the standard that women here should have access to. It means that we need specialised services, clear targets for diagnosis and treatment and a recognition that endometriosis is a serious, chronic disease. The issue highlights something that is even bigger: the systemic failure in women's healthcare. Women's healthcare is the poor relation of the health system. There is no doubt about that. Women's health is not prioritised and does not get investment. We are the only region across these islands without a women's healthcare strategy. Yes, an action plan is great and is welcome, but it is no substitute for long-term commitment, accountability and structural change. The cost of doing nothing in lost productivity, repeated interventions and human suffering is far greater than the cost of investing in care now. Surveys from Nothing About Us Without Us and Derry Well Women show that women are not listened to, their pain is minimised and services are often inaccessible. Almost 80% of women reported feeling unheard by health professionals, and more than 30% said that the services that they needed were "inaccessible" or "very inaccessible". Better women's health means earlier diagnosis, fewer emergencies, fewer repeat interventions — Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Sinéad. Ms McLaughlin: — and women being able to participate fully in education, work and family life. We must do better, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response. Mr McGuigan: It is estimated that endometriosis affects one in 10 women and girls, which is higher than the number affected by diabetes. I know that everybody has used that statistic in their contribution. I was going to take it out of mine, but it does no harm to reiterate how common the condition is in women and girls across the island. To be honest, until I moved to the Committee for Health in February, I knew little or nothing about it. It is important that debates such as this highlight not only the exact nature of the condition but, more important, what needs to be done to help the women and girls across the island who are suffering. I listened to Sinéad, and I heard Naomi Long on social media last night. Their contributions and those of the individuals whose words Linda read out are vital to the conversation, with women and girls identifying for themselves the exact nature of the condition, how it has affected them and the barriers to treatment and living a full life. For many years, many of them have been dismissed or misdiagnosed and, in some cases, have had no option but to borrow or spend money to access the tests and treatment that they needed to manage the debilitating and chronic condition. As others have said, most wait almost a decade for a proper diagnosis. That is absolutely unacceptable and points to a wider systemic failure in women's healthcare. I welcome the debate on the motion that we have tabled. I also welcome the Alliance amendment calling on the Minister to urgently bring forward the women's health action plan. As we have heard, endometriosis can have a profound impact on every aspect of a woman's life — work, education and relationships — and has implications for organ health and fertility. The lack of awareness and expertise in the area does not just delay diagnosis but adds to the mental and emotional toll of living with constant pain and uncertainty. We understand that many of the symptoms can vary and overlap with other conditions and that there are limited non-invasive diagnostic methods. That is why it is vital that we have a sufficient number of trained professionals who understand the condition and can provide timely referrals, proper imaging, speedy treatment and aftercare pathways — not the painkillers-and-platitudes approach that many women who have shared their stories have experienced. International best practice is clear: specialist-led excision surgery delivered through a multidisciplinary model of care gives women and girls the best chance of having a good, pain-free quality of life. I welcome the Minister's recognition that women's healthcare must be given more focus and the fact that work is under way to reduce waiting times and develop a standardised regional pathway for patients with diagnoses of minor, intermediate or severe endometriosis. We also welcome the establishment of the regional Health and Social Care (HSC) gynaecology services forum, which oversees the implementation of the Getting It Right First Time report. I ask Minister to provide in his response an update on the progress of the recommendations in the report. To be clear, there is a need for urgency. According to the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists' elective care recovery tracker, there are close to 60,000 patients on the gynae waiting list, with 32,000 of them waiting for more than 52 weeks. We can all acknowledge the challenges in our health service, but women cannot continue to be failed. This is about meeting a basic healthcare need and, as my party colleague rightly said, about fairness and dignity. Medical professionals who want to specialise in the condition must, where possible, be supported to undertake additional specialist training, but, ultimately, we need to see progress beyond reports and recommendations. We need to see the delivery and action that women and girls across the island deserve. Ms Brownlee: I welcome the opportunity to speak on such a deeply important issue: how the lived experience of women and girls in Northern Ireland who are suffering with reproductive health conditions like polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and endometriosis is being routinely dismissed and neglected. Today, I want to tell a story about one of my constituents, Sophie, who has gone through years of physical pain, emotional distress and institutional failure. Sophie is one of many, but we know that her words speak for thousands. From the age of 18, she knew that something was not right. She was dealing with irregular periods, painful periods and extremely heavy periods. She went to her GP again and again asking for answers, only to be told that she was on a waiting list, but she then found out that she had never been referred. In 2021, after scraping together enough money to go private, she was finally diagnosed with PCOS, but, by then, the pain had worsened. Year after year, she ended up presenting at A&E multiple times in agony, but she was met with comments like, "Is it just a bad period?", or, "Have you tried a hot-water bottle or a warm bath?". She was truly heartbroken and felt that there was nowhere else to turn. After her diagnosis, a consultant suggested further investigation, but, frankly, she just could not afford it. When she finally got private healthcare through her job, she was told by a doctor that she would not be considered for treatment — quote — "while you are this obese". That beautiful girl was 12 stone. At her most desperate, she asked to have her ovaries removed and was told no, because she was not married. She tried everything to be taken seriously, including weight-loss injections. She lost four and a half stone, went back to the same doctor and was still turned away. She was offered the pill and sent out the door. She saved again to go back to her original private doctor and begged for investigative surgery, because she feared that she had endometriosis. The doctor was not convinced, but, to give her peace of mind, he agreed. She had surgery, and the surgeon confirmed that she had been right all along. Her endometriosis was extensive and aggressive. It was so severe, in fact, that her internal organs were fusing together. She went through years of pain and years of being dismissed and gaslit by a system that should have helped her. That was not a failure of communication; it was a failure of care. Sophie is not standing alone. She is sharing her story and has built a community of women across Northern Ireland who have gone through exactly the same thing. They have been dismissed, ignored, told that they were overreacting and even told that it was anxiety or depression and to get therapy instead of receiving real medical care. Many have waited six, eight or even 10 years for that diagnosis. Minister, we all feel that that is unacceptable. Women and girls in Northern Ireland deserve better. They deserve access to timely, accurate information about their bodies. They deserve medical staff who understand their conditions and do not treat pain as an exaggeration or a nuisance. They deserve care that is based on need, not weight, status or stereotypes. That failure is not only a personal cost; it has wider economic consequences. Women are missing school, university and work. Many are forced to reduce hours or leave employment entirely, and the financial barrier to private healthcare creates inequalities in who gets heard and who does not. I really welcome the beginning of the real conversations about how we can educate people — medical professionals and our communities — about the conditions. My constituent is eager to meet and discuss how she can create a model of practice and a framework that can guide how health is treated in both education and healthcare, because no woman should be told, "You are too fat for treatment", no woman should ever be told that she cannot have surgery because she is not married, and no woman should have to beg to be believed about her pain. I welcome the fact that we are discussing this today, and I hope that it is only the beginning. Women in Northern Ireland have waited long enough. Top 5.00 pm Ms Murphy: I support the motion on endometriosis care that my party colleagues tabled. It is an urgent and deeply personal issue that affects the lives of thousands of women across this island. We know that endometriosis is a chronic condition that affects at least one woman in 10, but all the stats in the world cannot capture the lived reality for young women who begin to experience that debilitating illness in their early teenage years. Puberty is already a confusing time for young women, but those who suffer from endometriosis have to cope with enormous and reoccurring changes to their bodies that impact on most aspects of their lives. Couple that with the excruciating pain and symptoms of endometriosis, and it is a lot to ask any young woman to handle. In many cases, it leads to many years of missing school, missing university, not competing in sports, not having hobbies, not having a social life and having to withdraw from their normal daily life any time that they have a period. Endometriosis involves not just painful periods. It can have other consequences, such as infertility, internal scarring and organ damage. For a condition that affects so many, it is woefully difficult to get a timely diagnosis and access to proper care. I have constituents, friends and family members who have been told that their pain is normal. They are asked to distrust their own instincts, ignore the warnings from their own body and live with a constant cycle of agony. That is not just the reality in one or two isolated cases but the reality for most sufferers, and it points to a systemic failure in women's healthcare. Supporting the motion is about changing the culture in healthcare so that women are not left fighting to be believed. Women deserve specialist-led services, targets and timely diagnosis, as well as a joined-up approach that utilises all the resources across this island. Mrs Cameron: I welcome the opportunity to speak in this important debate, and I also welcome the participation of men across the Chamber. Although women are absolutely affected by this condition, it is really important that it not be seen as a women's issue for women to deal with. It is a problem for every one of us, and we should all take responsibility. I therefore welcome the participation of men in the debate. Women do not have it easy throughout their physical lives, from periods and infertility to childbirth and menopause, and everything in between. The very least that women deserve is to be able to access appropriate, timely, compassionate healthcare when they need it most. Endometriosis is a profoundly painful and debilitating disease that can significantly limit mobility and affect vital organs. The reality is stark. We still do not know what causes endometriosis, and there is currently no known cure. That is no comfort to the one in 10 women who are living with this life-altering condition. Treatment can help manage the symptoms, particularly the chronic and often unbearable pain, yet it is wholly unacceptable that women in Northern Ireland continue to face such pain and distress without having access to the appropriate and necessary clinical services. I cannot imagine what it must feel like to live with the condition and then to be told that the average wait for a diagnosis is nine and a half years. That is utterly unacceptable and intolerable. There is a pressing need for a UK-wide strategy: one that equips the NHS with endo-experienced surgeons, fertility specialists, mental health professionals and pain management experts. Women deserve no less as they navigate what is often a devastating and isolating journey. The consequences of delayed diagnosis and inadequate care are clear. Long waits worsen health outcomes. They mean more time off work or school, more familial and financial strain and more invasive medical interventions. Put simply, the earlier that a condition such as endometriosis is diagnosed and treated, the sooner that women can reclaim their lives. I quote the words of those who understand the impact of endometriosis best: our clinicians. The president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists said: "Endometriosis can have significant impacts on every aspect of womens' [sic] lives – and timely diagnosis is crucial to ensuring that treatment and wider support can be in place to limit the progression of disease and manage symptoms." In addition to the personal toll, there is a serious economic consequence. Without adequate support, many women are forced to take extended leave from work or, in some cases, leave employment entirely. There is an urgent need for better, more accurate and more timely information for women and girls in Northern Ireland. It is simply unacceptable that so many are left feeling anxious, unsupported and forced to conduct their own research just to access basic care. Most women are not asking for very much. They simply want to be listened to, believed and respected. The DUP has consistently called for greater support for endometriosis services, menopause care and perinatal health services. Too many women report that they visit their GP fearing that they will not be taken seriously, and, too often, sadly, they are right. Women in Northern Ireland deserve an appropriate care pathway backed by proper funding and specialist-led services. We therefore support the call for the Health Minister to urgently consider providing a specialist service in line with international best practice. That includes excision surgery delivered within a multidisciplinary care model, which has been shown to deliver best outcomes. As my colleague Alan Robinson said, we also support cross-border cooperation to share expertise and best practice and to improve access to treatment. However, we must also ensure that high-quality care is available locally, here in Northern Ireland. No woman should have to travel overly long distances just to receive the standard of care that she should expect at home. We owe it to every woman who has suffered in silence for far too long to finally act. Women should not have to fight for support, wait nearly a decade for diagnosis or be left to navigate the condition on their own. The care that they need exists; what is missing is delivery. The Department of Health must do better. Today, I call directly on the Minister of Health to listen to the voices of women across Northern Ireland, prioritise endometriosis care and deliver timely, effective treatment — Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Your time is up, Pam. Mrs Cameron: — and the specialist services that women not only need but have waited far too long for. They have waited long enough. Mr Carroll: As we have heard, one in 10 women faces endometriosis, but the figure is likely to be much higher. The cost is some £8·2 billion every year in healthcare costs, loss of work and treatment, and that probably only scratches the surface. Some 95% of those living with endometriosis report that it has a negative impact on their well-being, and, as we have heard, it takes an average of almost 10 years — nine years and five months — to get an endometriosis diagnosis. That is completely unacceptable for all women across the North and across the board. As with many healthcare issues in the North, those who can afford it are forced to seek private healthcare for a diagnosis and treatment, while those who cannot afford to pay for private healthcare are left to suffer in silence while waiting years for even a simple ultrasound. That is unacceptable. Like other Members, I have spoken to women in my constituency whose endometriosis pain is so severe that they have been forced to go to A&E regularly and repeatedly, and some have had no choice but to give up work while waiting for treatment. That is forced unemployment. For those who suffer from debilitating symptoms, work, education, relationships and caring responsibilities are all impacted. Endometriosis has, in effect, prevented thousands of women across the North from going about their daily lives, something that we all, including me, take for granted. For hundreds of years, women's pain has been pathologised as emotional or been normalised. As a starting point, we need to challenge that idea. That concept, combined with the underfunding of women's health research and a male-centred biomedical model, has led to a decade-long wait for diagnosis. Again, that is totally unacceptable. Without diagnosis, treatment and management, endometriosis may progress and lead to organs being damaged. Thousands of patients are on gynaecology waiting lists in the North, condemned to years of unnecessary suffering. As we have heard, many women have their symptoms downplayed or dismissed; that seems to happen across the board. Some are told just to get pregnant to fix their symptoms, which is totally unacceptable. Some are incorrectly diagnosed with IBS or are even told that their pain is related to anxiety or depression. Others are passed back and forth from gynae to gastro care. That is anybody's definition of medical gaslighting and is medical misogyny at its finest. That is not to say that doctors are inherently misogynistic — definitely not. Many are doing the hard work on the ground to improve our health system for women. What it does reflect is the impact of misogyny and women's oppression in every facet of our life. It is still institutionalised and systemic in 2025. Healthcare does not exist in a vacuum. As much as it should be rooted purely in need, evidence, science and treatment outcomes, the history of healthcare is also the history of the humans who shaped it, and they were the product of the society and the conditions they lived under. The same strict gender norms, which were imposed on women and families, ensuring male dominance in society, were written into medicine. Those strict gender rules did not always exist, however, and there was a time when people lived very differently. It is also worth emphasising that medical myths about gender roles and behaviours were constructed as facts before medicine became a more evidence-based science. Those myths were fundamental to treatment. For example, doctors once believed that women's nerves were too highly strung for them to receive an education and that their ovaries would become inflamed if they read too much. Obviously, that sounds bonkers, but it is not a million miles away from what Trump, Tate and others are saying. Thankfully, even today, we know much more about gender and sexuality. It is concerning, for example, that we live in a world where menstruation and menopause are seen by many people as credible reasons why women should not get certain jobs or hold positions of power. Endometriosis exposes the rotten core of commodified healthcare, long delays in diagnosis, a lack of reliable and accessible specialist services and a two-tier healthcare system in which those who can afford to pay are charged an arm and a leg for basic scans and precarious [Inaudible.] I am happy to support the motion and the amendment. Thank you. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Gerry. I call the Minister of Health. Minister, you have up to 15 minutes. Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. I am sure that you think that I will start by thanking Members because that is the standard procedure, but I do not think that this was a standard debate. It was a particularly important debate, and I thank Linda Dillon in particular for setting the tone. I am going to read her remarks when they are published in Hansard not because I was not listening but because I was, and I think that they are well worth a second airing. You probably think that I am going to say, "I am well aware of the need to do better in this area", but I know that your reaction to that will be, "Forget the words. Give me actions". We have 20 actions in the GIRFT gynaecological report from last year. They have all been accepted in principle, so they are departmental policy. I want to see them implemented, but I acknowledge that some will require additional funding, which does not currently exist, and there will be a lead-in time for delivery. For example, I am fully supportive of clinical e-triage, but additional funding will be required to expand consultant sessions to provide the initiative and ensure that patients are seen in the right place at the right time by the most appropriate person. Initiatives such as direct to test, advice and triage will ensure that slots that are available in secondary care are used to their maximum benefit, particularly for complex conditions such as endometriosis. Regional, standardised clinical criteria and standard operating procedures are being developed. Those will support e-triage and maximise consultant capacity and time. Additional investments are also required to develop gynaecology ambulatory hubs in secondary care. Those hubs will provide consultant and nurse practitioner procedure clinics and will also manage rapid access for women who require assessment and treatment within a short time frame. Mrs Dillon: I thank the Minister for taking an intervention, because this is an important point. Can we ensure that, when the work is being carried out, there is no continuation of the treatments that are being given that just mask symptoms? We would never say to somebody with cancer, "Take painkillers and hope that you get better," while it is spreading. Let us not put women on the pill or into early medical menopause while the disease is spreading, connecting to and destroying their internal organs. Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for her intervention. Every day is a learning day, and this is a big learning day for me on this issue. I also advise that gynaecology services in primary elective care have been re-established. They are now at 100% capacity as of 1 April 2025. An additional £1,730,986 of funding has been committed out of the £2·9 million recurrent funding for primary care elective gynaecology pathways. That additional investment will enable over 6,000 patients to be managed by 16 gynaecology GPs with enhanced skills, and that will be across 18 host practices. As of 31 August, 1,683 patients have been assessed and treated through that service. It is expected that that activity will incrementally increase, with full activity to be delivered by 31 March next year. Top 5.15 pm Further work is ongoing to explore the transfer of some of the longest waiters in secondary care who meet the criteria for management in the primary care elective service. That work is being undertaken in partnership with the strategic planning and performance group (SPPG), the Gynaecological Collaborative and the GP Federation Support Unit. That pilot will start in the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust and Belfast Trust areas in the near future, and it will be implemented more widely, should it prove successful. SPPG is also working with the GP Federation Support Unit to map out training requirements. That will enhance the gynae GP enhanced services (ES) workforce to enable additional activity to be delivered in primary care and further reduce pressure on secondary care. Gynaecology services across the region will need to increase their workforce to allow that service reform to take place. GIRFT recommends that robotic gynaecological surgery should be considered in the management of complex cancer cases. It is envisaged that that will be a regional resource and that sessions will be available for gynaecologists across the Province to enhance their skills and help attract newly trained consultants. Nuala McAllister made a point about medical misogyny. A gynae robot is in the process of being approved regionally, so that will be a regional resource. It is different from the device in the Belfast City Hospital, which is a urology robot. The use of the gynae robot will be particularly important for complex endometriosis and other gynaecological procedures. Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for giving way. At this point, it might be helpful to say that the figures that I stated were incorrect. The numbers of procedures are slightly different. It is important that I highlight that. I am aware that the robot is for urology. The gynaecology medical professionals also advocated a device, but it was the urology department that succeeded. We were informed that that was because those clinicians were professionally trained to use it, but our investigation found that that was not the case and the gynae department staff were also professionally trained to do so. Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for her intervention. She has put that on the record. The SPPG has established a regional forum with trust, primary care, Public Health Agency, policy and professional representation. That body will take forward the recommendations. A regional engagement forum is to be established to ensure that patients' voices are heard. Eight regional clinical pathway groups have been established as part of the GIRFT regional group. Those groups will promote consistency and standardisation across gynaecology services. One group is focused on the delivery of the endometriosis pathway and the service needs of patients who present with the condition at primary, secondary and tertiary level. Members should be aware that the Belfast Trust and the Western Health and Social Care Trust previously held provisional accreditation as a British Society of Gynaecological Endoscopy (BSGE) endometriosis centre and that that accreditation was impacted during COVID. Part of the group's remit will be to determine how quickly accreditation can be achieved again in Northern Ireland, recognising the need to balance theatre capacity for urgent or cancer surgeries with acknowledging our funding constraints. The accreditation of endometriosis centres is a critical aspect of providing high-quality care for patients with that complex condition. The BSGE accredits centres where gynaecologists work in appropriate clinical teams, audit their outcomes and maintain their surgical skills. The accreditation process is designed to maintain high-quality standards of care and ensure that patients have access to specialist treatments. The regional endometriosis task and finish group is working with GP gynaecology enhanced services to consider which patients can be managed by their GP or transferred to be managed via the gynaecology enhanced primary care service. The activity located in the service will depend on direct access to scanning and procedure facilities. Work is ongoing in each gynaecology condition pathway to set the criteria for referral into the GP enhanced clinics, including for endometriosis. Discussions are also under way to provide secondary care specialist nurses who will in-reach to GP ES that provide procedures such as pessary clinics. In April this year, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) published an update on the management of endometriosis that recommends the use of relugolix for treating symptoms of endometriosis in adults of reproductive age who have had medical or surgical treatment. I am pleased to advise that that treatment is now available in line with the criteria set out via the process for the managed entry of new medicines on a cost-per-case basis. Individuals who require access to treatment should discuss the matter with their hospital consultant in the first instance, who will then decide whether it is appropriate to make a cost-per-case application. Current waiting times in secondary care also need to be equalised, with recent information still showing significant variation across the region. That is one area that the newly appointed regional clinical director for elective care is determined to tackle. Examples of scaling up practice include the expansion of additional nurse-led ambulatory and procedure clinics and clinical e-triage protocols, ensuring that women are directed to the right place or diagnostic test at the right time. Improvements in gynaecology services, including the endometriosis service in the short, medium and longer term, will be aided by my recent announcement of 6 May. At that time, I outlined how funding in this year's budget had been invested across three areas of waiting list activities: to expand core capacity to reduce the red flag time-critical gap; to increase core routine capacity; and non-recurrent funding to start tackling the backlog of patient waiting lists. Gynaecology patients will benefit from the additional package of measures within that investment, as the service plans to target long-waiting patients in gynaecology via mega-clinics, waiting list initiatives and additional theatre sessions, as well as targeting red flag and time-critical patients. Between April and July 2025, an additional 1,968 women on secondary care waiting lists have been assessed or treated using waiting list funding at a cost of nearly £1 million. More activity is planned. The elective care framework implementation and funding plan sets out proposals for how we will systematically tackle the backlog of patients and how we plan to transform services to meet anticipated future demand. Trusts are working with my officials to develop plans for the medium and longer term that will expand gynaecology capacity from primary care through to secondary and tertiary care. That work will take forward the GIRFT recommendations as well as service models, such as integrated gynaecology hubs, that will provide sustained additionality, modernising our services and addressing waiting times. It will also provide additional theatre capacity to ensure that we meet the requirements to secure the two endometriosis centres in Northern Ireland. Work has commenced with trusts to determine what services are available for the psychological and emotional support of women diagnosed with endometriosis. The role of clinical nurse specialists cannot be overestimated in providing the complete holistic approach that is required. Nurse specialists will signpost patients to services in the community or to their GPs. There are also pathways to refer patients to general, psychological and pain services for further support. The Southern, South Eastern and Northern Trusts have more limited psychological and emotional support services available. However, they also have the ability to refer general psychological and pain services for women who are suffering from endometriosis. In principle, I am open to exploring cross-border collaboration where there is a clear population health need and a feasible, sustainable proposal that can benefit patients and health systems in both jurisdictions. However, my current preference is to focus on improving capacity and performance in the HSC by implementing the GIRFT recommendations that I referred to. I recognise the need for improved public awareness, information and education on all women's health issues from an early age across the life course. While it is not possible to commit investment to any public awareness campaigns, it is envisaged that the Public Health Agency will work with my Department to deliver what is possible in the area through other means. That will be a key part of the women's health action plan that is being developed. That plan will seek to bring together the range of ongoing developments in women's health. The ongoing work on the GIRFT recommendations and on endometriosis specifically will be an important part of the plan. It will also include other actions and ongoing developments ranging from maternity safety to sexual and reproductive health and cardiovascular health, as well as links with my Live Better initiative, which is trying to address health inequalities. I know that we have a long way to go to improve gynaecological services in Northern Ireland, with over 54,000 women waiting to access gynaecology outpatient services and over 5,000 women on inpatient and day-case waiting lists. As the Minister, I am determined to deliver significant improvements in that area. I am also determined to deliver the women's health action plan. I would love to give Members a timeline and a deadline for its publication, but I will not do so until I am sufficiently confident that we will deliver on that deadline. I have too long a list of broken deadlines to do that to the House. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister. I call Danny Donnelly to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. Danny, you have five minutes. Mr Donnelly: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Between 2020 and 2023, the average length of time for an endometriosis diagnosis in Northern Ireland increased from eight years and six months to nine years and five months. Women here sit for almost a decade in, as we have heard, debilitating pain and with an increased risk of infertility, internal scarring and organ damage. Nothing is being learned, and the situation is getting worse. Again and again, the Assembly fails women, leaving them behind in comparison with their counterparts elsewhere on these islands. I was struck by one report, in which a woman was quoted as saying: "I had a doctor literally laugh at me down the phone for asking for sterilisation." I was struck by the lack of regard for women's autonomy over their healthcare. In that case, a woman making a personal medical decision was denied the opportunity to choose. On the other side, women with endometriosis, many of whom want children, are denied autonomy by a failing system that ignores them and leaves them untreated for nearly a decade, causing infertility and robbing them of that choice. The system as it stands robs women of autonomy over their health, simply because they are women. That is again cemented in the article "Misdiagnosis: The Overlooked Crisis In Women's Health", which speaks of the dismissal of women's pain being widespread and points to endometriosis as being the most frequently misdiagnosed gynaecological condition. The article highlights the fact that 74% of women saw five or more doctors before diagnosis; 47% saw 10 or more; and 78% said that "their concerns were minimised" as "making a fuss". The article reflects on the broader pattern of women's symptoms being downplayed by healthcare professionals as "just normal women's problems". Sit with that for a second: debilitating pain, infertility, internal scarring and organ damage are not "just normal women's problems". The fact that a person facing a health issue is a woman cannot be used as a reason for delaying care and causing lasting harm. Pain or health concerns should not be considered less because it is a woman who is facing them. That fact, which is out in the open and so often seems prevalent now, shows that there is deeply ingrained medical misogyny. That needs to change. I recognise that there is a need to speak out, but I also recognise my position. I do not know what it is like to live with the health issues that we are discussing. As a man and a healthcare professional, my role in the debate is to listen, support and make space for the women who know. I will mention another issue that the British Heart Foundation has raised recently. The Minister is probably aware of its report 'Bias and Biology: The Heart Attack Gender Gap', which highlights the gender inequalities for women who have heart attacks. Women are more likely than men to receive a delayed diagnosis following a heart attack and are less likely than men to receive timely, guideline-indicated treatments following a heart attack. Women thus have a higher mortality rate. That is another clear example of why we need the women's health action plan to include cardiac issues as well as menopause and fertility. The idea that women, rather than men, die from a heart attack because one is treated differently from the other for the condition is horrendous. I will finish by giving some women's experiences in their own words. On menopause: "I was told by a male GP that I would be 'better talking to one of the lady doctors' as he didn’t know much about menopause or menopausal symptoms." Another woman said: "To receive menopause support I have had to pay privately as the GP doesn't have the necessary training to give proper advice." On gynaecology issues: "I suffered severe pain in my teens and twenties during the first few days of my period every month. I couldn't go to school or work; it affected my life every month. My GP prescribed painkillers and that was it. I was never checked out for gynae issues, never referred, just expected to get on with it." That is something of a theme: we have heard it again and again today. On endometriosis: "Ever since my [endometriosis] operation, I've had no follow up appointments or support or any advice on how to manage things e.g. with diet / lifestyle. I've had to do it all myself using social media and finding out how I can prevent flare ups / prevent it from returning." Top 5.30 pm On the support that is available: "I find more support in social media groups by women going through similar situations than the GPs, who, in most cases, are not specialising in women's health". Another stated: "I feel that health providers are just keen to medicate and send you off rather than looking further into the diagnosis". On the change that they wanted to see: "For healthcare professionals to listen to women about their health and not minimise their symptoms or blame weight, hormones or putting it down to anxiety"; and: "We need to be listened to! I am so tired of being dismissed, distressed and disrespected". Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Danny. I call Órlaithí Flynn to make a winding-up speech on the substantive motion. You have 10 minutes. Ms Flynn: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle. [Translation: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.] I will wind on the motion and, as the Minister did, thank everybody who spoke in today's debate. It has been genuine and authentic. From their remarks, you can tell that Members, across the Chamber, really care about this issue and, more broadly, about all those issues that impact on women's health. I also appreciate the Minister's response and remarks. He has already provided some important updates and improvements. Following today's debate, it will be important for Members to follow some of that detail closely, and I am sure that they will. We wish him and all the health and social care staff who will be involved in delivering that work all the best. It will be good for the Health Committee to follow up anyway, and the Chairperson is here beside me. We will follow up on progress and, hopefully, we will be able to support the Minister and all the staff in all the work that will take place in the time ahead. I was really glad to hear about that. As for the context, the importance of it and the delays, it is already clear that the issue does not affect only a few. We heard some statistics from Members who spoke. In the North, in particular, we are talking about tens of thousands of women. Across the island, we are talking about hundreds of thousands, and when you multiply that across these islands, you see that it is such a big issue that has an impact on so many women. It has almost become normalised that a woman should live with constant, severe pelvic pain, with internal scarring. We are talking about damage to multiple organs. That is what a lot of women are faced with when they live with that condition, and it does make you wonder. When Danny spoke about inherent misogyny in the health system, it sounded a bit harsh, but when you think about scarring, damaged organs, living in constant pain, and that that has been the accepted way of things for so long, you do think about inherent misogyny in the system and in how the system was designed. Gerry mentioned that in his remarks, too. It is important to reflect on that and to appreciate everything that the Minister is endeavouring to do and take forward to try to make some improvements in that area eventually. Mr Carroll: I thank the Member for giving way. I did not mention it in my speech, but does the Member agree that what we need to look at is some sort of paid leave for women who are suffering from endometriosis or other conditions? That has happened in Portugal, which allows three days' paid leave per month, and Spain became the first country to offer leave for women who experience menstrual pain. Does the Member agree that that should be looked at as well as the other, more obvious, healthcare measures? Ms Flynn: Yes, and I thank the Member very much for his intervention. You would have thought that we had planned that, Gerry, because the next remark that I was going to make was about the example of women getting paid leave because they are living with that pain. The example of painful menstrual cycles was a point that I was coming to. A lot of women are dealing with endometriosis and living with that pain, but if it is fobbed off as just a bad period, it makes you reflect on the whole issue. A woman who does not have endometriosis might have to live with a monthly bad period, but when you are living with the additional impact, pain and pressure of having the condition on top of having a monthly menstrual cycle, it is just not fair. Yes, I would absolutely be in support of any measures that support women who are going through that. That is all women. Most women will, obviously, go through a menstrual cycle, but living with endometriosis is an additional burden. A couple of Members referenced the fact that we are talking about these issues as women's health issues. Let us think about the girls — the children. So many young girls are already battling with the condition and going through that unbearable pain. We are talking about schoolchildren who, in some circumstances, have to miss school because the pain is too much and they cannot get out of bed. Again, that brings it back to how unfair it is for a young girl to live like that, grow into a young woman and, potentially, still not have received a diagnosis or an appropriate care pathway eight, nine or 10 years later. My God. It does not bear thinking about. If you have a daughter, a younger sister, a child or another female close to you in your life, put yourself in their position. I know that people get this, and that is why a lot of work is being done on it. Hopefully, we are making a bit of progress. One of the women who was living with the pain said that it was so severe that labour pains were easier than endometriosis pain. Any women who are watching this who have gone through labour and contractions will know the pain of that process. I have been through labour — thankfully, I do not have endometriosis — and, as a woman, I cannot imagine how any woman can live with that level of pain on a daily basis. I mean that. Some of the women whom we heard directly from were spoken about. Linda and Sinéad mentioned the fact that the APG on women's health held a round-table discussion back in March, I think that it was, which was Endometriosis Awareness Month. The Minister kindly sent some of his senior officials who have been heavily involved in the work on this. They genuinely listened to the speakers that day. Olivia, Cara and Anne have been mentioned. It was a brilliant event. We gave the floor over to the women there who had lived experience. I took something that Sinéad said away with me that day. I do not know whether she mentioned it during or after the meeting, but she spoke about it in her speech today, so I am sure that she will not mind me referencing it. When I left that event, it stuck with me that Sinéad had said that she had lived experience of this 20-plus, or maybe close to 30 years, ago. You could see that she got really frustrated that day because, as she said, nothing had changed since that time. She said, "I am listening to the same conversations and to women sharing the same stories — they are the same horror stories — and nothing has changed". I could sense the genuine frustration of a woman who has lived this and who felt that frustration that day listening to younger and older women. It stuck with me that there has not been a change in that number of years. That is not to put that burden on our Health Minister, however, who is with us today. He has not held the post for the past 20 years. It is about focusing on how we move dealing with the matter on and how we can try to make women's life better. The Minister mentioned some of the pilot and the gynae robot, and a lot of that sounded really exciting and positive. We need to shift our focus to asking, "How do we move this on? How do we get more women seen to in a timely manner, and how do we try to make their life better so that they are not living in terrible pain on a daily basis?". Another element of the motion is cross-border cooperation. I take on board the Minister's points about how we would assess need, viability and the positive outcomes of any all-island approach, if required, but I am pleased that he is open to maybe exploring the benefits of that. We can do a wee bit of work on that in the time ahead. Finally, I am really happy to support the Alliance amendment, which emphasises the importance of the overall women's health action plan, which is where we need to get to. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Órlaithí. Question, That the amendment be made, put and agreed to. Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly notes that endometriosis is a serious, chronic inflammatory disease affecting at least one in 10 women across the island, with evidence suggesting that the number may be higher; further notes that the disease often causes severe pelvic pain, infertility, internal scarring and damage to multiple organs, yet it takes an average of eight to nine years for patients to receive a diagnosis; acknowledges that the neglect of endometriosis care highlights wider systemic failures in women's healthcare; recognises that international best practice confirms that specialist-led excision surgery, delivered within a multidisciplinary model of care, provides the best outcomes; calls on the Minister of Health to urgently look at the potential for specialist services with targets for diagnosis and treatment; and further calls on the Minister to engage with his ministerial counterpart in Dublin to develop a joined-up, cross-border approach to endometriosis care that can harness the relevant medical expertise on the island for better women's health outcomes; and calls on the Minister to urgently bring forward the women's health action plan. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Will Members take their ease for a moment? (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Blair] in the Chair) Aviation Strategy for Northern Ireland Mr Brett: I beg to move That this Assembly notes with concern the ongoing failure of the Department for the Economy to develop and publish an aviation policy or strategy for Northern Ireland; highlights that that delay is holding back economic development, undermining opportunities for investment, tourism and business competitiveness; stresses that airports across Northern Ireland each have a vital role to play in promoting export growth; further stresses that any future aviation strategy must treat all airports equitably; calls on the Minister for the Economy to publish a comprehensive aviation strategy for Northern Ireland, including measurable targets and specific proposals for a route development fund, within the next three months; and further calls on the Minister to outline what progress has been made towards increasing external sales intensity from 45% to 60% of GDP by 2030, as envisaged by the Northern Ireland Export Forum. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. An amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List, so the Business Committee has agreed that 15 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate. Mr Brett, please open the debate on the motion. Mr Brett: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. First, I thank the Minister for making herself available for today's debate. I know and appreciate that she had to rearrange a number of engagements, and I know the importance that she places on the issue. For me, it is a simple but vital point that, without a proper air connectivity policy, Northern Ireland will never achieve its full economic potential. For more than a year, the Department for the Economy has had in its ownership the York Aviation report on air connectivity in Northern Ireland. The report made it clear that Northern Ireland has fewer direct international services than comparable regions, and its failure is costing us jobs, investment and tourists. The Department needs to come forward, because the economy is paying a price. Top 5.45 pm Connectivity is not a luxury; it is a necessity. It is the fundamental foundation on which we attract foreign direct investment (FDI); it is the way in which we ensure that our world-class manufacturing, engineering and service firms can access export markets; and it is central to growing our continually expanding tourism sector, which benefits communities in every corner of Northern Ireland. Yet Northern Ireland remains the only region of the UK without a direct air link to the United States of America. That is an extraordinary position for us to be in, given the scale of our economic, cultural and tourism ties with the United States. Over 200,000 American tourists visit Northern Ireland every year, but 87% of them fly into Dublin. That is business that we are losing day after day. The York Aviation report recommended urgent intervention. It highlighted the need for new and additional routes not only to North America but to Paris, Frankfurt and Copenhagen. It called for the creation of a route development fund to support those services, and it pressed for a clear aviation policy that sets out priorities and, more important, gives certainty to our airports. Yet, instead of grasping that opportunity, the Department has held round-table discussions but has not advanced a full-scale policy at this stage. Let me be clear: for me and my party, this is not about one airport over another. Belfast International Airport, Belfast City Airport and the City of Derry Airport (CoDA) all have a vital role to play in Northern Ireland. They should see the benefits of increased connectivity. An aviation strategy, however, must treat all airports fairly and equitably, recognising their importance for regional balance and for ensuring that growth reaches every corner of Northern Ireland. What we have instead is no strategy to date, no policy intention to date and, unfortunately, delay from the Department in publishing a plan for Northern Ireland. That has led to ad hoc approaches being taken by different airports. Members from across the Chamber attended the launch of the master plan for Belfast City Airport last week. Over the last number of years, Belfast International Airport has made huge private investment, and the Department has supported the City of Derry Airport, but we have no joined-up overall approach that can ensure that those three airports, rather than competing with one another, can complement one another to ensure that they work together. The consequences of that are real. The Northern Ireland Export Forum has set an ambition to increase external sales from 45% to 60% of GDP by 2030. That is achievable, but only if we modernise our aviation policy and secure better global connectivity. Our teams in Invest Northern Ireland work hard daily. They have supported more first-time exporters, secured millions in contracts abroad and attracted new inward investment. However, their efforts are being undermined, if we cannot even offer a direct flight to the very markets that we are trying to attract business from. It is about ambition. It is about whether Northern Ireland wants to compete on the global stage, which is where we need to be. We need a comprehensive aviation strategy within the next three months. We need measurable targets for external sales, and we need a properly funded route development fund to secure the direct links to North America, Germany, France and Scandinavia that our businesses and our tourism sector need. Our airports are ambitious; our businesses are ambitious; and I hope that the Minister can set out her ambitious targets and plans for this important sector. Without improved air connectivity, our economy risks falling behind. That is why our motion today is important. While I have some sympathy for a number of issues raised in the UUP amendment, particularly around a focus on North America and the ongoing campaign for pre-clearance in Northern Ireland, the removal of the route development fund and measurable targets would make our motion weaker. Therefore, I encourage Members to support the motion as it stands. Dr Aiken: I beg to move the following amendment: Leave out all after "must treat all" and insert: "main Northern Ireland airports equitably; calls on the Minister for the Economy to put priority on promotion of travel to Northern Ireland through our own airports and to direct Tourism NI and our representatives on Tourism Ireland to ensure that Dublin Airport is not being promoted over Belfast International Airport and Belfast City Airport; further calls on the Minister to engage with United States officials on the establishment of an immigration and customs pre-clearance facility for the United States of America at Belfast International Airport; and calls on the Minister to promote the facilities at Belfast International Airport in order to increase the number of transatlantic cargo flights and encourage greater use of the airport by the United States Government." Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): You have 10 minutes to propose the amendment and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members will have five minutes. Dr Aiken: I will start by making a declaration of interest as chair of the all-party group on aerospace. Our amendment would enhance the motion by focusing on three key areas of what should be in an aviation strategy for Northern Ireland that I will shortly outline. It is worth noting that we are at a considerable disadvantage compared with our friends in the South. As Members will be aware, the Republic of Ireland has so far benefited from a long-term tourism VAT rate of 9%. It has been recently increased to 13·9% but is highly likely to go back to 9% next year. In contrast, we are saddled with a VAT rate of 20% and, in addition, an air passenger duty (APD) tax of £13 a person. Furthermore, Dublin Airport is heavily subsidised by the Irish state, with, as some in the industry would say, sweeteners provided for long-haul aviation to use that airport. The Irish Government have also underwritten the cost of the new runway at the airport. All those issues combined add to what is a considerable state-aid advantage for the Southern airport, an advantage that should run counter to the trade diversion rules in the Northern Ireland protocol. Regrettably, neither the Minister for the Economy nor the Secretary of State has so far sought mitigations from that obvious distortion from the EU-UK Joint Committee. What can we do to establish at least a level playing field for aviation on this island? Our Minister provides approximately a third of Tourism Ireland's budget. Globally, Tourism Ireland markets Dublin as the gateway to Ireland. As a consequence, much of the inward tourism and business market flows through Dublin Airport. That needs to stop, because we pay a third of the bill. Our airports therefore must be promoted at least one third of the time. Many airlines would find attractive the available ramp space; the airports' 24-hour availability; the secure fuel supplies; the all-weather options, with east-west and north-south runways at Belfast International; the good UK connections at Belfast International; and the move towards having an expanded Belfast City Airport. Airlines, however, find it puzzling that the only real marketing done by Tourism Ireland and Ministers at aviation industry events is focused wholly on Dublin Airport. The revolution in the aviation industry is now in long-range, narrow-body aircraft, such as the Airbus 321XLR, with a range of up to 4,700 miles and 244 seats. Those allow airlines to serve point-to-point routes at much-reduced costs. The Airbus 321XLR or similar Boeing aircraft from Belfast can easily serve most of North America; indeed, they can reach well into existing Middle Eastern hubs. On the basis of the traffic numbers that already exist, there is more than enough business and tourist traffic to support those flights directly from Northern Ireland. It also will not have escaped the notice of the majority of Members that Airbus is a major stakeholder in our considerable aerospace manufacturing sector and that, hopefully, Boeing soon will be. At the moment, passengers on international routes to the United States, other parts of North America or the Middle East either fly via Heathrow or Amsterdam or make the two-hour journey down the motorway. They spend one hour, if they are lucky, trying to find a parking space in the car park and get wet, as I do considerably often, as they wait for a bus, which, if they are lucky, takes about 10 to 15 minutes. They move in traffic for about 20 minutes, stand in the airline queue for about one hour and 30 minutes, spend 30 to 45 minutes in security, if they are lucky, and then stand for two and half hours if they are trying to get pre-clearance for travelling to the United States. That makes it a seven-hour journey before they start their seven-hour journey. There have to be better options. Given the UK's improved relationships with the United States and particularly given the ever-chilling relations between the EU in general and Dublin in particular and Washington, it would now be advantageous for US pre-customs clearance to be facilitated at Belfast International Airport. Given the high level of data and security information sharing between the UK and the US and the easing of restrictions between us in comparison with the EU, it now makes strong sense to be calling for a US pre-clearance facility here; indeed, moving the Shannon facility or even the Dublin one to Belfast would be an easy option for the US Administration. Our Executive should call loudly for that facility. Having it would then enable Belfast International to become a narrow-body transfer hub for transatlantic routes and the Middle East, with significant opportunities to build inward tourism and build business. As my friend pointed out, we are doing a good job of attracting FDI, but people need to be able to travel directly into Northern Ireland. Arriving somewhere and then spending the better part of four or five hours getting here is not any form of direct route, and it is not useful. Belfast City Airport and Belfast International could also become centres for sustainable aviation fuel, and the Department for the Economy and DAERA could bid for green energy credits from our national Government. Those could be used to offset our 2050 carbon obligations, and, if properly marketed, Belfast could become a sustainable aviation fuel hub for transatlantic aviation: general and private aviation. Sustainable aviation fuel can achieve up to a 70% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared with conventional aviation fuel, and it would definitely put us at the cutting edge of reaching net zero carbon. Our airports, especially Aldergrove, are geographically well placed as logistics hubs. With the current global uncertainty only growing, the secure runways, large fuel stocks and location in the United Kingdom on the west of Europe and in NATO's secure airspace — unlike the Irish Republic — means that we should expand our role, particularly with the United States. Using the large amount of ramp space on both the civilian and military sides of the airfield and proactively marking it as a secure cargo trans-shipment space would pay considerable dividends. There have been many debates in the Chamber about improving access to the airport by upgrading the road and rail links, but, by using the site to build additional warehousing and add to the ramp space in hard standing, we could attract much more cargo activity. As some of our Members are fond of saying, the unique access of the Windsor framework, coupled with the UK's advantageous trading relationships with the United States, should help expand the scope of our aviation strategy considerably. It is time for us to think broadly; it is time for us to take the advantages that we have been given; and it is time to move on those issues. I commend our amendment to the House. Mr Delargy: Aviation is vital for businesses that want to invest, for universities welcoming students from across the globe, for families who travel, for staying connected and for communities across the island. Last year, Conor Murphy and John O'Dowd transferred responsibility for airport policy to the Department for the Economy, a notable and important shift from what had gone before. The significance of that has been felt in Derry, where a historic wrong has been righted, and finally, airports have been centralised under one Department. The Sinn Féin Ministers who funded the City of Derry Airport lifted a significant rates burden off the people of Derry, and it matched our commitment to regional balance. It has created certainty and stability, which has allowed new airlines to introduce new routes and extend existing ones. For example, because of the certainty created by the announcement, EasyJet has introduced new routes between Derry and Birmingham and Derry and Manchester. EasyJet is also increasing the number of flights to Liverpool by up to four flights a week and to Edinburgh by up to three flights a week. My focus and my party's focus is on establishing a Derry to Dublin route through the City of Derry Airport to connect us to our capital city and connect international business with Derry. That has resulted in numerous meetings, questions for written answer and parliamentary questions submitted by my colleague Pádraig Mac Lochlainn TD, and, finally, we are beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel: a movement by Irish Government Ministers towards initiating a public service obligation (PSO) from Derry to Dublin. I mention that because the glaring omission in the motion is an all-Ireland focus, a commitment agreed in 'New Decade, New Approach' (NDNA). The recent success at the City of Derry Airport has come on the back of the investment and a coordinated effort to create all-Ireland links, and that is where the focus of the motion should be. If we are to see an aviation strategy that truly promotes the economy, it must focus on our economic reality. The reality is a growing all-Ireland economy, and improved regional balance and connectivity are key to sustained economic growth. An all-Ireland strategy would ensure regional balance across all our airports, including Galway, Kerry and Cork, as well as Derry. The reality is that tourists coming to Ireland want seamless access to all of our country, and the same goes for businesses. Therefore, an aviation strategy must be underpinned by a commitment to look at the issue on a country-wide basis to increase connectivity and avoid duplication. Minister Archibald has built on that work and has been clear that our aviation strategy must be coordinated, forward-looking and in line with our climate and economic commitments. Her focus on connectivity for the north-west, supporting tourism and making sure that our strategy delivers for businesses and workers alike is vital. The strategy cannot be rushed, and it cannot be done by halves. It means recognising the opportunity brought by stronger connections, particularly to international hubs. It means supporting regional balance to ensure that places like Derry and the wider north-west are not left behind. It means investing in skills, apprenticeships and good jobs in the aviation sector, and meeting our climate obligations by building sustainability into every part of the strategy. I commend the progress that has been made under Economy Ministers Conor Murphy and Caoimhe Archibald. Their leadership has brought us to the point where a serious, comprehensive aviation strategy is within reach. The task now is to ensure that it is delivered fully and correctly, in the interests of all the people of Ireland. Top 6.00 pm Mr Honeyford: We support the motion. I am laughing at some of the comments that have been made in the Chamber, because we come at the motion with a focus on creating jobs, greater investment, exports for our businesses, connectivity, support for our business community and opportunities for everyone; we are not that focused on the constitutional sound bites that we have heard here today. The facts are unavoidable: we live on an island. Aviation is not a luxury in that regard; it is absolutely essential in order to connect us to the rest of the world. We are the only region without an aviation strategy. That failure needs to be put right. We need that connectivity and frequency of flights to GB and Europe. Essential to maximising the dual market access that we have is connectivity. People here want better job opportunities, higher wages and higher living standards. Public transport network links to the airports are essential. The Ulster Unionist Party left that out of its amendment. Connectivity via, for example, the Knockmore line to link my constituents and those in South Antrim to the International Airport must be part of that wider strategy. Dr Aiken: I thank the Member very much for giving way. He will note the debate about the Knockmore line that we had in here not so long ago. The Ulster Unionist Party fully supports the circle line — the Knockmore line — and wants to see as much sustainable connectivity across these islands and beyond as possible, hence my mentioning of sustainable aviation fuel. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute. Mr Honeyford: Steve, if it takes you seven hours to get through an airport, I am not sure how long it would take you to get a train to Belfast airport and then get through it. An aviation strategy must be about economic growth. It must be wider than just routes. Mr Delargy: Will the Member give way? Mr Honeyford: Yes. Mr Delargy: Will the Member not acknowledge the context of his remarks? The economic reality that we are in is an all-Ireland economy that is growing. Surely you recognise that an essential part of that economy is an all-Ireland aviation strategy. Mr Honeyford: I was about to say just that. Part of the strategy has to be departmental. It has to be wider than just saying, "We want a route here" or, "We want a route there"; it has to be what our economies and businesses need. Infrastructure, including the all-island transport rail review, needs to be incorporated into it, as does the innovation strategy. It cannot be just some political vanity project. The reality is that 70% of our tourists travel through the South, and 84% of all flights from this island leave from Dublin Airport. There is already a global hub on this island; it might take Steve seven hours to get there on some sort of slow boat, but it is a 90-minute drive for anybody else. In reality, you cannot have a strategy without referencing that. Any strategy needs to be based on the wider context, not just on the three airports here. It needs to look at the wider piece. If we look at Europe — Mr Brett: I thank the Member for giving way. I agree with a lot of what you have said. Do you not think that the current cap on Dublin Airport provides further opportunity to all airports in Northern Ireland? Mr Honeyford: I absolutely agree: there is an opportunity for us. We should grow the market here, but you cannot take it in isolation; you have to look at the whole. I go skiing every year in the Alps in France, and I fly into Geneva airport. The French are not having an argument about building a new airport because people fly into Switzerland. Putting forward something that suggests that we are two completely different and alien places is bonkers. It reduces the issue to being a constitutional one, rather than it being about the practical delivery of better provision for everyone. Cork has a regional airport. Cork has Pfizer, Apple and other massive American companies. There is no connection from Cork to America. However, Cork does have connections to Frankfurt, Munich, Paris and Madrid, as well as to London, Manchester, Glasgow and all of those. It is about building connections and growing them as part of a wider strategy, acknowledging that there is an airport on the island that has worldwide links. There are eight million people on this island. There are not airports with worldwide connections for tourists and the business community in every region of France. France looks to Paris and then to Geneva and everywhere else. We have to think a little bit bigger than, "This is Northern Ireland. We have to have our own". The integration of the business community and investment in infrastructure has to be a part of that. We have to share this island. Aviation is an example of an area in which that has to happen. At a time when a constituent cannot get to see a GP, and when delays meant that the Department of Health spent £2·5 billion on a computer system in the past three years, I am not putting my name to a call to fund an air link to America. We do not even have a flight. To put public money into that when people cannot get GP appointments is bonkers. There is no way that I can support the Ulster Unionist amendment, but I will support the DUP motion. Ms McLaughlin: The SDLP supports the introduction of an aviation strategy that supports our economy and our people and helps us to meet climate targets. We need airports that facilitate connections to GB and beyond, as well as better connections from those airports to Belfast and Derry, such as through the rail links that are mentioned in the all-island strategic rail review. Given our geography, a healthy aviation strategy is vital. The DUP motion contains many sensible points, but the UUP amendment is ill-judged at best. Its focus on competing with Dublin rather than working in complement with it is risible. David Honeyford used the word "bonkers", and it really is. Dr Aiken: Will the Member give way? Ms McLaughlin: I am sorry: I want to get through this; OK? More than 70% of visitors to Northern Ireland arrive via Dublin. That does not represent a nefarious plot to undermine Northern Ireland; it is a fact of geography and basic economics. Dublin is a major European air hub, with pre-immigration clearance and US customs. There is no realistic likelihood, on whatever planet the amendment was written, that the UK Government will negotiate pre-clearance for Belfast. To pretend otherwise is just codding the people. Dr Aiken: Will the Member give way? Ms McLaughlin: If there were, why would the UK Government prioritise delivering such a huge concession for a small region on a small island that already has pre-clearance, and for an airport that does not even have a regular transatlantic air route? It would be better to focus on ensuring that we have the most comprehensive links to London and the British regional airports, on looking for new connections to Europe, as Phillip Brett outlined, and on building our unique relationship with the European Union, rather than on the fantasy of displacing Dublin Airport for transatlantic travel. That is an obsession that has already cost millions of pounds of public money in APD subsidies. We should be looking at much better rail links to Northern Ireland's airports and, indeed, to Dublin Airport. The Irish Government are planning to invest in a metro rail connection to Dublin Airport, per the all-island strategic rail review. We should be working to support that in order to ensure the best possible links to Grand Central station in Belfast and the onward journey to Derry. That would mean that people here could access Dublin Airport and that visitors to our shores could access the North as easily and quickly as possible. We need to exploit existing rail proximity to Northern Ireland's airports, all three of which are close to rail links that have either no connection or, in the case of Belfast City Airport, a very poorly signposted walk down a dual carriageway. We need a serious aviation strategy that connects us and supports our people and economy, but I am sorry, Steve, the UUP amendment is just delusional. Dr Aiken: Will the Member give way? Ms McLaughlin: I want to talk specifically now about— [Interruption.] Ms McLaughlin: — City of Derry Airport. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Dr Aiken, the Member is not giving way. Please resume your seat. Ms McLaughlin: I am coming to the best bit, Steve. I am talking about City of Derry Airport, so let me get on with it. I also note, regrettably, that you did not mention City of Derry Airport in your amendment. Yet again, however, City of Derry Airport is central to the discussion. It is a vital asset to the north-west, but it needs more support to reach its potential. The Department for the Economy has committed to four years of funding, and the Birmingham and Manchester services are welcome progress, but we must go further. A Derry-Dublin connection is not a luxury but an economic necessity, and it must be delivered in partnership with the Irish Government. At the same time, we cannot ignore developments elsewhere. In recent weeks, the British Government advanced their Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill in the House of Commons. That legislation aims to establish a world-leading sustainable aviation fuel industry across the UK, reducing reliance on imported fuels, boosting energy security — Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up. Ms McLaughlin: — and supporting decarbonisation. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up. Ms McLaughlin: Sorry. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you. Ms Sheerin: I am tempted to begin by saying that I agree with everything that the Member for Lagan Valley said, and, of course, what my colleagues from Derry outlined on the broad objective of the motion. Obviously, we are an island nation, and that means that we rely on aviation and fly more than we might like, given our commitments to the climate. However, it is a requirement here that if you want to go elsewhere, you often have to fly. In the spirit of what Mr Honeyford said, it is important that we have an aviation policy — our Sinn Féin Minister in the Department for the Economy has already committed to such a policy — but one that works with our partners across the Twenty-six Counties. That makes sense. It is important that we strengthen our rail and road connections so that people can access our airports across the Twenty-six Counties more easily. It makes sense for us to be joined up here. We want to increase tourism to the island of Ireland. We want to see people coming in, whether that is via Dublin or Belfast, and travelling across the border, as we all should do, frequently and easily. I want to point out in particular the Minister's commitment to City of Derry Airport, which is obviously in line with her objectives on regional balance. My colleague Pádraig Delargy and Sinéad McLaughlin outlined that when talking about increased funding, the Heathrow Airport route and the other routes that were mentioned. That is progress, and we would like to see it go further. We agree with the spirit of the motion. Mr McReynolds: I support the motion, thank its proposers and look forward to the Minister's response. As my party colleague outlined, we in Alliance believe that an aviation strategy could play a vital role in creating jobs, promoting tourism and enhancing our public transport investment. At the outset, I feel that I should, like Mr Aiken, declare an interest given that I have Belfast City Airport in my constituency of East Belfast. The airport supports more than 6,500 jobs in that area and more than 12,000 across Northern Ireland. It has generated hundreds of millions of pounds for our economy while, through its community fund, donating almost £1 million to support community groups and charitable causes across East Belfast and North Down. Each airport here creates and sustains an important part of our economy and tourism, playing a critical role in allowing us to connect to the rest of the UK and Europe, whether that be for business or recreation. Through the introduction of an aviation strategy and by working with our airports, we could see more connections to more European hubs and an increased regularity of services, with businesses choosing to be based near our airports, thereby increasing jobs in the area. If we look to Cork as an example, we see that it has flights connecting two major European business hubs, and businesses choose to have their offices close by, allowing for fast access to the global market. That draws businesses to the area, creates more jobs and boosts the economy. In that context, we in Northern Ireland are missing out. Top 6.15 pm Linking in with markets that we have yet to reach and increasing connectivity through additional services will allow more businesses to choose Northern Ireland first when deciding where to take their business. The York Aviation report notably referred to key European markets such as France and Germany and even to potential for connectivity with North America, which no airport in Northern Ireland yet provides. Along with dual market access, that would provide a massive opportunity for US businesses to choose Northern Ireland as one of the first English-speaking countries that investors meet when they cross the Atlantic Ocean to access European and British markets. My colleague Mr Honeyford covered the economic benefits of an aviation strategy; as an infrastructure spokesperson, I will turn to the infrastructure perspective. There is a real opportunity to acknowledge the positive impact on and benefits for our public transport system. Through an aviation strategy, we could see increased footfall on bus or potential rail connections, which would increase the necessity for more public transport routes across Northern Ireland and our ability to ditch private vehicles and access airports via rail or bus. The knock-on effect would be extra funds from fares, which could be used to improve the standard of our public transport, and we could then deliver things such as late-night buses much faster and more easily than we have seen in recent months and years. Last, but by no means least, we need to ensure that our net zero targets are not forgotten, and, to achieve those goals, we must use greener technologies and take environmental responsibility. Increased air use and the positives that come with it cannot be brought about to the detriment of our environment. Those goals can be realised in conjunction, as evidenced recently by the Belfast City Airport master plan, which I encourage all Members to engage with during its consultation period. I welcome today's motion and the positives that could flow from it for Northern Ireland. However, I remind Members that it is not just about aviation but about creating greater connection, increasing opportunity for business and supporting our world-class tourism offering. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call the Minister for the Economy to respond to the debate. Minister, you have up to 15 minutes. Dr Archibald (The Minister for the Economy): Thank you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. [Translation: Mr Deputy Speaker.] While the motion is critically framed, I welcome the opportunity to engage with it, and I agree with the broad thrust of many, although not all, of the comments that have been made on it in the Chamber today. I am keen to address the absence of an aviation policy to date, because, as a small island, we are highly dependent on air connectivity for business and leisure travel. Good connectivity is vital to our economy, our commercial life, our FDI proposition and our tourism. The Government have an important role to play in supporting the aviation sector, and that was particularly the case during the COVID-19 pandemic, which caused such a sharp decline in passenger numbers. Targeted financial packages for airports and the domestic aviation kick-start scheme helped our three airports through the pandemic. Post-pandemic recovery has been strong, with new airline routes and increased passenger numbers, thanks in no small part to the efforts of Tourism Ireland. We now need to continue that positive momentum in line with my economic vision. The aviation sector can generate good, high-productivity jobs, and, by supporting the City of Derry Airport, we can promote regional balance. The most recent figures show that the City of Derry Airport was estimated to have contributed £21 million of GVA annually to the regional economy and supported 650 jobs, directly and indirectly. That is why my Department has pledged up to £12 million over the next four years in support of the airport, on top of the £4·6 million over two years that is co-funded by the British Government for the London Heathrow route, and also why I am working with the Irish Government to reinstate the Derry to Dublin route. As Members have mentioned, there is a need to develop an environmentally responsible aviation strategy that aligns with my commitment to decarbonisation and our net zero commitments. There are already a number of companies here in the North that are developing the technology around sustainable aviation fuel production. That has the potential to generate hundreds of skilled jobs in engineering, logistics and research. In October 2023, my Department commissioned aviation consultants York Aviation to identify a set of strategic routes that will help drive inbound tourism and business growth and to identify policy levers to enhance our air connectivity. That research was published on 26 March 2024. The York Aviation report noted that airports fell within the remit of DFI, while DFE was responsible for air connectivity. In order to reduce fragmentation across Departments and facilitate more coherent policy development, York Aviation recommended that responsibility for air connectivity be consolidated within a single Department. In response, on 10 June 2024, my predecessor, Conor Murphy, and the then Infrastructure Minister, John O'Dowd, agreed to the transfer of responsibility for airport policy to my Department. That does not involve legislative changes. It means that my Department will ensure a clear and coherent policy direction throughout the sector, for airports and for air connectivity. For the new policy to be meaningful, it must take account of the perspective of the wider aviation, business and tourism sectors. Therefore, my officials are engaging with other Departments and wider stakeholders to ensure that a coordinated approach is taken on the future development of aviation policy. Mr Brett: I appreciate the Minister's giving way. I seek some clarity. Your party colleague said that policy had now transferred to your Department. Will you outline when that policy transfer took place and when it was approved by the Executive? Dr Archibald: As I said, the policy transfer involved no legislative changes, and it was completed over the course of last year. I am happy to write to the Member with the exact dates, which I do not have in front of me. My officials are engaging across Departments and with wider stakeholders to ensure that we have a coordinated approach on the future of aviation policy. The introduction of a route development fund is a key recommendation, and therefore the policy will aim to identify monetary and non-monetary incentives to airlines that could open routes that would otherwise not be commercially viable. My Department also takes account of the important plans being developed by our aviation sector — for example, the ambitious plans that were published by Belfast City Airport just last week. It is also important that these plans incorporate the views of local communities who live near airports. In addition to route development, a comprehensive aviation policy must take into account ongoing major infrastructure plans and initiatives around skills development and education. I recently met the management team of Belfast International Airport to see for myself the impressive new terminal extension, state-of-the-art security hall and expanded duty-free area. I have also met the CEO and senior team at Belfast City Airport to discuss their ambitious plans for expansion, and my officials continue to meet the management of all three airports, as well as Invest NI, Tourism NI, Tourism Ireland and councils, to discuss potential policy levers to encourage inward investment and tourism. These meetings will also include representatives from the business sector and the Consumer Council. It will be crucial to collaborate with the local aviation sector, tourism and investment partners, and the British and Irish Governments to help develop a more connected and attractive aviation network across the island. My Department's business plan for this financial year commits to consulting and finalising an aviation and route development policy. We remain on track to deliver that action. I now turn to the second part of the motion, which is about exports. The Export Forum was established by my Department, with the aim of bringing together the main providers of export support and industry representatives. We are working together towards a delivering a single, joined-up operating model for export promotion. That means that businesses across all sectors can access high-quality effective support. Exporting is at the heart of the Department's economic vision. Businesses that export are more productive, create more jobs and pay higher wages. That is why my Department is focused on helping firms to recognise and realise their export potential. It is vital for innovation-led growth and delivering prosperity across all our communities. Invest NI continues to play a pivotal role in supporting local businesses to access to new markets. Since April, it has delivered 13 international trade missions and exhibitions and offers tailored programmes such as Grow Beyond and Going Dutch to help early-stage exporters and SMEs. InterTradeIreland's first-time exporter accelerator is helping SMEs to trade cross-border for the first time. That is often the first step to exporting abroad. Looking ahead, my Department is focused on supporting businesses at every stage of their export journey. Our sectoral action plan set out clear objectives to increase the intensity of exports and the number of firms participating in international trade. With the right support and by fully leveraging dual market access, businesses in the North can offer the products and services to compete and thrive in global markets. Over the period of Windsor framework implementation, exports here have increased by 2% compared with a decline of 9% in Britain. It is important that that relatively strong export performance continue. I welcome the opportunity to have been able to respond to the debate. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Minister, thank you for that response. I call Robbie Butler to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. You have up to five minutes. Mr Butler: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. My apologies for missing the start of the debate. I assure you that I was watching it on television in my room. It has been a good debate and very good-natured. There were a few pokes made at the Ulster Unionist Party's amendment, but I will poke Members back. I will get to that in a minute or two. I thank Members for their contributions to the debate. It is an important debate, because Northern Ireland has a proud aviation history, which began with pioneers such as Harry Ferguson and Lilian Bland putting us firmly on the map. If Members have not been to the aviation museum at the Maze/Long Kesh, please go. It is probably the most under-visited and underappreciated yet excellent display that we have on this island. Please go and have a look at it. Later, we had Short Brothers and the considerable use of our airfields and factories during the Second World War to defeat the Nazis. I have heard Members across the Chamber tonight, not from this side but from the other side, say that we are such a small place — we are just a small place — but we have to think big, guys. Some Members in here have shown that they are incapable of seeing the big picture. In Lagan Valley, we have Maghaberry and the Maze airfields, of which the Member for Lagan Valley who spoke earlier is well aware. We have a proud history, but it is sad to reflect on the disconnect between our Executive and that vital industry. As our amendment outlines and as has been said during the debate, we should be able to capitalise on our leadership and history in this space and on our ability to deliver, which is second to none. We have a competitive geographical and now geopolitical position. We should be able, at relatively little fiscal or environmental cost, to grow the industry. I make no apology for being ambitious about creating jobs and economic opportunities for the people of Northern Ireland, whether at Belfast City Airport, City of Derry Airport or Belfast International Airport. That ambition will always come first. Having more airlines flying out of NI to more destinations in fuel-efficient aircraft should be a win. Making simple changes, such as our being granted access to US pre-clearance facilities, would transform things, but I did not hear anybody pick up on that part of the amendment during the debate. Members obviously do not have that ambition. Furthermore, why should we continue to export our jobs, revenue and tourism business accessibility to an airport hours down the road? Interestingly, in her contribution, Sinéad did not apply the same rules to the City of Derry Airport as she did to Belfast International Airport. Apparently, it is OK to drive to Dublin, because it has American pre-clearance, but it is not OK for the people of Londonderry to drive to Belfast. I agree, by the way, that they should not have to jump in a car and drive to Belfast, but you cannot run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. You cannot have the argument both ways. Bizarrely, we pay two thirds of Tourism Ireland's budget without getting a third of its promotion. That really is not fair. Several Members —. Dr Aiken: We pay one third. Mr Butler: Sorry? Dr Aiken: We pay one third. Mr Butler: We pay a third. Sorry. We do not get a third of the output, however, and that is the point. We certainly do not get it in and around our airports. Several Members said that we have been given a unique advantage through the Windsor framework. Hopefully, they will recognise that, equally, the UK-US trade relationship, because of tariffs, gives us a further advantage over the South. We have to utilise everything that is at our disposal and do so to our advantage, so why does our Department for the Economy not take the opportunity to capitalise on that specific angle? I have a suspicion that we may not get the votes for the amendment to succeed, but I ask Members to review and reflect on some of the points that have been made. Mr Honeyford spoke with absolute passion. I enjoy listening to my Lagan Valley colleague speak on the issue, but this is not a constitutional debate. It is not about pitting North against South. It is not a green and orange issue. Rather, it is about jobs for our constituents. It is about improving prosperity and outcomes for the people who live in Northern Ireland. That is the point of the amendment. It is certainly not a constitutional amendment. Mr Honeyford: Will the Member give way? Mr Butler: No, I will not, because I will not get an extra minute. I have already made my point about the SDLP's contribution. Sinéad, you cannot have the argument both ways about two airports that are only 60 or 70 miles apart. Top 6.30 pm A Sinn Féin contribution gave me a wee chuckle, because you said that you were surprised to see the SDLP and Alliance agree with Sinn Féin on something. Nobody on this side of the House is surprised by that. Ms Sheerin: Will the Member give way? Mr Butler: Absolutely, yes. Ms Sheerin: I did not say that; I said that I welcomed their contributions. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute. Mr Butler: I heard it differently. We will agree to differ. I ask Members to reflect on my absolutely winning arguments and support the amendment. Thank you. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you. I call Gary Middleton to conclude the debate and make a winding-up speech. You have up to 10 minutes. Mr Middleton: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is appropriate that we bring the debate to a close, because we are starting to get carried away with ourselves in some of our contributions. It has been a good discussion. We need to highlight the importance of and need for a comprehensive aviation strategy for Northern Ireland, one that includes a properly resourced route development fund. Of course, as a representative of the north-west, I will touch on our airport in Londonderry, but I stress that it applies to all our airports in Northern Ireland, because the policy oversight is damaging our economy. While other devolved Governments have acted, Northern Ireland, unfortunately, has lagged behind. Scotland has long operated a route development fund, supporting international routes to boost its economy. Wales has invested over £200 million in Cardiff Airport, including route support and infrastructure upgrades. Some £10 million has been committed to Heathrow Airport's route development fund to connect UK regions to global markets. As some Members have said, this is not a constitutional debate or a constitutional issue. We want to see Northern Ireland airports thrive. We want to see local businesses thrive and jobs being secured. We are so vocal about the City of Derry Airport, Belfast International Airport and Belfast City Airport, because we want those airports to succeed. We have no issue with Dublin Airport also succeeding; of course not. We feel no different about Heathrow succeeding. We want to ensure that the best connectivity is in place to support our businesses and airports. CoDA is a vital asset for our region. It connects our businesses and supports our tourism, and it underpins the investment that we receive into the area. Yet, it continues to operate without the strategic support of a route development fund and an aviation strategy. That is why we make the case for it today. The case for City of Derry Airport — the Minister touched on this — is that it delivers £21 million GVA. That argument has been had. We know that the airport succeeds, and we want to see further investment in it. Our motion talks about the need for a strategy that treats all airports equally. Nobody should have an issue with that. We need to support all our airports. We need to see a route development fund with clear criteria. We need measurable growth targets, and, of course, we want to see those within the next three months. Minister, I assume that, if you support the motion, we will see that as a matter of urgency. We look forward to seeing it in due course. My colleague Philip Brett moved the motion and spoke of the need for a strategy to achieve full economic potential. He talked about the US tourism market and the fact that there is an untapped potential there that we need to tap into and how we need to ensure that Departments work together on it. He also spoke about treating airports equitably and the fact that we do not have a strategy. There is no policy and no plan. I look forward to the Minister bringing that forward as a matter of urgency. Steve Aiken highlighted some of the challenges in comparison with ROI — the VAT rate and APD — but also some of the issues around ensuring that we have a level aviation playing field. Pádraig spoke about the Department's airport policy and regional balance. He spoke about the Londonderry to Dublin route, which, of course, we support. We need to ensure that the UK Government continue to fund the PSO to London Heathrow, which is also important. Mr Honeyford spoke in support of the motion, which we welcome. He talked about the need to improve our flight connectivity to GB and Europe. He also touched on the fact that 84% of flights go through Dublin. There is work to be done to ensure that those who fly through there come to Northern Ireland as well. Sinéad McLaughlin spoke about the importance not only of the aviation strategy but of rail connectivity and the need to ensure that our airports in Northern Ireland are connected to one another and to Dublin. Emma Sheerin expressed broad support for the motion and noted that it was important that we strengthen our rail connections as well. She welcomed the commitment to regional balance through CoDA. Peter McReynolds spoke from an infrastructure perspective, noting the benefits for public transport, including increasing the use of buses, and the importance of meeting our net zero targets and of environmental responsibility. The Minister's comments have been well documented. We welcome the fact that she made the time to come to the Chamber. Hopefully, we will be able to follow up with her on the targets laid out in the motion. That is my summary. Mr Butler made a winding-up speech on his party's amendment. We urge people to support the motion, and we look forward to seeing the impact of it. Question, That the amendment be made, put and negatived. Main Question put and agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly notes with concern the ongoing failure of the Department for the Economy to develop and publish an aviation policy or strategy for Northern Ireland; highlights that that delay is holding back economic development, undermining opportunities for investment, tourism and business competitiveness; stresses that airports across Northern Ireland each have a vital role to play in promoting export growth; further stresses that any future aviation strategy must treat all airports equitably; calls on the Minister for the Economy to publish a comprehensive aviation strategy for Northern Ireland, including measurable targets and specific proposals for a route development fund, within the next three months; and further calls on the Minister to outline what progress has been made towards increasing external sales intensity from 45% to 60% of GDP by 2030, as envisaged by the Northern Ireland Export Forum. Adjourned at 6.36 pm. Top
[ni-assembly-official-report][plenary_report] Official Reports https://aims.niassembly.gov.uk/officialreport/report.aspx?&eveDate=2025/09/23&docID=449816 Official Report: Tuesday 23 September 2025 Table of Contents Speakers Business Members Statements Gaza: Tuarascáil ar an Chinedhíothú ó Chomhairle na Náisiún Aontaithe um Chearta an Duine Gaza: United Nations Human Rights Council Report on Genocide Persecution of Christians: Democratic Republic of the Congo Child Safeguarding Irish Presidential Election Alcohol and Drug Addiction Bovine Tuberculosis: Farming Families Irish Presidential Election Organ Donation Private Car Parking Firms Codetta: 25th Anniversary Gynaecological Cancer Aitheantas don Ghaeilge Irish Language Recognition Jaidyn Rice Committee Business Committee Membership Inquiry (Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses) and Redress Scheme Bill: Extension of Committee Stage Dilapidation Bill: Extension of Committee Stage Private Members Business Legacy: Holding the Irish Government to Account Oral Answers to Questions Communities Private Members Business Health and Social Care Pay Awards 2025-26 Adjournment Sliabh Beagh: Protection from Fires and Environmental Damage The Assembly met at 10:30 am (Madam Principal Deputy Speaker [Ms Ní Chuilín] in the Chair). Members observed two minutes' silence. Speaker's Business Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I inform Members that the Speaker remains unwell and will therefore not be in the Chamber today. I am sure that we send him all our best wishes. Members' Statements Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: As usual, yes, everybody on their feet. Members who are called to speak will have up to three minutes in which to make their statement. I remind Members that they are not permitted to make points of order. Should any arise, I will deal with them afterwards. Gaza: Tuarascáil ar an Chinedhíothú ó Chomhairle na Náisiún Aontaithe um Chearta an Duine Mr Kearney: Rinne na Náisiúin Aontaithe Lá Idirnáisiúnta na Síochána a cheiliúradh Dé Domhnaigh seo a chuaigh thart, an 21 Meán Fómhair. Tugann an lá sin deis don domhan ár machnamh a dhéanamh — agus ár dtiomantas a athdhearbhú — ar an dóigh a dtig linn deireadh a chur leis an choimhlint, cearta an duine a chosaint agus síocháin an domhain a chur chun tosaigh. Tugadh dearbhú cinnte an tseachtain seo caite i dtuarascáil ó Chomhairle na Náisiún Aontaithe um Chearta an Duine go bhfuil stát Iosrael ag déanamh cinedhíothú in aghaidh mhuintir na Palaistíne. Is é a tuairiscíodh inti: "Scaoil naoscairí cuid de na páistí, lena n-áirítear naíonáin, sa cheann." Ná haifir orm é, ach caithfidh mé sin a léamh amach an athuair. Is é a dúradh sa tuarascáil: "Scaoil naoscairí cuid de na páistí, lena n-áirítear naíonáin, sa cheann." Cad é an cineál domhain a bhfuil muid inár gcónaí ann? Tá freagra na ceiste sin le fáil i gcruachás mhuintir na Palaistíne. Tá uileloscadh comhaimseartha ar siúl os comhair shúile an domhain. Tá stát ag baint úsáid as an chinedhíothú, as an ocras éigeantach, as an ghlanadh eitneach, as an choinneáil agus as an chinedheighilt, agus tá stát ag ciorrú páistí nuair a scaoileann naoscairí sa cheann iad. Agus tá sin uile go léir á dhéanamh d’aon turas. Tá an dara cothrom lae den chinedhíothú seo ag druidim linn. Ar mhaithe leis an chine dhaonna, ní mór don domhan gníomhú le deireadh a chur leis an tsádachas seo. Ní mór trádbhaic arm chuimsitheacha, smachtbhannaí agus dífheistiú a chur i bhfeidhm i gcoinne Iosrael. Tá an t-am ann le Benjamin Netanyahu agus na gealta ina Chomh-Aireacht a thabhairt os comhair na Cúirte Coiriúla Idirnáisiúnta. Caithfimid rún comhchoiteann a bheith againn ceartas, comhionnnas agus síocháin a bhaint amach do mhuintir na Palaistíne ós sin is brí do Lá Idirnáisiúnta na Síochána. Gaza: United Nations Human Rights Council Report on Genocide [Translation: On Sunday 21 September, the United Nations marked the International Day of Peace. This is an annual date for our world to reflect upon and recommit to ending conflict, upholding human rights and progressing global peace. Last week’s United Nations Human Rights Council report gave definitive confirmation that the Israeli state is actively involved in genocide against the Palestinian people. It reported: "Some children, including toddlers, were shot in the head by snipers." Sorry, I will read that again. It reported: "Some children, including toddlers, were shot in the head by snipers." What kind world do we live in? The plight of the Palestinian people underlines that question. A modern-day holocaust is taking place before the eyes of the world. A state is using genocide, forced starvation, ethnic cleansing, detention and apartheid, and the mutilation of children by using snipers to shoot toddlers in the head, and that is all being done deliberately. The second anniversary of this genocide approaches. For the sake of humanity, the world must take action to stop this sadism. Comprehensive arms embargos, sanctions and divestment must be applied against Israel. It is time for Benjamin Netanyahu and the mad men in his Cabinet to be brought before the International Criminal Court. Securing justice, equality and peace for the Palestinian people must be our collective resolve in reflecting upon the real meaning of the International Day of Peace.] Persecution of Christians: Democratic Republic of the Congo Mrs Dodds: I rise to highlight the persecution of Christians, particularly those in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Often, the world turns a blind eye to that brutal news. It does not get the same coverage as many other issues and the persecution of many other peoples. Open Doors reports that over 380 million Christians face high levels of persecution and discrimination: one in seven Christians worldwide. In the past month, at least 100 people have been killed by Islamic groups in a series of attacks in the east of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and a large number of them were of the Christian faith. Over 95% of the population of the Democratic Republic of the Congo are Christian, but levels of Islamic extremist violence have soared over the past year. That is only one of many attacks on Christians over the past year. On 22 August, 59 Christians were killed in attacks. On 3 August, 49 Christians were killed. On 25 February, Christians were found killed in a church. On 30 January, churches closed as rebels attempted to take them over. I could go on to list other examples. I want the House to recognise the persecution of Christians, not just in the Democratic Republic of the Congo but worldwide, and acknowledge that it is a real and present issue and that people are entitled to live out their faith in freedom. Child Safeguarding Mrs Guy: I rise to speak about children who are missing in education. I am specifically talking about children who are not registered in school or as being in home education. We do not know how many kids are in that situation, whether they are in harm's way or whether they need support. However, from speaking to the Education Authority, the British Association of Social Workers, the Children's Commissioner's office and other experts, I know that those who are responsible for safeguarding issues are worried. Having received internal minutes and briefings from the Department of Education through an FOI request, I know that the Department is, rightly, worried about the issue. We have seen heartbreaking incidents in the South that showed what can happen when children fall through the cracks in our systems. We need to do everything that we can to prevent that from happening. That requires better data sharing between our Departments and other jurisdictions, statutory guidance and legislative change, all of which, I know, are being looked at by senior officials in the Department of Education. I fully appreciate that that work is ongoing, but we need urgency. I will help in any way that I can. I will back legislative changes and statutory guidance to improve the situation. We must focus on closing those gaps in our system, and we must get it done in this mandate. Irish Presidential Election Dr Aiken: Yesterday, in the Northern Ireland Assembly, I joined others in meeting the Fine Gael Oireachtas team, led by Emer Currie and Frank Feighan. As is always the case with good friends and colleagues, we had a full and frank discussion, about everything from legacy and Ireland's lack of defence spending to the Windsor framework, the stability of the Assembly and migration issues. Finally, we had quite an animated discussion about the Irish presidential election and the relative merits of the candidates. Yesterday was such a busy day that, unfortunately, I had not heard the interview with the Sinn Féin and People Before Profit Irish presidential pick, Catherine Connolly, with William Crawley on 'Talkback' and nor had our Fine Gael guests. I have now. I encourage everyone in the Assembly to listen to it as well. You will note Connolly's reluctance to unequivocally condemn the 7 October attacks; her remarks that Keir Starmer should have no say about Hamas and that it should be up to the Palestinian people; that she does not believe that the murder, rape, torture and infanticide by Hamas of 1,195 people on that infamous day in October was genocidal; and that Hamas is part of the fabric of the Palestinian people and it is not up to us to dictate to them, though, hypocritically, she has no problem dictating to the people of Israel. You may also note that the leader of Sinn Féin, Mary Lou McDonald, and, indeed, our First Minister called it a "game changer" when they endorsed Catherine Connolly for the Áras. The question for the Assembly is this: do Sinn Féin and People Before Profit support Connolly's assertions about Hamas? If they do, they should come to the Assembly and correct the record, as both parties have asserted regularly that they do not support Hamas and condemn unreservedly the violence of 7 October as war crimes and attempts to commit genocide on the Jewish people, the aim that has been stated clearly by the Hamas leadership. Which is it, Michelle, Declan and Gerry? How do Connolly's assertions match what you have said in the Assembly? With the First Minister's complaining about selling your soul for a sip of champagne with POTUS, how can you sell your soul and that of your party to Catherine Connolly? The question is whether you endorse or condemn her remarks. If, of course, you agree with her and believe that Hamas is to be rewarded by being given power in the future, that is a damning indictment of your support for the causes of peace and reconciliation here and everywhere else. Alcohol and Drug Addiction Mr McCrossan: I rise to discuss the blight of alcohol and drug addiction in our communities. It is one of the greatest social challenges facing our society. Behind the statistics are real people, families and communities that are being torn apart. Every week, I meet families in West Tyrone who are watching loved ones spiral into addiction. Too often, their stories are stories of despair, not because they have given up hope but because they feel that the system has given up on them. Our services are failing. They are underfunded, fragmented and, in many cases, completely inaccessible to those who need them. Waiting lists are far too long. Community organisations are stretched to breaking point, forced to pick up the pieces with little or no support from government. The result is predictable: more lives lost, more families broken and more communities living in fear of what drugs do their streets. We cannot talk about addiction in isolation. Too often, those struggling with alcohol or drugs are also battling mental health issues, depression, anxiety and trauma, yet, in Northern Ireland, there is no proper dual diagnosis system that treats both conditions together; instead, people are pushed from one service to another and fall through the cracks at the very moment when they need joined-up, compassionate care. Drugs are destroying lives in every community. From Strabane to Belfast and Omagh to Derry, we see young people being robbed of their future and neighbourhoods being destabilised. It is not just a health crisis; it is a social emergency on which the Executive must act now. We desperately need urgent investment in addiction services. We need accessible, properly funded community-based supports that people and families can rely on. We need a dual diagnosis approach that recognises the inextricable link between mental health and addiction, so that people are treated as whole human beings and not as cases to be passed between Departments. In that vein, it is regrettable that the core funding for the Northlands centre in Derry has been cut. That is short-sighted and speaks to the failings of the Executive to prioritise those who are struggling and battling with addiction, particularly across the north-west. Addiction is not a lifestyle choice; it is an illness. It requires treatment, support and compassion, particularly from those in positions of leadership in government. If we continue to underfund and ignore the crisis, more lives will be lost. However, with the right services, the right investment and the right political leadership from the Executive, people can have a chance to recover and rebuild their lives with dignity and the support that they so desperately need and deserve. Top 10.45 am Bovine Tuberculosis: Farming Families Mrs Mason: Last week, a number of Sinn Féin colleagues and I met farming families in Seaforde in South Down to hear about the devastating impact that bovine tuberculosis is having on them. What I heard that night can only be described as heartbreaking. Generations — three, four, five or six generations — of families have seen their work and investment wiped out in a matter of weeks as their herds were destroyed by bovine TB. Farmers spoke that night with raw honesty about the huge emotional and financial toll that that has taken on them and about their despair at seeing their life's work reduced to almost nothing. The overwhelming message from the floor that night was one of anger: anger at being neglected; anger at being ignored; and anger at being left behind. Among the crowd of men and women was a passionate young farmer called James. James is just 10 years old. He sat quietly beside his grandfather while his mother told the family's story, which was one of heartbreak, cattle loss and livelihoods under threat. In that young man's face could be seen his pride in his family's farm but also his worry as he listened to local farmers' devastating stories. James represents the next generation of farmers, and he deserves a future in which farming is supported rather than undermined. That night, James showed me a picture of his cow, which he had reared himself from birth. Just the week before, he had watched helplessly as it was taken away to be destroyed. The look on his face said more than any report, review, strategy or consultation ever could, but what struck me the most was his determination to keep on farming. I have to say, "Fair play" to James, because, after that late-night meeting, he still managed to get up in the morning and get to school on time. That night, farmers told me that they felt abandoned by DAERA and by the Minister, who, they believe, has sat on his hands for far too long. While their herds are being wiped out, the Department produces review after review and undertakes consultation after consultation. Farmers do not need another consultation on this: they need action. They believe that the strategies are already in place: fair compensation; meaningful intervention; support for farm biodiversity; and urgent implementation of existing recommendations. The Agriculture Minister needs to step up to the plate and deliver. It is a human crisis, with families who have farmed for generations now at breaking point. I call on the Minister to meet the farmers without delay, listen to their devastating stories and take urgent action to protect our agri-food sector. Irish Presidential Election Mr Brett: On 24 October, the people of the Irish Republic will select their new president. That provides an opportunity for parties to set out their vision and seek the trust of the electorate. Where is Sinn Féin in that election? After months of speculation, of shadow-boxing and of telling the people of Ireland that its announcement would be a game changer, Sinn Féin has bottled it. Once again, Sinn Féin is on the run: no vision, no courage and no leadership. The same party endlessly talks about holding a referendum, first by 2016, then by 2030 and then within its members' lifetime, but, when it had the opportunity to stand for the highest office in the Irish Republic, it ran away. It vanished. It spent months complaining, saying that the people of Northern Ireland should be able to vote in that election and, indeed, wasted time in the Assembly calling for that, yet, when it had it had the opportunity to run a candidate in the election, it ran away. Instead of taking responsibility, Sinn Féin has a habit of demanding that others do its work. It insists that Dublin must produce a strategy to deliver Irish unity. It insist that civil servants must write the plan, and, when nothing happens, it blames everyone but itself. The decision not to run should come as no surprise. Despite claims from Sinn Féin that Mary Lou McDonald was the Taoiseach-in-waiting, the people of the Republic of Ireland sent the party a clear message. Now, instead of standing on its own two feet, it hides behind the independent candidate, Catherine Connolly, who has already managed to make a mockery of her campaign. We were told that she would be a champion for Irish unity, yet, when newspapers looked at her record on Irish unity, they found that she had not made one single comment on the issue in the past 25 years. However, her anti-Israel, anti-NATO, anti-American and pro-Hamas views might have more to do with the fact that Sinn Féin has run behind her. That pattern runs through Sinn Féin's politics. The party shouts the loudest, but, when asked to lead either in Dublin or here, it blames others for failure to deliver what it wants. I agree with the former Sinn Féin MP for Mid Ulster Francie Molloy, who broke Sinn Féin ranks to say that it should not have backed Catherine Connolly. The decision is a clear recognition that Sinn Féin is not fit to lead the Irish Republic. On that, Members on these Benches agree with Sinn Féin. Organ Donation Ms Mulholland: I will talk about organ donation, given that it is Organ Donation Week. It is life-changing. It is an act of generosity that can be tinged with joy and grief, depending on the circumstances. Across the UK, 8,000 people are waiting for a transplant, and 276 of them are children. However, only 1% of deaths happen in circumstances that could even allow donation. As Anthony Clarkson from NHS Blood and Transplant put it: "You are more likely to need a transplant than you ever are to be a donor." That really hits home for me when I think about my family and my wee ones. The truth is that any of us in the Chamber could need a transplant at some point. In Northern Ireland, our waiting list has risen to 163 people. Last year, 44 deceased donors enabled 123 transplants, and 68 living donors stepped up, including one of our civil servants who work alongside the Communities Committee this year. However, eight people in Northern Ireland died while still waiting. Those are eight funerals that I would rather had not happened, and I am sure that we all feel the same. That said, there is a lot that we can be proud of. Ninety per cent of people here support organ donation, and 59% of us are on the register. That is the highest in the UK. Normally, when we look at statistics across these islands, we see that Northern Ireland is usually lagging behind but not this time. That is testament to Dáithí's law. It is making a difference. Máirtín, his daddy, said that Dáithí's law is already playing a role in saving people's lives, but there is more to do. He is right, because, while deemed consent helps, families still need to be part of that discussion. They are far more likely to say yes when they know and have had that conversation with their loved one about what they wanted. Therefore, I take the opportunity today to beg people to please register, tell your family, have that conversation and leave them certain of your wishes. For families, losing a loved one is already a really torturous time, and leaving them with one less thing to worry about can help. Máirtín also put it really perfectly when he said: "What could have been an avoided subject is now part of everyday conversations in schools, homes and communities". That culture shift is precious. He reminds us of the humanity behind it all and the human heart of the work. He said of donors and their families that: "Their bravery and compassion by thinking of others in their darkest hour makes them true heroes". I agree with every word. I also take the opportunity to pay tribute to an fear beag cróga [Translation: the brave wee man] that is Mr Dáithí and the smiley wee face that I sometimes see in Ballycastle when he is up for his holidays. He is a little boy who has used the toughest of circumstances to change the world around him. This week, please have that conversation with your families. Private Car Parking Firms Mr Stewart: I rise today to condemn and to highlight the behaviour of some private car parking firms that operate across Northern Ireland with impunity. As we all know, those firms use bully-boy tactics and target ordinary people with extortionate fines and threats that are completely disproportionate to the circumstances. In my constituency recently, an elderly lady contacted my office. She had paid the fine after 15 letters of intimidation by one of those so-called parking firms. When a family member challenged it, it transpired that the lady had been in hospital when the incident occurred. That is not a one-off incidence, but it is absolutely disgraceful. I have written to the Minister today to highlight that issue and many others. We have all heard the stories. Someone pays for a ticket, is perhaps one or two minutes late and suddenly faces a £100 penalty. If they challenge that or try to debate with the company, they get harassed. Bailiff letters begin arriving, and there is threatening language and intimidation. Those are not the actions of fair businesses; they are the actions of companies that are seeking to squeeze every penny out of our constituents. What makes matters worse is the fact that some of our public bodies employ those companies to do that. Public bodies that are funded by the taxpayer are, effectively, outsourcing intimidation. The Assembly cannot stand idly by while our constituents are threatened in that way by those companies. We must look to what is happening elsewhere. In England and Wales, new codes of practice and legal frameworks have been introduced to curb the excesses, and action has been taken in Scotland to ensure that enforcement is fair, proportionate and transparent. Northern Ireland must not lag behind. I call on the Minister for Infrastructure to review the existing legislation and regulations to finally rein those companies in. As we know, the companies have access to Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) records, so it is important that they are completely under control. We need clear rules, robust enforcement and real protections for the public. We need to ensure that, if penalties are applied, they are fair, reasonable and transparent. Above all, we need to put an end to the harassment and intimidation of ordinary people who are going about their daily life. Codetta: 25th Anniversary Mr Durkan: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle. [Translation: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.] As many of you will know, my home town of Derry proudly carries the title "City of Song". Few ensembles encapsulate that spirit more than the choir Codetta, one of our most distinguished musical institutions. Codetta is celebrating a remarkable 25 years of singing together. Under the expert direction of Dónal Doherty, Codetta has flourished over the past 25 years, earning widespread international acclaim. Such is the dedication of its members that many travel home to Derry regularly from Belfast and beyond for weekend rehearsals and performances. Codetta has performed and competed at the highest levels across Europe. There have been notable appearances in Washington DC and Mexico, where it brought its talent and voice and represented us across the Atlantic. Its accolades are as impressive as its itinerary, which goes from live broadcasts on television and radio to recordings and standout performances at the opening and closing nights of the Proms and even 'Sports Personality of the Year' when it was broadcast from Belfast 10 years ago to an audience of over eight million viewers. Codetta has earned recognition and won awards across the global choral stage. However, I maintain that Dónal Doherty's greatest musical achievement was managing to get a few notes out of me when he taught me recorder at St Columb's College. In recent years, Codetta has expanded to include junior and youth choirs, nurturing young talent and enriching the musical life of our region. Those ensembles have played a vital role in music education, particularly in developing young voices and fostering a love of singing for generations to come. We are truly privileged to have a choir of such calibre representing Derry and, indeed, the country. I congratulate everyone involved with Codetta on this remarkable milestone. Gynaecological Cancer Ms Sugden: September is Gynaecological Cancer Awareness Month and is an important opportunity to raise awareness of ovarian, womb, cervical, vulva and vaginal cancers. Those cancers affect thousands of women across the UK and Northern Ireland, yet awareness, detection and outcomes remain poor. In recent weeks, I have received correspondence from constituents and charities raising a specific and concerning issue: the widespread misunderstanding that cervical screening detects ovarian cancer. Nearly half of women in Northern Ireland believe that a smear test will pick up ovarian cancer: that is not true. Cervical cancer screening detects changes in the cervix that could lead to cervical cancer, but it does not test for ovarian cancer or other gynaecological cancers. That misunderstanding is costing women time and giving them false reassurance, and, when it comes to ovarian cancer, time is everything. Ovarian cancer is often called the "silent killer", because its symptoms are vague and easy to dismiss: bloating, pelvic pain, feeling full quickly and changes in bladder habits, which, to be honest, are an everyday event for women. We are told that those symptoms can be put down to hormones, stress or simply being a woman. Too often, referrals come too late. Only one in three women here knows that bloating is a symptom of ovarian cancer. Top 11.00 am The five-year survival rate, overall, remains below 45% across the UK. For woman diagnosed at stage 1, survival can be as high as 95%, but for those diagnosed at stage 4, it drops down to 15%. That difference is stark when we consider the consequences of a late diagnosis. Those outcomes are among the worst in Europe, and that is not acceptable. However, it does not have to be inevitable. Other parts of the United Kingdom are beginning to act. For example, in England, cervical screening information states in clear wording that the test does not detect ovarian cancer. Public awareness campaigns have helped to challenge myths and encourage women to see their GP if they notice symptoms. Northern Ireland needs to do the same. I urge the Public Health Agency to take immediate steps to run a public information campaign here, using plain language, community channels, GP surgeries and the local media. Women need to know what cervical screening is and is not for. Awareness is not enough, however. We need better pathways for diagnosis. Finally, we need a women's health strategy in Northern Ireland, because, across these islands, women's health has been an afterthought for too long. Pain is normalised, and symptoms are dismissed, resulting in poor outcomes for women in areas ranging from endometriosis to fertility, from menopause to cancer. Behind every statistic is a woman — a daughter, a mother, a sister or a friend. Some are lucky to still be with us, but others are not, because diagnosis happened too late. Their voices should not be ignored. Aitheantas don Ghaeilge Ms Reilly: Tá an Ghaeilge faoi bhláth. Tá líon na bhfoghlaimeoirí ag fás, tá earnáil na Gaelscolaíochta ag borradh léi, agus tá coimisinéir teanga le ceapadh gan mhoill. Is léir go bhfuil an Ghaeilge ag dul ó neart go neart. Tá sé ríthábhachtach go dtacaímidne uile anseo sa tSeomra seo leis an fhás sin. In ainneoin an dul chun cinn atá déanta, b’éigean do bhreis agus 25 000 Gael ó gach aon chearn den oileán sráideanna Bháile Átha Cliath a thabhairt orthu féin Dé Sathairn seo a chuaigh thart. Mé féin ina measc agus mé bródúil as bheith ann ag seasamh gualainn má gualainn le pobal na Gaeilge. Bhí 25 000 Gael ar na sráideanna – bródúil agus bríomhar – ag éileamh a gceart. Ag éileamh infheistíocht agus aitheantas cuí don Ghaeilge san oideachas, sa tithíocht agus sa reachtaíocht. Tá seasca faoin gcéad de Ghaelscoileanna ó Thuaidh lonnaithe go fóill i gcóiríocht shealadach neamhshásúil, agus tháinig titim thubaisteach ar líon na ndaltaí atá ag roghnú na Gaeilge mar ábhar TGMO sna meánscoileanna Béarla le 20 bliain anuas. Tá earnáil na luathbhlianta Gaeilge ag snámh in aghaidh an easa, nó tá méadú suntasach ar an éileamh ar a seirbhísí tráth atá an stát fuarchúiseach sa scéal, rud a chuireann tuilleadh brú airgeadais, acmhainní agus foirne ar an earnáil. Leanann Gaeilgeoirí orthu ag streachailt ar son infheictheachta sa réimse poiblí i gcomhairlí ar fud an Tuaiscirt, pé acu i gcomharthaí sráide dátheangacha nó i mbrandáil comhairle. Ach lig dom é seo a rá: seasaimid leis na Gaeil nuair a thugann said na sráideanna orthu féin. Leanfaimid orainn ag stocaireacht sa tSeomra seo agus níos faide anonn ar son a gceart, ar son tacaíochta agus ar son infheistíocht chuí. Tá dul chun cinn á dhéanamh, ach tá bealach le dul go fóill, agus leanfaimid linn, go bródúil bríomhar. Irish Language Recognition [Translation: The Irish language is having a moment. The numbers of those learning the language is on the rise, Irish-medium education is booming and an Irish Language Commissioner is imminent. It is clear that an Ghaeilge is flourishing, and it is vital that we in the Chamber continue to support it. Despite the progress, 25,000 of Gaels from all corners of this island took to the streets of Dublin on Saturday. I was proud to be there among them, standing shoulder to shoulder with the Irish language community. Twenty-five thousand Gaels on the streets, loud and proud, demanding their rights, demanding proper investment and recognition for an Ghaeilge in education, in housing and in legislation. Sixty per cent of Irish-medium schools in the North are still in unsuitable temporary accommodation, and there has been a substantial drop in the number of pupils choosing Irish as a GCSE subject in English-medium schools in the past 20 years. The Irish-medium early years sector is swimming against the tide, facing a significant increase in demand for services at a time when the state’s approach is inactive, putting further financial, staffing and resource pressure on the sector. In councils across the North, Gaeilgeoirí continue to battle for visibility in the public sphere, be that through bilingual street signs or council branding. However, let me say this: we stand with the Gaels who took to the streets. We will continue to fight for their rights to be recognised, supported and invested in — in the Chamber and beyond. Progress is being made, but there is still a way to go, and we will continue that journey loudly and proudly.] Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Peter Martin. You have just one minute. Sorry about that. Mr Martin: Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I was going to speak about a young girl who died during the summer, so I would prefer to wait. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Go ahead. I will give you an extra minute, so you have two minutes. Mr Martin: Are you sure? That is very kind. Thank you. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: No problem. Jaidyn Rice Mr Martin: During recess, on 8 July, Jaidyn Rice, a 16-year-old girl, was killed on the West Circular Road in Bangor. Jaidyn had just finished her GCSEs and was looking forward to going back to school to complete her A levels. She was an active member of the army cadets, where she excelled in first aid, and was considering a future in the army or community work. She was also an active youth leader with the development, integration, citizenship, education (DICE) futures project in Bangor, where she helped young girls and boys from the local area. I know that all those involved in the DICE futures project and the wider North Down Community Network are still very much coming to terms with her loss. Her mum, Elaine, described her daughter very tenderly: "There will never be anyone with a heart as big as yours. ... You have half of my heart with you – please hold tight to it princess, and know that I am with you always." Her brother described her as "brave and amazing" and said: "like glitter, she always shined hope and happiness into everybody who met her." A man has been charged with causing death through dangerous driving, causing death whilst driving without a licence and causing death whilst driving without insurance. Few of us in the Chamber, I hope, will ever know the pain that that family has gone through in losing a child. My thoughts remain with them at this time. It is now up to others to honour her legacy and remember her through our actions. The astounding facts are that the accused in Jaidyn's case was already on bail for other driving offences. He did not even have a licence, but he took a car, and police believe that they can connect him to the circumstances of the night of 8 July. I wrote to the Alliance Justice Minister recently about Jaidyn's case, specifically regarding the man charged being released on bail, which was very hurtful for the families. I was incredulous in trying to understand that. It is therefore very disappointing that Minister Long replied to me that she has no plans to include new guidance on the granting of bail in her sentencing Bill. I believe that to be a significant missed opportunity to provide Jaidyn's family with a positive, legal legacy from the tragic circumstances of her death. It is, unfortunately, an opportunity that the Justice Minister will not take. Committee Business Committee Membership Resolved: That Mr Phillip Brett replace Mr Harry Harvey as a member of the Committee for the Executive Office; that Mrs Pam Cameron replace Mr Brian Kingston as a member of the Committee for the Executive Office; that Mr Brian Kingston replace Mr Stephen Dunne as a member of the Committee for Justice; that Mr Harry Harvey replace Mr Keith Buchanan as a member of the Committee for Infrastructure; that Mrs Pam Cameron replace Mr Brian Kingston as a member of the Committee for Communities; that Mr Brian Kingston replace Mr Phillip Brett as a member of the Committee for Finance; that Mr Harry Harvey replace Mr Paul Frew as a member of the Committee for Finance; that Ms Cheryl Brownlee replace Mr William Irwin as a member of the Committee on Procedures; that Mr Gary Middleton replace Mr Peter Martin as a member of the Committee for Education; and that Mr Stephen Dunne be appointed as a member of the Public Accounts Committee. — [Mr Clarke.] Inquiry (Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses) and Redress Scheme Bill: Extension of Committee Stage Ms Bradshaw (The Chairperson of the Committee for The Executive Office): I beg to move That, in accordance with Standing Order 33(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 33(2) be extended to 26 January 2026 in relation to Committee Stage of the Inquiry (Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses) and Redress Scheme Bill. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed that there will be no time limit on this debate. I call the Chairperson to open the debate on the motion. Ms Bradshaw: Thank you. As Chair of the Committee for the Executive Office, I propose an extension to the Committee Stage of the Inquiry (Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses) and Redress Scheme Bill. The legislation is not only technically complex but deeply personal. It seeks to deliver truth and redress to survivors of institutions that operated in Northern Ireland over many decades. Those institutions left a legacy of trauma, shame, secrecy and exclusion. Our duty now is to ensure that the legislative response is thorough, inclusive and survivor-led. The Committee has already undertaken significant work. We launched a comprehensive call for evidence, which has been open for 11 weeks and closes at the end of this month. We held engagement sessions with survivors and advocacy groups to provide more information on the passage of the Bill through the Assembly. We have begun detailed scrutiny of the Bill's provisions, including, at last week's Committee, meeting men and women with lived experience of the various institutions. It is clear that more time is needed. Survivors have asked us for space to reflect, respond and be heard. Important questions about eligibility, compensation and the structure of the inquiry have emerged, and we, as legislators, must ensure that every clause of the Bill is fit for purpose. An extension will allow the Committee to deepen its engagement with survivors and affected stakeholders, refine the initial redress scheme to ensure fairness and accessibility, and strengthen the inquiry framework to guarantee independence and trauma-informed practice. This is not about delay; it is about dignity. Survivors have waited decades for recognition, and we must not rush the process now but take the time to listen, to learn and to legislate with care. I urge Members to support the extension of the Committee Stage until the end of January 2026. Let us honour the courage of those who have come forward, and let us ensure that the Bill delivers the truth and redress that they deserve. Question put and agreed to. Resolved: That, in accordance with Standing Order 33(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 33(2) be extended to 26 January 2026 in relation to Committee Stage of the Inquiry (Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses) and Redress Scheme Bill. Dilapidation Bill: Extension of Committee Stage Mr Butler (The Chairperson of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I beg to move That, in accordance with Standing Order 33(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 33(2) be extended to 15 May 2026, in relation to the Committee Stage of the Dilapidation Bill. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed that there will be no time limit for this debate. Mr Butler: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. On behalf of the AERA Committee, I request an extension to the Committee Stage of the Dilapidation Bill to 15 May 2026. That date was agreed after discussions at the Committee meeting on 11 September 2025. The Committee was first briefed on the proposed content of the Bill at its meeting on 26 June by officials from DAERA's neighbourhood environment quality branch. We considered the outline of the 31 clauses and two schedules. We were informed that the Bill is intended to provide Northern Ireland councils with the powers to deal with dilapidated, dangerous or neglected buildings and sites and to establish a fit-for-purpose enforcement regime. That reflects the powers already available in the rest of the UK and will enhance the cost recovery powers for councils. The Committee heard that the Bill provides for a tiered approach based on severity of dilapidation, with those requiring emergency action being judged to be the most severe. The Committee recognises that much of the current legislation is old and that the departmental consultation in relation to the Bill was carried out almost a decade ago, in 2016. Given the length of time that has elapsed, it is of utmost importance that the Committee take its time to fully scrutinise all the aspects and impacts that the Bill may have to ensure that it addresses the current issues across buildings and sites and that it is viable for councils, in terms of resources, in the current financial climate. The Department's 2016 consultation received 24 responses, mainly from councils, and there was majority support for introducing a Bill with a new broader, updated regime to deal with dilapidated and dangerous structures, neglected sites and a range of visual amenity issues. However, Members are all aware of dilapidated buildings leading to further neglect in an area, and you do not need to go too far from this Building to see a row of dilapidated vacant shops, at the Knock lights, that have been that way for many years. In the Second Stage debate, Members raised significant issues about the Dilapidation Bill and highlighted the need to see DAERA guidance documentation that will accompany the Bill. I thank the Department for moving on that guidance at pace, and a draft has now been provided to the Committee. That will ensure our enhanced scrutiny at Committee Stage. One of the reasons for the extension date is that the Bill is not as straightforward as it seems, as demonstrated by the issues raised at Second Stage by Committee members and other Members of the Assembly. Therefore, the AERA Committee will need to scrutinise the powers provided to councils and whether it is appropriate that they be discretionary, as well as the full financial and wider resource impacts on councils in implementing the Bill, as guaranteed central funding is not provided for in it, and to explore further whether the cost recovery mechanisms are fit for purpose to encourage councils to use those powers. We will also look at ensuring that there is adequate cooperation and clear communication between councils, landowners, occupiers and other interested parties; the adequacy of the fees and fixed penalty charges; and the time frames for remedial action and dealing with unregistered land. Top 11.15 am The Committee is due to receive a briefing from the Assembly's Research and Information Service (RaISe) at its next meeting, on 25 September. We received its paper yesterday, so we know that RaISe has highlighted further pertinent queries and issues in addition to those that I have just mentioned. The Committee will want to pursue them in detail with external witnesses and departmental officials. For example, further clarity is required from councils on whether the ability to seek compensation under emergency action will have an impact on their decision to use the powers, and there are concerns about the habitat and conservation aspects associated with dilapidated buildings. The Committee will also want to explore and compare the provisions in other jurisdictions to assess whether they are working well. At this point, the Committee's public call for evidence on Citizen Space is still open and will remain so until 10 October. We encourage all interested individuals and groups to recognise the Bill's potential impacts and to respond to the call for evidence and the invitation to provide oral evidence to the Committee. The Committee is particularly keen to hear from councils, relevant advisory bodies, professional bodies and the housing and rental sectors and NGOs. The Committee wishes to give the focused issues and wider impact of the Bill due diligence and scrutiny, while keeping on top of its extensive scrutiny remit for statutory rules (SRs) and the new agriculture, environment and fishing policy that seems to be moving forward. The Committee is also aware of the need to provide sufficient time for its deliberations and to allow additional time, given the likelihood of further Bills overlapping with this Bill in the near future. Having consulted the Bill Office and having considered the evidence that we wish to take on the Bill and our other ongoing other work, the Committee seeks the support of the House to extend the Committee Stage of the Dilapidation Bill until 15 May 2026. We will, of course, work at pace to report in advance of that date, if that is at all possible. Question put and agreed to. Resolved: That, in accordance with Standing Order 33(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 33(2) be extended to 15 May 2026, in relation to the Committee Stage of the Dilapidation Bill. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I ask Members to take their ease while we change the top Table. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Blair] in the Chair) Private Members' Business Legacy: Holding the Irish Government to Account Mrs Dodds: I beg to move That this Assembly rejects the notion of an amnesty for those responsible for wrongdoing during the Troubles; stresses that any revised proposals for dealing with the legacy of the past must be the product of serious and sustained engagement with innocent victims, survivors and their advocates; deplores the decision of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to enter into bilateral discussions with his counterpart in the Republic of Ireland whilst acquiescing on the abject failure of the Irish Government to provide answers for those families who suspect Irish state involvement in the murder of their loved ones, or who believe that their deaths could have been prevented; highlights, furthermore, the absurdity of this approach when the Irish Government maintain their inter-state case against the UK Government; notes with concern the memorandum of understanding between the Irish Government and the Omagh bombing inquiry, which masquerades as cooperation but includes no statutory powers, no ability to compel witnesses and no guarantee of full disclosure; opposes any role for the Irish Government in overseeing the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery without first establishing parallel investigative processes in their jurisdiction; and calls on the UK Government to urgently provide assurances that any agreement reached in principle with the Irish Government on legacy commands the broad support of victims and survivors. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. As an amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List, the Business Committee has agreed that 15 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate. Please open the debate on the motion, Mrs Dodds. Mrs Dodds: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Given the events of the past few days, this is a crucial motion, and the Assembly once again has the opportunity to stand with the innocent victims of terrorist violence by supporting it. The DUP will always stand with the innocent victims of terrorism. We record once again our view that there can be no viable process on legacy unless it has access to truth and justice at its heart. Victims of violence have for many years been sidelined, made to feel that they are the pawns of political expediency by successive Governments who have served up prisoner releases and on-the-run letters of comfort. There are even those in the Assembly who have royal pardons in their back pocket. Over recent months, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom have spent their time consulting the Dublin Government on a framework for Troubles legacy issues, but the record of the Dublin Government on the issue of victims and their access to truth and justice is truly lamentable. They refused to extradite IRA criminals so that they could face justice for their crimes in Northern Ireland, and they have failed to provide answers to those who accuse the Irish security forces of collusion with the IRA. I make no apology today for talking about some of those cases. I have spoken many times in the House of the case of Ian Sproule. His family have long suspected the gardaí of passing information to the IRA that resulted in his murder. It was a brutal slaying of a young Protestant and loyalist. As Ian drew up to the family home in Killen, just outside Castlederg, his car was sprayed with bullets. The IRA later phoned the house and told his father to go out to the yard and to look at the mess that it had left. It was his son. There has been no expensive Finucane-style inquiry for him; just a heartbroken family still searching for justice. There have been no answers from the Republic's Government, and the Sinn Féin First Minister says that there was no alternative to such wicked murder and loss. No wonder victims are sickened and angry. I could, of course, mention many others who feel that pain, including the Kingsmills families; the family of Lord Justice Gibson and his wife, who were murdered as they crossed the border; and the Hanna family. Those are all families for whom the truth of collusion with the IRA played a part in their fate. I also acknowledge the families whom the Government of the Republic of Ireland have failed — their own citizens — in their quest for truth and justice. The family of Terence McKeever and of Private Patrick Kelly, who was shot during the rescue of Don Tidey, have raised serious concerns about the lack of a full and proper investigation of their murders by IRA criminals. In a recent 'Belfast Telegraph' article, Private Kelly's son David said: "we are all invisible in the south." On 15 August 1998 at 3.10 pm, a bomb explosion ripped through Omagh. Twenty-nine people and two unborn children were killed. Over 200 people were injured. That bomb was built in the Irish state and driven to Northern Ireland. After a long campaign, the Omagh families were finally granted their inquiry, but the memorandum of understanding between the Irish Government and the Omagh bomb inquiry only masquerades as cooperation. It includes no statutory powers, no guarantee of full disclosure from the Irish authorities and no ability to compel witnesses. It is no wonder that some of the Omagh families are deeply disturbed. That same Government have been given a role by Labour in the legacy process. The PM should not trample so lightly on the blood of innocent victims. The Sinn Féin amendment removes the word "innocent" in reference to the victims of terrorism. Are we surprised? Absolutely not. It is a party that is led by someone who talks about there being no alternative to violence and that constantly eulogises IRA terrorists. Some in the party have suggested that it should embrace the criminals and gangsters of the IRA more fully. There is irony at its heart. We recently saw a host of Sinn Féin tributes to the IRA killer and criminal "Bik" McFarlane, who led the attack on the Bayardo bar on the Shankill Road in which five people were killed and over 60 injured. Around that time, the killer "Bik" McFarlane was being remembered and honoured at an event in the Falls park. How can we have a reconciled future for Northern Ireland and our children when murder is treated so lightly and murderers are venerated by political parties? Erasing the word "innocent" blurs the distinction between perpetrator and victim. That is the antithesis of justice, and there can be no workable legacy process in which justice is ignored. We will always stand with the victims of terrorist criminals. A legacy process should have victims at its heart, and the suffering of the innocent should not be airbrushed for political expediency. It is essential that it include the opportunity to hear the stories and voices of innocent victims and to learn about their lives, which were so cruelly taken. We are not interested in the airbrushing of history or the manipulation of the lives of innocent people for political gain. We are not interested in an imperfect opportunity. The lives of the innocent still cry out for truth and justice. Mrs Dillon: I beg to move the following amendment: Leave out all after "sustained engagement with" and insert: "victims, survivors and their advocates; notes with concern the memorandum of understanding between the Irish Government and the Omagh bombing inquiry; further notes the motion agreed by the Assembly in March 2025, calling on the Irish Government to initiate a public inquiry into the Omagh bomb; reiterates the call for a separate public inquiry by the Irish Government into the Omagh bombing; and calls on the UK Government to urgently provide assurances that any agreement reached in principle with the Irish Government on legacy commands the broad support of victims and survivors." Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): You will have 10 minutes to propose the amendment and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes. Please open the debate on the amendment. Mrs Dillon: Thank you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. [Translation: Mr Deputy Speaker.] I noticed a lot of use of the word "we" in the speech of the previous Member to speak. This is not about "we". At the heart of any debate on legacy must be the victims and survivors of the conflict. Their pain, their voices and their right to truth and justice need to be the starting point and, to be perfectly honest, the finishing point. Mr Brett: Will the Member give way? Mrs Dillon: Absolutely not. The motion highlights the need for answers, including answers from the Irish Government. I am clear that victims deserve the truth, wherever it leads. We must ensure that the approach to legacy is not about closing doors but about opening the door to truth, accountability and healing. Victims — not "we" — have consistently told us that they need a process that they can trust. They almost had that in the Stormont House Agreement, which the DUP agreed to, by the way. Mrs Dodds: Will the Member give way? Mrs Dillon: No, I will not. Allow me to go on further. I will let you back in. The DUP agreed to that. It was far from a perfect mechanism, but, at least, it had buy-in from many victims. At least, they had a say in it and had input to it and were consulted on it. Seventeen and a half thousand people responded to that consultation. There are not many consultations that we can say that about. As I said, victims have told us that they want a process that they can trust. They need a process that commands their confidence and does not simply re-litigate old political arguments but seeks to meet their needs: truth recovery, justice, where possible, and recognition of the harm done. That is why any legacy —. Mrs Dodds: Will the Member [Inaudible.] Mrs Dillon: Am I OK to move on? Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Go ahead. Mrs Dillon: That is why any legacy framework must be victim-led and have broad support. It cannot be imposed by London or Dublin or even by the Assembly. As I said, it is worth remembering that we have been here before. We had the Stormont House Agreement, which had the endorsement of the Assembly. The DUP supported it, and both Governments were involved in it. The agreement envisaged a role for the Irish Government, who were very involved in the conversations around it. A process that fails to include cooperation from both Governments would fail all victims. Top 11.30 am I share concerns about the British Government's approach to the unilateral passage of the Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 and the amnesty provisions that have undermined confidence across the board, but the answer is not to walk away from engagement. The answer is to insist on a process that victims can trust, that compels disclosure, that has investigative powers and truth recovery processes, and that puts victims at the centre. I ask that everybody in the Assembly works together to that end, not scoring political points but securing a process that commands confidence, deals with the past comprehensively and allows victims to finally get the answers that they have been denied for too long. I am asking that Members in the Chamber today support our amendment because, truthfully, I think that the original motion is political posturing and has little or no focus on the victims' needs or asks. Legacy is not about whataboutery; it is about families all across our community. I could name many, just as the Member across the Chamber did, but I do not think that they want us to name them; they want us to deliver for them. They lost mothers, sons, daughters, fathers, brothers and sisters during the conflict. They come from all backgrounds and lost their loved ones at the hands of those from all backgrounds. They all, without exception, deserve to know the truth and have the justice that they require for their loved ones. I hope that we will get some of that, but it remains to be seen what will be in the legislative text following the announcement by the two Governments on Friday. Let me be very clear: as a party, we will listen to all victims, as I have done over many years. From as far back as 2016 and 2017, I have been meeting victims and families from all backgrounds, who were killed and injured by all actors in the conflict, whether republicans, loyalists or state actors. They will decide on the process that meets their needs. The DUP does not get to decide who a victim is. The definition of a victim is outlined in the Northern Ireland Act 2006. You do not get to decide it, I do not get to decide it, nobody in this Chamber gets to decide it. The definition of a victim is there. I would like us all to accept that, move on and understand this: every single family that lost a loved one feels the same pain; every single family that lost a loved one deserves the same truth; and every single family that lost a loved one deserves the same justice. That is it. There is no equivocation and no nonsense. Every person who died is a loss, and every person who has gone is missed and loved by the people who lost them. Let us just stop this nonsense in the Chamber. I know that people in the Chamber have lost loved ones — right across the Chamber, from all backgrounds. We cannot ignore that. I am one of the very lucky people who did not. I understand that, so I do not speak for victims. That is why I listen to them. Ms Bradshaw: I welcome the debate today. We should all keep one thing firmly in our minds this morning, which is the victims and survivors of the Omagh bomb and, indeed, all those bereaved, injured and killed during the entirety of the Troubles. They should be at the heart of today's discussion. Their voices must be heard, and their experiences and those of their family members must be used to guide how we deal with the difficult issues surrounding legacy. In considering the original motion, I found that, while it raises real concerns, it risks becoming more about political point-scoring than about real commitment to truth, justice and accountability for victims and survivors, and it takes us away from where the focus should be. Victims are not best served by jabbing rhetoric or a political blame game, passing responsibility back and forth between jurisdictions. They are best served by a practical, victim-centred, human rights-compliant approach. A Member: Will the Member give way? Ms Bradshaw: I just want to make a bit of progress, then I will maybe let you in. It is because of that that I will oppose the motion and, instead, support the amendment — [Interruption] — which I believe — [Interruption.] Mr Gaston: Sinn Féin rewriting history, aided and abetted by Alliance. Ms Bradshaw: Excuse me. I will be heard in the Chamber. Thank you. Mr Brett: Sinn Féin stooge. Ms Bradshaw: Mr Deputy Speaker, will you please rule? Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member will be heard. I have already asked Members to be quiet. I am now doing it more formally and more loudly. Proceed. Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I feel that the amendment better places the emphasis on the lived experiences and realities of victims and survivors here. Of course, there must be cross-border cooperation, and, of course, legacy issues are an all-island responsibility, but that means working together to put victims first, not using them as pawns in a political contest. I was struck by a comment that a witness made at a Committee session on this very issue. He said — I am paraphrasing more than anything — that we will not see reconciliation on the island of Ireland unless both Governments step up to the plate and provide the information and evidence that they have. That needs to be at the heart of this. Mr Frew: Will the Member give way? Ms Bradshaw: Go ahead. I will, actually. Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. I agree with her when she talks about transparency between the Governments — our UK Government and that of the Irish Republic — but what about the terrorists? What about disclosure for the victims of terrorism? What about the political parties attached to terrorists, like Sinn Féin? Ms Bradshaw: Thank you for that. I was ready for that question. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute. Ms Bradshaw: I totally agree that everybody who was involved in the Troubles should come forward with the evidence that they have. Do you not think that I find absolutely abhorrent what the IRA and others did to Northern Ireland? I hate it every day. I want to see reconciliation. Mr Gaston: You are going to vote with them. Ms Bradshaw: I am going to vote for an amendment that puts victims and survivors at the centre. [Interruption.] Mr Deputy Speaker, please. [Interruption.] Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Will Members please stop speaking from the sidelines? The Member will continue. Ms Bradshaw: Thank you. That is my frustration with this entire debate. These motions are tabled, and we have a ding-dong in the Chamber. Victims and survivors and their families look on in absolute disgust and horror at the childish behaviour in the Chamber. Can we please move on and put them at the heart of our work here, through the Executive Office Committee and its programmes and other departmental responsibilities? It is nauseating. The amendment focuses on one issue: a separate public inquiry by the Irish Government. I am conscious that that could result in victims and survivors being asked to give evidence more than once, and that that carries a real risk of re-traumatising families who have already endured that pain for more than 25 years. If such an inquiry goes ahead, there must be put in place robust victim support; access to counselling and legal advice; and, above all, a coordinated, all-island approach to evidence-giving, so that families are not forced to unnecessarily duplicate statements. In light of the recent agreement between the Irish and UK Governments, we have a new framework: a proposal for a reformed legacy commission, repeal of the immunity scheme and the reopening of inquests that had been stalled. That deal has the potential to deliver for families that have waited for decades. It offers us a real chance to deliver on the commitments that we are discussing. The overall direction of the amendment is right. It reaffirms the Assembly's position, recognises the failures of the current arrangement, and calls on the UK Government to ensure that any agreement with the Irish Government commands the confidence of victims and survivors. Without that confidence, no legacy mechanism can succeed. Legacy is a contentious issue for a reason. It is not easy, but we owe it to victims and survivors to approach it with honesty, compassion and practical solutions. The days of the politics of appeasement need to be placed behind us so that we can achieve meaningful and sustainable reconciliation on the island of Ireland. Mr Beattie: I will just remind people that this is a debate about the Irish Government's role in legacy; that is why we are focusing on the Irish Government's role. We debated our motion on that in March of this year, and not a single Member in the House disagreed. That motion passed without issue, having been amended by the DUP, but, for some reason, we seem to have gone off at a tangent. James Elliott was kidnapped close to the border in 1972, taken into the Irish Republic, tortured and murdered. His body was then booby-trapped and dumped on the border two days later. Two individuals were charged, not with his murder but with possessing explosives. There was no article 2 investigation by the Irish Government into James Elliott's murder. Why not? The UK has now initiated an article 2 inquest, and hopefully that will start again. Jean McConville, who was abducted and then murdered in the Irish Republic, has had no article 2 investigation. Robert Nairac was abducted and tortured: no article 2 investigation. I could go on an awful lot more. There is a concern, because Kieran Conway and Michael Hayes admitted involvement in and knowledge of the Birmingham bombing, which killed 21 people and injured over 200 more, and they have not even been questioned by an Garda Síochána. An Garda Síochána did not interview Father Patrick Ryan, who admitted involvement in multiple explosions, including in Brighton and Hyde Park. He was never even interviewed by an Garda Síochána. Kingsmills certainly did not get the open and transparent cooperation from the Irish Government that was promised. Corporal Heather Kerrigan and Private Norman McKinley were murdered by the PIRA during a cross-border operation — their killers were quite happy to slip back into Ireland, which they saw as a safe haven. The fact is that Ireland was used as a safe haven for terrorists, who were comfortable attacking civilians in Northern Ireland safe in the knowledge that they could go back to the Irish Republic and be safe. Do I have confidence in the Irish Government and their legacy dealings on the Troubles? Not one bit, and here is why: because the former Irish Justice Minister made it clear in 2021 that the Government had decided that it was no longer in the state's interest to investigate and prosecute Troubles-related crimes. In 1998, the Irish Government literally said, "That is it. We have drawn a line in the sand. We are not going to do it any more". They did so having been lobbied by Sinn Féin for amnesties. The Irish Government stand with their hands in their pockets complaining about the UK Government's legacy legislation while they do absolutely nothing. Their refusal to investigate Troubles-related crimes has delayed and denied justice, and that will be exploited by the perpetrators in the same way that the OTR letters were exploited by Downey. The chief suspect in the murder of Gareth O'Connor in 2003 was handed an OTR letter by a senior member of Sinn Féin — again, denying and delaying justice. We have already debated this issue. We have already talked about what happened in regard to Omagh, and we supported the families' call for the Irish Government to open an independent inquiry into the Omagh bombing. That is the core of what we are talking about here. The Irish have not done enough, if anything whatsoever. I remind people that the Omagh bomb was constructed in Ireland, the explosives were sourced in Ireland, the timer power unit was built in Ireland, the car was stolen in Ireland, the murderous operation was planned and mounted from Ireland, and the murderers — the perpetrators — returned to Ireland, yet the Irish Government think that it is nothing to do with them. It is utterly scandalous. We should all be up in arms about that. That is the heart of the DUP motion: to say to the Irish, "You have not done enough. Do more". How you cannot support that is absolutely beyond me. Mr Tennyson: Will the Member give way? Mr Beattie: Yes, of course. Mr Tennyson: The motion also says that it deplores the decision of the Secretary of State to negotiate with this counterpart in the Republic of Ireland. How do you propose that we get full cooperation from the Irish Government in the absence of negotiation? Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute. Mr Beattie: Negotiations are negotiations, but you cannot be a negotiator if you are the ones who are literally denying justice at the same time. You cannot turn round and say, "We are going to negotiate with you and we are going to make sure that you have an oversight body, but, do you know what, we are not going to do anything". That is a genuine concern. Whether you see it or do not see it, that is a genuine concern. The Irish Government have now said that they will have a gardaí legacy unit. That is a move in the right direction. Who will be the oversight body for that legacy unit? How will we ensure that they do not redact information? In my last conversation with the Irish Government, they were quite clear that the directorate of military intelligence, which was formerly known as G2, will be able to redact information before investigation, and an Garda Síochána will also redact information before investigation. There is no oversight body. I am further concerned, because, when I asked the First Minister just yesterday whether she could guarantee that the process will be victim-centred, it became clear to me that nobody has even engaged with our Executive Office, which is responsible for the victims and survivors strategy, so it cannot even say that it will be victim-centred. Top 11.45 am Mrs Dillon: Will the Member give way? Mr Beattie: I am sorry, but I have only five seconds left. I support the motion. Not every word in it is perfect, but I still think that it is clear. Mr O'Toole: It has been said before but needs to be said again, and as often as possible, that the people who matter most in this discussion are not those in the Chamber but those who are victims of the Troubles, as well as their families. In everything that we say and do, we must think about them. We also have a responsibility to the society in which we live. Young people today and future generations will take on the leadership of this society in years to come. We have a responsibility to them not to pass on the poison of our conflict but, rather, to do as much as we possibly can to create a healthy and reconciled society. We are clearly failing at that task thus far. The amnesty proposals that the previous Tory Government put forward marked a nadir in the post-conflict period. The proposals —. Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way? Mr O'Toole: I will give way in one second. The proposals that have come from the UK and Irish Governments are as yet scant in detail. There has been progress made in some areas, but there are real concerns that need to be addressed, and I hope that they will be, in part through legislation and engagement with victims and survivors first and then with political parties. I have to say, however, based on the quality of debate in the Chamber, that some will wonder how productive that engagement will be. Legislation will come forward in Westminster, and it is right that there are parties that will actually be in the Chamber there to amend that legislation where necessary. I will continue with my points, but I will give way now for the purposes of debate. Mr Burrows: I am grateful to the Member for giving way. I accept and agree that a proposal for amnesty from any Government is totally inappropriate. You described the previous UK Government's proposal as being a nadir. Do you also agree that the amnesty that Michael McDowell says that the Irish Government gave to every suspect in terrorist crimes in the Republic of Ireland at the petition of Sinn Féin was morally indefensible? In fact, it was worse, because it was not even transparent, as it was not done through legislation. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute. Mr O'Toole: Our party has a consistent record of opposing amnesties. I do not want the debate to be about political point-scoring, but I am clear about where my party has always stood on violence in this society, be it republican, loyalist or state violence. All three happened. Parties on all sides of the Chamber remain in denial about the violence from republicans, loyalists or the state, or, indeed, from the state in collusion with loyalists or through the state controlling senior republicans. We have no issue with being clear about our position. We have no problems with our record, and I do not want this to be about party political point-scoring. We have been clear, and we were so earlier in this year, when we had the debate on their role, that the Irish Government needed to do more to assure and do right by the victims of the Omagh bombing. As a nationalist party that believes in a new Ireland, we have never had any difficulty with saying that. We have always stood by the Omagh victims, and we stand by all those who need more information from the Irish Government about incidents that happened during the Troubles. We make no bones about that. We have also been clear in calling out what happened and in standing with victims, not just those of state-sponsored collusion by Britain but those who are unable to access justice because the British state continues to hide information from them, and it is hiding information from them. Bridie Brown is 87 years of age. She wants to achieve in her final years some level of truth and justice for her family. The British state is preventing her from getting that, because it will not disclose information that is germane to the murder of her husband. Those are clear facts. Just as we stand with the Omagh families, with the victims of Kingsmills, with Bridie Brown and her family and with the families of all the victims of our conflict, we will always call for a system that does right by all those people. That will be our approach, and it is the approach that we have always followed, as we deal with the new legacy proposals. Mrs Dillon: Will the Member take an intervention? Mr O'Toole: Yes, I will take a very brief intervention. Mrs Dillon: It will be very brief. Does the Member agree that the Brown family did not seek an inquiry but tried every other process, and that the legal process told them that the only way in which they could get the truth was through a public inquiry? Mr O'Toole: That is certainly true. The Brown family has behaved with extraordinary dignity and has been thwarted completely indefensibly at every turn. Let me say this: we will not be found wanting in our responsibility to challenge, where necessary, the Irish Government, and we are robust in challenging the British Government. We will test the new proposals, doing our job in the Chamber, at Westminster and everywhere else and speaking up for the values that we want to see. We want to see a reconciled society. I worry about the trivialisation of violence. I am worried about the minimisation and glamourisation of everything that happened. I worry about people minimising and glamourising the IRA campaign and about people turning up outside a courthouse wearing a Parachute Regiment beret when a man is on trial. I do not want to prejudice that trial, but we know that innocent people were mown down on the streets of Derry. A British Prime Minister stood up in the House of Commons and apologised for it, but people still see fit to turn up to a courthouse to somehow undermine the idea of justice for those who seek it over Bloody Sunday. In all those things, we need to be serious, but I fear that there is no seriousness in the Chamber today. I fear that there is a constant desire, 30 years on from the first ceasefires, to rub one another's nose in it. Nothing in a legal framework — Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Your time is up. Mr O'Toole: — stops clarity coming from the organisations that were responsible for the conflict. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Your time is up. Mr O'Toole: We will call for consistency — Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr O'Toole, your time is up. Mr O'Toole: — and clarity for victims. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Your time is up. Mr Frew: I will point everyone again to the motion, which refers to: "the abject failure of the Irish Government to provide answers for those families who suspect Irish state involvement in the murder of their loved ones, or who believe that their deaths could have been prevented; highlights, furthermore, the absurdity of this approach when the Irish Government maintain their inter-state case against the UK Government; notes with concern the memorandum of understanding between the Irish Government and the Omagh bombing inquiry, which masquerades as cooperation but includes no statutory powers, no ability to compel witnesses and no guarantee of full disclosure; opposes any role for the Irish Government in overseeing the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery without first establishing parallel investigative processes in their jurisdiction; and calls on the UK Government to urgently provide assurances that any agreement reached in principle with the Irish Government on legacy commands the broad support of victims and survivors." Why can the House not support that wording, in a motion that seeks truth and justice for victims and survivors? Why can it not? Why will the House divide, when the victims and survivors need truth and justice and need the House to fight for them? They have waited long enough. They have waited for decades and generations. People have died not knowing the truth and not seeing justice applied to the perpetrators and the people who killed and savagely murdered their loved ones, yet some Members here think that the motion is unhelpful and want to move on. They want to forget. The SDLP Member talked about the failure of moving on from the "poison" of the past. Well, I can tell you now that the innocent victims who died at the hand of terrorism did not spread any poison. Mr O'Toole: I did not say that. Mr Frew: They did not spread any poison. Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way? Mr Frew: I will give way. Mr O'Toole: The Member has just misquoted me. I said nothing about innocent victims not moving on and that being a form of poison. That is a direct and offensive misquote. I acknowledge the seriousness with which the Member takes the issue, but that is not what I said. Dealing with innocent victims and giving them justice is not the same as —. The whole point is to create a process that allows them to have truth and justice. That is how we remove the poison from the future. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute. Mr Frew: I thank the Member for his clarification. Then we have Sinn Féin Members, who want to amend the motion to take out the word "innocent". Does removing that word from the victims not resonate and perpetuate the guilt? That is shabby. It is really, really bad. Sinn Féin has campaigned vigorously for amnesty, which is the opposite of justice. How can it say out of one side of its mouth that it seeks justice and truth while lobbying from the other for amnesty for IRA terrorists who perpetrated murder and killed people at the border in Northern Ireland, including Protestants at that border and Catholics who they suspected of informing? Without any trial or a justice process, those people were summarily executed at the side of the road. That is what the IRA did to the people of Northern Ireland from all religions, including Protestant and Catholic. So many people cannot move on because they have not seen truth and justice. That is what they want. We talk about transparency from the British and Irish Governments, but where is the disclosure from the IRA and loyalist terrorists? Where is the disclosure from Sinn Féin members who were in the IRA? They are bound by some code. That is some code indeed for the victims of terrorism when they cannot get the truth from politicians in this country who had a history in the IRA but will not speak up and deliver that truth for those people when it would be so easy for them to do so. Search your conscience. People out there have been living in hell because they cannot get the truth. Some people know the truth, but people cannot get justice because of the on-the-run letters and the fact that the Irish Government will not investigate their part in the terrorist campaign. That is truly awful. My party will always defend every innocent victim, no matter where they come from, what their religion, where they went to school or where they serve their God. We will support them all. I wish that every other party in this place could say the same. I turn to the Alliance Party, which is going to support Sinn Féin's amendment. That is diabolical. I ask it to search its conscience and read the text of the DUP motion. I pray that it sees the light when it comes to our wording, comes back and runs round to support us in our endeavour, because we have the victims at the heart of the process. Mr Tennyson: When we discuss legacy, victims and survivors must always be at the centre of our discussions. One of the greatest failures of this place and of the two Governments over the past 27 years since the Good Friday Agreement has been the perennial failure to find a way forward or deliver a comprehensive package to deal with our past and its legacy. That has let down not just victims but wider society. It has acted as a barrier to truth, justice and accountability and to building the truly reconciled, united and integrated community to which we on these Benches aspire. However, more callous is the perennial willingness of Members to use victims as political footballs. We have seen it when perpetrators have been eulogised by some parties in the Chamber or, I have to say, when politicians have stood outside courts alongside alleged perpetrators or, worse, have met representatives of active paramilitary groups, pouring fuel on the flames and causing even further trauma to victims. Allow me to be clear at the beginning of my contribution and say that, since my party's foundation, it has been unwavering in its commitment to the rule of law and that we will take no lectures from any party that flirts with terrorists and paramilitaries. Alliance has also been clear that the border should never be a barrier to victims in accessing the truth and justice that they deserve. The Irish Government have a duty and an obligation to ensure full cooperation and the delivery of reciprocal arrangements. The fundamental problem with the motion is that it condemns any bilateral negotiations with the Irish Government. You cannot deliver a comprehensive package and have Irish Government cooperation in the absence of that negotiation between the Secretary of State and the Tánaiste. That is why we will oppose the original text. Indeed, since the motion was tabled, a significant new framework has been announced. Like other parties, Alliance wants to take time to consult victims and survivors, who must be at the heart of our considerations. We want to see the detail of any legislation that will be passed either at Westminster or by the Dáil. It is clear, however, that there has been a significant change in substance and tone. That change is to be welcomed. As part of that framework, there is now a commitment from the Irish Government to investigate all Troubles-related incidents that happened in the state. That is progress, and it must be acknowledged. There is also a commitment to set up a new legacy unit and cooperate fully with any inquiries that happen in the United Kingdom. Let us take time to consider the detail of the legislation that will go through the Dáil. I give way to the Member. Top 12.00 noon Mr Burrows: Do you accept that the belated setting up of a unit in an Garda Síochána to investigate the past is too little, too late? How many victims have died during the amnesty? How much evidence has been lost? How many suspects have died without being brought to justice in the past 25 years? It is too little, too late to investigate things 25 years later. Mr Tennyson: I agree: it is too little, too late. Perhaps, I will come back to that point as I close my remarks. There has been too little from the UK Government, the Irish Government and, indeed, many of those who were involved in paramilitary organisations during the Troubles. There are failures on all sides. The challenge with the motion is that it does not acknowledge that shared ownership and responsibility across all parties. Mr Brett: Will the Member give way? Mr Tennyson: I will, briefly. Mr Brett: I appreciate the Member's being generous with his time. You have articulated the reason why the Alliance Party opposes the motion — because it states that we deplore the negotiations between the Irish Government and UK Government — but, if you read on, you will see that there is a particular reason for that, which is the failure of the UK Government to get a proper process and reciprocal arrangement from the Irish Republic. It is not, therefore, an outright condemnation of the negotiations. With all due respect, Mr Tennyson, the reasons that you have articulated for opposing the motion are wafer-thin. Mr Tennyson: Well, that is your view. I did not read the motion in the way in which you have just described it. It focuses solely on the Irish Government and rejects engagement with them. Because it was tabled prematurely, it does not acknowledge the progress that has been made in the past week, and that is a flaw. There is a clear departure from the folly of any notion of amnesty. The callous approach of the previous Government was to depart unilaterally from the Stormont House Agreement and seek to shut down avenues for truth and justice for victims across our community and society. Ultimately, any process must command the confidence of victims. It must have independent oversight of the involvement of both the UK and Irish Governments. It must be human rights-compliant and have active participation from victims and their families. There is shared ownership, which the motion does not recognise. I hope that that can be redressed through the new framework. There are those who say that we should simply move on. That is easy to say when you have not lost someone; it is much harder for a family living with that pain. Getting a comprehensive legacy process is not about living in the past; it is about dealing with our past comprehensively so that we can move forward together towards a truly united and reconciled community. That ought to be where our focus is. I will take no lectures from parties on either side of the Chamber who have frustrated that process for 30 years. Mr Burrows: As I said yesterday, these are solemn matters. The proposals merit serious consideration, because we owe it to the victims. I will take exception: the Ulster Unionist Party is examining the proposals very closely. We will try to shape, bend and influence whatever the outcome is. There are lots of things that can be done constructively. That is why we have set out our guiding principles, which put victims first. There is a big issue with how the Irish state has dealt with the Troubles not just during the conflict and the terrorist campaign, with the lack of extraditions — fewer than one in 10 — etc but with the amnesty. It is a really serious issue. I now have the video clip where Michael McDowell says loudly and clearly that members of Sinn Féin lobbied for an amnesty and that the Government gave that amnesty and instructed an Garda Síochána not to investigate any crime anywhere on the island of Ireland. Not only was that shameful and done without legislation and transparency, my big concern, which I am putting on the record today, is that, when a state gives a solemn undertaking not to do something and, 25 years later, says that it will start reinvestigating crimes, that is a "breach of an executive undertaking", as it is called in law, and an abuse of executive power. That is what caused the issues in the Downey trial. Downey was told — there is a specific issue with his letter — that he would not be prosecuted in that case. When he was prosecuted, the judge rightly said that that was an abuse of executive power. Sinn Féin's former colleagues in the IRA are sitting on a potential "Get out of jail free" card. That is why we will ask the Irish Government for two things. One — [Interruption.] Members at the back of the Chamber are laughing; I do not find it funny. I will give you some examples. Let me say first what we will ask of the Irish Government: number one, a full report. Let us have a transparent report on what was offered to whom. I also want to see legal advice. What are the implications? Could they scupper an Garda Síochána in bringing those former comrades to justice? Let me tell you about one former comrade, Seamus Kearney. This example highlights the hypocrisy. In 1981, Seamus Kearney waited in a hospital car park. John Proctor, a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, was visiting his newborn son in the maternity ward. When he came back and got into his car, who was waiting for him? Seamus Kearney, the freedom fighter for Ireland. He was smoking a cigarette, and he pumped rounds into that man, whose son grew up without him. Here is the thing: we were told at the time of the Good Friday Agreement that we had to accept that people would get out after two years, but that was it; there was nothing else. What happened when the police brought Seamus Kearney to justice under the provisions of the Belfast Agreement, by which he would get two years? Former Sinn Féin south Derry MLA Ian Milne said that it was a vindictive prosecution, because he had been good republican. I would hate to see a bad republican, but this is the point: Sinn Féin has opposed the rule of law being implemented as agreed under the Belfast Agreement, just as the Republic of Ireland has opposed it in giving an amnesty. The UK should be suing the Republic of Ireland, not the other way around. Here is the thing: I condemn every loyalist paramilitary. The Shankill butcher was as evil as the Shankill bomber. Any rogue former colleague of mine — one joined the Glenanne Gang — is a traitor and should be put in prison. I call for anyone who did such things to be stripped of all pensions. We stand by every victim, but, in reality, 99% of the people who did wrong were paramilitaries. We need to put the victims first, and we can do so only if we build the legacy agreement on solid foundations. The Irish Government need first to publish what was agreed with Sinn Féin and tell us what the legal outworkings of that are. Will that scupper an Garda Síochána in investigating Troubles-related crime? We ask the Irish Government — we want to look forward — who will staff the new an Garda Síochána unit. We are told that the investigation unit that will be part of the legacy commission up here must have a non-Northern Ireland director of investigations, so we say that the an Garda Síochána unit must have a non-Republic of Ireland investigator to oversee it. Who provides the insight and the oversight? Both states should give unredacted intelligence to investigators. I know for a fact — no one can challenge this point; I will finish on it — that the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR) gets unredacted, unvarnished intelligence from the security services. How the ICRIR releases that is a different issue, but it gets it. An Garda Síochána and G2, as it was formerly known, will not give that, but we need to make sure that they do so. I agree that we should put victims first, but there are massive issues. I support the motion. The Republic of Ireland has a lot of ground to make up — Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up. Mr Burrows: — and I hope that it can. Mr McGlone: I listened intently to the Member who spoke previously. He makes a case for strong collaboration between the British and Irish Governments. I welcome that, if that is his logic; it is not entirely consistent with support for the DUP motion. We cannot support a DUP motion that "deplores" greater cooperation between the British and Irish Governments on proposals for dealing with the legacy of the past or on any other issue of shared responsibility. A case has just been made for shared responsibility. Why should we negate that? We are minded to support the amendment. The SDLP has consistently rejected an amnesty for all those responsible for wrongdoing during the Troubles. The two parties in the joint office of the First Minister and the deputy First Minister have repeatedly failed to make progress on the legacy arrangements in the Stormont House Agreement of 2014. They share a responsibility for the decade of failure since then to deliver on that vital issue for victims and survivors. I have met those victims and survivors and heard their hurt, their suffering and — Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. Will the Member agree that responsibility for the Stormont House Agreement and introducing the legislation lay with the British Government? They agreed to do it in March 2017 and in October 2017. They said then that it would be 2018. The British Government failed to introduce the legislation. That was outwith our control. Mr McGlone: Absolutely, and I will come to that too. I said "share a responsibility" — very specific in the language. The agreement announced by the Irish and British Governments at the weekend set outs a new framework for the way forward. It is intended to reform and replace the measures in the widely opposed Legacy Act of the previous Tory Government and more accurately reflect the arrangements agreed by both Governments under the Stormont House Agreement. That process is expected to resolve the legal dispute between the Irish and British Governments that the DUP appears to be concerned about. I remind the DUP that the Legacy Act did not have the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly. That Act shut the door on the prospect of truth, justice and accountability for victims and survivors. Without that prospect, there could have been little hope for reconciliation, which, I trust, we all so hope to achieve. We in the SDLP give a cautious welcome to the announcement by both Governments. It represents some progress. However, as we all know, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. We will wait until we see the final form of the legislation. No doubt, there will be multiple attempts at amendments. We will wait and see the outcome of that. We have concerns that what is being introduced may fall short in meeting the needs of victims and survivors. Bridie Brown has been mentioned today, and I emphasise that, for the British Government, a key element is that they listen and that they remove their objection, their stalling and their methodology for trying to prevent the truth from coming out in the case of Sean Brown's murder. It has been before the court multiple times, and there have been multiple findings by High Court judges that the only way forward is a public inquiry. The British Government and the Secretary of State have to withdraw their case, which is placing another blocking stone in the way of that public inquiry. We are running out of opportunities to address the legacy of the past, but, as I warned the Assembly in 2021, attempts to seal off the past are doomed to failure. The poison will not be contained and will continue to contaminate the present and the future until properly addressed. Secrecy from Governments and from paramilitary groups has long obstructed the necessary process of truth recovery for victims and their families. Both Governments have now committed themselves to legislating to facilitate full cooperation with the proposed legacy commission. We hope that they will deliver on that. We believe that that full cooperation should also cover existing inquiries, such as the Omagh bombing inquiry. Ultimately, it is for that inquiry, as an independent statutory public inquiry, to decide whether any agreement they enter into is appropriate or whether either Government are not cooperating fully with their investigations. However, the SDLP believes that there is a need for the UK and Irish Governments to adopt positions of full disclosure in legacy investigations. To that end, we have repeatedly called for the removal of any national security vetoes in legacy investigations, including the Omagh bombing inquiry. The British and Irish Governments could and should agree to that measure. The SDLP will continue to engage with both Governments and with victims' groups and consult on the proposals and the forthcoming legislation. Our objective has always been to build a legacy architecture that can deliver a reconciled, shared future. We are committed to working constructively to achieve that shared future. Mr Gaston: The motion before the House has in every sense been overtaken by events. The Secretary of State has shamefully announced that Dublin will co-design legacy plans. Let me be clear: that is not just wrong; it is an obscenity. We must never forget the historical record of the South. Many victims of the IRA would still be alive today but for the deliberate actions and, indeed, glaring inactions of the Irish state: sanctuary across the border; refusal to extradite known terrorists; provision of safe houses and training grounds; and free movement of explosives through the Republic. All those actions sustained the IRA's murderous campaign. Top 12.15 pm The facts are undeniable. Between 1973 and 1997, only eight out of the 110 extradition requests from the UK to the Republic were successful. The Irish constitution, which claimed Northern Ireland as its own, was repeatedly exploited by terrorists in Irish courts fleeing justice. Before the arrival of the Libyan Semtex in the mid-1980s, bombs in the majority of republican areas were made from Irish industrial explosives, which came straight from quarries across the border into the hands of killers. Today, however, we are told that the same Republic should be trusted to shape how legacy is handled. That is grotesque, and it is an insult to every innocent victim. The document that was released on Friday shows that the Republic is committed to investigating only unsolved incidents in its jurisdiction. There is no commitment to examine the fact that the bombs that were made for Omagh and Enniskillen were built in the Republic, before being transported across the border. There is no prospect of getting accountability for the attempted bombing at Tullyhommon, where a bomb that was four times the size of that used on the same day in Enniskillen failed to detonate. It was targeting Boys' Brigade and Girls' Brigade members, and its command wire ran into the Republic. We also have the very real issue of collusion between the Irish security forces and republicans. Mrs Dodds has already mentioned Ian Sproule. I also think of Ian Sproule today: a young joiner who was shot 44 times outside his Castlederg home, after which his father received a phone call telling him to go outside to see what the IRA had left him on the street. After that murder, an inaccurate gardaí file was leaked to a journalist seeking to blacken the reputation of an innocent man. I also think of the Hanna family, who were blown up by a 1,000 lb IRA bomb, intended for a judge, as they were returning from Dublin Airport after a trip to Florida. Does six-year-old David Hanna not deserve justice? He was found dead with a Disney ticket in his pocket. The blood of that young boy and his parents still cries out for justice, yet Dublin, London and those who share power with the political wing of the very people who planted that bomb turn a deaf ear. Lord and Lady Gibson, a couple aged 73 and 67, who should have been left to enjoy their retirement together, were blown up just moments after crossing the border. Serious questions have been asked of but never answered by Dublin in the Gibson and Hanna cases. Does Friday's paper commit to anything on them? No. Dublin takes it upon itself to equality-proof the UK proposals, while, all the time, it is up to its neck in facilitating IRA terror, and, in multiple cases, it was colluding outright. My goodness: what we have heard today from the Alliance Party. Sinn Féin can always rely on its little helpers to rewrite history. Alliance is happy and content that the word "innocent" be stripped out of the motion, but — Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member's time is up. Mr Gaston: — I certainly am not. Ms Sugden: When we debate legacy in the Chamber, it is important that we be reminded that we are not just debating history in the abstract but talking about people: about families who are still living with loss and about communities that are carrying grief that does not fade with time. Some are into their third generation of waiting, but the questions remain the same and the answers have yet to come. The motion rejects amnesty and insists that any future framework command the confidence of victims and survivors. That is 100% right. It matters that it also holds both Governments to account, because, for too long, one Government have been quick to hold up the other to scrutiny while resisting the same scrutiny themselves. Victims see that imbalance, and it deepens the mistrust. If we want legacy to mean anything, we cannot have double standards. From my previous role, I recall sitting with families who had lost loved ones during the Troubles, but what I remember most from those meetings was the look in their eyes. To an extent, the stories that got them to meet me mattered less than the pain that they continued to carry. What also struck me was their determination. They were not asking for miracles; they were asking simply for truth, disclosure and accountability. Almost a decade on from those meetings, many of those families are still asking the same questions. The fact that they must keep telling us shows how far short both Governments have fallen in giving them the answers. I recently wrote to the Taoiseach, Micheál Martin, to press those points. In his response, he spoke about the development of a substantive package, which we have since heard of, with the restoration of civil cases, stronger investigative powers and enhanced cooperation from an Garda Síochána. I welcome those assurances, but words must be backed by enforceable commitments. They cannot remain aspirations. Without statutory powers and the ability to compel witnesses and guarantee disclosures, victims will, once again, be left with promises and without answers. Omagh makes that clear. The bombing was one of the darkest atrocities of the Troubles. Twenty-seven years on, the families are reliving their trauma through an inquiry that they fought for tirelessly, yet the memorandum of understanding with the Irish Government, while presented as progress, is cooperation in name only. It carries no statutory power, no authority, no powers to compel witnesses and no guarantee that all evidence will be put forward. For the Omagh families, that is not justice; it is delay dressed up as delivery. When we think of Omagh, we think not only of the many lives lost but of the futures that were stolen. Among the victims was Avril Monaghan, who was killed along with her mother, her unborn twins and her daughter, Maura. In that moment, three generations of a family were gone, as was the hope of a new generation, who, had they got to live that day, would never have remembered the Troubles. They would have lived their lives free from the burden of the past, but that never happened, because the atrocity continued. What strikes me most is the innocence of those victims. They were people going about their day. They had no political interests, no political information and no stake in the battles that consumed this place for too long. They were creating lives, raising families and building happiness for their families and children, yet they were dragged into something that they never should have been involved in. It is the victims and survivors — the ordinary people who never asked to be part of it — who carry those consequences, not the politicians or those who claim to be fighting for a cause. That is why legacy is not a matter of convenience for Governments; it is an obligation to the innocent. Omagh is not the only example. As we have heard from others, the family of Ian Sproule still wait for answers about an intelligence file that was allegedly in IRA hands before his murder. Like so many families, they have lived with silence when there should have been candour. Their experience reminds us that, unless both Dublin and London face up equally to their responsibilities, legacy will remain unfinished business. Reconciliation requires honesty. It requires both Governments to be open, candid and accountable, not just when it is convenient but when it is uncomfortable. We know that the truth will never be complete and that justice will not always be possible, but it is our duty to go as far as we can and provide the answers where we can. To stop short, because disclosure is politically awkward, would be another betrayal of those who have already borne too much. I support the motion, because it rejects an amnesty, calls for an assurance that any agreement between the Governments will command the broad support of victims and survivors, demands that no side be beyond scrutiny and recognises that grief does not stop with one generation but passes through families and communities across time, which will continue to happen unless we address it. Northern Ireland cannot afford another false start — Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you. Time is up. Ms Sugden: — on legacy. Thank you. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Pat Sheehan to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. You have up to five minutes. Mr Sheehan: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Our thoughts are very much with the victims of the conflict on days like today. Those families who refused to be silenced have forced this British Government to recognise that the cruel and callous Legacy Act needs to be repealed and replaced. The key test of the intent of the two Governments is not in what was promised last Friday but what will be in the final legislation when it passes into law. The approach of British Governments since the Stormont House Agreement, which was agreed in 2014, has been deliberate delay and obstruction. Ten years on from the Stormont House Agreement, we in Sinn Féin remain in problem-solving mode on the delivery of previous legacy commitments. Our focus has been to ensure that any approach to legacy is human-rights compliant and capable of commanding the maximum confidence of families. We have also held firm on the view that all outstanding legacy inquests that were halted on 1 May 2024 should be completed. There should also be an independent investigations unit that is capable of conducting article 2-compliant investigations and, separate to that, an information retrieval mechanism. The absence of a British commitment to grant a public inquiry into the murder of Sean Brown is deeply concerning. Announcing a long-fought-for public inquiry into the Sean Brown case could be crucial to building trust in this British Government's publicly stated intent of helping to bring truth, justice and acknowledgement to all victims and survivors and their families. Despite the DUP rhetoric in the debate, the Irish Government have an important role in this process. They are a co-guarantor of the peace process, the Good Friday Agreement and, indeed, the Stormont House Agreement. Only when both Governments have worked together has progress been made. It is crucial that there be a joint approach to legacy matters. The DUP has a political view of whom it classes as victims. That does not include a huge number of victims. Over many years, it fought against victims of the state who were seeking truth and justice. It fought against inquiries such as the Bloody Sunday inquiry and the Pat Finucane inquiry. It praised shoot to kill by British forces, supported the use of plastic bullets against children and fought against lawful inquests. From its narrow point of view, state killings were OK, so I do not think that it should get too high on the horse of righteousness, particularly when we remember that the DUP had its own armed wing — Ulster Resistance. That was founded and led by DUP leaders, whom we saw flouncing about in their lovely red berets. Of course, Ulster Resistance imported hundreds upon hundreds of weapons, and the Police Ombudsman's report into Operation Greenwich confirmed that weapons that Ulster Resistance brought in were supplied by UDA death squads and murder gangs in the north-west. Therefore, when people on the opposite Benches ask republicans to stand up and come clean, those in the DUP should maybe listen to their own advice. Our position has always been that all the victims, survivors and families who have been affected should be included in any legacy process. Sinn Féin will scrutinise the fine detail that is provided and urge that the underpinning legislation be published without delay. We will engage with victims' families, advocacy groups and the legal and human rights practitioners who work with them. A Member: Will the Member give way? Mr Sheehan: No. Any published legislation that underpins the proposals will indicate whether the British Government are, in fact, serious about delivering in good faith on their commitments to repeal and replace the Legacy Act and deal with the British state's role during the conflict. Resources will be critical to deliver that package. The onus is on the British Government to provide the resource that is required to deliver that new framework. There should be immediate discussions with the Finance Minister. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Phillip Brett to conclude and make a winding-up speech on the motion. You have up to 10 minutes. Mr Brett: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. From the outset, I pay tribute to my colleague Mrs Dodds, a Member for Upper Bann, who has been a strong and consistent advocate for innocent victims across Northern Ireland in this place and during her entire political career. Mrs Dillon, a Member for Mid Ulster, criticised Mrs Dodds for using the word "we" when talking about victims. Mrs Dillon may like to rewrite the past, but the great lady who is sitting in front of me is a victim of IRA terrorism. It was Mrs Dillon's colleagues who were the cowards who tried to break into the Royal Victoria Hospital to murder Mrs Dodds's dying child and murder her and her husband. So, we will take no lectures from the party opposite on that issue. Top 12.30 pm The Member also outlined her opposition to an amnesty yet had no objections to royal pardons being handed to her Sinn Féin colleagues. She had no objections to amnesties being handed to Mr Kelly and others who bowed on bended knee to get the royal pardon from the royal prerogative of mercy. She criticised this party for the stance that we take on the definition of a victim and tried to indicate that she would force us to accept that the definition of a victim should be supported by this party. Let me be very clear. The DUP will never allow those who murdered and maimed to be equivalent to those whom they murdered, and that is what the Alliance Party, in supporting the Sinn Féin amendment, is doing. It is putting on the same level the Shankill bomber who blew himself up and the innocent people whom he was blowing up. Your record will be clear in the House, and the Alliance Party's record will be clear in the House that it stood with victim makers when it could have stood with victims. Of course, Sinn Féin will always have the cover of the Alliance Party, whether in the Executive Office Committee or here today. The deputy leader of the Alliance Party tried to wheel out the thinnest reason to oppose our motion, so I think that it will be useful to read into the record the exact wording. He stated that he objected to it because we lamented bilateral discussions between our Government and the Government of the Irish Republic, but our motion is clear. It: "deplores the decision of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to enter bilateral discussions with his counterpart in the Republic of Ireland whilst acquiescing on the abject failure of the Irish Government to provide answers for those families who suspect Irish state involvement in the murder of their loved ones". That is the line that the Alliance Party claims that it is opposed to, and I will give way to any Member on the Alliance Benches who can reasonably articulate why those victims and those loved ones do not deserve to have the precondition of receiving justice from the Irish Government. There is absolute silence because Alliance has no answer. It has made it clear, as it does in every debate in the House, that, whatever comes forward from Sinn Féin, the Alliance Party, without precondition, will support it. I want to turn to the comments made by the first Alliance Member to speak in the debate, who accused Members of engaging in childish behaviour. I will give way if you want to articulate who you were talking about. Is it this party, which is bringing forward the concerns of victims? Is it this party, which read into the record the names of victims across Northern Ireland of all traditions and of none who were murdered as a result of collusion by the Irish state? Again, that is met with silence. Ms Bradshaw: Will the Member give way? Mr Brett: I will happily give way. Ms Bradshaw: You have tried to goad us into a response. I have made it very clear that my focus, today and every day, is on the victims and survivors of the Troubles, and I will do everything that I can to move this country forward on the premise of trying to achieve reconciliation on this island of Ireland. That is where my focus is. It is not about political point-scoring in this Chamber. Mr Brett: You will have the opportunity, Ms Bradshaw, to cast your vote in around 10 minutes' time. Victims across Northern Ireland will be watching how the Alliance Party votes on this because they are sick, sore and tired of being lectured by a party from on high that, when it has the opportunity to stand side by side with those victims, instead decides to stand with its friends and colleagues in Sinn Féin. My two colleagues articulated very well why this party tabled the motion. We believe that all those responsible for terrorism in Northern Ireland, regardless of whether they were unionists, loyalists, republicans, nationalists, state actors or IRA informants sponsored by the British state, should come forward and give all the evidence that they have to ensure that they face justice. We heard from Mr Sheehan that Sinn Féin is in problem-solving mode. I will give way to Mr Sheehan if he will call on his former comrades in the IRA to come forward and give all the information that they have about the killings that they were involved in. I will give him the opportunity to set that out now. Mr Sheehan: Thanks for giving way. You should focus on your party [Interruption] and its role [Interruption] in importing a massive amount of weapons that were used to kill innocent Catholics. Your party formed that organisation. [Interruption.] Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Order. Mr Sheehan: Your party is responsible for it. Mr Brett: When the convicted cash-and-carry bomber had the opportunity to call out his IRA — Mr Sheehan: Ah, use your own script, Phillip — Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): One Member will speak at a time. Mr Brett: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. They do not like the truth. They do not like justice, but I will give them the truth. The convicted cash-and-carry bomber will not take the opportunity for his colleagues in the IRA to give their information. That is who the Alliance Party is voting with. That is who you are going to troop behind, like you always do. The record will be clear that some parties in the Assembly have no interest in innocent victims. If our party loses the vote today, we will continue to raise the issues. However, it is not our party that will be failed; it will be innocent victims, the length and breadth of the country, who will watch on in abject horror as parties unite to strip them out of the motion. Some are more interested in protecting electoral transfers at the next election than standing with innocent victims, but our party and all right-minded people will always stand with them. Question put, That the amendment be made. The Assembly divided: Ayes 44; Noes 34 AYES Dr Archibald, Ms K Armstrong, Mr Baker, Mr Boylan, Ms Bradshaw, Miss Brogan, Mr Carroll, Mr Delargy, Mrs Dillon, Miss Dolan, Mr Durkan, Ms Egan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Finnegan, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Mrs Guy, Mr Honeyford, Mr Kearney, Mr Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mr McAleer, Miss McAllister, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McMurray, Mr McNulty, Mr McReynolds, Mrs Mason, Ms Mulholland, Ms Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Ms Nicholl, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs O'Neill, Mr O'Toole, Ms Reilly, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Mr Tennyson Tellers for the Ayes: Ms Ferguson, Ms Finnegan NOES Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Ms D Armstrong, Mr Beattie, Mr Bradley, Mr Brett, Mr Brooks, Ms Brownlee, Mr K Buchanan, Ms Bunting, Mr Burrows, Mr Butler, Mrs Cameron, Mr Chambers, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mrs Erskine, Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew, Mr Gaston, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Irwin, Mr Kingston, Mrs Little-Pengelly, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Martin, Mr Middleton, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Robinson, Mr Stewart, Ms Sugden Tellers for the Noes: Mr Brett, Mr Frew Ms Bradshaw acted as a proxy for Ms Nicholl. Mr Clarke acted as a proxy for Mrs Erskine. Question accordingly agreed to. Main Question, as amended, put. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I have been advised by the party Whips that, in accordance with Standing Order 27(1A)(b), there is agreement that we can dispense with the three minutes and move straight to a Division. The Assembly divided: Ayes 44; Noes 34 AYES Dr Archibald, Ms K Armstrong, Mr Baker, Mr Boylan, Ms Bradshaw, Miss Brogan, Mr Carroll, Mr Delargy, Mrs Dillon, Miss Dolan, Mr Durkan, Ms Egan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Finnegan, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Mrs Guy, Mr Honeyford, Mr Kearney, Mr Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mr McAleer, Miss McAllister, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McMurray, Mr McNulty, Mr McReynolds, Mrs Mason, Ms Mulholland, Ms Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Ms Nicholl, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs O'Neill, Mr O'Toole, Ms Reilly, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Mr Tennyson Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Delargy, Mrs Dillon NOES Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Ms D Armstrong, Mr Beattie, Mr Bradley, Mr Brett, Mr Brooks, Ms Brownlee, Mr K Buchanan, Ms Bunting, Mr Burrows, Mr Butler, Mrs Cameron, Mr Chambers, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mrs Erskine, Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew, Mr Gaston, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Irwin, Mr Kingston, Mrs Little-Pengelly, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Martin, Mr Middleton, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Robinson, Mr Stewart, Ms Sugden Tellers for the Noes: Mr Brett, Mr Frew Ms Bradshaw acted as a proxy for Ms Nicholl. Mr Clarke acted as a proxy for Mrs Erskine. Main Question, as amended, accordingly agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly rejects the notion of an amnesty for those responsible for wrongdoing during the Troubles; stresses that any revised proposals for dealing with the legacy of the past must be the product of serious and sustained engagement with victims, survivors and their advocates; notes with concern the memorandum of understanding between the Irish Government and the Omagh bombing inquiry; further notes the motion agreed by the Assembly in March 2025, calling on the Irish Government to initiate a public inquiry into the Omagh bomb; reiterates the call for a separate public inquiry by the Irish Government into the Omagh bombing; and calls on the UK Government to urgently provide assurances that any agreement reached in principle with the Irish Government on legacy commands the broad support of victims and survivors. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Business Committee has agreed to meet at 1.00 pm today. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The next item of business will begin after Question Time. The sitting was suspended at 12.59 pm. On resuming (Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair) — Top 2.00 pm Oral Answers to Questions Communities Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Questions 6, 7 and 9 have been withdrawn. Sports Facilities: Investment 1. Mr Honeyford asked the Minister for Communities to outline any discussions that he has had with the Minister of Finance in relation to further investment in sports facilities. (AQO 2401/22-27) Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): I will meet the Minister of Finance next week to discuss investment in sports facilities. I will, however, continue to make the case at Executive level for improved funding for my Department so that it can provide better services across all its activities, including sport. Mr Honeyford: Last week, the Minister announced £82 million of spending for 20 clubs, but he has only £36 million available. The GAA, Ulster Rugby, Ulster Hockey and all the other sports also need capital investment, so can the Minister tell us what other capital funding he is exploring to bridge that funding gap so that we can finally see the delivery of the full football fund, Casement Park and upgrades to all the other grounds that need them? Mr Lyons: I want to see sporting need met in all areas of Northern Ireland. Importantly, I want to make sure that the £36·2 million that has been waiting for many years can be spent. There has been a degree of over-planning so that, if some of the clubs fall out because they are not ready to proceed at that stage, we will still have the funding available so that some can proceed, and we can get the money spent. However, I recognise that there is a need for additional funding for sport in Northern Ireland, and I will certainly make the case for it. Miss Brogan: Last week, at the Communities Committee, departmental officials mentioned that the Minister is seeking additional and alternative funding for the football fund. Can the Minister confirm whether he is seeking additional and alternative funding for other sports or projects, or is it just the football fund that he is seeking those funds for? Mr Lyons: There is certainly a need in football, and, when questioned, officials were answering directly about the football fund. I have always said that we need more money for sport across Northern Ireland. One reason why I brought forward the Olympic legacy fund is that I realised that, outside the three main sports, many sports do not feel that they are getting the funding that they deserve. I am putting a proportion towards that so that those needs can, I hope, be partially met, but I will always be an advocate for more money for sport in Northern Ireland. Mr Brooks: I thank the Minister for the investment that he has made in sport, and I know that he values equality across sports. Does he accept that, at this point, football and rugby are £50 million behind when it comes to equality of funding? Mr Lyons: Yes, that is absolutely the case. I believe that we should proceed on the basis of fairness and what was put in place through the arrangements in 2011. He is right. Unfortunately, the UK Government have moved outside of what was agreed previously, and, therefore, football and rugby are now behind when it comes to the funding that has been made available to them. That will need to be remedied. Mr Durkan: Did the Minister have any discussion with the Finance Minister in advance of his announcement on the Northern Ireland Football Fund, which over-plans by some £50-odd million? When did he inform his colleagues of the content of that announcement? Mr Lyons: The Member will be aware that there has been extensive engagement through the House and through the Committee. I have updated Executive colleagues at the appropriate times, and I will meet the Minister of Finance next week to discuss these matters further. However, it is under my remit as Communities Minister, and, with Executive approval in place since 2011 for the Minister to take forward such a scheme, I do not require Executive approval. However, I will, of course, keep Executive colleagues updated. Of course, it went through the proper processes, with everything going to the appropriate Departments to get those assurances. Mr Allen: Twenty clubs are pleased to be moving forward to the next phase of the fund, but, equally, many more clubs are frustrated that they are not moving forward. Minister, what engagement is your Department having with those clubs to better understand their needs and to understand what the Department can do to support them? Mr Lyons: Absolutely. We are beginning a process of engaging with clubs that were not successful at this stage so that we can, first of all, give feedback on the assessment and, then, talk about next steps, some of the immediate needs that they have, what other funding sources might be available and the plans that we have moving forward. I emphasise the words "at this stage" because I want all clubs to see their need met and this to move forward. Rural Towns: Investment 2. Miss Dolan asked the Minister for Communities to outline any action that his Department is taking to support community-led regeneration schemes to encourage investment in rural towns. (AQO 2402/22-27) Mr Lyons: My Department's regeneration policy focus is on urban settlements with a population of 5,000 or more, whereas rural villages and towns with populations of under 5,000 fall within the remit of DAERA. However, my Department has been leading on the delivery of the COVID recovery small settlements regeneration programme, which was part-funded by DFI and DAERA. It is delivering over 100 projects in small settlements across Northern Ireland, representing a total investment of almost £29 million. Miss Dolan: Minister, will you provide specific examples of projects that have been approved or funded in Fermanagh recently? Mr Lyons: Under the policy that I have just outlined, we have had improvements to the Belleek marina walkways, construction of a multi-use games area (MUGA) in Rosslea, refurbishment of an Orange hall in Derrygonnelly and renovations at Belcoo Enterprise Centre, and refurbishment of the recreation centre in Castlecaulfield is under way. Mrs Cameron: I welcome the vital work that the Minister is undertaking to provide support to local communities. Will he outline how his Northern Ireland community infrastructure fund can impact on rural communities? Has the AERA Minister shown his support? Mr Lyons: That fund will be open to all community organisations across Northern Ireland that are in need of renovations or improvements. I look forward to updating the House about that soon and announcing the next steps. Certainly, it will be of benefit to rural and urban communities. As to engagement with the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, there have been meetings with officials on it. I have spoken to the AERA Minister and would welcome further engagement, because he and I should work together to make sure that we deliver for rural communities. Ms K Armstrong: Minister, you talk about regeneration schemes. What protections will be put in place to ensure that any historical buildings will be looked after in those schemes and not left behind? Mr Lyons: Robust procedures are in place to make sure that those buildings are looked after. My big concern is that there is often not the funding, either from the Government or the owners, to make sure that we preserve them. I am keen to emphasise that regeneration does not mean that everything has to be new. Use of existing and old buildings can play a very important role in the revitalisation of towns, cities and rural areas. I will certainly play my part in making sure that that can happen. Ms D Armstrong: The Minister mentioned DAERA's metric: the 5,000 population figure. What investment can he make in smaller rural communities that fall under that population figure? Mr Lyons: Those are not under my remit, but my Department is leading on the shaping sustainable places policy. Consultation on that ended earlier this week. Under the current proposals, all settlements, regardless of population size, will be eligible for investment. We have heard from Members across the House about the lack of vires that I have in relation to smaller settlements, and this is hopefully a way in which we can rectify that. Marching Bands 3. Ms Brownlee asked the Minister for Communities how he will ensure that marching bands are recognised and celebrated as part of Northern Ireland’s cultural heritage. (AQO 2403/22-27) Mr Lyons: Funding delivered by the Arts Council on behalf of my Department supports musicians through various programmes, with an investment from my Department of £750,000 for 2025-26. The musical instruments programme provides three strands of support for various groups and individuals. With an investment of £100,000 from my Department, the travel awards for bands programme will help bands with travel costs and promote music making and player development and complement the musical instruments for bands programme. The Ulster-Scots Agency has supported marching bands in Northern Ireland in 2025 by providing grants of £121,000 to 69 bands for community tuition and £12,300 to 46 schools for band-related tuition. The agency provides ongoing opportunities for bands through major events such as Belfast International Tattoo, as well as support for bands through mentoring and capacity building. Ms Brownlee: The travel fund was welcomed by the marching band sector. Minister, can you assure us that it will be a rolling programme that will allow bands the time to plan for their travels? Mr Lyons: Yes, I can. I thank the Member for meeting me about that and sharing some of her concerns about deadlines. As a result of her intervention and that of others, we have looked at this and we will make sure that the fund will be on a rolling basis so that those deadlines do not interrupt the bookings that some bands will want to make. It is good that the fund is in place. We were recently at an event in Carrickfergus where marching bands came from the United States and put on a fantastic show for us. I want people from outside Northern Ireland to be able to benefit from the talents of our bands and musicians. The fund is one way in which we can help them to do that. Mr McHugh: Minister, what efforts will you make to ensure that this recognition extends to marching bands across all cultural backgrounds and that it includes GAA bands, traditional Irish bands, republican bands, international bands and LGBT bands that are associated with the pride event? Mr Lyons: The fund is open to everybody. It is not about anybody's identity or background. It is about music. That is what we are trying to promote. Mr O'Toole: Further to the previous question, I welcome the fact that we have so many terrific marching bands from all backgrounds. I hope that the fund is inclusive. Will the Minister make any specific effort to ensure that those bands are encouraged to participate and proactively get involved with the Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann, which is coming to Belfast next year? Mr Lyons: I had a great opportunity to meet the fleadh organisers, and they were very keen to stress how they want the fleadh to emphasise musical ability and talents from right across Northern Ireland. There has already been engagement with the Ulster-Scots Agency around that, and I hope that it can be a celebration of music from all backgrounds and traditions. Councillors: Industrial Action 4. Miss McIlveen asked the Minister for Communities to outline any powers that the National Association of Councillors Northern Ireland (NAC NI) has to call a strike or other form of industrial action by councillors. (AQO 2404/22-27) Mr Lyons: The National Association of Councillors is a representative body. It is not a trade union, as its members are not employees. As councillors are not employees, they cannot go on strike, but they may elect not to perform their duties. Miss McIlveen: I thank the Minister for his response. Given that NAC NI is not a union and therefore not subject to the protections afforded to unions, does he agree that strikes or other industrial action, as signed off and recommended by council members from the Alliance Party and the SDLP, in order to attain wish-list items such as pay rises, golden handshakes for those who lose their seats or, indeed, choose not to defend them, free broadband and other items, puts participating councillors at risk under the councillors' code of conduct? Mr Lyons: Obviously, it is up to the Alliance Party and the SDLP to say whether they support the action that is proposed by their councillors. Perhaps they will intervene and let us know that at some stage. However, in relation to the Member's specific question on the code of conduct, I highlight the fact that councillors are elected members, and, on taking up office after an election, they sign a declaration that says that they will observe the Northern Ireland local government code of conduct. That code provides: "you must maintain and strengthen the public trust and confidence in the integrity of your council" and must not "use, or attempt to use, your position improperly to confer on, or secure, an advantage for yourself". That is very clear. Ms Mulholland: I am delighted to get up to clarify something. The Minister asked, and I will answer. I have already said so, and my party has been on record to say that. Does the Minister agree with me that, in a ministerial position —. Mr Lyons: You have said what? Ms Mulholland: Pardon? Mr Lyons: You have said what? Ms Mulholland: That we do not agree with the strike action. I think that that is pretty clear. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sorry, we are not having a debate. It is Question Time for the Minister. Ms Mulholland: Does the Minister agree, then, that it would be wrong for Ministers to use their position when they do not get what they want, perhaps by stepping down, resigning, going on strike and not doing their role, as that might also erode public confidence? Mr Lyons: It is interesting that it has been confirmed that there is great division in the Alliance Party on the issue. Of course, it is clear, and I am very clear, that at no stage have I ever done anything that would confer a personal benefit on myself. That is very different from what is being proposed by the Alliance Party and the SDLP. That is clear for everybody to see. Top 2.15 pm Mr Gaston: The NAC has form for being obsessed with money. I think of my time on the NAC, when it refused to give back the £10,000 COVID grant that, I believe, it should not have received. I am looking through the minutes of its meeting on 21 May 2025. Its members said that they wanted to lodge FOI requests because they were unhappy with their pay offer. The minutes state: "the decision was unexpected and gut-wrenching" and "They also felt disrespected." Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Timothy, is there a question for the Minister? Mr Gaston: Yes. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Mr Gaston: There is no talk about strike action in the minutes. For transparency, can the Minister point us to where we can find who asked for, and who supported, strike action? I certainly think that the NAC, true — Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Timothy. Mr Gaston: — to form, is not interested in transparency. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Minister, go ahead. Mr Lyons: All that I can say is that that is an issue for the NAC itself. I had a meeting with the NAC on 7 July. I said that I wanted to listen to its concerns. I invited it to provide me with a paper outlining its views and said that I would consider any additional information on other issues that were raised, such as the issue of uniformity of allowances. Unfortunately, it did not provide me with that information. I am disappointed that the NAC is considering strike action instead of engaging in constructive discussion. Communities Delivery: Upper Bann 5. Mrs Dodds asked the Minister for Communities how his Department has delivered for Upper Bann since he took office in February 2024. (AQO 2405/22-27) Mr Lyons: Since February 2024, I have delivered the following for the people of Upper Bann: £1·8 million for the People and Place neighbourhood renewal programme; £3·5 million for the Banbridge public realm scheme; £247,000 for the Empty to Occupied scheme; and £300,000 for the Fit For Future scheme. I have also delivered £400,000 for the Lurgan laneways scheme and £845,000 for street furniture and seasonal lighting. There has been £2·5 million for community and voluntary organisations, £280,000 for the Your School Your Club project at Lismore College in Craigavon and £225,000 for the Your School Your Club project at Banbridge High School. The Member will be aware of the clubs that have progressed as a result of the Northern Ireland Football Fund. Over £9 million has been delivered through the Northern Ireland Housing Executive's completed maintenance scheme and £6·7 million through its planned maintenance scheme. Over £1 million has been delivered through labour market partnerships, with £60,000 delivered through the Arts Council's musical instruments programme. There have been 87 new starts for social housing and 153 Co-Ownership property completions. A total of 1,738 people have been helped to access additional benefits totalling £3·8 million through the Make the Call service, which I have protected. We have had 12 job fairs. Sport NI has supported many clubs, including the Northern Ireland karate club and Waringstown Cricket Club. In addition, we have supported 10,010 pensioners through the £100 winter fuel support payment. Mrs Dodds: Thank you, Minister. It is good to hear the record of a DUP Minister who is delivering for people across all our constituencies. Mr Clarke: Hear, hear. [Laughter.] Mrs Dodds: I notice the laughter and mocking from the SDLP, which — Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Is there a question? Mrs Dodds: — does not have a representative at all in Upper Bann. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Is there a question? Mrs Dodds: Minister, what are your plans for further delivery? Mr Lyons: I look forward to continuing to deliver for Upper Bann and constituencies right across Northern Ireland. SDLP members are laughing, along with some in the Alliance Party. I remember when the leader of the Opposition came to the House to ask me when I would publish my housing supply strategy. I had published it six months previously. Other SDLP Members asked when the Executive Office would publish its integration strategy. It had already been published. Mr McCrossan came to the House and told everyone that the vesting orders for the A5 still stood, when they had in fact been quashed by a High Court judgement. The SDLP gets it wrong again and again. I am happy to deliver, and I will deliver more that will benefit people in Upper Bann. Funding from the Northern Ireland community infrastructure fund will come forward, and it can help organisations in the Member's constituency. There will be more money for Your School Your Club. Its budget will rise from £500,000 to £3 million this year. We will be bringing forward a fuel poverty strategy that will help her constituents. There will be significant investment in the new employability programme. Antisocial behaviour legislation will be introduced. We will crack down further on fraud and error. Of course, we have announced the Olympic legacy fund, which will deliver in her constituency as well. I am more than happy to stand by my record of achievement and stand over the things that will make a difference. The SDLP and Alliance can scoff, but those measures have made and will continue to make a real difference to the lives of people in Upper Bann and across Northern Ireland. Mr Beattie: That rolled off your tongue wonderfully, Minister; it did not sound as though you prepared it at all. [Laughter.] I raise this again: the historic environment division and Knock Iveagh. Are you looking at that, or is it dead in the water? The council needs to move on it. Mr Lyons: We can take responsibility only for what is within our gift and what is our responsibility. Decisions were made by the council, and those decisions stand. I am always happy to meet and see what alternative pathways there are, but I have to operate within the law. I am happy to do anything further that we can do, because I understand the public concern. Ms McLaughlin: Minister, that is a new one for us: you answer the Member for Upper Bann by directing your reply to the SDLP. It is a bit strange, but you are the Minister. How can you ensure regional fairness and balance in investment decisions in your Department? Has the Department for Communities not adopted that policy priority? What measures do you use when you make investment decisions? Mr Lyons: I will refer to the SDLP when it scoffs and laughs at what we have been able to deliver through the Department. Ms McLaughlin: Sorry. I would like to —. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: There are no points of order during Question Time. Mr Lyons: I will keep on delivering — [Interruption.] Ms McLaughlin: We never —. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order. I know that people think that Question Time is a bit of craic, but it is not. There are people here who are waiting for the answers. Could you all, including the Minister, address the questions that are asked and keep the political nonsense for afterwards? That includes everybody. Go ahead. Mr Lyons: Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. I am here to deliver on behalf of all communities in Northern Ireland. I have delivered in the Member's constituency, and I look forward to making more announcements shortly about how we are investing. We look at regional balance, of course, and that is taken into consideration in our decisions, depending on the process that is already in place. We have delivered. We have delivered through the public realm scheme for the Harbour Square development. The Member shakes her head, but it is true that we are delivering and getting on with that. Of course, I want to do more — I wish that we had the funds to do more — but I assure the Member that we will treat everybody equally and make sure that we share across Northern Ireland the benefits of the things that we are able to do. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Questions 6 and 7 have been withdrawn. Housing: Antisocial Behaviour 8. Mr Robinson asked the Minister for Communities to outline any actions that his Department is taking, alongside the Housing Executive and housing associations, to address antisocial behaviour. (AQO 2408/22-27) Mr Lyons: My Department has developed proposals that will ensure that social landlords have appropriate powers to deal with antisocial behaviour. I have brought forward a paper for the Executive’s consideration outlining proposals to amend legislation, specifically injunctions against unacceptable behaviour, grounds for possession and changes to eligibility for social housing and full duty homelessness status where there has been unacceptable behaviour. Mr Robinson: I thank the Minister for that response. I am sure that, like me, he is frustrated at good people and good tenants being terrorised by bad people and bad tenants. His announcement today is important, but will the Minister indicate when the measures that he refers to will be brought to the House? Mr Lyons: Absolutely. Any public representative who is in touch with their communities will see complaints about a small number of people who make life exceptionally difficult for others. It is time that we used the powers that are available to us and provided for more powers if necessary. I want the Bill to be introduced in early 2026. I need Executive approval. I hope that the First Minister will allow it to go on the agenda and that other Executive Ministers will give me support, at which stage I can bring the Bill to the House. Ms Ferguson: What contact has the Minister had with other Departments — I think specifically about work by the Department of Education, our youth workers, his Department through community development and the Department of Justice — about increasing and improving diversionary activity in the hotspot troubled areas in our estates? Mr Lyons: Several areas in my Department help to take forward that sort of work. I welcome that. The particular policy proposals that we are talking about right now will have gone to all Ministers for their comment. I look forward to hearing from them, if they have not commented already. Mr McMurray: Have you had any discussions with the PSNI on data sharing with all social housing providers? Mr Lyons: Yes. Discussions have been ongoing. There was a joint consultation on that with the Department of Justice, and we will look at all the avenues that are open to us to make sure that we can tackle the scourge of antisocial behaviour, which is causing exceptional difficulties for many people. Mr McNulty: My office and others are experiencing a worrying trend whereby unresolved antisocial behaviour drives families to request transfers, displacing families and adding further pressure to the housing waiting list. Families have often been placed in what they describe as their "dream home" —. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Do you have a question? Mr McNulty: What are you doing to address that? What engagement has your Department had with the Housing Executive to ensure that transfer requests for that reason are recorded as a reportable category in the housing management system? Mr Lyons: The exact reason why I want the legislation is so that we have additional powers to deal with that issue. The people who should be moved are those who cause problems, not those who are affected by them. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Question 9 has been withdrawn. Questions 10 and 12 will be grouped. Anti-poverty Strategy: Next Steps 10. Mr McGlone asked the Minister for Communities for a timeline of his Department's next steps in relation to the anti-poverty strategy. (AQO 2410/22-27) 12. Miss McAllister asked the Minister for Communities to outline any steps that he is taking to ensure that his Department's commitments on housing and anti-poverty are underpinned by cross-departmental coordination rather than siloed interventions. (AQO 2412/22-27) Mr Lyons: The public consultation went live on the DFC website on 17 June and closed on 19 September. We are analysing and considering all the responses received throughout the consultation process. I will share the outcome of the analysis with my Executive colleagues, and we will take forward any further development as appropriate before finalising the strategy. I am committed to ensuring that a long-term strategic approach is taken at both departmental and Executive level to deliver on my Department's housing and anti-poverty priorities. Mr McGlone: Thank you for that, Minister. I hope that the strategy is long-term; it has certainly been long delayed. Will it be sufficiently ambitious to meet the needs and the difficulties that many in our community have to live with? Mr Lyons: It is ambitious, and we set that out in the strategy. It will be followed by action plans. It will be agile, because it will be a 10-year plan and we want to make sure that it can deal with other issues as they arise. However, I am committed to making sure that we have something in place that is deliverable and effective and that, ultimately, will make a change to people's lives here. Mr Gildernew: Given the many voices from the sector expressing serious concerns that the draft strategy is not fit for purpose in tackling poverty, will the Minister commit to working with his partners in the anti-poverty co-design group to significantly strengthen the strategy into something that will make a lasting impact? Mr Lyons: The consultation process is there for a reason: to hear views. We will take on board the views of all those who have commented on the draft anti-poverty strategy. Ultimately, I will need to get approval from the Executive. They signed off on the draft strategy. All members of the Executive were asked to contribute their ideas and what they wanted in the strategy. The Executive allowed it to go forward for consultation. I want to make sure that it has everything in it that it needs to have, but, even more important, we need to make sure that the action plans have what is required as well. It will be up to Executive colleagues to decide whether they want to change the strategy and whether they are willing to put in some of the other measures that may be suggested. I am more than open to including any of those that come forward that we can deliver. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Nuala McAllister is not in her place. Social Housing Stock 11. Mr Beattie asked the Minister for Communities to outline any action that he can take to encourage private developers to use vacant Housing Executive land to improve the social housing stock. (AQO 2411/22-27) Mr Lyons: Private developers can use vacant Housing Executive land to develop social housing but only in collaboration with a registered housing association. Housing Executive land has featured in the development programme, with 31 units being developed by associations in collaboration with private contractors on Housing Executive land last year. I encourage any interested private developer to contact our housing associations and/or the Housing Executive. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Doug, you have less than a minute for a supplementary question. Mr Beattie: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Legahory in Craigavon has footpaths, street lighting, sewerage, entrance and exit roads but not a single house. Will the Minister encourage the Housing Executive to give that land to developers so that they can develop housing on it? Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: You have 30 seconds, Minister. Mr Lyons: I am certainly happy to look at the individual development that he talks about. I do not know enough about it to comment at this minute, but I am happy to chase that up. Top 2.30 pm Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That ends the period for listed questions. We now move to 15 minutes of topical questions. Northern Ireland Football Fund T1. Mr Durkan asked the Minister for Communities whether he will publish in full the options and advice that he received from officials before he decided that the north-west would get nothing from the Northern Ireland Football Fund, as, when asked last week, the Minister decided that attack was the best form of defence and did not really answer. (AQT 1581/22-27) Mr Lyons: I did not pick up what the Member said at the start. As for releasing the information, I am happy to consider doing that. It is not what we normally do, simply because of the process, the names involved and the rankings of the clubs. Out of respect to them, we do not normally release information. However, some have questioned the process, and some have tried to inject uncertainty into the process, so it may be necessary for us to do that. I will take advice on that, and we will see where that goes. Let me be clear: I will robustly defend the process that was put in place, and I will robustly defend my officials against some of the slurs that have been directed towards them, as I will the clubs that have been successful and have been called into question. I am happy to return to the issue. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mark, I could not hear what you said at the start either. Will you speak up? Go raibh maith agat. [Translation: Thank you.] Mr Durkan: Gabh mo leithscéal. [Translation: I beg your pardon.] I certainly did not slur any officials, nor did I slur any clubs. Obviously, any and all clubs that were unsuccessful will be unhappy, but there is a consensus across all clubs and communities that Institute and Ards have been particularly hard done by in the process. What plans are there to help those homeless clubs? Mr Lyons: I fully recognise and understand the concern that those involved with those two clubs face, and I recognise the concern that has been expressed. From my point of view, we had put through the process that is currently in place, and, obviously, there was a different marking scheme for clubs that did not have their own ground when it came to footballing need. I will meet those clubs shortly. We will look at options and talk about the future, but, ultimately, it would be great if we could get more investment in football, so that more clubs can be taken forward. That is certainly something that I will call for. I hope to be able to talk to Executive colleagues about that, because football is £50 million behind in terms of fairness. I also want to look at other sources of finance, including financial transactions capital. Northern Ireland Housing Executive: Borrowing to Build T2. Mr Butler asked the Minister for Communities, given the shortage of private and social home builds, to provide an update on the Housing Executive's position, particularly its powers to borrow against its assets to expedite building the number of houses that we need. (AQT 1582/22-27) Mr Lyons: That is something that I have been working on since I came into office. It is critical for us to build more homes but also to preserve the stock that we have. Because of the lack of investment there is a problem. I have written to the Department of Finance, following an engagement that I had with the Secretary of State in the past couple of weeks. I want to get everyone in the room around the table so that we can finally work out what the Treasury, the DOF, we and the Northern Ireland Office need to do in order to get this going, because we need it to happen. It should be a priority for the Government. It is certainly a priority for me. Mr Butler: I welcome the Minister's answer, and I assure him of the Ulster Unionist Party's support, should he bring that forward. That is the new stock, but I have explained before that there are significant problems with the maintenance, quality of maintenance and access to maintenance of some of the existing stock. Will the Minister provide an update on any works that he has undertaken in that space? Mr Lyons: That is an area of concern. I have frequent representations from constituents and colleagues in the House about Housing Executive maintenance. I want to make sure that we can have people living in the homes that they want to live in, to the standard that they want. Some of those issues will be addressed through the fuel poverty strategy, but, ultimately, we need more investment. The easiest way for that investment to come is through the borrowing powers that the Housing Executive so desperately needs. I encourage all Members to get behind that call, so that we can make a real difference. Achieving that in this Assembly mandate would be one of the most important things that we could do. Disability in Work Strategy T3. Ms K Armstrong asked the Minister for Communities to provide an update on when the House will see the disability in work strategy. (AQT 1583/22-27) Mr Lyons: I look forward to launching the strategy in the coming days. Ms K Armstrong: I am glad to hear that, Minister. When will third-party organisations that deliver programmes to support people with disabilities in work find out when funding may be available and for how long? Mr Lyons: The strategy will go out to consultation first. We look forward to that happening and getting the feedback. Decisions will be made after that. Communities Delivery: North Antrim T4. Mr Burrows asked the Minister for Communities, after noting that the House did not get to the question from Mr Frew, with whom the Member shares a constituency, to outline what he has done to deliver for the constituents of North Antrim. (AQT 1584/22-27) Mr Lyons: I am more than happy to do that. Of course, we were able to deliver winter fuel support in North Antrim, and over 10,700 people were impacted on there. I am pleased that I was able to push forward match funding for Bushmills courthouse. There was £1·37 million for voluntary and community organisations. There was £1·5 million for Ballymoney public realm scheme. There was £600,000 for the Ballymena scheme. There was £118,000 for the shopfront scheme. There was £525,000 for the COVID recovery small settlement scheme. Ballymoney library was refurbished. There was over £1 million for labour market partnerships. There was the regeneration of the St Patrick's site. There was £93,000 for the Arts Council musical instruments scheme. There were 116 new jobs through the expansion of services with the Department for Work and Pensions. We also delivered Northern Ireland's first cultural world heritage site at Gracehill. A lot of work went into that, and it will be of great benefit not just to his constituency but to Northern Ireland. Finally, 1,392 people were helped to access additional benefits of £3·1 million through the Make the Call service. Mr Burrows: Those are all good things, and we welcome them. We will support the Minister when he does positive things. However, there are areas in my constituency where it feels as though that is not trickling down and where it is not being felt. I was in two of them: Drumtara and the Queen Street area. People there would like to invite the Minister to come up, have a walk and hear first-hand from them, in a very constructive way, about the things that, they think, could be done better in their constituency. Will he come up and visit my constituents? Mr Lyons: I am more than happy to go to North Antrim at any stage. I look forward to that visit. It is important to highlight what we have been able to achieve. I saw some Members shaking their head and tutting when I was listing the Department's achievements, but it is important to note that we are making a difference and making changes. Things are happening that would not have happened if we were not in post. I am proud of the things that we have been able to achieve. However, far more needs to be done. The Member mentioned particular areas, and perhaps the shaping sustainable places programme will be able to deliver for them. Let us deliver what we can. Let us show people that we are getting things done. Let us identify other problems that exist, and let us work together to see what we need to do to tackle those as well. Tollymore National Outdoor Centre T5. Ms Forsythe asked the Minister for Communities for an update on Tollymore National Outdoor Centre, which, sadly, had to close earlier this year following storm Éowyn, and which was later subject to a strategic review. (AQT 1585/22-27) Mr Lyons: The Member will be aware of what happened to the Tollymore centre and the damage that was done. Sport NI has advised that the running costs of the facility have steadily increased in recent years and that income has declined. The current operating model is financially unsustainable. The review is now under way, in line with 'Managing Public Money Northern Ireland' principles. It is expected to examine the value for money of continued operations, given the significant losses associated with maintaining the facility. I am keen for the review to be completed without delay so that a decision can be made on the future of the centre. Ms Forsythe: Minister, thank you for that update. The centre is the only one of its kind on this island, and we are very privileged to have it in Northern Ireland and in my constituency. Does the Minister agree that having the opportunity to do activities such as rock climbing, hillwalking, canoeing and kayaking in the heart of the Mourne Mountains is unique and that it would be great to see the centre being sustained? Mr Lyons: I fully appreciate and understand that and recognise the Member's passion for the centre. That is why Sport NI is undertaking extensive engagement with stakeholders to determine the most appropriate way forward. We want to see a way forward for it. We want to make sure that we have that in place. I have asked them to keep me updated on that so that we can keep people informed. It is an issue of importance not only to people in South Down but to many other users across Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland Football Fund: Derry City FC T6. Mr Delargy asked the Minister for Communities, after pointing out that there is real anger and frustration in Derry that Derry City FC has been left out of the football fund, what assurances he can give that clubs such as Derry City and others in the north-west will not be left out again and that they can access investment in the future. (AQT 1586/22-27) Mr Lyons: They absolutely can access that investment in the future. We have a competitive process in place. That has been done in the right and appropriate way. However, I understand that there will always be winners in the process and those who did not progress at this stage. I hope that we can get additional finance so that we can progress more clubs. I want everyone to be assured that I want everybody to get through the process. I want everybody to have their needs met, and I work hard to make sure that I do everything that I can to make sure that that happens. Mr Delargy: Can you outline your rationale for why only two tier 3 clubs were selected to go forward in this part of the process? Mr Lyons: Obviously, we had a limited pot of funding available. Even with over-planning, that limited the number of projects that could go through. I wanted to make sure that we spent the money; that was first and foremost what I wanted to ensure. I also wanted to have a mixture from those different tiers: tiers 1, 2 and 3. The further down we went on tier 3, the huger the impact would have been on the other two tiers because of the amounts of money that we are talking about. The solution to the matter is not to take from one to give to the other; the solution is to get more funding in place. Sporting Bodies: Sport NI Recognition T7. Mr Martin asked the Minister for Communities whether he has any plans to review the list of sporting bodies that are recognised by Sport NI, with a view to adding some more sports. (AQT 1587/22-27) Mr Lyons: I am happy to review sporting bodies at any time. I want to make sure that everyone has an equal opportunity to compete. I want no sport to be left out. I will happily raise that on behalf of the Member and his constituents, but perhaps he can give me a bit more information, if he wants me to take something forward. Mr Martin: I thank the Minister for his answer. One of my younger constituents, Charlie Wall, has been selected to represent Toxic Hockey in the under-12s inline hockey event in Barcelona. Charlie is the only person from Northern Ireland to have been selected. In-line hockey is not recognised by Sport NI, and Charlie's participation is entirely self-funded. Will the Minister look at that case for me? Mr Lyons: First of all, I am sure that the whole House will join me in congratulating Charlie on his success and wish him all the best for the event. The Olympic legacy fund was designed to help some of the sports that do not always get the merit or the attention that they deserve. I am more than happy to raise the specific issue of this sport with the chief executive and other staff of Sport NI. If the Member furnishes me with more details, I will be happy to take that up on his behalf. Olympic Legacy Fund and Community Infrastructure Fund T8. Mr Allen asked the Minister for Communities, given his reference to the Olympic legacy fund and thinking also of the community infrastructure fund, what funding he has at his disposal for future announcements in light of recent and previous ones. (AQT 1588/22-27) Mr Lyons: Quite a few announcements have been made and funding allocated. We will not be able to do much more in this financial year, but I always want to make sure that we make the best use of the funds that we have. We are bringing forward the Olympic legacy fund and the community infrastructure fund because people said that they wanted that smaller level of investment in their community. We will certainly look at the budget moving forward to see whether more resource needs to be allocated to those or, indeed, any other schemes. Mr Allen: The Minister rightly referred to what people want us to do. Another area that I think of and, indeed, declare an interest in as a disabled person is access in society. The community infrastructure fund, for example, will improve community access, but has the Minister anything under active consideration for improving accessibility across Northern Ireland? Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Minister, you have 30 seconds. Top 2.45 pm Mr Lyons: I will cover the issues that the Member raised in the schemes that I introduce. He will have seen that with the Northern Ireland Football Fund and in the scoring mechanisms that are in place for other funds. I point the Member towards the disability strategy that I will introduce very soon. It will address many of the issues that he raised. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Perfect. That ends questions to the Minister for Communities. I ask Members to take their ease. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Dr Aiken] in the Chair) Private Members' Business Health and Social Care Pay Awards 2025-26 Mr Butler: I beg to move That this Assembly reaffirms its commitment to the core principle of pay parity for our health workers; welcomes the Minister of Health’s prompt confirmation that, with Executive support, he was committed to delivering the 2025-26 pay award in line with the NHS Pay Review Body recommendations; accepts that, even with the significant levels of savings being generated across the health service, the delivery of the 2025-26 pay award requires broader Executive support and assistance; expresses deep regret that despite being over halfway through the financial year, and pay increases already implemented elsewhere across the UK, our health and social care (HSC) workers are still waiting to receive their pay increase; recognises that, unless a decision is taken imminently, Northern Ireland is rapidly facing the prospect of significant industrial action that would exacerbate the challenges already facing our health service and undermine the critical Programme for Government target to reduce waiting lists; and calls on the Executive to urgently consider and approve the outstanding ministerial direction request from the Minister of Health for the implementation of the 2025-26 pay awards to the HSC workforce. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. An amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List, so the Business Committee has agreed that 15 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate. Robbie, please open the debate on the motion. Mr Butler: Thank you. Mr Deputy Speaker. First, I declare an interest, because of Nurse Butler and Nurse Hancock, my wife and my daughter, as the debate will impact on them. Today, the Assembly faces a moment of truth. We have been here before, and I have to be absolutely clear that this is not just a debate about pounds and pence or about figures on a spreadsheet. It is also about people, about fairness and about trust between those who serve us and those of us who are meant to serve them. The motion before us seems to be pretty straightforward. It reaffirms something that we should never have to debate, which is that our health workers deserve pay parity, just as they did in January 2020 and just as they did in February 2024. Upon the restoration of the institutions last year, many promises were made, with health staff, rightly, at the very top of the list. Within days of the Assembly's returning, Minister Swann, the then Minister of Health, was able to present a deal that saw pay parity restored. When Minister Nesbitt took up the post, he was absolutely clear that he wanted the 2024-25 pay award to be delivered as quickly as possible. Through persistence and an innovative but successful approach, he made sure that staff got the increase that they deserved. He also said, however — this is important — that he wanted it to be the last time that health workers were left waiting until so late in the year before knowing whether they were going to achieve parity and whether previous commitments would be honoured. Every party here nodded along in agreement, yet here we are again. Almost six months into the new financial year, our health and social care workers are still waiting for their increase whilst their colleagues in England, Scotland and Wales have already received theirs. I am sure that most of us will agree that that is unacceptable. I will pause there, because this is about more than just money. I know that some Members will find this a shock, but I used to work in the Fire Service. I know that that will have been a secret to some, but I want to use the Fire Service again as an illustration of how I genuinely know what it is like to go in and sacrifice more than your time by putting yourself in risky situations during a shift in which you do not know what is coming, while knowing that your community depends on you. That is what our health and social care staff do every day. It is what our nurses, doctors, paramedics, porters, cleaners, admin staff and allied health professionals (AHPs) do. They do not clock in for the money, although fair pay matters; they do it because they care, they want to serve and they believe in what they do. Here is the reality: they are serving in environments that are already stretched to breaking point. The wards are short-staffed, colleagues cover double shifts, patients are waiting for longer than ever, and the staff are going home physically and emotionally exhausted. On top of that, when they feel undervalued because promises of parity have been made but not delivered, it does not just dent morale but drives staff away. It makes recruitment harder, and it weakens the entire health system. Let us be honest: this is not a new problem. It was not that long ago that Northern Ireland's health workers, for the first time in their history, took to the picket lines. They stood in the cold with placards in hand, not because they wanted to be there but because they felt that they had no choice. The patients waiting at home did not blame the staff; they blamed the politicians, and rightly so. Those strikes were a collective demand to be heard when every other avenue had failed them. Colleagues, we cannot and must not allow health workers to be forced into that position again, because the cost of failure is not just borne by the workforce. It is borne by every patient waiting for treatment, every family desperate for care and every community that depends on the system to function, and, yet, here we are again. Pay awards have been implemented in England, Scotland and Wales, but, in Northern Ireland, sadly, they remain stalled. Every week of delay makes industrial action more likely and erodes trust in the Assembly, and the workforce is depending on us. Let us not kid ourselves: unless the Executive act soon, industrial action will come. When it comes, it will be massive. I fear the damage that it will inflict on the Programme for Government target for waiting lists. Some Members will point out the scale of the savings that the Department of Health has already made, and, if they are not going to point it out, I certainly will. The Minister has said that the savings that he has achieved this year are "unprecedented", but, even with that, a gap remains, and around £200 million of that relates to pay. It is not a problem that the Department of Health can fix on its own. The problem requires collective Executive responsibility, and it requires us to step up, because failure to act will not be measured in abstract numbers; it will be measured in pickets at hospital gates, exhausted staff leaving the service and waiting lists that grow even longer. Every party in the Chamber stood on a platform that promised to deliver for our health workers. We clapped for them during the pandemic. We praise them in speeches. We wrote in manifestos that their work would be recognised and rewarded, but promises mean nothing without delivery. If we allow health workers in Northern Ireland to fall behind their counterparts elsewhere, we will have broken faith not only with them but with the people who trusted us to stand by them. I am not surprised that the trade unions are growing impatient. If the truth be told, as an MLA who is married to a nurse, I am also losing patience, because the issue is too serious to be trapped in political wrangling, and, unless the request of my colleague Minister Nesbitt for ministerial direction is approved soon, we risk plunging into a winter of discontent in our health service. Behind every cancelled procedure or missed opportunity is a human story of a patient in pain, a family left waiting or a child who needs an assessment. Industrial action on that scale is not just inconvenient; it would be devastating. The Assembly has this simple but profound choice: we can allow delay, drift and division to drive our health workers onto the picket lines, or we can send a clear, united message that the Assembly gets it. As someone who has worn a uniform, has stood on the front line, knows the weight of public service and has had to take strike action at one point, I can say this with conviction: fair pay is not optional; it is essential. Our health workers have carried us through crisis after crisis, and they do not deserve to carry the burden of political inaction as well. Let us do the right thing. Let us honour our word and give our health workforce the certainty and parity that it deserves. I commend the motion to the House. Mr Carroll: I beg to move the following amendment: Leave out all after "industrial action" and insert: "notes that in the past five financial years, the total amount spent on private healthcare appointments by health and social care trusts totals at least £302,203,303, whilst the cost of implementing the 2025-26 pay award is estimated to be £200,000,000; calls on the Minister of Health to end the stealth privatisation of health and social care and use this funding to invest in fair pay for health and social care workers; and further calls on the Executive to urgently consider and approve the outstanding ministerial direction request from the Minister of Health for the implementation of the 2025-26 pay awards to the health and social care workforce." Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Gerry, you have 10 minutes to propose the amendment and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who speak will have five minutes. Gerry, please open the debate on the amendment. Mr Carroll: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is worth reminding ourselves that healthcare workers in the North are among the lowest paid across the entire public and private sectors. NIPSA reports that the NHS here is the only — I will repeat that: the only — public-sector employer paying below the real living wage for its lowest-paid staff. Ambulance Service workers in Unite and NIPSA have been engaged in industrial action for better conditions and safe staffing for almost three years now. Poor pay is a major driver of the staffing crisis in the NHS. Both are connected. Shamefully, this is the third year in a row that pay parity has been broken; the third year in a row in which health and social care workers have been put in that unacceptable position. Over the past two years, uplifts were paid in instalments, with the final instalments being paid at the very end of the financial year. A non-consolidated lump sum for 2023-24 was paid in August 2024, six months after the end of the financial year. This is worth asking: what is the excuse this time? The Executive have been up and running since February 2024. There has been plenty of time to prepare and find the money to make sure that such a shambles did not happen again, yet here we are. In 2022, MLAs from Executive parties joined healthcare workers on various picket lines demanding fair pay. Those same MLAs and Ministers are now in a position to deliver pay parity, but they refuse to do so. They have fallen silent or are pointing the finger at others. All the rhetoric about joined-up working and delivery has gone completely out the window, and it is back to doing what the Executive do best: siloed working and playing the blame game. Achieving pay parity should be accounted for in every year's Budget, but it is not. Pay parity does not by itself reverse a decade of pay freezes and below-inflation increases, but it is the very least that our health and social care workers deserve. We are talking about a very modest pay offer of 3·6%, which is below the rate of inflation and well below the increase that NHS staff in Scotland accepted. Failing to deliver even that paltry sum is a damning indictment of an Executive who treat healthcare workers as second-class citizens and not worthy. Placing all the blame on Westminster will simply not wash this time, not when the Executive are funnelling money out of the NHS and into the private sector. 'Belfast Live' recently reported that, between 2020 and 2025, our five healthcare trusts spent at least £302 million on private healthcare appointments. That is a shocking figure. The Health Minister's plan to tackle waiting lists includes even more reliance on the profiteering private healthcare sector. MRIs, CT scans, ultrasounds and X-rays are being outsourced to private firms, throwing good money after bad. Treatments and surgeries in orthopaedics, dermatology, gynaecology and much more are being delivered by profit-making organisations. Those private providers are raking it in; they are profiting from the crisis in our NHS. That is completely unacceptable. Procedures that should be done through the NHS are being outsourced. Staff who would otherwise be working in the NHS are working in private clinics. The maths is simple: the more money that the Executive pour into the black hole of private healthcare, the less that there is to invest in the NHS. The Executive's underfunding of public healthcare got us into this mess in the first place. More of the same will not get us out of it. Relying on the private sector to tackle waiting lists is a doomed strategy for multiple reasons. Private companies with profits to boost and dividends to pay will always choose a private patient over NHS work because there is more money to be made from privately insured or self-paying patients. Some people have been languishing for years on waiting lists. Those who can afford it have already opted for private treatment, so I ask whether our private hospitals even have the capacity to take on further NHS patients. The private sector does not train its own medical staff; instead, it poaches staff who have been trained in the NHS. It relies on the NHS. It cannot survive without it. Workers who would normally do extra hours in the NHS are paid more for straightforward procedures, such as cataract operations, in the private sector, but that means that other more complex procedures are not being done for the NHS. Those with more complex conditions — they are usually working-class people from communities such as mine and elsewhere — are left languishing on waiting lists because of the proliferation of the private sector. Would those hundreds of millions of pounds not be better spent on our overworked and underpaid healthcare staff? It will cost around £200 million to honour pay parity this year. At least £300 million has been sunk into the private health sector in the past five years. If we were to stop the nonsensical and unethical stealth privatisation of our health service and invest directly in the NHS, we could put an end to staff shortages and the workforce crisis. Top 3.00 pm It is an insult to imply that industrial action would undermine waiting list initiatives and exacerbate the healthcare crisis. Health and social care workers are being forced to pay for a crisis of the system that has been handed down from Westminster and implemented by Stormont. It looks like those workers will soon be striking to save the NHS, as they have done repeatedly since 2019. They will strike for better, safer services for us all. There is no way to achieve that without investing in the workforce through fair pay and better conditions. I hope that Members will support the amendment. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Gerry. I call Philip McGuigan. Philip, you have five minutes. Mr McGuigan: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. [Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.] Our health service is the most vital of our public services. It relies heavily on its greatest asset: its staff. The safety of staff and patients alike is compromised as a result of staff shortages. There is a huge hole in our health and social care services as a result of pay issues that affect the recruitment and retention of staff. "I see and hear about that at first hand from nurses in my constituency of North Antrim. Nurses, the largest group in the health service, now feel that the only way forward to deal with their well-documented grievances is to take industrial action. That is unprecedented. The Royal College of Nursing (RCN) has my full personal support." That was me speaking in 2019 in support of nurses and healthcare workers as they were about to go on strike because of pay and conditions. Here, today, I am equally frustrated, although certainly not as frustrated as nurses and healthcare workers, that we have reached a position where nurses feel once again that they have no option other than potential strike action. I absolutely support the commitment to the core principle of pay parity for health and social care workers across the North, as I did in 2019. Nurses and all other healthcare workers should not be in the position of again having to consider strike action to get the pay award to which they are entitled. I recently met the RCN, the British Medical Association (BMA) and other health unions, and I am well aware of the depth of their resolve and of their determination on behalf of their members. Clearly, they just want the issue to be resolved. The health service is important to us all. As elected politicians, we should work together to make it better for the people whom we represent: our constituents, who need and rely on the service. We also need to work better to ensure that it is better for those who work in it. Why are we here again? I am conscious that healthcare workers do not want to get involved in party political discussions or debates, but it is important for me to outline my thoughts on some of the issues. As we in the North of Ireland are tied to Westminster, there has been underinvestment in our public services for close to 15 years — 15 years of austerity. Our Executive are still not adequately resourced. Sinn Féin believes that the best long-term solution to improve health outcomes in the North is an all-island health service in a new Ireland. In the context of the current interim arrangements in the North, however, Sinn Féin has prioritised the issue of health. In the Executive, through the current and previous Sinn Féin Finance Ministers, Sinn Féin has prioritised Health budgets from the money that has been available to the Executive. The Department of Health's opening budget was £8·4 billion this year, which is £650 million higher than the 2024-25 budget. Over 50% of the Executive's available resources go to Health. The Department received allocations of £115 million as part of the June monitoring round, so its total budget for this year is £8·6 billion. Sinn Féin has prioritised Health, but, ultimately, the Health Minister is the Health Minister. Even though the Health Minister is not from my political party, I want him to succeed. We all need him to succeed. I have some sympathy with the Health Minister, as I do with all Ministers when dealing with their budgets. Ultimately, however, he is the person who decides how the money in the overall Health budget is allocated. The Health Minister is responsible for setting and funding Health priorities, including paying healthcare staff. I am disappointed that the Health Minister did not prioritise pay when he received his budget; that he has, so far, not resolved the issue of pay for health and social care staff; and that, as a result, we have again arrived at this position. It is a position that we must get ourselves out of. There must be a solution to the issue. I assure the Health Minister that, in his efforts to find a resolution to the issue of pay for healthcare workers, he has full support from me, as Sinn Féin's health spokesperson. Furthermore, he can be assured that Sinn Féin Ministers in the Executive are totally committed to solving the problem. I am hopeful that an agreement can be reached to deliver the well-deserved and well-earned pay award. Sinn Féin will continue to work to make that a reality. Mrs Dodds: As others have said, we owe an enormous amount of gratitude to our healthcare staff — our nurses, our doctors and our hospital workers, who look after and care for us at our most vulnerable times, who save lives every day and who shore up a health service that is at breaking point. I make it my business to regularly contact and visit the largest hospital in my area, Craigavon. I was there this month discussing the potential for further winter pressures and crises. On that day, the longest waiting times were 62 hours for someone who already had a bed, and 42 hours for someone who was waiting to be admitted and, for all that time, was sitting on a chair. There is no doubt that our healthcare staff work in the most difficult of circumstances, but it is not enough for us to clap for the NHS and say how much we appreciate them. Healthcare staff need to be properly paid, and that means parity with the rest of the United Kingdom. That is the only way to acknowledge their hard work. I am annoyed, like many nurses and other people are, that healthcare staff feel that they have to go to the extreme of either threatening or taking strike action to bring the matter to a head. That is not acceptable for a service that is such an important part of our community and lives. I respect, acknowledge and uphold everyone's right to strike, but I hope that we can find a solution to the issue and resolve it. Mr Allen: Will the Member give way? Mrs Dodds: If you let me continue for a minute, I will give way. It is hugely important. I listened with interest to the Sinn Féin contribution, which was quite defensive. It is important that we find a resolution. I hope that the Finance Minister and the Health Minister can work together to resolve this most difficult subject. We should not drag our heels on the core services that we all depend on. I will give way. Mr Allen: Does the Member agree that this is and should be an Executive priority? Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Member has an extra minute. Mrs Dodds: Thank you. Funnily enough, I was just coming to that very point. The Minister needs to price in pay increases at the start of every year, and that should be monitored throughout the year. It is not that we do not know that it is going to happen — we do — so we need to price in those pay increases every year. We know broadly how much they will cost, and it is important to price them in. However — the Minister would be disappointed if I did not say this — we also have to think about how the Department of Health spends money. I cannot imagine where the Executive would be if every Minister sought a ministerial direction for a bill that they want the Executive to pick up. We have to think about how we spend money; that is hugely important. I had a look at the health service's administrative costs for last year: they totalled almost £600 million. There are now more staff in the Department of Health than when we had the Department of Health and the Health and Social Care Board. The money that is spent on administration actually exceeds the amount that we spent when we had those two separate organisations. How on earth can the strategic planning and performance group (SPPG) take up 500 roles in the Department of Health? It is important that we actually consider how we spend health money. Of course, Minister, it is also really important that there is accountability for the money that is spent. We have a new state-of-the-art maternity hospital. You wrote to the Health Committee last week saying that you were content with the options presented by the trust. That means that a hospital at £100 million will have to have millions more spent on it and probably wait another two and a half years before it is open and before any mother or baby can occupy that hospital. The acute mental health hospital is in exactly the same position. You cannot ask for more money without accountability for the money that has been spent. I look forward to hearing the discussion around that. I hope that we have a resolution to this most vexatious of issues. I am sad and I am angry that nurses — Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Will the Member draw her remarks to a close? Mrs Dodds: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Diane. Mrs Dodds: I am sad and angry that nurses are in this position. Ms Bradshaw: It is with great frustration that I speak on the motion. I am confident in saying that I do not believe that anyone in the Chamber will disagree with the need to ensure that health workers receive a proper wage for the work that they do. Indeed, it is only due to the commitment and dedication of the staff that we still have a public health service. Without their sacrifices, the long hours, the unacceptable workloads and so on, the health service would have long since collapsed. The BMA put it best when it stated recently that the health service cannot continue to be run on the goodwill of staff. The great irony today is that the party that has held the Health portfolio for the past six years is the party that tabled the motion today. I have some sympathy in that two of those years were spent without a functioning Assembly or Executive due to the political whims of one party. The fact remains, however, that the health service has only continued to decline during those years. The Minister claims that he does not have the budget to cover pay awards for health workers, and the motion is a clear attempt by his party to shift the blame. When will the Minister accept that it should be a matter of prioritisation for him and his officials? The Health Minister rolls out the sound bites, but not once has he provided any kind of a priority list of how he will spend his budget, which, I remind Members, is over half of the overall Executive Budget. Not once has the Minister taken responsibility for the fact that, in reality, he could find the money for those pay awards if he wanted to, if he simply prioritised it at the beginning of the Department's budget-setting process. I think that other Members have mentioned that today, and it is something that the BMA has also highlighted. We have said it before and we will say it again: there is no health service without a workforce. Instead, the Department continues year-on-year to hand a blank cheque to the health trusts, allowing them to spend whatever they need at the expense of other elements of healthcare, including staff pay. Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): I very much appreciate the Member giving way. Will she explain to me how I am supposed to set a budget that deals with the pay rises and pay recommendations before those pay recommendations are made? Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Member has an extra minute. Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Thank you, Minister. The point that I am making is that you can make assumptions about how pay awards will shift with those negotiations and inflation. Yet again, our health workers have to watch on as their counterparts across —. Mr Allen: Will the Member give way? Ms Bradshaw: I am nearly finished. I will just leave it there. Our health workers have to watch on as their counterparts across the UK receive their pay awards, whilst our staff, who are just as dedicated, hardworking and under pressure, are feeling undervalued. I will give way. I have time. Go ahead. Mr Allen: The Member, in her response to the Minister, said that he could have factored in an assumption. If the Minister were to do that, can the Member give a guarantee that we would not then be back here criticising the Minister for making an assumption? Ms Bradshaw: The point that I was making was that this should be the number-one priority, because we do not have a health service without our health workers. [Inaudible.] Ms Bradshaw: I am saying that if the Minister came here with his priorities and set out how he wanted to prioritise his money and the priorities for his Department, we would support him, but he has not done that. [Inaudible.] Ms Bradshaw: When will the Minister and his party take responsibility by taking action to protect our workforce and save our health service? Top 3.15 pm Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I remind Members to make their remarks through the Chair. Mr Durkan: First and foremost, I put on record our deep gratitude to and admiration for our health heroes. They are the people who keep our system afloat and keep our citizens alive in the most difficult of circumstances. They are overburdened, undervalued and underpaid, yet, day in, day out, they continue to provide stellar care. They deserve fair pay, and they deserve it now, not after months and months of political wrangling and "pass the problem" being played around the Executive table. I had reason to visit Altnagelvin Hospital's emergency department recently, and what I witnessed was pretty chaotic. I saw a team stretched to breaking point, with queues down corridors and staff under immense strain and pressure, yet their professionalism and compassion shone through. That chaos is their daily and nightly reality. They bring humanity to a system that is not just creaking at the seams but cracking down the middle. The comfort that they bring to patients and their families during their darkest days is invaluable. I am acutely aware, however, that our gratitude is not enough. If it were, our health service would not be losing staff to burnout or better-paid jobs elsewhere, be those in the private sector or in other jurisdictions. Staff need fair pay and respect, and that should be reflected not just in rhetoric but in their pay packets and in their purses and wallets. They are the backbone of society, and it is a disgrace that the Executive continue to delay funding for what is a crucial and critical pay award. I want to raise another issue. When these increases inevitably arrive, having been delayed and delayed, the way in which payments are made will impact on the lowest-paid staff: those who are on universal credit. Too many of our lowest-paid staff will see any additional award that they get in a lump sum clawed back, almost pound for pound, through the universal credit system. That money is given with one hand — eventually — but the delay in its being taken back is not quite so long. If we truly value those workers, we cannot allow that to happen, so I urge the Minister to work with colleagues to engage directly with trade unions and, crucially, the Minister for Communities. There must be a way in which to ensure that the pay award can be delivered in instalments or in a manner that prevents it from being swallowed up in universal credit calculations. Otherwise, as has happened before, some staff will see no benefit from the increase when it eventually arrives. Our health and social care system is only as strong as the people who staff it. We are losing nurses, specialists and porters to burnout and to significantly better pay opportunities elsewhere, and no longer just to Liverpool or London but to a couple of miles down the road in Letterkenny. If we are serious about rebuilding our health service, tackling waiting lists and improving patient care, we must start by valuing our staff. Fair pay is not a luxury but the foundation on which the health service stands. Let us ensure that the staff, who give us everything and are the lifesavers and the caregivers, are finally given in return what they deserve. They are not demanding the impossible. Rather, they are asking for a pay packet that helps them keep the lights on, a roof over their head and food on the table for their children. As Mr Butler said, today's ask is not optional. It is long overdue. If it does not come, with our health workers left with no option but to strike, the Executive parties, which would not prioritise this pay increase, dare not land on the picket lines to pose for pictures while holding placards. Ms Flynn: I also support the motion and restate our unwavering commitment to pay parity for Health and Social Care staff. As outlined by the Member who spoke previously and many others, our health workers are the backbone of the system. We have all had our personal experiences of the health system, as have our family members, the people around us and the constituents in our constituency offices. What those people — nurses and doctors — do every day is the life and breath of our public health system. It is not right that we have got to the point again where people feel the strain and stress of possibly having to go back onto picket lines. None of us wants to see our healthcare workers put in that position. They are the ones who care for patients. As Mark said, they are often in difficult circumstances. Day in, day out, they work long hours with heavy workloads and often at significant personal risk. They deserve decent, fair pay, safe working conditions and the recognition of a system that values their contribution. We owe them nothing less. The NHS Pay Review Body recommended a 3·6% rise for Agenda for Change staff in 2025-26. As we know, that includes nurses, midwives, ambulance staff, porters, cleaners and health visitors: the full spectrum of staff who ensure that our health service operates safely and effectively. The recommendation has already been implemented in England, Scotland and Wales. Yet, in the North, our workers still wait for what is rightfully theirs. No Member will say that the delay is fair or acceptable. It sends the wrong message about how we value our workforce in our health system. As has been said, responsibility for delivering the pay award ultimately lies with the Department of Health, as the lead Department. However, it is important that engagement takes place with the Department of Finance and other Departments. Everyone needs to come together, on whatever level, simply to find a resolution and get the issue solved. That is what needs to be done. Paula mentioned the responsibilities of the Health Minister, which are important and, no doubt, difficult, but he must prioritise where his money goes. Stretched as his budget is, it is important to have that priority set out. It is also important that, at the end of the day, we do not have people back out on picket lines. We must do whatever needs to be done to fulfil the pay awards. No one thinks that it is an option for the staff not to receive the pay awards. Nobody wants to see further delay. With every day that passes, staff feel increased strain on their pay. Without resolution, confidence will be eroded and morale undermined. That is not what those workers need, when they work in an environment where they help people, for their physical and mental health. Mark made the point that the later the pay award comes, the more pressure it puts on people who are in receipt of benefits and universal credit. We must bear that in mind too. I hope that we will get the payments over the line ASAP, but then we have to factor in how it will impact on people who may miss out because they are on universal credit. Mitigations must be discussed and put in place to protect those people and ensure that they receive the fair pay that they deserve. Mr Robinson: We often hear in the House and in Committee that, without the dedication of our health workforce, we simply would not have a health service. It is often said that our healthcare staff are the spine of the system that sustains health and social care. Nurses, who also need progression pathways, care assistants, therapists, porters and countless others, day in, day out, dedicate themselves to the well-being of others. We all know such people locally, and they work in seriously challenging circumstances. All of us in the House have seen at first hand how those people are worked to the bone. In some cases, their goodwill is keeping some sectors of the health service from total collapse, yet, despite all their sacrifices, fair pay frequently becomes an annual fight. The DUP supports the principle of pay parity, and we want staff here to be recognised, just like their counterparts in GB. Everyone in the Chamber knows that the challenges facing the health and social care sector in Northern Ireland are enormous. The pressure on hospitals, the growing waiting lists and the impact on the mental and physical well-being of our workforce should keep us awake at night. I have family in the health sector, and I know the stress and the pressures that they face. However, even amidst the financial challenges that face public services more widely, there is public recognition of the need to respect and reward the workers who keep our health service afloat. As winter approaches, along with the annual additional pressures that come with it, the Province is staring at the added catastrophic pressure of health service staff being on a picket line in November. The Health Minister must try to avoid such action. We can all point to overspends on projects such as the Belfast maternity and children's hospitals. That money could have been spent elsewhere. Staff should not be the fall guy for money that has been lost elsewhere in the system. There are many mounting pressures on the Executive. We must also recognise that the special educational needs (SEN) reform agenda needs to be supported by the Executive too. The money spent on SEN and on health service pay are investments that cannot and should not be avoided. Mr Chambers: It is shameful that, six months into the current financial year, our Health and Social Care workers are the only group in the United Kingdom's health sector that is still waiting to receive the nationally agreed pay settlements. We talk about the importance of staff retention, but, if ever there were a recipe for health workers to take their skills to another jurisdiction, the current situation is it. I have said in the Chamber many times that our health and social care system has been sustained for years by staff loyalty and delivered with huge helpings of freely given goodwill. However, goodwill cannot be depended on for ever. Goodwill does not put food on the table, pay the mortgage or fund children's education journey. The figure on the payslip deals with the financial demands that we all have to address. How can we as politicians allow that serious breach of wage commitment to continue for a minute longer into the current financial year? The settlement for which our Health and Social Care workers wait was a result not of some bullish and outlandish salary demand but of a national and independent assessment. We hear about the potential of a full strike by our nurses: just imagine the impact that that would have on the operation of hospitals. The front-line heroes for whom we stood clapping on our doorsteps in gratitude for their selfless service during the COVID epidemic do not have one ounce of desire to walk out on their patients at this time. That goes against every fibre of their dedication to care for the sick and help make them well again. Why are we allowing it to happen? Why are we putting our Health and Social Care staff into a corner where they are left with no alternative to secure what they are fully entitled to? I have stood on the picket lines with our nurses, and it was clear that they would rather have been on the wards than standing on the streets with placards. That is not who they are. I will happily stand alongside them again, if we go down the shameful road of forcing them on to the picket lines. The catastrophic consequences of strike action will rest not with them but with us in this place for breaking promises that we have made. The current Health Minister, Minister Nesbitt, and the previous Health Minister, Minister Swann, have made their positions clear that agreed pay settlements for Health and Social Care staff must be met in full and in a timely manner. That should be the position of every member of the Executive. I will conclude by saying that I am disappointed to hear the attempts at cheap political point-scoring on such an important issue in the Chamber. Top 3.30 pm Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call the Minister. You have up to 15 minutes, Mike. Mr Nesbitt: With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, before I respond to the debate, I want to respond to some of President Trump's remarks about the use of paracetamol during pregnancy and the MMR vaccine. I can advise that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is the responsible body for regulating all medicines in the United Kingdom. It monitors continuously the safety of all medicines, including those used during pregnancy, and there is no evidence — I repeat: no evidence — that taking paracetamol during pregnancy causes autism in children. I note and welcome a strong statement backing that up from Ema Cubitt, the Independent Autism Reviewer. With regard to jabs, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) is the expert scientific advisory body in that area. It strongly supports the use of the MMR vaccine. The possible links to autism and Crohn's disease have been investigated and proved to be wrong. The MMR vaccine remains the most effective and safest way of protecting our children. I hope that that gives some clarity in the face of those comments from the United States. For the debate, I will make two points by way of context, if I may. First, I understand that every Minister faces massive challenges. No Department has the budget that it requires to achieve what it wants to achieve. I am also aware that every budget for every Department in some way contributes to tackling the social determinants of ill health, whether lack of education, social exclusion or economic inactivity. I get it. I have often said that, to deliver health and social care, you need buildings, beds, equipment and medicines but all that is as nothing if you do not have the workforce. Every week, I am out and about meeting members of the workforce. I am struck continuously by the remarkable combination of professionalism and compassion — professionalism based on training and experience and compassion based on empathy and humanity. Why would we not want to reward that workforce appropriately and in a timely manner? That goes to the core principle of pay parity: it is a matter of principle, fairness and respect. I take the issue seriously because it speaks directly to how we value the extraordinary work that is carried out daily by our Health and Social Care staff. They deserve to be remunerated not just adequately but fairly and because, when we pay our staff fairly, we are not just balancing the books but affirming their value, hopefully, boosting their morale and strengthening the future relationships in healthcare. We can no longer remain in a situation where our staff continue to feel rightly that they are always last in line for consideration of pay awards, well behind the other nations and regions of the United Kingdom. Timeliness is therefore important. I will turn briefly to Mr Carroll's amendment for a moment. If I set aside the major concern that I have about the accuracy of the figures that he was referencing, it might be helpful just to mention that the total waiting list initiative spend from April 2021 to July 2025 has been approximately £347 million, of which £248 million has been spent in the independent sector. The £347 million has enabled 1,205,820 patients to receive an assessment, a diagnostic test or treatment, of which, over half a million were managed by the independent sector. Of course, in an ideal world, I would like to see all that money being invested in core services in HSC. I suspect that Mr Carroll already understands that we do not live in an ideal world. However, the money that has gone into the independent sector has undoubtedly saved and lengthened lives. It must be quite the luxury for Mr Carroll to live in a world of ideology, sheltered from the realities of the challenges of delivering health and social care. I will move to the main issue at hand. Following approval of the final Budget for 2025-26, the Department of Health received, as Members said, an allocation of approximately £8·4 billion. However, after factoring in inescapable increases — inflation, demand, national living wage commitments, the ring-fencing of waiting list funding, the shortfall in employers' National Insurance funding and the pay body's recommendations — my Department faced a funding gap of over £600 million. Of that, about £200 million is needed to implement pay awards of 4% for doctors and dentists and 3·6% for our Agenda for Change staff. I am on record as saying that I find that differential in awards most unhelpful, and, I believe, the Royal College of Nursing sees it as a slap in the teeth for its members. We are working hard to deliver savings internally. To date, £155·6 million has been identified, but the scale of the challenge means that we cannot bridge the gap alone; it is unprecedented and, we believe, unmanageable. The decision to ring-fence £165 million for waiting lists from within the existing budget rather than provide it as additionality, has intensified pressure on the HSC, with the requirement to make further savings and efficiencies that will inevitably have consequences for services. I acknowledge that the Department received £25 million in non-recurrent funding through June monitoring, but the overall funding gap remains at over £400 million, excluding pay. Without additional support, trusts may be forced to propose measures that have potentially catastrophic impacts on services, with direct consequences for patients. As has been noted, I issued a ministerial direction in May requesting approval to implement the pay award. The Executive have not reached a position that would allow my Department to proceed, but I am hopeful, perhaps more so than I was this time last week. The delay is regrettable. It sends a damaging message to our workforce that its dedication is not matched by political will. It also places Northern Ireland at risk of significant industrial action, with formal disputes already lodged by the Royal College of Nursing, the BMA Northern Ireland consultants committee and hospital dentists at the British Dental Association in Northern Ireland. I acknowledge ongoing engagement with trade unions and professional bodies. Their advocacy on behalf of staff has been clear and consistent, and it is deeply rooted in the desire to protect patient care. We will continue to engage. I will mention a particular meeting. After the previous Executive meeting, I happened to go straight into a meeting with the Royal College of Nursing. Its chief executive, Nicola Ranger, had flown in from London. I met her along with Rita Devlin, the local director. Nicola Ranger is a very personable individual, and I like her a lot on a personal basis, but that meeting was scary. I see, hear and read a lot about health and social care delivery that I could allow to scare me if I wanted it to. I try not to do that, but the meeting was genuinely scary because her simple message was, "We've had enough. This happens year-on-year, and it only happens in Northern Ireland, so we will ballot, not on industrial action but on strike action. We're learning the lesson from the previous strike action, when we thought that we were too soft, putting in so many derogations and mitigations that our message did not land sufficiently. No derogations and no mitigations this time. We will come out on strike, and we will focus on band 5 nurses, who most closely interact with patients". I was scared. I looked at the Chief Nursing Officer, who was sitting beside me, and she looked scared. The Royal College of Nursing is preparing to ballot its members not on industrial action, I emphasise again, but on strike action. The implications are massive. We are over halfway through the financial year. Pay increases have been implemented elsewhere in the UK, but our staff are still waiting. It is not just a financial issue; it is a matter of morale, retention and respect. We often talk about the goodwill of the workforce. Let us be clear: goodwill is a finite resource. Everybody has their limit, and, once you burst through that limit, there is no easy way back. I remain committed to working with colleagues across the Assembly and Executive to try to deliver a fair and timely pay award while supporting the management of our overall budget. I also welcome any engagement from the Committee in helping us to move forward together. If we want a world-class health service, and I do, we must treat our staff with world-class respect. That begins with fair pay, so let us show our workforce not just in words but in our actions that we value them. Let us be not the last to act but the first to lead. I will take a moment to finish by commenting on a couple of specifics that have been mentioned. Mrs Dodds talked about my reaction to the maternity hospital. To be clear and to put it on the record, I signed off on the trust's preferred option to fix the water issues in the new maternity hospital after receiving independent, professional advice. I did not simply accept what was being proposed to me. Mrs Dodds, if I heard her correctly, seemed to suggest that there was the same situation at the acute mental health inpatient centre at Belfast City Hospital. That is not the case. That hospital is still operational. Ms Bradshaw said that it might be better if I were to define my priorities. I first came to the House as Health Minister on 3 June 2024, and I defined my priorities: health inequalities, cancer care, waiting lists and mental health. I am happy to repeat those, but it is simply not true to say that I have not defined my priorities. Those remain my priorities, as well as respecting our staff, and I hope and am confident — much more confident than I was a week or two ago — that we will find the solution that our health and social care workforce deserve. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much, Minister. I call Gerry Carroll to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. Gerry, you have five minutes. Mr Carroll: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will respond to some of the comments and address some of the issues. I will not have a chance to summarise everything, but I am sure that the Member who closes will. Philip McGuigan, the Chair of the Health Committee, referred to his support of the RCN in 2019 when he was first appointed as an MLA. He took strike action then, and he vowed to stand with it again if it decides to take strike action. He blamed the issue of low pay and pay inequality solely on Westminster, without mentioning the fact that the Stormont Executive and his party colleagues are responsible, alongside other Ministers. He went on to criticise the Health Minister. It is not my job to defend the Health Minister, but it is interesting that there is no acting in unison or cooperation on this issue between Executive parties. Diane Dodds mentioned that it was not good enough just to clap for or well-wish our healthcare staff. It is a rare occasion that I agree with the DUP, but I do on that point. I hope that the Member will do the logical thing and back my amendment, which joins the two issues together, and back the amended motion as well. Mark Durkan talked about pressures in Altnagelvin and the fact that porters and other staff had to leave, effectively, to go not just to Australia, as was the case in the past, but to other regions, such as the South, to get paid better. Órlaithí Flynn mentioned a similar issue. We are in a strange situation with the debate. We had a debate about a very important motion and lots of reference to the motion, but, aside from the Minister, there was not one fleeting reference to my amendment. The positive thinking in me surmises that that shows that there is unanimous support for the amendment, that Members have had a change of heart and now know the logic of what I and many other people would say. However, I suspect that there is something else going on. I am happy to give way to anybody who wants to state their opposition to the amendment, if that is the case. Nobody is keen to jump up. I hope, therefore, that Members will back the amendment rather than voting against something without explaining their logic. The principle about criticising the fact that hundreds of millions of pounds of public money — our money, taxpayers' money — is funding an unfair, two-tiered system is key. It cannot be business as usual. Top 3.45 pm The Minister mentioned the "quantum of the figures". He tried to pour cold water on the figures that I quoted. Minister, you may wish to speak to your press team, because those figures were retrieved by 'Belfast Live' from your Department: your healthcare system. If the figures are wrong, find out from your staff why they are wrong. A bit of in-house work is therefore probably required at your end. The Minister also talked about my idealism and my being hypocritical — he made other swipes at me, which I will take — and he said that I had "quite the luxury". Minister, I remind you that you and other Ministers have the luxury of earning £90,000 a year. Some of our healthcare workers can only dream of earning a half or a third of that. I will not take any lectures from you or anybody else in the House about luxury. The Minister's Department has already broken pay parity by failing to implement this year's pay recommendation when it was announced. That is having a demoralising effect on workers. The effect that it is having on them cannot be overstated. They are sick and tired of being used as political pawns by the Executive and of the attitude of, "Yes, we'll clap for you and stand with a sign on the picket line with you, but when it comes to voting the right way — to back proper pay for you — we'll look the other way. We'll put our heads down". Nurses are using food banks. Some are homeless. Social care workers are out of pocket on travel. That is a disgraceful situation. The Minister cannot afford to pay our healthcare workers what they are owed, because he, as well as his predecessors, has already given the money to his mates in the private healthcare sector. Funnelling money away from the NHS into the private sector is a recipe for disaster. I urge Members to stop letting that happen. The first step to doing that is to back the amendment and then the motion as amended. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Gerry. I call Diana Armstrong to make a winding-up speech on the motion. Diana, you have up to 10 minutes. Ms D Armstrong: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome the motion, as well as the opportunity to make a winding-up speech on what is undoubtedly one of the most pressing and urgent issues facing the Northern Ireland Executive. Having spoken to health workers and their families across Fermanagh and South Tyrone, I know that patience is running out. Time and again, they tell me the same thing, which is that it is not just applause that they want but action. It is not just praise in speeches that they want but parity in pay. The principle of parity matters, and perhaps even more deeply in rural communities and rural constituencies such as mine, where recruiting and retaining staff is already a challenge. We must also be honest about the consequences of inaction. If the ever-increasing prospect of industrial action is realised, patients will suffer delays, families will face uncertainty and staff will be forced to make choices that no professional should have to make: to stand up for fairness or to deliver care under impossible strain. The Assembly cannot allow that situation to unfold. Each of us, regardless of which party we are in, made commitments to value our health workers. Now is the time to show that those commitments were not hollow words but promises that we intend to keep. Our health workers in Northern Ireland do the same job as their counterparts in London, Cardiff and Glasgow. They carry the same burdens. Why, then, should their pay packets say otherwise? Why should they be asked to do more for less? I thank everyone who took part in the debate. I will mention some of the comments that were raised. Seven Members contributed to the debate. It is undeniable that there is support and goodwill for our healthcare staff and a recognition that pay parity is needed. Gerry Carroll said that it: "should be accounted for in every year's Budget". Philip McGuigan, the Chair of the Health Committee, said that Sinn Féin is "committed to solving the problem" in the Executive and will continue to work to make pay parity a reality. Diane Dodds from Upper Bann stated that she is: "sad and angry that nurses are in this position." She hopes that the Finance Minister and the Health Minister can work together to resolve the issue. Mark Durkan from Foyle expressed his: "deep gratitude to ... our 'health heroes'" and talked about his recent visit to Altnagelvin. He also acknowledged the problems that can arise when workers who are on universal credit receive a lump sum, telling us how their money can be clawed back through the universal credit system. He appealed to the Minister to talk to the Finance Minister on that topic. Paula Bradshaw said that the BMA has stated: "the health service cannot continue to be run on the goodwill of staff." She also said that the pay award should be a matter of prioritisation for the Minister and his officials. She heard the Minister's response. Órlaithí Flynn mentioned her support for the motion and her party's unwavering commitment to the staff. She said that they deserve decent, fair pay and working conditions and that we owe the full spectrum of staff nothing less than what is rightfully theirs. Alan Robinson, a Member for East Londonderry, called health staff the "spine of the system" and said that the DUP supports the principle of pay parity, while recognising the financial challenges that exist in public services. My colleague Alan Chambers, a Member for North Down, said that it was shameful that our health sector has not received a pay award. I now turn to my concluding remarks. Pay parity is not an aspiration; it is a principle. It is a line in the sand that the Assembly must not cross, for, if nothing else, we all can remember only too well the consequences of what happens when it is crossed. We can either preside over a system where staff are asked to continue to wait for pay that, they know, they are entitled to, where patients continue to wait and where our workforce continues to feel abandoned, or the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly can grasp this moment to affirm pay parity, approve the ministerial direction request from my party colleague Minister Nesbitt and show our health workers that we stand with them. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much indeed, Diana. Question put, That the amendment be made. The Assembly divided: Ayes 40; Noes 28 AYES Dr Archibald, Ms K Armstrong, Mr Baker, Mr Blair, Mr Boylan, Ms Bradshaw, Miss Brogan, Mr Carroll, Mr Delargy, Mrs Dillon, Miss Dolan, Mr Durkan, Ms Egan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Finnegan, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Mrs Guy, Mr Honeyford, Mr Kearney, Mr Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mr McAleer, Miss McAllister, Mr McGlone, Mr McGuigan, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McMurray, Mr McNulty, Mrs Mason, Ms Mulholland, Ms Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Ms Nicholl, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs O'Neill, Ms Reilly, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Carroll, Mr Durkan NOES Mr Allen, Ms D Armstrong, Mr Beattie, Mr Bradley, Mr Brett, Mr Brooks, Ms Brownlee, Mr K Buchanan, Ms Bunting, Mr Butler, Mrs Cameron, Mr Chambers, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mrs Erskine, Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew, Mr Gaston, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Kingston, Mrs Little-Pengelly, Miss McIlveen, Mr Martin, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Robinson, Mr Stewart Tellers for the Noes: Mr Butler, Mr Chambers Ms Bradshaw acted as a proxy for Ms Nicholl. Mr Clarke acted as a proxy for Mrs Erskine. Question accordingly agreed to. Top 4.00 pm Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly reaffirms its commitment to the core principle of pay parity for our health workers; welcomes the Minister of Health’s prompt confirmation that, with Executive support, he was committed to delivering the 2025-26 pay award in line with the NHS Pay Review Body recommendations; accepts that, even with the significant levels of savings being generated across the health service, the delivery of the 2025-26 pay award requires broader Executive support and assistance; expresses deep regret that despite being over halfway through the financial year, and pay increases already implemented elsewhere across the UK, our health and social care (HSC) workers are still waiting to receive their pay increase; recognises that, unless a decision is taken imminently, Northern Ireland is rapidly facing the prospect of significant industrial action; notes that in the past five financial years, the total amount spent on private healthcare appointments by health and social care trusts totals at least £302,203,303, whilst the cost of implementing the 2025-26 pay award is estimated to be £200,000,000; calls on the Minister of Health to end the stealth privatisation of health and social care and use this funding to invest in fair pay for health and social care workers; and further calls on the Executive to urgently consider and approve the outstanding ministerial direction request from the Minister of Health for the implementation of the 2025-26 pay awards to the health and social care workforce. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Members, we will take our ease for a moment. Motion made: That the Assembly do now adjourn. — [Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken).] Adjournment Sliabh Beagh: Protection from Fires and Environmental Damage Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): In conjunction with the Business Committee, the Speaker has given Colm Gildernew leave to raise the matter of the protection of Sliabh Beagh from fires and environmental damage. Colm, you have up to 15 minutes. Mr Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. [Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.] I thank Members for joining me in the Chamber to discuss a really important topic. I also thank the Minister for attending. Ireland is known for its many beautiful landscapes. Our constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone is one of the best examples of what the island has to offer. One of the more scenic areas in our constituency is, of course, Sliabh Beagh, which spans the counties of Fermanagh, Tyrone and Monaghan. Sliabh Beagh is a Ramsar convention site, an area of special scientific interest (ASSI) and a conservation area. It is a unique area that offers many other protections for birds and wildlife. Sliabh Beagh spans 10,000 hectares in total, when the upland, forestry and almost 2,000 acres of protected wetland are included. Earlier this year, Sliabh Beagh was engulfed in some of the worst wildfires that the area has ever seen, with the NIEA estimating that up to one third of the region was damaged. The wildfires absolutely decimated much of the unique biodiversity of the region, including the habitats of many of our rare protected species, such as the hen harrier, Irish hare, red squirrel, skylark, curlew, golden plover and pine marten. Sliabh Beagh is the source and rising point of three of Ireland's 20 rivers that are designated as pristine, which indicates its importance as a source of water. Sliabh Beagh is a complex, unique and precious resource that contains many other endangered species of flora and fauna. The fires impacted on the local economy, as they greatly restricted tourism for a prolonged period. Sliabh Beagh has huge eco-tourism potential. I am delighted that £6 million has been awarded from the Shared Island Fund to develop the tourism potential of the area by attracting new visitors and increasing total spend there. However, if we are to have any hope of transforming the area into a dynamic driver of local economic prosperity, we need to find an innovative and permanent solution to the wildfires. The prevalence of wildfires is increasing throughout the North, and, indeed, the rest of the island and the world as a result of the warmer climate. Wildfires can be particularly hard to extinguish because of how fast they spread, and because the remote terrain is inaccessible for fire and rescue services. Last month, I attended a presentation in the Sliabh Beagh Hotel in County Monaghan, along with my colleague Cathy Bennett TD. Diana Armstrong was also there. We heard details of a proposed new fire prevention plan that is being developed by the River Blackwater Catchment Trust. The proposal includes the use of drones both to detect fires in the first instance and as a mechanism for spraying water on top of flames in remote and inaccessible areas. It is hoped that drones will also act as a deterrent to anyone who would seek to deliberately start a fire, which is a persistent problem in the Sliabh Beagh area. It must be said that it is also critical that privacy and data protection issues be fully addressed. Any proposal of this nature, involving greater surveillance, must be proportionate and not impact on people's privacy. However, it is important that we also use emerging technologies in a way that benefits our community and our environment. I have been struck by the potential of the plan to date. It could represent an innovative and modern solution to a persistent and difficult problem. I acknowledge the Minister's recently published peatlands policy. If he could outline how it might assist with the protection of Sliabh Beagh, I would be keen to hear it. In the time ahead, it will be important that the River Blackwater Catchment Trust and all relevant cross-border agencies and bodies, including the Sliabh Beagh Trust, local councils and other relevant groups, across the island and across counties, work together on the nature of the proposal so that it will be of huge benefit to all of us in the long run. Colleagues, we should also ensure that custodians of the land, environment and community, such as our farmers and rural dwellers, are meaningfully engaged and made fully active partners in the protection and potential of our beautiful landscape for many generations to come. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): All other Members who wish to speak will have approximately seven minutes. Ms D Armstrong: I thank my fellow constituency MLA Colm Gildernew for bringing forward this very important Adjournment topic today. I attended the same event as Colm in the Sliabh Beagh Hotel, which really raised my awareness of the issues facing the community in the protection of the landscape, species and habitat. Sliabh Beagh is a 9,000-hectare European designated site and area of special scientific interest straddling the Fermanagh-Monaghan border. The peatlands cover a total area of 3,000 hectares: 1,000 hectares in the Republic of Ireland and 2,000 hectares in Northern Ireland. The protection of peat uplands carries ramifications across our whole society. There are many environmental, societal, economic, cultural and tourism reasons why we must take their protection very seriously. Soberingly, half the peatland on Sliabh Beagh was burned in a wildfire last May. I well remember driving towards Fivemiletown from Belfast and seeing the skies lit up red and the palls of smoke. It is something that no one would want to see. Wildfires have significant financial implications. In the case of Sliabh Beagh, it took 200 firefighters to bring that blaze under control, at a cost to the public purse of £1 million. The impact of wildfire on peatland is not only financial. There is no cost that can be put on the catastrophic loss of ecology and biodiversity at Sliabh Beagh. The peatlands at Sliabh Beagh offer many great benefits, such as the storing of carbon, the regulation of water, and shelter for the Irish hare, the pine marten, the red grouse, the golden plover and the endangered hen harrier, amongst others. Healthy peatlands are good for our climate, reduce the risk of floods and support vibrant plant life. When peatlands are degraded and dry, the fire risk intensifies, as we saw at first hand in May. A startling report by the BBC this summer revealed that it could take thousands of years for Sliabh Beagh's peatlands to return to ecological health. I commend organisations such as the River Blackwater Catchment Trust, which is working to bring the ecosystem back and raise public awareness. I recently attended the stakeholder event, as Colm mentioned, at the Sliabh Beagh Hotel, which highlighted the importance of a coordinated approach to the prevention, detection and fighting of wildfires. I commend Roy Spence and Alan McCabe from the River Blackwater Catchment Trust for bringing those interested parties together to increase awareness and inform them of the priorities of the trust and the success that it has had in securing Shared Island funding and PEACE PLUS funding to protect the peatlands. The trust received funding to the tune of £6 million as part of the Shared Island Fund this year. That enabled the purchase of drone surveillance and infrared technology, which we saw demonstrated. Top 4.15 pm Restoring Sliabh Beagh, alongside other degrading peatlands, will require stronger enforcement and regulation, where needed, in order to prevent negligent fires and to increase education on the dangers that peatlands face. That will be done through better fire prevention interventions and raising the local community's awareness of the part that it can play in protecting that valuable asset. Protecting peatlands such as Sliabh Beagh is essential for our climate, for nature and for the community. I welcome the Minister's new peatlands strategy, and I will monitor its progress in restoring those vital ecosystems. In closing, I thank the Member for securing the Adjournment debate and again commend the River Blackwater Catchment Trust for the valuable work that it does. Ms Murphy: I thank my constituency colleague for bringing the Adjournment debate to the House. Sliabh Beagh is a site of ecological and cultural importance that spans County Tyrone, County Fermanagh and County Monaghan. It is a place of beauty, a space for recreation and an important part of our natural heritage. Beyond that, it is a vital part of our environment and of the public health infrastructure. When fires rip through peatlands, the damage goes far beyond the visible destruction. Peatlands are some of our most effective carbon sinks, locking away greenhouse gases that would otherwise accelerate climate change. When they burn, not only is that storage capacity lost but harmful emissions are released directly into the atmosphere. That is a huge price for society to pay for a moment of recklessness. That is why education is so important: so that people can understand just how dire the consequences are of lighting fires in protected areas. That must be followed by robust enforcement where any wrongdoing is detected. The destruction has a huge impact on rural communities. Many farmers and landowners around Sliabh Beagh already play their part by trying to protect the habitats as best as possible, including by reducing fire risk and managing the land responsibly. There is enormous potential to develop the Sliabh Beagh area into a driver of sustainable rural tourism. That is evidenced by the £5 million investment from the Shared Island Fund. Walking routes, eco-tourism and cultural heritage trails can bring much-needed investment into rural areas, creating jobs and income while safeguarding the environment. Protecting Sliabh Beagh is about climate control, but it is also about rural development and community pride. As we all know, resources are scarce in rural areas, so we need to ensure that communities are supported in their efforts to protect and develop such sites for the benefit of everyone, thereby ensuring that Sliabh Beagh can achieve its potential and remain a thriving landscape for generations to come. Ms Forsythe: I thank the Member for bringing the Adjournment debate to the House. In May, the peatland at Sliabh Beagh suffered major damage from a wildfire that had been set deliberately. Although I am not a representative for the area, I know all too well the damage that wildfires can cause. Recently, following significant fires in the Mournes, I met the PSNI, the Fire and Rescue Service and a local search and rescue charity, Sky Watch NI. I had the deputy First Minister out in the wake of those fires. Recent fires have caused untold damage to biodiversity, wildlife and natural habitats in the Sliabh Beagh area. Without dedicated and professional efforts, the devastation could have been much worse. I pay tribute to all our emergency services. With over 25 firefighters and five pumping appliances deployed, the fire still managed to damage one third of Sliabh Beagh significantly. As has been said, peat fires differ from other wildfires, because the peat can burn underground for days or even weeks. They are harder to extinguish and cause more destruction. I have heard about the work of the River Blackwater Catchment Trust, which Diana mentioned. I have read about some of its work on turning to drone technology as a potential solution for monitoring and protecting the area. It has trialled thermal-imaging surveillance drones. Once a fire is detected, those drones can transmit real-time high-resolution images. The early warning system is designed to accelerate response times. The trust plans to trial large agricultural spraying drones that could dampen fires before they spread. That technology is very much in the experimental phase, but we should collectively support any innovation that could combat the problem and look at how it might be rolled out across Northern Ireland. We support a multi-agency approach to tackling wildfires, and we have seen our emergency services in action this year. Once ignited, the fires spread rapidly, putting life, property and wildlife at risk. As someone who lives close to the foot of the Mournes, I see the rate at which some of those significant fires descend on people's homes, and it is, frankly, terrifying. It is important that we rededicate our attention here to continuing the work that was ongoing prior to this fire to maintain the environment and biodiversity in the area. Therefore, it will be critical to measure the full extent of the impact on our environment in order to scope an appropriate response and restoration interventions. DAERA and the NIEA must work proactively to assess the damage fully. However, tragically, it is likely to take decades to recover from the loss incurred in biodiversity and the environment. Stopping the fires should also be a key driver in the response. Enforcement and legislation must be strengthened to deal with the problem. We cannot afford to take our environment for granted, particularly given its importance to tourism and our local communities. We are also supportive of examining the potential for a greater use of firebreaks to limit future damage. Under-grazing can lead to gorse drying off and posing a risk of wildfires that would stretch across a far wider area than the two metres that would be removed to create a firebreak. Again, I thank the Member for tabling this important debate in the House. In representing rural constituencies with specific issues, it is an incredibly important issue to bring to the Floor of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister on it. Mr Blair: I also thank Colm Gildernew for raising this important issue for today's Adjournment debate. As we move into colder and wetter months, it is understandable that our concerns about wildfires might diminish or be replaced by more seasonal issues, such as flooding or adverse weather conditions. However, the impact of wildfires on our natural environment does not fade with the seasons. Every wildfire, no matter how small, leaves a lasting and detrimental mark on our species and habitats. It is deeply troubling and unacceptable that many if not most wildfires are caused deliberately. The devastation to our environment, our wildlife and our plant life is serious and long-lasting. I express my sincere gratitude to the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service, as well as to everyone else who put their lives at risk to tackle recent wildfires and to all those who worked so hard to restore our natural environment in their aftermath. This year alone, more than 25 firefighters were deployed to tackle the fire at Sliabh Beagh, yet, despite their efforts, one third of that crucial area was significantly damaged in May. The River Blackwater Catchment Trust has warned us that it could take thousands of years for the peatland destroyed by fires at Sliabh Beagh to return to what would be regarded as ecological health. The bog is not only vital for biodiversity but serves as the home of the endangered hen harrier. The peatlands themselves are crucial habitats that lock away carbon, supporting our climate goals. When healthy, they also act as natural water filters, improving the quality of our lakes and rivers. For all those reasons, we must do everything in our power to protect and restore those vital ecosystems. I am pleased to note that protecting peatlands from wildfires is a clear priority in the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs' recently published peatlands strategy. Across agencies, there is innovation and collaboration. The River Blackwater Catchment Trust, for example, is now exploring new ways to tackle wildfires, such as utilising drones. The Northern Ireland Environment Agency is prepared with specialist wildfire vehicles and has expert staff available to advise and support wildfire response efforts, as happened at Sliabh Beagh. In June, departmental officials visited the Sliabh Beagh area of special scientific interest to assess the impact. While the damage is extensive, officials believe that, given time and freedom from further pressures, such as heavy grazing, the area will eventually recover. The Department will continue, I understand, to monitor the situation, providing ongoing support and guidance. However, another fire like this year's fire could be the final blow for the site. Ultimately, a joined-up approach across government agencies, landowners and farmers is essential, if we are to prevent wildfires or to respond as effectively as possible when they occur. Dissuading people from deliberately setting destructive fires at Sliabh Beagh or anywhere else in Northern Ireland must be an absolute priority. Deliberately setting a wildfire on a site of special scientific importance where rare species and fragile habitats are endangered is simply a crime against nature. Looking ahead, we await the publication of a wildfire strategy. Hopefully, when published, it can progress without delay. The hard work on implementing real measures to limit the effects of wildfires must begin before the next wildfire season. Let us all remember this message after the debate and carry it outside the Chamber: safeguarding our natural environment is the responsibility not just of government and agencies but of every individual in our society. Fostering a culture of awareness and respect for our ecosystems will ensure that we sustain a resilient, diverse and thriving landscape for current and future generations to enjoy. Mr McNulty: I rise to highlight the urgent need for greater protection of Sliabh Beagh, one of our most important natural landscapes, from the twin threats of fire and environmental damage. Sliabh Beagh is not just a border upland stretching across Tyrone, Monaghan and Fermanagh; it is a living, breathing ecosystem. Its blanket bogs are a critical carbon store; its woodlands and wetlands are home to rare species; and its open hills are part of our shared ecological heritage. It is a place where people walk, farm and connect with nature, yet, year after year, it comes under attack from fire and neglect. We have seen devastating wildfires in recent years that have destroyed hectares of precious bogland. Those fires are not just accidents of nature; many are caused deliberately. When the bog burns, centuries of stored carbon is released back into the atmosphere, wildlife is killed and the land is left scarred for decades. For the communities around Aughnacloy, Emyvale and Knockatallon, those fires bring fear, damage livelihoods and are destructive to the natural assets that should be protected for future generations. Environmental damage also comes in less visible but equally destructive forms such as illegal dumping, reckless off-road vehicle use and the draining of bogland, which undermines its ability to store water and carbon. All that weakens the land, increases flood risk downstream and chips away at the ecological and wildlife assets that should be cherished and protected. What needs to be done? First, there must be a clear cross-border protection strategy for Sliabh Beagh. That upland does not respect county or jurisdictional lines. A coordinated approach between DAERA, the National Parks and Wildlife Service in the South, local councils and community groups is the only way to ensure effective prevention, monitoring and enforcement. Secondly, we need enhanced fire prevention and rapid response capacity. That means supporting the Fire and Rescue Service, farmers and local volunteers with the resources to act quickly, alongside stronger penalties for those who deliberately light fires. Thirdly, there must be long-term investment in restoration. Re-wetting drained bogs, planting native trees and supporting sustainable farm practices will help protect biodiversity while locking in carbon. Those measures are not just good for the environment but are cost-effective climate actions that are good for humanity. Finally, education and awareness are key. Sliabh Beagh can and should be promoted as a place of pride, a place for responsible tourism and a shared natural heritage. If local communities are empowered and supported, they will be the strongest defenders of the landscape. The fires that rage across Sliabh Beagh are more than flames on a hillside. They are a symbol of how fragile our environment has become. If the Executive are serious about tackling climate change, protecting biodiversity and supporting rural communities, the priority must be safeguarding places such as Sliabh Beagh. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Minister, you have up to 10 minutes. Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker. I thank Colm for bringing the Adjournment debate on what is a very important issue. We know, as has been referenced, that wildfires are, sadly, not unique to Northern Ireland. In the past year, we have seen wildfires across the UK, Ireland, Europe and beyond. Hotter, drier summers as a result of climate change are exacerbating the risks posed by wildfires in Northern Ireland. That is yet another reason why we cannot afford further dither and delay in climate action. The devastating impact of wildfires on our communities and precious landscapes is too great. Top 4.30 pm Despite what some say, Northern Ireland is not immune to the impacts of climate change. It is essential that we redouble our efforts to tackle climate change for sake of the health and well-being of our communities and economy. To tackle wildfires head-on, a truly collaborative and collective approach is needed from government and stakeholders. DAERA cannot do this alone: it requires everyone to work together. A significant fire started on Sliabh Beagh on Wednesday 7 May of this year and was extinguished on Saturday 10 May. The fire was started deliberately at multiple locations across the site and impacted on nearly 8 square kilometres, making it the biggest fire recorded in Northern Ireland's history, ravaging what many would agree is the most beautiful and special part of Ireland. The fire affected approximately 90% of the ASSI protected zone. Northern Ireland Environment Agency wildfire all-terrain vehicles were deployed on day 1 and remained on site throughout the incident. I put on record my thanks to officials from the Environment Agency, the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service and everyone else. Minister Nesbitt and I met Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service personnel a while ago in Lisburn and gave our thanks to the staff for the work that they do to respond to such wildfires, not just in Sliabh Beagh but in many other places across Northern Ireland. In the case of Sliabh Beagh, there was excellent North/South cooperation. I thank my partners in the South for how they engaged and responded. The Police Service of Northern Ireland was in attendance and deployed its helicopter during part of the incident for vigilance. I encourage anyone with any information on the fire to report it to the police or to Crimestoppers. In the wake of this appalling act, I warmly welcome the enthusiasm shown by local stakeholders to come up with potential solutions to help support recovery and prevent the number and severity of future fires. A conservation management plan was previously prepared for the Sliabh Beagh special area of conservation as part of the Collaborative Action for the Natura Network INTERREG project. The Peat+ project, led by Ulster Wildlife, was recently successful in PEACE PLUS funding, has won awards for biodiversity, nature recovery and resilience and includes conservation initiatives to boost wildfire management planning and habitat works in the area. I really welcome that. We cannot, however, talk about Sliabh Beagh without referencing the wider context and challenges of wildfires in Northern Ireland. I am committed to playing my part, and I am glad to confirm that the new wildfires strategic framework was recently agreed by the Executive. It will be launched soon, once we get all government agencies and relevant stakeholders together to launch the plan and work in collaboration to deliver the action plan that will arise from it. Future wildfire efforts from all stakeholders will be focused on the objectives of prevention, preparedness, response, recovery and enforcement. Publication of the strategic framework will enable the development of a focused and detailed wildfire action plan. We must agree that together. The action plan will therefore be co-designed to align with and ensure delivery of the strategic objectives within the wildfire strategic framework. I am keen to see all stakeholders, including those at Sliabh Beagh, come together and engage in this process to design and implement the action plan. Key action from the strategic framework should be to enhance public knowledge of the risks that wildfires pose, in particular to public health. Hopefully, if people are aware of those risks, they will think twice before starting a fire. Another action must be the development and implementation of wildfire management and response plans in high-risk areas. The management plans will aim to make the landscape more resilient to large-scale wildfires, and the response plans will facilitate efficient responses to incidents. Land management is absolutely key to creating more resilient landscapes. Examples of that are the intrinsic links between climate change, biodiversity decline and water quality. Peatland restoration is a great example of a key intervention that delivers win-win outcomes for society. Re-wetting peatland reduces fire risk, while creating important habitats to support nature recovery; acts as a carbon sink, reducing our emissions; and provides natural filtration of water to improve our waterways. That is why the publication of Northern Ireland's first peatland strategy is such a game changer. We launched it last week. It is on the DAERA website, and we encourage people to have a look. Our efforts to incentivise nature-friendly farming through the Farming with Nature initiative is another example of win-win land management policy. Supporting farmers to better manage existing habitats and introduce new habitats for nature recovery, again, has knock-on positive benefits for water, climate and increasing resilience to wildfires. That combination of measures should hopefully reduce the extent and severity of wildfires, should they occur. When we talk about wildfires, we need to be conscious that so many are deliberately set. I have no hesitation in calling them what they are: acts of rural arson. We need to call time on it. It is wrong. Deliberately and maliciously setting fires destroys our environment, takes firefighters and other resources away and puts homes and lives at risk. Moreover, people who set such fires are not being held to account. That needs to end. Those who are shielding the culprits need to come forward, ring the police or Crimestoppers, tell us who did it and be prepared to give evidence in court. I ask this of everyone: if you are aware of anyone who has been involved in deliberately and maliciously setting fires in our countryside, come forward before someone is killed or seriously injured. I thank those involved in the community effort in response to the devastating incident that occurred at Sliabh Beagh. I express my commitment to work collectively with my Executive colleagues and stakeholders to shape a way forward in delivering the strategic framework for wildfires. We hope to launch that framework soon. I want to get people together and brief them on it. If we work collaboratively on the issue, we can turn a corner on it. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I thank Colm, the Minister and Members who took part in the Adjournment debate this afternoon. Adjourned at 4.36 pm. Top
[ni-assembly-official-report][plenary_report] Official Reports https://aims.niassembly.gov.uk/officialreport/report.aspx?&eveDate=2025/09/22&docID=449815 Official Report: Monday 22 September 2025 Table of Contents Speakers Business Executive Committee Business Assembly Members (Remuneration Board) Bill: Royal Assent Agriculture Bill: Royal Assent Assembly Business Committee Deputy Chairperson Appointment Matter of the Day British Governments Recognition of the Palestinian State Members Statements Gaza: Páistí Scoile a Maraíodh/Schoolchildren Killed Legacy of the Troubles: Victims Public Office (Accountability) Bill Legacy Night Buses Womens Health: Ovarian Cancer Public-sector Pay Good Friday Agreement Heather Humphreys Anti-poverty Strategy Jonathan Rea Unpaid Rates Ministerial Statement Non-Domestic Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme: Closure Opposition Business A5 Western Transport Corridor Scheme Oral Answers to Questions The Executive Office Economy Questions for Urgent Oral Answer Health Communities Opposition Business A5 Western Transport Corridor Scheme Assembly Business Standing Order 10(3A): Extension of Sitting Health: Question for Urgent Oral Answer Opposition Business Hate: Executive Approach CAR T-cell Therapy The Assembly met at 12:00 pm (Madam Principal Deputy Speaker [Ms Ní Chuilín] in the Chair). Members observed two minutes' silence. Speaker's Business Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Before we begin the first item of business, I have a few announcements to make. I inform Members that the Speaker is unwell, so he will not be in the Chamber today. He hopes to be back tomorrow. Executive Committee Business Assembly Members (Remuneration Board) Bill: Royal Assent Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Assembly Members (Independent Remuneration Board) Bill received Royal Assent on 16 September 2025. It will be known as the Assembly Members (Independent Remuneration Board) Act (Northern Ireland) 2025, and it is chapter 5. Agriculture Bill: Royal Assent Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Agriculture Bill received Royal Assent on 16 September 2025. It will be known as the Agriculture Act (Northern Ireland) 2025, and it is chapter 6. Assembly Business Committee Deputy Chairperson Appointment Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I advise Members that Diane Forsythe has been appointed Deputy Chair of the Public Accounts Committee effective from Tuesday 16 September. Congratulations to Diane. Matter of the Day British Government's Recognition of the Palestinian State Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Gerry Carroll has been given leave to make a statement on the British Government's recognition of the Palestinian state that fulfils the criteria that are set out in Standing Order 24. If other Members wish to be called, they should rise in their place and continue to do so. All Members who are called will have up to three minutes to speak on the subject. I remind Members that interventions are not permitted, and I will not take any points of order on this or any other matter until the item of business has finished. Mr Carroll: Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker, for selecting this Matter of the Day, and I send my best wishes to the Speaker. There is no doubt that the British Government's decision to recognise an independent Palestinian state is a significant and welcome move. We should not forget that the state that had chief responsibility for sponsoring and bringing Israel into existence as a state is Britain itself. Let us not forget that, for over 30 years, prior to the creation of Israel as a state, Britain sponsored the destruction of homes and villages, the mass expulsion of hundreds of thousands of people and eventually the expansion and creation of the apartheid state, which refused to recognise Palestinians, except when trying to take their homes and land and expel them. This is no doubt a welcome move. However, while symbols can be important in politics and life, Palestinians need a lot more than symbolism today and in the weeks ahead. The former Israeli ambassador to France warned Emmanuel Macron recently: "if immediate sanctions are not imposed on Israel, you will end up recognising a cemetery." That is what is in front of us. That is what is in front of and faces Palestinians. Yesterday's announcement needs to be followed quite swiftly by action from the British Government. We cannot have a situation whereby we have a fractured, Bantustan-like Palestinian state starved of resources and support. Next door, meanwhile, we have Israel, one of the most heavily armed, militarised states in the world, and Israel being allowed still to exist as an apartheid state, practising ethnic cleansing, implementing genocide and wreaking havoc across the Middle East whilst having a nuclear armoury. Recognition of a Palestine state cannot be seen as an attempt by the British Government or other Western Governments to absolve themselves from having backed Israel's war to the hilt, which they have done. They backed the efforts to starve Palestinians. They backed the efforts to bomb Palestinians to smithereens. Britain —— maybe this is some of Keir Starmer's thinking — has a legal duty to prevent genocide. The announcement yesterday, whilst important and welcome, will not protect Keir Starmer or others who have backed Israel to the hilt. In the past 24 hours, there has been a lot of talk of rewarding terrorism and whether that decision is not about rewarding terrorism. Israel has been the key driver of terrorism since 1948 and before, wreaking havoc right across the Middle East. What we need to see now is action from the British Government and the Executive to refuse to give any public money to companies that are involved in making weapons for Israel, to implement sanctions against Israel — Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Gerry. Mr Carroll: — and to expel all diplomats from these islands. Mr Sheehan: There was a Palestinian state in existence before the Balfour declaration and a Palestinian state there before the establishment of an Israeli state. In one sense, the Palestinian people do not need affirmation from the British Government that there is a legitimate Palestinian state. However, all we can hope is that that is a small step towards more concrete actions rather than the British Government attempting to cover their own back for complicity in the genocide that is currently taking place in Gaza and the West Bank. The British Government should now stop all arms and weapons going to Israel. You cannot claim to be appalled by what is happening in Gaza and, at the same time, supply the bombs and missiles that are being used to blow women and children to pieces. It is time for all countries to come together now and isolate that rogue, genocidal state. We had the report from the UN Commission. We recently heard from the International Association of Genocide Scholars that what is taking place in Gaza is a genocide. We had already heard that from B’Tselem, an Israeli human rights organisation; Jews for Justice for Palestinians; Amnesty International; and Human Rights Watch. We did not need all that. Anyone who looks at the situation there and is honest will say that genocide is taking place. We need now, all of us in the international community, to bring in a campaign of sanctions and boycott on Israel in the same way that the apartheid regime in South Africa was isolated internationally, and that, eventually, brought an end to that particular egregious regime. I say now to the British Government and the other states that have decided to recognise Palestine, "Don't stop at this point. Let's take action that will save lives. End the genocide. Free Palestine now." Mr Martin: Over the weekend, the Prime Minister recognised a state of Palestine. Using the established criteria for the recognition of a state — the Montevideo convention — it failed most if not all of those criteria. It clearly lacks a Government who are capable of exercising authority over their territory; a defined territory; and a settled population. Recognition was supposed to be at a critical point for political negotiations for a long-term solution in the region, but we are nowhere near that, and the recognition will make no beneficial difference. It will not ease the suffering of anyone in Gaza or, on the admission of the Government, feed a single child. It is deeply imbalanced and, incredibly, requires nothing of Hamas or the Palestinian Authority. Most disgracefully, it does not even gain the release of the remaining hostages. It will now be banked by Hamas as justification for the 7 October massacre. It will not advance peace or a lasting solution. Notwithstanding the political expeditiousness of the decision, as Thomas Hand, the father of one of the female Jewish hostages taken on October 7, said this morning on 'Good Morning Ulster', it could have been used for peace rather than for rewarding terror. The Prime Minister could have used it to gain the release of the remaining hostages, but, rather, the decision rewards terrorism. The Hostages and Missing Families Forum, an organisation that represents relatives of Jewish hostages with British ties, has also condemned the decision, calling it a: "betrayal of humanity and a move that rewards Hamas while 48 hostages remain in captivity". That group said in a statement: "Instead of confronting Hamas, Britain has emboldened it". Thankfully, someone is happy: Mahmoud Mardawi, a senior Hamas official. He said that it is: "a victory for Palestinian rights and the justice of our cause" and would send a clear message to Israel. In conclusion, I categorically state that the decision by the Labour Government is appalling, but I also reflect that this is a Labour Government to whom the TUV wants to hand complete power and authority in Northern Ireland for the next four years. A sensible move for unionists? Perhaps it is turkeys voting for Christmas. Ms Bradshaw: Thank you to Gerry for bringing the Matter of the Day to the Chamber. I rise to reflect on the UK's recognition of the Palestinian state, which was accompanied by recognition by Portugal. We expect France to follow today. I appreciate some of the concerns about recognising a state that does not have a functioning Administration. Nevertheless, the president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, on a recent visit to Stormont, correctly described a two-state solution as the only game in town. Hamas, of course, rejects a two-state solution, and it is important that any recognition should be about promoting and supporting a two-state solution: a safe, democratic Palestine and a safe, democratic Israel. We also have to be clear that the Israeli Government, acting contrary to the wishes of the Israeli people, according to surveys going back many months and contrary to the expressed views of many Israeli military leaders, are continuing a war with the objective of ending any prospect of that outcome. It is our position that both Palestinians and Israelis have the right to self-determination, dignity and statehood; indeed, that should never have been conditional. Recognition is fundamentally a symbolic act, of course. It is an important one but also one that needs to be followed with consistent resultant action. A two-state solution is also hindered by building illegal settlements, and we also need to see immediate access to humanitarian aid for Gaza, including via the border with Egypt, which is currently under Israeli control. Most of all, we must reflect on our common humanity. The endless cycle of war and violence, including crimes against humanity, will only breed suffering for the current generation and hatred in the next one. The route to peace, as ever, is through dialogue, not violence. Top 12.15 pm Dr Aiken: First of all, I wish the Speaker a speedy recovery, and I wish our many Jewish friends and colleagues a happy Rosh Hashana. On 21 September, the Prime Minister announced the recognition of the Palestinian state. He did so without preconditions, and his remarks have been severely criticised, not least by our Chief Rabbi, Ephraim Mirvis, who stated that the British Government's recognition was: "not contingent upon a functioning or democratic Palestinian government, nor even upon the most basic commitment to a peaceful future. It does not require an end to the shameful payment of stipends to the families of terrorists, nor the reform of an education system that teaches children to hate Jews. Astonishingly, it is not even conditional upon the release of the 48 hostages who remain in captivity." However, the Prime Minister's remarks have been warmly welcomed by none other than Hamas and its fellow travellers, who said that the result was: "one of the fruits of October 7". To say that the Prime Minister's decision is a historic error is an understatement. It was a cynical attempt by the leader of the Labour Party to shore up his ever-weakening electoral position. Doing that, whilst ignoring calls from the United States, Germany — it should know — and Italy, which have all stood firm against terrorism, is worse than expediency. Mr Starmer has now secured his place in history for all the wrong reasons. There were at least 48 reasons to stand firm. Every one of those hostages who is still alive and the families of those who were murdered need to be on the Prime Minister's conscience. His approach is not leadership but appeasement. I had hoped that our Prime Ministers had learned from the hard lessons of history 87 years ago in Munich. The Prime Minister's approach has been recognised not just by Hamas but by every other terrorist group or dictatorship, as showing that, under his leadership, our nation has lost its moral compass. Ms McLaughlin: The British Government's decision to recognise the state of Palestine was long overdue. After months of bombardment, the starvation of the entire population and the deliberate destruction of civilian life, the recognition is not a triumph; it is the bare minimum owed to a people whose very existence is under threat. The Palestinian people are not Hamas; they are families enduring famine, children buried under rubble and parents searching for food and safety. They are a nation, the rights of which have been denied for generations. Keir Starmer admitted: "The hope of a two-state solution is fading", yet only now has he acted. He insists that the recognition is not a reward for terrorism and that all hostages must be released. Those are important points, but they cannot erase the fact that Britain has been painfully slow to respond while civilians have been starved and killed. Israel's Prime Minister condemned the decision as "absurd" and as "a reward for terrorism", but the real absurdity is the fact that the international community has allowed the humanitarian catastrophe to continue, while warnings from United Nations experts that Israel's actions in Gaza amount to genocide go unheeded, including by the UK Government. Recognition means nothing, if it is not followed by urgent action: an immediate and lasting ceasefire, unrestricted humanitarian aid and accountability for those who violated international law. The world must insist on an end to the illegal occupation and on a future in which Palestinians and Israelis can live in dignity and security. It is not about political gestures; it is about saving lives now. Mr Gaston: The Prime Minister's announcement on Sunday that the United Kingdom now recognises a Palestinian state was and is shameful. Let us remember the context. The genesis of that announcement lies in the events of 7 October 2023. On that day, the Jewish people suffered the largest massacre since the Holocaust. Civilians were slaughtered. Men, women and children were butchered without regard for age or sex. What is the response of the Government? It is to reward that savagery and hand victory to Hamas. That decision has nothing to do with peace in the Middle East and everything to do with Labour party politics. It opens the door to a Palestinian embassy in London, with all the privileges. What is most concerning is that it gives diplomatic immunity for officials. Think of the dangers that that brings. What has Hamas given in return? Absolutely nothing; not even the release of Israeli hostages who have now endured over 600 days in captivity — 600 days without even the most basic humanitarian concerns. Of course, that does not trouble the Member who brought the matter before the House. While women were being raped, families torn apart and civilians massacred, what was he doing? Mr Carroll was tweeting, "Victory to the Palestinian Resistance". Recognition of a Palestinian state is not a step towards peace; it is a betrayal of the only democracy in the Middle East and the people who are on the front line against Islamic extremism. It is a shameful act by a discredited Government whom the people of the UK are waiting eagerly to kick out of office. Mr Brett: The move by Keir Starmer to recognise the Palestinian state does more damage to a lasting solution in the Middle East than he could ever dream of. His decision was not about finding a lasting solution in the Middle East but about placating the loony left-wing members of his party. It was about that age-old Labour Party tradition of rewarding terrorism and those who engage in violence. Let us be very clear: we have heard remarks in the Chamber about the greatness of recognising the Palestinian state, but no remarks from those very people about the horrendous acts of terrorism by Hamas on 7 October. The truth is that those Members do not want the state of Israel to exist. They do not want our Jewish community across the world to feel respected. My party will never placate or reward terrorists. On Wednesday evening, I had the privilege of being at the Belfast synagogue, where hundreds of people joined together to raise funds to rebuild the kibbutzim that were bombed and shot at, and where people were raped and taken into captivity. I heard a message from one victim who lost her husband and children on that day. They know that the people of Belfast and Northern Ireland stand with them and not with the terrorists of Hamas. The decision that the Prime Minister has taken will not advance the cause of finding peace, but will further embolden the terrorists of Hamas to continue to try to destroy the state of Israel. Let me be very clear: my party stands with Israel and its right to defend itself. We will not allow those who continue to justify terrorism to succeed. Members' Statements Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: If Members wish to be called to make a statement, they should indicate that by rising in their place. Members who are called will have up to three minutes to make their statement. I remind Members that interventions are not permitted and I will not take any points of order on this or any other matter until the item of business has finished. Gaza: Páistí Scoile a Maraíodh/Schoolchildren Killed "Scríobhann sí m’ainm orm ionas go mbeifear ábalta mo ghéaga a bhailiú má bhuamálann siad muid." Mr Sheehan: Sin na focail a chan cailín óg ó Gaza sa ghearrscannán ‘Soft Skin’. Bhí páistí scoile in Gaza ag caint sa scannán ar an nós atá anois ag máithreacha in Gaza. Scríobhfaidh na máithreacha ainm an pháiste ar lámh nó ar chos an pháiste sula bhfágann an páiste an teach. "Aoibhinn beatha an scoláire," ach ní in Gaza. Bhí an Lá Idirnáisiúnta chun an tOideachas a Chosaint ar an Ionsaí ann tá coicís ó shin. Bliain is an t-am seo, thug mé óráid uaim ar an ábhar chéanna. Thug mé staitisticí agus fíricí faoi líon na mac léinn, na múinteoirí agus na léachtóirí ar mharaigh fórsaí Iosrael iad. Thug mé cuntas ar na scoileanna agus na hollscoileanna ar scrios fórsaí Iosrael iad. Thug mé le fios go raibh an scrios Iosraelach ar an oideachas chomh holc sin gur cheap na Náisiúin Aontaithe focal dó, mar a bhí: an léinn-díothú. I ndiaidh dom bheith ag éisteacht le cuid de na hargóintí a rinneadh sa Teach seo le gairid, nuair a chuala mé cuid de na Comhaltaí go fóill ag dul ar leithscéal Iosrael, ag dul ar leithscéal Iosrael as páistí a mharú agus iad ag iarraidh oideachas a fháil agus ag dul ar leithscéal Iosrael as mná a scaoileadh agus iad ag fanacht le bia a fháil, thuig mé faoi dheireadh go bhfuil cuid de na Comhaltaí ar nós cuma liom faoi fhíricí. Féadann Jews for Justice for Palestinians, B’Tselem, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch agus na Náisiúin Aontaithe, féadann siad uilig go léir uafáis Iosrael a chur ar a súile dóibh, agus tabharfaidh na Comhaltaí sin an chluas bhodhar do na fíricí. Níl ann ach gairm in aghaidh gaoithe do dhuine ar bith a bheith ag trácht ar an 15,000 mac léinn atá anois marbh in Gaza de dheasca ionsaithe Iosrael. Ní dhéanfaidh sé lá difir do na Comhaltaí sin. Déanfaidh siad leithscéal eile d’Iosrael, dá áiféisí. "Scríobhann sí m’ainm orm ionas go mbeifear ábalta mo ghéaga a bhailiú má bhuamálann siad muid." Sin mar atá ag páistí scoile in Gaza de dheasca ionsaithe Iosrael. "Aoibhinn beatha an scoláire," ach ní in Gaza, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle. Ní in Gaza. [Translation: "She writes my name on me so that they can collect my limbs if they bomb us." Those were the words spoken by a young girl from Gaza in the short film ‘Soft Skin’. In the film, schoolchildren in Gaza speak about the custom that mothers in Gaza now have. Mothers will write the child’s name on the child’s arm or leg before the child leaves the house. "Sweet is the scholar’s life," but not in Gaza. A fortnight ago, we marked the International Day to Protect Education from Attack. This time last year, I gave a speech on the same subject. I gave statistics and facts about the number of students, teachers and lecturers killed by Israeli forces. I gave an account of the schools and universities that Israeli forces have destroyed. I pointed out that the Israeli destruction of education was so bad that the United Nations had coined a word for it: scholasticide. After listening to some of the arguments made in the House recently, when I heard Members still making excuses for Israel, making excuses for Israel killing children trying to get an education and making excuses for Israel shooting women waiting to get food, I finally realised that some Members simply do not care about facts. Jews for Justice for Palestinians, B’Tselem, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the United Nations can all point out Israel’s atrocities, yet those Members will turn a deaf ear to the facts. It is a waste of breath to mention the 15,000 students killed in Gaza as a result of Israeli attacks. It makes not a button of difference to those Members. They will make another excuse for Israel, no matter how absurd. "She writes my name on me so that they can gather my limbs if they bomb us." That is life for schoolchildren in Gaza as a result of Israeli attacks. "Sweet is the scholar’s life," but not in Gaza, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Not in Gaza.] Legacy of the Troubles: Victims Mr Brett: The weekend brought yet another dark day for truth and justice in Northern Ireland. For decades, innocent victims have, time and time again, been promised fairness, only to be denied justice. The Belfast Agreement was sold as a new beginning, but, from the outset, justice was corrupted. Victims watched as the gates to prisons were thrown open and saw their pain ignored. Republicans on the run were handed secret letters of comfort from Tony Blair, while the families of their victims were left in torment. We have seen the shameful spectacle of victim makers being celebrated and eulogised, with our "First Minister for all" telling us that there was no alternative to IRA violence. That is not justice but a betrayal of justice. When others turned their back on them, my party stood up for innocent victims and ensured that there would be a victims' pension for those harmed by terrorists during the Troubles. Once again, however, victims are being betrayed. We see a new so-called legacy deal with the Irish Government. That is another political stitch-up that has been designed not to deliver truth but to rewrite history. For years, Dublin has failed to cooperate with Omagh bombing investigations and refused to come clean about its collusion with the Provisional IRA. That is a national disgrace. Now, instead of the Labour Party standing up to Dublin and standing with victims, it has outsourced legacy to the Irish Republic. Let me be clear: the Labour Party has no interest in victims. Its record is one of equating victims with victim makers, of announcing one-sided public inquiries and of bending to republican demands, yet some would happily hand over the future of Northern Ireland to that Government. Top 12.30 pm Let me say this with absolute clarity: the DUP will never support arrangements that bury the truth, elevate terrorists above their victims or condemn the victims of terrorism to the shadows. We will stand firmly with the innocent victims. Be it London, Dublin or anywhere else, this party will continue to call out the rank hypocrisy of those who do down the victims of our past. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Before I call Nuala McAllister, I ask Members to rise in their seat if they wish to make a statement. Public Office (Accountability) Bill Miss McAllister: Last week, there was a monumental occasion in Westminster with the introduction of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, which most of us know as the "Hillsborough law". The legislation will introduce an individual duty of candour for all public officials and authorities that will ensure that there is a legal duty on everyone to be open and honest when mistakes are made. We all know that the Bill comes off the back of the campaigning by the Hillsborough families and the wider community, which saw the tragedy of 97 people losing their lives. I thank Ian Byrne MP, with whom my colleague Sorcha Eastwood and I have worked closely over the past year to ensure that Northern Ireland's voices are not lost in the Hillsborough law. I also thank the campaigners who have fought so tirelessly over the years. In Northern Ireland, we are all too familiar with institutional cover-ups. In recent years, we have learned of more scandals and cover-ups and a lack of truth and accountability. In my role as a member of the Health Committee and the Policing Board, I have engaged with victims and those with family members who were damaged, injured or lost their life. From Muckamore through to the cervical smear scandal and from the tragedy surrounding the murder of Katie Simpson to the families of Adam Strain, Raychel Ferguson, Claire Roberts and Conor Mitchell — the children who lost their lives due to hyponatraemia — those who have, unfortunately, lived through the consequences of a cover-up are united in their call for greater transparency and accountability from public officials, whether they be health workers, police officers or others. An individual duty to be open and honest when mistakes are made has consistently been recommended after inquiries in Northern Ireland and the wider UK. I recognise that there is work to be done to get all of the workforce across the entire public sector on board, but we have to be honest about saying that this law does not mean punishment for making a mistake: it means that there should be no cover-ups. To close, I thank every family that has been impacted by institutional cover-ups, whether it was the Hillsborough disaster, Muckamore or hyponatraemia or whether they were patients of Dr Watt. It has never been more important to work together. You will never walk alone. Legacy Mr Burrows: I want to address, in very introductory terms, the legacy agreement reached between the United Kingdom Government and the Government of the Republic of Ireland. So many people were murdered and maimed in our Troubles, and so many more, perhaps too many to quantify, have been affected by mental ill health and other suffering. We owe it to those victims to give any consideration serious and solemn reflection. That is what we in the Ulster Unionist Party will do, but we will have some guiding principles. First, we will be informed mostly by the victims. Too often in our peace process, the needs of perpetrators have come first and those of victims have come second. Blind eyes were turned to violence for the greater good, if you define the "greater good" as ignoring violence. Blind eyes were turned to punishment shootings so that they did not upset the apple cart of negotiations. That cannot continue, so we will be guided by victims' needs and not by the needs of perpetrators. Secondly, we will make sure that there is fair treatment for the vast majority of servicemen and police officers who put on a uniform and went out to serve our country with courage and distinction. Before any proposals have our support, we will ensure that they recognise fairness for our veterans and police officers. Thirdly, we will ensure that history cannot be rewritten. It is the strategic intent of some people, including some in this place, to rewrite history. We will make sure that that does not happen. Fourthly, we will uphold the rule of law and justice in our country. With those four principles, I will address just one aspect of the legacy agreement, and that is the belated commitment of the Government of the Irish Republic to investigate Troubles-related crimes. Why has it taken until 2025 for them to make a commitment to investigate such crimes? How many people have died who were victims? How many suspects have died who were never brought to justice? How much evidence has been lost? We will be asking serious questions about the Irish Government and the reported amnesty that was given to republican violence. Michael McDowell confirmed in 'The Irish Times' that he was asked to give that amnesty by leaders of Sinn Féin, and he gave it. We are very concerned that that amnesty may scupper any attempts to bring people to justice. In relation to the legacy unit in an Garda Síochána, we will make sure that, if it goes ahead, there will be legal requirements for it to give unredacted intelligence to the UK bodies and that there will be independence in that unit too. The call is for independence in the investigatory bodies in Northern Ireland: we want to see independence in any Garda Síochána unit, with someone from Northern Ireland making sure that it is disclosing and cooperating and that the Irish Government are no longer trying — Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Jon. Mr Burrows: — to keep things secret. Night Buses Mr O'Toole: Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I do not know whether you have ever got a night bus home, and I am not sure whether that is even an appropriate question to ask the Chair. I do not know how, after a night out, people here get themselves home, whether they use taxis or walk, if they are lucky enough to live close enough to where they are going out. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, you and I represent the great city of Belfast, along with others in the Chamber, but everybody in the region has an interest in it, because people from across the North travel into Belfast for nights out and weekends away. On Friday, we had the terrific and triumphant return of Culture Night Belfast to our streets. However, one thing that we have been lacking is safe, secure and reliable public transport home for all those revellers of all ages. There is a serious point, which is particularly about the safety of young people, especially young women. Having the confidence to travel safely is a critical part of being able to enjoy a night out safely. However, unlike other parts of these islands, we have failed historically to give proper options for public transport home for the people of all ages who are socialising in the centre of Belfast. We now have a thriving nightlife. Mr Brett opposite has worked alongside me and others on building policy support for the brilliant offer that we have. I am pleased to say that Belfast City Council, in conjunction with the Department for Infrastructure, after campaigning by my party, including my colleague Councillor Séamas de Faoite, has moved to a pilot for night buses in Belfast. That is hugely welcome news for people who enjoy the centre of the city and our amazing offer, whether that is theatre, nightlife, pubs, restaurants or amazing one-off events such as Culture Night Belfast on Friday night. We want people to come and enjoy our terrific city centre. We also want to restore derelict areas, including the Tribeca area. We will be debating that again in the not-too-distant future. Safe, reliable public transport is hugely important. The Belfast night tsar, Michael Stewart, has talked about that. It is a huge driver for our hospitality industry, which is struggling in many ways with additional costs. Unlocking public transport from the city will be really important. A pilot has been agreed in principle, but, now, we need the Infrastructure Minister to step up with the funding. I hope that the Economy Minister and, indeed, others in the Executive will see the huge potential that can arise from greater use of night buses and public transport in general coming out of the city. It is a huge opportunity for our terrific city. Anybody who was in Belfast on Friday night will have seen the amazing range of things that we had during Culture Night Belfast. There was even wrestling at Grand Central station, which is the biggest transport hub in Ireland. There was all sorts in the train station. There was band music, choirs and an opera singer. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Matthew. Mr O'Toole: The only thing that we are missing — Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up. Mr O'Toole: — is safe, secure night buses. We are going to keep fighting for those. Women's Health: Ovarian Cancer Ms Flynn: I will speak about an extremely important matter regarding women's health and some of the massive misconceptions that still exist among many, many women around smear tests and the detection of ovarian cancer. The most recent stats show that almost half of the women — a staggering 46% — in the North of Ireland believe, wrongly, that a cervical smear test will detect ovarian cancer. It will not. As a woman who likes to think that she is across looking after her health, I can throw my hands up and admit that, until my first encounter with the Target Ovarian Cancer charity, I did not know that that was the case. I commend that charity for leading the way in creating awareness of the fact that smear tests will only screen for cervical cancer. Many women have a false sense of reassurance that smear tests will pick up ovarian and cervical cancer. That is costing lives because many women still do not know that that is not the case. There is no routine screening test for ovarian cancer, as there is for cervical cancer. That makes the awareness of its symptoms absolutely critical. If women do not know what symptoms to look for and think that it will be picked up through the normal screening of the smear test, that is dangerous. Target Ovarian Cancer has repeatedly called on the Department of Health to update the public messaging around that. That needs to happen urgently. In July, NHS England made it clear that cervical screening does not detect ovarian or other gynaecological cancers, and the Health Service Executive in the South is also running a public awareness campaign. Women in the North deserve the same clarity and support, but, up until now, the Department has failed to act. Ovarian cancer is much more treatable when it is caught early, as is the case for many cancers. Right now, 31% of women in the North who are diagnosed with ovarian cancer will not survive for one year. That must change. We must ensure that women know the symptoms that they need to be looking out for: persistent bloating; abdominal pain; feeling full, quickly; and changes in bowel habits. Awareness saves lives, and early diagnosis will save lives. Too many women here are being diagnosed too late, when their treatment options are limited and outcomes poor. This is about our mothers, daughters, sisters and friends — real people who are facing this deadly disease. Often, diagnosis comes too late, because of the misconceptions around what a smear test can pick up. Please, spread the message to the women in your family, any woman in your life with whom you are in contact and, particularly, your constituents. Public-sector Pay Mr Frew: I heard what Nuala McAllister said earlier, and I echo her comments about the Hillsborough law. It was a good day when that law was published. However, I will not leave things to chance or to the Labour Government, or even our own Health Minister. That is why I take the opportunity to raise my consultation on an individual duty of candour that will not only bring openness and transparency to our healthcare settings but will set up a new reporting regime, with independent eyes and greater protection for whistle-blowers. There is no doubt that the Executive are facing a number of challenges and issues that need to be resolved. Those challenges are extremely difficult, but that is what we are in politics for, is it not? It will be our people who will implement any and all of the Executive's initiatives that come forward now and in the future. If we truly want to make Northern Ireland work, and if we truly want to make it an attractive place to live and work, we have to do more to invest in our people. We have to do that by providing them with opportunities to grow businesses and have that entrepreneurial spirit but also by ensuring that those who go into professions — noble professions — and work for the state to provide services for us, are properly remunerated and valued. We need to invest in all our people, be that our healthcare staff who look after our elderly and vulnerable, our teachers who encourage our children to learn or our police officers who keep us safe. That is why the DUP wants to see a fair and complementary pay award that is relative to the rest of the UK. Pay parity must be the goal. I call on the Finance Minister to make that a main priority during his tenure. Let us show the people of Northern Ireland that we value and believe in them and that they are worth it. What makes this country great is its people. Let us ensure that our people get the remuneration and conditions that they deserve. I ask and plead with the Finance Minister to look at the pay awards for this year. Let us get on with it. Let us remunerate our people for the valuable jobs that they do in providing for all our people, teaching our children, looking after our elderly and keeping us safe. Top 12.45 pm Good Friday Agreement Ms Ferguson: Recently, the deputy leader of Britain's Reform party threatened not just the Good Friday Agreement but the democratic mandate of the people of the North of Ireland — how dare he — but it comes as no surprise. Time and again, British political parties have shown complete and utter disregard for the democratic will of the people. We live every day with the consequences of the last time that they ignored us, during the Brexit negotiations. The North did not have a fleeting chance. When the Tories talk about dragging Britain out of the European Convention on Human Rights, they think that that means that they have the automatic right to drag the North with them. Now, Reform's Richard Tice has gone even further by openly declaring his willingness to support such a change, in the full knowledge of it being against the wishes of Irish nationalists. Let me be crystal clear: any attempt by any British party to use the Good Friday Agreement as a bargaining chip will not fly, nor will threats that indulge a minority section of political unionism whilst holding the majority of our citizens to ransom. The truth is that Irish interests have never been served in Westminster and never will be. That is why more and more people are looking to the real alternative: Irish reunification. That alternative can grow the economy, protect our health service, guarantee rights and restore us automatically to the European Union. Let me send a message straight back across the water. To those who dismiss our voices, gamble with our rights and ignore our mandate, hear this loud and clear: the Good Friday Agreement will not be undermined; the principle of consent is not up for negotiation; and the constitutional future of the North will be decided only by the people who live on this island. The people here will have their say. Their voice will be heard. That time is imminent. Heather Humphreys Mr Gaston: This morning, I comment on the fact that the mere suggestion that the husband of Heather Humphreys, the Fine Gael candidate for president, had once been in the Orange Order merits front-page headlines, news reports and wall-to-wall commentary. What a telling insight into the Republic in the 21st century. It is often repeated that Sir James Craig described the old Stormont in Northern Ireland as a Protestant Parliament for a Protestant people. What is less often recalled is that he was responding to Éamon de Valera's saying that the Southern state would be a Catholic state for a Catholic people. One hundred years later, it is plain to see which of those spirits remains alive and well. The modern Republic boasts of its tolerance. We are told that it is a land where diversity is celebrated and where a homosexual Taoiseach with Indian heritage can lead the country. I dare say that, if Heather Humphreys were black or Muslim, the press would have played that story positively, but a white Protestant with suspected links to the Orange Order? Oh, no, that is beyond the pale. The very fact that it is considered a story says an awful lot about what unionists can expect in a so-called new Ireland. It seems that, for many in the Republic, when it comes to one minority — the Protestant minority — it is all well and good so long as they know their place. Of those in the House who will claim that that is unrepresentative of the Republic I ask why unionism should believe you, when you do not tolerate an Orange march for five minutes a year in a majority nationalist area, yet demand that your culture, through the Irish language, be imposed where it is simply not wanted. The idea of an agreed Ireland is nothing more than spin for political domination of the unionist community. We must resist the new-Ireland, mythical nonsense coming from Sinn Féin and their friends at every opportunity and expose it for what it is. Anti-poverty Strategy Mr Gildernew: I note the closure last Friday of the consultation period on the anti-poverty strategy. Poverty levels continue to rise, and poverty continues to be a real problem here. We are still addressing a lot of cost-of-living issues; we are coming off the back of many long years of Tory austerity; and we are still dealing with the impact and ramifications of partition and how that affects the economy on this island. It has to be said that the Minister for Communities' draft strategy was met with dismay and rejected by many of the people who work in that sector and know what the problems and the solutions are. It is regrettable that the Minister disengaged from those with real expertise, who had engaged with the previous Minister, Deirdre Hargey, to draw up a substantive draft document. Moving forward, it is key that the strategy contains the elements that the sector has identified as being necessary to make a real difference. It has to have robust targets; it has to have a clear line of governance, given that it will be a cross-governmental and cross-departmental strategy; and it has to be resourced in a way that will make a difference. The Minister must now listen to the responses that he will have got in that consultation process, which, I have no doubt, he will have heard loud and clear. He must come back with a strategy that will make a real difference. He must get on with drafting and bringing forward the other strategies that are interlinked and interdependent: a gender strategy and an LGBTQ strategy. Jonathan Rea Mr Dunne: I pay tribute to one of Northern Ireland's greatest ever sportsmen, Jonathan Rea MBE, who recently announced his retirement from world superbike racing. Jonathan represented Northern Ireland on the world stage with incredible distinction, humility and professionalism, He had an incredible, glittering career that included six world superbike championships — a world record — a record 119 race wins and over 260 podium finishes. He firmly established himself as the most successful rider in world superbike history. Jonathan comes from a proud motor sport background and has never forgotten his roots. His achievements have truly inspired young people across Northern Ireland and beyond. He has shown that someone from here can reach the very top of global sport. Motorcycle racing runs deep in the Rea family, as they supported and raced with the late, great Joey Dunlop, another of our greatest ever sportsmen. Jonathan has been a superb ambassador for Northern Ireland, promoting our country with pride around the world and always recognising his loyal fan base, his team and his family. He was rightly honoured with an MBE by the late Her Majesty the Queen in 2017. Jonathan's contribution goes far beyond the racetrack. He has helped raise the profile of motor sport, tourism and much more here for many years. As he steps away from the world superbike track, we say, "Thank you, Jonathan Rea, for your dedication, for your excellence, for making us all proud and for giving us so many memories". We have a proud track record of success in motor sport, and that must be matched with investment. That is why it was excellent to see the Communities Minister invest £187,000 recently to improve motor sport safety across the country, including at iconic events like the North West 200. We look forward to seeing further investment. Jonathan Rea MBE, thank you very much for your service, and congratulations on an incredible career. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Diane, you have one minute. Unpaid Rates Ms Forsythe: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Finances underpin public service delivery in Northern Ireland, and, more and more, we see the pressures on the Budget. It is time that the Finance Minister stepped up and took accountability for some of the issues with our rates system. Just last week, he replied to my question for written answer to say that £18 million of unpaid rates had been written off in the previous financial year. That brings the total of unpaid rates that have been written off in the past six years up to £82 million, while rolling arrears are in the region of £100 million. The DUP is committed to delivering for hard-pressed working families in Northern Ireland and has demonstrated that time and time again. As we continue to support the hard-pressed middle who are trying their best to pay their rates, it is unfair that the Finance Minister seems to think that the only way in which the financial pressures can be met is by continuing to increase rates whilst turning a blind eye to those who are not paying the rates that are billed to them. It is time that we saw a change of attitude from the Finance Minister. It is time that he stepped up and recognised the hard-pressed working families — Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Your time is up. Ms Forsythe: — who are doing their best to pay their rates bills. Ministerial Statement Non-Domestic Renewable Heat Incentive Scheme: Closure Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister for the Economy that she wishes to make a statement. As usual, before I call the Minister, I remind Members that they need to be concise in asking their questions. This is not an opportunity for debate or for long-winded introductions. I call the Minister. Dr Archibald (The Minister for the Economy): Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle. [Translation: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.] I will update the Assembly on the closure of the non-domestic renewable heat incentive (RHI) scheme. Members will recall that 'New Decade, New Approach' (NDNA), which formed the basis for restoring the Executive in 2020, included a commitment to close the RHI and replace it with a more effective decarbonisation support scheme. Its closure was not progressed in the previous mandate, however, and, in its absence, over £100 million of funding for renewable heat has gone unutilised since 2020. The issue has assumed even greater urgency, as Ofgem will stop administering the scheme from April 2026. In July of last year, the Executive affirmed their commitment to closure. Subsequently, my Department has been developing a business case that contains significant technical and legal detail. We also engaged constructively with stakeholders, including scheme participants, and I thank all who were involved. I can now confirm that the Department of Finance has approved the business case and that the Executive have agreed a way forward. My Department will now move to publish a public consultation on the closure arrangements. The consultation will run for eight weeks. At the earliest opportunity, my Department will introduce in the Assembly a Bill that will clarify the Department's powers to close the scheme. I then intend to bring a paper to the Executive in December 2025 to confirm the closure regulations. Subject to the Bill's passage through the Assembly, it is my intention that new regulations will take effect by April 2026. In securing closure, we must ensure that participants who have acted in good faith receive the payment to which they are legally entitled, while protecting the taxpayer. The closure payment aims to strike that balance. The tariff rate used to calculate closure payments has been independently verified by Professor David Rooney and approved by the Department of Finance. With the scheme's closure and with Ofgem no longer administering it, meters will no longer be monitored for usage. Payments will therefore be based on usage between 2017 and 2019, which is the period that best reflects the heat demand for which installations were designed. Instead of a single, one-off payment, compensation will be staggered over a period of 10 years for a typical participant. That approach will free up my Department to engage with Treasury on a scheme that could utilise approximately £10 million per annum of annually managed expenditure (AME) funding for an alternative use. After the scheme is closed, I will update the Assembly on the progress of engagement with Treasury. That approach also means that payments can be stopped, if an installation is no longer in use. There are, of course, pros and cons associated with all closure options, but the proposed approach is, I believe, the most reasonable in the circumstances. As we work towards closure, the Executive have also agreed to apply the tariff rate that will be used to calculate closure payments ahead of the coming winter period. If the Assembly agrees, that rate will come into effect in November 2025. It is long past time that the RHI scheme was closed and the available funding put to better use. With Ofgem stepping away from the scheme's administration by April next year, time is running out. The launch of the consultation will represent a significant step forward. The closure of the RHI scheme will allow my Department to focus its efforts on developing alternative support measures. We now have a clear path to fulfilling the NDNA commitment and delivering a solution that is fair to participants and taxpayers alike. I commend the statement to the Assembly. Top 1.00 pm Ms McLaughlin: Minister, you must agree that RHI has done untold damage to people and to businesses right across the North who entered into the scheme in good faith. The Assembly previously voted down a proposal from your predecessor to uplift RHI tariffs. Will you confirm what the new tariffs are and how much you intend to uprate for closure payments? When will they come into effect? Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. I do not think that anybody would argue that RHI has been a success, and, particularly for the participants who signed up in good faith and genuinely, it would be understatement to say that the scheme has fallen short of their expectations. I think that I have now circulated the proposed tariff rates. The best one to point to is the lower-medium biomass category, which is where most boiler installations are. The current tariff rate is 2·2p per kilowatt-hour, and it is supposed to be raised to 6·1p per kilowatt-hour. There are a number of different categories, and the Member can see those for herself. You asked about the timeline. As I indicated in my statement, I intend to introduce temporary regulations immediately so that we can get them set for participants for the coming winter period. That, of course, will require the Assembly's approval, and we will also be endeavouring to have the scheme closure arrangements in place by April next year, which is when Ofgem will cease to administer the scheme. Mr Brett (The Chairperson of the Committee for the Economy): I thank the Minister for her usual courtesy in providing me with an advance copy of her statement. Minister, I think that all Members are united in wanting to achieve a closure that represents value for the taxpayer and respects the participants who entered the scheme in good faith. With that in mind, once your consultation has concluded, will you confirm that the proposals will come to the Executive for cross-party agreement? Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. It is my intention that the tariff rates, once consulted on, will be brought back to the Executive for approval before being brought to the Assembly. We hope to have that completed by the end of November/early December, and, as I said to Sinéad, we hope to have the final closure arrangements in place by April next year. Mr Delargy: I thank the Minister for her statement. Minister, what engagement have you had with stakeholders about the closure process? Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. There has been significant engagement between departmental officials and scheme participants, and others have been involved as well. As I said in my statement, I am grateful to all who are involved for their constructive engagement. We are in a better place than we have been previously with the arrangements that are proposed to be put in place. I am hopeful that the participants and those who represent them will welcome what is being proposed today. The consultation will take place over the next number of weeks, and that is an opportunity again for participants to share their views on what is being proposed on the way forward. Mr Honeyford: I welcome the statement and thank the Minister for providing it to us earlier. Minister, you talked about the uplift, and that is verified, but what is different today from what was in place last year? What has changed? Do you accept that RHI has been mismanaged by the Department and that trust has been damaged? What are you doing to repair the trust not only with those RHI participants who went into the scheme in good faith but with the MLAs who are on the Committee? Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. As I indicated to Sinéad, the proposed tariff rates have now been circulated to MLAs so that you can look at them and give them consideration. The proposed rates are higher than those proposed last year, and, as I indicated in my statement and other answers, there has been significant engagement with the participants. I believe that we are in a better place because of the constructive engagement that has taken place, and I am grateful that that is the case. For my part, I will endeavour to ensure that the Committee is furnished with what it requires and that we find a way forward on the closure of the scheme but also on all the important work that we have to do across the energy policy area. As the Member will be aware from his work on the Committee, a lot of things are happening in parallel, with energy being a priority area, and the engagement with the Committee is important. Ms Sheerin: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a ráitis. [Translation: I thank the Minister for her statement.] Minister, how much will be paid in compensation for the scheme? Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. The closure arrangements have been designed to stay within the AME budget, and the proposed tariff rates to be put in place and the payments to be made to participants will be roughly the same amount as in the current arrangements. Over the next 10 years, the scheme is expected to cost up to £196 million of AME, with up to £17 million in resource departmental expenditure limit for the Department to manage the scheme. The amounts have been approved by the Department of Finance as part of the business case, but all of that will be confirmed when the consultation is completed and the tariff rates come to the Assembly. Mr Middleton: I thank the Minister for her statement and for the engagement that she says that she has had with the stakeholders. Minister, what confidence can you give to people who applied to the scheme and operated in good faith that, when the consultation is complete, their views will be very much listened to? Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. As I indicated in other answers, the engagement with participants has been positive and constructive. We are in a better place with our understanding of the dual aim of being fair to participants and taxpayers. The consultation is the opportunity for people to air their views, and we will fully take on board what is shared through that. It is about a balancing act of being fair to participants but also taking into account the demands of our taxpayers. Mr Gildernew: Minister, how will the installations be monitored? Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. As we move through the closure arrangements, the requirement for metering to be in place will no longer be there. Participants will be required to provide evidence annually that the installation remains in use. The Department will also introduce an audit and review procedure, which will include on-site protections. That is an opportunity to ensure that the installations continue to be used and that the payments are, therefore, being made genuinely. Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for making the statement to the House today. I welcome her comments on engagement and its importance. It is important to remember that many people who are at the heart of the matter entered the scheme in good faith. Can the Minister give more detail about the level of engagement that there has been with those involved in the scheme and directly impacted on financially? Dr Archibald: As I indicated, the Department has engaged with all key stakeholders, including the Renewable Heat Association and the Ulster Farmers' Union, which represents a fair number of installation owners. Obviously, the consultation is the opportunity for everybody to have their say on the proposals. We are in a much better place than previously because of the constructive engagement. Therefore, I encourage everybody to participate in the consultation once it is launched in the near future. Mr Gaston: Minister, it is unfortunate that it has taken the Department so long to get to this point and learn the lessons from what was rejected this time last year. In order to allow farmers to plan cash flow, will you commit today to a date on which the uplift will be implemented? Will you give an assurance that future green schemes will have buy-in from industry and will be co-designed with it to ensure that we are not left with the faux pas that we have had with RHI? Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. As I indicated, it is my intention that the regulations to put in place the uplift for this winter will be approved by the Assembly by the end of November. Obviously, that depends on the Assembly's approving the regulations, which means that it is partly in Members' hands. It is important that, when we develop not just renewable energy projects but any projects, we work in partnership with those who will use them and deliver them. We very much ensure that the principle of partnership and co-design is in place for anything that we bring through the Department, including all the energy policy that I referred to when responding to Mr Honeyford. I am certainly happy to give that commitment. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members should take their ease before we move to the next item of business. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Blair] in the Chair) Opposition Business A5 Western Transport Corridor Scheme Mr McCrossan: I beg to move That this Assembly expresses regret that the Minister for Infrastructure and Executive colleagues failed to take the necessary actions to ensure that the A5 western transport corridor scheme could withstand legal challenge; and calls on the Executive to ensure that the A5 scheme begins construction by the end of the Assembly mandate. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. Three amendments have been selected and are published on the Marshalled List, so the Business Committee has agreed that 45 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate. Mr McCrossan, please open the debate on the motion. Mr McCrossan: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. First and foremost, we are thinking of all of those families who have lost loved ones on the A5 road since the scheme's announcement in 2007. They have suffered the worst possible consequences of that dangerous road: the loss of sons and daughters, husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, and friends and neighbours. The debate is not abstract. It is not about lines on a map or figures on a balance sheet; it is about people in West Tyrone, Derry, Donegal and beyond who live every single day with the reality of a dangerous, crumbling A5 road. Over 50 lives have been lost on the A5 since the project was first announced. Dozens more people have been left with life-changing injuries. Behind every statistic is a family and community left in grief. That is why the A5 Enough is Enough campaign exists. Families who should never have had to beg for a safe road have carried their pain with courage and dignity, determined to ensure that no one else endures what they have had to endure. The road unites us in frustration, anger and our shared demand for something better. No party, community or tradition is untouched by the grief that the road has caused. Every family travelling on the A5 knows of the anxiety, the dread and the near misses. We are united by the pain that it has inflicted and in our frustration at seeing promise after promise broken. Top 1.15 pm The A5 scheme is not just about safety but about fairness. The A5 is the main artery that connects Derry, Strabane, Omagh and Tyrone to Dublin and the wider island economy. It is the gateway for trade, investment and jobs. It is vital for agriculture, hauliers and businesses who are trying to get their goods to market. Without the scheme, the north-west is shackled, investment is deterred, businesses look elsewhere and our young people are forced to leave to find opportunity elsewhere. Every delay has been a lost opportunity and has led to further loss of life. Every collapse has been another signal that this shambles of an Executive treats our region as second-class. Let us be absolutely clear about where the responsibility lies. The project has collapsed not once, not twice but three times, and the trend is clear. Each collapse was avoidable. Each collapse was the result of ministerial failure. Every collapse has the fingerprints of Sinn Féin Ministers all over it. The first failure was under Minister Conor Murphy, who failed to account for the requirements of the habitats directive, a fundamental oversight that left the project legally vulnerable. The second failure came when Sinn Féin collapsed the Assembly for a number of years. With no Minister in place, the permanent secretary lacked the authority necessary to proceed. The project was withdrawn, and years were lost because of Sinn Féin playing politics with people's lives. The third and most recent failure was under Minister John O'Dowd. The Planning Appeals Commission (PAC) produced a detailed report with clear recommendations for making the scheme robust. The report sat on the Minister's desk for a year — a year of inaction, a year wasted. When the case returned to the court, the judge was furious at the Department's clear failures. That is not the only time that the judge criticised the Department for Infrastructure: recently, he described it as a "laughing stock". What does that say about how the Department is being run? In the middle of the legal process for one of the biggest projects facing our people, Sinn Féin even swapped out its Ministers, signalling chaos and instability at the very moment when our people were demanding stability. That is not misfortune or bad luck; it is absolute incompetence at the heart of government, and, shockingly, it is repeated over and over again. While the dithering and bungling continues, the cost of the A5 has ballooned. When it began, the cost of the project was estimated at £800 million: it has now escalated to a shocking £2·1 billion. That escalation is due not just to inflation or delay but to mismanagement and a total failure to deliver. Families in the north-west are paying the price for Sinn Féin's incompetence in government in the North not only with their lives but with their money. Let me say something about the present condition of the A5 and roads across Tyrone. While we wait endlessly for promises that never materialise, the road is falling apart and is not fit for purpose, with potholes, dangerous patchwork repairs and crumbling surfaces. Vehicles are being damaged every day. Families who are already battling with a cost-of-living crisis are being hit with repair bills for tyres, suspension and wheels, all because the Executive have failed to invest in the west. People pay twice: once through taxes and again through their repair bills. That is unfair, unsustainable and unacceptable. Some in the House will be quick to point to former Minister Nichola Mallon. Let us be clear: when Minister Mallon held that office, she did her due diligence. She did not chase headlines prior to an election or rush decisions for political gain. She took the time to ensure that the scheme was legally robust and ready to proceed. She handed the project over in good faith, expecting her successors to see it through. Instead, what followed was years of incompetence, dithering and failure by Sinn Féin. There is another contrast that is worth pointing out. I acknowledge the role of the Irish Government. Despite political instability in this place, the Irish Government have consistently reaffirmed their financial commitment to the A5 through the Shared Island Fund and previous North/South agreements. They have recognised the importance of the project for cross-border connectivity, road safety and economic growth on both sides of the border. Dublin has kept its promise. Sinn Féin is quick to criticise the Irish Government in Dáil Éireann, but, when it comes to Sinn Féin's incompetence here, its members pat each other on the back. Let me deal with the three amendments before us. Sinn Féin's amendment is nothing short of a self-congratulation exercise: shock. It attempts to absolve Sinn Féin of all responsibility: shock. Sinn Féin pats itself on the back and attempts to rewrite history: shock. The truth is simple: Sinn Féin has ignored the Planning Appeal Commission's recommendations and left the scheme legally vulnerable. Sinn Féin bears responsibility for the project's failure. Sinn Féin's amendment is a whitewash, and we will not support it. Sinn Féin is keen to have all the power but never takes responsibility. Sinn Féin's hands are on the steering wheel, and it has destroyed the progress that is necessary on the project. The DUP's amendment blames the Climate Change Act 2022, but that Act did not cause the failure. The problem is not the law; it is Sinn Féin's failure to integrate environmental requirements into the design of the scheme. Even if Minister Poots's original 82% target had stood, the A5 would still have collapsed, because the problem was not the numbers in legislation but the sheer ineptitude of Ministers in getting it right. Let me be clear: we absolutely believe that the people of the north-west can and must have safe, modern infrastructure and clean air to breathe. The DUP amendment is another diversion. The Ulster Unionists' amendment at least recognises the need for fairness for landowners and the urgent need to have a safe road, but it, too, fails the real test of accountability. It shifts the focus from where it should be, which is the repeated failures of Sinn Féin Ministers, the Department and the Executive. For that reason, we will stick with our original motion. The Opposition's position is clear: we support the A5 because it will save lives. We support it because it will unlock the economic potential of the west. However, support does not mean silence or giving a free pass for years of incompetence by the shambolic DUP/Sinn Féin Government. We welcome the recent intervention by Minister Muir in the appeal. At least someone in the Executive is showing willingness to act, but interventions are not enough. The Executive must guarantee today that construction will begin within this mandate. Families in Tyrone, Derry and Donegal cannot be told once again to wait a little longer. To the Ministers who have failed I say this: every month that passes without progress, you are responsible for the risk that people face on that road. Every time another family is left grieving, the responsibility is not abstract; it lies with those who have had the power to act but have chosen not to. The A5 is no luxury; it is not an optional extra. It is essential. It is a matter of saving lives, restoring fairness and showing whether the Assembly is capable of delivering for the people we represent. Fifty lives have been lost. The cost is £2·1 billion and rising. There have been three failed attempts and years upon years wasted. Families are grieving, communities are angry and businesses have been held back, all because Sinn Féin could not do its job. Enough is enough. The excuses must end; the delays must stop; the bungling must stop; and the Assembly must finally deliver. Do your job, and get the road built. Miss Brogan: I beg to move amendment No 1: Leave out all after "Assembly" and insert: "acknowledges that the Minister for Infrastructure and Executive colleagues worked together to address the recommendations following the Planning Appeals Commission A5 inquiry ; welcomes the Department for Infrastructure's serving a notice of appeal against the A5 judgement; further welcomes the confirmation by the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs that his Department intends to apply to the court to formally intervene in the appeal; recognises the steadfast commitment of the A5 Enough is Enough campaign and the many families tragically bereaved as a result of collisions on the A5; and calls on the Executive to ensure that the A5 scheme begins construction by the end of the Assembly mandate." Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you. You will have 10 minutes to propose amendment No 1 and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. Miss Brogan: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. [Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.] I will speak in support of the A5 and of the amendment that my party colleagues and I have tabled. I am really disappointed by the original motion and the obvious political intent behind it. Anyone here with any real understanding of the devastation that the road has brought to so many families and communities across West Tyrone and across Ireland will know that it is a really serious issue. The A5 is not a political football to be kicked around for cheap political point-scoring. To be honest, if certain Members really wanted to see the road progress, they would get behind the Minister's efforts in the appeal and all the efforts that we are making to ensure that the road is progressed, instead of drafting hollow motions, such as the one we see before us. The A5 represents a £1·6 billion investment in a part of the country that has suffered from historical underinvestment and lack of critical infrastructure. By significantly reducing travel time to and from the capital, the A5 will open up the north-west for more investment, increased trade, faster commuting and more tourism; promote job creation and regional balance; and improve access to ports, airports and regional gateways. As I have said in here many times, however, the most important reason for having the A5 scheme is that it will save lives. As someone from Omagh, which is right at the heart of the A5, and having witnessed the devastation that the road has caused to our communities, I am passionate about the issue. I have spoken multiple times in the Chamber about the need for the A5 to be upgraded. Last week, I spoke of the 57 lives that had been lost on the road since 2006. It is important to remember that that is not just a number or a statistic but 57 grieving families, 57 groups of friends, 57 sets of neighbours and 57 communities that have been torn apart by the loss of each loved one. I again pay tribute to the families who have been bereaved as a result of collisions on the A5. They have shown great dignity, strength and patience throughout the entire process despite the obvious hurt and pain that they are carrying. I also thank Tyrone GAA's A5 — Enough Is Enough campaign group for its tireless work and for its steadfast commitment to ensuring that the road is delivered. It is important to remember that, with every objection and every delay and every time that the Assembly fails to get behind the Minister's efforts to push the project forward, more lives are put in danger. Minister Kimmins deserves recognition for her refusal to give up on the north-west and the A5. The appeal that she has lodged is further proof of her commitment to the project and of her determination to see it through. I also commend Minister Muir for his efforts in supporting the appeal and for demonstrating meaningful and tangible support for the project. Every effort has been made to ensure that the A5 western transport corridor scheme meets the most stringent requirements. All legitimate concerns have been heard, and every effort has been made to address them. I urge those who are leading the campaign of objection to the project to examine their conscience and ask themselves whether denying their family, friends and neighbours a major infrastructure, economic and safety investment is really the legacy that they want to leave. Enough time has been wasted and enough lives lost. Enough is enough. Let us work together to get the A5 built. Mr Martin: I beg to move amendment No 2: Leave out all after "Minister for Infrastructure" and insert: "failed to take the necessary actions to ensure that the A5 western transport corridor scheme could withstand legal challenge; calls on the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to present proposals to the Executive to amend aspirational net zero targets, ensuring that major infrastructure projects are not stymied and construction of an agreed A5 scheme begins as soon as possible; further calls on the Minister of Finance to urgently commit to providing fair compensation to affected landowners for loss of income and costs of reinstatement; and calls on the Minister for Infrastructure, notwithstanding the notice of appeal against the A5 judgement, to implement fresh road safety measures on the A5 in order to prevent further loss of life." Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): You will have 10 minutes in which to propose the amendment and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. Please open the debate on amendment No 2, Mr Martin. Mr Martin: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. First, like others, I extend my sympathies to all the families who have lost loved ones along the A5. A total of 50 people have lost their lives since the upgrade of the 58-mile stretch of road between Aughnacloy and New Buildings was first scheduled to begin. None of us in the Chamber will ever be able to empathise with the pain that those families have gone through, but our thoughts remain with them. The £1·7 billion project was given authorisation last October to proceed. It was then subject to judicial review. In June, a court found that the Minister's plans for the road did not comply with climate change targets. I intend to start with that judgement. The outcome of the proceedings has caused a level of turmoil for those who wish to see the A5 upgrade proceed and a level of uncertainty for landowners and farmers whose livelihoods have been placed in limbo for well over a decade. The A5 scheme, regardless of whether Members think that it should happen, is now completely stalled and not because of Mr Justice McAlinden's judgement. He applied the law, which is his role. He applied the strictures of the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022, which was, in fact, a compromise position instead of having even more stringent targets, which, at the time, were supported by Sinn Féin, the SDLP, the Alliance Party and the Green Party. It is worth highlighting aspects of Mr Justice McAlinden's judgement. At paragraph 200, he states: "The DfI statement does not detail or contain any reference to any such evidence being provided by DAERA and, in contrast with the evidence provided by DfE at the hearing of this matter, nothing was forthcoming from DAERA to indicate that prior to the DfI making its decision, it had provided the DfI with any form of evidence or evidence-based assurance". Frankly, that is astounding. While it remains clear to me that the Minister for Infrastructure must take ultimate responsibility, it seems to me that, while that Minister was drowning, the AERA Minister took a life jacket out of the cupboard but did not throw it into the water. That is, frankly, a baffling lack of coordination between those two Departments, and, if I have time, I will come back to that point. Top 1.30 pm Mr McGlone: Thank you for giving way. I just want to clarify your point. That happened in spite of the fact that, as has been clarified to me, DAERA and DFI met 13 times over that period to discuss the project. Mr Martin: I thank the Member for his intervention. I was not party to that information. However, the point that I made still stands in that the judge was scathing about the lack of coordination between those two Departments and especially about the AERA Minister because of the lack of support that DFI had. Our amendment seeks to do three things. First, it seeks to amend net zero targets so that critical infrastructure can continue to be built in Northern Ireland. Secondly, it seeks to ensure that all landowners who are affected by the scheme are provided with appropriate compensation by the Minister of Finance. Thirdly, it seeks to ensure that that stretch of road, notwithstanding whether the A5 is built — that is currently subject to appeal — is safe for road users and pedestrians alike. In the interim, while awaiting the appeal, the Infrastructure Minister must look at further road safety measures, such as average speed cameras and speed reduction measures. It is time for action on that, not delay. Work must be taken forward to prevent any further loss of life. It is not for us to answer some of the questions about the matter. Rather, it is for the parties that, in 2022, put those extraordinary climate change targets on the House. I have outlined, and people might take a different view on this, the reasons why the A5 is not proceeding. We have heard two reasons already this afternoon in the Chamber. As I read through this information, it was completely clear to me that the reason why the A5 is not proceeding is because Mr Justice McAlinden said that it could not proceed in its current form. Take a step back from that and ask this: why? It is for two reasons. One is the real lack of coordination between DAERA and DFI, and the second is the climate change targets that we have set ourselves. Whether it is DFI or DAERA, those climate change targets are now a significant problem for the Executive and for Northern Ireland. Mr McCrossan: I thank the Member for giving way. I just want to point out a very important fact for the Member so that he understands. Whether the target was 82%, as suggested by the DUP, or 100% net zero by 2050, the legal duty to produce carbon budgets, sectoral plans and climate action plans still applies under the Act. To be clear, the Department's failure was not about hitting that target; it was about ignoring the process that was required to assess compliance with whatever target was set. That is where the failure was. It was nothing to do with the figure; it was about the failure of the process, as the judge pointed out. Mr Martin: I thank the Member for West Tyrone for his intervention. My understanding — I will take the Member at his word — was that there did not seem to be any offsetting or coordination between the two Departments on how the impact of the road's being built would be offset in terms of climate change. That is certainly my understanding. Will those parties now agree that a more realistic and pragmatic approach is needed to balance real environmental challenges with economic realities? I will quote directly from Mr Justice McAlinden's High Court judgement. He said that the climate change action plan, which is the responsibility of the AERA Minister, does not make any reference whatsoever to: "this major infrastructure project in the context of the process of formulating and co-ordinating plans, strategies and policies that map out a realistic and achievable pathway for Northern Ireland to achieve net zero by 2050". I hope that that, in part, answers the Member's last question. Mr McCrossan: I thank the Member for giving way. I just want the Member to understand this point, which I know that he will. The DUP is very quick to duck out of the 100% net zero target, but, regardless of whether the target was 100% or 82%, the failure still would have occurred because the process was not followed. To be clear, it is not about the target. That is a myth, and it needs to be busted. Mr Martin: Thank you very much. The Member and I will have to agree to disagree on that one, but I always welcome his comments. In summary, the project seems to be in disarray politically, strategically and financially. As I said when opening my contribution, I do not believe, if I am honest, that it is by any stretch the sole responsibility of the Infrastructure Minister. I criticised her and pointed out where the failings are, but others who placed on the Assembly the targets that will be so problematic to this project and further infrastructure projects must bear some responsibility for that. Do I get another minute, Mr Deputy Speaker? Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): You have 10 minutes. Mr Martin: Just 10 minutes? I had better get my skates on. The Infrastructure Minister stated: "I ... reiterate in the strongest possible terms my commitment to the delivery of that long-awaited project."— [Official Report (Hansard), 13 May 2025, p70, col 2]. Will she bear that statement in mind as she answers some of my questions this afternoon? Will she commit now to supporting revised climate change targets to ensure that that project and other future major infrastructure projects are not failed or stalled? Will she explain what the adding of DAERA to the appeal case seeks to achieve and what conversations she has had with the AERA Minister regarding that? If the appeal is lost, what is her plan B for ensuring safety on the A5? Finally, how will she compensate those landowners who continue to be in limbo regarding the scheme? I commend our amendment to the House. Mr Butler: I beg to move amendment No 3: Leave out all after "Minister for Infrastructure" and insert: "failed to take the necessary actions to ensure that the A5 western transport corridor scheme could withstand legal challenge; calls on the Minister for Infrastructure to make saving lives on this road the absolute priority, while also treating landowners fairly and respectfully, and to put in place other road safety measures and better public transport options for the north-west if the A5 faces further delays; and further calls on the Minister to ensure that commencement of an agreed legally compliant A5 scheme begins as soon as possible and to set out clearly how the project will stay within the carbon budget limits required by law." Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you. The Assembly should note that the amendments are mutually exclusive. If amendment No 1 is made, the Question will not be put on amendment Nos 2 or 3. If amendment No 1 is not made, the Question will be put on amendment No 2, and, if it is made, the Question will not be put on amendment No 3. Mr Butler, you will have 10 minutes in which to propose amendment No 3 and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other contributors will have five minutes. Please open the debate on amendment No 3. Mr Butler: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. When the motion came out and the amendments went in, I thought that seeing three amendments that are mutually exclusive should send some message of comfort to the families in that area who have been bereaved. The fact that 50 people have lost their life on that stretch of road since 2007 is quite horrific, and it means something to us all. If nothing else comes out of the Chamber today, let us hope that there is a message of solidarity with the families and of how everybody, regardless of the arguments made, wants to see delivery. Few debates in the Chamber at the moment command the same urgency and carry such moral weight as this one because of those deaths and their impact on families. The facts are stark and unarguable. Too many lives have been lost on that stretch of road. Too many families have been left shattered by preventable tragedies. Every one of us in the Chamber knows and has heard the calls from the A5 Enough is Enough campaigners and the grieving families who simply want a safer future for others. Saving lives must be the first and "absolute priority", and it is from that perspective that the Ulster Unionist Party tabled amendment No 3. It is the most balanced amendment. I ask the Opposition to reconsider whether they will support it. The UUP amendment is grounded not in political one-upmanship or the temptation to point fingers, as is so often the case in the Chamber, but in the clear-eyed recognition of the fact that the Minister has a duty to deliver the project lawfully, competently and urgently. That means, yes, building the road but doing so in such a way that withstands scrutiny, respects those who are affected and aligns with the legislative framework that the Assembly put in law. We must be clear: the A5 will be built. It is a matter of seeing not just whether it will be built but how we will do so. In answering the "How?", it is impossible to ignore the repeated failures of multiple Departments to work together effectively, which speaks to Mr Martin's points. Long before the recent judicial intervention, it was evident that siloed thinking, poor communications and elective collective leadership were undermining delivery. Too often, Departments acted as though their obligations were in conflict with each other's rather than being capable of being reconciled through cooperation and planning. That is simply not good enough. Executive parties and Ministers need to be very aware of that, and we need to see more cross-departmental working. The Assembly writes the laws of Northern Ireland and Departments are bound to apply them. It is therefore simply indefensible when Departments cannot evidence compliance with our own legislation. When they cannot demonstrate that due process has been followed, or when they treat legal obligations as an afterthought rather than as a foundation stone, that is not merely a technical failing: it is a failure of leadership and responsibility. It is precisely that gap that has brought us the repeated delays and the frustration of communities that have been promised so much for so long. We can also not overlook the experience of landowners. Too many of them feel as though they have been left in the dark and treated as an inconvenience rather than as citizens whose lives and livelihoods have been directly impacted on. The UUP amendment puts it plainly: people must be treated "fairly and respectfully". That means having timely communication, honest promises and adequate compensation where there is loss. We cannot, on one hand, call for progress and, on the other, ignore those whose property is directly tied up in that progress. Trust must be rebuilt with landowners because, without it, the legitimacy of the project is undermined from the ground up. The DUP amendment also acknowledges a further truth. If further delays occur, road safety measures cannot wait. Temporary improvements, enforcement and better public transport options for the north-west must be advanced in parallel. We cannot allow the tragic roll call of lives lost on the A5 to continue simply because the legal process takes time. Leadership means acting on every available front to save lives, not standing idly by until the ribbon is cut. Here is where my party's amendment actually distinguishes itself. It grapples with the reality of carbon budgets. Colleagues, it was the Assembly that passed legally binding climate commitments. I accept that people come at that from different directions. However, whether one agrees or disagrees with their pace or ambition, those commitments are the law of the land. Major infrastructure cannot simply be waved through without regard to that framework. To do so would invite only further legal challenge and more years of delay. That is what it would consign it to. We are demanding clarity from the Minister for Infrastructure on how the A5 project will stay within those limits; not as a box-ticking exercise but as a demonstration that the Government are capable of delivering complex projects in line with overlapping statutory obligations. That leadership has been lacking. That must change if the A5 is to proceed without further obstruction. The families who have lost loved ones do not want to hear excuses. The farmers and landowners who see their fields and livelihoods directly impacted on do not want to be kept in the dark. The communities of the north-west do not want another round of promises without delivery. They want action, honesty and leadership. The Ulster Unionist Party amendment strikes the right balance. It insists that saving lives comes first. It insists on fairness for landowners. It insists that road safety measures cannot be paused if there are further delays. It insists on lawful, competent delivery that can withstand further challenge because it has respected the law at every stage. Mr Martin: Will the Member take an intervention? Mr Butler: I am nearly at the end of my remarks, but I will. Mr Martin: I thank the Member for that. Does he agree that it is astounding that a senior judge stated that, prior to DFI's making its decision, DAERA had provided it with no form of evidence or evidence-based assurance around that issue? I raise the matter with the Member because he is on the Agriculture Committee. Does he agree that that is, frankly, astounding when it relates to evidence as part of a High Court judgement? Mr Butler: I absolutely do. Only for the fact that there is an ongoing legal process, I would say a lot more. I certainly do not want to impact on that, but it is quite astonishing. Given that the Climate Change Act was one of the top pieces of legislation — certainly, the highest profile one — that we passed, and that some parties beat the drum loudly on it, it is very disappointing that the evidence was not provided to the judge or for the assessment of need at that time. As I said, that is evidenced in my submission on the amendment. There is a dearth of cross-departmental working, particularly on what we would call "high-profile" aspects of delivery for the Executive. We need to send out a clear message on the delivery of the A5 that public safety is of paramount importance to the Assembly but that adherence to our legislation also be respected. That is what the project deserves and what those who travel the A5 deserve, and that is what the Assembly should demand today. Top 1.45 pm Mr McReynolds: I speak today as an Alliance Party spokesperson on infrastructure, as chair of the all-party group on road safety and as someone with family members who use the A5 daily. Since becoming an MLA in 2022, I have met a number of families who have, sadly, lost loved ones on our roads. Each family still carries the pain of that loss. It is obvious that there were major failings in the Department's evidence to the High Court. That surprised me at the time, to be honest, given the delays that I was seeing across other DFI areas because, I was advised, all resources were being thrown at the A5 case to ensure a positive result. All the while, the question that colleagues and I have kept asking ourselves is this: since the announcement of the scheme 20-odd years ago, what major road safety improvements have there actually been along that stretch of road? To this day, sadly, we have lost over 50 lives, and I am not aware of any significant, tangible interim solutions having been introduced. Perhaps the Minister can speak to that point in her remarks later. Instead, we have waited on an upgrade that, 20 years later, has not happened. Just last week, during Question Time, I asked the Infrastructure about steps that her Department can take to improve road safety in general, but specific measures can also be taken along that particular road. As the chair of the all-party group on road safety, I am acutely aware of the dangers of the road. We regularly meet Chief Superintendent Sam Donaldson, who consistently highlights the fact that no road is a safe road, but that does not mean that there is nothing that we can do to make the A5 safer. Speed cameras, speed limits and road signage can make road users more aware of their driving, with the goal being to reduce injuries and fatalities overall. Those things may not fix every issue or prevent every tragedy, but they can contribute to reducing their numbers. We need to address the dangers of the A5 now, not wait another decade for it to be completed. Such a sensitive topic should not be used to unpick climate change legislation, given that, on two previous occasions, the A5 upgrade's being paused by a court ruling was not down to the Climate Change Act. Indeed, Judge McAlinden made clear in his judgement that the Climate Change Act does not prevent large infrastructure projects but requires evidence of their planning and coordination to ensure that they meet the requirements of the Act. The way forward is not to go back on climate change law but to hold to account those who have not done their due diligence and ask why potential issues were not addressed in the first place. Mr Dunne: Will the Member give way? Mr McReynolds: I am just concluding. Sorry. The families deserve more than finger-pointing and the blame game. They deserve real solutions as we work towards a safer A5 and the positives that can come from that. Mr McAleer: I recognise the hardship and suffering of the families who have lost loved ones on the treacherous A5. I also acknowledge the Minister and her Executive colleagues for working to address the recommendations of the Planning Appeals Commission's A5 inquiry. As an MLA for West Tyrone, I particularly welcome the Department for Infrastructure's decision to serve a notice of appeal against the A5 judgement. That action demonstrates that we are taking the matter seriously and moving to address it. Our focus remains clear: it is about delivering the A5 dual carriageway that our community so urgently needs. That has been reflected across the Chamber today. I will keep my remarks relatively succinct, because I am conscious that this matter is part of an ongoing legal case, but I cannot stand here without acknowledging the terrible loss of life on the A5. I extend my deepest sympathies to all the families who have lost loved ones and continue to endure unspeakable grief. Finally, I pay tribute to the Enough is Enough campaign. Its tireless work, determination and courage have ensured that the voices of families and communities are heard loud and clear. Its efforts remind us all of why this project is so important. Mr Dunne: I speak in support of the amendment that we, as a party, have tabled to the motion on this very important issue. As others have said, we cannot lose sight of the human cost behind the debate. The A5 has been the scene of far too many tragedies. Families across Tyrone and Northern Ireland and beyond have been left truly devastated by the loss of lives, young and old, that were tragically cut short on this very dangerous section of road. Our thoughts and prayers must always remain with the people who have lost loved ones, bearing in mind the impact on those families and communities who live daily with the consequences of the real risks on that road. Having recently met a family in my constituency who lost a loved one in a road tragedy, I know that it is horrific and that the pain does not just go away. That should be first and foremost in all our minds. The A5 upgrade has been promised for almost 20 years, having been first mooted in 2007, yet, time and time again, all we have seen is false dawns. There have been repeated delays, and, most recently, the High Court ruling has stalled progress once again. My colleague the Chair of the Infrastructure Committee highlighted how clear — black and white — the High Court verdict was. All that has been delivered by this Minister and her predecessor's Department to date is confusion and yet more uncertainty. That is simply not good enough. The most recent High Court ruling has caused considerable distress and further uncertainty for landowners and farming families, whose livelihoods have been left in limbo for well over a decade. The Infrastructure Committee, in joint meetings with the AERA Committee, has heard that directly a number of times from landowners and groups such as the Ulster Farmers' Union, which has tried to support farmers and their families throughout what can only be described as the shambolic handling of the scheme by the Department, certainly in recent years. Land has been vested and then is not vested. Preparatory work has started, been halted and then started again. Significant disruption has occurred while legal proceedings have dragged on. Farmers have had their land dug up, with some of it rendered unsuitable for agricultural purposes. The impact of that has been nothing short of devastating, and lessons about the handling of the case should have been learned much earlier, given the impact that it has had on so many families. Our amendment recognises a hard truth, which is that unless we address the barriers that have been created by the current legislative framework, major infrastructure projects will continue to be tied up in legal wrangling rather than being delivered on the ground. We have yet to hear from the Minister how the appeal will address Mr Justice McAlinden's clear reference in his ruling to climate targets that were supported by Sinn Féin, the Alliance Party, the SDLP and others. Some of those parties continue to live in denial about the impact of those climate targets on so many areas of life in Northern Ireland, not just in relation to the A5 but on a whole range of vital infrastructure projects and other key flagship projects. Mr McCrossan: Will the Member give way? Mr Dunne: No, I will not. That is why it is right to call on the AERA Minister to bring forward proposals to amend aspirational yet unachievable net zero targets. Targets must be realistic, affordable and balanced with the urgent need for investment in infrastructure that saves lives and strengthens our community and connectivity. I mentioned the burden of uncertainty on landowners and farmers and the disruption that that has caused to businesses. Our amendment rightly calls on the Minister of Finance to look at fairly compensating those who have been impacted on, not only for the value of their land but for the ongoing loss of income and the cost of reinstatement amid the confusion. That is a matter of basic fairness and respect. Given the very serious and ongoing road safety concerns, the High Court judgement has only added to the urgent need for action. As others have said, now is the time to seriously consider the necessary practical steps towards improving road safety. There are simple, practical steps that have been seen to work and be effective in other areas, including my constituency, such as better signage, better junction layouts, average speed cameras and targeted enforcement. Those measures could make a real difference and, ultimately, save lives in the short to medium term. Given the road safety concerns, there is a duty on the Minister for Infrastructure to deliver action urgently and not at some distant point in the future. I look forward to hearing from the Minister. I hope that she will take the opportunity to take action and that the clock will not be run down while she is in office. I commend our amendment as a balanced and constructive way forward, and I ask the House to support it. Mr McMurray: I thank the SDLP for tabling the motion. As other Members have highlighted, the cost of the A5 project is staggering, from impeding economic growth in the north-west to causing long journey times and, tragically, preventable deaths. Nearly a decade on since the announcement, the road project has come to represent our failure to deliver critical infrastructure. People who use the road, along with those who have lost loved ones on it, are fully justified in their frustration at yet more delays following the court ruling. The setbacks are symptomatic of the instability that was caused by the collapse of our political institutions, first from 2017 to 2020 and again from 2022 to 2024. That stop-start governing has also delayed Northern Ireland's first climate action plan, which is a legal requirement under the Climate Change Act 2022. Although Minister Muir's swift move to consultation is welcome, there remains an obvious absence of a finalised plan, as was highlighted in the recent judgement. Mr Justice McAlinden was clear that a climate action plan that takes into account the emissions that the A5 will generate can help provide a pathway not only to delivering the project but to meeting our carbon reduction targets. It is therefore right that the Assembly express its regret that the Department for Infrastructure did not take the necessary actions to ensure that the A5 scheme was not vulnerable to predictable legal challenges, especially regarding compliance with the Climate Change Act. Let me be clear, however: the Climate Change Act is not an obstacle to the A5 scheme. The judgement unequivocally stated that major infrastructure projects can proceed if they are properly planned and are integrated with strategies to achieve net zero by 2050. As the ruling states, the Act does not prevent a major project proceeding but, rather, rules out construction in the absence of robust planning and coordination across Departments. We should not retreat from the climate commitments that were unanimously adopted in 2022. Rather, we must balance our need for infrastructure upgrades with our imperative to protect the ecosystem, restore biodiversity and improve our water quality. The main lesson to learn from the High Court ruling is that major projects across all Departments must be designed, assessed and justified according to our statutory climate commitments. There can be no shortcuts taken. That must be the standard practice for all future schemes. On amendment No 1, I commend the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs for his announcement that his Department intends to apply to the court to intervene in the appeal formally. Through its doing so, we can clarify the interpretation and enforcement of the Climate Change Act. That shows the Minister's commitment to his Department's climate change responsibilities. We cannot pick and choose which laws to uphold. Striking the right balance involves supporting infrastructure while fully delivering on our climate commitments, which place binding duties on all Departments. Every Department must meet its obligations to reduce carbon emissions and protect our natural environment. The ruling also exposes the ongoing issue of government silos that can delay progress. Greater cross-departmental collaboration is crucial, especially as climate considerations increasingly inform decisions. An integrated approach is therefore needed to prevent the kinds of delays that we see today. Mr Martin: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. Does he have any insight into why the AERA Minister did not provide any evidence to the court when Mr Justice McAlinden was considering his A5 judgement? That is the Minister's responsibility. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute. Mr McMurray: That would be for the Minister to answer. The journey ahead for each and every Department will not be easy, but we should recognise the significant opportunities that climate change action presents: green jobs; lower energy bills; vibrant public spaces; and better health. The Alliance Party wants Northern Ireland to be a leader rather than a follower in the green industrial revolution. The ruling therefore ruling sets a clear precedent. Climate change legislation is not optional but, rather, a binding framework that impacts on every decision, including infrastructure development. How we respond to the A5 scheme will signal how seriously we take climate obligations and collaborative governance. To conclude, amendment Nos 1 and 3 can be supported in principle. The Alliance Party cannot, however, support amendment No 2, as it directly contradicts the climate commitments that the House has enshrined in law through the Climate Change Act. By doing so, the amendment seeks to shift the burden on to the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs rather than place it on the Minister for Infrastructure to work with our climate legislation and achieve better outcomes for road users and our natural environment. Furthermore, it removes the commitment that is outlined in amendment No 1 for the A5 scheme to start construction by the end of the Assembly mandate, which is a delay that we cannot afford. The Alliance Party remains open to constructive cooperation with other parties and Ministers in order to better protect our environment. I am confident that the Department for Infrastructure can now act with urgency, clarity and respect for the law, and, most importantly, for those affected, so that the A5 project can move forward in this mandate, thus setting the benchmark for responsible climate-conscious governance. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Question Time begins at 2.00 pm, so I suggest that the Assembly take its ease until then to allow for changes to be made to the top Table. The debate will continue after the questions for urgent oral answer, when the next Member to be called to speak will be Justin McNulty. The debate stood suspended. Top 2.00 pm (Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair) Oral Answers to Questions The Executive Office Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: We will start with listed questions. Question 12 has been withdrawn. Victims and Survivors Service 1. Mr Allen asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to outline the number of people who have been supported by the Victims and Survivors Service (VSS) in each of the past five years. (AQO 2371/22-27) Mrs O'Neill (The First Minister): With your indulgence, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I wish Deborah Erskine well on the birth of her wee baby, Olivia. Deborah posted on social media yesterday and described her as her "wee heart warrior", so I am sure that everyone is mindful of her family at this time, and I wish them the best. The Victims and Survivors Service supports victims and survivors of the Troubles/conflict, historical institutional abuse, mother-and-baby homes, Magdalene laundries and workhouses. Support and services are provided both directly by the VSS and through 47 community and voluntary sector partner organisations. Over the past five full years of delivery, VSS has supported an average of 7,000 individuals per year across three delivery areas. In addition, in partnership with its partner organisations, VSS has delivered health and well-being support and services to over 12,500 victims and survivors per year in local communities, with the vast majority of that support being provided to those who have been impacted by conflict here, which is more than 12,000 people. Alongside that, over the past five years, VSS and its community partners have also provided application support to over 7,000 individuals in relation to the victims' payments scheme. Mr Allen: I echo the First Minister's comments in sending our best wishes to Deborah. First Minister, thank you for your answer. Will you provide clarification on the number of people who have applied but not been successful in receiving support under VSS and say why they were not successful? Mrs O'Neill: As of the week commencing 15 September, 11,853 applications had been submitted to the victims' payments scheme. Payments totalling almost £108 million have been made to all eligible applicants, offering meaningful recognition of the harm that they have suffered. With the scheme now set to close for new applications in August 2026, I take the opportunity to strongly encourage anyone who may be eligible to get their application submitted before that deadline, and I will say again that support is available through a number of victims and survivors' representative groups for anyone who needs help with the application process. The cases are complex and involve complex applications. Given the historical nature of many of the incidents, the applications present a challenge to those who assess them. However, the board remains committed to processing them as efficiently as possible. It will also continue to work with the representative groups to ensure that feedback is taken on board about issues that are encountered. I do not have the number of applications that have been declined, but I will make sure that you get that in writing. Mrs Dillon: I also offer my best wishes to Deborah and her family on the birth of their beautiful wee baby girl. I am delighted to see that everybody is safe and well. First Minister, it is evident from your response that the Victims and Survivors Service is involved in a wide delivery of its portfolio. Do you agree that it is essential that VSS has a full board complement and that it is currently suboptimal, given that there has been a protracted delay in making board appointments to the service? Mrs O'Neill: I concur with that and fully recognise the vital role that the Victims and Survivors Service plays in supporting individuals across our society. I am grateful for the continued dedication of the current board. I certainly agree that it is suboptimal that a permanent chair and a full complement of board members are still not in place. The Member raised the issue of the delay in making appointments. By way of explanation, which, I believe, I have given in the Chamber before, interviews for the post concluded on 11 March 2024, and, as per the Commissioner for Public Appointments code of practice, we then received the unranked list of successful candidates on 26 March. On 19 June, we issued our list of preferred candidates, and, on 21 June, the candidates were informed by HR Connect that they had been successful. All pre-employment checks have been completed. We now need the public appointments to be made, and we need to make sure that the board has its full complement. I am determined to ensure that that is done without further delay. Mr Kingston: Last week, the First Minister said: "Sinn Féin will continue to stand with families in their pursuit of truth, justice and accountability." Does she agree that former IRA members should come forward with their truth to the PSNI and the new truth recovery body? Mrs O'Neill: The Member will be aware that both Governments launched their joint framework last week. All the parties will take time to review that. Unfortunately, without having the legislative text, it is hard for us to pass proper judgement on what the framework will do and how it will deliver. Ultimately, it needs to be inclusive, and it needs to command the support of the victims and survivors — all victims and survivors. It also has to be human-rights-compliant. Until we see the legislation, we cannot properly assess that. I would much prefer it if the Member, rather than looking back constantly over his shoulder and trying to score points, worked with me and others to find a way to build a brighter and better future and worked with everybody to make sure that we have a way of dealing with the past that is inclusive and for which we get maximum buy-in across society. That is my endeavour. I want us to deal with the past and unburden today's generation from yesterday. The only way that we can do that is by working together and by ensuring that the legislation is human-rights-compliant and, hopefully, commands maximum support from all victims and survivors. When I speak of "victims", I mean all victims. Ms Bradshaw: I will pick up on the joint framework that was announced last week; I am not asking the First Minister to pass judgement on it yet. The First Minister's Department has responsibility for support for victims and survivors. Will she instruct a review of current programmes, with a view to better supporting victims and survivors under the new policy framework? Mrs O'Neill: As I acknowledged, we are all trying to work out exactly what this means legislatively. The framework, when translated into legislation, could look completely different from what has been said in the framework document. I want us to understand that. I hope that they move to publish that legislation — I urge them to do so — so that we can all look at it. We have a strategy for victims and survivors. We have just launched our new strategy, and we have opened the funding call for the 2026-28 victim support programme. That call will close on 6 November to ensure that any new programmes are in place by 1 April next year. That central activity is needed to implement many of the commitments in the strategy to ensure that our services are appropriate and meet the changing needs of victims and survivors. The strategy will ensure that the right to trauma-informed and victim-centred services is in place to empower and support victims and survivors and contribute to building a shared and peaceful future. It also sets out the specific issues affecting victims and survivors, with particular focus on their needs. It is inevitable that the Victims and Survivors Service will have received an increased level of communication, particularly given the publication of the framework on Friday. That will continue. It is important that we have a service that supports all people to understand what the legislative text sets out regarding the bodies. We will have to keep that under review to make sure that we are fit for purpose. The strategy is the right strategy. If, in the aftermath of the framework, we can tweak it in respect of the needs of victims and survivors, that is what we should do. Mr McNulty: What is the First Minister's assessment of the sad reality that many victims who suffered so-called punishment beatings and punishment attacks with cudgels with nails driven through them or baseball bats or punishment shootings by the IRA in their own homes — often in front of their wives and children — do not qualify for the scheme? Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Minister. Mr McNulty: How can you explain that? How can that be? Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Minister, answer that whatever way you feel appropriate. It is not related to the original question. Mrs O'Neill: All I can say is that our strategy for victims and survivors is to support all people who have been injured throughout the conflict. It is important that it is all-inclusive and that we close the door to nobody. I trust that the strategy that we have is the right strategy. I encourage new applications to come forward, as we opened our new applications process in August. Bonfire Regulation 2. Mr McHugh asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for their assessment of the need for the regulation of bonfires. (AQO 2372/22-27) Mrs O'Neill: With your permission, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I will ask junior Minister Reilly to answer the question. Ms Reilly (Junior Minister, The Executive Office): The issues around cultural expression are some of the most challenging that we as a society face here. The Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition (FICT) considered those issues and made a number of recommendations relating to bonfires. They have been considered as part of the review of the Together: Building a United Community (T:BUC) strategy that we are actively working through with officials. We recognise and understand the potential for bonfires to have environmental implications, alongside health and safety concerns, and we know that bonfires can be used to display offensive messages, flags, effigies and other materials that cause offence. We want to be very clear that there is no room for sectarian or racial intolerance towards individuals and acts of intimidation have no place in our society. We remain committed to building a peaceful and inclusive shared future for all. Mr McHugh: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire shóisearach as a freagra. [Translation: I thank the junior Minister for her answer.] Minister, will you outline what work is happening to address illegal, unregulated bonfires? Ms Reilly: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Chomhalta as a fhreagra. [Translation: I thank the Member for his question.] The starting point for addressing illegal, unregulated and dangerous bonfires lies in the Chamber, and it demands political leadership. We need to be honest and say that the lack of regulation of bonfires just does not work. As political representatives, we cannot stay silent where there is a risk to health and safety and the environment, just as we cannot be silent when there are violent sectarian displays on bonfires. Unfortunately, over the summer, we witnessed some bonfires that not only put public health and safety at risk and polluted our environment but were used to scapegoat migrants and promote hatred. A focus on safety and regulation in no way threatens or diminishes cultural celebration. If we are to continue to make progress towards a shared and better society, we need to learn lessons from the lack of regulation and look to regulation that places a focus on safety, public health and the environment. Mr Carroll: I wrote to the office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister a few weeks ago to request that a task force be set up to investigate the impact of the aftermath of the Donegall Road bonfire and its potential impact on people's health in the area. Can I get a reply to that request and, hopefully, some action on it? Ms Reilly: I will refer that to the First Minister and deputy First Minister for a response. The land that you referred to in your question is in private ownership, and that has been a significant factor. We understand that, to mitigate the risk of asbestos-fibre release from the pile and protect members of the public, NIEA undertook a number of safety measures at the site. It is anticipated that the NIEA will shortly establish a multi-agency group to consider the asbestos issues at the Donegall Road site. In response to the question, I will refer your request to the First Minister and deputy First Minister. Ms Brownlee: The junior Minister is keen to promote the success of T:BUC, a programme that brings together people from all our communities, yet the First Minister supported the decision of councillors in Londonderry to exclude our armed forces from a local jobs fair. How can the First Minister claim to be a "First Minister for all" when she supports and endorses no-go areas in Northern Ireland? Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That question is not related to the original question. Junior Minister, if you do not mind, take your seat. I will move on to the next supplementary question, which is from Mark Durkan. Mr Durkan: The delay in the development of the Meenan Square site by TEO facilitated further bonfire activity on the site over the summer. Hopefully, we will see progress there in the near future. While that might address where the fires are, we also need to address what is on them. Will TEO finally act on the FICT recommendations and introduce a framework that safeguards public safety and prevents the cycle of hate and lawlessness every year? Ms Reilly: I thank the Member for that question. The vast majority of people celebrate their culture safely and respectfully and work really closely with our communities to make sure that bonfires are family-friendly and are enjoyed by all. However, a small number of unregulated and illegal bonfires raise concerns about safety and the environmental impact and have effigies and racist and sectarian hate all over them, and they need to be challenged. We need to prioritise our work on good relations, particularly through the Executive Office and other Departments. We have a real opportunity here through the T:BUC review, which includes FICT, and through the Urban Villages initiative, which is being reviewed by the Executive Office, to build on what actually works, tackle the remaining issues constructively and create conditions in which celebrations are safe, respectful and for everyone. Top 2.15 pm Northern Ireland: Inter-jurisdictional Promotion 3. Mr Irwin asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for their assessment of the importance of engaging with leaders from other jurisdictions and Administrations in order to promote Northern Ireland. (AQO 2373/22-27) Mrs O'Neill: Engaging with leaders from across these islands and internationally is very important if we are to promote this place and deliver across the full range of our Programme for Government ambitions. Since the restoration of the institutions, ensuring that we represent our interests and optimise the opportunities to grow a globally competitive and sustainable economy has been at the heart of everything that we have been doing. We have engaged with the Governments in London and Dublin to discuss how global developments, such as changes to international tariffs, could impact on our region and to ensure that our interests are understood and represented. Over the past year, the deputy First Minister and I have met a range of leaders from the world’s largest economies, both at home and abroad. We have used meetings in the USA, China, Japan, Germany and France to promote our place and show that we are open to partnerships that support our economic growth. The deputy First Minister and I led a business delegation to North Carolina in March, supporting engagement by businesses and academia. This is a good example of how we can work in partnership with stakeholders here to deliver on our shared objectives and build lasting relationships that deliver benefits for all. Mr Irwin: I thank the First Minister for her response. The United States is a critically important economic partner of the UK. Will the First Minister outline what she gained by not attending the state banquet for President Trump last week? Mrs O'Neill: I value our Irish-American links very much. Indeed, successive American Administrations have been very much part of bringing about our peace process, but you are referring to a banquet in Windsor last week that I chose not to attend, and rightly so: I do not see how a benefit would be achieved from attending a state banquet at a time when the children of Gaza are being starved to death. I made my view on that issue known. I did not block the deputy First Minister from attending. She went to the thing, and that was absolutely her call. I am very comfortable with my decision. Mr Sheehan: The First Minister will no doubt have seen the report that was issued through the UN Human Rights Council. It provides definitive confirmation that the Israeli state is engaged in genocide against the Palestinian people. Does the First Minister agree that the international community must take a principled stand against the ongoing genocidal attacks and the aid blockade against the people of Gaza? Mrs O'Neill: Yes, I absolutely agree, because anyone with an objective mind, seeing how the situation continues to deteriorate in Gaza, will see it as completely unconscionable, intolerable and absolutely inhumane. How did we arrive at a position where women and children are being murdered daily and the international community stands by and does nothing? How did we arrive at a point where a man-made famine has been unleashed on an innocent population in Gaza with no repercussions? How are leaders of a state that is carrying out genocide allowed to be openly and unapologetically welcomed around the world? This is the biggest humanitarian disaster of our generation. It is unfolding right in front of our eyes, yet Israel continues to act, to be let off the hook and, even worse, encouraged in some quarters. This cannot be described as a war: it is genocide. It is genocide, ethnic cleansing and state-directed killing. We all need to do everything that we can to end the horror for the Palestinian people, but that can only come about when the international community stands together and says no. We need to see an immediate ceasefire; we need to see humanitarian aid; we need to see a release of all prisoners and hostages; and we need to see an immediate end to that man-made starvation. That is where the focus of the international community must be in order to bring it to an end. Mr O'Toole: First Minister, I agree with your decision not to go to the banquet. It was the right thing to do. However, given the fact that there is, as you say, a genocide happening in Gaza and that democracy around the world, including, sadly, in North America and the United States, is under threat, what steps are you taking to ensure a broader, values-based international relations strategy for the Executive? Mrs O'Neill: That is the reasonable approach to take in the drafting of our new international relations strategy. We look on, aghast, at how people, particularly in London, have decided to wine and dine the president of the United States whilst his actions are clearly facilitating what is happening in Gaza. You cannot sell your soul for a pound. Any of us who have a soul and a heart would look at what is happening in Gaza and understand why we should not engage with those who are responsible for inflicting that horror and pain on the Gazan people. Ebrington Square: Update 4. Mr Middleton asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the development of Ebrington Square in Londonderry. (AQO 2374/22-27) Mrs O'Neill: The investment in Ebrington aligns with the Executive's vision of building a strong, sustainable and regionally balanced economy. We are committed to investing in the north-west, and we are already seeing the positive outworkings of that commitment, including the expansion of Magee, the city deals and the projects that are being delivered as part of Urban Villages funding. Specifically, since taking on the Ebrington site in 2016, the Executive Office has invested over £37 million to develop and regenerate it. The investment, along with £40 million of private finance, has been transformative for the site, attracting a variety of new businesses and creating more than 360 jobs. In March, we officially opened the new headquarters of software consultancy firm Alchemy Technology Services at the state-of-the-art Ebrington Plaza. A few months later, that was followed by Ernst & Young (EY) opening its new north-west regional office at the plaza. Even in the past week, there has been the Seagate announcement. The site has become a vibrant hub for creative, cultural, sporting, charitable and other community-led events. The Executive Office has also committed £3·3 million of funding towards the Derry North Atlantic Museum, which is a key part of the overall redevelopment of the square. The junior Ministers are looking forward to visiting Ebrington later this week to see construction get under way on that important new regional visitor attraction. The Department will continue to work with tenants and stakeholders to showcase Ebrington, ensuring that it supports the region's rich creativity, innovation, talent and skills and plays its part in the site's future growth. Mr Middleton: I thank the First Minister for her response, and I welcome the progress being made at Ebrington. First Minister, where are discussions at with the council about the potential transfer of the Ebrington site to the council? What assurances has your office received that the site will remain a shared space? I have some concerns, given the track record of councillors, that that may not remain the case if it goes to the council. Mrs O'Neill: The Member is a representative of the north-west, and it is important to make sure that we underline the sheer scale of investment that there has been in the north-west recently. We should all be buoyed by that positivity. You mentioned the site's being transferred to the council. That process has been ongoing for a considerable period. Realising the Ebrington site's full potential for the whole city and the north-west generally is a shared priority across multiple stakeholders in the north-west. We are focused on delivering on those shared ambitions and on improving processes and partnerships to achieve them. Discussions are ongoing with the council to progress the site's transfer. We are told that the full transfer is complex and is taking time to complete, but I can tell you that it is all in train and is being actively worked on. Mr Delargy: First Minister, I thank you and the deputy First Minister for your recent attendance at Seagate and at Foyle port. I also welcome the north-west leadership collective, members of which are in the Public Gallery today, and recognise its fantastic work in the area. What impact has the fact that the Executive have agreed a regional balance strategy had on driving investment and making Derry and the broader north-west an even more attractive place in which to live, work and invest? Mrs O'Neill: Thank you for that question. I did not know that we had visitors from the north-west: you are very welcome. Putting regional balance at the heart of the economic strategy here was a deliberate approach to ensure that we unlock the north-west's full potential and that investment is shared across the board. I sometimes listen to a lot of negativity, but there is so much positivity around the north-west right now. So many things have been and will continue to be delivered, including, even in the past number of months, the Seagate and EY announcements. We were at the Foyle port last week; its plans are also amazing and will make the area an even more wonderful place in which to live, invest and study. I am determined to continue to work with all Ministers around the Executive table to see how we can deliver even more in the north-west, but the fact is that we have placed regional balance at the heart of the economic strategy. We saw the headlines last week that there is a 21% increase in the number of people applying to Magee. There has been more investment in Magee in the past year than there has been in the past 10 years. There is the city deal, the job announcements that I talked about and the investment in City of Derry Airport. The north-west is thriving. It is a real economic hub and an engine on which to be built even further. Ms McLaughlin: There is no regional balance for the north-west, and I do not know how to make that loud and clear. Last week in Belfast, a thousand jobs were announced, and we are getting the crumbs with the job announcements for Derry. That aside, you talked about the need for regional balance. Can you spell out exactly what that means in practice? What specific measures or indices have you built into strategies to ensure that there is real accountability to deliver regional balance and fairness in the North? Mrs O'Neill: For the first time ever, right at the heart of the Executive's economic strategy, regional balance is writ large. It is an objective for Invest NI, and we can very much see that starting to be borne out. I therefore encourage you to be more positive about what is being achieved in the wider north-west. Regional balance is now at the heart of Executive strategy. We have seen the increase in the number of applicants to Magee and the increase in investment, which I just mentioned. You may want to wish those developments away, but they are positive ones, and we will continue to build on them even more in the time ahead. I look at EY's announcement of 120 jobs and the announcement from Seagate last week of a £115 million investment in the north-west. Those announcements have been underlined by the largest ever Invest NI contribution towards research. That is regional balance in action. It is us delivering and doing things. That does not mean that we rest on our laurels. Those advancements are great, but we have much more to do. I will work with all Ministers to ensure that more is delivered for the north-west. Mr Burrows: Will the First Minister agree that, given that public money was invested in Ebrington Square, all lawful organisations, including the UK armed forces, should be welcome at events there? Mrs O'Neill: It is not really related to the question, but I will say that I have made my position clear on the jobs fair. I think that the locally elected councillors made the right call. Troubles Permanent Disablement Payment Scheme: Update 5. Mr McMurray asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the processing of applications to the Troubles permanent disablement payment scheme. (AQO 2375/22-27) Mrs O'Neill: Junior Minister Reilly will answer that question. Ms Reilly: As of last week, 11,853 applications have been submitted to the victims' payments scheme. Payments totalling almost £108 million have been made to eligible applicants, offering meaningful recognition of the harm that they have suffered. The Victims' Payments Board is progressing applications as efficiently as possible and continues to work closely with victims and survivors' groups to make sure that any issues are flagged and addressed. Following a recent review of operations, the board has established a business transformation team to improve the processes. That has already had an impact on the value of awards paid out, which is reflected in the year-on-year increase in payments. There is, however, more work to do. We are also aware of the issues with the length of time that can be taken to reach a determination, but we are confident that the board is doing all that it can to make sure that applications are considered as quickly as possible. With the scheme set to close to new applications in August 2026, we strongly encourage anyone who may be eligible to submit their application before that deadline. Support is available through a number of sectoral organisations, including WAVE Trauma Centre, the South East Fermanagh Foundation, Relatives for Justice, the Ely Centre and Ashton Community Trust, for anyone who needs help with the application process. I put on record our thanks to those groups, which offer tremendous support and advocacy for victims and survivors as they go through the process. Mr McMurray: We are all dismayed at the recent reports of applicants having to wait for a long time for their application to be assessed. Will you please outline what additional resources will be allocated to try to speed up the processing of applications? Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Junior Minister, you have less than a minute. Ms Reilly: Thanks for that question. We completely understand the concerns that have been raised about the time that it is taking to process applications. Each application to the scheme is unique and comes with its own complexities, and the progress of applications can require additional or supporting information from external organisations. There are also some challenges with getting access to medical information, but our officials are working really closely with Department of Health colleagues to improve the process. Cases can also be adjourned in order to allow further information or evidence to be gathered to allow applicants or their representatives to comment on specific issues. We are assured, however, that the board is keeping the processes under review in order to look for ways to improve the rate of flow of the cases. Also, on prioritising —. Top 2.30 pm Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up. Ms Reilly: Sorry. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you. That ends the period for listed questions. We will now move on to 15 minutes of topical questions. Topical questions 2, 5 and 6 have been withdrawn. First Ministers: Joint Title T1. Mr O'Toole asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, particularly the First Minister, whether, given that the First Minister was elected to her role in a historic moment in the Chamber last February — historic because the state was founded in inequality, supremacy and top-dog politics — she agrees with Martin McGuinness, one of her predecessors, that we should abolish the absurd differential between the First Ministers' titles and return to something that is more like equality. (AQT 1561/22-27) Mrs O'Neill: The Member will know that that is under the remit of the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, which is actively working through the matter. We all fought the election on the rules as they stand, and when we get to the point at which potential change is brought forward, under that Committee's remit, we can all make our choice about where we might go with it next. Mr O'Toole: First Minister, you are First Minister. I asked for your opinion. I did not ask what the AERC is doing. I am on that Committee, so I know. The differential between those titles was born out of unionist insecurity, to be blunt, in 1998. It was a continuation of the top-dog supremacy politics of the Orange state that you and I both want to move away from. Do you agree with me and with yourself, because in 2020, you called yourself the joint First Minister, and with your predecessor, Martin McGuinness, that it is time to abandon that kind of top-dog politics and move toward a joint title? Mrs O'Neill: I have made my position very clear to the Member. You are on the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, and that is the forum in which we can discuss those issues. I am the First Minister, there is a deputy First Minister, and it is a joint office. I have never shied away from that. I also used the joint office title previously. Let the AERC do its work. You sit on the Committee, so you are familiar with it. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Question 2 has been withdrawn. Jobs Fairs T3. Mr Middleton asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, especially the First Minister, whether she wants the armed forces to "butt out" of all jobs fairs in Northern Ireland or just those that are in areas that are under nationalist control, given that, when taking up office, she said that she would be a "First Minister for all", but following the decision by councillors in Londonderry about the jobs fair, her commentary shows that she is unwilling to set aside party politics and show leadership. (AQT 1563/22-27) Mrs O'Neill: The Member will know that I have made my position on the matter clear. The democratically elected local councillors know best what is good in their own community. Given the history of the British Army in Derry, I stand over saying that I think that that was the right call for them to make about what happens at a jobs fair. If anybody wants to join any part of the British military, they can do so anywhere else. They can apply online or in whatever way they wish, but the sensitivities around Derry are not lost on people. Mr Middleton: The First Minister has not answered the question. I asked whether that applies to all councils in Northern Ireland. First Minister, do you not see the hypocrisy of your commentary commemorating the victim makers while being unwilling to allow citizens in my community to engage with the armed forces in their council area? Do you not see the hypocrisy in that? Mrs O'Neill: Do you not see the hypocrisy of going against the decision of the democratically elected local councillors? I back the councillors and their decision, because it was right and appropriate. You should also respect the council's decision, because it was taken in the best interest of the community. Biological Reality T4. Mr Gaston asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, but especially the First Minister, whether, given that she holds office in a Department with responsibility for equality and given that he has sought clarification from her about biological reality on a number of occasions in the Chamber and in Committee but she has refused to answer, she can clarify whether a woman can have a penis. (AQT 1564/22-27) Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: For God's sake. First Minister. Mrs O'Neill: That is absolutely ridiculous, and you are making a show of yourself. You are fascinated with the definition of a woman, and I think that that says a lot about you. Mr Gaston: At the weekend, the DUP leader rightly attacked those who refuse to accept biological reality, yet you head a Department alongside Mrs Little-Pengelly that retains its links with the discredited Stonewall organisation. Stonewall believes that a woman can have a penis. First Minister, once again, do you believe that? Mrs O'Neill: I will have to help you out with a wee biology lesson. I was born a biological baby girl; I grew into a teenager; and I am now a fully fledged woman. There are also trans women in our community. If women can be supportive and inclusive of trans women, you should also. However, I fear, as the trans community fears, that all that you are interested in is stoking up fear, tensions and hurt. Have a bit of sensitivity and decency. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Topical questions 5 and 6 have been withdrawn. Legacy Commission T7. Mr Beattie asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, after welcoming the recent victims and survivors strategy 2024-2034, which refers on multiple occasions to a victim-centred approach to trauma and dealing with the past, whether they are able to give assurances to victims and survivors, given the Executive Office's engagement with the UK and Irish Governments on the new legacy commission, whether that legacy commission meets that clear objective of being victim-centred. (AQT 1567/22-27) Mrs O'Neill: As I said earlier, the framework was published only on Friday, so we do not yet understand what the legislative text looks like. We need to understand that. There will, of course, be a role for the Victims and Survivors Service in supporting all victims and survivors. We cannot engage on what the remit of the body is until we see what the legislative text says, but we will do so in due course. Mr Beattie: Thank you for the answer. I am slightly concerned now. I would have imagined that, given that you, the deputy First Minister and the Executive Office created the victims and survivors strategy 2024-2034, you would have had sight of what the legislation will state and, therefore, would have been able to say, "This whole process" — I am talking about process, not legislation — "is victim- and survivor-centred". Mrs O'Neill: Being victim- and survivor-centred will be key to its success; I absolutely agree with you. However, the British Government chose to launch the framework jointly with the Irish Government last Friday. We see the framework, but there is then a period between that and seeing what the legislative text looks like in terms of the make-up and remit of the body and how it operates. We still have not had sight of that. I do not believe that anybody has. That is not good enough. They should have talked to us about it. I know that all parties would have engaged across the board, but the Executive Office should, of course, have been consulted. However, that falls at the feet of the British Government in terms of their approach. Irish Language Demonstration in Dublin T8. Mr Kelly asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister whether the First Minister will join him in commending the approximately 25,000 Gaels who took to the streets of Dublin at the weekend to highlight the issues facing Irish speakers. (AQT 1568/22-27) Mrs O'Neill: Maith sibh. [Translation: Good on you.] It was really heartening to see the huge crowds in Dublin at the weekend. It shows the vibrancy of the Irish language community. Taking to the streets to march for equality and fairness across the board is a testament to the strength and the energetic revival of the Irish language here. Gaelic continues to thrive in communities across the island. However, as has been highlighted widely — this was the purpose of the large rally on Saturday — it needs much more investment North and South. It is also something to be celebrated. There can be no complacency or contempt from those in the Executive who have responsibility for its development. In that regard, I want to work with all parties and Executive colleagues to ensure that the Irish language is fully supported and allowed to flourish. We all have a clear duty to play a positive and proactive role in ensuring that the language grows for generations to come. We need to work together to make sure that we do that and to ensure that it is invested in. Mr Kelly: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Chéad-Aire as an fhreagra sin. [Translation: I thank the First Minister for that answer.] I think that the First Minister has already alluded to this, but will she do everything that she can to continue to commit to supporting the development of the Irish language? There is much more to do. Mrs O'Neill: I totally agree that there is so much more to do in order to build on the huge strides forward and allow the language to grow. There are so many children being educated through the medium of Irish today. They want to see their language and to hear their language in the community in which they live. That ongoing revival and the vibrancy of the language and the culture is something to be celebrated. It creates huge opportunity as well for our society. The appointment of the Irish Language Commissioner and the advancement of that role are imminent. The role that the commissioner will play in promoting the language and ensuring that it is protected across our public services in everyday life will be an important interjection to advance things. Belfast City Council is on the verge of adopting a transformative Irish language policy that will be the first of its kind in the North and will further improve the visibility of the language. We can and must do more. We must keep working at it. We need to see an Irish language strategy being brought forward by the Communities Minister. Political will and genuine cooperation will be required to ensure that the language thrives for generations to come. Aerospace and Defence Sectors: Global Promotion T9. Mr Brooks asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, given that, as has been noted by Invest NI, there is no indication of new companies investing in Northern Ireland as a result of supposed dual market access but there is growth in Northern Ireland's valuable aerospace and defence sectors, what they are doing globally for those businesses. (AQT 1569/22-27) Mrs O'Neill: Dual market access is a prize that we need to grab together. The fact that we have access to both markets makes us the envy of many other places; in fact, there are companies that have, of late, pointed to dual market access contributing to their growth. That is positive. The Murphy report, which was published last week, states that we need to avail ourselves of and tap into that dual market access and to sell our wares. The heart of the economic strategy is very much the promotion of dual market access so that we continue to see its benefits in the time ahead. We need to work to support our industries across the board, and the Economy Minister is doing a great job in that regard. Mr Brooks: At a vital time for that sector, the First Minister boycotted events on St Patrick's Day, boycotted the recent state banquet at Buckingham Palace and said that she was incredulous at the UK Government's recent investment in the sector. Does she think that that behaviour assists businesses to grow in Northern Ireland? Mrs O'Neill: It is important that we continue with all our business engagements. It is right and proper that we do so and that we have the message that we are open for business and that we are a great place in which to live, work and invest. That is our continued message when we engage with many. That is the appropriate approach from us, as an Executive Office, and from the Economy Minister. I noted the engagement that we have had on investment with all international investors and with people who are big players from different countries. However, do not sell your soul for short-termism, going to banquets and sipping champagne whilst people in Gaza starve. Mr Brooks: The answer is no, First Minister. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Excuse me. Mother-and-baby Institutions: Inquiry and Redress Scheme T10. Mr Dunne asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the inquiry into mother-and-baby institutions and on the redress scheme. (AQT 1570/22-27) Mrs O'Neill: Our work on that is ongoing. The Committee for the Executive Office is working its way through the legislation. It is a huge area, and we want to get it right. We are determined to do everything that we can to support all victims and survivors. I am glad to say that we are making some progress on erecting a plaque in the Great Hall. We made a commitment to do that and are hopeful that we will be able to do so in the autumn. That is another advancement in that area. Mr Dunne: Is there any further update on the time frame for delivery for innocent victims across Northern Ireland through the redress scheme? Mrs O'Neill: We are working our way through the legislative process at the moment. The unique aspect of the scheme is that there will be two payments: one upfront payment and a payment that will come at a later stage after the public inquiry. That is unique compared with any other scheme, because it includes that first payment. It is important that we get that payment to victims and survivors as quickly as possible. They have been waiting for far too long to get to this juncture. We are determined to get that payment made as quickly as possible once the legislation has gone through the Assembly. I am hopeful that we will be able to make progress on that fairly soon. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That ends the period for topical questions to the First Minister and deputy First Minister. Members should take their ease for a moment before we begin questions to the Minister for the Economy. Top 2.45 pm Economy Trading Standards Service: Complaints Received 1. Mr Allen asked the Minister for the Economy to outline the number of complaints received by the Northern Ireland Trading Standards Service in each of the past five years. (AQO 2386/22-27) Dr Archibald (The Minister for the Economy): My Department’s Trading Standards Service has received the following number of consumer complaints in each of the last five years: in 2020, 10,583; in 2021, 9,799; in 2022, 12,708; in 2023, 12,622; in 2024, 10,817; and, to date in 2025, 6,962. Mr Allen: I thank the Minister for her response. A large volume of complaints are received each year by the Trading Standards Service. Will the Minister give her assessment of the effectiveness of the Trading Standards Service? How many of those complaints resulted in prosecution? Dr Archibald: The Department's Trading Standards Service delivers consumer protection and enforcement on the ground. It delivers a front-line public protection function for the benefit of our consumers, businesses and the wider economy. That function comprises the twin aims of protecting consumers, particularly the most vulnerable, from illegal and unfair trading practices and providing support and guidance for businesses, particularly small businesses, so that they can effectively deal with regulation. As the Member referred to, it can also undertake investigations when it receives complaints. Given the large number of complaints received, the mandate that Trading Standards Service has and the resources that it has, it is not possible to investigate every complaint that it receives or pursue every issue. It prioritises its work and focuses resources on the areas that will result in the greatest benefit to the economy. I do not have the number of prosecutions in front of me, but, if the Member writes to me, I am happy to share those. Mr Delargy: Minister, what laws are in place to protect consumers from unsatisfactory home improvement services? Dr Archibald: Builders and those who provide home improvement services need to comply with a significant number of consumer protection laws. Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, consumers who enter into a contract for goods and services can expect those to be supplied with reasonable care and skill. That applies to all traders, whether builders, plumbers, decorators, electricians or whatever. The Act also requires that any materials used by any of those professionals should be of satisfactory quality, as described and fit for purpose. The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 protects consumers from unfair trading practices by prohibiting misleading actions and omissions, aggressive sales tactics and other unfair practices that distort consumer decisions. Any breaches of criminal consumer protection legislation can result in a trader being subject to enforcement by Trading Standards, including prosecution, with the courts having the power to fine or imprison offenders. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Question 2 has been withdrawn. Non-domestic RHI: Closure 3. Mr McGuigan asked the Minister for the Economy for an update on the closure of the non-domestic renewable heat incentive (RHI) scheme. (AQO 2388/22-27) Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. Earlier today, I announced the proposed way forward on RHI, following Executive approval on 18 September. My Department will now act swiftly to launch a public consultation and introduce the necessary legislation and regulations to give participants a tariff uplift for the coming winter. Following a period of extensive engagement with stakeholders, the consultation will now bring forward the details of how the scheme will be closed in a manner that is fair to both the participants and the taxpayer. Mr McGuigan: Obviously, my question was a wee bit outdated, given the Minister's statement this morning. Nonetheless, I welcome progress. Even though this may have been covered, Minister, when might a replacement scheme be in place, and how much annually managed expenditure (AME) funding will be available for it? Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. As I indicated in my responses earlier, the scheme itself is expected to cost up to £196 million AME over the 10 years, and then there is a departmental expenditure limit (DEL) resource cost alongside. That frees up approximately £100 million AME that, once the scheme has been closed, will be able to be used over the period for a scheme that is designed to effectively cut carbon. Once we have completed the RHI closure, we will move to design and bring forward a replacement. We will engage with Treasury on that basis. Mr Honeyford: I welcome the Minister's statement earlier, what she has said in answering the question and last week's announcement about the new renewables scheme. However, it is all developer-led. I have repeatedly asked for a Department plan to link all of that together to give confidence that we will move forward in a way that gives best value for money. Is there a plan, and when will we see it? Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. He makes an important point, because, as he will be well aware, a number of policy areas are being developed in tandem. That is being coordinated across the Department. We can ask officials to share something that points to what the Member wants to see. Local Economic Partnerships: Update 4. Mr McGrath asked the Minister for the Economy for an update on the work of the local economic partnerships. (AQO 2389/22-27) Dr Archibald: The establishment of local economic partnerships is a new approach, bringing together my Department, Invest NI, councils and other key economic stakeholders in local areas. Overall, good progress has been made, and all 11 local economic partnerships have been established. There are varying levels of progress on the development of action plans. Four partnerships are very close to submitting action plans to the Department for approval, and others are holding workshops to develop ideas and proposals. We expect that progress on action plans will accelerate from this point. The Member's local economic partnership at Newry, Mourne and Down District Council was the first to be established. The partnership has agreed an action plan, which is going through council approval processes and should be with the Department in the coming weeks for approval and issue of a letter of offer. I will be visiting Ards and North Down Borough Council on Thursday to hear more about its local economic partnership. I look forward to visiting more partnerships and seeing action plans progress. The Department and Invest NI will continue to work closely with the partnerships over the coming months to develop action plans that address local economic needs and ensure a collaborative approach. Mr McGrath: It is good that the money will be pushed out across the North so that all areas can benefit. I asked your predecessor whether there were checks and balances in place in each council area to make sure that money is spread around across the council area. In my area, I want to see Downpatrick get its share rather than it simply going to Newry. Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question, and he makes a fair point. It is the responsibility of councillors in an area and all who are represented on the partnerships to ensure that there is a fair distribution across an area and that they target where they need to target for economic development. I guess that the checks and balances are built into the business case process, as you would expect, when issuing the letters of offer. They are probably slightly different checks and balances to those that the Member refers to, but there is the opportunity for areas to design economic plans, and local accountability needs to be layered on top of that. Mrs Dillon: A bit like the previous questioner, I am selfishly interested in my area of mid-Ulster. I would like a sense of what types of projects are likely to be in the action plans. I agree that councils are best suited to decide on what action plans are best for their area. Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. I will give her an update on mid-Ulster. I understand that the council has decided to appoint a consultant to lead on the development of its action plan and that they should be in place later in September. I encourage her to engage with the council on that. Partnerships are bringing forward a good range of actions that, exactly as has been anticipated, address local economic needs. Proposals include business support and mentoring, workspace development and tourism initiatives, but it is very much up to the local areas to decide what initiatives are needed and what best fits their economic needs. I encourage people actively to engage with the partnerships in their area to help shape the proposals. Mr Brett: Minister, your subregional economic plan was launched almost a year ago, and the local economic partnerships were meant to be at the heart of it. Some £45 million was allocated to them, but not a penny has been spent to date. Regional balance has got worse on your watch, Minister, and we have had a resignation from the board of Invest Northern Ireland. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Is there a question? Mr Brett: Does the Minister agree that her subregional economic plan is not worth the paper that it is written on? Dr Archibald: I absolutely do not agree with the Member, and I do not expect that he expected me to. I am not sure what metric he is referring to when he talks about regional balance having got worse. The local economic partnerships initiative is very much about democratising economic development. It is not unexpected that the time taken for partnerships to establish themselves has differed across council areas, and, given the devolved nature of council responsibilities and that some were bringing together partnerships that may not have existed previously, councils were starting from different points. The Department also had to seek approval of the business case for the fund, and that required taking a careful approach in order to ensure the type of flexibility that we want to see and to facilitate the partnerships to deliver. I am pleased that all 11 partnerships have now been established, and, as I indicated, we have well-developed action plans that have enabled officials to undertake financial forecasting. There will be reduced spend in the first year, but the funding is being allocated across the three years and will be profiled accordingly. Short-term Lets: Regulation 5. Mr Brooks asked the Minister for the Economy whether she has made any progress towards greater regulation of short-term lets. (AQO 2390/22-27) Dr Archibald: My Department regulates the minimum quality standards for visitor accommodation, commonly known as "short-term lets", across the North. It makes regulations to set standards in areas such as cleanliness, maintenance, essential facilities and comfort that operators must meet. Tourism NI ensures compliance by inspecting all new accommodation establishments under its statutory certification scheme before they begin operating and by re-inspecting existing businesses at least once every four years. My Department and Tourism NI recently completed a review of the scheme's statutory criteria. We will soon launch a public consultation on proposed changes to obtain wider stakeholder and industry feedback. The proposals respond to recent market trends, such as the rise in the number of glamping pods and other alternative accommodations, and will update the minimum standards and amenities that visitors now expect. Mr Brooks: I thank the Minister for her answer. She will surely recognise that the proliferation of short-term lets is corrosive to the cohesion of our communities and to the availability and cost of family homes in those communities. Short-term lets also undermine our hospitality sector. Is there a recognition in the Executive that they need to do more on short-term lets than merely regulate their quality? Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. I have a lot of sympathy with the sentiment that he expresses. I live in an area that has a big tourism sector and many tourist attractions, and the number of those types of short-term lets is increasing. It is important that we take a proper look at the issue. The regulation of short-term lets is a complex area in which to deliver change, and there are different policy and operational responsibilities across Departments, councils and other agencies. My Department and Tourism NI have no statutory powers to limit, cap or control the number or spread of properties providing accommodation for visitors. We therefore have little or no statutory or regulatory role to play on how they impact on housing, to which the Member referred. However, I am committed to supporting the delivery of the Executive's housing supply strategy, and I am sure that the Member is aware of the fact that a cross-departmental approach is being taken. My officials are working with the Department for Communities and the Department for Infrastructure, as DFC looks to soon commission research to gain a more informed assessment of the relative impact, if any, of short-term lets on local housing markets. The completion of that research will give us a better understanding of the types of policy interventions that could be required in the area. Top 3.00 pm Ms Sheerin: Minister, will you outline what the Department and Tourism NI are doing to enforce the regulatory compliance of Airbnbs and short-term lets? Dr Archibald: Enforcement of the requirement for visitor accommodation to be certified is a matter for Tourism NI under the Tourism Order 1992. It includes taking enforcement action against accommodation establishments that have not been certified. Tourism NI regularly engages with representatives of the main online booking platforms, such as Airbnb, to encourage them to align the properties that are listed on their sites with the properties that Tourism NI has certified. I strongly encourage cooperation on that in order to continue growing the practice. Tourism NI also routinely undertakes enforcement action against uncertified operators in accordance with its powers and statutory responsibilities. Upon completing the work of the upcoming public consultation, my Department and Tourism NI will review the overall design and function of the certification scheme, including whether enhanced enforcement powers are required for Tourism NI, for example, to be able to take action against online booking platforms to improve operator compliance. [Interruption.] Mr O'Toole: Minister, I will let you get your voice back. Lots of people are dealing with a cough today. To be clear, a study involving Tourism NI is being done to see whether it is necessary to have further statutory powers, enforcement powers, both or one in order to get the other. I ask you to be specific about this: is it your intention to legislate to get more power to regulate short-term lets, specifically Airbnbs? Dr Archibald: In case I have caused confusion, I confirm that a consultation is being undertaken on the powers that Tourism NI currently has in relation to accommodation. Upon completion of that consultation, we will look at whether any further enforcement powers are required. A broader piece of work is being undertaken across Departments to look at short-term lets and their impact on our housing supply. Mourne Mountains Gateway Project: Kilbroney Park 6. Ms Ennis asked the Minister for the Economy for her assessment of the intervention by the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in stating that his Department is not in a position to support the Mourne Mountains gateway project being constructed in Kilbroney forest park. (AQO 2391/22-27) Dr Archibald: I value the importance of tourism to the Newry, Mourne and Down District Council area, and I recognise the fact that Minister Muir's decision will have been disappointing for the region. However, our focus is now on finding an alternative use for the funding. While it will ultimately be for the Belfast region city deal partners to propose an alternative project, I am supportive of retaining the funding in the Newry, Mourne and Down District Council area. My Department is actively working with stakeholders, including the council, to identify alternative projects. Indeed, officials from my Department, Invest NI and Tourism NI met council officials in Downpatrick last week to support the exploration of alternative options. I am fully committed to co-design and partnership working with the council on the development of a new proposal that will strengthen the local economy, support job creation and bring lasting value to the region. Ms Ennis: Go raibh maith agat. [Translation: Thank you.] I thank the Minister. Minister Muir's intervention not only jeopardises the much-needed city deal funding but, more worryingly, calls into question the long-standing memorandum of understanding between our council and his Department. Minister, you said that you are "actively working" with officials from Newry, Mourne and Down District Council, and I welcome that. Will the Minister commit to sending her departmental officials to continue that exploration work with Warrenpoint, Burren and Rostrevor (WBR) Chamber of Commerce and others in order to find an alternative tourism or innovation project? Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. I understand that council officials recently met representatives from the WBR chamber to discuss alternative projects. I welcome the chamber's involvement, and I encourage the chamber and others to continue to engage with the council in order to support the identification of alternative projects, irrespective of whether they are in the tourism or innovation sectors. As I said, my focus is on supporting the council and the wider Belfast region city deal partners to develop the right project that will deliver sustained and inclusive economic growth for the region. NEETs 7. Miss McAllister asked the Minister for the Economy to outline any action that she is taking to address the increase in young people not in education, employment or training (NEETs) in Northern Ireland. (AQO 2392/22-27) Dr Archibald: The reported increase in the number of young people here who are not in education, employment or training is of significant concern to me. It is a complex area that is not unique to here, involving a diverse range of young people aged between 16 and 24, with multiple factors at play. I have asked my officials to consider the factors that are associated with the increase; for example, whether the increasing incidence of poor mental health could be contributing to that worrying trend. Many of my Department's programmes are aimed at supporting our young people to thrive in training or employment. Those include entry-level programmes such as Skills for Life and Work and Step Up, with FE colleges offering flexible delivery to accommodate diverse learner needs. The apprenticeship programme, with the recently launched apprenticeship action plan, is a key deliverable. I will soon be consulting on widening participation in higher education. The loss of European social funding continues to be a challenge when it comes to the interventions that we can offer. Addressing the trend will require a holistic response from across the Executive. I am committed to working with my Executive colleagues to ensure that all our young people can fully participate and achieve their potential. Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for her response. In my constituency of North Belfast, many organisations do a lot of work with young people. One that focuses particularly on young girls, WOMEN'STEC, does fantastic work. Is the Department exploring typically male-dominated roles in order to encourage more young women, in particular, to get involved in them? Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. I know WOMEN'STEC well. On Friday, I will actually visit its project launch in the north-west as part of the apprenticeship inclusion challenge fund. The apprenticeship inclusion challenge fund supports projects to facilitate young people from backgrounds that traditionally face barriers. That includes women, because the numbers of girls who participate in apprenticeships are much lower than the numbers of young boys. We want to address that gap. I certainly want to support and encourage more young women and girls into those less traditional roles and to do anything that we can to support that. That includes the work that we are doing through the careers action plan, so that young people know about the variety of options that are available to them and the pathways to get there. A number of different pieces of work are going on. The trends that relate to those young people who are not in education, employment or training are concerning. We need to take a more focused look at that. Ms Ferguson: Can the Minister expand on how she and the Department intend to support young people who are furthest removed from the labour market, particularly those who have disengaged and have low or no qualifications? Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. As I mentioned in my previous answer, the Department delivers Skills for Life and Work, which is a vocational education and training programme that is focused primarily on entry level and level 1, providing a guaranteed training place for young people aged 16 and 17 who have left school with low or no qualifications. The programme supports those who have very low or no prior achievement on their journey towards further education, employment or an apprenticeship, and it serves a cohort of young people who face significant barriers to engagement in work and learning. My officials are also working with training providers to identify progression pathways for programmes to better support outcomes for young people. We also support the PEACE PLUS youth programme, which targets young people aged from 14 to 24 who are disadvantaged, marginalised or at risk of involvement with violent or paramilitary activity. Typically, those young people have disengaged from mainstream provision. Participants can develop their capabilities in areas such as good relations, personal development and employability, alongside a focus on identifying the next step of their journey. Cruise Liners: Economic Value 8. Mr Chambers asked the Minister for the Economy to outline the value to the local economy provided by cruise liners visiting Belfast in each of the past three years. (AQO 2393/22-27) Dr Archibald: Over the past three years, cruise liner visits have consistently contributed £20 million to £25 million per year to the local economy. That is dependent on the number of ships that visit, their passenger capacity and uptake of ticket sales. Over the past three years, annual cruise ship visits have increased from 141 ships in 2022, delivering £20 million to the economy, to a high of 158 in 2023, bringing £25 million of economic benefit. In 2024, we saw the number of visiting ships drop back to 143, with an estimated £20 million of economic benefit. By the end of the 2025 season, 147 ships are scheduled to have visited, delivering an estimated economic impact in excess of £23 million. Those economic impact figures are from a recent report that was commissioned by Belfast Harbour and supported by Visit Belfast. The report estimates the direct spend by passengers and crew during their visits, as well as spending by the cruise lines, on things such as prearranged passenger tours, port services and locally supplied provisions. Mr Chambers: Those figures undoubtedly prove that attracting cruise liners to Belfast has been a huge success story. Minister, the added value is in cruise passengers planning a return visit to explore more of what Northern Ireland has to offer. Has there been any research into the potential for that, and are we actively encouraging it? Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. That is an important area to look at. In the summer, we experienced the Open representing a shop window, for want of a better term, to everything that we have to offer, and there is similar opportunity in that area. The work of Tourism NI and Tourism Ireland on marketing what we have to offer, with people then coming to experience it for themselves, encourages them to come back. The Member is welcome to write to me about research specifically in that area, and I will be happy to furnish him with anything that we have or to look at what we might need. Ms Finnegan: Will the Minister provide an update on the new cruise tourism facilities that are being constructed as part of the Shared Island project? Dr Archibald: Belfast Harbour recently commenced the construction of a new £90 million deepwater berth at the D3 site. That facility will initially provide dedicated cruise passenger facilities to replace the current cruise location at D1, which is expected to be required to handle offshore wind farm projects later in the decade. Belfast Harbour is funding the £90 million investment as part of its five-year strategy to advance regional prosperity and is not in receipt of Shared Island funding for that. Belfast Harbour has identified a significant investment opportunity on the D3 site that would make it capable of further bolstering the harbour's ability to support the offshore wind supply chain. Such investment is beyond the funding that is currently available to Belfast Harbour. It has engaged with DFI and DFE on a joint proposal to the Shared Island Fund, alongside a bid from the Port of Cork, to further enhance the development of a dual-use solution for crews and offshore wind. [Interruption.] Mr Kingston: I will give the Minister time to get a glass of water. Those figures are encouraging. I remember the excitement when the first cruise ship came to Belfast in 1996, and we now see about 150 ships every year, so it is part of the success story of Belfast. Given the importance of the tourism sector to our economy, Minister, why have you imposed a real-terms cut on the Tourism Northern Ireland budget? Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. We all recognise that we are in a challenging budgetary environment, and all Departments have faced difficult decisions in the past couple of years. In our approach to our budget this year, in order to take forward the Department's priorities, we had to look across the rest of the Department to reduce costs. Some reduction was imposed on all divisions of the Department, and that has impacted on our arm's-length bodies. We have uplifted Tourism Ireland's funding, which had fallen back over the past number of years. In order to ensure my tourism priorities, we published the tourism vision and action plan. We are working alongside all our arm's-length bodies to look towards the three-year budgeting process. We will try to ensure that we can maximise our potential within our budgetary constraints. Top 3.15 pm Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister. That ends the period for listed questions. We will move on to 15 minutes of topical questions. Topical question 8 has been withdrawn. Invest NI: Regional Balance T1. Ms McLaughlin asked the Minister for the Economy, in light of the Lyons review of Invest NI, which highlighted the need for greater public accountability, whether Kieran Kennedy was wrong to resign from the board of Invest NI, citing discrimination against the north-west and a lack of commitment to regional balance. (AQT 1571/22-27) Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. I regret that Kieran has resigned over an operational decision. My commitment to the north-west and to regional balance is evident. Announcements have been made recently about investment in the City of Derry Airport and the expansion of Magee College. Also, working alongside Invest NI, we have seen jobs announcements and R&D investment as recently as last week in Seagate, EY, Alchemy and FinTrU — those are all announcements that I have had the opportunity to attend over the weeks and months since I have been in post. There has been a shift in the commitment to deliver regional balance. That is something that I am absolutely committed to and it is one of the four priorities that make up the economic vision. Ms McLaughlin: Thank you, Minister. The investment that you mentioned was made predominantly by the private sector. That was not good enough for Kieran Kennedy, a man who has dedicated himself to seeing economic fairness delivered for the north-west region. How do you expect that to be good enough for the people of Derry? Is it good enough for you? Dr Archibald: As somebody who is from the north-west, I have a vested interest in making sure that it is invested in and that we absolutely deliver for the people whom we represent there. I know that the Member shares that. I am disappointed that Kieran felt that he had to take that decision. I understand his reasons for that, given the decision around the office in the north-west. I know that Invest NI is continuing to work to resolve that. As I have indicated, however, my commitment to delivering on regional balance is clear to see. The delivery that we have seen over recent weeks and months supports that, and I will ensure that that continues throughout my term in office. Wrightbus T2. Mr Frew asked the Minister for the Economy what more she can do to support Wrightbus, in light of public utterances by its CEO over the weekend about unfair domestic decisions by His Majesty's Government and the spectre of Chinese companies, which receive Chinese state funding, coming into competition with our companies, whilst our Government heap on the burden of employers' National Insurance contributions. (AQT 1572/22-27) Dr Archibald: I have not seen the CEO's comments, so I am not entirely sure what the Member is referring to, but I understand the gist of it. The Executive have made representations to the British Government about their decisions on the likes of employers' National Insurance contributions, and the Finance Minister continues to make our case in that regard. When it comes to Wrightbus, there are various supports available through Invest NI and the Department for skills development, R&D and innovation. We are happy to continue to work with Wrightbus on all those things. Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for her answer. Wrightbus is the largest employer in my constituency and is in the top 10 employers in Northern Ireland. It is ahead of its field in research and development by some margin. Will the Minister commit to applying pressure on the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to make sure that nothing in the UK unfairly disadvantages Wrightbus compared with its domestic competitors? If I write to the Minister, will she visit Wrightbus to hear first hand from the CEO? Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. If you write to me, we will absolutely endeavour to fit that into the diary. I have no difficulty in engaging with the Secretary of State. As an Executive, we are united on some of the decisions that the British Government have taken since they have been in office and the impact that those decisions are having on local business. The Government claim to have an objective of economic growth. I do not think that the decisions that they have taken match that commitment. North/South Interconnector T3. Mr Tennyson asked the Minister for the Economy, given that she has reiterated her support for 80% renewable energy by 2030, which is a commitment that he shares, and that critical to that will be the delivery of the North/South interconnector, whether, for the avoidance of doubt, she and her Department support the interconnector being delivered as currently designed. (AQT 1573/22-27) Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for his question. I have been fairly clear on the matter previously. The North/South interconnector is critical infrastructure for our renewable targets and ambitions and, most importantly, for cutting costs for consumers. I have been very clear about my party's position on the North/South interconnector. I have also been clear about the obligations that we have as a Department for taking that forward. Mr Tennyson: Minister, I am not sure that you can disaggregate your party's position from your position as Minister. You claim that it is Sinn Féin's position that the pylons be undergrounded. How is that consistent with the position of your colleague the Infrastructure Minister who is fending off legal challenges from those who want the pylons to be undergrounded? To be clear, I want to see the project progress as currently designed. Dr Archibald: The Member will be well aware that the project was approved by a previous Infrastructure Minister and that both Departments have obligations to deliver on what has been approved in respect of planning. Mackies Site: Invest NI T4. Mr Kingston asked the Minister for the Economy whether she has made, and, if not, whether she will commit to making, representation to Invest NI to push for job creation on the former Mackies factory site between the Springfield Road and Woodvale Avenue in west Belfast, which is among the land portfolio of Invest NI and which closed over 25 years ago, given that Invest NI has repeatedly confirmed to him that the land is zoned and reserved for employment creation and that it is marketing it to potential client companies? (AQT 1574/22-27) Dr Archibald: I am not aware of engagement with Invest NI on that piece of land specifically. If the Member wants to write to me about it, I will be happy to take on board what he is saying and to engage. Mr Kingston: I will follow up on that in writing. I will also follow up on Glenbank industrial estate on the Crumlin Road in north Belfast where, again, significant land has lain empty for over 25 years. Offshore Renewable Energy Plan T5. Ms Mulholland asked the Minister for the Economy for an update on delivery of the offshore renewable energy plan, given the 2·8% decrease in renewable energy consumption. (AQT 1575/22-27) Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. Renewable energy consumption statistics have shown a slight reduction over the past year. The fluctuations that we see in our renewable energy consumption are for a variety of reasons, including the current constraint in our system, and do not necessarily reflect a reduction in renewable energy generation capacity. On the offshore renewable energy action plan, consultation on the strategic environmental assessment and habitats regulations assessment has been completed, and work is ongoing on the next steps for delivering offshore. We recently saw a research report undertaken by InterTradeIreland that looked at the potential for offshore energy on the island of Ireland. We are significantly well placed in the types of sectors that are needed to support the supply chain. We therefore need to retain a focus on our renewable energy potential and on the natural assets that we clearly have. Ms Mulholland: Minister, we have a target in the Climate Change Act to achieve 80% of electricity from renewable sources by 2030. How important is offshore energy to our meeting that target? How likely is it that your Department will achieve it? Dr Archibald: I thank the Member for her question. On Friday, we published the final scheme design for a renewable electricity price guarantee, which will be a significant lever for meeting the 80% target by 2030. It will encourage investment in renewables, which has very much dropped off since 2016, when the previous scheme ended. It will therefore be a significant player in helping us deliver on that target. Work still needs to be done on offshore renewable energy, and, given the kinds of timelines that we are talking about, it is not really anticipated that it will play a big role in our meeting the 2030 target. It could be beyond 2030 before offshore renewable energy becomes a key part of what we are trying to deliver, which is why it was really important that we got the renewable energy price guarantee scheme published at the end of last week and why we will be pushing forward with the legislation to get that scheme established. The first auction to award contracts will be undertaken as soon as possible. Post-19 SEN Provision T6. Mrs Dillon asked the Minister for the Economy to give an update on the review of post-19 SEN provision. (AQT 1576/22-27) Dr Archibald: In June, following a comprehensive review, I outlined my proposals for a programme of reforms for school-leavers with special educational needs. Subject to appropriate investment, the changes will enhance the pathways and supports for school-leavers who want to access the Department's education, skills and training provision. Following my statement in the Assembly, I circulated a paper to Executive colleagues on a range of cross-cutting issues and on issues relating to other departmental remits. A collaborative approach is crucial to delivering on our Programme for Government commitment to all young people with special educational needs. My officials are working through the scoping exercises and planning for that significant reform programme and also making progress on early actions. We have led on the development of a joint bid to the transformation fund with the Department of Health, the Department for Communities, the Department of Education and the Department for Infrastructure and have also prepared spending review bids. Mrs Dillon: I thank the Minister for her answer. Some parents are still very concerned that their young people will not be included and will therefore not be able to access post-19 SEN provision. Will you outline what conversations you are having with the Minister of Health specifically to ensure that young people can access provision and that they are getting sufficient help from the Department of Health as well as from your Department? Dr Archibald: The Health Minister is sitting across the Chamber from me. He will confirm that we have engaged on the matter. My officials also have regular contact with the Department of Health on the review and on our proposals, as well as on the development of the joint bid to the transformation fund. In June, I announced my intention to bring forward statutory assessment and support arrangements for learners with special educational needs accessing further education colleges. Officials are at the start of the process of developing detailed arrangements and will engage with Department of Health colleagues as part of the work. We understand the workforce and capacity challenges across our health and social care trusts, and that those can impact on the pace at which they agree and put in place arrangements for young people with care needs to access further education. The need to address capacity across the entire system is, however, one of the issues that I raised in my statement in June and on which I continue to engage with Executive colleagues. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Very quickly, Peter. Local Businesses: Support T7. Mr Martin asked the Minister for the Economy, in light of the fact that he has spoken to many small, local, independent businesses in the past year, which raised very specific issues with him, what she is doing to assist them, specifically with energy costs, rates and National Insurance rises. (AQT 1577/22-27) Dr Archibald: The final two do not really fall to me. The Finance Minister has responsibility for rates. I have responsibility for businesses, and I will certainly engage with the Member on any proposals that he brings forward. Obviously, I am aware of the programme of review, because I put it in place when I was Finance Minister. I spoke to one of the Member's colleagues earlier about National Insurance contributions. We continue to make representations to the British Government on the decisions that were taken and that have had a demonstrably damaging impact on local businesses in —. Top 3.30 pm Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Sorry, Minister. Dr Archibald: I did not get to answer the bit that —. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I know, but time has eluded us. That ends questions to the Minister for the Economy. Questions for Urgent Oral Answer Health Southern Trust: IT Outage Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Linda Dillon has given notice of a question for urgent oral answer to the Minister of Health. I remind Members that, if they wish to ask a supplementary question, they should rise continually in their place. The Member who tabled the question will be called automatically to ask a supplementary question. Mrs Dillon asked the Minister of Health for an update on the IT problem that impacted on the Southern Health and Social Care Trust (SHSCT) on 17 September 2025. Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): In accordance with my written ministerial statement of 19 September, I reiterate that the Southern Health and Social Care Trust experienced an operational IT outage on the morning of 17 September. The issue was isolated to the Southern Trust, but, of course, it impacted across its sites. There is no suggestion that it was a cyber-related matter. The outage led to a loss of the computer network via two data centres, preventing access to key systems across the trust. The resultant impact necessitated the postponement of elective activity on 17 September and 18 September and the diversion of ambulances to other trust emergency departments (EDs) throughout 17 September. Community services were impacted to a lesser extent. Both of the data centres impacted were restored by 5.00 pm on 17 September, providing access, in the first instance, to priority systems — that is the labs, emergency departments, intensive care units (ICUs) and night medicines — and Daisy Hill Hospital and Craigavon Area Hospital then recommenced the receipt of ambulance arrivals at 9.00 pm and 10.30 pm respectively. The trust has commenced the rebooking of appointments in line with clinical prioritisation. My Department will support prompt rebooking via waiting list funding if required. Initial or verified data indicates that approximately 1,600 patients were impacted by postponements. It should be noted that there were no postponements beyond 17 and 18 September and that adult community clinics were not impacted during the major incident time frame. The major incident was formally stood down on the morning of 18 September. However, recovery efforts will continue for some time. Of course, I empathise with and sincerely apologise to all who were affected. Mrs Dillon: Thank you, Minister, for the written statement that we received, but, as with what we have heard today, that statement does not give us an understanding of why everything had to be cancelled on 18 September, given that the system was back up and running on 17 September by 5.00 pm. I appreciate that the Minister said that there will be a review, and that is important. Will the review give us some reassurances about the future resilience of the IT systems across our health service? Will we get detailed information on patients who were impacted beyond the 1,600 patients whom the Minister outlined? He said that work continues and that there will be an ongoing impact. How many more people do we not know about whose appointments, surgeries, red-flag referrals or diagnoses have been impacted? We need to understand how and when all those people will be accommodated. That means not only the 1,600 whom we know about but the knock-on effect that there will be for others. When will we get the detail on the time frame — Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: OK. Thank you. Mrs Dillon: — of the review and all the detail that will come from that? Mr Nesbitt: The incident lasted over two days because there had to be a great level of concern that rebooting the system, if I may use that phrase, too quickly could have led to a further collapse in the system. That is why it was brought on gradually with those priority areas, which, as I said, were the labs, emergency departments, ICUs and night-time medicines. There had to be caution about coming back on. As we stand, a few days on, we know what happened. A planned upgrade of software went wrong, but we do not know why it went wrong, so we need to know why. I am particularly interested to know why the two data centres malfunctioned. I am looking at it from the point of view of there being a primary system and a backup system. Clearly, if there is a backup system, that should not fall along with the primary one. Its exact existence is to be a backup when things start to go wrong. As to the 1,600 people, what the trust will have to do now is look at the clinical priorities when rescheduling. It is inevitable and logical to assume that some people who have a date for a procedure will be asked to endure a postponement, because their condition is not as urgent as, perhaps, some of the 1,600 people whose appointments were postponed last week on 17 and 18 September. That bit of work will be ongoing over a number of days, if not a short number of weeks, because it is complex. Mr Tennyson: Minister, the IT outage was hugely distressing for patients who have been waiting for, in some instances, a very long time and those who have been red-flagged for cancer and other issues. Will there be a coordinated regional response to the disruption? Will other trusts play any role in rescheduling the appointments that have been cancelled? Mr Nesbitt: I should take the opportunity to say that it was stressful not just for patients and, to some extent, service users but for the staff who found that they could not perform as they had intended to. Some of those staff have built up personal and professional relationships with patients over a period. The fact that our waiting lists are far too long has probably compounded that, with professionals becoming much more accustomed to meeting and greeting and building those relationships with people. I should also say that mutual aid was first-class in the early assessment. We are talking about, for example, emergency departments in other trusts receiving ambulances that otherwise would have gone to Daisy Hill or Craigavon Area Hospital. I was pleased with that. I thank all the staff involved and recognise the moral distress that that put them under. As to whether that mutual aid will continue, with other trusts accepting some of the 1,600 patients for procedures, that is a clinical matter to be decided by the Southern Trust in liaison with the other four trusts. I am not aware of where that conversation has got to. I have spoken to my chief digital officer twice today about the time frame for figuring out why what went wrong went wrong. There will be other meetings today about how we prioritise those 1,600 people on the elective lists. Mrs Dodds: Minister, it was a pretty catastrophic event, given that the main system and the backup system went wrong, with fairly difficult outworkings. I have been approached by constituents who were in Craigavon Area Hospital on the night of Monday 8 September. They indicated that, on that night, there was also an IT system glitch and that patients saw staff running about and scrambling for pen, paper etc. First, is that accurate? Secondly, do we know the cause of the outage? I hope that the cause was not a computer system that was limping along and then just had a catastrophic failure on 17 September. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Diane, is there a question? Mrs Dodds: Thank you. Mr Nesbitt: I will not endorse the Member's description that it was a "catastrophic event". It was certainly a very serious event, particularly for the 1,600 people whose elective procedures were cancelled. However, the hospital continued to function to some degree and emergencies were dealt with, so I will stick with a "very serious event" rather than a "catastrophic event". As to the allegations that there was some sort of glitch on the evening of Monday 8 September, that is news to me. Believe me: there will be officials in the Department who are listening to and watching this, and they will be on the case, trying to verify or otherwise what happened. Mr Chambers: Minister, I welcome the fact that it seems that the trust responded at pace and that it was able to draw on technical expertise from other corners of Health and Social Care (HSC) in Northern Ireland. Does the Minister agree that the trust should leave no opportunity unutilised in booking in patients as quickly as possible again, especially those requiring urgent and time-critical treatment? Mr Nesbitt: Yes, I agree with the Member. As I indicated, clinical decisions will be made about the 1,600 who had their elective procedures postponed. That will have a knock-on effect for others who are on the list, waiting for procedures, because it will be done according to clinical priority. I also commend the trust for the speed and effectiveness with which it instigated its business-continuity arrangements; in other words, how it dealt with that very serious incident. All staff are to be commended on their efforts during the incident and for restoring access within 24 hours of the outage. That was a lot quicker than any early estimate, so, once again, I commend the staff for that. Mr McGrath: Many more people are getting a health service that relies on that key IT facility to help them to deliver it. When it collapses, it creates the difficulties and problems. There were suggestions that there were difficulties in another trust area, with people not being able to log on the week before. Is it not the case that the Executive are just not investing in the critical infrastructure required to deliver the services that we need and that we need to see more money being directed towards IT services so that everything can be delivered properly? Mr Nesbitt: I concur with the Member: you can invest and invest in all sorts of areas of health and social care. I make the point again that there is a gap of many hundreds of millions of pounds in the current budget for health and social care. However, on IT, particularly encompass, I emphasise yet again that what happened was not a cyberattack, nor was it some sort of systemic failure in Epic, which is the engine that drives encompass. We still do not know why it went wrong. However, encompass is a world leader. The Member will be aware that, when Labour came to power, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care in London, Wes Streeting, said that he wanted to achieve three shifts, one of which was moving from an analogue to a digital healthcare system. We are ahead of the game. All of our health and social care trusts are on encompass, but it is like that old saying: when it works, it's great; when it doesn't work, you have a major problem — and I very much regret that. Ms Forsythe: I agree with the comment made by my colleague Diane Dodds on the catastrophic element of the outage. As we move to digitisation of public services, things suffer difficulties. This is not just being unable to book your MOT; this is life and death and access to healthcare systems. When the incident happened, the communications from the constituents who contacted me showed a lot of stress. The Minister has addressed some of that in the Chamber today by saying, "It was not a cyberattack; your data has not been compromised". However, on reflection, will the communications that went out to the public be part of the review and — Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Your question. Ms Forsythe: — the rate at which they come out in future? Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I appreciate that, Diane, thank you. Minister? Mr Nesbitt: The trust did the best that it could in communicating in live time with patients, service users and the population more generally. Of course, that was compounded by the fact that the IT systems were down, because the IT systems are the primary means of communication. That will, of course, be part of the review. Two processes in the review will follow what happened on 17 and 18 September. In the first instance, it will be a core review of why it went wrong. That review will be shared across the trusts in case there are learnings for the other trusts. The other review will be of how well the trust was able to employ its business-continuity arrangements — in other words, to continue to try to serve patients and service users. Once again, there may be learnings for all the trusts, because, as I said, a form of mutual aid was employed, not least with ambulances going to emergency departments in hospitals in other trusts. The Member said that this was "catastrophic". I wonder what descriptor she would have used if somebody had actually died in an incident like this. There is not a lot left in the thesaurus above and beyond "catastrophic". Top 3.45 pm Mr McGuigan: Minister, you said that the issue arose when the trust was initiating an update to its IT system. I am not an IT expert, but I imagine that that might be a fairly regular occurrence, not just in the Southern Trust but across the trusts. You talked a wee bit about lessons to be learned by other trusts: is there concern that any of this might happen across other trusts when they do IT updates? Mr Nesbitt: From a personal point of view, yes, there is concern. That concern will remain until I am satisfied that we know not just what happened but why. As the Member suggested, I imagine that updates to IT systems happen all the time. On my smartphone, apps seem to be updated hourly, or perhaps even more frequently. That is one of the issues on which my chief digital officer will report back to me. The core point is that, until we know why it happened, I will remain concerned, and I may be concerned once I know the reason. Mr Robinson: Minister, can you give absolute confidence to the House that no patient data or staff information was compromised or lost as a result of the incident? Mr Nesbitt: I believe that I am in that position. I certainly have not been made aware that there was any leakage of personal data or, indeed, any other data. As I understand it, the system simply stopped working, which means that it was not transmitting any information. If that is the case, that is the assurance for the Member. Communities Personal Independence Payment Applications: Data Breach Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I have received notice from Colm Gildernew of a question for urgent oral answer to the Minister for Communities. I remind Members that, if they wish to ask a supplementary question, they should rise continually in their place. The Member who tabled the question will be called automatically to ask a supplementary question. Mr Gildernew asked the Minister for Communities for an explanation for the recent data breach that occurred in his Department in relation to personal independence payment (PIP) applications. Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): First, I fully acknowledge that even one incident in which personal data is compromised is unacceptable and can have a serious impact on the individuals involved. In this case, investigations by my officials have determined that the breach was due to human error. It has been established that, in this instance, checks to verify that outgoing mail is directed to the correct address and that each envelope contains only the pertinent information for the designated customer were not completed fully. The data in question was retrieved promptly, a data protection incident was raised, and an early referral was made to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) while the investigations were under way. My Department continues to work through its established data incident reporting process, and I can advise that, as part of the major incident reporting process, officials will contact the ICO to close the case with it, given that the information has been retrieved and that the information disclosed is not likely to present a high risk to the data subjects. All PIP staff have been advised of the incident. There will be renewed focus on the control measures that are in place and on the importance of the security of personal customer information. In addition, in conjunction with the Department's data protection officer, a compliance audit will be initiated as a matter of urgency on the personal independence payment centre's document handling approach. It is expected that that will take four to six weeks to complete, after which learning will be shared across teams to identify areas where improvements to data handling processes can be made. Mr Gildernew: I thank the Minister for that explanation and his reference to having taken steps to ensure that no further such occurrence might take place. The Minister has answered that part of the question. What communication have his officials had with people whose data was leaked, in order to reassure them? Mr Lyons: We have not had any correspondence with the people whose correspondence and data was shared in error. It has been agreed not to do so as the information that was disclosed is not sensitive and that to advise the data subjects may cause unnecessary or disproportionate distress. That is line with the approach outlined in the ICO's guidance. Ms Mulholland: Thank you, Minister. I am sure that this was a really distressing time, particularly for the people whose information was leaked. Official error overpayments on universal credit rose by 31% last year. Will you commit to publishing open, transparent error data, given that this was individual error? Mr Lyons: First, it is important to note that that distress has not occurred because of what I outlined in response to the previous question. The information is not disclosed, but we understand the potential for distress, especially if what is considered to be sensitive information is leaked. We want to do everything that we can to make sure that this does not happen again. The error here was not in payments made; rather, information was disclosed that should not have been. Of course, we will take all steps that we can to be as transparent about this as possible. That is why I am here today answering the questions and, hopefully, giving people confidence that we will learn from this and put measures in place so that it does not happen again. Miss Brogan: Will the Minister please outline what data protection training his staff have to avoid this type of data breach incident? Mr Lyons: Yes, of course. Training and procedures are in place so that something like this should not happen. Unfortunately, it has happened, which is why we are going to put those extra steps in place. In conjunction with the Department's data protection officer, the compliance audit will be initiated as a matter of urgency. That will take a few weeks to complete, but it is important that we do that and share the learning not only within the individual team involved but with everybody. Mr Kingston: Will the Minister advise how many instances like this happen in a year? Can he help to contextualise it as regards the total correspondence that his Department sends by post? Mr Lyons: The Department for Communities has over a million customers, some of whom receive correspondence monthly or even more often than that. That gives some indication of the millions of pieces of correspondence that we send out in a year. I have been informed that the number of major breaches in a year numbers under 20 and that referrals to the Information Commissioner's Office are required only once or twice a year. I am not sure what the exact maths is on that, but 20 breaches out of millions of documents sent out is a relatively small proportion. However, that does not mean that we are complacent. As I said in my opening response, one is too many, and we will take all the steps that we can to make sure that the process is more secure. Ms K Armstrong: Minister, you have answered the question that I was going to ask, but, since you have been talking, I have become very concerned. You cannot say that somebody will not be harmed by an information leak if they do not know about it. From my understanding from the Information Commissioner's Office, the information that was shared is National Insurance numbers, addresses and names, and those are the very basics. Therefore, would it not be better, given the rise of identity theft, that those people are notified of the potential threat to them and their privacy? Mr Lyons: I am always happy to take the Member's advice on these things, but we are also guided by the approach of and guidance given by the ICO. That is what we are following in this instance. I am more than happy to hear from her if she has any alternative views on that, but that is the information that I have been given, and that is the approach that we are following. Mr Allen: Will the Minister expand on the specific measures that are in place in the Department to prevent such breaches? Mr Lyons: As I outlined in my original answer, a process is in place that will mean that the sharing of such documents is not left to one person. There is meant to be a checking process in place. Unfortunately, due to human error, that did not take place in this instance, and that is why the mistake happened. I hope that it will not happen again. In conjunction with the Department's data protection officer, a compliance audit will be done to see what, if any, improvements can be made to our data-handling approach. As I said earlier, the learning from that will be shared across teams to see where improvements in data-handling can be made. Mr Durkan: As the Minister outlined in his response to his colleague, that type of error is mercifully rare, or at least reports of that type of error are, but it clearly does happen. Will the incident perhaps inform a more lenient approach from the Department in instances in which people claim not to have received correspondence but the Department insists that they have? Mr Lyons: I will certainly take those points on board. This incident was slightly different, however, in that extra information was provided. I will need to check the processes to make sure that those who were supposed to get the information that was sent elsewhere can get it. If the Member is hearing about individual issues, I am content to look at them. I would be surprised, however, if the Department were to take a heavy-handed approach to one piece of correspondence that has not come through. Often, people repeatedly say that they have not got letter after letter, which sometimes stretches credibility. Of course, if the Member knows of specific instances that he wants me to look at, I am more than happy to do so. We need to make sure that we have a system in place that does what it is meant to do, is accurate and in which people can have confidence, and that is what I want to achieve. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That ends questions on the question for urgent oral answer to the Minister for Communities. I ask Members to take their ease while the top Table is changed. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Blair] in the Chair) Opposition Business A5 Western Transport Corridor Scheme Debate resumed on amendments to motion: That this Assembly expresses regret that the Minister for Infrastructure and Executive colleagues failed to take the necessary actions to ensure that the A5 western transport corridor scheme could withstand legal challenge; and calls on the Executive to ensure that the A5 scheme begins construction by the end of the Assembly mandate. — [Mr McCrossan.] Which amendments were: No 1: Leave out all after "Assembly" and insert: "acknowledges that the Minister for Infrastructure and Executive colleagues worked together to address the recommendations following the Planning Appeals Commission A5 inquiry ; welcomes the Department for Infrastructure's serving a notice of appeal against the A5 judgement; further welcomes the confirmation by the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs that his Department intends to apply to the court to formally intervene in the appeal; recognises the steadfast commitment of the A5 Enough is Enough campaign and the many families tragically bereaved as a result of collisions on the A5; and calls on the Executive to ensure that the A5 scheme begins construction by the end of the Assembly mandate." — [Miss Brogan.] No 2: Leave out all after "Minister for Infrastructure" and insert: "failed to take the necessary actions to ensure that the A5 western transport corridor scheme could withstand legal challenge; calls on the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to present proposals to the Executive to amend aspirational net zero targets, ensuring that major infrastructure projects are not stymied and construction of an agreed A5 scheme begins as soon as possible; further calls on the Minister of Finance to urgently commit to providing fair compensation to affected landowners for loss of income and costs of reinstatement; and calls on the Minister for Infrastructure, notwithstanding the notice of appeal against the A5 judgement, to implement fresh road safety measures on the A5 in order to prevent further loss of life." — [Mr Martin.] No 3: Leave out all after "Minister for Infrastructure" and insert: "failed to take the necessary actions to ensure that the A5 western transport corridor scheme could withstand legal challenge; calls on the Minister for Infrastructure to make saving lives on this road the absolute priority, while also treating landowners fairly and respectfully, and to put in place other road safety measures and better public transport options for the north-west if the A5 faces further delays; and further calls on the Minister to ensure that commencement of an agreed legally compliant A5 scheme begins as soon as possible and to set out clearly how the project will stay within the carbon budget limits required by law." — [Mr Butler.] Mr McNulty: Communities and families across the north-west have been told time and again that the A5 scheme will be delivered, that it will transform connectivity, that it will unlock economic potential and, crucially, that it will make a dangerous stretch of road safer for all who use it, yet here we are, years on, with not a sod having been turned and more families left to grieve loved ones whose lives have tragically been lost on that treacherous road. My heart goes out to every grieving family. Top 4.00 pm The truth is that communities in the north-west have waited far too long. They have faced delay after delay, legal challenge after legal challenge and excuse after excuse from Ministers and their Executive parties. The Public Accounts Committee warned years ago that the scheme needed to be legally watertight. Those warnings were ignored, and now, yet again, the project is stalled in the courts because Ministers failed to do the groundwork properly. That is unacceptable. It is about more than just bureaucratic incompetence; it has real, human consequences. Every delay risks more lives. I pay tribute to the families who have lost loved ones along the road and to the A5 Enough is Enough campaign. Their determination, courage and dignity has kept the issue at the top of the political agenda. I say this to them: keep going. However, they should not have to beg for action year after year. Government should have delivered the project by now. Those people should not have had to bury more sons and daughters and mothers and fathers while Ministers passed the buck. Sinn Féin's amendment is about themselves alone and about clapping themselves on the back, really. It attempts to absolve them of responsibility and to rewrite history. However, we know the truth: Sinn Féin ignored the Planning Appeals Commission's recommendation. They left the scheme legally vulnerable, and their responsibility for the scheme's collapse has been denied. The amendment is a whitewash, and, therefore, we oppose it. The DUP's amendment blames the Climate Change Act, but that Act did not cause the failure. The problem is not the law but Sinn Féin's failure to integrate environmental requirements into the design and procurement of the scheme. Even if Minister Poots's original 82% target had stood, the A5 project would still have collapsed because the problem was not the numbers in legislation but the sheer ineptitude of Sinn Féin Ministers. Is it true that there was no accommodation or requirement in the tender process or tender documents for recycled materials to be included in the A5 construction project? Who is responsible for that oversight? The people of the north-west can and must be safe and have modern infrastructure and clean air to breathe. The DUP amendment is a diversion, and we will oppose it. The Ulster Unionist Party's amendment at least recognises the need for fairness for landowners and the urgency of road safety, but it, too, fails the real test of accountability. It shifts the focus from where it should be: the repeated failures of Sinn Féin Ministers and their Executive. For that reason, we will oppose it as well. We should not have been in this position in the first place. If Ministers had acted on the warnings that were given to them and ensured that the scheme was legally sound, we would not be here debating yet another delay. We in the Assembly have a duty to the people whom we represent. The Executive must finally make good on their long-overdue promises. Communities in the west deserve the same level of infrastructure investment as has been taken for granted elsewhere. The message today must be clear: no more excuses or prevarication. The A5 scheme must begin construction before the end of the mandate. Lives literally depend on it. People in the north-west have waited too long. Families have endured too much heartache. Businesses have been disadvantaged for too many years. It is not just about a road; it is about fairness. It is about safety and delivering on commitments that should have been honoured long ago. It is time for the Sinn Féin/DUP-led Executive to stop dithering and failing and to finally deliver the A5 western transport corridor (WTC). Enough is enough. Mr Gaston: My thoughts are with the families and those who have lost loved ones. They continue to be let down by the political fallout from net zero, which now puts all future infrastructure projects in Northern Ireland at risk. The A5 motion is a strange one for the "constructive Opposition" to table on its first Opposition day of the new term. The motion exposes the hypocrisy of the mad environmental zealots by delivering to them a good dose of reality. The SDLP has tabled a motion complaining about the fallout from the very climate change legislation that it so enthusiastically endorsed at every stage in the Assembly. Let us roll the clock back a few years. The record shows that the SDLP repeatedly argued that there was urgent need for a climate change Bill. One Member even attacked others in the House by claiming that the overwhelming scientific consensus supported the SDLP's position. Now, however, as the Climate Change Act drags the A5 project below the waterline, the SDLP is the first out of the traps to propose a non-binding motion to demand that construction begin before the end of the mandate. Justice McAlinden did not invent section 52; the SDLP and its climate change mates made sure that it was enshrined in law. The High Court did not block the A5 for fun but enforced the very provisions that the SDLP supported. Where is the honesty from the SDLP and, indeed, Sinn Féin and Alliance? A few years ago, they were tripping over themselves to pass that legislation. Mr McCrossan: Will the Member give way? Mr Gaston: I am happy to give way. Mr McCrossan: The Member is living in a parallel universe. We explained clearly that it did not matter whether it had been an 82% reduction in carbon emissions or 100% net zero; the fact is that, typically, the Departments did not consult each other or follow due process. Does the Member even know where west of the Bann is? He does not reference it too often in a positive light. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): You have an extra minute, Mr Gaston. Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Mr McCrossan. Yes, I know where west of the Bann is. Following the next election, hopefully, it will have better representation from this side of the Chamber from people who will actually stand up for the people there. My goodness, the Member talks about net zero, and he mentioned figures. The problem is with net zero and the climate change fanatics. Let us look at it. Why did the project fail to withstand legal challenge? It failed because of section 52 of the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022. If one takes the time to read the judgement, one will see that Justice McAlinden reproduced that entire section in his decision. In contrast, the TUV has always been clear that the Climate Change Act's emissions targets are not practical. They are detrimental not just to Northern Ireland's infrastructure but, importantly, to its agriculture industry. I will not support the motion, and I see no reason why the A5 project alone should be exempted from an Act that, as my party warned at the time, set the Province on the wrong path. It is the height of hypocrisy to cheer that into law and then to come here and complain when the very law that they championed rightly dispels the A5. It is a product of the made-in-Stormont mess, and the SDLP cannot wash its hands of it. I ask myself when we will see that happen, as it inevitably will. First, we have the A5, and, next, the Act will begin to bite on farming. Will the SDLP come back to the House to look for special treatment for farmers, or is it only the A5, Mr McCrossan? Mr McCrossan: It is the A5 all the way, Mr Gaston. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members. Mr Gaston: I think not. Judging by the SDLP's support for the nutrients action programme (NAP) proposals in the House a number of weeks ago, it wants to decimate the agriculture industry. Is it only when the West Tyrone farmers dare to use the SDLP's own legislation against it that it suddenly gets exercised about the A5? The motion should not be about seeking special treatment for the A5. It should recognise the folly — Mr McCrossan: Will the Member give way? Mr Gaston: — of the Climate Change Act in relation to all future infrastructure projects — Mr McCrossan: Will the Member give way? Mr Gaston: — and the impact that it will have on farming. I am happy to give way. Mr McCrossan: It is a bit insulting for the Member to suggest that the delivery of the A5 represents special treatment. What about the 57 people who have been killed on the road and those who travel on it daily to take their kids to school and to go to work? It is an absolute insult and spells out exactly why the Member's party will not grow or survive west of the Bann. Mr Gaston: I am sorry, Mr McCrossan, but I started my contribution by saying that my heart goes out to the families of every victim of the A5. Let me tell you, Mr McCrossan, that this is not the only infrastructure safety upgrade that will fall because of your climate madness. You could not wait to get through the Lobbies and bring it into force, and now, when it has come back to bite you in your own backyard, you are saying, "We should set it aside for the A5." All lives matter, and the A5 should not be prioritised over other future upgrades — Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Gaston, your time is up. Mr Gaston: — that will ultimately fall because of your climate madness. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Your time is up. I thank Members for speaking in the debate. I now call the Minister for Infrastructure to respond. Minister, you have up to 15 minutes. Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure): Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. [Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.] I express once again my extreme disappointment at the decision that we received from the High Court on Monday 23 June. It is important to say that it was hugely disappointing not just for me but, in particular, for all the families and campaigners, including the Enough is Enough campaign, which I have engaged with frequently, and for all who have been extremely diligent and steadfast in their commitment to ensuring that the road is built. My thoughts are always with the families who are living with the unimaginable grief of losing a loved one and with those who are living with injuries as a result of collisions along the road. That is at the forefront of my mind in everything that I do and will continue to drive me to get the road built. As the House will know, the A5 is an Executive flagship project and, as such, cuts across the responsibilities of all Executive Ministers. Members will be aware that the A5 dualling has been in development since 2007 and has been the subject of successive public inquiries and legal challenges. It is important to clarify the timeline and who was involved and at what stage, because a very inaccurate timeline has been provided by the proposer of the motion. He insinuates that it was always Sinn Féin that held the brief when those decisions were taken or legal challenges were made. Despite his assurance that Conor Murphy failed to deliver the scheme, in fact, the first decision to proceed was made in 2012 by the Minister for what was then the Department for Regional Development, Danny Kennedy, not Conor Murphy. His decision and the associated orders were subsequently quashed following a High Court challenge based on environmental grounds. In 2016, the then Minister, Michelle McIlveen, published new environmental information, which led to a second public inquiry later that year. That informed the second formal decision to proceed with the scheme in 2017 in the absence of Ministers, and that decision was subsequently quashed by the High Court in 2018. In 2019, the Planning Appeals Commission (PAC) was appointed to hold a third public inquiry, and, in 2021, following receipt of an interim report from the Planning Appeals Commission, the then Minister, Minister Mallon, announced her decision to update and consult on further environmental information. That updated environmental information was subject to scrutiny at the subsequent public inquiry in 2023, leading to the final Planning Appeals Commission report and its recommendations in October 2023. Responding to those recommendations formed the substantial basis for the formal decision of Minister O'Dowd in October 2024. I disagree that it sat on his desk for a year. Members will find that he was very diligent in the work that led to his decision. At the time of each decision to proceed, there was, as there will continue to be, new and emerging legislation, case laws and policy directives that must be considered by the decision maker in detail. Each decision is vulnerable to potential new legal challenges. For example, the judgement of 2012 related to the interpretation of the habitat regulations. That is now recognised case law and must be adhered to by all scheme promoters across Europe. With the latest challenge, the Climate Change Act has been under legal scrutiny for the first time. Unfortunately — a point that has been lost in the debate — a small minority group of individuals is opposed to the scheme. Those individuals have used every means possible to frustrate the efforts of the Executive and subsequent Ministers to deliver the scheme; in fact, at the most recent judgement, their legal representative said that it was a result of an 18-year crusade. That tells me all we need to know. Given the ongoing appeal and despite Members asking numerous questions about what the appeal will look like, I cannot get into the specifics. I do not know of too many court cases where you show your hand before you get into court. I can say that my Department worked extremely closely with experienced senior and junior counsel, one of whom is now a High Court judge. The calibre of the people whom we have working on the case in itself demonstrates how seriously my predecessor and the Department have taken the case, particularly during the extensive development of my Department's detailed response to the PAC's recommendations, despite implications in the debate that they were ignored. They absolutely were not ignored. That advice was followed diligently by officials in my Department at all times. Officials also collaborated closely with other Departments in drafting those responses. Top 4.15 pm The barristers worked hand in hand with my officials in preparing the voluminous and complex documentation that was laid in front of my predecessor and all Ministers around the Executive table for consideration in taking the decision to proceed with the scheme in October 2024. That comprehensive documentation, thorough analysis and attention to detail involved in developing the project, including the environmental statement, reports to inform appropriate assessments and various other impact assessments, comprised many thousands of pages, exceeding by far the scope of any comparable scheme previously undertaken in the North. A number of SDLP speakers said that John O'Dowd ignored the PAC recommendations and that we did not take into consideration the use of other materials in the construction process to ensure that we reduced carbon emissions. If you had read the departmental statement of 2024, you would know that every one of those points was addressed. I ask Members to take the time to read it, because it is clear that it has not been read in full. Following Executive agreement, Minister O'Dowd made his decision to proceed with the section between Strabane and Ballygawley in October last year. The Department was served with legal proceedings challenging that authorisation in November, and the case, as you know, was heard at the High Court during March and April this year. The judgement provided on 23 June was extremely detailed and complex, and I cannot emphasise those points enough. We cannot pick and choose a single line here and there out of a judgement and use them as the solution. That is not reality. The court upheld the Department's position on four of the seven grounds of challenge. In essence, though, the court did not accept that the Department had demonstrated sufficient certainty in fulfilling the duties under section 52 of the Climate Change Act, considering the human rights implications of the rejection of the PAC's recommendation that the order should be time-limited to reduce the impact of uncertainty on local people and ensuring that the methodology and calculated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as a result of induced traffic were subject to consultation. At the time of Minister O'Dowd's decision, uncertainty surrounded when the first three carbon budgets would be set, and the climate action plan was not at an advanced stage of development. Assumptions about the increased carbon emissions associated with the A5 WTC project had been shared with DAERA and the Department for the Economy as part of the engagement undertaken by my Department. In recognition of the absence of a cap, my Department provided the Executive with a suite of documents and information for their consideration in the summer of last year. That included hundreds of pages of scientific and environmental evidence of mitigations. It included assessments of the greenhouse gas emissions produced during the construction and operation of the A5 — the first time that that was done for any project of this nature in the North. The work was carried out on a cross-departmental basis with DAERA and Department for the Economy. That rationale was accepted by the Executive, and, on that basis, the Minister was assured that, in the absence of a cap, the Executive were aware that there would need to be carbon trade-offs to facilitate the building of this Executive flagship project and reach net zero by 2050. In light of all of that extensive engagement and discussion, the Minister made his decision to proceed, because he was willing to stand up and ensure that the project was delivered. Following the court order to quash the decision and orders on 27 June, the ownership of vested lands reverted to the original landowners with effect from that date. Once the appeal was served on 6 August, officials wrote to all landowners identifying the proposed next steps in the treatment of their lands that had been the subject of vesting. My Department is offering a payment for landowners to enter into a licence agreement to hold the land in its current state. Landowners will also receive payment for use and occupation of their lands between the making of orders on 25 November 2024 and 27 June 2025, when ownership of vested lands reverted to them. Officials are actively engaging with landowners and their agents to arrange on-site meetings to discuss and agree the landowners' preference in relation to the options available. A total of 14 meetings were completed last week, and additional meetings are planned for this week. My Department is absolutely committed to keeping landowners informed and to working constructively with them and their agents and will arrange meetings with landowners to discuss the next steps. It is important to note that there are over 300 landowners involved in the scheme. Members asked about the implementation of fresh road safety measures on the A5. The Department continually monitors safety across the road network, including the existing A5, to ensure that the current measures are appropriate. A review of additional potential safety improvements on the A5 is being carried out — it will include some of the issues that have been raised during the debate — to identify any further practical interventions that could ensure the safety of the road. In the last financial year, the Department undertook a series of targeted road safety enhancements along the existing A5 corridor aimed at improving visibility, driver awareness and surface performance, including refreshing white lines, replacing signs and catseyes and completing localised resurfacing. Further resurfacing work is programmed for this year. Mr Butler: I thank the Minister for giving way. As part of that suite of improvements, will the Department consider a speed reduction on certain parts of the road? Ms Kimmins: As I have said, everything is being looked at to see whether we can improve the safety of the road. The most important point made by the court was the need for a new and safer A5 so that no name is added to the long list of people who have died on the existing road. That is my focus. Yes, we will look at everything in the interim, but that is my focus, because that is undeniably the solution to all of this. Despite the setback of the judgement, I am absolutely determined to find a way forward that sees the road built as soon as possible to ensure that we save lives and no more names are added to that list. As Members will know, I have lodged an appeal against the recent judgement. If I agreed with the motion and amendment Nos 2 and 3, I would not have lodged that appeal — I may as well have just conceded that we should not bother — but I am absolutely determined that we can win that appeal. We will throw everything at the appeal to ensure that we get this over the line, because not only is that considered necessary to get the road built and to save lives, but it will seek to resolve the important points of law that will affect all parties concerned. We have heard Members speak to that as part of the debate and as part of other discussions and debates in the Chamber on all infrastructure and capital projects. Whilst my immediate priority remains the preparation of a robust appeal, the ultimate aim is to ensure delivery of this flagship project, and I am determined to do all that I can to ensure that that happens. Over the past 18 years of the project, costs have risen substantially, but, more important, almost 60 people have lost their lives. That means 60 families have lost a loved one, and that is not even including those who have been left with life-changing injuries and long-term effects on their lives. They were mothers, fathers, sons, daughters and friends, and some, I am sure, were friends and family members of my colleagues and other Members around the Chamber. That must never be forgotten, which is why I am determined to build the A5. I am not interested in sound bites; I am interested in solutions. I will join anybody across the House who wants to work with me and my officials to ensure that we see the A5 scheme delivered as soon as possible so that no more lives are lost. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Minister, thank you for your response. I call Robbie Butler to make a winding-up speech on amendment No 3. You have up to five minutes. Mr Butler: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I may not use my five minutes. A lot has been said during the debate, and, as I laid out when I moved the amendment, having three mutually exclusive amendments shows the amount of thought that all parties have put into it. The debate has shown that we are all singularly on one track and that we want to see the A5 delivered as expediently as possible in order to, as the Minister rightly pointed out, save lives. I thank the Minister for being explicit that saving lives is her primary commitment and for recognising that the road runs through land pertaining to around 300 individuals and that that has made it complex. I will turn to the amendments and demonstrate our voting intention. The Sinn Féin amendment probably does not go far enough. It acknowledges what Departments have done since the judgement, which is fine, although I am not sure that the whole House agrees on that, but that does not erase the fact that poor independent departmental working created the problem in the first place. It is fundamental that we learn from the mistakes not just of this Executive but of previous Governments here and of the silo mentality in Departments. That work is ongoing. Some Members, particularly those on the Chairpersons' Liaison Group, will understand that we are aware of that work and alive to it. The Sinn Féin amendment also welcomes the appeal, but appeals take time. We know that lawyers — solicitors and law firms — make a lot of money out of elongating their arguments. They can make compelling arguments in litigation. Unfortunately, that will not lead to delivery of the A5. We do not have the luxury of waiting until the legal process has concluded before the road is improved. It would be good, particularly for the relevant constituency Members, to note the improvements that will be made even in the short term, Minister. The DUP amendment veers off into reopening the debate on climate targets. Even if we were to accede to doing that — I know that many would want us to — the difficulty is that doing so would add possibly 10 years on to the delivery of the A5 scheme, because it would add a complex layer and a possible further barrier to delivering the road upgrade. It is a separate argument that may have merit, but it will not help deliver the scheme any sooner. The other thing is that, if we were to change the law every time that we come back here, we would never move forward. There is a time for reflection and a time for improvement. I ask Members to consider a few points to do with our amendment. It does not duck the hard questions. It insists that the A5 be built but that that be done legally, safely and respectfully. We are genuinely not here to win headlines but to save lives, and that is exactly what our amendment's first priority is. I will say again, however, that respect for landowners is not an optional extra. Without it, trust collapses, delays mount and legal challenges multiply. The scheme has to be delivered with fairness at its core. On a wider point, it is about public safety. Every week of delay is a week of increased risk. That is why we say, "Build the road, but, if there are delays, improve safety immediately, because families deserve nothing less". I will not critique or point out what Members have offered to the debate. Everybody has offered something of note, and I hope that, when we vote on the amendments and the motion, there is a collective response that the Ulster Unionist amendment offers the most clarity and certainty. I ask Members to support it. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Gary Middleton to wind on amendment No 2. Gary, you also have up to five minutes. Mr Middleton: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The debate has been disappointing, particularly the opening contribution. Today's party political point-scoring has been no different from the SDLP posters that have appeared along the route. People see through that type of political posturing. People want to see progress and solutions. Anybody who believes that the motion that the Opposition has tabled will bring about solutions will be bitterly disappointed. In fairness to Members across the Chamber, I acknowledge that a number of common themes have been raised. The first has been the issue of families and those who have been bereaved. I add my sympathies not only to those who have lost loved ones on the road but to those who have been seriously injured along the route. The outcome of the judgement and the A5 scheme delay has understandably caused great upset to those families and to the campaigners who have long championed the project in the name of road safety. That is deeply disappointing, and it was a difficult ruling for them. Of course, those of us who are involved with bereavement charities that support families who have lost loved ones as a result of road traffic collisions hear from them daily, and the last thing that they want to hear is the sort of cheap, party political point-scoring that we have heard from some across the Chamber today. Another theme was the benefits of the A5. We all recognise that there are economic benefits, including jobs and prosperity for the north-west region. That those benefits are valued goes without saying. The judgement has also caused significant distress and uncertainty for landowners and farming families whose livelihoods have been placed in limbo for well over a decade. They still seek clarity and guidance on their future. Farmers have had their land ripped up, and, in some cases, it will be unable to be farmed again. That has caused a lot of devastation. Local people are crying out for clarity on the future of the project and where it is going. Top 4.30 pm Once again, the project has been brought to a grinding halt. The judgement was based on climate legislation. My party warned against the kind of damaging consequences that could come out of that. We warned about the unrealistic targets that are in the legislation. It was pushed through by the SDLP, Sinn Féin and the Alliance Party. We warned that it would tie the Department's hands in the future. The very politicians who championed that legislation are now lamenting its impact. It is a stunning display of political virtue-signalling coming home to roost. Those politicians celebrated the passing of the climate change legislation believing that they could have not only their headline-grabbing climate change targets but their major infrastructure projects. Of course, they were proven wrong. This is not just about the A5, as important as it is. The ruling also sets a dangerous precedent for other major infrastructure projects in Northern Ireland, not least phase 2 of the A6 project, which could be impacted on in the future. The time for empty rhetoric and point-scoring is over. We need clarity and leadership, particularly from the Department. In the interim, I ask that the Minister continue to look at road safety measures and at what we can do in the meantime to prevent further deaths and incidents on the road. We also have to send out the message that we need people to drive carefully on the roads and to be mindful of the fact that, when we are behind the wheel of a vehicle, we all have a responsibility to ensure safety. In the main, this was a fairly productive debate, albeit some disappointing remarks came from the usual sidelines. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Colm Gildernew to make the winding-up speech on amendment No 1. You also have five minutes. Mr Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. [Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.] I thank everyone for their contributions to the debate. From the outset, I set out the fact that my thoughts and feelings are with all those, including clubmates and family friends of mine, who have lost loved ones on that road over so many years and at a very young age. Every single one of those tragedies is an individual disaster for those families, that community and their friends. That has been well endorsed by everyone in the Chamber and should be central to everything that we do. I want to focus some of my remarks, however, on the fact that the lack of an adequate, modern road in that part of the country — I mean up through Tyrone, Fermanagh and Derry, connecting to Donegal and Monaghan and right on down to Dublin — impacts completely on key economic, health, social and strategic imperatives. First, on the economy, our businesses in the mid-Ulster and south Tyrone area are world-leading in engineering, food production and other forms of manufacturing and innovation. They deserve good connectivity to the rest of the world. They contribute massively to the economy here. They deserve a road that is sufficient to get their goods, workers and customers in and out — all that. Our people in that part of the country deserve to have roads that are as good as they are anywhere else. At this point in time, we do not have them. Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. Given that Mid Ulster has the highest rate of GDP outside of Belfast city centre, does he agree that businesses there have been able to achieve that not because of but in spite of a lack of infrastructure and that that is another reason why that project is vital? Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute. Mr Gildernew: Absolutely. Within 15 miles of where I live, there are businesses operating that are equivalent to five Bombardiers. They send materials all over the world, put in their own generators and build their own sheds. They do all that. They are entitled to have such a road. Secondly, I want to touch on health. Do not doubt this for a second, but it will be impossible to deliver health transformation without delivering proper infrastructure. You simply cannot deliver health services to a rural geography without addressing the main way in which you move people around in an emergency and the timing of that. The A5 is critical for health transformation and access to health for all our people day and daily, and that includes emergency health and healthcare. Thirdly, I want to touch on the social and community element. I thank the Minister, who came up to Aughnacloy over the summer months to look at the impact that the A5 is having on that town. Essentially, you cannot cross the main street in Aughnacloy at any time of the day or a large part of the night without the traffic on one of the main roads in Ireland having to stop in both directions to let you across. That is the impact. It cuts like a knife through the town of Aughnacloy and through Garvaghy and Glenchuil, dividing those communities. When the road was built, it served and was usable by the community. The traffic volumes that have built, with more strategic traffic on the road, are now a barrier to people crossing the road. Either they take the risk, literally risking their life, or simply put off their visit and do not bother. That is why — I am touching on the UUP amendment and Robbie's remarks — it is important to remember that the community needs a decent road. The single carriageway road that exists now should be for community use. The road has two purposes: strategic traffic and local traffic. Both need to be facilitated, and they have different needs. Community traffic needs exits off the road all along the way, and the strategic traffic needs to be able to continue. The danger and the cause of a lot of the accidents on the A5 are in the fact that there are so many turn-offs, including roads, lanes and gates, in every one of which is a potential hazard and a potential fatal accident. That is why a new dual carriageway has to be built offline. The road is also important in the day-to-day delivery of social healthcare. Rather than cross the road, agency staff sometimes travel miles just to use a roundabout in order to come back. My fourth point is a strategic one. May I check whether I have an extra minute for the intervention? Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Yes. Mr Gildernew: Thank you. Not that I will need it — not half. [Laughter.] Mr Butler: Will the Member give way? Mr Gildernew: Quickly, Robbie. Mr Butler: I will be quick. I just caution that, even when the road is upgraded, there will be inherent dangers, as with any road, to do with things such as speed. It would be wrong to send a message that delivery of the road absolves anybody of the responsibility to drive appropriately. Mr Gildernew: Absolutely. People's driving should be in keeping with the road conditions; that is another factor that we need to consider. In strategic terms, we need to develop the western economic corridor into the equivalent of what runs from Dublin to Belfast to allow businesses not only west of the Bann, as we say, but in the west of Ireland the equal opportunity that they need to trade and thrive in the way that we all want to see. We will not develop or deliver regional balance in the North unless we crack that nut and provide good roads. The A5 project rightly remains an Executive priority, and there is massive social licence for it, for all the reasons that we have talked about today. No one should put that in jeopardy by playing politics for perceived short-term gain. I am proud to have sat beside my colleague today as she set out the reality of the situation and what she is going to do about it through a series of solutions and actions. Let us understand that what we need are solutions and not sound bites. Sin é. [Translation: That is it.] Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Patsy McGlone to conclude the debate and make a winding-up speech. Mr McGlone, you have up to 10 minutes. Mr McGlone: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. [Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.] I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate. The theme throughout has been that those who have lost family members along the road are uppermost in our thoughts and prayers. That loss is deeply disturbing for them and an awful cross to carry through the rest of their lives. That should be uppermost in the debate. The motion was proposed by my colleague Daniel McCrossan, who referred to delays and mismanagement, the growth in the cost of the project, the need to deal with the condition of the road at the moment and the significant role of the Irish Government. I listened carefully to Mr Gildernew's comments about the requirement for the road to help to develop the west. Helping to address the regional imbalance is key, and the role of the Irish Government in that is pivotal. Nicola Brogan supported the Minister in her efforts on the scheme. Mr Martin referred to Mr Justice McAlinden's application of the law. I read one element of the judgement last night. It was a wee bit concerning that he said that the Department's approach could be construed as a case of, "Whatever you're having yourself". He referred, as many Members did, to additional measures for road safety along the route. Mrs Dillon: Will the Member take an intervention? Mr McGlone: OK. Mrs Dillon: Does the Member agree that it would be a good idea to read the entire judgement? He would then see everything in context. Mr McGlone: I can tell you that, in fact, I actually did. We will come to that later on. Criticism of climate change targets was a common theme among the issues that were raised, particularly by the DUP. Following on from that, I hope that those Members will not be climate change deniers. Climate change is happening all around us, and that would really not be the place to go. Speaking to his amendment, Mr Butler mentioned the legislative framework, the losses of families and the conflict between Departments, which I will return to in a moment or two. Mr McReynolds referred to the road safety issues and to Mr Justice McAlinden's ruling. Declan McAleer highlighted the importance of the appeal. Stephen Dunne mentioned the human costs, the impacts on families and the tragedy of that. Over the past 18 years, we have been suffering because the Executive have been grappling with the terms for the road project. Whether we are talking about investment in infrastructure, practical steps to improve road safety or whatever way you choose to dress it up, it needs to be done. Andrew McMurray spoke about the failure to deliver. He referred to the climate action plan and the need to meet the targets in the Climate Change Act. Justin McNulty talked about fairness, equality and people's safety. Timothy Gaston spoke about the issue as fallout from the Climate Change Act, but it was actually fallout from non-compliance with the law. The Minister talked about the ongoing legal proceedings and defended the calibre of the officials who are working on the case. She went through the chronology of events, including on the issues relating to landowners' compensation. Gary Middleton spoke about point-scoring and about the climate change targets. Again, I hope and trust that the DUP is not going in the direction of denying the climate change that is all around us. We tabled the motion because of the incompetent way in which the Executive have mishandled their approach to the necessary upgrade of the A5 western transport corridor. We share the justifiable concerns about the number of deaths that have occurred along the route. Communities along the route have waited too long and have faced delay after delay, while families continue to be devastated by serious and fatal accidents. We have also heard claims about why, in October 2024, the then Minister for Infrastructure announced that construction of the A5 upgrade would begin in early 2025. That was, to quote the then Minister: "following careful consideration of Planning Appeals Commission reports and the environmental impacts of the scheme". The Planning Appeals Commission had warned of "large adverse impact" on climate from the A5 scheme. It found that there was reasonable scientific doubt that damage could be avoided to the legally protected Tully Bog from increased traffic on the A5. It highlighted the fact that the Department's assessment relied too heavily on modelling without robust ecological evidence. Ms Kimmins: Will the Member give way? Mr McGlone: Well, OK, Minister. Ms Kimmins: I wanted to clarify the point about Tully Bog. The court found that we were compliant in relation to that. I reiterate the point that the then Minister took on board all those recommendations and addressed them. Mr McGlone: I take that point, but all I am doing is quoting what the Planning Appeals Commission said. OK? Thank you. In October 2023, the public inquiry recommended deferring any decision until carbon budgets and a climate action plan were in place. The then Minister for Infrastructure, who now sits at the Executive table as Finance Minister, chose to ignore those recommendations. His decision has delayed further any attempt to make the A5 safer. That flawed decision to proceed, which was subsequently found to be unlawful, was set up to fail at the first legal challenge. Furthermore, as the High Court found this year, the Department for Infrastructure could not provide a convincing explanation for the decision to ignore the recommendations. It is now, unfortunately, the current Minister's problem to solve. Vesting orders for land have been quashed, and the Minister faces the prospect of further compensation payments to landowners. This is, however, also the Executive's problem. The A5 upgrade is, after all, an Executive flagship project. The project is intended to provide for critical infrastructure improvements, address regional imbalance, create jobs and benefit the economy, as well as, crucially, improve road safety. The Irish Government have contributed €600 million for the A5 western transport corridor through their Shared Island initiative. Failure to deliver the project will be another failure of the Executive. Following the High Court ruling this year, I asked the AERA Minister for details on the numbers of occasions on which DFI officials sought advice from DAERA in relation to the A5 project. It took two attempts for the Minister to provide an up-to-date, accurate answer. Between 9 August 2022 and 27 June 2024, there were 13 meetings between officials from those Departments on the A5 project. Those meetings were to assist DFI in preparing its response to the recommendations made by the Planning Appeals Commission. The AERA Minister stated in a letter to me: "The nature of the DAERA engagement at that time was to articulate the factual and legal position around emission targets, carbon budgets and the Climate Action Plan." It is not clear whether the DAERA advice was wrong or whether DFI ignored it as well. I make a suggestion to the Minister — maybe she will respond — can the minutes of those meetings please be placed on the public record? I am sure that they will be, under disclosure at the courts, anyway. However, it would be extremely helpful to those of us who want to come to a balanced judgement around it that the minutes of what happened at those 13 meetings be placed on the public record. Top 4.45 pm Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for giving way. It is really important because, no matter how many times I say this, it does not seem to be landing. If the departmental statement that was published by my predecessor had been read in full, you would have seen that all the Planning Appeals Commission recommendations were indeed addressed and acknowledged as part of that ongoing work. Will the Member now agree with me that DAERA was consulted on that engagement, as happened throughout the process? Mr McGlone: To be honest, like everyone else outside both Departments, I do not know what happened at those meetings. That is why I ask, Minister, that the minutes of the meetings be placed on the public record so that we can find out exactly what happened at them and whether the advice from DAERA was wrong or whether DFI chose to ignore it. I do not know. Ms Kimmins: Just on that point, rather than seeming not to answer it, obviously a legal case is under way at present and, as part of that appeal, as much evidence as possible will be provided to show the work that has gone into it, especially now that DAERA has joined the case. That is an opportunity to look at all of that in the round. Mr McGlone: I take it that that is a yes, and they will be placed on the public record so that the rest of us, who have a vested interest in the project, will be able to draw our own conclusions as to what did or did not happen. I have to say that other parties in the Executive should be angry at the way that this has been incompetently managed. Executive parties took credit for the ambitions of the Climate Change Act in 2022. Now, some appear to be prepared to abandon those ambitions because of the work required to achieve them. They have the opportunity now to take the necessary actions to ensure that the A5 western transport corridor scheme can withstand further legal challenge. It is within their ability to ensure that the A5 scheme begins construction by the end of the Assembly mandate. As Mr Justice McAlinden stated in the High Court ruling: "... the decision to proceed with the scheme must be taken in accordance with the law ... the principle of the rule of law cannot be subverted, even if the motivation for doing so is to achieve what is deemed to constitute a clear societal benefit." The shortcomings and shortcuts in the decision-making highlighted in this judgement are capable of being remedied. We urge the Executive to do the work required this time to make that happen. We cannot have the risk of more lives being lost as a consequence of unnecessary delays. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Before I put the Question on amendment No 1, I remind Members that, if it is made, I will not put the Question on amendment Nos 2 or 3. Question put, That amendment No 1 be made. The Assembly divided: Ayes 38; Noes 38 AYES Dr Archibald, Ms K Armstrong, Mr Baker, Mr Boylan, Ms Bradshaw, Miss Brogan, Mr Delargy, Mrs Dillon, Miss Dolan, Ms Egan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Finnegan, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Mrs Guy, Mr Honeyford, Mr Kearney, Mr Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mr McAleer, Miss McAllister, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Mr McMurray, Mr McReynolds, Mrs Mason, Mr Mathison, Mr Muir, Ms Mulholland, Ms Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Ms Nicholl, Mrs O'Neill, Ms Reilly, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Mr Tennyson Tellers for the Ayes: Miss Brogan, Mr McHugh NOES Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Ms D Armstrong, Mr Beattie, Mr Bradley, Mr Brett, Mr Brooks, Ms Brownlee, Ms Bunting, Mr Burrows, Mr Butler, Mrs Cameron, Mr Chambers, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mr Durkan, Mrs Erskine, Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew, Mr Gaston, Mr Harvey, Mr Irwin, Mr Kingston, Mrs Little-Pengelly, Mr Lyons, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Miss McIlveen, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McNulty, Mr Martin, Mr Middleton, Mr Nesbitt, Mr O'Toole, Mr Robinson, Mr Stewart Tellers for the Noes: Mr McCrossan, Ms McLaughlin Ms Bradshaw acted as a proxy for Ms Nicholl. Mr Clarke acted as a proxy for Mrs Erskine. Question accordingly negatived. Question put, That amendment No 2 be made. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Order. I have been advised by the party Whips that, in accordance with Standing Order 27(1A)(b), there is an agreement that we can dispense with the three minutes and move straight to the Division. The Assembly divided: Ayes 22; Noes 46 AYES Mr Bradley, Mr Brett, Mr Brooks, Ms Brownlee, Ms Bunting, Mrs Cameron, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mrs Erskine, Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew, Mr Gaston, Mr Harvey, Mr Irwin, Mr Kingston, Mrs Little-Pengelly, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Martin, Mr Middleton, Mr Robinson Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Harvey, Mr Martin NOES Dr Archibald, Ms K Armstrong, Mr Baker, Mr Boylan, Ms Bradshaw, Miss Brogan, Mr Delargy, Mrs Dillon, Miss Dolan, Mr Durkan, Ms Egan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Finnegan, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Mrs Guy, Mr Honeyford, Mr Kearney, Mr Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mrs Long, Mr McAleer, Miss McAllister, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McMurray, Mr McNulty, Mr McReynolds, Mrs Mason, Mr Mathison, Mr Muir, Ms Mulholland, Ms Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Ms Nicholl, Mrs O'Neill, Mr O'Toole, Ms Reilly, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Mr Tennyson Tellers for the Noes: Mr Durkan, Ms McLaughlin Mr Clarke acted as a proxy for Mrs Erskine. Ms Bradshaw acted as a proxy for Ms Nicholl. Question accordingly negatived. Question put, That amendment No 3 be made. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I have been advised by the party Whips that, in accordance with Standing Order 27(1A)(b), there is agreement that we can dispense — [Interruption] Order, order — with the three-minute rule and move straight to a Division. Members, I am going to make an appeal that, as we move through this process, the word "order" is followed by silence. It does not mean that you continue the chat that you were having, all of you at once, while I am trying to go through the process in the hope that the rest of the Chamber will hear me. Order. The Assembly divided: Ayes 45; Noes 32 AYES Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Ms D Armstrong, Ms K Armstrong, Mr Beattie, Mr Bradley, Ms Bradshaw, Mr Brett, Mr Brooks, Ms Brownlee, Ms Bunting, Mr Burrows, Mr Butler, Mrs Cameron, Mr Chambers, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Ms Egan, Mrs Erskine, Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew, Mr Gaston, Mrs Guy, Mr Harvey, Mr Honeyford, Mr Irwin, Mr Kingston, Mrs Little-Pengelly, Mrs Long, Mr Lyons, Miss McAllister, Miss McIlveen, Mr McMurray, Mr McReynolds, Mr Martin, Mr Mathison, Mr Middleton, Mr Muir, Ms Mulholland, Mr Nesbitt, Ms Nicholl, Mr Robinson, Mr Stewart, Mr Tennyson Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Burrows, Mr Butler NOES Dr Archibald, Mr Baker, Mr Boylan, Miss Brogan, Mr Delargy, Mrs Dillon, Miss Dolan, Mr Durkan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Finnegan, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Mr Kearney, Mr Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mr McAleer, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McNulty, Mrs Mason, Ms Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mrs O'Neill, Mr O'Toole, Ms Reilly, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin Tellers for the Noes: Mr McGrath, Mr McNulty Ms Bradshaw acted as a proxy for Ms Nicholl. Mr Clarke acted as a proxy for Mrs Erskine. Question accordingly agreed to. Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly expresses regret that the Minister for Infrastructure failed to take the necessary actions to ensure that the A5 western transport corridor scheme could withstand legal challenge; calls on the Minister for Infrastructure to make saving lives on this road the absolute priority, while also treating landowners fairly and respectfully, and to put in place other road safety measures and better public transport options for the north-west if the A5 faces further delays; and further calls on the Minister to ensure that commencement of an agreed legally compliant A5 scheme begins as soon as possible and to set out clearly how the project will stay within the carbon budget limits required by law. Assembly Business Standing Order 10(3A): Extension of Sitting Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I have received notification from members of the Business Committee of a motion to extend the sitting past 7.00 pm under Standing Order 10(3A). Resolved: That in accordance with Standing Order 10(3A), the sitting on Monday 22 September 2025 be extended to no later than 9.30 pm. — [Mr McGrath.] Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, I ask you to take your ease while we make a change at the top Table, before we move on to the next item. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Dr Aiken] in the Chair) Health: Question for Urgent Oral Answer Mr McNulty: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. There was a very important question for urgent oral answer to the Minister of Health earlier about an IT outage in the Southern Health and Social Care Trust. I had an important question to ask the Minister, but I was not afforded the opportunity to do so. Will the Deputy Speaker give me clarity as to why that was the case? Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much indeed. We will pass that on to the Speaker's Office for investigation. I am sure that, if you get in contact with the Health Minister, he will answer your question directly. Opposition Business Hate: Executive Approach Mr O'Toole: I beg to move That this Assembly condemns the continued high occurrence of racist- and sectarian-motivated hate crime witnessed throughout Northern Ireland; believes that the response from the Executive has been inadequate; and calls on the Executive to combat all forms of hate crime by introducing hate crime legislation by the end of the Assembly mandate, undertaking an immediate review of the tackling paramilitarism, criminality and organised crime programme and providing additional resources to the courts and the PSNI. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. Two amendments have been selected and are published on the Marshalled List, so the Business Committee has agreed that 30 minutes be added to the total time for the debate. Matthew, please open the debate on the motion. Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. In moving the second motion on the first Opposition day following the Assembly's return from summer recess, I am mindful of the victims of hate crime over the summer in Northern Ireland. I am mindful of all those who still live in fear because of the upsurge in hate that we have seen in our society. I want those people to be at the centre of the debate, because the truth is that, as we have set out in the motion, we have failed them. Northern Ireland and, indeed, the island of Ireland are markedly more diverse places than they were when I was a younger man. When I was growing up, the region was overwhelmingly mono-ethnic. It was made up of people who were born in Northern Ireland itself, in Ireland or in Britain. Clearly, that has changed. Let me be the first to say that I welcome that change. It has brought huge benefits to our society. I say that as someone who represents what is not just the most diverse constituency in the North of Ireland but, I think, the most diverse constituency on the island of Ireland. My constituency office is situated on University Street and is open to the public in South Belfast, specifically the public in that area. They can seek my help with housing, healthcare or any other issue on which they may need assistance with statutory authorities. The area is very diverse. It has people from all over the world. Those people are not here simply — as some, including, I am afraid, some in the Chamber, would occasionally like to depict them — as a burden or as entrants to this society for their own benefit; they add extraordinary benefit to the community, the city and the whole region. There are two extraordinary and, you might say, world-leading institutions on my constituency office doorstep, one of which is literally a stone's throw from its front door. They are Queen's University Belfast and the City Hospital. Neither of those institutions could function or thrive without the contribution of migrants. That is a fact. People from all over the world come to Queen's University and the City Hospital to study, educate, research and heal and to make our society better and healthier. I thank them for their contribution and pay tribute to everything that they offer us. I want our society to welcome more people like them. The problem is that, at this time, it is difficult to tell them with complete sincerity that they will receive as open a welcome as they should. That is because, this summer past and the previous summer, we have seen an unacceptable spike in hate. Those are not isolated incidents. Hate crime has been rising in Northern Ireland in a shocking way; in fact, race hate crime now exceeds sectarian hate crime in Northern Ireland. In many ways, our politics and our society have been defined by the historical division in religion or, if you prefer, constitutional preference in this place. Sadly, that division still exists, although it is, in some ways, getting better. Hate crime against people who are not from these shores, however, now outranks or exceeds sectarian hate crime. Our motion is clear. There has been a significant upsurge in hate crime since the Executive returned last February. Since their return, the Executive have failed to deal with that hate crime as effectively and comprehensively as they should have. Our motion is clear about the different ways in which they have failed and been inadequate. Top 5.30 pm On 4 September, before we all returned to this place after the summer break, the Executive had a meeting. The First Minister, the deputy First Minister and other Ministers outlined the actions that they would take as a result of that meeting. A statement was published on the Executive Office's website, and there was a press conference. The statement said that the Executive wanted to "move forward together" on hate crime and tackling hate. Those are the warmest of warm words, but they needed to be followed up with clear action. They were not, and they have not been thus far. The clarity from the Executive has, frankly, been lacking and pathetic. In recent weeks and since then, we have seen an attempted lynching on the streets of Belfast in the Justice Minister's own constituency. Have we seen a decisive response? I am afraid that, as yet, we have not. What to do about it? There are several things that should be done. The first test is, in a sense, the easiest to pass, and it is that there be a clear, consistent and unified response from political leadership on the unacceptability and immorality of hate crime in all its forms. Have we seen that? We have to an extent, but, for too many people, their opposition to the hate that we have seen on the streets of Belfast, Ballymena, Larne and elsewhere has been caveated — qualified — with words to the effect of, "Ah, but we have to ensure that legitimate concerns are heard". There are, of course, legitimate concerns about any number of political issues. People are entitled to have a view about migration, for example, and about housing, but you instantly nullify the legitimacy of any political complaint when you engage in violence. Secondly, we need to see clarity about an increase in resource for the parts of our criminal justice system that will, effectively, deal with and deter racist violence and lower-level hate crime on our streets. That involves, first, greater resources for the PSNI and an urgency in dealing with those issues. Secondly, it involves greater resources for the courts so that they can prioritise dealing with the issues. I hope that the Justice Minister will elaborate on some of that in her remarks. There is also a longer-term challenge that we need to deal with. It has now been years since Judge Marrinan reported on hate crime legislation. We have yet to see the full implementation, or even the near-full implementation, of Judge Marrinan's recommendations. We know that we are not going to get stand-alone hate crime legislation. That is not good enough. I acknowledge that the Justice Minister will say, I am sure today, that she intends to bring forward legislation in a staged way. We are now getting very close to being in a situation where we will be up against it, as it were, in delivering legislation. We have a sentencing Bill that we expect to get in the next year. Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): Will the Member give way? Mr O'Toole: Yes. Mrs Long: The sentencing Bill will be with the Assembly by the end of the year and the victims and witnesses Bill in early spring. Will the Member clarify whether he would prefer that we had a stand-alone hate crime Bill or that we expedited those most impactful elements of the hate crime recommendations from Judge Marrinan? The stand-alone Bill would be introduced in the next mandate, and the bit that I am doing will be in this mandate. Mr O'Toole: First, I am not going to let the perfect be the enemy of the good, so if we can pass this legislation, yes, I welcome it. However, there are two things to consider. First, with regard to doing it expeditiously, we are now 18 months into this mandate — 18 months — and we have not seen a single word of hate crime provisions either in a stand-alone Bill or as part of another Bill. I would challenge the idea that it has been expedited. It is also worth saying that it was in the Alliance Party's manifesto that there would be a stand-alone hate crime Bill. Secondly, there is the challenge of paramilitarism. We know that paramilitaries have played a part in a considerable number of the hate crime that we have seen on the streets of Northern Ireland. We know that paramilitary hate crime is barely even recorded by the PSNI in this jurisdiction. We know that, in some places, including parts of north Belfast, the UDA, for example, sees itself as some kind of de facto, quasi- or crypto housing association. Those people arrogate to themselves the right to say who does and does not live in an area. Therefore, while we need to see hate crime legislation and more resource for the PSNI, we need to be grown up in this society about acknowledging the fact that paramilitaries continue to wield a pernicious and unacceptable power. They want to be able to say who lives in a community and who does not. Clearly, when it suits them, they coordinate racist violence on our streets. Until we are willing to confront that, to mandate the police to confront it, to retool the tackling paramilitarism, criminality and organised crime programme and to change the criminal justice incentives to properly tackle that, we are not going to get anywhere. In moving the motion, I urge all in the Chamber to finally get real about hate crime, to take our responsibilities seriously and not just to engage in warm words and rhetoric but to back that up with resourcing for the police and the criminal justice system, more broadly, with clarity on hate crime legislation and with every word and deed that is needed to tackle the upsurge of hate in our society. Mr Frew: I beg to move amendment No 1: Leave out all after "Northern Ireland" and insert: "notes the recent Executive commitment to working in partnership with the PSNI, civic leaders, community organisations and statutory bodies to ensure that our streets, neighbourhoods and communities reflect the values of equality and respect; calls on the Minister of Justice to detail, and consult on, her plans to include a statutory aggravation offence model for hate crime in sentencing legislation due to be introduced during the Assembly mandate; and further calls on the Minister to provide additional resources to the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunal Service (NICTS), the PSNI and the tackling paramilitarism, criminality and organised crime programme." Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): You have 10 minutes in which to propose the amendment and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. Please open the debate on amendment No 1. Mr Frew: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. We think that our amendment assists and strengthens the motion and places focus where it should be, which is on providing additional resources to the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service; the PSNI, which investigates and fights crime; and the tackling paramilitarism, criminality and organised crime programme that is meant to tackle the spectre and leftovers of the paramilitary world, which the leader of the Opposition just talked about. Those are the areas where, we believe, more resource should be placed in order to fight crime. When it come to fighting crime, what is a crime? I have always had a discomfort with regard to the phrase "hate crime", because we know that a lot of the incidents that the police are obliged to report are not necessarily a crime. That blurs the lines for me — it really does — because I do not think that to hate something is actually a crime. I hate all sorts of things. I hate crime. I hate violence against women and girls. I hate terrorism. I hate the measures that were brought in during COVID that caused so much pain and suffering to our people. I hate all those things. That is not a crime, so "hate crime" in itself is a bit of a misnomer. Mr Tennyson: Will the Member give way? Mr Frew: Yes, I will. Mr Tennyson: Does the Member not accept that it is completely unacceptable in our society to hate an individual because of the colour of their skin, their religion, their sexuality or their gender, and that surely all of us in the Assembly should be able to agree on at least that? Mr Frew: Absolutely, and I thank the Member for raising that. As a party, we condemn all sectarian/racist attacks on individuals and their homes. There are absolutely no circumstances in which such actions and threats of violence or intimidation are justified. That also goes for race, religion, disability, sexuality, gender or age. It is all totally unacceptable. No one should be threatened or attacked for those issues. We have always been clear —. Mrs Long: Will the Member give way? Mr Frew: Yes, I will give way to the Minister. Mrs Long: I appreciate the Member being generous. I reassure him that the model that is proposed by Judge Marrinan and that will be taken forward by the Department is an aggravator to existing crime. It is not creating a whole new raft of crimes. If, for example, you hit somebody, and it is motivated by racism, sectarianism or whatever it is, an aggravator will be applied to the sentence, but it does not create new offences. If that gives the Member reassurance, that might be helpful. Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for that intervention, because it actually does do that. We would not be on the same page as the leader of the Opposition on stand-alone hate crime legislation. That is why, I think, the Minister is taking a good route. My worry about the legislation that is coming forward is that it is rushed or botched. What do we have as an example? We have the Justice Bill, where the Minister brought only half a Bill, and, on the half that she did bring, she is now seeking amendments. Therefore, we worry that the sentencing Bill may well turn out the same way. I ask the Minister to make sure and to assure us that, in her bringing forward the sentencing Bill in haste, it is fully covered and all content and clauses are before the Assembly at First Reading and Second Reading. I hope that the Minister can give me that reassurance today. I also have an issue — Mrs Long: Will the Member give way? Mr Frew: Yes, I will. Mrs Long: The Member stood in the Chamber and implored, I think, the Finance Minister, when that Minister was bringing legislation before the Chamber, to move it by amendment so that it could be introduced more effectively to the Committee. Therefore, why the difference when it comes to the Justice Bill and legislation from other Ministers? Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for her intervention. There is a world of difference between an amendment to a Bill from the Department and the Minister bringing 50% of her Bill through amendments at Committee Stage to Further Consideration Stage and also amending all the previous text at Second Reading. That is really worrying when it comes to the Justice Bill. There is also an issue with how we perceive an aggravated hate crime, even through the sentencing Bill, because the victim alone can perceive it to be a hate crime. There have been many instances of that. In fact, there was one that I had to deal with through constituency work where people threw eggs out of a car at three victims. The first victim did not report it. They were born here in Northern Ireland. The second victim did not report it. They were born here in Northern Ireland. Then a newcomer family was attacked, and they perceived it to be a hate crime. They thought that they were attacked because they were a newcomer family, but that was not the case. So, there are real worries about the only parameter being the perception of the victim. They could be misinformed, and so, then, could the police be, about the motives for criminal activity. That is vital. Mrs Dillon: I appreciate the Member taking the intervention; I know that he has taken a number of interventions. As with anything that goes to court, you have to prove that there is an aggravator. You have to offer that proof. You could not just say, "I think that it is because of my sexuality or my race". You absolutely would have to prove that. If we were to go by that, we would just say, "We will not have any crime at all or not bother prosecuting anybody". Mr Frew: I agree with the Member. That is why I think that we will be pushing for a more substantial burden of proof to be established in law that requires evidence of the existence of direct prejudice or hatred at the time of the offence and that that was the primary motive of the crime. I think that it is realistic and sensible to put that safeguard in the legislation. Any new legal definition should not weaken the rights of those with deeply held legitimate religious views, or any other views for that matter, to express opinions that may be contrary to the views of those advocating for protected groups. What I mean by that and why I am worried and nervous about that is that we have seen Labour produce the Online Safety Act, which has resulted in people being incarcerated for tweets. Horrendous as they were, they were text. A lady was incarcerated. Others have incited violence on the streets, but, because they did not admit guilt, they were allowed to say things without any punishment. I really worry that we have a Labour Government in power who are bringing in laws that are quite draconian in nature. The SDLP is Labour's sister party, and maybe it could speak for Labour. Maybe the SDLP is as concerned as I am. At times, the Alliance Party, with its liberalism, can be quite intolerant of other people's views, and I really worry. I hope that the Minister will bring forward the sentencing Bill, and I hope that the measures in it will do the job of protecting people no matter their race, religion, disability, sexuality, gender or age, because that is critical. I go back to the point that our law enforcement agencies and court system need to be fully resourced to combat all crime in this day and age. It is vital that the people who keep us safe have the money and means to do so and that justice is not delayed when a crime is committed and investigated and when it goes to the PPS and through our court system. It is not fair that victims must sit for years before they have their day in court or at least see that the perpetrator who made them a victim has been through court and punished sufficiently. It is not fair that those people have to wait years for that. Top 5.45 pm I extend goodwill to the Minister in bringing forward her legislation. I want to see good legislation as much as she does, but my party will scrutinise every line, clause and measure in her Bills to ensure that the powers that we grant are appropriate and right to protect our people. Ms Egan: I beg to move amendment No 2: Leave out all after "inadequate;" and insert: "recognises that tackling hate and building safe, inclusive communities requires a whole-society approach; and calls on the Executive to combat all forms of hate crime by supporting the relevant provisions in the pending sentencing Bill and victims and witnesses of crime Bill, supporting the work undertaken across the statutory and community sector under the Executive programme on paramilitarism and organised Crime, and providing additional resources to the justice system." Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Assembly should note that the amendments are mutually exclusive. If amendment No 1 is made, the Question will not be put on amendment No 2. Connie, you will have 10 minutes in which to propose amendment No 2 and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other contributors to the debate will have five minutes. Please open the debate on amendment No 2. Over to you, Connie. Ms Egan: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. When we distil what our responsibilities in the Assembly are and go back to the basics, it is clear that our foundational responsibility as political representatives is to do everything that we can to protect vulnerable people across our society, no matter their race, sexuality, ability or faith, and to ensure that those whom we serve in our constituencies and across Northern Ireland more widely have trust in the Government to protect them and that every person is given the best chance possible to lead a safe, fulfilling and happy life. As I speak on the motion on the Executive's approach to hate and propose the Alliance Party's amendment, I stand in disbelief and horror at the continuing hate incidents that people across our communities face. Those incidents are not just a statistic, but they are extraordinarily rising, despite probably still being under-reported. From June 2024 to June 2025, 646 more race incidents and 434 more race crimes were recorded than in the previous year. That is the highest level in a dataset that we have seen since 2004, 21 years ago. That same police data also suggests that, compared with previous years, fewer incidents of hate were committed in the name of sexual orientation, transgender identity, sectarianism and disability. However, I worry that that might be as a result of a potential decrease in those affected coming forward and having the confidence to even make that initial report of a crime. I thank the leader of the Opposition and his SDLP colleagues for tabling the motion, as it is our responsibility as MLAs to seize every possible chance to raise the experiences of those victims. I hope that Members find our amendment constructive and an opportunity to strengthen and add to the content of the motion. I also hope that the debate is an opportunity to consolidate support across the Executive and the Assembly so that we can take real action to tackle the profound hate that we have seen in our community. It was positive to see joint statements from our Executive over the past year that called for calm and condemned all forms of racism, sectarianism and hostility towards individuals of different backgrounds. However, without decisive action behind it and follow-through support from the representatives and political parties of every Minister, it is just that: a statement of words. The Alliance Party amendment seeks to achieve a few different aims. First, it seeks to align support under the Justice Minister's current plan of action to introduce hate crime legislation in her upcoming Bills. More than that, it seeks to draw clear attention to the fact that the root causes of hate go beyond the parameters of our justice system alone. Ending hate is the responsibility of every Minister, Department, politician, agency and citizen in our society. There has been a lot of discussion in the Chamber over the past year of the best way to introduce new and tougher hate crime legislation. The Justice Minister has always been committed to introducing legislation to tackle the unacceptable levels of hate in our society. The Minister and her Department are bringing that forward now, in the most efficient and effective way, through the upcoming sentencing Bill and victims and witnesses Bill. It is in that vein that I was gladdened to hear Judge Marrinan's words of fairness for the Department in the past month. He, of course, undertook the review of hate crime legislation five years ago. Judge Marrinan rightly highlighted his great disappointment at the delay that the legislation has faced, but drew attention to the fact that, given the Executive's collapse and statutory obligations for consultation, there was little more that Minister Long could have done legislatively by now other than what is being brought forward, and said that it will have "a profound impact". Alliance is committed to bringing forward hate crime legislation in this mandate. We refuse to have our hands tied by the irresponsible stop-start government that is inflicted by other parties. We hope that everyone across the Chamber can support the upcoming measures so that we can build the safer communities that all members of our Executive promised in our Programme for Government. Legislation like that which we have described today is just one way in which to tackle hate. The remainder of our amendment affirms support for the statutory and community sector under the Executive's programme on paramilitarism and organised crime, and for addressing the resourcing challenges across our justice system. Those challenges are acute. Justice and law and order are the foundation upon which our society is built. Alliance therefore welcomes the seemingly cross-party support for the greater resourcing for justice agencies that the motion could bring about. However, I challenge the amendment that has been tabled by DUP colleagues, which places the responsibility for that work and the onus to provide additional resources to justice-related agencies wholly on the Justice Minister. I agree that the funding for those organisations should increase, but we cannot ignore the fact that the Department has historically suffered from significant underfunding, particularly during the past decade, with resources continuing to be stretched thin. Nobody has highlighted that or argued that point more than the Minister herself. Stormont's block grant has increased by 66% in the 14 years to 2025-26, but, by comparison, the Department of Justice's budget has grown by just over 25% in that time. Monetary challenges do not disappear in one budgetary year; undoing that legacy will be a long-lasting challenge. While we can see that the Justice Minister has prioritised the stabilisation of police officer numbers, with the PSNI's receiving approximately 65% of her Department's budget, amongst other interventions, and that she is doing what she can with what she has, it must go further than being the responsibility of one Department. I want to come back to those who are victims of hate. Behind each of those hate incidents and crimes — those that were reported and those that were not — are families and individuals who are scared. They are victims of horrendous intimidation. We were all appalled by the race-related rioting and intimidation that took place across Northern Ireland over the past few months. In my constituency of North Down, I was deeply saddened to see instances of hateful graffiti, target signs sprayed on doors and families intimidated in their homes. Imagine being the intended audience for that. It is not good enough. It does not represent the Northern Ireland or North Down that I know, which is my home and a welcoming place. I know that most of the citizens of Northern Ireland are disgusted and outraged by those incidents. I urge Members to vote for the Alliance amendment. Ultimately, let us make this a turning point for our Executive and Assembly, a day when we get on to the same page and commit to doing something together. Ms Ferguson: I begin my remarks by stating clearly that there is absolutely no place for racism, sectarianism, intolerance, intimidation or violence in our society. Every representative in every political institution, local and national, across the island of Ireland has a duty to stand up and speak out against discrimination, inequality and hate. Unfortunately, there remain people who treat that more as an option than a duty. They do so in the knowledge that the impacts of hate crime are far-reaching, affecting individuals, families, workplaces, community settings and even society as a whole. To put the importance of that in context: as we all know, shamefully, the past year has seen the highest number of racially motivated attacks since records began on the issue 21 years ago. Hate crime differs from other criminality in that it strikes at the very heart of a person's core identity. Understandably, therefore, hate crime has the potential to have particularly profound and enduring impacts on the victims and on the wider network of people affected by it. Research from the Sussex Hate Crime project shows that such crimes not only threaten the personal safety and security of those directly victimised but are likely to impact indirectly on those who are in the victim's identity group, by, for example, increasing their feelings of fear, anger and isolation. Living as we do in the modern digital age, which is defined by widespread use of phones, computers, tablets and other digital technologies, we face additional challenges due to the growing presence of the internet in our professional, social and private lives. Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way? Ms Ferguson: Yes. Mr Burrows: The Member talked about having a unified voice condemning all sectarianism and hatred. Will she condemn unreservedly the sectarian assassination of 10 people at Kingsmills? Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Member has an extra minute. Ms Ferguson: Thank you. No one should have to face hate crime in any sphere of their life. Recent research from the Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ) that mapped far-right activity online here found that it also occurs in a wider context, with some loyalist paramilitaries directly orchestrating such terror. Meanwhile, across the water, British political parties compete to outdo one another with their dangerous rhetoric, which weaponises immigration and plays fast and loose with international human rights. Should we be surprised at the deflection tactics of those who govern when they are from a colonial state? In Irish society, however, those with significant experience of discrimination, inequality, poverty and injustice are not so quick to scapegoat. Credit to those who challenge themselves to look beyond that and critically evaluate the current state of play. As a member of the Justice Committee, I will work closely with the Minister of Justice and my colleagues on the development of the hate crime provisions recommended in Judge Marrinan's review of hate crime legislation through the upcoming sentencing Bill and the victims and witnesses of crime Bill. Let me state clearly, however, that legislative change in itself is insufficient. Challenging falsehoods and discriminatory or hateful narratives, including on immigration, gender identity and other identity issues, is fundamental. There is no room for equivocation, because misinformation and disinformation can and do manifest themselves in displays of hate. On that point, while I welcome the fact that an additional £5 million was agreed by the Executive to cover mutual aid following the recent riots in Ballymena, that money could have been invested in positive, ambitious and proactive projects; instead, it was engulfed in reactive measures to deal with the intolerable behaviour. Tackling hate is not an issue on which to point fingers but one on which all of us across the Chamber should reflect and recommit to walking the walk in our homes and in our communities. Mr Beattie: One of the bravest and noblest men whom I have ever known was an Afghan Muslim whose name was Sher-Wali. He died fighting alongside me in Afghanistan. Why do I mention that? It is because I have been immersed in other cultures and religions. It is only when you do that that you get to understand better the people with whom you share this place. Racism and sectarianism is pure hate based on bigotry, prejudice and lack of understanding. It is hate due to someone's religion; hate due to someone's skin colour, culture or community; hate due to someone's opinion; or hate due to someone's job. In Northern Ireland, we are not unique in dealing with hate crimes, nor are we unique in that on this island, in the British Isles or in wider Europe. It is a global issue that is increasing exponentially, and it will be dealt with. In many cases, hate is perpetuated by ideals that conflict with others'. That is not an issue. People hate me because of my background. They hate my colleague because of his background. That is not an issue. You are allowed to do that. It is, however, an issue when you stir up racial and religious tensions, when hate spills into violence and when hate is used as a platform to dehumanise, isolate and intimidate others. Hate can lead to violence. Hate can lead to murder, and we have seen that. We need to deal with hate, and, on balance and in truth, the motion raises that point well. We do not have many issues with the motion. Top 6.00 pm We are good in Northern Ireland at creating strategies and frameworks. If creating strategies and frameworks were an Olympic sport, we would be gold medallists every time. We need a strategy, however, to look at this matter. I mentioned that personal piece at the start of my contribution because I was lucky enough to be immersed in other cultures and religions not just in conflict areas but elsewhere. Many people in Northern Ireland do not get a chance to do that, because we are divided and segregated. I look forward to seeing the sentencing Bill in the autumn and the victims and witnesses Bill in spring next year. They will be incredibly important. In the meantime, we need to use what is available to us through the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2004 and the Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 to deal with hate crimes. That requires joined-up thinking, which, at times, we are lacking in. Our Criminal Justice Board, which is a high-level board, consists of the Minister, the Chief Constable, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the director general of the Northern Ireland Prison Service, the Lady Chief Justice and many others. It is a high-level board, yet it has no shared vision and no strategic priorities. Hopefully, that will change in the next month or so. That is a big piece of work, and I hope that some of those strategic priorities will deal with hate crime and those who perpetuate it. However, right now, we are failing. In many ways, I look at the issues facing the Minister and see that the Justice Department has been incredibly underfunded. It is a good and fair argument that the Minister makes about that, but we will have to deal with what we have now as we speak. It takes far too long to gather evidence and put individuals through the courts, and momentum is lost. We have seen that, in England and Wales, it can be done in weeks. Here we take months and years. Mrs Long: Will the Member give way? Mr Beattie: Of course. Mrs Long: The Member is, of course, correct, and that is one of the reasons why, in speeding up justice, we are looking at the increased use of out-of-court disposals. However, his colleague consistently criticises the use of those out-of-court disposals, even those that the PSNI brought forward as recommendations. If we want to speed up access to the courts, we need to use those disposals, which are measures that are used throughout the rest of the UK, in a proportional way. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Member has an extra minute. Mr Beattie: Thank you. If we were to sit here and go through sentencing criteria and out-of-court disposals, it would take an awful lot of time. It is complicated, and it cannot be done as a snapshot here. However, the point remains that it takes us far too long to get people through the courts at the other end. They do that quickly in England and Wales, and we take far too long here. Some of our sentences are pretty pitiful and do not act as a deterrent. We could deal with it if you sped it up, had momentum and had a sentence that matched the crime, and some of the crimes are awful and involve the most terrible violence. I support the call in the DUP's amendment for an: "aggravation offence model for hate crime in sentencing". I am in no doubt that the Minister will include that in the sentencing Bill. The thrust of where I am is that I absolutely support the motion and think that the DUP's amendment adds a bit to it, because we have to look at where we are in the here and now. Yes, the Minister will introduce a sentencing Bill, and I look forward to seeing it. However, I have not seen the text. It is hard to support something until you see it, unfortunately. I would like to see it. We need to do something, and we need to do it now. We cannot sit on our hands and wait until the sentencing Bill is introduced. We need to start acting now, and that is why I will support the motion. Mrs Dillon: I thank the Members who tabled the motion. I want to address one of the points that the previous Member to speak made, which was on out-of-court disposals. We absolutely need to look at where they are appropriate and necessary and at where they will speed up justice and ensure that cases that we need to go to court get through the courts more quickly. We need to listen to the PSNI, because we cannot keep saying that we need more money and more resources when we are not making best use of the resources that we have. We have had presentations —. Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way? Mrs Dillon: Absolutely. Mr Burrows: I make no apology for opposing the Minister's proposal. No matter who was consulted, it is the Minister's proposal. It is clear: Ministers decide. The reason is clear. To give a ticket for the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm that includes knocking someone unconscious, smashing their teeth out, leaving them in need of stitches or breaking minor limbs such as fingers is not acceptable —. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Will the Member take his seat? We are supposed to make interventions that are short, pithy and to the point. Even though that intervention was probably not an intervention, Mrs Dillon, I give you an extra minute. Over to you. Mrs Dillon: I appreciate the intervention. I am not sure how much I agree with it. I have not agreed with a lot of what the Member has said over the airwaves before he came into the House. We will probably agree to disagree quite a bit, Mr Burrows. [Laughter.] I appreciate the motion, and we will support it. In June, we saw racist intimidation in Ballymena, Larne, other areas across the North and, indeed, in my locality, Dungannon. We witnessed continued sectarian and racist attacks, again across the North, forcing families to flee their homes. To me, that is heartbreaking. It is reflective of a sectarian state that once forced many families to flee their homes. It is unacceptable and needs to be called out for what it is. Attacking family homes and intimidating women and children is criminal thuggery. We had confirmation from the PSNI — it has been referred to by Members who have spoken previously — that, at a recent public session of the Policing Board, there was evidence of the involvement of loyalist paramilitaries, including the UDA, in north Belfast. Figures from the PSNI last month showed that recorded race hate crime is at an all-time high, something that we should be absolutely ashamed of to our core. Asking for additional resources is one element — the Policing Board is on the record on a number of occasions as saying that policing needs greater resources — but we also need to look at how we use the resources that we have. I agree with my colleague that prevention will always be much more cost-effective than cure. Let us look at what prevention measures we can take. Let us work with those communities and all those people and learn what the challenges are for them. What, do they think, would make a difference in their lives? I look around the Chamber, and there is nobody who reflects, almost to a man and a woman, the people whom we are talking about. Let us be honest. We need to listen to what those people say; what their fears are; how, they think, we can best address them; and how, they think, we should work with them. We have a responsibility. As political leaders, we are just that: we are leaders in our community, and it is our job to support and look after every member of our community regardless of race or ethnicity. That responsibility extends to social media. Too often, we see false claims and inflammatory language online that pour petrol on the fire. All of us, as public representatives and community leaders, must be careful with our words and avoid feeding narratives that target minorities from whatever background they come. Families who are targeted must see that there are consequences for those who carry out the attacks. That means that there needs to be a PSNI response. The police need to step up their investigations, make arrests and bring charges more quickly, decisively and visibly. Visibility is important, and, in fairness, some good work has been done on that, but it is really important for people to know that they are being listened to and that somebody out there cares about what is happening to them. We also know that policing alone cannot fix this. We need to ensure that we work with communities to build trust with them and to work alongside the local community and stakeholders to prevent hate crime, as well as detecting and charging those who perpetrate it. It is important that we have adequate legislation to ensure that those who are perpetrators of hate crime or crime where hate is an aggravator are held fully accountable for their actions. We also need to acknowledge that, if we are serious about building safe, shared communities, we need to see societal change. It is for us in the Chamber to lead in our community and in everything that we say and do. We talk about victims a lot in the Chamber. These victims, like every other victim, must be prioritised. That means supporting families who are under attack, standing with them and ensuring that everybody knows that they are part of our community, that we support them all day, every day, and that we value them equally as part of our community, ensuring that they get the protection and support that they deserve. It is not about dressing up hate and intimidation as a cultural expression or false claims of concern about the safety of women and girls. I have attended events in the areas that had the worst race-hate incidents and crime over the summer. Those events were held by women to talk about violence against women and girls. The irony is that I did not see one man in the room, even though it was men who were out attacking homes and frightening the life out of women and children in their — Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Linda, will your draw your remarks to a close, please? Mrs Dillon: — own homes. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much. I call Jon Burrows. Jon, you have up to five minutes. Mr Burrows: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I condemn, unequivocally, hate crime and all forms of crime. It is an evil act, and we should have no hesitation in condemning it; I have done that my whole life. I value the role that lawful migrants play in society. That is an important part of tackling the intolerance that can lead to hate crime. If it was not for those migrants, we would not have enough people working in our hospitals and care homes; we would have fewer doctors; and we would not have enough people processing things in our factories. Those are important things that we need to value. Condemning things is easy, and passing new laws can be relatively easy in the sense that you pass a law, but we need a criminal justice system that deals with hate crime when it happens. At the minute, our criminal justice system is slow and soft. That sends out a signal that people can act and commit hate crime with impunity. As politicians, we have, collectively, starved the PSNI of the resources that it needs. You can have all the laws that you want, but unless someone is enforcing them, what are we going to do? That is why Mr Frew's amendment is so important. We need to have a PSNI that is investigating crime, swiftly and robustly; able to prevent crime and be out on patrol; and able to be in schools, engaging with young people, and tackling the kind of behaviours that lead to hate crime. If we do not invest in our police service and criminal justice system, the new law simply goes unenforced. A good example of that is this: there is already an aggravating factor in Northern Ireland. In any offence that has been committed, the judge can take into account the fact that race or racism was a factor and a motivator, but they do not use that enough. Northern Ireland's system is too soft. We are spending too much time worrying about the perpetrators and not enough about victims. We need to speed up our criminal justice system, and we need to support our police service so that we show, swiftly and with certainty, that crime does not pay. Why would we start to see increases in sentencing with new legislation — I would support new legislation, once I see the detail — if there is already an aggravating factor in our sentencing guidelines that judges are not using? We need to change the culture in our judiciary and entire criminal justice system. Our judges pass very soft sentences — day in, day out. That needs to be gripped. The impact on the victim needs to be put into the heart of everything that we are doing in the criminal justice system. We also need to have hard conversations about prison capacity. Is the fact that we have insufficient prison capacity affecting the sentences that judges pass? I ask that because some of the sentences are inexplicable. If you keep having those soft sentences, you are not going to get outcomes. I studied criminology at master's level — I went into deterrent in crime, which is at the heart of the motion. Deterrence comes from two things, principally: one is the severity of the sentence, and the other is the likelihood that you are going to get caught. If you think that there is very little chance that you are going to get caught but that they might throw the book at you, you might still think, "I'll just do it". However, if you think that you are going to get caught, it changes your behaviour. That is why people stop committing crime and run away as soon as the police bring out an evidence-gathering truck, or why rioting stops as soon as the police publish images. Mr O'Toole: I am pleased that the Member gave way. Further to his comment about the psychology of deterrence, does he agree that there is a deterrent effect for the people who are committing hate crimes, or those who are reporting hate crimes, when they see that the people who are coordinating them, or who are connected to the people who are coordinating them, are the type of people who are the leading paramilitaries or the paramilitary stakeholder in that area? Does he agree that that has a deterrent effect on both the people who report and the people who commit such crimes? Top 6.15 pm Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Member has an extra minute. Mr Burrows: I do think that that is a chill factor. I am very hawkish on paramilitaries. I have no difficulty in condemning outright every single member of a loyalist paramilitary group, because the fact is that none of them is in a pipe-and-slipper brigade. They are members of a criminal organisation. There is a chill factor, because some of the people involved in this are also paramilitaries. It gives them legitimacy and credence and creates a chill factor when making reports. I go back to this key point: if you believe that you will not get caught, you will carry on committing that kind of crime. We have starved our Police Service of Northern Ireland. Here is a cultural thing, and it goes back to supporting the police, not just with money but with real support. I watched the PSNI become more and more risk-averse before my eyes. It is the most risk-averse police service in the United Kingdom. Let me give you an example. Mugshots go out from every other police service in the United Kingdom. If you are convicted of a race hate crime, your mugshot will go out. If you are convicted of domestic violence, your mugshot will go out. The public see that those actions have consequences and that crime does not pay. There is a very strong message. In Northern Ireland, we are frightened to do that. Why? It is because of the hyper-criticism and accountability that the police have faced, including from people in this very Chamber. We need a police service that is not frightened to be decisive. We are much slower traditionally at releasing unidentified images of suspects, yet that is what stops disorder. There are people who — Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Will the Member draw his remarks to a close? Mr Burrows: — go on about the human rights lobby. We need to support our police, and we need to make sure that our judges do their job, uphold the rule of law and put criminals behind bars. Mr McGrath: As the debate has progressed, we have started to go down rabbit holes and little culs-de-sac, rather than focusing on what should be front and centre in the overall debate, which is the suggestion that racism and sectarianism are a stain on our society, albeit elements of the motion are about what should happen within the criminal justice system once somebody has carried out such actions. We should collectively say that, if we have a person at that stage, we have failed. If people continue to go out and carry out such actions, it means that all our policies and the various strategies have not done their job. We have lost sight of the fact that, when it comes to defining these things amongst ourselves, we all probably agree on about 95% of it. It is just that 5% at the end where we have our differences. It is a little bit frustrating that it is the 5% that we focus on, and, in some respects, it is that 5% that then gets amplified to the community, which then thinks that there is division on these things. There are quite a number of first principles that we all agree on, and that is what we should try to amplify. I think about those who have fallen victim to abuse. It is important that we send out a message to them that we do not like that and that we want to stop it. We want to try to stop that type of behaviour in our community. We do not want to see people carrying out racist or sectarian abuse. However, we also know that, in order to stop a lot of that abuse, we need to see leadership. All of us need to stand up and say that what we can see in our community is wrong and that there needs to be no more of it. As a group of leaders in our community, we need to agree on that and spread it round our community. What has been very frustrating over the summer and the past number of months is that, when there have been certain events, they have almost become weaponised and politicised, with different views on whether it should or should not have not happened, whether it was or was not right and what was or was not there beforehand. That has allowed a space where people feel that their behaviours are justified. They think that it is OK to carry out their actions in the community, because they think that even people like ourselves cannot agree on what is racist, what is sectarian, what is allowed, who is in control in our communities and who we permit to be in control in our communities. When we get elements of that wrong, we see what happens: the space opens, and in they go. It is filled up by people who bring that destruction into our communities. We see people go in and attack others, quite often simply for the colour of their skin. People who are working, contributing, paying taxes and giving back to our community are getting attacked because others think that they arrived on a boat. People think that those boats made it all the way across seas, up Belfast lough, down the M1 and on to the top of a bonfire, and that that is what delivered people into our community. We need to stand up and say, "That is wrong. That is the wrong message". The message is that 99·9% of the people who are here are here on legal and proper grounds. They contribute to our society and work hard, but we seem to lump everybody in with the small percentage who are considered to be illegal immigrants. We need to find other ways — legal ways — of addressing that. We need — Mrs Dillon: I appreciate the Member taking an intervention. Does the Member agree that, regardless of whether a person is legal or illegal — there are ways to deal with somebody who is illegal, and that has to be done — we are talking today about race hate. It does not matter whether you are legal or illegal: anybody who attacks you because of the colour of your skin or your ethnicity is wrong and should be held to account. Mr McGrath: Thank you for that. Yes, that was maybe just in the interpretation. I am suggesting that there is a sense in the community that we are completely overrun with people. It is that sheer perceived volume that people use to motivate their actions, but it is not rooted in reality, and that lack of reality allows people to increase — Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way? Mr McGrath: Yes. Go on ahead, very quickly, please. Mr Burrows: Does the Member agree that, if responsible politicians do not articulate issues around illegal immigration and the delays in the asylum system, that cedes ground to the likes of Tommy Robinson, who then make the running on it and amplify hate? Mr McGrath: The point is made. We need to get the facts out there. The problem is that, in here, some representatives amplify too much, and the noise that they make gets out, goes down the hill and gives people the justification for the actions that they display. If we stand here and say that the behaviour is wrong, the behaviour is wrong. We can all make sure that we get the facts, but it should not justify hate. Those facts, by the way, will come in various Executive policies and strategies, like the racial equality strategy, which we are only halfway through, and the tackling paramilitarism programme, which we need to see changes to. Those can all be used as a vehicle to try to address the behaviours that are out there in our community. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call the Minister, who has up to 15 minutes. Mrs Long: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to the leader of the Opposition for moving this important motion. In recent months, we have seen shameful acts of racist, sectarian, homophobic and transphobic intimidation and hate on our streets, targeting black and ethnic minorities, migrant workers, refugees, young families and vulnerable and defenceless individuals. I am clear that there can be no place for violence or the threat of violence, and that nor is there is any place for the rise in intimidating vigilantism and harassment that we have seen recently. Such hateful conduct not only damages the reputation of Northern Ireland as a welcoming and safe place to live, learn, work and visit, but the prejudice on which it is predicated is utterly corrosive to our ambition of building a truly shared, safe and inclusive future for all our people. Clearly, my Department and I have a key role to play, alongside justice partners, in addressing those issues, which is why I offered to respond today. However, that alone is not enough, nor can it protect people from harm, as many Members have recognised. A wider response across Departments and society is required to tackle the root causes of hate and prejudice in our communities, and to proactively invest in and promote inclusive, shared and vibrant communities. My Department is engaged in a wide range of work to support effective responses to hate-motivated attacks and to strengthen support for all victims of hate crime and those who fear that they may be vulnerable to attack, whether in the workplace, at home, in school or in the local community. In the previous mandate, I took forward the first stage of policy development and consultation to develop the legislative protections for victims of hate crime, with the intention of undertaking consultation on the remaining recommendations at the start of the new mandate, and bringing a consolidated hate crime Bill as the fourth Bill in this new mandate in 2026. That first stage covered the aggravation offence model and special measures for victims in court proceedings, as recommended by Judge Desmond Marrinan in his comprehensive review of hate crime legislation and his subsequent report, which was published in late 2020 and for which I remain very grateful. Like me, he has expressed disappointment at the pace of change, but he has recognised that the delay is not due to any lack of urgency on either my part or that of my Department but, rather, to the length of time that it takes to progress legislation through these institutions. Contrast the time being taken by my Justice Bill, which has been with the Justice Committee for the past year, with the statutory 10 working days that MPs would have in Westminster for a similar Bill. Mr O'Toole: Will the Minister give way? Mrs Long: I will, yes. Mr O'Toole: I appreciate the important point that the Minister makes. Some Bills could be more concise. On that note, while we are here, does the Minister agree with my party that we need to shorten some of the business deadlines, including those for Opposition and non-Executive business? That is an important issue. Mrs Long: It is a nice try, but I will respond to the Member in writing on that point. He has approached me on it in his role as party leader in the Assembly. Judge Marrinan also noted that the provisions that I am progressing in this mandate: "will send a powerful message. I am certain it will have a profound impact." Those were his words. On my return to office, it was clear that we could not introduce four or five Bills, as I had hoped to do, in four or five years. The intended hate crime Bill would have fallen owing to legislative time constraints and would have had to start again in the following mandate. Recognising the urgency of the problem, however, I prioritised delivering the most impactful recommendations on hate crime. They are being progressed through the Department and legislative drafting process and will be introduced via a sentencing Bill and the victims and witnesses of crime Bill. The statutory aggravator model, which will be included in the sentencing Bill, will become the core method of prosecuting hate crimes in Northern Ireland. It will allow all existing criminal offences to be aggravated by proven hostility based on membership or perceived membership of a protected group — race, religion, disability or sexual orientation — and will allow intersectionality to be recognised. It will also include a power to add further protected groups by way of secondary legislation, if the evidence shows that that is required. It is important to have that flexibility to respond. Additional support for victims and witnesses will be included in the victims and witnesses of crime Bill, which will include provisions to allow automatic eligibility for consideration of special measures and protection from in-person cross-examination by the defendant in hate crime cases. That staged approach means that hate crime provisions should be in place sooner than might otherwise have been possible, with, of course, the cooperation of the Committee and the Assembly. Strengthening hate crime legislation not only gives the police, the prosecution, the judiciary and others additional tools with which to ensure that the hate element of any crime is recognised and addressed in sentencing but, importantly, allows rehabilitation, whether by the probation service or by prisons, because, of course, not everyone will end up in prison, and the probation service does an excellent job. I keep hearing about people being behind bars, but maybe some people can be reformed without being put behind bars. It is therefore important that those services be able to address not only the signal offence but the underlying attitudes that were a driver for it. Perhaps equally powerfully, strengthening the legislation also sends a clear signal that hate crime is not tolerated by us as an Assembly. It supports an underlying commitment to valuing the diversity in all our communities across Northern Ireland, including newcomer and ethnic minority communities, LGBTQIA+ communities and people with disabilities. When it comes to supporting victims of hate crime, direct support is already provided through the Hate Crime Advocacy Service, which is jointly funded by the PSNI and DOJ. That service supports victims of hate crime through the criminal justice process, signposts them to relevant support services and can assist with third-party reporting to the PSNI. A range of measures is also in place to protect vulnerable groups from intimidation. My Department, together with the Northern Ireland Policing Board, provides annual funding to policing and community safety partnerships (PCSPs), and they play a key role in the Department's operational response to community safety concerns, including addressing hate crime. Following the incidents in Belfast in the summer of 2024, that joint committee provided a small additional award to the Belfast PCSP. As a result of the additional funding, over 20 grants were awarded to groups across the city during 2024-25, with the range of projects being supported including community engagement events; resources to encourage the reporting of hate crime; youth diversionary and education sessions; and cultural awareness and celebration events. Addressing the part of the motion that refers to tackling paramilitarism in Northern Ireland, I will say that my Department has committed to reviewing the Executive programme on paramilitarism and organised crime (EPPOC) in its entirety during 2026-27. That work is already in progress. The review will provide Ministers with an evidenced, fulsome assessment of the progress that has been made by the programme and of lessons learned. It will also help inform decision-making on the best method of systemically addressing the complex challenges of dealing with paramilitarism, organised crime and new and emerging threats in the longer term. I am aware that the programme team has, on a number of occasions, offered to provide the SDLP representatives with a briefing on the programme but that that offer has not yet been taken up. If the leader of the Opposition and his colleagues would find it helpful, we are still happy to do that. Top 6.30 pm I also agree that it is vital to have an effective, responsive and visible criminal justice response to hate crime offences in Northern Ireland. Enhanced legislation is only one part of delivering that. However, I also recognise the importance of increasing resources across the criminal justice system to ensure a timely and effective response, which is crucial for building confidence. The matter is not solely for me but for the Executive as a whole to prioritise, and, while I agreed with much of the DUP's amendment, I was disappointed that, again, it is about the justice system funding itself. We have no means of doing so, and we need to get support from across the Executive. We have faced a squeeze that, by comparison, is disproportionate to that in other Departments, and it has impacted on every part of the system. I am focused on working with the Executive to redress the imbalance and to tackle some of the delays in the system through, for example, transformation funds, where my Department has been successful. I have continuously engaged with the Finance Minister and other Executive colleagues to advocate a better financial settlement for my Department, and I will continue to do so. The Executive commitment to specifically increasing police numbers is reflected, first, in its inclusion as a commitment in the Programme for Government and in the approval by my Department and the Department of Finance of the PSNI's workforce recovery business case and the prioritisation of the bid for year 1 funding in the forthcoming monitoring rounds. However, I have also been clear with colleagues that the stabilisation plan requires the full £200 million to be made available and that, without it, the value of single-year commitments is extremely limited. It is, therefore, vital that, in subsequent years, the business cases are supported. There is a five-year business case with three years of stabilisation and two further years to ensure that it beds in. It is important that that happen as part of the forthcoming three-year Budget process. During critical periods of unrest in August 2024 and June 2025, in response to the racist incidents and public disorder, DOJ activated established multi-agency strategic and operational mechanisms to address violence and racially motivated hate crimes and to offer support from the relevant agencies to members of the ethnic minority communities. Whilst there was an effective response to the initial disorder, I am clear that we now need a longer-term response to the ongoing emboldening of prejudiced attitudes and behaviours in wider society. The anti-migrant unrest and the attacks on black and minority ethnic people over the past year have impacted on families and communities in many ways. We have already reflected that the £5 million of resource that was diverted could have been better spent, frankly, on increasing police numbers or investing in communities. Healthcare workers have had their life disrupted, businesses have lost skilled staff who have returned to their home, people have been intimidated out of their home and children and adults are frightened to go to school or to work or to use public transport. Those are not acceptable behaviours, and I have been consistent in my advocacy of strengthening cross-departmental action to address racial inequality, prejudice and hate crime. There is no shortcut to tackling these complex issues. The starting point is for us to show strong political and community leadership that not only condemns without equivocation the marginalisation, dehumanisation, targeting and threatening of people because of who they are, where they are from or the colour of their skin but actively rejects and challenges anti-migrant sentiment, which is so often predicated on false narratives. We need to use the platform that we have to discuss the issues in a measured and considered manner so that it does not fuel and amplify those who are, without doubt, committed to racism and racial inequality. I also want to avoid the good immigrant/bad immigrant narrative: it is dangerous. Mrs Dillon: Will the Minister give way? Mrs Long: Sorry, I am short of time. The violence and the sentiments have been whipped up in places such as online spaces, and a lot of the riots were organised and orchestrated events. The people who are orchestrating the violence want no migration, legal or otherwise. They want no immigration. In many cases, they are white supremacists and white nationalists who are inflaming the situation online. If you read some of the stuff — I have to say that it comes not just from the UK and Ireland — you will see that, across the board, there is a strong white nationalist sentiment, and we should be concerned about that. No level of immigration will be acceptable to those people. That has also led to the affront of people who are here legitimately — I say "legitimately" because, if you are a refugee fleeing terror, you have a legitimate reason to be here, so it is not just those who have a visa but those who are applying for the regularisation of their position who are here legitimately — having to mark their home with their national flag to show which community they are from, sticking labels in their window that say, "I work in the NHS" or, "I'm employed in such-and-such a place". I drove through Ballymena. I know that you represent it and that you share my concern. It was biblical. It was like the Passover. People are marking their homes. People are afraid to go to the shops at the weekend without wearing their work clothes in case they are stopped and their papers are demanded, as though we are living in some Nazi state, by vigilantes who have no authority or right to harass those people. A lady who had just finished a 12-hour shift in a nursing home in my constituency was accosted on the Holywood Road and had her papers demanded by somebody who clearly had nothing better to do and was not in work themselves. We have to be clear, when we talk about legal and illegal migration, that it is for the Government to resolve. It is not for individuals on the street to take matters into their own hands by harassing people who have a right to be there. We have to challenge all forms of racism, sectarianism and hostility towards people from different backgrounds. I have been clear that that alone will not deliver change, but neither will Justice alone. A number of Departments have footprints in these issues, such as Communities for housing; Education for the integration of newcomers and school bullying; the Department of Health in ensuring that NHS workers are safe; and the Department for the Economy in encouraging employers and supporting them. All of those Departments and the Executive Office have a really significant role to play. I recognise that a statement issued with well-meaning, warm words will not solve the problem, but it is a start, and I want to see more action built on that. The first step forward is for us to find a consistent vision of what we want society to look like. For me, it is not one that is marked by that kind of hatred and division. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Paula Bradshaw to make a winding-up speech on amendment No 2. Paula, you have up to five minutes. Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome the debate and thank the leader of the Opposition for bringing it to the House. It speaks to one of the largest societal challenges that we face in Northern Ireland today: the obstinate persistence of hate crime. Whether it takes the form of racism, sectarianism, homophobia, transphobia, misogyny or ableism, the impact is the same: individuals and families are made to feel targeted, less than and as though they do not belong in our communities. We do not need to look hard for examples. My party colleague Connie Egan provided some statistics from the PSNI on the level of racist and sectarian incidents. They remain among the highest categories of reported hate crime. While the statistics are shocking and disturbing, they do not reflect the full gravity of the problem, because, as we know, a lot of victims do not come forward to report. All of the statistics, however, are more than a number: they represent a neighbour, a student or a family who have been told loud and clear by some that they are not welcome. Every Member will be aware of the summer that we have just experienced and the individual incidents that occurred in their constituency. My constituency colleague Matthew O'Toole outlined some of what we, as elected representatives, have been dealing with, including threats that were left on the windscreens of cars belonging to Irish language students; an attack on the Islamic centre, where people were gathered in prayer; and racially motivated attacks on homes, resulting in families fleeing through fear. Those are not isolated events, and those families and individuals hear words in the Chamber that are not followed up by deeds. That leaves them feeling very hollow and let down time and again. It is up to the whole Executive to turn that sorry situation around, as the Justice Minister has articulated. As Linda Dillon said, we were all elected to represent every member of our communities, not just the ones whom we relate to, the ones who reflect our voting base or those whose families look like us. No, we were given a voice to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves and to act with the best interests of all the people in Northern Ireland in mind. Mrs Dillon: Will the Member give way? Ms Bradshaw: I will. Mrs Dillon: Does the Member agree that included in that is the fact that, in instances of families being put out of their homes, such as those that we see regularly due to security alerts or electrical outages, leisure centres and community facilities are opened up to vulnerable families, but the furthest we could go here was to confirm that that was not where those families were: "Those vulnerable people who have been put out of their homes are not in this leisure facility"? They should have been there. It should have been opened up to them. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Member has an extra minute. Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Member for raising that point. Whenever we see such incidents, it is the community and voluntary sector and front-line public-sector workers who step forward to provide shelter for families who are fleeing attacks. That is why the Assembly and Executive must act together. As Chair of the Committee for the Executive Office, I place on record — Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way? Ms Bradshaw: Let me finish this point, please. As Chair of the Committee for the Executive Office, I put on record that we need to see a new racial equality strategy, the introduction of the new race relations order and an acceleration of the implementation of the refugee integration strategy. I will give way to the Member. Mr Burrows: Would the Member think it inappropriate for a simple penalty ticket to be given for a serious racially aggravated offence such as assault occasioning actual bodily harm that was racially aggravated? Mrs Long: That could not happen. It is not possible. Mr Burrows: I am just asking the question. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Ladies and gentlemen, please. The question was directed at Ms Bradshaw. Ms Bradshaw: I will move on. I was generous in giving the Member some of my time. I commend my Alliance Party colleague the Justice Minister for her work with departmental officials on the forthcoming sentencing Bill with an aggravator model for hate crimes and on the victims and witnesses of crime Bill. I welcomed Mr Beattie's warm words and his warm attitude towards the introduction of the Bill, and I look forward to his being constructive after its First Reading. Both of those Bills will offer a real opportunity to put together protections in law, and we must make sure that the provisions on hate crime are supported by all when they come to the Chamber. The Executive programme on paramilitarism and organised crime needs continued support and scrutiny. I thank Mr Frew and Mr Burrows for supporting the call for more money for the PSNI, the PPS, the courts and so on. They need the resources to make sure that victims get timely investigations, strong prosecutions and that sentences reflect — Mr Frew: Will the Member give way? Ms Bradshaw: I do not have time. They need sentences that reflect the seriousness of the crimes committed. In closing, I will reference a point that Linda Dillon raised about women in our communities who live in constant fear created by criminal organisations that masquerade as paramilitary organisations. That is exploitation in its highest form, and it must be challenged head-on. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Brian Kingston. Brian, you have up to five minutes. Mr Kingston: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. We had an extensive debate on the topic last Tuesday on a motion condemning the racist and sectarian attacks and intimidation that occurred over the summer. That motion was agreed without opposition, so I do not need to repeat all that I said in that debate. Sadly, it has been necessary for me to visit homes and venues that were targeted over the summer to speak to those who were victims, support those who were affected and engage with community groups, statutory agencies and the police to prevent further attacks. Some of those meetings to move situations forward are ongoing. The Democratic Unionist Party remains committed to building a safe and inclusive society in Northern Ireland. The DUP is absolutely clear that violence is wrong. It is wrong now as it was in the past. All of us who have been elected to the Assembly have a duty to promote peaceful, democratic and respectful means to address and manage the political and societal issues that arise. We in the DUP do not dismiss people's concerns or patronise them by saying that they have no legitimate concerns, as some parties have done. Equally, I recognise that there are intolerant elements in society that seek to set an agenda of intolerance of difference, and we have a responsibility to stand against that. Top 6.45 pm At times, incidents have occurred that have caused public outrage. Some have exploited that outrage to direct intolerance against entire ethnic minority communities unfairly. Everyone should be equally subject to the law and to the protections of the law. There should be zero tolerance for attacks and intimidation in our society. We support the police and all relevant authorities when it comes to tackling those issues. Perpetrators must feel the full force of our legal system and, in particular, there needs to be an effective multi-agency response from the criminal justice system to ensure that such offences are investigated swiftly and that punishment, including sentencing, fits the crime. There are Members who talk about the condemnation of hate and violence but have continued for years to justify violence that took place against people right across our society. We will always call out that hypocrisy, and I regret the Sinn Féin Member's failure to respond to the request to condemn the sectarian murder of 10 Protestant workmen at Kingsmills. Paul Frew, in proposing our amendment, said that it strengthened the original motion. It does; it notes the Executive's statement, which committed to partnership working with all sectors, and it calls for action by the Justice Minister. He also highlighted the concerns that the definition of hate crime should not be based on the perception alone of the person who was the victim of a crime. Colin McGrath from the SDLP, who is no longer in the Chamber, thought that there was about 95% agreement on everything before us. When I look at the wording of the two amendments and the motion, I see a lot of agreement. Unfortunately, the SDLP has framed its motion as a criticism of the Executive, rather than looking for solutions. The motion is about taking forward the debate from last week. As I said, my colleague Paul Frew noted the Executive commitment and highlighted actions for the Minister of Justice: "to detail, and consult on, her plans to include a statutory aggravation offence model for hate crime in sentencing legislation" and " to provide additional resources to the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunal Service (NICTS), the PSNI and the tackling paramilitarism, criminality and organised crime programme." A programme that is mentioned in both amendments and the motion. I am not sure whether we will divide. In our view, the Justice Minister should take the lead on these matters. The Alliance amendment seems to say that it is up to the Executive as a whole to provide funding, and every Minister will say that — it is common — but I do not think that there is a need to divide on the matter. The Justice Minister should take the lead on the matters that are under her responsibility. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Member should draw his remarks to a close. Thank you, Brian. I call Sinéad McLaughlin to make a winding-up speech on the motion. Sinéad, you have up to 10 minutes. Over to you, Sinéad. Ms McLaughlin: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As many in the Chamber have said, there should be absolutely no place in our society for racism, sectarianism or intimidation, yet the rise in that type of behaviour is now commonplace. Language and rhetoric that we once thought to be confined to the darker corners of the internet are now being repeated by leading public figures across Europe and the world. Let us not beat about the bush: language carries weight and words have consequences. Divisions in the Chamber do not stay here; they trickle down into our communities. More than most societies, we know the cost of letting sectarian or hateful behaviour go unchallenged. That is why it is so disappointing that many in the Chamber are often slow to condemn such behaviour, refuse to condemn it at all, or make, as my party colleague Matthew O'Toole said, "condemnation with caveats." It is just not acceptable. This has not happened in a vacuum. It is a crisis years in the making, fuelled by complacency and inaction. From my observation, the rise in violence and hate has in many ways been born out of Brexit, when extreme rhetoric and misinformation took hold. What followed was the normalisation of inflammatory language, lies and division. As use of anti-immigrant rhetoric rose, so, too, did hate crimes against minorities. People were promised that leaving the EU would mean — Mr Kingston: Will the Member give way? Ms McLaughlin: I will. Mr Kingston: I listen to the Member saying that this is somehow all to do with Brexit. Is that the case across Europe, where there has been rising tension relating to immigration? Ms McLaughlin: I did not say that it is all to do with Brexit. There was hate crime long before Brexit. I am just saying that I have seen a rise in the use of that rhetoric, including in this House; I do not think that anybody can deny that that is the case. People were promised that leaving the EU would mean taking back control of their borders; that was never true. Brexit did not solve the root causes of division and discontent; it made them worse. The data on the rise of racism is testimony to that. Communities who have been failed by those who were elected to represent them — people who have no access to affordable housing and have had years of economic decline and a feeling of being left behind — are easy targets to exploit. Figures like Nigel Farage thrive on deprivation and division. It is on us to ensure that we do not allow that politics of fear to take root here. A recent report from the Peace Research Institute Oslo makes it clear that far-right rhetoric often seeks to appeal to disaffected citizens. Deprivation fuels hate crime and can predict where violence is most likely to occur. What is needed now is not more finger-pointing or complacency but an Executive-wide approach that recognises the scale of the problem and delivers decisive action. That is why our motion calls on the Executive to combat all forms of hate crime — and we are talking about all Executive Ministers. It is not the responsibility of one Department; it requires a collective response. The Minister of Health must tackle health inequalities; the Minister for Communities must tackle the housing crisis; the Minister for the Economy must go further and faster to tackle regional imbalance; and the Minister of Justice must urgently introduce hate crime legislation. Minister, I listened carefully to your response. I would welcome the time frame in which to introduce stand-alone hate legislation being closed. I do not think that we can stand still on that, given what is happening in the wider community. You have been the Minister of Justice for half a decade. I welcome your — Mr Frew: Will the Member give way? Ms McLaughlin: I want to get through this. I will come back to you, Paul. I welcome your response on closing the gap and building on that, Minister, hopefully within this mandate. I welcome the progress that has been made, but it is frustrating that we may not see that stand-alone legislation in this mandate. The Minister points, rightly, to the collapse of these institutions as one reason for that, but that cannot be used to mask the fact that the wider Executive response has been sub-par at best. Even when the First Minister and deputy First Minister came together to jointly condemn the rise in sectarianism and hate crime, the very next day, they were at loggerheads over a jobs fair in Derry. Leadership really matters. It is not just about leadership in front of the cameras; it is about consistency in words and actions, in public and behind closed doors. The Chamber has not been a nice environment for the past couple of weeks. It has been a toxic environment. I urge Members to be really careful. As I said before, that trickles down into our communities. We saw it on our streets over the weekend. It is playing out in our communities right now: families in north Belfast have been forced from their homes by intimidation; healthcare workers are fearful just to go home; and minority communities are boarding up their windows against attack. That is the reality of life for many people across our islands. While the tackling paramilitarism, criminality and organised crime programme has been extended, and we are throwing more money at it, it is unclear whether it is even delivering the intended impact. Paramilitaries still operate in our communities, and that is a fact. For many, particularly women, it is the coercive control and blackmail that cause the deepest harm. We must break the cycle of quiet condemnation followed by no serious action. I am not ignorant of the difficult financial situation that we face. Resources are stretched. As Members across the House have said, we are told time and again that the PSNI is at breaking point and remains 1,000 officers short of what is sustainable. That is worrying. We cannot allow our streets to be controlled by those intent on stoking tension and division. The Minister of Finance must work with the Minister of Justice to ensure that the resources are there to recruit more officers and to give our courts the capacity to prosecute hate crimes properly. Words are not enough. There must be accountability in the system, and, yes, we must take back control but not in the divisive way that was used to tear us apart. We must take back control of the narrative on immigration and its value to our society. As others across the House have said, our minority communities are indispensable to this region. Our health, hospitality and care sectors would collapse without the workers who keep them running. Our LGBTQ+ community brings joy, light and resilience to a society that is too often weighed down by division, yet there is disgusting language used that puts a foot on the neck of a very small trans community in our society. Today was no exception. We will vote against the DUP amendment, which attempts to shift blame away from the Executive as a whole while failing to put forward solutions that are fit for purpose. Instead, the DUP amendment reinforces the status quo, which is clearly not working. This should be a moment to come together with a collective sense —. Mr Frew: I thank the Member for giving way. Will she agree that it would be wrong to target a young individual, male or female, from Derry who is a member of the armed forces? Ms McLaughlin: On hate crime, I absolutely say that you should not target anybody. Hate is hate, no matter where it is. This should be a moment to come together with a collective sense of purpose to ensure the safety and security of all our people, regardless of race, ethnicity or background. We may not always agree on everything in the Chamber, but we should agree that no one should fear for their safety in their home, no one should be afraid to walk down their street and no community should ever be scapegoated for the failures of those in power. Let us prove once and for all that hate has no home in the North. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Ladies and gentlemen, before I put the Question on amendment No 1, I remind Members that, if it is made, I will not put the Question on amendment No 2. Question put, That amendment No 1 be made. The Assembly divided: Ayes 27; Noes 46 AYES Ms D Armstrong, Mr Beattie, Mr Bradley, Mr Brett, Mr Brooks, Ms Brownlee, Ms Bunting, Mr Burrows, Mr Butler, Mrs Cameron, Mr Chambers, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mrs Erskine, Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew, Mr Harvey, Mr Irwin, Mr Kingston, Mrs Little-Pengelly, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Martin, Mr Middleton, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Robinson Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Frew, Mr Kingston NOES Dr Archibald, Ms K Armstrong, Mr Baker, Mr Blair, Mr Boylan, Ms Bradshaw, Miss Brogan, Mr Delargy, Mrs Dillon, Miss Dolan, Mr Durkan, Ms Egan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Finnegan, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Mrs Guy, Mr Honeyford, Mr Kearney, Mr Kelly, Mrs Long, Mr McAleer, Miss McAllister, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McMurray, Mr McNulty, Mr McReynolds, Mrs Mason, Mr Mathison, Mr Muir, Ms Mulholland, Ms Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Ms Nicholl, Mrs O'Neill, Mr O'Toole, Ms Reilly, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Mr Tennyson Tellers for the Noes: Ms McLaughlin, Mr O'Toole Mr Clarke acted as a proxy for Mrs Erskine. Ms Bradshaw acted as a proxy for Ms Nicholl. Question accordingly negatived. Question put, That amendment No 2 be made. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I have been advised by the party Whips that, in accordance with Standing Order 27(1A)(b), there is agreement that we can dispense with the three-minute rule and move straight to a Division. The Assembly divided: Ayes 39; Noes 27 AYES Dr Archibald, Ms K Armstrong, Mr Baker, Mr Blair, Mr Boylan, Ms Bradshaw, Miss Brogan, Mr Delargy, Mrs Dillon, Miss Dolan, Ms Egan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Finnegan, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Mrs Guy, Mr Honeyford, Mr Kearney, Mr Kelly, Mrs Long, Mr McAleer, Miss McAllister, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Mr McMurray, Mr McReynolds, Mrs Mason, Mr Mathison, Mr Muir, Ms Mulholland, Ms Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Ms Nicholl, Mrs O'Neill, Ms Reilly, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Mr Tennyson Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Mathison, Mr McMurray NOES Ms D Armstrong, Mr Beattie, Mr Bradley, Mr Brett, Mr Brooks, Ms Brownlee, Ms Bunting, Mr Burrows, Mr Butler, Mrs Cameron, Mr Chambers, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mrs Erskine, Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew, Mr Harvey, Mr Irwin, Mr Kingston, Mrs Little-Pengelly, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Martin, Mr Middleton, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Robinson Tellers for the Noes: Mr Frew, Mr Kingston The following Members voted in both Lobbies and are therefore not counted in the result: Mr McCrossan, Mr McGrath, Mr McNulty Ms Bradshaw acted as a proxy for Ms Nicholl. Mr Clarke acted as a proxy for Mrs Erskine. Question accordingly agreed to. Main Question, as amended, put. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I have been advised by the party Whips that, in accordance with Standing Order 27(1A)(b), there is agreement that we can dispense with the three-minute rule and move straight to a Division. The Assembly divided: Ayes 45; Noes 21 AYES Dr Archibald, Ms K Armstrong, Mr Blair, Mr Boylan, Ms Bradshaw, Miss Brogan, Mr Delargy, Mrs Dillon, Miss Dolan, Mr Durkan, Ms Egan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Finnegan, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Mrs Guy, Mr Honeyford, Mr Kearney, Mr Kelly, Mrs Long, Mr McAleer, Miss McAllister, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McMurray, Mr McNulty, Mr McReynolds, Mrs Mason, Mr Mathison, Mr Muir, Ms Mulholland, Ms Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Ms Nicholl, Mrs O'Neill, Mr O'Toole, Ms Reilly, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Mr Tennyson Tellers for the Ayes: Mr McCrossan, Mr McMurray NOES Mr Bradley, Mr Brett, Mr Brooks, Ms Brownlee, Ms Bunting, Mrs Cameron, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mrs Erskine, Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew, Mr Harvey, Mr Irwin, Mr Kingston, Mrs Little-Pengelly, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Martin, Mr Middleton, Mr Robinson Tellers for the Noes: Mr Frew, Mr Kingston Ms Bradshaw acted as a proxy for Ms Nicholl. Mr Clarke acted as a proxy for Mrs Erskine. Main Question, as amended, accordingly agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly condemns the continued high occurrence of racist- and sectarian-motivated hate crime witnessed throughout Northern Ireland; believes that the response from the Executive has been inadequate; recognises that tackling hate and building safe, inclusive communities requires a whole-society approach; and calls on the Executive to combat all forms of hate crime by supporting the relevant provisions in the pending sentencing Bill and victims and witnesses of crime Bill, supporting the work undertaken across the statutory and community sector under the Executive programme on paramilitarism and organised crime, and providing additional resources to the justice system. Top 7.30 pm Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Before we move to the next item of business, we will take our ease while we get ready at the top Table. Thank you very much indeed. (Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair) CAR T-cell Therapy Mr McGrath: I beg to move That this Assembly notes with sadness the recent passing of young Armagh mother Catherine Sherry in King's College Hospital, London, where she was receiving chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy for lymphoma; recognises the urgent need for equitable access to CAR T-cell therapy in Northern Ireland; calls on the Minister of Health to urgently deliver a local service to avoid the separation of sick patients from their families, and the complications and costs associated with travel for treatment in England or Scotland; and further calls on the Minister to work, in the interim, with his counterpart in Dublin to ensure that CAR T-cell therapy is available to patients from Northern Ireland on the island of Ireland. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have five minutes to propose and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have three minutes. Colin, please open the debate on the motion. Mr McGrath: Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. It would be entirely remiss of me to commence the debate without mentioning someone who made a significant impact on so many people's lives. I am referring, of course, to Catherine Sherry, a young mother from Armagh, who lost her life earlier this year while receiving CAR T-cell therapy in London. Her aunts are representing the family in the Public Gallery today, and I thank Anne and Marie for being with us and for the way in which they have raised the issue and want to see a resolution to the problems. Catherine should never have had to travel hundreds of miles from her home and her family in the final months of her life. Who of us can imagine having to do that? It is unbearable and heartbreaking. That is the human cost of the gap in our system. Catherine's family and many others who are here and who have reached out to us today remind us that, behind every one of those statistics, there is a life, a family and a community. CAR T-cell therapy is one of the most advanced life-saving cancer treatments available today. It is already being delivered in Dublin and soon will be in Galway, and it is delivered in various centres across Britain, yet here in the North, our patients must travel to London, Manchester or Glasgow. They face separation from loved ones, the stress of travel and the additional costs of that all while they are battling cancer. Whichever way you slice it, that is just cruel and plain wrong. What we have now is not working. Families are being forced into impossible choices, and people here are being denied equitable access to treatment that others on these islands can receive closer to home. The motion is simple. It calls on the Health Minister: "to urgently deliver a local service" for CAR T-cell therapy. In many ways, Belfast is a trailblazer when it comes to cancer care, with the Patrick G Johnston Centre for Cancer Research, but it should be a centre of excellence for cancer care, and we cannot keep pushing delivery out to the next decade. Those battling cancer simply do not have years to wait. While we work to build that service here, there is an immediate step that we could take: we could cooperate with Dublin. St James's Hospital in Dublin is already treating patients. The service in Galway will soon be operational. It makes no sense that patients from Newry, Armagh or Derry must fly to London when some of the best cancer clinicians in the world are just down the road. It is about fairness, but it is also about compassion and justice for families who have already endured too much. I say this to the families who are here today: we see you, we hear you, and we will keep fighting for you. The Assembly cannot bring back Catherine or any of those whom we have lost to that most indiscriminate and horrible disease, but we can make sure that Catherine's story is the last of its kind. Let us resolve today that no one in the North will be left behind in the fight against cancer. Let us deliver CAR T-cell therapy here. In the meantime, while we get ready to do that, if it is going to take a number of years, let us work with our neighbours to provide care close to home. Those battling that illness want to live; they do not have the luxury of time. Let us not leave them waiting any longer. Mr McGuigan: Before I get to the specific subject of the motion, it is important that we consider the broader context of how cancer care is being delivered in the North. The cancer strategy that was published in 2022 set out a vision for transforming outcomes, improving access and embedding person-centred care, yet, nearly three years on, implementation remains slow, underfunded and fragmented. Cancer patients are already being let down by delays in waiting times for diagnostic testing. The delays add stress and uncertainty and, in some cases, could impact on patient outcomes. We cannot compound that injustice by denying access to cancer therapies being delivered as close to home as possible. Clearly, I support the motion, and I thank the SDLP for tabling it. I join the proposer of the motion in acknowledging Catherine Sherry and her sad loss and in welcoming her family members to the Assembly. I acknowledge their courage in sharing their family's very personal and heartbreaking story to raise awareness of the lack of CAR T-cell treatment in the North, of the toll that travelling for the therapy can take on the individual receiving the treatment and on their family, and of the additional risk factors of infection that can arise from having to travel on public transport, including planes, and wait in busy spaces such as airports. The implications of all those factors are real, preventable and must be addressed. CAR T-cell therapy is a breakthrough in cancer treatment. It offers hope where hope has, perhaps, run out. Patients here should not have to travel hundreds of miles for the treatment. They should not have to travel outside Ireland, when Dublin's St James's Hospital, just 60 miles from where Catherine lived, offers the same therapy. The Minister has stated that he is working towards establishing a new regional haematology ward in Belfast that will enable patients to receive CAR T-cell therapy locally. That investment is welcome, but, by the Minister's own admission, it will not be delivered until 2030 at the earliest, assuming that there are no unforeseen delays. The Minister also acknowledges that the time taken to put in place the necessary arrangements to enable patients to access treatment in Dublin would be nugatory, when plans are in place to open a regional ward. However, I ask the Minister, in his response today, to detail precisely how long, he believes, the process to put in place an island-wide arrangement would take. It should be straightforward and take very little time. I also ask him to outline how that time frame compares with the five years' — at least — wait for a local service for patients here. If the answer is anything less than five years, surely, he must act to get that arrangement in place now. In conclusion — Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up. Mr McGuigan: — access to live-saving healthcare should not be constricted — Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Philip. Mr McGuigan: — by the boundaries of the system. We need an all-Ireland approach to the issue. Mrs Dodds: First, I thank the Sherry family for being here today and, indeed, for speaking so openly about Catherine's illness and her treatment. I understand that it is an exceptionally brave thing to do. Therefore, we extend our heartfelt sympathy to Fergal, Manus, Tómas, Donal and the wider family circle. As others have said, CAR T-cell therapy is an exciting, recently developed treatment for some blood cancers in children and adults. As I understand it, and this is probably simplistic, T-cells are the blood cells of the immune system that protect the body from foreign invaders. CAR T-cell therapy reprogrammes the body's T-cells to more effectively target and destroy cancer before being infused back into the individual. It is a living drug that can grow, expand and form memory, and it potentially offers the patient lifelong protection, but it is not provided in Northern Ireland. There are arrangements with the NHS centres in Great Britain to treat patients who require CAR T-cell therapy. Minister, I would be interested if you could tell us how many patients have travelled to England against the number who might have benefited from it in the past. Action 22 of the Northern Ireland cancer strategy was to monitor the viability of providing specialist services such as CAR T-cell therapy in Northern Ireland. While the Belfast Trust has submitted a business case to the Department for the new regional haematology ward, which will have improved facilities, surely, we should not allow the perfect to be the enemy of progress, and we should try to offer the treatment more proactively and much sooner so that others can benefit from a life-saving treatment. There are significant side effects associated with CAR T-cell therapies, and people who receive the treatment will have to have a multi-professional approach. Again, Minister, we would like you to give us some more information about the clinicians who will do that. We are confident that we have world-leading cancer clinicians in Northern Ireland. We need to give them the tools and permission to get on with providing the standards that we would like to see. We have no difficulty with cross-border cooperation to enable greater ease of access to much-needed treatment, but I make no apology for saying that I want to see and we want to see — I am sure that the Assembly agrees with me — Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up. Mrs Dodds: — this life-saving treatment available here in Northern Ireland for our friends, family and community. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up. Sorry. Thank you. Miss McAllister: I thank the Opposition for tabling the motion. It is a particularly emotional topic, and I begin by paying tribute to Catherine Sherry and her dear family. As a mum, I can only imagine what Catherine went through in her final few months when she was separated from her young family. It is distressing for anyone, no matter how sick or well they are, to be away from home, knowing that it will have an impact on family life. When Catherine was diagnosed in September of last year, many MLAs and MPs were already asking questions about speeding up cancer treatment across the island and east-west. Unfortunately, not much has changed since then, but I hope that, by working together to ensure that we bring the voices to the Chamber and to the public, perhaps, we can have a change in Northern Ireland. I understand that CAR T-cell treatment is a specific type of immunotherapy for blood cancer. I cannot pretend that I knew everything about it before the debate today, but my colleague Sorcha Eastwood MP — many people are aware of her personal circumstances — has been lobbying the Health Minister, using her husband's experience in Northern Ireland and the haematology ward in Belfast City Hospital in particular, to shine a light on the lack of services there, not because of the dedicated work of our health professionals. I wonder whether the Minister can provide any additional clarity around the timeline that Mrs Dodds referred to, as well as the business case for the project. We understand that it is not as simple as funding and that it requires workforce and facilities, but I am sure that, by putting our heads together and making it happen, it can be done. Top 7.45 pm I understand as well that the Republic is running its service at capacity and has stated that it could not cope with additional patients. However, given that it is much easier to transfer between Dublin and Belfast than it is to get on a plane and be separated from your family, that issue is worth exploring. We need creative solutions to bring about a change here to everyone's lives and to the families affected. I end in the way in which I began: paying tribute to Fergal for continuing the work of Catherine. He has shown incredible strength and bravery in helping to save the lives of others at such a devastating time for him and his family. Thank you to the Sherry family. Mr Chambers: First and foremost, I extend my deepest sympathy to the family and friends of Catherine Sherry. Her tragic passing is a stark reminder to us all of the unbelievably cruel nature of cancer. As Catherine was a mum of three young boys, her case is particularly poignant and upsetting. Thankfully, over recent decades, there has been significant progress in the treatments and interventions available. CAR T-cell therapy represents one of the most significant breakthroughs in cancer treatment in recent years. That level of advanced treatment now offers hope where, in the past, there would have been little. However, the arrangements here are far from ideal; indeed, patients are being separated from their loved ones at the very moment when they need them the most. The absence of a CAR T-cell therapy service locally is an issue not just of geography but of fairness. It is about ensuring that a postcode does not determine whether someone can spend their last days surrounded by family or in a hospital hundreds of miles away. I welcome, however, the fact that, instead of trying to justify or explain away the current problems, the Minister of Health here has been upfront in his assessment that he wants to see the position changed and that the mechanism to see a local service introduced here is the delivery of a new regional haematology ward in Belfast City Hospital. Thankfully, that project has been prioritised to proceed, although I acknowledge that it will take some time. An all-island solution would not be just as straightforward as adopting a new policy on this side of the border. Perhaps the Minister will update us later, but access to CAR T-cell therapy in the Republic is already, as others have said, running close to maximum capacity. A bit like us, it is in the process of investing in future haematology capabilities. Overall, I support the call for equitable access to CAR T-cell therapy for our citizens. Thankfully, that appears to be the current direction of travel. Ms Flynn: I also support the motion from the SDLP Opposition. Other Members have referenced Catherine's family. As MLAs, obviously, we rise with sadness, but, hopefully, there will be a bit of determination following tonight's motion. Sadly, as we have been told, we are reminded of the recent passing of Catherine Sherry, a young mother from Armagh who travelled to London for CAR T-cell therapy. We see in her story the deep human cost of a system that, unfortunately, forces people at their sickest and most vulnerable to leave their family, community and home to access life-saving treatment. CAR T-cell therapy is not experimental; it is life-saving and proven. It offers hope to people with blood cancers when all other options have failed. Across this island, thousands live with conditions such as multiple myeloma or lymphoma. For many, CAR T-cell therapy may be their only chance. The devastating truth is that the treatment is available just 100 miles away in Dublin at St James's Hospital, yet patients here cannot access it. That is not because of lack of capacity or funding but because we cannot, as yet, get agreement. Hopefully we will get an update from the Minister on the conversations between our Department of Health and their counterparts in Dublin. We are told that a CAR T-cell therapy facility may not open in Belfast until 2030 and even then only after accreditation. That would mean at least five more years of patients being forced on to planes to go to London or Manchester, when they could be driven to Dublin in an hour or two. While the progress is welcome, the reality is that people in the North are still sent across the water to England or Scotland. That means long journeys, financial strain, emotional hardship and separation from their children, partners and support networks at precisely the time when they need them most. I welcome the Minister's commitment to developing haematology therapy services locally. As Members have pointed out, the work is complex. The worry is that those services may take years to establish, and patients who are living with those illnesses today do not have years to wait. For them, linking with Dublin would be the most practical and compassionate solution. People on these islands should have access to health services as close as possible to their home. It is not ideal that families are put on to planes, when there is already a world-class CAR T-cell therapy service in Dublin. Let us be clear that, while we support the building of a local service, we must also support the Minister in getting an agreed all-island pathway, if possible, so that patients in the North can access treatments in Dublin. I again offer a special welcome to the family members who are in the Public Gallery tonight. We are all thinking about you first and foremost. Mr Robinson: Like others, I convey my sympathies to the family of Catherine Sherry, the young mother whose story triggered the debate. I admit that I did not hear the radio programme in which the case was initially discussed, as I am not a great follower of the news, but I have since read the story online. She died in King's College Hospital in London, miles away from her three sons. That is heartbreaking. It is unimaginable. CAR T-cell therapy is a groundbreaking and potentially life-saving treatment for certain cancers. It works by reprogramming a patient's immune cells to attack cancer cells. It has already shown positive results in clinical trials and real-world applications, offering hope to people who may have run out of other treatment options. Right now, though, patients travel to England or Scotland to receive treatment. There is an obvious financial outlay in having to pay for travel and accommodation, and loss of income is incurred during the time away. We need to do better by having cutting-edge treatments such as CAR T-cell therapy available on our doorstep in the heart of Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland must not be left behind in healthcare. We cannot continue to rely on the goodwill of distant hospitals or the limited availability of services in England and Scotland. If we were to establish a local service, patients could have equitable access to that life-saving treatment, without the added hardship of travelling, even to Dublin. That is particularly the case for people whom I represent on the far north coast of the Province. Unless I am missing something, it should not be an impossible task. Other regions of the UK, including Scotland, have managed to provide local CAR T-cell services, and I am interested to hear why we lag behind. We have some of the best hospitals — world-class, in fact — and world-class staff. We should therefore be on a par with the very best. I look forward to the Minister's comments. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call on the Minister of Health to respond. Minister, you have up to 10 minutes. Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank Mr McGrath for tabling the motion and all the Members who have contributed. Like them, I begin by offering my deepest sympathies to the family of Catherine Sherry. I know that it has been a very difficult time for her husband, her three young sons, the wider family and her friends and community. Members will have heard me say many times that, in an ideal world, when somebody needs health and social care, they will get it at home and, if that is not possible, they will get it as close to home as possible. I hope that Members will recognise that asking people to travel to Great Britain is, for me, counter-strategic and counter-intuitive, but it is currently the only option. It is my ambition to improve patient access to all cancer services, including CAR T-cell therapy, which we are considering today. Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy is a type of cell-based gene therapy that alters the genes in a person's T-cells, which are a type of white blood cell. In turn, that helps attack cancer cells. It is highly complex and innovative and a specialist cancer treatment. It has been specifically developed for individual cancer patients, in particular those with quite advanced cancers where other available treatments have failed. The therapy can have severe side effects and can be provided only in specialist cancer units that meet a detailed National Health Service specification. Given the very specialised nature of treatment, that therefore limits the options for available specialist centres, with those specialist centres currently located in Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland. Following confirmation of eligibility for CAR T-cell therapy by an expert panel, patients here are referred to a specialist centre in Great Britain. The centres there are the only specialist centres that currently accept or have the capacity to treat patients from Northern Ireland. We have spoken to colleagues in the Department of Health in Dublin, and the issue is capacity. Mr McGuigan asked a question: the answer that I have is that it would take the Republic longer to increase its CAR T-cell capacity than it would take us to develop and replace ward 10 north at Belfast City Hospital. I can tell Members that we have had a North/South cancer and policy group since March 2023, about two and a half years. If, for example, the Shared Island Fund could be used to advance capacity, I would go there. I invite Mr McGuigan and his Committee to test the information that I have been given by officials, which is, to repeat, that we cannot do increase capacity until we have the new haematology ward at Belfast City Hospital — it looks as though we will not have it until 2030-31 — and that it will take the Republic longer to increase its capacity to take on board patients from Northern Ireland. I assure Members that I will continue to do all that I can to achieve safe and sustainable local service delivery for those services in as short a time frame as I can. Just under 700 new patients per annum are diagnosed with leukaemia and lymphoma in Northern Ireland. In answer to Mrs Dodds's question, the number of CAR T-cell patients from Northern Ireland treated in the past couple of years is as follows: 28 in the financial year 2023-24; 11 in the financial year 2024-25; and, to date, 11 in this financial year up to August. Some within that referral figure may, unfortunately, not proceed to treatment. As always, we must remind ourselves that those numbers represent real people: family members and loved ones living in our community. It is completely understandable that there is a sense of urgency about the situation, and it is a sense of urgency that I share. The ideal situation is for us to have CAR T-cell therapy services here so that patients can be treated closer to home and avoid the disruption to family life. I assure Members that work is ongoing to deliver that CAR T-cell therapy service here. It will be delivered as part of the planned wider cancer service development currently being progressed as part of a new regional haematology ward based at Belfast City Hospital. I am pleased to advise that I have approved the project to proceed and have made funds available, subject to final approvals from departmental officials, to allow development proposals to proceed as soon as possible. As I said, unfortunately, a project of that scale will take a long time. It is not expected to be completed until the financial year 2030-31. I know that there will be disappointment and frustration with that timeline, but I again assure Members that I want to see the ward progress as soon as possible. Top 8.00 pm I very much recognise the benefits of working jointly with the Republic of Ireland, and I have had good meetings with the previous and current Health Ministers in Dublin on those areas of health and social care where there are clear mutual benefits. Officials from both jurisdictions meet regularly. They consider opportunities for cross-border cooperation in cancer service provision. We want to ensure that we can collectively deliver the best possible services and patient outcomes for people across this island. The rate of development of specialist therapies for cancer, the complexity of new regimes and the standards for delivery make that more challenging than in other health areas. Unfortunately, health officials in the Republic have advised that their CAR T-cell therapy service, which, as Members have referenced, is based at St James's Hospital, Dublin, is currently operating at capacity and cannot support additional patients accessing those services from Northern Ireland on a cross-border basis, so please let us not raise false hope. The Republic is at capacity. We have also been advised by University Hospital Galway that plans to commence CAR T-cell therapy later this year are contingent on staff recruitment. That said, the benefits of providing specialist care closer to home are undisputed. In that regard, we will continue to scope and assess the feasibility of cross-border service models. My departmental officials will continue to work closely with cancer policy and clinical leads in the Republic on the development of opportunities for cross-border cancer services, consistent with the commitments in the All-Ireland Cancer Consortium (AICC) memorandum of understanding. Until we can provide that treatment ourselves and in the absence of capacity in the Republic, we will, I am afraid, continue to be reliant on services that are available in Great Britain, particularly in London and Manchester, and that are currently available to treat patients who live in Northern Ireland. That is the reality of the situation that we face today. Like many other Members, and like all the Members who contributed to the debate, I wish that it were different — of course I do — but I can only assure Members and those patients who are affected that I am doing all that is in my power to deliver a CAR T-cell therapy service in Northern Ireland as quickly and as safely as possible. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister. I call on Justin McNulty to conclude the debate and make a winding-up speech on the motion. Justin, you have five minutes. Mr McNulty: Twenty-three years ago today, Armagh won the All-Ireland for the first time. I say that because, on 18 May, I stood in St Killian's, Whitecross, after the funeral celebration for Catherine Sherry, who was buried in St Teresa's, Tullyherron, and her mummy told me that the last message that Catherine sent to her on the day before she died — 11 May, the day of the Ulster final — was "Come on, Armagh". In December 2024, Paul Duggan of the Armagh county board arranged for me to take the Sam Maguire Cup to Catherine's home, as Armagh were reigning All-Ireland champions again. It was a powerfully poignant and sad time but a very cheerful time as well. It gave the family hope and a huge sense of joy that Sam was in their home and with their family. It is therefore with a sense of sadness and duty that I speak to the motion. I do so to remember and honour the life of Catherine Sherry, a young mother from south Armagh who tragically passed away whilst receiving CAR T-cell therapy for lymphoma in King's College Hospital, London. Catherine's story is heartbreaking. At her sickest and most vulnerable, Catherine was forced to travel hundreds of miles from her home, separated from her loved ones, to access the treatment that she needed. Her family endured the anguish of distance when what they needed most was to be together. While she was in hospital in London, Catherine rang home every day and sang 'You Are My Sunshine' to her sons. Catherine was small in stature, but, by God, she was big in fight. I pay tribute to her extraordinary strength and bravery. Her family, even in their grief, have campaigned tirelessly. Her aunts Anne and Marie are with us today in the Public Gallery. Her husband, Fergal, and sons Manus, Tomás and Donal are watching from home. We owe it to them and to every patient in the North who is living with blood cancer to act. Since the NHS commissioned CAR T-cell therapy in 2019, 70 patients from the North have had to travel to England or Scotland. That is the worst-case scenario: gravely ill people being uprooted, separated from their families and support structures and burdened with needless travel while our health service pays over the odds for care that could be delivered here. Upstairs at our meeting earlier, one of the family members told me that the loneliness is devastating. There is a better way. Access to CAR T-cell therapy services in Dublin would be a huge step forward, but the ideal and most sustainable outcome is the delivery of CAR T-cell therapy here in Belfast. Let us be clear: senior clinicians in Belfast City Hospital have said that they want to deliver CAR T-cell therapy here and are fit to do so. The facilities and expertise are already there, they have enough patients to fund the service and Belfast City Hospital already holds international accreditation for stem cell transplants. Only minimal work is required for CAR T-cell therapy accreditation. Clinicians say that CAR T-cell therapy is a vital new frontier of modern medicine and a field of medicine that is rapidly evolving, and they say that the health service here is paying way over the odds for patients to access the service. The only missing ingredients are funding and political will. I must call out the insensitivity from the Department in its answer to a question from me, speaking of it being "nugatory". We all had to look that word up, but, when we found out its meaning, we thought that it was very insensitive towards the families. The Department of Health has pointed to capacity issues in Dublin as a reason not to pursue cross-border cooperation. That does not hold up. New CAR T-cell therapy services will open in Galway this year. The Department has also said that Belfast will not deliver CAR T-cell therapy until 2030 or 2031. That is five or six years away. For families living with blood cancer, that is a lifetime. They do not have the luxury of waiting. Almost every part of the blood cancer journey is already administered here in the North. The only missing piece is the CAR T-cell therapy itself. It is a small but crucial part of the treatment, yet its absence forces patients to leave this island at an enormous emotional, physical and financial cost. It makes no sense. We already have the clinicians, the expertise, the demand, the hospital and the accreditations. The Department is paying way more than it should be to send people away when it would cost less to deliver care at home. It is not a question of capacity; it is a question of bureaucracy and priorities. Who are the commissioners of services in the North? Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Justin. Mr McNulty: Go raibh míle maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle. [Translation: Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.] Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much. Question put and agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly notes with sadness the recent passing of young Armagh mother Catherine Sherry in King’s College Hospital, London, where she was receiving CAR T-cell therapy for lymphoma; recognises the urgent need for equitable access to CAR T-cell therapy in Northern Ireland; calls on the Minister of Health to urgently deliver a local service to avoid the separation of sick patients from their families, and the complications and costs associated with travel for treatment in England or Scotland; and further calls on the Minister to work, in the interim, with his counterpart in Dublin to ensure that CAR T-cell therapy is available to patients from Northern Ireland on the island of Ireland. Mr McNulty: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Who nicked my phone? Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sorry? Mr McNulty: Who nicked my phone? Somebody has stolen my phone. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: We will get Building Services to try to find out who nicked your phone. A Member: There is a phone sitting there. Is that it? Mr McNulty: Yeah. It's been some joker. Some Shinner joker. Good one, lads. Adjourned at 8.08 pm. Top
[ni-assembly-official-report][plenary_report] Official Reports https://aims.niassembly.gov.uk/officialreport/report.aspx?&eveDate=2025/09/16&docID=448741 Official Report: Tuesday 16 September 2025 Table of Contents Members Statements Early Learning and Childcare Strategy First Minister Healthcare Inequalities Executive: Record of Delivery MI5: Phone Tapping Shankill Parish Church, Lurgan: 300th Anniversary A5 Upgrade: Delays President Trump: State Visit Food Insecurity Housing Crisis Dementia Ending Violence Against Women and Girls Ministerial Statements Special Educational Needs: Capital Investment Olympic Legacy Fund Executive Committee Business Water, Sustainable Drainage and Flood Management Bill: Second Stage Oral Answers to Questions Justice Assembly Business Executive Committee Business Water, Sustainable Drainage and Flood Management Bill: Second Stage Private Members Business Bonfire Regulation Sectarian and Racist Intimidation Adjournment Knockmore Line to Belfast International Airport The Assembly met at 10:30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair). Members observed two minutes' silence. Members' Statements Early Learning and Childcare Strategy Mrs Mason: The introduction of the childcare subsidy scheme was, indeed, a welcome first step towards making childcare more affordable for some families. The high cost of childcare, however, remains a significant and real pressure for many families. It is clear that the early learning and childcare strategy is long overdue. Parents are under pressure, providers are struggling and our children deserve the very best start in life. The Education Minister must set out a long-term plan that reduces costs for families and properly supports childcare providers. High-quality, affordable childcare plays a vital role in a child's early learning and development, but it also supports families who are balancing the demands of work and home life. The strategy must meet the needs of all children. It must have specific provisions for children with special educational needs, those with physical disabilities and those who learn through the medium of Irish or do not use English as their first language. The strategy must also support the wide range of caregivers in the childcare sector, including the vital community and voluntary childcare and early-years sector, the Irish-medium sector, the early-years preschool sector and childminders and approved home childminders alike. The Education Minister must urgently come forward with a long-term plan to reduce bills for parents, support struggling providers and give our children the very best start in life, which they deserve. First Minister Mr Middleton: Last week, I raised in the Chamber the disgraceful decision taken by councillors in Londonderry and Strabane council. They decided that the army and the armed forces were not welcome at the Foyle Arena for a jobs fair at the council premises. That, of course, was blatant discrimination and bigotry: a shameful act towards those who wanted to apply for jobs and to engage with representatives from those sectors. People from across the community of all political persuasions have reached out to my office to share in the frustration and disappointment at the position taken by the council. Of course, matters could only be made worse by the self-styled "First Minister for all". After concerns were raised by the DUP leader, Gavin Robinson, the First Minister for all told him to "butt out". The First Minister for all telling the leader of the largest unionist party to "butt out" will be a surprise to some, but, sadly, it is not a surprise to people on these Benches. When we hear the words "butt out", many know that it also means "Brits out" because of the actions of Sinn Féin and their SDLP colleagues across our local government — no respect, no understanding and, indeed, no thought for their unionist neighbours. We see not only the rewriting of history but the rewriting of the present. That is what we have now come to expect from the First Minister for all: offended by everything, ashamed of nothing; happy to attend the commemoration and glorification of republican terrorists but unwilling to allow their unionist neighbours to seek job opportunities in the armed forces; happy to go after our armed forces and those who sought to protect our communities but telling us that there was "no alternative" to IRA violence; a First Minister who seeks to make the rules but is happy not to apply them to herself; happy to meet those who share her political outlook but unwilling to meet the president of the United States; a First Minister who talks about equality but belongs to a party that seeks to "break the b—s" through it. That is a First Minister who is fooling absolutely no one. There is always an alternative. It is time to show leadership, accept that the idea of a new Ireland is in absolute tatters. Unionism is not butting out; unionism is not going away. Healthcare Inequalities Miss McAllister: Today, I talk about the inequalities facing women when they try to access healthcare in Northern Ireland. I am sure that many of you, as with my office in North Belfast, are inundated with calls and emails. Women are reaching out over social media, desperate for people to listen. Many suffer in silence, and those who do not just hope that one clinician will take them seriously. Northern Ireland has the longest wait in all of the UK for an endometriosis diagnosis: nine years and five months on average. All the while, the women experience symptoms such as tiredness, severe pain and bleeding. I pay tribute to local journalist Sarah McCann, who, earlier this year, began an awareness campaign, Endo the Battle, after she had to wait 20 years for a diagnosis of endometriosis — a diagnosis that she actually got in England. It cannot go on. I welcome the £3·5 million investment in gynaecology as part of the waiting list initiative from May this year. We need to see firm evidence of how that will help the Minister reach the target of a 90% reduction in gynae waiting times by March 2029. It is an ambitious target, but we must get there. I highlight again something that I have brought up in the Chamber before: the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust has access to state-of-the-art technology that enables robotic-assisted surgery. It is being used with great success to treat urology patients, particularly those with prostate cancer. In response to a question for written answer in January of this year, the Minister confirmed that 513 men had, rightly, been treated using that technology since 2019. However, in that same period, just 89 women have received robotic-assisted surgery. That is despite clinical specialists telling me that the technology is often used elsewhere to perform hysterectomies and other gynaecological surgeries and to treat endometriosis. This is Gynaecological Cancer Awareness Month. When we have the tools to treat cancer early, we must use them. Despite clinicians begging for access to the technology, they simply do not get it. The Minister could not tell me whether gynaecology was originally considered an area where the technology could be used, but I have had clinicians tell me that it is: they are trained, and they can do it. That is just one area where we are failing women in healthcare. Where is the women's action plan for health? What will the outcomes be of the £3·5 million waiting list initiative? We need answers now. Executive: Record of Delivery Mr McCrossan: Over the past week, we have seen the First Minister and deputy First Minister run to the cameras to pontificate about their great record of delivery. That has actually shown, instead, that they are, jointly, completely out of touch with the needs and challenges of our people. They really need to wake up. On their watch, health waiting lists are still among the worst in Europe, and there is no credible plan to fix them: fail. When it comes to GP access, patients cannot get appointments, and services are collapsing in rural areas: fail. On hospital reform, there is endless talk but no delivery, and decisions are constantly delayed for political convenience: fail. Social care is underfunded, overstretched and dependent on families to pick up the slack: fail. On mental health services, there is strategy after strategy, yet services remain underfunded and in crisis, and addiction services are non-existent: fail. On childcare, families still pay the highest costs in the UK and Ireland, with no comprehensive scheme in place: fail. On special educational needs, which we will talk about later, thousands of children are left waiting for assessments and support years into the crisis: fail. On school budgets, schools are cutting staff and services while the Minister fights political battles instead of fixing the basics: fail. There is no sustainable university funding model, and students face higher fees and fewer opportunities than previously: fail. Teachers' pay and morale are at an all-time low, there have been years of disputes, and unresolved staffing shortages continue to worsen: fail. Affordable housing targets in their own Programme for Government are missed, and waiting lists are getting longer, while all we hear is excuses: fail. When it comes to homelessness, emergency accommodation is stretched to breaking point: fail. Planning delays, developers facing years of backlog, choking investment in our communities: fail. The waste water infrastructure system is broken, blocking new housing and development across our towns: fail. In the rates system, small businesses are being crippled while multinationals get off lightly: fail. Police officer numbers are at crisis point, and communities are being left vulnerable and exposed to serious challenges: fail. In the justice system, court backlogs stretch into years, and victims wait too long for cases to be heard: fail. Public transport services are cut, buses and trains are cancelled, and rural areas are abandoned: fail. Roads are in a terrible state, the A5 project is stalled, and Casement Park is not built: fail. The anti-poverty strategy exists on paper only, with no funding, no targets and no impact: fail. On climate action, there are big promises and plenty of ambition, but projects are blocked by political infighting and there is weak enforcement: fail. Lough Neagh pollution is an absolute disaster with no credible rescue plan: fail. Northern Ireland is stuck at the bottom of the UK league tables: fail. On economic growth, there is no long-term strategy or joined-up thinking, and SMEs are ignored. It is a disastrous Executive. It is an Executive not of delivery but of catastrophic failure. MI5: Phone Tapping Mr Kelly: A Cheann Comhairle, as you will know, it was reported in the media yesterday that MI5 conceded that it had obtained information from well-known journalist Vincent Kearney's phone. It was also said that that was an unprecedented admission, and that is true: I cannot remember MI5 ever admitting anything. While the admission was unprecedented, from its foundation MI5 has been doing that all along. It is part of its raison d'être. The question is this: who else? Are there other journalists whose phones or laptops are being tapped? Is it politicians? Is it lawyers talking to their clients or even judges? In case that sounds a bit out of kilter, remember that it is not so long ago that the PSNI was checking journalists' phones every six months. All of this emerged from the sterling work done by two other journalists, Barry McCaffrey and Trevor Birney, on the Loughinisland massacre. Instead of being lauded for what they had done to bring out the truth about what happened there, they were pursued by the PSNI. MI5 is not an accountable organisation, but it needs to be made accountable. Freedom of the press is, of course, critical to a democratic society and democratic governance. The issues with the PSNI and MI5 have been raised a number of times with the Chief Constable and at the Policing Board. Where there are accountability mechanisms for the PSNI, at least we have the ability to use them. Where is the ability to stop the surveillance, interference and illegality by MI5? Top 10.45 am Shankill Parish Church, Lurgan: 300th Anniversary Mrs Dodds: I want to recognise in the House a truly remarkable milestone. This month, Shankill parish church in Lurgan celebrates its 300th anniversary. That house of worship has stood on the same location for three centuries. The original church on the site was consecrated in 1725 by Bishop Ralph Lambert. It was built in response to the growth of Lurgan, the congregation's faith and the needs of a vibrant community. The church, despite the Troubles and the decimation that it suffered through terrorist attacks, is a testament to the resilience and devotion of its congregation. The current formation was completed in 1863 and reflects the architectural grandeur and ambition of the era. It was designed then to accommodate 2,000 worshippers and was reputed to be the largest church in Ireland. Over the centuries, Shankill parish church has played a central role not just in the spiritual life but in the civic fabric of Lurgan and the wider Down and Dromore community. It is a place where generations of families have attended together. Leading up to this significant anniversary, the parish has embarked on an inspiring initiative called "Reimagining Shankill". That visionary strategy seeks to transform the church's surroundings, create level access, reimagine boundary walls and create a welcoming landscape and more open facade, with a view to making that historic church more accessible and inviting for all. Last weekend, the congregation met to give thanks and praise. On Saturday, there was another day of celebration of the unique milestone. As we look forward, we wish the church's leadership and membership well and pray that its doors remain open for generations to come. I pay tribute to the parishioners, rectors and volunteers who have faithfully served. A5 Upgrade: Delays Miss Brogan: It gives me no pleasure to be back here after the summer recess once again to raise the issue of delays to the upgrade of the A5 road, but it remains one of the number-one concerns in my constituency. First, I greatly appreciate the efforts of Ministers John O'Dowd and Liz Kimmins, who have worked tirelessly to push forward the A5 project. Minister Kimmins continues in her efforts to get it over the line. As a representative for West Tyrone, I am deeply disappointed and frustrated that a small number of people with vested interests continue to make every effort to ruin a road development project: a project that would be of great benefit not only to the people of my constituency but to the entire island. It is frustrating for many of us who are interested in protecting our environment to know that the Climate Change Act 2022, which was intended to safeguard our children's futures, has been misused in such a cynical and selfish manner by some. I remind those who, for their own reasons, are opposed to the A5 scheme that it is not just a major infrastructure development with the potential to open up the north-west to more investment, increased trade, faster commuting, more tourism and more jobs but, first and foremost, a safety upgrade. It is literally a matter of life and death. Fifty-seven people have lost their lives on the road since 2006. That is 57 neighbours, 57 friends, 57 members of our communities and 57 grieving families. The upgrade of the A5 road can bring that dreadful toll to a halt and ensure that we do not see another 57 names added over the next 20 years. The proof of that is in the upgrade of the A4. Every day that the A5 project is delayed is another day in which lives are needlessly put at risk. We have had 18 years of consultation, discussion and development, and every concern has been addressed. Is leor é sin. [Translation: Enough is enough.] Let us work together to get the A5 scheme delivered. President Trump: State Visit Mr Brooks: In line with what my colleague Steve Aiken said on the issue yesterday, I give my party's welcome to President Trump as he comes to the United Kingdom for a state visit. The United States is not just another partner but our closest ally and greatest friend. It is right that we honour that relationship. In Northern Ireland, we have seen the benefits of that friendship. Recently, we heard the announcements from Citibank, which is based in my constituency, and from Bank of America about new jobs and fresh investment. Those are good jobs, and that is work for our young people. It is security for families, and it means confidence for our economy. It is what engagement with the United States delivers. I pay tribute to our deputy First Minister, Emma Little-Pengelly. She will be there representing Northern Ireland with dignity and purpose. She shows leadership, seriousness and professionalism, and she understands what really matters to our people. By contrast, it is deeply regrettable, though completely unsurprising, that the First Minister has, once again, chosen to stay away. Boycotts do nothing for jobs, investment or the reputation of this place. Sinn Féin means empty seats at Westminster and empty seats on the international stage. I am glad that someone in the Executive Office is working for all the people of Northern Ireland. We look forward to the remarkable opportunity that we have. As we know, America will soon mark 250 years of independence. The America250 celebrations will shine a light on our shared story, especially on the Ulster Scots who helped to shape the founding of America. That history is not just something in the past; it opens new doors for us in trade, culture, investment and partnership now. The visit is more than a ceremony; it is about strengthening ties that will put food on our families' tables and pride in our communities, and Northern Ireland must seize the moment with the rest of the UK. Food Insecurity Ms K Armstrong: Since each of us was elected to the House in 2022, we have seen an unprecedented rise in the number of people in Northern Ireland who are living in hunger. In 2022, 370,000 people were living with food insecurity, and, in the Trussell Trust report that came out today, 'Hunger in the UK 2025', we see that the figure for Northern Ireland has risen to 520,000. On our watch, more people are hungry in Northern Ireland. We are heading in the wrong direction, and it is escalating. That is important to me. It is not just those who are out of work. One in three people referred to food banks in Northern Ireland come from households where someone is in employment. They are bus drivers, factory workers, hospitality staff and nurses. The people who keep our society and economy moving are finding that paid work is no longer enough to protect them from hunger. Work should be a safeguard against poverty, and, too often now, it is not. Of the 520,000 people who are living with food insecurity, 130,000 are children. Some 130,000 children in Northern Ireland today are hungry. The human stories behind the figures are sobering. A nurse who was hurt in a car accident told of how disability had pushed her into hunger. Single-parent families, which make up just 4% of households here, account for 22% of food bank referrals. Three quarters of the disabled people who are referred to food banks cannot afford the essentials. Carers, those from minority communities, LGBTQIA+ people and those who grew up in care are also reported to be disproportionately at risk. It is not a fringe issue; it is structural. When one in five households go hungry, we are looking at a system that is not working. Members, we are all responsible for that system. We know that Westminster has a role to play. Ending the cruel two-child cap would certainly help people; operating the local housing allowance to reflect real rents would certainly help people; and an essentials guarantee in universal credit could help people. However, we cannot just look to London. The Northern Ireland Executive have a central role to play. We cannot hide behind the excuse of reserved powers. We have to be brave enough to return to the drawing board on the draft anti-poverty strategy. We need to be ambitious and set targets. We need to look to our people to stop them being hungry. I am ashamed today to be an elected representative who is sitting over a growing number of people in Northern Ireland who are hungry. That is not what we were elected to do. We were elected to make people's lives better. Housing Crisis Mr Carroll: The escalating housing crisis took a dark turn over the summer months, and it needs to be challenged and called out. We saw the Housing Executive and the PSNI step up their authoritarian response to the housing crisis in an attempt to evict people from family homes in my constituency. We should be clear that nobody should be evicted from their home, especially when no alternative housing or accommodation is provided. It is even more cruel that it is being done by the very organisation that is supposed to prevent homelessness and to help people when they are homeless: the Housing Executive. In one situation, we had the police show up outside the home of a constituent of mine, just off the Falls Road, to evict him. At least six police officers showed up at 7.00 am to physically and aggressively remove that young man from his home against his will. That is really dark and dangerous stuff. Not too far up the road from his house, we saw the Housing Executive and the police try to evict a grandmother from her family home just off the Springfield Road. The police showed up with the intention of removing and evicting that person and her family but were met with peaceful community resistance against that form of police violence and intimidation. It says a lot about the priorities of the state and the PSNI that, when we have racist, far right pogroms, fascists threatening to burn out asylum seekers from hotels and fascists roaming the streets and threatening migrants and anybody of colour, who faces the repression from the state? It is the people who are trying to fight and stand against homelessness. I commend all the housing activists in west Belfast, in particular, and beyond who stand against that intimidation and that form of state violence. I commend the Community Action Tenants Union (CATU), Participation and the Practice of Rights (PPR) and every other organisation, my party colleagues and other community activists, who continue to stand against homelessness and people being forcibly evicted. The obvious question is this: where are the Executive parties? Where is the First Minister on the question? I hear nothing from her. Where is the Justice Minister on this? Where is the Communities Minister, with his terrible approach to housing? He says nothing while people are being evicted forcibly from their homes. Where are the Opposition? They have been silent on the question as well. The state should be building homes and reducing and cutting rents. I say, "Shame on those who have evicted tenants. Shame on the people in the Housing Executive who are carrying out that strategy". I call for it to end. Dementia Ms Sugden: This month is World Alzheimer's Month, and it gives us a moment to reflect on how Northern Ireland responds to dementia. Unsurprisingly, we are not responding well. More than 22,000 people in Northern Ireland live with dementia today, and, by 2040, in less than a generation, that number will almost double. One third of those affected do not even have a diagnosis. Families are left in limbo and struggling, while their loved one declines before their eyes. That is a daily reality in households across this region. In my constituency, people wait for 15 months or longer — years in many cases — for a memory clinic appointment. That delay not only robs people of treatment but robs a family of their loved one and their dignity in their later years. The pandemic should have taught us a painful lesson. During COVID, people with dementia were among the most isolated. Day centres closed, families were cut off and the engagement and stimulation that help to slow decline disappeared overnight. We saw the effects: conditions worsened, decline accelerated and carers were left to cope alone. That experience should have shocked us into action, but here we are, years later, still failing to provide consistent meaningful support. That failure affects more people than those living directly with dementia. When we do not diagnose early or support carers and ignore our ageing population, we create a chain reaction of pressure across the entire health and social care system. It is the child waiting for an assessment and the woman whose gynaecological issues are left untreated: every time we ignore one part of the system, it is carried by another. The Executive cannot continue to firefight their way through the problems. We have been doing that for far too long; trying to keep the lid on issues that have spilled over long ago. We are not even managing that any more. We are struggling, and the people of Northern Ireland know it. Patients know it when they are waiting in pain in A&E for 72 hours. Carers know it when they are exhausted but have no choice but to keep going on their own. Families know it when they lose their loved ones to dementia. Yes, our dementia strategy is far out of date, but the deeper point is that our whole approach in the Executive and Assembly is out of date. We are still reacting instead of planning; we are still patching instead of fixing. Dementia exposes the price of short-term thinking — people suffering at the end of their lives. For the life that they have given us, we owe them more, and, at the very least, we owe them dignity. Top 11.00 am Ending Violence Against Women and Girls Ms Finnegan: Ending violence against women and girls is one of the most urgent challenges facing our society today. It is a challenge that knows no boundaries. It affects women of every age, background and community. It demands action from every part of government, from every agency and from every one of us. We all know the statistics, but behind every number is a woman with a name, a family and a future that should never have been taken from her. Violence against women and girls is not inevitable. It is the result of choices, attitudes and a culture that all too often excuses or minimises harm. That is why, as public representatives, we have a responsibility to create the conditions for real change in workplaces, schools, homes and, yes, here in the Chamber. The truth is this: the culture that allows violence to persist starts not with physical acts but with words, attitudes and the behaviours that tell women that their voices matter less, that their place in public life is conditional and that their right to respect is up for debate. If we in the Assembly cannot set the highest standards of respect and inclusion, how can we expect society to follow? When the public sees harmful behaviours going unchallenged, it sends a message that, even in the highest political office, women can still be belittled, sidelined or silenced. Every day, strong women enter the Chamber, which, in itself, takes courage, consideration and compromise, but courage should not be the entry fee for political participation. This space should be safe, respectful and inclusive, not because that is in the rule book but because it is the right thing to do. Ending violence against women and girls is not about what we oppose; it is about the example that we set. The way we conduct ourselves here must reflect the society that we are trying to build, one where dignity is upheld, differences are debated without demeaning and leadership is shown through respect, not control. The best leaders lead with respect, integrity and fairness. If we want our words on ending violence against women and girls to mean anything beyond these walls, we must live them in the Chamber every day. Ministerial Statements Special Educational Needs: Capital Investment Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of Education that he wishes to make a statement. Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): Last week, I wrote to ministerial colleagues to ask them to support detailed proposals for ring-fenced special educational needs (SEN) capital funding of around £1·7 billion, separate from the main Education capital budget. Today, I appeal to Members of the Assembly to back me in that call. Over the past 18 months, I have set a clear and determined strategic direction to address one of the most pressing challenges facing our education system: the urgent requirement for special educational needs placements and the long-term transformation of SEN provision across Northern Ireland. It is not a challenge for one Department alone; it is a challenge for the Executive as a whole. As a Government, we are united in our commitment, as outlined in the Programme for Government (PFG), to work together to better support children and young people with special educational needs. We have pledged to transform our education system to deliver high-quality, efficient and sustainable services for every child with SEN. Today, I seek the Assembly's support for an Executive-led and funded SEN capital investment programme, one that will revolutionise the facilities available to our children and young people. The choice facing the Executive is stark. Without decisive action across government, the system risks failing the very children whom it is meant to protect. Our special schools have reached capacity. Many are housed in outdated and deteriorating buildings, spaces that lack adequate therapy rooms and fall short of the standards required to deliver modern, holistic care. All straightforward special school solutions have been exhausted. The vast majority of special schools have no physical internal or external space for further development, and new special schools and dual-campus sites of existing schools are therefore required across Northern Ireland. That is alongside the continued provision of specialist classes in our mainstream schools. Those small, dedicated classes provide higher levels of support, a modified curriculum and reduced class size compared with a standard mainstream class. That infrastructure is stretched to its limits, while demand for specialist facilities continues to surge. We are at a pivotal moment, a fork in the road. Working closely with my Department, the Education Authority (EA) has today published comprehensive plans to expand, modernise and transform our special schools estate. However, that vision can be realised only with significant dedicated capital investment. Without an Executive-funded programme, we will remain trapped in a cycle of emergency planning, unable to provide the specialist facilities that every child deserves. The facts are stark and urgent. Over 70,000 pupils in Northern Ireland are registered as having special educational needs: that is 20% of our children. The number of pupils with a statement of SEN has risen by an unprecedented 85% in 10 years to almost 30,000 pupils. With regard to specialist places, the number of pupils attending special schools has increased by 47% in the same period, and the number of children in specialist provision classes in mainstream schools by no less than 169%. To meet that need, my Department has invested £110 million in the past two years to provide 242 new specialist provision classes and 98 additional classrooms across the special schools estate. That is a huge achievement, but make no mistake: this is not the peak. Those numbers are set to increase year-on-year for the next decade. The scale of demand is staggering. Almost 6,000 additional special school places and over 5,000 additional specialist provision places will be needed. However, this is not just about numbers, it is about need, and the complexity of those needs is deepening. Our children require more tailored and innovative solutions. School staff need the right environments and resources to deliver the high-quality education that every child deserves. Let me be clear: I cannot plan, build or deliver the facilities that children need without additional annual earmarked capital funding from the Executive. It is not a marginal issue; it is a central challenge facing our education system and our society. We must act now. The pattern of increased need and investment requirements is not unique to Northern Ireland; it is a challenge echoed across the British Isles. In the Republic of Ireland, for example, no fewer than 16 new special schools have opened since 2019 to cope with the significant growth in pupils requiring a special school placement. There is also an annual requirement of around 400 additional special provision classes as the need for SEN placements there has doubled in five years. That is a clear signal of the scale and seriousness of the issue. Those figures reflect a broader truth: the rise in special educational needs is not a temporary spike. It is a sustained and accelerating trend, and it demands a strategic, well-funded response. Northern Ireland must not be left behind. We must match that momentum with our own commitment to investment, innovation and transformation. The Education Authority, in close partnership with my Department, has developed comprehensive and forward-looking plans to expand the special school estate and increase SEN places in mainstream education. Those plans are not aspirational; they are actionable, but they require more than departmental will. They require Executive endorsement and support as a flagship investment programme. Only through such a funded programme will we move from a reactive emergency approach to a sustainable position and fulfil our Programme for Government commitments. Last year, I tasked the Education Authority with developing detailed plans of action for each of our 40 special schools. Today, those plans have been published. They represent a blueprint for transformation that will revolutionise our special schools estate and reshape how we deliver placements for children with special educational needs. The plans set out the short-, medium- and long-term capital works that are essential to meet the increasing need for special school places. As I noted earlier, over 6,000 additional places are required over the next decade. The plans therefore include the expansion, enhancement and restructuring of the special school estate. They also aim to ensure that the necessary specialist accommodation and equipment are in place to enable pupils to develop the vital skills required to enhance their life beyond education and to provide opportunities for them to access the workplace. The SEN-related capital works currently in planning have a present-day value of £430 million. They include new builds for Sperrinview Special School and Knockevin Special School; a second campus for Ardnashee School and College; two Belfast special school campuses; and 10 extension and refurbishment projects for special schools through the school enhancement programme. To deliver on our Programme for Government commitments, we must also urgently proceed with the projects outlined in the plans of action, as well as with the expansion of specialist provision classes. The next phase of the SEN capital investment programme will deliver 400 additional special school places through the expansion of five existing projects; new investment at 12 special schools to create over 2,000 places; three additional multi-school campuses in Belfast delivering over 1,000 places; three new campuses across Northern Ireland providing 700 places; and over 500 new specialist provision places in mainstream classes. I have submitted detailed proposals to the Executive for ring-fenced funding that is separate from the main Department of Education capital budget. In total, the SEN capital investment programme has a £1·7 billion investment need over the next 10 years. The urgency, however, is not just for the long term but immediate. We face a capital funding crisis next year that must be addressed without delay. The stark reality is that I cannot do this alone. The current education capital budget simply cannot absorb the level of investment required. A single new 500-pupil special school costs around £90 million. That is one third of my Department's annual capital budget, which is already stretched to its limits. It is fully utilised to ensure that schools across the estate remain open and safe, as well as to fund the ICT infrastructure and transport fleet that enable access to education for thousands of children. Those are not discretionary spends; they are essential to the daily operation of our education system. It is simply not possible to suspend all capital works across the school estate for a decade in order to redirect funding towards SEN infrastructure. That would jeopardise the integrity of the entire education system. The conventional education capital budget cannot carry the weight of modernising and expanding SEN provision over the next 10 years. Alongside the urgent need for SEN placements, I am faced with an ageing estate. Many schools built in the mid-20th century are now reaching the end of their useful lifespan and are no longer fit for purpose. Maintenance and minor works are currently restricted to emergency and statutory interventions only. As a result, we have a 15-year backlog of planned maintenance that is estimated to cost in the region of £800 million. Of the 74 major capital projects for schools, 21 are paused owing to the restricted capital budget position. Of the 72 school enhancement projects that have been announced since 2017, only eight have proceeded to construction. The capital need outside specialist SEN provision is significant and pressing, yet the pressure for SEN placements continues to escalate. The cost of emergency SEN placement provision has risen from £9 million in 2019 to a projected £85 million next year, which is an 850% increase in just six years. Let me be absolutely clear: the Department of Education budget cannot sustain that trajectory. If we do not act, the school estate will continue to deteriorate. We will face significant disruption to children's education, and, inevitably, schools will close and children will be unplaced. That is why I am calling for a dedicated Executive-led SEN capital investment programme, not as a luxury but as a necessity. We must invest in the future of our children, and we must protect the integrity of our education system. Top 11.15 am I fully recognise that the Executive face difficult decisions. Every Department has capital needs. Every sector is under pressure, and the capital budget, as we all know, is finite. However, meeting the needs of children with special educational needs is not just another departmental priority; it is a cross-government priority and responsibility. It is a moral and societal imperative that transcends portfolios and party lines. Those children are not abstract statistics; they are individuals with potential, promise and the right to an education that meets their needs and nurtures their strengths. That is why I have submitted proposals to the Executive for the establishment of a new Executive-led and funded SEN capital investment programme that will be a strategic long-term commitment over the next 10 years. It is the only viable path forward. Without that dedicated programme, I cannot progress to the next phase of our SEN capital investment strategy and we will remain trapped in a cycle of emergency planning and reacting to crises rather than building for the future. To conclude, I ask Members this: what is more important than meeting the needs of our most vulnerable children and young people? It is not merely an educational concern but a societal obligation. Members have rightly expressed their concerns at the emergency planning approach to SEN placements. I ask all political parties to support me in the Assembly. This is not an issue for the fractures of our politics. I ask Members to support that ring-fenced capital investment. Let us choose not division and delay but delivery and determination. As an Executive, let us demonstrate our commitment to equity, inclusion and social justice and to building a better and fairer Northern Ireland. The transformation of SEN planning requires dedicated, earmarked funding. It cannot be resourced from a budget that is struggling to keep open a crumbling and ageing school estate. Let us resource the specialist facilities that will equip and empower our children so that no child is left behind, no dream deferred and no future forsaken. Alternatively, if we fail to invest adequately in specialist facilities, educational inequality will deepen and remain for another generation. We must move from patchwork solutions to purposeful transformation. We must invest not only in buildings but in hope, opportunity and the dignity of every child who relies on us to get it right. Let us be bold and united. Let us deliver the future that our children deserve. Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education): I thank the Minister for his statement. A focus in the Chamber on special educational needs is always welcome. Should money flow for that ambitious capital plan, which notes 500 new specialist provision classes as part of its ambition, how will the Minister ensure that those classes can be delivered, given the challenges that we have had in seeing them established when the EA and his Department reached out to schools? Will he therefore respond to the call from the National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT) for urgent talks now to get on to a planned strategic footing at this stage in the year, rather than leaving it till later? Mr Givan: The Chairman makes an important point, but, before you can get to that engagement and to making sure that things work, the Executive need to take a decision in principle. All parties, including the Member's party, Sinn Féin and the Ulster Unionist Party, are on the Executive. The Executive need to take a decision in principle to endorse the paper that I have submitted with the strategic plan. My approach to providing the long-term strategic plan that Members have rightly called for and that I have commissioned needs to be endorsed and supported by every political party on the Executive. That is the only viable pathway forward. It absolutely needs to have the confidence of our school principals for us to make the provision, but we need to take that decision. I have engaged with the NAHT on it, and I welcome its intervention and willingness to engage at this early stage rather than having to respond in May or June. The union has taken a welcome step, and I commend the union for that approach. Of course, I will work with it as we seek to build that confidence, but, first, that decision needs to be taken in principle by all Executive parties around the table. Mr Sheehan: The Minister will be aware that the Audit Office previously reported that, despite hundreds of millions being spent on SEN, neither his Department nor the EA could demonstrate value for money. What assurances has the Minister given his Executive colleagues that, this time, it will be different and that any expenditure that goes into it will go to maximising support for pupils with special needs? Mr Givan: I do not accept that characterisation of the Audit Office report on the value-for-money assessment. That is a side issue. I met the Finance Minister, John O'Dowd, only a number of weeks ago. I explained the critical nature of the budget not just for resource but for capital and highlighted to Minister O'Dowd the need for the Executive paper that I have now taken forward. I welcome the Finance Minister's engagement with me. He welcomed the approach that I am taking and gave a commitment that he would engage positively in looking at the request that I make in the Executive paper. However, what we now need is not just words or sentiment but tangible decisions and actions on that costed plan. We have master planned every special school. This morning, I have corresponded with every principal. We have provided details of the plans that we have for their schools. The plans for Members' constituencies are available for them to look at. We know what we need to do. I know what the Executive need to do. I trust that the other political parties around the Executive table know what they need to do. Mr Brooks: I thank the Minister for the challenge and the vision that he has laid out. Many people in my constituency are thankful for his repurposing of Elmgrove Primary School for special needs and for the future plans that there are for Orangefield High School site. When is the first special school in Belfast likely to be completed? Mr Givan: I thank the Member for his question. Obviously, details are now available for Members to look at. I will resist the temptation to go into detail on every individual school in their constituencies that Members may want to raise, because that presupposes that a decision will be taken first of all on the principle of the Executive-led scheme that we need to take forward. We can get into the granular detail of what we will do in every constituency only on the basis that we have secured the support of the Executive. Work is obviously being taken forward on the basis of decisions that I had previously taken in respect of schools. I can advise the Member that the business case in respect of the first Belfast special school has now been submitted to my Department and is going through the approvals process, so any potential dates will be subject to receipt of business case approval as well as the necessary statutory approvals. However, the current delivery programme indicates that construction would commence in 2029 with provisional completion of the whole project in 2032. Mr Burrows: I thank the Minister for his statement. My party warmly welcomes his proposal for a £1·7 billion investment dedicated to children with special educational needs, because we hear so often that children wait too long for statements, travel too far to school and wait too long to hear what school they are going to. We will support what is right in the same way as we will oppose anything that is wrong and scrutinise along the way. Does the Minister agree that such investment, while it is the right thing to do for children, is an example of "spend to save", in the sense that, if we invest and show our belief in children with special educational needs, in the future, they will make an even greater contribution to our society, economy —. Mr Speaker: I think that we are getting into a statement, Mr Burrows. Mr Burrows: Do you agree with me, Minister? Mr Givan: I thank the Member for his welcome and endorsement of the approach that I have outlined. It is commendable that we have people who are prepared to step up and give support when they know that it is the right thing to do. Thank you for that. It is not just about investing to save; it is about investing in our special children. That is critical and is what drives the approach that I have taken. I have been in countless special schools, as have Members, some of whom have been with me. Every time I go into a special school, I walk out of it asking myself what more I can do to support it. More than any other part of our education system, we need to support that sector. As Members often say in the House, we are measured by how we treat the most vulnerable in our society. We will measure the decisions that are taken by Executive parties by their decision on this Executive paper. It is about investing to save — I agree — given our current spend, which was about £110 million in the past two years. I mentioned that, in 2019, we spent about £9 million on emergency approaches. Next year, we will have to spend in the region of £85 million on emergency responses. We all know that, when you have to respond in that emergency environment, there will be questions about value for money and why we have had to respond in that way. We need properly planned construction work to ensure that we spend the money effectively. Ultimately, however, it is about investing in our special children. Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, you cite a staggering rise in demand for SEN provision. The current statistics and the projected need are eye-watering. The fact that there are children and families behind those statistics is heartbreaking. Why has your Department — I am not blaming you — been caught in a cycle of emergency planning, rather than anticipating and preparing for that growth years ago? Mr Givan: We can look at the past, which people have legitimate questions about, but we need to deliver for the future. When I came into office, we reorganised our capital expenditure and provided clear visibility on the SEN capital programme — we separated that within our departmental structures — and we took a SEN-first approach. I am now asking Executive parties to take a SEN-first approach to all capital spend in Northern Ireland. I commissioned the Education Authority to carry out the detailed master plan work, which it has now completed. That work was undertaken with my officials and, importantly, school principals. They have very much been part of the process. What we have today is a culmination of that engagement with our special school leadership. If implemented, the plan will allow us to put in place measures to meet the long-term strategic need. If we do not do that, as I have made clear and will do again, schools will close. Children will be unplaced if we do not move forward with the approach that I have outlined. Members will rightly challenge me on what I am doing to plan for and meet children's needs. I have been getting on with coming up with a plan. We have published that plan, and I seek the support of the Executive to take it forward. It is the only viable way of addressing the issue; otherwise, we will be trapped in a cycle of emergency responses, which means failing our children. Mrs Mason: Minister, you and I have discussed Knockevin School. I raise that because you specifically mentioned it in your statement. You have visited the school, and you know how vital it is for families in South Down. It provides incredible care despite the removal of its nurse and its being split over three sites that are bursting at the seams. Can you indicate where Knockevin is in your priorities and when we can expect to see a new build for its children? Mr Givan: I will come to back to the Member on the specific detail, but she is right that Knockevin is one of the schools that we have been moving forward, and work on that continues. The Member rightly highlights a cause for concern that I have mentioned before: the withdrawal of a nurse and of allied health professionals. That is why I said that this is not just a departmental responsibility but a cross-departmental responsibility. As we move forward with my plan, as I hope and trust that we will, other Departments need to align with it. For children and young people in special schools. that is where they are best placed to receive all the other medical support that they need. That is where we need the work of the Department of Health in order to assist me and those principals. Their job, fundamentally, is to be educators, but they can only do that, in an environment where there are increasing medical complexities, with the right support from our medical practitioners. That is why I welcome the review that was commissioned by the Chief Nursing Officer. A report is there and is being looked at. We need to see the outworkings of that review, and then we need to see the support being aligned to what I am trying to do and what the special school principals have been calling for. Top 11.30 am Mr Martin: I warmly welcome the Minister's statement. I know that the Education Committee has been very keen to see progress on the issue. This morning, you have outlined a plan, provided the costings for it and are clearly championing it. It will be up to the other Executive parties as to whether they are going to support it. Will spaces in mainstream schools that were previously repurposed in order to establish specialist provision be restored as part of the capital plan that you have outlined? Mr Givan: I thank the Member for that question. He highlights the repurposing of mainstream school spaces for specialist provision. Let me first express my deep gratitude to schools that have very much stepped up and accommodated specialist provision at the expense of existing support and the limited classroom space that they have. I am deeply appreciative of those schools, principals and boards of governors who have gone above and beyond in order to help us address the challenges that we face. I can confirm that works to restore any required space utilised in the establishment of specialist provision are on the minor works programme for delivery. Despite the work that has been carried out over the past two years, demand for SEN places continues to outstrip availability. All resources remain focused on the delivery of additional accommodation in order to meet the demand for 2026 and 2027, and works to restore lost accommodation will follow. Mrs Guy: I thank the Minister for his statement. Everybody here recognises the need to invest in our special educational needs provision. We also recognise how pressed and tight the Executive's resources are. They are particularly finite in our circumstances here. It is reasonable to ask how much money the Education Minister has requested to be cut from other Executive Ministers' budgets. He mentioned some detailed proposals; has he suggested where other budget might be cut? For example, how much will the Communities Minister or the Health Minister cut from their budgets? Mr Givan: I am asking my Executive colleagues to deliver the Programme for Government commitment. That is the document that the Member's party agreed to, as did my party. One of the nine priorities in the Programme for Government, which I referenced in my speech, is around special educational needs. The logic, therefore, is that Executive expenditure will align with the Programme for Government. In my engagement with the Minister of Finance, I outlined a 10-year plan. The year 1 call to deliver on the plan amounts to £93 million. It builds, and, by the midway point, it will rise to almost £400 million in one year alone. This is a 10-year plan: the Minister of Finance is engaged in a three-year programme of identifying where the priorities should be, and the Executive will engage in that. I expect, and we will articulate, that the Programme for Government will be honoured in respect of the approach to the comprehensive spending review process and that the funding will align to the PFG. Therefore, that will follow what the Member and others have called for, which is a SEN-first approach. That has to be reflected not just in my Department, which it is, but by the Executive as a whole. I trust that I can count on the Member's support for putting children with special educational needs first. Mr Baker: We need more than words, and we want you to prioritise special educational needs. That is not just about capital: it is about how we treat young people when it comes to placements. You are asking for Executive endorsement for a flagship investment programme. Can we expect a sea change in how collaborative work happens between Departments? What work has gone on with the Minister of Health, for example? I ask that because it is about more than just buildings. We need allied health professionals to be involved from the very beginning. Mr Givan: The Member is right: it is about more than just buildings. Again, however, I emphasise the point that we need buildings. I cannot emphasise enough that schools will close otherwise. If we do not step up to the plate, schools will close. Right across the school estate, we are funding emergency responses to keep schools open and safe. If we do not provide funding for special educational needs through the ring-fenced Executive flagship project that I have outlined, we will not be able to keep schools open and safe, and they will therefore close. I agree with the Member that we need collaborative working. We need the Department of Health to work with us. We need the Department for Infrastructure to work with us on road safety to help us improve roads outside our schools. Many aspects of cross-departmental work are required for our education system, but this is an absolute priority, and I am ringing the alarm bells as loudly as I can to say to Members and to all political parties that this is the only viable path. I have been challenged, and rightly so. I have been asked where the plan is. I have developed a plan. It is not just aspirational or a strategy. Rather, it is a detailed, worked-out master plan for every single special school and for everywhere that we need specialist provision. We are now at the moment of decision for all Executive parties on whether they step up and endorse that approach. It is the only way forward. Mr Middleton: I thank the Minister for his statement and for the capital investment that he has already made, not least in Ardnashee School and College in my constituency. I welcome his call for the Executive-led SEN capital investment programme, but he has also outlined a number of challenges to ensuring capacity and specialist provision across the board. Is the Minister considering directing schools to establish specialist provision? Mr Givan: I thank the Member for the question and commend him for his work in Foyle. I have been to Ardnashee. I know what is taking place there and commend the school for the excellent work that it is doing. He asks an important question, and it is one that has generated some discussion on the powers that exist for direction. The EA was asking the Department to consider directing schools back in June. If, at the point of exhausting all possible options, there had been a viable option for doing so in the view of the EA, it was seeking a view on whether we would go down the route of direction. Ultimately, we did not need to do that. We avoided having to go down that particular route. For Members' benefit, I will say that it is a power that has been utilised in a neighbouring jurisdiction, so it is not unique. Such a power has been enacted elsewhere. Our schools rose to the challenge last year, and they have risen to the challenge this year. Going forward, I want to take the approach that schools engage with the Education Authority, which is why I welcome the intervention by the NAHT: that trade union in particular. It wants to have that engagement, so that, across all localities, we can have adequate and excellent provision for all our children as close to their home as possible. Of course, I want schools to believe that, whenever support is offered by the Education Authority to set up specialist provision, they can have confidence that that support will be there. It would be wrong of me to deny that that is a genuine concern for principals, because they lack confidence that they will get the right support. I have, however, been reassured by some principals, who have said to me that they are pleased with the support provided. They are pleased with how specialist provision has been implemented and the positive impact that it has had on the whole school community, so there are good examples of that. I believe that principals will continue to step forward, because it is in their very DNA to want to help, so, as we build confidence, we need to make sure that the Executive provide that support. We need to provide the buildings that will be required to meet that need. I have outlined very clearly the path that we need to follow and the plan that we need to implement to do that. Ms D Armstrong: Minister, I welcome your statement and very much welcome the works that are being undertaken at Sperrinview Special School in my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone. I am very concerned, however, at the continuing escalating cost of emergency SEN placement provision, which has seen an 850% increase in just six years, although I fully appreciate the work that you have to do there. How will your Department and the EA provide equitable access across SEN schools in rural areas? Mr Givan: The Member highlighted Sperrinview. That is one of the schools that we are seeking to take forward. There have been some challenges there in recent weeks, but some progress has been made on identifying a suitable site for that school, which we now need to test to ensure that it is the most appropriate place. The exercise that I commissioned from the EA last year was to look at all the special schools, identify the areas of need across Northern Ireland and see where we need new schools to be created. That work has been completed. The plan is now available for Members so that they can ensure that we are meeting pupils' needs. I want — of course, we all want — children to be able to get the educational support that they require in their local community. We have some children who travel long distances to be given the educational support that they need. I do not find that position acceptable, nor do I believe that any Member finds it acceptable. That is why we need to endorse the plan and allow my Department to get on with the work of putting it into action. Ms Brownlee: I thank the Minister for the statement. I definitely welcome it, particularly for East Antrim, where we have a fantastic set of special schools. Minister, in your statement, you noted the need to provide "specialist accommodation and equipment" and the "vital skills" that enhance children's lives before they leave school. A number of parents have told me that they have significant worries about ensuring that their child receives the proper support before they leave school. As a parent, I understand that. What will the investment mean for children before they leave school? What will that investment be? Mr Givan: I thank the Member for her question and for the work that she does in East Antrim. The statement is very much about the capital needs of the school estate. It is about a 10-year plan to make sure that we expand the physical capacity of special schools. It is about establishing new schools and looking at making greater use of campuses by bringing together existing special schools on a campus-type model. All that has been worked through and given a master plan. The benefit of having an effective school estate is that we will then be able to enhance the educational output from those schools. If we fail to do that and to provide the right environment in which our young people can learn and be supported, at the point at which they leave school, they will not be equipped with the skills that they require to continue in life. We have a limited window of opportunity to make a meaningful impact on those young people's lives when they are in school settings. That is why we have to implement the plan. Of course, the Department continues to work with other Departments on pathways for young people to transition to life beyond special school settings. The Department for the Economy and its Minister have brought work to the Executive on how they will be able to provide greater support in those pathway provisions. Mr O'Toole: Minister, this is a critical issue. It is clearly hugely important, but you are outsourcing responsibility for the budget to other parties, having insourced all the most controversial things that you have done gleefully over the past year and a half. I will ask you something directly about outsourcing specifically, and I would like a direct answer. Parents and pupils are grappling with the use of AI. It is fairly clear — we checked, using an online tool — that a large proportion of your speech was written by AI. Will you confirm that? Top 11.45 am Mr Givan: What an example of a useless Opposition. Mr O'Toole: Answer the question. Mr Givan: What an example of a useless Opposition. Mr O'Toole: Answer the question. Mr Givan: We come to the Chamber to speak on behalf of the most vulnerable in our society and to talk about children who have complex medical needs and who need to have our support and a clear plan for how we can come up with that support, and the leader of the Opposition, the alternative to the Executive, fires a cheap shot around the use of artificial intelligence. Mr O'Toole: That is a yes. Mr Givan: I have to say that those who are listening to the contribution — Mr O'Toole: Teachers and pupils. Mr Givan: — of the leader of the Opposition will come to their own conclusion — Mr O'Toole: That the Minister of Education is using AI. Mr Givan: — about the utter lack of capacity — Mr McCrossan: Test failed. Mr Givan: — that he has just outlined. I am not going to allow the Member to detract from children with special educational needs — Some Members: Hear, hear. Mr Givan: — and it is utterly shameful that the SDLP's leader has used this opportunity —. Mr O'Toole: You are the Minister of Education, and you are using ChatGPT. Mr Speaker: Order. The Minister will be heard, please. Mr Givan: I think of the principals and the parents who have listened in to the last 60 seconds of unedifying contribution from Matthew O'Toole as leader of the Opposition. He will not apologise to me. I do not expect him to. Mr O'Toole: I am not going to. Mr Givan: He should apologise to the special schools and to the families for his shameful contribution. Mr O'Toole: You should be admitting to using AI. Mr McGrath: Computer says no. Mr McNulty: Minister, worryingly for children, parents and teachers, you state that the system risks failing the very children who it is meant to protect. Is that not a startlingly sad admission that your Department and your Executive are failing children, families, parents and schools? Mr Givan: I have outlined the plan to make sure that we can meet the needs of those children and young people. Mr Brett: He is walking out. He does not want to hear it. Mr Givan: Yes, the leader of the Opposition, having made his cheap shot, leaves the Chamber. It really shows the absolute insincerity of that last contribution from the leader of the SDLP. I say to Mr McNulty that this is the plan to ensure that we do not fail our children. This is the plan to make sure that we actually can provide for them so that they can succeed in life. I ask for the support for this plan, because we will be able to deliver for them. That is the obligation on our society. I appeal to Members that this should cross party lines. This should cross all departmental responsibilities. I appeal to the Opposition to join us in the endeavours that we are seeking in order to meet the needs of our children and young people. Mr Gaston: Minister, your statement speaks to the dysfunctional nature of the Executive that you have had to come to the Chamber to attempt to lever this much-needed money into your Department rather than having Executive agreement prior to making your statement. You have invested £110 million in the past two years, which includes funding for 98 additional classrooms. Currently, we are using 39 modular buildings in the special needs estate. If successful in your ask, will it be more temporary modular buildings or can you assure us today that we will see actual building work to create permanent, fit-for-purpose, blocks-and-mortar classrooms? Mr Givan: I thought that the Member would have welcomed transparency and openness. He seems to be suggesting that he did not want to have transparency and openness and that these discussions would happen behind closed doors. That is an interesting departure from the TUV's position on transparency. I have brought a statement to the House for Assembly Members to be able to hold me to account. I assumed that Members of the legislative Assembly wanted that opportunity, but Mr Gaston outlines a different approach. On the key issue, Mr Gaston brought me to some schools in his constituency — Mr Gaston: Yes, and that is why I am asking the question. Mr Givan: He brought me to some schools in his constituency — [Inaudible] Mr Gaston: — Mr Givan: He brought me to some schools in his constituency — Mr Gaston: — and Castle Tower School. I am glad that you remember. What are you going to do about them? Mr Givan: I do. [Inaudible] Mr Gaston: building — Mr Speaker: Mr Gaston, you have had your opportunity. The Minister is trying to answer your question, if you will let him. Mr Givan: Having brought me to a number of schools, the Member, rightly, challenged me about what I am doing to support those schools. What I have done is develop this plan. I encourage the Member to look at the master plan for the schools in his constituency. He will see the detailed work that has now been completed. He will see the pathway to deliver for those children and young people who he, rightly, asked me to visit, and he has my support for what he is trying to do in his constituency. We need to rise above the idea of challenge just because it is the party political thing to do. We need to, on occasion, rise above that. I get that there will be a degree of knockabout. This should not be a knockabout issue in the Assembly Chamber. The plan will deliver purpose-built, brand new schools — not modular but new schools — the enhancement of existing schools and physical construction. Of course, there will continue to be specialist provision that we need to meet. Next year, we will need to put in place modular buildings. I say to Members, however, that new modular buildings are very different from the mobile classrooms in the school that I went to. There are still some schools where the mobile classrooms are appalling, but brand new modular buildings are very good and of a high standard. Yes, there will be a mix of physical, bricks-and-mortar new builds and extension works, and modular units will also be provided to meet the need. However, this is the plan to achieve the objectives that I believe, at heart, everyone wants us to achieve. Let us get behind it and support those who need it most. Ms Sugden: Minister, the substance of what you are asking for is 100%. No one would disagree with more investment — capital and resource funding — in special educational needs. I am, however, curious about how you are asking for the money. You have the great privilege of sitting at the Executive table, where you can ask the Executive parties directly for the funding. Minister, by applying public pressure in the Chamber, are you telling us that those parties have said no to you? Mr Givan: I thank the Member for her question. As I outlined to Mr Sheehan, I have already met the Finance Minister. We went through the financial pressures in the Department, and I highlighted my plan for special schools. This is not a shock. It is not that I have come to the Assembly without already going to my Executive colleagues. I have gone to my Executive colleagues. Every Minister in the Executive has received the paper, which is there. I hope that the paper will be placed on the agenda and that we can agree and approve the plan. The paper is there, but it is right for me, as the Minister of Education, to assure the public, principals and pupils that I am in their corner. I am fighting for them. I will be their champion, as I promised, when it comes to getting the financial support that the Department of Education needs. The funding cannot be met — I have repeated that ad nauseam — from within the normal conventional spend of the Department of Education. This initiative has to be a dedicated, ring-fenced, Executive, flagship, priority project, and that will then align with the demand for a SEN-first approach, not just in my Department but in the Executive. Mr McCrossan: The Minister must be living in a parallel universe filled with rainbows and sunshine. He seems to forget that his party has presided over the Education Department for almost 10 years and has been a lead partner in government with Sinn Féin for 18 years. This crisis is of your making. You and your party caused the crisis. Emergency SEN placement costs have exploded from £9 million in 2019 to £85 million next year — an 850% increase. Minister, that is a direct result of you, your party, the Executive and your Department's chronic failure to plan ahead, and it is wasting tens of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money on sticking plasters instead of providing proper long-term provision for our most vulnerable children. Mr Givan: We can engage in the blame game or we can get on with a plan that is going to make an impact. Due to advances in medicine, children are being born now, thankfully, with much greater and higher levels of complexity of need. Thank the Lord that they are living longer than they would have done otherwise. However, the facilities have not kept pace with the complexities that exist. We have more children presenting with issues around autism, ADHD and various issues who need to get support. I do not know what the causation factors are as to why we have higher numbers of children with additional need. I do not know what has caused that. However, we have had an exponential growth in the number of children with SEN over the past five years, never mind 10 years, and long before other Ministers were in this Department. We can go down the route that the Member wants to go down. He provides no solution, no plan as to what he would do. I have not heard the SDLP articulate its plan. I have outlined a plan through detailed work, through the EA engaging with educationalists and school principals, and they have come up with a plan. Given the amount of work that has gone into this, particularly from those within the profession, it merits a higher level of contribution than the Member has just articulated and the SDLP has advocated. Mr Gildernew: I apologise to the Minister for having missed the start of his statement, but I was listening with interest as I made my way here, given the subject of it. This is a capital announcement and, by coincidence, in the past two weeks, I have spoken to two schools in my constituency, both of which have approached the Department offering to provide special education. In both cases they were refused: in one case, the school had even to follow up in order to get an acknowledgement. Is there potentially a mismatch between the need for places, the desire by great schools — those schools would be brilliant settings for any child — and the system that is used to bring those schools forward into providing special education? Mr Givan: I thank the Member for that question. It is an issue that I had experience of soon after taking up office. A school in my constituency said that it would provide specialist provision, and that was turned down. Subsequent to getting involved in that one, they looked at it again and said, "Yes, we will provide specialist provision". I believe that, this year, they have taken a second unit at the school. I will be very interested to look into the detail of those particular schools. At times, there can be some policies that the EA will look at around sustainable schools: what is the enrolment level and, most importantly, where is the level of need? It is more acute in some particular areas. I do not know the particular circumstances of the schools that the Member highlighted. It may be that although some schools have said that they will provide a place, the provision may not be needed in that locality. I do not know, genuinely, whether that is the case. In other areas, where we have an acute need and where we have not been able to provide specialist provision, we have sought to engage with schools to see whether we can meet the need. If a school wants to offer specialist provision, I very much want to see that accommodated, unless there are really good reasons why it is not appropriate. I am happy to engage with the Member on the particular schools that he referred to. Mr McGrath: A plan that has no money behind it to deliver it is fundamentally not worth the paper that it is written on. It is unable to help those who need help. You are the DUP Education Minister, and we have had some plans before from your colleagues. We have a Sinn Féin Finance Minister who has obviously, in a conversation, told you that the money is not available, otherwise you would not be here trying to get support from the whole House. We have had allied health professionals removed by the Health Minister. Does that not prove that, when it comes to the entire sector, the whole Executive are letting down people and families? Mr Givan: At no point did the Finance Minister say to me that the money was not there. He welcomed the work that had been undertaken and the engagement that I have had with him. He indicated that he is looking at a three-year plan for what we are doing around capital expenditure. I appeal to Members of the House to get behind the plan. Let us support this. I am seeking the support of Members. You all have the ability to influence those who take decisions within your parties. I agree with the Member on one thing. I know that this is a genuine concern for him. He has brought me to visit schools and he has a real interest in making provision for the schools in his constituency. He has had me there, I have seen it, and he engages with me outside the Chamber. I get the politics at times in here, but I pay tribute to the Member for his genuine interest in this. Top 12.00 noon He is right, however: without resources, the plan will not deliver what we need. It needs to be resourced. I will not make any apology for seeking the support of all MLAs for the plan. I have engaged with principals. I hope, trust and know that those principals will engage with every MLA in their constituency and advocate for the approach that I have outlined. I trust that to be the case, so I will not make an apology for seeking to get the plan supported at the Executive, because it is the only way in which we will meet the needs of the most vulnerable in our society. Mr Speaker: That concludes questions to the Minister of Education on the statement. I ask Members to take their ease while we change the top Table before the next item of business. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Dr Aiken] in the Chair) Olympic Legacy Fund Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Speaker has received notice from the Minister for Communities that he wishes to make a statement. Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that they must be concise in asking their questions. This is not an opportunity for debate, and long introductions will not be allowed. Over to you, Minister. Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wish to make a statement to provide the Assembly with information about my Department's Olympic legacy fund. Elite athletes inspire us all. They show us that, through talent, hard work and determination, it is possible to reach the very highest levels of achievement. In Northern Ireland, our athletes once again proved that on the world stage at the Paris 2024 Olympic and Paralympic Games. Their success inspired pride across every community in Northern Ireland, and I want us to harness that pride, determination and sense of possibility in order to help the next generation of athletes flourish. The Olympic legacy fund is about doing just that. It will create a lasting legacy for sport in Northern Ireland, building on the successes of our Olympians at Paris 2024 and strengthening the infrastructure and resources available to our clubs. Last October, I was immensely proud to host a celebration reception at the SSE Arena to honour all our athletes, coaches and support staff who represented Northern Ireland in Paris. We applauded not only our six medallists but every athlete who had the honour of competing. That evening confirmed for me the depth of pride and inspiration that our athletes make people feel and the responsibility that we have to ensure that their success leads to lasting benefits for sport in our communities. Our Olympic story stretches back through the decades, from the golden triumph of Lady Mary Peters in Munich in 1972 to the brilliance that we witnessed in Paris. It is a legacy that we must nurture and extend to future generations. With that in mind, I committed £100,000 to recognise our six Olympic medallists through the Olympic medallist fund, which was announced at the celebration event. Each medallist nominated a grassroots club or project to benefit from the fund, thus ensuring that their success directly inspired investment in communities across Northern Ireland. For example, swimmer Daniel Wiffen, who brought home both gold and bronze medals, directed £25,000 to St Patrick's Grammar School in Armagh, his former school, where it will help establish a new gym facility. That is precisely the kind of practical local benefit that I want to see come from our athletes' success. I wanted to go further, however, and ensure that the momentum is not a one-off but, rather, the beginning of something enduring. That is why I secured £1 million of capital investment in the June 2025 budget for the creation of the Olympic legacy fund, which I officially launched yesterday at the Pavilion in the Stormont estate. The fund will be delivered by Sport NI in partnership with Crowdfunder UK, which is the leading online rewards-based crowdfunding platform in the UK. It will support sports clubs and community groups in modernising facilities, purchasing essential equipment and strengthening the infrastructure that is needed to increase participation and performance. Applicants must be not-for-profit sports clubs, community groups or charities and must deliver activity that is affiliated to a sport that is recognised by Sport NI. They must be based in Northern Ireland and deliver benefits to people here. Awards will range from £1,000 to £50,000, and each successful project will receive 65% of its funding as a grant from the Department via Sport NI, with the applicant raising the remaining 35% through community crowdfunding. That crowdfunding element is an innovative aspect of the fund. It allows local communities to show their support for projects, builds wider engagement and ownership and leverages additional investment into grassroots sport. Crowdfunder UK's platform makes that process straightforward and accessible for communities across Northern Ireland. Applications are now open, and Sport NI will oversee the process, providing guidance and support to ensure that clubs of all sizes and capacities can benefit. I expect the first awards to be made later this financial year, with projects beginning to deliver benefits for communities very soon thereafter. The Olympic legacy fund is about far more than bricks, mortar and equipment. It is about harnessing the inspiration of our athletes and investing it directly back into our communities. It is about giving everybody opportunity, whether to pursue their goal of standing on an Olympic or Paralympic podium, competing at a local club or simply enjoying the lifelong benefits of sport. The achievements of our medal winners, along with all the Olympians and Paralympians who competed in Paris, will be remembered for many years. However, I want their true legacy to be measured in the opportunities that we now create, in the clubs that grow stronger, in the facilities that are modernised and in the communities that come together through sport. The fund represents a significant investment in that future, and I look forward to seeing it deliver for communities across Northern Ireland. I commend the statement to the House. Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for the statement. We welcome any and all investment in sport. The fund should inspire and empower aspiring sportspersons to realise their potential and dreams and help to create a new generation of Olympic heroes and elite performers. Even more importantly, it should increase and maximise participation across a range of sports, with all the benefits that that brings. What steps will be taken to disseminate information, encourage applications and ensure a fair geographical spread of the funding? Mr Lyons: First, it is important to note that all eligible clubs and groups across Northern Ireland, regardless of geography or sport, will be able to apply. It is certainly my intention to make sure that we see a wide spread geographically and across different sports and all communities. I have been in this position a long time now, and people come to me and ask, "Is there any funding available for my club?", and I have to say that there is nothing available at this time or that there are no funding opportunities available through Sport NI. That is why I have introduced the fund and what I am trying to change. The fund will be monitored as we go. It will be a rolling programme, and I will certainly not be opposed to intervening to make sure that, if we are not seeing the interest that we would like from certain sports or categories or if there is a geographical imbalance, I look at resources that can be put in place so that people are aware of the funding opportunities that I am now making available. Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): I welcome the Minister's statement. It is fantastic to see investment going into sport across all levels. I attended the event in the Odyssey. I would have been delighted to attend yesterday's event. I am starting to worry about the Minister hiding his light under a bushel. He did not let any of us know that it was going on. I am sure that lots of Committee members would have loved to be there. I should declare an interest and say that I attended St Patrick's Grammar School, Armagh, so I am delighted to see investment going there, although I have obviously not been as successful as Daniel on the sporting field. Minister, what mechanisms will be put in place to ensure proper scrutiny and accountability of the £1 million investment, given that the Committee has not had any oversight of it up to this point? Why was a decision taken to proceed with launching the fund without prior scrutiny by the Committee despite the fund's cross-cutting significance for communities and sport? It is welcome that it is cross-cutting, but we would have loved to see it. Mr Lyons: First, I assure the Member that I will never hide my light under a bushel. I will always be forward in telling people what I am doing. I am here today, without any media statements having been released about it beforehand, because I wanted to come to the House first, because I am answerable to the House. The statement was not released beforehand, and I took the opportunity to come here first, because I wanted to hear from Members. I am more than happy to make sure that all Members are aware of what I am able to deliver on behalf of communities right across Northern Ireland. The criteria for the fund are very simple. Applicants need to be operating in Northern Ireland, and it needs to benefit people in Northern Ireland. Applicants need to be not-for-profit groups, whether that is a sports club or a charity, and they need to ensure that they are delivering a sporting element in sports that are recognised by Sport NI. It is very simple and straightforward, and I will be more than happy to ensure that, if necessary, officials are made available to brief the Committee further. However, it is a very simple and straightforward process. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Members, before I call the next Member, I say this: most people will be trying to name their favourite sports clubs and organisations — I want to add Larne Swimming Club — but can we focus on questions, please? Ms Forsythe: Minister, the Olympic legacy fund is very welcome. I was at the SSE Arena with you, and it was brilliant to join in the celebration of our local sports heroes. This fund is the first time that we are able to support all the smaller sports clubs that so often miss out on the ability to avail themselves of public money. Minister, what protections are in place to make sure that one sport does not dominate the fund and that the smaller clubs and organisations get a fair chance to participate? Mr Lyons: Absolutely. I appreciate the Member raising that issue, because it is important that everyone is aware of the fund and that all clubs feel that they have the ability to apply on an equal basis. There will certainly be monitoring of the fund and the applicants to make sure that there is a fair spread. I have said before that many people contact me asking what funds are available but nothing is there. A lot of clubs make a huge difference to the lives of people in their local community. That will be monitored. We look at that at the minute. We are testing the process and allowing people to apply, but if changes need to be made, I will make sure that they are made. Ms K Armstrong: Minister, getting money out to grassroots sports clubs is always welcome, so thank you very much for that. I want to clarify something. You said that the Crowdfunder platform is being used. If a group were to apply for £50,000, the amount that that group would have to raise itself — the 35% — would be £17,500. However, if the group uses the Crowdfunder platform, the fees would deduct £1,120. Do groups have to use Crowdfunder, or can they use something else? As someone who has been involved with fundraising for decades, I know that Crowdfunder is quite expensive. Mr Lyons: I am grateful to the Member for that question. Crowdfunder is the platform that we are using. We will look into any issues that exist in relation to fees, but I hope that she can understand the need for us to ensure that a contribution is made. As I said in my previous answer, this fund is something new. We have not done this sort of thing before. I am willing to try these things out, to test them to see what works and does not work and to bring in additional requirements or additional flexibilities if required. All that can be kept under consideration and, if necessary, reviewed. Mr Allen: As someone who knows the importance of sport and has had the honour of competing on an international stage, I welcome the fund. It will be welcomed by many grassroots clubs and organisations. Minister, how did the Department arrive at the determination to split the funding between government funding and the 35% required to be raised through Crowdfunder? Do you feel that that will potentially be a barrier for smaller clubs? Top 12.15 pm Mr Lyons: No, I hope that it will not be a barrier and that many people in the area will get behind it. It will depend on the overall funding that is required for the club. In setting the amount that needs to be brought in by crowdfunding, we tried to find that balance to make sure that clubs had a stake in it and a contribution to make. At the same time, we tried to make sure that it was not out of reach for some people. We believe that where that has landed is fair. Again, I decided to go ahead, test it and try it out, because I saw an issue and a problem in that a lot of clubs were not getting the support that they required. I am bringing the fund forward. It is new, and, as I said, I will keep it under review. Miss Brogan: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire. [Translation: I thank the Minister.] Will the Minister outline what he and his Department will do to make sure that the fund is promoted so that all sports clubs and community groups are able to access it? Mr Lyons: Absolutely. I hope that I have reiterated that. In my statement, I outlined the fact that I want to make sure that everybody knows about the fund and is aware of it. We will certainly promote it through departmental and Sport NI channels. I hope that all Members take the opportunity to encourage people to apply. Ms Brownlee: I, too, welcome the statement. Any investment in sport is absolutely fantastic. Minister, in our constituency, we have a fantastic wrestling club, the Barbarians Wrestling Club NI. It is in dire need of equipment, but it requires the like of a specialist mat. Can that be acquired under the fund? Mr Lyons: I am grateful to the Member for raising that issue. I have been to the Barbarians Wrestling Club. I did not take part on that night, because it was mostly seven- to 10-year-olds who were there. I fancied my chances, but I did not take part. That is exactly what we are trying to do. We are trying to help clubs that are in need. That is the type of equipment that that club needs, although I know that it has other challenges as well when it comes to some of its space. We are trying to make sure that such clubs have equipment. I do not want young people to be turned away from taking part in a sport in which they may do really well and go really far simply because of a lack of equipment. That is why we are bringing the fund in. It will absolutely be able to help clubs such as Barbarians and others. Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Minister, for your statement. Given the qualification of the Ireland men's hockey team in 2016 and 2024 and the women's hockey team in 2020, with all three teams having been captained by local players, it is clear that we are producing Olympians in that sport. Minister, you will be aware of Ulster Hockey's recent report, which looked at the state of each hockey pitch and identified what is needed at each site. Will you commit to engaging with Ulster Hockey to see how hockey clubs across Northern Ireland can be facilitated in applying to the fund? Mr Lyons: I am happy to do that. I have heard about the need that exists in hockey, as, unfortunately, it does in a lot of other sports. Certainly, hockey clubs will be able to apply, because what the Member mentioned certainly meets the criteria. I look forward to being able to deliver for hockey, as well as many other sports, and, hopefully, getting to the position where we are able to add to the fund as time goes on, so that all that need can be met. Ms Finnegan: I thank the Minister. How will community benefit and objective need be scored as part of the scoring criteria? Mr Lyons: We will not have scoring criteria; it is a rolling application. Essentially, projects will come forward, and we will then allocate money. If the criteria and the crowdfunding requirements are met, those projects will go forward. Mr Brett: As the statement makes clear, athletes inspire us all. With that, it would be remiss of me not to take the opportunity to congratulate my constituent Kyle, who made his professional debut at Windsor Park at the weekend and won. I invite you, Minister, to his second professional fight at Mossley Mill in November. Minister, will the fund include clubs that focus on those with disabilities to ensure that they receive the support and funding that they need? I recently had you out at Antrim and Newtownabbey Disability Football Club, which is the only all-ability football team in our borough. Will that team be able to apply to the fund? Mr Lyons: I congratulate the Member's constituent, and I look forward to being invited to that event. I was delighted to join the Member a few months ago, and it was an excellent and inspiring visit. Huge credit has to go to those who give up their time to ensure that that is organised. They are under a lot of pressure with facilities and all the other requirements that are on them. Huge congratulations to them and to all those who are involved in sport throughout Northern Ireland and give up their time. The Member is absolutely right to ask that question. I can confirm that the fund will be open to all groups that are affiliated with sport. I look forward to seeing those applications coming in and, hopefully, that being taken forward, because sport is for everybody. Mr McHugh: Cuirim fáilte roimh a ráiteas anseo inniu. [Translation: I thank the Minister for his statement here today.] A great welcome to your statement, Minister. The use of online crowdfunding platforms as a fundraising tool, which you have already referred to, will be second nature to many clubs. Will other clubs that prefer a different means of fundraising still be included in the scheme? Mr Lyons: We will use the crowdfunding platform. I know that that might be new to some people, which is why Sport NI will be on hand to offer guidance and advice to ensure that they are not disadvantaged in any way. Mr Brooks: I thank the Minister for his statement, which shows that he is interested not just in celebrating our Olympic athletes but in investing in future ones. On that basis, does he plan the scheme to be a one-off or to sustain the Olympic legacy investment into future years? Mr Lyons: That is certainly my intention. I want to see it go forward, because this funding allocation alone will not meet all the need that exists or the future need. It is certainly my intention, as long as I am in post, to ensure that it can continue. We can tweak it, improve it and look at what might need to change. I see the demand, and I want to meet it. Let us see how far it can go. Certainly, my intention is to keep it going. Mr Honeyford: I thank the Minister for his statement. As others have said, every penny invested in sport is really welcome. I associate myself with the Minister's comments about our athletes and their success. Half of the South's Olympic medals came from our incredible athletes from the North. The context is that £1 million is spent here and £230 million is being spent in the South. Have you had any engagement with any Minister in the Southern Government on the Shared Island Fund to look at increasing the money that is available here to ensure that, in the future, our athletes have the facility in the longer term for more money to be invested in them and to harness sport for reconciliation? Mr Lyons: Yes, I have engaged with Southern counterparts around possibilities for the Shared Island Fund to be used for sport. The Member will be aware, I hope, that, in the next few weeks, further announcements could be made about opportunities for Northern Ireland that have a cross-border element. He will have to wait and see. I will, of course, bring it to the House so that there can be proper scrutiny of that announcement. Mr McNulty: Minister, I warmly welcome your statement, investment in sport and nourishment of the dreams and ambitions of young athletes, encouraging them to reach for the stars when it comes to sporting achievement: "Citius, altius, fortius", or "Higher, faster, stronger". I see the potential of this island and the North to become a hotbed of sporting endeavour, excellence, participation and achievement. Minister, can you become the driving force behind a new paradigm of sporting excellence, endeavour and participation, not just at the Olympic and elite level but at grassroots levels, from toddlers through to grandmas and grandpas, across sporting platforms across the island? Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Justin, we enjoyed your speech. Thank you very much indeed. Minister, over to you. Mr Lyons: My goodness, we have a positive Mr McNulty today. He is in good form. That is great to see. Of course, is it any wonder that he is in good form? We have a good announcement and a Minister who is driving forward investment in sport and looking at new and innovative ways to ensure that sport is funded in a way that makes a difference to communities across Northern Ireland. Yes, I will be — oh, there we have it: typical negativity from Mr Durkan, who is shaking his head. I am very positive about what we are able to do. We will get on and deliver it. Mr McNulty is absolutely right to say that this should be for supporting people of all ages and from all backgrounds across all sports. I look forward to doing that. Mr McMurray: I note that, last week, Mary Peters was at the 5k and that, this week, we have the World Athletics Championships, so it great to see sport at all levels, which is always to be welcomed. Has a full equality impact assessment been done of the requirement for smaller, less affluent clubs to raise money? Is there a risk that larger clubs will be able to access more funding for similar-sized projects? As has been said, everyone wants to see clubs of all sizes benefit, and there are many small clubs in rural constituencies. Mr Lyons: The fund is open to everybody, and everybody can apply for funding on an equal basis. Any issues that arise will be considered as part of the monitoring process, which can be reviewed if necessary. The fund is, however, open to everybody on an equal basis to apply for funding at levels from £1,000 to £50,000. I am confident in the requirements, but any changes that are needed will, of course, be made. Mr Gaston: I join in with the warm words of welcome from Members for the Minister's statement. Minister, I want to know what you are doing to address the scandal in sports such as swimming, cycling, rowing and boxing, where barriers are placed in the way of young athletes who want to represent the UK at the Olympics, with the default position being that they have to compete under the foreign tricolour. Surely, in 2025, the Sport NI policy of recognising only one governing body for a sport in Northern Ireland urgently needs to be changed. Mr Lyons: First, I welcome the Member's comments welcoming the fund. Mr Gaston makes a fair point. Under the arrangements that followed on from the Good Friday Agreement, people have the right to identify with whichever country they want to represent. [Interruption.] There was sniggering and shaking of heads on the other side of the Chamber. I am fed up with those who talk most about the need to show respect not themselves showing respect. Everybody should be free to have the opportunity to represent Ireland or Team GB and NI. We should not snigger at the fact that some people want to have that choice. Unfortunately, some people do not have that choice, as barriers are sometimes put in the way. The issues are not straightforward — there are complexities — but I am working on issues in a number of sports to make sure that we can find a way through. Some of it, because of the way in which governing bodies work, has to be worked out at an international level, but people absolutely should be able to represent, play for and compete for whichever team they want, and that choice should be respected. Ms Sugden: The fund is welcome. As constituency MLAs, we are asked about that type of funding, which has not seemed to exist until now. My only criticism is that there is probably not enough of it. Maybe the Minister can speak to his Executive colleagues about the need to invest in the fund. I am interested in the partnership with Crowdfunder, and I am keen to understand how it came about. It is innovative and interesting. Is the partnership a formal one, and how are we taking it forward, given that it is a partnership with government? Mr Lyons: I hope that the Member recognises that it is new and innovative. We are trying to get more out of the money that we have. We went with Crowdfunder UK so that we could do that and because of its experience. I am confident that the partnership will enable us to get more for the money that we put into it. If the Member has specific concerns to raise, I am happy to take them on board. Mr Kingston: I commend the Minister, as others have done, for creating the Olympic Legacy Fund, which builds on the success of the Olympic Medallist Fund. For clarity, is it a rolling fund with no fixed deadline so that groups can apply to it and have their applications assessed straight away? Mr Lyons: I welcome the Member's welcome for the work to improve investment in sport in Northern Ireland. He is right in saying that there is no closing date. It is a rolling programme, so it will be up to clubs to make sure that they put in place the extra support that is required for the funding to be issued. We know the difference that funding can make to clubs that often feel that they do not have avenues for funding. I want to change that, and today is the start of that. Top 12.30 pm Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): That concludes questions on the statement. Thank you very much indeed, Minister. Executive Committee Business Water, Sustainable Drainage and Flood Management Bill: Second Stage Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure): I beg to move That the Second Stage of the Water, Sustainable Drainage and Flood Management Bill [NIA Bill 17/22-27] be agreed. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): In accordance with convention, the Business Committee has not allocated any time limits to the debate. I call the Minister to open the debate on the Bill. Ms Kimmins: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. [Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.] The Water, Sustainable Drainage and Flood Management Bill, which I am bringing to Second Stage today, is an important step in meeting the challenges that my Department and NI Water face in continuing to deliver high-quality water services, and I greatly appreciate the opportunity to put the Bill before you today. The Bill is a key part of my three-pronged approach to addressing the challenges with our waste water infrastructure: to secure more funding from my Executive colleagues; to legislate for sustainable urban drainage to slow the flow of storm water, which is overwhelming the system; and to explore developer contributions. Following June monitoring, I allocated £11 million to NI Water to unlock 3,000 houses in the Derry area. Since my predecessor, John O'Dowd, and I came into office, we have provided ring-fenced allocations to enable the unlocking of waste water capacity for over 5,000 properties across the North. That is already greater than the 4,300 properties that NI Water had originally planned to connect, if fully funded, by the end of the current price control (PC) period in 2028, and it is only 2025. In total, my capital budget allocation to NI Water for this year is 90% of what, it identified, it could spend this year. Our consultation on developer contributions has now closed, and officials are preparing options for my consideration. I have consistently said that innovative thinking and working in partnership hold the key to unlocking our waste water constraints. The recent announcement of the connection of 400 properties in my area in Newry shows what can be achieved when we challenge traditional thinking and focus on smarter, more sustainable solutions. That lies at the heart of my three-pronged approach, as does the Bill. First, I wish to set out the context of the policies that the Bill will allow us to pursue once it is enacted. I am eager to hear Members' thoughts on the proposals, and I am happy to answer any questions that they may have. In March 2022, my Department launched a 12-week consultation on a range of policy proposals to update our existing legislation for the future provision of water, sustainable drainage and flood management services. The policy proposals were intended to enable improvements to NI Water's processes and to enable new and improved ways of reducing and mitigating flood risk. They will strengthen resilience during extreme weather events such as drought and help to facilitate more environmentally friendly solutions to managing water. The effects of a changing climate are evident the world over, and it would be naive of us to assume that we are in any way immune to that. In recent years, we have seen warmer and drier summers and sporadic, unpredictable weather conditions. It is therefore vital that we have legislation in place to allow us to meet the challenges in how we manage, use and treat our water resources, future-proof the system and get on a path to integrating natural drainage systems into our waste water infrastructure more. My Department originally consulted the public and stakeholders on a range of policy areas that included powers for NI Water to implement wider water shortage measures; arrangements to encourage developers to use sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) as the preferred drainage solution in new developments; and allowing NI Water to adopt certain privately owned drainage infrastructure constructed prior to 1 October 1973. They also included enhancing powers for NI Water to deal with drain and sewer miscommunications; allowing NI Water to register article 161 agreements in the Statutory Charges Register; and giving homeowner flood protection measures a statutory basis. Also included were enabling future amendment of the drainage environmental impact assessments and floods directive regulations as required; providing NI Water with a new power of entry to enable it to carry out works beyond the laying of pipes, including the construction of SuDS; and compensation arrangements with landowners in exchange for their land in order to facilitate the storage of floodwaters. Whilst the responses to the policy proposals were overwhelmingly positive, I have noted some concerns about the proposals to provide NI Water with a new power of entry to enable it to carry out works beyond the laying of pipes, which I have already mentioned as regards including the construction of SuDS and the proposal on compensation arrangements with landowners in exchange for their lands facilitating storage of floodwaters. I have given those concerns due consideration and decided that both proposals will be revisited at a later date. I will not therefore seek to take those two policy proposals forward in the context of the Bill. The consultation received 30 responses and closed on 3 June 2022. I publicly acknowledge the contribution of the individuals and organisations who took the time to inform our policy development. Consultees were widely supportive of the seven remaining policy proposals. The first proposal will allow for the expansion of the list of activities that NI Water may prohibit or restrict as part of a temporary hosepipe ban or temporary use ban. That will make available to NI Water a comprehensive list of water-conserving measures from which it may select to prohibit all or any, as necessity dictates. The powers that will be made available to NI Water under the proposed legislation are comparable to those in other jurisdictions. Approval of that policy proposal among respondents was high, although concerns were voiced regarding the welfare of fish and animals if the filling of domestic ponds were to be included in the proposed measures. Given those concerns, I have decided that the filling of domestic ponds should not be included in the proposed list of prohibited activities to be included under that proposal. It was also proposed that my Department should be given the power to issue future arrangements and guidance on the design, approval and maintenance of sustainable drainage systems to make SuDS the preferred means of dealing with surface water. Again, that was met with overall support. I will therefore provide my Department with the powers to make regulations in relation to the design, approval, operation and maintenance of SuDS. In tandem with the Bill, I will launch a public consultation on nature-based SuDS in new housing developments on Monday 22 September 2025. The consultation will seek views on the development and implementation of new policies and regulatory arrangements to ensure that nature-based SuDS, such as grass swales, rain gardens and detention ponds, are provided in new housing developments. Another proposal is to allow NI Water to adopt and maintain sections of privately owned drainage infrastructure constructed prior to 1 October 1973, where such sections are critical to the effective operation of its network. Fixing and adopting old drainage infrastructure where it is critical to the operation of NI Water's network would ensure that failing drainage no longer caused damage to the environment or harm biodiversity, and I am therefore providing NI Water with the power to adopt pre-1973, private drainage infrastructure that is critical to the effective operation of the sewerage network. The next proposal will provide NI Water with the power to enter premises to fix drainage miscommunications and recover the cost from the landowner in instances where the landowner refuses entry and refuses to repair the miscommunication themselves. It is not currently possible for NI Water to register article 161 agreements on the Statutory Charges Register. Those are agreements between a developer and NI Water for the adoption of certain infrastructure. I will therefore provide NI Water with the power to register article 161 adoption agreements and bonds in the Statutory Charges Register. That will enable solicitors and conveyancers to access the records of any ongoing obligations that lie with a piece of land at a single point. Following discussions with the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC) and the registrar of titles, I am confident that allowing that power is the optimum solution to providing a more streamlined and transparent process to assist the conveyancing process in the North. Responses to the proposal to enable the Department to introduce powers for a substantive homeowner flood protection grant scheme to residents whose properties are susceptible to flooding were very positive. My predecessor, John O'Dowd, specifically instructed officials to ensure that applicants are not prevented from availing themselves of the homeowner flood protection grants if there are plans for a future flood alleviation scheme. I intend to carry that important policy forward. I recognise the importance of helping people to protect their homes from flooding. Whilst we cannot prevent all flooding, we can reduce the impacts with appropriate improvements and development. That is exactly why, in July, I announced an increase in the threshold for the homeowner flood protection grant scheme from £10,000 to £13,700 to take into account inflationary increases. The eligibility criteria will also be improved to streamline the application process. I will therefore provide my Department with the power to develop a substantive scheme so that the current pilot scheme will have a sound legislative basis. Further consultation and new regulations will be required for a new scheme. My final proposal is to provide powers for my Department to amend, update or revoke the Drainage (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2017 and the Water Environment (Floods Directive) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2009. The powers are being taken to replace the powers that my Department had before the UK left the EU. I am not planning any such amendments at present; rather, the powers will be used as and when necessity dictates and will follow the normal consultation process. Any future regulations will be made by draft affirmative resolution, which will allow for full scrutiny by the Assembly. The majority of the Bill's provisions require commencement orders to introduce them, following Royal Assent. I will be happy to address any questions that Members may have. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much indeed, Minister. Before I call the Chair of the Infrastructure Committee, I welcome Peter to his position. We pass on our regards to Deborah Erskine. Mr Martin (The Chairperson of the Committee for Infrastructure): Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister for her statement. Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope that you will indulge me for a moment so that I may take the opportunity to record the Committee's gratitude and mine for Deborah's work. She is stepping back from political duties. As most people are aware, she is expecting a baby and is in the last stage of her pregnancy. Hopefully, she is doing something more interesting and relaxing than watching the Second Stage of the Water, Sustainable Drainage and Flood Management Bill today. I certainly hope that she is, but I suspect that she is not; she is probably watching us. That gives me a great opportunity to pass on my best wishes to her. I hope to see her later in the week. It is an incredibly exciting time for her and Robert. I will also say to her that this lectern is hers: I am just trying to fill her shoes for a period. I will speak on the Bill in my role as Committee Chair and may then make some short comments in my role as a DUP MLA. Now that the Bill has been formally introduced, the Committee will conduct a more detailed examination of its provisions, should it pass Second Stage. As we have heard, the Bill will amend and enhance existing legislation to introduce measures to decrease pollution in watercourses; to enhance our ability to withstand extreme weather events, particularly flooding and drought, which the Minister mentioned, through strengthened flood resilience; to encourage the use of sustainable drainage systems, known as "SuDS" — an incredibly apt acronym for such a drainage defence — to manage surface water; and to improve water resource management through the introduction of a more environmentally friendly solution . The Committee undertook some pre-legislative scrutiny of the outline proposals when it received oral evidence from departmental officials at its meeting in April last year. Following that session, the Committee received further evidence from representatives of Northern Ireland Water, which, as we all know, will be a key stakeholder throughout the Bill's passage. I record our thanks to the Department and to Northern Ireland Water for making themselves available to provide that evidence, which allowed the Committee to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the key aspects of the Bill. In the course of the Department's oral evidence, the Committee noted that the Bill will include measures in seven policy areas. Understandably, the Committee will be keen to examine the scope of such measures, including activities that would be prohibited during a hosepipe ban to better manage water supplies during drought. In addition, powers to introduce guidance and arrangements for the use of sustainable drainage systems, known as SuDS, will play an important role in supporting the legislation's implementation across Northern Ireland, should the Bill be enacted. Top 12.45 pm The Bill also contains provisions to enable Northern Ireland Water to adopt private drainage infrastructure that was built — the Minister just reflected on this — before 1973, which will be of obvious and critical benefit to the overall network. The Committee will undoubtedly be interested to examine the particular circumstances envisaged that could be constituted to benefit the network to mitigate flood or environmental damage. Furthermore, provisions to enhance the powers to deal with misconnections to the network, which, as we all know, can be a source of water pollution, will also undoubtedly be of interest to the Committee's scrutiny processes. As every Member will know, Northern Ireland Water has been operating from a very constrained financial position, and therefore I am sure that that will be an ongoing consideration. The Committee will be keen to examine Northern Ireland Water's assessment of its financial requirements to deliver the intended policy and legislative outcomes using these powers. That is particularly critical given the underinvestment in our water network, which, as we have all seen, is having a severe impact on our ability to build new homes and to facilitate economic growth due to a lack of capacity in the overall system. Whilst those funding constraints form part of a much wider issue that will not be solely resolved through the Bill, the additional powers in it can seek to deliver the much-needed incremental improvements to our network. During the pre-legislative evidence, the Committee expressed some concern over the uncertainty of the funding available. Therefore, I am sure that the Committee will wish to explore that in more detail, now that the Bill is before us. These provisions have the potential to make a very positive impact and deliver intended policy objectives. However, without sustained and sufficient funding, they may simply be a power that cannot be effectively used. It is therefore important that the Committee seeks to examine all the provisions to ensure that the powers can be fully utilised to deliver against the Bill's legislative aims. I turn to another key aspect of the Bill. Our ability to respond and manage our flood response has been tested over recent years due to the increasing trend of extreme weather events. Such events have an impact not only on infrastructure but on people's homes, as well as businesses. It is therefore critical that we seek to advance all possible preventative measures to minimise the risks and devastating impacts that floods can have and to more widely build capacity in our flood forecasting infrastructure to generate the much-needed, real-time data to provide a much swifter flood response. Undoubtedly, the Committee will seek to examine the key issues arising from such extreme flooding events and the support that is available to those who have been affected. Of particular interest to the Committee will undoubtedly be the provision that will put the homeowner flood protection grant scheme on a statutory basis. In its scrutiny, it may examine historical information around the uptake of the scheme and the forecasted funding requirements to ensure that the eligible homeowners can access the available support to make preventative improvements that minimise the devastating impacts caused by flooding. Assuming that the Bill completes its Second Stage today, the Committee will take all the necessary time to consider its scrutiny and to develop a plan of whom it might wish to call to give evidence. I very much look forward to the continuance of the constructive engagement by both the Department and Northern Ireland Water that we have seen during the Committee's preliminary scrutiny to ensure that important issues contained in the Bill get the attention that they deserve. I assure the Minister that I and the Committee will work alongside her and her Department to ensure that we get the best and most effective legislation that we can. If it is OK, I will make some short comments as a DUP MLA. I am encouraged that the Bill is at Second Stage. I also see the real and meaningful impact that effective legislation can have for everyone in Northern Ireland, businesses and homeowners. When I looked through the Bill last night and studied some of the clauses, I noted that some of them will make a real and meaningful impact in certain areas, and I referred to them in my speech as Committee Chair. I will pick up on one or two of them. How do we ensure that we have less pollution in watercourses? Obviously, there are the well-documented issues in Lough Neagh, but also in other watercourses. I am a fisherman, and when I read about fish kills in rivers, it breaks my heart, because the rivers take years to recover, and there is nothing that anyone can do about it. It just happens, and that is it. We will undoubtedly have a look at that in the course of this. On my own experience of the impact that the legislation could have as it progresses, in my constituency, we are trying to build a play park. The money is there for it, and everything is in order to take it forward, but it is stuck in planning because of a disagreement between Northern Ireland Water and the planners. Northern Ireland Water has simply said, "Where is the offset drainage?" The children cannot have a play park because of some of the things that we are going to be looking at in the Bill. I share that real-world impact because some of those watching the debate may think that a Water, Sustainable Drainage and Flood Management Bill is not very thrilling, but it has a real-world impact. The Committee, alongside the Department and the Minister, recognises that the Bill could elicit really positive changes for the people of Northern Ireland. I look forward to scrutinising its progress through the Infrastructure Committee. Mr McNulty: I rise to speak as the SDLP spokesperson on infrastructure and also as a member of the Infrastructure Committee. I welcome the comments from the Minister; it is long after time. The Minister is very good at sharing the blame when things go wrong in her Department. She needs to share some credit here: this process was initiated by my former colleague Nichola Mallon. Obviously, it hit a brick wall along the way as the Assembly was down because Sinn Féin and the DUP walked away from this place for five years. Minister, your three-pronged approach deals with SuDS and with seeking funding from your Executive colleagues. Good luck with that one. Maybe you can speak to your predecessor, John O'Dowd, who probably knows about the funding crisis in NI Water and the Department, and you might be able to curry favour. You are also exploring developer contributions, and, obviously, that will mean higher house prices. That is something to recognise. I am interested to know whether AECOM and Arup have been consulted. I will go through the clauses one by one, and I have a few notes about them. Clause 1 is about temporary hosepipe bans, and that makes sense. It is probably about education more than enforcement, and it is a little bit of treating the symptom and not the problem. Will clause 2 show flexibility and imagination in relation to the incorporation of new technologies and offering SuDS? Is NI Water on board with the SuDS offer? Has it agreed to all the proposals? Is it about separation, reed beds or attenuation? Are oversized pipes and manholes the answer to SuDS, as is now? Some 25 years ago, I worked in an engineering practice in Dublin, Moylan Consulting Engineers. I will give a shout-out to Patrick Obdebeck, Paul O'Connell, Darragh Aiken, Lars Schneider, Hunter Jenkins, Niamh Ennis and Paul O'Callaghan. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I ask the Member to get back to the point. Mr McNulty: I am almost there. Those colleagues and that company taught me a lot about engineering. They taught me about the standards of professionalism, about writing, about project management and about building relationships with clients, planners, statutory authorities, councils and contractors. I say that because in Dublin, 25 years ago, we were designing SuDS schemes. What has taken us so long here? What the hell is going on? SuDS are not an optional bolt-on but a design necessity for planning and development. Clause 3 is about issuing guidance. It is probably more about education than it is about enforcement. By the by, I support clause 5 absolutely. It is about reducing storm water volumes and — I cannot read my own writing — slowing down flows. That makes sense and is long overdue. Clause 6 is about flood protection grants. Are those not already in place? I thought that grants were already going to flood protection, but, yes, I support the clause absolutely. Clause 7 is titled "Flood risk: assessment and management". Really, are we not already doing that? Clause 8 is titled "Drainage works: environmental impact assessment". Really, are we not already doing that? Clause 9 is titled "Scope of regulations under sections 7 and 8". It is OK. Clause 10 is OK. Clause 11 is titled "Unlawful sewer communication: remedies". Where does the culpability lie? Who pays? If I am a developer who purchases a site, and it has issues historically, who is responsible? With whom does the liability rest? Clause 12 is titled "Adoption by sewerage undertaker: removal of restrictions". It is OK. Clause 13 is titled "Supplementary, incidental, consequential, transitional provision etc.". It is OK. Clause 14 is OK. Clause 15 is OK. I think that clause 15 is the Minister's favourite clause. If Members will bear with me, I have a few other pointers. NI Water has to be flexible in its approach to SuDS and adopt new technologies. Those need to be approved via the planning approval process prior to the article 161 application stage. Are the Department, NI Water and planning services on the same page? NI Water's 'Sewers for Adoption' needs updated, as it was last revised in 2010. I am supportive of the Bill's proposals, so get a move on. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Ladies and gentlemen, the Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm today. I therefore propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The debate will continue after Question Time, when the next Member to be called will be Cathal Boylan. The debate stood suspended. The sitting was suspended at 12.58 pm. On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) — Top 2.00 pm Oral Answers to Questions Justice Prison Absconding: Safeguards 1. Mr Brooks asked the Minister of Justice whether she will work with the Northern Ireland Prison Service to introduce stronger safeguards against serial absconding from prison, including through day release. (AQO 2356/22-27) Mrs Long (The Minister of Justice): Pre-release testing is a vital part of public protection and the prisoner rehabilitation work that is undertaken in our prisons. Most prisoners go through the various stages of pre-release testing successfully and reintegrate into the community. However, a small number continually fail or abuse the process by going unlawfully at large. I have met victims of crime and political representatives, and I share their concerns about the small number of prisoners who do not take the opportunities afforded to them and the impact that their behaviour has on victims and their families. I have asked the Northern Ireland Prison Service to review what further steps can be taken to manage individuals who raise serious concerns during pre-release testing. That includes what can be done to strengthen the risk management of those individuals and the sanctions that they will face if they go unlawfully at large. That work is in progress, and I can provide further information once it has been completed. Mr Brooks: Minister, it is not enough just to implore others to do more. It is clear that we now have serial absconding from our prisons that is causing confidence issues for the general public and hurt for victims. What are you doing to ensure that it does not happen on a regular basis? Mrs Long: Well, I did not ask others to do more. I instructed one of my officials — a senior official, the director general of the Prison Service — to undertake a review in order to look at how we can better balance resources. Pre-release testing is critical in ensuring that, when people are released into the community, they are released into the community safely. Most prisoners are released during the part of the testing that leads up to consideration by the Parole Commissioners in order to facilitate their proper assessment of the risks attendant on that person. I have set out what I, as Minister, intend to do. As I said, I will inform the House once that review has been completed. Ms Egan: Will the Minister please outline the role that pre-release testing plays in the rehabilitation of offenders? Mrs Long: As I said, pre-release testing is a vital part of rehabilitation work. It tests an individual in a structured, measured and risk-assessed manner prior to consideration by the Parole Commissioners for Northern Ireland. It provides additional evidence for the Parole Commissioners to enable them to apply their statutory tests, and it helps them to decide whether to direct the release of a prisoner on licence. Prisoners are initially tested under the supervision of prison staff, progressing to short periods of unaccompanied release before potentially progressing to living and working in the community. At every stage of the process, the level of risk that they present is kept under constant review. The reality is that, by the very nature of testing, some people will fail the test by not progressing through any stage, even the early stages, or by being returned to prison, while others will progress successfully into the community. It is also the case that, if we do not test, the Parole Commissioners may not have the evidence that they need to make a properly informed decision about the final release of an individual on licence, and we could be challenged through a legal review. Mr Beattie: The Minister is absolutely right: pre-release testing is incredibly important. I have no issue with that; it just needs to be tightened up. However, I have to say that, when it goes wrong, it goes really wrong, as we have seen with Jim McFadden's family, who have been treated absolutely appallingly and who have been kept in the dark for the past 10 months about their dad's murderer, James Meehan. Given the fiasco around that, would it not be fair for the Minister to meet the family, listen to their anguish and their story and apologise to them in person for the absolutely chaotic way that we have dealt with that? Mrs Long: I do not accept the Member's characterisation of the situation, but I accept that, by going unlawfully at large, James Meehan has caused further distress and anguish to the McFadden family. I have apologised publicly to the McFadden family for how it has been handled. I have offered a meeting with the McFadden family. I am more than happy to meet them and listen directly, as I am with all victims. A review was undertaken in Magilligan immediately following James Meehan's absconding. Additional safeguards have been implemented as a result. The lessons learned from that short-term review have also been shared with our other establishments. Pre-release testing is an important part of rehabilitation and resettlement into the community. It is worth remembering that around 4,000 prisoners leave our system each year. Of those, we are dealing with a tiny number who do not pass their pre-release testing regime for successful rehabilitation. That does not diminish, however, the impact that this situation has on individual families or the pain that they express. While prisons do not get everything right — I will be the first to say that — our prison staff are committed professionals who are trying their best every day to support and challenge prisoners to change and to make Northern Ireland safer. Sexually Explicit Deepfake Images 2. Mr Mathison asked the Minister of Justice to outline her proposals for criminalising sexually explicit deepfake images. (AQO 2357/22-27) Mrs Long: The past few years have seen an exponential rise in the proliferation of non-consensual sexually explicit deepfake images, which research shows are overwhelmingly targeted at women and girls and are yet another form of sexual abuse and exploitation. Those images perpetuate, promote and normalise misogyny and the sexualisation of women. They dehumanise and objectify them. The harm that they cause is incalculable. My aim is to address that growing threat and the harm that it causes. That is why, earlier this year, I announced in the Assembly my intention to table an amendment to the Justice Bill at Consideration Stage to provide for Northern Ireland-specific deepfake offences in order to ensure that all aspects of offending in that area are captured. In July, I launched a public consultation on legislative proposals on that. Subject to the outcome of the consultation, I intend to ensure that all aspects of that despicable behaviour are captured. Specifically, I am seeking views on proposals on criminalising the creation of sexually explicit deepfake images, requesting their creation and sharing and threatening to share such an image. I believe that those proposed offences would cover the full range of the abhorrent behaviours that are associated with such images. I am also seeking views on the inclusion of specific motivations that will include situations in which a person is carrying out the behaviour to humiliate, alarm or distress the person who is depicted in the image or for the purpose of sexual gratification. That distinction is important to identify those who pose a risk of future sexual harm. Where sexual gratification is proven, risk management measures, such as the requirement to notify police, would be applied. The proposed offences would provide further protections and add significantly to the suite of measures that are already in place to protect people from intolerable sexually motivated behaviours and to eradicate violence against women and girls. The consultation closes on 6 October, and I encourage Members and the public to respond. Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for that comprehensive answer. Will she outline how those proposals fit within the wider work that she is undertaking to protect people from sexually motivated behaviours and the work on the eradication of violence against women and girls? Mrs Long: Members will know that I have been committed to strengthening the law where possible to try to stop those blights on our society. In the previous Assembly mandate, I introduced a new domestic abuse offence that marked a step change by capturing controlling coercive behaviour and psychological, emotional or financial abuse. I also introduced new offences of stalking, upskirting, downblousing, cyberflashing and four new offences to tackle adults who pretend to be a child with a view to sexual grooming. I also created a stand-alone offence of non-fatal strangulation to provide greater protection against behaviour that is often abused by abusers to exert control and create fear, serving as a precursor for further violence and closely linked to domestic homicide. I believe that those offences have added real, tangible and valuable protections against sexual abuse and violence. However, I do not believe that we can stand still on those issues, so the law is being further strengthened by a number of provisions in the UK Crime and Policing Bill, which is making its way through Westminster. The Assembly agreed the first of two intended legislative consent motions (LCMs) on that on 23 June. I also want to look at the provision that amends the current offence of possession of a paedophile manual. That provision is in section 79 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 and extends to Northern Ireland. A new provision of the possession of, advice on or guidance about creating sexual abuse images will also plug a gap by bringing AI-generated images within the scope of the offence. There are a number of other things that I hope to do, but time will not allow me to do them all. Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for her answers and for her work in the area. As someone who was a victim of a deepfake some three and a half years ago, I welcome the opportunity to work with the Minister on a number of round-table discussions to take things forward on that. As I said, that happened three and a half years ago. It is hard to believe that it is so long ago, but it opened my eyes to how much the PSNI's hands are tied by the limitations in the law on making prosecutions on electronic offences, and it made me particularly concerned for my children and other children when thinking about the safeguards that will be in place when fake images go into mass circulation. What is the Minister's view on how we can keep the law up to date in the digital age? Mrs Long: There are a number of elements to that. First and foremost, there was a significant delay when the Assembly was not here, and that created problems. The deepfake image offence was originally to be brought forward as part of the Crime and Policing Bill that is going through Westminster — we would have simply piggybacked on those offences — but, unfortunately, it was moved as an amendment to a different Bill earlier in the mandate, and, because it was an amendment, we were unable to avail ourselves of it. That is why the Committee graciously said that we could take a further amendment through at Consideration Stage. The law is one part of it, but the removal of the material is the other part. Under the Online Safety Act 2023, there is a requirement on hosts of sites on which images and other material have been posted to remove it quickly. It does not provide a definition of "quickly". As the Member will know, that is Westminster legislation, because it relates to communication offences, but Ofcom is working on defining what speedy removal is and how it should be undertaken. That should help with protection. Undoubtedly, there is a genuine fear about the increase in the sophistication of the images. They are not what they used to be, with the rather sad cut-and-paste things that you could identify by eye. Most of the images are almost unidentifiable from a real image by the naked eye. There are also issues around AI-generated child pornography, for example, which have raised concerns. Thankfully, those are already covered in legislation, because they do not need to be images of real sexual abuse in order to qualify as images of sexual abuse. However, there is a need for us to refresh the law, constantly. There is also an issue of resource, because, as things become more complex, the amount of time that it takes to research and investigate those crimes becomes more complex. My recent visit to the cybercrime centre showed how there have been developments in that space that are allowing the police to speed up their investigations. Mr McNulty: The Minister may have answered some of my question. There is an expectation of regulation, enforcement and adherence to reasonable standards from social media companies, in particular. What discussions has the Minister had with the technology firms, particularly international firms, about improving their inadequate response to the posting of explicit deepfake images on social media? Mrs Long: The issues that the Member refers to fall into the reserved space rather than the devolved space. However, I have, obviously, had contact with Ofcom, which is responsible for implementing the Online Safety Act and carrying out oversight of it. I have been engaging directly with Ofcom about our concerns, and I am briefed regularly by it on the work that it is doing to develop codes of practice and guidance for those bodies. I have also raised my concerns with the Home Office directly, because, if there is to be any further tightening of that legislation, which, I know, some of us certainly believe that there could be, particularly around anonymity, it would be for them to take it forward rather than us, because it is a reserved matter. It is something that I am engaged with regularly. Penalty Notices 3. Mr Clarke asked the Minister of Justice to outline the rationale for seeking to extend penalty notice arrangements to public-order-related offences, including riotous behaviour. (AQO 2358/22-27) Mrs Long: Proposals to extend the use of penalty notices, which were provided for in the Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, are a significant element of the out-of-court disposals work stream of the speeding up justice programme. That programme seeks to minimise avoidable delay in the criminal justice system, will be a key tool in reducing demand on the formal system from lower-level offending and will help to redirect scarce resources to more serious offences, such as serious sexual offences. That work is part of my Department's wider Programme for Government commitments to explore options for expanding out of-court disposals. The Criminal Justice Board, on which I, as Justice Minister, the Lady Chief Justice, the Chief Constable and the Director of Public Prosecutions sit, along with other senior justice leaders, agreed to consult on proposals to secure views to inform policy development. The Police Service of Northern Ireland presently has the power to issue a penalty notice for a number of public-order-related offences, such as indecent behaviour, criminal damage, disorderly behaviour, and resisting, obstructing or impeding police. A working group led by the PSNI, with representatives from my Department, the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) and the NI Courts and Tribunals Service (NICTS), identified a number of offences that may be suitable to be included within the penalty notice arrangements, insofar as the specific offending in each case is of a suitably low level. Those proposals are being taken forward through a departmental consultation exercise, as is normal process. Penalty notices will not be suitable for all cases involving those offences on which the Department is consulting. Most cases, due to their nature, will continue to be prosecuted at court, and it is my intention to increase the maximum sentence available for some of the offences at the more serious end of the spectrum. However, for cases at the very lowest end of the offending spectrum, penalty notices offer a flexible alternative to prosecution and help to resolve cases more quickly, thus reducing pressure on police, prosecutors and the courts, which would allow more serious offending to be targeted. The consultation on the expansion of out-of-court disposals is due to run until 28 September. I will carefully consider responses before bringing forward any firm proposals. Top 2.15 pm Mr Clarke: I thank the Minister for her answer. I appreciate that we are at an early stage, but there is a danger in that it seems as though we are not going hard after those who commit offences. We read about attacks on police officers. Universally across the Chamber, we have been supportive of all of our blue-light services, and we should continue to be. We should in no way minimise attacks on officers or anyone in the blue-light services. Minister, I ask you to reflect on your thoughts and rationale because, while it sounds good to minimise delays in the justice service, that should not be at the expense of justice. Mrs Long: It certainly will not be at the expense of justice. As the Member knows, in the sentencing Bill that is due to be introduced later this year, we will increase the penalty for attacks on anyone providing a public service or engaged in public duties, including police officers. It will raise the sentence available in the Magistrates' Court and the Crown Court. This proposal is to deal with the level of offending that currently would either not be prosecuted or would not reach the threshold for prosecution in the Crown Court. We are talking about stuff at the lower end of the spectrum that might fall foul of not being prosecuted in the Magistrates' Court. The proposal was brought forward by the PSNI because it was keen to have a quick response to low-level offending. The experience is that having a quick response to low-level offending, whether that is a financial penalty or some other out-of-court disposal, means that people are less likely to reoffend and less likely to come to the attention of the police again. To be clear, however, if they reoffend within, for example, 12 months of having a penalty notice given to them, they cannot get a second penalty notice; they will then face prosecution. You are right: we will not lose sight of justice in all of that, but we have to think about whether justice delayed serves the public. We need to ensure that there is a proportionate use of resources so that the most serious offenders are dealt with expeditiously, as well as low-level offending. Mr O'Toole: Further to the previous question, Minister, there is clearly a strong argument for using out-of-court disposals and even increasing their use to free up court time and prosecutor time for other things. If they are going to be used for riotous behaviour and that riotous behaviour is aggravated by sectarian or race hate, should that not be an aggravating factor, and will it be in the sentencing Bill, which, I hope, we will see sooner rather than later? Mrs Long: As it stands, the proposal is that offences that are aggravated by hate and motivated by a hate incident or are domestic would not be dealt with through one of the notices or orders. Mr Dickson: Minister, along with out-of-court disposals, will you outline the wider work being undertaken in the speeding up justice programme? Mrs Long: The programme is looking at the handling of cases and trying to get the most serious cases to court more quickly, because that, ultimately, is how we ensure the best protection of the public. It also allows us the best opportunity to work with offenders and deal with their behaviours. In addition, it is best for victims because they will have a much shorter wait for their case to be dealt with. We are looking at five work streams: existing work on committal reform; existing and emerging work in the digital arena; and exploring other areas, including early engagement, court remits and, as I have said, out-of-court disposals. As you will know, the Criminal Justice (Committal Reform) Bill passed through the Assembly in October 2022. We are now working with justice partners on the next phase to allow cases to be transferred directly from the Magistrates' Court to the Crown Court. Early engagement is looking at how police, the PPS and defence can work better together to expedite cases, ensuring that cases are in a good state of readiness when they come before the court. That should reduce the number of adjournments and ensure that there is no nugatory work being undertaken by prosecutors and police where there is already agreement on certain facts of the case. I am also looking at how we can better use technology to improve efficiency and support victims and witnesses through the process. We are looking at those issues seriously. Although we are currently focused on out-of-court disposals, they are only one element of the overall work that we are doing. The latest departmental statistics indicate that the average time taken for a case to be dealt with from the date on which the offence is reported to the police is 189 days. That is a 16% improvement over the past three years. It is a key measure of how the system is performing overall, a sign that efforts to speed up the justice system are having an impact and an indication that we need to continue down that road and keep the pressure on. Mr Burrows: The Minister said that the proposal to extend penalty notices applies only to lower-level offences. Will the Minister explain why one of the offences included is assault occasioning actual bodily harm (AOABH), which includes breaking someone's nose, smashing someone's teeth out or rendering someone unconscious? Does she consider that AOABH can ever be a serious crime? If not, why is it in the proposal? Mrs Long: As I explained, it is in the proposal because Mr Burrows's former colleagues in the PSNI suggested that it was one of the offences on which we should consult. Given that they were leading on that aspect of speeding up justice, I believed that it was important to consult on that. We will look at that, but there are lower levels of offending, as well as circumstances around offending that the police will consider. If we go to out-of-court disposals, we will effectively widen the range of tools available to the PSNI in how they respond to offending. If a police officer has their nose broken, the person who did it will not simply get an out-of-court disposal; they may well face prosecution in the High Court for such an offence. However, there are lower levels of offending where it will be appropriate for an out-of-court disposal to be used. That is what we are trying to do. We are widening the PSNI's toolkit in terms of the resource that it has to put into investigating and prosecuting such issues, to ensure that it is proportionate to the seriousness of the crime. This gives them the discretion to do that. Freedom of Expression 4. Mr Frew asked the Minister of Justice, in light of a report produced by the US Administration, which highlights restrictions on freedom of expression in the UK, to outline any action that she is taking to defend freedom of expression in Northern Ireland. (AQO 2359/22-27) Mrs Long: Being able to voice and share an opinion is vital in any democratic society, and people should be able to do that freely. I note that the UK Government have responded to the report in question, highlighting the fact that free speech is vital for democracy around the world, including here in the UK, and I echo that view. The right to freedom of expression is protected in article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Freedom of speech is, however, a qualified right; it is not an absolute right and may therefore be subject to restrictions in certain circumstances. For example, boundaries exist when speech becomes hateful or is used to incite criminal or reckless conduct, and people behind such speech should feel the full force of the law in line with our international obligations. My Department recognises the importance of and challenges around freedom of expression, including the need to balance the protection of human rights under articles 9 and 10 of the ECHR. Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for her answer. Given her comment on responsibility around freedom of speech and while I defend her right to have said it, does she regret calling a past Chairperson of the Justice Committee "male, stale and pale"? Will she apologise to the House? Is the Minister considering anything that would erode freedom of expression and speech in any of her proposed Bills? Mrs Long: No, I do not regret it; indeed, the issue was looked at and dismissed, because it is so trivial. I am disappointed that the Member, who has just taken over the chairmanship of the Committee, has chosen this issue with which to open his engagement with me as Minister. I assure the Member that I have no intention of bringing forward anything that would diminish people's right to free speech. It is interesting that those who cry most about the curtailment of their right to free speech are the first to take offence when other people exercise theirs. Mr McGrath: Does the Minister agree that the proscription of Palestine Action, with 89 arrests in London recently as well as arrests in Northern Ireland, all for democratic and peaceful protest, is an affront and should be reviewed and reversed? Mrs Long: The issue of which organisations are proscribed as terrorist organisations is for the UK Home Office. It would be inappropriate for me, as Northern Ireland Justice Minister, to opine on the responsibilities of the UK Government in excepted matters that are the responsibility of the UK Government. I sought and received a briefing from the Home Office on its evidence base and rationale for the proscription. Given that live cases are involved, it would be inappropriate for me to express an opinion either way at this time, but I encourage the Member to raise it with the Home Office, should he wish to do so. Mr Carroll: The Minister mentioned that it was a qualified right and talked about reckless conduct. I do not know the Minister's view, but I certainly was worried when I saw 100,000 people marching in London, maybe for different reasons but led by well-known fascist Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, aka Tommy Robinson. I am concerned about any impact that that may have here. Does the Minister agree that freedom of expression should exist for people who organise anti-racist and anti-fascist activities, including the organising of counterprotests to far right and fascist activities? How will she ensure that that right is protected? Mrs Long: It is incredibly important that everyone have a right to their opinion, but, in a civilised society, those are qualified rights. The manner in which people express their opinion and the means by which they choose to do so are often regulated for the good order of society and to protect the rights of others with whom they share this space. It is therefore important that people be free to express and expound their views, but it is also important that they can do so safely and be properly protected. I have no role to play in what Tommy Robinson does in London. It is well outside my jurisdiction. In this jurisdiction, however, we already have a well-established Parades Commission and well-established laws around public assembly. We need to respect the law, cooperate with the law and work via the law in order to make our opinions heard. Miss Hargey: The Minister rightly touched on the fact that there are ongoing legal proceedings to challenge the British Government on proscribing Palestine Action. Will she join those proceedings as a third party? Mrs Long: It would not be appropriate for me to join as a third party, and I know that the Member has tabled a question for written answer on the matter. It would not be an appropriate use of my Department's scarce resources for me to join as a third party in a case that is an excepted matter over which my Department has no responsibility or control. On that basis, I will therefore not be joining. The Member asked about issues to do with human rights and about other organisations that may wish to raise cause. They can, of course, apply to the court to be considered as a third party, but it would not be appropriate for the Department of Justice to do so, given its vires. LGBTQIA+ Domestic and Intimate Partner Abuse 5. Miss McAllister asked the Minister of Justice for her assessment of the challenges faced by LGBTQIA+ people in relation to domestic and intimate partner abuse. (AQO 2360/22-27) Mrs Long: All victims of domestic and sexual abuse face challenges that can have a significant impact on them. I recognise, however, that many victims in the LGBTQIA+ community face additional challenges around reporting, confidence and stigma. I recently opened an event to launch a report on the prevalence, nature and impact of domestic abuse as experienced by the LGBTQIA+ community in Northern Ireland. The research was carried out by HERe NI and was funded by my Department out of the victims of crime fund. The report identified specific vulnerabilities and challenges experienced when a domestic abuse victim is a member of that community, including the fact that abusers will often use their victim's sexual orientation or gender identity to abuse them psychologically. The report also identified instances of prejudice or a lack of understanding from responding professionals, as well as the lack of tailored support to meet the specific needs of LGBTQIA+ victims, all of which the report noted can act as barriers to accessing justice and support. I have asked my officials to explore how we can address the gaps and break down the barriers that LGBTQIA+ victims face in coming forward and seeking help when subjected to domestic abuse. Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for her answer. Following the report, how will the Minister ensure that LGBT+ victims are considered in the development of any new policy, legislation or services? Mrs Long: We have already started on the journey of ensuring that we are as inclusive as possible of victims of domestic abuse and that they are recognised and supported. We still have further to go, and the report demonstrated that. Last year, along with the Health Minister, I jointly published a new domestic and sexual abuse strategy, which explicitly recognised that anyone can experience domestic abuse and that we need to tailor our responses to the needs of victims, particularly where they have additional vulnerabilities or challenges. In re-procuring advocacy support services, we have made it a requirement that staff providing those services be trained to meet the needs of different groups of victims, including those who are LGBTQIA+, who may encounter additional barriers to accessing help or engaging with the criminal justice system. We have ensured that the support services that we fund must promote the fact that they are available to all victims and that they particularly reach out to more excluded or vulnerable groups. We have also recognised the need for an inclusive approach to be taken to awareness of social media. For example, our Still Abuse campaign included a range of scenarios and relationships, including abuse within a same-sex relationship and inter-familial abuse. Ms Brownlee: Minister, I have worked, and continue to work, with a number of male victims of domestic abuse. They often raise with me the challenges that they face with accessing safe spaces and support, as well as with the associated stigma. That is particularly the case for males. What have the Minister and her Department done to increase support for male victims of domestic abuse? Mrs Long: I very much welcome the opportunity to update Members on that. The first year of the domestic and sexual abuse strategy has seen a deliberate and focused exercise, of which the most recent report was one part, to build an evidence base in order to ensure that future interventions are effective, targeted and sustainable. That approach reflects our commitment to delivering meaningful change, not quick fixes, and ensures that the voices and experiences of all victims shape the way in which services are delivered and that the key gaps are identified. The coming years will be dedicated to addressing those gaps. The recent research on male victims that the Commissioner for Victims of Crime undertook, and the HERe NI report that I just referenced, will be vital drivers of that work in identifying the gaps. They provide valuable insight into the experience of victims, and will help us to decide how we prioritise our resources to give the best support that we can to every victim of domestic abuse. Top 2.30 pm I am already on record, however, about the real financial pressures that the justice system faces. We need to be properly funded and resourced to be able to meet what are largely unmet needs across society. We have the law in place, and we have the goodwill and practice, but we need the resource to ensure that it is sustainable and accessible for every single victim, and that we work as a society to challenge some of the cultural norms and expectations that are often a barrier, particularly to men, in reporting that kind of abuse. Mr Speaker: We move to topical questions. Racist Hate Crime: Increase T1. Mr McGlone asked the Minister of Justice, given the vile racist attacks over the past while, how many times she has met the Chief Constable in the past six months to discuss the rise in that hate crime. (AQT 1551/22-27) Mrs Long: I meet the Chief Constable on a regular and ongoing basis, usually at least every month and often every fortnight. We have raised the issues of hate crime, racism, anti-immigrant sentiment and violence, and wider prejudice at pretty much every one of those meetings. It is a priority for me. I am incredibly concerned about it. It is a cancer in our society. It is destroying the fabric of our society. It is doing no one, neither the people who live in those communities traditionally nor the people who come to Northern Ireland to make it their home, any favours whatsoever. It is important that there is a proper policing and criminal justice response. However, if Members are looking to me or the Chief Constable to police out the attitudes on which those incidents flourish, I have to say that that is not possible. That requires a whole-society approach, which is why I am working with colleagues in the Executive Office, the Department for Communities, the Department of Education and the Department for the Economy to look at how we can better support those who are vulnerable, and better invest in communities to tackle the underlying issues and challenge the narratives — false narratives in many cases — that are being exploited by those who simply seek to divide. Mr McGlone: I agree absolutely with you, Minister. The issue is for political leadership, but involved in that will be the extra resource that the police and others require to tackle the issue. What ask has the Chief Constable made in that regard? How have you been able to facilitate that ask? Mrs Long: The Chief Constable has made a number of asks, but the first and most important one was made during the period of riots when we needed to rely on mutual aid. We were able to get an additional £5 million for his budget to cover that. You will know that I am on record on saying that, whilst that was absolutely necessary and had to happen, it was, in many ways, another classic example of bad behaviour absorbing resources that could otherwise have been invested where they might have done some good. The Chief Constable and I have been working together to develop a five-year plan: the first three years would be to regrow PSNI numbers to around the 7,000 that we have as a target, and the further two years would be to sustain that. We have first call on the resources for that to happen, which will, I think, have a big impact on neighbourhood policing. I am also hopeful that, in this round, when we are setting up a CSR period for three years, there will be the opportunity to secure the remaining funding that the PSNI needs so that we can grow police numbers. We cannot get through this without good neighbourhood policing and the work on the ground that allows communities to have confidence in the PSNI and allows the PSNI to respond in an appropriate manner when challenges arise. I reiterate, however, that we cannot look only to policing when it comes to issues around hate. The crime is one thing, and, by then, people will already have been harmed, but the hate will have to be tackled by us all, not just by policing and justice. Racist Hate Crime: East Belfast T2. Mr McReynolds asked the Minister of Justice whether she will join him in condemning the disgraceful attacks on people in vehicles that have been reported in East Belfast recently, and that are being investigated as racially motivated hate crimes. (AQT 1552/22-27) Mrs Long: I absolutely will, not only as Justice Minister but as a Member of the legislative Assembly for East Belfast. There is absolutely no place in our society for the hate, racism and intimidation that we have witnessed on our streets not just in recent weeks but in recent months. I urge people not to get involved in that despicable behaviour and not to allow their frustrations with services in their neighbourhood to be displaced into targeting those who are similarly disadvantaged. I urge them to instead focus on working with their elected representatives to articulate their concerns and to work productively and, crucially, lawfully to address those concerns with those of us who are serious about wanting to see those communities improved and who will not tolerate sectarianism, hatred, violence or racism on our streets. It is also important that I pay tribute to the Member who asked the question, because I know that he has spent quite a lot of time liaising with the PSNI locally on its response to those issues and on its information sharing with local MLAs. I thank him for his hard work on that. Mr McReynolds: Thank you, Minister, for your kind words. Thank you also for your response. I certainly share your views on the abhorrent scenes that we are seeing from East Belfast on social media. Racism and so-called vigilantism have no place in Northern Ireland's future. Minister, what is your assessment of the importance of a cross-departmental and whole-society approach to tackling hate crime? Mrs Long: It is essential. Ultimately, people would not be behaving in this way were there not those who are perpetually on social media, on mainstream media, in the press and in other places perpetuating falsehoods on immigration and false narratives about the level of immigration in Northern Ireland and the impact that it is having on our society. In turn, that is exploited by those who have serious issues with their own white supremacist, racist and other agendas. We need to be aware that that right-wing threat is serious not just here in Northern Ireland but right across the UK and beyond, and we need to treat it seriously. As an Executive and as politicians in the Chamber, we need to ensure that we are accurate in our information, we correct misinformation, we are temperate in the remarks that we make in the discussions that we have on those issues and that we redouble our efforts to ensure that those who wish to exploit local communities in that way are not given any airtime or opportunity to do so. It is really important that we do that collectively and consistently and not just at times of crisis. Sex Crimes: North Belfast T3. Mr Brett asked the Minister of Justice whether she will support his call for a change in the law to protect the local community, given that information that the PSNI released to him shows that his constituency of North Belfast is home to more people who have been convicted of sex crimes than any other part of our city, with the figure now standing at 200, and also given that, under current legislation, there is no requirement for automatic disclosure to the local community if someone who has been convicted of a child sex crime moves into that community. (AQT 1553/22-27) Mrs Long: Powers are already available under the current disclosure regime. There is the power to ask, so if someone in the community has a concern about an individual and their interactions, they can ask the PSNI. There is also a power to tell, and the PSNI can use that when it believes that an individual's behaviour has come to its attention or when it has concerns about that person's engagements. There are significant problems with wider disclosure. The first is that many of those whose information would be disclosed would then go to ground and their supervision under our supervision and notification rules would become more complex. The second problem is vigilantism in our communities, which we just talked about. There was quite a serious incident involving such vigilantism this summer, and we need to be very cognisant of that risk. Thirdly, and most importantly, if we provided a list of convicted paedophiles, it could create a false sense of security that there are only 200 paedophiles living in North Belfast and that we know where they are. The truth is that we do not know how many paedophiles are living in your constituency. Many will be undetected and will not have been convicted, and many are living amongst us. We best protect our society by using our right to tell and our right to ask, by treating anyone who is engaging with a child as a potential risk to that child and by taking those responsibilities seriously. Mr Brett: Minister, we know that there are 200 people in North Belfast who have been convicted of sex crimes, but the right to disclose puts the burden on those who want to protect their local community. Why do you not believe that we should go further and ensure that that right is promoted across society? What work have you done as Justice Minister to encourage people's understanding of the fact that they have the right to apply for that information? Mrs Long: I have raised that issue on a number of occasions in response to Members' questions in the Chamber and when questioned publicly about it. The right to ask the question is only one element. As I said, there is also a right to tell. We have very good public protection arrangements in Northern Ireland. We should not dismiss them or the work that is done by the Probation Board, police and others on those supervision requirements. It is important that we do that in a way that focuses on the protection of the child. The best way that we can protect children is to ensure that the rights to tell and ask are well known and that people can exercise them proportionately. As I said, child protection is also about creating an awareness in society. The majority of children who are subject to sexual abuse and misconduct are victims of people who are known to them or are members of their family or immediate circle. That is the reality. The "stranger danger" that was all the rage when I was growing up is not the reality of child sexual abuse. We need a fit-for-purpose service and protection mechanism for these times. That also relies heavily on having proper, age-appropriate education so that children understand what is appropriate and inappropriate conduct and that, should anything happen to them, they have the confidence to tell someone and know that they have not done anything wrong. Drug Smuggling T4. Mr Dickson asked the Minister of Justice, having noted the recent BBC 'Spotlight' programme that highlighted international drug cartels, which are reportedly smuggling drugs through the island of Ireland on to the UK and mainland Europe, to outline the actions that she has taken on that issue. (AQT 1554/22-27) Mrs Long: I thank the Member for the question. The BBC 'Spotlight' and 'Panorama' investigations highlighted that threat, but it also highlighted some of the successes in tackling and disrupting those routes, including work with the National Crime Agency (NCA). Border security and international relations is a reserved matter, so it falls outside my area of responsibility as Justice Minister, but I am concerned about the resource and societal implications that arise from the increasing use of Northern Ireland as a trafficking corridor that goes through these islands and onwards to Europe. I wrote to the Home Secretary and drew her attention to the programme and asked that she urgently engage with her Irish counterpart to seek their cooperation and assurance that consideration is being given to whether additional measures are needed to address the issue for the protection of us all. I await her response, but it is important that, at a local level, we continue to work closely with operational partners to keep those harmful, illicit substances off our streets through the organised crime task force (OCTF) structures and that we work through those to ensure that people, particularly those in Northern Ireland, are protected. Mr Dickson: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. Minister, will you outline to the House what cross-border mechanisms, beyond those outlined in your previous answer, are open to you in tackling organised crime? Mrs Long: I want people to be assured that robust mechanisms are in place for law enforcement agencies to work collaboratively and on a cross-border basis to tackle the threat posed by drugs through the joint agency task force (JATF). The cross-border policing strategy also acts as an overarching delivery strategy for the JATF's work, and one of its six priority areas focuses on drugs. I get six-monthly updates on the work of the task force through the intergovernmental agreement arrangements, and I then provide a statement to the Assembly on the relevant matters in that. Tackling harm caused by organised crime is also one of my key priorities. I continue to work closely with partners through the OCTF and JATF not only to manage the threat from drug-related crime, including on a cross-border basis, but to target those in the gangs and the supply routes that are used. Separately from corresponding with the Home Secretary, I recently attended a UK-wide drugs ministerial meeting with the Health Minister. It provided an opportunity for us to shine a light on the Northern Ireland position, including those concerns, as we discussed things such as drug enforcement and prevention. I want to collaborate with our colleagues in these islands to ensure that Northern Ireland does not become a major route for drug trafficking through the islands and onwards to Europe. Courts: Backlog T5. Mr Robinson asked the Minister of Justice to outline the measures that are being introduced to address the backlog of court cases in Northern Ireland, particularly those in the family and criminal courts. (AQT 1555/22-27) Mrs Long: Matters to do with the family courts and scheduling of business more generally are largely judicial issues, but I referenced earlier in Question Time the work that is being done to speed up justice. The options that we are looking at include out-of-court disposals, addressing, for example, the jurisdiction of some of the courts and looking at where there are alternative means of dealing with crimes. Top 2.45 pm We are working in the family courts space to promote alternative dispute resolution and mediation. We would very much like to see that, because we know that it is preferable to having to go through the courts. That is not always possible. Ultimately, however, the management of cases and the time that they take falls to the judiciary. Whilst we can try to streamline the processes and procedures that it has to follow, it is for the judiciary to do the scheduling. Mr Speaker: That concludes questions to the Minister. Assembly Business Mr O'Toole: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last week, during questions to the Finance Minister, he responded to a question from me by stating as fact that there had been no £50 million underspend in what is called "financial transactions capital". In fact, as per his ministerial statement, earlier this year, on the out-turn for 2024-25, there was, as it says in black and white, a £50 million underspend in financial transactions capital. That may have been human error. Can the Speaker's Office advise on how we could seek a correction of the record? Mr Speaker: I thank the Member for raising that. If he wants to put that in writing, we will look at it. Executive Committee Business Water, Sustainable Drainage and Flood Management Bill: Second Stage Debate resumed on motion: That the Second Stage of the Water, Sustainable Drainage and Flood Management Bill [NIA Bill 17/22-27] be agreed. — [Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure).] Mr Boylan: I welcome the new Chairperson to the Committee. I look forward to working with him. I also welcome Mr McNulty — he is not here — to the Committee. I extend my best wishes to Deborah and her family. Hopefully, she is watching, so I will give her a wee thumbs up. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Dr Aiken] in the Chair) I welcome the opportunity to speak at the Second Stage of the Water, Sustainable Drainage and Flood Management Bill. I begin by thanking the Minister for bringing this important legislation to the Assembly. It is an important aspect of the Minister's three-pronged approach to address the issues around waste water infrastructure and how we live with water in the future. I know that the Minister is committed to doing everything that she can to find and implement solutions. Addressing the challenge in waste water infrastructure is much more than an issue for the Infrastructure Minister; it is an issue that affects every aspect of public services from building new homes to hospitals to schools. The Bill aims to go some way towards making progress. I am acutely aware of the pressures that face our waste water infrastructure and, by extension, NIW. I know that the Minister's intention for the Bill is, in part, to improve processes for NIW and allow for new ways to mitigate flood risk while supporting those who are impacted or potentially impacted by flooding occurrences. Collecting and storing rainwater in new and innovative ways by integrating natural drainage systems into our waste water infrastructure as the preferred drainage solution in new developments will enable water to be stored and released gradually into the network. That has the potential to help to address waste water overflows. Moreover, using more natural and sustainable drainage methods as a tool for living with water will ensure that we do not always use a concrete solution and instead integrate ponds and other drainage into new developments. Other issues are covered in the Bill, such as the extension of the hosepipe ban. It is clear that those measures are to be used only in limited and prescribed situations. The Bill is another example of how the Minister is keen to meet the needs of a growing population and a stretched waste water network alongside an ever-changing weather pattern as a result of climate change. I also welcome the provisions that enable the Department to provide grants for measures to protect domestic buildings from flooding. We must do all that we can to protect residents from the worst impacts of flooding. Where that requires us to invest in flood protection measures alongside improved drainage and other such measures, we must do so. In reality, we need to learn to live with extreme weather events, including drought and flooding alike. The Bill would assist in that. I look forward to further scrutinising the "SuDS and floods" Bill further in Committee and working with all members, officials and the Minister to make sure that we make progress on this important issue. Mr McMurray: I am OK for time, I think, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not want to be chastised for straying too far from the subject of the debate, but I want to make a few brief remarks. I associate myself with the remarks directed to Mrs Erskine. While her presence on the Committee and in the Chamber will be missed, we wish her all the best. Tóg go bog é. [Translation: take it easy.] See you when you get back. I welcome the new Chair, Mr Martin, to his role. Mr McNulty is not here. It would have been good if Mr McNulty and Mr Martin had introduced themselves to the Committee, but they covered that in the debate on road maintenance last night, so that is all good. I am glad that Mr Boylan got in to speak before me; otherwise, some of the old hands on the Committee might have taken umbrage at those who have served least time getting in ahead of them, so it is good to see a bit of balance restored. Anyway, on to the matter in hand. I welcome the Second Stage of the Water, Sustainable Drainage and Flood Management Bill, and I support its principles and intent. This important legislation will, hopefully, strengthen resilience in the face of heavy rain and drought, both of which we see more of these days as a result of climate change. We are also told that it will help reduce pollution in watercourses and facilitate more environmentally friendly solutions in managing water resources. Those are all important goals that the Alliance Party has championed for a long time, so we naturally welcome the fact that the Minister has presented the Bill, and we would like to see it progress. I support the proposal to expand temporary hosepipe bans to allow restrictions on a wider range of non-essential uses in times of drought. At the moment, watering gardens and washing cars are the only activities that can be restricted. Hosepipe bans have not often been necessary here, thankfully, but climate change is changing that, as we see more extreme weather events, wet and dry. Only last week, the Republic of Ireland extended hosepipe bans in parts of Counties Meath, Westmeath and Donegal that are set to remain in place until October. It is sobering to think that droughts are becoming an issue on the island of Ireland, even in the autumn. We are right to prepare for that. The Bill includes powers to ban some additional non-essential uses of water, such as filling or maintaining domestic pools. We need to keep it in mind that the aim of a hosepipe ban is to ensure that the supply of drinking water to the public is not put at risk. Wasteful use of water is hard to justify in times of drought, so I welcome that aspect of the Bill. I also welcome the proposal to put the homeowner flood protection grant scheme on a statutory footing. The pilot in my constituency has been important, especially in Newcastle, where domestic properties in the Marguerite and Donard Park areas have been repeatedly flooded. It is accepted that the pilot has had its imperfections: delivery has been slow at times, and there have been issues with eligibility requirements and so on. The Minister has made improvements in the past year that have been welcomed on the ground. Irrespective of its imperfections, it has been an important pilot scheme, and I am glad that the Bill will, in principle, allow it to continue. Flooding can also have a severe impact on our local economies. We have seen that in Downpatrick, where Market Street was severely hit by the 2023 flood. Not all businesses have been able to recover from that event, even with the financial support offered by the Minister for the Economy, which shows how devastating flooding incidents can be. I know that DFI is planning bigger flood alleviation measures in the town. Putting those in place will take years, and there are worries that they might never materialise. I am concerned that local businesses will be unable to protect themselves from flooding in the meantime or to recover if they are hit again. A scheme like the homeowner flood protection grant but for commercial premises would be hugely welcome in Downpatrick. I urge the Minister to consider including in the Bill a power to make similar grants to protect commercial properties. Including such a power would not oblige her to introduce such a scheme but would at least give her the ability to do so. I will comment on the sustainable drainage system (SuDS) element of the Bill, which proposes to allow the Department to issue guidance on the design, maintenance and adoption of sustainable drainage systems. We will still be a long way from the guidance being in place, but the proposed powers will help us to get there. I had the opportunity to attend a DFI event on SuDS some weeks ago where I learned a lot about the benefits as well as the pitfalls. It opened my eyes to the complexity of the matter, and it is important that the guidance be put in place. There can be no doubt for me that SuDS must form an important part of managing water in the years to come. There is no silver bullet, but SuDS can certainly make an important contribution to solving many serious issues that we face, from flooding to sewer capacity and thus water pollution and its effects on places such as Lough Neagh. I very much welcome and support that aspect of the Bill as well. That said, we face a severe waste water crisis, and the legislation will largely impact on new developments. It will mitigate the extent to which new developments make things worse, but it will not make much of a difference to the enormous problem that is already there. We have heard a lot about the Minister's three-pronged approach, of which the Bill is an important part. The second part is the consultation on developer contributions. We do not yet know the outcome of that, but, having spoken to many stakeholders over the past few years, I remain to be convinced that developer contributions will bring about significant improvements. Finally, there is the commitment to working with Executive colleagues to find more money where, frankly, there is not much going spare. I remain very concerned about the Minister's overall approach to addressing the waste water crisis. Her party voted to do whatever it takes to save Lough Neagh, so I call on the Minister to deliver on that commitment and to face the fact that the way in which Northern Ireland Water is currently financed is not working. There are other aspects to the Bill, such as the powers for NI Water to adopt pre-1973 drainage infrastructure, to fix drainage misconnections on private land and recover the cost from the landowner, and to register adoption agreements in the Statutory Charges Register. I have yet to develop a detailed understanding of those issues, so I look forward to scrutinising them at Committee Stage. From what we have heard and researched about them so far, they appear to be sensible. The Alliance Party was broadly supportive of those and other aspects of the Bill at the time of the consultation, and I have no immediate objections at this stage. I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill, which will put in place the conditions to allow us to tackle several important issues in the future. Will the legislation be enough? No. We still need to do the heavy lifting to tackle the issues, and that includes making some difficult decisions. The Bill will, however, open a number of doors. I wholeheartedly support its principles. Mr Stewart: Before I make my remarks, I will echo the comments of the new Chair of the Infrastructure Committee. I send my best wishes to Deborah and her husband and wish her all the very best. I look forward to seeing her back in her position on the Committee. [Laughter.] In the meantime, I look forward to working with the new Chair, Mr Peter Martin. I do not mean to be dismissive at all, Peter. I have no doubt that you will bring a lot to the Committee, and I look forward to working with you as we scrutinise the Bill and do much of the other work that the Committee needs to do. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the Second Stage debate on the Water, Sustainable Drainage and Flood Management Bill. At the outset, let me say that my party and I support the principles of the Bill. It is clear that our water and drainage infrastructure is under severe and growing pressure, and it is right that we update the legislative framework to reflect the challenges of today. As Committee colleagues have already said, the Bill sets out to do a number of important things, including reducing pollution in our watercourses; strengthening our resilience against flooding and drought; promoting sustainable drainage and the preferred way of managing surface water; and improving the overall management of our water resources through environmentally friendly solutions. Those are not abstract concepts; they go to the heart of the challenges that our communities face, whether those be the devastating floods that we have witnessed in recent years that have destroyed homes and businesses or the real constraints that underinvestment in our water network has placed on housing and economic growth. The consequences of inaction have been clear over many years. As Infrastructure Committee colleagues will know, we heard last year from departmental officials and from Northern Ireland Water, which will be a key driver in delivering many of the reforms that the Minister wants to bring in. As others have done, I thank the departmental officials for their assistance to date and to Northern Ireland Water for its engagement. I also thank everyone who contributed to the consultation and who contacted me about it in order to raise their concerns. I know that they will continue to do so as the Bill makes its way through the House. There are several provisions in the Bill that deserve particular emphasis. I do not want to go into too much detail at this stage, because we are discussing the principles of the Bill, but it is important to discuss a few of them. The first is the encouragement of the use of sustainable drainage systems, which will be critical in managing surface water in a way that reduces flood risk and supports environmental protection. Again, we see increasing numbers of examples of the devastating impact of floods in recent years, as well as the impact on pollution. Top 3.00 pm Secondly, the Bill provides for Northern Ireland Water to adopt private drainage infrastructure that was built before 1973 where it benefits the wider network. That has long been campaigned for and is a welcome addition to the legislation. It has the potential to improve resilience and tackle some long-standing legacy issues, though the scrutiny needs to be looked at to see how the benefit-to-the-network test could be applied. I will go back to that in my comments when I go through the Bill clause by clause. Thirdly, strengthening powers to address miscommunications in the system is a positive and necessary step. As we know, miscommunications are a major source of water pollution. It is right that the Department has stronger tools to tackle that problem, although, again, I have concerns about enforcement and the ability or willingness to carry that work out and the costs that go with it. That may be for Northern Ireland Water to address. We know the difficulties that we have with the lack of adoption of roads and the long-standing costs associated with bringing those into the network. I am very interested to hear whether there will be the money and resource to ensure that the work happens in those critical instances. The Bill places the homeowner flood protection grant scheme on a statutory basis. That is a welcome development. We all know families who have faced the trauma of flooding. Giving them greater certainty and support to invest in preventative measures is an important part of building community resilience. I am keen to hear how the assessment criteria will be worked out and what will be done to ensure that the roll-out can be worked through with local councils and with cross-departmental overlap. I am keen to hear more about the criteria. I echo the points made by my colleague from the Alliance Party, who talked about the potential to extend that to commercial premises, because we all know the devastating impact that recent floods have had on commercial property. All that is important, as we know, because sadly, those events are becoming more and more regular. An issue that underpins all of this discussion is funding. As we know, Northern Ireland Water continues to operate under a constrained financial model. We have seen how chronic underinvestment, in our freshwater and waste water systems, has led to developments being stalled, homes not being built and businesses not being able to expand. That is, quite simply, unsustainable and unacceptable. The Bill alone will not fix that wider funding crisis, but it provides useful additional powers that, if backed by resource, can deliver incremental improvements and build resilience into the system. However, without sustained and sufficient investment, there is a real risk that those powers will remain underused. Other Members have flagged that up, and we will be keen to get into that in the Committee Stage. The Ulster Unionist Party and I support the principles of the Bill. We see merits in every aspect of it. I do not want to get into too much detail. Mr Boylan will be saying, "It is only the principles now. We are not getting into the nitty-gritty today". Cathal, I promise not to do that, but I would like to flag up a couple of points on which it would be useful to get answers from the Minister, whether today, in writing or as the Committee brings them up. The Minister, in her remarks, referred to the extension of the hosepipe ban. We all understand that. It is rare that we have a hosepipe ban in Northern Ireland. Some quite like the novel idea of it coming in, because it would mean that we have had four or five days of sunshine, which is a rarity, but it will become more and more of a thing here. I want clarity on how it could be ensured that it would not affect commercial operators, Minister. I know that it applies to homes, but say that a commercial operator is carrying out work and has to tap into the tap in a home: how would that work? I welcome Mr McNulty to the Committee. He made a point about education, which is critical. We heard from Northern Ireland Water officials when they came to Committee that, invariably, enforcement powers and fines never have to be used because, more often than not, when they come in, people play by the rules. How will awareness of the temporary ban and the ban itself be raised among the public? One often sees that when it comes to planning issues. Under clause 1, article 116B(2) would refer to sharing information on a temporary ban "in at least two newspapers" and on the website. We all know that, sadly, readership of local newspapers is on the slide. If a hosepipe ban comes in on a Monday, the notice about it will probably have been lost in translation by the time that anyone picks up a newspaper on Thursday. There could be a new way to assess how best we can communicate those short-term, punchy notices that we want to get through to the public quickly — social media is probably the obvious one to utilise — but I do not think that specifying "two newspapers" in legislation will work, given their decline. It is good that the notices will be in newspapers, but the Minister could at least acknowledge that we could do something to get the information out to the public at bit more quickly in order to raise awareness. The second element of the Bill is the sustainable drainage systems, or SuDS, regulations. This is where I may start to ramble, Mr Deputy Speaker, so feel free to tell me to shush if needs be. I get that the regulations are intended to make us future-proofed, but I would be interested to know whether the Department and the Minister are looking at other places around the world, which I am sure that they are, where sustainable drainage is being done really effectively in order that we can learn from best practice. That is an important aspect of the Bill. I will not go through whether I agree with each clause, because that has been done, but I will go back to the point on clause 6 that I made earlier. It would be advantageous to have something in statute on support not only for domestic properties but for commercial premises. That would give some security. It would also be helpful if the Minister could comment in her remarks on what the assessment criteria will look like and on the anticipated funding over the years, given that flooding will probably, and sadly, increase as we see more and more turbulent weather. With regard to clause 11, I commented earlier on the difficulties that are associated with cost recovery. I raised that with NI Water officials when they came in. I get that when NI Water has to go in to occupy a site, if the person who owns the land cannot pay the price, the work may get stuck or logjammed because the money cannot be claimed back or because there is a reluctance. I want to get my head around how that works. Will the adoption of the pre-1973 sewerage systems under clause 12 be so cost-prohibitive that Northern Ireland Water might not be in a position to do it, given the fact that we know how big the backlog in road adoption is and that a lot of that is due to sewerage problems? Where will the funding, resource and supports be to ensure that, while Northern Ireland Water has the power to take those systems back on, there is not a massive reluctance to do so, given that it will only add a financial burden, year-on-year, to a network that is already under pressure? I think that that concludes my ramblings for now. I thank the Minister for moving the Bill's Second Stage. I look forward to working with Committee colleagues to take the Bill through the next stage and to table any potential amendments that we may have. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you for your ramblings. Miss Brogan: I join other Members in welcoming Peter Martin as the new Chair of the Infrastructure Committee. I am sure that we will continue to work constructively together as a Committee. I also send my very best wishes to Deborah and her family as they embark on a whole new adventure. While the Water, Sustainable Drainage and Flood Management Bill might not sound exciting, it is crucial to the development and maintenance of vital infrastructure and will have numerous cross-cutting benefits. It is further proof of the Minister's commitment to improve protections for citizens while maintaining crucial services here despite the British Government's repeated assaults on the already stretched Budget. The Bill's key component is the introduction of the flood protection grants for domestic buildings, which will help provide peace of mind and practical support for people who are living in high-flood-risk areas. Helping people to protect their home is one of the most fundamental duties of government, and it is very welcome that the Minister has made that the centrepiece of her Bill. The introduction of sustainable drainage systems is a creative addition that will provide low-maintenance, sustainable and practical support for dealing with excess waste water and is one that can be blended into the surroundings without causing an eyesore. Finally, the introduction of temporary hosepipe bans comes with specific criteria and measures for informing the public and ensuring that bans are employed only in the most serious circumstances. A chairde, [Translation: Friends,] while the Bill will have a positive effect on our ability to deal with waste water and flooding, I will take a moment to address some of the other, broader cross-cutting effects that it will have. Reducing the strain on our existing waste water infrastructure will free up capacity for expanding the water network, allowing for more connections and, therefore, the building of more badly needed homes. Sustainable drainage systems will help to reduce waste water going into the system after flooding or heavy rains, which often result in the discharge of excess waste water into waterways such as Lough Neagh. Yesterday, the House debated the need for improved road maintenance. Excess flooding and poor drainage are among the primary causes of erosion and the deterioration of our road network, particularly our rural roads. The introduction of grants for measures to protect domestic buildings against flooding may even help to reduce the cost of insurance in flood-prone areas. This is a sensible Bill, providing real, tangible protections for our waste water system, our environment and our people as well as providing numerous other knock-on cross-cutting benefits. I am happy to support the Bill, and I hope that other Members will do so too. Mr Dunne: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill at its Second Stage as a member of the Infrastructure Committee. As others have said, the principle of the Bill, as outlined by the Minister, is, ultimately, to improve water management and flood resilience in Northern Ireland — I think that we can all buy into that — through legislative reform and introducing new processes and powers for Northern Ireland Water. We have seen in recent years the impact of storms and the often milder, wetter winters. That highlights the importance of having fit-for-purpose legislation that allows NI Water and other key stakeholders to be agile and resilient to meet the ever-changing needs of today. The Minister has described the Bill as part of her three-pronged approach to dealing with waste water infrastructure and the crisis that that sector is in. From looking at the Bill's content, I believe that it is a step in the right direction, particularly when we look at the issues around sustainable drainage. The Minister spoke last week at an event marking 80 years of the Institute of Water and of the Construction Employers Federation, which I also attended. That was a very productive event that highlighted the expertise, innovation and experience that was present in a very well-filled room of attendees. The experience of the waste water and water sector has a key role to play, and the sector has the ability to focus on solutions and to play its part. This legislation, as I said, is a step forward in addressing the challenges that we have, and I am sure that the Minister is committed to working with that sector and the people who were in that room and knows the contribution that they have to make to make progress on this important matter. Clause 1 refers to what is commonly known as the hosepipe ban. Such a ban last took place in 2018, and that demonstrates that it is only ever used in exceptional circumstances. That last time exposed a number of issues with the current powers and some issues that were not covered, and the clause gives the opportunity to widen out the criteria. We received confirmation at the Committee recently that those new powers will not impact on the operations of commercial businesses, and that is an important point. Notification in websites and newspapers has been talked about, and I echo the points made about the use of social media. Obviously, that has a key role to play going forward. I think that NI Water utilises it already, but maybe there is room to have it in black and white going forward. The role of education is also very important. Sustainable drainage systems certainly can be a useful tool in reducing surface water run-off and improving water quality. They can come in many forms, with hard and soft measures. It is worth noting the comments from the Royal Society of Ulster Architects, which has welcomed the proposal to promote SuDS and, indeed, has highlighted the fact that those have been in use for many years. On the future direction of travel of the SuDS policy, lessons can definitely be learnt from across the UK and beyond. In Wales, for example, making SuDS mandatory for certain new developments has led to issues with application processing, maintenance problems and enforcement powers. There is an opportunity for lessons to be learned. Local authorities feel that they are not currently resourced to best administer and be held responsible for SuDS, so I think that there are definitely lessons that we can learn on that. It is also vital that any changes in policy do not lead, ultimately, to excess cost being passed on to the consumers. We have discussed the risk of developer contributions being passed on ultimately to consumers. The Department and the Minister will have failed if two out of the three prongs of her approach to waste water issues add to the ever-rising costs for those struggling to get onto the property ladder. Top 3.15 pm Clause 6 is about flood protection and provides the Department with powers to introduce grants to assist homeowners in high-risk flood areas to protect their homes. As an MLA for the North Down constituency, which includes a number of areas at risk of flooding, the clause is particularly welcome. Putting those powers on a statutory footing could make a meaningful difference in protecting our communities and our environment. Like my colleagues, I remain broadly supportive of the principle of the Bill at Second Stage, and we look forward to it coming to the Committee, where we will look at it in more detail. We know the devastation that flooding can cause to businesses, homes and families, and there is an urgent need to develop our infrastructure, particularly our water and waste water infrastructure. The Bill provides some of the legislative tools to respond more effectively to some of those challenges. I am happy to support the Bill's moving to the next stage. Ms Finnegan: I am pleased to speak in support of the Water, Sustainable Drainage and Flood Management Bill that the Minister has introduced. It is practical and much-needed legislation that tackles a range of issues from flooding and drainage to sustainable development. The Bill does so in a way that benefits people and the environment. We are all aware of the need to upgrade our drainage infrastructure, and the Bill is a step in the right direction. The reality is that climate change is already impacting on communities here. More frequent and heavier rainfall has increased the risk of flooding across the North, and many households live with that worry throughout the year. That is exactly why the introduction of flood protection grants is such a welcome step. It allows people to take action to protect their homes with direct support from the Government and helps reduce the long-term damage and disruption caused by repeated flooding. A key part of the Bill is the introduction of sustainable drainage systems into our water and planning infrastructure. They are low-maintenance, nature-based solutions that help manage surface water more effectively, reduce the pressure on our existing sewerage network and help prevent the kind of pollution events that we have seen in Lough Neagh and other waterways. They also deliver real environmental benefits from supporting local biodiversity and improving water quality to making our towns and cities greener, healthier places to live. As well as the environmental impact, the Bill supports other Executive priorities. It will help to unlock stalled housing developments by easing the pressure on our water infrastructure and supporting the delivery of more homes, which, we know, are an urgent need. The Bill is another example of how we can make real progress to protect communities, support sustainable development and respond to the climate crisis, even in the face of the serious financial challenges that have been imposed on the Executive. The Minister has shown that determined leadership can deliver, and I acknowledge her commitment to delivering for workers, families and the environment. Mr K Buchanan: My comments will be short. First, I congratulate my colleague, Peter, who is taking up the Committee Chair. Deborah is probably watching. I do not know which camera to wave at — normally, we get an indication — but I wish her well, and I wish Peter well. I have only two brief comments. A lot of the issues have been covered, and I am not going to get into the depths of the Bill. First, on the clause on the hosepipe ban, I have a query about how the domestic allowance will be covered on farms. Maybe the Minister will cover that issue. What thought has been put into the domestic allowance? Also, the Minister mentioned that the flood protection grants would move from £10,000 to £13,000. I have always queried the flood protection grants because they protect the building, for example, the house or the garage of a standard dwelling, but it does not protect the property. There were a few incidents where, if the property had been protected, it would have been cheaper than protecting the physical house. It depends how you look at that. I appreciate that we can get into the nuts and bolts of this — it is probably not the day for that — but those are two things that jump out at me immediately. There are other things that we can go through in more detail, but this is not the day to do it. If the Bill passes, we will have further communication tomorrow from officials and research papers that can go through the issues and go into them in more depth. However, those are two things to look at: the farm aspect of the 20% relief and how we protect the property and not only the domestic building as such, which is the way that this is worded. There are a few other wee lines — I will not go into them — about cleaning a private motor. There are terms that use the word "hosepipe" and terms that do not. We can argue about that all day. There are wee terms that need to be tweaked, but this is not the day. I will not talk all day on this, you will be glad to hear. I look forward to the meeting tomorrow and working with my colleagues across the House on this — all of them. [Laughter.] Thank you. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Just before I call the Minister, I think that, with the Infrastructure Committee Chair, you have the only one that seems to do peace, love and harmony. That is amazing: it is the only one we have got here. Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure): I thank and welcome the new Chair of the Committee for Infrastructure. I hope that we can work together as well as I did with Deborah Erskine. To echo other Members' comments, I too wish Deborah and her husband all the very best in what, I hope, is a very exciting time for them both. I look forward to hearing her news in the not so distant future. I thank all the Members for their contributions and their optimism, because this will have an impact of a positive nature on our overall waste water systems and how we deal with drainage and flood management. Quite a number of queries and issues have been raised in the debate. I will do my best to address as many of those as possible. First, I go to the comments from the Committee Chair, Peter Martin. Others also raised the funding query. The Bill is broadly cost-neutral for NI Water, apart from some small administrative costs in terms of miscommunication. Hopefully, that will be welcome. The Bill will also allow NI Water to recoup costs for any repairs that are associated with miscommunications. Some cost may be associated with bringing private drainage infrastructure up to an adoptive standard, and that may be a shared cost with the original owner. Hopefully, that will be minimal as well. In relation to SuDS, there will be additional costs in putting in place the regulatory framework. However, as has been outlined in the debate today, there are already some examples of hard SuDS for that. The other queries were in relation to the expenditure on the homeowner flood protection grant scheme that already exists. As of May this year, 165 homes had been provided with grant funding at a total of £1·5 million, which includes consultants' fees and support fees. Approximately 20 homes per year have received an average grant of £7,850. On the subject of the flood protection grant scheme, others raised some queries. I will address Keith Buchanan's query on what the criteria are regarding the property itself. I think he meant the boundary of the property. I had an example of this in my constituency in the recent flooding. That is a challenge, and there will be an opportunity through engagement with the Committee and the consultation to look at some of the issues again and see where we can help. It is something that I am keen to explore as well, because I know that, where floodwater may not have come into the house itself, it can cause significant damage to the external part of the property. It is still very costly to deal with. We can look at that. John Stewart raised the issue of the criteria for the flood protection scheme. As I have said, that will require the making of regulations. As part of that process, those criteria will be legislated for as well. I welcome Justin McNulty to the Committee and look forward to engaging with him in the time ahead, when I am with the Committee and in debates in the House. He has questions around the SuDS proposals and why it has taken so long to progress SuDS here. I should say that, yes, there are already SuDS happening and in place. I know that the construction industry has also raised this. Those are more in relation to hard SuDS systems. That, as the Member said, is more in relation to bigger pipes and tanks and things like that. The focus of the regulations will be on nature-based SuDS solutions such as swales and detention basins. It will be on those types of natural drainage that align themselves with a natural approach, which is what should be happening in the environment anyway. If we can enable those solutions in a much more managed way, we will see a real impact. As I have said, next week, I will launch the public consultation on SuDS for new housing developments. The consultation will be another opportunity for the Committee and the wider public to engage, to raise any issues, concerns or queries that they may have and to make suggestions. Soft SuDS, unlike hard SuDS, have the potential to treat surface water by removing potential pollutants, which will be a positive in our efforts to tackle pollution in our waterways in particular. Justin asked whether we are already doing some of what is set out in the clauses. Yes, in some cases, we are. The clauses simply allow for future amendments to existing regulations, should they be required as new developments emerge or new technologies emerge, so that we are not hamstrung by what we have in place already. We therefore have an opportunity to continually modernise through making amendments in order to help us move with the times and respond effectively and efficiently. Members raised queries about the hosepipe ban. On the issue of communication, social media and other methods that are already being used for communication purposes — NI Water uses them well — will absolutely continue to be used in that way and as widely as possible. My understanding of the legislation is that notice must be given in a minimum of two newspapers. That requirement is probably a minimum one, but most of us know that we will use all communication channels and methods available to us. They are already used extensively. There was a query about the domestic allowance. To get clarity from the Member, is that about the hosepipe ban? Mr K Buchanan: Yes. It is related to farms. Farms have a metered supply, and they are allowed to offset a percentage of their costs against their domestic usage. How will you square the circle of somebody having a domestic house on a farm? How do you define the hosepipe ban there? Ultimately, they are paying for water but have a domestic allowance. Ms Kimmins: At this point, my understanding is that, for anything that relates to a private business — a window cleaner is another example — people can use a tap to fill a bucket or a private water tank to enable them to carry out their duties but, if they were to use a hosepipe to clean windows, that would be a contravention of the legislation. Hopefully, that explains the provision a bit better. Again, we can get into Members' queries in a bit more detail at Committee Stage. I think that I have responded on the majority of the issues that were raised. Members have been largely positive about where this is going, and I welcome their comments. I will return to what my South Down colleague Andrew McMurray said about some of the flood management issues that, I know, affect his constituency. As part of work that is external to the legislation, we have received confirmation from NI Water that it is doing modelling to find a permanent solution to the Newcastle issue. I met Sheila Maginn and others from the Newcastle Regional Community Resilience Group (RCRG), which does really good work there to find solutions. They are aware of the modelling, and a permanent solution will hopefully be found to the issue. That will provide confidence and reassurance, which is the crux of what we are doing through the legislation. I trust that today's debate has provided Members with an overview of the policy intent behind the Bill. As I said, if there are any points that I have not covered, I will endeavour to address them in correspondence, if Members wish to write to me in more detail to get further clarification. For me, the debate has been a valuable opportunity to hear Members' views. I am pleased that the consensus has been positive and supportive on the principles of the Bill. Mr Durkan: Thank you, Minister, for giving way. Apologies for intervening in the middle of your winding-up speech. I have just vacated my seat on the Committee. I will, however, retain a keen interest in this area of work. I welcome the legislation. The changes to the homeowner flood protection grant scheme are welcome, as are the changes to the criteria to make it more accessible to people. An issue, however, that I have heard raised on numerous occasions — I anticipate that this has been replicated across constituencies — is whether the changes will apply just to private homeowners. What about social housing landlords? Will there be scope for the likes of the Housing Executive and housing associations to apply to DFI for assistance to put measures in place to protect their tenants? Top 3.30 pm Ms Kimmins: As I said in response to some of the queries raised in relation to the grant, there will be an opportunity to look at the criteria when we are laying the regulations. That issue may arise, but, predominantly, the existing criteria support homeowners who have responsibility for their property and are dealing with the cost of that. We can look at that during Committee Stage and later to see whether anything can be done. I am happy to consider that further. I believe that the Bill will, should it become an Act, play a significant role in empowering my Department and NI Water to continue to provide a high-quality service to meet the needs of all the people in the North. Those powers are vital in the face of the unique challenges that we all see in the 21st century. I thank Members for their support, and I commend the Bill to the House. Question put and agreed to. Resolved: That the Second Stage of the Water, Sustainable Drainage and Flood Management Bill [NIA Bill 17/22-27] be agreed. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): That concludes the Second Stage of the Water, Sustainable Drainage and Flood Management Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Committee for Infrastructure. Please take your ease while we handover at the top Table. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Blair] in the Chair) Private Members' Business Bonfire Regulation Mr Gildernew: I beg to move That this Assembly notes that the summer has again seen illegal and unregulated bonfires on contaminated land, placed dangerously close to hospitals and used as platforms for racist and sectarian displays; further notes that the Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition (FICT) report set out a framework to regulate bonfires, including limits on the materials that can be used, the distance that bonfires can be placed from physical structures and the prevention of flags, emblems and election posters being displayed and burnt; and calls for the implementation of the commission’s recommendations to put in place bonfire regulations that prevent threats to public safety, pollution to the environment and attempts to spread hate. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have five minutes. Mr Gildernew, please open the debate on the motion. Mr Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. [Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.] A chairde, [Translation: Friends,] every summer, the issue of offensive and dangerous bonfires rears its head, and, this year, was, unfortunately, no different. From the outset, it is important to say that I recognise the importance of bonfires to unionist culture. The motion should not be seen as an attack on the practice of burning bonfires. Bonfires, when organised in a safe and inclusive manner, can be a positive vehicle for people from the unionist community who want to celebrate their Protestant heritage. The motion, however, is about what are known as "problem bonfires". Unfortunately, every year, a small number of bonfires become symbols of hate and division and display sectarian and racist messages. I am sure that Members will have seen images from July this year of a bonfire in Moygashel in my constituency that displayed an effigy of refugees in a boat along with a disgusting racist message. That raised fear and anxiety among many people across my constituency and way beyond. It is also important to say that offensive bonfires are not confined solely to the unionist community, as there are also a small number of bonfires in nationalist areas of Derry during the month of August. Each year, a small number of bonfires cause significant health and safety concerns. In the past, we have seen young people seriously injure themselves by falling off bonfires during the building process. A small number of bonfires are made from materials such as tyres, which, when burned, are harmful to the health of the people who are gathered and to the environment. We all saw the unacceptable behaviour earlier this year when a bonfire in Belfast was burned in an area that had been confirmed as containing asbestos but the organisers refused to consider the health and safety of the attendees or the local residents. We cannot continue to deal with the same problem year after year. It is long past time that we found a common-sense solution, and it is important that we start to discuss that now in advance of next year. The FICT report into flags, emblems and bonfires looked at the issue in great detail and made some recommendations on how to tackle problem bonfires. Unfortunately, none of those recommendations has been implemented. We have to ask ourselves why that is. All the unionist political parties have so far failed to show any of the political leadership that would create the space for a mature and constructive conversation about the best way forward. Finding a solution that meets the needs of all communities is in the best interests of everyone, and it is well past time that political unionism came to that realisation. Mr Brooks: Once again, we find ourselves debating culture, tradition and identity, and, once again, Sinn Féin comes forward not with proposals to celebrate diversity but to regulate and restrict the traditions of the unionist community. The motion raises the small number of instances in which regrettable and unacceptable messages have been placed on bonfires. While we work with communities to see such things removed, we have seen no such motions from Sinn Féin when there is routine glorification of terrorism at republican events and festivals and no reflection on the hurt that is caused by IRA commemorations and displays. Sinn Féin insists that those are sacrosanct — untouchable. However, when it comes to unionist traditions, suddenly we are told that they must be tightly controlled, monitored and curtailed. Loyalist communities have no intention of going cap in hand to republicans to seek permission to celebrate their long-practised traditions. Let us be very clear: bonfires are not a new phenomenon. They are a centuries-old expression of culture, remembrance and celebration in the unionist community. Some of my best childhood memories are of spending the weeks before the 11 July collecting wood from around my hometown of Comber for our annual bonfire at the barley field. It is a tradition that means a lot to me, and I have always been passionate about the fact that, while beacons and similar have their place, they should never replace traditional bonfires. Bonfires are part of our heritage and are passed down from generation to generation. For Sinn Féin to treat those traditions as though they are nuisances that are to be managed or stamped out is an affront to cultural respect and parity of esteem. Let me tell that party this here and now: they are not going anywhere. Nobody denies that responsibilities come with tradition. Communities have worked hard in recent years to promote safer practices, reduce tensions and, in the main, keep bonfires positive and family-orientated events, notwithstanding the fact that there have been some poor examples. I understand that. However, that progress has come not from top-down regulation that has been imposed by those who have no sympathy for our culture but from engagement, dialogue and local initiatives. Groups such as Legacy Network in my constituency have worked closely with young people from loyalist working-class communities, and we have seen vast improvements at some of the bonfire sites at which there had previously been issues. We will improve things not through nationalist-imposed diktat, which will never run, but through re-engaging with our history and traditions, building and understanding confidence in who we are, learning not just what we do but why, and investing in the work of re-injecting our cultural festivals with a common history and understanding it. An adversarial approach will provoke a similar response, but I often believe that that is what Sinn Féin seeks to do regularly here and in City Hall in particular. The work that has been undertaken with local communities has seen less problematic behaviour. I hope that, in time, we will see bonfires moving away from burning a flag to something more historical or linked to the Twelfth, in a similar way that we have with Guy Fawkes or other fire festivals internationally. However, let us remember that the Members who tabled the motion are not the voice of reason but, rather, the reason that the tricolour has been found on bonfires over the years. It was their comrades who sat in front of the flag, reading statements to justify their latest sectarian bombing or murder for 30 years. They talk about concern over hate, but, for years, Féile an Phobail has hosted the Wolfe Tones's "up the 'RA" bigot-fests at Falls Park, glorifying terrorism. The truth is that Sinn Féin's proposals are not about health and safety but about control. They are about trying to bring a Parades Commission model to other parts of unionist culture. They are about using bureaucracy to chip away at the cultural confidence of the unionist people. I say this to Sinn Féin: if you were genuinely interested in building respect and reconciliation, you would seek to support communities. Our message is simple: hands off our culture. We will continue to work with communities to promote safe and respectful celebrations. Very many people are engaged in that work already, not only themselves but through engagement with public agencies and emergency services. However, we will not stand over Sinn Féin's attempts to dictate terms over unionist traditions. Regulation imposed by those who reject our British identity is not the way forward. It absolutely must have community buy-in. Respect is a two-way street, and it must start with recognising that bonfires are a legitimate and valued part of Northern Ireland's cultural landscape. Ms Bradshaw: I support the motion. Every summer, we witness the same problems and see flags, effigies, political posters and other racist and sectarian symbols placed on bonfires. That is not a reflection of unionist celebration or culture; nor should it be portrayed as such. Those who place such items on bonfires do a disservice to the wider loyalist and unionist community. Every summer, we also hear reports of bonfires being built on land close to houses, play parks, electricity substations for public services, and so on. Over the years, I have been contacted by landowners — for the record, I have never been contacted by the Meridi Street landowner — desperate to find a way to prevent the collection of bonfire material taking place on their land. That desperation is not borne out of any negativity towards the tradition per se; it is out of fear that something will happen to one of the bonfire builders on a site for which they are not covered by insurance. It is important to be clear: many bonfires are for celebration and commemoration and are considerate of everyone in the nearby neighbourhood. They go ahead without contention and are enjoyed by local communities. It is that positivity that we must focus on. The bottom line is that bonfires must be lawful, safe and respectful. Anything else is a threat, in the immediate term, to good relations and, in the longer term, to the ability of that community to regenerate and attract inward investment. This year alone during the Eleventh night celebrations, there were 72 bonfire-related incidents reported out of a total of 194 incidents dealt with by firefighters. On the night of 11 July, the Fire and Rescue Service received 277 emergency calls, which was more than double the number received the previous year. That tells us that the problem seems to be escalating, potentially in isolated and repeat locations, but there is an issue that needs to be dealt with. In recent years, we have seen countless injuries, a death and even firefighters attacked while carrying out their duties. We all have to ask ourselves how long we should allow that to continue and at what point we should finally say that enough is enough. As I have said many times in relation to my private Member's Bill on the display of flags and emblems — I repeat the same sentiment here today — it is not about removing tradition nor policing culture; it is about respect, safety and building communities in which celebration does not come at the expense of others. That is why I call for support for the implementation of the FICT recommendations. Top 3.45 pm I suggest that the motion would have been more successful had it, instead, called for leadership from the First Minister and deputy First Minister on the establishment of a cross-departmental programme board with oversight from the Executive Office, because this is not a problem for one Minister or one Department — they cannot resolve it in isolation. Rather, a united approach is needed across government. The problem requires collaboration between the Environment Agency, the Housing Executive, the PSNI, the Fire and Rescue Service, the Department for Infrastructure, councils and, most importantly, local communities. It also requires that the wider questions of landownership and responsibility be addressed. Too many sites that are used for bonfires sit in the grey area that I mentioned earlier, where landlords are either absent or unwilling or unable to secure their property. If celebrations take place on contaminated or unsecured land, the issue presented is not cultural: it becomes an environmental crime and a threat to public safety. We need coordination, clarity, accountability and robust —. Mr Dickson: I thank the Member for giving way. Does she agree that, when a bonfire such as the one that she referred to in Meridi Street occurs, community leaders — those who hold position and respect in the community — have a duty and responsibility not to encourage people to enjoy the bonfire but to take responsible action and say, "We need to sort this out"? Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute. Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I agree with Mr Brooks that there are successful community bonfires across Belfast city and beyond, but we need our community leaders to step up whenever there is a serious —. Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way? Ms Bradshaw: I will. Go ahead. Mr Brooks: Does the Member recognise that there is an issue, although I am not saying that this is unreasonable, with developments being built on traditional bonfire sites, creating a problem in those areas where no traditional bonfire site remains? Quite often — some people want this — there may then be a return to smaller bonfires, which will often be built on roads, as they were historically. That would cause problems also. There is a problem with how we allow unionist communities to celebrate their history and heritage in a responsible way. The number of sites is reducing. Ms Bradshaw: As someone who comes from a background of urban regeneration, I like to see brownfield sites in our inner-city areas being regenerated. There are alternatives, such as beacons, and there are other ways in which we can make bonfires safer and reduce the threat to the public. I take the Member's point that we need to respect tradition, but we have to do so in a way that is safe. I am conscious, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I am running out of time. Whilst legislation and regulations, the need for which were identified by the FICT commission, are in place, they are not properly overseen. We need a refresh so that we can look at how to implement the recommendations of the FICT report. We need leadership, cooperation, action and those regulations. Our communities deserve safe celebrations, free from hate and harm. Mr Beattie: I have the dubious honour of having been on the FICT commission for three years. It was a good commission. It had good people on it, from across the political spectrum and across the divide, who came up with some really good ideas. Yes, many of those ideas have not been implemented, but they have been spoken about. The FICT commission covered an awful lot more than flags and bonfires, by the way. Sometimes, I think that we ignore other things that it covered because they do not work for us. It covered culture, identity, bonfires, flags on public buildings and street furniture, media, sport, language, arts in public spaces, murals, memorialisation and commemoration. Some political parties dodged that question pretty quickly. Let us look at bonfires, however. It has been said — this is true, and the situation has improved over the years — that the vast majority of bonfires in Northern Ireland pass off safely and are well-run community events. The commission has highlighted that on multiple occasions, and yet — here comes a stark truth — every bonfire in Northern Ireland is unlawful. It does not matter how long they have been happening for and, as we have said, some of them have been going for an awfully long time. Every single one of them is unlawful. The Fire and Rescue Service cannot engage directly with bonfire builders because they would be engaging directly with something unlawful. It is important to understand that. What is Sinn Féin actually —? Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he concur that the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service also says that there are no safe bonfires and that it cannot stand over uncontrolled fires? Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute. Mr Beattie: Absolutely. An unguarded fire anywhere, whether a bonfire or a campfire, is exactly that. Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way? Mr Beattie: Yes. Mr Brooks: Does the Member also recognise that the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service does engage with bonfire sites and gives advice on what is safe and what is not, even if that is not official? Mr Beattie: It absolutely does, and my colleague will raise that later on, if that is OK. I am trying to get to the point of what Sinn Féin is actually calling for. Is it calling for legal authority for all bonfires? If so, that is what FICT recommends. FICT recommends that every bonfire be given legal authority. That is the starting point. If Sinn Féin is saying that it will give this legal authority, it is up to the AERA Minister to change the Waste and Contaminated Land (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 to allow bonfires to be lawful. If that is what we do, the first thing that I will do is press the AERA Minister about when he is will do it to make it lawful. If Sinn Féin is calling for article 10 of the Recreation and Youth Service (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 to be extended to other landowners — that is what it says in the recommendations — so that other landowners can identify land for people to build bonfires on, I will go to the First Minister to ask when that will happen. A Member: Will the Member give way? Mr Beattie: I have not got time, mate. Honestly, I just stopped a minute ago, and I have only got a couple of minutes. Will Sinn Féin be calling on the Northern Ireland Executive to develop a new funded, civic-accredited arts and heritage, education, training and exhibition initiative in dedicated spaces for bonfires, as per the FICT recommendations? If it does, I will go to the Finance Minister to ask when he will provide the money for that. I hope that, in summing up, Sinn Féin can clarify what it is actually trying to achieve with the motion. Mr Gildernew: Will the Member give way? Mr Beattie: Just a moment. If it is recommending legal authority for bonfires as a starting position, there are a number of criteria, as per the FICT recommendations, that each bonfire will have to adhere to, including the height and distance ratio of 1:5. That is when the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service will engage to check whether there is a ratio of 1:5. What if there is a ratio of 1:4? What if it does not adhere to the criteria? Who is responsible? Is it the police, DAERA or the Executive? We need to know, because that is who we will be going to. Or is it a criminal justice issue? If it is, I will go to the Justice Minister to find out what she is going to do. Mr Gildernew: Will the Member give way? Mr Beattie: A couple of Members have asked me to give way. I will give way if you are brief. Mr Gildernew: To be very brief, what Sinn Féin is asking for is the space for a mature and constructive conversation about the best way forward. It is as simple as that. Mr Beattie: I think that I am giving a mature view. I am giving the practicalities of where we are on this. I was a bonfire builder in my youth. I do not support flags being burnt on bonfires. I do not support images or posters being burnt on bonfires. I do not support effigies, apart from historical, traditional effigies, being burnt on bonfires. That is a fact. In most cases, bonfires and bonfire builders have addressed that, but the solution is not top-down legislation and regulation. It is bottom-up, community-level activism. Believe it or not, that is working, and you can go back and look at the statistics and see that it is working. If we pass this motion, an awful lot of Ministers will have an awful lot of work to do, because I will make sure that they are held to this. I will be honest: the motion is as vague as I have ever seen. It really is, because it has not gone into any details apart from the FICT Commission. If you look at the recommendations from the FICT Commission, you will see that there is an awful lot to it. The first is to make them all legal, and that is legal authority. It is difficult to support such a vague motion. I believe in a conversation, but let us make sure that it is from the ground up, from the communities to us, and not just us dictating. Mr Durkan: A decade ago, during my time as Environment Minister, I tried hard to bring forward licensing proposals to deal with bonfires. It was about striking a balance, protecting communities from the very real dangers of these fires while respecting the cultural significance that they still obviously hold. I stand over that principle, but culture must never be a shield for lawlessness or a licence for hate. The political will was not there 10 years ago, and I fear — it is obvious — that this place has gone backwards since. What we witnessed this summer in many areas was not culture but an orgy of hate, of racist and sectarian displays and of despicable personal threats. I offer my support and solidarity to those whose names or images appeared on bonfires. I have been there myself, so I know that it is not pleasant. Such displays hold no place in our society. Homes and hospitals were put at risk. The environment was choked with toxic fumes. That cannot be defended. It is neither tradition nor something to be celebrated. Part of the problem — the elephant in the room — is that our leadership parties continue to peddle division. They stoke hatred when and because it suits them. They thrive on tribal tension, while ordinary people are left to live with the consequences of intimidation, fear and violence on their doorstep. Culture is not something to be feared, nor is it something to be weaponised. It is something that should be shared and respected. The motion rightly notes that FICT set out a framework to deal with the issues, but the point to make is that there is still no implementation plan. When we — the SDLP in opposition — sought to amend the motion to include what, I believe, was a very practical call for the First Minister and the deputy First Minister to bring forward a full FICT implementation plan, the amendment was not accepted. What we are left with is a motion that calls on no one to do anything. Mr Beattie referred to its vagueness. That absolves Ministers of responsibility. Paula Bradshaw rightly identified the collective nature of that responsibility. I fear that debates such as this do not do anything to tackle sectarianism. Rather, they serve only to stir the tribal pot. Mr Beattie: I thank the Member for giving way. Another issue is that of legal authority. We are giving legal authority to burn bonfires. I wonder how that plays with the new Climate Change Act. We have moved on since FICT, and that is a reality. Mr Durkan: Absolutely. Any implementation plan would therefore have to take the new legislative requirements into consideration. In the meantime, good, decent people, who just want to celebrate their traditions, however they do so, are being let down by a lack of leadership. Mr Delargy: Will the Member give way? Mr Durkan: I will not. I have only an extra minute, Pádraig. Residents who want only to live in peace and safety are forced, year after year, to contend with bonfires that put lives at risk. The SDLP would prefer to see more alternatives, and fair play to those communities that offer so much in that regard. Ultimately, and I make no bones about it, we would like to see an end to bonfires. Clearly, we are nowhere near there yet. I do, however, recognise their significance, particularly in some of our most deprived areas. They are bound up with identity, a sense of belonging and community pride, as odd as it sounds, but let us not dismiss that pride, especially among young men who spend weeks and months designing and building those structures that, before they are marred with grotesque images and flags, are pretty impressive. That takes skill and graft. For them, the bonfire is a project: a claim to belonging in communities where opportunities are scarce. Let us therefore eradicate the harmful elements of bonfires: the pollution; the damage to the environment; the damage to community relations; and the race to the bottom. Rather than condemn all those young people, harness their skills. Create apprenticeships and employment opportunities. Give them purpose, pride and a stake in their future, because, let us be real, that cohort of young people has been let down time and time again, and they continue to be by this Executive, leaving them ripe for exploitation by unsavoury criminal elements. Today cannot be just about what has not been delivered. It also has to be about what we are going to do, although the motion does not set out what exactly that should entail. We want a society in which culture is celebrated with respect, not weaponised with hate. Culture should bring people together, not drive them apart. That requires action and real political will across the Chamber. We might think that no one watches what happens here, but what happens here filters out and across our communities, so I say this to the leadership parties: stop hiding behind non-binding motions and excuses, and start leading. Top 4.00 pm Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, before we proceed — this is a general comment and is not related to the Member who spoke last or to any other Member — I remind you, as we move through the debate, that references to amendments that were not accepted are not in order, nor is it in order to challenge the decision to not accept such amendments. Mr Delargy: Each summer, we see bonfires across our communities. We know that, too often, they take place in unsafe and unsuitable locations: close to hospitals, schools and other people's homes and/or on contaminated land. That is not just a question of property damage but a real risk to families, children and residents. Alongside the safety concerns, there are environmental issues such as the burning of waste materials, which creates pollution and damages our health outcomes and the fabric of our communities. The clean-up costs fall back on already stretched public services, and that is money that could and should be spent on youth provision, housing and community development. This debate should not just be about problems; it should be about solutions. In Derry, we have seen the power of community when it is supported and invested in. The planned transformation of Meenan Square is an example of regeneration that is making a real difference and creating space for positive activity in the heart of the Bogside. The Bogside has a proud history — one of resilience and one in which the campaign for civil rights was born. Civil rights and the movement that our community fought for was about building our community up and securing proper investment in housing, infrastructure and, most important, people. It was also about showing that our community had just as much right as any other community to first-class services. Meenan Square is the embodiment of a new vision for a new generation. The redevelopment of Meenan Square includes eight social homes, youth and community services, office space and a new shop for the area. That is a positive, progressive vision for our community, and it is what the people of the Bogside want to see on that site. This summer alone, Féile ran 150 events across the Bogside, Creggan, Bishop Street, Brandywell and Fountain areas, with audiences of more than 20,000 people and over 2,000 participants. We have incredibly brave community groups — good community groups — that work not just in the summer months but throughout the year, with Féile being the key delivery partner, to ensure that everyone has access to community events that celebrate our community and all that it has to offer through delivering festivals, youth programmes, family fun days and cultural events. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Delargy, will you return to the subject of the motion, which is bonfire regulation? Mr Delargy: Yes, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. [Translation: Mr Deputy Speaker.] I am trying to provide examples of that alternative and the positive political leadership that we can offer in our communities. Ms Ferguson: Will the Member take an intervention? Mr Delargy: Of course. Ms Ferguson: Does the Member agree that we have a collective duty to realise the Good Friday Agreement commitment for citizens to live free from sectarian harassment? That must mean enshrining effective legal sanctions on bonfires that promote offensive, racist and sectarian material and threaten the health and well-being of residents in all our communities. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I remind the Member, for when he continues, that this is not a wider discussion on previous or current agreements. The terms of the motion are clearly laid out in the Order Paper. Mr Delargy: I absolutely agree with the Member. Political leadership has been touched on today, and I was going to ask about that if I had been allowed an intervention earlier. I very much welcome Mr Durkan's comments today. Mr Durkan: Will the Member give way? Mr Delargy: I will finish this point. I very much welcome Mr Durkan's comments today, but I ask this: why, over the two weeks of the bonfire being built in Derry, was there no public comment from our SDLP MP? There was nothing for two weeks. I am more than happy to give way. Mr Durkan: I thank the Member for giving way. I cannot comment on the lack of comment from anyone else. However, the Member will be aware — his councillor colleagues who sit on the council's bonfire working group certainly will be — that there had been an agreement in place not to make any public comment on the bonfire in the Bogside. That was initially broken by Gary Middleton, and Sinn Féin responded. There was subsequently public condemnation and criticism from me and my colleagues. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Will Members resume their seats? I will make something clear that I would expect every Member to know. Members of Parliament are not here to answer any queries about their performance, and nobody should seek to answer on their behalf. In the past two or three minutes alone, I have asked a number of times that Members return to the subject that is clearly laid out in the motion. I will move on to the next contributor, who is Phillip Brett. Mr Brett: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As someone who proudly attends 11 July celebrations, I can confidently and clearly say, as my party has consistently said, that the burning of flags, election posters or other offensive material is wrong, it always has been wrong, and it will never have my party's support. My community and I are proud enough of our traditions that we do not need to denigrate anyone else's to raise ours up. However, I fear that the motion is a blanket attempt to class all community celebrations across Northern Ireland as sectarian hate fests that the Members who tabled it want to eradicate. They want to eradicate and erode the proud unionist and loyalist traditions across Northern Ireland. There is no mention in the motion of the hundreds of bonfires that take place across Northern Ireland and pass off without incident. There is not one mention of the hundreds of people who engage in positive outlets throughout the year to ensure that our young people can be involved in that proud and historic practice. In my constituency of North Belfast, the transformation of bonfires in recent years has been commendable. We have young people who are being led by those who want to see a positive outlet for their future. In Rathcoole, we have the amazing RATH Community Group that shows our young people that we celebrate our culture and do not demean that of others. Work takes place throughout the length and breadth of North Belfast, but there is no reference to that in the motion. The cat was let out of the bag by the Opposition spokesperson: they do not want to see bonfires taking place — full stop. There is a clear message from these Benches, and, if we are the only party to say it, we will do so happily. There will always be bonfires in Northern Ireland, and my party will continue to support them. Does Ms Armstrong want to intervene, or is she just pulling a face at my comments? Ms K Armstrong: Will the Member give way? Mr Brett: Yes, of course. Ms K Armstrong: I do not know why the Member thinks that I am pulling a face, to be honest. I love the fact that a number of beacons, not bonfires, in my local area are lit regularly. Cultural celebration is nothing to be feared. What is to be feared is the hate fest that comes with it, and I have borne the brunt of several sectarian comments. Does the Member then agree that that needs to stop and be taken away from a cultural expression event? Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute. Mr Brett: If the Member had listened to the first 45 seconds of my remarks, she would know that I made it clear that attacks on any person are reprehensible. I have always stood against attacks on democracy. Unfortunately, others in the Chamber do not have the same record; indeed, they campaigned for terrorists to be released from prison. I turn back to the motion. Actions speak louder than words. We can have all the warm and woolly comments from the Alliance Party, Sinn Féin or the SDLP saying that they support the legitimate expression of culture, but let us look at their actions. In my constituency of North Belfast, Sinn Féin and the SDLP together acted illegally to have the Adam Street bonfire in Tiger's Bay removed because they did not want that small unionist community to be able to celebrate its culture and identity. Their actions were struck down by the High Court. Those were their actions, not their words. In Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council, where we support bonfires that do not have flags or emblems, those parties, along with the Alliance Party, vote every year to remove the funding. Look at actions, not words. In South Belfast, we had great interest in the working-class community of the Village. Of course, there had been no commentary for years from those elected representatives about the lack of social housing in that constituency, which my party has fought for. However, when it comes to bonfires, they all appear, because they want to denigrate the unionist community. The motion tries to nitpick parts of the FICT report in order to denigrate the unionist community. Of course, there is no reference to the FICT study on the removal of illegal monuments, because other parties are happy to support the terrorist shrines across this country, which have a negative impact on community relations. Other Members mentioned the Féile an Phobail organisation but made no comment about its work on bonfires celebrating the IRA or about celebrating the Bayardo bombers and the 50th anniversary of those murders. My party will take no lectures whatever on te legitimate expression of culture and identity from any political party represented in the Chamber. The SDLP, Sinn Féin and the Alliance Party want to use every opportunity in the Chamber to do down unionism. My party will not stand by quietly and allow that to happen. Mr Dickson: Perhaps, I can paint a slightly different picture of where the Alliance Party is coming from in respect of the matters. The Alliance Party has been clear: we recognise the wish of those who want to celebrate their culture with bonfires. At best, bonfires can be a genuine celebration of culture, history and community spirit. They can be opportunities for people to come together to mark that tradition and enjoy an event. However, celebration should never come at the expense of respect, safety or the law. The Alliance Party believes that all bonfires across Northern Ireland must meet those three clear principles: all bonfires must be respectful, safe and lawful. That is a reasonable ask of anyone. First, bonfires need to be respectful. Sadly, this summer, too many were anything but that. We saw sickening displays of effigies of political leaders, election posters of me, my party colleagues and many others in the Chamber and even grotesque racist imagery. In July, a bonfire in Moygashel was used to display and burn an effigy of a migrant boat complete with life-sized, dark-skinned mannequins in life jackets. That was not a celebration of culture; it was a blatant act of racism and hatred. Such displays have no place in any society, let alone a shared one. Secondly, bonfires must be safe. I cannot stress that enough. That is not just about fire safety, although that is critical; it is about protecting nearby homes, businesses, electricity substations and even hospitals. Just this summer, a bonfire in south Belfast that was built alarmingly close to an electricity substation put the supply to two major hospitals under threat. I was a patient in Belfast City Hospital on the day of that fire, and my outpatient appointment had to be transferred to the Royal Victoria Hospital because the City Hospital was under threat as a result of concerns about that substation. That is not just reckless; it is indefensible. We must remember the tragic loss of John Steele, who fell 50 ft to his death from a bonfire in Larne. The safest way forward is to replace the traditional bonfire structure with a prepared beacon, a purpose-built structure that would be safely —. Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way? Mr Dickson: Yes, I will. Mr Brooks: Does the Member recognise that the culture of traditional bonfires is not simply in the lighting of them but about children and young people who, in the weeks before the bonfire is lit, collect material around their communities, bring it to the site and take pride in looking at the event that they have put on for their community, as I did? That is the culture. That is what means so much to many of us. A beacon, while it has its place, replaces all that and takes it away. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute. Mr Dickson: I recognise that children and young people get involved in the collection of wood. That includes vandalising trees and pulling apart pallets and things like that. Mr Brooks: Shame. Mr Dickson: When that includes vandalising trees, pulling apart pallets and doing things like that, then I do not agree with you. Where I do agree with you —. Mr Brooks: Shame. Mr Dickson: Stop shouting "Shame" at me. I agree with you that it is appropriate for young people to collect bonfire material, but let us try and move on to beacons. Mr Brooks: Will the Member —? Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Brooks. Mr Dickson: We are also faced with the problem of toxic fumes from unregulated collected material. Contaminants, even including asbestos, from material such as tyres and plastic often find their way into bonfires, releasing dangerous pollutants into the air. Yes, the Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition has been clear on this: bonfire materials should be "wood only" or beacon-style. That is what we need. Top 4.15 pm Bonfires need to be lawful. Permission from the landowner needs to be granted. Far too many bonfires are erected each year without the consent of the landowner. In my constituency of East Antrim, some bonfires are regarded as being traditional because of their location, but, in reality, permission has never been sought or granted. That not only undermines the rule of law but places the landowner at risk of legal liability. Bonfire organisers who are genuinely proud of demonstrating their culture and who want to produce a responsible bonfire should show respect for the rights of others and ensure that they operate within the law. Let me be clear: bonfires should never be platforms for sectarianism, racism or intimidation. They should not be used to threaten neighbours, mark territory or spread hate. If the organisers seek recognition of their culture, they must respect the rights and dignity of others. The Alliance Party wants bonfires to be genuine cultural celebrations that are lawful, safe and respectful. Until they reach that standard, they will continue to divide and to pose danger and risk to public health and the environment. In a society that is still healing from conflict, we cannot tolerate that. The Alliance Party and I do not wish to do anything other than provide for respectful, safe and lawful bonfires, regardless of community or tradition. This is a cross-departmental issue that all Departments need to engage in. The motion is just a starting point. We need to move — Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up. Mr Dickson: — from where we are now — Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time. Mr Clarke: I did not intend to put my name down to speak in the debate until I listened to some of the rhetoric that came from across the Chamber. The motion is not a serious attempt — it is merely sabre-rattling. When I look at my constituency of South Antrim and, indeed, at Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council — you will be aware of this, Mr Deputy Speaker — I see that, at one point, Antrim led the way in changing how bonfires were built. It removed the tyres. That was community-led. We did not need a dictatorship from the Benches opposite to tell our communities how to do it. They had the wisdom to do it, and they led and did it themselves. I remember that, many years ago, I came into Randalstown one night and saw that the river had changed colour because of the amount of tyres. The community decided to change that. They did not need people, some of them hypocrites, from the Benches opposite, to tell them how to do that. That is the difficulty with the motion. The motion goes on to talk about flags. The Sinn Féin MLA for South Antrim raised an issue around the Twelfth about flags. With his rose-tinted glasses, he saw only flags of one colour. He did not see the offensive flags that were painted on walls and infrastructure in Crumlin — or he ignored them. He was interested only in the flag that represents my community. He raised tensions unnecessarily, when, with the PSNI, we could have had community resolution, which we got previously, but, of course, Sinn Féin was not really interested in resolving those things. It wanted to raise the temperature in the constituency. Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Member for giving way. I come back to the comments from Mr Beattie, who was on the commission, that the FICT report did not make recommendations only on bonfires and flags but covered memorials and murals. Does the Member agree that we need to look at all the recommendations of the FICT report so that we can tackle all the issues together? Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): A reminder that the motion refers to bonfires. I cannot believe that I am reminding Members of that again. I give the Member an extra minute. Mr Clarke: I hate to say it, but the motion refers to the commission on flags — unless you were speaking to your party colleague — which is why I bring flags into the debate. The Member for East Antrim referred to cost and the environmental toxicity of some of these things. That is the whole, sole reason why the council — credit to the then chief executive — led the effort to do away with the tyres, the clean-up costs and the environmental impact on our constituency. Again, I point out that that was community-led and not done by a dictatorship from the Benches opposite. There is a danger that the motion will stoke up tension. It is merely a response to the bonfire in the Bogside. It is interesting that the Member did not make any reference to some of the stuff that was on the bonfire in his constituency. Whilst they may have attacked him personally, they attacked many others as well. We will oppose the motion, because we see it for what it is. It is a sabre-rattling attempt to stoke up tensions and increase them so soon after the marching season and, indeed, the bonfire season. Mr Butler: Like Mr Clarke, I had not intended to speak in the debate, although I am passionate about bonfires. I am possibly one of the most experienced people in the room to talk about them because, as a young person, I built bonfires. That is part of my backstory, my heritage and my culture, and it was something that I thoroughly enjoyed. There was a little bit of debate between Stewart Dickson and Trevor Clarke about young people. I was one of those young people who enjoyed the whole bonfire experience. There are things in the motion that I can agree with. Like Mr Brett, I want to see good bonfires as something that can be celebrated as part of our wider culture. I would go as far as to say that they do not just belong to the Protestant, unionist and loyalist (PUL) community. Whilst perhaps they are more important to that community, they tell a part of our collective story, like it or lump it. That is our background here, guys: we have to share our history. I also wear the hat of having served for 16 years in the Fire and Rescue Service, and I love to hear it being talked about in here. I attended bonfire sites on many nights, whether that was for an inspection or for a response. Mr Clarke: Will the Member give way? Mr Butler: Yes, absolutely. Mr Clarke: I put on record the work that was done by Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council with the Fire and Rescue Service and the Housing Executive around site selection, safety and all the other things. I hope that the Member agrees with me on that. We do not need a motion in order to address that. We need members of the community to address it themselves. I commend the work that those services did with the community to get those resolutions. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute. Mr Butler: I agree with everything that the Member has said. There are around 300 bonfires across Northern Ireland in and around 11 July. Today, while there has not been specific, detailed mention of bonfires, I did a rough count of about four examples — I will say that they were bad examples. I hate to see it, but I have been at bonfires where I have asked and persuaded and stayed for hours to see posters and flags taken off bonfires, because they do not reflect what I believe to be a cherished part of my tradition. That is something that we should all be involved in and not shy away from. I agree with those who have said that, in order to see real success, this has to be bottom-up and not top-down. Why is that? It is because the delivery of the motion by the Sinn Féin Member did not reflect the words in the motion. The Member said that this was about opening up a dialogue, but it is not, because the motion says that it is about implementing part of the FICT report. There was no collective agreement around FICT at the end, because some of those matters proved too difficult for some of the parties. I want to go back to one of the bonfires that was mentioned. Mrs Dillon: Will the Member take an intervention? Mr Butler: Yes, if you are brief. Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. Does the Member agree that it is all very well for all of us who do not have to live beside these bonfire sites to talk about them from an abstract point of view? I dealt with an elderly lady living on her own in Dungannon who, for a number of years, begged the people who were building a bonfire beside her home to stop it. For two weeks every summer, her windows were boarded up. That is how she lived: in a house with wooden boards on her windows. The tiles were melted off her bathroom walls, and the Housing Executive had to come back every year to fix it. That was a ridiculous situation. Mr Butler: Thank you for the intervention. I have no issue if a bonfire is too close to a building. I say that I have no issue: what I mean is that they should be in places where they are at a distance. I did my fire safety engineering exams, and I understand that they should be in places where they are not too close to properties and where nobody is in danger. I would like to see a series of bonfires on the Eleventh night to which tourists can come and at which we can tell our story in a respectful manner. Unfortunately, the motion does not address that, and it also leaves out very important parts of the FICT report that matter to me, as a former prison officer. The motion talks about personal safety, but, unfortunately, there are things in the FICT report about memorials to terrorists that apply to me, given what happened to 32 members of the prison workforce. I would like to see that recommendation in the FICT report brought forward and implemented. Perhaps a motion will be tabled about that at some stage. What we have learnt today from some of the commentary is that we lose sight of all the good that has been done. There is still more to do. I am not speaking as its Chair, but I chair the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee. Part of the Committee's role is to look after the environment. Through what we are doing, I would like to see young people educated on how we can repair the environment. Unless people are serious about having a conversation about how we cherish that part of our culture and save it, rather than, as some Members have said, and, disappointingly, I heard this from someone whom I respect daily, eradicate it in totality, we cannot be part of that conversation. Mr McReynolds: I welcome today's motion and thank the Members who tabled it for debate. I have been involved in politics since 2013 and elected in some capacity since 2017. A phrase that I first heard when I was Deputy Lord Mayor of Belfast was how we in Northern Ireland had "normalised the abnormal" across society here, and I fear that we are hearing some of that in today's debate. Every year, without fail, the same problems arise with illegally erected flags on lamp posts demarcating territory and worrying residents, because no one knows who put them up or why, for how long they will be up or when they will be coming down. The same happens with some bonfires in Northern Ireland that appear on land without permission, contain harmful materials or are too close to residential properties, creating the lunacy of the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service having to hose down buildings, as we have just heard from Mrs Dillon. Bonfires can be positive. They can be a cultural celebration that welcomes all. They can be inclusive. Earlier in the month, the Chief Constable opened his statement to the Northern Ireland Policing Board by praising the effort, commitment and flexibility of his officers as they policed over 300 bonfires across Northern Ireland, with, sadly, 16 causing significant concern. We have seen the positives from adapting Eleventh night celebrations into environmentally and family-friendly events through the beacon programme. My constituency of East Belfast received seven beacons through funding from Belfast City Council. As I said, bonfires can be inclusive, safe cultural celebrations, but, without regulation, very real dangers are becoming more and more prevalent. Only three years ago, we saw a young father fall to his death from a bonfire. This year, in East Belfast, we saw a man sustaining severe and life-changing burns during the lighting of a bonfire. Regulations on health and safety, cultural expression and protecting the environment should not be demonised because of a lack of political leadership, which ignores the society that we should all want to create here and turns a blind eye to illegality. Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way? Mr McReynolds: Two seconds. Sadly, we are seeing it at the moment. We hear condemnation of vigilantes one minute and about legitimate concerns, which are based on misinformation, the next. We need to see political leadership driving change so that everyone celebrates tradition without putting themselves and, crucially, others in danger. There is so much potential for bonfires to be part of safe, family-friendly cultural events, but, without regulation, we limit that potential. Money could be spent on enhancing regulated events and driving tourism. Instead, it is needed for repairs and for the use of public services' time to respond to emergencies created by unregulated events. I say that not to erode culture but to ensure safety when celebrating culture. I support today's motion and its call for bonfire regulations to be introduced to ensure safe celebrations for all. Mr O'Toole: I am listening to the debate and trying to channel the average person watching it with their head in their hands, thinking, "Will we ever make progress in this society?" I say that because the quality of the debate and some of what has been said has been absolutely depressing, it has to be said. [Interruption.] I will happily engage with my DUP colleagues across the Chamber and respond to some of the points that they have made, although that will be in a few minutes. I come on to why the motion is hugely important. Clearly, it speaks to the divisions that we have in our society and to our need to express culture. It is, however, also inevitably a manifestation of the fact that we are still a divided society. It is important to say that the motion does not call on any specific Minister to do anything, despite the fact that the party that tabled the motion is the largest party in the Chamber and the Executive. That is disappointing and speaks to an absence of real leadership. Were there to be a full-blown implementation of FICT, that would have to be led by the First Minister and deputy First Minister. There is no other way for it to happen. Top 4.30 pm We have seen today what the two big parties make of these kinds of divisions. It is a joint determination not to move on and show leadership together but to use the issues to divide, to yell across the Chamber and, ultimately, to find political and electoral benefit from the division in this society. That is what it is all about. Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way? Mr O'Toole: I will give way in one second, when you can peddle some more division. That, ultimately, is what it is all about. It is not about culture or protecting safety; it is about peddling division, important as the issue is. I will give way, because I am sure that Mr Brooks will have something mature and enlightening to say. Mr Brooks: Well, I am not here to peddle division. What I was going to say to you and the Member who spoke before you is that, in my constituency, I have worked with bonfire builders in Clonduff, Orangefield and Cregagh, where we faced some of those issues and worked with the Legacy Network and the EastSide Partnership. Mr McReynolds did not take an intervention to be asked this question, but I will ask you it: how many of those communities or similar ones in your community do you work with, have you engaged with or have you talked to? Mr O'Toole: Let me answer that point. That drivel is thrown at parties such as mine all the time, including by Members — [Inaudible.] Mr O'Toole: Hang on one second. Mr Clarke is shouting across the Chamber at me. Earlier this summer, there was a bonfire in Meridi Street off the Donegall Road. It was mentioned earlier. Next to it were tons upon tons of asbestos. You are shaking your head: do you deny that there were tons of asbestos lying off the Donegall Road? Is that valid? [Inaudible.] Mr O'Toole: Oh, you are not allowed to talk about fact. I corresponded — Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Order, Members. Comments will be made through the Chair, and Members who are speaking will be heard. Mr O'Toole: I corresponded — Mr Clarke: Will the Member give way? Mr O'Toole: No, I will not give way, because I gave way to your colleague. I have a very short time. I have already let your colleague in. I corresponded on behalf of my constituents on the Donegall Road, and, to answer your question, I have engaged with community groups across my constituency, including those from a loyalist background. When I say that that is a priority for me, I could not be more serious. I care about that tradition, I care about that community, and I want the best for them. That is why I did not want a bonfire to be built next to a big pile of asbestos. I did not want them to get asbestosis, pneumoconiosis and all the carcinogenic complications. I find it astonishing that I was called some kind of angry, bitter, republican activist because I did not want my constituents to breathe in that stuff. It is a tragedy for unionism that it finds itself in that position: a tragedy. That bonfire should not have gone on. I have to address a point that was made. I engaged with the Environment Minister. Mr Clarke: Will the Member give way? Mr O'Toole: No, I will not give way, because I have a very short time. The Environment Minister did not speak about the bonfire until 48 or even 24 hours before it was built. With the greatest respect to him, that would not have happened were it not for my party standing up and talking about the issue. That was the SDLP using our role to speak on behalf of people in that community. Let me tell you this: my office had calls from people in the Village — working-class people who live in that loyalist community — who said, "Thank you for speaking up about this", in part because other people did not. On the broader point about bonfire regulation, I want people to enjoy bonfires safely. I will not be going to them every day of the week, but I want my constituents and others across the region to enjoy them. People enjoy them: I respect that, but that cannot legitimate hate. What was displayed at Moygashel was the most disgusting, revolting hate and racism. By the way, it is a disgraceful slur on ordinary working-class unionists and working-class communities in general to say that that behaviour is some kind of legitimate expression of culture. The answer to all that is, yes, implementing the findings of the FICT Commission. That will involve joined-up work by the First Minister and deputy First Minister and their parties, not slurs across the Chamber, and a genuine commitment to see one another and one another's culture and to empathise with one another. Sinn Féin's Chief Whip is laughing at me; apparently, it is a bad idea to call for working together. I agree with some of the motion's intent. I wish that there were a specific call, I wish that there were a specific action, and I wish that the debate were somewhat more mature. I genuinely wonder what some of the people watching it, particularly young people, whether they are loyalist young people who want to build a bonfire on the eleventh night and enjoy themselves or young people from any other background, will think. Perhaps young people who are thinking about going to university across the water are listening to the debate and wondering, "Will I ever come back to this place?". They will think, "Do you know what? Maybe I will not". Honestly, we should think about the future and about how we move forward so that loyalist communities and all communities respect one another rather than constantly digging at one another. The quality of the debate has been absolutely depressing, but I hope that we can move on at some point. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, if, when speaking, another Member makes it clear that they are not about to give way, you should not persist in asking. There have been examples of that across the Chamber. It is for each Member to decide whether they will take an intervention. If it is perfectly clear that a Member is not going to take an intervention, those who are asking should desist. Mr Burrows: I agree that the quality of the debate has mostly been substandard. First, I commend the Alliance Party for its strapline. It sums up the issues in one simple four-word phrase: "lawful, safe and respectful". I am delighted that Alliance has borrowed that phrase from me. I used it in an interview with its deputy leader during the summer, and I then started to see it in press releases. I am glad to help the Alliance Party on justice. Getting back to the substance of the motion, I can 100% say, through lived experience, that bottom-up approaches to dealing with bonfires are best. Civic society — I mean those who have elected jobs of leadership, those who are getting paid in councils and, sometimes, those in my old organisation and the 999 services — tends to want to abrogate responsibility to someone else: creating a quango or a commissioner and asking them to deal with it. Generally speaking, they just get paid for not dealing with it. The reality is that things can be done better if everyone rolls their sleeves up. Instead of waiting until the point in the cycle when you are virtually into June, people should plan early and sit down and work with working-class communities, which is often where the issues are, and ask them, "What sites are you planning to use this year?". Let us have a subcommittee of the policing and community safety partnership (PCSP), bring in the Fire and Rescue Service at that stage, before anything is actually built, and then bring in the Police Service and the relevant council. We then need to start agreeing collectively that there are certain things that we will not have. We will have no posters and no hate crime, and we will make sure that the bonfire is a safe distance from houses and that it is of a safe size. We will have an appointed person to set light to it, we will engage with the Fire Service, and we will make sure that there is no sectarian chanting and nothing on it that is a danger to the environment. None of that needs a quango, a commission or a legal framework. That is just the leadership that we never see. Everyone just wants to score points and blame the unionists. Ms Bradshaw: I thank the Member for giving way. In Belfast, we have the bonfire management scheme, and council officials inspect the bonfires right up to the last day. A lot of the political posters and so on are put on in the couple of hours before the bonfires are to be lit. How would you deal with those instances? Mr Burrows: Thank you. Hopefully, with the right leadership, that does not happen, but there are criminal investigations that can be carried out if something crosses the line. That is why, for example — this happens on both sides — when, this summer, a poster of my former colleague Detective Chief Inspector John Caldwell was put up on a bonfire in the Bogside, I was working to get it down, although we could not get it down. That was disgraceful, just as it would be disgraceful if a poster of the Member were put on a bonfire. We in the Ulster Unionist Party have been consistent that both are wrong, but, in my view, this is an attack on culture. It is absolutely an attack on culture. There is something that poisons these debates for the people who are listening, and this point is directly linked to that. There are people who will say, as Members from Sinn Féin said, "Oh, it is a disgrace" when something happens such as the Moygashel bonfire. Yes, it is a disgrace, but it is also a disgrace when people shout, "Ooh, ahh, up the 'RA" and you cannot say that that is wrong. You described the Moygashel bonfire as something that causes fear and anxiety: I agree with you. I hope that those people are arrested, charged and taken to court, but you will sit and justify people saying that burning people in a hotel with a firebomb was necessary. When bonfires are things that we should regulate and burning a hotel is something that we should celebrate, you simply have moral myopia. That poisons the whole debate. I want to look forward, but how can we do that when people immediately get their backs up because they see an agenda? That is the reality. You have no authority or legitimacy when you speak. The Alliance Party, I am afraid to say, while it has a great strapline, tends to be more vocal about issues concerning unionism than those concerning republicanism. I never hear its members on 'Talkback' or 'The Nolan Show', banging the door down to call for investigations when "Ooh aah, up the 'RA" is chanted at the féile. Why can you not show leadership as the party that used to represent the middle ground? You have abdicated that. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Burrows, can we return to the motion? Mr Burrows: We can. I will say this—. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Address the Chair. Mr Burrows: Address the Chair. Sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will always respect the office of the Chair. I apologise for that profusely. The essence is that a little respect in our language towards people who have been badly traumatised and hurt in the past would allow us to have a better and more rational conversation. The way to deal with it is through leadership and from the bottom up. Mrs Dillon: Will the Member give way? Mr Burrows: I will give way in one second. We should not come in with an arbitrary commission or anything else that will just be another quango. That would be to delegate all our responsibilities to someone else. Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for giving way. Feel free, any day, to give that leadership. When people burn bonfires in my town, I am standing in the road, gathering tyres and asking the police and the council to come to collect them. That is showing leadership, and it prevents our young people from putting themselves and the people who live beside the bonfires in danger. That is leadership. Give it an attempt any day you feel like it. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Unfortunately, the intervention has taken up all the time allocated to the Member. Mr Gaston: Here we go again: another day, another lecture from Sinn Féin, aided and abetted by its little helpers in the Alliance Party in taking a swipe and looking down their noses at unionism and, in particular, loyalism. No one believes for one minute that Sinn Féin cares about dangerous bonfires in unionist areas. It is the party that tells us that there was no alternative to La Mon, where 12 innocent people were burned alive. Yet, it suddenly pretends to care about a bonfire in the same constituency as La Mon at which no one was injured, never mind killed. The leader of the Opposition represents the Donegall Road, but the only time that I have heard the words "Sandy Row" cross his lips in this place was last December, when he gave off to me for daring to raise the plight of unionist businesses cut off by Grand Central station. The only time the lofty establishment in South Belfast gets exercised about loyalist areas is when people dare to stand up and celebrate their culture. During the summer, many people rightly asked me this obvious question: why do those people get interested in asbestos only in early July? Why was Boron Developments — coincidently, it lists the wife of the Armagh GAA captain and manager — which owns the site, not forced to clear the site months or years before? As for the outrage about what is burned on bonfires that we have heard today, the hypocrisy absolutely stinks. They are the people who gave artistic licence to Kneecap, who unveiled the mural of a PSNI Land Rover on fire. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Gaston, not for the first time this afternoon, I ask the Member to return to the terms of the motion. Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I take your wisdom and guidance. In England, burning effigies on bonfire night is accepted as a cultural expression. In Lewes, it is even promoted as a tourist attraction. However, when unionists do it, suddenly it is treated as a hate crime. The truth is that the lectures are predictable. The lectures are condescending and are rightly ignored by a community that sees through the hypocrisy of a political class that despises them. Ms K Armstrong: I thank the Member for giving way. As you all know, I represent Strangford, and my office is in Newtownards. I will say clearly that Alliance is made up of unionists, nationalists and people who do not have a constitutional preference. When I am in Newtownards, I serve everyone. The majority of people who come to my office are unionists. This week we spent time going around each of the estates, so I ask the Member to please be careful with his language. Top 4.45 pm Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute. Mr Gaston: Careful about my language? Will any unionist who is in the Alliance Party please step forward? I certainly do not see too many in this Chamber. The motion says nothing about the cultural importance of bonfires to the unionist community. It does not admit that only 18% of unionists support a regulatory commission for bonfires and flags. Without community support, such a system is doomed to failure from the start, and unionists do not need to guess how regulation works: we have already seen it in action. Let us look at the Parades Commission, and at North Antrim in particular. Dunloy Accordion Band can go to the Belfast Tattoo, be rightfully praised by the Sinn Féin Lord Mayor, but it cannot play a hymn, something as simple as 'Jesus Loves Me', while walking up Dunloy Main Street. That exposes the contradiction at the heart of the motion. Republicans believe that unionist culture should be policed by the state, while their culture should be promoted by it. Support of just 15% is enough for Irish language street signs. An Irish Language Commissioner is to be appointed. Meanwhile the Parades Commission bans hymns being played by an accordion band. Now the Assembly, in its wisdom — my goodness, nobody knows better than the Assembly — calls for yet another part of unionist culture to be policed. My culture does not need Sinn Féin's permission. My community sees through the hypocrisy of the nationalist/republican agenda, which flows from the House. We will not be lectured by those who excuse firebombs while they condemn pallets being burnt on a bonfire. Mr Carroll: The victim mentality of the unionist parties has gone to a different level in the debate, and not for the first time this evening. Illegal and unregulated —. A Member: Will the Member give way? Mr Carroll: I have just started. Maybe if you wait a second. Illegal and unregulated bonfires are annual reminders that the threat of loyalist violence and intimidation is still, unfortunately, with us. Every summer, like clockwork, sectarian tensions are heightened. For all the talk about peace and reconciliation, loyalist paramilitaries clearly hold a tight grip on communities. I blame the paramilitaries and not the ordinary working-class Protestant people for the scourge of dangerous and threatening bonfires. The summer saga at the Donegall Road bonfire was a clear example of the absurdity of politics in the North. That bonfire is at an interface site, smack bang in the middle of neighbourhoods blighted by poverty, alienation and decades of sectarian division: something that I talk about all the time. We witnessed a toxic mix of asbestos, a health and safety nightmare, fused with sectarianism. I live a stone's throw away from that bonfire. None of the Members to my right lives near it, and I was concerned, then as I am now, about the impact that that bonfire being burnt at a site covered with asbestos will have on my family and my neighbours, and on my neighbours in a different constituency across the way. Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way? Mr Carroll: Sure, I will give way. Mr Gaston: Since the Member lives so close to the bonfire site, when did he first start to raise concerns about it? Now that 12 July has passed, do those concerns still exist? What has he done about it since then? Mr Carroll: I have been raising concerns about asbestos in that general area for quite some time. If he checks the 'The Irish News', he will see that I spoke about asbestos at the Broadway Tower site earlier this year, before July. You cannot pick and choose. That was a terrible attempt at deflection but, anyway, I proceed. That bonfire should not have been lit, but the obvious question is why was it allowed to be erected in the first place? I imagine that unionists like Mr Gaston and others would be aghast if attempts were made to prevent it from even being built. The NIEA has launched a criminal investigation into the presence of asbestos on that site, and I sincerely hope that all the asbestos has been removed, and the Executive should confirm whether that is the case. I am happy to give way to anybody on that issue. I fear, however, that the damage has already been done and, as we have heard, sustained exposure to asbestos particles in the air damages lungs and causes cancer. That is well documented. I fear that more working-class people will be consigned to that fate, and because it is the health of working-class people, it is seen to be OK, justified and justifiable, which is sickening. I have written to the First Minister and the deputy First Minister demanding that a task force be set up to assess the health impacts of that toxic bonfire. It is not just about what happened in July but about what happens after July. Before the next attempt to erect a bonfire, there needs to be some kind of investigation into the health impacts on working-class people, not just from the Iveagh and St James's areas but from the Village, Sandy Row and elsewhere, who are affected by the fumes and the presence of a bonfire on an asbestos site. Bonkers indeed. It should also involve engagement with clinicians, who are the best-placed people to understand and treat any long-term health impacts on working-class communities who already suffer from, as I say, unacceptable health inequalities. It would be foolish not to mention the role played by politicians in the community and Stormont in courting, funding and protecting loyalist paramilitaries, in particular, for many decades. Those figures should have been shunned; instead, the red carpet and funding were rolled out to them. Over the summer, we also witnessed the disgraceful and despicable burning of effigies of migrants and asylum seekers. That is not legitimate political or cultural expression; it is disgusting hatred that needs to be condemned. Yet, year after year, political leaders give the green light to hatred and division of that kind. The deprivation ushered in by both Westminster and Stormont has created the conditions for racism and sectarianism to thrive. Normal politics at Stormont, Westminster and the Dáil has failed people right across the island. We should all be angry about poverty, the housing crisis, violence against women and many other issues that are faced by deprived communities. Unfortunately, far right agitators and paramilitaries want to control the narrative around the problems that are faced by our communities. They weaponise genuine feelings of despair and frustration for their own gain to scapegoat migrants and marginalised people for their own failings. Unique —. Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way? Mr Carroll: Go ahead. Mr Brooks: The Member paints himself and his party's members as spokespeople for the working class on both sides of the community, yet he seems to be denigrating people. Large crowds attend those bonfires, but they all seem to be being painted as paramilitaries. As someone who paints himself in that regard, do you engage with those communities? Have you talked to the communities in Sandy Row, particularly about the bonfire? Do you not think that the majority want that bonfire? Mr Carroll: I remind the Member that my constituency takes in a large part of the Shankill Road. I let the Member know that my party, alongside trade unions, organised a significant march in 2019 of trade unionists and workers from the Shankill Leisure Centre, up through Lanark Way and down the Falls Road, against the privatisation of leisure. I invite the Member to give me one example of his party uniting working-class people of any stripe for any occasion across east Belfast, west Belfast or south Belfast. He is unable to. [Interruption.] On that point, I will emphasis that unity and the working-class struggle is the key to overcoming the division that the Member is happy to stoke. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I now call Deirdre Hargey to conclude and wind up the debate on the motion. You have up to 10 minutes. Miss Hargey: Thanks very much. Thank you to everybody who spoke on today's motion. I listened intently, even to those with whom I may not directly agree. We will have differing opinions and views. Do you know what? That is OK. That is what a political Chamber is for. Once the summer months are over, we often forget about and move on from the issue of bonfires and the matters that pertain to them. By "we", I mean not just politicians but the agencies, which, I am sure, give a sigh of relief once July and August are over and the bonfires are forgotten about. However, the residents and those impacted on do not forget about them. They probably live in fear as they anticipate more going up the following year. It is important that we do not leave it until May and June of next year and that we try to engage on and look at the issues. It is in that context that we tabled the motion. It is important that we have a unified voice, and I still have hope that we can have a unified voice on the motion. I do not believe that it is a contentious motion or an attack on culture. Nowhere in the motion have we said that we do not want to see bonfires. Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way? Miss Hargey: Yes, go on ahead. Mr Burrows: The Member asked for a unified voice. There has been a unified voice from this side of the Chamber that the Moygashel bonfire, with migrants in a dinghy, was wrong, should not have happened and should be condemned. Will she join that unified voice and say that shouting "Ooh aah, up the 'RA" at republican festivals is wrong and should be condemned? Miss Hargey: We are here to talk about the motion on the regulation of bonfires. [Interruption.] If you want to talk about other issues, I am happy to engage on those issues. Mr Gaston is laughing, but he does not even talk to any of us in the corridor or wish to engage, so how can we overcome contentious issues if he will not even sit down with other people who are elected to the House and have conversations and engage with them? I am willing to do that. The question is this: is he? I am willing to look at that. I do not believe that the motion is an attack on culture. I believe that it is a logical and common-sense approach that focuses on public safety, of life and property, and on limiting the impact on environmental damage. It focuses on an end to sectarian and racist displays. I do not care whether that is a bonfire in a loyalist community or one in a republican/nationalist community. Such displays are disgraceful. They should not happen, and we should all work to ensure that they are removed. The motion is also about the location of bonfires. Some are deliberately built in interface areas. The Adam Street bonfire was mentioned earlier, and there was criticism of it. If, however, Members look at the judgement from Justice Horner pertaining to the clear ground rules that need to be in place for bonfires, particularly where their location is contentious, they will see that he said, in summary, that there should be clear ground rules for their construction, size and, importantly, location. I believe that bonfires or any such structures should not be built at interface or flashpoint areas, because their being built there is about trying to create contention, and that is what has happened in places such as Adam Street. I therefore stand over the action that has been taken on those issues. Our focus is not on every bonfire. It is on some bonfires at which such issues have manifested themselves. As I said, those issues include bonfires being built at particular locations and at interfaces, health and safety concerns, environmental damage and displays of hate. It is, however, important to praise good work as well, and we have done so in the past. I have praised the good work that has been done in the Woodvale area. I have praised the good work that has been done by Féile na hAbhann in my constituency of South Belfast, which translates as the "Festival of the River". In that community, the work is to replace unwanted bonfires, but the Woodvale bonfire is about how that community wants to celebrate its culture. Indeed, Belfast City Council has supported both programmes and got broad party support for them. They are models of good practice, and it is important to speak about those models of good practice. Our motion calls for people to act within the confines of existing laws and for regulation to oversee bonfires. I believe that, with community engagement and participation, regulation can work. Regulation can also give communities clarity. That is important. If they believe that bonfires are an important part of their culture, and they want to continue to have them, they will see that regulation is not a dictatorship. It can give clarity to those communities on how they can keep within the confines of the law and enjoy their day by doing so. I come from a working-class community. I still live in the community in which I was born and bred. My background is in community organising, and I do not believe for one minute that any type of regulation, whether it is on bonfires or children's safety at summer schemes, or anything else, is top-down. It can be bottom-up, and, as such, it can provide clarity. Mrs Dodds: Will the Member give way? Miss Hargey: I will give way in a moment. I want to move on a bit. The issues have been highlighted, and many Members have talked about FICT report that was published a number of years ago. I agree that we need to see the establishment of the working group. Its remit is to implement the FICT report's recommendations. I agree with the parties that are calling for that to happen, but the reality is that there is a party in the Executive that is blocking it, and it is not Sinn Féin. We want the working group to be established. We want it to take forward the recommendations laid out in the FICT report, and if there are concerns or contentious issues, we have to get around the table and discuss them. If we do not establish the working group, how are we ever going to move the issues forward? There was also the Tom Frawley report, which was commissioned by Belfast City Council in 2017. That was a comprehensive report. If you have not read it, I recommend that you do. Both those reports outline the legal and legislative frameworks that we are working under, and which pertain to bonfires and how they take place, set within a regulatory framework. We also need agencies to take more action in adherence to the laws that are already in place. Top 5.00 pm I have engaged with the PSNI on the issue of asbestos and toxic materials at the Donegall Road site — I know that the issue has gone to the AERA Minister. It is a disgrace — there is no point in saying anything different — that those materials have been allowed to stay there for over 10 years. It is a disgrace on the agencies and others who have allowed that to happen. I say, again, that we need to see those materials removed without further delay. It is not just about the bonfire. I am still concerned about the impact that those toxic materials — asbestos and others — have on the residents who live adjacent to the site and in the broader community. It is unacceptable. We have seen unacceptable racist and sectarian displays of hate. They also need to be challenged robustly. I want people to enjoy their cultural festivities, and to go out and have a good day. I heard what Phillip said. We do not follow each other on Facebook, but he appeared on my Facebook feed on 12 July. He was out having good fun. It looked like a good family fun day. It is like what we run in my community in August. However, I want to make sure that we do it in a safe way, and that we are not breaking laws that are already in place — be that by trespassing on property for which you do not have permission or by burning displays of hate. Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way? Miss Hargey: Yes, of course. Mrs Dodds: Aw. Miss Hargey: Sorry, Diane. Mr Brooks: Sorry, Diane. Does the Member recognise that any sort of regulation on this — I do not think that it is workable — has to have the support of the communities? Does she understand that the experience of working-class unionist communities, in particular, of the Parades Commission means that they do not have confidence that regulation that is imposed by this place will be fair or level-minded? Miss Hargey: With the establishment of the working group that was set out in the FICT report, we could start to bring forward those issues and see what a regulatory framework would look like. From a working-class point of view, that would help to give clarity, because it would clearly set out the ground rules for those who want to have the structures, and ensure that that is done safely. That would take the contention out of it. Tom Frawley said that. The FICT report said that, and Justice Horner said that in his summing up on the Adam Street bonfire. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up. Miss Hargey: We can find a unified voice on these issues and give clarity. I commend the motion. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you for concluding the debate. Question put. The Assembly divided: Ayes 46; Noes 31 AYES Dr Archibald, Ms K Armstrong, Mr Baker, Mr Boylan, Ms Bradshaw, Miss Brogan, Mr Carroll, Mr Delargy, Mr Dickson, Mrs Dillon, Miss Dolan, Mr Donnelly, Mr Durkan, Ms Egan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Finnegan, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Mrs Guy, Miss Hargey, Mr Honeyford, Mr Kearney, Mr Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Miss McAllister, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McMurray, Mr McNulty, Mr McReynolds, Mrs Mason, Ms Mulholland, Ms Murphy, Ms Nicholl, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs O'Neill, Ms Reilly, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Ms Sugden, Mr Tennyson Tellers for the Ayes: Miss Brogan, Mr Delargy NOES Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Ms D Armstrong, Mr Beattie, Mr Brett, Mr Brooks, Ms Brownlee, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Ms Bunting, Mr Burrows, Mr Butler, Mrs Cameron, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mrs Erskine, Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew, Mr Gaston, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Irwin, Mr Kingston, Mrs Little-Pengelly, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Martin, Mr Middleton, Mr Robinson, Mr Stewart Tellers for the Noes: Mr Brooks, Ms Brownlee Ms Bradshaw acted as a proxy for Ms Nicholl. Mr Clarke acted as a proxy for Mrs Erskine. Question accordingly agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly notes that the summer has again seen illegal and unregulated bonfires on contaminated land, placed dangerously close to hospitals and used as platforms for racist and sectarian displays; further notes that the Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition (FICT) report set out a framework to regulate bonfires, including limits on the materials that can be used, the distance that bonfires can be placed from physical structures and the prevention of flags, emblems and election posters being displayed and burnt; and calls for the implementation of the commission’s recommendations to put in place bonfire regulations that prevent threats to public safety, pollution to the environment and attempts to spread hate. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, please take your ease before the next item of business. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Dr Aiken] in the Chair) Sectarian and Racist Intimidation Ms K Armstrong: I beg to move That this Assembly condemns all sectarian and racist attacks on individuals and their homes; recognises the need for elected representatives to speak clearly and unequivocally on behalf of the victims and to be responsible in the language that they use in the aftermath of such attacks; expresses frustration at the ongoing delay by the Executive Office to bring forward a refreshed good relations strategy as a successor to Together: Building a United Community (T:BUC) to address sectarianism and racism through a whole-community approach; acknowledges that there is a housing crisis that requires urgent cross-departmental interventions to remove barriers to building more social and affordable homes; and calls on the Minister for Communities to outline what specific action his Department is undertaking to focus resources to deliver housing for all, based on the community safety framework that is designed to protect people who are being targeted in their own homes. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Business Committee has agreed to allocate up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes. Ms K Armstrong: Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to propose this very serious motion. I urge every Member present to consider not just what is said in the Chamber but what it means outside this place, in the homes, on the streets and in the lives of people who feel unsafe simply because of who they are or where they live. I ask everyone in the Chamber today to support the motion and to vote for it, because we must act, we must act together and we must act now. I am very grateful for the statement that came out of the Executive confirming that all Executive parties have condemned all racially motivated violence. I am sure that the Opposition, although they are not in the Executive, concur with that, as do People Before Profit, our independent Member and the TUV. What has happened this year across Northern Ireland has been disgusting. No one should fear that they are going to be attacked simply because of the colour of their skin. No one should be left wondering whether it is safe for them to walk through their community. As an Assembly, we cannot just condemn what has happened and move on. We need to see politicians taking leadership, making brave decisions and actually tackling the root causes of what has happened across Northern Ireland. In recent months, particularly in places such as Ballymena, Belfast and other towns and cities, there have been multiple reports of sectarian and racist intimidation and attacks on individuals and homes — windows smashed, threats made and people terrified in their own neighbourhoods. Some have had to flee their homes, and some are left wondering at what point their identity, their accent or who they are might be enough to make them a target. Sadly, these are not isolated incidents. They are symptoms of deeper tensions and of the absence, in places, of a strategy to protect people, promote shared understanding and confront hatred. As elected representatives, we must speak clearly and unequivocally on behalf of all those victims. It is not enough to say that we condemn without naming what we condemn: sectarianism, racism, hate, intimidation and violence in all its forms. People in our community need to know that we, their political representatives, see them and not just the criminals; that we mean what we say; that we will follow our words with action; and that, when someone's home is attacked because of who they are, be it because of their race, religion or ethnicity, politicians will not equivocate. We must take responsibility for the language that we use, and we must call out behaviour that seeks to divide, intimidate or threaten. Targeting anyone with violence is wrong, full stop. I am a bit disappointed that the Executive Office is taking so long to bring forward its refreshed good relations strategy. It is a successor to Together: Building a United Community, which was itself intended to tackle sectarianism and racism through adopting a whole-community approach. While our community faces division, violence and tension, we are still waiting for the new strategy. We need it now more than ever. Without it, we have no cohesive strategic framework that is grounded in clear actions, measurable targets and accountability. Without it, we are fighting individual fires rather than preventing them. Without it, we will not identify programmes to be funded throughout the upcoming multi-year Budget. The delay is not simply a bureaucratic failing. It is a failure, and, sadly, it comes with a human cost. As the Minister will know, we are in the grip of a housing crisis. Families need safe, affordable homes that are secure and that are in communities in which they can stay. They need homes that are not just a roof over their head but a refuge from fear. Poor housing, a shortage of social and affordable housing and barriers to building more new houses are not just infrastructure issues but matters of safety, community cohesion and equality. When people are pushed into overcrowded, substandard housing or into areas with tensions, when waiting lists stretch and when affordability is out of reach, that heightens resentment and anxiety and can even feed into hate and misinformation. It provides the far right antagonists with an audience that turns on people in the community instead of pointing fingers at us, the politicians, who are failing to meet housing and other needs. The motion calls on the Minister for Communities: "to outline what specific action his Department is undertaking to focus resources to deliver housing for all, based on the community safety framework that is designed to protect people who are being targeted in their own homes." I read with much interest the departmental business plan for 2025-26, and an objective in it highlights the fact that there will be action taken to: "Recognise diversity, tackle poverty, encourage participation in society and promote social inclusion to create a society of respect and acceptance." I am slightly disappointed, however, when it comes to the activities that are mentioned under that heading. It talks about things that we all agree are important, such as fuel poverty, the disability strategy and actions to progress sign language, but, to be honest, if we are going to talk about social value, we need a clear plan, with a funding timeline and accountability for the new good relations strategy and with tangible actions that address sectarianism and racism. That is not for the Minister to deliver on his own, because it is an Executive strategy. We need stronger use of the community safety framework to identify risk zones, to support those who are targeted and to ensure that police and community safety agencies act swiftly to prevent escalation. We need specific housing interventions. Social houses need to be built, and we need to make housing-for-all developments the standard. Rented properties need to be affordable. Homelessness needs to be mitigated, and barriers to planning, finance and funding need to be removed, as does bureaucracy. Those are all things what we can do to support the Minister for Communities. There should be cross-departmental coordination to help communities, the environment, social development and justice. All Departments must play their part. Crucially, if he is funded to do so, the Minister for Communities has the opportunity to step up and meet the objective in the business plan that will allow him to deliver community programmes that help bring about a more inclusive and welcoming society. That means investing in grassroots initiatives, shared spaces and youth and cultural programmes that bring people together rather than dividing them. If we want people to feel safe in their homes, we must also ensure that they feel safe in their neighbourhood, in their community and in the daily fabric of life. Top 5.30 pm Making Northern Ireland work is as much about building a society where we are all respected and included as it is about developing the economy. There is no place in our community for hate, xenophobia, racism or Islamophobia. That has to stop. Certainly, my thoughts are with all those who have been impacted by the targeted violence and intimidation. The House stands with you. The motion is not about scoring political points. I am confident that all Members will agree with me when I say that we are all opposed to the violence that we have seen reported in our newspapers, on TV and on social media. It is about protecting people and publicly recognising that the fear that many people live with is real. It is about demonstrating leadership, not waiting for things to get worse. To be clear, the tensions that we see in our community are not caused by the people who have come to live there; they exist because our community needs more resources and help. They are about people not having housing or access to enough money to pay for food, as we have heard from the Trussell Trust, which has released its 'Hunger in the UK' report. In Northern Ireland, 130,000 children are going hungry, and 520,000 are in food insecurity. I ask everyone to come together in the Assembly to vote in favour of the motion, because we all must condemn sectarian and racist attacks not just in words but with commitment and because we recognise that elected representatives must be clear, unequivocal and consistent in their language, especially in the aftermath of attacks. Communities need a refreshed good relations strategy with tangible actions now, because there is a housing crisis that demands urgent cross-departmental interventions. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about what is happening on that. Minister, I appreciate that you have responsibility for housing, but you also have a responsibility to help to build a truly inclusive and welcoming society. I hope to hear today the specific actions that you and your Department are delivering to stop the spread of hate and disinformation and the breakdown of community cohesion. Let us show that the Assembly can act. Let us show compassion, leadership and moral clarity. Let us vote for the motion for the safety, dignity and future of every person in Northern Ireland, irrespective of their background. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Kellie. I call Colm Gildernew. Colm, I remind you that you have five minutes. Mr Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. [Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.] I thank the Members who tabled the motion on such an important issue. In June this year, racist intimidation took place on the streets of Ballymena, Larne and other places in some of the worst racially motivated riots that the North has ever seen. In the months since, there have been concerning sectarian and racist attacks in Belfast and other places that have left whole communities living in fear and driven some families from their homes. Let me be very clear: those attacks are unacceptable and disgraceful, and they must stop. We must be unequivocal in our condemnation of those attacks and do all that we can to support the families who were targeted. Racism and sectarianism have no place in our society, and we all have a duty to face down the individuals and organisations responsible for sowing the seeds of hatred and division. A chairde, [Translation: Friends,] figures released by the PSNI last month show that the number of recorded race hate crimes is at an all-time high, with 1,329 recorded incidents. That is an increase of 48% on the previous year. As someone who lives in a constituency with an ethnically diverse population, I know all too well the positive contribution and value that people from different backgrounds make to our communities every day. Many of our businesses benefit from the skills, experience, energy and commitment that people from overseas bring with them, and the same can be said of our health service. I also know that they and their children bring huge dynamism and energy to our schools, sports clubs and wider communities. We value all of that. I condemn the appalling ongoing situation in the lower Oldpark area of north Belfast, where sectarian and racist attacks have been carried out on the homes of Catholic and ethnic minority families, forcing them to flee the area. My thoughts are with all those who have been affected. It is widely believed that loyalist paramilitaries are coordinating those attacks. It is clear that those responsible see Catholics and ethnic minorities as legitimate targets for attack. We have seen windows smashed and cars damaged, and, unfortunately, death threats have been made against young families with children. That robs families and young children not only of their home but of the sense of safety, security and sanctuary that we all expect to experience and, indeed, take for granted. Mr Carroll: I thank the Member for giving way, and I join in his condemnation of the disgraceful events in north Belfast and elsewhere. Does he agree that those unfortunate and disgraceful attacks and intimidation should focus the Minister's mind on his disgraceful decision to remove intimidation points from people who are on the housing waiting list? Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Colm, you have an extra minute. Mr Gildernew: Thank you. I would be keen to hear the Minister talk about a review of that decision, how its implementation is playing out and his thoughts on it. We also need to see the PSNI step up its action and bring those responsible before the courts. The motion calls for political leaders to use their platforms to call out the attacks. It is disappointing that the Minister for Communities has not been overly vocal in condemning them. After what happened in Ballymena and Larne, the Minister should reflect —. Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): Will the Member give way? Mr Gildernew: I will. Mr Lyons: It is absolutely disgraceful to imply in any way that I have not condemned all the violence that has taken place. I have done that on multiple occasions in the House and in the media. It is outrageous for the Member to say what he just said. At a time when we should come together and take the opportunity to unite as an Assembly and Executive to send a clear message, he has failed to do so. Outrageous stuff. Mr Gildernew: I have to say, Minister, that I think that, at the time of the riots — the incidents in Larne in particular — you failed to speak out strongly and clearly in a way. Many people believe that. The Minister should reflect on the responsibility that he carries for communities and how his words matter. The Minister also has responsibility for housing and therefore has a duty to support victims of intimidation in securing accommodation. Perhaps he can give us an update on any involvement or contact that he has had since with the victims of the recent intimidation and, importantly, tell us what he will do to ensure that those who seek to create a fully segregated housing system do not succeed. Mr Frew: I thank Kellie Armstrong, the Member from Alliance who moved the motion. I listened intently to her speech. I must say that I agreed with the vast majority of it. I thank her for the tone in which she opened the debate, because this is an opportunity for us to unite as an Assembly to condemn violence, specifically the sectarian and racist attacks on individuals and their homes. My constituency has also borne the brunt of some really atrocious attacks in the past number of months. At that time, I felt that, when people talked in generalisms, it did a great disservice to working-class areas and our host communities on the underlying issues that they face. I felt aggrieved about the generalisation of some of the concerns that people were intimating to the media and to me at that time. It is a complicated and multifaceted issue. That is why it has been put in the Programme for Government, one priority of which is "Safer Communities". Because it is in the Programme for Government, there is no doubt that dealing with it is a multi-agency and multi-departmental issue. I will be critical of the motion, because the Alliance Party had a big opportunity with it, given the role that the Justice Department has to play in the community safety framework. The motion refers to the community safety framework. It asks the Minister for Communities: "to outline what specific action his Department is undertaking to focus resources to deliver housing for all, based on the community safety framework that is designed to protect people who are being targeted in their own homes." I have no doubt that the Minister for Communities will be able to do so and provide that assurance to the House and to the mover of the motion, but there has been a missed opportunity. The motion could have called on the Executive to work better together through the community safety framework. Typing "community safety framework" in a search takes you to two Departments: the Department for Communities and the Department of Justice. There, you can clearly see that the purpose of the community safety framework is: "to ensure effective connectivity between the community safety work of the responsible agencies and provide an operational roadmap on how to collectively deliver the safer community objectives set out in the PfG and Community Plans, whilst providing the mechanism to respond proactively and reactively to operational need." The bodies that make up the membership of the community safety strategic delivery board include the Department of Justice, the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the Education Authority, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, the Probation Board for Northern Ireland, the Youth Justice Agency, the Northern Ireland Policing Board, the Executive Office, the Department for Communities, the Northern Ireland Office, the Department of Health and the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE). I will make the point that I have been echoing since the violence erupted in Northern Ireland in the summer. One real, tangible way of delivering for our people and host communities and for newcomers is to put together a multi-agency task force in each area that includes not only all the Departments in the Executive that have a role to play and all the local government agencies that have a role on the ground but the NIO and the Home Office, which is responsible for immigration. That is our only way of being able to put support and resource on the ground to ensure that the violence that we experienced will never happen again. Mr Allen: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion. At the heart of it lies an unacceptable reality: in 2025, people in Northern Ireland are still being intimidated and targeted in their homes. Whether the attacks are sectarian or racist, they are criminal acts and a direct assault on the values of respect, tolerance and peace that so many worked hard to build. They are often carried out by self-appointed brigadiers and their henchmen to intimidate and control. That is shameful and must be condemned without hesitation, but words alone will never be enough. That is why anyone with information must come forward. The police cannot act on whispers; they need facts and evidence. If we are serious about stopping the unacceptable behaviour, communities must be supported to play their part in bringing perpetrators to account. Here lies a deeper problem: too often, victims feel that the justice system is not on their side. Cases drag on, resources are stretched, and confidence in the system is low. We need a justice system that is not only visible and quick to respond but sends a clear message that such behaviour will not be tolerated. Condemnation must be matched with action. A refreshed good relations strategy is long overdue, and, while it is welcome that the Executive Office is committed to bringing it forward, it cannot stand alone. We need a strong and properly resourced multi-agency approach, as the Member who spoke previously highlighted. Policing, housing, community safety and good relations overlap. When individuals and families are forced from their homes by intimidation, it is not just a housing matter but a justice matter. We cannot ignore the wider housing crisis, which the latter part of the motion highlights. As we have often heard in debate, individuals and families across Northern Ireland wait far too long for a secure and affordable home. I see that daily in my constituency office, as, I am sure, do other Members. That shortage creates pressure that others exploit, as I have already set out. The Minister has taken some positive steps, which are welcome, but no one would pretend that they are enough. I look forward to hearing what further action the Minister plans to take to deliver more homes. This is not simply about housing or community relations in isolation. It is about how we, as an Assembly, send a clear and united message that sectarian and racist attacks will not be tolerated and that the perpetrators will face robust justice. Top 5.45 pm Mr O'Toole: I am pleased to debate the motion, and I hope that, unlike in the previous debate, we can maintain some degree of equanimity. I do not think that equanimity needs to mean perfect agreement or, necessarily, that calmness or consensus is always evidence of progress. There are issues where we need to be respectful but also challenging. It has been often said to me in TV studios and, sometimes, online or in person, that people like me, who are very robust when it comes to their anti-racism and anti-sectarianism, are somehow delegitimising the views of "ordinary decent people" who simply have concerns about, for example, migration. Let me say again that no topic of public policy, whether it is the health service, education or, indeed, migration, is a taboo subject. People can talk about it, but what we have seen in Ballymena or on the streets of Belfast, including, last summer, my constituency, is not people having legitimate concerns that they want to debate. Those people went out to loot, riot, do damage to property and injure other human beings. The person in Connswater who tried to lift a person of colour out of their car and the mob who tried to lynch a black man who was trying to deliver food were not, I presume, on their way to a policy discussion. They were not going to a university debating society or a community centre to have a debate only for someone to stop them from airing their legitimate concerns; they were going to express hate. That is what they were doing. We have to be wary about conflating legitimate concerns that people can have about any subject with other matters. The availability of housing is a legitimate concern, specifically when we are, it appears, already failing on our social housing targets. In many of these areas, by the way, housing waiting lists exist, but, in other areas, there is availability of housing that has been bought up and turned into houses in multiple occupation (HMOs). All of those are things that people can debate and talk about, but, whenever that strays into hate mobs and lynching, which we saw in east Belfast, or a virtual attempted pogrom, which we saw in Ballymena, it ceases to be something about which we can say, "Well, there is a legitimate debate to be had". As public representatives, we have to be direct and call it out. When it comes to the Executive Office and T:BUC, by all means, let us hear it see it and debate it. There are two quick points to make. Number one, I am the leader of the Opposition. We are in opposition, and it is our job to be robust and direct. I welcome the fact that there was, at least, the appearance of consistency of response, but it is also important to say that the public do not elect politicians just to engage in rhetoric. People accuse me of engaging in rhetoric sometimes, and that is fair enough. It is my job as leader of the Opposition to challenge and to use rhetoric. The people who are in the Executive and have power are expected to use it. When we came back after the summer, after an attempted pogrom in Ballymena, more sectarian and racist violence in north Belfast and what happened in Connswater and elsewhere, people would have expected a coherent, joined-up response. They simply got a press conference with some platitudes. Those platitudes were better than nothing, but the coherent reaction should have been, number one, what is called for in the motion, which is an updated good relations strategy. That should specifically also have had to look at the activities of loyalist paramilitaries — not just loyalist paramilitaries, if other paramilitaries are involved, but it appears to be a specific issue with loyalist paramilitaries. That brings me back to the point about north Belfast, where there is clearly an issue that the UDA appear to see themselves as some kind of pseudo- or quasi-housing association. I welcome the fact that Andy Allen was direct in calling out the brigadiers who appear to see themselves as commandants of the area and are able to say who does or does not live in a housing estate. We have to be direct about that: people from all parties need to call that out and confront it. We need to see the tackling paramilitarism programme updated so that we can understand how that is happening. I would also like to see the Communities Minister and Housing Executive work with that to get to the heart of what is happening in the communities where loyalist paramilitaries are trying to exert that control. Lastly, it has to be said that, in addition to the Executive Office and the Communities Department, the Justice Minister has a role. Mr McGlone: I thank the Member for giving way. Does the Member agree that part of the strategy will be for the judiciary, so that those found guilty of some of the worst, most obnoxious hate crimes and racist crimes are given increased sentences? That is a key part of all of that to send out a clear message from society. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Matthew, you have an extra minute. Mr O'Toole: Thank you very much. I acknowledge my colleague for intervening with that pertinent point. It is important to say that there is a critical justice component here, so I want to hear from the Justice Minister not just condemnation but clarity on when we will get the sentencing Bill with, apparently, actions on hate crime. That has to be the three-pronged action. Number one: what is happening on good relations and tackling paramilitarism and, by the way, a beefed-up racial strategy? Number two is in relation to housing. Clearly, there are people in those "stakeholder organisations" who are gatekeepers. We all know that those gatekeepers exist. The police engage with them; others engage with them. What action is being taken in relation to housing? Lastly, there is the justice intervention. All those things need to happen. There is more in the motion, but we are content to support the motion as it is, because this is one of the most pressing issues that our society faces right now. Mr McGuigan: Ar dtús báire, ba mhaith liom mo thacaíocht, mo dhlúthpháirtíocht agus mo bhuíochas a chur in iúl do na teaghlaigh agus na daoine sin a thaistil go hÉirinn chun cur lenár sochaí agus iadsan a chuireann fúthu anseo. Níl an ciníochas ná an seicteachas inleithscéil agus níl aon chúis leo inár sochaí. Leithscéal ná cúis ar bith. [Translation: I begin by putting on record my support, solidarity and appreciation to those families and individuals who have travelled to Ireland to contribute to our society and make this place their home. There is no justification or excuse for racism or sectarianism in our society. None whatsoever.] The debate gives me the opportunity to condemn again the racist riots in my constituency in Ballymena in June; the disgraceful attacks on the cars of foreign workers in the town a few weeks ago; and any ongoing scaremongering and intimidation of people in the town or across the constituency and across the North because of the colour of their skin. Those events are a stain on our common humanity and do nothing to help the reputation of Ballymena. The targeting not just of property but of people whose only fault is that they were born elsewhere or look different or speak with unfamiliar accents is abhorrent. On an issue like racism or sectarianism, the leadership given and the tone and nature of public commentary, particularly from political representatives, is vital. Facts are also important. It is a simple fact that immigration to the North brings with it a positive impact on our economy to the tune of many hundreds of millions of pounds. Foreign workers bring many skills and fill many gaps in our labour market. Without them, folks, our economic prosperity would decline, and so would our creaking public services. I bhfeidhm urlabhraí Sláinte Shinn Féin, b'éigean dom ionsaithe agus bagairtí ciníocha ar chuid dár n-oibrithe cúram sláinte a cháineadh le déanaí agus is bocht an scéal é. Tá sé de cheart ag gach duine a bheith sábháilte ina áit oibre, saor ó imní roimh fhoréigean agus imeaglú. [Translation: As Sinn Féin Health spokesperson I have also unfortunately had to recently condemn racist attacks and threats to some of our healthcare workers. Everybody has a right to feel safe in their place of work and to not fear violence or intimidation.] I am not speaking as Chair of the Health Committee, but, because I have had to condemn racist attacks on our healthcare workers recently, it is important that, during the debate, I record my thanks and appreciation to all who come here to provide treatment, care and compassion through the work that they do in our health service and social care service. Their contribution is invaluable. Without foreign doctors, nurses, allied health professionals and ancillary staff, our healthcare system would collapse. If our public services are stretched — they are — immigration is not the reason. A big part — maybe not the whole part but a big part — is because of our connection to Britain and being tied to 15 years of British Government austerity policies. Attacking the PSNI or Fire and Rescue Service, which are there to protect vulnerable people, is not a valid argument if you are concerned about public services. Burning the houses of innocent families with women and children inside will not solve a housing crisis. Refusing the offer of £96,000 of government funding designed to support asylum seekers in the area, as Mid and East Antrim Borough Council did with the support of some who are not in the Chamber but were elected to it, will not help local ratepayers. We must reject the scapegoating and dehumanising of people who come here to make this place their home. Is fearrde don Tuaisceart an éagsúlacht. Cuireann na daoine sin a thig ó náisiúin éile, cuireann siad leis an Tuaisceart; bíonn siad ag obair go crua, agus déanann siad tairbhe dúinn. Ba chóir don iomlán againn, mar sin, fearadh na fáilte a chur rompu. [Translation: The North is made richer by its diversity: by its people who come from different nations, who work hard and who contribute, and they should be made welcome by us all.] Mr Kingston: The violent incidents that created victims this summer were disgraceful. Where they occurred in my constituency, I spent many hours door-knocking, speaking to victims, speaking to other residents and engaging with community groups, the PSNI, the Housing Executive, housing associations, other elected reps, local clergy, council officers and any others who wished to help calm the situation. Where possible, I have done that away from the glare of publicity, but, when necessary, I have spoken publicly to condemn violence and intimidation as wrong, as harmful to the entire community as well as to the victims and as not representing the views of the vast majority of people living in the area. That is my idea of a whole-community approach: meeting and working with people on the ground, being present in the area, engaging with people and monitoring tension, not just preaching from afar through the megaphone of the media. It is clear to me that there is a small, intolerant element that seeks to play on public concerns and grievances in order to increase tension and the potential for intimidation and attacks. For short periods, such people can intimidate others into silence, but it is important that they are not allowed to set the agenda for the whole community. It also does not help when some elected reps are totally dismissive of community concerns, such as concerns about incidents of inappropriate behaviour that have occurred, including indecent exposure and sexual attacks that must be thoroughly investigated, and about the difficulty of securing houses. Those are legitimate concerns. Areas that have suffered from sectarian attacks over many years see the irony and hypocrisy of Sinn Féin and others suddenly having plenty to say about the place when they were silent before. Indeed, Sinn Féin was notable for its silence throughout the summer in response to the issue of groups such as Kneecap and Bob Vylan using platforms to promote intolerance, hatred and incitement. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Brian, please keep to the motion. Mr Kingston: I am keeping to the motion, sir. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): You do not have to call me "sir". You can call me "Deputy Speaker", but do keep to the motion. Mr Kingston: My comments are relevant. Self-appointed patrols, which can be well-meaning, risk raising tensions and can be intimidating for others. Ms K Armstrong: Will the Member give way? Mr Kingston: I will briefly. Ms K Armstrong: I will not take up too much of your time. Does the Member agree that the actions of vigilantes who are going out and asking people for paperwork to prove where they are from are wrong? I do not know anybody who carries paperwork to prove where they are from. Does the Member agree that that has to stop? Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Member has an extra minute. Mr Kingston: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am coming on to that. I recognise that, in some areas, people are well-meaning and wish to prevent crime, but that can be intimidating for others. Some unvetted patrols risk falling on the wrong side of the law when they are not constituted, AccessNI-checked, properly trained or insured yet want to challenge people on the streets, as you said. Indeed, some vigilante patrols have been nothing short of a cover for thuggery and criminal attacks. Policing is the responsibility of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, as the lawful and accountable authority. There is and was always an alternative to violence. It is a pity that not all parties here recognise that fact. Top 6.00 pm The DUP is aware of the massive positive contributions that foreign nationals working and living here make to healthcare, agri-food, business and, indeed, every sector of our society. Notwithstanding our views on the need to deal with the source of illegal immigration, including on a UK-wide basis, there is absolutely no contradiction in our position that the people who are currently in our communities ought to be welcomed and supported whilst also being subject to the rule of law. The needs of people who have lived in an area for generations must continue to be met. However, we are unequivocal that the answer to concerns around community cohesion and the traditional residential character of our communities as a result of illegal immigration is not to attack persons rather than policy. The Democratic Unionist Party remains committed to building a safe and inclusive society in Northern Ireland. Ms Mulholland: We tabled the motion, as my colleague Kellie Armstrong outlined, because no one in this place should ever be attacked in their home because of who they are or things that they cannot control. Sadly, we have seen too many racist and sectarian attacks in recent months. In my constituency, I have worked with pregnant women and their families who had been forced out, children who were left frightened and people who were living in fear, and that is simply unacceptable. As political leaders, we have a duty to stand clearly with victims and to never give cover to the perpetrators. Words matter, but words alone are not enough. We call in the motion for a refreshed good relations strategy to tackle sectarianism and racism, but that needs to be targeted, realistic, resourced and delivered across all Departments, because, as people do not exist in silos, we should not design social policy in silos. As we face the housing crisis, we know that too many people have waited far too long for a safe, affordable home. The attacks that we saw over the summer have only made the situation worse. Conducting hate crimes and intimidating people out of their homes will not solve the housing crisis. Our motion calls for urgent action to protect the people who are targeted but also to deliver housing for all. A comment was made about legitimate concerns and how, when we talk about this, we diminish the concerns that communities feel. I want to be really clear that that is not what this is about. We can talk about the concerns that communities have without ever going down the route that those attacks were legitimate. There is nothing legitimate about targeting a house specifically and solely because of the nationality, race or religious background of the occupant. It is OK for us to say that. Ms Sheerin: I thank the Member for giving way. Does the Member agree that a person's community background, ethnicity or race is absolutely irrelevant to their inappropriate behaviour or whether they are a perpetrator of sexual violence? Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Member has an extra minute. Ms Mulholland: Thank you. Absolutely. Another issue that I want to be very clear on, regarding those who commit crimes in our community, is that we have a justice system for a reason. The vigilantes and the attacks that we saw in my constituency under the guise of protection do nothing to protect our communities; they just perpetuate more trauma and more harm. The motion is about community safety. It is about investing in our communities. It is about having the kind of society where everyone, regardless of skin colour, background or whatever, feels safe, welcome and at home. In my constituency, the impact of the attacks is not just abstract. Children walk past burnt-out cars. People walk to school or work the next morning past horrendous graffiti. People walk past doors that have flags or little posters that denote the nationality of the people living inside, who hope that that will protect their property. The Education Minister confirmed to me that, in the aftermath, 84 pupils at one primary school did not return. That was not just absence; that was trauma. The legacy of those nights is not just wrecked buildings but wrecked childhoods. Unless we break that cycle, another generation will carry that trauma, not to mention those who are being encouraged to get involved in the violence that will then end up wrecking their childhood. I was a youth worker in east Belfast during the flag protests of 2012, and I will never forget a young person saying: "We are encouraged to do this, but it is not them that get the tag on their ankle". That is exactly what is happening again. We are looking, in the broader housing crisis, at nearly 50,000 households that are on a waiting list and nearly 37,000 people who are in housing stress. That was not created by newcomers or immigrant families; it is a direct result of inaction and a lack of investment not just in housing but in our infrastructure and our waste water management. It is also a result of the years during which the Assembly was collapsed, and we have to admit that. When there is no leadership to push change forward, the result is what we are now seeing. That neglect has left us with a broken housing system. The price of delay is always higher than the price of action, whether that be for policing costs, NHS care or the schools that have to invest in more counselling for traumatised children. We are seeing the long-term damage in fractured communities. Supporting the motion is not just a partisan choice; it is a moral necessity. No other mother should have to hide in an attic to save her children from a lynch mob. No other neighbour should be driven out under the cover of darkness because they are really frightened that their car was the first thing to be set on fire but are now afraid that it will be their house. Sectarianism and racism have scarred this place for long enough, and the vast majority of people, including those who contacted me, just want to live and let live in peace and respect. It is time for those voices to prevail. Social media makes it very easy for us to think that the louder voices dominate our society. I know that, in North Antrim, that is absolutely not the case, and that is the society that we should be building together. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Members, I am exercising a grace period of up to 15 minutes to accommodate the number of Members who wish to speak. A grace period of 15 minutes has been added to the session. Miss Hargey: I thank the Members who tabled this important motion. We have seen a stark increase in the number of racist and sectarian attacks on homes and families over the past year. The past year saw the highest number of racially motivated attacks since records on the issue began 21 years ago, so that puts it in context. Last week, North Belfast MLA Carál Ní Chuilín highlighted the ongoing campaign against Catholics and ethnic minorities who live in the lower Oldpark area. I saw attacks in my constituency last year and, indeed, this year, as well as in Ballymena over the summer. The normalisation of that behaviour and the rise of the far right should be an immediate concern for all of us in the Chamber. We know that loyalist paramilitaries have repeatedly been linked to involvement in attacks on ethnic minorities and have a long history of attacks on nationalist residents. The PSNI confirmed that the UDA is behind attempts to intimidate Catholics out of a shared housing site in the lower Oldpark area of north Belfast. A Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ) report from May this year mapped out far right online activity and found that loyalist paramilitary elements are directly orchestrating racist violence and intimidation against migrants. It is also important to recognise the growth of misinformation and disinformation about asylum seekers. In August this year, the DUP MLA for South Belfast falsely claimed that Belfast has the second highest number of asylum seekers of any city in the UK. FactCheckNI fact-checked and debunked that claim. In fact, per capita, Belfast —. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Deirdre, can you bring the debate back to the motion, please? We are straying off it just a wee bit. Miss Hargey: Yes. Belfast houses the thirty-second highest number of asylum seekers in the UK. The point is important because, when you legitimise concerns, as it is called, they become war cries, and we see attacks on the streets. That serves only to inflame tensions. Indeed, when that statement was made, a house was attacked within a couple of days in that same area. The attacks are real, so I call on all elected Members to be accurate with the information that we put out, be it in a video or in the Chamber. We have a responsibility. When you look at last year's racist attacks, you see that almost half of those involved were themselves reported for domestic abuse, yet there is no focus on that or talk about it at all. In my constituency, racist graffiti — "Locals Only" — appeared on a new housing scheme. I, along with local residents and the community organisation, was out within half an hour of that graffiti being reported, and we painted over it. That is the proactive leadership that we need from politicians, community activists and other agencies. We also need to challenge the misinformation that leads to displays of hate. We need to focus people so that, if there are issues around housing — in my community, there are issues — rather than blaming them on somebody else and punching down, we organise those communities into housing campaigns for everybody. The Minister's housing supply strategy talks about safe, affordable housing for everyone. It does not define it as being for this or that section of the community: it is supposed to be for everyone. We see consistent efforts being made to attach the growing right-wing attention on immigration to the housing crisis that we face. While the Labour Party, the Tories and Reform in Britain compete to out do each other on hard-line tactics and rhetoric around immigration and human beings seeking shelter, our primary concern here needs to be for housing for all communities; theirs is a continuing programme of austerity, cutting public services and punching down on minority communities. Today, once again, presents us with an opportunity to call out sectarianism and racism in all its forms and to speak to those families in our communities who are not sleeping, are scared to cross the doorstep and are terrified in their homes because their homes have been attacked. There is no room for equivocation, no ifs and buts. Sectarianism and racism is not complicated: it is wrong. Mr Brett: I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. I associate myself with the remarks made by the proposer of the motion. Ms Armstrong eloquently articulated the views and concerns of Members right across the House that sectarianism, racism, Islamophobia and — I add this as a North Belfast representative — antisemitism have no place in our society. However, we do ourselves and the House a disservice when Members make scripted remarks and are selective in the condemnation of sectarian or racist attacks. My constituency has been mentioned in a number of contributions by Members, and factually inaccurate information has been put out. I make it very clear that the people of North Belfast, of all traditions and none, are not a sectarian people. They are not a racist people. Despite facing the worst brunt of the Troubles, they have a remarkable resilience about how they want to make North Belfast a better place for everyone. I wish that the condemnation by Members of sectarian attacks had some consistency. In my constituency, the Felden development of over 100 homes was an Executive flagship project under Together: Building a United Community. As soon as that development started, no Protestants were allowed. Irish tricolours were erected, and the name of the housing officer who was allocating those houses was sprayed on a wall. Unfortunately, there was no cross-party condemnation of those attacks. No cross-party, multi-agency meetings were called under the glare of the media. There were no self-appointed do-gooders going to the media, making up stories about loyalist paramilitaries, to try to electrify one particular community. Therefore, we do ourselves a disservice when we selectively call out sectarianism or racism. We need to be clear in the House that sectarianism in all its forms needs to be called out, not just when it suits our political agenda. Top 6.15 pm As the debate has gone on, we have, unfortunately, strayed back into the difficult position where anyone who dares raise any issues about immigration is automatically labelled as an extremist or a member of the far right. Let me be very clear: anyone who engages in any form of violence or any form of attack on a minority is absolutely disgraceful. However, if anyone whom I represent comes to me with concerns about a UK-wide immigration policy and wants to protect the borders of their country, I will not allow them to be labelled as a racist or a member of the far right. They have democratic legitimacy to raise their concerns with their elected representatives. It is our duty and moral obligation to articulate those in a democratic setting, and that is what I will continue to do. My party recognises the difficulties that our housing system faces, and that is why my party stepped forward and selected the portfolio of — Miss Hargey: Will the Member give way? Mr Brett: I will happily give way. Miss Hargey: I am glad that you raised the issue of Felden, because that was a disgrace. At the time, Sinn Féin councillor Michael Goodman condemned it, and I know that Stewart Dickson also did so at the time. The one thing that we have called for is that housing be allocated on the basis of need and in an open and fair way. I hope that the Member agrees with that. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Member has an extra minute. Mr Brett: I will always say that housing should be allocated on the basis of need. Unfortunately, the two members of your party who represent the area, Mr Kelly and Ms Ní Chuilín, did not make comment, but a councillor from a different district was wheeled out to make those comments. I will return to the remarks that I was making about why we selected the Communities portfolio. It was because we recognise the vital importance of ensuring that there is affordable and accessible housing for all members of our community. That is why our Communities Minister has taken action by publishing a housing supply strategy, when other Ministers failed to do so. That is why our Minister has taken action on the allocations policy and, rightly, removed intimidation points, which have been abused right across North Belfast, with problem tenants moving from one part to another. That is why our Minister is championing the reclassification of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive so that it can build houses once again to ensure that land that has lain derelict in my constituency of North Belfast can be used to house those who need it and that houses are allocated on the basis of need. I look forward to those parties in the Executive that have stepped forward here today to say that they support the Minister in meeting those housing targets following through on that by ensuring that, when a budget allocation is made, the Minister is given the funding that he needs, because he has shown that, when he gets his funding, he can deliver. Mr Burrows: It is good to support the motion, and it is good to hear unequivocal support for it from across the Chamber. Any conversation on the issue should begin with unequivocal and unreserved condemnation of violence. I will use a phrase that the Members for Foyle will be familiar with, because we used to use it when I worked with them up in Londonderry/Derry, whatever you want to call it, and that is: "An attack on one of us is an attack on all of us". That is a really good phrase that unified our response to any attacks, because no matter who you are, violence against you is wrong. That is a red line that we should all agree with. Of course, condemning such attacks is not enough in itself. The word that jumps out at me in the motion is "strategy". People up and down the country grimace when they hear that dreaded word, "strategy", because there are so many strategies, but they are never delivered on. What I will say about the strategy and the words about bringing people to justice is that the people in the Chamber are responsible for running down our Police Service. Today, I typed an email to the police about a victim of hate crime in Ballymena. There was no result from the investigation. It was conducted by a response constable who does 24/7 response policing — they get in their car and drive to the next incident. I can guarantee you that the level of investigation into that hate crime was far inferior to what was done 10 years ago when, for example, I was the area commander in Derry. I would have had a detective dealing with that, but we do not have detectives any more to deal with such crimes, so we do not solve them. All the really advanced investigative work that you can do is not done, because cuts have consequences. The fact that we have demoralised and not funded our Police Service has a — Ms K Armstrong: I thank the Member very much for giving way. Going forward, I hope that we will never have to use the police for hate crimes because we will not have hate crimes. I agree with you. It is a pity that the Justice Minister does not receive enough money to appropriately fund our police. We heard earlier today from another Minister asking for extra money for special educational needs capital expenditure. We know that the Minister for Communities will be looking for more money for housing. There are pressures on our system. I wish that there was enough money to go around, but let us get behind prevention. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Burrows, you have an extra minute. Mr Burrows: Thank you for that. It sounds lovely to say, "I wish that there was never any hate crime". I wish that there was no crime whatsoever, because we would not need our Police Service. We could close down the prisons. We could close down half the hospitals because I have wished that there be no disease. It is a meaningless statement. Ms K Armstrong: It is a strategy. Mr Burrows: It is not; it is a distraction. Ms K Armstrong: I did not say "a distraction". Mr Burrows: The reality is that there will always be a level of crime. There is always crime. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Burrows, can I bring you back to the motion? Mr Burrows: Yes, you can. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I will use the opportunity to bring everybody back to the motion. Mr Burrows: Thank you. We need to invest in our Police Service. I also fear that we are going to undermine attempts to bring cohesion in how the justice system deals with those who commit hate crimes. We are walking ourselves into a two-tier policing scenario, and I will tell you why. It is because the Justice Minister is bringing in extra penalties for hate crime — that is a strategy that I welcome — but, at the same time, is decreasing the penalties for ordinary crime. The difficulty with that is —. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Mr Burrows. Mr Burrows: OK. I will come back. Let me move on to our language about immigration. When we do not articulate things, we vacate the space that is then occupied by the far right. We need to show the language of leadership and discuss the issues that people have. One thing is to value legal immigration. I keep repeating it, but, in the last years of her life, my granny was cared for by Filipino nurses. We rely on them. People in north Antrim who love their meat would be vegan if it were not for foreign nationals. We rely on them, and we should value them. That is a key part of the strategy. The next point is that illegal immigration is a law-and-order issue. If we do not articulate the problems with asylum — the fact that the system is so slow, and the fact that there is an affront to the rule of law with people getting off a dinghy and coming into the United Kingdom — those things cause the toxification of relationships that feeds the far right. When we do not talk about those issues, we give the space to the likes of Tommy Robinson, who can send a tweet and get tens of thousands of people to support him. In our language, we need to occupy and elevate the space of talking about public policy issues, while starting that by saying that violence is always wrong. I call for the police to release images, but, in this motion, we talk a lot about sectarian and racist violence. I released images of people engaged in sectarian crimes, and I had condemnation from parties in the House, so we need to be consistent. That is my take on it. I fully support the motion. Let us have honest conversations, and let us stand by and build up our justice system so that we can bring people to justice and start preventing things. Miss McAllister: It is with anger and frustration that I stand to speak to the motion today. There have been a lot of comments around the racist attacks that have been ongoing over the past few months and the ones that we saw last summer. However, I will focus this evening on the attacks that have taken place in my constituency of North Belfast. First of all, I will comment on some reflections from another Member from North Belfast who has spoken. I reiterate that the Alliance Party is consistent. We condemn all and any sectarian attacks, no matter what so-called side of a community you come from. The last month saw more sectarian attacks in the lower Oldpark area of North Belfast, with families feeling that they had no other option than to leave and flee the area. This comes after similar attacks in the area back in May. In preparing for today's debate, I went over media reports and coverage of the incidents in May. They could be laid side by side, because the reports were so similar. They talk of families being intimidated out of their home; politicians speaking and condemning; and a multi-agency meeting being held to discuss how best to address the issue. All the actions and the voices were copied and pasted. That is not to downplay the importance of all political representatives calling out the actions or of all political representatives engaging with families, but it is frustrating this has happened twice in the past few months. Representatives from all parties were at the multi-agency meeting and also met residents on the ground. That is important, because we need to show leadership. We can show leadership in many ways. My office has been in touch with residents and community groups. I thank the Cliftonville Community Regeneration Forum and the Lower Oldpark Community Association, because they have done work in the area with residents over the past few years, and in particular this year, to bring together hundreds of residents in a celebration of the area. It is therefore not all of North Belfast or all of Northern Ireland involved, but the attacks still happen, and they need to be called out. We are almost 30 years on from the Good Friday Agreement, and the fact that this is still happening speaks volumes. The behaviour is not limited to Northern Ireland, however. Dangerous, inflammatory language on social issues is a global trend. It is something that we all have to tackle every day. We see it on our screens when we wake up in the morning and when we check our phone before we go to bed. The way in which misinformation can spread is very dangerous, as is how hatred can spread, and we have been all too prepared to witness how that can be weaponised. We are also seeing the Labour Government completely engage in a race to the bottom and not tackle the issues. They have failed. All of that has real-world consequences for members of our community, not only in my constituency but across Northern Ireland. Tackling attitudes that lead to such attacks will require a full-society approach, but it must begin at the top. The Executive Office urgently needs to bring in a T:BUC successor that will bring together the entire community to address sectarianism and racism. There must also be an acknowledgement that there is a housing crisis and that we need to get it solved. Housing must always be based on need. We must ensure that we work together and that we temper our language. Alliance is committed to doing that. We are committed to working across all sections of the community to ensure that everyone is welcome and feels safe in their own home. Ms McLaughlin: I thank the signatories to the motion for tabling it. Like many across the Chamber have done, I have witnessed with horror the rise of sectarian and racist attacks, not just here but across these islands. We are witnessing a very disturbing trend. Anti-immigrant rhetoric and parties that amplify it — once thought to be confined to other parts of Europe — have now taken root in the UK and in Ireland. We see that in the rise of Reform in England, and, sometimes, we hear echoes of it in the Chamber. Language matters. Words that are spoken here carry weight and have consequences. Framing inflammatory comments as legitimate concerns does nothing to absolve responsibility. When elected representatives normalise anti-immigrant sentiment, it should come as no surprise that attacks on migrants rise. That rhetoric is also a symptom of much deeper problems. It reflects a society in which too many people struggle with poverty, poor housing, insecure work and overstretched services. When people feel abandoned, they are more vulnerable to those offering an opportunity to find a scapegoat instead of solutions. Unless we tackle those underlying issues, division will persist. We all saw the horrifying images from Ballymena: mobs targeting immigrant families, flags placed in windows and stickers put on doors to mark homes by identity. That is not the mark of a shared society. Rather, it is intimidation, yet, too often, political leaders respond with silence or, at best, quiet condemnation. That is not leadership. Top 6.30 pm Mr Durkan: Will the Member give way? Ms McLaughlin: Yes. Mr Durkan: The Member is correct: we often hear that condemnation, which, of course, is to be welcomed, but we need to move beyond condemnation. We need to see action. What actions does the Member think that we need to see taken? Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Member has an extra minute. Ms McLaughlin: Thank you. I agree: condemnation is not enough. Others have said that here in the House. We need a good relations strategy that is not outdated and that is fit for purpose, unlike what we currently have. There is no credibility in holding press conferences about tackling racist and sectarian attacks while failing to deliver the strategies and resources that could make a difference. The First Minister and deputy First Minister must set out a clear timeline for a refreshed good relations strategy that is properly funded, is shaped by the voices of victims and front-line workers, and has measurable outcomes. Publishing a document is not enough — that is not delivery; we must see delivery on the ground. T:BUC has not delivered the transformation that was promised. The Urban Villages initiative, which was designed to improve good relations, has too often failed to tackle the root causes. Do not get me started about Communities in Transition. It aimed to help areas to break free from paramilitary control, including in east Belfast and Derry. It has not met its ambition. Too many people remain under the shadow of coercion and intimidation. Communities deserve more than short-term schemes; they deserve lasting investment in safety, opportunity and hope. Meanwhile, we continue to see the consequences of failure. In north Belfast, Catholic families have been targeted in sectarian attacks. In east Belfast, vigilantes have been patrolling streets and schools. It is unreal. In south Belfast and Ballymena, young people have attacked migrants. In my city, there have been sectarian clashes in Gobnascale and the Fountain. Is that the society in which we want to raise the next generation? It is not what I want for my family. It is not what I want for my grandchild. It is not what the majority of people across the North want. This is not only about tackling hate on our streets; it is about addressing the conditions that allow division to fester. At the heart of that, Minister, is housing. Too many families wait for years for a home. Some live in unsafe conditions, and others face intimidation because of their identity. That is unacceptable. Minister Lyons, you must set out what action is being taken to deliver more social and affordable housing, and how the community safety framework will protect people who are targeted in their homes. Putting up paramilitary flags and marking territory is intimidation. People do not want it. Homes are being devalued. There are homes in my constituency that are so badly devalued because of paramilitary flags that families have been left in negative equity. That is absolutely disgraceful, and it is devastating for the young families who live in those homes. A safe, secure home is not a luxury; it is a basic right. However, if we are to build more homes, our broken waste water system must also be fixed. That is why we need a joined-up approach. No Minister can solve the issue alone. As my colleague said, we need a collective vision of hope from the Executive Office, the Communities Minister and the Justice Minister, not a vacuum. Real change requires leadership from the very top; from the First Minister and deputy First Minister, working together. Without that, the housing crisis will deepen, and communities — Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Will the Member draw her remarks to a close? Ms McLaughlin: — will continue to suffer. Deputy Speaker — Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Will the Member draw her remarks to a close? Ms McLaughlin: — leadership is about more than words; it is about responsibility, direction — Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Will the Member draw her remarks to a close? Ms McLaughlin: — and delivery. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Ladies and gentlemen, we have two more Members to get in, and time is tight. I ask that there be no interventions during the next two speeches. You will both have your full five minutes. Danny Donnelly. Mr Donnelly: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. First they came for the migrants, and I did not speak out, because I was not a migrant. Members may be aware of the famous poem 'First They Came' by Martin Niemöller. Although I changed the group, the point stands. Niemöller was a prominent Lutheran pastor in Germany who originally sympathised with right-wing movements but later became a fierce critic of Nazi interference in the Protestant Church, spending years in prisons and concentration camps for his acts of resistance. His warning was clear: when prejudice and persecution go unchallenged, they spread. What begins as attacks on one group rarely ends there. The circle will always widen until you are no longer outside it. People are being fed lies, and their frustrations are being preyed on by those who are seeking to further their own agendas. It is not migrants who decide the number of homes that are built. It is not asylum seekers who set your wages. It is not the families who are newly arriving here who choose whether hospitals get funding. Northern Ireland has been underfunded for years. We live in the shadow of our past, with an unstable stop-start Government, and that has a real and lasting impact on our lives and on the quality of living here. Instead of focusing on the need to reform our institutions so that they actually work for the people of this country, people are being told to turn on each other while those who are truly responsible watch it happen. There are clearly those who want you to believe that all the problems in your life lie at the feet of migrants, but they are just the current scapegoat. Do we really think that it will stop with migrants? I have seen racist violence with my own eyes. I was in Larne leisure centre on the night in June when it was attacked and burned by a racist mob. Those who attacked the police with bricks, burned part of my community and threatened the lives of those inside the leisure centre were not satisfied with the destruction that they had caused and went hunting for foreigners who were housed in the town. Thankfully, they were not successful, largely due to the actions of the police. Those events were a disaster for the town, and it is a miracle that there was no loss of life. Those people do not represent the vast majority of people in the town who have contacted me in their droves, disgusted by what happened. The reputation of our town took a real hit. I will take a minute to commend those council staff who were in Larne leisure centre that night who stayed to the very end to ensure that everybody who was there was safe. That included very young children, who were escorted out of the building under fire from bricks, mortar and whatever else. I am sick of hearing the same vicious rhetoric about foreigners taking homes or jobs or being a threat to our families. People say that foreigners are taking social housing from those who are most in need, yet a family in my constituency was forced out of a home that they owned and into social housing because of racist attacks. People say that they are taking our jobs, yet our health service, which is already on its knees, would collapse overnight without the migrants in our workforce. Many workers in the health service and elsewhere across Northern Ireland, along with their families, are now living in fear in our constituencies. That is unacceptable. People talk about protecting families and keeping women and children safe, yet Northern Ireland is the most dangerous place in Europe in which to be a woman. Almost all the 28 women who have been killed here since 2020 were killed by a man whom they knew. You do not commit crimes or cause harm because of the colour of your skin. Those who choose to call this country their home are ordinary people like you and me. They are like the friend's daughter who moved to Australia, the son working in America, the cousin in Canada, the uncle in England or the neighbour who retired to Spain. They are all immigrants too. Let us be honest with ourselves. It is not foreigners who are pushing families into hardship but underinvestment in public services, housing shortages and low wages. It is not migrants who make women unsafe but abusers and a system that has, historically, looked the other way. It is not immigrants who burn leisure centres but people who believe lies and prey on others' frustrations in order to spread their own agenda. People who come to live and work here should be able to do so in safety and without any threat. I hope that we do not allow history to repeat itself. If we do, when they come for you or me, there will be no one left to speak for us. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Gerry, you have five minutes. Mr Carroll: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for extending the time. I thank the Members for tabling this important motion. We have heard a lot about honest conversations and legitimate concerns, but honest conversations about migration do not always happen, especially with some of the politicians who are further to the right than me. Those conversations do not often happen in good faith. Quite often, myths and misinformation are spread, fuelling hate and fear. We need to challenge the role that the Communities Minister played, particularly in relation to Larne leisure centre around the time of the violence during the summer. We also need to challenge his decision to remove intimidation points earlier in the year. That was reckless. The Member for North Belfast had a terrible and risible defence for that. The removal of the intimidation points had a devastating impact on those individuals and marginalised groups that are in the temporary accommodation sector, which is under extreme pressure, and on the wider housing system, particularly in North Belfast, which has been mentioned, but elsewhere as well. If he changed that decision and reintroduced those points — made that one move — it would send a signal to people who are under threat and intimidation that he gets it, he understands it, and he has their back, but it looks as though he is not for budging any time soon, which is shameful. The Minister should have reformed and improved intimidation points and extended them to survivors of domestic abuse. Instead, he levelled the playing field downwards and removed them for everyone. People who have now been intimidated and subjected to sectarian or racist attacks will lose out on the points that they could have received to help them to get a new and permanent home in a place of safety. Instead, they will be forced to stay in a home where they are subjected to violence or intimidation or to uproot their life and move into temporary accommodation or be stuck on the sofa of a friend or relative. It is completely unacceptable. The stats show that, unfortunately, in the past year, there were 2,049 racist incidents in the North and 1,300 race hate crimes. Those are the highest levels since records began. We have a problem with racism in the North; let us not sugar-coat it. We know that thousands more incidents have gone unrecorded, because, quite simply, victims do not trust the PSNI. They feel over-policed and under-protected, especially in minority ethnic communities; they have felt that way for decades. To challenge another myth, I say that Ireland is not full. The country is not full. The number of people who are seeking asylum in the North is 2,535. That is 0·13% of the population. Compare that with other countries across the world: Turkey takes in millions of asylum seekers; Lebanon takes in millions of asylum seekers; and Germany did so a few years ago. Challenge the narrative every step of the way. There are 246 people who are seeking asylum and are living in emergency hotel accommodation, but those whom I have talked to — quite a few over the years — do not want to be in hotels. They are not luxurious, and they are not a wonderful set-up. Quite often, they are like prisons for most of those people. They want a home, and they should be entitled to one. I urge the Minister to get on with it —. Ms K Armstrong: Will the Member give way? Mr Carroll: Briefly, because my time is limited. Ms K Armstrong: I agree with the Member. As he will know, some of that temporary accommodation in hotels has no access to kitchens and has shared bathrooms, so there is a security issue for those people as well. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Gerry, you do not get any extra time. Mr Carroll: Yes, and there are other problems that I do not have time to elaborate on, but I thank the Member for that. I also have to say that launching attacks on migrants and asylum seekers — political or violent attacks — is distraction politics at its finest. It is a distraction from the fact that we have inaction, from this Minister and from other Ministers and the Executive, on empty homes. There are at least 21,000 empty homes in the North, if not as many as 50,000, depending on what figures you read from different Departments, but there are zero empty home officers. The Minister could move at speed with that, but he has not. Attacking migrants is a distraction from property hoarding by landlords and investors. It is a distraction from the Executive's refusal to crack down on Airbnbs, and it is a distraction from soaring rents, which we are trying to challenge, but the Minister has not stopped yet. Rent in Belfast has increased by more than 11% in the past year alone, driven up not by migrants or asylum seekers but by landlords. On a final point, a dangerous narrative is developing, and it is from the playbook of the far right, which is that, if a man of colour is in a park, in a shopping centre or on a street corner, he is putting children at risk. That is racist scapegoating, and it needs to be challenged. Unfortunately, children are at risk from abuse and neglect, but it is usually from a family member — Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Will the Member draw his remarks to a close, please? Mr Carroll: — and usually, statistically, a white person. We need to be careful about that narrative, especially the Member for North Belfast, because his comments were quite dangerously giving approval to some of those dangerous actions. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Minister, you have up to 15 minutes. Mr Lyons: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I thank the Members who tabled the motion. I welcome the opportunity to speak to it and to unequivocally condemn the sectarian and racist intimidation of individuals and attacks on their homes. I have said, and I will repeat it today, that the attacks on individuals and on their homes must stop. I recently joined my Executive colleagues in publicly condemning all forms of racism, sectarianism and hostility towards individuals, whatever their background. We have been united in our messaging that all acts of violence and intimidation are abhorrent and have no place in our society whatsoever. It is wrong, and it needs to be condemned. Top 6.45 pm That is why I have to take issue with the comments that Mr Gildernew made today. The Member said: "It is disappointing that the Minister for Communities has not been overly vocal in condemning" those attacks and "at the time of the riots … you failed to speak out strongly". That is an untruth. Some Members: Hear, hear. Mr Lyons: Mr Deputy Speaker, I consider that a slur against me, and the Member has crossed a line. There are many, many examples, because I have been in front of the — Mr Gildernew: Will the Minister give way? Mr Lyons: No, I will not, because I have heard enough from him already. Unless he is prepared to apologise, and I do not think that he is, I do not want to hear any more of what he has to say. I was very clear in June, over the summer and in September in condemning the violence. Before it happened, I said that it was never acceptable. Afterwards, I said that it was never acceptable. I will always condemn violence. I do not care where it happens. I do not care who it happens to. I do not care what the source is. I will always condemn it because I believe that violence is always wrong. I believe that violence should never be seen as acceptable in any way, shape or form. That is what sets me apart from the Member; that is what sets me apart from his leader in this place; and that is what sets me apart from his party. They have some cheek to come to this place and talk about condemnation of violence when they have continued for years to justify violence that took place against people right across our society, so I will not take it. Let me be very clear to the House, and, importantly, let me say to everybody out there, especially those who have been affected by violence and those disgraceful scenes that we have seen over the past number of months, that I condemn that completely and unequivocally, and I wish that everybody in the House had always taken that approach to violence. More than that, we should not be condemning it with just our words. We need to take action to make sure that it does not happen again. In the Executive statement on racist and sectarian attacks, on 4 September, we pledged to continue to work in partnership with the PSNI, civic leaders, community organisations and statutory bodies to ensure that our streets, neighbourhoods and communities reflect the values of equality and respect. That is certainly what I am doing in the Department for Communities and with my responsibility for housing. I would just say, at this point, that there are actions that we can take, and are taking, that do not always happen in the full glare of the cameras, because sometimes that is not right. Sometimes, it is better for us to take a different approach, but that does not mean that we are not taking action. I commend my colleagues who have been working, sometimes quietly behind the scenes, bringing people together, allowing opportunity for dialogue and making sure that relations can be improved. I want to thank Members who have taken that approach, and I will continue to work with them on that. The issue of housing has been raised. I have said on many occasions that I am working closely with all partners to improve housing supply generally and to remove barriers to building more social and affordable homes. I am pleased to say that that is reflected in the Programme for Government as a key Executive priority. I continue to press for the budget to build the homes that we so badly need. However, we also need to have confidence that people and their homes will not be threatened or targeted. I would welcome further funding from the successor programme to T:BUC for the Department's Housing for All shared housing programme. It now supports 12 housing associations working across 85 developments, totalling 2,925 homes delivered or in development. That programme makes a substantial contribution to building good relations in our society through building shared communities. I visited an on-site Housing for All development in Cushendall last week and visited the children in two local primary schools in the community. The local areas will benefit not only from that additional shared housing supply but from the support of a community-led good relations plan. I also visited the housing development in Alloa Street in north Belfast just before Christmas last year, and it was evident to me that those new homes changed the lives of residents and created a place for them to put down roots in the local community. We were all horrified to hear that residents in that development were being threatened and that their homes, which have received significant public investment, have been damaged. The recent news that that has surfaced again is, of course, extremely concerning. I condemn those attacks, and I can assure the House that my officials continue to keep in contact with Clanmil, the landlord for those properties, and the relevant statutory partners, including the Housing Executive. I understand that the local PSNI community team is also engaged, and I am grateful for the work that Clanmil is doing to support its tenants and to ensure that they have a safe place to call home. As an Executive, our Departments are working closely on these issues. My officials participate in the Department of Justice's community safety network, and that is an element of the community safety framework, so there is ongoing and proactive engagement on how we can work together more effectively to keep people safe from appalling intimidation. I am also keen to introduce legislation to more effectively tackle antisocial behaviour in our communities. The proposal for changes to legislation was part of a joint consultation with the Department of Justice, so there is also active collaboration and engagement in this policy area. I will continue to call for more investment in new social and affordable homes, including community work to build relations between our communities, and it is vital that funding be prioritised by the Executive to support that work. I will continue to take action alongside Executive colleagues and with other partners to address those issues and ensure that, in line with our PFG commitment, everyone has access to affordable, sustainable and quality houses that meet their needs within thriving and inclusive communities. There has been a significant debate this evening, with wide-ranging views expressed. Some of those views I agree with and some of them I take issue with, but I hope that the one message that can go out this evening is that we are committed to tackling the scourge of violence and intimidation and that we can also air our views on these issues. I hope that we have the freedom to do so, because, in trying to shut down debate and limit conversation about these issues, we are only contributing to some of the issues that we are facing. A lack of information out there can lead to some of the problems that we have seen. Being open, honest and forthright with people will help us as we seek to deal with some of these issues. Trying to shut down conversation and limit people from having their say is never a good approach. Therefore, I welcome some of the comments that have been made by my colleagues on this issue. However, I hope that we can unite on the need to condemn all the sectarian and racist attacks and work together to make sure that we improve the outlook for the future. Mr Dickson: A sincere word of thanks to my colleague Kellie Armstrong for proposing the motion, and, indeed, to all the Members in the Chamber tonight who spoke on this very difficult subject. I thank them for the fact that I can genuinely say that we have coalesced around all the discussions and areas. As the Minister has just said, we are not going to agree on everything, but there is a commonality of thought and process in the Assembly this evening with regard to all of this. I do not propose to go through all those who have spoken, but I will maybe remind one or two people about things that they said. A whole-Executive response is required when it comes to the issues that have been set out for us this evening. Therefore, I say to those Members who felt that the motion was perhaps directed at one Department rather than another that, in reality, this is a whole-Executive debate. I also remind Members that the Justice Minister will be dealing with all the issues through her sentencing Bill, which will introduce a statutory aggravation model for hate crimes. Other Members made a clear and valid point this evening. Long before we get to the justice system — the police, the courts, the prisons or whatever — we need to roll everything back and look at where we are at with education and healthcare and at how we build proper and safe communities. Doing that will not save us from the need of the police and the courts to deal with those who break the law. Of course it will not. We should, however, be doing a great deal more — a massive amount — right from day 1 of people's lives to ensure that they have the best start, through having the best of education, the best of healthcare and the best of support in communities. We should then be able to deal with many of the issues that sadly arise in many communities because of the broken society and world in which we live. It is saddening that we are discussing recent attacks on individuals in our communities. This past summer, we witnessed some horrific scenes not only in North Antrim but in my constituency of East Antrim. Reference was made to the terrible attack on Larne leisure centre. There were very serious threats to life, and we must condemn those threats. We have heard words of condemnation in the Chamber this evening. We need to realise, however, that we have to go beyond words of condemnation towards the practical realities of what will help us take Northern Ireland forward. It is up to the Executive Office to bring forward a refreshed good relations strategy as a successor to Together: Building a United Community. The Executive Office needs to step up, because we cannot allow the scenes that we witnessed this summer to continue. The words of Ministers, who have the privilege of holding office, are important, and we value the words that they said at the time of and following the incidents. It is, however, not just about words. We need them to turn their words into actions. In my constituency of East Antrim this summer, I met people and listened to their stories about what had happened to them. I dealt with people who had been driven out of their home. One family had lived in my town for many years. They owned their home and worked in the health service, yet they were driven out by a group of thugs in the middle of the night. Despite protests about migrants coming here and taking our homes, that family ended up in social housing. Hopefully, they will be able to return to their property and restore it. Another lady and her family had come from a war zone, where they had been caught up in a terrible conflict. They also came here looking for safety, and, sadly, the community was not in a position to give them that safety. That is wrong. It will take a multi-departmental approach to fix those societal issues. I have called, and I continue to call, on the Executive Office to do more, but I also call on all Departments to do what they have to do in order to build a better community for all in Northern Ireland to live in. I will touch on an issue that other Members raised this evening. Recently, there has been so much misinformation out there. I spoke to the First Minister and the deputy First Minister when they came to the Committee for the Executive Office last week, and I commended them for their words about those incidents in the summer. I also said to them that, when they hear misinformation, they have a duty, as do the rest of the Government — Ministers in all Departments — to counter it with the truth. It is important that Departments come together and put up notices in every public building in Northern Ireland, be it our libraries, health centres or wherever, that say, "No, you do not get a laptop, a mobile phone and hundreds of pounds paid to you when you come to Northern Ireland as a migrant or an asylum seeker". Mr Lyons: Will the Member give way? Mr Dickson: I want Ministers and others to state clearly what people do get. In particular, I want the Minister for Communities to do that, because he is responsible for many of the benefits that are given to people, or at least for the agencies that issue those benefits. I will give way to the Minister, who wanted to speak. Top 7.00 pm Mr Lyons: I agree with that, but does the Member agree that, at the same time, we need to be honest about the impact that immigration is having? I agree that we need to tackle misinformation, as I said in my closing remarks. Does the Member agree, however, that, when people claim that immigration and the actions of Mears, for example, have no impact on areas, that also causes problems? Often, when people seek to deny that a problem exists when it does exist, that increases the frustration that is felt by many people who have concerns. They are not driven to take violent action, but they have concerns that need to be understood. Mr Dickson: I hear what the Minister says. We need to get a sense of proportion. The numbers in Northern Ireland are tiny, and the impact on systems here is small in comparison, perhaps, with the rest of the United Kingdom. We need to set out the facts and explain who the small number of people are and where they have come from. The reality is that most people who come to Northern Ireland come here to work, do other jobs and contribute to society. Let me just tell you briefly about the contribution that those people make to our society and community. Recently, I spoke to a constituent who happens to come from Pakistan. He teaches in one of our universities. His wife and two children are here. They are contributing. They pay tax and National Insurance. He has to earn an income above the threshold to work in the United Kingdom. In addition to that, he has had to fork out over £23,000 for the right to remain in the United Kingdom while he is employed here. Most if not all of that money goes towards his healthcare, because he does not get free healthcare. We need to debunk the myths and explain to people the pressures that that puts on families and others who are here. That is not to suggest that we should not work from the ground up in the communities that I have worked and served in for the past 50-odd years, helping people in poverty to get food, helping people to raise their families and helping to deliver a fair and good education for them. Miss Hargey: Will the Member give way? Mr Dickson: Yes, I will. Miss Hargey: It is concerning that, again, there have been ifs and buts in some of the comments that have been made tonight. Words matter, because actions follow, and actions are misguided when there is misinformation. There is no focus on or anger with bankers, despite how they have fleeced people. Over £20 billion is still owed — Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Deirdre, you are winding down the clock. The Member has no more time. Miss Hargey: There is no focus on people who have been charged with sexual offences and were involved in racist attacks last year.. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I am sorry, Stewart. You have no more time. You had 10 minutes, and that is it. Miss Hargey: Sorry. Mr Dickson: Thank you, Members, for listening to the debate. Very finally, as elected representatives, we have a duty to debunk the lies and untruths. We have a duty to give leadership and clarity. Sectarianism and racism are two sides of the same coin. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much indeed, ladies and gentlemen, for the general tone of the debate. It was particularly appropriate. Question put and agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly condemns all sectarian and racist attacks on individuals and their homes; recognises the need for elected representatives to speak clearly and unequivocally on behalf of the victims and to be responsible in the language that they use in the aftermath of such attacks; expresses frustration at the ongoing delay by the Executive Office to bring forward a refreshed good relations strategy as a successor to Together: Building a United Community (T:BUC) to address sectarianism and racism through a whole-community approach; acknowledges that there is a housing crisis that requires urgent cross-departmental interventions to remove barriers to building more social and affordable homes; and calls on the Minister for Communities to outline what specific action his Department is undertaking to focus resources to deliver housing for all, based on the community safety framework that is designed to protect people who are being targeted in their own homes. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Members may take their ease while we get ready for the Adjournment debate. (Mr Speaker in the Chair) Motion made: That the Assembly do now adjourn. — [Mr Speaker.] Adjournment Knockmore Line to Belfast International Airport Mr Speaker: In conjunction with the Business Committee, I have given John Blair leave to raise the matter of the reinstatement and extension of the Knockmore line to Belfast International Airport. Mr Blair, you have up to 15 minutes. Mr Blair: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am grateful for the opportunity to address the Assembly in an Adjournment debate on an issue that is of great significance to my constituency of South Antrim and, indeed, to Northern Ireland. I am also grateful to the Minister for coming to the House to respond. There has been long-standing support for reinstating the Knockmore rail line since it closed in 2003. It would reconnect the towns of Crumlin, Glenavy and Ballinderry and extend the service to Belfast International Airport. There could also be significant beneficial impact on accessibility and in increased public transport options in places such as Templepatrick and Ballyclare and other towns and villages throughout the area. I have spoken in the Chamber many times about how our rural communities across Northern Ireland remain chronically underserved and neglected by transportation infrastructure. Residents face significant and often overwhelming barriers to accessing essential services, stable employment and social amenities, primarily due to unreliable, infrequent or altogether absent public transport. That is especially difficult to accept when a transport line is built only to be prematurely closed, even more so when much of the rail infrastructure around it remains in place, seemingly ready for public use and being used by the operator for training and diversion purposes but not as part of the public network. Conversations that I have had with constituents, local businesses and organisations such as Antrim Chamber of Commerce have echoed one message: connectivity is not a luxury; it is a necessity. A reliable rail service is invaluable for commuters, families, young people seeking opportunity and older citizens wanting to stay connected. Beyond the everyday advantages, reinstating the Knockmore line and extending it to Belfast International Airport would unlock enormous potential. Improved access would benefit domestic and international tourists, stimulate sustainable economic growth and help meet commitments on decarbonisation and balanced regional development. Progress, however, has been slow and, frankly, frustrating. It has been over two years since Translink committed to a feasibility study. We recently learned that that report is complete and with the Department for Infrastructure. That is an important milestone, but it is just one step on a long path. While I acknowledge the Department's deliberation, I urge it to give us clarity and a path forward as soon as possible. Our communities need a timeline, a budget and, most important, a commitment to develop this essential project. Of course, financial constraints are real — I understand the pressure that each Department is under — and, of course, Ministers must make difficult decisions to safeguard vital public services. However, reducing investment in public transport has a major ripple effect on our economy. Every pound spent on sustainable connectivity yields significant returns in opportunity, much of which I have outlined. I thank my Alliance colleague David Honeyford for persistently pressing the issue with the Infrastructure Minister and other Ministers. I express my gratitude to our colleagues on Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council and on Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council for their efforts. The Alliance Party, I have to make clear, remains committed to ensuring that the Knockmore line reopens. Since the closure of the line in 2003, Northern Ireland's communities and economy have changed significantly. In many ways, the case for reopening is stronger than ever. For example, Glenavy's population has doubled since 2003. Ballyclare and Templepatrick, which I mentioned, have also witnessed significant population growth. Our region has grown, but our infrastructure has not kept pace. Demand for public transport has soared with the increase in population, not just among commuters but among students who depend on reliable and affordable transport to universities, workplaces and social events. Sustainability is now a central priority, with more people seeking greener and more affordable travel options. In addition to that, Belfast International Airport use has grown substantially, with more residents, students and tourists travelling than ever before. Significant tourism investment has put Northern Ireland on the global stage, and international visitors reasonably expect seamless transport, as is standard in many countries. Unfortunately, many leave here disappointed with our limited public transport, undermining our efforts to showcase Northern Ireland's best. With so much growth and potential, securing modern, sustainable connectivity for all is more urgent than ever. It would be remiss of me in bringing forward this Adjournment debate not to use the opportunity to offer recognition and thanks to the individuals and groups who have worked hard in the community space to keep the Knockmore line issue in the public domain. The Circle Line Belfast and FundtheNINE's active campaigns to do better on our rail infrastructure have caught public and media attention, as well as promoting the real benefits of offering rail services to residents, commuters, businesses and tourists in the greater Belfast, south Antrim, east Antrim and Lagan valley areas and, indeed, well beyond. The public profile and levels of engagement of those campaigns not only demonstrates the commitment of those involved but shows that there is significant public interest in sustainable public transport solutions. Members and the Minister will be aware of the plans announced today, which include a new rail halt as part of Belfast City Airport's 2040 extension master plan. That sends a strong signal of the recognition that our region's growth relies increasingly on integrated and sustainable links and aligns with my calls for a renewed commitment to projects such as the reinstatement of the Knockmore line and improved airport access. As I draw to a conclusion, I again urge the Infrastructure Minister to make decisions on the Knockmore line at pace. Accessible, efficient and reliable public transport is vital for enhancing citizens' quality of life, regardless of their location. Achieving that requires increased public investment and improved connectivity between rural and urban areas. There may also be real action required with the public and private sectors working innovatively together to deliver. My colleagues in the Alliance Party and I remain dedicated to addressing the ongoing shortcomings in our rural public transport system. We aim for an inclusive, efficient and responsive network that serves all our constituents and meets our society's growing needs. The economic, environmental and social benefits of reinstating the Knockmore line and utilising the close proximity to a vastly improved and expanding Belfast International Airport must be prioritised. We now need the delivery of that vital transport link. Mr Speaker: Mr Kearney, you have five minutes. Mr Kearney: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Tréaslaím do John an díospóireacht Atrátha a thabhairt faoi bhráid an Tí anocht. [Translation: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I congratulate John on bringing the Adjournment debate to the House tonight.] Over the past 40 years, South Antrim has experienced an absolutely huge surge in population. It is particularly pronounced in the population centres of Crumlin, Glenavy and Ballinderry. Today, the population of Crumlin village — others will call it a town — exceeds 5,000. I remember the early 1980s, when the population of Crumlin did not exceed 500. The resulting pressures on infrastructure and services as a direct consequence of that exponential growth in population are self-evident. Top 7.15 pm That is not a challenge unique to South Antrim. It is a characteristic of rural town expansion throughout the North. However, the parts of South Antrim that I mention fall within the commuter belt of Belfast city, so the daily commute to Belfast for employment, school or college has now become huge. That reality is a major factor driving the real public demand for restoration of the Knockmore line, currently mothballed but once an important section of the Antrim and Lisburn rail infrastructure. Significantly, that section of track continues to be maintained to a standard appropriate for use as an emergency alternative operational route. Restoration of the line is widely and correctly, in my view, viewed as a key to mitigating the transport pressures that are experienced by local people between Antrim and Lisburn and then, in terms of connectivity, towards Belfast. The loss of that key section of regional rail network has also adversely impacted on the economic potential of South Antrim and, indeed, the overall region. The case has been made that reinstatement would extend to rail connectivity to Belfast International Airport for customers and staff. That contention holds water. This is at a time when the airport is seeking to strategically position itself to attract increased airlines and flight routes, with the knock-on effect, which the airport management has correctly assessed, of attracting increased investment, tourism and the associated generation of employment in the constituency. In short, the Knockmore line and its reinstatement is about much more than the reinstatement of rail track. It can and must be seen as a strategic asset to enhance infrastructure and transport services, as well as being a net contributor to economic growth and complementary to the expansion of our regional airport. I am pleased that submissions from me and others ensured the inclusion of the Knockmore line in the all-island strategic rail review. All-island investment in rail infrastructure and services will be essential in helping to grow the all-Ireland economy. I trust that all of those considerations will have been reflected in the feasibility study submitted by Translink to the Department for Infrastructure. It is important that we unlock all areas of opportunity for our regional economy. The restoration of the Knockmore line is just such an opportunity, with its potential to help drive job creation, increased tourism and increased investment. Realising those opportunities will require ambition and, of course, the necessary capital investment, but delivery on that strategic vision will be to the benefit not only of the people of South Antrim but of the entire region. Mr Clarke: I thank my colleague from South Antrim for securing the debate tonight. I will look at the clock and wish that we could go back in time because I will go back in time. I came here in 2007, and this matter has been debated and debated. One of my colleagues said to me today, when we were talking about this, that the Member who secured the debate tonight took the motion to council about 10 years ago, where it commanded the support of the council at that time. Indeed, when Dr McCrea, Paul Girvan and many others were here, there was cross-party support for many years. I did a search today, and I could detect questions going back to 2009 on this, so it goes without saying that everyone, universally, has historically supported this. However, there has never been action, which is disappointing. I will not blame the current Minister, but I will call on her to stop the delay by others and bring this to a success story. I listened to the previous Member who spoke about some aspects, and much was made of the benefits. One of the benefits that struck me when I was listening to him — I do not want to repeat a lot of what has been said, so I am trying to pick out new stuff — is that, historically, the airport has had an issue with its workforce because of its location. There is no doubt that, if we had a reasonable connection between the airport and Lisburn, Glenavy, Crumlin and Antrim — all of those areas — it would open up interest in jobs at the airport and would make for a viable way of transport for the people in any of those areas where there are jobs waiting for them. I have heard that, historically, even in north Belfast, there has been an issue with getting workers because of the logistical problem of getting them to and from work. As has been said, the train line is there; we are all aware of it, and we are aware of the cost of maintaining it; indeed, some of my constituents have expressed concern about some of the dangerous elements of the train line, and that has always been adhered to. When you drive up the Dublin Road to the airport, therefore, it seems strange to see the disused railway. It goes without saying that the benefit to the airport is greater than jobs. Someone referenced the connection with the rail links to the City Airport: we have not got that, and we are the worse for it. Unlike many others in the Chamber, I do not travel much, but, no matter where you go to on the mainland, there are good connections to the towns and cities from each airport, whether by buses, trains or, indeed, trams in some cases. We are badly served with all those, so there is a real opportunity. There was a bit of blue-sky thinking at one point when Ballymartin was opened. Ballymartin was a real necessity. You can see its success when you look at the numbers of people who use it daily, but we failed to connect the railway to it. We have the park-and-ride, but people use it to commute when they could be commuting on a train rather than depending on a bus. There is an essential need for the Minister, the Department and the whole Executive, because it will take a bit of collective responsibility to drive this forward. I am not laying it all at your feet, Minister, but there would be a real benefit to South Antrim and more widely to Lisburn and other areas. If the vision and will were there, the line could be delivered. I am not sure how many of us will be here in the next mandate, but I will tell you one thing that is for sure: it is depressing that we have been talking about this for so long. As I heard in yesterday's debate, we are creating roads and footpaths to unnecessary destinations, but one thing is for sure: the International Airport is necessary. It is the largest airport that we have in Northern Ireland. It can cope with the larger flights and could cope with much more, but we do not have the connectivity. While I am on my feet, Minister, I will add a comment that has been made in previous conversations. The other thing that we have not got from that airport — I am here to talk about the rail link — is decent road infrastructure to connect it to the M2. If we want to look at the whole picture, it is the rail link and a connection between Belfast International Airport and the M2. I commend John for securing the debate. Dr Aiken: I thank John for securing the debate, and I apologise now, Minister, because I will be a bit "spotterish" about this. I talk quite a lot with the railway community and Translink, and I am a great supporter of the all-Ireland rail strategy, because, in my previous existences, I worked closely with the then Córas Iompair Éireann (CIÉ) on various links to the rail network there. The circle line makes abundant sense when you step back to look at it, but it requires considerable investment in signalling; in ballast, which is what we need to make sure that the track does not fall off; and in upgrading bridges and the roads that are connected to those bridges, in order to make sure that they are capable of doing it. That is the downside. The upside is that all of that will have to be done anyhow. If that is going to be done, we need to take a strategic view of it. We will have to improve the ballast and the track bed between Antrim and Lisburn if we are to keep the line open for any reason. We will have to improve all the signalling, because the railway authority and the Railway Inspectorate will make us do so. We therefore have a good opportunity here. Minister, you will have heard many times about the circle line and the opportunities there. I thank Trevor for talking about Ballymartin, which is a classic example. Part of its car park was designed to be straight, because, originally, there was going to be a railway platform there. The difficulty there was that the platform would not have been not long enough, so it would have had to be extended for longer trains. Translink is actually a bit of a success when it comes to railways. We have full trains. That is a good thing. Normally, when the trains are full and there is successful infrastructure, one invests in it. For some bizarre reason, we are not investing, but we need to be able to do so. Bearing in mind that we are going to have to spend the money anyhow, it is appropriate that we now take a really strategic view on what we are going to do. Ballymartin can become a transport hub for the growing and important centres of Ballyclare, which I declare that I live quite close to, and I know that my friend does as well, as can Templepatrick. That, as an interim measure, could work quite well to improve bus links to the International Airport. Belfast International Airport is a growth centre. It is probably one of the greatest opportunities that we have, not just in South Antrim but across Northern Ireland. It could be a major logistics hub. There are only two reasons preventing it from becoming one. The first is that we do not have enough skilled labour to go and work there. I go and talk to the airport very regularly — every fortnight or so — and I always ask what its biggest problem is. Every time, I am told that it is that it does not have enough skilled people, because it cannot get them. It is bussing in people from all across Northern Ireland and the north of Ireland because there are not enough skilled people. The second reason is abundantly obvious, and it has already been pointed out by my friends. We need a decent road that connects to the motorway network so that we can use the airport as a major logistics hub. Doing that would be a win-win. If we are therefore to look at this strategically, given that we are going to have spend a lot of the money anyhow, there is a great opportunity here, Minister. I would be delighted if you were to join us MLAs — I am sure that Declan can arrange that — to go out and walk the patch so that you can see how little would be required. By being strategic about it, we could achieve quite a lot for the area. The single most important thing that we want to see is for the facilities that we have to be used. Bearing in mind that we have already invested significantly, we should add that extra bit of investment, which, as I keep saying, we are going to have to spend anyhow. Earlier today in the Chamber, somebody said that we need to spend to save and get value for money. Both things that I have suggested would achieve that. Minister, can you take the opportunity to talk with us about what we can do at Belfast International Airport, particularly to improve the road network? There are solutions out there. Indeed, if the airport, much like Belfast City Airport, is willing to pay most of the costs, there are opportunities. Through a partnership agreement between the great Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council, your Department and the airport, we could demonstrate that we can get stuff done. Mr Speaker, I did not even make any Thomas the Tank Engine allusions. There is real opportunity here, and, Minister, there is a good opportunity for you to make a difference without having to spend a fortune. Mrs Cameron: I also welcome the opportunity to speak. I thank my constituency colleague John Blair for securing the Adjournment debate. As my colleague Trevor Clarke said, we have had this conversation many times in the House. Nevertheless, it is an issue that remains a vital topic. My colleague Steve Aiken also spoke so well. The topic is a matter of great importance, and it would be a wonderful achievement to see some really ambitious plans come forward. It is not just about trains and train lines but about connectivity, growth and the future of not only South Antrim but the entire region. It is therefore vital. For too long, our transport network has struggled to keep pace with the demands of a modern society. We know that, and the Knockmore line represents a potential solution that can enhance our public transport system, making it more efficient and accessible and potentially linking our towns and cities directly to Belfast International Airport. As has already been said, the airport holds numerous job fairs far and wide. It is continually trying to get qualified people in as staff members for all the various roles and the great job opportunities that there are, yet it struggles to retain people. A lot of that is down to the fact that people physically struggle to get from A to B to fill those roles. Top 7.30 pm The links are very important. It is about investing in our economy and the well-being of our citizens. We know that passenger figures at the airport continue to grow. We want to maximise the tourism potential not just in South Antrim but across Northern Ireland. We want to see more provision for South Antrim. The growth in the number of houses has been mentioned. I am one of those who has recently moved to Ballyclare. We have the relief road, which is terrific. A lot of people, including members of my family, have come from places well outside South Antrim to live in the area. It is a very attractive area, and it is easy to commute to Belfast from there. Dr Aiken: Will the Member give way? Mrs Cameron: I will, indeed. Dr Aiken: What the Member has said is obvious because it is God's own country. Don't we all agree? Excellent. Mrs Cameron: Thank you. I could not agree more. We want to see that provision. There are enough people, and there is enough extra usage, to justify the link. We need to consider all options to improve the connectivity. A link from Ballymartin park-and-ride to the rail network is another potential opportunity. Ballymartin park-and-ride has been a great success, and we want to see more creative and ambitious planning. We know that the projects are very costly and take time to deliver. I am glad that the Minister is here to listen to the debate, and I appreciate her time this evening. I would welcome an update from the Minister on future provision, which is badly needed. The reinstatement and extension of the Knockmore line aligns with the commitment to sustainable development and the promotion of public transport as a viable alternative to car travel. We are all aware that it is not that easy to just ditch the car and commit to public transport — I wish that I could do that, because I love the train and the bus — as the availability and frequency of services are often an issue when trying to get from A to B. Even the taxi industry struggles to cope with the amount of traffic that we have today. We are aware of the controversial environmental targets that the Assembly set itself. Some of us would argue that those goals are not achievable or realistic. However, it is important that we do what we can in that regard when opportunities arise, while fostering economic growth. There is a great opportunity here to make environmental improvements too. We have to consider the social benefits that enhanced public transport access will provide. It is about greater mobility for all. It is about accessibility for those who struggle with disabilities and who need accessible transport. That is another huge challenge. We have a large number of people with disability and accessibility needs. Those needs must be met so that everyone in Northern Ireland is accommodated. At this point, I will give a shout-out to South Antrim Community Transport in praise of the fantastic work that it does. That invaluable service plugs a gap in getting people from A to B for appointments and social occasions. The value for money that it provides for Northern Ireland and the Government is fantastic. A lot of people rely on that service. I would like to see more community transport across Northern Ireland. The reinstatement and extension of the Knockmore line to Belfast International Airport would not just be a transport project; it would be an investment in our future. I, for one, would dearly like to see it come to fruition. Mr Honeyford: I thank John for bringing the Adjournment debate to the House and for all his work on the issue. When he was a councillor, David Ford was in the Assembly, and the Knockmore line was being put forward then. I bring a Lagan Valley, rather than South Antrim, perspective to the debate. We will fight about where the line goes. Reopening the Knockmore line is about connecting people to jobs. It is about linking the airport to the rail network and building a economy. It is about our community. Mr Clarke: Will the Member give way? Mr Honeyford: Yes, of course. Mr Clarke: You touched on Lisburn. I just want to remind you that most of the constituency that Lisburn is in has been given up at that end to South Antrim. We have Glenavy, Stoneyford and so on. You have given it up, but that is fine. Mr Honeyford: I remind the Member that it was not us who closed the line in the first place or who reduced the service. That part of Lagan Valley has not changed. The area between Ballinderry and Glenavy remain the same. We have waited too long for progress on this matter. It is two years since Translink's feasibility study came out, and that is too long. If this place is to start being seen as a place that delivers for people, this is exactly the kind of project that we can deliver and change that we can make for people's lives. It is about connecting communities and the benefits that that can bring to the villages right across the area that every Member here has named. One of the problems that we have had in Lagan Valley is that we have two or three main villages. We have overdeveloped Hillsborough and Moira to the point of absolute saturation such that you cannot move in either village at any point in time and the traffic is completely crazy. However, we have Ballinderry, or Ballinderry Upper, which we have not developed, and there is a train line there and main road infrastructure. Developing that area could ease the pressure on planning for housing, especially as we all need housing. However, if this railway line were to reopen, we would have the infrastructure in place before we started to develop housing, rather than putting the housing in place before matching it with infrastructure. That would start to ease the pressure on the M1, which mainly becomes a car park as you come into Belfast, and on the A26 to Antrim. If we created those other connections, we could start to offer sustainable transport and ways to deliver it. The benefit to the wider area would be substantial. The economic growth at the airport has been mentioned, and, as Trevor, John and Declan said, jobs would be needed there and must be filled, and people must be moved so that that can happen. That is key. The connectivity piece is really critical for tourism and to allow the business community to get inward investment and local companies to get their business out so that investment in this place can grow. It is part of the all-island rail review. I agree with Steve on that. That has to start to be delivered, and this is one of the low-hanging fruits, especially as the track is already there. If you look at other plans, you can see that, the week before last, Dublin launched plans for the Metro. Those are ambitious plans for an underground system that would connect Dublin Airport to the city. Belfast City Airport today announced its 2040 strategy, but my first question is this: why do we have to wait to 2040? Can we not bring that forward, do it much earlier and start delivering quickly for people? Dr Aiken: Will the Member give way? Mr Honeyford: Sure. Dr Aiken: You talked about the all-island rail strategy. One of the big issues has to be that most of the rail link for Iarnród Éireann will have to be replaced anyhow. Considerable investment has to go into the ballast and all the bits and pieces that one puts the tracks on. The tracks will have to be improved to make them high-speed tracks. I say to the Minister that there is an opportunity to do that on an all-island basis, which we will have to in order to upgrade it all at the same time, rather than faff around. Mr Honeyford: That is a new word: "ballast". Dr Aiken: I could give an entire lecture on it. Mr Honeyford: I completely agree that we need to look at this on an all-island basis. I talk all the time in here about a shared island and at looking at stuff strategically not as a political vision but as development that will help people. We cannot afford to be left behind with this, and it needs to be built into such strategies. I agree completely that the line should be upgraded and seen in its totality rather than as an individual part of the system. Net zero should also be considered, with fewer cars and lower emissions. The other element is the way that it will be used. The midnight train from Belfast to Lisburn never happened. We called for that for years. We were told that it could never happen and that it was too expensive and would never run. However, it was put on at Christmas and has continued to today. That happened because once people find that a service is good, reliable and connects them, they use it. That is the important part. We need a timeline from the Minister of where we go from here so that we can look at delivery. If we had a timeline, we could start to deliver. I appreciate that the Minister is here tonight, and I appreciate her work on it. She has been engaging on it over the past while since she has been in post. It is about that timeline for delivery of what we can do and when we can see it happening for people. Mr Butler: I want the Minister to be aware of the skulduggery that is happening in the Chamber tonight. This is not about tourism nor connectivity; this is about the people from South Antrim wanting to get into Lagan Valley. [Interruption.] That is what this is about. Let us be absolutely clear. I nearly fell out with my party colleague over it. Lagan Valley is the premier. It is the big brother. Mr Clarke: You have given bits up. Mr Butler: In reality, everybody here tonight has made the case for the delivery of the Knockmore line to include Belfast International Airport. It is simply unquestionable. If we are serious about growing our economy, which is why we are here, boosting tourism, which is why we are here, and putting Northern Ireland on the international stage, the case has well and truly been made, and we must finally connect our main airport to our rail network. I was doing a bit of research today, because I was in London last week, and I wondered when the London underground was built. It was built 162 years ago, and you think about that and how they did that, how they afforded it and who did it, yet we are looking at a rail link that actually exists. We have the line, we are not commissioning land, and we are not vesting land. As has already been pointed out, we genuinely could meet our climate credentials because it is a win-win. It would fulfil the active travel ambition, but there would be tangible benefits from it. I am sure that, 162 years ago, they were not quantifying all that into what they delivered. The longest line on that is 46 miles. Can you imagine if we had an underground tube from Belfast International Airport? We are looking to put trains on a track that already exists. I know that it is not just as simple as that, but, in 2025, we have people — not necessarily in this Building — who complicate it, and maybe we could deliver it a lot more easily than we think. Right now, Belfast International Airport is one of the only international airports in Europe that does not have a rail link. That is a significant disadvantage for business and for tourism. The Knockmore line gives us a ready-made solution by reinstating the line through the Lagan valley corridor, with the potential for increased pick-ups at Knockmore — we know that there is work ongoing with regard to that wider Knockmore piece — and Ballinderry, and then better linking the jewel in the crown, which is Lisburn, by the way. We can transform connectivity for local communities while creating the crucial spine that links our International Airport directly with the rest of Northern Ireland. As has already been pointed out, probably much better by other Members here, particularly the Member for South Antrim John Blair — I thank you, John, for bringing the debate tonight — is that circle line ambition. When you look at the links through to the City Airport, you will see that the opportunities there are probably better than anywhere else in the world, which I will get to in a second. This is not just about convenience; it is about competitiveness. By attracting and embedding new transatlantic routes from Belfast International Airport, we have the opportunity to rival Dublin Airport in attracting long-haul visitors and global investment. Nobody in the Chamber will need to be reminded that, when we came back in 2022, one of the UK Government commitments was to look at pre-clearance for US flights. It is not for the Minister to look at that, but the Executive Office could revisit that, because it is really important to shine the light on the ambition that we have for Northern Ireland and put it truly on the map. Tourists arriving from the United States or Canada would be able to step off a plane and get straight on to a train to Lisburn, Belfast, Londonderry, Antrim, Ballymartin or beyond. That is the seamless connectivity that international travellers expect in 2025. The Knockmore line is the first step in delivering the wider circle line, which is a project that would maximise value by linking our towns, capital and airports in one coherent transport network. I had the pleasure of living within about 500 yards of the track that is the Knockmore line, and the Member for Lagan Valley will agree that it is a beautiful line for the people who would commute on it from South Antrim into Lagan Valley. They could see our three- and four-storey buildings. They are skyscrapers, Trevor. It really is a nice journey. It would be very good. Since becoming an MLA in 2016, I have repeatedly highlighted the Knockmore line's potential to unlock growth right across Northern Ireland, but, as Trevor pointed out, it was going on for maybe 10 years before I was here, when John was a mere boy and a councillor, which is some time ago. I thank Robin Swann MP, who attends Westminster religiously. He is probably one of the most attentive MPs. He is passionate about this and speaks on this —. Top 7.45 pm [Inaudible] Mr Clarke: come on, now. Mr Butler: He is giving your Jim a run for his money. Mr Clarke: Things were level up until that point. [Laughter.] Mr Butler: We can be humorous about this, but Trevor hit the nail on the head: do we want the next cohort of MLAs who come back in two years' time to be repeating the lines that we are trotting out tonight and that have been trotted out by Members before us? The time for delay has long passed. Minister, if we are to compete, we should complete, and if we are truly going to level up our transport system, we must deliver the Knockmore line, because it is the track that leads directly to the circle line, to prosperity and to Northern Ireland's rightful place on the global tourism map. Mr Speaker: Minister, I call on you now. You have 10 minutes. Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure): Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. [Translation: Thank you, Mr Speaker.] I genuinely thank everyone for their contributions tonight. It has been a demonstration of what we can achieve if we are on the same page and think collaboratively about what we would like to see. It has been very different from some of the debates and discussions that I have been part of in the Chamber over the past 24 hours. It is a welcome discussion. I thank John Blair for securing the debate, because I recognise that this is a very important issue. The reinstatement and extension of the Knockmore line to the International Airport is, as many have said tonight, not just an investment; it is of strategic importance to the economy, for tourism and for the whole area to reach its full potential. As Members will be aware, my Department has published a new draft transport strategy — it is out for consultation — covering the period up to 2035. The strategy is the beginning of a necessary journey to ensure that our transportation system meets the demands of tomorrow while reflecting the values and priorities of our community today. Tonight's debate reflects that and what the Department wants to achieve. It sets out a comprehensive vision that is actionable — I think that is the word that one of the Members used this evening — and adaptable and addresses urban and rural connectivity, creates a cleaner and greener foundation for growth and recognises my commitment to improving regional balance. The strategy is an important first step to help shape a transport system that works for all and safeguards the environment for future generations. I welcome Pam's comments on access and how important that is. She reflected on South Antrim Community Transport, something that I see as being of huge importance. That is why I wanted to ensure that I was able to provide full funding for community transport in my budget. It plays a vital role in plugging the gaps and tackling the health inequalities, social isolation and all of those rural inequalities that the existing public transport system simply cannot address at this time. Hopefully, however, we can move towards that. Dr Aiken: Will the Minister give way? Ms Kimmins: I will indeed. Dr Aiken: Thank you very much, Minister. You mentioned the magic word: budget. As you will be aware, you are looking for three-year Budgets and looking at future developments. There is a difference between city deals and the all-union interconnectivity deal — I think that that is what it is called — which is one of the things that they are working on in the UK at the moment. It is looking at investment, and it is going out to 100 years potentially. Therefore, going for a long-term investment bond to do this is a very low-cost way of gobbling up financial transactions capital (FTC) in a way that will deliver something other than just a new university building. This would build something that would be useful to everybody across Northern Ireland. That would be a worthy conversation to have with the Finance Minister, particularly, and officials. Ms Kimmins: I am going to come on to budget, so I will come to a wee bit around that. The transport plan sets out the potential interventions that I propose to bring forward to address many of my priorities in the strategy. The regional strategic transport network transport plan (RSTNTP) will detail proposed changes to the railway network for the period up to 2035. I recognise that we talked about the 2040 Belfast City Airport master plan. I had the pleasure of meeting Belfast City Airport representatives last week in advance of the launch today, as I knew that I would not be able to attend. It is exciting and ambitious, but it recognises that major infrastructure projects take time and investment, as well as collaboration, something that I look forward to see coming to fruition. Our own RSTNTP will consider the work undertaken from the feasibility study of the Knockmore line and appraise that scheme against all of the competing priorities, as Members will be aware. In parallel with the strategy and plans, we are taking steps to address the climate and biodiversity crisis. The Climate Change Act 2022 places clear responsibilities on all Departments to reduce emissions to net zero by 2050. To enable that, my Department must reduce emissions from the transport sector so that they are almost net zero by 2050. We cannot overestimate the challenge that net zero represents, especially in relation to transport. Mr Clarke: Will the Minister give way? Ms Kimmins: I will in a wee second. Most of us rely on some form of transport every day, mainly a car, bus or train, to go about our daily life. Rail is a really good way of ensuring that we reduce emissions and have that modal shift. I will give way. Mr Clarke: I will tag the Ballymartin stuff on to the debate. It is a different line, but that line is in action. You have just talked about achieving net zero. The line is there. It is the same distance as from here to your colleague away from the car park. The connection would be simple. It would be a simple indication from you, as Minister, about your commitment to achieving net zero and giving connectivity to people in Ballymartin to get to Belfast or Antrim. Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for that point. I am not overly familiar with Ballymartin, so I probably need to get a bit more information on that, but, ideally —. Dr Aiken: We would be delighted to invite you, Minister. Ms Kimmins: Feel free to write in. In relation to all that we have discussed here this evening, I think that everyone here has commended the all-island strategic rail review and shown great support for it. It sought to provide a strategic vision for rail across Ireland. I welcome the comments from David Honeyford about what is happening in Dublin and having an all-island vision. It makes sense. Our railway lines do not stop at the border, in the same way as our roads and many other things do not. It makes sense for us to look at that holistically. Also, by mentioning some of the work that is happening in Dublin, you are feeding into my argument for Irish unity. Look at what the South can achieve with the budgets that it has access to in terms of having —. Dr Aiken: You were doing so well, Minister. Ms Kimmins: Well, if it is in front of my face, I cannot ignore it. Mr Clarke: We cannot even get a train to Newry, and you want us to go to Dublin. [Laughter.] Mr Speaker: Order, Members. Ms Kimmins: In all seriousness, the investment piece is key to all of this, and it is an example of what can be achieved when we have access to healthier budgets and our own —. Dr Aiken: Will the Minister give way on a serious point? Ms Kimmins: Very quickly, because I will never get through this. Dr Aiken: The issue in Dublin that has been mentioned is that the Dublin Area Rapid Transit (DART) takes priority over the North/South Belfast to Dublin line. We cannot increase the speed or flexibility on that line until we take the DART off it. Even though a lot of investment has been put into that, it is not the right investment for North/South connectivity. If you are talking to your cohort, please try to get us some access on that line; it would be very useful. Ms Kimmins: We will not always agree on everything, but the point I am making is that, even when it comes to subsidising the public transport network, they can do so much more in the South because they are not hamstrung by some of the Budgets that we have in the North. I have digressed a little from the all-island rail review, which was published in July last year. It set out 32 recommendations to improve inter-urban and regional rural rail systems for passengers and communities across the island up to 2050, which will not be long in coming in. It is important to say that, given that we talked about 2007 for the Knockmore line. It looks at aligning with net zero goals in the North and South of the island. The delivery of the recommendations is divided into three broad time horizons: short term to 2030; medium term between 2030 and 2040; and longer-term goals between 2040 and 2050. The proposal to reinstate the railway between Lisburn and Antrim, enabling Belfast International Airport to be connected, has been classified as a short-term intervention by the review. That will certainly be welcomed by Members, particularly given tonight's debate. While the recommendations provide an evidence-based framework to inform future investment in railways across the island, more work is needed to test the feasibility and affordability — the latter will be key — of the recommendations and to secure the necessary funding to take projects forward, taking into consideration wider infrastructure priorities. As Members know, the feasibility studies were funded out of the Union connectivity fund. I continue to work with the Department for Transport, Translink, Irish Rail and the National Transport Authority to consider the recommendations. That work included the preparation of a project prioritisation strategy that identified the rail interventions that could be well advanced or delivered over the next decade, up until 2035. I hope to publish that project prioritisation strategy later in the year. Mr Speaker: Minister, there have been a few interruptions, so do not worry if you need a wee bit of extra time. Ms Kimmins: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I appreciate that. My officials are working closely with Translink. It undertook several feasibility studies, which were submitted to my Department in July. As I said, those additional studies were funded by the Union connectivity fund and include the Portadown to Armagh line, a new line from Portadown to Derry and the electrification of the line from Belfast to the border. As I said, I am considering Translink's recommendations, and I intend to publish a summary report later in the autumn. Given the scale of interventions and the magnitude of the transformation that is involved — we have talked about the Knockmore line being relatively simple to do, which is why it is one of the proposed short-term interventions — there will be significant challenges with and pressure on the overall finances. We need to explore all funding avenues. I will continue to do that by seeking support from Executive colleagues and by working with other jurisdictions, whether through the Shared Island Fund, the Union connectivity fund or whatever else is available to us. Members referred to the budgets that have been set. There is no doubt that Translink could do so much more if we were able to give it more budget. This year, I gave 33% of my overall capital budget to Translink, which is 86% of what it asked for. We are continually looking at how we can invest more. It is important to note that we have given Translink a capital budget of £1 billion over the past four years. While that may still not be enough, it is a significant part of my overall budget, and I hope that that shows my commitment to delivering and to working with Translink and others to do so. The other important thing that is relevant to the debate is that I have ring-fenced £1 million of my budget for this year to build on the momentum that was achieved in the feasibility studies for the all-island strategic rail review, which will include work on the Knockmore line. We have talked about the multi-year Budget. Future Budget decisions will be critical as we plan for bigger rail infrastructure projects. As I said earlier, we are considering the feasibility study for the reopening of the Knockmore line. We hope to publish the main outcomes of the study in the autumn, so I will be able to provide Members with further updates then. I continue to look forward to working with everyone on this. I recognise the significant importance of the Knockmore line not just to the people who represent the area but for wider connectivity across our island to ensure that all our regions are well served by a fully functioning rail network. That would achieve everything that we have set out to do, be that meeting our climate change targets, supporting our communities or achieving economic growth. I thank Members for the tone of the debate. Hopefully, we will see progress made in the near future. Adjourned at 7.58 pm. Top
[ni-assembly-official-report][plenary_report] Official Reports https://aims.niassembly.gov.uk/officialreport/report.aspx?&eveDate=2025/09/15&docID=448740 Official Report: Monday 15 September 2025 Table of Contents Matter of the Day Charlie Kirk: Impact of his Death on Northern Ireland Members Statements Irish Language: Minister for Communities Irish Language Signs Adult ADHD Services Northern Ireland Football Fund: North-west Clubs Bailey: Magilligan Prison Comfort Dog Waste Management: Warrenpoint Heather Humphreys: Presidential Campaign Manufacturing Strategy and Action Plan Bloody Sunday: Soldier F Trial Lewis Crocker: IBF World Welterweight Champion President Trump: State Visit Catherine Sherry: Lymphoma Awareness Day Assembly Business Public Petition: Stop Funding the Lifespan Gender Identity Service Executive Committee Business School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill: Consideration Stage Oral Answers to Questions Health Infrastructure Executive Committee Business School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill: Consideration Stage Assembly Business Standing Order 10(3A): Extension of Sitting Executive Committee Business School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill: Consideration Stage Assembly Business Ministerial and Committee Chairperson Appointments Ministerial Statement Northern Ireland Football Fund: Performance Programme Private Members Business Road Maintenance Strategy The Assembly met at 12:00 pm (Mr Speaker in the Chair). Members observed two minutes' silence. Matter of the Day Charlie Kirk: Impact of his Death on Northern Ireland Mr Speaker: Timothy Gaston has been given leave to make a statement on the death of Charlie Kirk and its impact on Northern Ireland that fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24. If other Members wish to be called, they should rise in their place in the usual manner. You have up to three minutes in which to speak, Timothy Gaston. Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I pay tribute to and give thanks for the life of Charlie Kirk. At just 31 years of age, Charlie was a devoted husband to Erika and a loving father to his two beautiful children. His loss is deeply felt not only by his family but by all those who value conviction, courage and the right to speak freely. Charlie Kirk stood for family, his Christian values and his conservative principles when he advocated, as he did all the time, for family, faith and liberty. His approach to those who disagreed with him was grounded in biblical exhortation: "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD". Through social media, his work reached a global audience, with many homes in Northern Ireland, including my own, following him. He gave a voice to those with Christian and conservative views by defending the right to speak without fear of censorship or intimidation. The Assembly should reflect on what his life teaches us: freedom of expression and the liberties that we hold dear are fragile, and they must be defended against political violence. Politically motivated murder is and was always wrong. We need only to look at our history. Memorials in Parliament Buildings remind us of Sir Norman Stronge and his son, James, murdered by the Provisionals; Senator Jack Barnhill, murdered by the Official IRA; and Senator Paddy Wilson, murdered in particularly vicious circumstances by loyalists. Regardless of ideology, such acts are and have always been wrong. There is, and there has always been, an alternative. I began by noting that Charlie lived out the biblical love and concern to reason with his opponents. On that same theme, I want to bring my remarks to a close by observing that he knew the full truth of the verse: "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool." Whatever differences I have with other Members, I urge each and every one of you to seek the same experience, go after the same saviour and put your trust in him, as Charlie Kirk did. Ms Forsythe: On Wednesday evening, the world watched in horror as Charlie Kirk, aged just 31, was assassinated in the United States of America. It was shocking and heartbreaking, especially for his wife and two young children, who I keep in my prayers. Charlie was the co-founder of Turning Point USA, a political activist and commentator, who, at just 31, had built a strong platform, giving a voice to millions of people who felt silenced by the left. Charlie's politics were shaped by his Christian faith, common sense and his conviction that the truth should be spoken plainly, even when it is unpopular. For that, he was hated by people who could not bear to see their ideology challenged. The battles that are being fought in America are not confined to the United States: they are being fought here, too, in the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. On Friday night, we saw Erika Kirk, Charlie's wife, speak publicly with grace and incredible strength. She spoke to the evildoers and told them: "You have no idea the fire that you have ignited". She said: "The cries of this widow will echo around the world like a battle cry." Erika, I have certainly heard your cry. I will speak up here, in Northern Ireland, for what is right and share that message. Charlie Kirk stood firmly for a common-sense approach. His convictions were rooted in his faith, as mine are. He spoke more broadly, though, to anyone who values truth and fairness, love of their country and the foundations of a stable society. Charlie Kirk never shied away from the challenging issues. He spoke truth with conviction and compassion, and so must we. We, in the DUP, will not bow to those who sneer at the values of ordinary people. We must stand up against the woke agenda. The older I get, the more I see people turning to Jesus. In a world where evil seems to grow louder every day, faith is a refuge; a light that refuses to be swallowed by the darkness. Belief is not just about religion: it is about hope and strength, the promise that goodness has the final word, as, in death, those who are saved live forever with God. Since Charlie Kirk was murdered, over seven million people have newly followed his social media platforms. His message is stronger from beyond his death — from heaven. His name "Kirk" is the Ulster-Scots word for "church". Members, nothing happens by chance: it is all part of God's plan. Let us remember Charlie by taking up the challenge, honouring his beliefs and values of faith, family and country, and keeping his family firmly in our prayers. Ms Ennis: Colleagues, at the heart of this, and what we should focus on, is the fact that there is a grieving family who are mourning a terrible loss. There was no justification for the killing of Charlie Kirk. His murder was wrong. The horrific scenes that were played out on social media were absolutely dreadful to watch. There has been a lot of talk about freedom of speech. While I uphold everyone's right to that, it must come with the understanding that there is huge responsibility with regard to what we say and the impact that it can have. We must be mindful of the language that we use. I am sure that that will be debated ad nauseam over the next period, but, today, I will think of the grieving family at the heart of this who have been left to pick up the pieces. Mr Tennyson: The murder of Charlie Kirk is the latest incident in a worrying rise in political violence in the United States and, indeed, across the world. It was an act of political cowardice. I speak as somebody who disagreed with just about every word that came out of Charlie Kirk's mouth, but I can recognise his talent as an orator, debater, activist and organiser. Today, my thoughts are with his young family who are suffering an unimaginable loss. There is no place for political violence in any society. Indeed, a fair and free democracy relies on the ability of all of us — politicians, activists and members of the public — to engage in public life without fear of reprisal, violence, attack or intimidation. It is important to say that political violence is not the preserve of left, right or centre. Irrespective of where we stand on the political spectrum, we have an obligation as democrats to stand against political violence wherever it raises its head, whoever is responsible for it and whomever it is targeted against. At a time when democracies across the globe are under attack, let the loss of Charlie Kirk be a reminder to us all that those democracies are precious: we must all resolve to defend them. Mr Burrows: On behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party, I extend our thoughts and condolences to the wife and family and friends of Charlie Kirk. It was a brutal assassination, carried out in the full glare of today's social media. Many people beyond his family and friends and, indeed, beyond America will have been traumatised. Such things can be a chill factor when it comes to people expressing their views honestly and passionately. It is not appropriate, as we acknowledge the terrible crime and atrocity that we witnessed last week, to bring into it in any way a conversation about responsible language. It is absolutely vital that people can speak and be heard and be controversial. Yes, they can be governed under the law, but nothing about a person's words ever justifies the use of violence against them. Nothing about one's political views or views of faith or on how a country should be governed or its constitutional status ever justify one's murder. Every one of us in this place should use our language to say that violence is wrong and always has been wrong. There are people listening to us out there, particularly young people, who cannot make the distinction that some who sit in this place can, in saying, "Violence was OK up to that point — that date — when we said so, but it is not justified any more". We need to take that out of the equation. As a party, we remember, of course, that we have lost members, including Edgar Graham, to political violence. Therefore, I extend our thoughts as a party to the family and friends of Charlie Kirk, and to people who feel that they cannot speak out because, if they do so, they will be oppressed and may even be assassinated. We all need to stand for free speech, and we all need to have this clear red line: violence is wrong, will always be wrong in the future and was always wrong in the past. Mr O'Toole: Violence begets more violence; hate tends to beget more hate. The scenes, brutally and traumatically relayed throughout the world via social media on people's phones, including those of many young people, of the assassination of Charlie Kirk will leave a lasting legacy for many people who supported and sympathised with him. It will motivate them politically, which is their right, but, for them and for everybody else, it is a grotesque, horrifying sign of the breakdown of basic democratic values. It should go without saying in any democracy that the right to disagree is sacrosanct. The right to free speech, even to say things that offend other people, has to be protected. It should also go without saying that we share our profound condolences with Charlie Kirk's widow, his family and all who were close to him. It is probably obvious that I did not agree with anything that Charlie Kirk said. In fact, I thought that a lot of what he said was abhorrent and wrong. I am willing to say that here; I am not in any way minimising or giving succour to people who thought that it was appropriate to take his life. My party and I have always believed that political violence of that kind is not just morally wrong but profoundly counterproductive, because it emboldens people and creates martyrs for their causes. Top 12.15 pm Just before I was born, a man named Robert Bradford was assassinated in the constituency that we share, Mr Speaker. Not long after, when I was a baby, Edgar Graham was assassinated near where my constituency office is now. I have no doubt that, had I been a politician at the same time, I would have profoundly disagreed with most of what those two gentlemen stood for and said, but the taking of their lives was profoundly morally wrong and deeply counterproductive. Ultimately, it was the kind of violence that made it harder to make progress in any society. While saying that I did not agree with anything that Charlie Kirk said and robustly oppose lots of what he said, let me say on behalf of my party that his murder was grotesquely morally wrong and indefensible. We are at a moment in the United States and in other parts of the world in which we need to be able to stand up for freedom of speech but also for respectful debate. Sometimes, that debate will be challenging, robust and very contentious, but it has to happen in the space of respect for difference and for democracy. I know what my values are, and I will keep championing them. Others in the Chamber have values that I will continue to challenge robustly, but I respect their right to have those opinions and to make their points. I hope that they will respect my right to challenge them robustly. I wish that Charlie Kirk had been around: if he had been, I and others would have been robustly challenging his views. The taking of his life is an affront to democracy — Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up. Mr O'Toole: — and I offer my condolences to his family and all who cared about him. Mr Frew: Charlie Kirk was a champion. He was a tremendous speaker and a talented debater. First and foremost, however, he was a family man: a father of two young children. He was brutally assassinated because he was effective and because he spoke the truth. He warned against intolerant liberalism and the totalitarian left, but he preached libertarianism. He fought for freedom. He supported family: everybody's family. He talked about his Lord, and now Charlie is in glory. He leaves behind a grieving wife and two young children, however, and that is intolerable. I will continue to pray for that family. We sometimes think that America is so far away, but it is not. The battles that Americans fight we fight also. Surely the past five years have taught us that. Charlie Kirk was a champion to so many people throughout the world. There are many people who had never heard of him but aspired to the same values. Those people now know Charlie Kirk. They know what he stood for and what his family stands for. They know what his organisation stands for. A fire and a passion have been ignited that will grip this world. It will grip America and the UK. Charlie Kirk's legacy will be stronger in death than it was in life. I am part of a Christian hillwalking club, and we were out in the Highlands at the weekend. The club has young and old members, but Charlie Kirk was the topic of everybody's conversation. There was deep sadness and shock that Charlie Kirk is no longer with us. I recognised the burning passion in those young people's lives for Charlie Kirk and his strength. That strength will go right across this land, and those young, Christian, conservative people will no longer be scared to speak up. They will be like Charlie Kirk, and that will be his lasting legacy. Mr Buckley: Last week, the world was shaken by a senseless, barbaric and tragic act: the assassination of Charlie Kirk. First and foremost, our hearts go out to his wife, Erika, and their children. Today, we hear the courageous battle cry of a young widow. At its core, this is a human loss, with a family broken and torn apart in the most cruel and inhumane way imaginable. No words can ease their pain, nor will they ever, but today, we stand with them in their grief and their loss. Charlie was a beaming light in a world that is consumed by darkness. A man with unwavering conviction, he stood boldly for the truth, guided by courage and passion. His voice resonated with a generation, especially with young people who saw in him a rare form of leadership, unafraid, unfiltered and unshaken. Charlie Kirk was not assassinated because of the words that he spoke. He was assassinated because our young people were prepared to listen and to take courage in standing up for truth with conviction. More importantly than any of that, Charlie embraced his Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, and he proclaimed the gospel proudly. In his own words, he said: "I am far more interested in what God wants from me than what I want from God." He also said: "My prayer is very simple ... use me for your will". In Belfast and in London and in cities and towns across his beloved USA, Charlie's name is being lifted up and remembered. His impact was nothing short of seismic as it helped to reignite conservative family values right across the world not in anger but in reason. He gave a voice to the unheard. He empowered people, young and old, including here in Northern Ireland, to question and to challenge. He reminded them that they are not wrong to think differently. Charlie's legacy will endure. It will inspire a boldness in those whom he touched. A new generation will honour him not by retreating into silence but by speaking truth. Thank you, Charlie Kirk. Mr Brett: On behalf of the people of North Belfast, which is a community that is used to the damage of political violence, I add my sympathy and that of those whom I represent to the Kirk family. Charlie Kirk's murder was motivated by hatred: hatred of his ability; and hatred of his willingness to challenge the status quo and of his willingness to stand up for traditional values. It falls to all of us who are public representatives who value democracy to call out that attack, which was an attack not just on one man or a set of ideals but on a process that we should all hold dear: freedom, tolerance and respect. To those across the United Kingdom and in the United States who are engaging in the ghoulish and obscene behaviour of celebrating this death, I say, "Shame". However, I also say that the Kirk family will take great solace in that disgraceful act, as they know that those people do that because they hate him. We can look at the words that Charlie spoke. He knew that people hated him because he was willing to challenge them, willing to stand up to them and willing to take on vested interests. It falls to all of us who value democracy to continue to speak up for that right, which is the right to challenge and to represent those whom we hold dear. This party will continue to be on the side of the silent majority and will stand with the Kirk family. Dr Aiken: Mr Speaker, I was not going to speak, but I have just had a message from Senator Wayne Harper, from the Utah State Senate. I said to him, "Senator, we woke to the terrible news of the death of Charlie Kirk. The use of violence to silence free speech is, regrettably, something that we in Northern Ireland are all too aware of. Charlie Kirk and his young family are in our thoughts and prayers. We also pray for you and your great state at these sad times." Senator Harper responded, "Thank you for reaching out, and thank you to the Northern Ireland Assembly for reaching out to us all. This is, indeed, a travesty. As you know all too well, violence is not a political solution. Sitting around a table to talk is." Mr Speaker: I thank all Members for their respectful handling of the issue, as was the case when we had Members' statements on George Floyd, when Members were equally respectful. On Wednesday, we will have a round-table discussion about MLAs' personal safety and the abuse that is ongoing. We all need to reflect on the issue and be conscious that the public square is not necessarily always a safe place to be. Every Member needs to reflect on that and be aware of it. Whilst, in America, such an event can happen somewhat more easily because of the number of guns that are available, we have seen the murder of two Members of Parliament in the United Kingdom, and a number of our offices have been targeted recently and not so recently. Members need to be aware of all those things and reflect on them. It is important — it is why we are here as a democratic institution — to give voice to people. That voice can disagree a lot and be forceful and contentious at times, but that does not give anyone the right to take anybody's life or to cause harm to another person because of the views that they have expressed. I encourage every Member, as a public representative, to be strong and to go out and represent your people as you are elected to do in the way that you see fit. We all have a job to do for our constituents. Members' Statements Irish Language: Minister for Communities Mr Gildernew: Beidh mé ag labhairt as Gaeilge ar dtús. Ar an drochuair, is gá dom aird a tharraingt arís ar chur chuige do-ghlactha an Aire Pobal i dtaca leis an Ghaeilge. [Translation: I will speak in Irish to begin. Unfortunately, I have to draw attention again to the Minister for Communities’ unacceptable approach to the Irish language.] The Minister for Communities has responsibility for developing an Irish language strategy. Although, to date, the Minister has failed to publish one, he clearly has his own strategy for the Irish language. It is a strategy to prevent the development of Irish and work against its ongoing growth on this island. It is a strategy to undermine and attack Irish at every opportunity. In his decision to remove trilingual letterheads from his Department, it is a strategy to make Irish invisible. Unfortunately, that is one of a number of interventions that the Minister and his party have made to thwart the development of Irish, including blocking additional funding from the Southern Government for North/South bodies including Foras na Gaeilge and opposing Irish-language signs at Grand Central station. The Irish language has endured attacks before and survived. It will endure these attempts to undermine and suppress it as well. Irish Language Signs Mr Brett: Following on from that, I welcome last week's comments from the High Court judge, which pushed back against Sinn Féin's attempts to continue to push cultural dominance in Northern Ireland. As the High Court judge made clear, the Infrastructure Minister's attempt to impose additional Irish-language signs at Grand Central station has made the Executive into a laughing stock. Should we be surprised? My party made clear from the start that the Infrastructure Minister's attempts were unlawful. That was called out by the deputy First Minister and, indeed, in actions by the Communities Minister. Since then, we have seen an attempt to whip up faux outrage. Top 12.30 pm The previous Infrastructure Minister — now Finance Minister — happily signed off on the Grand Central station project without additional signage, but Sinn Féin has now attempted to politicise this as a johnny-come-lately. Let me be clear: it is not about inclusion. Sinn Féin wants to raise the Irish language above every other minority language in Northern Ireland. Not content with Irish being included with all other minority languages, Sinn Féin believes that its culture and identity should be raised above everyone else's. It is about supremacy, not partnership. Sinn Féin is willing to squander £150,000 of public funding on that project; money that should be used to fix roads and for other infrastructure projects across Northern Ireland. Of course, we have seen the same supremacist attitude to language adopted by Sinn Féin, the SDLP and the Alliance Party at Belfast City Council, where they have set aside democratic norms. Despite a majority of residents not wanting Irish-language street signs, they are installed in order to whip up fear and intimidate unionists. Sinn Féin is helped by the SDLP and the Alliance Party in doing that. It has become a pattern: every time, they try to make a cultural issue out of it. There was no mention of the fact that Sinn Féin-run Departments exclude Ulster Scots from their letterheads, yet Sinn Féin goes after our Minister for having only one language on his. Once again, I say that Sinn Féin wants dominance, not partnership. We know what Sinn Féin members mean when they say, "Equality". Gerry Adams was secretly recorded telling the unionist community what he meant by "equality": he wanted to break unionists. Sinn Féin will not break unionists, and he will not break this party. Adult ADHD Services Mr McReynolds: As an East Belfast MLA and chair of the all-party group on ADHD, I ask where the report on commissioning adult ADHD services in Northern Ireland is. In March 2024, thousands of people signed my petition calling on the Health Minister to urgently commission those essential services here. My inbox has become flooded with the concerns and anxieties of those living with and potentially living with the condition, who, crucially, are unable to access a diagnosis or treatments, because we do not have commissioned services. Since then, I have persisted and fought to meet the Minister in his office alongside ADD-NI. I was told in the Chamber that the report would be completed by the end of the financial year. I was then told that it would be finished by the start of the summer. I was then told that it would be finished by the start of September. I fully appreciate the work involved in creating a meaningful and purposeful report, but people who live with ADHD have been overlooked for too long and have waited for too long, living in crisis and despair. It is likely that we have already missed two to three generations of struggling young people who are now struggling adults. My petition was launched in April 2024. We are now midway through September 2025 and have still heard nothing officially or unofficially. That is nearly a year and a half. I do not want to prejudge what the report will say, but I fear that I could write the conclusion: "I'd love to do it, but it's too expensive, and you all voted for the Budget". Meanwhile, adults living with or potentially living with ADHD will suffer by facing high costs for access to transformative medication, lengthy waiting list times, damaged relationships, missed opportunities to use ADHD for the better, self-medication through alcohol and substance abuse, chronic disorganisation and poor mental health. I was delighted to open the new ADD-NI office in south Belfast earlier this year, and I am proud to have my name on the wall there for having done so. However, I am about results, and I will continue to raise how ADHD and the lack of commissioned services here destroy families and lives across Northern Ireland. I call for the urgent publication of the report and for the commissioning of ADHD services in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland Football Fund: North-west Clubs Mr Durkan: There is a lot of disappointment and anger, although not a lot of surprise, across the football fraternity and beyond in the north-west at the Communities Minister's announcement last week on the Northern Ireland Football Fund. The decision not to fund Derry City Football Club and Institute Football Club has caused cross-community consternation and concern and makes a mockery of the claims of regional balance in the Executive's Programme for Government. It was a political decision that coincidentally, was made in the week in which the DUP leader threatened funding for Derry. Since that announcement, which should have been made in the Assembly, we have heard Minister Lyons do his best to distance himself from it wherever clubs have been disappointed: "It was an independent process. It was nothing to do with me". However, he will clamour for credit from those who are content. While the Minister will point to the application criteria and the assessment process, how can he expect us or anyone to believe or accept that he had no say in how £36 million of public money is to be allocated? Remember, this is the same Minister who is spending public money to challenge another Minister in the Executive over spending £150,000. This is £36 million from the Executive's Budget, so it is right that MLAs should get clarification and assurance where there has been understandable consternation. Given the Minister's having suggested that he hopes for money in the future, it would be a naive dereliction for MLAs not to scrutinise criteria, weightings and their working application. The SDLP is demanding a VAR-like review of this diabolical on-field decision, and we will be canvassing cross-party support for such a review, be it through a petition of concern, the Communities Committee or the Executive. This cannot lead to accusations of delaying a process that has already been disastrously delayed by being used as a political football and by five years of Assembly collapse. The Minister himself has conceded that funding will not be allocated until late next year and that several of the successful projects will probably never even come to fruition. This decision cannot stand. Derry clubs deserve better. We all deserve better. We all demand transparency. Bailey: Magilligan Prison Comfort Dog Mr Burrows: I raise the issue of a dog that has been incarcerated for life, I am afraid to say, in Magilligan prison by the leadership of the Northern Ireland Prison Service and by our Department of Justice. There is not single animal charity that has not, to me, expressed outrage that a dog has been placed, with the title of "comfort dog", inside Magilligan prison. It has no master, and it has no handler. I am unaware of any service dogs that are in that position. Anyone who understands pets or working dogs professionally knows that they need to have a handler and a master. This dog does not go home; it lives in the prison. I think that it is our job to cut across party lines. We are here to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable, and a great number of people in the Prison Service are very uncomfortable with the fact that the dog is there. The staff who are looking at after it are not trained, it has no designated handler and it is passed from pillar to post between untrained staff. I have had it confirmed in writing by the Justice Minister that it does not go home and that it has no master. Those who understand service dogs know that they have clear boundaries. Dogs in the Prison Service or the Police Service and other service dogs wear a different harness at work than they do when they go home. There are dogs that will be hypervigilant at work but will sleep through a thunderstorm when they go home because they know that they are at home. This dog lives in a prison. The Justice Department should be a role model for good behaviour, not ignore it. Every dog charity agrees, and Causeway Coast Dog Rescue has been speaking to me all weekend. I saw some pictures — an attempt, perhaps, to draw equivalence — of a comfort dog supporting victims of crime in court. I welcome that. That dog, a St Bernard, is brought in to see the victims of crime by its handler, its owner. It then goes back home. There is no equivalence between that and a dog that is kept in prison. There are real questions about the welfare of this dog. To whom is it microchipped? Who is the lawful owner? Who is responsible for it? No rules, no regulations, and yet it is in one of the most high-risk settings that you can have in society — a prison. It is housed in the H2 wing, and it is walked by a sex offender. We agree that there is a role for rehabilitation, but there have to be proper boundaries and proper safeguards for our animals. Therefore, I ask for cross-community and cross-party support. We need to look out for this animal. You cannot pluck out an animal and put it in a prison with no trained handler and never let it go home. It is an abuse of the animal, and I am calling for the Justice Minister to cease this programme until there is proper legislation and proper safeguards and boundaries. Waste Management: Warrenpoint Ms Ennis: There seems to be light at the end of the tunnel for the community in Warrenpoint, which has suffered a nightmare of almost three years due to the storage of tens of thousands of tons of black bin waste at Warrenpoint Harbour Authority and in close proximity to homes. Warrenpoint Harbour Authority has released a statement today stating that ReGen will cease storing waste at the harbour authority immediately. I tentatively welcome the statement. Members of the House will know — they have heard me talk about it before — that, for almost three years, the odour has invaded not only people's sense of smell but every aspect of their daily lives in Warrenpoint. It was wrong to allow the waste to be stored at Warrenpoint Harbour Authority in close proximity to homes and businesses to begin with. Warrenpoint Harbour Authority and ReGen owe the community in Warrenpoint an apology for the torment they have suffered over the last almost three years. It is appropriate to pay tribute to the community in Warrenpoint, the various campaign groups and my political colleagues from across the spectrum of parties who have campaigned on the issue for the last three years. We stepped in along with the community and the campaign groups when the Environment Minister, the NIEA and those with responsibility for making sure that people's lives were not impacted by the waste and put an end to the smell washed their hands of the matter. I pay tribute to the community, the campaign groups and everyone who did not let up on the issue over the last three years. While it is good news that the waste will no longer be stored there, and we tentatively welcome the statement, we will keep a close eye on the situation, because, ultimately, it is for others to decide how this is achieved. Ultimately, the odour issue must end, and we will focus on that. While Sinn Féin welcomes the statement, we will watch closely to make sure that all the odour issues associated with the ReGen operation at Warrenpoint port stop. Heather Humphreys: Presidential Campaign Mr Buckley: How many times has unionism been told of a mythical new Ireland that will be inclusive of all our cultures and traditions? How many times have we been told by Sinn Féin and the SDLP and by some quiet voices — they are getting louder — in the Alliance Party about that myth? Members may be aware that, at the weekend, Heather Humphreys launched her campaign for the Irish presidential election. In doing so, she described herself as a symbol of Ireland's tolerance and inclusivity towards Protestants and unionists. Heather is from County Monaghan, a place not far from here or the communities that I come from and represent, but one wonders if her perspective has been shaped and moulded by her place in the Dublin establishment politically, rather than the everyday lived experiences of the many Protestant families who live in border counties. For those families, the picture is very different. Their story has often been one of exclusion, quiet and vocal discrimination and gradual erasing. Whole communities, once vibrant and confident, have dwindled. The sharp decline in the Protestant population of border towns and villages has not been by accident; in many cases, it has been by design. It is the result of sustained social, cultural and, at times, violent pressures that are simply not acknowledged in the narratives presented by the Irish political class. Just two weeks ago, we paused to remember the anniversary of the Tullyvallen massacre, when five innocent Orangemen were murdered in cold blood by republican terrorists. Those wounds have not healed, and they should never be forgotten. We have a "Bury your head in the sand" approach from the Irish Government when it comes to legacy, facilitating and protecting terrorists who skipped across the border, terrorised communities and destroyed innocent lives. We have border bogs that still hold the bodies of certain individuals who have never had the comfort of a simple burial. Top 12.45 pm Over the weekend, it got worse, when a national newspaper had a sensationalist headline about Heather Humphreys's family's former Orange links. Is that the approach that republicans take to anybody from a unionist tradition? Has the mask slipped? Be assured that unionists know exactly how they would be treated in a so-called new, inclusive Ireland. Manufacturing Strategy and Action Plan Mr Honeyford: Today, I welcome the investment in 1,000 new jobs. That good news shows the value of investing in our people. Three years ago, funding went into college training programmes. The weekend's announcement proves that supporting skills and backing our young people delivers real opportunities. That is why it is essential that, moving forward, Northern Ireland have a joined-up approach, such as that taken by Skillnet Ireland in the South, in order to build a pipeline of talent linking business with education and our colleges to build opportunities and attract global investment. I have just left a meeting with Seagate, during which we talked about exactly the same thing. Last week, I spoke at the Northern Ireland Manufacturing and Supply Chain Conference and Exhibition at the Eikon exhibition centre, at which industry leaders showcased the latest technology and innovation. They were really clear that they need to hear more than words from the Assembly. I again call on the Minister for the Economy to bring forward a manufacturing strategy and, crucially, an action plan to go along with it. Other regions are racing ahead. Germany has its Industrie 4.0 strategy, Singapore has its advanced manufacturing 2030 vision and the Republic updates its strategy every five years. Only last week, it launched a new action plan to deliver on that. Meanwhile, we risk falling behind here, and that means missed investment, weaker productivity and lost opportunity. We need a strategy and delivery plan that provide a strong skills pipeline for apprenticeships and reskilling; a Skillnet Ireland-type body in Northern Ireland that supports SMEs to adopt digital and industry technologies; regional investment zones such as at the Maze and Blaris, which are in my area; plug-and-play industrial parks; and net zero manufacturing to keep firms competitive. We have the talent, the ambition and the entrepreneurs here. We have 19,000 young people who are not in education, employment or training. We need to identify how we can address that issue. We need government leadership and a manufacturing strategy and action plan that deliver on growth and bring in skills and jobs for the next generation. It is about providing good jobs, achieving regional balance, having stronger exports and putting money back in people's pockets. It is also about creating hope and securing our place in a modern economy. Bloody Sunday: Soldier F Trial Mr Delargy: This morning, we stood with the Bloody Sunday families, as the trial of Soldier F began in a court in Belfast. For over five decades, they have been denied truth and justice. I take the opportunity to acknowledge their dedication, determination and support and the inspiration that they provide to other families in a similar situation and, indeed, to families right across the world. The civil rights that people marched for in 1972 were for a better future and for equality in housing, employment and voting. Those people created a better future and a more equal society for my generation. My generation has a responsibility to stand with the Bloody Sunday families and to ensure that there is truth and justice. Although a soldier stands trial in a Belfast court today, those culpable also include the British Army generals who ordered the murder of innocent civilians on the streets of my city and the successive British Governments who denied truth and justice and who took every opportunity to cover up what their soldiers did. Successive British Governments did that. I call on the current British Government to repeal the Legacy Act, which all parties in the Chamber oppose, and finally to put the voices of the families first. As has been stated today by John McKinney, a brother of William McKinney: "regardless of the ... outcome, ... we are on the right side of history." Lewis Crocker: IBF World Welterweight Champion Ms Brownlee: I rise to celebrate a phenomenal victory and a moment that echoed across boxing circles and in the heart of everyone in Northern Ireland and beyond. Lewis Crocker, "The Croc", has done what few believed he could and claimed the IBF welterweight world title against Paddy Donovan in front of a roaring crowd at Windsor Park on Saturday evening. From the outset, Crocker was the underdog and was doubted by many. On Saturday, he showed heart, composure and power and finished 12 rounds without even a mark on his face. He boxed smart and walked away a champion. It was clear how much it meant to him, and he called it the "greatest night" of his life. He said, "Nobody gave me a chance", but Saturday was all the proof that was needed, and more, to show what a fantastic boxer this young man is. I say this to Lewis: Northern Ireland is incredibly proud of you. It really was a dream come true. He was boxing on the world stage, which that night was a stone's throw away from his Sandy Row, and he walked out to 'Sweet Caroline' at the home of his beloved Linfield Football Club. The achievement has been fantastic for Lewis, but I hope that it resonates with every person. Even when you feel that you have been written off and that the world may be against you, that should give you even more fire to achieve anything that you set your mind to. Lewis has paved the way for many boxers, putting himself above the parapet and raising very real concerns about treatment and selection in the Commonwealth Games selection due to his community background as a Protestant, giving other boxers, such as Daryl Clarke from my constituency, the confidence to come forward and demand equality in boxing and to call out sectarianism. We still await the report from the Equality Commission, but, despite those past barriers, Crocker managed to become world champion. My North Belfast colleague Phillip Brett was also incredibly proud for his constituent, young Kyle Smith, who, on his debut, scored victory over Connor Meanwell in the super middleweight division. What a promising career that young man will have. On this occasion, fortune favoured the brave. I say this: well done, Lewis and Kyle. We are all so proud of you. President Trump: State Visit Dr Aiken: The president of the United States will arrive tomorrow for his historic second state visit to our nation. Not only should that be warmly welcomed but it comes as the Bank of America is setting up a centre of excellence for financial technology and security operations and Citibank continues to announce further investment in those cutting-edge sectors in Northern Ireland. In comparison with the relationships with other presidents, that with the forty-fifth and forty-seventh president, though controversial for some, has brought real benefit to Northern Ireland. The advantageous 10% tariff deal with the United States, against the 15% or more for the EU, gives us, unlike the usurious Windsor framework, an actual advantage. That should give us further reason to welcome POTUS to our nation. Some here regularly complain about the president's stance on international relations while remaining remarkably coy about making similar comments about the leaders of Russia, China, Iran or North Korea. If I were an investor or a balanced political commentator from the United States, I would closely question that hypocritical attitude to the United States and its key allies. In fact, the United States and United Kingdom work closely together on cybersecurity along with key partners such as the Five Eyes community and Israel. That should also be celebrated, particularly by those whose job it is to promote our economy. Next year is the 250th anniversary of the United States. Our links to its Founding Fathers are many, because they came mostly from us. As we celebrate our transatlantic relationship, it gives us many more opportunities to promote Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom. As we look at the many journeys that our two nations have taken, we should remember John Adams's view: "the Circumstances of Language, Religion and blood, have their natural and full Effect" in bringing together a much closer relationship. We should use every opportunity to do that. Sadly, it is therefore incomprehensible that the so-called First Minister for all has refused an invitation to the state dinner. However, I am pleased that the deputy First Minister will attend. Despite the disrespectful stance of Sinn Féin and some of its fellow travellers on this issue, I hope that we give President Trump a warm welcome to our nation. Catherine Sherry: Lymphoma Awareness Day Mr McNulty: Today, on Lymphoma Awareness Day, I will speak about a young mother from my constituency Catherine Sherry, whose story must compel the Executive parties to act. Catherine was undergoing chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy in London when she tragically passed away in May. The treatment was working, but her immune system was severely compromised, and the repeated air travel left her too weak to fight off a final infection. Catherine died far from home and far from her three young, heartbroken boys: Manus, Tomás and Donal. Here is the devastating truth: life-saving treatment is available just 60 miles away in Dublin at St James's Hospital, but Catherine could not access it because no agreement exists to allow patients in the North of Ireland to receive the specialist treatment in the South. I have raised that directly with the Health Minister, and I have urged the Department of Health to act, but, so far, they have shown reluctance to explore or facilitate access to CAR T-cell therapy in the Republic. It is not a question of resources or a question of medical capacity or capability; it is a question of political will. We are now being told that the CAR T-cell therapy centre in Belfast may not be operational until 2030 and only after accreditation. That is at least another five years of patients being flown to London or Manchester, when a short drive to Dublin could spare them and their families an enormous physical and emotional toll. There is already a shared all-island commitment to cooperation on cancer care. That commitment must mean something. It cannot be allowed to gather dust while patients suffer and families grieve. Catherine's story is not just a tragedy; it is a call to action. Her treatment was working. Her battle and her bravery were heroic, but the journey — the unnecessary travel — ultimately cost her her life. No mother should have to leave her children behind in order to fight for survival in another country. No family should ever again be told, "We did all that we could", when we know that the system did not. The infrastructure exists, and the expertise exists, but the barrier is political will. I have organised a round-table discussion next Monday in Stormont with representatives from Leukaemia & Lymphoma NI, Blood Cancer UK, leading clinicians and families of those who have been impacted on by the inaccessibility of CAR T-cell treatment close to home. It is an issue that impacts on people and families across the North. Therefore, it requires a collective response and a joined-up effort from all Executive parties. If any Member wishes to join that discussion or to support the SDLP's campaign to right that wrong, please reach out to me directly. On Lymphoma Awareness Day, let us say clearly that people in the North deserve access to life-saving cancer treatment on this island, and they deserve it now. My heart goes out to Catherine's family — her husband, Fergal; her sons, Manus, Tomás and Donal; her parents, Roisin and Phil; and her colleagues, her club and her community. Mr Speaker: Thank you, Mr McNulty. Mr McNulty: I measc na naomh go raibh sí. [Translation: May her soul rest in peace.] Assembly Business Public Petition: Stop Funding the Lifespan Gender Identity Service Mr Speaker: Timothy Gaston has sought leave to present a public petition in accordance with Standing Order 22. The Member will have up to three minutes in which to speak. Mr Gaston: I present the petition on behalf of over 3,300 citizens, parents and taxpayers who are deeply concerned about the Health Minister's decision to fund a so-called lifespan gender identity service. The scheme commits to spending £806,000 every year: money that our struggling health service cannot spare. While cancer patients wait and mental health services collapse, Mike Nesbitt has chosen to bankroll a controversial project built on ideology and not on evidence. At the root, it comes down to truth. A man is a man; a woman is a woman; and no service, ideology or lobby group can change that. Yet, the Minister invited the Rainbow Project — a radical activist organisation that rejects those basic realities — to act as a co-design partner. That is outsourcing public health policy to lobbyists. The petition highlights three fundamental issues. The first is the lack of medical evidence. The Cass review found the evidence base for child gender services to be of poor quality and insufficient. The Minister's hasty, rapid review announcement, made only after the petition began to get traction, merely proves that he acted first and thought later. The second issue is the vulnerability of children. Young children are still developing. They cannot meaningfully consent to lifelong consequences. Referrals at such an early age push them down a path from which they cannot return. The third issue is the misuse of public funds. An FOI request revealed that the funding was not a one-off but will be repeated year after year, with even more costs planned for GP involvement in phase 2. Top 1.00 pm Minister, listen to the public, not the Rainbow Project. Heed parents, not activists. Stand with biology, not ideology. Mr Gaston moved forward and laid the petition on the Table. Mr Speaker: I will forward the petition to the Minister of Health and forward a copy to the Chairperson of the Health Committee. Executive Committee Business School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill: Consideration Stage Mr Speaker: I call the Minister of Education, Mr Paul Givan, to move the Consideration Stage of the Bill. Moved. — [Mr Givan (The Minister of Education).] Mr Speaker: Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments detailing the order for consideration. The amendments have been grouped for debate in the provisional grouping of amendments selected list. There are two groups of amendments, and we will debate the amendments in each group in turn. The first debate will be on amendment Nos 1 to 4 and 8 to 12, which deal with the monitoring and enforcement of guidelines. Members should note that amendment Nos 9 and 10 are mutually exclusive. The second debate will be on amendment Nos 2, 3, 5 to 7 and 13, which deal with the contents of guidelines and commencement. I remind Members who intend to speak in the debates on the two groups of amendments that they should address all the amendments in each group on which they wish to comment. Once the debate on each group has been completed, any further amendments in the group will be moved formally as we go through the Bill, and the Question on each amendment will be put without further debate. The questions on each clause standing part will be taken at appropriate points in the Bill. If that is clear, we shall proceed. Clause 1 (Guidelines as to policies on school uniforms) Mr Speaker: We now come to the first group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 1, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 4, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. I call the Chairperson of the Committee for Education, Mr Nick Mathison, to move amendment No 1 and address the other amendments in the group. Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education): I beg to move amendment No 1: In page 1, line 10, leave out "from time to time" and insert "at least once every three years". The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List: No 4: In page 2, line 9, at end insert— "(6) The Department must lay any guidelines issued under this section before the Assembly." — [Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education).] No 8: New Clause After clause 4 insert— "Reporting on school uniform costs and capping of expense 4A. —(1) The Department must publish a written report, at least once every three years, detailing— (a) its assessment of the cost of school uniforms and their components, including mean costs, median costs and factors contributing to these, and (b) the effect of any capping of expense included in guidelines as a result of section (4), or if no such capping of expense has been set, the reasons for this, and (c) its subsequent plans for— (i) reviewing and, if appropriate, amending the guidelines, and (ii) imposing, ending or otherwise modifying any capping of expense. (2) The first report under paragraph (1) must be published within the period of three years beginning with the date on which this Act receives Royal Assent." — [Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education).] No 9: In clause 7, page 3, line 31, leave out subsection (1) and insert— "(1) The Department must give directions as follows to a manager of a school if the Department is satisfied that the manager is (or staff at the school are) in one or more material respects failing to adhere as required to guidelines under this Chapter. (1A) The Department may give directions to a manager of a school as follows if the Department is satisfied that the school’s pupils are liable to disciplinary measures or participatory disadvantages at the insistence of the manager (or of staff at the school) in consequence of breaching a school uniform policy applying at the school." — [Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education).] No 10: In clause 7, page 3, line 35, after "to" insert "undue". — [Mr Givan (The Minister of Education).] No 11: In clause 7, page 4, line 11, leave out paragraph (b). — [Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education).] No 12: In clause 7, page 4, line 30, at end insert— "(8) Where the Department gives directions to a school, it must publish these within three months of the directions first being given." — [Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education).] Mr Mathison: With your permission, I will make some comment on the Committee Stage of the School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill before speaking directly to the first group of amendments. The Committee ran a robust scrutiny stage despite the constrained timescales imposed on it, and I will give a brief overview of how that stage was conducted. The Bill was introduced on 18 February 2025 and referred to the Committee for Education for consideration after Second Stage on 3 March 2025. The Committee received 19 written submissions and took evidence from 14 stakeholders in oral evidence sessions. I record the Committee's thanks to all who took the time to engage with us on the Bill and to inform our deliberations. I turn to the timeline of our process. On 25 March 2025, the Minister wrote to the Committee outlining the process for the publication of information around school uniform policies by schools and the corresponding timelines being observed by the Department in an attempt to facilitate the publication of guidelines, which is a key part of the Bill and forthcoming Act. The Department flagged the tight turnaround times and urged the Committee to conduct a Committee Stage to complete by summer recess. The Committee set a longer Committee Stage, which was to complete in December 2025. The motion was agreed on 18 March. The motion and amendment in relation to the timeline was debated in a plenary session here on 7 April 2025. It proposed an extension of the Committee Stage to 30 August rather than the longer date proposed by the Committee. That was agreed as the end date of the Committee Stage. I put it on record again that I did not support that date of extension. I felt that the Committee needed more time to scrutinise the Bill, and we found that our processes became incredibly rushed towards the end. Undoubtedly in my mind, there was evidence that we would like to have heard from a range of stakeholders, particularly schools and school leaders, but that we were unable to hear. The shorter timeline meant that the Committee Stage required significant reorganisation of the Committee's schedule of work, and we had to consider the availability of members as well as the times and spaces required to facilitate our engagement with stakeholders in order to give us the opportunity to deliberate on the Bill. It was notable that, at the Committee Stage extension debate, members expressed their intention to be available to facilitate the shorter time frame. It is a credit to members that we remained quorate for the whole process when, at times, we were convening two or three times a week through May and June, often during plenary sittings. I pay tribute to the Clerk and Committee staff team, who facilitated every meeting with the administration and record-keeping needed to keep the process moving effectively. That is not to say that the shorter stage did not create challenges. For example, with the extension date running to 30 August, we considered how appropriate or feasible it would be to engage with education stakeholders during the holiday period for them. Therefore, we endeavoured to complete our task by 2 July 2025, and we succeeded. Later in the Committee Stage, concerns were expressed by some members around the Department's engagement on the Bill. There was a query about whether there had been a miscalculation of time frames and the necessary resourcing to deliver the Bill. For the sake of balance, I would add that, in its responses and engagement with the Committee, the Department strenuously contested that assertion. I am sure that this will get much debate today in the Chamber, but the Committee was not given sight of the Department's proposed guidelines for schools on their uniform policies. That is the principal outworking of the legislation. Initially, we were given a clear assurance that those would be provided. To my mind — I think all members agreed — that would have been a significant and substantial assistance to the scrutiny process, particularly for clarity with regard to the provisions of clause 7 and the enforceability of the guidelines. The Committee had no desire to create unnecessary levels of prescription in the Bill with any proposed amendment, but, without sight of the draft guidelines, it, at times, felt compelled to insist on prescription to satisfy members as to the effectiveness of the guidelines that would flow from the legislation. In delivering the Committee stage, the Committee's priorities were clear. We wanted to ensure that there would be robust measures to deliver affordability for parents. That was a priority for all members. Members will know from their constituency offices how much pressure the cost of school uniforms brings to bear on family finances. The Committee also sought to ensure the best interests of every child and non-discrimination principles in the Bill, and it was interested in limiting contracts with retailers that might amount to market dominance. The Committee sought to improve transparency around available sanctions for breaches of the guidelines on uniform policy and to improve complaint-handling and implementation reports for the future monitoring of the Bill's effectiveness. Those are the intended impacts of the proposed amendments that have been accepted for debate, notwithstanding the fact that a range of amendments that were put forward have not been accepted. Of course, that was a decision not for the Committee but for the Speaker. On 1 July, the Committee undertook its formal clause-by-clause consideration and agreed 23 amendments to the clauses drafted. Twelve of those amendments were selected for debate, plus an additional amendment from the Minister. With that summary of our process, I move to the Committee's proposed amendments in group 1, which, as the Speaker has referenced, refer to the monitoring and enforcement of the guidelines. Amendment No 1, which relates to clause 1, specifies the frequency of the review of guidelines. The Committee's research and stakeholder feedback quickly identified a widely held view that there was substantial appetite among stakeholders to have aspects of measures proposed in the Bill more precisely defined. Several witnesses highlighted concern about the wording of clause 1 regarding the proposed frequency of review of the guidelines. It is currently framed as "from time to time". The Committee was conscious that review mechanisms of the legislation would create milestones to improve efficiency and flexibility of the guidelines but would also create opportunities for reflection, post-legislation, on whether the implementation of the guidelines aligned with the objective of the legislation of reducing costs. The Committee felt that it was entirely reasonable that a period of at least once every three years for review would give clarity and continuity. We felt that that would likely result in a review being carried out each mandate, which, we felt, would be an appropriate and necessary measure to ensure that effectiveness was routinely given attention by the Department. Mindful of the importance of the guidelines, the Committee decided on amendment No 4 as a measure of post-legislative scrutiny to require the Department to formally lay them before the Assembly. That would ensure that the Committee and Members remained up to date and clearly informed in a timely manner about any changes to the guidelines made under the Bill. I turn to amendment No 8. Throughout the Committee's consideration of the Bill, repeated concern was raised by stakeholders and members across our evidence sessions about the cost of uniforms. There was also agreement on the need to monitor and report on those costs and for the Department to consider whether it was necessary to introduce a cap on uniform costs. The Committee agreed that introducing a regular report on that would identify areas of concern and improve our ability to scrutinise the impact of the Bill. The Bill had no such provisions. It created enabling powers around a cost cap. I must emphasise that the evidence that we heard from parents and anti-poverty groups was clear that the cost cap was where they would like to see the intervention of the legislation. There was a concern that the enabling powers around the cost cap could gather dust for years with no formal mechanism for Members to hold the Minister and Department to account on whether the Bill was delivering for parents and whether the cost cap needed to be implemented. The Committee believes that the new clause addresses that risk and puts in place robust accountability measures that, I hope, Members will support. I may, if given permission, speak to that amendment as a private Member later. The Committee's intention around amendment Nos 9, 11 and 12 is to improve accountability in situations where the Department is concerned that schools are not following the required guidelines. If the guidelines, as seems to be the case and as the Minister assures us — I am sure that he will set it out clearly — are what will deliver the meaningful changes in how schools manage their uniform policies and reduce costs, how schools are held accountable in how they follow or do not follow the guidelines is absolutely crucial. The Committee was satisfied, on balance, that the amendments struck a balance between requiring the Department to intervene when guidelines are breached and ensuring that the process is open and transparent. I understand that there is likely to be debate on the amendments. It was rehearsed at length in Committee how best to do this. How do you find the balance? Nobody wants to name and shame schools, but nobody wants an enforcement mechanism that has no teeth and cannot be utilised to ensure that the guidelines are adhered to. On balance, there was debate backward and forward and differences in opinion, but we feel that that balance has been struck with the amendments. That concludes my remarks on the group as Chair of the Committee. I hope that that contribution sets out clearly the rationale of the Committee in proposing the amendments. With you permission, Mr Speaker, I will speak to one amendment in particular in the group in my capacity as an Alliance MLA, and that is amendment No 8. To my mind, it is fundamentally important in ensuring that the Bill is effective. Amendment No 8 is the requirement that whoever holds the office of Minister of Education in future years come to the Assembly every three years and report clearly on the impact of the Bill and what it has done to the costs of school uniforms across Northern Ireland and, specifically, to address whether the cost-cap power will be utilised; if it has, what has been the impact; and, if not, whether there is the intention to do so. (Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair) Every Member of the Assembly will hear from their constituents about the impact of excessive school uniform costs on their family finances. At times, for some schools, those costs can be crippling and create huge stress and distress, particularly over the summer months. As the Bill is really fairly light on detail about what will be delivered as an outworking of the guidelines, we felt that it was vital that there was a mechanism to ensure accountability. To my mind, the Bill gives us no assurances of what the guidelines will specifically require schools to do. We have not seen the draft guidelines. I assume that they have been drafted and are in place, but, for whatever reason, they have not been provided to us. We certainly do not have even a sense of what their content will be. I sincerely hope that the guidelines will provide a clear, enforceable framework that will require schools that still expect parents to pay excessive costs to get the situation under control. No Member wants to see £180 blazers in any school uniform policy. That price seems to be so disconnected from parents' lived financial realities as to make it hard for me to comprehend how it could be stood over. Top 1.15 pm The Bill is light on definitive elements that schools will be required to adhere to in guidelines, while the provisions to restrict branded items or to introduce a cost cap remain either "may" provisions that are subject to amendment today or, in the case of a cap, an enabling provision that may or may not be used in the future, so I am clear that there is a need for accountability. It therefore seems entirely reasonable to me that, once a mandate, whoever holds the office of Minister of Education should report to the House on the legislation's impact on reducing school uniform costs; on any intention to implement a cost cap, and if not, why not; and on any plans that the Department has to carry out a further review of the guidelines. Without amendment No 8, I fear that, regardless of its impact on cost — positive or negative — once it gains Royal Assent, there is a real risk that the Bill will be seen as the final destination when it comes to intervention from the Department on the cost of uniforms. It is therefore vital that there be accountability regarding its effectiveness and what the Department will do if the legislation does not deliver as promised. I wish to be clear. I have said this before, but it bears repeating: I sincerely hope that the legislation is effective, and I welcome the fact that it is being debated in the Assembly today. I will welcome its impact if that is the scenario in which we find ourselves, because if we are serious about doing our job, everybody here will want to see uniform costs be reduced for parents. It is not in any way about getting one up on any other party or winning but about making sure that parents win out of the process. If the Bill is not effective, or it is not as effective as it could be, the Assembly should have the opportunity to interrogate properly why that is the case and to hear how it will be corrected. I am satisfied that my remarks as Chair set out a clear rationale for the other amendments in the group, but I place firmly on the record my views on the importance of amendment No 8, which I was pleased to propose at Committee Stage. I am also pleased that it received support from all members when we went through our clause-by-clause deliberations. I look forward to the rest of the debate on the amendments in the group. Mr McCrossan: I speak in support of the Bill and the amendments in group 1. Those amendments, which cover regular review, reporting, enforcement and transparency, are about making sure that the legislation delivers real relief to parents rather than gathers dust on a shelf. Let me be clear that, although schools may close their doors during the summer months, parents' stress does not stop. The reality of school uniform costs weighs heavily on the mind of tens of thousands of families across Northern Ireland, and each September is marked not by excitement but by dread at the mounting bills for blazers, PE kits and endless branded items. Research from Pivotal has shown that one in 10 children here has missed school because they could not meet uniform requirements. Just think about that for a moment. Young people are being excluded from education not because of their ability or willingness to learn but because their parents cannot afford the right jumper or trainers. The same study showed that 73% of low-income families struggled to meet the costs. Those are not just statistics. We all hear from our constituents day and daily. Families are paying over £100 for a single blazer, and often more when the school insists on specific suppliers being used. For families with two or three children in different schools with various uniform requirements, the costs become crushing, yet a £100 blazer does not make a child a better learner. It does not help them in their maths test or help improve their spelling. Rather, it drives up inequality in our classrooms. The Irish League of Credit Unions (ILCU) tells us that the average cost of getting a child back to school is nearly £1,000, and uniforms make up a huge part of that cost. Figures from the Parent Engagement Group (PEG) suggest an average uniform cost of £378 in Northern Ireland. That is simply not sustainable. It is pushing families into debt and forcing them to make impossible choices between heating, food and their children's education. That is why the group 1 amendments matter. Amendment No 1 requires guidelines to be reviewed: "at least once every three years". Without that amendment, the Department can review them "from time to time", which, in practice, means maybe or maybe not. Families cannot wait on good intentions. They need regular scrutiny to be written into law in order to ensure accountability. Amendment No 4 requires guidelines to be laid before the Assembly. That matters, because guidelines have power only when they are open to proper scrutiny and debate. We cannot outsource that to departmental corridors. The Assembly must see and approve what is being done in the name of affordability. Amendment No 8, as outlined by the Committee Chair, introduces "Reporting on school uniform costs", including figures on mean and median costs, the effect of any capping and future plans. The Minister has argued that that is too prescriptive or unclear, but there is nothing unclear about a family staring at a £400 bill for a uniform for a single child. Parents will want clarity on whether the Bill is working and whether schools are lowering those costs. Without data, we are blind. Amendment No 8 ensures that the Department gathers and shares the evidence that we need. Amendment Nos 9 and 11 strengthen the Department's power to intervene when schools fail to follow guidelines. If schools do not comply, it cannot be optional for the Department to act, otherwise we risk creating a law with no consequence, which is a mistake that is made too often in the House. Families deserve to know that, if a school breaches its duties, the Department must step in. Amendment No 12 ensures that directions that are given to schools are published. Again, the Minister has objected, suggesting that that amounts to naming and shaming, but let us be honest: transparency is not about shaming. It is about accountability. If a school is failing its pupils by imposing unaffordable and unfair uniform rules, parents have the right to know. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and secrecy will only erode trust. The amendments are not radical; they are quite modest, practical and necessary. They place transparency, regular review and accountability at the heart of the Bill. Let me add this: while we work through the law, parents and communities have not been waiting. Across Northern Ireland, pre-loved uniform schemes are making a real difference to many families and to the lives of young people. The Redeeming Our Communities project, for example, has helped nearly 900 families with recycled uniforms. Those initiatives save money, reduce waste and build community spirit. Similar initiatives in my constituency have played out well and have supported countless families over the summer and leading into September. It is a pity that amendments to embed such schemes more fully in the Bill were not accepted, but the fact that those projects exist shows the will of parents and communities to act where the Government have been too slow or non-existent. As we consider the group 1 amendments, let us remember this: the success of the Bill will be measured not on its technical drafting but on the pounds and pennies that families save come September. The group 1 amendments make sure that the law is not just words on the page but a tool that can deliver affordability, fairness and dignity for parents and pupils alike. Mr Sheehan: I would like to be able to get up and say that I welcome the Bill as far as it goes. Unfortunately, it does not go very far at all, and that is the difficulty with it. We on the Committee had a very productive Committee Stage. The Committee heard evidence from many witnesses, including from schools, teachers, parents, the Children's Commissioner, representatives from the Human Rights Commission and others. There was an opportunity to include in the Bill affordability and equality, not just for boys and girls but for children with special needs, so that they would also win from the legislation. The Minister and his party, I have to say, were opposed to practically all the amendments that were brought forward by the Committee. That is unfortunate. What we are left with is a watered-down piece of draft legislation. We are not even sure what impact it will have. I suppose that what the Minister wanted was for the Assembly to give him the power to make guidelines. What the Committee wanted was for the Bill to be much more prescriptive, because, whatever guidelines the Minister may intend to implement at some stage, another Minister could come in and change those guidelines. If the Bill were more prescriptive and issues such as affordability and equality were included in it, we would be in a much stronger position. The amendments in group 1 ensure that any guidance that comes out of the Bill is not only written but enforced and monitored. I will speak briefly in support of amendment Nos 1, 4, 8, 9, 11 and 12. I will not support the Minister's amendment No 10. Amendment No 1 puts a clear duty on the Department to review guidelines at least once every three years. Families deserve the reassurance that those rules will not gather dust on a shelf. The cost of uniforms is not static. In recent years, we have seen the impact of inflation as well as the behaviour of some schools and suppliers, all of which drives up prices for families. Recently, we saw that a school had introduced a new blazer for its high performers. No one objects to schools acknowledging excellence in their school, but what that school did was to say that, if you were a high achiever, you could get a £180 woollen blazer to show how good you had been. I listened to the Minister — this is why I am so concerned about his intentions — when he was asked about that in a radio interview, and he could not even mildly criticise what that school had done. That was very disappointing. It showed that the Minister is not really serious about building affordability into the legislation. Amendment No 4 requires guidelines to be laid before the Assembly. That is democratic oversight: pure and simple. If we want parents to trust the process, we cannot have decisions taken quietly, behind closed doors, by the Minister and his colleagues. As my colleague Daniel McCrossan said earlier, "Sunlight is the best disinfectant". Amendment No 8 forces the Department to report on uniform costs, to assess the impact of any cost cap and, if no cap is introduced, to explain why. Families deserve full transparency and a clear rationale from the Minister if no cap is introduced. Amendment No 9 gives the legislation some teeth by compelling intervention when schools ignore the rules. Is that not just simple and straightforward? If you tell a school what it has to do, and the school says, "No, we do not like that and will not do it", should there not be some sanction for that? There are already guidelines, although they are not statutory, on school uniforms and school uniform policy. I wonder whether the Minister has spoken to any schools about implementing those guidelines. I am pretty sure that he has not. Top 1.30 pm If schools ignore statutory guidelines, what will the Minister and the Department do? Will they say, "Come on, play the game. Get your act together and implement a fair and affordable uniform policy in your school"? The school will say, "Minister, sling your hook". What will the Minister do? The days of schools ignoring such guidance cannot — Mr Mathison: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree that any attempt to dilute the amendments that the Committee has tabled on the enforceability of the directions and on openness and transparency around them will not inspire confidence in how serious the Department or the Minister is about ensuring that the guidelines are implemented? Mr Sheehan: I thank the Member for his intervention, and I agree wholeheartedly. Any legislation must garner the confidence of the House in the Minister's seriousness about the intention behind it. It seems that the Minister is involved in a bit of window dressing, saying, "Look at me. I will bring in legislation that will make uniforms more affordable". In reality, we have thus far seen no evidence that that will happen. The Chair of the Committee will know that we were promised that we would see the guidelines. At one stage — probably April or May; maybe even before then — we were told that we would see them the following week. When they did not arrive, we were told, "It might take us a couple of weeks. We have to dot the i's and cross the t's". Where are the guidelines? We still have not seen them. If the Minister were serious about trying to marshal support for the legislation, the guidelines would have been available long before today. As I said, the days of schools ignoring guidance cannot continue. Families are relying on the legislation to make a difference. Amendment No 11 removes ambiguity, and amendment No 12 requires directions to schools to be published. Parents need to know when a school has been instructed and compelled to change course. I will touch on amendment No 10, tabled by the Minister. It would undermine any limited protections that the Bill might have offered to children and young people. It proposes to insert the word "undue", which, in my opinion, raises the threshold for intervention. That means that pupils could still be punished for uniform breaches as long as the punishment is not judged to be undue. The point of the Bill is to stop unfair penalties on families, not legitimise them with wriggle room. We will oppose that amendment. For Members' information, we recently spoke to a principal whose school has an excellent uniform policy. Parents are able to purchase the uniform of that school for £2 less than the uniform grant. With the Bill, the Minister could have done the same thing for every school. One of the big issues in our schools is absenteeism. Many children are absent because they have not conformed with uniform policy. That principal told us that he does not care what children wear, as long as they are in school. We should all have that attitude in trying to get our children into school, because we all know about the long tail of underachievement here. There is a wider issue. To date, as I have mentioned, neither the DUP Education Minister nor his Department has produced the draft guidelines that will accompany the Bill. Never mind that we were promised the guidelines; it is just not good practice, if we are serious about legislating properly, that the Department and the Minister should promise us guidelines but we do not get them. We are being asked to blindly trust the Minister, and we are not prepared to do that. That is exactly why we worked with others across the Chamber, particularly the Alliance Party and the SDLP, in the Education Committee, to table wide-ranging amendments so that, no matter which Minister may be in post, families could be assured of consistency and fairness regardless of who holds office. Finally, while we support this group of amendments, again, I must mention the missed opportunity. We tabled amendments on children's rights, on equality, on making reasonable accommodations for pupils with additional needs and on uniform reuse schemes, all of which were considered not to be part of the Bill and that, therefore, cannot be debated today. Perhaps, in due course, we will get an explanation of why that is the case. Sin a bhfuil le rá agam. [Translation: That is all I have to say.] Mr Brooks: The legislation should not greatly divide the House. There were several times during the Bill's Committee Stage when some were distracted from the Bill's original intent and the core promise that we and a number of other parties in the House laid out as our overriding aim: to bring down the cost of school uniforms for hard-pressed families across Northern Ireland. I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill, and we should all be united in ensuring that no child is denied opportunity or dignity in school because of the cost of a blazer or a PE kit. To be fair, despite the areas where we differ, I do not believe that any Member here is blind to the pressures that households face, particularly in today's climate, where every pound is stretched further than before. While we share that concern, it is our duty to ensure that the way in which we legislate is proportionate and workable. There is always a balance to be struck between affordability, with checks and balances against excess, and school autonomy. To be clear, most of our schools are mindful not only of their pupils but of the families that support them. Schools seek to do their best to balance uniform requirements and practicality against the costs that, they know, their choices will place on parents and guardians. The schools are communities in themselves, and often uniform is a vital part of fostering identity, discipline and pride. In seeking to solve one problem, we must not create another by imposing rigid, centralised rules that leave governors, principals and parents without flexibility or, worse, add to the burden of bureaucracy. It has been clear in the Committee process that some of the aspects that we might understandably wish to have in the Bill are neither as simple as they sound nor as likely, without significantly more work or learning from other jurisdictions, to have as positive an impact on parents and schools as we might wish. I suggest that the answer lies in strengthening the guidance and partnership, rather than legislating every detail. The Bill does that, and it gives the Minister the power to bring in sanctions where justified, should a school gratuitously continue to ignore guidance. While such powers under the Bill would reside in the Minister's gift — Pat has looked at that point from another angle — I remind the House that, as the mandate draws on, we do not know who will hold the portfolio in future. Parties should not be unduly influenced in their judgement over how aligned or not they are with the current Minister. I thank Pat for his vote of confidence in the current Minister, but I wonder which party he is afraid of holding the post in future. Parents want fairness and transparency, schools want discretion and respect for their ethos, and that balance can be struck appropriately. We are mindful, too, of the impact that such legislation can have on many of our small retailers, and we heard about that from Retail NI. Those retailers have been diligently serving families and schools for many years — some for generations. The Committee heard from a panel from Retail NI about the complex web of supplies and turnaround times and the effects that that can have, particularly in trying to come to a conclusion on a cap. While we cannot expect that they can compete on price with online giants for generic items — some have moved away from supplying PE kit due to schools' direct arrangements with branded manufacturers, as we have heard — they have long done their best to provide good school-specific items at the lowest cost they can to our communities. As we move through the clauses of the Bill, our party has given and will continue to give each one careful consideration. We have listened to the sensible provisions to improve accountability and transparency, but we have resisted and will resist measures that add bureaucracy without significant gain or have been more about projecting ideology over achieving a better outcome for families. We are not minded to oppose amendment Nos 1 and 4 to clause 1. There are some concerns about the additional bureaucracy but not so much as to oppose. Despite allowing it to pass to this point, we will oppose amendment No 8. That is the new clause 4A. We share the concerns that the Minister laid out in correspondence to the Chair of the Committee this morning, and we feel that the terminology of the clause is unclear. There is also a lack of recognition that uniforms at secondary level are normally, as a standard, more expensive than those at primary school. Clearly, we understand that, as he has laid out, the Minister will undertake to table an amendment at Further Consideration Stage that should give the same outcome as that which Members intend but takes into account the complexities around the cap that the Committee has heard. On principle, we will also oppose amendment No 9 to clause 7. The amendment would remove consistency, as, again, the Minister laid out, with article 101 of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, and we feel that the impact of the amendment would be limited, as the assessment of whether a direction is required still takes place. We will support amendment No 10. We will oppose amendment Nos 11 and 12, as with amendment No 8, in light of the correspondence and engagement with the Minister. On amendment No 11, it is on a similar basis to that laid out with amendment No 9, as it introduces inconsistency with existing provisions and legislation and prevents consultation with the school and an opportunity to resolve any issues informally. On amendment No 12, we share the Minister's concern and do not feel that placing in legislation rather than at the Minister's discretion the requirement to name and shame schools is helpful or necessary. Mr Mathison: Thank you for giving way. In relation to the issue of publishing directions that are made, do you agree that that would deliver a more effective deterrent and that schools would be much more likely to roll the dice around whether to comply with the guidelines if they knew that there was a sanction that could impact on their reputation? Mr Brooks: It can, of course, act as a deterrent. In all of these things, it is about a balance. Naming and shaming and balance in any sector on any cause is always a controversial subject, so it is really about whether we think that the effect that naming and shaming a school might have is disproportionate and, not least, unhelpful as regards a conducive atmosphere between the Department and our schools. It is about finding that balance. I understand the argument, but, in this case, I side on the other side, I am afraid. We must be clear: the objective of affordable, accessible school uniforms for families and of no child making school choices either on the institution that they desire or the activities and subjects that they get involved with on the basis of affordability is an aim that we should surely all share, but the means of achieving that must be fair, workable and respectful of school communities. That is the test that we have always applied in considering the Bill. I look forward to seeing it progress and, even more, to the delivery of reduced costs for parents and guardians across Northern Ireland. Mrs Mason: The amendments are about ensuring that whatever guidance, when we finally get to see it, comes out of the Bill is not only written but enforced and monitored. I will speak briefly in support of amendment Nos 1, 4, 8, 9, 11 and 12. I will not support the Minister's amendment No 10. Top 1.45 pm Amendment No 1 would ensure that the Department reviews the guidelines: "at least once every three years". Uniform costs continue to spiral. In recent years, inflation, paired with the actions of some schools and suppliers, has increased costs for families. Regular inspection of the cost of uniforms would give families the assurance that such interventions are not temporary. Amendment No 4 would require guidelines to be brought before the Assembly, thus taking the decisions out of the hands of the Minister and his colleagues and putting them in those of the Assembly, thereby ensuring full transparency for families. Amendment No 8 would make it a requirement for the Department to publish a report: "at least once every three years", to review the cost of school uniforms and to consider the introduction of a price cap. A clear explanation from the Minister when no cap is applied would also be required. That is the transparency that families need and the test that is required. Amendment No 9 would give the Department the ability to intervene if schools breach uniform guidelines or if pupils are being unfairly punished for not following uniform rules. As my party colleague Pat Sheehan stated, amendment No 11 would remove any ambiguity, while amendment No 12 would require directions to schools to be published. Parents need to be informed when a school is being directed to change its approach. We will not support the Minister's amendment No 10, as it seeks to undermine any limited protections that the Bill may offer to children and young people. As my party colleague explained, adding the word "undue" risks allowing pupils still to be punished for uniform breaches. That means that a girl who is on her period cannot wear trousers; that a child who is standing outside in the freezing cold cannot wear their coat; and that a child who has sensory needs must go on feeling uncomfortable and distressed. Further amendments could have addressed such situations, but their selection was at the Speaker's discretion. Although I support most of the amendments in group 1, I note a missed opportunity. I drafted a private Member's Bill that would have introduced stronger proposals to ensure that we drive down the cost of school uniforms. We are in this position today because the Minister's Bill takes precedence over private Members' Bills. Instead, my Sinn Féin colleagues and I therefore worked alongside other parties on the Committee to table amendments on children's rights; on giving girls the option to wear trousers, although it is unbelievable that we are even discussing that in this day and age; on making reasonable accommodation for pupils with additional needs; and on introducing uniform reuse schemes. All were left out of today's debate. Perhaps, as Pat Sheehan said, we will, in due course, be offered an explanation as to why that happened. We are now in the peculiar position of discussing a Bill on uniforms when neither the DUP Education Minister nor his Department has produced the draft guidelines that will accompany it. That is unacceptable. If we are to be serious about ensuring that school uniform policy is fit for purpose, the Minister should take the opportunity today to clarify when we can expect the guidance to be produced. We wanted a Bill that would truly make uniforms affordable for everyone, make them inclusive and promote equality. Unfortunately, I now need to be convinced that that is what we have in front of us in what remains in the Bill after it has been stripped of genuine interventions. Mrs Guy: It is good to have legislation before us today. Delivering and scrutinising legislation is what we are here for, and I appreciate the opportunity to debate the selected proposed amendments to the School Uniforms Bill. I thank the Committee for its careful work on scrutinising the Bill in a very compressed time frame, and I also thank the Bill Office, which provided diligent and invaluable support to Members. The Alliance Party has long campaigned for action on the cost of school uniforms, so we welcome the fact that at least some progress has been made after years of inaction. It is a shame, however, that the Bill lacks ambition and scope. For example, I got up today and thought about what I would wear for "comfort and practicality", which is the language of the Bill, and I opted for trousers, yet girls across Northern Ireland do not necessarily have that choice, and the Bill will do nothing to address that. Let me be clear that our concern is that the Bill's main achievement risks being that the Minister can say that he did something: a neat box ticked for an election leaflet rather than genuine relief for families. We all understand the importance of tradition in schools, but policies must never exclude. Schools that are funded by public money should not create barriers for children from families on low or modest incomes. The amendments in group 1 are on monitoring and enforcement. Legislation has value only if it changes practice. That means having real monitoring, real enforcement and real accountability. Families cannot afford another round of warm words and glossy guidance; they need affordable uniforms for their children, and the Assembly should accept nothing less. The amendments in this group are essential, because, without good enforcement, those schools that already demonstrate best practice in affordability will continue to do so, while those that do not will simply be able to carry on without consequence. Amendment No 1 is important to ensure that the Department regularly reviews the statutory guidelines. We imagine that the Minister will want to do that more regularly initially anyway in order to ensure that the guidelines have the impact of making school uniforms more cost-effective. The Department's report on the consultation made it clear that there was widespread support for that regular review, with 77% of respondents agreeing: "schools should review their uniform policies every 3 years", and 79% agreeing with "monitoring and evaluation proposals". It therefore makes complete sense that the Department should have to review statutory guidance and that it should not be left as a "from time to time" approach. Amendment No 4 simply requires the Department to lay the guidelines before the Assembly, which is the minimum standard of transparency and democratic oversight for them. I am glad to say that amendment No 8 passed unanimously at Committee Stage. That amendment is a response to the fact that the Department was not able to present details on how a price cap could work or provide a preferred option. We know that the Department will consult specifically on the price cap, and I hope that the Minister can speak to when that will be and to his confidence that it will become a reality. We know that there is support for a price cap. The consultation report notes that 88% of respondents supported a "cost control measure being introduced". When I spoke to families about the legislation, that was the element that they told me that they would like to see. That is what people believe will bring costs down. I fully understand why they believe that, especially given that we have not seen any draft guidance. In the absence of draft statutory guidance from the Minister on the proposals for a price cap, Alliance tabled this amendment. It holds the Department to account on a price cap, stating that it must report: "at least once every three years" on the: "assessment of the cost of school uniforms", on the effect of a cap, if introduced — or, if no cap has been introduced, why not — and on "subsequent plans" for guidance on the cap. Amendment No 8 is, essentially, a scrutiny amendment. Amendment No 9 is concerned with directions on adherence to guidelines. Essentially, it is about how the Department will ensure that there is compliance with its statutory guidance. We could not understand why the Department would not give directions to schools that failed to adhere to guidelines. That is especially the case when there is an allowance or transitional guidance in place in the Bill. As outlined in clause 7(1)(a), the Department will be assured, through its investigation, about whether a school is "failing to adhere ... to guidelines". When we are talking about directions to the school manager, we see that those are clearly outlined in clause 7(5). I truly do not understand why that amendment would not be supported. The Department gave little assurance or clarity on the issue; therefore, the Committee felt that it was important to ensure that the Department will do its job, although I hope that it will not be necessary. Amendment No 11 is about simplifying the process of how the Department issues directions. Again, the majority of the Committee could not understand why, after having conversations with a school on potential breaches of the guidance — that is, of course, the right approach — the Department would then go back to consult the school manager on their proposals for directions. Amendment No 12 is not about naming and shaming schools. There is a considerable road to travel for engagement with schools before a direction would be given. Publicly funded schools should not have policies that breach statutory guidelines. There should be transparency on that. Mr Martin: I was not planning to speak at this stage — my colleague and I have separated out the groups — but I thought that I would pick up on a couple of things that have been said so far. The Member for West Tyrone Mr McCrossan is not in his seat. He said that the success of the Bill will be judged by the pounds and pennies that are saved and not by its "technical drafting". To a degree, I agree with him in that the outworking and policy intent of the Bill will be judged by the amount that parents actually save. To achieve that policy intent, legislation has to be right, and that is what we are about at fourth stage today. I want to pick up my feeling so far in the debate from some other parties. Obviously, Members are on the Committee with me. I am a bit disappointed in the negativity around the debate. We have before us a Bill — Members can have different views on this — that will, in my view and in the expert opinion of the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC), reduce uniform costs for parents in Northern Ireland. Mr Baker: Thank you to the Member for giving way. Will he not share my frustration and disappointment that the majority of the amendments put forward by the Committee have not made it today for debate? Will he not question why, given that they are well within the scope of the Bill yet are not there? Mr Martin: I thank the Member for West Belfast for his question. I will point out a few things to him. Clearly, the Speaker makes those decisions, and he is completely independent. Secondly, on numerous occasions during Committee Stage, I and my colleague pointed out that there were some things in the amendments that I felt — that is just my opinion — were outside the Bill's scope. Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): I thank the Member for giving way. I was due to say a few words before we break for Question Time and resume the debate at 3.30 pm. I will elaborate later on some of the substantive points that Members have made, but I will make one point now. The Bill was not introduced by me alone but was approved by the Executive. Every Member who has spoken and raised concerns is from a party that has Executive members. I engaged with the Alliance leader on the Bill before we went through the Executive, and I engaged with Sinn Féin. The Bill is a product of the Northern Ireland Executive, on which your parties have representatives. That is the legislation. There was opportunity to seek change to the legislation and to have that change included in the Bill by your parties' members of the Executive. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr Givan: Therefore, I say to Members — Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order, Minister. Mr Givan: — that that is worth bearing in mind when you are criticising the Bill. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Minister. Order, please. Can we return to the substance of the amendments rather than focusing on issues that, either regrettably or successfully, were not selected? If you continue to do this —. Mr Givan: We are not. A Member: We are not. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Paul, I will decide that. If you all continue to do this, we are going to have a very different debate this afternoon. I am just letting you know. Sorry to cut you short. Question Time begins at 2.00 pm. After that you can continue your apparently very small point that so far has lasted five and a half minutes. We will continue the rest of your points after Question Time. Members, please take your ease. The debate stood suspended. Top 2.00 pm (Mr Speaker in the Chair) Oral Answers to Questions Health Mr Speaker: We will start with listed questions. Question 11 has been withdrawn. Breast Cancer Referrals: Regional System 1. Ms Bunting asked the Minister of Health whether the regional system for breast cancer referrals, announced in May 2025, is delivering the desired improvements. (AQO 2327/22-27) Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): I am most exercised by the fact that, for far too long, patients have faced unequal access to timely breast cancer assessments. In one geographic part of the country, we were consistently meeting the 14-day target, while, in others, fewer than 10% of patients were seen within that time frame. The regional system was designed to eliminate disparities by pooling referrals into a single waiting list and offering patients the earliest available appointment, regardless of their home trust. We have taken a deliberate step towards fairness and consistency, and therefore the system is delivering on the promise of equalised access but is not delivering on the challenge of meeting the 14-day target. The current average wait is simply not acceptable. I have told officials that it is not acceptable to me and that I expect to see improvements. We have allocated £5 million in recurrent funding through the elective care framework. That will support additional waiting list initiatives and the expanded use of the independent sector, while we work to increase clinical capacity in the trusts. A comprehensive review of breast services, meanwhile, is under way. I want to ensure sustainability and resilience in the years to come. Ms Bunting: I am grateful to the Minister for the answer. I am sure that he will be aware that this causes great distress not just to the women involved but to their families. What reassurances does the Minister plan to give women across Northern Ireland that they will, indeed, be seen within the target time for red-flag breast cancer referrals? The Minister said that he had made it clear to officials that the waiting times were not acceptable to him, but he did not outline the plan or direction given to officials to fix and resolve the issue for those women across Northern Ireland. Mr Nesbitt: As I said to the Member, £5 million has been allocated through the elective care framework implementation plan. That will strengthen long-term resilience and reduce reliance on temporary measures. We must get rid of temporary measures and install resilience. On my actions to deal with the immediate pressures, the trusts have been instructed to prioritise red-flag referrals in the existing core capacity to ensure timely access for the most clinically urgent cases. The strategic planning and performance group (SPPG) is working with trusts on a plan to provide regular additional waiting list initiative clinics and mega-clinics. The independent sector will also supplement capacity in the short term. Mrs Dillon: The original question was about the plan to reduce waiting times. The target time for red-flag breast services is 14 days, and some women have waited for eight, nine, 10 and 11 weeks. It might be that, across the board, everybody has to wait, but that is no comfort to those women or their families. Some of the women have a family history of aggressive cancers that can deteriorate in a matter of days or weeks. What is the plan? Mr Nesbitt: An eight-, nine-, 10- or 11-week wait is not acceptable to me, patients or their families: I get it. However, the postcode lottery that was in place before I introduced the regional booking service was equally unacceptable. You could have been living a mile away from a trust that was seeing all or nearly all its patients within the 14-day target, while your trust satisfied only 10% of the demand. That was clearly inequitable and unfair, and we have successfully moved to do away with the postcode lottery. We now have to drive down the waiting times and meet the 14-day target. It is a big ask but one that those patients deserve to see delivered. Mr Chambers: I welcome the fact that action has now been taken to end the sheer inequity and postcode lottery for patients with suspected breast cancer. Does the Minister agree that, in a region as small as Northern Ireland, with a population of fewer than two million people, there should be no tolerance of such varying patient experiences not just of services for suspected breast cancer but of other specialities? Mr Nesbitt: I absolutely agree with the Member. He will be aware that, during my time as Minister of Health, one of my objectives is to ensure that, whatever the condition or process or entry point for a patient or service user into our Health and Social Care (HSC) system anywhere in Northern Ireland, the patient receives a standardised, regionalised service. That is the ambition across the board. Mr McGlone: Minister, it appears that, since the centralisation of services — that is what it has been — there has, in fact, been a deterioration of those services for many women who are deeply concerned about their health. What additional resources are being allocated to trusts and health services in order that people who are deeply concerned about their health can be seen as soon as possible? Mr Nesbitt: The answer to your question is, as I outlined, the £5 million of additional moneys through the elective care framework implementation plan. I acknowledge that there are explanations — not excuses — for what happened. For example, it was over the summer, and the workforce was challenged because people need their summer holidays. A number of factors play into it. I stress this: explanations and excuses are different things. That is only an explanation; it does not make it right. Men’s Health Strategy 2. Mr Brooks asked the Minister of Health whether any consideration has been given to developing a men’s health strategy for Northern Ireland. (AQO 2328/22-27) Mr Nesbitt: Evidence suggests that men are disproportionately affected by certain conditions, such as some types of heart disease, and smoking; indeed, more men than women die by suicide. The inequalities in men's health are stark. On average, those in more deprived areas are much more likely to die early than those in the least deprived areas. The gap in life expectancy and healthy life expectancy at birth between men and women increases in line with greater levels of deprivation. The Public Health Agency (PHA) supports a wide range of men's health initiatives. While there is no current plan to develop a men's health strategy or action plan for Northern Ireland, given the existing resource constraints, I want to ensure that, in the development of health-promoting strategies and plans, relevant actions target men and are included where there is a difference in behaviours or outcomes between the genders. Mr Brooks: I thank the Minister for his answer. The question comes on the back of some positive collaborative work being done in my constituency by a group of men's social and health groups in our community that come together through the East Belfast Community Development Agency (EBCDA). In light of the concerns that the Minister has raised about the higher rates of preventable illness, mental health challenges and premature mortality among men, will he outline what actions his Department is taking to address health inequalities among men? Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his supplementary question, because it takes me to my Live Better initiative. When I took up post, one of the most shocking reports that I saw was on health inequalities. This year's health inequalities report is out. It confirms that the difference in healthy life expectancy between people living in the areas of most deprivation and those in the areas of least deprivation can be as much as 14 years. I find that shocking, given that we are a quarter of the way into the 21st century and in a First-World country, and I do not understand why we have tolerated it for so long. Live Better bundles together services that already exist, takes them into areas of deprivation and tries to get them as close to people's front door as possible, because all the empirical evidence suggests that, if you do that, uptake goes up. Mr Blair: Will the Minister provide an update on the prostate cancer screening evidence review undertaken by the UK National Screening Committee and outline any preparation that his officials have undertaken ahead of the recommendations from that review? Mr Nesbitt: I am aware of that research, and my Department has been looking at it. However, I will have to write to the Member with the detail because I do not have that off the top of my head. Mr Burrows: Will the Minister provide an overview of some of the most pressing issues affecting men's health at this time in Northern Ireland? Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his question. It is the first time that I have had the opportunity to welcome him onto the Floor of the Chamber. My number one for men's health is suicide. It is a major risk factor for men. Suicide is a major cause of death, particularly for men under the age of 50. Cardiovascular disease is also a contributory factor to poor men's health. Many conditions, such as heart disease, are preventable, as I know from my experience. There is the potential to do more on male cancers with early detection through the screening of testicular and prostate cancers. Men are also disproportionately affected by type 2 diabetes. Those are all critical areas where, as Minister, I want to put a focus. Medical Misogyny 3. Mr Carroll asked the Minister of Health whether any assessment has been made of the impact that medical misogyny has on healthcare waiting times for women. (AQO 2329/22-27) Mr Nesbitt: In a recent response to a question for written answer from the Member on the same topic, I welcomed the report by the UK Parliament's Women and Equalities Committee on women's reproductive health conditions. It highlighted the fact that women often find that their pain is normalised or dismissed when they seek medical help from the NHS in England. I am aware, through qualitative feedback received by my Department, that some women in Northern Ireland have had similar experiences. Others have reported having a positive experience when discussing issues with their healthcare provider. I fully acknowledge the range of experiences. However, to the question of whether an impact assessment has been made, unfortunately you cannot readily assess something that is not well defined and measurable. However, I recognise the importance of clinical education and the need to listen to women in this area and ensure that appropriate referrals are made and treatment decisions are taken that best meet the needs of those individuals. Mr Carroll: Minister, it would be remiss of me not to mention that this month is Gynaecological Cancer Awareness Month, but thank you for your answer. Over the last few months, my office has engaged with quite a lot of women who have been failed by a broken medical system. They know what medical misogyny is. They have a problem not only with waiting lists but with dismissal of their health concerns. Have the Minister and his officials looked at Portugal, which seems to lead the way in providing extra days of leave and putting in place other support systems for women who experience particular healthcare issues? Mr Nesbitt: I am not aware of whether we have looked at the model in Portugal, but I assure Mr Carroll that we will certainly take that away. It may be of interest, as a bit of a tangent, that I was at a four-nations ministerial meeting on substance use last week, and the question of whether Portugal was leading the way in permissiveness in the use of drugs came up. The answer was that it was, but, because it is no longer putting resources into helping people who are taking drugs, those problems are re-emerging. I find that interesting. Mrs Dodds: Few factors impact on women's healthcare more than having a maternity and children's hospital that is unsafe for women and babies and that patients and staff are not allowed into. Will the Minister reassure the House that the Belfast Trust and his Department will continue to explore the issue of financial liability for that scandalous situation — I understand that the cost could be in the region of £9 million — and that there will be no compromise on the issue? Will the Minister also indicate why the review of who is to blame for the debacle over the handover of the maternity hospital has been discontinued? Mr Nesbitt: On the first point, absolutely we want to get to the bottom of it and understand what happened, why it happened and who was responsible. However, I am not going to jump the gun. I assure the Member that, when we find out who is responsible, we will take the appropriate action. As to the second part of the Member's question, it is my understanding — I await a formal briefing on it — that a couple of the workforce in the Belfast Trust were perhaps not as forthcoming as we might have expected them to be in their engagement in that review process. I await a formal briefing, and then I will make my decision. I assure the Member that it is not acceptable to me if a member of the workforce of the Belfast Trust or, indeed, of the Department of Health is not fully engaging in any review or investigation into what has gone wrong. It has cost an awful lot from the public purse and, more important, has delayed the opening of that maternity hospital, which is badly needed for the women of this country. Top 2.15 pm Psychiatrist Shortage: Western Trust 4. Mr Durkan asked the Minister of Health to outline any action being taken to address the shortage in the number of psychiatrists in the Western Health and Social Care Trust (WHSCT). (AQO 2330/22-27) Mr Nesbitt: I am acutely aware of the workforce challenges in consultant psychiatry in the Western Trust and, indeed, across the region. A number of actions are being progressed. In response to action 32 of the mental health strategy, a mental health workforce review report was published in July 2023 that set out 18 recommendations to address workforce challenges across statutory mental health services. Work is currently being progressed to deliver a number of key recommendations on costing the proposed future workforce profile and on the development of a future recruitment and training plan. In parallel, my Department has established a psychiatric workforce task and finish group to identify a range of actions to help alleviate the pressures in the psychiatry workforce in the short to medium term. As part of a significant package of training expansions, I announced in May an additional 26 new medical specialty training posts, including six in core psychiatry. Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for his answer. Earlier, he mentioned health inequalities. Although poor mental health does not discriminate, it is much more prevalent in areas of high deprivation. Does the Minister recognise the dire need for the Western Trust, where there are the fewest psychiatrists, to receive funding to employ more psychiatrists in order to ensure that the people there get the service and support that they require? He referred to some of the recommendations that are being implemented. Can he be specific about which of them will boost the workforce in Derry? Mr Nesbitt: Given the focus that I have had, since being elected in 2011, on mental health and well-being and, since I took up post as Minister, on health inequalities, I will try to be a bit more specific about a range of actions that, at low or no additional cost, will potentially help alleviate pressures in the psychiatric workforce. We are doing an analysis of sick absence rates, an analysis of locum use, an assessment of the impact of existing and emerging workforce challenges, an assessment of the impact of reinstating mental health officers and an assessment of how best to promote Northern Ireland as a region in which to work. That is what we are doing as regards the workforce. The issues that people face in the Member's constituency, particularly in areas of deprivation, are well known, and those things overlap. I am very much of the opinion that tackling health inequalities is not just for the Department of Health to tackle. Socio-economic issues are also involved, so the Department for the Economy is involved. It is about the environment and people's behaviour. Equally, we can look at educational underperformance and not just look to the Minister of Education to do something about that. We know that healthier children do better in school, so that is down to me. If we look at our shocking rates of economic inactivity, with 27% of people of working age neither in work nor seeking work, once again, when we look at the contributing factors, we see that it is not just about affordable and accessible healthcare but about poor mental and physical health. All those things need a whole-system, all-Executive approach. Mr McGuigan: Minister, I met the North's Royal College of Psychologists (RCPsych) here last week, and we had a very useful discussion about some of the problems, such as retention, recruitment and the lack of a permanent increase in the number of psychiatry training places here since 2007, all of which lead to unsafe staffing levels, workforce problems, problems with service provision and problems with the implementation of our mental health strategy. The Royal College of Psychologists detailed the use of locums, as the Minister has mentioned. Has he done any analysis of the additional cost of using locums to fill gaps in the workforce? Mr Nesbitt: Absolutely. I will not quote figures to the Member, but we started with nursing and have reduced our reliance on agency nurses. Actually, we have cut it out. The focus now is on locums, who are very expensive, as the Member will be aware. We have asked one of the chief executives of the five geographic health and social care trusts to lead an investigation into ways in which to deliver a plan for doing the same with locums as we did with agency nurses. Mr Middleton: Mental health must be prioritised. Will you outline the impact that the shortage of psychiatrists in the Western Trust has on patients? How does that compare with other trusts across Northern Ireland? Mr Nesbitt: Obviously, if you need psychiatric help and it is not there for you, that can have a potentially devastating impact on your health. The number of psychiatrists in each trust will be determined by the population in the trust area and assessment of need, but the Member may find it very interesting to hear the number of vacancies across the five trusts. As of 30 June, there were 33 consultant psychiatrist vacancies across Northern Ireland. The Southern Health and Social Care Trust had the highest level of psychiatrist vacancies with 14, but the Western Trust was right behind with 13. The Northern Health and Social Care Trust had four vacancies, Belfast Health and Social Care Trust had two, and the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust had none. There is another massive postcode lottery. Ms D Armstrong: You outlined the steps that the Department is taking, which are commendable. Can you provide an update on the specific steps that the Western Trust is taking to address the challenges of consultant psychiatry pressures? Mr Nesbitt: Following a formal application from the Western Trust, in August 2024, the Department approved a 10% recruitment and retention premium as an incentive in consultant psychiatry posts. Despite ongoing recruitment campaigns, no appointments, I regret to say, have been made to date. In response, the trust submitted a further application seeking an enhanced rate of up to 20% for a mental health liaison team, crisis mental health services, including for inpatients, psychiatry of learning disability and community recovery teams. The Department approved that application on 22 August last. That agreed rate is up to 20% of a consultant's starting salary as a recruitment incentive, and, as I say the trust requested it. We in the Department remain committed to supporting equitable access to mental health services, and we continue to assess and respond to workforce pressures in collaboration with the trusts and our other stakeholders. Winter Preparedness Plan 2025-26 5. Ms Ferguson asked the Minister of Health for an update on a winter preparedness plan for 2025-26 to improve patient flow and reduce waiting times at emergency departments. (AQO 2331/22-27) Mr Nesbitt: Earlier this year, under the leadership of the Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Nursing Officer, we brought together senior leaders from across the health and social care system to learn from last winter and plan for winter 2025-26. I was clear that I wanted a blank sheet and a whole-system approach to look at what could be achieved in advance of the winter and in the longer term. That process identified the need for a particular focus on interventions to improve the care of older people who are living with frailty, who have been identified as some of the most vulnerable to the risks that are associated with the winter period. Seven improvement projects have been established. They focus on reducing hospital demand by supporting older people to stay well and receive appropriate care in the community. That includes improving the use of advance clinical care planning and enhancing pathways for patients, ensuring that the right care is delivered in the right place the first time. I hope to publish my winter preparedness plan in the next couple of weeks and, as in previous years, will again call on the public to do everything that is possible to help protect our system, including utilising community services where available and getting vaccinated if eligible. Ms Ferguson: Thank you, Minister, for the update. I welcome the seven improvement projects. However, as of last Wednesday, 133 people were waiting for treatment in Altnagelvin Hospital's A&E department, and 49 were awaiting admission. What can you say to reassure the people who are seeking emergency care and to our staff who are working in A&E in Altnagelvin that things will change for the better? Mr Nesbitt: I cannot say to anybody that things will be perfect, but I believe that the four sessions that we had — we called them the "big conversation" — which will lead to the plan for winter preparedness for 2025-26, will help. The urgent care offer at Altnagelvin has helped, and the respiratory offer has helped — we are increasing the availability and accessibility to the respiratory offer. Those things mean that you have pathways by which you can avoid having to go to ED. I visited EDs last January. Of the seven that I visited, it is the visit to Altnagelvin that sticks. It is the oldest of the type 1 EDs in Northern Ireland, and you can tell that it is, but things are being done. The trust is doing things, even with seating accommodation, to try to ease the pressures. However, until you get a new ED, which is several years away, nothing is going to be perfect. We are only going to be doing continuous improvement. Mr Donnelly: Last November, the chair of the Royal College of Emergency Medicine called the Minister's winter preparedness plan "too little, too late". Will the Minister give a timeline for the release of this year's winter preparedness plan and outline the lessons learned? How will it improve the ability of A&E departments and our hospitals to cope with the predictable annual increase in pressures across the health service and reassure patients and staff that this winter will be better? Mr Nesbitt: As stated, I hope to be publishing that winter preparedness plan in the next two to three weeks. Certainly, the four sessions are over. I was very pleased with how the Chief Medical Officer and Chief Nursing Officer went about their business. I was extremely pleased with the appetite among stakeholders to attend those briefings; in fact, there were waiting lists for some of those sessions. I will not list the seven areas, but top was identifying elderly people with frailty issues. Clearly, if we can keep them out of an emergency department, we should be doing that. The Member is a nurse: he will know the pressures and how difficult it is. There are also vulnerable people for whom the noise and lighting in the EDs are not suitable. I visited those seven EDs in January and talked to people who were in the same chair, waiting for treatment, for four days. Please do not think that making steps towards making things better is anything but a real area of focus for me. Mr Clarke: I hear what the Minister says about keeping people out of EDs, but we are all alive to the fact that the EDs are full today, have been for some time and are under pressure now. What confidence does the Minister have that the plan will make things any better come the winter? In the Minister's response to the original question, he talked about keeping the elderly population well. One thing that he did not touch on in his answer is access to GPs. They cannot get to their GP, so they are turning up at A&Es. Mr Nesbitt: On that point, when I visited the Royal Victoria Hospital, more than one person in the urgent care unit — it is on the first floor, from memory — had a flask and packed lunch with them. I asked if they had been sent by their GP, and they said, "No, we didn't bother trying to phone our GP. We came straight here". They knew that they would be there for a number of hours, so they brought their food, drink and podcast and were happy to wait for a while. These issues have been growing for a very, very long time. I absolutely agree with the Member that it is not about just winter pressures. In fact, going through last winter, I said to colleagues in the Department, "Please stop talking about winter pressures. We should be talking about additional winter pressures, because, sadly, the pressures on our emergency departments are 365". That has been very obvious, even over the summer. Here we are in mid-September. I have no doubt that, if we took ourselves to Derry/Londonderry and visited the ED at Altnagelvin, we would see a very unbecoming sight. Nursing Posts 6. Mr Harvey asked the Minister of Health whether he intends to increase the number of nursing posts available to ensure all local graduates can avail themselves of a position. (AQO 2332/22-27) Mr Nesbitt: Health and social care trusts are responsible for staffing. The regional recruitment of newly qualified nurses is therefore led by the trusts, in partnership with the Business Services Organisation (BSO). It takes place twice per annum. The most recent regional recruitment exercise for newly qualified nurses received more than 700 applications for band 5 posts across the five geographical trusts. Those applications are ongoing. The availability of posts during any one exercise is based on current vacancies and anticipated staff turnover. That can change almost daily. It is also important to recognise that not every job offer made to recent graduates will be accepted by them. Individuals may choose to refuse the offer of a post based on a number of factors, including location, working pattern and the clinical environment. Top 2.30 pm Mr Speaker: We do not have time for a supplementary, so we will move on to topical questions. Nurses' Pay Gap T1. Mr McGrath asked the Minister of Health whether the Finance Minister has offered him any funding to enable him to close the pay gap for nurses. (AQT 1531/22-27) Mr Nesbitt: No. Mr McGrath: I am told that the Finance Minister has washed his hands of the issue by telling health unions simply to contact the Health Minister, while the Executive Office will not even reply to correspondence from the health trade unions or me requesting a meeting. Does that not show that, whilst the Finance Minister, the First Minister and the deputy First Minister are more than willing to stand beside nurses on pickets, they are unwilling to stand up for them where it counts, namely in the Executive, and pay them what they are owed? Mr Nesbitt: I will diverge from the Member's assessment and analysis of where we are. I understand that, as a spokesman for the Opposition, he comes at it from that angle. I do not see a fix for this outside the Executive working collaboratively, so I am not in the business of pointing a finger at any other Minister. I have made the point repeatedly that I understand that every Minister and every Department is suffering huge financial pressures. I believe that the pressures on Health are absolutely unprecedented: we are talking about a funding gap of around £614 million, and there is a question about whether is it unmanageable. Of that amount, £200 million is for nurses' pay. After the last Executive meeting, I happened to have a meeting with the Royal College of Nursing. Its chief executive, Nicola Ranger, had flown in from London, and she made it very clear that nurses had had enough. She also made it clear that they felt that they were too soft the last time that they went on strike, and that their message did not land properly. The Royal College is balloting its members on strike action — not industrial action but strike action specifically — and have said that, if nurses go out on strike again, there will be no derogations and no mitigations this time. I am afraid that, unless something changes, we have to anticipate nurses on the streets by mid-November. For the waiting-list initiative in the Programme for Government and the delivery of health and social care, that is just massive. Ambulance Waiting Times T2. Mr McMurray asked the Minister of Health, noting that people in his constituency are very anxious about ambulance waiting times for transportation to hospital, what action he is taking to improve C1 and C1T response times in the South Eastern Trust. (AQT 1532/22-27) Mr Nesbitt: I understand that the Member is geographically wedded to the South Eastern Trust. My focus, of course, has to more broad and on the whole of Northern Ireland. Yes, we are absolutely looking at ambulance waiting times. One of the other things that we are doing though — I am doing it with the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and the Minister for Infrastructure, across the three Departments — is looking at alternative ways of getting non-emergency patients to and from hospital, such as by community transport. Mr McMurray: I thank the Minister for that answer, which leads in to my second question. What assurances can he give that the Department is investigating ways to improve hospital transport provision for less urgent and outpatient appointments? Mr Nesbitt: As I said, we are trying to drive down the waiting times and handover times for all ambulances going to acute hospitals. For some time, there has been a cross-departmental working group that involves the Department for Infrastructure, the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and my Department. We escalated it to a ministerial meeting just a few weeks ago because I certainly — I think that my colleagues agreed with me — felt that we were, perhaps, not getting the sort of outputs that we were looking for. We therefore asked them to refocus on their work, and we expect them to do just that and get back to us in short order with some actual proposals for how we can use community transport and other initiatives to improve delivery. Nurses: Graduate Appointments T3. Mr McHugh asked the Minister of Health what percentage of nursing graduates of all disciplines, from Queen's University Belfast and Ulster University, have secured full-time, permanent employment in health and social care trusts in each of the past three years. (AQT 1533/22-27) Mr Nesbitt: I am sorry, the Member might be confusing me for a walking encyclopedia. Those are statistics that I do not have to hand. There are many statistics on health and social care. Those are important ones, and all I can say to the Member is that I will find that out and write to him. Mr McHugh: Go raibh maith agat. [Translation: Thank you.] I appreciate that. I understood, when asking the question, that that would be the likely response. Minister, what steps are you taking to improve the terms and conditions for staff in Health and Social Care? How will the strategy specifically reduce the service's reliance on agency staff? Mr Nesbitt: As I said, we are at the point where we can say that we do not use agency nurses. We are now addressing locums, because using them is a very expensive way to do business. That is not to say that locums do not have their place — of course they do — but we have become over-reliant on locums and are not using them for the original purpose for which they were intended. When it comes to what I am trying to do to make the nursing role more attractive, the first thing was to give them the 3·6% pay rise that was recommended by the independent body that made the recommendation for Agenda for Change staff, which includes nurses. However, I acknowledge that nurses would, perhaps, like to negotiate separately from the other Agenda for Change categories. We need to look particularly at promotion from band 5 to bands 6 and 7, because you can qualify as a band 5 nurse, have a long and very successful career and retire as a band 5 nurse. We have to look at ways of promoting nurses from band 5 through to bands 6 and 7. There is a whole basket of issues beyond money. It is about job satisfaction. Independent Living Fund T4. Mr Donnelly asked the Minister of Health, given that he will be aware of the benefits to disabled people who were able to qualify for the independent living fund before it was closed in 2010, and given the research showing the economic benefit of more than £10 of social value of return for every £1 invested in that fund, whether he plans to reopen it to new applicants and give disabled people in Northern Ireland the freedom to live independent lives. (AQT 1534/22-27) Mr Nesbitt: In an ideal world, absolutely. In the current world, with a £614 million gap in funding, it is simply not possible. I have had to stop going to my permanent secretary and saying, "What do you think about reopening this or putting a bit more into that?", because the answer is, "I am the permanent secretary and the accounting officer. If you tell me to do that, I will have to write back to you and say that we cannot make any argument under 'Managing Public Money Northern Ireland', which is the keynote strategy, to justify that". I have to live with the cloth that I have been cut, I am afraid. Mr Donnelly: Thanks to the Minister for that answer. I know that that will be disappointing to people. Given that the number of people who benefit from the independent living fund in Northern Ireland is reducing, will the Minister commit to keeping the same number of places open and open them to new applicants? Mr Nesbitt: Yes, I can commit to saying that we will not cut the budget. I do not wish to cut that budget, but one of the frustrations is that, every week — maybe not every day but certainly multiple times a week — people come to me and make the argument, "If you invest a bit of money in this, you will get a great saving", like the one that the Member has detailed regarding the independent living fund. However, the money to pump-prime it does not exist. As an Executive, we have to sit down and think about this a bit more, because if we do not take those steps to save the money — there are big savings and better outcomes to be derived for patients and service users — we will continue to be in a financially challenging position and will not take the logical steps to get ourselves out of the mess. Altnagelvin Area Hospital: Emergency Waiting Times T5. Mr Delargy asked the Minister of Health, having noted that he had answered the question in some detail in relation to other constituencies, why the average waiting time in Altnagelvin Area Hospital's emergency department is (ED) more than twice the average of other emergency departments in the North. (AQT 1535/22-27) Mr Nesbitt: It is partly to do with the environment in which people are working. Two of the seven emergency departments that I visited — the Ulster Hospital in Dundonald and the Royal Victoria Hospital in Belfast — were very modern. When I go to a really busy ED where the waits are measured in days rather than hours, I notice that nurses, doctors, clinicians and healthcare professionals know the right thing to do for a patient, but they end up having to decide on the least worst option so that they can move on to look after the next person. It is partly the environment and partly the demand. It is a cocktail of reasons. Again, that is to explain it without justifying it. I want to see it fixed. Mr Delargy: We are aware of your longer-term plans to invest in and, hopefully, build a new emergency department at Altnagelvin, but people need to see immediate action today. You talked about the fact that we are coming into additional winter pressures, and I appreciate that that has been acknowledged, but what immediate action are you taking to ensure that the waiting times, which are already twice as long as those across the rest of the North, are not repeated and do not worsen this winter? Mr Nesbitt: I say gently to the Member that it is not me who takes steps; the Western Health and Social Care Trust has to take steps. The trust is very aware, as are the other trusts, of my opinion on how we need to leave no stone unturned in trying to address waiting lists in those EDs. That is well understood. In the short term, the scope is limited by geography and budget, but that is not to say that we do not do everything that we can. To my mind, it is not just about the patients. While that is critical, it is also about the nurses and doctors and the moral injury that they feel because they are not permitted to make the best decisions that they know they can make. COVID-18 Vaccination Booster T6. Mr Robinson asked the Minister of Health to update the House on details of the COVID-19 vaccination booster programme roll-out for Northern Ireland. (AQT 1536/22-27) Mr Nesbitt: I am aware that we are going to have a booster programme this winter. It will be linked in with the influenza vaccination offer as normal. I am not across the detail, so I will have to write to the Member. Mr Robinson: I thank the Minister. Will he also detail the steps that his Department is taking to address public concerns about vaccines? Mr Nesbitt: We are aware that there is vaccine hesitancy. I am not sure that the research suggests that it is quite as embedded in the societal psyche as some people think. We are not currently spending money on paid-for advertising such as TV promotions, but we will work with the primary care sector to encourage people to take up the boosters. Certainly, I get a message every year from my GP surgery, encouraging me to come along and book a session for the two jabs, which I get on the same day. Ulster Hospital: Public Transport Connections to North Down T7. Mr Martin asked the Minister of Health to consider whether his Department, alongside Translink, will fund an arrangement to ensure that there are public transport connections from North Down to the Ulster Hospital. (AQT 1537/22-27) Mr Nesbitt: Those public transport arrangements are a matter for the Department for Infrastructure. As I have said, Minister Kimmins, Minister Muir and I discussed community transport and how we might better realign it to get the sort of outcomes that we are looking for. At this stage, with the resource and financial constraints that are upon me, I cannot commit to doing it, because if I were to do that for the Member's constituents, I would have to do it right across Northern Ireland. There certainly is not the budget or the resource available to do that. Top 2.45 pm Mr Martin: As the Minister will be aware, a decision was taken to close minor injury units (MIU) in Bangor and Newtownards, albeit quite recently, and to relocate them to the Ulster Hospital. Does the Minister agree that, for people who have no car and have to rely on a taxi to get to the ED at the Ulster Hospital, it is an expensive trip? Mr Nesbitt: I absolutely acknowledge the challenge that it creates for people who do not have ready access to their own transport or to transport laid on by relatives or friends. We have to live in the real world, however. The minor injury unit at the Ards Community Hospital was closed and the service moved to the Ulster Hospital, 4·6 miles away on a dual carriageway. I do not think that that was a particular issue for the majority of people. That delivered better outcomes, because the MIU was then situated beside the ED, X-ray machines, CT scanners etc. I accept, however, that, for a minority of potential patients, a distance of 4·6 miles is an issue. I continue to look at it with Executive colleagues. Mr Speaker: That concludes questions to the Minister of Health. Infrastructure Cambrai Street/Flax Street: Pedestrian Crossing 1. Mr Kingston asked the Minister for Infrastructure for an update on any plans for a new pedestrian crossing on the Crumlin Road, Belfast, in the vicinity of Cambrai Street and Flax Street. (AQO 2341/22-27) Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure): I can advise that the most recent assessment for a pedestrian crossing in the vicinity of Cambrai Street and Flax Street was carried out on 11 October 2022. The assessment placed that location sixteenth on eastern division's prioritised list of potential sites that have been surveyed and assessed for a controlled crossing. One of my party colleagues, namely Gerry Kelly, has also raised the issue. As the Member will be aware, the Department has been operating in a difficult financial environment for many years. While there are many locations across the North that would benefit from investment in enhanced pedestrian measures, such as controlled crossings, owing to the limited budget, schemes are taken forward through the prioritisation of those deemed most in need of intervention. The prioritised lists for pedestrian schemes are live lists and are kept under review. Mr Kingston: I thank the Minister for her answer. She may be aware that there have been a number of developments since 2022, with the reopening of Flax Street, the filling of retail units at Hillview Retail Park, the new Eurospar at Edenderry garage and busy bus stops on both sides of the Crumlin Road. There is cross-community support for the pedestrian crossing. Will the Minister ask her officials to reassess that potential new crossing's priority? It should be moving up the list. Ms Kimmins: I will take on board what the Member has said. Generally, officials revisit a location like that one only if there has been a major infrastructure development in the area or if considerable time has passed since the initial survey. There are no current plans to carry out a review. I will, however, go back to officials and discuss with them whether there is any potential for a review, given some of the enhancements to the area that the Member has mentioned. Miss Hargey: Can the Minister provide an update on the Knockbreda Road crossing in South Belfast? Ms Kimmins: As the Member will be aware, I recently met her and some of her council colleagues. I can advise that my officials continue to progress the development of the Knockbreda Road crossing following receipt of representations from a further consultation carried out by Belfast City Council. Work on the design of the scheme remains ongoing. A2 West Circular Road, Bangor: Safety Measures 2. Ms Egan asked the Minister for Infrastructure to outline any steps that her Department is taking to improve road safety on the A2 West Circular Road, Bangor. (AQO 2342/22-27) Ms Kimmins: First, I extend my sympathies to the family of the young girl, Jaidyn Rice, who tragically lost her life at the junction of West Circular Road and Clandeboye Road on 8 July. My thoughts are with her family. What they have been going through in the aftermath is unimaginable. I understand that the PSNI is leading an investigation of the collision. On completion of that investigation, my officials will liaise with the police to obtain further information relating to that collision and others in which injuries were sustained. At that point, officials will consider any emerging road safety factors that are relevant to my Department. As I have said, although there have been a number of injury collisions along the route, the majority were at the signal-controlled junctions, and no common causation factor has yet been identified that could be improved by additional safety measures. However, officials routinely review injury collision cluster sites from the data provided by the PSNI, and, if appropriate, an assessment is undertaken. What comes out of the investigation will be critical in informing our approach and next steps. Ms Egan: Thank you, Minister. I appreciate your words of condolence for Jaidyn's family. Her loss was absolutely horrendous and tragic for her family. Will you give a commitment to Jaidyn's family and the community in Bangor that their voices will be heard, that the incident will be taken seriously in your Department and that you will do everything in your power to ensure that we do not lose another life there? Ms Kimmins: Absolutely. When any tragic incident such as that occurs, we have to take a step back and look at it to understand how and why it happened and at what we can do collectively to ensure that no other family goes through that. I have met lots of families who have been through similar incidents, so I would welcome that opportunity. I have spoken to a DUP Member about a potential meeting with the family. I am keen to have that meeting, and I am willing to hear from everyone. Mr Chambers: Minister, my supplementary question goes a little beyond the A2 West Circular Road and back towards Belfast. A number of years ago, your Department introduced speed cameras on that road that measured average speed being driven between them. There was a public perception that the cameras were a bluff and did not work, but they had and still have a perceptible impact on speed on that road. Another problem on that road that I have seen recently — it is endemic — is motorists jumping red lights. I am not sure whether your Department has access to any detection mechanism that would deter that practice, because it is only a matter of time — Mr Speaker: Right. We have got the question, Mr Chambers. Mr Chambers: — before there is a serious collision because of that. Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for pointing that out. It chimes well with what the Department has been saying about the onus being on all of us to tackle driver behaviour. That is the main cause of all collisions, regardless of whether they result in a fatality. We constantly look at what we can do to improve road safety. I attended the road safety roadshow hosted by Newry Chamber of Commerce and Trade just over a week ago. Most important in all such cases is that the onus is on each one of us. We are all road users, be that as a driver, pedestrian, cyclist or whatever we may be, and we have our part to play. It is about doing anything that we can to increase awareness and help people to think differently and be safer on our roads. That protects everyone. To quote one of our campaigns: "to everyone else, you are the 'someone else'." Whilst we all think that we are great drivers, to somebody else, you could be the reason why there is a collision. I will take that on board. It is probably more of a policing issue, because it is about enforcement, but I can ask officials to see whether there is anything that we can do. When I was on the road this morning, given the conditions that we were driving in, some of the driver behaviour that I witnessed as I was coming to Stormont was absolutely horrendous. There is something in that for us all to take away as we try to make a difference. Ms Sheerin: Minister, I know that, along with my party colleague Councillor Ian Milne, you met a lady in my constituency, Stella McGinn, whose daughter, Caitlin-Rose, tragically lost her life getting off a school bus. I thank you for doing that. Will you outline the steps that you are taking to improve road safety, particularly for children? Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for raising that, and I pay tribute to Stella for her efforts after what can only be described as an absolutely horrendous incident with the loss of her beautiful young daughter. She has used that to focus on how she can protect other children getting to and from school in particular. I have met Stella twice now, and I have so much respect and admiration for her and what she is trying to do. As the Member and the Assembly will know, road safety is a high priority for my Department, and I am committed to working proactively to make our roads safer for everyone. I am acutely aware that children and young people are among the most vulnerable groups using our roads. As Members may be aware, I recently announced an extensive package of road safety measures aimed at safeguarding schoolchildren, particularly when they travel to and from school, including on overtaking school buses. Officials have provided advice on that, and I am considering the best options to take forward. Recently, I met the Education Minister, and we agreed to collaborate on an initiative aimed at increasing awareness of school bus safety. I look forward to seeing how that will progress. Again, it goes back to education and awareness and thinking about all those factors. Whilst we are still in the early stages, our shared goal is that we work directly with schools to ensure that pupils, staff and parents are better informed about the risks and responsibilities associated with school transport. We are exploring the most effective ways to engage with schools and the broader community, whether through targeted campaigns, educational materials or pilot programmes. The bus-rear and on-street school bus safety advertising is currently running: it was reinstated at the start of September in order to align with the start of the school term. Additionally, the road safety teaching-aid calendars have been electronically issued to over 760 primary schools for the new school year. Mr Speaker: Time is up, Minister. Mr O'Toole: I will be brief. Minister, you were asked about the Knockbreda Road crossing: that is hugely critical to the community in Rosetta, which has been waiting for it for years. It is also critical for school safety. There are half a dozen primary schools and three post-primary schools in that area. You said that that would happen in due course: can you be more specific? When will the Knockbreda Road crossing, which will open the back entrance to Cherryvale park, finally be completed? Ms Kimmins: I recognise the importance of that, and I know that it is a huge issue for the area. I was pleased to be able to say that that project will be taken forward. As I said to my colleague in my previous answer, we are going through the design stage at this point, so, when that concludes, we will have a better sense of a time frame for its implementation. Active Travel Spend 3. Miss McAllister asked the Minister for Infrastructure to outline why her Department changed its definition of active travel spend between February 2024 and June 2025 and reclassified £37 million of existing expenditure as active travel spend. (AQO 2343/22-27) Ms Kimmins: Section 22 of the Climate Change Act 2022 states that my Department: "must develop sectoral plans for transport which set a minimum spend on active travel from the overall transport budgets of 10%." My Department has not changed what it considers to be active travel, which is travelling by physically active means, such as walking, wheeling or cycling. What has changed is that, for the first time, there is a need to capture and report the overall spend on active travel funded from overall transport budgets across my Department in line with section 22 of the Act, rather than just reporting the new active travel projects being delivered and the spend on those fantastic projects, such as the cycling proficiency scheme and the Active School Travel programme. As, I am sure, Members will agree, active travel is not single, discrete activity in my Department. Many different sections routinely carry out work that greatly benefits pedestrians and cyclists. For example, the provisional out-turn for 2024-25 shows that almost £12 million has been spent on maintaining existing assets, whether that is fixing trip hazards, cutting back vegetation or resurfacing old, uneven footways, all of which play a part in ensuring that we have accessible and usable active travel routes. Similarly, while I recognise the role that street lighting plays in road safety for motorists, its primary purpose is as a safety amenity for pedestrians. The majority of street lights are in built-up areas, and they clearly play a significant role in making people feel more comfortable and secure if they are walking or cycling at night. That being the case, we have attributed 50% of the overall cost of street lighting towards our calculation of active travel spend. Let us not forget, however, about investment in new infrastructure for active travel. I want more people to feel comfortable and safe when walking, wheeling or cycling, and that is why I am increasing capital investment to develop our active travel networks. I want to emphasise that active travel is not as straightforward as building a new footpath or cycle lane. We have to ensure that they are safe and accessible for everyone, and that forms part of that overall spend. Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for her answer, but there seems to be a redefinition of what constitutes active travel. It is rather disappointing that fixing street lights is included as showing a commitment to active travel when we know that in some constituencies — in my North Belfast constituency, in particular — we really lack new active travel infrastructure. What impact does the new definition or new way of thinking have on the overall spend on active travel in comparison with the previously used understanding of active travel? Ms Kimmins: I reiterate that it is not a change to the definition. I am now required to calculate that overall spend and report how it is made up. That is all that has changed. I am required to do that. We cannot say that we are spending x, y and z on active travel while excluding the maintenance of the new infrastructure elements or the existing infrastructure that is important in allowing an active travel route to be used. I need to be clear about that. We are not fixing street lights and saying that that is active travel; we are doing that on specific active travel routes to ensure that we capture the facts and what is required. If we do not ensure that those routes are up to standard, people will not be able use them in the way that they were designed to be used. We talk about ending violence against women and girls. There is no point putting footpaths and other infrastructure in place if women do not feel safe to use them. Top 3.00 pm There may be a little bit of a grey area here in that it is not a change in the definition; it is just what I am required to do given my responsibility to outline what is included in that spend. That is part of active travel infrastructure. If you are developing any piece of infrastructure, that spend would be included for the new road or whatever it may be. Mr McHugh: Minister, can you provide an update on the active travel delivery plan? Ms Kimmins: Public consultation on the draft active travel delivery plan closed on 28 February this year. I am pleased with the level of engagement on the plan, with over 330 responses having been received. My officials are reviewing all the responses and preparing a final plan, which they aim to present to me for consideration in the coming months. I hope to be in a position to publish the final plan before the end of this year. Once complete, the active travel delivery plan will complement the Belfast cycling network delivery plan and the strategic plan for greenways to provide a firm basis for the prioritisation and delivery of active travel infrastructure for the next 10 years and beyond. Mr K Buchanan: Minister, active travel schemes are obviously to be welcomed. How will you get the balance with new schemes and keeping existing footpaths clear? There are loads of footpaths in my constituency that people cannot even walk on, yet I see new ones being built to nowhere — literally nowhere. How will you get that balance right? Ms Kimmins: We had this conversation in Committee as well. We have to recognise the importance of adequately maintaining our existing network. That means looking at the overall budget and how we allocate it. There will always be difficult decisions to be made around prioritisation. Like I have said in response to other questions here today, including the question that your colleague asked regarding pedestrian crossings, decisions are made based on the prioritisation of those schemes. That question could apply to any aspect of the work that I do in my Department or that the Health or Education Ministers do in theirs. We have to prioritise things on how adequate they are and the needs that they present. The same applies to existing infrastructure and how we ensure that the worst issues are dealt with and worked through as soon as possible. Mr Stewart: Minister, out of this year's active travel budget, over half a million pounds of taxpayers' money has been squandered on a six-foot fence along the Loughshore and Whiteabbey promenade, one of the lovely coastal views that we have in East Antrim. Nobody wants it. It is totally excessive. I have raised the matter with you and your officials. Will you undertake to review that and try to sort it out for the local residents? Ms Kimmins: As I said before, we have reviewed it, as the Member is aware. The bottom line is that there is a standard that we have to meet. The Alliance MLA for the area has also met me on the matter. I have a responsibility to meet the standards that are set — not by me but for me. The alternative that we offered was to remove part of the fencing: that was as far as we could go given those standards. I accept that it is not what people want, but, at the same time, if someone is hurt or injured as a result of our not meeting the policy, that falls to me. We were keen to find a balance so that we addressed our responsibilities and took into account the views of the local community. Road Maintenance Budget: Distribution 4. Mr Martin asked the Minister for Infrastructure to outline any steps that her Department has taken to ensure that the budget for road maintenance is distributed in a fair and equitable way throughout Northern Ireland. (AQO 2344/22-27) Ms Kimmins: Allocations for road maintenance activities are made to my Department’s four Roads divisions on the basis of need, using a range of weighted indicators tailored to the particular repair or improvement intervention. In distributing the resources available for structural maintenance activities, such as resurfacing and surface dressing, those indicators take into consideration criteria such as carriageway area, traffic and road condition. For essential maintenance activities, such as patching and grass cutting, the factors taken into consideration in distributing the available funding include defect information, areas of grass and numbers of gullies. The capacity of our internal contractor is also a factor in the allocation of funding. Where our internal capacity cannot fully deliver the current requirements, my Department’s divisions or section offices must engage the services of external contractors. That cost will differ across council areas depending on relevant capacity and external contract rates. My Department’s four Roads divisions broadly use the indicators that I have mentioned when apportioning their allocation across council areas to ensure, as far as possible, that there is an equitable distribution of funds. However, it is important to say that the exact combination of indicators and metrics used in each Roads division will vary and be tailored to the individual needs and circumstances in that division at that time. Yearly allocations vary to reflect funding pressures in section office areas and are influenced by specific allocations for high-priority works such as trunk road resurfacing schemes and structural stability schemes, including coastal defence repairs. On that basis, it can be assumed that no section office or council area will receive a fixed percentage of the available allocation each year. Mr Martin: I thank the Minister for her answer. She will be aware that I would like to see more money go to North Down for road maintenance and footpath repairs. My office has done a lot of work in that area. Over the summer, I certainly saw examples of pavements that are, frankly, dangerous for the elderly in areas where lots of elderly people live. My understanding is that there is no money. Will the Minister commit to sending some of her senior officials to North Down to meet me and the section engineer there to look at specific areas and to see whether something can be done? Ms Kimmins: Absolutely. If road surfaces, footpaths or any types of infrastructure pose a risk to the health and safety of anyone in our community, they need to be looked at. If the Member writes to me, we can ensure that a site visit is arranged. Mr McGlone: Minister, how have you responded to concerns that were tabled by the Mineral Products Association's highway maintenance and construction group in a series of meetings with you in June this year on the 2025-26 road maintenance budget, which, potentially, will put 500 jobs at risk and leave roads in the North in an even worse condition? Ms Kimmins: I share the Mineral Products Association's concerns, and I have outlined that clearly. The reality is that the budget is nowhere near enough for me to do everything that needs to be done. In fact, as I communicated to the representatives when I met them, the reason that my budget took so long to agree is that I was trying to squeeze money from wherever I could to ensure that we could put more into structural maintenance. It is just not possible at this point. That is unfortunate, but it is the result of over a decade of underfunding through Tory austerity. Everyone in the House knows that and agrees, because we all agreed that we did not get the Budget or the funding that we needed. The Member's colleague can make comments in the background, but I am sure that his colleague who was previously the Infrastructure Minister would agree with me, because she faced the same challenge. Let me tell you this: I will do everything that I can to ensure that we get fair allocations for our roads, particularly rural roads, which are in the worst state that we have ever seen. Take this as a strong commitment from me: I will continue to fight for more money to look after our roads and bring them up to the standard that is acceptable to all. Road Safety Funding 5. Mr Kelly asked the Minister for Infrastructure to outline how the increase of £1.5 million in road safety funding will be spent. (AQO 2345/22-27) Ms Kimmins: As I have said in previous answers, road safety is a priority for me, which is why I have increased the road safety advertising budget by over £1·5 million to £2·4 million. With that, I will reinstate a programme of campaigns addressing the main causes of road traffic collisions. I have prioritised the reinstatement of pedestrian and motorcyclist safety campaigns, as both are vulnerable road user groups — those will go live as soon as possible — and I will commission a new anti-drug-driving campaign to address the increase in drug-driving, which is a key area that needs to be looked at. The Member will be aware that I am looking at a number of things as part of that programme. We constantly review whether we are doing enough and whether we can close the gaps. I mentioned earlier the campaigns about school buses; I have also done campaigns on fitness to drive and awareness of medical declarations and similar issues. I am working with officials across my Department and the Department of Health to look at how we can further widen that work to protect more people — some suggestions have even come up during Question Time. It goes back to the point about the need to address driver behaviour in everything that I look at. I have increased the budget because I recognise that, if we can get that message into people's minds, we could make a real difference. Mr Speaker: Minister, I understand that you want to speak directly to the Member, but it will be helpful if you direct your comments to the mics so that Hansard can pick them up. Mr Kelly: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire. [Translation: I thank the Minister.] She has probably answered the supplementary question that I was going to ask, but I thank her for taking up the issue of the Crumlin Road crossing. To add to what Brian Kingston said, it is a very fast road. There is a huge retail park there now, and lots of people have to cross to it from the other side of the Crumlin Road. Mr T Buchanan: Can the Minister inform the House how much of this money, if any, will be spent on implementing fresh road safety measures on the A5 to prevent further loss of life? Ms Kimmins: As the Member will be aware, we are in the process of appealing the ruling on the A5. At present, that is my focus and that of my officials. As I said, however, all improvements to existing road safety infrastructure remain under review. We will continue to do that, but I do not have a figure for any of that at this time. Newry Southern Relief Road: Consultation Update 6. Mr McNulty asked the Minister for Infrastructure for an update on the Newry southern relief road consultation launched in January 2025. (AQO 2346/22-27) Ms Kimmins: The public consultation exercise for the Newry southern relief road concluded on 4 March 2025. I have received a comprehensive report from my officials covering the many detailed representations that were received as part of the process and am giving careful consideration to its contents. My Department’s major project portfolio is complex, with a range of projects at various stages of development and delivery. Every project will have its own specific considerations. In common with all Departments, I am mindful of the impact of the judgement on the A5 project, which was extremely disappointing and against which, as Members know, I have lodged an appeal. It would not be appropriate for me to comment in detail on the judgement while the appeal is live, but, as my officials work hard to prepare for the appeal hearing, I will take the necessary time to carefully consider the potential impact of the judgement on other projects, including the southern relief road, as they move through the next stages of delivery. Mr McNulty: I thank the Minister for her answer. Minister, it is reassuring that you are on the record as saying that there should be a lifting bridge to accommodate tall ships coming into the Albert Basin in Newry. On the consultation, will you confirm and reassure residents from around the Flagstaff Road, Barracric and Ellisholding that their views on the environment around Benson's Glen and the tie-in points with Ellisholding Road at the A1 will be listened to? Ms Kimmins: My position on the road is absolutely on the record, and I will never move from that position. As a Minister, I have to consider all the responses to the consultation and be impartial. My officials are working through that. The voices of everyone who has made a representation will be heard and the issues that they have raised will be considered as part of that process. Ms Finnegan: Minister, you have set out your position on this and the depth of feeling in the area. How many representations were received and what was the nature of those representations? Ms Kimmins: A total of 214 responses to the consultation were received, which shows the depth of feeling in the area and that people want to be a part of the process. That consultation was held between 21 January and 4 March 2025. Of those representations, 154 were objections, 55% of which cited the inclusion of the fixed bridge as the reason for their objection. There were 15 responses supporting the proposed scheme, 24 general comments and 21 responses that were not applicable to the scheme. Mr Irwin: What is the expenditure to date on the southern relief road? Ms Kimmins: I do not have that figure to hand. I can give an idea of the overall cost, and, if the Member wishes to write to me, I will be able to provide a more up-to-date figure for the costs incurred so far. There is already a shortfall of approximately £22 million funding for the scheme overall, and a lot of work is still to happen. I can come back to the Member with the figure as it stands. Road Maintenance Strategy: Update 7. Mr Dunne asked the Minister for Infrastructure for an update on her Department’s new road maintenance strategy. (AQO 2347/22-27) Ms Kimmins: I fully recognise the importance of the road network and the vital role that it plays in connecting our people and communities as well as in supporting the wider economy. As I have said, my Department has operated within a constrained maintenance budget for many years. That has resulted in underinvestment in our infrastructure and deterioration in the condition of our roads. That is why my officials have been working on the development of a new road maintenance strategy and a new approach to dealing with road maintenance. That approach will focus on delivering higher-quality repairs instead of spreading resources too thinly, ensuring a more reliable and safer road network where we intervene. It will be data-driven and supported by sound engineering judgement and address the problem in a more meaningful and sustainable manner. Officials are finalising work on a draft road maintenance strategy that I will then be able to share more widely. As Members know, public finances are limited, and we have a lot to do to make up for the years of austerity and underfunding, but I am committed to ensuring that people are at the heart of funding decisions and that we do all that we can to be efficient and effective in delivering public services. Top 3.15 pm Mr Speaker: You do not have time for a supplementary question, Mr Dunne. We now move on to topical questions. A5 Scheme T1. Mr McNulty asked the Minister for Infrastructure, having said that the A5 project has become a shameful embarrassment and that families are still burying their loved ones while her Department ties itself in knots with delay after delay, legal wrangling and failure to deliver, how the project has ended up where it is at and whether that is the result of systemic incompetence in her Department or whether responsibility for the calamitous failure lies with her or her Sinn Féin ministerial predecessor, John O'Dowd. (AQT 1541/22-27) Ms Kimmins: Let me be clear: the A5 has been an issue for many years, as the Member rightly pointed out. I will not say that that is because of the incompetence of officials, because I know that they have been working extremely hard. Many of them live in or are from the area and are passionate about the scheme. The Member's colleague can shake his head all that he wants, but have respect for the people who have put their heart and soul into delivering the scheme. The reality is that we are into new territory with the Climate Change Act. Despite what people have said, I work closely with my colleague in DAERA. Prior to my involvement, officials had been meeting him frequently and dealing with the scheme as comprehensively and robustly as possible. My focus now is on delivering for those families, on delivering for the communities in and around the A5 and on working with counterparts in the South. I have met representatives from across the island who all have a passion for the project and want to see it delivered. That is what my focus is on, and it is what I continue to work towards. I will not be distracted by petty party politics. A number of Ministers have been involved with the scheme, not just those from Sinn Féin. Mr McCrossan: Mainly from Sinn Féin. Ms Kimmins: I am not too sure what role your Minister played, but I will not get into that. The priority for me is to deliver the scheme. Let us work together. Let us work collaboratively and get it over the line. That is what I am determined to do. Mr McNulty: Minister, you are the responsible for delivering the project. With respect, you have not answered the question. Families do not want more excuses; they want accountability. Who is responsible for the failure? When will you finally guarantee delivery of the A5, without further mess-ups from you and your Department? Ms Kimmins: If the Member can point to the mess, I will happily look into it. The judge's comments were very clear. He recognised that every effort had been made to get the scheme delivered. It is an issue that we have to look at, and that is why I am going through the appeal process. I am telling the Member now that I am determined that we will deliver the scheme. Flood Protection Scheme: Commercial Properties T2. Mr Blair asked the Minister for Infrastructure, as we move into autumn, whether she will consider trialling a flood protection scheme for commercial properties, similar to the homeowner flood protection scheme that is already in place. (AQT 1542/22-27) Ms Kimmins: As the Member knows, I am taking legislation on flood management through the House. Maybe we can have a discussion as part of that process. At present, as the Member knows, we have a scheme in place for homeowners. I am happy to have a conversation to see whether one for commercial properties is something that we can do in the Department and whether Departments can work together. As the Member also knows, the Department for the Economy has stepped in previously to assist in the aftermath of flooding, so there is definitely a conversation to be had. Through my Department, there are flood alleviation schemes in place for town and city centres to try to address the issue. I will, however, consider anything more specific that is brought to me. Mr Blair: I thank the Minister for that. I assure her that I would welcome such a conversation, having previously raised, on a number of occasions, flooding in Antrim town and the flood risk on all stretches of the Sixmilewater river, for example, which affects residential properties and, indeed, commercial properties. Is the delivery of the flood alleviation plans in a timely way any closer than it was the last time I asked? Ms Kimmins: Having had similar issues in my constituency, I know how important that is, particularly as we move into autumn. We have seen how heavy the rain has been over the past few days. It is anticipated that the feasibility study for the scheme will be completed by summer 2026. If you write to the Department, I will be happy to provide further details about the scheme and the next steps. A5 Appeal: Update T3. Mr McAleer asked the Minister for Infrastructure to provide an update on the A5 appeal. (AQT 1543/22-27) Ms Kimmins: As I said, that is evidently a key issue not just for me as the Minister but for everyone involved. It is no surprise that the outcome of the ruling was extremely disappointing — that is probably an understatement — not just for me and the Department but for everyone involved, including the local representatives who have long supported the project. As you know, we lodged the appeal, which is now due to be heard in December. That is necessary in order to resolve the important points of law that will affect all the concerned parties. While my immediate priority is the preparation of the most robust appeal that we can submit, as I have said previously, my ultimate aim remains the delivery of the A5. I am fully committed to doing all that I can to ensure that we get to that point as quickly as possible. At present, we are working through the appeal and the legal case, and it would be remiss of me to say more than that at this stage. Mr McAleer: Minister, given the huge importance of the project for the north-west of Ireland, for no one more than the families who have tragically lost loved ones along the route, will the Minister agree that it is important that we all work together to make sure that the scheme comes to fruition? Ms Kimmins: Absolutely. We all want to see the same thing and get there as quickly as possible. Any more time without the new road means a risk of more lives being lost. The judge said that lives would be lost if we did not get the scheme delivered as soon as possible. I have engaged with groups such as the Enough is Enough campaign and have worked closely with representatives from the area, because I recognise that, if we work collaboratively, we can achieve exactly what we want to achieve. Road Safety Legislation T4. Mr McReynolds asked the Minister for Infrastructure what road safety legislation her officials are working on, given that, in her response to Mr Kelly, she mentioned that road funding had been increased and will be used to reinstate campaigns. (AQT 1544/22-27) Ms Kimmins: I mentioned the school bus legislation, and I indicated earlier this year that I am keen to introduce legislation on overtaking school buses. We are working through that, and I am being provided with advice on the best way forward. We are looking at areas such as the use of mobile phones when driving and drug-driving and drink-driving penalties, to name a few. If the Member wants more detail on that, I am happy for him to write to me on anything that I have missed. Mr McReynolds: I thank the Minister for her response. I have been recently updated on the graduated licence scheme, strengthening drink-driving legislation and drug-driving legislation, both of which you have just mentioned, and an increase in fines for speeding. Minister, will you say in response now or maybe in writing — that is totally fine — where we are with each of those measures and whether they will be introduced by the end of the mandate? Ms Kimmins: It is certainly my intention to progress and get a conclusion as soon as possible. I am considering all the advice and information that officials have provided at this stage. We are working through that, and, as soon as updates are available, I will inform the House and the Committee. Ulster Canal Project T5. Ms Murphy asked the Minister for Infrastructure for an update on the Ulster canal project. (AQT 1545/22-27) Ms Kimmins: The Ulster canal project is being progressed in three phases. Phase 1 goes from Lough Erne to Castle Saunderson, and phase 2 goes from Clones to Clonfad. Both are now complete and open for navigation. I was lucky enough to be in Clones over the summer to see the canal and to meet Waterways Ireland. Work on the third and final phase from Castle Saunderson to Clonfad is in progress, with Waterways Ireland progressing land acquisition, planning and detailed design elements. I am fully committed to supporting the completion of the project. It is a very ambitious project that will be transformational for the communities and businesses in that region. Ms Murphy: I thank the Minister for her answer. The Ulster canal project is widely welcomed by my constituents; it is literally up the road from me. Will the Minister agree that the project will be a great boost to the all-island economy? Ms Kimmins: Absolutely. The restoration of the Ulster canal will offer a very attractive cross-border holiday destination for visitors not only from across Ireland but from abroad. When completed, it will form part of an all-Ireland inland water system, allowing visitors to travel from Clones in the South to Enniskillen in the North, as well as the rest of the Erne and Shannon water systems. As I said, I have seen for myself increased visitor numbers and the opportunities that phase 2 has brought to Clones. The remainder of the project raises the possibility of increased economic activity through tourism and hospitality along that route. Road Maintenance Budget: Regional Balance T6. Ms Forsythe asked the Minister for Infrastructure, in light of the fact that, when regional balance is mentioned in the House, it is often about investment in the north-west, how she will make sure that the road maintenance budget is applied evenly to ensure regional balance across all of Northern Ireland. (AQT 1546/22-27) Ms Kimmins: In response to earlier questions, I said that a number of factors are taken into consideration when allocating funds. As part of that, section offices will put forward their increasing needs or what is required in their area, the major demands and the critical issues. A lot of methodology goes into that. Essentially, that is what helps to ensure that the allocations are fair and that funding is delivered equitably across the North. Ms Forsythe: I thank the Minister for her answer. Is there anything built in to ensure that areas such as my constituency of South Down that do not have rail links or solid, reliable, regular public transport on higher-quality buses, get more priority when it comes to road maintenance, given that we have lower-quality roads that are our only way in and out of the constituency? Ms Kimmins: It is fair to say that a lot of areas, including mine, would be able to make the same argument. It is about looking at it as a whole. On prioritisation, the list of works that are needed is put forward through the divisions and then to the Department. I do not decide who gets what, unfortunately. However, I take into account what the Member says and the frustration that can be felt. All I can say at this point is that I am trying to ensure that we get acceptable levels of funding into structural maintenance to ensure that we deliver a service across the North that people can see and feel and that will make a real impact in all our communities. Road Safety: Structural Maintenance T7. Mr Clarke asked the Minister for Infrastructure whether her announcement of increased funding for road safety, although welcome, flies in the face of the fact that our roads are in a state of disrepair, which adds to road safety issues for motorists. (AQT 1547/22-27) Ms Kimmins: When you compare the allocation for the road safety budget with the structural maintenance budget, you see that they are very different figures: £2·4 million and £68 million. As I said in response to other Members, I fully recognise that the budget for structural maintenance is far from what it needs to be, and I will continue to work to ensure that we get adequate funding and investment to meet the needs. I recognise that it is important not just to ensure that our roads are in a fit state but for health and safety. It is important that roads that are in an unacceptably poor condition and pose a real health and safety risk are reported. I know that the Member will do that. I am acutely aware of the issue, and I am keen to see how I can make an impact. I know that I will not solve it all — I have to be realistic: my whole budget at this point probably could not solve what needs to be done — but I am determined to increase investment and do what needs to be done. That is what I am trying to do through the road maintenance strategy. Mr Clarke: I do not want to lead on to the topic that we will debate later, but I feel that I have to. On the one hand, we report potholes — I am sure that all elected representatives do the same — and the repairs that are required to our roads, but, on the other hand, we need to report the same roads six to eight weeks later, because of the substandard nature of the repairs. When will the Department get value for money for the repairs, and when will it follow up with contractors to make sure that they have done the job that they were paid to do so that our roads do not have to be fixed so frequently? Ms Kimmins: The draft road maintenance strategy that I have articulated should help to address the issues that you have outlined. We have had numerous conversations about how we can fix one hole in a road because it meets the criteria but bypass three or four other holes. That is the type of work that we will try to tackle as part of the strategy and that we are not seeing. It will, in my humble view, have an impact. I am sure that your colleague in North Down, where it has been trialled, has seen the impact and what it can do. Again, it will not solve all our problems, but my intention is to increase the resilience and sustainability of our road network. Top 3.30 pm Miss McIlveen: With work progressing on greenways in the Ards and North Down Borough Council area, will the Minister publish the timetable for the DFI works to connect the Comber greenway to the Bangor greenway and confirm that a budget has been allocated to those works? Mr Speaker: Minister, briefly. Ms Kimmins: I will come back to the Member in writing, if she is happy enough for me to do that, so that I can give accurate timings and budget. I attended the recent opening of the greenway at the Newtownards end. We are keen to see that progress. (Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair) Executive Committee Business School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill: Consideration Stage Clause 1 (Guidelines as to policies on school uniforms) Debate resumed on amendment No 1, which amendment was: In page 1, line 10, leave out "from time to time" and insert "at least once every three years". — [Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education).] The remaining amendments in the group stood on the Marshalled List. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: We resume debate on the Consideration Stage of the School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill. Peter — Mrs Mason: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Further to your point just before Question Time about Members speaking within the scope of the Bill, were you or any of the other Deputy Speakers privy to the rationale that the Speaker used for not selecting the other amendments? Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I was not privy to the advice given to the Speaker's Office on the amendments. I do not believe that any of the other Deputy Speakers were either. However, I will refer the matter to the Speaker's Office for accuracy and come back to you: OK? We are definitely going to Peter Martin now. Thank you, Peter. Mr Martin: Thank you very much, Principal Deputy Speaker. An hour and a half ago, I pointed out that I was slightly disappointed in the tenor of the debate. Yes, this is a political debating Chamber and, yes, political points are scored at times. However, the Bill is designed to reduce, and will deliver on reducing, the cost of school uniforms for parents across Northern Ireland, which is to be welcomed. I would have been surprised had the other parties stood up and said, "This is a great Bill. This is what it is going to do", because it was introduced by my colleague the Minister. It is a manifesto commitment by our party, and we are delivering on it. I would have liked there to be a little more warmth in the Chamber towards the Bill. The Bill is not political. It will not help just one small subsection of the community, one religious background or one political affiliation; it will help every single parent in Northern Ireland. Mrs Guy: Will the Member give way? Mr Martin: Yes. Mrs Guy: Have you seen the guidance? You are very confident that the Bill will deliver for parents. Our concern is that we have not seen the guidance, so we do not have the same level of confidence that you do. Mr Martin: I have no gift of prophecy. I certainly have not seen the guidance, but I have confidence in our Minister. He said that he would bring the Bill forward, and he has done so. I am confident because he has got it to the fourth stage and through the Committee. My thoughts were not always in line with everyone else's, but I welcomed the debate at Committee Stage and our chance to scrutinise the Bill. I say to the Member for Lagan Valley that I have confidence that the Bill will deliver what it is supposed to. Its scope is about bringing down the costs of school uniform for all parents across Northern Ireland. The Bill will do that, and I look forward to seeing it, hopefully, become legislation as quickly as possible. That is the best way to deliver for every parent in Northern Ireland when it comes to buying school uniforms. Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education): Will the Member give way? Mr Martin: I have finished my remarks. Madam Deputy Speaker? Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: It is up to you as to whether you give way to the Member, even though you have said that you are finished. Mr Martin: Oh, sorry. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: You are all right, Peter. I place no restriction on the debate, even if it is outside the scope of the Bill. Mr Martin: I am more than happy to take an intervention from the Committee Chair. Mr Mathison: I thank the Member for giving way. Apologies: I did not realise that you were bringing your remarks to a close. You made a statement that the scope of the Bill is to bring down costs, but the Bill also refers to other issues, particularly comfort and practicality. I would like to hear why you feel that that the Bill is only about cost, despite its text also covering those other issues. Mr Martin: I thank the Chair of the Education Committee. There is a range of clauses in the Bill, and we have looked at some of them about reporting procedures and what the scope of the legislation will be. If you actually were to ask someone what the School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill is designed to do, or if you had watched media on it or had spoken to anyone who is interested and has followed the progress of it, I believe that they would say, "Is that the one that is supposed to do something about sports kits?" I have spoken to lots of parents about it. People who have, perhaps, been watching the Assembly debates have even come up to me and said, "I hope that that Bill is going to reduce the cost of our sports kits". Whilst there are clearly other clauses, and there should be, in my view, the core is about bringing down costs, and I hope that that is exactly what it will do. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Nick, I just want to let you know that I am finding it really difficult to hear you. Mr Mathison: Apologies. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Maybe Mr Martin did not see you wanting to come in at the end, but I am finding it difficult to hear you. Mr Burrows: We are enthusiastic about the Bill. It is positive that we will see honest endeavours made to reduce the cost of school uniform. It is worth stating for the record that we genuinely believe that no pupil should ever feel stigmatised or excluded by reason of the affordability of school uniform. Something that puts affordability at the very centre of discussions on school uniform is to be welcomed. There is a balance, of course, and we want to ensure that schools have a degree of discretion, autonomy, flexibility and, indeed, that we do not do anything that devalues the role that the uniform can play in a school. It brings a sense of collegiality, identity and pride. It also promotes good behaviour, especially when pupils are outside the school grounds. Having your school uniform on makes you identifiable, and that can be very useful for promoting good behaviour. Getting the balance right is critical. There are a number of amendments, and we will not commit to them all, but we will make some comments. On amendment No 1, there is no real issue with publishing every three years. That is a wise amendment. Likewise, amendment No 4, because it is in the best interests of transparency to have guidance published. It provides clarity, certainty and transparency. The one that I want to focus on is amendment No 10, with the word "undue". I will support the Minister's amendment to put the word "undue" in because we want to make sure that, although we are aiming to bring down the cost of school uniforms and are aiming to make sure that we do not have exclusion on the basis of uniform, we do not want to be very prescriptive on schools. The intention has to be that no one should be excluded from sports, excluded from school or disciplined because they cannot afford an item of clothing. However, at the same time, it is vital that schools can say that there are some uniform requirements and some policies that have to be enforced. There was a case on the news this week about the wearing of an earring, which is a good example. I was asked a question on the hoof on 'The Nolan Show', and my instinct was to say that I am not going to arbitrate for the school. I do not know the ins and outs of whether that pupil was asked to remain out of school, but the school has to be able to apply some rules. However, it would be entirely wrong for any pupil to be disadvantaged or excluded because they cannot afford something. That is why I —. Mr Sheehan: Will the Member give way? Mr Burrows: Yes. Mr Sheehan: I know that you are new to the Committee, Jon, but the Committee took evidence from one young girl in particular who attends a well-known school in Belfast, and her family is quite economically challenged. They cannot afford the school overcoat, so when she is 100 metres from the school, she takes her own overcoat off and carries it into school, but she still has 100 metres to go, whether it is raining, snowing, freezing or whatever. It is not just a matter of children being excluded from school, albeit there are children who are effectively excluded from schools because their parents know that they would never be able to afford the uniform. In some cases, it is 600 or 800 quid. I understand that you want to support the Minister's amendment, but I do not think that your rationale for doing so has been very convincing here today. Thanks for letting me in. Mr Burrows: It is not a matter of supporting the Minister's amendment. As I said, my instinct when asked a question about a live case was that that school should have the autonomy to make its own rules, and that we need to be careful in this place that we do not de-legislate the ability of schools to make reasonable rules. Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way? Mr Burrows: Yes. Mr Brooks: I agree with the Member's concern for the autonomy of our schools. I listened to the schoolchild who came in to speak to us. She spoke very well, and I shared some of Pat's concerns that day that perhaps that particular school was overzealous around some aspects of the uniform, and I expressed those concerns, particularly because it seemed to be influencing the child's decisions around what choices she could make. I hope that the Department will have an opportunity in future to engage with that school. Does the Member agree that there are provisions and teeth in the Bill that the Minister, whoever it might be at that time, can enact to engage with those schools to bring sanctions if he or she decides to do so? Mr Burrows: I am happy to support that. I restate that I and my party will support what is right and oppose what is wrong, and it is not because it is a unionist Minister. There is a certain irony, in that the direction of travel for many people in the Chamber is to tighten up some things around school uniform and tie the schools' hands, but the same people are adamantly opposed to requiring schools to protect inspection. That seems to me to be a completely irreconcilable position. On amendment No 12, I have read the Minister's letter, and we are not convinced entirely about the name and shame. We remain non-committal about it, because there is a deterrent value to being named and shamed. I want to hear a bit more about the rationale for not going down that line, as is being done in other areas of government policy, particularly around social security benefits. We are still undecided about what is the appropriate balance there. There should be clarity about the number of schools and why they are not complying with things. Naming them goes to a principle. I heard many times in the Education Committee about not naming schools. It is a red line. If we cross it, we must be careful. We are not ruling out doing so, however. Naming and shaming would have a deterrent value. I want to hear a little more about why it would not be appropriate. By the way, I do not particularly like the phrase "naming and shaming". Without it, we would have a court system sitting in closed session to which nobody would turn up and on which the media could not report. We therefore want to tease out the issue a little more. Top 3.45 pm Mr Mathison: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree that the Bill contains quite a lead-in process before the Department would be in the space of issuing a direction, that there is capacity to engage with the school manager on the issue and that one would have to ask a question if, despite that engagement, the school were to dig its heels in and still refuse to comply with the guidelines? Mr Burrows: That is a fair point. This is a seminal moment, however. If we are to go down the route of naming and shaming schools, which is something that I am not sure has been done before, it is a big line to cross. When lines are crossed, there are unintended consequences. The responsible thing to do is therefore not to say, "Yes, that sounds good. Stiffen this up, but name and shame" or, "No, we're going to protect our schools". There is a perception — it is real — that we tend to protect the reputation of schools that have the most or that are in better-off areas rather than worrying about schools in socially disadvantaged areas. We are alive to both sides of the argument and remain to be convinced. That is a healthy position to be in. We see a divergence between naming and shaming here and doing so for the likes of benefit fraud and other things in the criminal justice system. Naming and shaming can have a deterrent value. It is transparent and is about accountability. We want a little more convincing. I would like to hear a bit more from the Minister about why, he believes, the naming of schools would be a negative step and what consequences it might lead to if we went down that line. We should be enthused. There is an opportunity here to get to an end point at which schools put affordability at the centre of everything that they do. That would be in the best interests of children, parents and schools. I was not on the Education Committee when it was discussing the Bill, so there is a time for me to read in in order to understand the nuances of people's positions. We want to make sure that we get the balance right and that schools do not lose the ability to make sensible decisions, because that could have a real impact. If that simple thing could not be enforced, it could quickly create a chaotic situation that would be difficult for parents and teachers to manage. There is a balance to be struck in all of this. We want to support the legislation, but we are yet to be convinced about naming and shaming. There is an opportunity to make school uniforms more affordable and particularly to make sure that no pupil is ever, in any circumstance, excluded from sport or disciplined at school because their mum, dad or carer cannot afford something. That is a clear red line and should be the legislation's purpose. That is the key protection that the legislation must achieve, and it is the thrust that we will look for in the Bill. We will support some things while looking for more convincing on others, and we will scrutinise as we go along. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Jon. I call the Minister of Education as the penultimate contributor on the first group of amendments. Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I begin by thanking all Members who have contributed to the debate on this important legislation. We are, first and foremost, Members of a legislative Assembly. Some have cast a view and made comments that sounded more like what would be said at Second Stage than what would be said in a debate on the detail of law and wording. I am not going to go into that, because, as a Minister, I have a duty to focus on discharging what the Assembly is meant to do, which is legislate and be careful about the wording of law, rather than engaging in broader commentary about what could have been and what should have been. It is our job to legislate. Some have tried to lay a trap. Some want to bait me and get me riled. I am not going to do it. It is Monday. I had a good weekend, so we are not going to go into that mode today. This is too serious for us to engage in that. I want to focus on legislation, because, when the Bill is passed, it is what schools and others will be held accountable to. If someone wants to go to court, this is what they will base that on, so we have a real responsibility. Legislation has been passed by the Assembly that has been flawed and has not been correct, so we need to do our job and do it really carefully. In my role as Education Minister, I want to make a difference to the everyday lives of real people. More affordable school uniforms will make a real difference to people across Northern Ireland. That is why I introduced the Bill, which every party on the Executive supported. I am delighted that we have reached Consideration Stage, and I hope that the Bill will be on the statute book later this year. Let us remember that making school uniforms more affordable is why I introduced the Bill in the first place. I want to recognise the effort that the Education Committee has made to submit its report in line with the revised Committee Stage time frame. Some Members were not happy that the lengthy proposed Committee Stage was brought back from December to August, but that was an important decision by Members, as it prevented a delay of an entire school year before parents could feel any benefit from the legislation. I am aware that some Members have questioned whether the amended timescale will make any difference to the time when parents will feel the benefit of the legislation: let me assure the House that it will. Because we are at Consideration Stage now instead of later in the year or even next year, once the Bill passes Final Stage — assuming that it does, which is, of course, a matter for Members to determine — schools will know in sufficient time what legal requirements will be in operation before the 2026-27 school year. My Department will advise schools of the matters that are expected to be in the guidelines once the Bill reaches its final form. Work continues on clarifying draft guidelines and communications to schools so that they will be ready to issue after Final Stage. The conclusion of Committee Stage by the end of August means that that is achievable and that schools must adhere to statutory guidelines for the 2026-27 school year. Parents will benefit. I recognise that the Committee reported at the beginning of July. Timing-wise, that was admirable. However, important legislative details are missing from some of the amendments that the Committee has tabled, and I will talk to those as we reach the relevant amendment. I am happy to give way to the Chairman. Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for giving way. Just before you move on to the amendments, Minister, I want to go back to the point about the process and the timelines and the fact that you are confident of the fact that, once the Bill passes all its stages, schools will be clear on their responsibilities. Do you have a view on what you will do with schools that have been outliers and continued to pursue having extremely expensive uniforms? We will almost certainly be in a scenario where Royal Assent will not have been granted when those guidelines are landing. What will you, as Minister, do to ensure that those schools will live up to the expectations that we all have in this place that they will do something about costs? Mr Givan: The message has been getting out to schools through what I, the Executive and the Committee have been doing through the process. I have been in schools recently, and the principal in one school indicated to me — this was a school where a blazer in sixth form was based on various honours — that it is changing its policy before we even pass the legislation. He said that the school had engaged with its student council, listened to the feedback and is changing its policy. That school is working through that. We are already making an impact on the schools that are outliers. I agree with the Chairman that the vast majority of schools do the right thing, but there are still some that have been required to go through this process now to give statutory force to the guidelines in order to make the change. I know from meeting schools — certainly one school at least — that they are making changes. The comments that I will make about the deficient nature of the amendments are not Paul Givan's view — I am not a legal expert — but are based on legal advice from senior legal advisers. I thank the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC) and the Departmental Solicitor's Office (DSO) for the detailed work that they have undertaken, the advice that they have provided and the pace at which they have done so. I am also aware that the Committee wishes to see draft guidelines. Some Members referred to that in their contributions, but such guidelines must follow the Bill. I am focused on getting the guidelines right for schools. Mr Sheehan: Will the Minister give way? Mr Givan: That is how we will make a difference for parents, and part of it requires legal advice. Members have asked for guidelines, but guidelines follow the law. I will be able to provide those guidelines. That work is already under way, and I will certainly be developing the guidelines. I have been doing so. That is in line with the law. The law must come first. I am happy to give way to Mr Sheehan. Mr Sheehan: That being the case, why was the Committee promised that it would be given sight of the guidelines as far back as March and April? Mr Givan: I cannot comment on why that was said. As Minister, I was clear that guidelines follow the law. There are amendments that may or may not get voted through today. Guidance is, of course, being developed, but it would be premature to produce guidance until we know the basis on which that guidance has to be framed, and it is the law that does that. That is why the Committee did not get sight of the guidance in advance of us doing our job to pass the legislation. I have outlined the reason. Members may not agree with that, but the reason is that guidance follows the law. I am not prepared to rush through or share drafts of guidelines that have not had the benefit of due legal consideration. That is the stage that my officials are at, and it will result in clearer guidelines. The engagement and drafting will be ongoing until the final provisions of the Bill are determined in the Assembly, so I make no apology for doing things properly. It is not for my benefit but for the benefit of schools and parents. Legislation is there to make a specific provision in law. It is meant to bring about a legal state of affairs that would not otherwise exist. The Bill will operate in the context of existing law, and that includes all existing human rights and equality legislation. The Department is bound by law to act reasonably in exercising its statutory functions, and it should be borne in mind that that necessarily informs attitudes to fairness, dignity and equality. To be clear, that is expert opinion from legal advice. I invite the House to bear this in mind as we go through the debate: how the Department is allowed to go about preparing guidelines is necessarily informed by wider considerations that do not need to be expressly provided for in the Bill. We all know that words matter. In the Chamber, they are a matter of public record. In legislation, they are critical. I will turn to the amendments. Group 1 is about monitoring and enforcement of what will be statutory guidelines. Monitoring is extremely important. It is important that we ensure that the Bill delivers what it is intended to do: making school uniforms more affordable for parents. It is also important that we do not lose sight of the fact that I introduced the Bill for that fundamental reason. To achieve that, we need the Bill to support guidelines that work for schools in order to benefit parents and pupils. I will start with the group 1 amendments that are not of material impact, namely amendment Nos 1 and 4. Those amendments require the Department to review the guidelines at least every three years and lay them before the Assembly. Amendment No 4, in particular, seems unnecessary, given that the guidelines will always be published on the departmental website. However, amendment No 1 is not necessary either, since regular review is already required. Therefore, I invite the relevant Member not to press either amendment No 1 or amendment No 4. While I can appreciate the intention behind amendment No 8, my position is that it represents over-elaborate drafting in how it seems intended to operate in practice. It risks placing bureaucracy above a straightforward requirement to report on the impact of the Bill, which would be more logical; indeed, I assure Members that that would happen without any amendment on that point. A straightforward requirement could be drafted in such a way that requires all the provisions of the Bill, including any cap, to be covered in a report. Top 4.00 pm The amendment before us is also not clear about what "mean" or "median costs" relate to. That is the wording in the Committee amendment: "mean" or "median costs". It ignores any potential differences between primary and post-primary uniforms, and we know that there can be significant price differences between those two. It is unnecessary in its prescription. Parts of the amendment that relate to the Department — Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for giving way. I do not think that any Member would object were the Department to take the sensible approach of disaggregating primary and post-primary costs in any report that it brought to the Assembly. I do not think that the amendment precludes the Department from doing that. Is there an issue? You have referenced "mean costs" and "median costs". Some of our concern might be that the Department is in fact reluctant to do that data collection work to establish the costs and set benchmarks on how much a school uniform costs across Northern Ireland. The Committee's appetite was for us to get that baseline data, which would then be regularly reviewed. Mr Givan: It is not that the Department has any reluctance about trying to capture data on that. The Chairman makes the point for me: the Committee is using an amendment to try to achieve an outcome to do with data collection. That seems to be one of the underlying reasons. Determining whether or not the Department is serious about having an ability to capture data is not what the primary legislation should be designed to do. We have to use primary legislation for the right purposes and understand the intent behind it. That comment reveals to me that a cause for concern that I have about the Bill is justified. The part of the amendment that relates to the Department reporting on its plans to review and amend the guidelines is rendered unnecessary. Indeed, in legal terms, it potentially clashes with amendment No 1, which requires that the guidelines are reviewed: "‘at least once every three years". That all illustrates, again, the importance of getting the provisions exactly right for the sake of legislative accuracy and the real-life effects. As my position is that the amendment will need to be redrafted if it proceeds, I offer an alternative way forward. I will, subject to Executive agreement, table a more straightforward but equally effective reporting amendment at Further Consideration Stage that will result in all the relevant provisions, impact and outworkings of the Bill being reported on, with the first report to happen within three years of Royal Assent's being received. That improved amendment will sit alongside and work with the other amendments and provisions in the Bill. I offer the House that alternative as a pragmatic means of delivering what, I believe, the Education Committee seeks but without the problems that I identified with amendment No 8. I therefore ask that the House votes against amendment No 8 or that the Committee Chair does not move amendment No 8. That will enable me to table a better amendment at Further Consideration Stage. Pressing on with amendment No 8 and then seeking me to provide at Further Consideration Stage an amendment that tidies it up is not the normal democratic process. I fear that we are at risk of losing our parliamentary protocols in this. When a Member of Parliament — albeit we are not at Westminster — or a Committee pushes an amendment and a Minister gets up and says, "I agree with what the Committee or Member is trying to achieve, but there is a better way to do it and to frame the legislation", the normal convention is for that to be accepted. I fear, however, that Members are more determined to prove a point than to get the right point in legislation. If Members wish to follow that process, that would be a cause for concern. Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for giving way. Will the Minister help us to understand why they have waited until 15 September, the day of the debate, to highlight those specific concerns, given that the Committee reported on the Bill at the beginning of July? There would have been ample opportunity at that stage. I appreciate that there was no Marshalled List at that stage, but surely, with the benefit of time on our side, that would have been the appropriate time to have those engagements. Mr Givan: There are two points. The Chairman has made one of them for me: we did not have a Marshalled List until decisions were taken in respect of which amendments were deemed admissible by the Speaker. That is the first point. The second point is that my officials made clear to the Committee our concern in respect of that. I have not only served as a Minister in a number of Departments; I have been Chairman of a Committee and served alongside other Members on that Committee. I can speak only to my experience of being a Chairman. A Bill Clerk would have advised the Committee. Often, the Bill Clerk would have said to me, "I am not the expert. We will engage the Department, which has the resources of the Office of the Legislative Counsel and the Departmental Solicitor's Office". I cannot speak for how the Committee has been advised on tabling Committee amendments and how it would engage with the Department, but my officials did raise our concerns with the Committee as it considered its amendments. Clearly, there is still an opportunity before Members vote. I have put it on the record: I will deliver what the Committee wants on the content of amendment No 8. However, there is a better way to do that, and I will bring it forward, subject to the Executive's approval, at Further Consideration Stage. That will allow the amendment and its content to be sequenced properly in the Bill, as opposed to where it is currently proposed to be. On amendment No 9, clause 7 is permissive, just as is the general power of direction in article 101 of the 1986 Order. The use of "may" in that sort of context is precedented in a similar context, and, in each context, enables a robust, but reasonable, system for giving directions. Adopting the mandatory "must" instead risks an overly rigid system where directions are required in every case where the power to issue them is triggered, whereas, in my view, they should be used as a last resort in the appropriate cases. Leaving some degree of flexibility by keeping "may" is therefore important so that intervention by way of directions occurs only where that is clearly the right choice for the Department when assessing things reasonably. In addition, making a distinction whereby "the Department must" give a non-adherence direction but "may" give a pupil disciplinary direction seems to me to be inconsistent without providing material benefit. The conditions for the Department to assess whether a direction is needed must be fulfilled in either circumstance. That leads me to amendment No 10, which I present having reflected on the balance to be achieved in clause 7. Amendment No 10 provides a proportionate parameter in clause 7(1)(b) by including the word "undue" with regard to any directions about undue pupil discipline and participatory disadvantage. I have already mentioned the issue of consistency. Amendment No 10 ensures that there is consistency with the parameter that is already included in clause 7(1)(a) with regard to directions about material school non-adherence to the statutory guidelines. Taken together, the result is that the Department is not forced to consider resorting to directions, except in the right cases or circumstances that relate to each of the disciplinary measures and participatory disadvantages. That allows schools to operate their discipline policies but protects pupils from being excluded in unjust circumstances where uniform items are not affordable for their families. I ask that the House supports that minor, but important, amendment. Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for giving way again. He has been very generous by giving way on numerous occasions. I want to clarify a couple of points on amendment Nos 9 and 10. The distinction that was made about the use of "must" in clause 7(1)(a) was drawn because, as a Committee, we felt that, if a school was, in a material respect, failing to adhere to the guidelines, which, we have heard clearly — everyone is agreed — should be principally about dealing with that issue of cost — that view has been highlighted — and failing in a material way to bring down the cost of school uniforms as it is legally required to do, and that, further to engagement with the Department, it continued on that course of action, it was entirely appropriate that the Department must direct it. The "may" provision that was tabled as clause 7(1)(a) was simply to try to navigate the risk, which Mr Burrows alluded to, of getting embroiled in the minutiae of schools' disciplinary policies and interactions with individual pupils, which was why we struck that balance. Given that, does the Minister concede that the scenarios of a school failing to materially adhere to the guidelines — digging its heels in and refusing to comply with what the Department is asking — and an issue potentially arising with how a school's disciplinary policy is applied are different and may require different approaches? Mr Givan: I am happy to give way, because, on legislation, we have to get it right, and it is through discourse that, I trust, people engage, listen, reflect and potentially change position. I include myself in that: if I am wrong, I am open to being persuaded. The problem that I have with "must" and "may" is that it entirely removes the ability of the Department to deviate from "must": we have to do it. Some Members indicated that one of the reasons why they wanted this in primary legislation is that one does not know what approach any Minister may take. A Minister may wish to give a bye ball and decide that they will not go down that route. Members would, rightly, challenge any Minister of the Department where there was such a breach of the statutory guidance that got us into the areas covered by the amendments. That is where you would apply pressure on the Minister and the Department by saying, "You have the power to enforce this". The amendment, when it comes to "may" and "must", would remove that ability. I have highlighted that the terminology is inconsistent with other parts of the Bill. Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for giving way. Just to —. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sorry. Will you take your seat for a moment? Giving way is all part of the democratic process, but, with respect, could you be mindful when intervening that an intervention is an intervention and not an opportunity to make another speech? Mr Mathison: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. That is noted. I will come directly to a question to the Minister on that point. Do you not accept that, in an engagement with a school about a failure in a material respect to adhere to the guidelines, it is a different conversation if the school knows that the Department will direct it if it does not engage — if it chooses not to, there is still a chance that the school will be able to continue on the same course of action — and that the amendment creates a more robust power? Mr Givan: The Chairman outlines part of the rationale when it comes to "must": it would certainly give the leverage to force a school. Before the point at which you have to have the "must", however, why would a Minister or the departmental official responsible not have exercised the authority that will exist because the Department "may" be able to do it? There is a point at which you would remove any ability to have the power of flexibility. Circumstances that we do not know may apply in that situation. The amendment, if passed, will say "must". Amendment No 9 is mutually exclusive to amendment No 10, and I have indicated, that, if you do not move amendment No 9, what I am proposing in amendment No 10 provides consistency. The issue of "may" and "must" is a matter for Members to reach a view on, but I seek to address that in amendment No 10. If amendment No 9 is passed — I am sure that the Speaker will outline this — amendment No 10 will not be called, and we will not be able to address that matter, so we will need to look at doing so at Further Consideration Stage, if that is possible. Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way? Mr Givan: I will give way to Mr Burrows. Mr Burrows: Considering the fact that what we say here, as recorded in Hansard, is used as an aid to construction — anyone who has studied law at university will know about Pepper v Hart and all those things — by the courts to determine the intention of the law, can the Minister explicitly confirm, to help us with amendment No 10, that the absolute intention at the core of the legislation is to ensure that no pupil will ever be excluded from school or disciplined because their parents cannot afford an item of equipment or uniform? Top 4.15 pm Mr Givan: I am aware — given his experience, the Member also knows this — from precedent in court settings that the courts will seek to understand, by reviewing debate in the Assembly and in Committee, what was meant, if they need to analyse it because the wording is not clear. It will be left to a judge to figure out what the intent behind it was. Members really need to take cognisance of that when they make decisions on the precise wording in legislation. The Bill's purpose is affordability. I have said repeatedly that we do not want a scenario in which any child, whether they are applying to a school or, indeed, are already at a school, is excluded on the grounds of affordability. Placing the guidelines on a statutory footing will help drive the change that is needed in the small number of schools in which it is a real problem. I want to make some progress on amendment No 11, which would remove the requirement for the Department to consult schools on draft directions before it issues them. Including that requirement in the Bill was, again, based on consistency with the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 but also on best practice. If the Committee's argument for tabling amendment No 11 is that it would shorten the time taken to issue a direction, I can say only that cutting the school voice out of that part of the process is unlikely to be helpful and would reduce the opportunity for a quicker resolution without the need for direction. For those reasons, I will not support amendment No 11 and will seek to divide the House and ask it to vote against the amendment. I also question the rationale behind amendment No 12. I am clear that I want to work with schools. I respect our schools and those who work so hard in them to support our young people. I do not wish to name and shame any school for which a school uniform direction has been issued, because I appreciate the risk of reputational damage. The amendment would do just that. I caution that we need to consider what actual and identifiable benefit there would be from publishing that information. Members will also wish to reflect on the potential precedent that such an approach could represent, and Mr Burrows referred to that. If a direction is issued, it is legally enforceable through court proceedings, if needs be. Publishing information about the number of directions issued and the matters about which the direction was issued seems much more reasonable to me, yet that is not what amendment No 12 would achieve: the entire direction must be published, and that will naturally include the school's name. I will not support that, and I urge Members to think about the schools in their constituency when they vote. If Members find it helpful, I can include the requirement to report on the numbers of and the reasons for directions in the alternative amendment that I am offering to prepare for Further Consideration Stage. It comes back to the significant importance of each word in legislation. We can achieve the intention more effectively through taking a slightly different approach. I ask that the House support me and our schools in taking that different approach and not to vote amendment No 12 through today. I ask the House to pause before voting and to consider whether the amendment in question would lead to meaningful monitoring and enforcement. Would it assist schools to adhere to the statutory guidelines or risk embarrassing them? I commend amendment No 10 to the House. I ask that Members do not vote through amendment Nos 8 and 12. I give a commitment on the Floor of the Assembly that I will table an amendment at Further Consideration Stage that delivers the intent behind those amendments in a reasonable and workable way. I ask that the House carefully consider the reasons why I will not vote for amendment Nos 9 and 11 and that Members pay due attention to the legal advice on which those amendments are based. I ask that Members take a sensible and measured approach, with parents, pupils and schools at the forefront of their thinking. I know that everyone in the Chamber wishes to make school uniforms more affordable for parents and to enable the Department to provide clear guidelines that are workable for schools. Let us make good legislation, and, in doing so, let us make a real difference for parents. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Before I call the Chairperson to make a winding-up speech, let me be clear: my understanding is that the Office of the Legislative Counsel advises the Minister; it does not make policy. That is down to the Minister and the Department, so I just want to get that clear. Without further ado, I call the Chairperson of the Committee for Education, Nick Mathison, to wind. Mr Mathison: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Although Peter Martin may have been disappointed that the tone of the debate was a bit more negative than he would have liked, it has been clear that everybody in the Chamber is on the same page on at least one issue, which is that we need to do something about the cost of school uniforms. The question in this group of amendments is whether the Bill will ensure that the monitoring and enforcement of the guidelines to deliver on that intended outcome will be effective. A lot of the contributions that were made today when we discussed the content of those guidelines probably strayed substantially into group 2. We will get into that in more detail when we come to the next group of amendments. However, the issue before us is the monitoring and enforcement in group 1. I feel that amendment Nos 1 and 4 should really not cause anybody any undue concern. The idea that the Department would at least once every three years check in on the guidelines and look at them again to see whether they are effective seems to be fairly routine. It was the phrase "from time to time" being left in the Bill that caused Committee members concern. It was felt that there was a bit of a hands-off approach being taken: "From time to time, we might look at it, or we might not". If I say that I enjoy an activity "from time to time", that gives the sense that it happens once in a blue moon for me. That is how I read that, and we would want to look at it much more frequently than once in a blue moon or "from time to time". It should be clearly laid down, and I hope that Members take on board the Committee's considerations on that point. I cannot see that the Department should have anything to fear from laying the guidelines in the Assembly as proposed in amendment No 4. It is another layer of ensuring that the guidelines are clearly out in the public domain. No doubt the guidelines will be published, and it would seem unusual to force a Division on an issue of that nature. The Minister set it out clearly that he has a particular view on and concerns about amendment No 8. From the Committee's perspective, there was a clear acknowledgement that, other than the review happening "from time to time", there is no other accountability measure in the Bill. I do not want to rehearse the comments that I made earlier on that in any great detail. I am not particularly speaking for the Committee here, but, from our discussions, this point is probably broadly reflective of what other Members discussed in Committee. My concern is that, if we left it to the Department to mark its own homework on accountability, there would be a risk that the provisions would be diluted. I appreciate that the Minister highlighted his concerns on the specific wording. I trust that, if there were something that caused a serious technical problem for the Department, it would certainly be within its capabilities to address it and tidy it up at Further Consideration Stage. In the Committee's discussions, we were clear that we want that reporting mechanism to be made clear in the Bill. From my perspective, I will not change my position on that amendment. The debate on amendment Nos 9, 10, 11 and 12 has been helpful. It reflected the discussion that we had in Committee, which had a fair degree of back and forth on what an appropriate balance to strike on enforcement should be. However, nothing that I heard in the debate convinced me that what the Committee introduced is anything other than necessary and appropriate. We will come to this in the next group, but guidelines are only as good as what is in them. They are also only as good as the extent to which they can be meaningfully enforced. My sense from —. Mr Sheehan: Will the Member give way? Mr Mathison: I will indeed. Mr Sheehan: You mentioned the guidelines, and the Minister was clear today that the guidelines follow the legislation. That is contrary to what we were told in Committee; in fact, officials told us in a private meeting with the party that we would be reassured, when we saw the guidelines, that there would be no need for amendments. I wonder whether my memory of the discussion on guidelines is similar to yours. Mr Mathison: I thank the Deputy Chair for his intervention. My memory is the same as his: in the Committee, we were given very clear assurances that the guidelines would be provided in draft form to the Committee. That would have been helpful. I was open to being reassured. As I said in my opening remarks, I never approached the process with the desire of messing with the Minister's Bill. I will be really clear: the issue is too important to get into that space. I have no desire to put prescriptive measures in the Bill just to score a point or be able to say that they were something that I did or that the Committee achieved. We did not see the guidelines, so we did not get the reassurance. To a large extent, that is why we are where we are with the process. From the Department's evidence to the Committee on the enforcement of the guidelines, it seemed that officials really thought — they were at pains to emphasise this — that the guidelines would be so clear and robust that it was highly unlikely that any school would have the wriggle room to diverge from them. They did not see any scenario in which it was likely that the Department would be involved in directing a school. If that is the case, I am not sure where the concerns about the change to a "must" provision on publication come from. If the Minister is confident that the Bill will deliver a regime that will work for parents and deliver reduced costs and that schools will have to comply, the concerns that are being raised do not carry much weight. Mr Burrows: Will the Member give way? Mr Mathison: Yes. Mr Burrows: We have said that we are — certainly, I am — open-minded on the "name and shame" aspect, but, if directions were given and not followed, a school would inevitably be named in open court through a legal process. I am trying to tease out the benefit of naming a school in the first instance, simply to say, "We have found that you were not in compliance", rather than waiting to see it named in a court process if the school refuses to comply. Mr Mathison: I thank the Member for his intervention. I re-emphasise that it was clear from the Department's evidence to the Committee that officials did not envisage any scenario in which it would get anywhere near a courtroom. I hope that that would be the case: I hope that schools would have the good sense to comply with the guidelines. Although I do not like the "name and shame" element, its benefit is the sense that the school's name will be put into the public domain. It comes down to the phrase about failure: "in one or more material respects". If a school is failing in one or more material — "material" meaning substantial or significant — respects to comply with the guidelines that are there to bring costs down, why is that school in that space? If it has reached a place in which it still refuses to engage with the Department when the Department has highlighted its concerns and if the school is of that mindset, there may need to be a robust mechanism so that it is assured and clear that there will be a consequence for that action. The phrase "material respects" means that we are not talking about an inconsequential matter, where a school may not have used the right form of words to reflect the guidelines accurately or may not have been clear enough in one element of its uniform policy. It is about failing in a material respect, which means a serious breach, and the enforcement regime that flows from that should reflect its seriousness. That is my view on the amendments on enforceability. I will pick up a couple of other points from the debate. The Minister particularly emphasised the Bill's status as an Executive Bill. Yes, of course it is: any Bill that comes through the Department has passed through the Executive. However, nobody here would say that that means that every member of the Executive has rubber-stamped it and said, "The Bill is the finished article, requires no attention or amendment and entirely delivers everything that we want it to". If that were the case, we would not have a Committee Stage; there would be no such thing. Committees across the Assembly are engaging in the scrutiny of Executive Bills, suggesting improvements and enhancements when the scrutiny stage kicks in. That is entirely appropriate. To suggest that we should leave the Bill alone because it is an Executive Bill does not reflect the reality of how this place operates. Top 4.30 pm Where do we go from here? I hope that Members consider carefully how they vote on these amendments so that we can be assured that the Bill that comes out the other side of this process, through the group 1 amendments, delivers on enforcement and is effective. We will come to whether or not the content of the Bill and what it is going to do is appropriate. If we are serious about tackling costs, however — everybody has said today that they are — we have to be serious about monitoring the impact of the Bill and ensuring that it is enforced. I will be clear on this for the record: the vast majority of schools are trying to do the right thing. They are there to serve their communities. However, we cannot ignore the fact that, for whatever reason to do with their history, their tradition, the perceived demographic of the students that they seek to attract or whatever else it may be, there are outliers that do not seem to have an appetite to take seriously the issue of costs and of ensuring that their school is open to absolutely everybody regardless of economic background. Knowing that to be the case, and knowing that there are schools that will maintain such a position, it is important that there is accountability. I commend the Committee's amendments to the House, because I believe that they add the appropriate level of enforcement and monitoring that is required to ensure, as far as is possible — notwithstanding the debate on which amendments were selected and which were not, and the fact that many of us would have liked to see other things on the Floor for debate — that the Bill that is effective and that it delivers. Thank you. Amendment No 1 agreed to. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: We move to the second group of amendments for debate, which are on the content of guidelines and commencement. With amendment No 2, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 3, 5, 6, 7 and 13. If that is clear, I will call the Chairperson of the Committee for Education, Mr Nick Mathison, to move amendment No 2 and address the other amendments in the group. Clause 1 (Guidelines as to policies on school uniforms) Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education): I beg to move amendment No 2: In page 1, line 18, leave out "may" and insert "must". The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List: No 3: In page 2, line 1, after "who" insert ", including pupils and their parents or guardians,". — [Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education).] No 5: In clause 2, page 2, line 15, at end insert— "(aa) practicality of clothing in relation to play-based curricula and outdoor learning, including within the Foundation Stage (as defined by the Education (Curriculum Minimum Content) Order (Northern Ireland) 2007)". — [Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education).] No 6: In clause 2, page 2, line 18, at end insert— "(2A) Guidelines under this Chapter must include provision requiring school uniform policies to ensure all items of clothing required are available for purchase from at least one retailer or provider which does not hold any formal or informal contract or agreement, with the school, relating to provision of such items of clothing. (2B) Guidelines under this Chapter must include provision specifying that section 2A will not apply to any school uniform policy which includes a statement from the school manager explaining how such a contract or agreement delivers value for money with respect to items of clothing required by the school uniform policy." — [Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education).] No 7: In clause 2, page 2, line 18, at end insert— "(2A) Guidelines under this Chapter must include provision requiring a manager of a school to publish, at least once per year, information regarding any formal or informal contracts or agreements, which the school holds with any retailer or provider, relating to provision of items of clothing required by the school uniform policy. (2B) Provision under section 2A does not apply to any contracts or agreements which were in place before this Act received Royal Assent." — [Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education).] No 13: In clause 15, page 7, line 4, leave out "Sections 3 and 4 come" and insert "Section 4 comes". — [Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education).] Mr Mathison: I promise Members that I will not rehearse all the comments about the Committee Stage. I am sure that no one wants to hear those repeated, so I will move straight to speaking directly to the group 2 amendments. With this group of amendments, we are really looking at the content of the guidelines — what they contain — and at whether we are satisfied that they will deliver on the Bill's intentions. Throughout the Committee Stage, there was much discussion on how many provisions of the Bill were framed in terms of what "may" be included in the guidelines rather than what "must" be included. That was a recurring theme in probably every Committee meeting on the issue. Although not all parties agreed on all aspects of the discussions on that point — I am sure that Members will address that in their remarks — there was a feeling that, as the guidelines will actively dictate what schools actually have to do to reduce costs and what schools would find to be a new requirement, it would be appropriate for the Bill to prescribe the content of some of the key aspects of those guidelines. Amendment Nos 2 and 3 sit together. If they are passed, they will stipulate that the guidelines "must" inform schools who is to be consulted on their uniform policy, although doing so would not limit who can be consulted, should schools choose to consult more widely. Following on from that, they will stipulate that the consultees "must" include parents and guardians and the pupils of the school. The fact that that was not mandated in the Bill as drafted seems like a significant oversight. Members from the DUP did not take this position, and I am sure that they will address that, but there was a strong feeling among the Committee members from other parties that that needs to be corrected. It seemed clear that parents and pupils who are associated with the school should have to be consulted if the level of engagement with the school community on a school uniform policy is going to be meaningful and to ensure that a policy is fit for purpose for the school. It may well be the case — I suspect that it is — that, if draft guidelines were before us now, those requirements might be provided, but we could not get those assurances from the Department. It may be that the amendment was not necessary, but, in the absence of that clarity, the Committee felt this to be an important aspect for inclusion in the Bill. It was very clear from the evidence that we heard, particularly from young people, that they felt, in some contexts, completely ignored in relation to school uniform policy in their school. They felt that it was just something that was imposed upon them and that their views were not relevant. Also, parents felt that they might sign their child up for a school at a given point in the year only to find that the uniform policy hid a whole range of costs that they had not been aware of or understood. It seems critical that both of those groups are required to be consulted by a school when it is drafting its policy. I turn to amendment No 5. The Committee proposed a number of amendments relating to clause 2(2)(a) on a whole range of areas. Those were around issues of comfort and practicality of school uniforms and issues relating to gender, menstruation, special educational needs and religious observance. However, based on the amendments selected, we are debating only a single proposed change to clause 2(2)(a), and that is around requiring schools to consider the practicality of uniforms in facilitating access to play-based curricula and outdoor learning. Particular care was taken when considering that amendment to ensure that there was a specific reference to the Foundation Stage, although the amendment is not limited to that cohort of children. I was pleased to propose that amendment to the Committee, and I am glad that it received support because my experience is that children moving from preschool into their primary education often experience a very sudden and marked change in their uniform, finding that it becomes more formal, more restrictive and less practical. It is not uncommon for schools to adopt uniform policies for their P1 children that mandate buttoned shirts, dresses, tights and ties. If we are serious about a play-based curriculum being important in the Foundation Stage, we must consider that those things inevitably restrict children's ability to access that curriculum. It sometimes raises questions about whether we really do deliver a play-based curriculum or whether we are moving children to sit at a desk and to learn in a different way. I think that amendment No 5 would send a very clear message that uniform policies should reflect the value that is placed on the Foundation Stage play-based curriculum and ensure its accessibility for all children. The Committee, with the exception of members from the DUP, supported that change, and I hope that it is given support today when we come to voting after the Consideration Stage debate. I move to amendment Nos 6 and 7. The Committee heard from parents and children that the cost of uniforms differed widely depending on the arrangements and contracts that schools had with suppliers and on the insistence on certain expensive, branded uniform items as part of those arrangements. Particular attention was given to the issue of branded PE kit. These amendments, together, seek to bring a degree of accountability around supplier contracts for school uniforms. We heard very helpful evidence from school uniform suppliers that supply arrangements can have a role in delivering good value and that, if schools have a positive relationship and engage with local suppliers, they can be part of the solution to delivering value. However, the Committee was keen to balance that relationship with transparency so that arrangements around supplier deals were clear to parents when purchasing uniforms. There was a very strong appetite among members to ensure that practices such as sportswear manufacturers exclusively supplying expensive PE kits to schools, with perks then being offered around the provision of equipment or kits for staff, for example, as part of those deals, should be brought into the open. Amendment Nos 6 and 7, in my view, still permit single-supplier deals to be retained but only when a very clearly articulated cost rationale is supplied to support their continuation. The Committee felt that that was an appropriate balance to strike in that space. We did not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and the Committee was of the view that, if a sensible arrangement with a supplier delivers good value for money, the amendments will allow that to continue. Amendment No 13 generated substantial discussion at the Committee because it concerns the commencement of one of the enabling powers in the Bill. Members will be aware that the Bill as drafted gives the Minister some enabling powers to limit or restrict items of uniform and introduce a cap on uniform costs at some point in the future. This particular amendment relates to section 3 of the Bill, which gives the Minister the enabling power to restrict specific items of uniform. In common parlance around the debate, they are often referred to as "branded items", but, from my perspective, I urge caution on the use of that phrase because the Committee quickly found out that "branded" meant different things to different people in almost every context. The Committee submitted an amendment that would have made the restriction on these uniform items a "must" provision. It would have created a duty on the Minister to bring in restrictions on uniform items with a view to bringing down the costs, and it would have kicked in immediately after Royal Assent if the amendment had passed. However, as that amendment was not selected — again, I note that it is a matter for the judgment of the Speaker — amendment No 13 is rendered largely inconsequential, because giving immediate effect to a power that the Department "may" utilise rather than "must" does not change anything. As it remains a "may" power, its commencement is of no great consequence. I see no issue with amendment No 13 going forward either way, as it would be good to see at least some impetus behind this in the Bill so that, if it is given effect immediately after Royal Assent, at least those powers become available to the Minister straight away. Ms K Armstrong: I thank the Member very much for giving way. I am very fortunate to be a parent who no longer has to suffer the costs of uniforms because my daughter is up and away. I have found that the price of girls' skirts, in comparison with boys' trousers, is ridiculous, and I hope the Minister will take that into account after the Bill gets Royal Assent. It may not be a branded item or have a school badge, but the school may tell you that it has to be a certain colour of skirt that can only be bought in one shop, and it may have to have a certain number of pleats in it and this, that and the other thing. It means that boy's black trousers can be bought in a supermarket for a few pounds, whereas a girl's skirt can cost anything up to £40. I hope that considerations like that are made in the future to ensure that cost is taken into account by all schools. Mr Mathison: I thank the Member for her intervention. The gendered aspect of the cost was one of the repeated themes that came through to the Committee. The evidence received indicated that girls' uniforms are often more expensive than boys' uniforms. Therefore, providing some choice in that space would have had a cost impact as well as an equality impact, but that amendment is not available to us for debate today. The change to bring this aspect of the Bill into effect at Royal Assent remains a "may" provision, I hope that, at the very least, it focuses the Minister and the Department's mind on the appetite for something to be done in the space of restricting items of uniform. PE is the one that came up repeatedly. We had the gender imbalance issue because girls' items are often more expensive, but the Committee also heard substantial evidence on PE kits, and barely a session went by where that issue was not discussed — certainly the parental evidence that we heard, and the evidence from young people. Indeed, many of the uniform suppliers said that they had stepped away from the PE kit market because the manufacturers, not the local school uniform shops, are making the money in many cases. There is a real sense that doing something around restricting branded items could have an impact. I add that the real area where the Committee heard evidence that people had a serious appetite for something to be done was a cost cap, but we know that there are layers of complication to that. The Committee heard evidence that it was not a straightforward intervention. However, I put on record that we hope it does not just gather dust. The cost cap provision is a crucial part of the Bill, and I hope there will be serious action to introduce that provision. That concludes my remarks as Committee Chair on this group of amendments. Top 4.45 pm With your permission, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I will briefly conclude my contribution by making some remarks as an Alliance MLA. This group of amendments is concerned with what needs to be included in the guidelines on school uniforms that will be created and that, subsequently, must be adhered to at school level. It remains a significant frustration that a clear decision was taken not to provide either the Committee or MLAs more widely with sight of the guidelines that the Bill will create. I appreciate that they would have been only in draft form, but we remain largely in the dark about the Bill's practical outworkings. I have no doubt that the Minister, as a constituency MLA, wants to be able to say to parents that he has brought down costs, but the practical outworkings are not clear. When I walk a parent through the Bill, there is often a "What does it do?" moment. I hope, for the sake of parents, that the guidelines that the Bill creates —. Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way? Mr Mathison: I will give way. Mr Brooks: Does the Member recognise — I am sure that he does — that that reflects some of the complexities that were put to us in Committee? Sometimes, things sound simple to the general public and may make for a good social media post for all Members in the Chamber, including me, in which we say, "This is what we have done. This is what we have achieved", but that is often not the way in which legislation works. There are complexities that are hard to explain in a sound bite but that we necessarily have to face to make sure that we do the right thing. Mr Mathison: I thank the Member for his intervention. Of course, we are dealing with legislation here, not creating a slogan that is easy for parents to understand. That is not what the legislative process is about. I agree with him on that point, but we remain unclear about what the guidelines will do. That is the impact of the legislation: it is about what the guidelines will do. I remain unclear as to what they will look like. I hope that they will be clear and robust and have a decisive impact on uniform costs. It is encouraging to hear that schools are already making changes in that space. Given how few of the amendments that the Committee or private Members tabled were selected for debate, we are inevitably left with a Bill that is very much the Minister's Bill. I know that the Minister is unhappy with some of the amendments that the Committee has tabled and that have made it to the Chamber for debate today. To my mind, however, the Bill, even after this amending stage, will be largely unchanged from what was presented to us. There may be some points on which there is disagreement, but the general principle that the Bill will not prescribe to any great extent what will be in the guidelines, which is clearly what the Minister and the Department wanted from the Bill, has been preserved. I hope that that approach to the legislation delivers, because parents and families need it to make a difference to the unaffordable costs that so many of them face when purchasing school uniforms. Mr Givan: I thank the Member for giving way. On the broad principle that he is trying to outline about wanting the legislation to be very prescriptive, does he believe that the detail on how schools operate their uniform policy should be in primary legislation or in statutory guidance that can be updated with much greater ease than taking primary legislation through the Assembly? Primary legislation is the foundation on which we can do what follows. That is why we have secondary legislation and why we vote on regulations. They are much easier to update, as the guidance will be. If I follow the argument from the Member and others, they want to specify the guidance in primary legislation, which would mean that, should the circumstance arise that we got it wrong, we would need to introduce primary legislation. That, to me, does not seem to be the best way in which to utilise the Assembly. I am determined to deliver on the guidance, and Members will see that in due course. The culmination of the process, however, will be more easily attained through what I have outlined than through what the Chairman seems to be indicating on behalf of the Committee. Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for his intervention. That was an issue. He will know that the Committee discussed at length what an appropriate level of prescription in primary legislation is. The Committee ultimately landed on the position that, while it is not the job of primary legislation to write the guidelines, such an imbalance had been created in the system on certain things, such inconsistency existed in the system on cost, comfort and practicality, which are referred to in the Bill, and there was so much divergence, the appetite was clearly there from parents and young people to introduce a degree of consistency and certainty, and we felt that a level of prescription was required to deliver that. As things have panned out, however, we do not have a huge set of prescriptive amendments on the content of the guidelines. Ultimately, what has been selected is fairly limited in that space. The Minister's approach is ultimately the one that we will see working through the legislation. I emphasise again that I sincerely hope that it delivers for parents and families, because they need it to do so. I confirm that, from here on, I am also committed to holding the Minister and Department to account on the impact and delivery of the Bill. Whether the lack of prescription will be the issue that, I am concerned, it may present or whether the guidelines will show us something that we will all have confidence in and that will deliver, whatever way it lands, I am certainly committed to holding the Minister to account on the outworking of the Bill. Mr McGrath: I am pleased to follow on from my colleague's earlier remarks. In the interests of this relating to school, I have had some extra homework to do by having to carry off these remarks on the Bill today, as my colleague who sits on the Education Committee is lounging on a beach on her honeymoon. I am sure that, if there is an excuse for being away from this place, that is certainly an acceptable one. I will comment quickly on the second group of amendments. The first group focused on accountability and enforcement, and this group goes to the heart of what the guidelines should contain and how parents and pupils will experience them. To begin, I will set out the principles that have guided the SDLP's approach to the Bill. We in the SDLP believe that education should be a great equaliser; it should not be a source of inequality. Every child, regardless of their background, should arrive at school with the same chance to learn, thrive and succeed. However, that principle is undermined when the cost of a school uniform becomes a barrier to attendance or when a child is made to feel lesser because their family cannot afford a specific item of clothing. Throughout the Committee scrutiny, I understand, the Committee heard the same themes from parents, pupils and stakeholders, which were that the costs are spiralling, families feel locked into exclusive supply arrangements and uniforms often prioritise appearance over practicality. The amendments are a direct response to that evidence. Amendment No 2 represents a seemingly small change but would make a big difference. Parents told the Committee that they are tired of warm words and promises that change might happen. They want certainty and a guarantee that guidelines will be issued and will not be left to departmental discretion and that there will be a duty to compel action. Amendment No 3 requires that pupils and parents be explicitly consulted. Again, that was something that, I understand, the Committee consistently heard. Families feel that decisions are being made about them and without them. The Minister has said that he intended to consult anyway, but parents should not have to rely on good intentions. Writing that into the Bill ensures that their voices are guaranteed a place in that process. Amendment No 5 addresses the practicality of uniforms, especially for children in Foundation Stage. Teachers' unions and parents all said that uniforms must support play-based learning and outdoor activity. A uniform that looks smart but prevents a child climbing, running or joining in with messy play is not, therefore, fit for purpose. That amendment reflects what was consistently heard, which was that clothing must support learning, not restrict it. Amendment Nos 6 and 7 tackle exclusive supply contracts. Time and again, parents expressed frustration at the fact that they are tied to a single supplier and forced to pay inflated prices for basic items. Stakeholder groups echoed that, pointing out that such contracts eliminate competition and ultimately remove choice. Amendment No 6 requires at least one open retail option unless the school can show that its contract truly delivers value for money. Amendment No 7 requires schools to publish their contracts annually. The Committee heard repeatedly that transparency is the best safeguard against unfair costs, and the amendments make that transparency a legal requirement. Finally, amendment No 13, while less high-profile than the others, still matters, because clarity about when provisions come into effect is essential. Parents need to know when that change will arrive. The Minister has suggested that some of the amendments are unnecessary or overly prescriptive, but that is not what was heard at the Committee. Voiced consistently was that families want certainty. They want clarity and affordability built into the system. They do not want to be told that something might be covered in some future guidelines. Time and again, the Committee heard about the stress caused by costs. Families told us about spending £100 on a blazer, £40 on a jumper and £15 on a tie, often when cheaper, perfectly adequate alternatives were available elsewhere. Parents told the Education Committee that they felt trapped by school supply arrangements that drive up prices. That is what the amendments address. Yes, many community groups are stepping in with pre-loved uniform schemes, and the Committee heard about some inspiring projects during its Committee Stage, but those schemes exist because families have been left with no alternative. Community goodwill should not have to fill the gaps that are left by substandard legislation. The amendments would significantly strengthen the Bill. They make sure that the Department has a duty, not a choice, to act. They guarantee parents and pupils a voice and ensure that uniforms are practical for learning. They shine a light on exclusive supplier contracts and provide clarity on when action will start. That is what was consistently heard at the Committee. It is what the parents have asked for, and that is why the SDLP is pleased to support group 2 and urges other Members to do so as well. Mr Sheehan: First, I want to touch on an issue that the Education Minister raised during his contribution. He said that the Assembly had passed flawed legislation. That may well be true, but it is also true of every other legislature in the world. Nothing will always be perfect. We will do our best to make sure that it is. Sometimes, the Assembly might fail. It has not failed often. The Minister also said that he was not a legal expert; nor are members of the Committee. We took advice. All of us approached this on the basis that we wanted to do something to help hard-pressed families and parents who, sometimes, spend exorbitant amounts of money on school uniforms; not for every school but for some schools. We set about trying to shape the legislation by producing amendments that mean that the legislation would do exactly what we want it to do. In that sense, we were prescriptive, but it was not the Committee on its own. I am not a legal expert, and I do not think that the Chair is either, but we brought in legal experts to advise us, and they were not just from the Assembly. The commissioner from the Human Rights Commission came in and gave us legal advice. We took legal advice from them and from drafters in the Bill Office. We are not making it up. We did not wake up one morning and say, "I have a great idea. Let's use this formula of words". It was all done with advice. On occasions when we were not exactly sure that the advice was right, we asked the Bill Clerk to look at it again. On some occasions, that happened. We came at this in the right frame of mind. We know what we want, and we know what we want the legislation to achieve. Top 5.00 pm The difficulty is that, even today, the Minister appears to be disingenuous on a number of issues, including the guidelines. Officials in the Department were working on guidelines from as far back as when the Bill was first introduced, yet the Minister says that the guidelines follow the proposed legislation. Officials were working away on them. They told us that they would be ready within a week. They told us, "Do not worry about amendments. As soon as you see the guidelines, you will know that there is no need for an amendment". So, what were the officials doing? By the way, I am not blaming the officials. I have no doubt whatsoever that they were instructed from above to say that — no doubt whatsoever. The Minister was also disingenuous today when he said that it is an Executive Bill, as if it is not his Bill. The Minister has been around this place long enough to know that the procedure is that the Executive give approval for Bills to go ahead but that, to coin a phrase, the Executive are not across every jot and tittle of Bills that come through. If you were true to your word, you would never amend any Bill that comes through the Executive because, as far as you are concerned, "That's it. The Executive have approved it". My difficulty is that you are sitting here being disingenuous about aspects of the process to bring forward legislation. That is a fact. Mr Givan: I appreciate the Member giving way. I also appreciate that we have not spoken about any of the amendments, but that is a matter for those chairing proceedings. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Minister, if you do not mind, will you take your seat? Mr Givan: I will indeed. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I do not need to be reminded, but thank you for doing that. I would like Members to return to the substance of the group 2 amendments. I have been extremely patient and inclusive, but the constant longwinded interventions are starting to wear my patience. The Minister will make his intervention. I ask the Member and other Members who speak to return to the group 2 amendments, which are amendment Nos 3, 5, 6, 7 and 13, if you do not mind. Mr Givan: I am happy with your ruling that we stick to the amendments, and I will speak on them in due course. Mr Sheehan: Sinn Féin will support all the amendments in the group. I will take the opportunity to speak briefly to amendment Nos 2, 3, 6 and 7. Amendment No 2 changes "may" to "must". Without that, the Department could dodge issuing guidelines altogether. With it, the Department will have a duty and families cannot be left in limbo. This is an opportunity for us, as MLAs, whatever we think about the legislation, to say clearly that, at the very least, guidelines will be issued. Whether they are good enough guidelines is another matter. Amendment No 3 requires consultation with: "pupils and their parents or guardians". That is common sense. Pupils wear the uniforms, and parents pay for them: it is only right that they should have a voice in those matters and, more importantly, that their voices be heard. Amendment No 6 is one of the strongest affordability measures. It ensures that uniform items are available from at least one non-exclusive retailer, breaking the monopoly of school-appointed suppliers. We all know that some schools have sweetheart deals with suppliers and get a kickback from those. That is one of the things that the Committee focused on. We wanted to end that practice because, while the school may benefit from a sweetheart deal, the people who suffer are the parents who have to pay for it. We did not rule out schools being able to keep contracts if they can prove value for money. It was raised with us that there might be only one supplier in some rural areas but the contract that a school has with that supplier might provide value for money. If that is the case, and the school can prove that there is value for money, there is no obstacle to it. Amendment No 7 requires schools to publish contract details annually. Transparency will shine a light on sweetheart deals and monopolies. If a deal is genuinely value for money, no one should have anything to fear. Amendment No 13 tidies up commencement provisions. It is minor but necessary for clarity. As my colleague Cathy Mason said in relation to the previous group of amendments, we need to look at the wider context. We are being asked to debate the Bill without having seen the draft guidelines, which, we are being told, will make this work. Perhaps, at some stage in the future, we will get clarity on whether the guidelines follow the legislation, or whether they were being worked on and, for some reason, a decision was made not to show them to the Committee. We were promised sight of them months ago. I voted in favour of shortening the Committee scrutiny stage when the Minister asked us to, but I was wrong to do so. I think that the Minister was trying to rush things through, without giving due consideration to all the issues. He was concerned about getting this through as quickly as possible. At that time, we accepted his bona fides in all that, but I am not so sure that we would accept them now. Asking people to blindly trust the Minister and his Department is no longer going to work. Frankly, families cannot afford to trust the Minister on this issue. That is why we worked with others to try to table amendments that were prescriptive and would ensure that affordability, equality, comfort and practicality were built into the legislation. We have missed an opportunity. We could have had proposals that would have allowed girls to wear trousers, allowed generic clothing, permitted the use of sew-on crests and so on. Mr Brooks: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. You have made a ruling that we should speak on only the amendments that have been tabled. The Member is diverting from that. Will you make a ruling on that? Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I am listening, David. We are talking about the content of the guidance and commencement. I am not across every aspect of the Bill, because I am not on the Committee. I am trying my best to listen and to ensure that what Members are saying is in keeping with what is in the lever arch folder that I have in front of me. I will refer your comments to the Speaker. Again — I am not doing it gently now — I ask Members to return to the substance of the group 2 amendments. Thank you very much. Go ahead, Pat. Mr Sheehan: Go raibh maith agat arís, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle. [Translation: Thank you again, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.] Of course [Interruption] I am dealing with [Interruption] the amendments that were discussed in —. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Pat, can you leave the mic alone, if you don't mind? You are going to break it. [Laughter.] Mr Sheehan: I am trying to get it out of my way. I will reiterate my point. There were proposals in the amendments that would have allowed girls to wear trousers, which is an issue of equality; allowed parents to buy generic clothing; permitted the use of sew-on crests; and guaranteed adjustments for pupils with disabilities. Unfortunately, none of those amendments was accepted. In my view, that was to the detriment of the Bill, but we will support the group 2 amendments. Mr Martin: I start by picking up on a few things that have been talked about so far. I did not make an intervention because I did not want to slow things down any more. I will pick up on the Committee Chair's comments on the cost cap and the impetus to have said cost cap. That was debated at length at the Committee, and it was a useful discussion. We looked at the cost cap and took evidence from, for example, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). Some members were keen to have one, and we tried to say what the figure would be. I suggest that, if everyone in the Chamber was asked to write down what they thought that the cost-cap figure for school uniforms should be, we would have a lot of different numbers, and that is the problem. It becomes more of a problem when a figure is put into primary legislation, because it cannot be changed. Just as an example, a cost cap of £250 was talked about at one point at the Committee. Some post-primary schools might think, "Well, we're going to struggle to bring our entire school uniform in at £250". Other schools, we know, are doing it for less even as we speak. In fact, I spoke to a principal about two weeks ago who was in that situation. I more or less gave him that example, and he said to me, "If you put that figure in, do you not think that schools that are under that might raise the cost of their uniforms to hit that cost cap? If that's the amount you're allowed, can you raise it?" That is called an inverse incentive or a perverse incentive to try to meet a criterion. Not only do I think that it is not a good idea to put numbers into primary legislation because, for example, it does not take account of inflation as the years go on, but not having a figure is a good idea because it allows the guidelines to reflect that and to take evidence around it. Mr Mathison: I thank the Member for giving way. I know that he was keen to make a wee bit of progress in the debate. As a point of clarity, though, does the Member accept that it was never proposed at Committee that a number would be put into primary legislation, but simply the principle of whether it must be done or not? That is an important point of clarity. Mr Martin: I thank the Chair for that intervention. I hope that I did not suggest that a cost-cap number was ever talked about, but that number was chatted about, as was the concept of a cost cap. It was actually reflected in both speeches. If you have a cost cap, usually you need a number associated with that, and that would be difficult. I must say that the Member for South Down Mr McGrath has admirably stepped in for his colleague who is apparently sunning herself somewhere. I found myself nodding along with him on several occasions during his speech, because I completely agree that the purpose of the legislation is to make sure that no child is prohibited from being sent, and no parent or family feels prohibited from sending their child, to any given school due to cost. I recall one young lady coming to the Committee. I think that this has been talked about, but it is interesting how we all remember these things, and I remember something slightly different in the evidence that she gave. She said that she would like to play more sports in sixth form. I think that she had moved school. She was moving into what we would maybe call lower sixth. I am sure that there is a number for that these days, but, in old money, it was lower sixth. She was very sporty, and she was just chatting away. What I loved about her was the openness. She shared what she thought. She said, "I would love to play more sport, but my family simply can't afford the range of sports gear and kit that I would require to do the things that I want to do in lower sixth". I know that that impacted on the Committee and on some Members in the Chamber. It is probably the single most important thing that stuck with me during the entire Committee Stage. That is what I believe that the Bill will address. I say to the Member for South Down, "Have faith", because when the Bill gets legislative status and the guidelines are there, it will help children in that sort of situation avoid being faced with the choice that that girl had. Members, there was significant debate in Committee on the Bill. Top 5.15 pm Mr Sheehan: Will the Member give way? Mr Martin: I will give way to the Deputy Chair. Mr Sheehan: That may well turn out to be the case, but I do not know why the Member is so confident that it will be. If the amendments from the Committee had been selected, there would have been absolute clarity for that family and that young girl. By the way, that is the same young girl who used to take off her overcoat 100 metres from the school. That is how bad the situation is. She also said that, because her family could not afford the uniform, she was not going to do sport. There would have been clarity in those amendments: there is no clarity now. I do not know why the Member is so confident that there will be, because nobody else is. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I remind Members that we have already debated amendment No 8, which is the new clause titled: "Reporting on school uniform costs and capping of expense". We now need to focus on amendment Nos 6 and 7 and the rest of the amendments in group 2. I bring that to your attention, Peter, and I remind everybody else as well. Mr Martin: That is great. Sorry, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. If it is possible, I will make one more remark and then move on to amendment Nos 5, 6 and 7, because Members who spoke previously brought up the scrutiny phase. I felt that there was an impetus to get the Bill through. Parents who are watching the debate will be keen to see the legislation in place. It should not be bad legislation but good legislation that makes a difference. The Member who spoke previously mentioned that. I will outline our party's position on the group 2 amendments. Amendment No 2, taken in conjunction with amendment No 3, is likely to widen the number of consultees. We do not plan to oppose those amendments. I will talk generally and then specifically about amendment Nos 5, 6 and 7. We have some general concerns about their drafting. During the debate on the group 1 amendments, the Minister mentioned advice from the OLC, and, during his speech, the SDLP Member for West Tyrone talked about how the success of the Bill will be judged by pounds and pennies saved, not by technical drafting. I say, however, looking at amendment Nos 5, 6 and 7, that technical drafting is important, as it sets out the policymakers' legal intent. We have to be mindful of that. On amendment No 5, we consider the phrases "play-based curricula" and "outdoor learning" not to have been defined in primary legislation. We recognise the intent of the amendment but feel that, on balance, that intent is already covered in clause 2 and will be, I am sure, further clarified in the guidelines. We will therefore oppose amendment No 5. It is our understanding that amendment No 6 could have some unintended consequences. The Member who spoke previously talked about the impact that having a monopoly or one supplier can have, but we also heard evidence in Committee that there are very small schools, some post-primary but mostly primary, in rural Northern Ireland — perhaps in south Down, south Armagh and west Tyrone — that are not near large towns and therefore may have arrangements with a local supplier. That arrangement may be particularly valuable to parents, because buying from that supplier, although it may be the only supplier of that primary school's uniform, may be incredibly cost-effective. A really positive arrangement may be in place. I realise that that is not the case with every school in Northern Ireland, as did the Committee during Committee Stage, but there are outliers. I am sure that nobody here would want to lose small, independent retailers from our towns. On that basis and because of its drafting, we will oppose amendment No 6. We think that clause 2 is probably the wrong place for amendment No 7 and that it should be to clause 6. That is a technical flaw. As with amendment No 6, amendment No 7 would add the term "provider", and, given that "retailer" is already mentioned, we think that that is unnecessary and erroneous. Therefore, we will oppose amendment No 7. We do not view amendment No 13 as being particularly problematic and will not force a Division on it. Principal Deputy Speaker, thank you for your time and your indulgence. I will finish my remarks on the group 2 amendments by saying again that the Bill will make a difference for parents who buy school uniforms. I am one of those parents, as are many people in the room. The Bill will make a really positive impact as we look forward to the new school year, and I commend it to the House. Mr Burrows: This is a good day, because we are dealing with legislation. I feel somewhat spoilt. I have only just arrived, and I am right at the heart of dealing with legislation. That is positive. When it comes to the amendments, I see the whole Bill as being like a stick of rock. The slogan that goes through it is "affordability", and its wrapper says, "No child should ever be excluded, disciplined or disadvantaged because their mum and dad or carers do not have the money that someone else's might have". It is really important to capture that principle every time we deal with a group of amendments. On group 2, "Trust but verify" is a dictum that I like, so I have no issue with amendment No 2 and putting in the word "must". That is sensible. Amendment No 3 provides greater clarity and certainty about who the consultees are, so I have no issue with that. I am interested in some of the legal advice that the Minister received on how there may drafting problems with some amendments. Of course, the Minister does not have to reveal any legal advice, but, if he did, the only impact would be that he would lose his privilege. He can decide to release legal advice. At times, it would be useful to see legal advice, especially with legislation such as this, when we really want to understand the reasoning behind things. What are the risks? What are the unintended consequences of words, which can really make a huge difference and stymie the intent of legislation? To my mind, it is sensible to have the requirement that there be more than one provider of school uniforms. That encourages competition and drives down prices. Having that safeguard is entirely sensible, particularly for rural schools — they are mostly schools in constituencies west of the Bann that are often represented by those on the other side of the Chamber — that may be impacted by the inability to have more than one provider of school uniforms. It is sensible to have a safeguard that means that the school manager can say where the school has deviated from that practice because there is only a single supplier. In essence, that is our position on the group 2 amendments. I am conscious of the advice that the Minister received on the drafting. I want to see the detail of that in order to understand the main concerns. I agree that amendment No 13 is not contentious. We are largely content with those group 2 amendments, but I want to explore and be reassured about the Minister's concerns about the impact that they might have on the legislation. Mr Baker: I suppose that, the whole way through this, we have been blind because we did not get the guidelines. I completely understand why the Minister had a good weekend and something to be cheerful about, because, when the Marshalled List came through on Friday afternoon, all the hard work that we had done in the Committee had been very much thrown in the bin, if I am being brutally honest. It was disappointing. We are being asked to trust the Minister and to have faith in him, if I remember correctly. Trust is earned. I have been here long enough to have heard it shouted across the Chamber that the Education Committee needs to work harder and to have heard derogatory comments about work that we have partaken in such as the relationships and sexuality education (RSE) inquiry. I bring up the RSE inquiry because, in the evidence, young people told us how important it would be in tackling violence against women and girls. It also included upskirting. Mr Martin: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Mr Baker is talking about the RSE inquiry. As far as I am aware, you indicated that you were keen to keep the debate to the group 2 amendments on the School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: As you will have observed, Peter, I am letting Members have leeway in and then I will bring them back to the amendments. If Members cannot or will not come back to the subject of the debate, I will move on to the next person to speak. Is that clear to everyone? Danny, please come back to the group 2 amendments, which are amendment Nos 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 13. Mr Baker: I had not really moved away from the amendments. I was dealing with amendment No 3 when I was talking about the rights of the child. It all fits into it, as does the evidence that is taken in Committee. That is the whole point of a Committee. When we saw the Marshalled List come through on Friday, I asked whether there was any point to the Committee when the Minister just wants the Bill to be as is. We have not seen the guidelines. That is the principal point of it. I will go back to the amendments. Amendment No 2 changes "may" to "must". That places a duty on the Department to issue guidelines, which means that families will have more clarity on the school uniform policy. Amendment No 3 requires consultation with pupils and parents or guardians. That is a step in the right direction, making school uniform policy more compliant with children's rights, including articles 2, 3 and 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Amendment No 6 ensures that uniform items are available from at least one non-exclusive retailer. Schools can keep contracts if they offer value for money; otherwise, parents must have choice. Amendment No 7 requires schools to publish contract details annually. Transparency is essential. That is the whole ethos of what we have been trying to say. All the amendments that were well researched and based on evidence. They were drafted in close consultation with the Bill Clerks, who are experts in that field. The amendments complemented each other as we went through the Bill. I am confident that all amendments were relevant, competent and entirely within the scope of the Bill. I would be keen to see the advice that the Speaker received in the process that led to the amendments' exclusion from the debate. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Danny, can you take your seat? There is a point of order. Mr Brooks: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. The Member's speech is largely about amendments that, he is annoyed, were not selected. It is completely outside the scope of what we are supposed to be talking about, on which you want to be consistent. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Everybody is keen to tell me how to do my job. That is your prerogative. When a Member throws in the numbers of the amendments, I assume that they are speaking to group 2. You have that knowledge on the Education Committee. I am not telling you how to do your job. People are starting to get tetchy. I ask people not to talk about amendments that cannot be made because they were not selected. You can talk about why, you think, certain issues are important in group 2. Is that clear? Go ahead. Thank you, Danny. Mr Baker: That is exactly what I was doing. I was pointing out that the amendments were drafted in close consultation with the Bill Clerks, who are experts in the field. Other Members commented that amendments were not within the scope of the Bill: how would they know? I suppose that it drives it back to that. That is why I was doing that. I want a child-centred approach to education. That includes the uniforms Bill. The Bill has the potential to be good for parents and young people. At the minute, it falls way short. Looking at Members across the Chamber and thinking about what happened in Committee, I see that they do not get the child-centred part of the legislation. The Minister has to prove, by his actions, that we can trust him. As it stands, based on my experience in the Chamber, I do not have that trust. That is why we needed the amendments that did not come through; that is the reality. Top 5.30 pm Mrs Guy: Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I will make your life easy by speaking to the amendments in group 2 on the content of guidelines and commencement. The selected amendments in the group are about strengthening the Bill to give it the best chance to deliver real change for families. Each amendment addresses specific weaknesses by ensuring consultation with those directly affected, making uniform policies consistent with the play-based curriculum, tackling costs through supplier choice and transparency, and making sure that key provisions take effect without unnecessary delay. Taken together, they make the legislation stronger, fairer and more effective. I restate that, as a Committee, we took legal advice and drafting advice from the Bill Office on all the amendments that we submitted. There is an opportunity to tidy things up at Further Consideration Stage. Amendments Nos 2 and 3 focus on consultation by schools and are straightforward. The vast majority of schools constantly speak to parents and children and receive feedback on many things, including uniform. The amendments ensure that the Department has to make provision in the guidance for who schools must consult and that parents, guardians and pupils are included in that consultation. Amendment No 5 concerns the play-based curriculum. My colleague Nick Mathison has been particularly passionate about that, and I fully support him on it. We speak of how crucial a play-based curriculum is for children in the early stages of their education, yet we continue to permit schools not to reflect that in their uniform. The amendment, if passed, will ensure that the play-based curriculum is appropriately considered in uniform policies. I often note that the only people who leave my house in the morning wearing a tie are my kids as they go to school, when their dad works in an office. The amendment is about young kids at Foundation Stage. Their uniform should reflect the stage of their education journey, so it is a common-sense amendment, and I hope that Members will support it. Amendments Nos 6 and 7 are about single-supplier contracts. Amendment No 6 refers to availability for purchase. That is essential — it is unfortunate that it is essential — and the amendment ensures that guidance to schools includes strong provisions to ensure that items required for a uniform: "are available for purchase from at least one retailer or provider which does not hold any formal or informal ... agreement, with the school". That ensures choice for parents, and we hope that, in the interim, until the Minister proceeds with a cost cap, it will have an impact on cost. The second part of the amendment adds nuance. The Committee heard feedback on some cases in which schools could openly explain how they were able to negotiate lower prices through a supplier or series of suppliers. Transparency is essential. The theme of transparency is in the amendment. We have heard disappointing stories of schools opting for a supplier, for example, to deliver PE and sports kit, after the decision-making process was influenced by staff having received free kit. That is a minority example, but no school or organisation should be afraid of transparency, and the amendment ensures that when it comes to formal or informal agreements with suppliers. Amendment No 13 ensures that clause 3 would come into operation on Royal Assent and not simply when the Department wants it to. That clause focuses the guidance on limiting items of clothing or sets of clothing, which is, as we know, essential in making an impact on the cost of uniforms. We understand that the Department needs more time to work on a cost cap design, but we have allowed for that in the amendment. Miss McAllister: I am not a member of the Education Committee, but I will contribute to the debate on the amendments in group 2 and, perhaps, ask a few questions that the Minister might be able to answer. First, with regard to all the amendments in this group and the first group, I want to reflect on what a school uniform is. We know that it is different for every school. I am very lucky that my children's schools are very flexible about their uniforms, which are formal yet informal, so that children feel comfortable. There are many kids, however, some as young as four, who go to school looking as though they are about to be interviewed for their first job, which is a rather bizarre situation. Some kids have to tie their own ties when they cannot tie their own shoelaces. Such uniform policies are bizarre. We have all, ourselves and our kids at home, had experiences of what a uniform may look like. I am disappointed, however, by how far some of the amendments in this group go. I do not want to speak too much, going by previous contributors' remarks, about the amendments that were not selected. I want to highlight amendment No 5, which was tabled by my colleague Nick Mathison, concerning the practicality of play-based uniforms. We all respect that schools need flexibility in order to ensure that the kids can feel comfortable but also take a pride in their school and in representing it. That can be done, however, by wearing a jumper with the school logo on it with basic tracksuit bottoms or joggers, so that they are still representing their school. The idea of a play-based uniform goes beyond the Foundation Stage. We know the importance of physical activity throughout the school day. One of the issues that concerns me is how children with sensory needs are considered. Young people are put around a desk for six hours. They get breaks at recess and lunchtime and can play outside, but we all know that no child can sit and work throughout the day without standing up, walking around and getting their jitters out: anything to be able to loosen up. Some of that goes to the point around play-based uniforms. We know that all kids want to have fun in the playground, and some of them, my child included, in the classroom itself. The uniform does not always lend itself to that. My question for the Minister concerns the guidance that he will publish. Is there an opportunity in that guidance to reflect on the idea of all kids being able to be comfortable and to be themselves, so that they can learn best in that play-based environment and beyond? We know that school is also in the playground, and kids like to run and mess about as much as possible. Mr Givan: Will the Member give way? Miss McAllister: Yes. Mr Givan: I thank the Member for raising that valid point, which allows me to address some other points that the Members have made. Cathy Mason made a point earlier and gave some examples that, erroneously, suggested that those children could not be catered for. Clause 2(2) states: "Guidelines under this Chapter are to include provision informing such policies as to— (a) comfort and practicality of clothing for pupils". That is partly why Mr Mathison's Committee amendment on curricula, which I will come to, is, in my view, unnecessary. That is a very wide provision in the legislation. The guidance that has to be implemented by schools must take into account: "comfort and practicality of clothing for pupils". I trust that that will give the Member some assurance that that is an issue that schools will be able to consider. Certainly, when I publish the guidance, people will see that. Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for that intervention. Will he include in the guidance the options for girls to wear trousers as a matter of comfort? Is that something that he will seek to include in the guidance? That is an issue: I hated wearing a pinafore for the entire 14 years or more that I was at school, so that should be an option. There are, however, kids who have sensory needs. I think of my household and its struggles. Just because the school has guidance to be flexible, and the uniform can be cheap, some items can only be found in certain stores, and that does not always make it easy. We can only get my son's uniform in one place, because he cannot have belts, buckles, zips or buttons. It is rather difficult. In that sense, it is better to simply wear joggers. I am lucky that I have a school that is flexible, but we have many constituents who come to us who have schools that are not flexible, and we are talking about kids who do have sensory needs and children with special educational needs. I hope that those children in particular are provided for in the guidance. Mr Givan: I thank the Member for giving way. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, in answer to her question around the issue of skirts and trousers, yes, schools do have the freedom and liberty to put in place a policy that would make provision for that. I have attended schools and visits where I can see it: it is obvious that there are trousers and skirts being worn. That is a choice that is made available to them. Under that approach, I am seeking to compel schools to engage with their pupils and parents, have that consultation, devise policy and, if the school chooses to have that provision — again, that is the difference: I am not advocating a prescriptive approach — I say clearly that it will have my support in making that provision. Ultimately, it is a decision that a school will have to take, but that will have to be informed through the consultation process, listening to pupils and giving them a real, meaningful voice. That may well lead to change in some of those schools that currently do not make that provision. Miss McAllister: Thank you, Minister, but —. Mr Sheehan: Will the Member give way? Miss McAllister: I will in a second, yes. Thank you for the clarity, Minister. I am not on the Education Committee, so I cannot be across the detail of every single line in the Bill. However, what you have just said raises the question, "What if the school still says no?" There are schools out there that do say no. We need representation on behalf of pupils, in particular girls who want to wear trousers, for example. I can give way now. Mr Sheehan: You have sort of made the point that I was going to make: there are schools where girls are allowed to wear trousers, but there are schools where they are not. The issue here is whether girls should have the right to wear trousers or not, not whether it is at the whim of some principal of the school or the board of governors or whatever. Miss McAllister: I agree. They should also be entitled to wear trousers, just because of weather aspects. I remember having to wear skirts and tights and being absolutely freezing going to school. Then there are schools that prescribe only particular coats and jackets. I look forward to seeing the guidance, but you can understand our perspective, when we have constituents who come to us who are not allowed to wear trousers. That is just one example. Our preference is not to leave it up to just guidance for a school to then consult and for the school to have the final say. It is really important that the child's voice be heard first and foremost. I support all the amendments in group 2, and I look forward to seeing any changes that the Department feels that it has to make at Further Consideration Stage. I thank the Minister for answering questions and allowing me to participate in the debate. The debate stood suspended. Assembly Business Standing Order 10(3A): Extension of Sitting Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I have received notification from the members of the Business Committee of a motion to extend the sitting past 7.00 pm under Standing Order 10(3A). Resolved: That in accordance with Standing Order 10(3A), the sitting on Monday 15 September 2025 be extended to no later than 11.30 pm. — [Mr Brooks.] Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Assembly may sit until 11.30 pm this evening if necessary. I am just saying. Executive Committee Business School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill: Consideration Stage Clause 1 (Guidelines as to policies on school uniforms) Debate resumed on amendment No 2, which amendment was: In page 1, line 18, leave out "may" and insert "must" — [Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education).] The remaining amendments in the group stood on the Marshalled List. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Minister, the Floor is yours. Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. We have debated seven amendments in group 1, and now we have turned to the group 2 amendments, which focus on the content of guidelines and the commencement. For the most part, I do not take particular issue with the policy intent of most of the amendments in group 2. Rather, my primary concern is for the integrity of the statute book and to ensure that what the Assembly seeks to do is clear. Top 5.45 pm Mr Sheehan said that we sometimes get it wrong but that so do legislators all over the world. The fact that others have got legislation wrong in the past and do things incorrectly is not a reason for us to continue to get it wrong. He talked about a mere Executive process, but I have been around the Executive long enough to know that it is not a mere tick-box exercise to get Sinn Féin's approval in order to get a Bill through. If that is Sinn Féin's approach, I look forward to other Bills that I want to introduce but that are being held up in the Executive being released. A Member: Will the Minister give way? Mr Givan: No, because I am straying, as Members did, beyond what I am meant to be debating. I am just responding to the points that were raised. I will then get to the substance of what we need to do. Mr Sheehan also suggested that I was being disingenuous or insincere. This is the first Bill that I introduced as Minister of Education. On day 1, I announced that we would introduce a Bill to tackle the affordability of school uniforms. I am preparing legislation on a series of issues, but I introduced the Bill in order to facilitate Members. I introduced it not just because my party wanted to but because the issue was one that other Members had a real desire to address. People can question the motives behind my introducing it, but I did so because it was the right thing to do. Others will judge the intention behind the rationale for my introducing it. I only wish that Sinn Féin Ministers would introduce their Bills. I introduced one, and I have others in the system. With the greatest respect, where is the output from some of my Executive colleagues? It is not mere pedantry for me to talk about getting the legislation right. In evidence to the House of Lords Constitution Committee, our former Attorney General John Larkin KC set out why that is the case. He wrote, of a period before the precision of modern legislation was in vogue: "In 1846 one witness to a Parliamentary Committee could complain, 'in the imperfect enactments which we find passed every session of parliament, that are necessarily, from their defects, the subject of professional investigation afterwards, and which require perhaps, if not in the same Session, in the following Session of Parliament, an Act introduced to explain the Act of the previous Session referred to, which Act also becomes the subject of professional and judicial consideration; and is followed perhaps in the next Session of Parliament, by another Act to amend an Act intituled "An Act to explain an Act passed during a previous Session of Parliament"; which last Act is probably also discovered not to accomplish the object had in view by the Legislature.'" What I have heard today suggests that we have learnt nothing about passing effective legislation. I do not doubt the sincerity of Members who seek to do the right thing on affordability, but it is about not just doing something but doing the right thing. Members have decisions to take, but my position is clear when it comes to outlining why there was a better way in which to draft the Bill. Mr O'Toole: Will the Minister give way? Mr Givan: I will give way to Mr O'Toole. Mr O'Toole: I ask this in the genuine spirit of sincerity. The Minister has earned some plaudits for forcing stuff through, even if I and others in the Chamber really disagree with it, and often perhaps without Executive discussion. He now asks others in the Chamber to bear with him, think rationally and, in effect, trust him. Does he accept that the trade-off for pushing through his stuff and his being, shall we say, somewhat abrasive at times in the Chamber about his agenda is that Members are a little less likely to give him the benefit of the doubt on such matters? That is just a thought. Mr Givan: I said that it is not me who holds that viewpoint. I relayed the professional opinion of experts on legislation. I recounted my experience, having previously been Chair of a Committee, of how to seek to engage the honesty of those who, with their best endeavour, seek to advise Committees. When I was Chair of a Committee, it was recognised that the professional expertise lay with the Office of the Legislative Counsel. I have shared that view, but it is for Members to decide whether they wish to take my word for it. I do not ask them to do so on trust, but, ultimately, they have to preside over the decisions that they will take in the Assembly. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Minister, please take your seat for a minute. I appreciate that some Members, during their contributions, say things to which you probably feel that you need to respond, but I am conscious that we are now straying into the area of using legal advice that Members have not seen and will not see, because it is privileged. Furthermore, officials will be challenged. I just need to remind you of that. With that, I ask you to continue. Mr Givan: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I trust that the Assembly will not lead us back down the path that I articulated in my concerns. We start the grouped amendments with some amendments — amendment Nos 2 and 3 — that, in my view, are unnecessary, although they are not damaging to the Bill. In the existing non-statutory guidance, schools are advised to consult their parents and pupils. That formed part of the policy consultation on uniforms. It is a matter of public record that, at Second Stage, I talked to the need for schools to consult parents and pupils. Such a requirement was always going to be in the guidelines. The amendments are likely to require guidelines to specify other consultees, and, while I am broadly content not to oppose the amendments, I query whether that was the intention. Good intentions do not automatically equate to good legislation. I caution Members that every unclear provision in the legislation will ultimately leave our schools open to legal challenge. Schools have so much work to do in teaching and nurturing our children and young people. That is their key purpose. Uniforms have a role in supporting ethos and school identity. Uniforms need to be comfortable and practical in order to support children in their learning, but let us not confuse what needs to be in legislation about guidelines that address the affordability of school uniforms with what may seem to be a good idea outside the legal framework. I am concerned about amendment No 5, which risks making statutory guidelines difficult or unworkable for schools. In addition, I am afraid that it does not make logical sense. Terms such as "play-based curricula" and "outdoor learning" are used in the amendment in reference to the 2006 Order but are not used in that legislation or in any Northern Ireland education legislation. Foundation Stage is defined in the 2006 Order in relation to the age of pupils in that stage and as covering two school years. All the necessary powers to differentiate guidelines between Key Stages are already in clause 5. It is not legally clear what the amendment means. I am aware of no reference in Northern Ireland education law to "curricula" of any type. The curriculum is defined in the 2006 Order in terms of, for example, the: "moral, cultural, intellectual and physical development of pupils" and as equipping pupils with the "knowledge, understanding and skills" that are needed for life — not clothing. As I have said, the terms "play-based curricula" and "outdoor learning" are not used in law. I presume that they are intended to relate to the pedagogy of the curriculum at Foundation Stage, but that is intentionally not set out in law. That is a matter of professional teacher training, development and ever-evolving best practice. The amendment overcomplicates what is already covered in the requirement in clause 2 for "comfort and practicality". I referenced clause 2 in response to Nuala McAllister when she raised a number of questions on some issues. Are "play-based curricula" and "outdoor learning" to be interpreted by the Department, and is that interpretation to then be included in guidelines about school uniforms that are meant to address affordability? Taken logically, the amendment runs the risk of requiring parents to pay for a different uniform at Foundation Stage. That risk has been highlighted by legal advice. Every time a school takes its pupils from year 1 to year 14 outside to help them to be active, is that outdoor learning and would it therefore require a specific uniform instruction in the guidelines? The amendment is unclear and is simply not necessary. The underpinning point is for uniforms to be affordable. Under the Bill, they must also be comfortable and practical within that context of affordability. Therefore, the amendment does not add to what is already covered in the Bill; indeed, it serves only to confuse matters with no associated benefits for parents or pupils, however well intentioned it may be. I have no reason to question the intention behind it. For those reasons, I will not support amendment No 5, and I urge the House not to vote for it. Again, amendment Nos 6 and 7 are not necessary. The Bill requires that the Department address "unfair costs aspects" in the guidelines and defines "unfair costs aspects" as including: "any aspects of school uniform policies" that could "raise questions" about: "limited choice of places at which, or retailers from whom" uniforms can be purchased. Amendment No 6 uses different terms. For example, who are "providers"? I remind the House of the importance of words in legislation. The amendment is not clear. It is, therefore, not suitable for being adopted into the Bill. (Mr Speaker in the Chair) Amendment No 7 relates to the publication of information, and it does not really belong in clause 2. Clause 2 deals with particular matters for inclusion in guidelines of broadly similar types relating to unfair costs and practicality and sets of clothing. Even if amendment No 7 were in the right place, the amendment is not clear in its language. Again, it is simply not needed. Under clause 6, a manager of a school must publish whatever associated or additional explanation or information the guidelines require under clause 1, so, as the concern giving rise to amendment No 7 is already fully addressed by the Bill, it adds nothing except overlap. Let us not populate the Bill with unnecessary provisions based on misunderstanding of what matters are already covered. I urge the House not to vote for amendment Nos 6 or 7. Finally, on amendment No 13, the reason why clause 3 and clause 4 were drafted to come into operation via commencement order is to ensure that any cap, whether that is on the number of branded items or cost or, indeed, a combination, was properly thought through and workable; that unintended consequences were mitigated as far as is possible and that the cap can be invoked only where truly necessary and effective. My officials are working on a consultation about what a cap should be, how it should operate and who is best placed to develop, maintain, monitor and adapt it as necessary. That should come first. It will inform how any cap can be most effective and whether it should be deployed. That will support a measured, informed approach that will be consulted on and will be focused on addressing affordability for parents in the most effective way. As with all primary legislation subject to commencement order, clauses 3 and 4 are for commencing in due course in light of the sorts of factors that I have mentioned. However, the amendment is not of such materiality that I intend to oppose it. In closing, I bring the House back to the key underpinning reason for introducing the legislation: to help families who are struggling with costs associated with school uniforms. I repeat what I said in the group 1 debate: words matter. Wording in legislation is critical. I urge the House to consider what I have highlighted about amendment Nos 5, 6 and 7, and I ask that Members also vote against those amendments. Let us make good legislation. Today, let our votes be for legislative provisions that will make a positive difference for families who are struggling. Let us do that without exposing our schools to unnecessarily complex guidelines that leave them more open to legal challenge because unclear and unnecessary provisions have been placed in the Bill. I will put families first and considering workability for schools as I vote. I trust that other Members will too, and, if we get this right, we can make a real and a positive difference with the legislation. I thank each Member for their engagement. Mr Speaker: I call the Chairman of the Education Committee, Mr Mathison, to make a winding-up speech. Mr Mathison: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank all Members for their contributions to the debate. There has been a lot of openness to take interventions and to go through the issues in considerable detail. That has helped the debate and the considerations that are now before us. First, I want to highlight the phrase that the Minister used in response to my colleague Nuala McAllister: "if the school so chooses". That is a telling phrase when we are looking at amendments that are concerned with the content of the guidelines. It has always been the Committee's concern that guidelines will come forward, particularly in the space around comfort and practicality, that may give schools permission to do certain things. We have talked about girls being able to wear trousers, and we have talked about play-based learning. There is a range of things, and the Minister suggested that permission would be given for schools to take those kinds of steps and decisions. The phrase "if the school so chooses" does not, to me, give enough comfort that the guidelines will require the schools to make interventions in those spaces. When we are thinking about the content, I would like to move beyond "if the school so chooses" and into the space of guidelines that really create a clear direction of travel in areas that the school needs to follow and must follow. That is where there is maybe some divergence around this group of amendments. Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for taking an intervention. It is not that long ago that, while there was guidance that allowed female police officers to wear trousers, they had to ask permission to wear them between September and April and their senior office could refuse permission. That is not a place where we want girls to be in our schools. The world did not fall down around us because female officers were allowed to wear trousers of their own volition. Top 6.00 pm Mr Mathison: I thank the Member for the intervention. Absolutely. When we give permission to do certain things that are right and appropriate, that still leaves others who may not be afforded that right, if the school chooses not to exercise that permission. That is not an acceptable scenario. The Minister also said that there is a concern about: " doing the right thing", and not just being seen to do something: I absolutely take his point on that. We are all concerned that the outworking of the legislation does the right thing. The right thing is that it brings down the cost of school uniforms, and the right thing should also be that it improves the comfort and practicality of uniforms for children. I am struggling a little in that I am not quite sure what the Bill will do, other than create the guidelines, because we just do not know what the Minister will ask schools to do. He used the phrase "unfair costs", which is the language of the Bill. We all want to see unfair costs tackled, but I go back to my point that it is not clear how that will be done. The Committee's interest in bringing that degree of prescription was to ensure that we were doing the right thing and not just doing something. However, in fact, what we have before us today, in terms of the amendments selected, is not a huge suite of prescriptive interventions. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, when we look at the group 2 amendments and the content of the guidelines, we see that the Bill is still largely as it was when the Minister brought it to us, with some changes that should not keep anybody awake at night. I will add that there is the option of Further Consideration Stage. The Minister referenced concerns about language, ordering and sequencing. There is every opportunity for those issues to be ironed out at Further Consideration Stage, and I am sure that Members will engage in that process. The debate has made it clear where we have landed. We have, on the one hand, the Minister and the Department, who want a Bill that does not prescribe and relies entirely on the guidelines, and, on the other, Members who are keen on certain areas to ensure that the Bill is clear about what it will ask schools to deliver and the interventions that will be required in school uniform policies. I remain on the side that would like clarity about what schools will be asked to do, because it is that clarity that will give us assurances that the costs will come down. I will finish on a point about the Minister's sense that Members are, perhaps, behaving irresponsibly or weighing in to do something that will cause some sort of crisis in our school system. If everybody is on the same page in wanting to deal with costs and if schools want to work with the Department, I have no doubt that, if there is a little bit of prescription in the Bill that gives the Department pause for thought to ensure that the guidance includes additional things that it had perhaps not considered, to move beyond permission and into requiring schools to do certain things, the system will step up and engage with that guidance. Nobody here is trying to act or vote irresponsibly. Every Member in the Chamber wants to see the costs brought down. I commend the group 2 amendments to the House as positive interventions on affordability — we are all clear that some of the single-supplier arrangements need to be dealt with — and comfort and practicality. Amendment No 2 agreed to. Amendment No 3 made: In page 2, line 1, after "who" insert ", including pupils and their parents or guardians,". — [Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education).] Amendment No 4 made: In page 2, line 9, at end insert— "(6) The Department must lay any guidelines issued under this section before the Assembly." — [Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education).] Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 (Particular matters for inclusion in guidelines) Amendment No 5 proposed: In page 2, line 15, at end insert— "(aa) practicality of clothing in relation to play-based curricula and outdoor learning, including within the Foundation Stage (as defined by the Education (Curriculum Minimum Content) Order (Northern Ireland) 2007)". — [Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education).] Question put, That the amendment be made. The Assembly divided: Ayes 42; Noes 32 AYES Ms K Armstrong, Mr Baker, Mr Blair, Mr Boylan, Ms Bradshaw, Miss Brogan, Mr Carroll, Mr Delargy, Mrs Dillon, Mr Donnelly, Mr Durkan, Ms Egan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Finnegan, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Mrs Guy, Miss Hargey, Mr Honeyford, Mr Kearney, Mr Kelly, Mr McAleer, Miss McAllister, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McMurray, Mr McNulty, Mr McReynolds, Mrs Mason, Mr Mathison, Ms Mulholland, Ms Murphy, Ms Nicholl, Mr O'Toole, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Mr Tennyson Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Baker, Mrs Guy NOES Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Ms D Armstrong, Mr Beattie, Mr Brett, Mr Brooks, Ms Brownlee, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mr Burrows, Mr Butler, Mrs Cameron, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mrs Erskine, Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew, Mr Gaston, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Irwin, Mr Kingston, Mrs Little-Pengelly, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Martin, Mr Middleton, Mr Robinson, Mr Stewart Tellers for the Noes: Mr Brooks, Mr Martin Ms Bradshaw acted as a proxy for Ms Nicholl. Mr Clarke acted as a proxy for Mrs Erskine. Question accordingly agreed to. Amendment No 6 proposed: In page 2, line 18, at end insert— "(2A) Guidelines under this Chapter must include provision requiring school uniform policies to ensure all items of clothing required are available for purchase from at least one retailer or provider which does not hold any formal or informal contract or agreement, with the school, relating to provision of such items of clothing. (2B) Guidelines under this Chapter must include provision specifying that section 2A will not apply to any school uniform policy which includes a statement from the school manager explaining how such a contract or agreement delivers value for money with respect to items of clothing required by the school uniform policy." — [Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education).] Question put, That the amendment be made. Mr Speaker: I have been advised by the party Whips that, in accordance with Standing Order 27(1A)(b), there is agreement that we can dispense with the three-minute rule and move straight to a Division. The Assembly divided: Ayes 49; Noes 24 AYES Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Ms D Armstrong, Ms K Armstrong, Mr Baker, Mr Beattie, Mr Blair, Mr Boylan, Ms Bradshaw, Miss Brogan, Mr Burrows, Mr Butler, Mr Carroll, Mr Delargy, Mrs Dillon, Mr Donnelly, Mr Durkan, Ms Egan, Ms Ferguson, Ms Finnegan, Ms Flynn, Mr Gaston, Mr Gildernew, Mrs Guy, Miss Hargey, Mr Honeyford, Mr Kearney, Mr Kelly, Mr McAleer, Miss McAllister, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McMurray, Mr McNulty, Mr McReynolds, Mrs Mason, Mr Mathison, Ms Mulholland, Ms Murphy, Ms Nicholl, Mr O'Toole, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Mr Stewart, Mr Tennyson Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Baker, Mrs Guy NOES Mr Brett, Mr Brooks, Ms Brownlee, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mrs Cameron, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mrs Erskine, Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Irwin, Mr Kingston, Mrs Little-Pengelly, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Martin, Mr Middleton, Mr Robinson Tellers for the Noes: Mr Brooks, Mr Martin Ms Bradshaw acted as a proxy for Ms Nicholl. Mr Clarke acted as a proxy for Mrs Erskine. Question accordingly agreed to. Amendment No 7 proposed: In page 2, line 18, at end insert— "(2A) Guidelines under this Chapter must include provision requiring a manager of a school to publish, at least once per year, information regarding any formal or informal contracts or agreements, which the school holds with any retailer or provider, relating to provision of items of clothing required by the school uniform policy. (2B) Provision under section 2A does not apply to any contracts or agreements which were in place before this Act received Royal Assent." — [Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education).] Question put, That the amendment be made. Mr Speaker: I have been advised by the party Whips that, in accordance with Standing Order 27(1A)(b), there is agreement that we can dispense with the three minutes and move straight to a Division. The Assembly divided: Ayes 49; Noes 24 AYES Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Ms D Armstrong, Ms K Armstrong, Mr Baker, Mr Beattie, Mr Blair, Mr Boylan, Ms Bradshaw, Miss Brogan, Mr Burrows, Mr Butler, Mr Carroll, Mr Delargy, Mrs Dillon, Mr Donnelly, Mr Durkan, Ms Egan, Ms Ferguson, Ms Finnegan, Ms Flynn, Mr Gaston, Mr Gildernew, Mrs Guy, Miss Hargey, Mr Honeyford, Mr Kearney, Mr Kelly, Mr McAleer, Miss McAllister, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McMurray, Mr McNulty, Mr McReynolds, Mrs Mason, Mr Mathison, Ms Mulholland, Ms Murphy, Ms Nicholl, Mr O'Toole, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Mr Stewart, Mr Tennyson Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Baker, Mr McMurray NOES Mr Brett, Mr Brooks, Ms Brownlee, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mrs Cameron, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mrs Erskine, Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Irwin, Mr Kingston, Mrs Little-Pengelly, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Martin, Mr Middleton, Mr Robinson Tellers for the Noes: Mr Brooks, Mr Martin Ms Bradshaw acted as a proxy for Ms Nicholl. Mr Clarke acted as a proxy for Mrs Erskine. Question accordingly agreed to. Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill. New Clause Amendment No 8 proposed: After clause 4 insert— "Reporting on school uniform costs and capping of expense 4A. —(1) The Department must publish a written report, at least once every three years, detailing— (a) its assessment of the cost of school uniforms and their components, including mean costs, median costs and factors contributing to these, and (b) the effect of any capping of expense included in guidelines as a result of section (4), or if no such capping of expense has been set, the reasons for this, and (c) its subsequent plans for— (i) reviewing and, if appropriate, amending the guidelines, and (ii) imposing, ending or otherwise modifying any capping of expense. (2) The first report under paragraph (1) must be published within the period of three years beginning with the date on which this Act receives Royal Assent." — [Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education).] Question put, That the amendment be made. Mr Speaker: I have been advised by the party Whips that, in accordance with Standing Order 27(1A)(b), there is agreement that we can dispense with the three minutes and move straight to the Division. The Assembly divided: Ayes 49; Noes 24 AYES Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Ms D Armstrong, Ms K Armstrong, Mr Baker, Mr Beattie, Mr Blair, Mr Boylan, Ms Bradshaw, Miss Brogan, Mr Burrows, Mr Butler, Mr Carroll, Mr Delargy, Mrs Dillon, Mr Donnelly, Mr Durkan, Ms Egan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Finnegan, Ms Flynn, Mr Gaston, Mr Gildernew, Mrs Guy, Miss Hargey, Mr Honeyford, Mr Kearney, Mr Kelly, Mr McAleer, Miss McAllister, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McMurray, Mr McNulty, Mr McReynolds, Mrs Mason, Mr Mathison, Ms Mulholland, Ms Murphy, Ms Nicholl, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Mr Stewart, Mr Tennyson Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Baker, Mr McMurray NOES Mr Brett, Mr Brooks, Ms Brownlee, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mrs Cameron, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mrs Erskine, Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Irwin, Mr Kingston, Mrs Little-Pengelly, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Martin, Mr Middleton, Mr Robinson Tellers for the Noes: Mr Brooks, Mr Martin Ms Bradshaw acted as a proxy for Ms Nicholl. Mr Clarke acted as a proxy for Mrs Erskine. Question accordingly agreed to. New clause ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 7 (Directions on adherence to guidelines) Mr Speaker: Members should note that amendment Nos 9 and 10 are mutually exclusive. If amendment No 9 is made, I will therefore not call amendment No 10. Amendment No 9 proposed: In page 3, line 31, leave out subsection (1) and insert— "(1) The Department must give directions as follows to a manager of a school if the Department is satisfied that the manager is (or staff at the school are) in one or more material respects failing to adhere as required to guidelines under this Chapter. (1A) The Department may give directions to a manager of a school as follows if the Department is satisfied that the school’s pupils are liable to disciplinary measures or participatory disadvantages at the insistence of the manager (or of staff at the school) in consequence of breaching a school uniform policy applying at the school." — [Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education).] Question put, That the amendment be made. Mr Speaker: I have been advised by the party Whips that, in accordance with Standing Order 27(1A)(b), there is agreement that we can dispense with the three-minute rule and move straight to the Division. The Assembly divided: Ayes 42; Noes 32 AYES Ms K Armstrong, Mr Baker, Mr Blair, Mr Boylan, Ms Bradshaw, Miss Brogan, Mr Carroll, Mr Delargy, Mrs Dillon, Mr Donnelly, Mr Durkan, Ms Egan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Finnegan, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Mrs Guy, Miss Hargey, Mr Honeyford, Mr Kearney, Mr Kelly, Mr McAleer, Miss McAllister, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McMurray, Mr McNulty, Mr McReynolds, Mrs Mason, Mr Mathison, Ms Mulholland, Ms Murphy, Ms Nicholl, Mr O'Toole, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Mr Tennyson Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Baker, Mr McMurray NOES Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Ms D Armstrong, Mr Beattie, Mr Brett, Mr Brooks, Ms Brownlee, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mr Burrows, Mr Butler, Mrs Cameron, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mrs Erskine, Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew, Mr Gaston, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Irwin, Mr Kingston, Mrs Little-Pengelly, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Martin, Mr Middleton, Mr Robinson, Mr Stewart Tellers for the Noes: Mr Brooks, Mr Martin Ms Bradshaw acted as a proxy for Ms Nicholl. Mr Clarke acted as a proxy for Mrs Erskine. Question accordingly agreed to. Mr Speaker: I will not call amendment No 10 as it is mutually exclusive with amendment No 9, which has been made. Amendment No 11 proposed: In page 4, line 11, leave out paragraph (b). — [Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education).] Question put, That the amendment be made. Mr Speaker: I have been advised by the party Whips that, in accordance with Standing Order 27(1A)(b), there is agreement that we can dispense with the three minutes and move straight to the Division. The Assembly divided: Ayes 42; Noes 32 AYES Ms K Armstrong, Mr Baker, Mr Blair, Mr Boylan, Ms Bradshaw, Miss Brogan, Mr Carroll, Mr Delargy, Mrs Dillon, Mr Donnelly, Mr Durkan, Ms Egan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Finnegan, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Mrs Guy, Miss Hargey, Mr Honeyford, Mr Kearney, Mr Kelly, Mr McAleer, Miss McAllister, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McMurray, Mr McNulty, Mr McReynolds, Mrs Mason, Mr Mathison, Ms Mulholland, Ms Murphy, Ms Nicholl, Mr O'Toole, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Mr Tennyson Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Baker, Mr McMurray NOES Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Ms D Armstrong, Mr Beattie, Mr Brett, Mr Brooks, Ms Brownlee, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mr Burrows, Mr Butler, Mrs Cameron, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mrs Erskine, Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew, Mr Gaston, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Irwin, Mr Kingston, Mrs Little-Pengelly, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Martin, Mr Middleton, Mr Robinson, Mr Stewart Tellers for the Noes: Mr Brooks, Mr Martin Ms Bradshaw acted as a proxy for Ms Nicholl. Mr Clarke acted as a proxy for Mrs Erskine. Question accordingly agreed to. Amendment No 12 proposed: In page 4, line 30, at end insert— "(8) Where the Department gives directions to a school, it must publish these within three months of the directions first being given." — [Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education).] Question put, That the amendment be made. Mr Speaker: I have been advised by the party Whips that, in accordance with Standing Order 27(1A)(b), there is agreement that we can dispense with the three minutes and move straight to a Division. The Assembly divided: Ayes 42; Noes 32 AYES Ms K Armstrong, Mr Baker, Mr Blair, Mr Boylan, Ms Bradshaw, Miss Brogan, Mr Carroll, Mr Delargy, Mrs Dillon, Mr Donnelly, Mr Durkan, Ms Egan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Finnegan, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Mrs Guy, Miss Hargey, Mr Honeyford, Mr Kearney, Mr Kelly, Mr McAleer, Miss McAllister, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McMurray, Mr McNulty, Mr McReynolds, Mrs Mason, Mr Mathison, Ms Mulholland, Ms Murphy, Ms Nicholl, Mr O'Toole, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Mr Tennyson Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Baker, Mr McMurray NOES Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Ms D Armstrong, Mr Beattie, Mr Brett, Mr Brooks, Ms Brownlee, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mr Burrows, Mr Butler, Mrs Cameron, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Mrs Erskine, Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew, Mr Gaston, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Irwin, Mr Kingston, Mrs Little-Pengelly, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Martin, Mr Middleton, Mr Robinson, Mr Stewart Tellers for the Noes: Mr Brooks, Mr Martin Ms Bradshaw acted as a proxy for Ms Nicholl. Mr Clarke acted as a proxy for Mrs Erskine. Question accordingly agreed to. Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 15 (Commencement) Amendment No 13 made: In page 7, line 4, leave out "Sections 3 and 4 come" and insert "Section 4 comes". — [Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education).] Clause 15, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Long title agreed to. Mr Speaker: That concludes the Consideration Stage of the School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker. I ask Members to take their ease while we change the top Table. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Blair] in the Chair) Assembly Business Ministerial and Committee Chairperson Appointments Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I inform Members that the Speaker has been notified by the nominating officer for the DUP that Peter Martin has replaced Deborah Erskine as the Chairperson of the Committee for Infrastructure and that Paul Frew has replaced Joanne Bunting as the Chairperson of the Committee for Justice with immediate effect. I also advise Members that the Speaker has been notified by the First Minister and the deputy First Minister that they have appointed Ms Joanne Bunting as a junior Minister in the Executive Office today, Monday 15 September. Ms Bunting accepted the nomination and also affirmed the Pledge of Office in the presence of the Speaker and that of the Clerk/Chief Executive today. The Speaker is satisfied that the requirements of Standing Orders have been met. Ministerial Statement Northern Ireland Football Fund: Performance Programme Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Speaker has received notice from the Minister for Communities that he wishes to make a statement. Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that they must be concise in asking questions. This is not an opportunity for debate, and long introductions will not be allowed. Mr Lyons (The Minister for Communities): I wish to make a statement to update the Assembly on the Northern Ireland Football Fund and, in particular, the performance programme strand of the fund. When I took office, I made it clear that one of my priorities would be to push forward the long-standing commitment to invest in our local footballing infrastructure. Last May, I gave approval for the Northern Ireland Football Fund to go ahead and set my officials the task of designing a rolling programme of investment. I opened the first call for applications from performance clubs at the start of the year. Last week, I was delighted to announce the outcome of the competition and the first cohort of projects that will move forward to the next stage. I made my intention clear that the programme would be delivered in phases because it would not be possible to fund and deliver all the projects at once. Therefore, to determine the order in which projects would be taken forward, I committed to using a fair and transparent open competition approach to assess clubs' individual needs, proposals and ability to deliver sustainable benefits. I was determined that all applicants would have an equal opportunity to make their case. My officials worked with stakeholders and listened when they asked for clubs' previous investment in capital work to be taken into account. We listened when clubs said that no individual club should have special treatment and asked for all clubs to have the chance to make their case on a level playing field. I knew that it would be unfair, when the fund had been delayed for so long, to expect all clubs to have kept planning permissions in place and to have fully developed designs, so I allowed applications to be made for projects that have not yet been fully developed. Applicants were required to have a strong understanding of their needs, to have worked closely with their local communities to understand and be able to clearly set out the benefits that their projects could deliver and to have a plan in place to fund part of their projects themselves. Members will appreciate that the process had to be unequivocally fair and defensible. People have waited so long. It was clear that applicants whose projects were not taken forward in the first cohort would feel disappointed, so the application, criteria and approach to scoring were thoroughly tested in advance. Testing was completed internally with our economists, accountants and other business partners. Everything was also tested externally with other independent funding bodies. Legal advice was sought to confirm fairness. That was all before the application documents were published in January. Support was offered to clubs in advance of them submitting applications. My officials provided information sessions across the country to take everyone through the application process, and comprehensive guidance and scoring information was shared with all eligible applicants and made available online. The feedback from clubs and other stakeholders on the application process was overwhelmingly positive, with many welcoming the chance to make their case on an even playing field. They understood that the process had no pre-commitments to any particular clubs, areas or individual circumstances. Applicants were first asked to estimate their overall project cost and to self-select one of three tiers within their application that would be scored. It was for applicants themselves to carefully consider their needs. The only guidance that my Department offered was that clubs should make sure that the projects proposed were proportionate to their needs and the benefits that they could deliver for their club and communities. The tiers meant that projects were assessed and ranked against others of a similar size. For example, a proposal for a replacement carpet on an existing pitch for a rural club, which might cost around £1 million, would not be in direct competition with a major demolition-and-rebuild project costing upwards of £10 million. What that means in practice is that scores are not comparable across tiers. The people of Northern Ireland are at the heart of everything that my Department does, and the objectives of the programme reflect that. The programme was developed in partnership with key stakeholders, including governing bodies and clubs themselves. We listened to the football family and delivered a programme based on what the clubs wanted: a chance to make their case on the basis of need, to secure enough funding to really make a difference and to set out their ambitions and the benefits that their club could deliver for fans and communities. The performance programme is focused on modernising footballing infrastructure and improving the financial sustainability of clubs. It is also designed to maximise the impact that public funding can bring to people within and beyond clubs, particularly those who have traditionally been under-represented. That means that applications to the programme were assessed not solely on the state of disrepair of facilities but on the strength of the case that clubs could make about their ability to deliver benefits to the wider community. The competition opened in January and closed in March this year. My Department received a total of 37 applications. The applicants submitted projects requiring in excess of £160 million of financial support. That clearly demonstrates the huge underlying need for the programme, but it also greatly exceeds the current ring-fenced budget of £36·2 million. I knew that demand would outstrip the current budget, which was set in 2015 and so, naturally, has devalued significantly and is long out of date for current needs. Top 7.30 pm Football has changed in the past 10 years. The budget set then did not predict the central role that clubs play in their communities today, nor did it anticipate the rise of the women's game and the facilities needs that have grown out of that. Over the past few months, my officials have worked diligently, carefully assessing every application against the criteria set out in the scoring matrix and guidance notes. The scoring matrix, which was made available to all eligible clubs when they were invited to apply and is still available on my Department's website, lists the expectations and the scores achievable against each of the questions relating to need, benefits and finance. Six experienced officials undertook the task of scoring. Two were assigned to each tier. Those two officials scored all applications in their tier individually and then came together in their pair to agree scores. Those scores were moderated internally by three more officials, one for each tier. Finally, all 37 applications were independently moderated by an external moderator. That scoring, double-checking and triple-checking approach was adopted to ensure consistency of scoring and a robustly defensible rank order for each tier. I was not involved in scoring applications or determining their merit order. My role in the process was to approve the overarching policy approach and to decide how many projects would be taken forward to the next stage. I did not see any of the applications, and I did not influence or seek to influence the merit order of any of the tiers. I understand how long people have been waiting for this money, so I am not prepared to do anything that could bring the process into question. When considering how many projects to take forward from each tier, I considered a range of options presented by my officials. I opted to take forward a range of small, medium and large projects with a total value higher than the current available budget to ensure that the budget can be spent and to avoid any further erosion of its value. Members will be aware that the prioritised cohort of 20 projects to be taken forward to the next stage of the programme are, in alphabetical order: in tier 1, Armagh City Football Club, Ballymacash Sports Academy, Lisburn Distillery Football Club, Queen's University Association Football Club and Rathfriland Rangers Football Club; in tier 2, Ballinamallard United Football Club, Ballymena United Football Club, Banbridge Town Football Club, Bangor Football Club, Carrick Rangers Football Club, Dergview Football Club, Dungannon Swifts Football Club, Glenavon Football Club, Larne Football Club, Lisburn Rangers Football Club, Loughgall Football Club, Newry City Athletic Football Club and Oxford Sunnyside Football Club; and, in tier 3, Cliftonville Football Club and Glentoran Football Club. I know that, despite the rigorous process, many feel disappointed that some projects, particularly those in the north-west, are not being taken forward in the first prioritised cohort. However, each applicant had the same opportunity to make their case. Each applicant was scored solely on the information provided in their application against the published criteria. The total score determined the applicant's rank order within their respective tier. I have visited many of our performance club grounds, so I know that there are no bad projects out there. The need is clear. However, applications varied in quality. Some applications included irrelevant information. Some included inaccurate information. Some applicants cut and pasted, giving the same answer to two different questions. Some just did not provide enough information to secure a higher score. Assessors considered how well an applicant demonstrated that they met or had the potential to meet the expectations linked to each question and scored the answer accordingly. Limited responses in meeting the expectations listed received a lower score, while excellent responses in meeting expectations received a higher score. I repeat that the scoring matrix and guidance documents are still available on my Department's web page for all to see. We must now move forward at pace to deliver this long-awaited commitment. It will be the beginning of an ongoing process to provide much-needed funding and raise the standard of the entire sector. My intention is that more projects will be brought forward if more funding becomes available. It is important to note that individual projects have not yet been fully costed or market-tested. That was a deliberate decision on my part so that all eligible clubs could apply to the performance programme, not just those who were able to produce detailed designs. It is therefore currently impossible to predict precisely the final quantum of government funding that will be required. Nevertheless, taking the figures as presented in the individual applications, the total departmental requirement to complete all 20 of the projects is just over £82 million against estimated total project costs of £98 million. As I said, I am not committing to any spend at this point. It is also important for me to point out that the money will not be spent overnight but, rather, over some years. There is never a guarantee that a capital project will reach completion. Building is a complicated endeavour, with multiple milestones and approvals not just from DFC but from other statutory bodies. Challenges in the design and construction phases will inevitably be faced, and they can never be predicted from the outset. Large capital projects of this nature take time. While their development is ongoing, I intend to make the case for more money to allow me to meet the needs of the entire sector. Clubs also have a responsibility to ensure that their projects deliver the highest standards and maximise benefits. The first projects to be delivered must be trailblazers that can help to demonstrate the huge potential that football has to transform communities. Since taking office, I have visited many of the clubs. I have seen the need to improve their infrastructure and the benefits that they provide to the local community, despite the infrastructure challenges that they face. I have seen at first hand what the clubs are capable of and have listened to their understandable frustrations with the previous stalling of the programme. With that in mind, I am delighted to take the step towards helping them to realise their goals of improving on and off the pitch. I have demonstrated that I am a Minister who is getting things done, and today, I am committing to do all that I can to progress the programme for all clubs to ensure that their needs are met because of the transformational impact that we can have on the lives of people across Northern Ireland. It is important to note that all clubs are still further along than they ever have been. We have made progress, and we are going to make more, so let us keep at it. I commend the statement to the House. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Minister, thank you for your statement. The first question is from the official Opposition. Mr Durkan: As a seasoned ticket holder, I am very disappointed for Derry City. As a Foyle MLA and a football fan, I am devastated for Institute. Will the Minister publish in full the options and all advice and recommendations that he received from his officials before he made the decision about how many projects to take forward in each tier? It is a decision that ensured the exclusion of Derry City, which scored fourth highest overall and has a shovel-ready project. Other clubs scoring much lower and nowhere near ready have been funded. How does that balance with his claim that he chose this way forward to ensure that the budget can be spent and to avoid further erosion of its value, let alone show anything but blatant disregard for regional balance? Mr Lyons: Unfortunately, the Member has got a number of things wrong. First of all, he is conflating — [Interruption.] Well, he has. He clearly does not know the process that was in place, even though I have just outlined that process. If he had listened to the statement that I have just made, he would realise that it is not appropriate to compare different tiers. That is what he is doing in the example that he gave. The Member is trying to put some blame on my shoulders and to say that, in some way, I engineered an outcome. The Member beside him is nodding. That is what he is trying to do. I stand robustly over the work of my — [Interruption.] I stand robustly over the work of my officials, and the Member is denigrating not only the work of my officials but other clubs that have applied. In his online commentary over the weekend, he sought to pit club against club. Mr Durkan: That is not true. Mr Lyons: It is true. Unfortunately, he has been disparaging about tier 2 clubs. He commented on whether they would be able to deliver, and he commented on their capacity, which was inappropriate [Interruption] — which was inappropriate for him to do. He had a blanket response. Yes, I outlined some of the challenges that were there, but he gave a blanket response, and that was wrong and inappropriate. The difference between me and him is that I want to see all of our clubs progress. I am not pitting them against each other. I have ensured that we are at least moving forward in the process. I will take advice on what I can and cannot publish. Some of that might be appropriate for us to do, and some of it may not, because of what we have done in the past with regard to such applications. I will say this: I have heard nothing from the Member about how the process was held up for 14 years. Where was his criticism of the others who held it up for so long? I am a Minister who has got something done. I have got on with it; I have delivered. I will do everything that I can to help make sure that those who have not got through at this stage can move through. I am not going to take him disparaging other clubs, and I certainly will not take him disparaging the hard work and dedication of my officials that has allowed us to get to this stage. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Before we proceed, I ask for respectful questioning, less background noise and consideration that there is a long list of Members to ask questions. The more time taken in questions and answers the more we could limit the chances of colleagues having their say. Mr Gildernew (The Chairperson of the Committee for Communities): I thank the Minister for his statement. Following the Minister's announcement last Thursday, there were certainly clubs, including Ballinamallard United and Dungannon Swifts in my constituency, that will have been overjoyed. However, many other clubs were left frustrated, disappointed and, potentially, angry. As Chair of the Committee for Communities, I look forward to further detailed scrutiny in relation to the programme. However, for now, can the Minister tell us who was responsible for determining the scoring criteria and ensuring their fairness? What role did external stakeholders or independent bodies play in validating the process? Mr Lyons: I completely understand the concern that has been expressed and the fact that many will have been pleased at the announcement. However, it is important to note that it has been a robust process. I am more than happy to make sure that officials are available to brief the Committee so that any outstanding questions can be answered. I would like to think that, during my remarks, I set out how that has been robust. To begin with, officials checked, then officials came together to score, and then those were checked again by an internal moderator and an external moderator. Before that, when the process was being put in place, we made sure that it was robustly designed. As I set out in my statement, we engaged with colleagues in the Department who have expertise in such issues. We also went outside the Department and used someone who was the head of a large, independent organisation and has funding experience in such matters, and legal advice was received multiple times throughout the process. Therefore I am sure of its robustness and fairness, but I want to see more people go through. That is what I will seek to do. I am more than happy to assist the Committee in any way, because it is right that people have confidence in the process. Miss McIlveen: I pay tribute to chairman Warren Patton and all of the team at Ards Football Club who have worked so hard throughout the process. They, along with supporters, are disappointed and angry. Ards has been homeless for over two decades and has demonstrated need. Will the Minister meet the club to discuss next steps? What support will be made available to clubs such as Ards and Institute who are homeless? Mr Lyons: I thank the Member for her question. I have offered officials to meet all of those clubs — successful and otherwise. If clubs would like to meet me as well on that, I will be happy to do that, because it is important not only that they have confidence in the robustness of the application process but that we can help with next steps. I have repeated this time and time again, but I want this to be a rolling programme. Just as the footballing fund in England has been going for 25 years, I would love to see a constant rolling programme to make sure that we eventually get funding to those who need it. I hope that that will give some confidence that this is not the end of the process for anybody. I am happy to meet if that will help to assuage any concerns. Top 7.45 pm Mr Honeyford: I welcome the progression of the programme for Lisburn Rangers, Ballymacash Rangers and Lisburn Distillery in Lagan Valley. I have worked with all three. They are brilliant clubs, and I look forward to seeing their projects delivered. Minister, you talked about going above the £36 million and taking forward projects valued at £82 million, with applications totalling almost £100 million approved. First, have you created expectations on which you cannot deliver? Secondly, what discussions have you have with the Minister of Finance about having the budget for the roll-out over the years that you talked about to deliver on all the projects? Mr Lyons: I thank the Member for his points and congratulate the clubs that were successful. For me, the most important thing is that we get as much as possible of that money spent in order to make the improvements that we can make to footballing infrastructure across Northern Ireland. That is why, as we often do in government, we over-plan. We took forward more applications than there is the budget for. I think that I could write the Member's question for him if, in two years' time, we were to come to this place, and I had allocated only £30 million to projects, and one or two bigger ones had fallen by the wayside because of planning or some other issue. We therefore did over-plan, given that we know that issues may arise along the way. My priority was to make sure that we spent as much of that money as we could. Of course, I want to see more funding for sport in Northern Ireland. I want to see more funding for the football fund in particular because of the impact that it can have across Northern Ireland, and not just on a Friday night or a Saturday afternoon but on the community. I will therefore be meeting the Minister of Finance to talk about the need that exists. I will also be looking at alternative sources of funding, and I believe that, through the process, clubs will also do that, and that is another reason for over-planning. Remember that government is always the last resort for funding, and if there are other options for clubs to raise private finance or borrow or for us to use financial transactions capital (FTC), all those options should be considered as well, and that is what I will be doing. Mr Allen: I congratulate all the clubs that were successful in this phase, and I recognise the frustration of many others. Moreover, it would be remiss of me not to commend the Minister for finally progressing that much-needed fund. Minister, it has been said that the total estimated cost of the funding for projects will be £98 million. If, given the challenging budgetary landscape, you are unsuccessful in finding additional finances, notwithstanding what you highlighted about finding additional resource, what is the next phase of the process to look at taking forward those 20 projects? Not all of them can succeed out of the £36·2 million. Mr Lyons: I appreciate the Member's question and agree with him that it is a good thing that the fund is finally being progressed after years of no action. I recognise his concern about the overcommitment, but it is important to note a number of things. Even if all programmes were to be successful, as I said to the Member who spoke previously, other funding opportunities might become available, and some of those would have to be delivered in phases as well. I am therefore hopeful that we can get additional resource or that clubs can find additional resource. If, however, we get to that stage and none of that materialises, and all the clubs are successful in getting through due diligence and business cases, we can then look at alternative arrangements for how we make decisions. Mr Delargy: Minister, there are 20 successful projects totalling £82 million, of which £36 million has been allocated. There is obviously a significant shortfall there. You addressed some of that in previous answers, but I would appreciate your elaborating on how that shortfall will be met and on how realistic it is that the projects will be delivered in this mandate. Mr Lyons: I want to make sure that I move the projects forward as much as I can within the budget that is available. I want to make sure that we are in a position to spend what is there now. That is one of the reasons for my reference to over-planning in reply to Mr Honeyford when he spoke about raising expectations. I have been clear that the fund is moving to the next stage. At no stage have I ever said that there is a guarantee of clubs receiving funding. In fact, I made that very clear in my speech last week, in my speech today and in public commentary. I reiterate that I would not want to be in the position in which I had allocated only £30 million and a number of those projects were to fall away, because the House would rightly want to hold me to account for getting to that stage at the end of another mandate with the money again not having been spent. So, yes, I decided to bring in more projects than I should have, given the amount of funding that is available, but I think that that is the right decision. I also believe that there is work for clubs to do to make sure that they have maximised the amount of income that they can bring in. I will say this again: government should always and only be a funder of last resort. Clubs will need to demonstrate that they do not have access to the capital or the borrowing that would allow them to do that work themselves. I am hopeful that more will come in that way. I also want to look at financial transactions capital, because many of the clubs will do things that align with the objectives of the Executive, so financial transactions capital is possible. That could be done on quite a large scale, and I am actively exploring it. I have seen the projects, including those that were in the prioritised cohort and those that have not been successful at this point. I want to see all of them go ahead, and I will look at all available options to try to get that money together. Mr Robinson: I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, I am personally saddened that the three applicants from my constituency did not progress in this phase, but I thank you for progressing the fund 14 years after it should have commenced. Minister, what lessons has the Department learned from this round of funding, and how will that inform changes in future grant programmes in order to ensure that there is regional balance? Mr Lyons: I am grateful to the Member for his words about moving the programme forward. Believe me, I understand the disappointment that many people feel. I have met many of the individuals who are involved, and I see the work that they put in. Remember that nearly everyone whom we are talking about gives their own time and makes that effort because they are passionate about the work that they do. They have applied to the fund because, in many cases, no other options are available to them. I understand that, and I get that frustration, but I was determined to move this forward. I will use the sessions with the clubs to get their feedback. I believe that I have set out today a very robust and entirely tight and defensible case for why we did what we did. However, we will always be open to feedback to see what can be done in the future, because, believe me, it is my intention to do everything that I can to make sure that footballing need is met right across Northern Ireland. I want all these projects to progress. Ms Mulholland: Thank you for coming to the House, Minister. Like others, I am glad to see some investment and funding, especially given that Ballymena United Football Club is in my constituency. You emphasised fairness and transparency. How will progress be monitored? What accountability measures will be put in place if projects fail to deliver some of those community benefits? Will you commit to publishing updates on delivery, including timelines and spending, so that we can scrutinise and track progress to see how that money is being spent? Mr Lyons: Absolutely. That is why it is so important that we go through this process over the next number of months. There will be an initial period of work that I hope will be very short. By the way, with all these timelines, which I am happy to publish when we have them, we want to go forward as quickly as possible. I do not want the Department to be a burden or to hold things back in any way, so I will allocate additional staff to make sure that clubs have the help that they need to progress. However, there will be that stage when due diligence and checks will need to be done. We will make sure that we look at other potential sources of funding, and then we can start to issue the initial funding for a grant so that help can be given with business cases. Finally, we will move on to construction. This is public money, so it needs to be handled in the right way. There needs to be propriety in how this is all done, and I will make sure that we keep the Assembly, Executive and Committee updated. Ms Ennis: I want to relay the disappointment and frustration that is felt by Warrenpoint Town Football Club, Minister. You said that, when it comes to those clubs that were not successful, it is not "No" but rather "not yet". What exactly does that mean, and how do you intend to address the identified £200 million need across soccer in the North? Clubs such as Warrenpoint Town Football Club, which is the epitome of a community club and has done so much to promote the women's game, deserve help, support and, most of all, investment. Mr Lyons: Absolutely. That goes not only for the clubs that got through and missed out but for those grassroots clubs that we need to support. That is what I want to do. There is opportunity for us to look at financial transactions capital. That can help in some of the projects, which will, hopefully, take some of the pressure off the funding. We can look at other sources of funding. I will certainly look at my Department's capital budget. I hope that the Executive will see the need to continue to invest in sport as well, but that has to be balanced against many of the other pressures that we face. That said, investment in sport is also an investment in health and education. I hope that my Executive colleagues realise and understand that. I am fully aware of the size and scale of the challenge that we face. There is a huge financial ask. We have a limited budget, but I want people to know that I will try everything that I can to make sure that we get that funding together so that the need is met, because it impacts on real people. For years, I have seen at first hand the change and difference that it can make in people's lives. Many of the football clubs that we are talking about are not just there on Friday evenings and Saturday afternoons. They are not just for the senior teams. Many people benefit from them, and I want to help everybody right across Northern Ireland. Mr Brooks: Glentoran Football Club in my constituency is very thankful to progress, thanks to the opportunity that the Minister's programme offers. I see that Michelle O'Neill now has a new-found interest in more investment in local football. How is it that the Minister has succeeded in bringing forward that investment where Sinn Féin's successive Ministers failed? Mr Lyons: The simple answer is that I never held the money to ransom. That is exactly what happened in the past. For 14 years, we had no movement on the Northern Ireland Football Fund or the subregional programme, as it was back then. I did something about that. I know that there are clubs that are disappointed; I get that. I understand that there are those that have not moved forward, but the programme has moved forward overall more than it has ever moved in the past, because I was determined to get it done. How it was held up was absolutely shameful. I was in the Chamber in 2015, and, in one of my first questions for oral answer, I asked when the programme would move forward. I was told that money could start to be drawn down by clubs the next year, which would have been spring 2016. Here we are in 2025, and none of that has been drawn down yet. I was determined to do something about that. I am glad that we are getting to this stage. That should be welcomed by everybody, because everybody is on the travelator. Some are now moving on to the prioritised cohort, but everybody is moving in the right direction, because we are moving it forward. That should be welcomed. Ms Ferguson: Like many others in the north-west, I am bitterly disappointed about Derry City Football Club, Coleraine Football Club and Institute Football Club. Minister, you mentioned that officials presented a range of options for you to consider. I am sure that, if your club had been third on the list in tier 3 or sixteenth on the list in tier 2, you would want to understand the options that were discussed and forwarded, so that you could clearly see how you were dropped off the list when it came to the allocation. Will you give us a bit more detail on that? What can you do to ensure that the north-west is not left behind in the next round of funding? Mr Lyons: Different options were presented to me. It is fair to say that I wanted to get as many of those moving forward as possible. That is why we have such an extensive list. My role in the process was to make sure that as many clubs were available as possible. I understand the concern that exists around the fact that so many projects in tiers 1 and 2 seem to have been taken forward compared with those in tier 3. That is because of the value of those projects. Some of them are much smaller in value, and it will be easier for us to take them forward. We wanted to make sure that we had that balance. My officials and I are more than happy to meet those who are concerned and to make sure that they understand the next steps. Top 8.00 pm Mr Middleton: Thank you for your statement, Minister. It will come as no surprise that I am deeply disappointed that Institute Football Club has not progressed at this stage. Having worked with the club for the past 10 years, I see its passion, dedication and clear need. Minister, you visited the site in 2017 and saw at first hand the devastation that the flooding caused. That having been said, the people involved do not want the political point-scoring that we have seen over the weekend, particularly from those who have done absolutely nothing to progress football over the past 14 years. What else can be done to ensure that clubs like Institute Football Club, which has a 120-year history, can not only survive but thrive into the future? Mr Lyons: I thank the Member for his approach to the issue, because I know that there is bitter disappointment about what has happened. I know the work that he has put in. Last year, he invited me up to meet the club. I saw that for myself. That is one of the reasons why I wanted to ensure that there was a level playing field and that the same number of points were available to clubs that have their own home as to those that do not. I wanted to ensure balance there. I am more than happy to sit down with him, chat through the scoring process and provide my assurance that we will do everything that we can to move this forward for everybody. I believe that options are available to enable us to progress more clubs and ensure that those that are in that cohort can progress as well. I will certainly do everything that I can on that. I share the disappointment, believe you me. I know the impact that this can have on people, clubs and communities. I will do everything that I can to work with him to ensure that we deliver for Institute and other clubs that were unsuccessful, just like we are delivering for clubs that were successful. Mr McMurray: I thank the Minister for his statement. While it is great to see Rathfriland Rangers on the list, there is disappointment from the very north-west to Warrenpoint Town Football Club in the very south-east. The Minister has said that all clubs will progress but "Not yet" to the 17 that were rejected, and that much money will be spent over the years. What funding requests will the Minister make for the clubs that have been rejected, given that they all passed the assessed need test? How long will clubs and communities have to continue waiting? Mr Lyons: I am sorry that I am unable to give the Member some of those timelines at present. We will need to see how things progress and how quickly we get through this cohort before we can decide whether more clubs can move up. We also need to explore issues around borrowing to see what other clubs are able to put in. If some of the clubs that have been successful can reduce what is there, that might open up more opportunities for other clubs. As I have said, I will leave no stone unturned because I see the value of this and the benefits that it brings. I want to work alongside those clubs. I want to work alongside Members as well. I want to see that progress. There is a way forward for us. I hope that others will join me in doing everything that we can to ensure that that happens. Mr McNulty: I believe passionately in the power of sport and support any efforts to elevate and enhance clubs' reach, impact and competitiveness. I am delighted that the ball is in play for Newry City, Armagh City and Loughgall. Minister, your statement refers to a "level playing field", but, after your announcement, you must know that some clubs feel strongly that some pitches are more level than others. Does the scheme mirror or simulate endeavours in other Departments or jurisdictions, or is your Department in virgin territory? Has your legal advice given assurances on governance, criteria and the potential for challenge? Mr Lyons: As I have outlined a number of times, I believe that we have had a very robust process. As regards the scoring — the matrix — that was used, the fact that clubs were in favour and support of the criteria that were put in place, in the first instance, means that we have something that is very robust. Look: I get the disappointment and frustration that exists. Unfortunately, that was inevitable. Unless I was in the position where I could take everybody forward, there were always going to be those who were disappointed. I am pledging to work with all clubs, Members and Executive colleagues to ensure that we do everything that we can to meet that need. Miss Brogan: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire. [Translation: I thank the Minister.] Can he describe the mechanisms that he will put in place to ensure that the selected projects deliver on the wider community benefits of inclusivity and financial sustainability, as set out in the criteria? Mr Lyons: It is important to note that selection was not based on footballing need alone. That was part of the criteria, but it was also based on finance and community benefits. There will be mechanisms in place to make sure of those as part of the due diligence checks and the other parts that come along, because, of course, we still have to go through business cases, and all that will be taken into consideration then. Mr Kingston: I commend the Minister for bringing the fund forward, in contrast to 14 years of delay and stalling by previous Ministers. He is to be congratulated. Did the criteria for the fund change after the closing date for applications? Mr Lyons: Absolutely not. Nothing has been changed since the launch of the applications on 30 January 2025. The scoring matrix and guidance notes are still available on the Department's web page for anyone who wishes to see exactly what the criteria were for applicants and how their applications would be scored. Ms K Armstrong: Thank you, Minister. I congratulate all the clubs that have been successful at this stage. You have recognised that there are unhappy clubs. Miss McIlveen mentioned Ards FC, and I will come back to that. As a club without its own ground, it feels penalised by the way in which the scoring system was worked out. For instance, it could not have scored in the current benefits and previous capital investment sections because it has no ground, so there were about 30 points that it was unable to achieve. That was acknowledged by one of the assessors, who said that it was unfair on the clubs that did not have a ground. For clubs that do not have their own grounds and could not score or achieve a high score in those areas, will you review that? Mr Lyons: I understand the strength of feeling out there, and it is important to note first that there was a facility for those clubs to demonstrate footballing need, with separate scoring for those that had a ground and those that did not. There was an opportunity, which many clubs took up, to talk about their potential and say, "If we had our own ground, here is what we could do and what we would be able to achieve". That was taken into consideration in the scoring. That is why it is important that we meet the clubs, hear their concerns and make sure that we all work together to make sure that the need is met. I get that for Ards; I get that for Institute and others. You have, in me, a Minister who is willing to work with whoever I need to work with to make sure that we get this done. That is my assurance today. Mr McHugh: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a ráiteas. [Translation: I thank the Minister for his statement.] I welcome the fact that Dergview, a club in my home town, is included in the second tier. What is the next step for successful clubs, and when will they be notified of the total grant that they will receive? What is the next step for the clubs that have not been successful? Mr Lyons: I hope that I have set out the approach that I intend to take to the clubs that were not successful. For those that were successful, it is impossible for me to say when funding will be released. First, that will be done in stages. There will be an opportunity for clubs to draw down funding to help with business cases, for example, and other work that might be needed. The exact quantum of that and of what would be needed for construction cannot be identified at this stage, because, as I outlined in my statement, we need to go through the business case and make sure that it shows value for money and that there are no other sources of funding that could be available to the club. All those things need to be taken into consideration. Another reason why I over-planned is that we do not know whether the amount that the clubs have said that they need will ultimately be the amount that they need or will be able to spend on their project. We do not know exactly when some of the match funding — partnership funding — will become available. However, I am committed to making sure that we move this forward as quickly as possible. We have waited far too long for this, and I want to make sure that there is no hold up as far as the Department is concerned. Mr Brett: This party will take no lectures on discrimination from parties that forced the withdrawal of the British Army from a jobs fair in the north-west because they did not want a Brit about the place. Minister, how many additional clubs could have been included had other parties not held up this project for so long? In my constituency of North Belfast, Crusaders Football Club is rightly disappointed by the outcome. Will you commit to meeting Crusaders with me and my colleague Brian Kingston in order to ensure that the club gets the funding that it deserves? Mr Lyons: Yes, I am more than happy to meet the Member and his constituency colleague, Mr Kingston, along with Crusaders. He asked a very pertinent question about how many more projects could be taken forward. That is hard to quantify, because it would depend exactly on the sums involved. If we look at the estimates, however, based on construction inflation over the past 14 years, I believe that the fund has probably lost about half of its value. That is absolutely shameful. It is a shame that that has happened. How many more projects would we have been able to take forward had that not been the case? More than that, think of the projects that would already have been in place and the benefits that they would already be delivering in their communities. Fourteen years — Mr Durkan is shaking his head, but it is the case that the funding was held up for 14 years. I am in post, and, in 14 months, I have taken it — [Interruption.] He does not seem to like that, so I will say it again. In 14 months, I have taken this further forward than it has been at any stage over the past 14 years. I am getting on with it. I am delivering on my promise. Just think what we would have been able to do had the funding been in place from 2011. Ms McLaughlin: Thank you, Minister, for your statement. Derry City football fans are disappointed but not surprised, given that, two days before the announcement was made, your party leader actually suggested or threatened that projects in Derry should be withheld. The correlation has been made by your colleague Phillip Brett. In your statement, you said that you considered a range of options presented to you by your officials, and you said that you opted to take forward a range of small, medium and large projects. When did you decide that? Was it after your party leader spoke or was it before that? On what day of last week did you decide not to fund Derry City Football Club? That is what we need to hear. Get that clarity and that transparency right out in front. [Interruption.] Get it out there, Minister. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Order, Members. Minister. Mr Lyons: My goodness. Is the Member actually implying that, with two days to go before the announcement, everything was completely changed in order for that to be the outcome? [Interruption.] Well, let me give you the clarity. I do not have the date on which the decision was made, but it was long before [Interruption.] It was long before last week. It was long before the SDLP decided [Interruption.] It was long before the SDLP decided that it did not want the British Army nearby. That is what we saw last week [Interruption.] That is what we saw. We saw —. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Order, Members. Members ask questions uninterrupted, and the Minister will answer questions uninterrupted. Again, I ask that questions and replies be focused on the statement and not on other matters. Mr Lyons: I hope that I have made it clear how the process worked and part of the timeline. It was certainly [Interruption.] It was certainly long before the discrimination and bigotry of the SDLP was clear for everybody to see. I have said that in the House. Decisions on this matter were made long before last week, long before the bigotry and discrimination by SDLP and Sinn Féin members of the council were clear for everybody to see. Mr Deputy Speaker, may I comment on the respectful way in which most Members across the House have engaged with me today? It is right that people take time to consider what has happened and that they take up the offer to engage with us. The SDLP, however, has shown its true colours today through what its Members are saying. I am here to support all clubs. I want to see all clubs progress. It is clear that the SDLP is interested only in trying to score points and to win votes out of all of this. [Interruption.] Top 8.15 pm Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members —. Mr Lyons: I have done what nobody else has managed to do before and progressed the programme. The SDLP Members are a disgrace. Mr Harvey: I start by thanking the Minister for all the work that he has put into the Northern Ireland Football Fund. Minister, you will appreciate the immense disappointment felt by the clubs whose applications were not successful. Ards Football Club in my constituency of Strangford was one. Where do we go from here to ensure that clubs such as Ards FC, which does so much for the local community, receive the investment that they so desperately need and deserve? Mr Lyons: I am grateful to the Member for his question. I thank him for realising that we have progressed the fund and moved it on for everybody. He is not like others in the Chamber who have sought to disparage other clubs. He is not like others in the Chamber who have tried to denigrate the work of officials in my Department. Instead, he looks for practical things that we can do, the ways in which we can move things forward and the options that are available to us so that we can make sure that we meet footballing need. [Interruption.] They cannot help themselves, Mr Deputy Speaker. They do not want to hear what we are doing. I am interested in moving the programme forward for everybody. I am not pitting people against one other, as Mr Durkan wrote in his online commentary at the weekend. I will be here. I will make myself available to sit down and work with colleagues to see what can be done, to explain to them the process that was in place and to make sure that we can move forward. What all the clubs want to see now is how everybody can move to the next stage. Mr Gaston: I welcome the inclusion of Ballymena United among the tier 2 applications that are being progressed. Taking inflation into account, the ring-fenced £36·2 million Northern Ireland Football Fund commitment announced on Friday is worth just 69% of what was promised in 2011. Can the Minister give the House a commitment that the same approach will be applied to Casement Park and that not one penny more will be added to the overgenerous sum promised in 2011 to that tainted project? Mr Lyons: We may be using a slightly different calculator. From looking at construction inflation figures, I think that we got almost twice the benefit that we could have got. Regardless, we could have done so much more had we had that money in place then. Right now, I am delivering what I can out of what I have. I hope that more funding will become available from different sources, whether those be funding from my Department, financial transactions capital or money that clubs can raise themselves. I will, however, make sure that, whatever happens, the programme will proceed on the basis of fairness. I hope that that provides an assurance to the Member and everyone else in the House. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): That concludes questions on the statement. I ask Members to take their ease before we move on to the next item of business. Private Members' Business Road Maintenance Strategy Mr Dunne: I beg to move That this Assembly regrets the declining condition of the road network across Northern Ireland; notes with concern that almost 107,000 potholes were recorded in 2024; further notes the adverse impact that a limited road maintenance service has had on our roads over the past 10 years; highlights the substantial increase in the Department for Infrastructure's expenditure on public liability claims in the past five years; believes that the maintenance of the road network is crucial for road safety for all users, whether travelling in a vehicle, bike or on foot; and calls on the Minister for Infrastructure to urgently present a new road maintenance strategy that will address road maintenance in an effective and efficient manner, with proposals that will deliver higher quality repairs, address workforce challenges, prioritise funding for rural roads, learn from areas of best practice, including the use of technology, and allow for proactive intervention. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes. Mr Dunne: I thank the Minister for her attendance this evening; the debate is slightly later than expected. I welcome the opportunity to open the debate on delivering a new road maintenance strategy, which is a very important issue to us all around the Chamber and across Northern Ireland. Few issues unite our constituents more than their frustration at the poor and sometimes shocking state of the roads across our country. Our roads are broken. Everyone in Northern Ireland knows that. Day after day, people drive on our crumbling roads, walk on dangerous broken footpaths and try to see past restricted sight lines because of overgrown grass at busy junctions. There are blocked gullies and little or no weed control, and we can see damaged road signage and our footpaths blocked by overgrown vegetation. Road safety has been compromised significantly, and we have seen a decline in that important issue in the past number of years. Our road network is of significant economic and social importance, and it affects everybody's life daily in so many ways. We are more dependent on road-based transport for industry, commerce and social purposes than any other part of the United Kingdom. Over the past 10 years and counting, we have seen a limited service in road maintenance, and some would say that we have seen a very limited service. Now is the time to change that. The Minister has now been in position for some time, and there is an opportunity to really get to grips with our poor road maintenance. Almost all our freight is transported by road compared with 76% in GB. Our public transport system also relies heavily on our roads network. We are not as fortunate as other countries that have a more diverse public transport system, so our roads are a crucial part of our daily living in so many ways. The Minister presides over a Department that has seen its maintenance backlog triple in the past five years. Shockingly, the cost of that now sits at a staggering £3 billion. The longer the problem goes on, the bigger it will become. Action is needed now to start to ensure that the backlog is reduced not just through sticking plasters but through a sustainable vision for dealing with the root causes of the problem. I fear that road maintenance does not seem to be a priority for the Infrastructure Minister and does not seem to be the priority that it should be. Sinn Féin holds the Infrastructure and the Finance Ministries. It holds the purse and the portfolio, yet, after almost two years, there is still no strategy and no delivery or action on getting to grips with our roads. In March, the Minister told me that a new roads maintenance strategy would be presented to her in the coming weeks. It is now well through September. Weeks have become months, and I fear that they will become years before we see any further action. Dither has become delay, and people are still waiting. Sinn Féin cannot hide behind the Tories any more: they are gone. The previous Minister often repeated that line, but it is no longer the case. Sinn Féin holds the power over the roads. It runs the Department for Infrastructure, and it is in charge of the purse strings. I fear that this is its failure, but there is an opportunity to do better and to deliver more than excuses. In the previous financial year, just one year, 107,000 potholes were recorded. That is not maintenance but decay and decline. The number of injury and damage claims has more than doubled from 1,400 five years ago to over 3,800 last year. In that same five-year period, over £32 million of public money has been spent on payouts for vehicle damage and personal injury liability claims. Every pound spent on claims is a pound not spent on tar, stone and repair solutions. It is a false economy wherein we pay twice: once in taxes and again in repairs. In 2023-24 alone, 93,600 defects were patched, yet the roads are worse, not better. It proves that patchwork is not a plan. You can patch a hole, but you cannot patch a network. Over 2,500 potholes were reported in my constituency of North Down and in the Ards and North Down council area last year. Of those, 1,800 were acted on, but 1,000 were dismissed as having no action. That is 1,000 defects that my constituents have to attempt to drive, cycle and walk over. In the Ards and North Down area alone, 3,800 potholes were reported. That is the highest number in any council in years, yet that area often receives the lowest funding allocation. On a number of occasions, the Minister specifically referenced Ards and North Down as running a successful pilot. While our section office does its best, I assure the Minister that much more is needed. My constituents say clearly, "No more dither, no more delay: end the road decay". The A5 is a failed project under a Sinn Féin Ministry. It has been tied up in that party's support for the unrealistic targets of the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022, leaving landowners in a state of continued confusion. That confusion continues today, while the road remains a major safety concern. Compensation claims on our roads are soaring year after year, because repairs are not being completed, and it is important to note that millions of pounds are being wasted. There are also major challenges with staff, recruitment and resources, and the backlog of £3 billion has left section office trying to manage on limited resources and low staffing levels. Recently, as was mentioned earlier, the Mineral Products Association (MPA) warned of the dire consequences for our roads. The role of utilities is an important issue that needs to be raised as well. There is an opportunity to do better. Utilities sometimes come in a short time after roads have been resurfaced by the Department, following many years of campaigning, and dig up those recently resurfaced roads. That happened in my area in recent months. There is an opportunity for closer working with utility companies to avoid that. There is also a role for partnerships with councils. We have 11 councils, and we often have 11 different models of working, including in councils' relationships with the Department for Infrastructure. There is room for a more joined-up, strategic approach that would ultimately deliver more effective and efficient ways of managing our roads. For example, the relationship between the Department and councils could be improved where councils have responsibility for cleaning channels. I would also like the Minister to comment on the role of technology. We have seen how technology has changed our world across many Departments. To the onlooker, however, it does not appear that modern technology is used to the extent that it could be in dealing with and improving our road network. Active travel has an important role to play — we all know the value of walking and cycling, which have so many benefits — but it is simply not possible to enjoy active travel when many of our footpaths and roads are in a dangerous condition, with broken surfaces, overgrown verges and much more. My colleague Keith Buchanan consistently raises that issue in the Committee and the Chamber, and he will no doubt raise it again today. After two years, Sinn Féin is running out of excuses for not getting on top of our roads. It holds Infrastructure and Finance — the purse and the power — but, to date, has failed to deliver. I look forward to hearing from the Minister and hope that progress can be made on delivering the long-awaited road maintenance strategy. Our people cannot drive on promises; we need a clear plan and repairs that last. We also need fairness across Northern Ireland, west and east of the Bann, where people pay taxes and rightly expect a reasonable level of service. Minister, the excuses are over. We ask you to stop the decay on our roads and to, now, deliver the strategy and action that is so greatly needed. Top 8.30 pm Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, Mr Dunne, for moving the motion. Mr Boylan: I speak as Sinn Féin's transport spokesperson. I thank the Members for tabling the motion. I am sure that none of us around the Chamber, as constituency MLAs, are any different when it comes to the volume of roads-related casework that comes through our offices. There is no denying that some roads across the North are in very poor condition. However, I acknowledge recent progress in my area, including a £590,000 resurfacing scheme on the Armagh to Keady road. Investment in rural roads such as that one shows the Minister's commitment to improving the road network, which is vital for connecting our businesses and our communities. I agree with the motion and believe that we need a different approach to road maintenance to that which we have seen in recent decades. We have to ensure that we use every method available to us so that road maintenance is timely, efficient and sustainable. The introduction of new technologies, AI in particular, could enable a more targeted approach where roads are deteriorating and show what the best method of maintenance is. I would welcome any information that the Minister can provide on the role of new technologies in road maintenance. We cannot avoid the biggest issue when it comes to this matter: funding. After decades of British government austerity decimating public services here, we have to recognise that it is imperative that we are funded at our level of need to ensure that investment is possible. As I said in the Chamber last week, the ongoing duplication of public services on this island due to partition does not help the matter. When we engage with local section and divisional offices, we often hear about staff shortages. I welcome the initiatives taken by former Minister O'Dowd and Minister Kimmins to increase the number of people joining DFI. In January of this year, 29 newly qualified trainee civil engineering assistants started at DFI. That positive initiative creates opportunities for people while helping to address the workforce shortages that the Department has experienced. I support the motion. I support the Minister in her bid to improve our roads. I will continue to work with her to deliver investment in our local road network, particularly in Newry and Armagh. Mr McMurray: I thank the Minister for her attendance. The poor state of our roads is no secret, and I can hardly disagree with the motion's sentiment. Less than a year ago, I spoke in an Adjournment debate on the road repairs required in South Down. At that time, Newry, Mourne and Down District Council area had the highest number of surface defects in Northern Ireland by a substantial margin. It also had the worst ratio of potholes to road length and the highest number of compensation claims. The Minister and I, in previous roles, served together as councillors in Newry, Mourne and Down for a number of years, so I know that she is familiar, maybe overly familiar, with many of the roads in South Down. Unfortunately, the situation continues to get worse, and many constituents in South Down feel left behind. The situation has come about from years of underinvestment, and both cause and outcome remain fundamentally unchanged. If anything, things are getting worse. In the Alliance Party, we want to see less reliance on private cars and a greater emphasis on public transport and active travel. I try to practise what I preach and sometimes take the bus and bike to get to this place from Downpatrick and Castlewellan. However, that cannot take away from the fact that the road network will always be an essential piece of infrastructure, especially in rural areas. The reality is that the Minister has huge and costly challenges across her portfolio. Her budget is very constrained, and the recent June monitoring round brought zero additional funding for road maintenance. Earlier today, at Question Time, the Minister confirmed that she hopes to finalise a draft road maintenance strategy soon that will make better use of her limited budget. However, the question remains about the strategy that she envisages to make her limited resources go even further. Everything in the Minister's portfolio is severely underfunded. NI Water sucks up huge amounts of resources, and it is getting nowhere in reducing sewage pollution. The state of our roads is another symptom of the fact that we are failing to manage our resources sustainably. Resolving that problem is, in part, a job for the Finance Minister, and multi-year Budgets will help greatly by giving certainty of funding and facilitating better planning. My colleague, Peter McReynolds, cannot be here tonight. He wants to thank Martyn Boyd of the Motorcycle Action Group UK (MAG-UK), who presented to the Committee last year on the impact of potholes on his motorbike. He also thanks North Down Advanced Motorists (NDAM) and the Ards and North Down Cycle Campaign group for engaging with him in advance of today about the significant and positive impact road maintenance has on active travel and cycling. We need to spend our money more efficiently and avoid waste across the board. We routinely see colossal overspends on major capital projects, and day-to-day business could also be done more efficiently. That needs to be tackled to ensure that more money is available to fund the various priorities in the Department, including road maintenance. I welcome the Department's finalisation of work on a draft maintenance strategy, and I hope that the Minister will bring that forward in the near future. We have been assured that the new strategy will help the Department make better use of its road maintenance budget, but, given the severe budgetary constraints, I am keen to hear from the Minister about whether she is confident that the new strategy can be delivered. Mr Butler: I support the motion and thank the Member for bringing it to the House. I begin by recognising the absolute frustration that people across Northern Ireland feel about the shocking decline in the state of our roads and pavements. Every Member so far, including the Member from the Minister's party, has outlined that we spend a lot of time, on behalf of constituents across the country, responding to queries about pavements and paths that need resurfacing or the potholes. I pay tribute to a councillor from my party, Alan Martin, who seems to spend most of his time cutting grass for DFI or pointing out potholes to the Lisburn division of DFI Roads. We all work collectively and collegially to improve the state of our paths and roads. In my constituency of Lagan Valley, the situation is, frankly, a disgrace. The roads, both rural and urban, that were once fit for purpose are now riddled with potholes, uneven surfaces and crumbling verges. When I am out, residents stop me — as they stop many MLAs when they are out shopping — to talk about those issues and point them out, and, often, to ask you to go and look at the state of a road that they have to deal with. I pay tribute to the Department for Infrastructure staff who are on the ground. I find the Lisburn office very responsive, and it has an ambition to see improvements made. There is no problem communicating with those people, but they would do better with more resources. We have to be clear that it is not the workforce who are failing us; it is the systemic underinvestment that has left us unable to keep up with the demand. Earlier, I wanted to ask the Member a question because it was alluded to that technology might be a way of dealing with the problem; it has also been alluded to that we could travel differently, but we do not always have to go forward. Sometimes, we can look back to find a fix. I remember, in the days of the Department of the Environment, there were teams that could respond and fill the potholes. We did not need engineers to go out and mark the holes and go out the following month and the month after that to see whether the hole was getting bigger. We had people with buckets of tar who could go out and fill the potholes. I am not sure if that is a solution, but sometimes we do not need to look forward to improve the situation. Sometimes, we can and should look back and assess whether it was a better idea. I do not sit on the Infrastructure Committee, and I am blindsided by some of the detail that might have been discussed. However, why would we not have an agency in the Department that is ready to respond and go out and fill the blinking holes in, instead of assessing and measuring them and wasting councillors' and MLAs' time? Some 107,000 potholes were recorded in 2004, and Councillor Martin, in Lisburn, is probably responsible for recording a lot of them. I want to make a point as chair of the all-party group on disability. We know that this affects drivers, motorcyclists, cyclists and pedestrians, but one of the groups most impacted is those with disabilities: those who use wheelchairs or the elderly who are on rollators. For them, these hazards and uneven surfaces pose even greater trip hazards to navigate. That needs to be spoken on. Maybe the Minister can clarify this. I have down here in my research that around £25 million was paid out in compensation to drivers of cars that had been damaged by the failing road network. I hope that we can get some clarity on that. Another thing that I would like to get clarity on is that, often, when we report a pothole we are told that it has been referred to another utility provider. Sometimes that is a bit of a hump in the road — pardon the pun — to getting a quick remedy. Some of the other utility providers for the fixes maybe respond more quickly when DFI gets onto their back. However, whether you are driving to work, cycling to school or simply walking to the shops, we are agreed that you are entitled to a safe journey. Businesses, sadly, can sometimes be impacted by how people choose to travel. I am rapidly running out of time, but I have more questions for you here, Minister. I will wrap this up, if that is all right. Lagan Valley residents and residents across Northern Ireland are tired of excuses, swerving round potholes, waiting for months for repairs and seeing their rates and taxes disappear into the compensation piece. That is key to this. I support the motion wholeheartedly. I urge the Minister to take it seriously, and I think that she will. Let us see a strategy brought forward that matches the scale of the challenge. Mr McNulty: Once again, we find ourselves debating a motion in the Assembly about the state of our roads, but this time the irony is impossible to ignore. The motion tabled by the DUP highlights the serious issues with road maintenance across the North that have been mounting for years, and yet here are the DUP: talking about urging action when it is a leading party in the Government with the power to deliver change. It is baffling that the DUP, a party that sits at the Executive table, uses the Assembly to propose non-binding motions, instead of taking real, decisive action to address the issues. The DUP has had years to fix the deteriorating road network, yet, on its watch, nearly 107,000 potholes were recorded last year alone. How many more times do we need to call for action before the DUP stops playing games and starts to take responsibility? If the DUP was truly serious about fixing our roads, it would not be grandstanding with motions like this. It members would be at the Executive table with their Sinn Féin, UUP and Alliance Executive colleagues, working to deliver a comprehensive and effective road maintenance strategy in collaboration with industry. People deserve better than this tomfoolery. It is time for the DUP to stop wasting time and get on with the job of governing. Enough of the motions and rhetoric: let us see some real action for once. On 30 July, the Minister asked the industry what it would need to keep operating in the short term. She was told that it needed a £15 million to £20 million stopgap and further funding before Christmas. The Mineral Products Association, the representative body for the roads industry, met the DFI on Friday past, and the feedback that I have received is that it was just another talking shop. The roads industry explained the dire situation that it faced in the coming months. The view of the industry was that the Department just sympathised. It said that it hoped to get some funding in the October monitoring round but that depended on the Finance Minister. It thought that there should be moneys drawn in from the A5 project, but that that would go to the Finance Minister, who would decide where those moneys were to be allocated. The Department hoped to canvass for moneys from the A5 to stay in Infrastructure. It is sad and alarming that both the industry and the Department recognised that moneys intended for the construction of the A5 will not now be spent on it and are presently lobbying to have that money spent on road improvements elsewhere. The roads industry has capacity at the moment to spend much more than the stated £15 million to £20 million, but time is running out fast. The motion generalises the problems of road maintenance funding but does not recognise or identify the urgency and importance of funding for the safeguarding of the 500-plus jobs that are at risk and, of course, safety on our roads and pavements, which are used by everyone in the North of Ireland. The roads network services all other public and private sector authorities and businesses, and it is in a critical state of disrepair. The Department for Infrastructure's human resource issues are also critical, and the industry was told at the meeting on Friday that the Department hoped to see those resolved in the next two to three years due to new apprentices coming on board. Is that rationale not naive, however, as surely it will not cure the problem, especially when it is anticipated that another 40% of its staff will be lost in the next few years through natural retirement? At that same meeting, the Mineral Products Association informed the DFI team that the morale of its staff on the ground is at rock bottom, with the dire ongoing uncertainty equating to a working environment in which many highly qualified, experienced and hard-working staff cannot wait to jump ship. Who could blame them? A few of them expressed to a leading contractor that they will get out as soon as possible. Top 8.45 pm On where the industry resource is at at present, there is capacity to spend much more than it expects to be allocated, but that will soon change dramatically, as tough business sustainability decisions have to taken in the next month or so. People will be let go. One of the main quarry and road contractors has 80 fewer staff than it had this time last year. How does that impact on road maintenance and on the state of disrepair? The Minister has to realise that the industry cannot turn the tap off and on every six months or so. It is unreasonable and unfair to expect it to be on board and ramp up its staffing complement on the whim of the Department for Infrastructure. The industry simply cannot continue to subsidise apprentices, who are crucial for the industry's sustainability, and they will certainly not receive any worthwhile learning. Yes, we support the motion, but we also support backing a motion declaring that the sky is blue. We know what the problem is. The question is this: what are you going to do about it? Miss Brogan: Beidh mé ag caint i nGaeilge agus as Béarla. Duine ar bith a chaith níos mó ná dornán bomaití ag taisteal ar bhóthar ar bith in Éirinn nach príomhbhóthar é, ba dhoiligh leis easaontú le brí an rúin seo. Tá ár mbóithre, dála cuidmhór dár mbonneagar bunaidh, tá sin faoi chrann smola go fóill ag an tearc-infheistíocht agus an neamhshuim a rinne Rialtas na Breataine ann ar feadh na mblianta fada. Lena chois sin, dar le sean-réimeas Chnoc an Anfa nach raibh a leithéid de áit ann agus taobh thiar den Bhanna. Anois féin, agus Airí de chuid an Choiste Feidhmiúcháin comhaimseartha ag iarraidh an neamart sin a thabhairt isteach, fuair siad go bhfuil Westminster de shíor ag gearradh siar na mbuiséad atá acu leis an obair a dhéanamh. [Translation: I will be speaking in both Irish and English. I doubt whether there is anyone who has ever spent more than a few minutes off a main arterial route anywhere in Ireland who would take issue with the sentiment behind the motion. Our road network, like much of our vital infrastructure here, is still feeling the effects of generations of underinvestment and indifference from consecutive British Governments, as well as from an old Stormont regime that seemed to think that the west of the Bann did not exist. Even now, as modern Executive Ministers have attempted to undo the damage caused by a legacy of neglect, they have found their budgets for doing so continually cut back further and further by Westminster.] I commend our current Infrastructure Minister, Liz Kimmins, for maintaining her commitment to road maintenance and safety, despite working within a budget that has been stripped to the bone. Every one of us can name roads that need repairs, but she has been working tirelessly to ensure that maintenance teams have the materials that they need. She has spearheaded initiatives to bridge recruitment gaps. Her Department is working diligently on a road maintenance strategy, and she has gone to great efforts to make sure that rural roads and roads west of the Bann are not forgotten. I also commend the Minister's continued efforts to ensure that the vital A5 road upgrade is delivered. We are all aware of the importance of that road project and of how it will encourage economic development in the west, reduce journey times and, most importantly, save lives. Once again, on behalf of the people of West Tyrone, I encourage everyone to work together to make sure that the A5 is upgraded with no further delays. A modern, reliable and well-maintained road network is not only vital for ensuring safe and swift travel but crucial for economic development, particularly in rural areas, as well as for increasing tourism, improving public transport, tackling social isolation, reducing liability costs and meeting our climate targets. I commend the motion to the House, and I have no doubt that the Minister is well on her way to fulfilling it. Mr Martin: I was not really planning to speak this evening, but I will pick up on a few points that other Members have made. First, I pay tribute to Mr Boylan, who managed to squeeze a call for a united Ireland into a roads debate. That takes some doing, but well done nonetheless. Mr McNulty started, I think, by attacking us for tabling the motion. He is nodding at me, so I will take that as a fair summary. I do not want to put words in his mouth. I simply say to him that I think that that is our job. It is a legislative Chamber. We do not have that Ministry, so we have to hold the Minister to account. I will further point out to him that, in my constituency of North Down, this is probably the most talked about issue. Everyone has a view on our roads. The Member for Lagan Valley reflected that, and I might come back to it in a minute. It is right that we are having the debate, and I pay tribute to my colleagues who tabled the motion. I have a few comments to make and a few questions for the Minister. I will start with the really easy ones. Andrew McMurray mentioned Martyn Boyd from MAG-UK and referenced the fact that his colleague is not here. Martyn is a campaigner for better road safety, and, to be fair to the Minister, she recently met Martyn and me. We had a constructive meeting, and she will take on board some of the issues that came from that meeting, which is right and proper. Some figures that were quoted included £33 million in public liability claims over the past five years. That was a figure that I certainly heard. I imagine that much of that money covered damage from potholes and some was for damage from slips, trips and falls. I want to pick up on the point that the Member for Lagan Valley made. I have serious concerns about the state of some of our pavements in North Down. Over the summer, I was canvassing in a quiet residential area, and, as I knocked on doors, I realised that most of the people were elderly. The state of the pavements was appalling, and people were saying to me, "Peter, can you not do something about this? There are two people in wheelchairs, and somebody else is on a rollator". The Member mentioned that. Those people said, "This is a real issue. It is actually dangerous for us to go out of our house". I thank the Minister for agreeing to send some DFI officials down to meet me. We will pick up on some of those issues at some point in the near future. Mr Butler: Will the Member give way? Mr Martin: I will indeed. Mr Butler: I will just point out that we cannot fail to deal with it now, as we have an ageing population, and, with that, we have people with managed conditions. Therefore, the reality is that we are likely to have more people at home in wheelchairs and on rollators, and, therefore, the need will be even greater and will increase. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute. Mr Martin: I thank the Member for Lagan Valley for that intervention. I agree completely. It is a real issue. I do not think that the Minister has a magic wand. If she does, she could get it out, which would be great, but I do not think that she has one. That brings me on to my next point, which is a question for the Minister. We have a finite budget, and the Member on the other side who spoke previously mentioned the fact that a lot of the issue has to do with the finite budget and the British Government not giving us enough money. However, I will point out that the baseline has been lifted — it used to be £1·2 billion and is now £1·24 billion — so there is more money than has recently been apportioned. However, the question to the Minister is this: given that there is a finite budget and that I do not believe that she has a magic wand, where does she envisage the efficiency savings and what can she do with them? That is absolutely key, unless more money is coming. It is about what you can do more efficiently and effectively in the Department with a finite pot of money to make it go further. I will pick up on the famous yellow squares or circles around our potholes. Sometimes, I have witnessed three potholes, one of which has a yellow circle around it, while two do not. The one with the yellow circle is filled, but the other two, which were all of one and a half feet away, is not. I do not really get that. There may be a reason for it, but I do not see it. Part of the issue is the economy of scale that you would get from filling the three potholes, not just the one with the yellow marking around it. Again, that is probably a question that, I am sure, the Minister will pick up on. Some Members have reflected on this, but I can also say that I have an excellent relationship with the officials in our North Down section office. They work really hard. We are all MLAs, and the Minister is an MLA who has the same issues as we have and are talking about in the Chamber. That is not the issue: the issue is how we can do things a little better and more efficiently. Clearly, I have several issues from a local North Down perspective, and I will continue to raise those. They relate to a pattern. How do we do things better? How do we make the money go further? What can we do differently that will increase the output for, more or less, the same input? Ms Murphy: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion as Sinn Féin's spokesperson for rural communities. There is no doubt that the condition of our road network is a matter of real concern. I am sure that the constituency offices of most of us, if not all of us, have been inundated daily with roads issues and queries. In rural areas such as mine, the road network is a lifeline. It connects families to schools, workplaces and local businesses. Many rural households have no alternative to driving, so the condition of our roads is an important aspect of the economic and social life of our rural constituencies. The motion makes reference to the need for a long-term plan for the maintenance of our road network — one that focuses on effective, high-quality repairs; improves planning and efficiency; addresses workforce pressures; and ensures fairness between urban and rural areas. A proper road maintenance strategy must be preventative, not just reactive. It must address drainage and resurfacing and ensure that rural roads are not left to deteriorate to a dangerous level. Poor roads do not just damage vehicles. They discourage investment and tourism and create a real risk for the emergency services that need to respond quickly and safely. I welcome the efforts that have been made already by the Minister to achieve improvements. There has been new technology to better identify and respond to defects; ongoing pilot projects that look at innovative materials and repair methods; and attempts to target the limited funding where it can make the greatest impact. A properly funded maintenance strategy will deliver smoother, safer roads for all our constituents but especially for those in rural areas who have to rely on them to access all of life's necessities. Mr Carroll: Between January and June of this year, some 1,800 surface defects were reported in my constituency: that is one constituency. That gives a sense of the scale of the problem. This summer, I spent a lot of time talking directly to residents about their concerns, a lot of which amounted to road safety issues. One thing that united people in Andersonstown, Dunmurry, Mount Eagles — right across the west — as is the case in Members' constituencies, as they have said, was the state of the roads, footpaths and pavements. There are about 100 houses in the Lake Glen estate in the Andersonstown area — I have already contacted the Minister about this — and I counted at least 72 large potholes. That is almost a pothole for every house. That is pretty shocking, because it is a small enough estate. That should not be normalised; it needs to be addressed urgently. The situation has been ongoing for years. I have written to the Minister, and I urge a speedy resolution to the issue for residents in Lake Glen. The crumbling infrastructure is the visual manifestation of a state in terminal decline. Every pothole on our roads that sits unfilled is a daily reminder of the impact of more than a decade of austerity and underinvestment from Westminster and the Stormont Executive over the years. It is working-class people who pay the price for expensive repairs through injuries and through lost income when they have to wait at the roadside after a tyre has burst on a car, bike or whatever else. Roads that are riddled with potholes and other defects not only damage cars but are a safety risk for pedestrians and everyone who wheels. That is not emphasised enough. Earlier this year, a constituent of mine was taking her young child to school and, because of haphazard and dangerous parking outside the school, was forced to walk on the road, where she tripped on a deep pothole and fell in the street. She was injured, though not seriously so, but, obviously, that is a risk that she took. Due to the lack of cycling infrastructure, cyclists are also forced on to unsafe roads. Potholes cause serious damage to bikes but also to cyclists for whom there is a risk of serious injury or death. I do not know whether the Member for South Down feels the same, but there have been many times when, travelling up to the Building, I and other cyclists have had to navigate, try to spot potholes on the road and then try to dodge them. The journey is hairy enough as it is, but you risk getting hit by a car if you take a wrong turn or move too quickly. It is very dangerous for everybody, but particularly for cyclists and others who wheel. Top 9.00 pm I pay tribute to the workers who are responsible for maintaining the roads in the face of increasing pressure and inadequate budgets. Two years ago, DFI Roads workers went on strike over pay, and I was proud to stand with them on picket lines. To this day, they remain undervalued. I have been told, Minister, that some teams in your Department are operating at a 50% vacancy rate, which is shocking. For people whose job is to repair roads and respond to other road traffic requests, that is a shocking statistic and probably why there is such a delay and backlog in roads being maintained and repaired. Those people should not be replaced with agency staff; they should have proper terms and conditions and proper contracts. All the problems are connected. Overstretched workers, a lack of cycling infrastructure, bad parking and poor street design force vulnerable pedestrians and cyclists on to unsafe roads. However, even if the road maintenance budget were increased tenfold, with resurfacing schemes rolled out for every single road, potholes and road surface defects would keep coming back, because our roads network simply was not built to handle this volume of traffic and the weight and size of modern cars. I do not blame drivers; I blame the marketing companies, especially those that tell people to buy big SUVs and other heavy vehicles, which leads to the further disintegration of the roads. The Minister needs to look at and address that. We discovered the solution around 200 years ago. We already know that the best and safest way to transport large numbers of people from one place to another is by public transport, especially rail. It is much safer and cleaner for the environment. We need to focus on public transport and active travel rather than on roads, and relook at our relationship with cars. It is absurd that we are having a discussion here at 9.00 pm and the last bus leaves the estate at, I think, 6.20 pm. I implored the previous Infrastructure Minister to look at that, and I urge this Minister to ensure that there are late-night buses not just for MLAs but for the other people who work in the Building, so that they can leave their car at home. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call the Minister for Infrastructure to respond to the debate. Minister, you have up to 15 minutes. Ms Kimmins (The Minister for Infrastructure): Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. [Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.] I thank the Members for tabling this important motion on the condition of the road network in the North, specifically the high number of potholes recorded and the increase in expenditure on public liability claims in the past five years. I note the concerns about the longer-term impact of the Department's limited service for road maintenance, which we have seen for a number of years now. I listened intently to the comments of, and issues raised by, Members across the Chamber. I heard their concerns loud and clear, because I agree that maintenance of the road network is crucial for the safety of all road users, and that investing in the maintenance of roads is critical to the movement of goods and, indeed, the growth of our economy. You would be forgiven for thinking that the roads issue has come about in just the past seven months, and that it is as a result of a decision not to fund the maintenance of our roads, when quite the opposite is true. My Department, like other Departments, as I am sure colleagues from many parties will be aware, has been operating in an extremely difficult financial environment for a number of years. I thank the Member for North Down, who is not in the Chamber now, for recognising that that is as a result of a number of years of underfunding and austerity by the British Government. Whilst I take on board the comments that that Government have now changed and that people want to hear about the root cause of the problem, I say this: I know what the root cause is; it is a lack of funding for many years. Some statements that we heard are contradictory. We heard about a maintenance backlog of over five years and what that has cost. I think that the figure that was quoted was £1 billion. That is as a result of years and years of underinvestment and Tory austerity: that is a fact. We are now trying to address that backlog while doing what we should be doing daily anyway. I think that we can square that circle at some stage if we get the money. That underinvestment creates significant challenges for our ability to maintain the road network in a safe condition, and that has been the predominant issue in the discussion this evening. I share the frustrations and, at times, see the inconvenience that this matter causes for all our constituents. We are all road users, as has been articulated this evening. People in our communities rely on the road network to do business, go to work, go to school and, most importantly, connect with each other. My officials have worked very hard. I noted the comments from across the House this evening about the hard work of officials in each of the areas that we represent. They have worked extremely hard to maintain the road network but have, nonetheless, been forced to concentrate on only the highest priority road repairs and to introduce a limited service approach to road maintenance, as each of you mentioned. As a result of that, we have seen continued deterioration of our infrastructure over the past 10 years, with large numbers of potholes — the number continues to increase — and other defects developing right across the road network, particularly after periods of colder and wetter weather, which are becoming more frequent. It is important to point out that the shortfall in funding and the estimated gap between what was needed to maintain the network and what was actually available to spend between 2014 and 2024 was approximately £1 billion. It is not just a matter of saying, "We will take money out of something else and stick it into road maintenance". These are huge figures, and we have been continually operating with that shortfall. It is apparent that, given that significant shortfall, a difference in quality should be expected when it comes to that maintenance spend. The Executive agreed the 2025-26 Budget, and best use has been made of that funding to target road resurfacing. I said in response to questions at Question Time today that, for that reason, it has taken me significant time to agree my own budget. I disagree with comments that I have not prioritised or taken on board the comments of the Mineral Products Association. I have met that body, and I share its concerns, particularly in relation to the pipeline of work that is required to sustain the workforce, which is critical. I am very conscious of that, as well as being conscious of fulfilling our duty to maintain our road network. Mr Clarke: Will the Minister give way? Ms Kimmins: I will finish this point and then give way. The reality is that, tomorrow, I will get questions about how much I am investing in the waste water infrastructure, which is also a priority for everybody in the House. I will then get more questions about how much investment I am putting into our public transport, which is also a priority for the House. I hope that I am painting a picture of the significant challenges in relation to capital spend and, in particular, in trying to deliver on all those key areas. Those are just three areas. The overall capital budget available to me this year was around £917 million. That sounds like a lot of money, but we have to factor in all the major road projects that we want to see delivered. We also want to see active travel infrastructure delivered. We also want to deliver on our public transport, our waste water infrastructure, our road network etc. Every one of those areas has a high cost, and I have to prioritise and make difficult decisions. I will give way. Mr Clarke: You used the analogy of painting a picture, and I was thinking of the yellow can in your hand and you actually painting the roads. You have recognised what the MPA said about new projects coming forward, and you are quite right about underfunding, but some of the new roads — I can think of one in my constituency — have been in place for just over a year and are already failing, so something has to be done about the quality of the workmanship in some of the contracts. Some of that has to be scrutinised. I do not believe that we are getting value for money. I do not know whether the Minister will agree or disagree. Ms Kimmins: It is difficult for me to have an opinion on that without knowing the detail, but, if you want to feed that into the Department, we can look at specific examples. The motion is about a road maintenance strategy. I have asked officials to bring forward a new strategy for all the reasons that have been outlined here this evening. We need to look at whether we can do things differently and get better value for money. I talk about getting more bang for our buck. We do not get it from the overall Budget that we are allocated by the British Government, so we have to make decisions that will ensure that we are getting the best impact. That has been my approach to everything that I have been doing since coming into this role. I will go back to some of the comments about my overall budget and how that has been allocated. As I said, the DFI budget this year is particularly challenging. However, as always, I will, where I can, continue to push for in-year funding. My colleague from Newry and Armagh referenced that we are waiting for money to be returned from the A5 project. We are working on an appeal regarding the A5. That is my priority, and I continue to work on it. I do not think that, at this stage, anybody can make a call on where that money will or will not be spent. We will continue to work on the basis of the budget that we have. If I can get money through monitoring rounds, so be it. Whilst it is very difficult, much of the work that is required for the structural maintenance of, and improvements to, our road network can be turned around quite quickly. It is not ideal, but it is also important to recognise that a multi-year budget would be transformational when it comes to being able to plan ahead for our roads and how we deliver maintenance. Over the past three years of budgets, £310 million was invested in our structural maintenance budget. If you look at the issue over a number of years, you see where the money has been spent. That work does not have to be done over and over again. I take on board the Member's points about the quality of the maintenance work that is done. Another issue that comes up quite frequently is the number of public liability claims that are received and the cost of settling those claims. Undoubtedly, claims have increased over the past five years in particular. Some of the reasons for that are beyond our control. I have mentioned severe weather conditions. We have a high and increasing number of vehicles using the road network, and more people now know that they can claim compensation. Through my constituency office work over the years and during my time as a councillor, I directed people to that process. It is more accessible now that it is online. There are a number of reasons for that increase. However, there is no doubt that the historical underinvestment in the road network is the key factor in relation to those increasing claim numbers as well. Mr K Buchanan: Will the Minister give way? Ms Kimmins: I will, yes. Mr K Buchanan: Just a quick point on that, Minister. I read from my notes that, in the previous financial year, approximately £8 million was paid out for 4,615 claims due to potholes. Have you any way of looking at it and saying, "Right, if we do x, we will save on that to a degree"? Is there any way of reducing that? Are you looking at getting the payout figure down by spending more on the network? I appreciate that it will take spending a lot of money on the network, but how are you going to get the payout figure down? Ms Kimmins: I thank the Member for his question. Essentially, the work that we do all the time is to ensure that we avoid the need for people to get their cars fixed as a result of the road network. That is the focus. If we can put more money into fixing the roads and maintaining the network, that will undoubtedly be the outcome. That is the overall rationale for that. That leads me to the maintenance strategy itself. Members have mentioned a number of examples that they have seen in their work. In particular, Peter Martin raised a point about fixing one pothole but bypassing others. I have continually raised that issue. The maintenance strategy looks to take a different approach and develop other ways of focusing on improving the network's overall condition whilst making the best use of that limited funding and resource in a way that balances safety and value for money. It should be data-driven and supported by sound engineering judgement. It should address the problem in a meaningful and sustainable way. I am keen to see that. We talked about efficiency. It is about being efficient and using money in the best way that we can. For me, the measure of that will be seeing how resilient and sustainable our road surfaces are in the future. As Members are aware, officials have been working on that new strategy. It will be considered in detail. The proposer of the motion mentioned that I had said earlier in the year that the strategy would come in a few weeks. We are closer to that. We are now finalising the development of the action plan. It is very important that an action plan goes with any strategy so that we say not only what we would like to do but how we will set out to do it. I hope that gives some reassurance that we are almost there. The main objectives of the strategy are to improve the overall condition of the road network, enhance safety and quality, and deliver a targeted programme of intelligent maintenance investment. That will require better use of technology and intelligence to ensure that we make smarter decisions — that ties in with what others have said — through digitally supported procedures to inspect and repair roads and inform decision-making. We probably have not been able to use modern technology to its full potential in previous years. That will help us to direct investment to where it is most needed, ensuring smarter maintenance decisions and future-proofing our roads, which I am keen for us to work to achieve. We have to recognise the changing needs of our society as well, including in relation to active travel. Gerry Carroll referenced that in his remarks. We also have to reduce the carbon footprint of our operations and ensure that the network is resilient after those adverse weather events, which we have been seeing more and more. Top 9.15 pm Mr Carroll: I appreciate the Minister's giving way. Obviously, symbols and leading by example are important. Will the Minister commit to looking at installing late-night buses from the Building, not just for me — I will declare an interest — but for other Members who, I know, use public transport? The last bus out of the Stormont estate is at 6.12 pm. Obviously, we are here after 9.00 pm, and there will be more legislation to come in the next year and a half or so, so there is a need for Stormont to lead by example. Will you commit to looking at that? Ms Kimmins: Obviously, that would be an operational decision for Translink, but I am happy to take that forward. With other services that we are hoping to enhance, I have been in conversations with Translink. However, as with the conversation that we are having tonight, Translink's budget is also limited. However, reflecting on that, I am happy to take that back to see what we can do. Some of my colleagues referred to rural roads. My colleague in South Down talked about the roads in Newry, Mourne and Down — in particular, south Down. I am acutely aware of all those issues. I see them daily. As I have said time and time again, aside from my role as Minister, I am a constituency MLA. I probably get more roads issues through my constituency office now for that reason. We can all see that. We all feel it. It affects everybody's daily lives. Therefore, it is probably the biggest frustration that most people have. I do not want to take away from that. I acknowledge that we need to get to grips with it. However, it is a huge and costly challenge. There is no doubt about that. I am committed to ensuring that I can get as much investment as I can into the Department and that area of work so that we can maintain our roads to a higher standard. I have been up and down roads all over the country, North and South, over the past number of months, and consciously thinking about and comparing what we have in the North with what is in the South. The same challenges exist everywhere. The size of the network can, in itself, be an issue. It is not an easy fix, but I want to make good headway on that and see how we can do it. The strategy will help. We will see the benefits of it, as the pilot in the Ards and North Down area has shown. I thank the Members who brought the motion to the House and everyone for their contributions to the debate. It is important to recognise that, whilst we can try to blame each other and all the rest, the issue probably unites every one of us, as does health. Long-term underinvestment in our roads has impacted on the integrity and deterioration of the network. That is not what the public, my Department or I want to see. I am committed to continuing to develop that new road maintenance strategy — Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Will the Minister bring her remarks to a close? Ms Kimmins: — and to deliver on that. Hopefully, I can work with Executive colleagues to continue to find ways forward for investment and to deliver for everyone. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Minister, thank you for responding. I call Keith Buchanan to make the winding-up speech on the motion and to conclude the debate. You have up to 10 minutes. Mr K Buchanan: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not intend to take all that time. I will briefly run through some of the comments that Members have made, and put in my own bits and pieces during that. First, Stephen touched on road safety's being compromised by different issues, such as potholes etc. He talked about road freight's being transported on Northern Ireland roads, and said that, over the past five years, £32 million has been paid out due to damaged roads. He also talked about active travel. I have a bit of a bugbear with active travel, although not with the concept of it. Over the weekend, I went through Coleraine. There is a great active travel scheme in Coleraine, but its active travel footpaths are wider and in better shape than most of the roads in rural Tyrone. It is fine to have that, but active travel needs to be balanced — we touched on that earlier during Question Time with the Minister — between new footpaths and cycleways and maintaining what we have. That is a bugbear of mine because in Tobermore, Desertmartin, Moneymore and Cookstown — we can all name such areas — you cannot actually walk on the rural footpaths. Then, you go through Coleraine and there is a highway beside the road. I am not suggesting that anybody drives on the footpath, but there is a contradiction. It is like building a new extension to your house when you are not using the rooms that you have. That just does not make sense. My colleague to the left is a big advocate of active travel. That is fine, but he needs to take a wee run over to rural Tyrone on his bicycle some time when he is free and see what we are dealing with. The issue was covered well. Active travel is something that we can look at, going forward, to see how we can maintain what we have and get the correct balance. Cathal Boylan referred to the constituency casework workload. He referred to recent schemes in his area. I must take a run down there, Cathal, to see how good they are and to get a bit of experience of a quality road. Andrew McMurray touched on road conditions in his area and referred to cycling and motorcycling organisations with which his colleague had liaised. Robbie Butler talked about the decline of our pavements and paths. There is no doubt that that applies across NI; it is a broad theme. Any points that colleagues covered could broadly be made about anywhere. He talked about Lagan Valley road conditions and — Peter talked about this as well — instead of marking potholes, filling them as you as go. I think that you talked about getting your own bucket, Robbie, and starting to fill potholes and the risks associated with that. You are welcome on the Committee, Justin McNulty, but I thought that you would have done a wee bit of research. Roads are not my portfolio — they are in Sinn Féin's portfolio — but I will give you a bye ball because you have just joined the Committee. You are certainly not a motivator of DFI Roads staff. With your comments, I would not get you to do any campaigns for them. For clarity, roads are not the DUP's portfolio but Sinn Fein's, and the sky is certainly blue. Nicola Brogan commented on road conditions west of the Bann. She is a bit like me with the issues that she has there. She referred to making sure that rural roads are not forgotten, which is a valid point. A lot of money goes on the main roads that carry the most people but not on the rural roads, and the Minister is from that sort of area. Peter Martin talked about slips, trips and falls because of pavement conditions. He talked about efficiencies. My colleague Trevor Clarke talked about efficiencies on the road. I see that daily when a utility company does a repair that is not of the standard that it should be. That is no reflection on engineers in the area, to be fair to them. They can maintain and inspect only so much, but there has to be some way of holding to account those utility companies that come to a road that is perfectly good job and track it but do not do it well enough, so that is where it cracks. That has to be looked at. Again, Peter Martin talked about how potholes are marked instead of being fixed at the time. Áine Murphy talked about her office being inundated with people talking about road issues. No doubt it is; I hear about a lot of road issues too. She talked about a preventative rather than a reactive road safety strategy. Gerry Carroll talked about the number of issues that have been reported to his office. I missed the number, Gerry. It was in the hundreds, I think you said. Maybe you should not answer me. Mr Carroll: It was 1,800. Mr K Buchanan: Then there was the number of potholes in the area. You talked about there being one per house and about damage to cars. We could all write those points, but they are all valid. Unfortunately, you have missed your bus. I can never get a bus home from here. I do not know when I would get home; it might be Thursday. [Laughter.] We will have to leave it there. Maybe that is something that the Minister can —. Mr Carroll: Will the Member give way? Mr K Buchanan: Go ahead. Mr Carroll: I remind the Member that there used to be an excellent train line across his constituency — it went to Antrim, Coleraine and elsewhere — and that it was the dividing and partition of this country that ruined it. I am sure that the Member already knows that. Mr K Buchanan: You are misinterpreting my age, Gerry. I am not old enough to remember that. I cannot recall the noise of the steam trains in Mid Ulster, to be honest. I know that they were there, but that was some time back. Members have broadly covered a lot of similar points. They are the same: rural roads need money, and there is a need to look at active travel. I am not a fan of that, but I want the Minister to look at an active travel scheme that got the green light in Mid Ulster. I do not want to get parochial, but I am. They are building a footpath to nowhere — out to Loughry campus. The only reason why that got over the line was that there was, unfortunately, a fatality on the other footpath. I know that there is never a reason, but there was a reason why that happened. We are getting that footpath to Loughry campus, which, technically, goes nowhere, but we cannot get one to go to Dunman Creamery, where dozens of workers walk out every day on the hard shoulder. I do not have a problem with active travel; it is about how it is scored. There is one footpath going ahead to Loughry campus when there is a perfectly good footpath on the other route, which is actually shorter, yet they are building a new one out one way when we cannot get one going to Dunman, where all the workers walk out of the factory. There is an issue with how that is done. It is done that way because it is quick and easy: there is no land to vest; and you can spend big money quickly. You can ask anybody walking in Cookstown today whether we need a footpath to Loughry campus or Dunman Creamery, and I know what they will tell you. It is about how we get that scoring right. There is something wrong there. I have pushed and pushed, but there is an issue there. It is a box-ticking exercise to spend active travel money quickly so that people can say, "We've spent this amount of money", but it is not spent on the cleverest projects. You can ask the people locally which are the ones to do. I know that everybody has their parochial issues, but, broadly speaking, there is an issue there. It is a box-ticker in order to spend money quickly. It has been a good debate. We have covered a lot of things, and there is no point in me rehearsing them all. We talked about the amount of money that is being spent on potholes. Unless we invest, that will not be reduced. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I appreciate your time. Question put and agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly regrets the declining condition of the road network across Northern Ireland; notes with concern that almost 107,000 potholes were recorded in 2024; further notes the adverse impact that a limited road maintenance service has had on our roads over the past 10 years; highlights the substantial increase in the Department for Infrastructure's expenditure on public liability claims in the past five years; believes that the maintenance of the road network is crucial for road safety for all users, whether travelling in a vehicle, bike or on foot; and calls on the Minister for Infrastructure to urgently present a new road maintenance strategy that will address road maintenance in an effective and efficient manner, with proposals that will deliver higher quality repairs, address workforce challenges, prioritise funding for rural roads, learn from areas of best practice, including the use of technology, and allow for proactive intervention. Adjourned at 9.24 pm. Top
[ni-assembly-official-report][plenary_report] Official Reports https://aims.niassembly.gov.uk/officialreport/report.aspx?&eveDate=2025/09/09&docID=447887 Official Report: Tuesday 09 September 2025 Table of Contents Assembly Business Ministerial Announcements: Proper Procedure Members Statements Magee Campus Extension Minister of Justice: Comments on Bullying Tollymore National Outdoor Centre: Closure Emergency Services Day World Suicide Prevention Day Irish Unity Orange Victims Day Irish Territorial Waters North-west Rail Dual Language Road Signs: Vandalism Immigration Loyal Orders and Marching Bands: Cultural Contribution Assembly Business Ministerial Comments: Health and Justice Ministerial Statements TransformED Strategy North/South Ministerial Council: Environment North/South Ministerial Council: Aquaculture and Marine North/South Ministerial Council: Agriculture Assembly Business Oral Answers to Questions Finance Ministerial Statement North/South Ministerial Council: Agriculture Executive Committee Business Mental Health Bill: Legislative Consent Motion Committee Business Adult Protection Bill: Extension of Committee Stage Private Members Business Gaza: Action to End Forced Starvation Lough Neagh Adjournment South West Acute Hospital: Future of Services The Assembly met at 10:30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair). Members observed two minutes' silence. Assembly Business Ministerial Announcements: Proper Procedure Mr Gildernew: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was here yesterday when you made your remarks about announcing significant issues on the Floor of the Assembly. Following yesterday's sitting, it became clear that it was being reported that, in the Great Hall, the DUP leader indicated that the Minister for Communities will make "a significant announcement" on subregional stadia. Will the Speaker agree that, in keeping with his remarks yesterday, such a significant statement should be made in the House? Mr Speaker: Absolutely. I agree with that. Members' Statements Magee Campus Extension Mr Delargy: Magee has achieved more growth in the past year than it did in the previous decade. That proves that, when we have Sinn Féin Ministers in place, Ministers who truly value the north-west and its people, the potential of our region is unmatched. Let me be unequivocal: Sinn Féin's choosing the Economy portfolio has been a game changer for regional balance and for the Magee expansion in particular. Since my party took up that office, the Magee task force has been established to develop and oversee a comprehensive plan for the campus to reach 10,000 students by 2032. Student numbers have already increased significantly and are set to reach their highest-ever level at Magee this month. Conor Murphy and Caoimhe Archibald have driven that progress forward, and I commend them for that. I also thank Ulster University for its perseverance and continued commitment to Magee. Sinn Féin and the Department for the Economy will continue working to drive those numbers up and to reach that target, because, while the numbers are positive, they are only the beginning. Derry is turning a page to a new chapter and is looking ahead to a future that is filled with hope and prosperity. With Sinn Féin in the driving seat, pushing this matter forward and delivering real change, the north-west will reach its full potential. Minister of Justice: Comments on Bullying Mr Frew: I have been contacted today by a number of teachers who are absolutely appalled by the stance of some of the teachers' unions and by the commentary and wording of the Justice Minister, Naomi Long. She said there will potentially be: "open season on bullying of young people, not just by other peers in their class and other members of the same age, but actually by people within their classrooms — teachers and others — who may actually now be in a situation where they feel enabled to take their own ideological position and work that through the classroom". I am appalled by that language and commentary from the Justice Minister, Naomi Long, and so are the teachers who have contacted me this morning. They are appalled and angered that the Justice Minister would say such a thing. I call on the Justice Minister to apologise for that slight on our teachers, who have spent many long nights and days agonising over how to support vulnerable children in their classrooms and schools. They grapple with how to support children who, because of their young years, are confused. Teachers help and support those young people, yet our Justice Minister thinks that they are bullies. Enough of that nonsense; enough of that language. I call on the Justice Minister to apologise to teachers for that slight. We want our children to be safe in school; so do teachers. We want them to be engaged in school; so do teachers. We want them to thrive in school; so do teachers. We want parents to have the confidence that all three of those aims will be met. What do parents think when they hear the commentary of Naomi Long, the Alliance Party leader, this morning? What should they think? It is not about anyone's ideological position, whether it be Naomi Long or Eóin Tennyson; it is about the law. It is about the law that has been defined and clarified by the Supreme Court — the highest court in this country. We have a Justice Minister who baulks at that and turns her face away from it, and who slights and insults our teachers, who have done commendable work with vulnerable people over the years. I call on her again to apologise for that slight on our teachers. Tollymore National Outdoor Centre: Closure Mr McMurray: I rise to speak about the prolonged closure of Tollymore National Outdoor Centre in Bryansford, just outside Newcastle. I have a personal connection in that I attended courses at the centre as a teenager and gained a number of qualifications there after university. I went on to pursue a career in the outdoors. I met my wife at the centre, so I have lots of good memories of the place. I went on to introduce my children to outdoor activities through the centre, but I cannot do that at the minute because it is closed. My thoughts are very much with the staff who are no longer employed at the centre as a result of the closure and with all the staff who have been associated with the centre over the years. The centre was established after an atrocity in the Cairngorms, and it provided training in outdoor pursuits after other incidents, such as the Lyme Bay tragedy. It is important to highlight the connection between the outdoors, positive mental health and physical well-being. Those connections have been well proven, and more should be done to encourage young people and adults to get outside. Not all sport is played on grass pitches that are marked out with whitewashed lines. It is important to state that. Tollymore National Outdoor Centre was an integral part of the outdoor pursuits landscape in south Down, and, unfortunately, the number of centres in south Down has reduced substantially over the past number of years. It is imperative that Sport NI and the Department for Communities look at ways in which a model can be operated to reopen the centre as soon as possible. The centre regularly hosted community groups, local schools and schools from across Northern Ireland, and provided training courses for instructors. Its closure has a knock-on effect on the ability to take people outside safely. As we have all seen, there has been a growth in interest in outdoor pursuits and activities and the role that they can play, not least since the COVID pandemic. Emergency Services Day Mr Burrows: On Emergency Services Day, I pay tribute to all the men and women of the emergency services across Northern Ireland. Today, I am proud to wear my Police Federation tie, which was a gift from the federation. Our emergency services do tremendous work for all the people of Northern Ireland. They put themselves in harm's way, and that comes with a great sacrifice. The things that they see, hear and smell cannot be unseen and unheard, and they live with the memories of those human beings for their entire life. The brain never forgets trauma, and it is often triggered in the most unexpected circumstances when you come across something in daily life that suddenly takes you back. I am reminded of a colleague who was at the scene of the Omagh bomb — I know that he was very touched by the inquiry recently — and who shared with me the fact that body parts went past him that day. He saw a watch on a deceased person's arm. His child then asked for that same type of watch, and he did everything that he could not to buy it as a Christmas present, because it would remind him every day of the sights that he had seen. It is vital that we support our emergency services. They need to be properly resourced. They need fair pay. Also, they need our support. One of the reasons that motivated me to come to this place was that too many of its Members are involved in making instant judgements based on a clip on social media about the conduct of our police officers in particular. They see a 10-second clip and come to an instant judgement. Members of the House have condemned officers when they had no context — judge, jury and executioner. We had the debacle on the Ormeau Road, with senior members of Sinn Féin demanding that a young constable be thrown under the bus. That act really should have resulted in more consequences, not just for the Chief Constable who bent the knee to that demand. I am glad that we have a stronger Chief Constable now. We have an Alliance Party whose Minister, I am afraid, has been disastrous in her leadership of Justice. I will say this: you cannot stand up and say today that you support the members of our emergency services, who are being assaulted and spat at, when you are the Minister who has proposed a consultation on downgrading the penalty for an assault on a police officer from a prosecution to a ticket. It would be like a speeding ticket. Dr Aiken: Shameful. Mr Burrows: Shameful. That will only increase the attacks on our Police Service. I will always stand for the gallant men and women of the Royal Ulster Constabulary George Cross who served before. I will not allow history to be rewritten or unwritten. I want to look forward and pay tribute to all those who are out today serving the people of Northern Ireland without fear, favour or distinction. I pay tribute to them today. World Suicide Prevention Day Mr Durkan: Tomorrow is World Suicide Prevention Day. It is a day when we reflect and remember the people whose lives were cut short by suicide. Those people are not just statistics; they are sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, friends and neighbours. However, the Executive seem to have become desensitised to that fact. In 2023, 221 people died by suicide, which is an 8% increase on the previous year. That is 221 more empty seats at dinner tables and 221 more families who have been shattered forever. Yet, that devastating loss barely registers in the Chamber, let alone sparks the action that it requires from the Executive. We live in a time when the loss of the art of human connection is more evident than ever. I worry deeply for our young people who are drawn into phones and algorithms that do not just entertain but exploit their insecurities and vulnerabilities. The algorithms feed them content that is designed to make them feel smaller, more self-conscious and more alone. Research shows us that heavy social media use is linked to higher rates of anxiety, depression and poor self-esteem among young people. We must work with other legislatures to regulate the platforms and safeguard the vulnerable. Technology is a relatively new factor in this multifaceted issue, but we must also face the shameful reality of political neglect. Suicide prevention is shamefully absent from the Programme for Government. Protect Life 2 and the mental health strategy were launched with great promise yet remain chronically underfunded, under-scrutinised and under-delivered. Top 10.45 am While we delay, the crisis deepens. Suicide rates are three times higher in our most deprived communities. In places such as Derry and Strabane, where poverty, housing collapse and lack of opportunity weigh heavily, mental health and addiction services are either buckling or disappearing altogether. It is a shameful and oft-quoted fact that the number of lives lost to suicide since the Good Friday Agreement has now surpassed those lost during the Troubles. Bombs and bullets no longer do the most damage here in Northern Ireland: mental illness, substance misuse and suicide do. These are preventable deaths, but tackling them requires urgency. It requires us to look beyond sticking plasters and commit to early intervention, sustained funding and urgent cross-departmental action. Irish Unity Mr Boylan: The appetite and desire for change has grown across this island among people from various backgrounds and walks of life. We have seen directly, through our party's commission on the future of Ireland, the positive vision that people have for Ireland. Whether you are in Keady or Kildare, Armagh or Athlone, Tyrone or Tipperary, many of the issues facing our communities are the same. Duplication of public services on an island of this size is, in many instances, inefficient and therefore ineffective in delivering for the people whom we represent. We have seen in recent years the growth in cross-border trade, together with greater collaboration in infrastructure development and health service provision. However, those are only glimpses of what is possible in the event of Irish unity. Consolidating infrastructure development across the island would lead to more coordinated planning and greater connectivity, boosting trade for businesses. During recess, on a visit to Leinster House, I took the opportunity to engage with our TDs and Senators about the challenges we face and the opportunities that exist to overcome them. It is no secret to anyone in the House that we in Sinn Féin believe that the interests of people on this island would be best served in a new Ireland, and it is our desire to achieve that goal through referenda, as set out in the Good Friday Agreement. We need to be ambitious and look towards the future to invest in infrastructure, and this vision is not coming from the British Government. We need to do things differently, and Irish unity will allow for that. Projects such as the A5 and the all-Ireland rail review will enable us to spread wealth and jobs and benefit the economy as a whole. It is time to plan, discuss and prepare for change. It is time for the Government in Dublin to establish a citizens' assembly or assemblies on Irish unity to prepare for our future. This is a decade of opportunity, and we must seize it. Orange Victims Day Mr K Buchanan: I stand to reflect on 1 September, Orange Victims Day. The date was picked due to the horrendous crime that took place on 1 September 1975, when five innocent men were slaughtered in Tullyvallen Orange Hall, 50 years ago last week. At the weekend, I attended an event in the Apprentice Boys Hall in Londonderry, which included moving tributes that remembered its murdered brethren: 343 men and one woman. We hear from the First Minister for all about ending violence against women and girls, which, indeed, is a major issue. Nobody is doubting that fact. However, how can she refer to ending violence against girls, women and children but, in her next breath, say that there was no alternative? That makes no sense to me. I will read some quotations from this book: "a 39-year-old married father of two children, was murdered by the IRA ... He was shot as he served customers and died in his wife's arms. A Reserve Constable in the Royal Ulster Constabulary,". Where was the thought to end violence against women, children and girls there? I could go on, and I will, because I have three minutes and I intend to use that time. Also in the book: "murdered by the IRA when a booby trap bomb exploded under his car as he drove along ... The 56-year-old ... was married with two children." That was violence against women and children. Another example: "the 37-year-old married father of four". Another example: "a 28-year-old married father of one, was shot by the IRA in front of his wife and 4-year-old daughter as he arrived for work". It is only a little book, but thousands of lives were destroyed. There were 343 Orangemen and one woman murdered, and this book covers only some of those murders. One man was murdered by the IRA at his farm whilst leaving milk cans out for collection. His wife was pregnant at the time, and he had a one-year-old daughter. Another gentleman, while working on his farm, was shot at least eight times by four masked IRA gunmen who had emerged from an adjoining farm, where they had taken a hostage. His body was found by his 80-year-old mother. He had no connections to the security forces and was killed simply for being a Protestant. Another gentleman, a 49-year-old married man with three children, was murdered. A 64-year-old married man was murdered along with his wife and daughter. The hypocrisy that we hear daily from the party opposite is as clear as looking through a window. Those are the facts, and you cannot take away from them. I say this to the perpetrators of those crimes: you may have escaped justice in this world, but you certainly will not in the next. Be 100% sure that you will not in the next. Every morning when you wake up, think about the eyes of the victims that you murdered. You saw their eyes. Every night before you go to bed, think about what you did. Sleep well. Irish Territorial Waters Dr Aiken: The stopping of the MV Matthew in Irish territorial waters in 2023 by the LÉ William Butler Yeats, supported by the Irish Army Ranger Wing and aircraft from the Irish Air Corps, is to be commended. The seizure of 2·2 tons of cocaine was a significant drugs haul, but, judging from the changes in illicit drug prices across Europe, it regrettably had little or no impact on that invidious trade. The real question is this: why did the cartel think that smuggling cocaine and other drugs through Ireland was such a low-risk activity? As is reported in the open, there are around a hundred suspect vessels on the high seas of the Atlantic or adjoining seas. Grey shipping is much more prevalent, however. It is used by everyone from rogue states to criminal gangs for the transmission of arms, waste and drugs, to smuggle people and to damage or cut fibre-optic cables and gas lines. Much of that grey fleet is routed through Irish waters and airspace. That is because the 880,000 square kilometres are under no surveillance. They are covered by only one offshore patrol vessel that has no gun and one maritime patrol aircraft with no anti-surface or anti-submarine capability at all. They are ungoverned spaces subject in reality to no jurisdiction, despite Irish claims. If a country cannot guarantee security over those regions, it cannot justifiably claim sovereignty. It is a significant matter for us in the Northern Ireland Assembly because there is little control by the Irish authorities, and Northern Ireland has become a path through our open border into Europe. While the EU worries incessantly about sausages contaminating the European single market, there is nothing being done to deal with the influx of illegal drugs and illegal trade through our borders. That is because Ireland freeloads on defence and security, spending an abysmal 0·3% of its GDP on its armed forces. It is also noteworthy that the rest of the countries in the EU, most of which are members of NATO, are heading towards spending 5% of their GDP on defence. If that process continues, Ireland's role as the port of choice for every narco-terrorist, every rogue state and every other terrorist will grow significantly. At least some Members of the Irish Oireachtas get it. We have a, thankfully, outgoing Irish president who lambasts the EU, the UK and NATO for their higher defence expenditure, while the country that he represents goes cap in hand for airspace and maritime support from those very nations in order to stop the use of Ireland's waters by criminals and others. There must be a better way, and it is about time that Ireland grew up and joined NATO. North-west Rail Ms McLaughlin: As the Assembly returns from the summer recess, I look ahead with a simple but urgent message: what we have here is not working. For too long, the north-west has been left behind when it comes to infrastructure and regional development. Nowhere is that clearer than with rail. Despite decades of underinvestment, the people of Derry have responded with ambition. In the past year alone, there have been almost one million journeys made to and from the north-west regional transport hub. It is the second record-breaking year in a row, lifting us from the seventeenth busiest railway station in Northern Ireland to the seventh in less than a decade. That is the railway station that some people and some parties in this institution wanted to close down. Let us be honest, however: remarkable as that growth is, it masks the deeper truth. Our rail system is still failing to meet the needs of our people. We have limited timetables, long journey times and no proper all-island connections. The worst part is that a proposal from Translink to upgrade the rail services in the north-west has been sitting on the Infrastructure Minister's desk for far too long. Every time we ask for an update, we get the same recycled answer. It feels like Groundhog Day, and I ask the question almost every month. This is now blatant discrimination against the north-west. It must be sorted not as a favour or an afterthought but in the interests of regional balance and basic fairness. The evidence is clear, the demand is there and the people of the north-west are ready. Campaigners such as Steve Bradley and the Into the West group have been tireless in making the case for the upgrade, yet the Government are standing still while our community is crying out for change. It does not have to be that way. We can build something better, something new: a modern, green and connected transport system that finally gives the north-west the fair share that it has been denied for too long. That vision must include greater rail connectivity across the island, linking our cities and communities in a way that supports growth, opportunity and sustainability for all. That has to be our ambition in the months ahead. The cost of delivering an equity of service to the people of the north-west should be on the Infrastructure Minister's agenda, and it should be delivered. Tinkering around the edges is not good enough. Delivering real progress needs to happen. Dual Language Road Signs: Vandalism Mr Gildernew: Once again, regrettably, I rise to address the issue of the ongoing vandalism and destruction of dual language road signs in south Tyrone, with the Irish language being targeted. It is disappointing that it continues to be the case. It is a clear attack on our culture. For many years, activists have campaigned to promote the Irish language, which is a language that is shared across these islands. It is a Gaelic language and an ancient language, and the vandalism is a slap in the face for those campaigning for that. However, it will not deter anyone from campaigning or continuing to promote the use and visibility of the Irish language. I call on people to use their influence to stop the ongoing criminal and hate-driven damage to public property, which is what we see. The PSNI recently indicated clearly that it will investigate it as a hate crime. It is regrettable that, over recent weeks, we have seen numerous signs across the district vandalised once again. It needs to stop, and the PSNI needs to take serious and critical action to ensure that it stops and to send a message to those who are at it that it will not be tolerated. Immigration Mr Buckley: The hapless state of the UK and Ireland surrounding uncontrolled and illegal immigration has continued to be exposed. Over 50,000 people entered the UK illegally on small boats in the past year, with 1,000 arriving on Saturday alone, costing the UK taxpayer billions of pounds annually. However, it is not just the UK Government that have been hapless in their approach to the subject: there are parties in the Chamber that are part of that gathering. Sinn Féin, the SDLP and the Alliance Party all voted against the DUP's motion calling for the UK Government to take strong action on illegal immigration. Those parties are against taking action on illegal immigration, against taking action on the proliferation of houses in multiple occupation (HMOs), against taking action on illegal immigrant hotels and against taking action on the abuse of public services by those who enter the country illegally, placing pressure on our public services, housing, health service and law and order. A Member: Rubbish. Mr Buckley: I hear you shouting "Rubbish", but it is not. The facts are clear. [Interruption.] I hear Sinn Féin talking about the national conversation that is happening across the community. There is a conversation happening. Whether it is on the streets of Newry, Belfast, Portadown or elsewhere, people are coming together to call out what has been a dereliction of duty from nationalist parties such as Sinn Féin and the SDLP and others such as Alliance who have failed to deal with the issue and stand up for constituents because they have no lived experience of it. Top 11.00 am Now, we have the issue about the law that permits people to come to this country and stay without deportation. Those who have come to this country and have, in some cases, been part of horrendous acts — sexual acts — of violence against women and children. What was once said in a Charles Dickens novel? It was: "The law is a ass." Indeed, the European Convention on Human Rights is being interpreted as such, because we have a growth of the barrister politician class, who will not stand for a single vote but will adjudicate upon laws in this land that defeat the purpose of having strong, controlled borders. It is time that parties got real on the issue, stood up for all our citizens and ensured that we have safe and secure borders and a place that is prosperous for all. Be assured that the Democratic Unionist Party will continue to do just that. Mr Speaker: Timothy Gaston. You have a couple of minutes, Mr Gaston. Loyal Orders and Marching Bands: Cultural Contribution Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I take this opportunity to reflect on the immense contribution that the loyal orders and the marching bands scene made to the cultural life of Northern Ireland over the summer months. Every year, the streets of Ulster resound to the music of marching bands that have spent the winter months reaching a standard that is unmatched anywhere else in the amateur world. Bands give people an identity, a pride and a sense of achievement whilst nurturing their musical talents. A fact that often goes untold is the contribution that bands make to the economy. Uniforms alone can cost £1,000 or more, with no grant support. That is money that goes straight into the economy of Northern Ireland. Alongside that, the loyal orders this year staged 19 major demonstrations on the Twelfth, bringing tens of thousands on to the streets to celebrate a living tradition in the glorious sunshine. All that happened despite the usual attempts to blacken my community through lies and mistruths. That was seen most clearly when a lodge in Comber was demonised for 48 hours by the BBC for daring to challenge the GAA's links to republican terrorism. Some in the media have since apologised for getting carried away in the hysteria, yet the BBC — the source of much of that misinformation — offered only a grudging correction, which was hidden away online. The media's double standards are glaring and need to be called out. Republican cultural events are endlessly promoted and defended, while loyalist culture is endlessly maligned. I appeal to those who wrongly rushed to condemn the lodge in question, including Members in the House, to do the honourable thing and apologise. I make no apology for speaking up for my culture and the marching bands scene, and I will continue to do so when given the opportunity in the House. Mr Speaker: Thank you, Mr Gaston. Assembly Business Ministerial Comments: Health and Justice Mr Gaston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, during the question for urgent oral answer on gender identity services, the Minister of Health stated that he was: "not aware of any costs for primary care or for general practitioners", and that GPs would simply: "refer into CAMHS as they do for ... other issues". — [Official Report (Hansard), 8 September 2025, p48, col 1]. However, a recently released freedom of information response from the Department, which was obtained by the Christian Institute, clearly details ongoing discussions and planned costs for GP involvement in phase 2 of the service, including the development of a specific training package for shared care arrangements; additional payments for extra duties, such as blood monitoring; and an addendum to the business case to address GP reluctance without full commissioning. That directly contradicts the Minister's assertion that he had no awareness of such costs. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to direct the Minister to correct the record at the earliest opportunity so that the Assembly and the public can have accurate information on the full financial implications of that service. Yesterday, he said that he would be happy to look at the facts that I had to back up what I said. I have shared with you the FOI, and I would be very happy to share it with the Minister of Health to enable him to come back to the House — Mr Speaker: OK. Mr Gaston: — to correct the record. Mr Speaker: OK. Thank you, Mr Gaston. We will happily look at that. Mr Givan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, in an interview with Cool FM, the Alliance Party leader and Justice Minister made an extraordinary attack on the teaching profession. She suggested that, on the basis of a common-sense policy that I set out in May and reiterated yesterday regarding transgender issues, some teachers would be part of an open season of bullying young people. That accusation was made in response to a position that I believe reflects the views of the vast majority of people, which is that biological boys should not use girls' toilets or changing rooms and should not participate in competitive sports with girls. In addition, I suggested that neither pupils nor teachers should be compelled to use pronouns other than those that reflect biological sex. I appreciate that some Members are going to find that difficult, but let me repeat what the Justice Minister said so that you can give me advice on how I can hold her to account in her role as leader of the Alliance Party or as Justice Minister. It is really important that the Assembly knows how to hold people to account. The Justice Minister said: "I believe it is abandoning young people who are vulnerable, and I believe it is potentially going to have an open season on bullying of young people not just by other peers in their class and other members of the same age but actually by people within their classrooms — their teachers and others who may actually now be in a situation where they feel enabled to take their own ideological position and work that through the classroom." Shameful, Mr Speaker. Will you advise me to understand whether those comments were made in her capacity as Alliance Party leader or as Justice Minister so that the Assembly and I can hold her to account and so that I can properly address my formal communication that I will issue later today calling on her to retract those comments and apologise to the teaching profession for that outrageous attack on its professionalism? Some Members: Hear, hear. Mr Speaker: Order. As Speaker, I am responsible for what people say in the House, not outside it. What any Minister says outside the Chamber will come under the ministerial code and should be raised at the Executive as opposed to in the House. If the Minister had made her comments in the House, Members would be in a better place to challenge her. However, the matter falls under the ministerial code, if there is an issue around what the Minister actually stated. Mr McCrossan: On a point of order. Mr Speaker. Will you review the comments that the Education Minister just made? I think that he has misled the House. He said that he was talking sense. I think that most of us would find that hard to believe. Mr Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order, as the Member well knows. Ministerial Statements TransformED Strategy Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): In March, I stood in the Assembly to launch TransformED NI, which is my new strategy for transforming teaching and learning. The strategy sets out a bold and ambitious vision for educational reform in Northern Ireland and is informed by what works best in education systems across the world. Unlike too many other strategies across Departments, the publication of that strategy marks the start, not the end, of the process. The strategy will not sit on a shelf but will be implemented in practice. That is why we are backing the vision with action. In April, I published the strategy's delivery plan. Today, I am delighted to update the Assembly on the implementation of TransformED and to look forward to the year ahead. At its heart, TransformED is about ensuring that every child and young person, regardless of their background, has access to an excellent education. The intent is clear and urgent: to build a world-leading education system. The strategy represents a decisive shift in how we approach teaching, learning and equity in our schools. It is perhaps the most significant change in education in many generations. We are not simply tweaking the edges of policy; we are reimagining the foundations of our education system. Make no mistake: TransformED is a break from what has gone before. It places the classroom at the centre of reform and recognises that the quality of teaching and learning is the single most important factor in improving our children's outcomes. TransformED focuses on five key areas: curriculum, assessment, qualifications, school improvement and tackling educational disadvantage, all underpinned by a relentless focus on supporting effective teaching through significant investment in professional learning. Let me outline the progress that we have made to date. Over the past six months, we have laid the structures for meaningful and lasting reform. We have established an international ministerial advisory panel, bringing global expertise to Northern Ireland. Those world-leading thinkers are helping us to benchmark our ambitions against the highest-performing education systems. Alongside that, our local academics group will provide critical insight that is rooted in research and evidence. Its work ensures that our policies are grounded in what works, informed by data and shaped by the realities of our classrooms. Crucially, we have created primary and post-primary principals' panels, giving our school leaders a direct voice in shaping reform. Together, those structures form a powerful coalition for change, combining international insight, academic rigour and front-line experience. They are helping to ensure that TransformED is not just ambitious in its goals but effective in its delivery. If we want to build a better future, we must begin by investing in those who will shape it: our teachers. To quote McKinsey's famous maxim: "the quality of an education system cannot exceed the quality of its teachers." As Minister of Education, I reaffirm my pledge to support teachers at every stage of their career. From initial teacher education to ongoing professional development, we must ensure that every teacher has access to the resources, training and support that they need to excel in their profession. A world-class education system begins with world-class support for educators. Central to the TransformED strategy, therefore, is a commitment to investing in a comprehensive approach to teacher professional development. After many years of limited progress, we have made significant strides in that area in recent months. In May, I launched the online teacher continuing professional development (CPD) academy for post-primary schools. The academy offers on-demand courses, expert insights and practical resources that are grounded in cognitive science research. Of our 190 post-primary schools, 145 have signed up for the academy, and over 6,000 teachers in Northern Ireland will benefit from the programme. In June, my Department launched the TransformED teacher professional learning (TPL) fund, which is a £31 million investment over three years that provides schools with dedicated per teacher funding to support high-quality, evidence-based professional development. The fund empowers schools to purchase professional learning that is tailored to their specific needs, fostering a culture of continuous improvement. Alongside the fund, the Making Best Practice, Common Practice programme is enhancing access to educational research. The new monthly 'Science of Learning' newsletter is bridging the gap between research and classroom practice, offering accessible insights that educators can apply immediately. We have also funded over 100 schools to host 50 research-informed conferences, bringing together practitioners, researchers and school leaders to share what works and why it works. This month, we launched a quarterly research publication for teachers, edited by Queen's University, and a new leadership newsletter for principals. A high-quality induction programme is essential to ensuring that our newest teachers enter the profession with the confidence and support that they need to thrive. Working with the Education Authority, my Department has developed a major expansion of the induction programme for early career teachers. We are building a rich programme that supports continuous improvement. In the months ahead, we will extend the online science of learning professional development programme to primary schools, develop a new professional qualification for headship, roll out bursaries to support membership of the Chartered College of Teaching, strengthen the provision of school-to-school support through a leaders of education programme, and develop a new professional learning programme for existing experienced principals. Top 11.15 am To our school leaders and teachers, I say this: you are the foundation on which we will build a better future. TransformED is a commitment to invest in you and in the teaching profession. I want us to work together to build a culture across our community where education is truly valued and teaching is rightly regarded by all as an attractive, high-status profession. That is why I also plan to introduce student bursaries to improve the uptake of initial teacher education (ITE) in subjects that are experiencing teacher shortages. Curriculum form is key to my TransformED agenda. Curriculum is the backbone of all education and the road map that shapes what pupils learn, how they develop thinking skills and how they prepare for life, work and citizenship. In June, Lucy Crehan published her strategic review of the Northern Ireland curriculum, which was a major milestone in our reform journey. It is a landmark report that sets a clear, ambitious and forward-thinking vision for the future of learning in our schools. The review report and its recommendations provide a comprehensive assessment of our current curriculum and set out a compelling case for change. The case for a new curriculum framework is based on five key principles: a framework that is purpose-led; knowledge-rich; continuous and coherent; specific and focused; and flexible and inclusive. In July, my Department published its formal response, accepting many of the review recommendations, including a new curriculum task force to drive forward reform. The task force terms of reference have also been published, setting out a clear mandate for modernising and aligning our curriculum with international best practice. Over the last number of weeks, I have appointed a task force advisory committee that is made up of leading educationalists from across the British Isles to lead that work. I am delighted that leading educationalist Christine Counsell is chairing the task force, with Lucy Crehan continuing her involvement as the deputy chair. Christine brings unparalleled expertise as a globally recognised thought leader in education. She has advised successive United Kingdom Governments and, most recently, helped to lead curriculum review in Flanders. This term, the work of the curriculum task force will gather pace. Building on the success of the inaugural TransformED school leaders conference, two curriculum conferences later this month will bring together school leaders and senior teachers from across Northern Ireland to explore the concept of knowledge-rich curricula and the impact that such approaches can have on pupil outcomes, inclusion and tackling disadvantage. Recruitment will also start shortly for the subject advisory groups to support the reform programme. Teachers across Northern Ireland will be invited to join those groups and shape the new curriculum over the next 12 months. Assessment reform is also well under way. An independent review panel chaired by Tim Oates has been established and is actively progressing its work. The panel will issue a call for evidence and a teacher survey later this month. My Department has worked with the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) to put in place the first system-level sample assessments in literacy and numeracy for pupils in years 4, 7 and 10. A representative sample of participating schools has already been identified, and the first assessments will take place in March. The new approach aligns Northern Ireland with international best practice, mirroring approaches used in countries such as Finland, Canada and Singapore. It will provide a clear, evidence-based understanding of how well our pupils are developing essential skills in reading, writing and mathematics in each Key Stage. It will also allow robust measurement of standards over time, enabling a much more authoritative picture to be established of our overall educational performance than is currently possible. The insights gained will play a vital role in shaping policies and interventions that support high-quality teaching and learning for all children in Northern Ireland. We are also accelerating the development of computer adaptive assessment through CCEA, with a record 522 schools participating in the September 2025 pilot. The reforms will ensure that assessment is meaningful, fair and aligned with learning. Looking ahead, next week, I will launch a public consultation on the future policy direction for GSCE and A-level qualifications in Northern Ireland. Our proposals are guided by a clear and ambitious vision: to create a more streamlined, learner-focused system that prioritises depth of understanding over quantity of assessment. We intend to reduce the number of examinations that young people are required to sit and, wherever possible, remove controlled assessments. That will ease the burden on teachers, freeing up valuable time for high-quality teaching and meaningful learning. The message is simple but powerful: more time for deeper learning and less pressure to teach to the test. We want to empower teachers to inspire, not just prepare, and enable students to truly engage with their subjects, not just memorise mark schemes. I turn to school improvement. At the heart of any education system that truly promotes social mobility is the simple but powerful principle that every child deserves access to a good school, yet, in Northern Ireland today, that principle is under threat. Due to prolonged industrial action, many schools have gone without inspection and the external scrutiny, support and challenge that are essential to driving improvement and safeguarding children. That is not a minor administrative issue but a systematic failure that puts standards and equity at risk. We cannot continue with the constant threat and reality of disruption. That disruption is unmatched anywhere else in the United Kingdom or Ireland. Northern Ireland stands alone as an outlier. Every other jurisdiction has clear, enforceable legislation that requires cooperation with school inspection. We do not, and that must change. We are preparing legislation to ensure that the statutory arrangements for inspection are not only robust but enforceable. That is not about bureaucracy; it is about accountability, transparency and the right of every child to high-quality education. Over recent months, we have completed a public consultation on the legislation, and I will bring the Bill to the Executive in the coming weeks. It is a critical step in restoring confidence, raising standards and protecting children. Let us be clear: do we, as a society, believe that schools should be inspected? If the answer is yes — as it must be — ask yourself whether that inspection should be voluntary. Of course not. No serious education system in the world leaves inspection to chance. We need a legal framework that guarantees consistent, independent oversight of educational quality, child protection and safeguarding. In parallel, we will launch a consultation on a new school improvement policy that provides tailored, evidence-based support to schools in all circumstances. It is about building a system that is fair, rigorous and focused on what matters most: the life chances of our children. Talent is universal, but opportunity is not. Excellence in education is simply not possible without greater equity. Narrowing the gap for disadvantaged learners is central to TransformED. We have now completed a public consultation on legislation to raise the participation age to 18, and I will bring that Bill forward in the autumn. RAISE initiatives are also under way, including a new reading with AI research project that explores how technology can support literacy. Plans are well advanced for holiday revision schemes and a primary science of learning programme. Those evidence-based initiatives are designed to close the attainment gap and ensure that every child has the opportunity to succeed. As we move into the new academic year, our focus will be on deepening, accelerating and scaling the implementation of TransformED. Key priorities include supporting schools in implementing the TPL fund and accessing a wide range of enhanced professional learning opportunities; advancing the work of the curriculum task force and engaging stakeholders in curriculum reform; new strategies for literacy, numeracy and school improvement; progressing legislative work on inspection and the age of participation in education; beginning the work of qualifications reform; and expanding the RAISE initiatives and evaluating their impact. TransformED is a blueprint for excellence, equity and empowerment. It sets out a bold, coherent and evidence-driven agenda that will not only transform education in Northern Ireland but allow us to learn from and, ultimately, outpace the world's best. In recent months, we have made remarkable progress — progress that is without parallel in recent years — but let me be clear that this is only the beginning. Reform is not a threat but a promise: a promise to do better, to be better and to serve better. TransformED is that promise to every child that their education will be ambitions, inclusive and life-changing; to our teachers that they will be empowered, supported and valued; and to our society that education will be the foundation of a more prosperous and confident Northern Ireland. I thank all those who have contributed to progress so far, particularly our school leaders and staff. Their commitment is the engine of transformation. Together, we are not just imagining a better future but building it. Too often in the past, change has come at a glacial pace but not this time. Our children get only one chance. With TransformED, we are delivering that change. Mr McCrossan: Minister, you paint TransformED as a world-leading reform agenda, but the reality on the ground tells a different story. Teachers are demoralised, classrooms are overcrowded and schools are underfunded and crumbling. School inspection has been paralysed for years. Given that the Department of Education has been run by three different DUP Ministers over almost 10 years, how can you credibly claim that you are building a world-class system, when the basics of funding, staffing and accountability are in crisis? Is the strategy not little more than a glossy distraction from the fact that children and teachers are being failed every day by DUP Ministers and the disastrous Executive? Mr Givan: The Member should raise his ambitions and get to the challenge on the horizon that I am setting him. Let us make every school a good school. That is what TransformED is doing. It is transformational. Do not take my word for it: go and speak to principals. Hundreds of principals attended the inaugural TransformED conference. We surveyed principals, and there was overwhelming satisfaction with and support for what we are doing. The Member speaks on behalf of the Opposition. I get that it is a place where Members can luxuriate on the Back Benches and not take responsibility for trying to make changes to our society and where they can speak against all that is wrong while others step up, take responsibility and govern to make this place even better. That is what we are doing with the education system. TransformED is the blueprint. We have published it and are delivering on it. The Member should speak to people who are actively engaging with it in the teaching profession. They have endorsed it. They are excited about what we are doing. I encourage the Member, who can get quite excited at times, to get excited about the plan. It will make a difference to his constituency. Mr Mathison (The Chairperson of the Committee for Education): I thank the Minister for his statement. It outlines the simple and powerful message that there will be more time for deeper learning and less pressure to "teach to the test", which is something that, I imagine, everybody here will support. If that is his view, is he content that, for much of P6 and into P7, our children are taught to the test? Was this not an opportunity to do something about that approach to delivering teaching and learning in our schools, which is really there just to facilitate academic selection rather than to achieve the best outcomes for our children? Mr Givan: I note that there was not one word of criticism about what we are doing through TransformED. I will take that as a compliment and an endorsement from the Chairman of the Committee. The default position for people who would rather not talk about teachers' professional learning, investing in our teachers and delivering a world-class curriculum is to go back to academic selection. That is a circular debate. I say to the Member, who, as I said, is the Chairman of the Education Committee, that he can do so much better. I know that he can. He is better than resorting to going around in circles talking about academic selection. Let us engage on TransformED. We can utilise the Education Committee to get behind the plan, because it will be transformational for every child, or we can go round in circles talking about academic selection. Mr Sheehan: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a ráiteas. [Translation: I thank the Minister for his statement.] In his statement, the Minister said that we will benchmark against some of the highest-performing education systems elsewhere. If we benchmark against the education system in the South of the island, the evidence shows that we lag miles behind it. Far more young people in the South go into third-level education, and far fewer leave school without qualifications. Our big problem here is the long tail of underachievement. Bob Salisbury, a well-known educationalist, once said that we had the longest tail of educational underachievement in western Europe. In comparative studies of the systems North and South, one of the big differences that the spotlight has been on is academic selection. Top 11.30 am Mr Speaker: Do you have a question, Mr Sheehan? Mr Sheehan: Until that egregious practice, which damages children and the system, is ended — Mr Speaker: Question. Mr Sheehan: — education here will not be reformed. Will the Minister not accept that and accept the evidence? Mr Givan: The Member is right about benchmarking internationally. We participate in the programme for international student assessment (PISA), which is an internationally recognised system of assessment, because that is where we are able to benchmark. He is right: in a number of areas of education, the Republic of Ireland outperforms Northern Ireland. When we benchmark with PISA, we find that England also outperforms Northern Ireland on literacy in particular. That is why we are making the changes. We have to look at what is happening in the Republic of Ireland, which is why I have on my international ministerial advisory panel an influential individual who was part of the education system in the Republic of Ireland. I will take best practice from wherever. I have no constitutional objection to learning from what the Republic of Ireland is doing and saying, "How can we improve and then do better to compete?". We are not competing just in a Northern Ireland context, so is not about comparing a school in your constituency with a school down the street. When corporations take decisions to invest at global level, a key factor in their decision-making is how educated the workforce is. Therefore, we have to compete at global level. TransformED is very much about making sure that we can improve educational outcomes for all our young people. Benchmarking at an international level is important, and, where I can learn from and engage with my counterpart in the Republic of Ireland, I will. We share what we are doing — we are better in some areas, but the Republic is better in others — on how we can collectively make sure that both jurisdictions benefit. I will continue to do that. Mr Martin: I thank the Minister for his statement, which is incredibly welcome. In response to the Member for West Tyrone, he reflected that, in broad terms, the sector — I concur with the Minister — is right behind TransformED. There is so much that I could pick up on, but I will touch on the teacher professional learning fund, which, Minister, I understand is £31 million over three years. You will probably agree — the sector would agree with me on this — that TPL in Northern Ireland has been substandard for a while, so that — Mr Speaker: Is there a question? Mr Martin: — is incredibly welcome. How will the TPL fund roll out? Mr Givan: I thank the Member for his comments. He has echoed what I hear from the principals in my constituency, who are really enthusiastic about what we are doing. One school in my constituency hosted a conference only last week, and the principal was greatly encouraged by how that went, with the sharing of good practice amongst principals who attended the event, towards which we were able to provide some funding. The TPL fund is a £31 million investment over a three-year period. It will provide schools with dedicated, per-teacher funding to support high-quality, evidence-based professional development. Our Department will ensure that the training that schools engage in aligns with what we are taking forward by way of knowledge-rich curricula, which will make sure that the training is in line with the policies that we have set out. The fund will run over a three-year period. It is hugely to be welcomed. Many teachers — they speak to us all — tell me that they want to continue to identify ways in which they can improve their practice and best develop their pedagogy in teaching the material that they have to cover. It is about giving them more time but also better support so that teaching practices in our classrooms can be even more effective. Mr Burrows: I thank the Minister for that update. Does he agree that educational underattainment among boys is a particular issue in Northern Ireland and that a more balanced workforce, by way of attracting more male teachers into the profession, would help to provide positive role models in the education sector? Is there any international best practice that would help us to attract more men into the teaching profession in Northern Ireland? Mr Givan: The Member has raised an important point. Males are underrepresented across the teaching profession, not just among teachers but in the various management levels in schools. It is important for young people to have those role models, whether they are female or male. I would very much welcome a higher number of young males wanting to come into the profession, because it would have a positive impact. All of us could cite teachers who made an impact in our lives. There was a male teacher in my school who had to deal with an all-boys class, of whom I was one, that was maybe a little more disruptive than others. That teacher was very much able to guide us. I can certainly trace back some of his contributions in helping to correct the errors of my ways when I was at school. I agree with the Member entirely that we want to encourage higher numbers of young males in particular to come into the profession. Mr Baker: Minister, you referenced the RAISE programme in your statement: it has been flawed from the outset. Why did you reference that in relation to TransformED, when it was initially meant to be a two-year programme? Has further funding been made available by the Dublin Government? Mr Givan: The Member is entirely wrong. It is not a flawed scheme; in fact, I encourage the Member to engage with the West Belfast Partnership Board, which has developed its own strategic area plan. I have had a look at the plan that has been developed in his constituency and commend it to him: it is hugely impressive. The Department is in receipt of all of those local area plans. The RAISE programme is about tackling educational underachievement and trying to help people. The schemes that are being developed are community-based, are led by community organisations and will be transformative. Move away from the big "P" politics. I get that, at times, Members want to have a pop, but the plans will make a real impact. I commend the West Belfast Partnership Board for the work that it has been doing to develop its plan, and I encourage the Member to become more familiar with it. The sooner that we can get funding into his community, the better the outcome will be for his constituents. Mr Middleton: I thank the Minister for his statement and commend him for the work that he is doing with TransformED. In your statement, Minister, you mention the review of the curriculum and the potential for that to gather pace. I would be grateful if you could provide some more detail on how that pace will be gathered. Mr Givan: I thank the Member for that question. I referenced Lucy Crehan, whom I appointed to take forward the strategic review of the curriculum. That was published, and I responded formally on its recommendations. That review outlined the way in which our education system needs to be based around a new curriculum framework that is built around subject disciplines and strong, knowledge-rich content and recommended the establishment of a curriculum task force to lead the development and roll-out of that new framework. That work is very much under way. We have appointed the members of the task force, and it is already at work. It is chaired by Christine Counsell, and Lucy Crehan is its deputy chair. We also have the task force advisory committee, to which I have appointed leading educationalists from across the British Isles. They are being tasked with taking forward the review of Northern Ireland's curriculum, which will look at every subject. It will also try to ensure that there is consistency in the curriculum as well as vertical coherence when it comes to the way in which we deliver it from primary 1 to primary 2, primary 3 and the various Key Stages. It is about how we layer on and build up knowledge in those subjects. I am sure that Members have heard post-primary principals complain that how far pupils have covered a particular subject depends on the primary school. They will often say to me that they have to start from scratch in some subjects, because some children come with a much higher level of understanding of the subject content compared with others. We need to ensure that there is consistency across all our schools in the delivery of that curriculum and that we layer on the curriculum year on year to build up the knowledge. That will be really important in the outworkings. We have asked schools to do that in 12 months. That is a very ambitious target. Over the next 12 months, we will have a reformed curriculum. We will then need to move into the implementation phase of all that, which will take time. However, we need to get all the foundation work carried out and the new curriculum completed, and we will then move towards an implementation stage. Mrs Guy: I thank the Minister for the statement. Minister, you have been clear that there is an evidence-based approach in TransformED. I hope, though, that your use of evidence is not selective, because you have already made it clear that you will ignore the evidence on academic selection. I will ask about educational underachievement. We know from research that improving pastoral support and emotional well-being is crucial to tackling educational underachievement, especially for boys and young men. How will TransformED help schools and staff to improve pastoral and emotional support? Mr Givan: Part of the schemes that have been identified in the local area plans for RAISE deals with a lot of the pastoral support, attendance and the underlying issues in why young people do not attend school, so there are good proposals in the RAISE schemes. That is why it is important that we get funding rolled out and the scheme under way. Tackling educational disadvantage and underachievement are very much part of TransformED, because we need a curriculum and an education system that are accessible to everybody. Some people will almost write a child off, and the child will not realise their full potential. Every child can be given a really good education, if we can get the education system working effectively. Pastoral support is, of course, part of what schools do. We provide funding, particularly through targeting social need (TSN) funding, of which £75 million is for the extended schools programme. We have Fair Start, which identified and supported various schemes through that process, and we want to make sure that we have better regular attendance. Part of the challenge in school attendance and making sure that pupils come to school involves the appalling way in which COVID was handled. The lockdown of schools was appalling. We live with the legacy of that, and the Member's party campaigned vociferously to shut down our schools. We are seeing the ripple effect of denying children the opportunity to be in a classroom, so, if the Member is going to challenge me on what I do for pupil welfare, where was the concern for pupil welfare when it came to keeping them out of schools? It was not there. The Member is entitled to continue to challenge me, if she wishes, but I love the "Pity me" approach that the Member takes. She will have a pop at me, but, whenever I respond in kind, she plays the victimhood card. She really needs to step up and not be so precious about the people who challenge her. Miss McAllister: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it appropriate for the Minister to make what amount to misogynistic comments in the Chamber? It is an absolute disgrace that he just distracts and attacks. It does not bother us — the people see through it — but it is an absolute disgrace for a Minister to act like that. Mr Givan: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker, it is absolute abuse of the point of order system to make such an allegation when it is not remotely the case. Miss McAllister: I learn from the Minister. Mr Givan: Aye, the Member admits it. A Member: The irony. Mr Speaker: Order. I will review the Member's remarks in the calm of day. We will move on to the next Member to speak, who is Cathy Mason. Mrs Mason: Minister, on the back of an industrial relations agreement earlier this year, you committed to a workload review in recognition of the huge burden that our teachers have been carrying. Will that workload review consider the implications on teacher workload that is in the TransformED programme? Top 11.45 am Mr Givan: That is a really important question. The review was the outworking of an industrial agreement. Work has been undertaken by Paul Sweeney, formerly a permanent secretary in the Department of Education, and a trade union representative has also been working on it. That work is under way, and there has been engagement on workload. I expect a report to come to me in the autumn so that I can engage on its recommendations. I believe that they will make recommendations that will help address workload, but decisions that had been taken, for example on controlled assessment, are already relieving the burden of teacher workload. We have harnessed CCEA for the computer adaptive testing model, and CCEA will help us to ensure that assessments take place in a way that does not add to teachers' burden but reduces it. Ms Brownlee: I thank the Minister for coming to the Chamber with his statement. I am extremely excited not only for the education system but for Northern Ireland. The strategy will be a game changer. Will the Minister provide an update on statutory assessments for 2024-25 and for this year? Mr Givan: I thank the Member for the question. Statutory assessment is really important in providing us with the information that we need to improve our education system. In the 2024-25 academic year, we saw a return of assessments at the end of each Key Stage for the first time since the COVID-19 pandemic. Assessments were based on teacher judgement against the levels of progression in communication and use of mathematics. Notably, nearly three in 10 pupils are not achieving at the expected level in literacy and numeracy by the end of primary school. That is a significant concern, particularly as those foundational skills are essential for pupils' future learning, well-being and life opportunities. It is also a stark reminder of the challenges that we face, and it highlights the urgent need for a renewed focus on literacy and numeracy across our schools. I will therefore publish new literacy guidance for schools, which will be supported by a targeted programme for teacher professional learning. The insights gained from the 2024-25 data will inform the wider review of assessment and will play a vital role in shaping policy and interventions that support high-quality teaching and learning for all children in Northern Ireland. Mr Harvey: Minister, I welcome your statement. Will you explain your 10-point plan? Mr Givan: I thank the Member for the question. We published not only a strategy but a 10-point plan to deliver educational excellence. The 10 commitments aggregate the actions throughout the strategy and aim to give coherence and clarity to the overall plans. Each of the 10 strategic commitments aims to learn systematically from the most effective and fast-improving school systems in the world. The 10 actions in the plan are to review and redesign the Northern Ireland curriculum to ensure that every child enjoys an ambitious and knowledge-rich curriculum that develops their learning in a well-sequenced and explicit manner; investment in high-quality teacher professional learning; investment in curriculum resources; new literacy and numeracy strategies, based on international best practice; a new school improvement policy; a new system of attainment measures for assessment at the end of each Key Stage to set high standards for all children; a comprehensive review of qualifications; an integrated approach to tackling educational disadvantage within schools, families and communities; new legislation to ensure that all learners remain in education, apprenticeship or training until age 18; and a coherent accountability framework for education to demonstrate value to government, taxpayers and parents. Those actions are all interrelated. We have not just the TransformED strategy but a clear 10-point plan that provides coherence to what we will deliver. That allows us to move forward. We cannot look at one area in isolation. We cannot just update our curriculum without looking at qualifications or making sure that we provide professional learning opportunities for teachers to develop. All that needs to move together. That is why we have a 10-point plan that underpins the process through which we will take forward the transformation of our education system. Mr Dickson: Minister, you stated that you wish to remove controlled assessments, where possible. How can you be confident that that decision is in the interests of all learners, many of whom perform better when the high-stakes pressure of an examination is removed? Mr Givan: It is not that we do not want to have controlled assessment; we do. We want to have assessment at Key Stages 1, 2 and 3. We typically benchmark once the GCSE or A-level results are published, but, if that is the only way in which we formally assess our education system, there is a problem in that many of the pupils concerned are aged 16, 17 or 18 and are therefore leaving school. We need to be able to identify the performance of pupils from Key Stage 1, Key Stage 2 and Key Stage 3. That will allow us to determine which schools we can provide additional support to. We have looked to CCEA for the assessment process. It is developing an assessment model that will be less intensive for teachers, with peer-to-peer assessment whereby teachers observe other teachers' practice. The delivery of that will very much be led by CCEA, which will help to reduce the burden on teachers and will give us important information on literacy and numeracy in particular. That will then inform how the system can respond to those needs. Mr McGrath: I commend the work of Patrician Youth Centre in Downpatrick and local schools, Lecale Trinity Grammar School and Blackwater Integrated College, which deliver a joint Youth Service/schools approach, targeting those for whom the traditional curriculum is not attractive. That approach is appealing and, thus, engaging for those young people. Does the Minister agree that such a joint approach, which is structure-light but knowledge-rich, has a place in education and should be funded, even though, at the minute, the Youth Service tends to turn its nose up a wee bit at that type of approach? Mr Givan: There are certainly examples — the Member referenced one — where a positive impact is made outside a formal school setting. The Member referenced those organisations, and I can cite Monkstown Boxing Club as being another example of where young people who would otherwise not be in school are engaged in the education system. We support that, and I commend the organisations that the Member referenced on the work that they are taking forward, because I believe that we need an education system that is responsive to whatever way pupils and other young people best respond to and engage with education. Ms Mulholland: Thank you, Minister. How can we be assured that the teacher CPD academy will provide our teachers with the broadest possible range of academic thinking and teaching methods? Mr Givan: We are developing professional learning and rolling out the £31 million TPL programme. We have a clear position on a knowledge-rich curriculum. We also have the science of learning. That updates how we understand the ways in which people learn best, because we now have a much better understanding of how the brain operates. We need to ensure that the way in which teachers deliver teaching aligns with all that information. That approach will be underpinned by evidence — it is evidence-led. The training will align with the evidence, which justifies the approach that we are taking to develop the Northern Ireland curriculum and the practices that take place in our schools. Miss McAllister: Minister, we cannot talk about transforming education without talking about selection. It is not respectful to belittle the experience of teachers and children, who are made physically sick due to that pressure. They expect more from you, Minister. My question is about the teacher CPD academy's being developed by InnerDrive, which I have read about. Will you outline the value of that contract and the procurement process that was followed in the awarding of the contract? Mr Givan: The Member raised the issue of the procurement contract and so on, and I am more than happy to provide that information. I have my views on academic selection, you have your view on academic selection, and everyone else has their various views. There is no consensus on what to do about academic selection. Of my children, some sat it, and others did not. It is a choice — a decision that parents will make when the time comes to go through the process. If there is a better way to select children to transfer to schools, please bring it forward. If it were to be done on the basis of children attending their nearest school — one that they live beside — we know what would happen: the wealthy would buy up the properties beside the best-performing schools, which would disadvantage those who do not have the means to do so. If that is the solution that is being advocated, I do not see how it will work in our society. I had a choice to make when I came into this role: either we go round the decades-long position on academic selection, on which there is no consensus, or we get on with trying to improve the education system in every single school, irrespective of whether it is a grammar school, a comprehensive school or an Irish-medium school. My focus is on helping every single school. That is my objective, and that is what the TransformED document is very much about. Mr Gaston: Minister, your statement is full of fine words, and I genuinely wish you well in your vision that you have outlined. However, once again, valued classroom assistants have been overlooked. You ignored my amendment regarding that sector yesterday. Would you like to share with the House how you value classroom assistants and where you see them fitting into the vision that you have outlined? Mr Givan: I thank the Member for his welcome of what we are trying to take forward. I supported the Member's amendment in the Assembly last night, so I am not sure where he is getting that from. Let me state on the record that classroom assistants are hugely important to our education system. They provide important support to the young people whom they are helping. We need to ensure that the education system provides funding for what is in the best interests of our children. Whether that is funding for teachers or for classroom assistants, we need to be sure that, when we are identifying the best way to support the child, the resources, financial and human, are allocated in a way that is in the best interests of the children. Without a shadow of a doubt, classroom assistants are hugely important to our education system. Ms Sugden: Minister, you have set out reforms around curriculum assessment and teacher development, but the glaring omission for me is any sort of programme around life skills, including healthy relationships, consent, mental health, suicide prevention — sadly — and so much more. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Dr Aiken] in the Chair) There is a real opportunity here to support kids, parents and teachers who are asking for that type of support in our schools. Is there anything that you will do to consider that as part of your TransformED programme? Mr Givan: It is one of the reasons why the review that I commissioned of learning for life and work (LLW) in schools said that it was not delivering. Pupils who I met said that they did not find that that was an effective means by which to address some of the issues that the Member has just outlined. We are going to be looking at the way in which the curriculum addresses those issues, and we will be doing it in a way that I believe will be more effective than the current approach has been in our school system. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much indeed. That concludes —. Miss McAllister: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Just a second. Just a second. Just a second. Miss McAllister: Do not be patronising. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): That concludes the statement by the Minister. Point of order. Miss McAllister: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I do not need to be patronised. I just want to highlight that I asked the Minister a rather straightforward question —. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Can the Member retake her seat? Now. You have the opportunity to apologise for making that statement right now, because I believe that it was directed at me. There was no patronising. I was waiting for the Minister to finish, in accordance with what he is supposed to do. Would you care to make an apology, Member? Miss McAllister: No. Mr Clarke: Shame. Shame. Miss McAllister: I have learned from you. Deputy Speaker, you need to take a look at your —. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Member will retake her seat. Member, you have an opportunity to retract and make an apology for the statement that you made, or you can remove yourself from the Chamber. Miss McAllister: I will not, Deputy Speaker. I will not make an apology, because you do need to look at the way that you do speak to many of the women in this Chamber who do stand up, and you need to consider the way that you talk there. So I will not make an apology. You can ask me again; my answer will not change. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): You are to remove yourself from the Chamber right now. Miss McAllister: I will happily do so. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you. [Long pause.] We are waiting. The Member withdrew from the Chamber. Top 12.00 noon Mr Dickson: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Member whom you have just unceremoniously removed from the Chamber was about to raise a point of order about comments made to her by the Minister in his statement. It was to ask how and when she could expect the written information that he indicated in the answer to her question. She wishes to know how she should approach the matter. Sadly, I have had to ask you that question on her behalf, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much indeed for the tone you have taken. The matter will be referred to the Speaker's Office to get the details. To say, however, that a remark was patronising, when all that I was doing was trying to move on to the next item of business, is not acceptable. It is not acceptable to the Chair or to the House. There is a degree of decorum that should be followed. Indeed, your party's Deputy Speaker was recently at a Speakers' conference at which we covered those issues. You may wish to refer to him about those issues. We will move on to the next item of business. Mr Dickson: Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, after the way in which you have just handled the specific matter of removing a Member from the Chamber, I invite you to look not only at the words that you used as she rose to raise her point of order but at the video recording. While I am on my feet, I suggest that some of the men in the Chamber reflect on the moans and groans that they made when a female Member was raising a legitimate point of order. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you. We now move —. Ms Forsythe: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I will take one final point of order, and then we will move on with the business. Ms Forsythe: There has been an outrageous abuse of the term "misogyny", and, as a woman sitting in the House, I am appalled at the manner in which the Chair has been addressed. I ask that the Speaker's Office provide advice to all Members on how the Chair should be respected and addressed. Some Members: Hear, hear. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you for that point of order. It will be passed on to the Speaker, and he will no doubt comment on it at the Business Committee meeting later today. North/South Ministerial Council: Environment Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I have received notice from the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs that he wishes to make a statement. Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that they must be concise in asking their question. This is not an opportunity for debate, and long introductions will not be allowed. Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I will make a statement, in compliance with section 52 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, on the twenty-fifth North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) environment sectoral meeting, which was held in the Loughs Agency's offices in Carlingford on 4 July of this year. The Northern Ireland Executive were represented at the meeting by junior Minister Aisling Reilly MLA, junior Minister Pam Cameron MLA and me. I chaired the meeting. The Irish Government were represented by Darragh O'Brien TD, the Minister for Climate, Energy and the Environment and Christopher O’Sullivan TD, the Minister of State at the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage with special responsibility for nature, heritage and biodiversity. The statement has been endorsed by junior Ministers Reilly and Cameron, and they agreed that I should make the statement to the House. I am pleased to report that it was a very useful and constructive meeting and that progress was made in all the areas that were discussed. I will now summarise the discussions and each paper in turn and the main outcomes and agreements that were reached. On cooperation on environmental research and funding opportunities, Ministers welcomed the strong links between researchers in both jurisdictions in the field of environmental research, including through ongoing projects funded through collaborative funding programmes in both jurisdictions and via European-funded programmes. Ministers also welcomed the ongoing collaborative environmental research projects, such as the jointly funded co-centres, and the CREDA, HIGH-GREEN and sustainable, integrated, optimised electrification and automation of transportation networks (SPECTATOR) projects funded through the Government of Ireland’s North/South research programme as part of the Shared Island initiative. The Council agreed that both Administrations will continue to work together to maximise opportunities for environmental research and funding, including those offered by PEACE PLUS, Horizon Europe, the Innovation Fund Ireland, the North/South research programme, the Shared Island bioeconomy demonstration initiative, the DAERA/Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (DAFM) collaborative research programme and the US-Ireland R&D partnership programme. The focus was on the bioeconomy in the area of climate change mitigation and adaptation. Ministers noted the opportunities that the bioeconomy can offer through sustainable and circular bio-based innovations and solutions for climate action, culminating in a just transition from a linear to a circular economy in both jurisdictions. The North/South Ministerial Council welcomed the progress that had been achieved by both Administrations in developing and implementing initiatives, including strategies and action plans on a North/South basis, and agreed that officials should continue to collaborate on key issues that affect the bioeconomy. As regards cooperation on biodiversity, the North/South Ministerial Council noted the commitment of officials in both jurisdictions to engage biannually on matters relating to biodiversity, with a focus on conservation action and restoration initiatives, and welcomed the continued cooperation on biodiversity projects that are funded under the PEACE PLUS programme and the Shared Island initiative. Ministers endorsed the ambition to share best practice through programmes such as Farming for Nature and Farming with Nature; encouraged knowledge transfer of successful delivery in the European innovation partnership programme, the LIFE project and the environmental farming scheme; and encouraged collaborative engagement on natural capital accounting approaches to habitat mapping and ecosystem assessments. On cooperation on the marine environment and marine-protected areas, the Council welcomed ongoing North/South cooperation in developing policy and legislative frameworks that follow the ecosystem-based approach and provide protection for coastal and marine habitats, species and marine ecosystem services. Ministers welcomed the presentation from a DAERA official on the Northern Ireland blue carbon action plan 2025-2030 — the co-delivery policy for nature recovery. Ministers agreed to continued North/South cooperation to develop policy and legislation that gives regard to the transboundary nature of marine ecosystems and to provide opportunities for cooperation on science and research projects, knowledge exchange between officials and, where necessary, the development and/or alignment of transboundary management measures. The North/South Ministerial Council agreed that officials should work jointly on topics such as the participation of coastal and island communities in management action and environmental stewardship; the valuation of marine ecosystem services; nature-based solutions and measures to protect and restore natural carbon stores; designation and management of marine-protected areas; and measures to achieve offshore renewable energy targets while ensuring the protection of marine ecosystems. On water quality and waste water management, Ministers welcomed the launch of the Northern Ireland Executive-approved Lough Neagh report and action plan on 23 July last year, the publication of Ireland's third cycle of the river basin management plan, the 'Water Action Plan 2024', on 5 September 2024, and the Northern Ireland Executive's approval of the third cycle of the river basin management plan on 5 June 2025 and its publication on 13 June. The North/South Ministerial Council noted the holding of a catchment community fora workshop and the continued progress in developing the cross-jurisdictional pilot catchment work plan that is being undertaken in the Newry, Fane, Glyde and Dee catchment. Ministers welcomed the engagement of officials on water quality issues through the North/South water quality coordination group. The Council agreed to hold its next meeting in this sectoral format in autumn 2025. In closing, I am pleased to be able to report on a very productive and constructive meeting. I look forward to continuing to work with my counterparts in Ireland on all areas of cooperation in the North/South Ministerial Council's environment sector. I commend the statement to the Assembly and welcome any questions. Mr McCrossan: Minister, you spoke about collaboration and research, but people in the communities around Lough Neagh and the Foyle need urgent action. Rather than more strategy papers, what clear timelines and targets will come from the meeting to improve water quality and biodiversity? Mr Muir: I thank the Member for his question. I welcome him to his post and look forward to working with him as his party's spokesperson on agriculture, environment and rural affairs matters. We are talking about North/South cooperation. I outlined the areas that we discussed. It is important that we have strategies so that we have an overall policy framework, but it is also important that we take action. On Lough Neagh, the key area of focus and action is the Lough Neagh action plan that was agreed and published in July last year. I am focused upon the delivery of that, because the people of Northern Ireland deserve delivery on the key issues. In terms of nature recovery, later this month, we will launch a consultation on the nature recovery strategy. It is really important that we take action in that area. I will make announcements in the next period on how we will support the NGOs to take practical action to restore nature in Northern Ireland. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Sinéad Ferris. My apologies: Sinéad Ennis. People are probably misconstruing my language today. I do not know what has happened. Everybody seems to be a bit excitable. Sinéad, my apologies. Over to you. Ms Ennis: I wonder why that is. Minister, your statement talks about cross-border cooperation on water quality and marine ecosystems, yet there is no mention of the environmental nightmare that the Carlingford lough community of Warrenpoint is suffering, over which your Department continues to preside. Over the summer, I wrote to you, as the Minister responsible for issuing the waste management licence, to ask what meaningful action your Department is taking. What you are doing, beyond sending out the odd NIEA official to tell us that the operation is compliant? Will you tell the people of Warrenpoint what you are doing practically to end this environmental nuisance on their behalf? Mr Muir: I am taking all the actions that are possible within the legal vires of the Department. We are working quite hard to address the concerns that have been raised with me on the odour issues in Warrenpoint. It is important that I put that on the record. I consider these issues to be important, but we have to work within the legal powers of my Department, specifically in relation to the Northern Ireland Environment Agency. The last inspection of the facility by NIEA officials was on 14 August, and we will continue to do what we can within our legal powers. That stands in stark contrast to the approach of your party and the SDLP, which was to down tools and walk away from the Warrenpoint Harbour Authority. The politics of boycott do not deliver for Northern Ireland. I am focused on delivery and on addressing these issues, rather than on walking away from them. Miss McIlveen: I note that there is agreement on working to achieve offshore renewable energy targets while ensuring the protection of marine ecosystems. The protection of our fishing industry should also be a priority alongside that. Will the Minister give assurances that any meaningful engagement will also include the fishing sector, which will, obviously, be at risk from any offshore renewable activity? Mr Muir: I thank the Member for her question. It is important that we engage with the fishery sector because it is one of the key sectors that will be affected. It is important that I put it on record that I believe in the importance of that engagement. I also believe in supporting our fishery sector in Northern Ireland. I have had regular engagement with DEFRA on the fisheries and coastal development fund to get clarity on where that funding will go so that we can get it rolled out. There are new DEFRA ministers in post, and I will continue to engage with them. It is regrettable that that change has occurred because I met with Daniel Zeichner just a few weeks ago and we were making good progress. However, we are starting with a fresh team, and I will start with a fresh approach. Hopefully, we can get that support to fisheries and coastal communities in Northern Ireland. Mr McMurray: Will the Minister provide an update on Northern Ireland's first climate action plan? Mr Muir: The climate action plan is out for consultation. I encourage everyone to have their say on that because it is a key intervention for us in Northern Ireland and a requirement that has arisen from the climate change legislation. It is important that we deliver upon that legislation. Public events are ongoing, and I encourage people to feed back to them. Mr Buckley: The Minister's statement references the issues facing Lough Neagh. He recently announced a round of funding to explore potential products and solutions to treat and reduce blue-green algae. I am aware that five companies received such funding. I know of at least one company — I am sure there are others — that was denied funding in that particular round. If we are to approach this conversation with a genuinely open mind, will the Minister explain why that was the case and will he commit to engaging his officials to ensure that all those companies with potential solutions have the ability to present to the Department so that we can best place targeted action if the solutions exist? Mr Muir: Thank you, Mr Buckley. There has been quite a lot of interest in the small business research initiative (SBRI), so we have had to go through a competitive call. Some companies made it through that and others did not. Subsequent to that call, people have come forward with further initiatives. We have had to consider whether we should do a further round because companies have been coming forward with additional interventions. That is something on which I will engage with officials. If people have good ideas and we want to be able to test them, we should provide a mechanism for doing so. Top 12.15 pm Mr Dickson: Minister, how has your Department been engaging with the Irish Government on the Asian hornet threat? Mr Muir: People will be aware that an Asian hornet sighting was confirmed in Cork on 13 August and that, subsequently, the National Parks and Wildlife Service confirmed that a nest was successfully located on Thursday 28 August. That highlights the fact that that high-risk species has the ability to reproduce on the island of Ireland. NIEA is actively collaborating with colleagues in the Republic of Ireland through the Shared Island biosecurity and invasive species initiative to monitor developments and share intelligence on the evolving situation south of the border. As part of that effort, a DAERA representative has been invited to join the Irish Government's Asian hornet management group, facilitating timely and effective information exchange between the jurisdictions. In parallel, NIEA is exploring opportunities for sharing training and equipment to strengthen preparedness and response capabilities across the island. Furthermore, NIEA has been invited to partake in the review of the response to the current outbreak in Ireland, enabling valuable lessons to be identified and incorporated into Northern Ireland's contingency planning, should a similar incident arise. My concerns about the matter are significant. NIEA is working through the terms of preparations should such an eventuality arrive in Northern Ireland. If it does, I need to level with Members today and say that we will have to stop doing many other pieces of work so that we can divert resources to deal with it. It is a concern. We have seen the situation that has been unfolding in Cork, and we have to be conscious of the need to respond to it. Ms Mulholland: Will the Minister provide an update on cross-border collaboration on climate change and on any impact arising from the recent A5 judgement? Mr Muir: Throughout my time as AERA Minister, I have been clear about the importance that I place on climate action. The journey to net zero is the defining challenge of our generation. The Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 was a central feature of the judgement made in the High Court on 23 June 2025. I have decided that it is appropriate for my Department to apply to the court to formally intervene in the appeal. The focus will be on clarifying the interpretation of the legislation so that it can be fully implemented as intended. We have made much progress on climate action since I took up office, and I am determined that that will continue. Achieving the targets requires collective leadership. All Ministers and all Departments can and must play a role together. There are significant opportunities for investment as we transition towards a more sustainable economy, including good green jobs and increased energy security from renewables. The poorest in our society should not be left to bear the consequences of wild price fluctuations at the behest of dictatorships that own fossil fuel supplies. Decarbonisation will improve the health and well-being of our citizens, especially the most vulnerable, if we focus on a fair and just transition through which everyone can benefit. Strong climate and environmental credentials will be critical, if we are to attract inward investment, maximise economic opportunities, develop skills and compete on an international scale while showcasing the best of Northern Ireland. Mr McGlone: Minister, I attended a public meeting last night along with a number of other elected Members. There were over 100 people there in Kinturk in Moortown, County Tyrone. As you will be well aware, the issue is Lough Neagh and the priority to have action on Lough Neagh. The statement is an opportunity for you to detail when you liaised with colleagues from other parts of the island. The Irish Government have been engaging with agriculture, the farming sector and other environmental stakeholders on how the issue, which is also at Lough Sheelin, can be addressed. Did you avail yourself of the opportunity to engage with the Ministers from the Republic, who are your colleagues, on measures that can be collaboratively taken or learned from how they have engaged significantly and supported the agriculture sector towards finding creative new measures? Mr Muir: I confirm that Lough Neagh was discussed at the North/South Ministerial Council environment sectoral meeting, because it is a shared challenge, given that the catchment area covers North and South. A lot of good work is being done North and South, but we need to do more. Discussions are ongoing about the potential for a Shared Island initiative on Lough Neagh. I want to be able to support the farming community on the road ahead, particularly taking into account the success of the South's agricultural sustainability support and advisory programme (ASSAP) and the sustainable catchment programme in the North, which are similar initiatives. They are an opportunity for us to collaborate on the issues. We will continue to engage. There is strong and positive engagement. However, it is about more than just water quality; it also relates to nature and biodiversity. There are a number of Shared Island and PEACE PLUS initiatives, and it is really good that we have those, but we will need to redouble our efforts and to work North/South. I welcome the fact that the Irish Government have included cooperation North/South in their Programme for Government, and that is why we work together on the issues. Mr Mathison: I thank the Minister for his statement. Will he provide a more detailed update on the clean air strategy? Mr Muir: Thank you very much, Nick. The clean air strategy is an important initiative that my Department is taking forward. We are engaging with other Departments with responsibility for minimising polluting emissions to air to agree the actions that each Department can include in the draft clean air strategy. Good progress has been made on the development of the draft strategy. I have met my officials to set out my policy direction, and liaison is ongoing between DAERA, the Department for the Economy, the Department for Infrastructure, the Department of Health and the Department for Communities. A draft of the clean air strategy was recently shared with those Departments. My officials are reviewing the feedback that was received and revising the strategy to reflect those views. I anticipate the launch of the public consultation on the draft strategy later this year. I remain committed to publishing a robust strategy that will deliver real benefits to human health and the environment across Northern Ireland. Mrs Guy: I thank the Minister for the statement. Will he give an update on future Shared Island opportunities? Mr Muir: We are considering a number of Shared Island opportunities. Departmental officials are engaging with the Irish Government's Shared Island initiative unit to explore a Natura Communities network proposal. That will build on the work that has already been successfully undertaken by the Shared Island initiative peatland programme and will provide €5 million for the establishment and implementation of the Natura Communities networks. Departmental officials will engage further with the Irish Government's Shared Island initiative unit to explore opportunities to improve water quality in the Lough Neagh catchment area and more widely on the island of Ireland. Any such proposals will build on and support the actions in the Lough Neagh action plan that is being progressed. Mr Gaston: Minister, you rightly highlighted the importance of water quality and waste water management. Closer to home, however, there is deep public concern about the reported 200,000 tons of raw sewage being discharged into the Lough Neagh catchment area. Will you outline what progress you have made with your DFI counterpart to ensure that that ongoing pollution, which Northern Ireland Water contributes to, is brought under control? Mr Muir: I thank the Member for his question. It is a critical issue. We are pumping sewage into Lough Neagh, Belfast lough and our waterways, and something needs to be done about it. My responsibility relates to regulation and enforcement. Since NI Water was established in 2007, there has been a separate regulatory regime for NI Water. Farmers often tell me, "That is not fair", and I agree with them. I will need support from Executive colleagues to have a regulation and enforcement regime on sewage pollution that makes it clear that there are no separate arrangements for anyone. That will come forward in the next number of months, and I will need backing on it. Mrs Dillon: I thank the Minister. Other Members have raised the issue of Lough Neagh, which is a real concern for many of us. Will you give us some sense of what the Shared Island initiative that you have talked about will involve? What stakeholders will be engaged in that? Members have spoken about the agriculture community — I declare an interest as somebody who comes from an agricultural background — but we also need to engage fishermen, both those who fish on boats and our angling community. All those people have a vested interest in protecting our lough. Will you also give us a sense of what environmental and economic benefits our population might gain from the lough in the future? Mr Muir: No problem, Linda. I was in County Monaghan last year, when we had a North/South conference around water quality in respect of agriculture and the good work that is being done down South and up North. We have a sustainable catchment programme in Northern Ireland through which the Rivers Trust, which I met, delivers on-farm advisory support to farmers in the Upper Bann catchment area. I was impressed by that, but it needs to be broadened out. It is an action in the Lough Neagh action plan that the sustainable catchment programme be broadened out much more widely. They have initiatives down South that are broader than those in the North. We need to take learnings from those and see whether there is a way to expand them in the North as part of the sustainable catchment programme. There are four pillars regarding the improvement of water quality in Lough Neagh and elsewhere: education, incentivisation, regulation and enforcement. Let us be clear: the focus ought to be on education and incentivisation, because it is much better if the problem does not occur in the first place. Yes, we need to have regulation and enforcement, but, if we have to resort to that, that is an example of failure. I want to invest in education and incentivisation, and that is why I need support from the Shared Island project, as I do not have the money in my budget to do it at present. I will work on a North/South basis on the issue and will continue to engage with my colleagues so that we can pull something together and deliver that on the ground. The Member mentioned engagement with people. It is critical that we bring people with us. I will keep my focus on that issue. Mr McNulty: I note with bewilderment the self-congratulatory tone on Lough Neagh while our lough is engulfed with a rancid blue-green algae. Given the repeated failures on waste water management and nutrient run-off, what enforcement measures will be introduced to make sure that commitments on water quality are met? Does the Minister's Department have the vires to act against and fine the Department for Infrastructure in relation to its failings in discharging waste water to our sea and watercourses? Mr Muir: I have already addressed a number of the questions that the Member has outlined. There is no self-congratulatory tone from me. What unfolded over the summer was nothing short of a thundering disgrace. Year-on-year, we see the situation evolve on Lough Neagh, and, when I come to the House to look for support, I do not get it. Members need to support me in taking the difficult decisions. I welcome the constructive opposition that parties, including that of the Member through the recent motion, have given me, because we need to focus constructively on how to resolve this. I have already outlined my view on the arrangements that are in place for waste water infrastructure. I will need support from my Executive colleagues to ensure that there is equal and fair treatment across all the pollution elements regarding waste water pollution and the sewage that is going into our waterways. There is also a fundamental issue about whether we are serious about governing Northern Ireland. I am; I am up for taking difficult decisions. Others will have to decide in the next number of months whether they are as well. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): That concludes questions on that statement. North/South Ministerial Council: Aquaculture and Marine Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I have received notice from the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs that he wishes to make another statement. Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that they must be concise in asking their questions. This is not an opportunity for debate, and long introductions will not be allowed. Minister, over to you. Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): Mr Deputy Speaker, can you clarify what the next statement is, because there is aquaculture and agriculture? [Laughter.] Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): For the sake of clarity, we are dealing with the aquaculture and marine sectoral meeting of Friday 4 July 2025. Have you got the right one, Minister? Let's go for it. Well done. Mr Muir: With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, in compliance with section 52 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, I wish to make a statement about the thirty-second meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) in the aquaculture and marine sectoral format, which was held on Friday 4 July 2025. The Executive were represented by junior Minister Cameron and junior Minister Reilly, as accompanying Ministers, and me, as lead Minister. The Irish Government were represented by Darragh O’Brien TD, Minister for Climate, Energy and the Environment, who chaired the Meeting. The statement has been agreed with junior Ministers Cameron and Reilly, and I make it on behalf of all of us. The North/South Ministerial Council welcomed the report on the activities of the Loughs Agency, including the ongoing conservation and protection efforts, most notably the EU-funded projects with the aim of improving the monitoring of aquatic animals and species; fisheries improvements to create climate-resilient rivers, improve water quality and maximise fisheries productivity; and marine tourism to promote aquatic ecosystems and support local economies. Ministers noted the success of the agency's international symposium on transboundary and collaborative water governance held in September 2024 to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the agency. It brought together experts, policymakers and researchers, focusing on cross-border cooperation for the protection of water, aquatic and marine systems. The Council welcomed the presentation by the Loughs Agency on its strategic plan for its role in Carlingford. Ministers noted the agency's collaboration with Fáilte Ireland, Louth County Council, the Carlingford Vision '31 steering committee and other local stakeholders, which has facilitated the development of a suite of co-designed proposals that reflect the aspirations of the people of the region. The North/South Ministerial Council approved the Loughs Agency's revised business plan for 2024, and its business plan for 2025, and recommended the budget and grant provisions that had been agreed by both sponsoring Departments and Finance Ministers. The Council noted that the 2022 and 2023 Loughs Agency annual reports and accounts have been laid before the Northern Ireland Assembly and both Houses of the Oireachtas. Top 12.30 pm The Council welcomed the update on the implementation of the science strategy framework, which is structured as a three-strand approach inclusive of salmonoids and other fish, native oysters and aquatic ecosystems for all science delivery at the Loughs Agency. Ministers noted ongoing work to improve the accuracy of fish counts in order to generate more robust data to better inform salmon conservation limits. The Council noted ongoing fish surveillance in compliance with water framework directive requirements. Ministers noted the potential for oyster surveys to provide the evidence base for consideration in relation to the sustainable operation of the Lough Foyle native oyster fishery. They noted the work undertaken in water quality monitoring across both catchments to inform pollution responses, habitat improvement works and statutory environmental planning. They also noted the use of environment DNA (eDNA) techniques to identify the presence of invasive species. The Council commended the Loughs Agency for its proactive response to address the impacts of climate change and biodiversity loss on priority fish species. The Council welcomed the agency's continued commitment to working collaboratively with partners to help to deliver a collective response to the dual challenges of climate change and biodiversity loss. Finally, the Council agreed to hold its next aquaculture and marine meeting in autumn 2025. Mr McCrossan: I thank the Minister for that statement. You have a busy day today, Minister. You outlined the Loughs Agency's work on water quality, invasive species and fisheries, but local anglers and fishing communities are telling us that rivers are in crisis. Will you explain how the agency's budget and resources are sufficient to meet the enormous challenges? Mr Muir: The Loughs Agency has a focus on its territorial area, and that is what it focuses upon. I want to give it additional powers. There will, hopefully, be a fisheries and water environment Bill coming to the House, which will give the agency additional enforcement powers. I get the concerns in relation to the impact that pollution incidences have had, and that is something that we want to take forward. We also need to get the Loughs Agency budget agreed for the next financial year and going forward. North/South cooperation is beneficial to that, because it allows us to get good value for money and to deliver for the citizens of Northern Ireland. I will continue to work with the agency to ensure that it has sufficient budget in place. Ms Murphy: Minister, how is the cross-border implementation of the water framework directive being aligned North and South, particularly in achieving good ecological status targets? Mr Muir: Officials engage on that on a cross-border basis. It is important that we do that, and we have a number of initiatives that flow from that wider strategic commitment. However, we have to recognise that the border does not respect the issues regarding water quality. That is where we cooperate North/South, and at the Council meetings as well. There will be further work, because we are looking towards the fourth cycle of our river basin management strategy, and we need to cooperate North/South on that. North/South cooperation on water quality is absolutely fundamental. Miss McIlveen: Minister, I note that the NSMC approved the Loughs Agency's revised business plan for 2024 and the business plan for 2025. Does the Minister believe that there are any efficiencies that could be made, and has the Loughs Agency been tasked with that? Mr Muir: The Loughs Agency operates on a relatively tight budget, and I know that it is doing a lot of good work. We examine its work at every meeting. I do not have additional concerns that it is inefficient, but if the Member has anything in particular on that, I can raise that with the agency. Mr McMurray: Minister, what will the impact be on the Loughs Agency when the new fisheries and water environment Bill comes into effect? Mr Muir: Thank you, Andrew. I am aware of concerns about the levels of fines imposed for water pollution offences, particularly the maximum statutory fines. Fish kills within the Loughs Agency's jurisdiction are prosecuted under the Foyle Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1952, with a recent prosecution in relation to the River Muff. My officials are taking forward a review of fines and penalties for environmental crime, including water pollution offences, as part of the policy development phase of the proposed fisheries and water environment Bill. Loughs Agency staff have been involved in the policy development phase and have taken part in stakeholder engagement on water quality. The Bill will give us the tools to be able to deal with a lot of the concerns that have been raised with me of late. It is important that the Loughs Agency be able to avail itself of those tools. Mr T Buchanan: Minister, in your statement, you talked about ongoing work to improve the accuracy of fish counts to generate more robust data in order to better inform salmon conservation limits. Will you inform the House as to what progress has been made to date? Mr Muir: I do not have any specific detail to give you now. I think that I have the detail in my mind, but I do not know whether it is entirely accurate. I will therefore write to you setting it out. If you have any concerns, I am happy to meet you to discuss them. Ms Mulholland: Thank you, Minister, for your second statement. Will you give us an update on what the Loughs Agency is doing about pollution incidents? Mr Muir: As Daniel McCrossan outlined, the Loughs Agency has powers in that regard. I am concerned about the number of pollution incidents in our rivers and loughs and the associated fish kills. When I am informed about them by officials, they cause me concern. There have been far too many times when officials have informed me of fish kills in Northern Ireland. So far this year, Loughs Agency fishery officers have investigated 128 pollution incidents. In 2025 to date, fishery officers in the Foyle and Carlingford areas have carried out 937 proactive watercourse inspections. The Loughs Agency has instigated a number of prosecution cases from its enforcement actions and has worked with the Police Service of Northern Ireland, an Garda Síochána, the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) and other enforcement agencies to secure convictions. The Loughs Agency plays a vital role in preventing future pollution events from occurring by adopting a holistic approach that is in keeping with the four pillars of education, incentivisation, regulation and enforcement and is laid out in the Lough Neagh action plan. That approach is key to meeting the strategic environmental outcomes as set out in the environmental improvement plan. Mr Stewart: I thank the Minister for his answers so far. Minister, as constituency MLAs, you and I share Belfast lough. You will know at first hand, as I do, just how bad the lough is, as is shown through water testing at the minute. Was anything raised about that at the meeting? What more can be done to protect the ecosystem in Belfast lough and improve the water quality, given the massive amounts of raw sewage that are being pumped into it and the industrial impact over many years? Mr Muir: Belfast lough did not come up, but I am happy to answer your question. The focus is often on Lough Neagh, and we understand why. For the first time in history, the brown eel fishing season has been terminated. If that is not a message about the need for action, I do not know what is. We see the scenes on our TV screens every summer. Belfast lough is on course to become the next Lough Neagh. We are allowing sewage to be pumped into Belfast lough daily. That therefore requires me to step forward with proposals for stronger regulation and enforcement. It also requires brave political decisions to be taken on how we manage our waste water infrastructure. It is for the Infrastructure Minister to come forward in that regard, and I will not be found wanting in supporting any measures that do come forward. Mr Dickson: I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, turning again to the Loughs Agency, what discussion was there about the impact of climate change on fish stocks? Mr Muir: The Loughs Agency has developed a climate action plan that maps organisational-level climate risks and impacts, supports a shift away from high-carbon energy, addresses climate adaptation for the organisation and supports climate-resilient solutions for the catchments of Lough Foyle and Carlingford lough. Through the delivery of the climate action plan, the Loughs Agency will implement an agile, risk-based approach to climate adaptation across the Foyle and Carlingford catchment areas. The climate action plan allows the agency to be responsive to direct and indirect climate impacts, thus allowing it to prioritise and plan work programmes. Mr McGrath: Following on from some of the previous questions, I note that a presentation was given about Carlingford lough. Did it contain any details about protecting the lough, given its uniqueness as a shared space and also as a marine conservation area? Mr Muir: A number of areas were covered in the presentation. I am happy for it to be shared with you, if you would find it useful. Carlingford lough is a special place for the communities around it. There are also transboundary issues on which we need to cooperate. That was the focus, and the fact that the Loughs Agency has new premises there is a welcome commitment in that regard. I am happy to share that with you and to discuss any issues that you have. Mr McNulty: Minister, memories from my childhood are flooding back: building dams on the little, feeder river to Camlough — the crooked lake — where little fish swam down the river. The chances of those fish swimming down the river now are zero. There were trout jumping from that lake, leaping in the summertime. The chances of trout doing that now are zero. Minister, how will North/South cooperation directly protect and enhance trout and salmon stocks in the rivers and lakes around the North where numbers have collapsed? Mr Muir: We have been off for the summer recess and are now back, and one thing that I have been looking forward to is my engagement with Justin, because you always get something a bit different. I can answer your question about salmon, but I will have to write to you about the other elements. The Loughs Agency has made significant investments in fish counters and telemetry river gauges to facilitate the monitoring of salmon populations in its area. The River Finn failed to meet its conservation limit in 2024, as it has done since 2007. As a result, the commercial fishery remains closed in 2025, and the River Finn is catch and release only. Data from the fish counters indicates that the River Faughan, the River Roe and the River Mourne are meeting conservation limits with enough regularity to permit the retention of a small number of fish per licence in 2025. To help address the challenges facing salmon stocks, the agency has recently developed the first marine salmon management plan for Lough Foyle. The agency is also delivering a number of fisheries improvement projects, including the creation of new spawning habitats; fishery and habitat improvement and enhancement schemes to introduce and improve holding, spawning and nursery areas for Atlantic salmon; and riparian tree planting to create refuge and shading for salmon stocks and to lower water temperatures. In addition, the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization (NASCO) has agreed a new reporting format for parties to complete, which will provide details on the management of salmon stocks and outline what transformative conservation commitments will be undertaken over the next 10 years to address the decline in stocks in the jurisdiction. DAERA officials are liaising with the Loughs Agency on completing the first draft of the UK/Northern Ireland report, which is required to be submitted to NASCO by February 2026. Mr Bradley: Thank you, Minister, for your answers so far. Minister, you alluded to the damage that Lough Neagh is suffering, but that damage goes the whole way to the sea. It goes through my constituency of East Londonderry and through the town of Coleraine, where we had a five-day flow of green water. What is the impact on salmon, white trout, brown trout and the indigenous coarse fish that live in the River Bann? Do not forget that, wherever a salmon is caught in Northern Ireland, it has basically come through Coleraine. Mr Muir: You rightly outline the impact that the environmental catastrophe at Lough Neagh is having more broadly on our rivers and marine environments. You talked about the closure of Benone beach, and that highlights why we need to take action on this together. We can turn the course when it comes to water quality, not just in our rivers but in Lough Neagh and elsewhere, but that requires us to come together collectively. We will talk a bit more about the issues this afternoon during the debate on the motion on Lough Neagh, but I am not focused on any blame game. I am focused on working with people, and my Department is writing, on my behalf, to all the party leaders to ask for meetings to discuss concerns and how we can collectively move forward on this. I have proposals and will be looking for support for them, and I want to work with everyone on that. I look forward to meeting your party as well. Mr O'Toole: Minister, obviously, we have a motion on Lough Neagh later, and we look forward to working with you on dealing with that. Lough Neagh and Belfast lough were raised by Members who spoke earlier, and it is clear that there is less North/South cooperation, less potential policy focus and less resource and regulation, because neither Lough Neagh nor Belfast lough is covered by the Loughs Agency or, for that matter, Waterways Ireland. That should change and would be a possible positive step. Would you support the extension of the Loughs Agency's remit to cover, for example, Lough Neagh, Belfast lough and, indeed, Lough Erne? Mr Muir: I thank the Member for his question. The fact that Lough Neagh does not have a navigational body was, to me, an oversight at the time of negotiating the Good Friday Agreement. The good people negotiated a great agreement, but it is not perfect, and that was overlooked. I think that there would be merit in having a navigational body for Lough Neagh, whether it is Waterways Ireland, the Loughs Agency or another organisation. The immediate focus is on water quality and what is going into the lough, but you have, rightly, highlighted that issue, and I am happy to work with people on it. Top 12.45 pm Mr Gaston: Minister, I thank you for visiting the Kells, Connor and Glenwherry Angling Club's hatchery, following our meeting with club representatives at Clare House during the summer. I trust that that will give you the confidence to approve the section 14 applications that the club has submitted. When it comes to improving the accuracy of fish counts, what progress have you made to establish the number of trout in Lough Neagh to ensure that it is being fished sustainably? Mr Muir: That question was also raised by Tom. I am happy to write to you and say more about that, because I want to be able to set it out accurately. I turn to the hatchery and your engagement with it. I have had quite a lot of letters about the hatchery, including one from my colleague Sian Mulholland, who is a Member for North Antrim. We are considering that matter. I had a really good engagement with the club representatives on site, and I am committed to working with people on conservation, whether that relates to fisheries or our environment. I was very impressed by what they outlined to me. Collectively, we can learn an awful lot more if we work together. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much indeed. That concludes questions —. Mr Tennyson: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Will you clarify the Standing Order under which Nuala McAllister was asked to leave the Chamber, the length of her suspension and why no question was put to the Assembly regarding her suspension? Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much, Mr Tennyson. I will refer those matters to the Speaker, and he will review them. I also need to talk to the Speaker after this item of business, because, for clarification, Members should not make points of order when Ministers are still making statements. That is the convention in the House, and that was not being followed at the time. That was the reason why I asked her to withdraw her remarks. I gave her an opportunity to apologise on several occasions, and she did not do so. Those were the reasons. I will take that issue directly to the Speaker on the completion of this item. North/South Ministerial Council: Agriculture Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a statement in compliance with section 52 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 on the twenty-ninth agriculture meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC), which was held in the NSMC joint secretariat offices in Armagh on Friday 20 June 2025. I feel as though I am repeating some of this. Junior Minister Aisling Reilly MLA, junior Minister Pam Cameron MLA and I represented the Northern Ireland Executive at the meeting. The Irish Government were represented by Martin Heydon TD, Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, and Dara Calleary TD, Minister for Rural and Community Development and the Gaeltacht. I chaired the meeting. This statement has been agreed with junior Ministers Reilly and Cameron, and I make it on behalf of us all. I thank Pam and Aisling for coming to the meetings and for their constructive engagement on all the issues. It is greatly appreciated by both the Department and me. It was a very positive meeting, and a lot of progress was made. I will now take each paper in the order in which it was discussed. On the review of the work programme, the North/South Ministerial Council noted the implementation of the revised work programme for the agriculture sector, as agreed by the Council in May 2024, and the ongoing engagement between both Administrations to identify areas of mutual interest and benefit in the agri-food sector that may also be included in the work programme. The Council noted that an update paper will be provided for consideration by Ministers at the next agriculture sectoral meeting. On cooperation on animal health, the Council noted that the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs intends to host in October 2025 a multi-agency practical exercise on humane slaughter contingency planning for an outbreak of an exotic disease, to which the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (DAFM) will be invited. The North/South Ministerial Council acknowledged the ongoing efforts by officials from both jurisdictions to strengthen existing cooperation on animal health and welfare. Ministers recognised the ongoing risk posed to agri-food sectors by exotic diseases, such as avian influenza and bluetongue, and welcomed the ongoing engagement between both jurisdictions to protect the high animal health status on the island through coordinated protection measures. The Council noted the work that is under way in both jurisdictions to reduce the prevalence of bovine TB across the island and agreed that officials should engage further to explore fully how best that can be achieved. The North/South Ministerial Council looked forward to the continuation of practical and effective cooperation on animal health and welfare and disease control in both jurisdictions in order for the health and welfare of livestock to be maintained at the highest level. On cooperation on plant health and pesticides, the North/South Ministerial Council welcomed the ongoing commitment of DAERA and DAFM to proactively take steps to deliver the shared objective of achieving and maintaining good plant health status on the island of Ireland. Ministers noted the ongoing collaboration and sharing of expertise that was demonstrated in particular through the UK and Ireland plant health coordination group meeting, which DAFM hosted in July 2024. The Council welcomed the joint DAERA/DAFM simulation exercise to test plant health contingency plans that took place in December 2024. Ministers also welcomed the continued cooperation and opportunities that are being explored for further joint research as a result of DAERA's visit to Backweston laboratories in December 2024. The North/South Ministerial Council welcomed the continued cooperation on laboratory expertise, including the recent designation of the DAFM laboratory by DAERA as an official laboratory for carrying out analysis, tests and diagnosis of pesticide residues in or on food. The Council noted the continuing cooperation through the North/South pesticides group on the regulation on the placing on the market and use of pesticides. The Council acknowledged the good collaboration between DAERA and DAFM on maximising the drawdown of EU funding under Horizon Europe and welcomed the €5·6 million of funding that has been secured to date by successful applications from Ireland and Northern Ireland for projects in the food, bioeconomy, natural resources, agriculture and environment sectors under Horizon Europe. Ministers noted that nine projects involving total funding of €10·12 million have been funded over the nine years of the US-Ireland R&D Partnership in agriculture, and they noted the progress that has been made on funding projects in both jurisdictions under the DAFM national competitive calls, including €22·5 million by DAFM and £7·3 million by DAERA for 22 projects since 2021. The NSMC welcomed the work that is under way by the co-centre programme, which is a strategic collaborative partnership between Ireland, Great Britain and Northern Ireland that is co-funded by industry and that will consolidate research activities across higher education and research institutes in co-hosted centres. Ministers welcomed the announcement of a €9 million funding initiative to support the development of bioeconomy in the agriculture and marine sectors, with co-funding from the Government of Ireland's Shared Island initiative, DAFM and DAERA, and they welcomed ongoing consideration by DAFM and DAERA of further possibilities for research collaboration under existing or new measures. The Council welcomed the ongoing cooperation between both Administrations on addressing climate change and loss of biodiversity in the agriculture sector. Ministers welcomed a key action in the Lough Neagh report and action plan recommending the introduction of a fertiliser database in Northern Ireland to record fertiliser movements along the supply chain as well as improve nutrient management and efficiency. The NSMC agreed that officials from DAFM and DAERA would continue to explore the possibility of sharing design approaches and implementation as well as lessons learned from DAFM's introduction of its national fertiliser database in September 2023. On cooperation on rural development, the Council welcomed the continued work of the North/South rural policy forum, noting that the latest meeting of the forum included discussions on policy developments that are being progressed by the Department of Rural and Community Development and the Gaeltacht (DRCDG) and DAERA; the PEACE PLUS programme; voluntary and community sector supports; and updates on the connected hubs feasibility study. Ministers noted the cooperation between the two jurisdictions on rural development, including strong engagement on scoping a potential expansion of connected hubs across both jurisdictions. The Council noted that officials will continue to share information and best practice on rural development and to enhance cooperation on that issue and that they will bring forward updates to future NSMC agriculture meetings. The NSMC welcomed the continuing cooperation between both Administrations on the ongoing work to improve farm safety. The Council noted the commitment of the farm safety partnerships from both jurisdictions to meet at least annually and cooperate on efforts to improve farm safety. The Council agreed to hold its next agriculture meeting in autumn 2025. I look forward to working with my counterparts in the South in all areas of cooperation in the agriculture sector. I commend the statement to the Assembly and welcome any questions. Mr McCrossan: I am settling quickly into this role, Minister. Thank you for that statement. You spoke about cross-border cooperation on reducing bovine TB. What practical measures will flow from that particular engagement? When will farmers in places such as Tyrone and Fermanagh begin to see a difference on the ground? Mr Muir: Thank you, Daniel. Dealing with TB and its prevalence in Northern Ireland is a key priority for my Department. It is set out as one of the key priorities for the mandate. Officials work closely with colleagues in the South on the bovine TB programmes in both jurisdictions at the regular North/South meetings and through frequent engagement throughout the year. Whilst TB disease rates have been rising on both sides of the border, I am conscious that the position in the Republic of Ireland is significantly better than that in Northern Ireland, although that does not bring any benefit to farmers in the South. Consequently, I welcome efforts to deepen those close working relationships, especially the new initiatives at Chief Veterinary Officer (CVO) level, as part of a wider effort to place TB at the top of the disease control agenda across the UK and Ireland. As Minister, I have heard first-hand on numerous occasions of the devastating impact that bovine TB breakdowns can have on farm businesses. I am extremely conscious of the rising cost of controlling the disease and the impact of that on my departmental budget. I am also conscious of the impact on farmers and of the fact that a 100% compensation rate does not mean reimbursement of the full costs to farmers. TB therefore remains at the top of my ministerial priorities, and I look forward to engaging further with Minister Heydon on that most challenging subject in the time ahead. A number of items of work are under way that we hope to bring to fruition in the period ahead. I assure the Member that TB is a priority and that, on North/South cooperation, we are looking at ways of redoubling our efforts and doing something that is meaningful for farmers on the ground. Ms Finnegan: I thank the Minister for his statements today. What opportunities exist for North/South agriculture research on climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies, including methane reduction technologies for livestock? Mr Muir: Officials engage North/South, and there has been particular engagement in the areas that the Member outlined. We want to redouble our efforts on that. We have launched a Shared Island bioeconomy initiative, and we are moving towards recruitment of people to take that forward. The benefit of the Shared Island initiative is that we can work North/South. We have common challenges, and there are few differences North/South, so we want to redouble our efforts and base them on the PEACE PLUS and Shared Island initiatives. We will come to the Committee to outline that. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much indeed. The Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. Questions on the Minister's statement will resume after Question Time, when the first Member to be called will be Michelle McIlveen. The business stood suspended. The sitting was suspended at 12.56 pm. On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) — Top 2.00 pm Assembly Business Mr Speaker: Before we go to Question Time, we had an incident earlier that I was keen to put to bed and move on quickly from. Standing Order 1(2) is clear that the ruling of the Chair is final in all matters of procedure. Regardless of a Member's views on how a Speaker or Deputy Speaker has dealt with something, it is out of order to add commentary and answer or challenge whomever is in the Chair. I have said before, however, that there are times when tempers rise and things get out of proportion but we can reflect and move on. There is a precedent for dealing with such a situation, when Mr Aiken and Mr Gaston challenged the authority of the Principal Deputy Speaker. On that occasion, I gave them the opportunity to acknowledge that they should not have challenged the authority of the Chair and to apologise to the House, and the matter was put aside. I have therefore invited Miss McAllister back into the Chamber in the hope that we could, similarly, move on quickly. Were Miss McAllister to acknowledge that she was out of order in challenging the Chair, I would be content that she could resume business immediately. That is in Miss McAllister's hands. Oral Answers to Questions Finance Mr Speaker: Questions 4, 12 and 14 have been withdrawn. Chancellor of the Exchequer: August Meeting 1. Dr Aiken asked the Minister of Finance whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer has indicated whether further revenue-raising powers will be made available to the Executive. (AQO 2313/22-27) 8. Mr Buckley asked the Minister of Finance for an update on his meeting with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 12 August 2025. (AQO 2320/22-27) 13. Mrs Guy asked the Minister of Finance for an update on his recent meeting with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. (AQO 2325/22-27) Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance): With your permission, Mr Speaker, I intend to answer questions 1, 8 and 13 together. The meeting with the Chancellor was useful and allowed me to update her directly on the issues facing the people whom we all represent. I emphasised the need for the upcoming Budget to support growth and continued investment in and transformation of our public services. I also stressed that any tax and spend decisions taken in the autumn Budget must fully consider the impact that they have on our people and local businesses. I raised the need for a full fiscal framework, including the need for additional fiscal devolution and borrowing powers. The Chancellor outlined the broader fiscal context ahead of the autumn Budget and highlighted the need for investment, growth and a review of the tax system. The meeting also provided a valuable opportunity to showcase the Executive’s achievements to date. Those include the agreement of three Budgets; exceeding the £113 million income generation target set out in the restoration package; the establishment of a transformation fund and the allocation of £129 million to six innovative projects; and the publication of our Programme for Government. Having visited Studio Ulster, the Chancellor acknowledged the strength of our creative sector, which is supported through city and growth deals. She highlighted the potential of digital technology and AI, the need to invest in skills, particularly through our universities, to attract future investment and the importance of leveraging trade opportunities and how the upcoming regional trade summit in October will provide an opportunity to showcase the North's businesses and inward investment opportunities to an international audience. Dr Aiken: I thank the Minister for his reply. One of the issues that we are having to deal with is that the Budget has been put back to the end of November. We have already seen the problems that our friends in Scotland and Wales have had in putting forward a three-year Budget. What contingencies have we put in place to look at that, particularly given that our pot will be squeezed and that Health and other areas will be under considerable pressure? Mr O'Dowd: I recently had the opportunity to meet the Welsh and Scottish Finance Ministers. At that stage, I believe that we were not aware of the date of the Budget, although we knew that it would be delayed. They have slightly different legal processes to go through. The situation is not ideal for our budgetary processes, but it is best to wait for the Chancellor's statement on 26 November before we table our final Budget to the Executive. Hopefully, we will get agreement so that it can go out for public consultation. My main concern is that we want to ensure that we have maximum time for public consultation. Ideally, I want to see a 12-week consultation, and I think that that is still possible. Mr Buckley: As a north Armagh politician, I know that the Minister will be acutely aware of the huge contribution that farmers make to the Northern Ireland economy. He will also be aware of the unprecedented attacks that farming has faced both from some in this Chamber and from the Chancellor in her announcements on the family farm tax, which will disproportionately cripple Northern Ireland farmers. Did the Minister raise that issue of concern with the Chancellor? Is he confident that she at least alluded to some mitigating factors that will help farmers to deal with that substantial threat? Mr O'Dowd: The Member will be aware that the deputy First Minister and I met the Chancellor on the date in question. The issue of farm inheritance tax was raised with the Chancellor. I was not encouraged by the Chancellor's response, and I made it clear to her on a number of occasions throughout the meeting that decisions made in London that may have beneficial impacts, in their minds, on various areas in England or Wales have significantly different impacts on this place. Farm inheritance tax is definitely one of them. The impact that it has had here can and will be significantly detrimental to our farming community. However, the Chancellor, in my view, is not minded for turning on the issue. We have seen a number of U-turns from the Government, and I hope that this will be the next one or is certainly on the list, but, after listening to the Chancellor's response, I am not encouraged in any way to suggest that she will move from her current position. Mrs Guy: There is a significant event being hosted here on Wednesday by the Women's Policy Group and Melted Parents in relation to childcare. During his meeting, did the Minister raise the issue of expanding tax-free childcare with the Chancellor again? Mr O'Dowd: Not directly with the Chancellor on that occasion. However, the Member will be aware that, as part of the 2025-26 Budget, the Executive allocated £50 million towards early years and childcare strategy that supports hard-working families by delivering more affordable childcare. The number of children eligible for support has increased by 60% compared with last year, providing that much-needed subsidy, so the Executive have made significant strides in that regard. There was an additional £5 million awarded to childcare as part of one of the monitoring rounds as well. I know the importance of the issue, and I have no doubt that the Executive will continue to focus on it. Mr O'Toole: Minister, you and I agree that we have a fundamentally broken fiscal and, indeed, constitutional model and that we need to take more power back here and on to this island more generally. Given that we know that the Budget, when it finally comes, will reflect an even greater fiscal squeeze in the UK because of its underperforming economy and a range of other decisions that we do not agree with, is not now the time to take powers and initiative into our own hands and for you to publish your proposals for greater fiscal devolution on a journey to much greater independence for us here and, indeed, change in this island? Mr O'Dowd: Engagement with the Treasury is already under way in relation to greater fiscal powers for this place. Obviously, it will have to be a final decision for the Executive on which, if any, of those powers are transferred. However, those discussions are already in train. They started and continued from our discussions with the Treasury in relation to the comprehensive spending review and the Holtham report. We then immediately entered discussions around how we finalise the full fiscal framework for this place, including the devolution of tax-varying powers. Miss Dolan: Minister, what will be in a full fiscal framework? Mr O'Dowd: It will cover a number of areas including further consideration of Professor Holtham's review of our level of need, Housing Executive borrowing powers and additional fiscal devolution. In my opinion, it is vital that it provides the Executive with the financial tools that we need to deliver more sustainable public finances and public services. Taxation is obviously a serious and important matter. It will focus the minds of this place and the Executive in relation to our responsibilities and roles here. Taxation is not simply about how you raise more taxes. You can change the level of tax that you raise in certain areas — you might want to increase it — but also in terms of public attitudes and approaches to various health matters, for instance. It is an important lever that we require, and I look forward to continuing the discussions with the Treasury. Baby Loss Certificate Scheme: Public Consultation 2. Ms Flynn asked the Minister of Finance for an update on the baby loss certificate scheme public consultation. (AQO 2314/22-27) Mr O'Dowd: The public consultation on the baby loss certificate scheme commenced on 17 June and runs until 12 September. To date, over 940 responses have been received from individuals and organisations. I am extremely grateful to all who have taken the time to engage. Every response received will help us form a scheme that meets the needs and expectations of those who have been impacted on by the devastating loss of a baby. As part of the consultation process, my officials also held two stakeholder engagement events last month to hear directly from those who are engaged in the provision of specialist services and who provide support to anyone who has been impacted by baby loss. I strongly encourage anyone who would like to express their views on the scheme please to do so before the consultation closes on 12 September. Ms Flynn: I thank the Minister for his answer. He touched on some engagement that his Department had carried out. Will he elaborate on the engagement that has taken place specifically with parents to ensure that the scheme meets their needs? Mr O'Dowd: That is an important point. It is clearly a sensitive and emotive issue, particularly for parents who have lost a baby and have stepped forward to contribute to the consultation, so it is important that we listen carefully to their views. They know best how the scheme can support families. I am grateful for the many hundreds of responses to the consultation that have been received to date. I have also met Sands and the Little Forget Me Nots Trust, which provide support to families after the loss of a baby. My officials, alongside their work with those organisations, have run a concerted social media campaign to encourage widespread engagement with the public consultation. The figure to date — as I said, the number of responses received stands at 940 now — shows how widespread the message is, and I encourage more people to respond. Mr Frew: I commend the Minister for the progress that has been made on the baby loss certificate scheme. He will know that we as a party have fought for it for a considerable time. It alarms me, however, that the Bill still contains a provision for charging parents for the certificate. Has the Minister solidified his thoughts on charging parents? Mr O'Dowd: That question was part of the consultation. Without pre-empting the outcome of the consultation, I see the charging element being used not for parents who are collecting a baby loss certificate but in future circumstances in which someone may ask for multiple copies. When legislating, you have to make provision for all possibilities. If charging were to be introduced at a future date, regulations would have to be brought before the Assembly, which means that the Assembly would have the final say. Ms K Armstrong: Minister, as you said, the consultation closes on 12 September. Have you any idea of the timeline that you and your Department are aiming for to get the report out and to deliver on the legislation? Will it happen in this term? Mr O'Dowd: We will have to go through the legislative process, but I am fully confident that the issuing of certificates will happen in this mandate. Mr Carroll: The scheme is obviously a good idea, and I support its general aims, but, Minister, I am concerned about people who come forward. They will get their certificate, but they may be further traumatised, and there is a lack of support out there. I note that the Belfast Trust has only two bereavement midwives and only one family liaison nurse. The last thing that anybody wants is for people to come forward and be further traumatised by the lack of support. Have you had any conversations with the Health Minister about increasing services so that people are not traumatised if they come forward to seek a baby loss certificate? Mr O'Dowd: Those matters are for the Health Minister and the Belfast Trust. My task as Finance Minister is to present a Budget to the Executive and the Assembly. Once that is agreed, how their budget is used is down to individual Ministers. NICS Staff: Workplace Attendance 3. Mr Kingston asked the Minister of Finance to outline the percentage of days that Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS) staff have worked from their physical workplace in each of the past three years. (AQO 2315/22-27) Mr O'Dowd: Each Department in the Civil Service is responsible for managing that information locally. My Department, however, has recently completed a review of the Civil Service hybrid working policy. Part of the policy review included the development of a new online system for hybrid working applications to enable management information to be produced on the operation of hybrid working across the Civil Service. That information will include the number of staff who avail themselves of hybrid working arrangements, the number of in-office days and office location. Implementation of the revised policy commenced on 1 September, with full implementation to be completed across all Departments by 31 October 2025. Management information on the operation of hybrid working across the Civil Service will be available later in the year. Mr Kingston: I thank the Minister for his answer, but I am disappointed that he was not able to provide any statistics on the level of homeworking and in-office working. Perhaps he is saying that they will be available in the future. Top 2.15 pm I hope that the Minister will encourage greater levels of in-office working. Does he share the concerns raised by bodies such as Belfast Chamber and the Belfast One and Linen Quarter business improvement districts (BIDs) about the impact of COVID and greater homeworking on high street retailers and eateries, and does he agree on there being a need to support their financial viability? Mr O'Dowd: A policy is in place. It is down to Departments and line managers to manage that policy in working with their staff. The hybrid working policy has advantages for our service, offering flexibility of working location. We remain in a competitive market for the recruitment and retention of staff. The fact that we offer hybrid working where possible is an attractive feature for applicants who are coming into the service and for retaining staff in the service. I accept that there may be impacts in some locations. There may be a negative impact in some locations and a positive impact in others, where staff are dispersed around the place. A lot of elements come into play with hybrid working. Overall, however, it has proven to be beneficial to the Civil Service and to the delivery of public services. The new system that we have put in place for measuring will allow me to provide, in the future, figures such as those that you requested, but some of the figures that you require may be available from the individual Departments. Mr Kelly: The Minister may have answered most of this: although we may get the statistics later on, would the Minister like to expand on the benefits of hybrid working? Mr O'Dowd: As I said to Mr Kingston, it is advantageous for us, as a significant employer, to be able to say to potential employees — it is also advantageous in retaining employees — that we offer hybrid working where suitable and with the agreement of line managers etc. Each case must be agreed individually. We remain a competitive workplace when jobs are available out there, and people can apply to many different places, perhaps even moving. The retention — keeping — of experienced staff is important to any organisation. A workforce that is content and satisfied in its workplace is good for productivity. Through the delivery of the service, we have seen that we are able to maintain the delivery of our public services in a managed way. Mr McGrath: I am possibly seeking this year's award for tenuous link for a supplementary question. [Laughter.] One reason that some people are not at their desks may be that they are sick, which may be a reflection of the fact that there is an ageing profile in our Civil Service. The Audit Office flagged that as being a concern. Is the Department taking any concrete steps to try to recruit young professionals into roles so that the demographic of the Civil Service can shift away from the cliff edge that is presented by the fact that a greater proportion of the workforce is close to retirement? Mr O'Dowd: As someone who edges closer to retirement every year, I can say that there is life in the old dog yet, so I do not think that we should dismiss the older generation just yet. All recruitment competitions have to take place on merit and are open to all age ranges. When people apply, the job goes to the best person for it. Public-sector Transformation Board: Call for Projects 5. Mr Harvey asked the Minister of Finance for an update on the second call for projects as part of transformation being overseen by the public-sector transformation board. (AQO 2317/22-27) 11. Miss Hargey asked the Minister of Finance for an update on the public-sector transformation fund. (AQO 2323/22-27) Mr O'Dowd: With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 5 and 11 together. The second call for transformation proposals was issued to Departments on 23 June. Twenty-five proposals were submitted by Departments to the Executive Office. Those proposals are being assessed by the Executive Office's reform and transformation team. Officials from my Department's public spending team are supporting Executive Office officials in that assessment. The next step will be for Executive Office officials, once they have completed their assessment, to provide advice to the public-sector transformation board to inform its consideration of the proposals. The board will then provide its recommendations to me, following which I will report to the Executive on the proposals that have been recommended for funding. The board aims to provide its recommendations in October, with a view to releasing funding later this financial year. Mr Harvey: Thank you, Minister, for your answer. On the successful bids from the first phase, how will the board and, more broadly, the Department ensure that transformation projects are progressed and delivered as quickly as possible? Mr O'Dowd: That is crucial, and a continuous monitoring process is in place. The public transformation board will monitor the projects on an ongoing basis. That will include experts, who have been put in place for each of the projects, providing feedback on the projects' implementation. Funding for the projects is also time-bound and attached to relevant timescales. There is ongoing analysis of those projects because we want to see value for money, ensure that lessons are being learnt and see how each Department is posing the question and seeking answers as to whether a project should continue and, if so, how it will fund it. Miss Hargey: Minister, as you said, the transformation board is carrying out important work. There has been a recent expansion of the board's membership. What benefits will that bring? Mr O'Dowd: Appointments to the board's membership will bring an additional set of skills. The addition of Professor McCarthy and Gareth Hetherington will broaden the skills and expertise that are available to the board and complement those of existing members. The terms of reference for the transformation board have been finalised, which allows us to put the board on a firmer footing. The addition of the new board members will help to strengthen our ability to deliver meaningful transformation in the way that public services are delivered, which, ultimately, will make life better for the people whom we serve. Mr McGlone: Those sound like noble ideas and projects. What methodology will be used to measure improvement in services and will that be provided to the Assembly? Mr O'Dowd: As I outlined in my substantive answer, experts are in place to monitor each of the projects and to report back to the transformation board. I have no difficulty with providing information, whether that is to the Committee or, maybe more formally, to the Assembly. Whichever way is most appropriate under the protocols and procedures, I am more than happy to do that at the appropriate time. NICS Estate 6. Mr Bradley asked the Minister of Finance to outline the factors that will be considered when assessing the future use of underoccupied buildings, such as County Hall in Coleraine, as his Department aims to reduce the estate footprint by 40% by 2028. (AQO 2318/22-27) Mr O'Dowd: My officials met you at the end of August to provide an update on the Department’s planning considerations in the Coleraine area, which includes County Hall. It is important we have a modern, fit for purpose and correctly sized office estate that is a welcoming environment for people to work collaboratively in. The first stage in the office estate strategy aims to reduce our in-scope footprint by 40% by 2028 through consolidating the office estate and divesting surplus properties. The second stage of the strategy aims to decarbonise the retained NICS office estate by reducing its reliance on fossil fuel heating and making it more energy efficient, with a view to meeting the sectoral emissions target in the climate action plan. When assessing the accommodation demand in a region, consideration is given to whether the demand can be met using the existing estate or whether it could be met from outside the existing estate. It may be appropriate to engage and partner with local authorities to explore whether an opportunity exists to bring them together to create public service hubs that can provide a range of benefits to residents under one roof. A review of the Civil Service’s accommodation needs in Coleraine will be undertaken over the coming 12 months. My officials are consulting the Departments that occupy our buildings in the Coleraine area, including County Hall, to collect information and better understand their accommodation needs. Further engagement will continue with Departments to consider how best to address their current and future requirements. Consultation with trade union representatives will, of course, be carried out as that work progresses. Mr Bradley: I thank the Minister for his answer. Yes, we met at the County Hall recently. It has massive grounds of, off the top of my head, about 30 acres. It is an iconic building in an iconic area of Coleraine, and I am keen to follow up on any progress that there is on the disposal or otherwise of the building. Will the Minister pass on my sincere thanks to his staff for their frank and honest engagement during that meeting? Mr O'Dowd: I certainly will pass on your thanks to the staff. Thank you for acknowledging the work of the staff. As I said in my original answer, we will review the estate in Coleraine over the next 12 months. At the appropriate stages, I will ensure that you are kept informed. Ms Ferguson: It is critical to achieve regional balance, particularly for the Foyle constituency in the north-west. Will the Minister outline the steps that the Department is taking to achieve regional balance? Mr O'Dowd: Civil Service staff are posted in accommodation across the region, including in the Department of Finance's estate and buildings that other Departments own or lease. Six Connect2 hubs opened in August 2022 to allow staff to work remotely at six regional locations in Ballykelly, Ballymena, Bangor, Craigavon, Downpatrick and Omagh as an occasional alternative to working from home. As a result of the hybrid working policy, staff are now working from home. As our society has a rural nature, many of our staff are from those areas, and they are now working in rural settings, such as villages or towns. Mr McNulty: Minister, have you had any conversations about how reducing footfall in rural offices will impact on the regionally balanced economy? Mr O'Dowd: That goes back to Mr Kingston's concerns about Belfast and how, in some people's view, the hybrid working policy may have a detrimental impact on Belfast. The people who are not in Belfast on set days are working elsewhere, and, as I said to Ciara, given the nature of our society, many of those people are in rural locations such as villages or towns. The hybrid working policy allows a greater distribution of our staff to different locations at different times. Regionality is always taken into consideration when any actions are taken or decisions made about the relocation or closure of offices. Green Growth 7. Mr McMurray asked the Minister of Finance how the 2025-26 Budget reflects the Programme for Government 2024-2027 priority of green growth. (AQO 2319/22-27) Mr O'Dowd: Green growth contributes to the priorities in the Programme for Government to: "Grow a Globally Competitive and Sustainable Economy", and on: "Protecting Lough Neagh and the Environment". In recognition of the importance of those priorities, the Executive earmarked allocations of £15 million and £17 million respectively in Budget 2025-26 for them. Of the £17 million that has been earmarked for protecting Lough Neagh and the environment, £12 million is for the just transition fund for agriculture, which will help the agriculture sector deliver its contribution to meeting carbon budgets and emissions reduction targets. In addition to those specific allocations, individual Ministers will also be able to utilise their 2025-26 Budget allocations to direct their departmental budget allocations to the agreed Programme for Government priorities. My officials have also undertaken some further analysis to assess the extent of the wider alignment of the Budget 2025-26 to Programme for Government priorities. I hope to be in a position to publish that analysis shortly. Mr McMurray: I thank the Minister for his answer. Given the growth of renewables, specifically offshore renewables, what assurances can the Minister give to the industries in South Down that any forthcoming finances and policies will be regionally balanced? Mr O'Dowd: As I said to one of your colleagues, my job as Finance Minister is to present a Budget to the Executive and the Assembly. If and when it is agreed, it is up to each Minister to use that Budget as has been agreed and outlined and to certainly do so in line with all the policies that govern us as Ministers, particularly the Programme for Government. Regional balance is vital, and, as I outlined, it always comes into the equation on any decisions that I make on the positioning of staff or resources. Mr Gildernew: Minister, what steps are being taken to improve the alignment of Budget data with the Programme for Government? Mr O'Dowd: That piece of work has started and will have to continue. Obviously, we prioritise our Budget against our Programme for Government. Therefore, as part of the Budget sustainability plan, the Executive committed to the development of a future work plan. My officials recently completed an initial analytical exercise to align Budget allocations with the Programme for Government. The work mapped high-level departmental spending areas to Programme for Government priority missions and well-being domains, using the departmental estimates to identify how those areas contribute to the Programme for Government. It is hoped that the initial analysis will be published shortly. Top 2.30 pm Strategic Rating Review 2025-26 9. Mr Delargy asked the Minister of Finance for an update on the strategic rating review for 2025-26. (AQO 2321/22-27) Mr O'Dowd: I am pleased to say that good progress has been made by my Department in bringing that work forward. In line with my intention to act at pace to make progressive and positive changes to the rating system, I submitted an Executive paper prior to recess on the next steps regarding the maximum capital value and the early payment discount policies. The proposals would generate around £9 million for central and local government. Ultimately, any change to rating policy requires Executive approval, and there has to be a clear focus on what can be delivered from April 2026 and beyond. Significant work has been undertaken in recent months on the review of small businesses rate relief and non-domestic vacant rating. My officials have already completed the research work and tax base analysis associated with the review. They also completed an extensive series of interviews with key stakeholders over the summer, including representatives of the retail, hospitality and food-to-go sectors, as well as representatives of groups from the wider economy such as the Federation of Small Businesses. I will consider the options in the coming weeks before briefing Executive colleagues on the next steps. I highlight the fact that, given that the rating system provides a quarter of a billion pounds of support to non-domestic properties, the Executive will need to actively engage with any proposal to generate income through the strategic review process before any decisions can be made to provide additional supports through the same process. Mr Speaker: We move on to topical questions. Casement Park T1. Mr O'Toole asked the Minister of Finance, given that, after the spending review in June, he welcomed the £50 million in financial transactions capital (FTC) allocated by the UK Government to Casement Park — it should be said that there was a £50 million underspend in the previous financial year, but it was still welcome — and that, at that time, he said that all parties should work together to develop that project, what specific actions he has taken since then and when Casement Park will be built. (AQT 1521/22-27) Mr O'Dowd: For the record, there was no underspend in financial transactions capital for the previous year, as the Member knows, because we have this conversation every time we have Question Time or a ministerial statement. I and my officials have engaged directly with the NIO and the Treasury on how that much welcomed investment of £50 million from the British Government will be used to deliver Casement. I have asked for meetings with my Executive colleagues on those matters, and discussions will take place in due course. I have heard the Member ask that question of several Ministers over the past number of days. It is one of his six tests. Mr O'Toole: Yes. Mr O'Dowd: Mmm. When the Member completes his homework, I will tick the boxes in his test for him. I am still waiting for his homework on a wide range of issues. I believe that Casement Park will be built. Commitment is required from the Executive and the Assembly to deliver on that and many other areas of the Programme for Government. Yes, I believe that Casement Park will be built. Mr O'Toole: I appreciate the answer, Minister, and I am glad that you have read our six tests. You will know that I am not in government; I am in opposition, as is your colleague, uachtarán Shinn Féin, Mary Lou McDonald, who talked yesterday about being in opposition. My job is to ask you questions, because you have power. I did not ask you whether you thought that it would be built; I asked you when it would be built. You did not tell me. You said that it would be built in due course and that you were seeking meetings with your colleagues. Am I to understand that there has been no further progress on delivering Casement Park since the allocation of that £50 million? If I am wrong, please correct me. Mr O'Dowd: Uachtarán Shinn Féin produces alternative policy documents, alternative Budgets and alternative Programmes for Government. I am the Minister of Finance. My responsibility is to engage with the Treasury on the release of the £50 million in FTC funding. I have actively and productively followed that through. The timescale for the delivery of Casement is a matter for the GAA and the Communities Minister. I will play my part wholeheartedly and fully in that engagement and will do everything under the responsibilities that fall to me to ensure that it is built. It will be built in the timescale that is required under the funding — the FTC funding is for four years — and other budgetary matters. I have had similar conversations. You used to talk to us about Magee and ask, "What is going to happen with Magee?". More progress has been made on Magee in this past year than over the past 10 years. You have to move on to a new subject now, and you are right to do so. However, at some stage in the not-too-distant future, you will have to move on to a different subject, because progress will be made on Casement. Local Growth Fund T2. Ms Finnegan asked the Minister of Finance what engagement he has had with the British Government in respect of a future local growth fund. (AQT 1522/22-27) Mr O'Dowd: I had a meeting yesterday morning with the Secretary of State, which was to be a pre-meeting for that which we were going to have with the then Housing Minister, Alex Norris. However, as a result of the reshuffles in Whitehall, Mr Norris is no longer in that post, and the meeting planned for today has been postponed until the new Minister reads himself into the brief. Those engagements continue. I have expressed my frustration to the Secretary of State that there has been such a significant delay since the comprehensive spending review and no confirmation of how the growth fund will be delivered, how it will be split between capital and resource or what will be done to ensure that we do not reach a cliff edge. The lack of information that we can give to the community and voluntary sector is simply unacceptable. Ms Finnegan: Go raibh maith agat. [Translation: Thank you.] Does the Minister agree that the new fund should respect devolved government? Mr O'Dowd: Without question. It is in the Labour Party's manifesto that it will respect the devolved institutions and, with regard to this matter, local growth funds should be sent back to the devolved institutions. Nobody knows better the needs of our society than its elected representatives. The Assembly and the Executive are the elected representatives of our society, and we should be allowed have the growth fund allocated to us in its entirety and should be allowed to allocate it. 'Transforming Business Rates' T4. Mr McMurray asked the Minister of Finance whether he has had any engagement with the UK Government regarding the 'Transforming business rates' proposals that are being worked on in England and Wales. (AQT 1524/22-27) Mr O'Dowd: I am aware of the proposals for England and Wales. The Member will be aware that we have a totally different rating system from that in England and Wales. Here, we have the regional rate, and then each local council sets its rate. In England, I understand that there is a set rate across all local authorities, which is different from what we have here. I am acutely aware of the issue, and I will continue to monitor the situation. The Member will also be aware that we have an ongoing review of our different rating systems, and, if the rating review in England signals a new approach or new ideas that we should explore more quickly than we had originally planned, we can bring that forward. Mr McMurray: Thank you for your answer, Minister. From that, will the Minister consider some of the proposals, if they are applicable to Northern Ireland, in order to help our businesses? Mr O'Dowd: We would want to assure ourselves that they are applicable. The grass is not always greener on the other side. Just because one jurisdiction is making a change, it does not necessarily mean that it is the right change of path or direction. As I said, I am aware of the proposals, and we are monitoring them. If that indicates to me that it is worthwhile to explore that pathway further, whether through a consultation or by bringing a review forward faster, I will do so. A5 Capital Allocation T5. Ms D Armstrong asked the Minister of Finance whether his Department has directed the Department for Infrastructure to return for reallocation the capital allocated to the A5. (AQT 1525/22-27) Mr O'Dowd: It is not a case of having to direct any Department in that regard. The funding for the A5 is from an Executive funding pot, so any underspends will have to be returned to the centre. My officials have engaged with DFI officials, asking them to estimate as quickly as possible how much capital will be returned in this financial year. Once we have confirmation of that figure, I will bring a paper to the Executive with proposals on how that funding should be reallocated. Ultimately, how that money will be reallocated will be a decision for the Executive. Ms D Armstrong: I thank the Minister for his reply. Has the delay with the A5 been factored into the next three-year Budget? Mr O'Dowd: Not as yet, because the appeal is pending, and we will have to wait for the outcome of that. We are progressing our way through engagement with officials in all Departments about preparation for the three-year Budget. It is clearly something that we have to be alert to. There are timescales that are outside our control, but we will be aware of those. Transgender Guidance T6. Mr Dunne asked the Minister of Finance, given yesterday's announcement by the Education Minister, which is a victory for common sense, respects biological reality and promotes safe women's spaces, whether his Department will follow suit and issue similar advice. (AQT 1526/22-27) Mr O'Dowd: We all have to approach the issue with great sensitivity, particularly in relation to schools, where we are talking about young people and children. We should all measure our tones around such matters. I await the outcome of the Equality Commission's review of those matters. It is then best that the Executive discuss those matters before any individual moves forward. Always remember that, in those discussions, there are people — very young people and children — who, I have no doubt, as a result of yesterday's announcement, are feeling isolated and hurt. Mr Dunne: I thank the Minister for his answer. Given the strength of feeling around the issues and the feeling of some Civil Service staff that the Civil Service has been influenced by particular ideologies, will the Minister end the association with the widely discredited Stonewall organisation? Mr O'Dowd: The Civil Service has a rigorous and detailed policy in relation to treating all of its staff with fairness, equality and respect. There are processes in that for anyone who feels that they have not been treated with fairness, equality and respect to have those matters looked into in further detail. I have renewed my Department's membership of the Stonewall programme. It is only right and proper, given that we have a significant number of employees, that we have access to a diverse range of advice on such matters. My Department does not have to take on board the advice that is given to the Civil Service on such matters. However, as I said in answer to your original question, there are strong views on those matters, but our job as leaders is to ensure that everyone in our society is treated with respect, particularly minorities. We all have to watch our language. Israeli War Bonds T7. Mr Carroll asked the Minister of Finance whether his Department has carried out any assessment of whether Israeli war bonds are going through banks in this jurisdiction, given that the Central Bank in the South made a move to stop Israeli war bonds going through the economy, a decision that was a long time coming but a correct one. (AQT 1527/22-27) Mr O'Dowd: Gerry, there is no doubt in my mind that you are fully aware that I have no authority over banking in this society — no doubt whatever. You and I have a lot of differences, but we have one thing in common: we stand in solidarity with Palestine. Let us not use party differences and party political niggling — wee digs here and a wee needle here — to disrupt the solidarity that is required for Palestine. Let us stand in solidarity with Palestine and set the party politics aside. Mr Carroll: Minister, I will stand with you and everybody for Palestine. Saying it is a party dig is a bit of an insulting reply. It was a question about whether your Department had carried out an audit of whether Israeli war bonds go through the North. Yes or no? Mr O'Dowd: I will repeat my answer to the question. You already know the answer, because you are no hen's toe; you are not slow. You know the processes as well as I do. Mr Carroll: You are not answering the question. Mr O'Dowd: But you know the answer. Mr Carroll: I do not. Mr O'Dowd: You know the answer. You know the answer, because —. Mr Speaker: Order. Through the Chair, please. Mr O'Dowd: You are not asking the question out of concern about Israeli war bonds; you are trying to score cheap political points. I appeal to you — [Interruption.] I appeal to you and to others to set aside your petty party political point-scoring and stand in solidarity with the people of Palestine. When people stand in solidarity movements, they often stand beside people with whom they do not agree on everything, but let us agree on this, Gerry: stand in solidarity with Palestine. Top 2.45 pm Mr Speaker: Miss McAllister cannot be in her seat. Back in Business Scheme T9. Ms Flynn asked the Minister of Finance to provide an update on the uptake of the Back in Business scheme. (AQT 1529/22-27) Mr O'Dowd: The Back in Business scheme aims to help bring vibrancy, footfall and investment back to our high streets while providing businesses with a boost at the start of their business journey, thus helping support jobs and bring long-term vacant units back into use. The scheme offers businesses a 50% rates discount for up to two years if they move into premises that were previously used for retail purposes and that have been unoccupied for 12 months or more. So far, there have been 59 successful applications to fund new or expanding businesses through the scheme since its introduction last year. Awards have been made across all 11 council areas. Around £420,000 of rates support has been provided to the successful applicants. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Dr Aiken] in the Chair) Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Ladies and gentlemen, that concludes questions to the Minister of Finance. We now return to questions to the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs on his statement. Ministerial Statement North/South Ministerial Council: Agriculture Business resumed. Miss McIlveen: The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (DAFM) is announcing a new bovine TB action plan today, which will include further wildlife measures. The Minister will be aware of the call from our local industry for a wildlife intervention strategy. Without one, any other proposals are deemed to be unworkable. Will he provide an update on a wildlife intervention strategy for Northern Ireland? Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I thank the Member for her question. It is an important issue, because it affects farmers in Northern Ireland, particularly their mental health. It is a key priority for my Department. We outlined a blueprint for the way forward, and I commend everyone who took part in the stakeholder group, which allowed us to set out that blueprint. Its implementation is key. It is based on three pillars: people, cattle and wildlife. Let me be crystal clear today that a wildlife intervention strategy is not optional. Rather, it must occur. We must have wildlife intervention on TB. My officials are pulling together a strategy so that we can proceed with it. We need to make sure when we go out to consult on it that it is done correctly. In the time ahead, we will be able to commence the consultation and get people's views on wildlife intervention in order to allow us to tackle TB in Northern Ireland. Alongside that, we are taking measures on people and cattle, and there are further measures that we want to explore with stakeholders so that we can drive down instances of TB, because the levels are not sustainable for farming in Northern Ireland or for my Department. Mr McMurray: Minister, can you provide an update on the roll-out of the sustainable agriculture programme (SAP)? Mr Muir: The sustainable agriculture programme is a fundamental intervention from my Department that is worth around £300 million. I managed to secure that funding for this year and future years, and we are the only part of the UK in which that funding is ring-fenced. It was lost in other parts of the UK, and I am determined to ensure that it delivers benefits for farming in Northern Ireland. A key part of the funding was for the delivery of the farm sustainability transition payment (FSTP) last week. We are now focused on the next delivery phase of the sustainable agriculture programme, which will be the farm sustainability payment (FSP). That will be rolled out from 1 January 2026. It is absolutely critical that we do that, because entitlements have been traded on the basis of its coming into place. We will be engaging with the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee in the time ahead on the roll-out. If Members have concerns, I ask them to contact me or officials. I am happy to discuss their concerns with them. It is key that we get the farm sustainability payment and the associated farm sustainability standards in place. Once we are able to get that payment in place, the focus will turn to diverting the resources that have been put in place to get funding out the door to deliver Farming with Nature and also sheep support. It is absolutely critical that we assist farmers with nature-friendly farming. That is something that I heard very clearly at Fields Good, the regenerative agriculture festival, at the weekend. It is something that farmers want to see scaled up and rolled out. My ambition is that Farming with Nature will be rolled out and that the cliff edge with the environmental farming scheme (EFS) be addressed, because doing that is key. Alongside that, we must deliver a sheep support scheme. If we get the farm sustainability payment and the farm sustainability standards agreed, we can deliver sheep support for people in Northern Ireland. Let us work together, collectively; let us deliver this flagship policy of support; and let us deliver a prosperous and bright future for farming in Northern Ireland. Ms D Armstrong: I thank the Minister for his responses so far. He answered this question in some way in his response to Mr McCrossan. As the Minister knows, I represent a border area that is grappling with record levels of TB in cattle herds. Farming families will have seen the statement as having fairly weak words in relation to: "the prevalence of ... TB across the island". Will the Minister explain in greater detail any progress that has been achieved in reducing the prevalence of bovine TB on the island? Will he join me in meeting some farmers in County Fermanagh who have been affected? Mr Muir: Thank you, Diana. I am happy to consider any invites, but matching them with my diary can be a challenge. It has been outlined that there will be further announcements from DAFM, this week, regarding an all-island approach around TB. There has been engagement with DAFM, at official level and Minister to Minister, on a Shared Island initiative for tackling TB on an all-Ireland basis. There is real opportunity around that. I am keen to get that across the line as soon as we can, because it will be a practical measure that will help farmers, North and South. I will continue to engage with Minister Heydon on that, because it is critical that we drive down the prevalence of TB. I have given a commitment that, as long as I have the budget, we will continue the 100% compensation, but that is not good enough. We also need to drive down the incidence so that we can deal with the impact that it has on family farms in Northern Ireland. Mr McAleer: I thank the Minister for his statement. Paragraph 23 makes reference to cooperation on rural development. Will the Minister provide an update on his Department's development of the rural policy here and the Connected Hubs, which are mentioned in the rural development part of his statement? Mr Muir: That is an important issue, because, post Brexit, the loss of the rural development programme is something that has not, perhaps, been given as much of a profile. It was significant funding that supported rural communities across Northern Ireland, and we lost it as a result of Brexit. It is one of the many consequences of Brexit that have been felt across Northern Ireland. We are working together, particularly in relation to PEACE PLUS initiatives, to support rural communities. We are also co-designing a future rural policy for Northern Ireland. Hopefully, we will go out to consult on that soon so that we can get views taken. We are also engaging, through the Department of Finance, on future funding arrangements. We have had follow-on funding from EU funding, such as the Levelling Up Fund, for instance. I have made a clear case to the Finance Minister that rural development should be a key feature of any future funding arrangements to replace the funds that we had during membership of the European Union, and we will continue to engage on that. It is important that we deliver that support to rural communities, and we will continue to roll out well-established schemes, such as the tackling rural poverty and social isolation framework (TRPSI). It is important that we deliver that to rural communities. Mr Irwin: I thank the Minister for his answers so far. I welcome the Minister's comments in relation to a wildlife intervention regarding TB. Is the Minister concerned, as I am, that the incidence of TB continues to rise? Does he accept that it is vital that every effort is made to deal with the situation as soon as possible? Mr Muir: I agree with the Member entirely — this is a positive question time — because it is a key issue for the farming community in Northern Ireland. The levels are not sustainable, and the continued rise causes me a great concern, due to the impact on family farming in Northern Ireland, agriculture more broadly and the Department. I thank the Finance Minister for the financial support that he has given me, which has allowed us to keep the compensation, but we have to drive down the incidence. Ultimately, the only way that we are going to do that is by doing it together. I had a constructive meeting with the Ulster Farmers' Union on the issue — hearing feedback on what we are doing. We are happy to engage — we will engage through the stakeholder group — about any other measures that we can use to drive this down, and we are preparing to consult on a wildlife intervention strategy. I have been clear, and I reiterate it today: wildlife intervention is not optional; it must occur. However, when we are doing the consultation and formulating it, we need to do it correctly, because it is important that we deliver an intervention that is legally robust. Ms Mulholland: Will the Minister detail the €80 million investment in rural development under PEACE PLUS, please? Mr Muir: That is no problem. The PEACE PLUS funding is something that I have been very grateful for, and it is something that, together, we can deliver on the ground to people. DAERA is partnering with DRCDG and SEUPB, the Special EU Programmes Body — apologies for all the acronyms — to provide funding of €80 million to two PEACE PLUS investment areas that focus on rural issues. That partnership means that we can achieve much more by contributing to resilient, vibrant and prosperous rural communities in which people want to live, work, visit and invest. Investment area 2.4, entitled, "Smart Towns and Villages", has a budget of €30 million and aims to help citizens and communities to access and utilise information and communication technology. Investment area 4.2, entitled "Rural Regeneration and Social Inclusion", has a budget of €50 million and aims to support social, economic and environmental projects to create healthy rural communities. Letters of offer have been issued to successful projects under call 1 of investment area 2.4 and investment area 4.2. The steering committee of call 2 on investment area 2.4 will meet in October of this year, after which successful projects will be notified. Mr T Buchanan: Minister, thank you for your statement. Will you provide details on the humane slaughter contingency planning exercise for exotic disease in October? When did exercise that last take place? Mr Muir: I thank the Member for his question. That is a key issue for us. I outlined in the environment sector statement the concerns that exist about the situation in Cork with the Asian hornet. I made a statement just before recess about the threats to us in Northern Ireland from that, and I want to take a moment to talk about them. We had foot-and-mouth disease on the European continent. I have not heard many reports about that of late but that does cause me concern. We had bluetongue, so I have made the vaccine available if people want to use it. Vigilance is paramount because the risk of that arriving in Northern Ireland remains, which is of concern. We are moving into autumn and winter, and we know the impact that avian influenza had last season. It is really important that there is an emphasis on biosecurity because avian influenza can have a significant impact on farming. There have been good working relations but the impact would be significant. Another issue, which was covered on 'Farming Today' on BBC Radio 4 yesterday, is biosecurity with regard to the movement of illegal meat products from the European continent into GB, and the potential for them to arrive in Northern Ireland. Alistair Carmichael, Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, outlined the Committee's concerns about the movement of such products into Dover. I will continue to engage with the UK Government on their need to strengthen biosecurity in GB because the potential for those products to arrive in Northern Ireland is a real concern. Once we have UK and EU agreement in place, there will, obviously, be reduced checks between GB and NI. That is welcome and, I think, something that we all want, but there is concern around biosecurity, and we need to reiterate its importance. Alongside that, we need to work North/South because we are a single epidemiological area, and the Chief Veterinary Officers, North and South, continue to work on those issues. Mr Mathison: Minister, you referenced biosecurity in your previous answer. Will you provide a more detailed update on your efforts to ensure biosecurity on the island of Ireland? Mr Muir: The key focus is on working together, North and South. We do a lot through the North/South Ministerial Council but officials also do that on a regular basis. The key concern for me is, as I have outlined, movements of products into GB and the inadequacy of the border target operating model (BTOM). That concern has been raised not just by me but by the Scottish and the Welsh. That needs to change, and we have been engaging collectively with DEFRA on that because we need to make sure that those products do not come into Northern Ireland. We have a fantastic agri-food system. We should be very proud of the high standards of animal welfare here and the quality of the food that we produce, and we should not allow them to be undermined by illegal imports. Mr Dickson: Minister, you have made a reasonable amount of comment on the control of TB, but what other work have you been doing collaboratively, on a North/South basis, on improving animal health and disease prevention? Mr Muir: There has been significant engagement on that, particularly on avian influenza. We ensure that we move together on that and have collective messaging. We have also been engaging on bluetongue. We decided to make the vaccine available in the North. Ministers in the South decided not to, but we did that through a process of communication, respecting the different decisions on that. As we move forward, there is a need for continuing engagement, particularly on equine welfare. We are very aware of that through our obligations in animal health law, North and South. Top 3.00 pm Mrs Guy: I ask the Minister for an update on the just transition fund for agriculture. Mr Muir: There is a commitment in the climate change legislation to set up a just transition fund for agriculture. I made a bid, alongside the Finance Minister, to the UK Government for funding for that as part of the Budget that the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in October last year. That bid was not successful, so I engaged with the Finance Minister locally and managed to secure over £12 million for a just transition fund for agriculture. It is very important that we understand that just transition is about not just our climate obligations but the environment more broadly. I have engaged and will continue to engage with the Finance Minister because I want to see that just transition fund for agriculture increased. It will be new and additional capital funding to support farmers and agriculture more broadly in Northern Ireland. What does that mean? It means my seeking funding for a sustainable farm investment scheme so that we can assist farmers in taking up technologies that will allow us to reduce our nutrient loss into waterways and reduce ammonia emissions. That assistance can include grant funding for low-emission slurry spreading equipment (LESSE) technology. I need the funding for that so that I can assist farmers on the road ahead, and I will continue to engage with the Finance Minister on it. However, it goes beyond that. There are many other technology interventions that we can make to improve the environment for Northern Ireland and assist with on-farm productivity. Therefore, I need a significant increase to the just transition fund for agriculture. If we are going to talk about a just transition, I need the funding to assist farmers. Mr Gaston: Minister, given that bovine TB is costing your Department over £55 million a year, which is almost double the average spend of just a decade ago, with more than two thirds of that going on compensation, taking action now is crucial. You mentioned ongoing work on the issue through the wildlife intervention programme. Are you considering a badger cull? Is a future vaccine on your radar? Will you set out today the interventions that you are looking at? That is what the farmer wants to know, not what will potentially happen down the line. We want to know what you are looking at today. Mr Muir: I will deal with those questions in two parts. There is the consideration of a pilot on TB that DEFRA is progressing. We are watching that closely as it progresses. I as Minister and we as a Department have to take lessons from the previous judicial review on wildlife intervention. It would be negligent if we did not. It is important that, when we proceed to a consultation, it is done correctly. The worst thing for me, as Minister, would be to lead people down a garden path to a situation where we are not able to deliver a resolution to the issue. I am not about that; I am about being honest with people about the challenges that we face and doing things correctly. We will go out to consult on a wildlife intervention. I encourage everyone to feed into that, and we will take decisions on the back of the consultation. It is important that we do that. Alongside that, there are many other measures that we can take on the three pillars of people, cattle and wildlife. I commend the stakeholder group, which involves the farming industry and environmental groups working together to deliver those interventions. I will continue to support the Chief Veterinary Officer as the chair of that group. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Ladies and gentlemen, let us take our ease for a few moments while we change the personnel at the top Table and everybody gets ready for the next item of business. (Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair) Executive Committee Business Mental Health Bill: Legislative Consent Motion Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): I beg to move That this Assembly endorses the principle of extending the amendment to the UK Mental Health Bill to Northern Ireland to ensure that private providers delivering publicly funded mental health services are accountable under the Human Rights Act 1998, insofar as the provisions of that amendment relate to matters falling within the legislative competence of the Assembly, and agrees to the amendment's extension to Northern Ireland. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time limit on the debate. I call the Minister of Health to open the debate on the motion. Mr Nesbitt: Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. The Mental Health Bill introduced in the UK Parliament in November last year reforms the Mental Health Act 1983, which governs compulsory detention and treatment in England and Wales. That Act is the equivalent of our Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986. This Bill enhances patients' autonomy, tightens detention criteria, increases review frequency and removes prisons and police stations as places of safety. None of those measures will extend to Northern Ireland, but, today, we address an amendment extending specific provisions to this place. That amendment seeks to address a gap in Human Rights Act 1998 protections for mental health patients following the 2024 England and Wales High Court ruling in the case of Sammut v Next Steps Mental Healthcare Ltd. The amendment would ensure that private providers delivering certain mental health services, when funded or arranged by public bodies, are subject to Human Rights Act obligations. Although health and social care are devolved matters, the Assembly cannot directly amend the Human Rights Act, which is a reserved matter that requires the Assembly's consent for Northern Ireland application. Therefore, this legislative consent motion (LCM) is the only mechanism to extend the protections, and, without it, Northern Ireland risks disparities in human rights protections compared with the rest of the United Kingdom. I will move to the detail of the amendment. Specifically, to remove any doubt on the matter following the Sammut ruling, the amendment designates private providers as exercising public functions under section 6(3)(b) of the Human Rights Act when providing aftercare services post detention and voluntary inpatient treatment or health assessments. As I mentioned, although no private inpatient providers currently operate in Northern Ireland, the amendment future-proofs us should private inpatient services of that type that are publicly funded or commissioned open here in the future. That will ensure that they are held to the same human rights standards as in other UK jurisdictions. That aligns with the Bamford principles by enhancing patients' rights and dignity while ensuring uniformity and accountability. The UK Government's Department of Health and Social Care has worked closely with my Department to align the amendment with Northern Ireland's mental health framework, particularly its aftercare provisions, and I thank officials for their engagement. Consultation has been led by the Department of Health and Social Care. My Department has engaged the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and awaits its response. The amendment enjoyed cross-party support in Westminster, with no Northern Ireland-specific concerns having been raised in parliamentary debates. The Health Committee supports the legislative consent motion in principle, and its report has been shared with the Westminster Bill team. My Department's screening shows no adverse equality or rural impacts but shows benefits for patients through enhanced private provider accountability. It is my assessment that the amendment promotes equality by extending European Convention rights and protections to mental health patients regardless of provider type. Failure to support the motion would exclude Northern Ireland from the protections. Approving the motion will demonstrate our dedication to a rights-based mental health system, align with our legislative framework and uphold Bamford's vision. Furthermore, it will ensure, beyond doubt, that private providers that provide services on behalf of public authorities are accountable in the same way as public authorities are at present. I commend the legislative consent motion to the House and urge Members to support it. Mr McGuigan (The Chairperson of the Committee for Health): I welcome the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Health Committee and confirm its support for the motion that the Minister of Health has brought to the House today. The Mental Health Bill looks to modernise the Mental Health Act 1983. It will enhance patient autonomy, rights and transparency; tighten the detention criteria in the 1983 Act and provide for more frequent reviews; limit the period that people with autism or learning disability can be detained; and remove prisons and police stations as places of safety. The Mental Health (NI) Order 1986 governs mental health here, and therefore the Mental Health Bill does not apply. However, on 3 June 2025, an amendment was tabled. That amendment engages the Human Rights Act, which is a reserved matter, but it affects devolved health and social care in the North. Therefore, the amendment falls within the competence of the Assembly, and the LCM is required to include the North in that part of the Bill. The amendment seeks to designate private providers that deliver publicly funded mental health services as public authorities under section 6(3)(b) of the Human Rights Act when delivering specific services, therefore assuring compliance, as the Minister said, with the European Convention on Human Rights. The Department advised that those who are impacted on by the amendment include mental health patients; private health and care providers that are commissioned now or in the future; the Department of Health and trusts, which are responsible for arranging and paying for services. The Committee was briefed by officials on the amendment to the Mental Health Bill on 19 June 2025. The Committee had some concerns in relation to the timing of the laying of the LCM and the ability of the Committee and the Assembly to consider and approve or not approve it. At the briefing, officials confirmed that legislative consent is required for the amendment and that the date for the debate on the motion would be in September. Officials also advised that the final reporting stage at Westminster would not be moved until after the Assembly had an opportunity to consider the LCM. Committee members sought further information on the implications of the LCM for patients and services here. Officials confirmed that the amendment relates only to private providers of mental health inpatient services that are paid for by public money. Officials also confirmed that, at present, there are no private mental health providers in the North that receive mental health patients as inpatients. Therefore, as the Minister outlined, the amendment will future-proof protections. Members received assurances that, were there to be a private provider of those services in the future, processes would be put in place to ensure compliance. Following the briefing, the Committee agreed that it was content to support the LCM in order to ensure equitable human rights protections for patients here. Sin sin. [Translation: That is that.] Mr McGrath: I do not intend to speak on the motion for very long. At its core, the LCM is a piece of housekeeping legislation that ensures that any changes that take place are agreed here and the provisions are there for the future. We do not know whether it will be used. Currently, it will not be used, because we do not have those private providers, but there may be a day when we do have them, if such a decision is taken. It strikes me that, with all the additional pressures that we put on our mental health service, it is about having the right resources in place to address the implementation of any legislation. I am sure that there are many things that we could accuse the Health Minister of or throw at him, but we certainly cannot accuse him of not being at the forefront, leading on mental health. He has raised that issue time and time again as an MLA. However, we know that the Executive are not providing him with the funding that is needed to adequately implement all strands of mental health provision. We can look at the wider impacts in society. I look at many events that took place in my constituency over the summer in which mental health was a key cause of some very unfortunate crimes, of people losing their lives and of other events. Having resources in place for mental health is critical. Maybe the Minister will give us a bit of background on whether there are absolutely no resource implications as a result of the LCM or what future resource might be required, were we to change the way that we deliver that type of service. Mr Robinson: Like others, I support the LCM on the Mental Health Bill and the proposed amendment to extend its provisions to Northern Ireland. It is important that the most vulnerable in our society are protected, including through access to care and legal safeguards that uphold their rights. Top 3.15 pm When public money is spent on mental health services, whether they are delivered by the NHS or private providers, those services must be delivered with the same level of accountability, respect for rights and legal standards. We can all point to how mental health services in Northern Ireland are under huge pressure. We hear the demands from our constituents. While demand rises, the role of private providers will obviously grow. In that context, it is even more important that we maintain one clear legal framework for all providers that provide publicly funded care, especially into the future. Whilst statutory providers are clearly bound by the Human Rights Act, some ambiguity remains regarding private entities that are delivering publicly funded care. The amendment should tighten that gap and reinforce a simple but powerful principle: if a service is paid for with public funds, it must respect the public's rights, especially when that service involves the care of individuals who are experiencing a mental health crisis. Mental health legislation is a devolved matter. It is entirely proper that the Assembly has the opportunity to consent to provisions that fall within our legislative competence. By doing so, we can affirm that the Assembly has a commitment to consistent standards of care and human rights across jurisdictions. While it is seen as a technical adjustment, you could also say that it allows for a future step change in accountability and the protection of some of the most vulnerable members of society, and that, no matter who delivers mental health care, the rights of patients must come first. It is therefore positive for those who are in receipt of mental health services now or in the future, whether they are from public or private providers, that they can rely on the full protection of the law in the future. I support the LCM. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Alan. I now call on the Minister of Health to conclude —. Sorry, I call Danny Donnelly. Sorry, Danny. I am away ahead of myself. It is a mortal sin. Danny, go ahead. Thank you. Mr Donnelly: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. The motion is about fairness and consistency. It is about ensuring that people in Northern Ireland who rely on mental health services have the same protections wherever their care is delivered and whoever delivers it. A court judgement in England exposed a serious flaw. It revealed that, where a private organisation is commissioned to deliver mental health care that is paid for with public money, the Human Rights Act does not always apply. In practice, that meant that patients who received publicly funded care in those settings could not rely on the same protection as those who were treated directly by the state. That gap in protection is unacceptable. It shows a two-tier system where the rights that you can exercise depend not on your needs but on whether the care is provided by the NHS directly or by a provider under contract. That cannot be right, and it cannot be allowed to remain. One of the most important aspects of the motion is that it gives reassurance to patients and families. It tells them that, no matter how care is arranged, their rights will not be diluted. It gives a level of trust in a system that, for too long, has struggled under pressure and left many people feeling vulnerable and unheard. By closing that gap, we are providing better protections and standing behind people who use mental health services, ensuring that the protections that they deserve are firmly in place. In Northern Ireland, our mental health services are governed under separate legislation. At present, there are no private providers offering inpatient mental health services in the jurisdiction. However, as other Members have noted, services evolve, pressures rise, and the day may come when private providers are commissioned to deliver inpatient care. The LCM ensures that, if that happens, patients here will not be left behind and will have the same fundamental protections as people elsewhere in the UK. Of course, passing this law is only one part of the picture. I hope that, if private providers do come into the system here, correct pathways, oversight mechanisms and regulatory bodies are firmly in place to make sure that those protections are meaningful in practice. There is still work to do to ensure that standards are upheld at the highest level and that rights are not just promised in legislation but lived and enforced in reality. We have a chance to learn from serious flaws that were exposed in England, where gaps in the law left families without protections on which they should have been able to rely. There is an opportunity to act differently in Northern Ireland and to close that gap before it even opens. Too often, our health service finds itself in reactive mode, responding to crises after they have already caused harm. This Bill does the opposite: it is forward-thinking, it is problem-solving, and it prevents potential injustice before it even reaches our system. That is exactly the kind of approach that we need more of across the health service. The LCM is therefore the right step. It future-proofs our health system and sends a clear message that human rights must follow the person and not the provider. It ensures that people in Northern Ireland who rely on mental health services will be protected with the same fairness and dignity as anyone across these islands. I support the motion. My Health Committee colleague Nuala McAllister was also due to speak on the motion. Regrettably, she is unable to attend the debate. I hope that that will be swiftly resolved. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Danny. Apologies for not calling you, but you got your own back. I call — definitely this time — the Minister of Health to conclude the debate and make a winding-up speech on the motion. Mr Nesbitt: Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank the Members who contributed to the debate. Their thoughtful contributions gave me a sense of a collective commitment to safeguarding the rights and dignity of those with mental health conditions, learning disabilities or a diagnosis of autism. I will not delay the House. Mr McGrath was the only Member who raised a question, which was about the costs. I can assure him that no direct costs are associated with the legislative consent motion and that there is no cost to the trusts. If we end up in a position in which there are private providers — that might be a matter of regret, because I would rather that it be done by Health and Social Care — there could be compliance costs, but that is not a matter for us. Mr McGrath said that the issue was one of housekeeping. For me, it is about ensuring that the house looks after its guests fairly and equitably and pays proper attention to their rights and dignity. Question put and agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly endorses the principle of extending the amendment to the UK Mental Health Bill to Northern Ireland to ensure that private providers delivering publicly funded mental health services are accountable under the Human Rights Act 1998, insofar as the provisions of that amendment relate to matters falling within the legislative competence of the Assembly, and agrees to the amendment's extension to Northern Ireland. Committee Business Adult Protection Bill: Extension of Committee Stage Mr McGuigan (The Chairperson of the Committee for Health): The Adult Protection Bill passed its Second —. Sorry. I beg to move That, in accordance with Standing Order 33(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 33(2) be extended to 27 March 2026, in relation to the Committee Stage of the Adult Protection Bill. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Sorry, Philip. Apologising has become the trend for some. The Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time limit on the debate. I call the Chairperson of the Committee for Health to open the debate on the motion. Mr McGuigan: Tá brón orm. [Translation: I am sorry.] The Adult Protection Bill passed its Second Stage on 30 June 2025 and was referred to the Committee the following working day. The Bill is the result of a number of significant adult safeguarding failures in places such as Dunmurry Manor care home and Muckamore Abbey Hospital. The Bill has 51 clauses and makes provisions in areas such as inquiries; powers of investigation; assessment, removal, banning and protection orders; the establishment of the Adult Protection Board; offences involving ill treatment or wilful neglect; and the regulation of CCTV. In his opening remarks at Second Stage, the Minister outlined the importance of the legislation, which had been five years in the making. I thank the Minister for saying in his closing remarks in the debate that he was relaxed about the Committee's intention to seek to extend the Committee Stage to March 2026. The Committee places high importance on the legislation and understands that its primary role is to scrutinise legislation. The Committee has commenced its work at pace, and it issued a call for evidence over the summer. The Committee requests an extension of the Committee Stage to 27 March 2026 to allow it time to scrutinise the clauses of the Bill. The Bill affects some of our most vulnerable people and, clearly, their families. The Committee will consider how to engage with those who are most impacted on by the Bill. The Bill covers a number of complex and sensitive issues, including assessment, removal and banning orders and the use of CCTV. The Committee will have to consider very carefully those complex issues and any possible amendments to the Bill. It is the Committee's intention, if it can do so, to report on the Bill earlier than 27 March 2026, but it asks for this extension. I commend the motion to the House. Question put and agreed to. Resolved: That, in accordance with Standing Order 33(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 33(2) be extended to 27 March 2026, in relation to the Committee Stage of the Adult Protection Bill. Private Members' Business Gaza: Action to End Forced Starvation Mr Kearney: I beg to move That this Assembly notes with deep concern the declaration of famine in Gaza by the integrated food security phase classification (IPC), with half a million people, a quarter of Palestinians in Gaza, suffering from famine; further notes the IPC's assessment that the situation is entirely man-made and the assessment by the head of emergency relief at the UN that it is a result of systematic obstruction by Israel; condemns Israel's use of starvation as a weapon of war; further condemns the targeting and killing by Israeli forces of hundreds of Palestinians desperately trying to access aid through the discredited, US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation; and calls for an immediate ceasefire, an end to ongoing genocide and ethnic cleansing, the immediate and unconditional supply of all required humanitarian aid to Gaza, the release of all hostages and the upholding of human rights and international law. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. An amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List, so the Business Committee has agreed that 15 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate. Mr Kearney: "Leave now or face obliteration". That was the message that was received this morning by children in Gaza who picked up leaflets that were dropped by the Israeli military. As of August 2025, a catastrophic famine in Gaza has been confirmed. The situation in Gaza is beyond apocalyptic. The horror is absolutely unimaginable. Four hundred Palestinians have died from starvation, including 135 Gazan children. One in three children is acutely malnourished. Starvation is being used as a weapon of war. One child is killed every hour, and Gaza is now the most dangerous place on the planet for children to live. A deliberate, man-made famine is being inflicted on a defenceless population, who are being murdered systematically as they search for food. Since the launch of the US-funded Gaza Humanitarian Foundation in May 2025, over 2,000 Palestinians have been killed at so-called humanitarian aid distribution sites. In reality, they are nothing more than deathtraps. The United Nations also warns that enforced disappearances of starving civilians, including children, have been reported at those sites. Israel's vicious and brutal onslaught on Gaza and the West Bank has resulted in the death of over 64,000 Palestinians, 20,000 of whom are now recorded as being children. The actual death toll is much higher, because what is not known is the number of bodies that lie lifeless beneath the rubble. There are no safe places in Gaza, despite the Israeli black propaganda. Israel's indiscriminate warmongering has resulted in the murder of journalists and healthcare, civil defence and humanitarian aid workers. The United Nations has asserted that over two million people are being trapped, bombed and starved. Israel's murderous intent for the region cannot go unchallenged. This Israeli regime is now applying a systematic, scorched-earth strategy in Gaza. Rafah, which was the second-largest city on the strip, no longer exists. It has been turned into rubble. Currently, every high-rise building remaining in Gaza City is being destroyed daily. A ruthless holocaust is being inflicted on the Palestinian people in Gaza and the West Bank. The launch of the Global Sumud flotilla is a powerful demonstration by people from all over the world to demand the end to this genocide. Currently, the freedom flotilla has 50 boats from 44 countries spanning six continents, and it is the largest humanitarian fleet in history. Yet, in another outrage this morning, the flotilla has been bombed with a drone. Last weekend, the Global Day of Action for Gaza mobilised millions around the world, and tens of thousands of people marched in our cities, towns and villages across Ireland and elsewhere in solidarity with the Palestinian people, calling for the US and British Governments to end their complicity, to stop the slaughter and to support a ceasefire. So in some respects, the tide of world opinion is beginning to turn. Ordinary people all over the world understand what they are seeing daily in their media: a desperate people being deliberately starved, displaced and murdered in a sustained genocide. Top 3.30 pm Israel stands in defiance of international law and the multilateral order. It is in violation of the Geneva conventions, the Rome statute, the genocide convention and the UN charter. It is in breach of the international obligations that an occupying power must observe. The Israelis and those who support them are destroying every diplomatic and humanitarian norm that has guided the world over the past eight decades. In violation of the UN headquarters agreement obligation, the US itself, in another disgraceful act of complicity, has refused to grant entry visas for the Palestinian delegation to attend the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York today. That US-Israeli censorship will only bring greater focus on the queue of countries that are now assembling at the UNGA to recognise the state of Palestine. That UNGA will mark 23 months of sustained genocidal war against the Palestinian people, and we must hope that those gathered at the Assembly will call for action under the "Uniting for Peace" resolution, empowering the General Assembly to circumvent the ongoing obstruction that has been taking place at the Security Council with the misuse — the egregious misuse — of vetoes. The most powerful in the international community can no longer ignore or stay silent in the face of Israel's war crimes. Their prevarication and conditionality are now morally and politically bankrupt. Israel is a terrorist state. Its latest terrorist act was demonstrated no earlier than today when it bombed the Hamas negotiation team in Doha, Qatar, while it was reviewing the proposals and ideas that it was supplied with, via the Qataris, by the United States. What happened? The very people who were looking at the proposals and ideas for progressing a ceasefire were bombed by the terrorists. Comprehensive and robust actions must be taken to end the genocide and hold Israel to account for its crimes against humanity in the Palestinian territories. There must be an immediate and permanent ceasefire. Israel must lift the illegal blockade on humanitarian aid into the Strip. Israel must be held accountable for its war crimes and its state terrorism. Netanyahu and Gallant must be brought before the International Criminal Court. The world, particularly the Global North, must finally recognise the Palestinian right to self-determination and statehood. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Go raibh maith agat [Translation: Thank you] , Declan [Interruption.] I am sorry. I will not have anybody shouting from a sedentary position, please. Every motion is deserving of the same humility, and I ask people to be mindful of that. I call Doug Beattie to move the amendment. Mr Beattie: I beg to move the following amendment: Leave out all after "suffering from famine;" and insert: "further notes that this crisis is man-made and results from restrictions on humanitarian access, obstruction by Israeli authorities and diversion of aid by armed groups, including Hamas; condemns the use of starvation, hostage-taking, indiscriminate attacks and the targeting of civilians as weapons of war; calls for an immediate ceasefire, the unconditional release of all hostages, unhindered humanitarian aid under international oversight and renewed international efforts towards a negotiated two-state solution." Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Doug. You will have 10 minutes to propose the amendment and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other speakers will have five minutes. Doug, please open the debate on the amendment. Mr Beattie: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. My contribution will be quite short, because we have debated the issue long and hard, and all political parties have laid out their stall on it. It may make people feel a little more comfortable if they are able to talk about the matter, but, in reality, it does absolutely nothing for the people in the region, who continue to suffer. I have to correct something, however: the flotilla was not bombed. Somebody fired a ship's flare that went off on the deck, but that does not matter; it is no issue. I will reiterate the Ulster Unionist Party's position on what is happening in Gaza: we affirm that all life, be that Palestinian or Israeli, is of equal value and must be protected under international law. The party rejects any form of collective punishment. There should be an immediate ceasefire and a return to the negotiations. Humanitarian aid should be allowed into Gaza unrestricted, and the United Nations should take over control of that operation. There should be an immediate release without preconditions of all the hostages, even those who are already dead. Their families want their bodies back. The UN should establish a conflict-monitoring force such as we have here in Europe in the form of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). We support the Oslo agreement and want to see a two-state solution. That is where we have always been. That has not changed. I am just reiterating that position. Let me be clear, however: starvation should never be used as a weapon of war. Rape should never be used as a weapon of war. Torture should never be used as a weapon of war. Hostage-taking, terrorism and indiscriminate targeting of civilians should not be used as weapons of war. A lot of what I have just said is in the Sinn Féin motion. I have said nothing that is really outside of it, but Sinn Féin forgets to mention Hamas and what it has to do with the conflict. In our amendment, we have tried to add a bit of balance yet again — nothing more. This might surprise everybody, but, regardless of whether you are a terrorist organisation with a political party heading you up or you are a standing military, you are bound by humanitarian laws in conflict: necessity, humanity, proportionality and distinction. Hamas, the Israelis and the Palestinian West Bank state are all bound and governed by those laws. Have the Israeli Government breached those principles? Yes, they have. Has Hamas breached them? Yes, it has. Yet, nowhere in the motion or in any of the motions that we have had on Gaza has there been criticism of Hamas. Hamas is a terrorist organisation that is linked to Hezbollah and the Houthis and controlled by the Iranian terror network and an Iranian Government who stood in China with the Chinese, Russian and North Korean heads of state. Hamas applauded, just yesterday, the murder of six Israelis — applauded it. It initiated the present round of conflicts with the appalling actions of 7 October 2023 and said that it would do it again and again. The human rights abuses of its own people, including minority groups, go unchecked, and it indoctrinates children into violence, fails to protect women and girls from gender-based violence, supports the marriage of girls under the age of 15 and supports violence within the family. Hamas is also stealing humanitarian aid and selling it on the black market. Sometimes, when we have such debates, we find ourselves thinking that Hamas has nothing whatever to do with what has happened in the region, but it absolutely does. We need to have balance. That is not an excuse, one way or the other, but it is a balance. I hear an awful lot of rhetoric, which is anti-British in many ways, that tries to make out that the UK is arming the Israelis. The truth is that the United Kingdom is not. It gives very little, and what it gives is mostly for the F-35 global project. Do you know who arms the Israelis? The United States. Guess how it does it: through Shannon Airport. Thousands of tons of equipment and thousands of military personnel go through Shannon Airport on the way to the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). That is where they go. I hear not a single chirp about that, and we should hear about it. If people really want to have an impact from here in the West on what is happening there, do you know what they need to do? Get themselves down to Shannon Airport, stick a placard up and stand there, because that is where they will get an impact. A fact that I know to be true is that, when conflicts start, innocent people pay the price — innocent Palestinian men, women and children and innocent Israeli men, women and children. That will not end until the conflict and its causes end. That requires negotiation and a two-state solution, as laid out in the Oslo agreement. It is pretty easy to support the Sinn Féin motion. It is uncontroversial. I will support it. All the right ingredients are in there, so I can support it, and I will get pats on the back when we go out of here. It is harder, however, to put balance into something and to turn around and say, "No, Hamas: you are a terrorist organisation, and what you did on 7 October" — what Hamas did then did not start the wider conflict, and I am not saying that it did, but it did start the present round of conflict — "was wrong. The rape, torture and murder was wrong". It is harder to go for balance, but that is all our amendment does: it provides balance. I ask Members to look at our amendment. It has all the ingredients that are in the motion, and the only difference is that we ask people to understand that Hamas is not an innocent bystander to what is happening in the Middle East. Mr Frew: I acknowledge the Sinn Féin motion — just words on a page — knowing fine rightly that those words on a page will have no impact or effect whatever. Yesterday, unionists were lambasted for tabling a motion about the Windsor framework and the protocol and the damage that they do to businesses and consumers in Northern Ireland. This is the first opportunity that Sinn Féin has had to table a motion, and it is on Gaza. The situation in Gaza is serious. The war in the Middle East is hell, but the motion will not have one bit of an effect — it will not change one child's life — yet Sinn Féin has tabled it. I look forward to Sinn Féin being consistent and tabling motions on Ukraine, Myanmar, Syria, Sudan, South Sudan, Somalia, Congo, Mali and Haiti — I could go on to list all the countries that are involved in wars. War is hell, and the people who are most affected by war are innocent civilians. Does history not teach us that a consequence of war is famine? Members on these Benches and from all parties on this side of the House have always been consistent in condemning actions by the Israeli state whenever they needed to be condemned. We do so again today. However, I have never heard Sinn Féin condemn Hamas. It is Hamas that has had its jackboot on the Palestinian people for years and years, and it is Hamas that will be the barrier to a two-state solution in the region, because, if there were to be a two-state solution tomorrow, the Palestinian people would be locked into a constant Hamas regime that would do them down. Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way? Mr Frew: Yes, I will. Mr O'Toole: The Member says that Hamas would be the barrier to a two-state solution. I am not and have never been a supporter of Hamas. I have criticised Hamas multiple times in the Chamber. Does the Member accept, however, that Israeli West Bank settler terrorism, violence and illegal settlements also represent a fundamental barrier to a two-state solution? Will the Member say that? Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute. Top 3.45 pm Mr Frew: I will say it again: we have always condemned Israeli state actions that fall short of any convention or any humanitarian law. That is the thing about this party and about others. We have consistently tabled amendments, and we supported the Ulster Unionist Party amendment the last time, which was a balance. The UUP will say that the amendment that it has tabled today offers a balance. We do not necessarily agree with that sentiment, but that party has tried, whereas no effort is being made by Sinn Féin to be balanced in this regard. Therefore, when Sinn Féin utters words on Gaza, that is propaganda. It can be nothing but propaganda because it is not balanced. It is propaganda. Mr Donnelly: Will the Member give way? Mr Frew: Yes, I will. Mr Donnelly: Thank you. I heard you say that you support criticism of, or that you have criticised, the Israeli state at times. I have yet to hear any criticism of the Israeli state and Israeli state actions in what you have said. Can you clarify that? Mr Frew: Yes, I can. I can very clearly state that starvation should not be used as an action of war. That is repulsive to me as someone who served in the Royal Irish. I could never abide by that under the Geneva Convention. My colleague Doug Beattie has raised that issue time and time again. It is really important that state forces, from any state, abide by the Geneva Convention, and, if they lapse from or breach that convention, they should be investigated, and people should be put on trial. That should be the case, and we have always been consistent on that. However, Sinn Féin will ignore and, in fact, cheerlead, at times, the actions of Hamas. If Hamas yearned for peace, it could release all the hostages that it holds today. Where is Sinn Féin calling for the release of hostages today, yesterday, the month before? They should never have been held in captivity, yet they have been held for months and months and months. Hamas will not even release dead bodies. Hamas could end this war tomorrow if it showed that commitment to release hostages, but it chooses not to. Sinn Féin chooses to ignore that very important piece of information, so I plead today that the House recognise the hurt that Hamas has caused not only in the state of Israel but for its own people. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up. Mr Frew: Thank you. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Paul. Mr Tennyson: The situation in Gaza is a man-made humanitarian catastrophe. Over 63,000 people have been killed, and many more have been maimed and injured. The strip lies in ruins, and famine now grips the population. Over 1,400 health workers, over 200 journalists and over 100 aid workers have been murdered. When children are shot while collecting aid, families are forcibly displaced and starvation is wielded as a weapon of war, we must speak plainly and act decisively. What we are witnessing playing out on our television screens is a genocide, and we have a duty to act. Alliance has consistently and unequivocally condemned the terrorist attacks of Hamas on 7 October, which claimed the lives of over 1,200 Israelis and resulted in the capture of over 250 hostages. We have continued to call for their immediate and unconditional release. Let me also take this opportunity today to condemn the horrific terrorist attack that took place in Jerusalem yesterday. There can never be justification for attacks on innocent civilians, but nor can the vile actions of Hamas excuse the collective punishment of an entire civilian population, a population that has not had the opportunity to cast a vote for Hamas in almost 20 years. To be clear, defeat of Hamas will not be achieved through famine and suffering, nor will the foundations for lasting peace or security be laid on the graves of thousands of innocent men, women and children in Gaza. All lives are equal, Palestinian and Israeli. There must be an immediate and permanent ceasefire and unrestricted flow of humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip. It is obscene and heartbreaking that, while children starve in Gaza, abundant food lies just miles away. The Labour Government too must end their complicity. The strongly worded statements of condemnation must be matched with action through the full suspension of arms sales, the introduction of sanctions against Netanyahu's security cabinet and withdrawal from the UK-Israel free trade agreement. The UK rightly took steps against Russia following its illegal invasion of Ukraine and must take robust action now to defend international law in Gaza. Gaza must not become a graveyard for international law and human rights. Alliance has also long supported the recognition of a Palestinian state, but that is more urgent than ever today. A two-state solution provides the only viable means by which Palestinians and Israelis can live side by side in peace and security. The Israeli Government, however, have rejected that position, instead seeking to expand illegal settlements in the West Bank, with the Israeli Finance Minister explicitly stating that it would: "bury the idea of a Palestinian state." Recognition must, therefore, not be wielded as a bargaining chip or a symbolic gesture, but granted irreversibly and without conditions to keep the very prospect of a two-state solution alive. Whilst those of us in Northern Ireland cannot end the crisis alone, we can and must act with compassion and as part of a broader coalition to stand up for justice, human rights and international law. We have a rich history of providing humanitarian assistance and sanctuary to those in need. That is why I am pleased that the Executive have agreed to participate in the medical evacuations from the Gaza Strip of children who require specialist care. It is shameful, however, that some politicians in the Chamber railed against providing that support. I cannot begin to fathom how callous or cruel you have to be to turn away two children — two children — who have faced starvation and require specialist medical support. We also must get assurances from the Finance Minister and the Economy Minister that no public money is being used in any way to support the supply of arms to countries where there is a prima facie case of genocide to answer. When we last debated the crisis in Gaza, scurrilous —. Mr Frew: Will the Member give way? Mr Tennyson: I will indeed. Mr Frew: Will the Member clarify that remark? Is he saying that any companies that produce weapons in Northern Ireland should not get government support or funding? Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute. Mr Tennyson: I am not saying that. I am saying that the Government need to assure themselves that the weapons are not being supplied to any states that are involved in potentially genocidal actions. Ministers need to come to the Chamber and make that position clear. When we last debated this crisis, scurrilous allegations of anti-Semitism were made towards those of us who expressed concern at the actions of the Israeli Government — a contribution that conflated the Jewish people with the Israeli Government, but also ignored the plurality of opinion in Israel, where brave activists and organisations have stood up against this genocide. Therefore, allow me to be clear now: I utterly reject anti-Semitism and all forms of racism in our community. I stand firmly with Northern Ireland's small Jewish, Muslim and Palestinian communities who face trauma and feel vulnerable at this time. When the scale of suffering is so severe and the silence so deafening, it can be easy for us all to despair. One day, everyone will have been against this genocide. We have a duty to speak up for peace, justice and international law now before it is too late. Our constituents expect nothing less. Mr O'Toole: We debated the appalling genocide and criminal actions of the Israeli state in Gaza just a few months ago. Since then, thousands of innocent Palestinians, including hundreds of children, have died. Let us put that into some context: more than the entire loss of life during our three-decade conflict has been lost in just a few months in a tiny strip of land about the size of the Ards peninsula. When I hear people talk in the Chamber — I want us to approach the subject with seriousness, given the seriousness of what we are talking about — I sometimes wonder whether people quite appreciate the gravity of what we are living through when they say that we should, for example, "inject balance" into our remarks or, indeed, that what we say here does not matter. I sometimes wonder whether they think about themselves 10, 20 or 30 years hence, having had the opportunity to be elected representatives at a time when a genocide was happening. I wonder whether they and others will look back and reflect on their record when they had a platform in this Chamber, even if it was —. Dr Aiken: Respectfully, will the Member give way? Mr O'Toole: Respectfully, I will give way in one moment to the Member. Mr O'Toole: I wonder whether they will look back and reflect on what they said and whether they used their words, their platform and their mandate to stand against an appalling, depraved genocide that was happening in our times — in our lives — and that was facilitated by states, including the UK, which has been a long-time ally of the state of Israel. I sometimes wonder whether people will look back then. I will give way to Dr Aiken. Dr Aiken: Thank you very much indeed. My intervention is about the fact that one of the last things that David Lammy did before he stood down as Foreign Secretary was to identify the fact that the United Kingdom Government have concluded that Israel is not acting with intent and is therefore not conducting genocide. What is the Member's view on the British Government's current view that Israel is not conducting genocide? Indeed, other parties here are saying that Israel is conducting genocide when, in fact, there is no evidence whatsoever to show that. Mr O'Toole: I am afraid —. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute. Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I say this with the greatest respect: Dr Aiken has come to the Chamber on multiple occasions and said the most disreputable things on the subject. I do not want to get into a back and forth with him, but I think that he will look back and reflect on some of the statements that he has made in here. I hope that he thinks about the wisdom of those remarks. As I said, I do not want to get into a back and forth, because the subject is too important. To cover his point specifically, do I think that the UK Government are credible on the subject of Israel and genocide? Of course I do not. They have spoken out of both sides of their mouth. They have been mealy-mouthed. The current Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, said that Israel had the right to blockade food, water and aid from Gaza. The Prime Minister said that, so do I think that his former Foreign Secretary and his Government are credible on the issue of genocide? Obviously not, Dr Aiken. On the recognition of Palestine as a state, that is another example of where Mr Lammy will be on the wrong side of history, because, a few months ago, he pathetically and shamefully said, with great aplomb and apparently expecting praise, that the UK would, with conditionality if Israel did not do certain things, recognise the state of Palestine, giving a genocidal state — members of whose Government have said that they effectively want to wipe out the Palestinian people — the final say over whether a Palestinian state is recognised. All that I am saying today is that they should look back on the statements and read the words of Israeli Government Ministers. Read what they have said and then come back to the Chamber and repeat some of what you have said over the past while. I genuinely do not want to get into a back and forth across the Chamber. The most important thing is that we in the Chamber, even though we are on the island of Ireland, which is many miles away from Gaza, have a voice, and we have the ability to stand against an appalling genocide. Everybody has a voice, be it through a social media account or the ability to stand and participate in a protest, as people have done on numerous occasions on this island, including yesterday when Mothers Against Genocide stood outside the front of this Building. People should use their voice and stand against the appalling actions of the Israeli state. On 22 August, the UN World Food Programme, the World Health Organization and others said that half a million people were experiencing famine in Gaza. Half a million people, which is a quarter of the population, in a space the size of the Ards peninsula were experiencing famine. Four days later, Israel bombed a hospital. Innocent people were obviously killed, because that is what happens when you bomb hospitals. Then, when people went to rescue those who were trapped and dying under the rubble, Israel bombed the hospital again. A grotesque, genocidal war is being visited upon innocent people in Gaza. I do not minimise and have never minimised what happened on 7 October. The response, however, from the state of Israel has been indescribably disproportionate and immoral. I do not know when it is going to end, because I fear that the world order is collapsing, with a grotesque lawbreaker in the White House who seems happy to allow genocide to happen. That is why it is so important that those of us who have a voice use it. We will, of course, support today's motion. I welcome the fact that the matter has been brought back to the Chamber, and it should continue to be brought back to this Chamber and every Chamber in every democracy around the world that cares about decency, humanity and human rights. We support the motion. Top 4.00 pm Mr Sheehan: Le 23 mhí anuas, tá muid ag amharc ar chinedhíothú agus é á chraoladh beo ag a íospartaigh féin. Chonaic gach duine againn sa Seomra na híomhánna uafásacha de choirp chráite, mhaslaithe, coirp páistí agus leanaí nuabheirthe san áireamh, chonaic muid sin ar an teilifís s’againn nó ar na meáin shóisialta ag teacht ó Gaza. Déanann Palaistínigh in Gaza taifeadadh ar an bheatha dhosheasta acu gach aon lá — an bás, an t-ocras agus an léirscrios — rinneadh an tuairisciú sin a mhaolú san Iarthar, nó tá an tIarthar ciontach chomh maith i gcoireanna Iosrael. Ach níl a dhath ar bith normálta faoin rud atá ar siúl; níl a dhath normálta faoin bhás agus an léirscrios a bheith ina gcuid den ghnáthshaol. Tá na híomhánna scanrúla de pháistí a mharaigh fórsaí Iosrael as eadán a chéile, cibé acu trí ionsaithe aeir nó talún, tá sin ar an rud is scanrúla ar fad. Is smál ar an chine daonna é a bhfuil ar siúl in Gaza. Dar le hOifig na Náisiún Aontaithe um Chomhordú Gnóthaí Daonnúla go bhfuil líon oifigiúil na mbásanna ar taifead anois níos airde ná 63,000 duine. Is páistí iad 29% den líon iomlán — sin 18,400 páiste. Níl ciall do náire ag Benjamin Netanyahu ná ag a chomhchiontóirí agus iad ag marú mná agus páistí neamhchiontacha. Níl aon fhadhb acu iriseoirí a mharú; níl aon fhadhb acu dochtúirí ná oibrithe cabhrach daonnúla a mharú ach oiread agus iad ag iarraidh cuidiú leis na híospartaigh den chinedhíothú seo. Sna 24 an chloig seo caite, tá Benjamin Netanyahu i ndiaidh ionradh talún a dhéanamh i gCathair Gaza, á rá le saoránaigh na cathrach "a bheith ar shiúl anois". Cá rachaidh siad? Tá siad sáinnithe. Tá normalú á dhéanamh ar an ghlanadh eitneach os ár gcomhair. Dé Sathairn 6 Meán Fómhair, chuaigh baill de chuid Shinn Féin i gcomhar leis na milliúin gníomhaithe ar fud an domhain le Lá Domhanda Gníomhaíochta do Gaza a cheiliúradh. Rinne Comhghuaillíocht Dhomhanda na Palaistíne, a bunaíodh le déanaí, rinne sin comhordú ar lá domhanda gníomhaíochta, agus é mar aidhm aici comhghuaillíocht idirnáisiúnta leathan a thógáil le féinchinntiúchán na Palaistíne a chosaint. Tá sé ríthábhachtach go seasfaimid le chéile in aghaidh chinedheighilt, fhorghabháil agus chinedhíothú Iosrael, agus go dtacóimid le hiarrachtaí idirnáisiúnta comhordaithe. Tá na duisíní long ag taisteal trasna na Meánmhara faoi láthair leis an bhac mhídhleathach ar Gaza a bhriseadh. Meastar gurb é global Sumud flotilla an cabhlach sibhialta comhordaithe is mó riamh. Cáinim go láidir an t-ionsaí a rinneadh aréir ar long de chuid an chabhlaigh a bhí sa Túinéis. Léiríonn an t-ionsaí sin nach bhfuil a dhath trom ná te ag Iosrael ná ag lucht a pháirte. Cuirim in iúl mo dhlúthpháirtíocht do na céadta gníomhaithe atá ag glacadh páirt sa chablach. Má sheasaimid i leataobh agus gan a dhath a dhéanamh is ionann sin agus an bua a ligean leis an olc. Níl aon pháirt rómhór ná róbheag — tá páirt againn go léir le himirt le deireadh a chur le dúbhearta Iosrael in aghaidh na daonnachta. Is bagairt bhradach í Iosrael atá ag sárú ar an dlí idirnáisiúnta agus ar chearta an duine. Baghcat, dí-infheistíocht agus smachtbhannaí an t-aon dóigh amháin a stopfar coireanna Iosrael. Nuair a chuirfear stop le feachtas marfach Iosrael agus nuair a thabharfar na daoine atá ciontach os comhair na cúirte sa Háig, beidh síocháin, dínit agus dóchas ann do mhuintir na Palaistíne. [Translation: For the past 23 months, we have watched a genocide being broadcast live by its own victims. Whether on our television screens or on social media, each of us in the Chamber has seen the horrifying images of brutalised and mutilated bodies, including those of children and newborn babies, being shared from Gaza. Every day, Palestinians in Gaza are recording their own unendurable existence — death, starvation and destruction — coverage that has been normalised by the West, which is complicit in Israel’s atrocities. However, there is nothing normal about what is going on; there is nothing normal in your everyday life being surrounded by death and destruction on a mass scale. The horrific images of children who have been indiscriminately murdered by Israeli forces, whether by air or ground assaults, is the most disturbing part of it all. What is going on in Gaza is a stain on humanity. The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs has recorded the official death toll as now surpassing 63,000. Twenty-nine per cent of that figure — 18,400 — are children. Benjamin Netanyahu and his crooks have no shame in killing innocent women and children. They have no issue with killing journalists; nor do they have any issue with killing medics and humanitarian aid workers trying to help the victims of this genocide. In the past 24 hours, Benjamin Netanyahu has launched a ground operation on Gaza City telling its citizens to "leave now". Where does he want them to go? They are trapped. What we are seeing is ethnic cleansing being normalised. On Saturday 6 September, Sinn Féin party members joined millions of activists across the world to mark the Global Day of Action for Gaza. The day of action was coordinated by the newly formed Global Alliance for Palestine, which aims to build an international broad-based alliance in defence of Palestinian self-determination. It is imperative that we stand together against Israel’s systems of apartheid, occupation and genocide and to support such coordinated international efforts. At present, dozens of ships are travelling across the Mediterranean in an attempt to break the illegal sea blockade of Gaza. The global Sumud flotilla is expected to be the largest coordinated civilian flotilla in history. I condemn last night’s attack on one of the flotilla ships docked in Tunis. The attack illustrates that Israel and its supporters know no boundaries. To the hundreds of activists taking part in the flotilla, I send solidarity: standing by and doing nothing merely allows evil to triumph. No part is too great or too small; we all have our part to play in ending Israel’s atrocities against humanity. Israel is a rogue menace that has brought the very foundation of international law and human rights to a cliff edge. It is only through boycott, divestment and sanctions that Israel’s crimes will be brought to a halt. Only then, when Israel’s murderous campaign has been halted and those responsible are brought to justice in The Hague, will peace, dignity and hope be secured for the Palestinian people.] Mr Kingston: I will comment first on the political process. We have a motion on Gaza tabled by Sinn Féin in the Northern Ireland Assembly, when we have virtually no influence over UK foreign policy, which is a reserved matter for Westminster. The irony, of course, is that Sinn Féin has the ability to influence, debate and vote on such matters in Parliament at Westminster, but it chooses to boycott that elected Parliament. Today's debate only exposes its failure to turn up and represent people where it would count. I turn to the subject matter. Absolutely, the situation in Gaza is dire. We deplore the loss and suffering of all innocent life. Next month marks the second anniversary of the murderous onslaught by Hamas on 7 October 2023, when it carried out murder, rape and kidnapping, killing around 1,200 people and taking another 250 Israelis hostage. Hamas continues to ruthlessly hold hostages, starving them to death, and it continues its terrorist attacks and rocket assaults on Israel. This summer saw the retrieval of two more dead Israeli hostages. There are 48 still being held by Hamas, which indicates the unwillingness of Hamas to bring the war to an end. If we want peace, we must ensure that Hamas is ousted from Gaza. In Gaza, public criticism of Hamas carries significant risks. In March this year, 22-year-old Oday al-Rubai was abducted and tortured to death by armed gunmen after taking part in anti-Hamas protests in Gaza city. There are reports that others have been beaten, shot or killed for publicly opposing Hamas. Israel is clearly determined to end the rule of Hamas and eliminate its leadership. On the claims of genocide, as has already been referenced, a letter written last week by the then Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, confirmed that the UK Government do not believe that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. He wrote: "As per the Genocide Convention, the crime of genocide occurs only where there is 'specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.'" Writing to Sarah Champion, chairwoman of Parliament’s International Development Committee, Lammy stated: "The government has not concluded that Israel is acting with that intent." It is imperative that there is swift action and lasting solutions to this hugely concerning situation. As a party, we want to see a stark increase in the amount of aid reaching Gaza. We support the recent efforts made by all contributing parties, including airdrops, and call for those efforts to be redoubled. In addition, a repeat of previous temporary pauses in the conflict is needed to see vital aid making its way into Gaza. That would allow humanitarian corridors to open. DUP parliamentarians will continue to support any initiatives and efforts that see an increase of aid into Gaza. Whilst doing so, we continue to uphold Israel's right to defend itself and its internal security against the threats posed by the terrorist organisation, Hamas. Those ought not to be mutually exclusive aims. Hamas is a deadly gang of murderers, whose game is to swing international opinion in its favour and against the victims of its terror. The disturbing images from Gaza lead us all to the conclusion that the war must end. However, we must remember that it started because terrorists raped, burned and murdered people and took people captive. They still hold hostages today. That was done deliberately at a time when many Arab nations were moving to normalise their relations with the state of Israel. The time has now approached for redoubling of the efforts to see a permanent and sustainable ceasefire — Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Brian, your time is up. Mr Kingston: — that, in turn, will result in an end to the war. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you; that is much appreciated. Mr Donnelly: The ongoing slaughter in Gaza is the number-one issue that I receive correspondence about by a huge distance. I get letters, phone calls, emails and visits to the office. People are absolutely appalled by what is going on. However, it is not about us, although the whataboutery on the issue is, sadly, predictable. Your opinion on genocide does not impact on your national identity. If I speak out against violence, starvation and genocide and your first thought is to ask whether I condemn Hamas, that exposes your ability to separate atrocities on the basis of who commits them, not mine. In condemning violence, starvation and genocide, Hamas is included unequivocally and without question. When did the condemnation of genocide and the condemnation of terrorism become mutually exclusive? At what point did calling out mass starvation, mass murder and the erasure of an entire group of people mean that you support terrorism? I could try to explain the lack of basic human empathy behind that narrative. I can even talk about the lack of ability to think critically beyond bias that is so deeply engrained that it blinds reason, but that is exactly the point. Those who commit genocide, support genocide or deny genocide while it is unquestionably unfolding in front of the world are not people who listen to reason. Language is a powerful tool. It shapes how we see the world and how we communicate our view of the world to others. When we tell a story, the language that we use moulds how others view our experiences. Language can be manipulated to suit an agenda of hiding true actions and motives behind an exploitative narrative. Whether it is terrorism or state violence constituting a war crime, the words are different but the actions and the outcomes are the same, and the condemnation should be the same. It is about the pain and suffering of innocent people. A BBC report confirms that Israel has replaced the UN's food system with the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. Instead of 400 community sites, there are now just four, all in heavily militarised zones. Palestinians must walk long distances under fire to reach them. The report states that the Palestinians face a choice "between starvation and death" — the literal definition of a deathtrap. I attended an event last year — other Members who are present were also there — at which Professor Nick Maynard, who is a consultant gastrointestinal surgeon based in the University of Oxford in England has been visiting and working in Gaza since 2010, described having to do surgery on patients, often children, without dependable electricity, light or even analgesia. I cannot imagine the pain that those patients suffer or the impact on the brave medical professionals who risk their lives to do everything that they can to save lives in Gaza. Professor Maynard describes parts of Gaza as "post-apocalyptic", with hospitals being bombed and medics and journalists routinely killed. Professor Maynard and others have been bearing witness and sharing their testimony at the Gaza tribunal in Westminster. In doing so, Professor Maynard highlighted a pattern of: "clustering of injuries to particular body parts", and he stated that it was his opinion that there is: "clear evidence of target practice by the Israeli soldiers on ... young teenage boys." Every day, we see horrendous pictures on TV and social media of the ongoing atrocities against innocent civilians in Gaza. It has become normalised. Since May, the UN has recorded, at least 994 Palestinians have been killed near those food sites, among the 1,760 killed trying to get aid. Most were shot by Israeli troops, according to eyewitnesses and medics, although Israel denies that. Under that system, starvation in Gaza has only deepened. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), UNICEF, the World Food Programme and the World Health Organization have all highlighted atrocities of starvation in Gaza, and they are clear that the famine must be stopped at all costs. The Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC), which is the UN's system for measuring hunger, has confirmed that famine is now a reality. That means that the most extreme level has been reached. To reach that point, three things must all be true: extreme food deprivation; acute malnutrition; and deaths caused by starvation. The UN's human rights chief, Volker Türk, said it plainly: "It is a war crime to use starvation as a method of warfare". The BBC has reported that the Israeli army body, Coordinator of the Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT), has dismissed the IPC's findings as: "False and Biased ... Based on Partial Data Originating From the Hamas Terrorist Organization". Israel's foreign ministry has called it a: "fabricated report to fit Hamas's fake campaign". Those claims do not stand up. Even the US Government, Israel's closest ally, have produced internal reports finding no evidence of the systemic diversion of aid by Hamas. Another close ally, the former Foreign Secretary and the current Deputy Prime Minister, David Lammy, said: "The Israeli government’s refusal to allow sufficient aid into Gaza has caused this man-made catastrophe" and that it is "a moral outrage." Top 4.15 pm To recognise those crimes is not to take a side in politics — Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Danny, your time is up. Mr Donnelly: — it is to take the side of humanity. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you; that is much appreciated. Ms Bunting: I will not reiterate my party's position on genocide and famine, as colleagues have done so. I will address other points. I draw Members' attention to some posts. One from 11 hours ago stated: "25,056 boxes of aid delivered today ... Free and efficient aid, given directly to Palestinian civilians." Another post stated: "In just four months, we’ve delivered more than 160 million meals, powered by partnerships with local Palestinian organizations and communities and frontline humanitarian NGOs like @SamaritansPurse." A post from 18 hours ago: "Nearly 1·5 million meals delivered today ... The future of our distribution looks bright as we continue to engage with local communities and committed humanitarian partners to ensure Palestinians are fed." Two days ago, a post stated: "'Amir' is alive and safe. The Gazan boy that Tony Aguilar claimed was killed while seeking aid at a GHF site is alive. His real name is Abood, and he is eight years old. We are overjoyed and deeply relieved that Abood is safe". Those posts are from the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF), which, in its bio, states that it is: "committed to delivering critical emergency food aid to the people of Gaza safely and directly." Sinn Féin claims that it is discredited — discredited because it dispels the lies, perhaps? The thing about Hamas, Sinn Féin and their chums in the IRA and the radical left is that they will never let the facts get in the way of propaganda. "Amir" was reportedly killed by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) in May, but, a few days ago, was found alive and hiding with his mother. Four weeks ago, 900 trucks of aid were sent in. Around 400 to 500 trucks are deposited per week. The truth is that the UN would not pick it up, so it was being left to rot. It took Israel to bring journalists to Gaza to see the piles of rotting food to embarrass the UN into doing its job, but that does not fit the narrative. Eighty thousand babies have been born in Gaza since October 7. They do not say that, because it does not fit the narrative. A couple of days ago, Sky News Arabia reported on a new Nutella cafe opening in Gaza, but that does not fit the narrative either. The call to slaughter Jews has been played seven times on Palestinian Authority TV in the past year. That is not in the motion. Yesterday, seven Jews were killed in a terrorist attack on a bus in Jerusalem. An eyewitness said that the driver got off, took a call, returned for his belongings and fled, and then the terrorists boarded and opened fire. There is no mention of that, because that does not fit the narrative. In here, the Israelis have to be the bad guys. Let us get to the reality. Another tweet, three days ago, stated: "At the GHF distribution command center, I saw how secure distribution sites are successfully countering Hamas. The sites are built to prevent looting, so the aid actually reaches those who need it" It went on to thank a US representative for supporting its mission: "to provide aid to Palestinians in Gaza without interference from Hamas." The truth is that Hamas, much like the IRA, which, in previous years, threatened and punished its own to stop them going to the police, is threatening and beating innocent Palestinians to stop them going to the food centres. Like the IRA, Hamas is fine with people starving to death and using them as a propaganda tool. The truth is that many Palestinians are afraid. They are being coerced and controlled not by Israel but by Hamas fighters — none of them appear to be affected by famine, by the way — who are threatening them with violence if they go to the food distribution centres to feed their families. The message portrayed in the motion reflects only half of the picture, and, as was the case in the previous Gaza debate, wilfully ignores the complex reality. Certainly, it is horrifying to see anybody starving, particularly children, and to look at appalling images of emaciation and suffering, regardless of whether it is Gazan children or Hamas hostages still being held in tunnels: on that we can agree. We will support the UUP amendment. There are elements of it that cause me concern and with which I am not totally on board, but it is infinitely preferable to the propaganda and disinformation coming form the Benches opposite. It goes without saying that we will not buy what Sinn Féin is selling. Mr Dickson: Once again, I stand with Members to discuss the horrific war crimes being perpetrated in Gaza. In June, I said in the Chamber that, due to the withholding of food and aid, half a million people — a quarter of Palestinians in Gaza — were at risk of starvation and that Gaza was on the brink of famine. Shamefully, famine was confirmed in Gaza on 22 August, with the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification report stating that famine was on track to spread to the rest of Gaza, where 640,000 people could be starving within six weeks if more aid is not allowed in. That is, by any measure, a humanitarian crisis. I join fellow speakers who call for, first, an immediate ceasefire. The war is causing untold suffering. If more aid is not allowed into Gaza and a ceasefire is not called, it runs the risk of leading another cycle of intergenerational fear, hatred and violence that will make everyone in the region more unsafe and more unstable — something that we know about all too well in this small part of the world. I stand here distressed because we are once again discussing horrors that cannot be imagined. However, do not listen to my words; listen to the words gathered and recorded by B’Tselem, a well-respected humanitarian human rights organisation, an NGO that collects unbiased reports across Israel and in Gaza: "Planes bombed our house while we were sleeping. My brother Ibrahim was killed in this bombing along with his wife, Sally ... their son Hamdi, 2, and their baby daughter Masah, 4 months old ... Their bodies were torn to pieces and thrown onto the roofs of nearby houses. I was seriously injured all over my body, including my abdomen, and had several surgeries. My wife, all my daughters, my brother Mahmoud, and his family members were also injured ... the doctors had to amputate my five-year-old daughter Malak's leg because it was in really bad shape." According to the report, tens of thousands of wounded individuals and amputees remain without adequate care. Many are discharged into horrifically impossible conditions, living in tents and rags, destroyed buildings or makeshift shelters. Yet the United Kingdom Government and, shamefully, people in this Chamber equivocate about offering First World medical care to a small number of children who could be evacuated here for that care. Listen on. A parent says: "I dread the moment [my two children] Hanan and Misk will ask me about their legs. What will I tell them? When I go to buy shoes for my [other] children ... what will I say to them? ... They lost their mother, the love, compassion, and security she gave them, and they also lost their legs, their ability to move and play." If you were a mother today in Gaza, not only can you not feed your children but you do not even have enough milk in your breast to feed your babies. Those are horrific and dreadful situations, and we, as politicians in the First World, have a real and serious duty to tell our national Government in London that they need to take action — action that they should have taken a long time ago — to end the genocide, the starvation and the humanitarian horror. Ms McLaughlin: I thank the proposers of the motion. Words cannot capture the depth of the humanitarian disaster in Gaza, so, instead, let us use facts: food is running out; those who search for it are being shot; families are dying for lack of food; hospitals are receiving the dead daily; and medical workers hear unbearable stories from the injured day after day. Those are not my words; they are the words of the UN humanitarian chief, Tom Fletcher, addressing the Security Council just last month. The UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, has called the famine a "man-made disaster". Health workers in Gaza describe skeletal patients, including children too weak to even stand. The UN-backed Integrated Food Security Phase Classification has now confirmed famine conditions in Gaza City. Why would it lie, and what is Israel trying to achieve by wiping out an entire people? We must never forget the horror of 7 October, nor cease to demand the release of all hostages, but innocent men, women and children cannot be made to pay for the crimes of Hamas. Palestinian people are not Hamas. Let us be clear: what is happening in Gaza and the West Bank is genocide. Israel no longer even attempts to justify its bombing of hospitals, schools or homes. Its leaders are explicit. Former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant declared: "We are fighting human animals and we are acting accordingly". Just months ago, Ben Gvir argued that victory required the complete cessation of humanitarian aid and the total occupation of the Strip. Those are not my claims; they are Israel's own words, and yet the international community has largely looked away. Europe, in particular, has failed. Britain, France and Germany have been slow to react and act. Keir Starmer, who once prided himself on upholding international law, has failed to hold Israel accountable for the laws that are broken daily. Contrast that with the decisive sanctions imposed on Russia after Ukraine was invaded. The double standards are undeniable. Some institutions are showing leadership. Last week, Norway's sovereign wealth fund, which is the largest in the world, divested its $2 billion stake from Caterpillar because its equipment is being used to demolish Palestinian homes. It also divested from four Israeli banks that finance illegal settlements. That is historic; it is the first time that the fund has exited a non-Israeli company explicitly because of violations in the occupied territories. I joined a meeting with Mr Sharhabel al-Zaeem, the Justice Minister of Palestine, last week. He described the devastation that his people face but also their strength and dignity. He said something that struck me emotionally and deeply. He said that the Irish people have a special place in the hearts of the Palestinians. He wanted me to pass on his gratitude and greetings to the people here in this place who raise their voices for the Palestinian people. It is important that we do such a thing. That solidarity matters. In July, I visited Jordan and met politicians and civic leaders there who are working at the heart of the crisis. Their message was one of frustration with Europe and the US, because they have failed to engage meaningfully on humanitarian relief and political solutions. They warned that, if Gaza is destroyed and its population displaced, the consequences will be profound across the region. Those are the realities that we must face, however uncomfortable they may be. We must also reject attempts to commodify a people's homeland. The so-called Trump Gaza riviera plan, which proposed to turn Gaza into a development project for foreign investors, was an insult to human dignity. Gaza is not for sale. A home is not for sale. Palestine is not for sale. It belongs to its people. Today, innocent men, women and children are starving. They cannot wait for tomorrow. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Sinéad. Sorry. Top 4.30 pm Mr Gaston: I oppose the motion and support the Ulster Unionists' amendment. The problem with the motion is obvious. It makes no mention of the role of Hamas, a proscribed terrorist organisation, in the crisis. Instead, it lays the blame — every ounce of blame — at the door of the world's only Jewish state, and that in itself tells its own story. Of course, this is a motion that stands in the name of that great champion of human rights, none other than the cash-and-carry bomber, Mr Sheehan. I wonder whether Mr Kearney, who moved the motion —. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Gaston, take your seat. The debate is about Gaza. I know that you can read the words of the motion. I am trying to give people an opportunity to expand on it and provide context, but you are already well outside doing that. I ask you respectfully to return to the subject of the motion. If not, I will ask you to take your seat, and I will move on to the next Member. Thank you. Mr Gaston: I take your guidance, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. The omission of Hamas from the motion is perhaps not all that surprising. For the benefit of Sinn Féin, let us remember what led to this conflict. Two years ago next month, Hamas carried out the largest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust, murdering men, women and children and dragging hostages into Gaza. In the text of the motion, that horror is tagged on as an afterthought at the very end. Of course we are all moved by the scenes of suffering that fill our screens, but it is wrong, morally and factually, to pretend that Israel is deliberately starving the people of Gaza. Since the war began, Israel has facilitated the delivery of millions of tons of food, medicine and fuel into Gaza. That is not the behaviour of a state that is using starvation as a weapon. What has happened to much of that aid? Contrary to what the BBC tells us, it is being looted by Hamas, just like it did with the foreign aid that was sent to the country in recent years. As the amendment rightly notes, Hamas is not only the cause of the war but a major cause of the humanitarian crisis. Aid convoys have been hijacked, warehouses have been emptied and fuel and food have been diverted into the hands of terrorists. Let me give two examples to back that up. Only last month, the IDF wiped out a group of armed men in Gaza who were posing as employees of World Central Kitchen. That charity confirmed that those men had nothing to do with its operation. They were terrorists who were trying to exploit humanitarian operations. In January, during a humanitarian ceasefire, no fewer than 50 fuel trucks intended for civilians were seized by Hamas. That fuel never reached the hospitals or the homes that it was intended to reach and instead went straight to the Hamas war machine. Here is the truth that the motion ignores: if the hostages were to be released tomorrow, the war would end tomorrow. If Hamas were to stop stealing aid today, the famine would end tomorrow. The motion is not about protecting human rights but about demonising Israel while excusing terrorists. By contrast, the amendment recognises the suffering of the people in Gaza while also recognising the reality of Hamas's crimes. That is why I reject the motion and support the amendment. To get back to Mr Kearney, it would be interesting to know what he thinks the UN position is on bombing cash and carrys. I am very interested to know that, Mr Kearney, because you were very keen to talk about the UN position when opening the debate. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Gaston, take your seat. Thank you. Mr Carroll: I am in favour of the motion, and I thank the Members opposite for tabling it. Unfortunately, we are approaching two years of Israel committing genocide, despite people trying to say otherwise. It is a genocide in living colour, recorded and documented across social media and some mainstream outlets. You would have thought that, had you asked people 10, 50 or 80 years ago whether a genocide would be allowed to be committed in public view for everyone across the world to see, they would have said no and denied it. Unfortunately, our sick political and economic system allows it to be so. Despite the attempts to repeat lies when the violence and brutality started, which was attempted by some in this debate as well, most people across the world know what is right and wrong. They know who the aggressor is. It is as clear as day that it is Israel and that it always has been. I commend all the activists who came outside the Building in their droves yesterday to keep the fight going for Palestine. I commend Mothers Against Genocide for organising yesterday's event and all the groups that have not let up in the past two years but have kept standing up for Palestine. Mr McNulty: I thank the Member for giving way. People are appalled by the wanton death, destruction and starvation being exacted against the innocent people of Gaza. They ask, "What can we do? What can we say?". The answer is that we must say and do something. The Member mentioned Mothers Against Genocide. Yesterday's protest was the most powerfully poignant one that I have seen in my nearly 10 years as an MLA. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr McNulty, will you come to your point? Interventions are meant to be short. Mr McNulty: Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. Does the Member agree that it is obscene for some of the Members on the Benches opposite to stand here and deny the genocide and the wanton destruction —? Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr McNulty, take your seat, thank you. Gerry, go ahead. Mr Carroll: Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. Do I get an extra minute? Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Absolutely. [Laughter.] Mr Carroll: Good, thank you. Just checking. I agree that the protest yesterday was poignant and that we can do more. I will come on to that, but I thank the Member for his intervention. The Mothers Against Genocide activists handed a letter to some politicians, including the Member opposite and others. I will mention some of the demands that they call for in their letter. They advocate a ceasefire and recognition of the independent state of Palestine. They recognise the need for an "ethical procurement policy", which would include ending rate relief for companies that are complicit in apartheid and genocide, and the need to let aid in. They had other demands as well, and I support all the demands that are outlined in the letter. I urge other parties to support them too. If you think about it, you see it is completely disgusting that Israel still denies access to food in Gaza, when truckloads are waiting to get in. The fact that Israel — nobody else — has killed at least 2,000 people in Gaza when they were queuing for food is completely barbaric. Imagine what the British Government would do if any other state in the Middle East or the world did that. They would sharpen their knives, turn on the tanks and get ready for war, but, because it is Israel, it is business as usual, and the military and political support continues to flow in, without even thinking twice about it. In recent weeks, 50 high-rise blocks of flats have been destroyed by Israel. Those 50 blocks of flats were the homes of Palestinians. When buildings are blown up in Kyiv and elsewhere in Ukraine, we, rightly, hear about it on the news, but, when it is Palestinian homes, we rarely hear about it, because Palestinians have been dehumanised so much for so long. Imagine 50 Divis towers, 50 New Lodge blocks of flats or 50 buildings like Belfast City Hospital being wiped out and destroyed. That is what the Israeli occupation army does. It orders people to leave, then it blows them and their homes to smithereens. We are told that it has the most sophisticated weaponry in the world, but it is used to blow people to bits. While the British, American and most Western Governments continue to support that barbarism, people are taking matters into their own hands. I commend everyone who is, bravely, on the Global Sumud Flotilla, taking huge personal risks to go out on the open sea to try to break the siege of Gaza. It is the biggest humanitarian aid convoy ever to depart for Palestine. It consists of people such as Greta Thunberg, other activists from across the world, some TDs, including my party colleague Paul Murphy, and, I think, some members of Sinn Féin. Dlúthpháirtíocht le gach duine ar na báid. [Translation: Solidarity to everyone on the boats.] Disgracefully, one was attacked last night by an Israeli drone, despite attempts to say otherwise in this debate. Instead of clamping down on activist groups, such as Palestine Action, which should never have been marked as a proscribed terrorist organisation in the first place, the British Government should be ensuring that aid gets in to the millions of Palestinians and that the Sumud flotilla is left untouched. The motion is very important. I hope that it is passed, and I will be voting for it. However, it has some obvious omissions that need to be addressed. There is growing frustration in the Palestine solidarity movement that Ministers and the Executive are refusing to do all that they can to exert maximum pressure on the British Government and, by extension, Israel. Motions are important — absolutely — but action is what makes the difference. The question is this: why have the First Minister and deputy First Minister not done anything about the fact that Belfast International Airport is facilitating the US war machine and its flights? Why is the Economy Minister allowing funding from Invest NI —? Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Gerry, will you take your seat for a minute? Mr Carroll: Sure. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: It is a point of order. As you know, there is currently a court case involving the Department for the Economy. It is actually sub judice. Make your points about the substance of the motion. To be fair, I put the same criticism to Mr Gaston, albeit on a different issue. I encourage you to finish your remarks on the subject of the motion. Mr Carroll: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. How long are Palestinians expected to wait for a departmental internal review to be completed? Recently, the Scottish Government decided to stop investing in companies that are connected to Israel and are involved in the war industry. We should do the same here at speed. I urge all Ministers, especially Sinn Féin Ministers, to make that happen. I support the motion. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Gerry. I call Steve Aiken to make the winding-up speech on the amendment. Steve, you have five minutes. Dr Aiken: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. If possible, I would like to put some reason into the debate. Regrettably, the debate so far has just reinforced things that we have all said time and time again. We have had frequent mentions — on these Benches, we consider them to be inaccurate — of genocide, famine, apartheid, war crimes and the horrors of Israel. Thankfully, we have also heard from Members on these Benches about the conflicts in Yemen, Somalia, Darfur, Sudan, Syria and elsewhere. We should also hear about the Yazidis and what is happening against the Druze. Indeed, what is probably missing from both sides in the Chamber is a sense of balance about what is really happening. Quite frankly, none of us really knows what is happening on the ground. What I would like to talk about, though, in asking Members to support my party's amendment, is an actual answer that would bring that horrid conflict to a swift conclusion and end the war right now: the release of the 48 innocent hostages. Please remember the following names in your thoughts. For those who pray, please remember them in your prayers. They are Ariel Cunio, Alon Ohel, Eitan Horn, Avinatan Or, Elkana Bohbot, Evyatar David, Bipin Joshi, Ziv Berman, Gali Berman, David Cunio, Eitan Mor, Maxim Herkin, Omri Miran, Bar Abraham Kupershtein, Guy Gilboa-Dalal, Nimrod Cohen, Matan Zangauker, Tamir Nimrodi, Matan Angrest, Segev Kalfon, Rom Braslavski, Yosef-Haim Ohana, Itay Chen, Eliyahu Margalit, Eitan Levi, Sahar Baruch, Joshua Luito Mollel, Tal Haimi, Arie Zalmanowicz, Ran Gvili, Dror Or, Tamir Adar, Ronen Engel, Inbar Hayman, Guy Iluz, Asaf Hamami, Lior Rudaeff, Muhammad Al-Atarash, Meny Godard, Omer Neutra, Yossi Sharabi, Daniel Oz, Daniel Perez, Uriel Baruch, Sontia Ok’Krasari, Sontisek Rintalk, Amiram Cooper and Hadar Goldin. For those who are unaware, Amiram Cooper is 85 years old. Every day, my mind is haunted by the picture of the Bibas family and the horror of the fate of Ariel and Kfir, the children who were strangled by Palestinian terrorists — bear in mind that Kfir was only nine months old when he was strangled — and the fate of their mother, Shiri Bibas. How can anybody with any degree of humanity not understand those horrors and call for the immediate release of the hostages? Please, if you are right-minded, join us in supporting our amendment. Top 4.45 pm We are approaching some of the key points in the Jewish religious calendar: Rosh Hashana at the end of this month, then Yom Kippur. When Yom Kippur occurs this year, it will be three years since those horrors were inflicted on 7 October. We, as a Chamber, should reflect on that, which is why I ask you to support our amendment. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Emma Sheerin to make a winding-up speech on the substantive motion. Emma, you have 10 minutes. Ms Sheerin: Go raibh míle maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle. [Translation: Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.] Some Members who are sitting across the House today appear to be bored by the fact that Sinn Féin is still talking about this matter. We cannot believe that it is still happening. That is why we are still talking about it, and, just to be clear, we will continue to talk about it until it stops. On top of that, we again hear calls for balance. I reiterate this: when babies are starving to death, there is no balance, there is no place for balance and we cannot call for balance. It feels futile to stand here and talk about this. It feels as though nothing has changed since the previous time that we discussed it in the Chamber, but, of course, things have changed. It has got worse. What we have seen over the past 23 months has been mischaracterised by many as a war. It is not a war. It is a one-sided attack by an apartheid state. It is an escalation of a decades-long attempt to completely obliterate an entire population of people. It is a man-made famine, live-streamed on our phones. It is about the first group in history to experience their genocide being broadcast in real time and to still not be believed. We, on these Benches, believe the Palestinian people, and we stand with them. How much more suffering do you need to see before you will believe them and stand up against it? Where is your humanity? I do not profess to be a better Christian than anyone else in the House, but I know right from wrong. This is the current death toll in Gaza: 64,522 people. Of those people, 393 starved to death, and 140 of those were children. We have almost moved past talking about the bombing of hospitals, because there are nearly no hospitals left in the Gaza Strip. [Pause.] This is upsetting, and I cannot understand how anybody would not be upset by it. I can accept that there are political viewpoints that you might not comprehend but that you have to recognise as being valid if they do no harm, but the racist rhetoric of the Israeli state does harm. It has done immeasurable harm. It has dehumanised an entire race of people, which has allowed the world to facilitate their genocide. People say that the definition of insanity is doing same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. I do not know whether, in continuing to present this argument and ask for humility and humanity in response, it is we who are insane or those who blindly follow the coloniser regardless of the outcome, but somebody is wrong. "Nuance" is not a term that I typically associate with unionism in the North of Ireland, but, today, I have yet again heard people attempting to apply nuance to the starving of men, women, children and babies. Let me be really clear: there is no nuance to the forced starvation of babies. There is no context, lecturing or posturing that you can apply to that to make it right. If you are starving a baby, you are the one in the wrong: it is that simple. The context, for those who want to hear it, is this: 77 years of occupation. A people were literally forcibly removed from their homes. They left their houses and watched those same houses being given to someone else. Since that time, they have been detained on a strip of land the size of County Louth. Where they go or what they do is dictated by their identity. They have no freedom of movement, no reliable electricity source and no clean running water. Their schools are provided by charities. That is the reality. The last time that we had this debate in the Chamber, in June 2025, Members on the opposite Benches talked about their tours of Israel and the hospitality that they received. Well, it is well for ye. I tried to go to Palestine in 2014 but the Israelis were bombing them from the sky then too, and we could not get in. Friends of mine — Killian Feehan, who is now an SDLP councillor, and Dáire Hughes, the Sinn Féin MP for Newry and Armagh — have both been previously and told me the stories of what they witnessed there. They described the brutal Israeli occupation that kept people hemmed in. We all know that that did not start on 7 October 2023. There is a duty on us to call this out for what it is and to stand against it. Members have reflected on the fact that the protest outside this Building yesterday called for action. The protestors asked us to bring motions to this Chamber. History will judge us all. If your heart and your conscience are not screaming at you now, and if your moral compass is not telling you right from wrong, think about how you will be reflected in history. Let that guide you. What we are doing here is not much, but it is all that we can do. We will continue to do that until the Palestinian people have peace and justice. Question put, That the amendment be made. The Assembly divided: Ayes 31; Noes 44 AYES Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Ms D Armstrong, Mr Beattie, Mr Bradley, Mr Brett, Mr Brooks, Ms Brownlee, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew, Mr Gaston, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Irwin, Mr Kingston, Mrs Little-Pengelly, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Martin, Mr Middleton, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Robinson, Mr Stewart, Ms Sugden Tellers for the Ayes: Dr Aiken, Mr Beattie NOES Dr Archibald, Ms K Armstrong, Mr Baker, Mr Boylan, Mr Carroll, Mr Delargy, Mr Dickson, Mrs Dillon, Miss Dolan, Mr Donnelly, Mr Durkan, Ms Egan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Finnegan, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Mrs Guy, Miss Hargey, Mr Honeyford, Mr Kearney, Mr Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mr McAleer, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McMurray, Mr McNulty, Mr McReynolds, Mrs Mason, Mr Mathison, Mr Muir, Ms Mulholland, Ms Murphy, Mrs O'Neill, Mr O'Toole, Ms Reilly, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Mr Tennyson Tellers for the Noes: Mr Carroll, Mrs Dillon Question accordingly negatived. Main Question put. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I have been advised by the party Whips that, in accordance with Standing Order 27(1A)(b), there is agreement — order — that we can dispense with the three minutes and move straight to a Division. The Assembly divided: Ayes 45; Noes 30 AYES Dr Archibald, Ms K Armstrong, Mr Baker, Mr Boylan, Mr Carroll, Mr Delargy, Mr Dickson, Mrs Dillon, Miss Dolan, Mr Donnelly, Mr Durkan, Ms Egan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Finnegan, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Mrs Guy, Miss Hargey, Mr Honeyford, Mr Kearney, Mr Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mr McAleer, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McMurray, Mr McNulty, Mr McReynolds, Mrs Mason, Mr Mathison, Mr Muir, Ms Mulholland, Ms Murphy, Mrs O'Neill, Mr O'Toole, Ms Reilly, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Ms Sugden, Mr Tennyson Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Carroll, Ms Finnegan NOES Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Ms D Armstrong, Mr Beattie, Mr Bradley, Mr Brett, Mr Brooks, Ms Brownlee, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew, Mr Gaston, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Irwin, Mr Kingston, Mrs Little-Pengelly, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Martin, Mr Middleton, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Robinson, Mr Stewart Tellers for the Noes: Dr Aiken, Mr Clarke Main Question accordingly agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly notes with deep concern the declaration of famine in Gaza by the integrated food security phase classification (IPC), with half a million people, a quarter of Palestinians in Gaza, suffering from famine; further notes the IPC's assessment that the situation is entirely man-made and the assessment by the head of emergency relief at the UN that it is a result of systematic obstruction by Israel; condemns Israel's use of starvation as a weapon of war; further condemns the targeting and killing by Israeli forces of hundreds of Palestinians desperately trying to access aid through the discredited, US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation; and calls for an immediate ceasefire, an end to ongoing genocide and ethnic cleansing, the immediate and unconditional supply of all required humanitarian aid to Gaza, the release of all hostages and the upholding of human rights and international law. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members, please take your ease before we move to the next item of business. Top 5.15 pm (Mr Speaker in the Chair) Lough Neagh Mr O'Toole: I beg to move That this Assembly expresses grave concern at the return of blue-green algae at Lough Neagh and other sites across Northern Ireland; acknowledges the severe environmental, economic and societal impacts, including the closure of eel fishing this year; expresses regret at the misguided support for a motion calling for a public consultation on the nutrients action programme to be withdrawn; and calls on the Executive to support all necessary actions aimed at rescuing the UK and Ireland’s largest freshwater lake. Mr Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other speakers will have five minutes. Mr O'Toole: We are here for a very short time, both on this earth, obviously, and in elected politics. Our time in politics — whoever we are — is brief, but Lough Neagh has been around since time immemorial. We have, therefore, been given the profound responsibility of being the custodians of our most precious natural resource. In this jurisdiction, our most precious natural resource — the source of 40% of our drinking water, Ireland's largest lake, the UK's largest lake, one of Western Europe's largest lakes and a treasure — is Lough Neagh, and it is dying. That is not hyperbole, and it is not exaggeration. It is an observable fact. This summer, we saw the return of blue-green algae, a cyanobacteria that has blossomed all over the lough. There are multiple reasons for the blue-green algae, including the presence of zebra mussels, which clarify the water; the intensification of heat due to climate change; and a failure to invest in our waste water infrastructure, which means that we are, effectively, pouring hundreds of thousand of tons of effluent into the lough and other waterways. The single biggest driver, however, of the pollution and degradation of our greatest natural resource is environmental run-off. In saying those words, I have to be absolutely clear that I am not attacking farmers or our agricultural sector, which is also precious and something that we treasure and rely on for our food security, our prosperity and our rural communities. Our farmers are a treasure, they are precious and our party takes their protection seriously, but we have to be honest about the specific driver of pollution in Lough Neagh. The majority of it is being driven by agricultural run-off, with the other additions that I have mentioned. Before the summer, a motion was brought to the Assembly to abandon something called the nutrients action programme (NAP). The nutrients action programme is core to, and is possibly the most fundamental part of, the Lough Neagh action plan. That plan is designed for the long term because restoring our greatest natural resource, Lough Neagh, and undoing some of the damage that has been done to it over generations, will take a long time. It is about starting to restore that precious natural resource over which we have custodianship. It is understandable that farmers and those in that sector have questions about how the programme is applied. It is their livelihoods and their communities that will be affected, and they need to be consulted. They were being consulted, but a motion was brought to the Assembly to abandon the consultation before the Minister who is responsible for the environment had even completed it. The programme is clearly the single most important action in the Lough Neagh action plan. All the parties in the Executive, bar the Alliance Party, the Minister's party, supported the motion. I am often accused in the Chamber of scoring points and being political. I do both those things because that is my job. It is also my job to try to find solutions and to be constructive and to offer people a way forward from bad decisions. The decision to support the abandonment of the nutrients action programme while saying that we support the restoration of Lough Neagh was a grave error. Often, when we make errors in politics here, we have to wait years or decades for the error of those ways to be shown. We did not in this instance; we had to wait weeks — weeks — to see the algae bloom at Lough Neagh again. It is like a scene from sci-fi. Earlier, Mr Bradley, a Member for East Derry, mentioned the green water flowing — I think that he was talking about the lower Bann — up towards the north coast. It is happening before our eyes now. It will take years, if not decades, to fix. If we reverse at the very first hurdle and the very first moment of starting to deal with the nutrient overload, which is the major, predominant driver of the degradation of Lough Neagh, what good are we? What good would we be as an official Opposition if we did not take that responsibility seriously? It is important that we talk about accountability. I welcome the fact that the First Minister is here. As a constituency MLA, she has engaged consistently on and talked about the subject. I want her and her party to provide leadership, because the First Minister has said consistently that she wants to deal with the pollution at Lough Neagh and to restore the lough to full health. I welcome those words; I have always welcomed those words and intentions. However, we have a problem with our politics here in the North, which is the junction between words and the actions that follow. You cannot promise to deal with Lough Neagh and the crisis that we have there, which is the degradation of the source of 40% of our drinking water and one of Western Europe's largest lakes, and then, at the very first opportunity, vote to abandon the necessary action. Politics is about leadership. It is about standing up, occasionally making difficult decisions and communicating trade-offs. It is about saying to people that, in order to achieve something, which is the protection of that lake, we need to take this step. In saying that, it is also the case that we need to bring people with us. The Lough Neagh action plan, which we would like to have gone further in other areas, was clear that education, support and innovation will also be necessary. I welcome the fact that the Minister is here today. I want to hear from the Minister about what else is being done to support our agri-food businesses and our farmers in making that journey. This may not be his responsibility, which is why I would also like to hear from the Executive about what the Minister for Infrastructure and the Executive more broadly are doing about the crisis in Northern Ireland Water, because that is also a significant, but not the main, driver of the crisis in Lough Neagh. We simply are not investing enough in our waste water infrastructure. When I repeatedly ask the now Finance Minister, who was an Infrastructure Minister, what the plan is to invest in NI Water, he brushes me off. He talks about water charges. I do not want water charges — that is not our policy — but I want something. I want some form of investment. If that involves borrowing, by all means, let us hear it. Let us hear the plan. I have not heard the plan. The only thing that we have heard so far is words, and then, at the very first opportunity, people walk away from the core part of the Lough Neagh action plan. If we believe in politics at all and in the words that we use when we stand for election, and if the statements that we put out on social media have any meaning at all, parties in the Chamber who say that they want to restore Lough Neagh and that put out social media posts last night saying that they are working to restore Lough Neagh should vote for the motion today, because we saw the consequences over the summer of not dealing with these actions. We are going to see blue-green algae blooms in Lough Neagh, and we have seen them already in other watercourses. I hope that we do not start to see them sprout in greater numbers in Belfast lough and in other watercourses on this island, but we could. We need to start this work now. We need to take it seriously, and we need to be honest with everyone about the journey that we need to take together. Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he accept that blue-green algae is not a recent phenomenon? It has been affecting freshwater lakes for well over a century. Does the Member accept that the NAP policy that the Minister brought forward was scrapped because it disproportionately put the blame at the farmer's door instead of bringing people together to target the likes of those who pump waste water into the lough? Mr O'Toole: There are a couple of things there. First, it is never an argument to say that a problem has been going on for a century. So many of the things that we debate — violence against women and low economic productivity — have been going on for a long time, but that is not an argument not to do anything about them. That is absurd, with respect. Secondly, it is not about individual farmers, who support their communities and work to feed their families, but there is agricultural run-off. A lot of that is to do with intensification and big agri-food business. That is why, among the proposals in our paper, which was launched by our party leader Claire Hanna a couple of weeks ago, is our call for a levy on the profits of big agricultural producers who have been responsible for some of that intensification and pollution. The SDLP is often told in the Chamber that we are not willing to come forward with proposals. There is a proposal. We have other proposals. We call for more North/South cooperation. We call for an independent environmental protection agency, and I hope that we are going to get clarity on that. We call for a well-being of future generations Act, as they have in Wales, to bind the Executive to an obligation on environmental protection and sustainability. We have not yet seen any of those actions from the Executive. The Member's party serves in and jointly runs that Executive, so he has some culpability and responsibility too. I mentioned waste water in my remarks. Yes, we should invest in waste water. I am sure that the Member, with his colleague the deputy First Minister, is making the arguments for investment in waste water and pressing for a plan, because that is part of the story. However, the overall story is that, before the summer, something happened that should not have happened: parties in this Chamber who said that they were going to protect Lough Neagh, the most precious resource on this island, at the very first opportunity, backed away and walked away from the action necessary to deal with it. I do not pretend that these things are easy. Nothing that is worth doing is easy: that is true. It is not easy to deal with these things. We have to be honest with people that we have been putting too much agricultural pollution into Lough Neagh. It is not easy to make the choice to invest more in NI Water. However, if we are serious about rescuing our greatest natural resource, we need to be serious and straight with the public. We cannot constantly say one thing and do another, or, worse, say one thing, do nothing and allow our most precious natural resource to fall further and further into decline. I urge the Assembly to back our motion. Mr Kearney: Throughout this summer, the catastrophic pollution consuming Lough Neagh has become even more extreme, but it did not start this summer. The biodiversity and ecological well-being of our lough now faces a sustained existential threat, the like of which we have never seen. So too do the commercial fishing industry, the tourism offering around the lough shore, the historical heritage and all associated with Lough Neagh. Our commercial fishermen, and those of us who work with them and who know the lough shore, have predicted, since 2023, that this pollution would continue to worsen. That is what has happened. The total termination of eel fishing for the 2025 season graphically illustrates how this deepening crisis has devastated livelihoods and economic activity right around the lough shore and into the adjoining waterways. Following the termination of eel fishing in 2025, I wrote to the AERA Minister calling on him to introduce a financial assistance scheme for Lough Neagh eel fishermen. I appeal again to the Minister and the Department to consider the necessity of a support package for our commercial fishermen. They have been left without income since May, and many of them face unemployment, debt and financial ruin. The repercussions for local fishermen, their families, eel exports and the wider lough shore community are frankly incalculable. As we work to address the ecological catastrophe in Lough Neagh, immediate supports are needed to secure that critical tradition of commercial fishing and the livelihoods of all those who depend upon it. The intensified pollution of this year needs to be met with decisive, coordinated action involving all the relevant stakeholders, including the Fishermen's Co-operative and the Lough Neagh Partnership. I know that the Minister is directly engaged with both. Sometimes, there are issues in politics, and in this place, that are so critical that they demand consensus. Today, in this debate, the current crisis in Lough Neagh needs to be elevated above party politics. There has been too much point-scoring over recent months, none of which will resolve the crisis in the lough and none of which will redeem the fortunes of fishermen, their families and everyone who lives around the lough shore. We need political agreement, not divergence, in our collective efforts, as an Executive and throughout the Assembly, to address this unprecedented ecological emergency. Top 5.30 pm Lough Neagh is no longer a regional crisis; it is far beyond that. It is a national emergency that demands a joint political priority from the Assembly and the Irish Government. Our response to the scale of the crisis in the lough requires North/South governmental action with a dedicated focus from the British and Irish Governments. That should be an agreed position from our Assembly and Executive and, I hope, flowing from the debate today. Miss McIlveen: We can agree across the Chamber that we are concerned about the return of blue-green algae at Lough Neagh and other sites across Northern Ireland and the impact that it has had on many, including the eel fishery. We also agree that all necessary actions should be taken to address the problems. Where we do not agree is in the approach adopted by the Minister and his Department, nor do we agree, unsurprisingly, that the motion calling for the NAP consultation to be withdrawn was misguided. The SDLP appears to have come to the Chamber today to patronise us but seems to forget that our motion pointed out fundamental flaws in the consultation and called for genuine partnership to develop workable and sustainable proposals that would address the sources of pollution. Those flaws included the failure to co-design proposals with key stakeholders, including the Ulster Farmers’ Union (UFU), the huge cost implications to the agrisector — £40 million in new costs, £33 million for low-emission slurry-spreading equipment (LESSE) alone and another £7 million for phosphorus separation systems at anaerobic digester plants. That does not include the £3·6 million each year for inspections, databases and added bureaucracy. Those are only basic costings and do not reflect the true economic impact, as that work still has not been carried out by DAERA. Further to that, the failure to carry out a proper economic assessment to go along with the proposals; phosphorus balances fail to recognise the economic realities faced by our farmers; the introduction of buffer strips, reducing the land available for productive use and driving up land prices; the lack of peer-reviewed scientific evidence to underpin the proposals; and the failure to evaluate and incorporate current schemes, such as the soil nutrient health scheme and the sustainable utilisation of livestock slurry (SULS) project, which were designed to provide solutions to the industry to help with nutrient redistribution within Northern Ireland. All were totally ignored by the NAP proposals. Genuine co-design is where you need to bring people together and bring them with you, and, in doing that, you are much more likely to have buy-in and some success. Workable proposals also need to be evidence-based and not ideologically driven. The approach of the Minister and the Department has been to punish farmers while ignoring others, such as Northern Ireland Water, industry and construction. We know that the SDLP has abandoned its position of supporting our agrisector, despite what Mr O'Toole said in his opening remarks. That was clear in how it voted on the NAP proposals. It is further clear in its new proposals to introduce an agri-tax. As if farmers are not finding it tight enough due to the actions of the Labour Party in Government, now its sister party, the SDLP, wants to stick the boot in even more. How much more does the SDLP think farmers can take before the industry completely collapses? Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way and for the important work that she has done on the issue. Does the Member agree that, if the motion were to pass today, it would directly contradict a cross-party, cross-community vote in the House, which showed parties standing up for farmers? Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute. Miss McIlveen: Absolutely. The SDLP has also totally ignored the numerous debates that we have had in the Chamber over the past year. Rising costs, inheritance tax changes, farm payments, ever tighter and costly regulations — and now it wants the agriculture sector to pay even more while ignoring Northern Ireland Water and industry. There are solutions to the blue-green algae issue. They are cross-sectoral and do not involve singling out the farming industry. Mr Durkan: Will the Member give way? Miss McIlveen: No, if you do not mind. They involve providing collaborative leadership and support, not knee-jerk punitive measures that will have a devastating impact on our rural communities and our local economy. It is worth reiterating the DUP's position on the matter. We support a multi-agency, cross-sectoral response. We also support serious action on waste water treatment, including strict enforcement against deliberate polluters. We do not support the scapegoating of farmers. We have consistently seen an imbalance in the approach to environmental protection, and, sadly, the motion plays into that imbalance. Given the actions of the Minister subsequent to our motion, it was clear from his actions, if not his words, that, by establishing the stakeholder group, he recognises that consultation was premature. That group should have been established beforehand to help to develop the NAP proposals, not to patch them up retrospectively. It might be useful if the Minister took the opportunity today to acknowledge that he got it wrong in jumping the gun with the consultation and that genuine partnership working is the best way forward. It is disappointing that the SDLP does not recognise that. Instead, it decided to conflate two issues today, and, as a result of that, we are unable to support the motion. Mr McMurray: At the start, I want to make it clear that the burden of solving Lough Neagh cannot be borne by DAERA alone. It is incumbent on the whole Executive and everyone in the Chamber to help deliver the Programme for Government commitment to protect Lough Neagh. While agriculture undoubtedly must play its part, we cannot address the issue without addressing our failing waste water infrastructure. It is time for an Infrastructure Minister to stop the sticking-plaster approach and solve the waste water and sewage crisis flowing into our waterways. That said, I will start with Minister Muir's efforts to address agriculture's contribution to the blue-green algae blooms that are blighting Lough Neagh and state for the record how other parties have failed to back him. That includes necessary actions, such as reversing the cap on cross-compliance penalties for repeat offenders, which was brought in by his DUP predecessor. That was an important moment that should have signalled the Assembly's support for ensuring that there are consequences for pollution, yet it was blocked by other Executive parties, and, regrettably, the SDLP did not support the Minister at that juncture. That said, the Opposition changed course later in the summer when Sinn Féin, the DUP and the UUP called for the Minister to abandon his consultation on the nutrients action programme. The aforementioned parties did not want to begin talking about the NAP. They wanted to scrap the NAP and the conversation that went with it as an opportunity to seek remedies. Thankfully, the Minister was not deterred, and the nutrients action programme consultation went ahead and, regardless, has now concluded. I welcome the fact that the Minister is now moving forward with a stakeholder group of environmental and agricultural representatives to develop revised proposals. Finalised proposals will be put to further consultation before being brought through the Executive for consideration. I hope that Executive parties and the Opposition will rally around the Minister in this opportunity to be constructive and find solutions that are workable at farm level. It is too important an issue to play politics with, so, rather than cheap political point-scoring and stoking angst, all parties need to do the right thing, recognise the urgency of the situation and get behind the necessary actions. It is obvious that the ecological and environmental balance of the lough is off-kilter, but we in the Chamber and the Executive have a responsibility to lead on what the Minister is doing. All parties like to highlight the plight of Lough Neagh, but sometimes the rhetoric does not marry up with their actions. The Minister has stressed a number of big-ticket items that he is to bring forward, which will truly test the Executive and other Members in the Chamber on how committed they are to solving the issue. The first has been touched on already around agreeing proposals for the nutrients action programme. In addition to that, it is strengthening the environmental governance through the establishment of an independent environmental protection agency (EPA), agreeing a final climate action plan and supporting his new fisheries and water environment Bill. Finally, we cannot think about solving the crisis in Lough Neagh and our waterways in general without thinking about sewage and waste water infrastructure. Minister Muir has been clear about his desire to strengthen the regulation and enforcement of sewage pollution being pumped into our waterways. It is totally unacceptable that the Infrastructure Minister refuses to tackle that head-on and reverse the disgraceful situation where raw sewage is being pumped into our waterways. Our waste water systems are failing, and there are all the environmental and economic consequences that go with that, yet the Minister refuses to tackle NI Water's governance and finances. All sectors must play a part in tackling the crisis. The farmers whom I speak to expect fairness. They are dismayed at the fact that the Infrastructure Minister refuses to step up to the plate and tackle waste water infrastructure. She needs to look at better solutions and make the difficult decisions within her remit without delay. This is not only about Lough Neagh, as the motion acknowledges. My South Down constituency does not border the lough, but we see the same issues in some of our fresh waterbodies, not least Castlewellan lake. I am also conscious of the fact that the headwaters of the River Bann are in my constituency. As is well noted, our rivers are in poor ecological health, and some of our rivers and streams are distilled into Lough Neagh. The environment, by its very nature, is connected. I have had the opportunity to sponsor events in the Building highlighting the work of the Clean Water Sports Alliance. That the motion seeks to highlight the societal impacts of the issue is important. Angling, open-water swimming, canoeing, kayaking, stand-up paddleboarding, rowing, sailing and triathlon are the sports that make up the alliance, and those sports have been adversely affected by the state of our waterways. It is an issue for all of Northern Ireland, and we urgently need the Executive and the parties that are in opposition to play their part. Ms D Armstrong: I thank the Members who tabled the motion. People from all walks of life across Northern Ireland are concerned at the situation that is unfolding on Lough Neagh. They all want to have good-quality water in their inland waterways and, of course, in Lough Neagh, but I can say without a doubt that no one, for one moment, wants to play the blame game that some in the Chamber would have us play. We have to approach the problem with respect and understanding: respect for those who are already impacted on and understanding of the effect that any intended future actions will have on other stakeholders and sectors as we work towards having a plan to address the blue-green algae. If we are to move forward, it will require community and sector buy-in, not a top-down approach and virtue signalling in the House. It is therefore essential that we move past finding a scapegoat to understanding what is happening in Lough Neagh, because blaming farmers is too simple. Farming is but one spoke in a large wheel that is affecting the lough, yet, according to AgriSearch analysis, the initial NAP proposals that Minister Muir published would have generated annual losses of around £1·6 billion across agriculture in Northern Ireland, had they been implemented. It is not unique to Northern Ireland but a global problem. In Great Britain, Lake Windermere is impacted on by raw sewage. The Lough Neagh ecosystem is shaped by biology as well as chemistry: it is shaped by many inputs and many outputs. The warning signs on Lough Neagh have been visible for years, yet the relevant Departments have failed to take coordinated, preventative action. The presence of 836 storm overflows that discharge directly or indirectly into the Lough Neagh management area and its tributaries points to a broader systemic issue, one that implicates not just DAERA but the Department for Infrastructure, which is failing us all. It is also notable to acknowledge the invasive zebra mussels, the presence of which has changed the ecology by clarifying the water and shifting where and when the algae can grow. I will briefly mention the nutrients action programme, as it is important that I clarify things. I was against the plan, because it goes far beyond the original NAP, and the proposals would have had a devastating impact on the agri-food sector. The reality of the NAP was that the Minister's carrot was too small and his stick too big. The agri-food sector must be part of the solution and not be treated as the problem. For that reason, the UUP will vote against the motion. Lough Neagh is not a problem that can be solved by scapegoating one sector. The situation demands a multi-departmental response — something that has been lacking of late — and a clear strategy that has buy-in from all stakeholders. Ms Finnegan: Sinn Féin is deeply concerned at the return of blue-green algae in Lough Neagh and other waterways. That pollution has severe environmental, economic and social consequences. Its continued presence harms biodiversity, threatens public health and is a hammer blow to our eel-fishing communities, which have already suffered losses of income over the past two fishing seasons. I reiterate my party colleague Declan Kearney's call for supports to be provided to the eel fishing sector, which has been affected by the eel fishing ban and has received no support to mitigate that loss. Top 5.45 pm In July 2024, at the Executive, Sinn Féin agreed to the Lough Neagh action plan, which had 37 actions, many of which have already been implemented, with others earmarked for delivery. The action plan is not a complete solution, and there are no quick fixes. However, it provides a clear and practical pathway towards addressing the environmental breakdown of the lough and restoring it to its natural beauty. Among the actions is a small business research initiative, which gives businesses the funding opportunity to innovate, research and bring forward solutions to remove pollution from the lough and restore it for future generations. In April 2025, John O'Dowd, as Finance Minister, reiterated Sinn Féin's commitment to the action plan by allocating an additional £5 million towards tackling the pollution and safeguarding the lough for many years ahead. On the nutrients action programme, let me be clear: Sinn Féin supports the principle of a strong nutrients action plan that protects water quality and tackles pollution. However, we want one that is workable, deliverable, fair, based on just transition principles and works in conjunction with farmers. The establishment of a stakeholder group to bring together communities, farmers, fishermen and environmental bodies is a step in that direction. That is a welcome development, but it is also an admission by the Department that there should have been more of an effort on the Minister's part to properly engage farmers, fishermen and communities at the outset when developing the NAP proposals. Equally, the Department's acknowledgement that there needs to be a more detailed economic impact assessment of how NAP proposals would affect farmers underlines the need for greater engagement so that the impact on family farm incomes is fully understood. Let us be under no illusions: whether NAP was agreed or not before June, we would still have experienced the blue-green algae in the lough during the summer. While it forms part of the solution, it is clear that restoring the lough will require not only short-term actions but a range of long-term measures to have a meaningful impact. Part of that solution must be an end to the Earl of Shaftesbury's ownership of the lough bed. That is something that Sinn Féin has long called for, even before the presence of the algae. Ownership of the lough should be informed by the communities that live beside it and have been its guardians for generations. On a practical level, transfer of ownership would help to better regulate and implement environmental protections pertaining to the lough. In the past, we have seen how the current arrangements have resulted in regulation falling between stools, with agencies not taking responsibility or not having sufficient responsibility, while the lough suffered the consequences. I welcome today's debate and the opportunity to once again set out Sinn Féin's unwavering commitment to addressing the issue of Lough Neagh. Let us work constructively together with the Minister, the Executive and, most importantly, local communities to ensure that, step by step, day by day and bit by bit, we undo the environmental damage that has been done to the lough and restore it for future generations. Mr T Buchanan: The situation facing Lough Neagh and some other watercourses in Northern Ireland requires a common-sense approach that is balanced and rooted in reality. I have no doubt that everyone in the Chamber will be in agreement that to tackle effectively the source of the pollution affecting our waterways will require a collective effort. However, it is foolhardy for the Minister and others in the House to be of the mindset that to put in place extreme environmental policies that would have devastating consequences for our agriculture industry is a way to resolve the blue-green algae problem. To put extreme environmental policies in place is not a quick fix. There is no short-term fix to the problem. The Minister said, in his statement on the Lough Neagh action plan: "I must be clear ... there are no quick fixes, it will take many years, if not decades to see substantial recovery, such is the depth and complexity of the problem." Although we fully support rigorous enforcement action against deliberate polluters of our waterways, I am crystal clear that we will not allow agriculture to be the scapegoat or to be treated as the sole culprit for this issue, as has been the order of the day from others around the Chamber. I want to pose some questions to the Minister. What serious engagement have you had with Northern Ireland Water about the colossal amount of raw sewage that is going into our waterways every day from its sewage plants and individual septic tanks? What assessment have you and your Department carried out into the damage that that is causing? Perhaps you will also inform the House of the sanctions that you propose to place on Northern Ireland Water to curb the daily flow of raw sewage into our waterways. What plans do you have to take enforcement action against it, just as you and your Department rightly take against other individuals who are found guilty of polluting? The same action that you take against other individuals for polluting needs to be taken against Northern Ireland Water. Mr McCrossan: I thank my constituency colleague for kindly giving way. I recognise his concern for the farming community. He has rightly been an advocate for the farming community for quite a number of years. However, does he agree that the fines that are in place are no deterrent to those polluters, regardless of who they are or what sector they come from, and that they need to be increased? Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute. Mr T Buchanan: Thank you. Again, that is something that is open for discussion. Our farmers are not only the custodians of the countryside, who put food on our tables; they are the backbone and keystone of our rural economy. They have a deep passion for the environmental sustainability of the land that they farm. They take extreme care around the watercourses that run through their land. In previous years, they had no objections to working with the Department to implement sensible and common-sense solutions to help improve the countryside and the environment. However, it is totally unacceptable for the Minister to seek to impose the NAP proposals on an industry without proper consultation. Over 5,000 signatures from across Northern Ireland were presented in the House as part of a petition that called for the withdrawal of the consultation and for serious engagement with the farming community to bring forward workable plans to which all could buy in to help to improve and protect our environment, which we all cherish. Farmers want to and must be part of any plans that are brought forward for the improvement of our environment; otherwise, they will be counterproductive. The NAP proposals that are being pursued by the Minister are not the answer to addressing the blue-green algae issue. We need a cross-sectoral, multi-agency response. I therefore call on the Minister to do the right thing and scrap his ideological NAP proposals. Let us work with the relevant agencies and industry on a more pragmatic way forward for the protection and continued improvement of our water quality throughout Northern Ireland. Mr Tennyson: By this stage, we all know that Lough Neagh is dying in plain sight. For the third summer in a row, toxic blue-green algae has enveloped its waters. That putrid green sludge has suffocated wildlife and upended key parts of our rural economy. However, the ecological crisis in Lough Neagh is not seasonal; its roots are in decades of inertia and neglect in the Assembly. We know the causes: nutrient run-off from agriculture, and sewage and septic tanks. We know the consequences in terms of biodiversity loss, livelihoods being upended and real public health risks. Crucially, we also know the solutions. Those solutions, however, require tough decisions and real political leadership, both of which have been in short supply in the Chamber, particularly from the DUP and Sinn Féin, since the Assembly returned over a year ago. Despite repeated promises and commitments and talk of the need for collective action on Lough Neagh, time and again we have seen responsible environmental stewardship sacrificed on the altar of political expediency, with key reforms being resisted because they would upset powerful interests. When the Minister brought regulations to remove the cap on cross-compliance penalties for repeat polluters, the DUP and Sinn Féin opposed them. When the nutrients action plan went out to public consultation, both parties supported a motion advocating for it to be scrapped. Such posturing stretches credulity to its elastic limit. I note that Sinn Féin's environment spokesperson welcomed the fact that a stakeholder group has now been set up. I hope that that amounts to a turning of the page and that there can be a more collective effort going forward. However, that is not what the Assembly voted for. It voted to outright scrap those proposals, and the Minister will not adhere to that request. Mr Kearney said that proposals demand consensus for a situation of this gravity, and I do not disagree with him, but consensus was reached in the Lough Neagh action plan that was agreed at the Executive. That made clear that a nutrients action plan would have to be taken forward. He said that this matter is above party politics, and that is a convenient defence to hide behind when you have aligned yourself with the DUP to block key environmental action despite having promised your electorate that you would clean up the crisis in Lough Neagh. I ask Sinn Féin Members in particular to reflect on that. The people of Northern Ireland are not fools. They know that you cannot deal with agricultural run-off without a robust NAP, that you cannot tackle pollution without hiking fines on repeat polluters and that you cannot clean up Lough Neagh with photo opportunities and warm words. Despite the lack of support that we have seen in the Chamber, some progress has nevertheless been made. Northern Ireland's first environment strategy has been agreed, with a focus on improving land, air and water quality. The Lough Neagh action plan is now in place, and a number of key actions are moving forward or have been completed, including the small business research initiative and the new task force, which has conducted over 300 site investigations already. We now have a crucial opportunity to step forward collectively and go further. We often hear the criticism, and we heard it again in the debate, that the focus is too often on agriculture and not on NI Water, and I agree that there is an inherent unfairness in the fact that NI Water gets a bye ball for pollution incidents. However, the Minister has stated multiple times that he wishes to proceed to scrap the SORPI arrangements to ensure that that is no longer the case so that NI Water can face the same fines and penalties as other polluters. We cannot deny the fact, however, that 62% of the nutrient pollution that is causing the blue-green algae blooms in Lough Neagh comes from agriculture, so we have to work with agriculture to set a more sustainable course. We also need to see action from the Infrastructure Minister to bring forward an expert-led review of NI Water, with a view to finally stopping waste water sewage pollution. Support is also required to hike fines and penalties further and to introduce the long-overdue environmental protection agency, which the Assembly has dithered on in previous mandates. Those are not niche environmental issues but are matters of social justice. The communities who live around the lough deserve clean water, sustainable livelihoods and a Government who do not just talk but take action. I hope that, today, we will move on from this habit of passing non-binding motions and wringing our hands at the crisis in Lough Neagh and instead actually take the action that is needed to deal with the crisis. Mrs Dillon: I thank the Members for bringing the motion to the House. I will start by addressing one of the final points made by the Member who spoke previously, the Alliance Member for Upper Bann. We need to work with farmers. That is exactly what we need to do. We should work not with farmers alone but with everybody, but farmers have be included as part of this. They are an essential part of it, so I do not think that we can ignore them, move on and do things without bringing them with us. It is very important that we work together to address that. Protecting our environment and safeguarding Lough Neagh is a critical priority for Sinn Féin, as I hope it is for all of us, including our farming community. I declare an interest, as I did earlier, as somebody who comes from an agricultural background. It is not a highly productive agricultural background, so I certainly do not think that we add in any way to any pollution. I also have a husband who is an angler. Like every other angler and fisherman, he loves the rivers and wants to protect and look after them. I understand the importance of the issue. Top 6.00 pm Like many of you, I find the return of the blue-green algae this summer deeply disturbing. With its devastating environmental, social and economic consequences, it threatens biodiversity, wildlife, the safety of our water and the livelihoods of those who depend on the lough, as previous contributors mentioned. The matter is personal to me, because I live five minutes from the lough shore. I live five minutes from the Washing Bay, and I have worked closely with communities along the lough shore — in my local community around Derrylaughan and Brockagh — to support the development of excellent facilities for local residents and those who come to visit. They are right on the shore of an amazing natural resource that must be protected. We all need to work together to make sure that that is exactly what happens. I appreciate the information that the Minister provided to us this morning on plans for a potential Shared Island programme to improve the water quality of Lough Neagh. That is positive. As we all know, rivers do not recognise borders. We must ensure that we have an all-Ireland approach to protecting all our waterways. As my colleague Declan Kearney outlined, there must be maximum cooperation between the Minister and the Government in the South to seek and implement actions to protect the lough. Lough Neagh is central to life on this island. It sustains local communities and rural economies. It supports fishermen, farmers, tourism operators and those who live around its shores. The pollution crisis on the lough has multiple causes that have all been outlined, and I do not deny any of them. The crisis did not occur overnight, and I understand that it will take time to fix the problems, but we have an Executive action plan. We must all work together to implement it in order to deliver our vision of a healthy, sustainable lough that will be there for the generations that come after us: our children and grandchildren. There is an onus on all of us to act for the health of our environment and the future of everyone who relies on that vital resource. It should not be a blame game, and it should not involve ignoring science or data in order to chase votes. The reality is that it will take all of us — government, local communities, farmers, fishermen and environmental groups — working together to solve the issue. Everyone must have a say and be genuinely and actively listened to. We must take on board people's ideas and what they say. They know what they are talking about. We need to listen to them. Progress has been made through additional funding secured by the Finance Minister, John O'Dowd, earlier this year to fund initiatives such as the small business research initiative, which harnesses innovative science-based and evidence-based solutions. We need to have a focus on those. I welcome the AERA Minister's commitment to a stakeholder task and finish group to bring the farmers, agri-food sector, environmental groups and government officials together to develop evidence-based and workable measures. It must include those who look after and protect rivers that run into the lough and, in particular — I again declare my interest — the angling groups that look after those rivers. The Member for West Tyrone who spoke earlier has an interest in that as well. It is crucial that farmers are supported to make changes in a fair and realistic way. Just transition principles must be applied to ensure that the costs do not fall disproportionately on those who are potentially the least able to bear them. We need to bring everyone with us. Forcing through measures that are unworkable or unaffordable does no good for anyone and, ultimately, is counterproductive. It is essential to remember that the lough is not just a body of water; it is the heart of many communities. It is the heart of my community. Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up. Mrs Dillon: It provides livelihoods, sustains biodiversity and offers huge potential for economic opportunities. Mr Bradley: Mr Speaker, you will be pleased to hear that most of my points have been covered already and that I will not repeat them. Toxic cyanobacteria blooms, especially in the summer of 2023 and 2024 as well as this year, have depleted oxygen levels in the lough to such an extent that they block light and lead to fish kills and a decline in aquatic biodiversity. It is not just the ecosystem in Lough Neagh that appears to have collapsed. I do not want to cross into the territory of repeating anything that my colleagues have said, so I will narrow my concerns to the River Bann, which is the only river to spawn salmon and white trout into the Lough Neagh system. Recreational angling and water sports businesses along the River Bann have been severely impacted. Some operators have been forced to close entirely due to unsafe water conditions and customer cancellations, not to mention the blue flag beaches of Benone, Portstewart and Portrush along a tidal stretch of the Bann at the Barmouth. I would like to ask questions. It is OK to highlight what is wrong, but what are we doing to fix it? Since the crisis was first discovered in 2023, how many buffer zones, wetlands, hedgerows and trees have been established to filter nitrates and phosphorus before they reach the water? What rewilding or reintroduction of key ecological players like invertebrates to rebuild the food web has happened since 2023? Has any exploration of control of invasive species such as zebra mussels taken place since 2023? I could be wrong, but I assume that one zebra mussel could filter at least one litre of water per day, removing valuable food plankton from the water. Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. We talk about irrigation and the need to oxidate the water to stop the blue-green algae. Does he agree that the lack of dredging of our rivers has hugely impacted on the flow of water in and out of Lough Neagh, affecting the river that he mentioned? Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute. Mr Bradley: Thank you. I thank the Member for his intervention. I have mixed views on river dredging, so I do not want to drift into that territory. Has testing for cyanotoxins in water been extended to fish to help to gauge ecosystem health and inform public warnings since 2023 or earlier? What long-term ecological research and data baselines have been established to track recovery and inform adaptive management? How many of the 37-odd measures agreed in July 2024 have been implemented? What extra funding has been afforded to the Minister to roll out regulation, infrastructure and community engagement? Minister, I feel that the situation is verging on irreversible, if that point has not already been reached. I agree with the Minister that the ecological disaster needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency. I call on all parties in the Executive to explore extra finance and address that destruction. It is not just about farming practices but about sewage discharges, illegal pollution and septic tanks. Words are nothing but empty vessels. It is time for action, not talking. In my opinion, there is no action, so I cannot support the motion. Mr Buckley: As I mentioned earlier, the issue of blue-green algae is not new. It is happening around the world. My colleague Miss McIlveen set out the case for why my party believes that the Minister's proposed nutrients action programme is an existential threat to Northern Ireland's agriculture. It risks jobs, cuts livestock, penalises farmers and destroys Northern Ireland's last remaining indigenous industry. Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way? Mr Buckley: In a moment. Words matter. Absolutely, words matter. That is why I cannot support the motion, particularly when it "expresses regret at the misguided support for a motion calling for a public consultation on the nutrients action programme to be withdrawn". I will give way in a moment, Mr O'Toole. Mr Tennyson and I rarely agree in the Chamber, but there was a point in his speech when he was absolutely fundamentally correct. He said that the House passed a motion calling for the NAP proposals to be withdrawn. Does Sinn Féin support today's motion, which expresses regret about that motion? Is anybody prepared to answer? I have not heard it from Sinn Féin. Make no mistake: if Sinn Féin supports today's motion, it will have deliberately and callously put the dagger in the back of the farmers who, it said on a previous occasion in the Chamber, were under huge threat from the Minister's proposal. The Alliance Party may not credit me with many things, but they can credit me with one thing: I will be consistent on the matter. Mr McAleer, a Member for Mid Ulster, stated in this place that Mr Muir's proposals were "not fit for purpose". Quote: "Muir must start again". The Member for South Down, Mrs Mason, said: "They're unworkable and would seriously harm family farms ... in South Down." That is exactly what you said when farmers asked us to speak up for them. If you support the motion, you will have done a 180-degree U-turn on the position that you outlined in the House. If that is the case, it is a huge betrayal of the farming community. Is it any wonder that trust in politicians is at an all-time low when they come to the House one month and say that they will stand up and protect farmers and, the next month or months after, say weasel words and hedge their bets? For the second time, I ask it: will Sinn Féin support this motion? There are eight Sinn Féin Members in the Chamber right now: will they support the motion? If they do, they will grossly betray farmers of all creeds and all backgrounds in Northern Ireland — nationalist farmers, republican farmers, unionist farmers, other farmers, whatever type of farmer. If you support the motion, you fundamentally — Mrs Dillon: Will the Member give way? Mr Buckley: In a minute. The Sinn Féin Member has asked me to take an intervention, and I will. I hope that she will clarify whether she will support the motion. Mrs Dillon: No, but she will clarify that the farmers whom she knows are pig farmers, sheep farmers and cattle farmers. They do not tell me their creed or their voting affiliation before they speak to me: they are farmers. Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute. Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for her intervention. There absolutely are farmers of all creeds, but, right now, Sinn Féin has failed on the third occasion to clarify whether it will support a motion that expresses regret at the position that it expressed in the House months previously. That is a gross betrayal of the beef farmer, the pig farmer, the dairy farmer, the hill farmer and the sheep farmer. Sinn Féin is talking out of both sides of its mouth in today's debate. That is where my criticism lies: if those Members are not prepared to stand up and speak out for farmers, rather than speaking out of both sides of their mouth, in whom can those farmers place their trust? The body politic is damaged daily by politicians who are prepared to tell voters one thing and do the exact opposite. The motion makes no reference to serial polluters such as NI Water, which has dumped millions of tons of raw sewage into our waterways and into Lough Neagh — not a single mention. Its default position is to go after the farmer. Perhaps the House could collectively agree on a motion that would take on NI Water and those who have polluted with raw sewage for years, rather than default to blaming the farmer every time. The farmer is watching. Which way will Sinn Féin vote today? Mr McGlone: Last night, I was, I think, the only MLA who attended a meeting in Moortown at Kinturk cultural centre. That is exactly the sort of stuff that people there said that they did not want to hear: ping-ponging back and forward on ideological grounds; you blame, he blames, she blames. No disrespect, Jonny, but the message from the hundred-odd people in that room was unanimously clear. I am a lifelong resident of the lough shore. I have represented the area for 32 years. I know and respect the views of the people whom I spoke to last night. One man told me that he was thinking of moving out of his house this summer because of the stink that was coming off the lough. Top 6.15 pm There were wildfowlers there last night who were afraid to take their dogs out to the lough on the first morning of the shooting season. There were families and young people there who are deeply concerned about the quality of the water supply. They were concerned for themselves, their families and the very animals in the agriculture sector that we are talking about. The clear message from the people at the meeting was that they do not want arguments. They want action, and they want us to get on with taking it. Brown eel fishing closed down during the summer. The brown eel is a symbol of the Lough Neagh economy, but it is also a cultural symbol. It is a symbol of the resistance of Irish fishermen, who took to the courts to establish their right to fish their own lough. It is a crying shame to see that industry evaporating before our very eyes. There were fishermen there last night, and I hope to hear from the Minister about support for the fishing industry. It is a crying shame to see what is happening on our lough. That cultural symbol of Lough Neagh and the island is disappearing. Everything that the public are seeing demands action, but it must be the right kind of action and be collaborative. It is a complex crisis that requires partnership, innovation and shared responsibility across all sectors. I want the Minister to clarify whether he is getting support from his Executive colleagues. Are they are ponying up? Are they giving him the money to support the farming community, the fishing community, new methods of on-farm practice and other methods and innovative measures, scientific and otherwise, that will be required to reassert the ecological and environmental value of Lough Neagh? Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way? Mr McGlone: Sure. Mr O'Toole: Does my colleague agree that it is also important to note what Members have said about NI Water being a critical part of all of this? It is. They should, through the Executive, support a plan for funding NI Water, which we have not got at the moment. Mr McGlone: Totally. We need to hear NI Water's proposals and about the departmental drive behind those proposals, from an investment and a scientific point of view. The methodology of monitoring the water supply came up at the meeting last night as well. Furthermore, monitoring what is being ingested by humans definitely came up last night. The only way in which to address all that is by drastically reducing the excessive levels of nutrients — phosphorus and nitrogen — in the lough. Over 60% of the phosphorus in the water originates from agriculture, while one third comes from waste water treatment facilities and septic tanks. On the issue of agriculture, I need to emphasise the point that much has been made of farming in the debate. God knows that those of us who try to work with and support farmers do our simple best for them. That is why the Assembly and the Executive need to step up to the plate and support those farmers who are willing to conserve our environment and are committed to doing so. I have to mention one thing, and it is a fact. Moy Park is owned by a US multinational company. It is not a local company. Its profits rose by 151% in 2023. Can anyone name any farmer whose profits rose by 151% in 2023, or in any other year for that matter? There is not a pup's chance. In the meantime, however, there have been hundreds of breaches of legal limits of environmental pollutants by that same company. Please square that circle for me. Our approach recognises the urgency of the environmental situation, but it also acknowledges the realities on the ground. In addition to the necessary upgrades to the waste water and sewage network — we have already spoken about that — any sustainable policy must be co-designed and must not be imposed. That is the only way in which we can achieve lasting change. It must include key issues, such as collaboration, education, support and financial incentivisation. Again, it is back to the Minister to advise whether that support is forthcoming — Mr Speaker: Time is up. Mr McGlone: — or whether it is just empty words. Mr Speaker: Mr McNulty has requested to speak for a minute, he said. We are tight for time, and I will use the grace period, but I want to get to all those who had their names down. Mr McGlone: Sorry, am I —? Mr Speaker: You are over. [Laughter.] Thank you for your contribution, but it is over. Mr McNulty: I speak as someone who proudly comes from a farming background. I miss milking the cows. I miss dehorning the calves. I miss covering the silage and experiencing the transition from hay to silage. I miss testing and dosing cattle. I have brought calves to market in the link box on the back of the tractor. I miss all that [Interruption] but the visceral recall of being on the lough shore as a kid and being in my Uncle Barney and Auntie Rita's house and first tasting the silver eels, experiencing the rubbery taste, is a memory you cannot forget. It is unbelievable. I remember the sense of pride that they had in their local produce and the fact that it was a delicacy that was transported and sold across the world — even in France. I was mesmerised by that fact. Eel fishing plays a vital role as an ecological, economic and cultural ecosystem that has survived and thrived around the lough shore. Eel fishing forms a unique part of the community consciousness, and it needs to be protected. That is all I have to say. Thank you very much. Mr Speaker: Thank you, Mr McNulty. You were good to your word. Mr Gaston: To ensure harmony, at the opening of my contribution, I will first look at what we all can agree on. We all can agree that Lough Neagh is of huge value to the people of Northern Ireland. We can all agree that, as the largest freshwater lake in the British Isles, it is vital for wildlife, fisheries and the wider community, in general. On that, we are all agreed. Equally, no one in the Chamber can dispute the fact that the blue-green algae issue that was first sighted in the lough in 1923 is a very serious problem, and one that we, as legislators, must address. However, at this juncture, I believe that I will part company with the environmentalists. There are all too many in the House and outside it who are looking for a scapegoat for what is, in reality, a complex and multifaceted problem. The issue is real, but the narrative to always blame the farmer is not. We hear the mad environmentalists, both inside the Chamber and outside, lamenting that the farmer is always to blame. We always hear about the ecological disaster of biblical proportions. We hear about the horror stories that the lough is dead and that the algae kills all that lives within it, even though it has been a recurring problem for many years. Do not forget, however, that Northern Ireland Water, which dumps a reported 200,000 tons of raw sewage into the lough each year, tells us that the water is safe to drink, and, let us face it, eel commercial fishing has largely been replaced by those now fishing for trout instead. That shows me that the lough is not dead. The crisis is being used to drive an environmental agenda. Let us look at the facts: first, an overlooked factor is the issue of Russian zebra mussels, an invasive species that, since around 2005, has been reshaping the character of Lough Neagh. Those filter-feeding invaders have exploded in population over the past two decades. They strip out plankton from the water, disrupting the food chain and, by concentrating phosphorus in the sediments, they fuel the algae blooms, which we are trying to control, due to the sunlight now being able to shine through the cleaner water. Many ask who brought the zebra mussels to Lough Neagh in the first place. Nobody can tell us. Secondly, we have the elephant in the room, which I have already mentioned: one which, when I first came to the House, the Minister was keen to ignore. That is the issues relating to sewage, storm overflows and trade effluent. When I first raised that point in the House, shortly after my arrival in this place, Minister Muir told me that he did not want to get into a blame game. My question, and the Minister's response, are on record, and, should he wish to dispute it, it is in the Hansard report of 1 October 2024 for all to see. When I raised that point again on 4 November 2024, the story was similar. I trust that we can all now agree that the discharge of untreated sewage directly into rivers and into Lough Neagh, carrying phosphorus, organic matter and bacteria, all of which exacerbate algae growth, needs to stop. Industrial trade effluent adds yet more nutrients to the system. That is another aspect of this whole issue that is regulated by the Northern Ireland Executive through Northern Ireland Water. Let us not forget that the latest algae blooms correlated with COVID, when we saw a sharp increase in people's use of cleaning products in their homes. Could that be a factor? Have we considered that? Before we look to the farmers, we need to heed the words of scripture: "Physician, heal thyself". Let us concede, for the sake of argument, that the parties that want to see agriculture in the Province driven to the wall through their NAP and the climate action plan are correct. Let us not forget that the same party and Minister kept AgriSearch out of the NAP stakeholder forum. Those who do not support their mad net-zero policies are approaching this from a different place and are doing so dispassionately. Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up. Mr Gaston: Which of those parties supported the Going for Growth strategy? They need to reflect on that. All those parties were happy to support Going for Growth when it suited them — Mr Speaker: Time is up. Mr Gaston: — and now they want to turn their backs on the farmer. Mr Speaker: Having taken all the relevant factors into consideration, I have decided to apply a grace period of up to 15 minutes to accommodate the Members who are still to speak. I remind those Members that, if they take an intervention, they will not get an extra minute. Mr Carroll: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Lough Neagh is one of our most precious natural resources and wildlife sites. It is the source of 40% of the North's drinking water. It is supposed to be protected under local, European and international law, but, in reality, Lough Neagh is a public health hazard and a toxic death zone for local wildlife. Despite the safeguarding of Lough Neagh being a key priority in the Programme for Government, the Executive's empty promises simply are not cutting it. Executive approval was finally secured for a Lough Neagh action plan last summer. Of the plan's 37 points, 23 have not yet been implemented. There are snails' paces, and then there is this. It is no surprise that the parties that continue to subsidise billionaire polluter corporations are not acting in the interests of the lough. More recently, as has been mentioned, the Minister developed proposals for a new nutrients action programme, which is aimed at tackling pollution in Lough Neagh. That was a bit of positive action: it did not go far enough in the direction in which we need to go, but it would have made some difference to the lough. For other parties in the Chamber — Sinn Féin, the DUP and the UUP — those modest proposals were too radical. They have fallen in line behind the Ulster Farmers' Union, which, certainly in this case, is dead set on maintaining business as usual and defending big corporate polluters rather than on representing the interests of most farmers. Agricultural pollution is just one cause of the crisis at Lough Neagh, which is multifaceted. Another of the causes is sand dredging, which scars the bed of the lough. Each year, 1·5 million tons of sand are suction-dredged from the lough. It takes the ecosystem decades to recover from that. The lough bed is supposed to be a protected nature reserve for plants, fish and diving birds, but, instead, the Executive allow it to be plundered. Fishermen and fisherwomen have been sounding the alarm about sand dredging and the harm that it does to fish nurseries in an already fragile lough. In 2020, the then SDLP Infrastructure Minister supported sand dredging. The SDLP has still not walked back from its support for that. Saving Lough Neagh is not an impossible task. The solutions to the crisis are clear and always have been. It should not take decades to save it, and we do not have decades in which to save it. The solutions have been identified by the Save Lough Neagh campaign, Friends of the Earth and many of the communities from around the lough shore. The state of the lough is a permanent physical reminder of our urgent need for an independent environmental protection agency. The Executive are remarkably poor at protecting our environment, and the NIEA has not done the job for Lough Neagh. It is clear that it has failed to regulate pollution and protect wildlife and communities. As Friends of the Earth put it: "We have the crime scene, but no police to hold the criminals to account." What an apt description of what has been happening in the past couple of years. Without an independent EPA to fine and punish guilty factory farms and agri-food polluters, nutrients and agricultural run-off will continue to flow into the lough and kill it. Top 6.30 pm In the past decade, the Shaftesbury estate of Lough Neagh made over £245,000 in profit from sand dredging. That is pocket change for an English aristocrat such as Lord Shaftesbury, but the fact that an absentee colonial landlord is profiting from the destruction of our lough is absolutely outrageous. He needs to hand back the lough to the people here, and he should not be paid a penny for it. It is our lough; it is not his family's lough. If he does not hand it back, the state needs to step in and requisition it into public ownership with community management. A proper crackdown on industrial farming, factory farming and intensive agriculture is long overdue. More than 62% of the phosphorus that causes toxic algal blooms comes from agricultural sources. Part of that demand means properly funding NI Water, which would, of course, transform the lough and people's lives. However, the Executive and, in many cases, the Opposition, see the local ecosystem as something to exploit, not protect. As the most basic bare minimum, the Minister and his Executive colleagues need to get behind efforts to clear up this mess ASAP rather than supporting lobbyists for the rich and powerful corporate polluters. Maybe then the Executive could finally put planet before profit. Ms Sugden: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your grace on the time. We know that Lough Neagh is one of our most important natural assets and that it provides almost half of Northern Ireland's drinking water. It supports wildlife, fishing and farming, and it underpins businesses, tourism and recreation across the region. Although it is inevitable, the return of blue-green algae is deeply concerning. It is about not just the environment but people's daily lives. In my constituency recently, businesses at Benone and Castlerock spoke to customers who are staying away because of the warnings. Families are unsure whether it is safe to swim, bring children to the beach or even let their dogs near the shore in case it poisons them. Local charities in my constituency, including Sea2it, have found that the blooms make their clean-up work on the Bann more difficult, and many people want reassurance that the water that comes out of their taps is safe to drink. We have been given that reassurance, but public confidence will last only if we see the source of the problem being addressed. We know the sources. Too many nutrients are entering the lough from waste water treatment, septic tanks, industry and agriculture. I agree with Mr McCrossan on his point about the fines. In my constituency, someone was convicted recently of polluting the water. That was the second time, because the fine probably was cheaper than changing the way that he does things. We need to address that. It is not good enough. Climate change and invasive species also make the condition worse. Waste water, however, is where the Government must take the lead. The Northern Ireland Audit Office has highlighted that years of underinvestment have left our system under strain. Phosphorus levels in our waters have worsened over the past decade. The Office for Environmental Protection has also warned that Northern Ireland is not on track to meet its water quality obligations, pointing to the lack of pace and urgency in current plans. We can compare that with England, where every storm overflow is now monitored, data is published and regulators can impose penalties, and with the Republic of Ireland, where most urban waste water now has nutrient removal and performance is regularly reported. Northern Ireland, as usual, is behind. As others have said, part of the answer lies in how Northern Ireland Water is funded, because, unlike companies in other regions, it depends on the block grant, so its budget rises and falls with the wider political context and pressures, of which there are many. Households already contribute to their water charges through regional rates, but that money is not ring-fenced in the way that water revenues are in England and Wales. Government must be honest about how we can close that gap. Realistically, it would be difficult to ring-fence that money from the regional rate without consequence, because, if that money is directed into water and waste water, it has to be found elsewhere, or cuts will have to be made. However, if we are serious about fixing the problem, that is a conversation that we cannot avoid. Septic tanks and industry also contribute to the problem, and stronger oversight is needed there too. Agriculture is part of the picture as well. Farmers recognise that nutrient run-off is an issue, and they know that they have a role to play in fixing it. Many of them are taking steps, such as not spreading when rain is forecast, using low-emission spreading equipment and adopting better practices. However, they have told me that they feel blamed, and, sadly, the motion blames them as well. It refers to an earlier motion as "misguided", but it was not; it was a fair reflection of what farmers across Northern Ireland are feeling. I heard a story about a farmer who took his own life, not necessarily because of this issue but because of the compounding pressures that are being put on farmers, not least by the Labour Government across the water but also by some of the proposals that are being put forward here. That is desperately sad. Farmers must be treated as partners. They want to be listened to, and they want workable measures because, as others have said, they care about the environment. It is part of their job, and it is who they are. If we do not listen to farmers, we will create a new crisis. It may not be for the various Ministers in the Executive, but it is something that we should be concerned about, as farming is our biggest industry in Northern Ireland. We should have published a timetable for waste water upgrades across Lough Neagh and the Bann system, so that we can see what is happening and when. We should expect full transparency on overflows, with proper monitoring and public data, as is the case in other parts of the UK. We need stronger enforcement around septic tanks and industry because they too play their part. We must work in partnership with farmers to support the good practice that many of them have already adopted. We need measures that are practical, understood and fair. Right now, we are at an impasse, and we are doing nothing. That will not fix the Lough Neagh issue, and it is certainly not going to help our farmers. I appeal to Members across the Chamber: let us work together, let us listen to one another and let us not blame. This is an issue that will not be fixed this year or next year, maybe not even in the next 10 years, but we need to start somewhere. Mr Speaker: I call Minister Muir. You have up to 15 minutes, Minister. Mr Muir (The Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs): I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important motion and reaffirm my commitment and that of my Department to the protection and restoration of Lough Neagh and its wider catchment. It has been truly heartbreaking this summer to witness yet again the scenes of a lough being suffocated by human-induced blue-green algae blooms. The decline in the eel industry, which has been talked about today, shows the real and tragic impacts of the ecological crisis. We have seen a rise in blue-green algae blooms affecting not only Lough Neagh and its catchment but beaches and bathing waters along the north coast. It concerns me greatly that there were 163 confirmed reports of blue-green algae from 78 unique locations across Northern Ireland as of 4 September, with the blooms being reported in two new locations since 28 August. The thick layer of blue-green algae in and around fishing quays has disrupted the operation of commercial fisheries. The thick build-ups will also impact on recreational angling. The advice is to take extreme care when working and fishing around algae blooms. The Lough Neagh fisheries are an important part of the rural economy around Lough Neagh and must be protected in the long term. The closure of the eel fishery is an ongoing concern. While other fisheries have been able to continue, I am aware of the real impact on the eel fishery. What has happened is historic. Eel fishing is part of our culture and the heritage of the communities around the lough. I am working with representatives of the eel fishermen to see how my Department can support them, and we are doing that. It is important that the Department provides that support. The issues have been reported on our TV screens yet again this summer. The historic termination of eel fishing must focus minds. I urge all Members of the Assembly to focus not on the next election, which many seem to be doing already, but on the next generation. I ask Members to look at the lough, look at what has been reported and realise that the status quo is not an option. The Programme for Government that was published a number of months ago is a contract with the people of Northern Ireland. There is a promise in that to protect Lough Neagh and the environment, and it must be fulfilled. The issue is fundamental to the Executive and these institutions, because politics is about leadership. We must be capable of following through on and taking the difficult decisions that are needed. You cannot govern by sound bites, social media graphics and photo shoots. The time ahead for Lough Neagh is absolutely, fundamentally critical. This is the biggest test of the Executive since restoration. Ultimately the test is about who is up for governing and who is not. I am up for taking those difficult decisions, and, if they come to me from other Ministers such as the Infrastructure Minister, in relation to waste water infrastructure, I will not be found wanting in my support. I am keen to work with people, and, as Minister, I am writing to all the party leaders, asking for a meeting with all the parties in this place to discuss any issues that they have and how we can work together with regard to this. Fundamentally, we have to work together and show the people of Northern Ireland that hope and delivery can come from this place. I am confident that they can, and I want to engage with people and find a way forward on this. On the positives — I have said that I am hopeful that we can turn this around — the Lough Neagh report and action plan is under way. Some 14 of the actions have been completed, and 22 are under way. Some people ask me why I say that it will take decades to fix. It is important that, in all our discussions around this, we are firmly wedded to science and evidence. I have seen some stuff in recent weeks that makes me despair. The denial of science fundamentally undermines people's trust and confidence in politics. The people of Northern Ireland deserve better than for people to deny those issues. The sediment is full of phosphorus, and it will take about 40 years for that to be released. That is why I say that it will be decades in the fixing. However, we can make a start. We need to reduce the nutrients going into the lough. That is the fundamental issue: too much nutrient is going into the lough, but we can turn that around. I have been talking about this in the last number of weeks, and I will outline it a bit more today. Fundamental decisions are coming down the road. I will set out what they are, and I am really looking forward to engaging with other political parties about what we can do to turn this around. We can do it, but people need to come together, work together and support me in that. The first is environmental protection. If there was ever an example of why we needed an independent environmental protection agency years ago, this is it. All I need to do is list Lough Neagh, Mobuoy, the state of our precious landscapes such as the Mournes, the Sperrins and Belfast lough, and the ongoing declines in wildlife and biodiversity. It is important that we take action to strengthen environmental governance. People ask me what that looks like. That is why I asked an independent panel to look at it. It came back with an interim report in June, and, as part of that, it recommended an independent environmental protection agency. The final report is due in the next few weeks. I will take it to the Executive and look for support to strengthen environmental governance. The current situation is not sustainable. We are the only part of the UK and Ireland that does not have an independent environmental protection agency, and that cannot continue. How many more environmental disasters do we need to tell us that we need to establish it? The expert panels came back. They are doing a lot of good work, and we will get the final report and proceed on it. The motion refers to the nutrients action programme. I was extremely disheartened that the Assembly supported the motion in June that called for me to withdraw the consultation. I was really disappointed at that. To me, consulting and getting people's views is a fundamental part of government. The consultation closed on 24 July, and I thank everyone who took the time to respond. There were 3,400 responses, so thank you to everyone who responded. Further to that I have announced — people know this — that my intention is to set up a stakeholder group to through the responses and any other suggestions and find a way forward so that we can go to a further consultation and get final proposals agreed. The group consists of representatives from farming, agri-food, environmental groups and the Department. The group met informally for the first time on 27 August to discuss its remit. That was an extremely constructive meeting, and I record my profound thanks to people for coming round the table and wanting to focus on solutions. The leadership that has been shown by the Ulster Farmers' Union on this has been amazing. Agri-food wants to work together on it, and environmental NGOs also want to do that. I ask people to put the politics aside, support the group, let them do the work, let them come together and bring forward proposals that we can get agreement on, so that we can find a way forward for nutrient management in Northern Ireland. Top 6.45 pm Fundamental to that is that we need to support farmers in Northern Ireland on that road. That is why I have met the Finance Minister and asked for a significant increase in the just transition fund for agriculture. What does that mean? It means that, for example, with the sustainable farm investment scheme, we are supporting technologies for farmers to use on the farm, which will reduce nutrients going into the lough and also deal with issues such as ammonia. I need the funding to support farmers in doing that. I also need funding for advisory support. There are four pillars around this: education, incentivisation, regulation and enforcement. I need the support so that we can have on-farm advisory support, and that is something that I am engaging with the Irish Government on because, frankly, we do not have an awful lot of money in Northern Ireland because of the UK economy situation. I will engage with the Irish Government, because the situation is clearly an all-Ireland situation, and good positive work can be done around that. That is what I have outlined in relation to the nutrients action programme. I am committed to working with people. Some people have asked me, "Who is in the group? Who is not in the group? I want to be in the group." Everyone wants to be in the group, it seems, but I have to find a situation where we do not have too many people and we can actually make progress. I have made a decision today to finalise the membership of the group. It will include the Northern Ireland Food and Drink Association and the Rivers Trust. It is important that I include them. We will also set up a subgroup for science and research, and that will include AFBI and AgriSearch. I am committed to bringing people together, and we are working at the moment to get an external facilitator for it. So good work is being done. People are providing leadership and coming together. We do not all agree. There will be a robust exchange of views, but let us come together and find a way forward. However, here is the rub: I am working night and day to deal with nutrient pollution from agriculture. The lack of action on waste water infrastructure is a major issue. Farmers see a situation where NI Water has a separate regulatory regime, it gets a special deal and permission to pollute, and farmers do not think that that is fair. I have been on the record before on that, and I will say it again: I agree. That needs to end, and I need support from the Executive to deal with it, because we cannot have a situation where one major corporate polluter is given a separate special deal. We also need credible proposals to deal with waste water and sewage pollution. I will support the Infrastructure Minister if she brings forward proposals in relation to that. Ultimately, we have to make a decision here whether we are prepared to govern or not. I am prepared to support action on this, but we have to deal with sewage pollution. It is about one quarter of the problem. It is not credible that I continue to work with farmers and agri-food but that we do not see progress on that, and we have a separate regulatory regime. The other issue is climate change. We have had the warmest summer on record. Is that not a clear indication that the issues that we have seen in Lough Neagh are related to climate change? I am very clear that climate change is the biggest challenge of our time, and it is having real impacts on our society, particularly in relation to Lough Neagh. To deny the reality of climate change is mad. To be honest, we would be much better off signing up to science and evidence than to Nigel Farage. As far as I am concerned, I will continue to take action on climate change and will continue to seek support for that action, because we owe it to communities around Northern Ireland. It is not optional; it is a must. We must take climate action. There is legislation, but there is also an imperative. It would be crazy that we would not invest in renewable energy, for example, and expose people to the price fluctuations as a result of dictatorships that own fossil fuels and subject people to the perils of fuel poverty. The last issue, which people have talked about, is fines and reviewing those. We are considering a fisheries and water environment Bill. We will go out and consult further on that. We have done stakeholder engagement, and we need to have a proper regime in place for regulation and enforcement. We will consult on that Bill. There will be consultation, and we have done stakeholder engagement. If I see a motion back here saying, "Pull the consultation", I will despair. All that I am asking is for people to give us their view on the Bill so that we can have stronger regulation and enforcement. I do not think that the situation at the moment is right. Some of the fines are pitiful, and some of the prosecutions are not taking place. We need to deal with that. It would be much better if the pollution did not take place in the first place, so that is why we are focusing on education and incentivisation, and I thank the Irish Government for their engagement around supporting us with that. In conclusion, there is hope, but difficult decisions will be required. A lot of the time, this place is known for telling people what they want to hear rather than for taking the tough decisions and doing so together. I have hope and an ambition, and it is for other people to decide whether it happens. It is that we can go to the shores of Lough Neagh next year. I am not saying that the situation will have been fixed or that we will not see a repeat of the scenes. Rather, I am saying that we will have taken the difficult decisions and that there will be real action. There are no quick fixes. There have been decades of neglect, and the situation cannot be turned around quickly, but it is important that we take the difficult decisions in order to address it. I commend everyone who has engaged with me thus far. I look forward to engaging with party leaders in the time ahead. We hope to be able to make progress. What has happened in recent months is an abdication of leadership. We need to draw a line in the sand, and we need to say to people that we are prepared to take difficult decisions and are prepared to move forward. Mr Speaker: I call Daniel McCrossan to make a winding-up speech on the motion. You have up to 10 minutes, Mr McCrossan. Mr McCrossan: Thank you, Mr Speaker. This was a fascinating debate. Not only did some Members manage to sectarianise it by labelling farmers under their religion but we had the Gospel cited. Nigel Farage also made an appearance. There has therefore been quite a mixture of opinions shared today. Let me be clear from the outset, however, that what is happening at Lough Neagh is nothing short of an environmental disaster. It is an emergency that has been years in the making, caused by weak enforcement, failed leadership and an Executive who are more interested in managing headlines than fixing the problems that we face. Some Executive parties come before the cameras promising everything, particularly in the run-up to an election. They talk about the urgency of fixing Lough Neagh, the responsibility that needs to be taken and the leadership that must be shown, Then, when the election dust has settled, they walk through the doors of the Chamber and look the other way. They vote against and attempt to block consultations that will allow feedback to go to the Minister and the Department to make an informed decision about the appropriate way forward. They choose politics and virtue signalling over the environment and scaremongering and Trump's fake news over fact. That is the reality of how the Executive function. Indeed, the DUP talked about farmers for a fair bit of the debate. All of us recognise the vital role that farmers play in each and all our communities. Let me be clear, however, that it was the DUP that stoked farmers' tensions and wound them up to the hilt about the consultation, so much so that a lot of the things that were said were not wholly accurate. The consultation has gone ahead, however, and the Minister was right to ignore the petty politicking of some parties in the House. Let me reaffirm something as an MLA for a rural constituency: farmers are the backbone of our rural economy and our rural community. They face massive challenges, and absolutely do since the bonkers Brexit that the DUP supported. They deserve support and fairness, but they also deserve honesty from the DUP, which they are not getting. They also know, perhaps better than anyone, that a poisoned Lough Neagh helps no one. Farmers understand that sustainability is the only way in which to ensure that the next generation can continue to work and live off the land. It is not just a failure of the farming community but a multifaceted, complex mess in which many people have contributed to the disastrous situation. It is therefore not about pointing the finger at farmers, or even at NI Water, but about taking action to resolve the crisis. The crisis is not theoretical. It is not distant. The crisis is choking the largest freshwater lake on these islands with toxic blue-green algae. It is human-induced blue-green algae. Fisheries have been forced to close, tourism businesses are collapsing and families are being told not to swim in what was once a beautiful lough, not to walk dogs near it and not to touch the water. Wildlife is being wiped out. This is real. It is happening, and, unless the Executive wise up and take action, it will be their legacy for future generations to learn about. A Member: Will the Member give way? Mr McCrossan: I will not. I have a lot to get through. Yet what do some Executive parties do in the face of that? The DUP, Sinn Féin and the UUP lined up to vote against the nutrients action programme consultation. Let us be crystal clear: it was a consultation, and anyone who does not understand the definition of a consultation should not be in the House. It was not a law. It was not a regulation. It was not a policy. It was a chance for farmers, communities, scientists, business owners and everybody to have their say. What is so terrifying about listening to people, something that some parties do not do well? What is so threatening about consultation? Yet instead of engaging, Sinn Féin tripped over themselves to get into the Lobby with the DUP and UUP to collapse that process. That was not just a mistake; that was a shameful misjudgement, particularly given that the First Minister lives in the constituency that is directly affected by it. That was a major betrayal of the public, who depend on us to show leadership. While the virtue signalling continued, the Sinn Féin Infrastructure Department is content to stand back while raw sewage continues to flow into the lough. Eighteen months after the return of the Assembly, we have had no solutions or any plan put forward. That is not acceptable; it is indefensible. It shows the wider failure of an Executive who refuse to act as one, refuse to govern with urgency and refuse to face up to their responsibilities. Delay is not neutral. Every week that we wait, the algae spread further; every year that we delay, the damage deepens. This is not a short-term inconvenience. If Lough Neagh collapses, it will be a generational catastrophe that this Executive have done very little about. Jobs, tourism, wildlife, heritage and livelihoods will be destroyed. The question to the Executive parties is simple: do you want to be remembered as the Executive who sat back while the UK and Ireland's largest lake died before our eyes or do you want to be remembered as the Executive who took responsibility, took the tough decisions, showed courage and saved it? For the SDLP's part, we will not stand quietly back while others play politics with something so precious. We will not allow Sinn Féin, the DUP and the UUP to pretend that they are acting in the public interest while they look and vote the other way. The House and the Executive should be demanding immediate action from the Department for Infrastructure and the Minister to stop sewage flowing into the lough. That is an action within the gift of power of Sinn Féin and the First Minister, because today, after this debate, the First Minister can go and ask her Sinn Féin Finance Minister to fund her Infrastructure Minister for NI Water. That is a good starting point. Take action. Do not just speak about it, do something. Also, while that conversation is happening, please tell Minister O'Dowd to respond to the call by Minister Muir to fund his Department to resolve this problem. Sticking plasters will not work. We also need proper sanctions in place that will deter polluters and ensure diligence at all times when they are on their land or when NI Water is instructed to stop pumping sewage into that lough. Colleagues, this is not about left or right, unionist or nationalist, as some would have you believe. This is about whether a Government work; this is about whether they fail. Right now, on Lough Neagh, the Executive are failing miserably. I say it again: no more promises by Ministers in front of the cameras or in the Assembly, no more hollow words and no more excuses. If you have committed in your manifestos to solving this problem, you need to do something about it. As the Opposition, we are going to ensure that your feet are held firmly to the fire in that regard. What is happening in Lough Neagh is unforgivable. People can dress it up in whatever way they like. I must say that Mr Buckley gave a first-class performance. If the Assembly ever collapses again, he will not even need to apply to the West End. He is guaranteed a job in the London Palladium for what he did here earlier. Top 7.00 pm Mr Buckley: Will I get a reference from you? Mr McCrossan: I will give you a reference. We need to act now to deal with this very serious crisis. People are counting on us. It is not just about those who are contributing to the problem; it is about the wider impact that it is having on all our communities. That has been referenced here today. People cannot live in their homes. My God, is that acceptable in today's age? No, it is not. We can all take steps to resolve the problem. I implore the Executive to work together, use the powers and functions that they have within their control and resolve the problem now, before it is too late. Question put. The Assembly divided: Ayes 45; Noes 29 AYES Dr Archibald, Ms K Armstrong, Mr Baker, Mr Boylan, Mr Carroll, Mr Delargy, Mr Dickson, Mrs Dillon, Miss Dolan, Mr Donnelly, Mr Durkan, Ms Egan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Finnegan, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Mrs Guy, Miss Hargey, Mr Honeyford, Mr Kearney, Mr Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mr McAleer, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McMurray, Mr McNulty, Mr McReynolds, Mrs Mason, Mr Mathison, Mr Muir, Ms Mulholland, Ms Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mrs O'Neill, Mr O'Toole, Ms Reilly, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Mr Tennyson Tellers for the Ayes: Mr McGrath, Ms McLaughlin NOES Dr Aiken, Ms D Armstrong, Mr Bradley, Mr Brett, Mr Brooks, Ms Brownlee, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew, Mr Gaston, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Irwin, Mr Kingston, Mrs Little-Pengelly, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Martin, Mr Middleton, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Robinson, Mr Stewart, Ms Sugden Tellers for the Noes: Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley Question accordingly agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly expresses grave concern at the return of blue-green algae at Lough Neagh and other sites across Northern Ireland; acknowledges the severe environmental, economic and societal impacts, including the closure of eel fishing this year; expresses regret at the misguided support for a motion calling for a public consultation on the nutrients action programme to be withdrawn; and calls on the Executive to support all necessary actions aimed at rescuing the UK and Ireland’s largest freshwater lake. Mr Speaker: I ask Members to take their ease before we move to the Adjournment debate. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Dr Aiken] in the Chair) Top 7.15 pm Motion made: That the Assembly do now adjourn. — [Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken).] Adjournment South West Acute Hospital: Future of Services Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): In conjunction with the Business Committee, the Speaker has given leave to Diane Dodds to raise the matter of the future of services at the South West Acute Hospital (SWAH). Before I call Diane, I welcome everybody in the Public Gallery. Thank you for coming to the Northern Ireland Assembly tonight. I realise that many of you have travelled a long way and the debate is probably slightly later than you expected it to be. However, I say welcome. This is your Assembly. I am glad to see that you are here. Diane, will you open up the debate? You have up to 15 minutes. Over to you. Mrs Dodds: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I echo your words and welcome everyone from Fermanagh today. It is a long way up the road, but we will discuss a lot of long journeys as we go through the debate and try to make some progress. At the outset of the debate, I just want to say that my colleague Deborah is extremely disappointed that she is unable to be here. She is a passionate advocate for Fermanagh and South Tyrone and the South West Acute Hospital. I am sure that we wish her all the best at this difficult time. Some Members: Hear, hear. Mrs Dodds: I spoke to Deborah today. She wanted me to put on record her thanks for the way in which she has been treated. She is very grateful for all the work of the local community midwife right through to the hospital consultants. It just shows that while, sometimes in the House — the Minister will smile when I say this — we focus on the things that are wrong, really need to be fixed or are urgent, there are everyday people doing tremendous work in our hospitals. Emergency general surgery at the SWAH is not just a local issue; it is a regional one. It is an issue that has deep significance for how we transform our services and the basis on which we proceed. For families in Fermanagh, the South West Acute Hospital is not just another hospital option; it is the only acute hospital that is accessible within a reasonable time frame. Anyone who knows the geography of that most westerly part of Northern Ireland knows that travel time from somewhere like Rosslea to Altnagelvin Area Hospital is almost two hours. For people in Fermanagh, distances are long, roads are challenging and alternatives are not as feasible as they are for people in urban areas. That is the stark reality of rural healthcare. As if that were not enough, the Western Trust is proposing a permanent hospital service change based on the premise that the current arrangements at Altnagelvin are suitable and coping well. They are not. On 28 August 2025, the Royal College of Emergency Medicine released figures for emergency waiting times that show that patients in the emergency department (ED) at Altnagelvin wait between 19 hours and 89 hours. That is four days before admission to a hospital bed. At this stage, we should acknowledge that Altnagelvin hospital is also under huge pressure. Minister, you often talk about health inequalities, and rightly so. I hope that we are not insisting on creating another health inequality for rural communities in Fermanagh and, indeed, the general population of the west of Northern Ireland. Rurality needs to be taken into account in the design of services and, indeed, the transformation of our services. It is a fact that we desperately need transformation of health services in Northern Ireland, but, in this case, we are trying to transform services on the back of collapse and a lack of consultation with local people. Indeed, concern about the consultation on emergency general surgery (EGS) at the SWAH has been expressed not just by local communities and political representatives but by the Patient and Client Council, which was set up to represent and express the needs of patients in local areas. The temporary removal of emergency general surgery from the SWAH in December 2022 was brought about by an unplanned collapse in services. Many, myself included, argue that that situation was compounded by the fact that, in June 2022, the former Health Minister, Robin Swann, had published the review of general surgery in Northern Ireland, which established standards that hospitals must meet to continue to provide elective and emergency general surgery. SWAH could not meet those standards and therefore could not recruit, which led to a further crisis in staffing at the hospital. The Western Trust is completing a consultation on the closure of emergency general surgery at the SWAH. At the same time as that process has been going on, the Department of Health and you, Minister, have been consulting on a hospital network plan. That consultation was launched in October 2024 — I looked at the date today; I think that it was 1 October 2024 — but we have yet to hear the outcome of the process. Are you, Minister, still pressing ahead with the hospital network plan to change the SWAH into a general hospital? Eleven months after the publication of the plan, we still have no clear indication of the services that will be under SWAH's roof in future or of what your plan is likely to look like. In the middle of all that, Minister, you intervened via the local newspaper, which I have huge respect for — my father-in-law used to write copious letters to it every week; you are laughing, but it is true — to ask for a sustainability plan for the SWAH. There was no communication with elected representatives, despite the fact that Deborah Erskine and others were in direct communication with you before that intervention. Many viewed it as positive, but people in Fermanagh rightly want to know how these three processes — the consultation on emergency general surgery, the hospital network plan and the sustainability plan — correlate and work together. Which will come first: a decision on emergency general surgery or the reconfiguration decision? Minister, so many people have travelled from Fermanagh today, and others are listening to the debate. I hope that you have the answers that the community in Fermanagh so keenly await. They deserve to know what health services will be provided for them in that part of Northern Ireland. I will quickly look at another key report on the removal of emergency general surgery at the SWAH. The Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA) report expressed concern about ambulance waiting times — patients triaged at the SWAH may need to be blue-lighted to Altnagelvin or elsewhere — and about the use of private ambulances, which are not regulated. Double ED waits, for patients waiting in Enniskillen and then facing another wait at Altnagelvin, were also identified as a problem. I outlined the extent of those waits earlier in my contribution. I asked the people who put together the RQIA report, "If we are looking at doing something about emergency general surgery at the SWAH and taking that to Altnagelvin, why were these processes not ironed out before this was decided?". Today, we need to know whether the processes have been improved. We need to know why it has taken so long to identify them. Is the system now more efficient? The Western Trust officials who briefed the Health Committee would like to tell us that it is, but many of the testimonies from those who have experienced the trust's services do not indicate that that is the case. Those are really important issues that our community in Fermanagh deserves to know about. Many people from the local Fermanagh community have joined together to express concern about healthcare provision in the area. I have heard my colleague Deborah Erskine talk many times about issues with Community Pharmacy and accessing GPs and the difficulties that there are in bringing everything together. Save Our Acute Services (SOAS) is a local campaign group that has produced a road map that could be considered for the SWAH. Minister, we are keen to know whether any of the recommendations in that road map will be considered. Members of the local business community have also expressed their concern. They are local employers, who point out that the provision of services is key to attracting the right workforce and to achieving a regionally balanced economy. That is something that we very often talk about in the Chamber. They are calling for a proper conversation to be had on healthcare provision in Fermanagh. Minister, we are all concerned about waiting times, but the reality is that two brand-new operating theatres for the SWAH have never been commissioned. Will the SWAH now receive fair funding from the elective care framework and be able to take its rightful place in the drive to increase elective surgery and to drive down waiting times? All five theatres and 312 beds should be used in the mission to eliminate the scandalous waiting times in Northern Ireland. That matters to all of us. This is an important debate for constituents in Fermanagh, but it is also an important one for all of us in Northern Ireland. The number of consultations that we have ongoing, the interventions that we have made and the clear lack of a process that a community can follow or even feel involved in point almost to a dysfunction in how we operate services for people in Northern Ireland. The South West Acute Hospital is a fabulous facility. It is delivering vital healthcare to one of the most rural populations in Northern Ireland, and there should be a proper process for, and a proper level of, access to healthcare for all in Fermanagh. That includes sustaining services and outlining what they should be for the hospital, and those services should include emergency general surgery. Minister, you have an opportunity to clarify the situation today. There are many people listening to the debate and waiting to hear about the way forward. I hope that you will take cognisance of rural populations in order to deliver appropriate services that are appropriately staffed. Safe, sustainable services are not an outrageous demand. They are something that our population — in this case, rural communities — deserves and should have. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much, Diane. I remind the remaining contributors that they will have approximately seven minutes in which to speak. Ms Murphy: I wish my constituency colleague Deborah Erskine and her husband all the very best as they prepare to welcome their new arrival in the coming weeks. I welcome the members of the emergency services who have joined us here this evening. When emergency general surgery was first suspended in December 2022, the Western Trust said that it was a temporary suspension. In the months and years since, however, the actions of the trust, or the lack of action in some cases, have given a very different impression. The recruitment of surgical consultants on "trust-wide contracts" indicated that the suspension was being viewed as anything but temporary. Since then, the Western Trust has shattered public trust, ignored repeated calls for increased community engagement and failed to develop a road map or any clear vision in relation to the reinstatement of emergency general surgery. That, in itself, is an indictment of how the issue has been mismanaged to date. Top 7.30 pm Recently, of course, we had the extraordinary and deeply troubling situation when the Health Minister had to ask the Western Trust to pause the consultation due to ongoing concerns regarding the credibility of the process itself — an intervention from the Minister that I want to welcome and have welcomed. My Sinn Féin colleagues and I have consistently made the case from day 1 that there is a fundamental difference between service transformation and service collapse. True transformation must be rooted in partnership, co-design, a clear road map and a vision for services. What has occurred to date does not resemble transformation at all but is, in fact, a hollowing out of services that has left patients, families and front-line staff in limbo. Rural patients are, of course, entitled to the same level of care as is available anywhere else on this island; yet, today, we have patients in Fermanagh who face a drive of over two hours to Altnagelvin to access emergency general surgery. That is not equitable; it is not safe; and it falls short of the principle of healthcare parity. If we are talking about genuine healthcare transformation, as many of us have done in the Chamber over recent years and recent months, we need to be ambitious. That means looking at services on an island-wide basis, where services are planned, funded and delivered on the basis of patient need. We have already seen how resources can be shared on a cross-border basis to the benefit of all patients, such as cardiac services in Derry and cancer care in Dublin. Expanding that cooperation will help to ensure that rural communities in Fermanagh and Tyrone are not left behind but, instead, will benefit from the full-scale capacity of an all-island health system. SWAH has incredible potential. Its geographical location places it in a position to treat patients from across the north-west region of Ireland. Fully commissioning unused theatre space and additional bed capacity needs to be and should be explored. Our community has invested in SWAH. The people of Fermanagh campaigned for it. They cherish it, and they depend on it. The RQIA and constituents have rightly highlighted outstanding issues with patient pathway, double ED waits and delayed transfers. There is a raft of outstanding issues that still have to be addressed. The recent pause that the trust has taken must focus minds. For far too long, the trust has taken a haphazard approach, and it is past time that the voices of front-line staff, patients and the community are listened to and respected by the trust. It is past time that confidence is rebuilt and past time that services are restored. Ms D Armstrong: First, I join others in sending my best regards to my constituency colleague Deborah Erskine. Welcoming a new child into the family is precious, and I sincerely hope that she experiences a really healthy and happy remainder of her pregnancy. I welcome the opportunity to speak on future services at South West Acute Hospital, an issue that goes to the very heart of healthcare in Fermanagh and Tyrone and, indeed, across the region. The South West Acute Hospital is one of the most modern and well-designed facilities anywhere in Northern Ireland. Purpose-built, state-of-the-art and deliberately built with the long term in mind, it remains a hospital with enormous potential. Too often, in our wider public-sector estate, we talk about crumbling buildings or outdated infrastructure. As the Minister has seen with his own eyes on many occasions, the SWAH is different: it is a hospital that still has the space, equipment and flexibility to provide world-class care. That is why I look forward to the trust and the Minister coming forward with further proposals for even greater utilisation. I know that the Minister has specifically identified the uncommissioned theatre capacity as an opportunity that he expects to see utilised. The hospital has lots of potential to do more. Thanks to the efforts of the Minister, levels of elective activity in the SWAH have never been as significant as they are now. Of course, a hospital is never just a building. A hospital's greatest strength is its workforce. The support staff, doctors, nurses, midwives and allied healthcare professionals (AHPs) who dedicate themselves every day to caring for patients are the backbone of those institutions, and we owe them our gratitude. They are skilled and resilient, and they deserve our admiration and, most important, our support. Understandably, there is a lot of concern about the future of SWAH and the services that it provides. The trust's initial decision in 2022 to temporarily suspend emergency general surgery in response to staffing challenges left a number of unanswered questions and concerns. It did not help that, whilst commitments were given at that time, particularly in relation to the pathways, regrettably, not all of those commitments were properly delivered upon. That is why the RQIA review ordered by Robin Swann last year was an important step forward. I expect that I am not alone among the MLAs from Fermanagh and South Tyrone in having received harrowing accounts of the experiences of some patients. I pay tribute to the various local campaigners in the Gallery today — you are welcome — who have asked patients to come forward to relay those lived experiences. I also pay tribute to SOAS for the production of its road map, a set of proposals that could be part of the solution. It is important that other critical voices, such as that of the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service (NIAS), are heard and listened to in this space. Whilst the RQIA report earlier this year made recommendations for action that, I was pleased to see, were all accepted, there is still scope to make further improvements. The pathways are still challenging, and double ED waits still happen. It should have been obvious to absolutely everyone, therefore, that another consultation would need to be handled more carefully, sensitively and diligently. Unfortunately, what the trust presented us with in early July was the exact opposite of that. Instead of building confidence, it eroded it, and, instead of empowering staff and communities, it alienated them. A case in point was its decision to hold only one public engagement event and to do so in the middle of the Twelfth fortnight. All of those obvious blunders have had real consequences and left the local community even more anxious and frustrated. In the eyes of many, the overall process in early summer was not a genuine attempt at engagement but a box-ticking exercise. That is not how healthcare planning should be done. That is why I welcomed the Minister's highly unusual but important intervention on 16 July. His request for a vision plan must be the starting point for a serious strategic conversation about how to restore confidence and clearly set out the role that the hospital hopes to play in years to come. SWAH is an incredible hospital. It is a facility that has huge potential to meet local and regional needs. The trust needs to grasp the current opportunity. That is the type of vision that the public want to see, that the staff deserve and that patients need to see. Moreover, it is what local rural residents need. I genuinely hope that the Western Trust can provide the requested vision plan. As an MLA, I stand ready and willing to help in any way that I can. Let me be clear: the South West Acute Hospital is not a problem to be solved but an opportunity to be embraced. With its facilities, its dedicated workforce and its entirely loyal community, it has a long and secure future ahead of it. As public representatives, it is our responsibility to make sure that that future is secured for everyone in Fermanagh and South Tyrone. Thank you. Mr McCrossan: I echo the words of colleagues across the House and offer best wishes, on behalf of the SDLP, to Deborah Erskine and her husband on what, I hope, in a few days' or weeks' time, will be a very positive news story. I wish her well on that journey. I also welcome our friends from Fermanagh and Tyrone who are in the Gallery. You are welcome in the Assembly. Remember that this is your Assembly and that you have helped to bring about today's important discussion. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate on the future of this important hospital. To be clear, the SWAH is not just another hospital; it is a lifeline for rural communities across my constituency of West Tyrone, across Fermanagh and, of course, across the rest of Tyrone. It is also a lifeline for parts of Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan. Many people receive important treatment in that vital facility. At a cost of £276 million when it was first built in 2012 and with single en suite rooms for every patient, it is a state-of-the art facility that was opened barely a decade ago. It is shocking that we are discussing its future when its build is so new. To allow it to be hollowed out, downgraded or —. Mr Clarke: Will the Member give way? Mr McCrossan: I will give way. Mr Clarke: The Member may wonder why a Member for South Antrim is here for the debate. I am here because the issue has an impact not only on the west of the Province but on all of the Province. I am sure that the Member will agree with me about that impact. If people are not in the SWAH, they are coming to the east of the Province or to the north of the Province. It has implications for the delivery of healthcare across the Province, and I am sure that the Member will agree with that. Mr McCrossan: Absolutely Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Daniel, you have an extra minute. Mr McCrossan: Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I appreciate Mr Clarke's intervention, and he is right: any action that is taken on the SWAH will have a consequence on other health facilities throughout Northern Ireland. We already see that play out particularly in Altnagelvin. I use that as a reference, because it is my closest hospital, and I have seen the huge crisis that it faces when dealing with the demand on its services. In December 2022, the Western Trust suspended emergency general surgery at SWAH. We were told that that was a temporary move, but, unfortunately, it has now dragged on for almost three years. We are now told that it will become permanent, which has come as a great disappointment to so many people. Patients in urgent need of surgery must travel two and a half hours to Altnagelvin or, as Mr Clarke referenced, to other medical facilities. That is not just inconvenient but unsafe, and it defies National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance, which requires a 45-minute response to major trauma. If those travelling to Altnagelvin were to leave from Belleek today or from any part of Fermanagh for that matter, they would have to travel down that treacherous A5. Already quite stressed and maybe not able to get access to an ambulance because of the demand on that service, they would have to navigate difficult road conditions. When you put the full picture together, you see that it is complex and extremely frustrating and worrying for those who are concerned about their loved ones in that emergency situation. To be clear, the human cost is real, and the removal of services from rural communities is being felt acutely in places such as Fermanagh and Tyrone. There are a number of examples that I could use. There is a gentleman who has spent six months in hospital after being shuttled between those two hospitals. A young mother was traumatised after being forced to leave a newborn baby to travel to Altnagelvin from Fermanagh on a number of occasions. Another gentleman in his 50s was wrongly treated, and, unfortunately, during the transfer, his health and life were endangered. Those are not just statistics; they are real-life examples of the real-life effects of what is happening. They involve families whose lives will never be the same. The trust claims that patients can be safely transferred, yet even the RQIA has criticised the so-called double ED process, where Fermanagh patients present at SWAH only to be sent on to other hospitals such as Altnagelvin. Altnagelvin, to be clear, is an absolute crisis zone at the best of times. There are no quiet moments any more. There are no winter pressures: there are all-year, 24-hour, seven-day-a-week pressures in our emergency departments. It is inhumane of us to ask our healthcare staff to work in such a crisis-filled area where they are supposed to be treating patients with dignity. I can safely say from what I have witnessed in emergency departments that there is little dignity there at present, unfortunately. It is clear that the emergency department at Altnagelvin is in crisis. The Minister has recognised that there is an issue there — he has committed to looking at it in various pieces of correspondence with me and other MLAs — but it is unacceptable and needs to be dealt with. Patients wait for days. We used to say that it was hours and find that unacceptable, but patients wait for days on hard seats and sometimes wait days for a bed. Families are left in limbo, and staff, as I said, are stretched to breaking point. Altnagelvin is not a safe alternative for SWAH patients, certainly not for those in trauma situations where minutes literally matter. Ambulance cover is stretched, with category-2 response times averaging 68 minutes against a 15-minute target. Geography makes the risk even greater. The journey from Newtownbutler to Altnagelvin takes two and a half hours. That is the difference between life and death, quite literally. That is why SWAH must be treated as a rural hospital with a trauma lens applied. The debate is not just about emergency surgery but about the future of SWAH itself. The hospital has two operating theatres, as colleagues have pointed out, with 92 en suite rooms that have never been properly or fully commissioned. With investment and a clear plan, the SWAH could be a hub for elective surgery, cutting the waiting lists in Northern Ireland, which are the longest in the UK, while retaining emergency surgical capacity for its rural population. Top 7.45 pm I welcome, and very much appreciate, the Minister's recent intervention. The Minister always speaks his mind, which is what I respect about Minister Nesbitt, who has a difficult job. However, we cannot allow the future of the SWAH to drift. Where trusts are failing, the Minister needs to intervene now. Thousands of people have marched and attended meetings, and cross-community support has been secured. The message from Fermanagh and Tyrone is clear: save this service now. Let us be clear: the Western Trust does not start and stop in Derry. It has a huge rural catchment area, and it is under immense pressure. We need to do more to ensure that our rural communities have access to those vital services. The people in the Gallery are the reason that we are having this debate today. If the SWAH is saved — I hope that it will be, Minister — it will have been down to the work of those people. They have worked tirelessly for the past number of years to raise the important challenges that are faced. They are defending and fighting for every single citizen in Tyrone and Fermanagh. Miss Dolan: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the future of services at South West Acute Hospital. I, too, thank my colleague Deborah Erskine for securing today's Adjournment debate. I wish her and her husband, Robert, all the best with their imminent new arrival. I also extend my thanks to the Minister and the members of SOAS for joining us for this important discussion this evening. For the people of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, the SWAH is not just a hospital; it is a lifeline. The SWAH provides essential services to families and patients who would otherwise face long and difficult journeys to receive the care that others in the region take for granted. That is why the future of services at the SWAH must be safeguarded, strengthened and invested in. I will touch on a number of the vital services that are provided in our hospital. First, emergency general surgery is not an optional service; it is a vital, life-saving provision. A viable, resilient health network demands that EGS returns to the SWAH. As others have said, since December 2022, emergency general surgery at the SWAH has been suspended. The suspension was initially described as temporary, yet the Western Trust advanced a public consultation that risks making it permanent. That was not a consultation in any meaningful sense and was fundamentally flawed — so much so that the Health Minister stepped in to advise the trust to pause it. Since then, there has been radio silence from the Western Trust. There has been a failure to engage properly with the people of Fermanagh and Tyrone, which ignores the urgent needs of those who rely on the SWAH in emergencies, and no credible plan for service restoration. Support for that view is growing, with groups like the GAA, businesses and hoteliers declaring the process as deeply flawed and lacking legitimacy. We will continue to hold the trust and the Department of Health accountable for the process. Now, rather than talking about what the Western Trust is trying to take away, let us celebrate and try to build on what we already have. As most of you know, I gave birth to a baby girl in March last year, and I was so proud to have her in the SWAH. I can say, with my hand on my heart, that I received the best care and attention during my entire journey, and I will be eternally grateful to every single staff member who I encountered. Bringing a child into the world should be one of the most joyous occasions in the life of a family, but it is also one of the most vulnerable. For that reason, I sought assurances from the trust on several occasions that there are no threats to maternity services at the SWAH. On each of those occasions, the trust has confirmed that it remains entirely committed to having a full maternity provision at the hospital. Equally, stroke care is an area in which minutes can mean the difference between life and death or recovery and lifelong disability. Thankfully, the stroke unit at the SWAH is renowned as top class. Although the 2019 consultation on reshaping stroke care threatened it, the staff at the stroke unit are still punching above their weight. The unit received A and B results from a sentinel stroke national audit programme — SSNAP — audit, and, in 2023, it was deemed the best stroke unit in the North. We all know the pressures facing the health service, and one of those serious pressure points is A&E. The A&E department at the SWAH is a type-1, consultant-led unit that provides 24/7 urgent care in our area. It is important that everyone knows that, although emergency general surgery has been temporarily removed from the hospital, the A&E is still fully functional. Yes, it is under pressure, and you should not attend unless it is a medical emergency. Despite that, the nurses, doctors and support staff there demonstrate professionalism, dedication and compassion every day. The future of services at the SWAH is a litmus test, a strategic investment in the health, social and economic infrastructure of the west. It has the potential to contribute so much more than it currently does to our health service, North and South, across all disciplines. If we build the SWAH's surgical and medical capacity, it will solidify its position for the future. Our communities deserve safe, local and high-quality care. The SWAH must remain a hospital that not only survives but thrives, and it must be equipped to provide the services that our families and patients so urgently need and deserve. Mr Gildernew: Ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh gach duine anseo anocht. [Translation: I would like to welcome everyone here tonight.] It is great to see the strength of feeling in the people of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, as is reflected in the attendance of so many people who have travelled so far to be here. I would also like to join my colleagues in wishing Deborah, her husband and her new baby, all the very best in the time ahead, and our thoughts are certainly with them. As local representatives, we can clearly see the strength of feeling that exists in our community about the ongoing issues at the SWAH. We are now approaching the three-year anniversary of the collapse of emergency general surgery, and it is important to reiterate that it was an unplanned collapse of a service, as opposed to any type of planned transformation. I have met SOAS representatives on a number of occasions, and I acknowledge their dedication and commitment to seeing emergency general surgery restored to the South West Acute Hospital. I also thank and acknowledge the very many patients, community groups, business leaders and constituents who have contacted me and shared their experiences with me and other colleagues on this issue. A very concerning picture has emerged of patients having to travel, sometimes up to and over two hours, to Altnagelvin in Derry, only to be told that they must join the back of the queue again, thereby enduring the notorious double wait. We all know the issues that are facing many of our EDs, with media reports regularly shining a spotlight on the grim reality of people languishing in pain for hours on end, sometimes without even the dignity of a hospital trolley, as well as pressure on healthcare staff and the moral hazard that they experience day and daily. Patients in Fermanagh and the surrounding areas fully deserve to have equal access to life-saving healthcare, and the Minister should be doing everything in his power to make it a reality. I reflect on what Trevor said earlier, and I fully agree that we absolutely have to look at this in the bigger picture. I have heard, at times, reference to Manchester models and London models in relation to the South West Acute Hospital. The reality is that we are not tasked with providing services to that type of demographic, and we have to design services for the demographic that we have. It is as simple as that, and we have to make it fair, equal and world leading. The hospital in Enniskillen was hard fought for, and I recall the battle to get that hospital there to serve the people of our area. It is undoubtedly one of the best healthcare facilities on this island. That is not disputed. However, it has never been allowed to reach its full potential. That is not a reflection in any way whatsoever on the excellent care that the staff provide at the SWAH, despite all the challenges. The staff deserve better also. Neither the Western Trust nor the Minister has taken responsibility for allowing the situation to develop in the first place or for providing solutions. The attitude of the Western Trust has been unhelpful. From day 1, it has taken a head-in-the-sand approach and has seemed unwilling to take seriously the concerns that have been raised by so many in our community. We saw that very clearly in its approach to the consultation over the summer, which was so poor that it had to be abandoned. The decision to hold only one consultation event, with a limited number of places available, was always bound to cause upset and outrage. The decision by the Minister — I welcome his attendance at the debate — to intervene and pause the consultation was very much the right one and very welcome. What we need to see now is a straightforward way in which we can ensure the future sustainability of the South West Acute Hospital for many years to come. We urgently need to see cross-border links being developed, as was initially planned for the South West Acute Hospital. We are constantly told that the population within the catchment of the hospital is not big enough to sustain the current level of front-line services, but those responsible for planning services continue to ignore and isolate the hospital from its natural hinterland counties of Cavan, Leitrim, Monaghan and Donegal. There are strong precedents for cross-border cooperation between North and South. For example, the North West Cancer Centre in Derry and the All-Ireland Paediatric Cardiology Service, which I have visited. Both have been a massive success. They are models that need to be built upon, at pace, across the island. Finally, we now need to see a proper, respectful, inclusive and productive co-production and co-design process being put in place to allow the people of Fermanagh and Tyrone to engage on the basis of fairness and equality, to have a meaningful say in the health services that are being provided for the people of our constituency, and to ensure that those services are providing first-class health and emergency care for all. I will conclude my remarks there. I thank colleagues for taking part in the debate today. Mr T Buchanan: I also welcome the people from Fermanagh and thank them for coming today. I know something of the journey that you have to make when you come to Stormont. We are glad to see you. I also pass on my best wishes to my colleague Deborah. I wish her the best in the days to come. Given the nature of the debate and the wide-ranging aspect of it, it is somewhat disappointing that we do not have anyone from the Alliance Party or the TUV in the Chamber to take part in the debate. I rise to express my deep concern and disappointment at the temporary removal of emergency general surgery from the South West Acute Hospital. That decision has significant implications for the health and well-being of our community, particularly for those who rely on emergency surgical services. Given the wide, vast rural area that it is, it is of deep concern that those services have been temporarily removed and have not been returned yet to the SWAH. The SWAH services a large rural population right across the constituencies of Fermanagh and South Tyrone and West Tyrone. The hospital's emergency department is a vital lifeline for many, providing critical care and treatment in times of greatest need. However, the removal of emergency general surgery services undermines the hospital's ability to provide comprehensive care for the patients in that large rural community. The decision to temporarily remove the services was a result of staff shortages or other operational challenges. However, such a decision should not have been taken without, first of all, a clear plan being put in place to mitigate the impact on patients and the local community. The people in the south-west quarter of Northern Ireland who are serviced by the South West Acute Hospital deserve much better than that. They deserve a healthcare system that is reliable, accessible and of the highest quality. The temporary removal of that vital service falls far short of that standard. I urge the Health Minister, who I appreciate has an extremely difficult job to do, not only to review the decision but to work with the Western Trust and the hospital management to have the emergency general surgery restored as soon as possible. I also call on him to ensure that a comprehensive plan is put in place so that patients receive the care that they require without undue delay. We have heard today from other Members about the extra travel time for patients and the detrimental consequences that that can have for them and their health. Therefore, we cannot allow this situation to continue. As elected representatives representing rural constituencies, we cannot allow the situation to continue. Minister, the decision highlights the need for a long-term strategic plan to address the staffing shortages and operational challenges that are facing our health system today. We need a sustainable solution that prioritises the needs of the patients and ensures that our hospitals are fully equipped to provide and deliver high-quality care. I remember back to 2009, when the work on the South West Acute Hospital began, and 26 June 2012, when it opened. Prior to that work commencing, there were, for a few years, discussions about the delivery of acute services in the west of the Province, what those would look like and how they would be developed. Top 8.00 pm At that time, we were given assurance after assurance and guarantee after guarantee in meetings that the South West Acute Hospital would be a fully acute, fully equipped hospital that would work across the trust with the hospital in Omagh and the hospital at Altnagelvin and that it would be utilised to its full potential in order to deliver the best quality of service for the people in the area. To date, however, two theatres have still not been utilised. The hospitals in Enniskillen and Omagh have not been allowed to achieve their full potential. That is a retrograde step and something that the trust has allowed to happen instead of seeking to get people in —. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I ask the Member to draw his remarks to a close. Unfortunately, we did not start the clock at the right time. Mr Buchanan, you have reached the time limit as agreed by your Chief Whip, and, regrettably, I am unable to allow Alan to come in. We have one other Member to speak, and we need to get the Minister in before the end. Mr T Buchanan: OK. Sorry. Our only other concern is that we must fight to keep the hospital's fully acute status. There was a problem some time back with the neonatal unit, and we had to fight to keep that unit in the hospital and —. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Tom. Mr McGrath: I welcome the opportunity to talk on this important issue. I thank Deborah for securing the Adjournment debate and wish her all the best in the days, weeks and years ahead. I am absolutely certain that she will be watching, and she is probably saying, "At the end of the debate, I will be able to click this off, and I will not have to make the two-and-a-half-hour journey back down home to Enniskillen", and that will bring her a bit of joy. What, however, does that say to us about journeys that people have to make? I commend the people from the Save Our Acute Services campaign for making their way up here. We could, however, multiply by 20 the number of people here to get the number of people across Fermanagh who have to travel up to Altnagelvin in Derry every day to access services, visit family or get treatment. That is not a short journey to make. The journey from places such as Belleek and Newtownbutler all the way up to Altnagelvin takes up to two and a half hours. Sometimes, our rural community gets forgotten about when it comes to health services. For city dwellers, that journey is the equivalent of living in Belfast and having to go to Dublin to get treatment. Nobody in Belfast would accept that. There is no way that, if they were to need emergency treatment, in that moment of their life when it is a matter of life or death, people would be sent all the way down to Dublin. Similarly, there is no way that people in Dublin would be sent all the way up to Belfast. Travelling that distance would not be considered acceptable, yet it is what we are asking people in Fermanagh to do. It is the same in my constituency. Although the same distance is not involved, what has happened with Downe Hospital is similar. A rural community up into the Mournes and down into Kilkeel is left to make massive journeys that nobody living in the city, with two or three hospitals on their doorstep, could ever comprehend making. What we are asking for is a bit of equality. It is about spreading the services in a way that recognises that people do live in rural communities and should be able to access some of the services that they require. As a result of the debate, I hope that the Western Trust will recognise that it is not acceptable for people to make emergency journeys of that length. I hope that the issue can be revisited and checked out. Downe Hospital in my area is a great example of another important aspect to be considered. When the anaesthetist is removed, emergency surgery cannot be performed. When emergency surgery is removed, the emergency department is suddenly not viable. When the emergency department is removed, many other aspects of the hospital are suddenly not viable. That is why the issue is critical to the people in the Public Gallery and to the constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, because, if it does not have all aspects of a fully fledged hospital, what happens is that it gets chipped away, and then we will be back here time and time again to make the arguments for other elements of the service. I know that we are pressed for time. I have made the points that I wanted to make, and I know that we all want to hear from the Minister, so I will leave it there. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Minister, you have 10 minutes. Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you very much, and thank you to Mrs Dodds for stepping in for Deborah. When Deborah arrived here, she very quickly established a reputation for being a respected and effective Member of the legislative Assembly, but tonight, of course, the focus is not on Deborah the politician. It is on Deborah the wife, and I offer her and her husband every good wish as they prepare to welcome their first child and start that family. If I may, I will start with a general point, so please indulge me. When I first stood here, 15 months ago, as Minister of Health, I said that I wanted to be judged and I wanted to judge myself on whether my words and actions were delivering better outcomes for patients, service users and the 70,000-odd glorious staff who deliver health and social care. I was also encouraged that everybody — I mean everybody — who came up to me said, "If you're going to make the big, difficult decisions, we will support you". That is not always the case once we get into the nuts and bolts and the specifics. One of the things that I regret — it is something that I am encouraging people in Health and Social Care to fix — is that sometimes a change has been allowed to be perceived in the public consciousness not as delivering better outcomes but as a cost-saving measure. I am not interested in doing that, but I have to accept that, in recent years, Health's proportion of the overall Executive Budget has gone up from 46% to over 50%, and that direction of travel is not sustainable. It is not sustainable because every pound that we spend in Health is a pound not spent by the other Departments on tackling the social determinants of health inequalities and ill health, so we all have to work together. I was pleased that Mrs Dodds acknowledged that sometimes we rightly — it is our duty — put a focus on what is wrong and what goes wrong in health and social care delivery, but sometimes we do not put a focus on what goes right. Of course, in the majority of cases on a daily basis thousands of appointments, diagnoses and procedures go very well for people. I do not prescribe to or buy into the idea that the health service is broken, but I do know that many of the pathways to access health and social care are broken, and that is an important distinction. Moving to the debate, I will attempt to address some of the points raised. The South West Acute Hospital serves a significant portion of the Western Health and Social Care Trust population, which is approximately 300,000 people — a significant proportion of our people. The population of the Fermanagh and Omagh District Council area is estimated at 118,000 from the 2021 census. Since taking office, I have had the pleasure of visiting the SWAH on various occasions. The most recent visit was a few weeks ago, when I talked to some patients and staff. I visit many hospitals and healthcare facilities. I always get a sense and a feel just walking in the door. Is it a good feeling, or is it maybe that the air is being sucked out of me? I always get a really good feeling in the SWAH, which is a great modern facility. I often say that to deliver healthcare, you need buildings, beds, equipment and medicine, but all that counts for nothing if you do not have the right staff, qualified and motivated. That is where the problem began with this issue. We talked about the extra theatre and bed space. The hospital has the potential to do more, and I absolutely want to see it doing more. Let us remember — I think that Diana Armstrong made the point — that it has never been busier or more productive, and it has the potential to do even more because of those two non-commissioned theatres and beds. I am keen to do more at the SWAH, but let me move to the specific of emergency general surgery. In November 2022, the trust decided to temporarily suspend EGS for patient safety reasons due to staffing challenges. I understand the concern caused by the trust's decision. The protection of patients from adverse clinical outcomes has to be my most important duty; I have to make sure that patients are safe. The decision was taken at a time when there was no Minister in post. The trust stated that its ability to safely staff and operate an emergency 24/7 rota for surgical care was inadequate and unsafe. I stress that point to remind Members of the genesis of that decision. Subsequently, the trust ran a public consultation exercise on the temporary suspension, the findings of which were published in July 2023. The strength of local feeling and of opposition to the suspension was clear. However, in lieu of the inability of the trust to stand up safe services and satisfy the clinical general surgery standards, the reconfigured Altnagelvin-led service remained in place. Members have mentioned RQIA. In 2024, it was alerted to some concerns from clinicians in the trust that had to be listened to about the robustness of the pathways at Altnagelvin. The Department of Health team asked RQIA to conduct a robust investigation and report on their effectiveness and sustainability. We got that report in the spring of this year. The outcome was presented at the Health Committee by RQIA officers on 13 March, alongside a response from the Western Trust. Essentially, there were 10 recommendations for the short and medium term for the further refinement and improvement of the pathways. While most of those had been achieved, some remained outstanding and needed to be strengthened. The strategic planning and performance group, which is the performance management arm of my Department, works with the trust monthly to monitor progress and assure me that matters are being adequately addressed. Mrs Dodds said that there was an issue at Altnagelvin because it, too, was under pressure. I say this to her: every hospital, facility and worker in the Health and Social Care network is under pressure. Our hospitals across the region face challenges and pressures. We are not an outlier — that is the position across the UK — but having a small population of 1·9 million means that specialist services are innately difficult to fund and maintain region-wide. You cannot put them in every hospital. I have made the point about the network that we have to realise that not every hospital will offer every procedure. If the procedure that you need is being performed by your nearest hospital once a week but, 20 or 30 miles away, the next hospital is doing it 10 times a day, five days a week, where will you go? Obviously, it will be safer to go to where it is done more frequently. Miss Dolan: Will the Minister take an intervention? Mr Nesbitt: I am sorry; I have a lot to get through. I want to give some responses. Mrs Dodds normally asks me about 5,000 questions: I will answer four of them. I have done Altnagelvin. She talked about an awareness of the implication of rural healthcare delivery. I assure Mrs Dodds that we do rural impact assessments as well as equality impact assessments. The SOAS road map is interesting. I think that she wondered what my view of it was. It would not be appropriate for me to give my view. I do not want to be confused for the chair or the chief executive of the Western Trust. They have to make that decision, not me. I will be the person who signs off or does not sign off on the decision that they come to, but that is that. We are looking at the two uncommissioned theatres and wards as part of our waiting list initiatives. Mr McCrossan kindly said that I am a man of plain speaking: he is about to become a victim of that. He said that it is a brand new hospital and that it is shocking that we are discussing its future. We are not talking about whether it has a future: it does. We are discussing only one service, albeit a very important one. I want any patient who goes to the SWAH to get safe and timely attention and treatment and to be allowed the basic courtesies that are absent in our emergency departments in particular of holding on to your privacy and dignity. Top 8.15 pm I will finish by welcoming all the people who have come up from Fermanagh. I applaud you for your continued interest and your determination to do what, you think, is right for yourselves and your community. I promise that I will try to do my best for you. Thank you for coming up. I welcome you here and wish you a safe journey home. Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you very much indeed, Minister. Before I conclude the debate, I pass on my regards to Deborah and her family. I will be in contact with her. I last saw her on Friday, and she was definitely blooming and happy. I say this to those who are in the Public Gallery: please drive home safely tonight. To those of you who have long distances to travel, please drive home safely. Thank you very much indeed for the debate. Adjourned at 8.15 pm. Top
[ni-assembly-official-report][plenary_report] Official Reports https://aims.niassembly.gov.uk/officialreport/report.aspx?&eveDate=2025/09/08&docID=447886 Official Report: Monday 08 September 2025 Table of Contents Assembly Business Budget (No. 2) Bill: Royal Assent Tommy Gallagher: Tributes Ministerial Announcements: Proper Procedure Members Statements Sectarian and Racist Attacks in North Belfast Transgender Guidance for Schools Breast Cancer Waiting Times Maguiresbridge Tragedy Executive Delivery Maguiresbridge Murders Jobs Fair: Foyle Arena Preston Creighton SEN Places Irish Guards: 125th Anniversary Battle of Britain: 85th Anniversary A5 Project Education: Controlled Sector Assembly Business Northern Ireland Assembly Commissioner for Standards: Appointment Committee Business Committee Membership Insolvency (Amendment) Bill: Extension of Committee Stage Private Members Business Windsor Framework Oral Answers to Questions The Executive Office Education Question for Urgent Oral Answer Health Private Members Business Windsor Framework Assembly Business Standing Order 10(3A): Extension of Sitting Private Members Business Special Educational Needs: Crisis in Provision The Assembly met at 12:00 pm (Mr Speaker in the Chair). Members observed two minutes' silence. Assembly Business Budget (No. 2) Bill: Royal Assent Mr Speaker: I inform Members that the Budget (No. 2) Bill received Royal Assent on 28 July. It will be known as the Budget (No. 2) Act (Northern Ireland) 2025, and it is Chapter 4. Tommy Gallagher: Tributes Mr Speaker: I am sorry to inform the House that one of our former colleagues Tommy Gallagher died on 17 July at the age of 82. Tommy was one of the first Members to come into the Assembly in 1998 — he is in that famous picture — and was here until 2011. He served on the Committees, including the Committee for Education and the then Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety. Prior to that, from 1989, he served on Fermanagh District Council for many years. He was also a teacher for 30 years. So, he represented and served the public in a wide and varied range of areas over the years. My recollection of Tommy was that, in spite of the fact that he travelled from Belleek every day, which is at least a two-hour drive, he seemed to get here before everybody else did. His dedication to his role as an MLA was second to none. He always spoke on education; he was absolutely driven by the issues surrounding education. As Speaker, I extend my personal sympathies to the Gallagher family and to the SDLP on the loss of one of their esteemed colleagues. Mr O'Toole: It is with sadness but also immense respect and gratitude for the life of Tommy Gallagher that I rise to lead the tributes today. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving us the opportunity today to share some words and reflections on the passing of Tommy Gallagher. Tommy was an extraordinary man. He was part of a generation that, in some cases, we are now losing: one that, through the darkest days, helped to stand for the values of peace, reconciliation and justice and then helped to craft the peace that we enjoy today. As you said, Mr Speaker, Tommy had one of the longest commutes to the Assembly, from his home in Belleek. That is something that he shared with my Committee counterpart Jemma Dolan, who knows how long a drive that is to serve the people who sent you here. In many ways, Tommy's connection to that Belleek community was what stuck with him. He was born on the Donegal/Fermanagh border in 1942. He had a passion for GAA, which was a thread that ran through his professional and personal life, but he was also an educationalist. As you said, Mr Speaker, he taught for decades at St Mary's High School in Brollagh. Not only did he teach there but he coached GAA. Brollagh became a force in Fermanagh schools GAA — a force that probably belied its relative size. He was committed to that. In the 1990s, he was brought into the talks team by John Hume and Seamus Mallon. He was passionate about education, but also passionate about North/South issues. Being not just a border MLA but a border resident, he knew about the potential of not just reconciliation but better working across the border for the good of those communities. He fought hard for those communities for years as an SDLP representative. When it came to getting electricity and expanding the NIE Networks service to areas in rural Fermanagh, roads or anything else, Tommy was a diligent and proud local representative in Fermanagh. Those of us who serve here will know that sometimes this place can be stressful and challenging. You are not sure whether you are prioritising the right things or doing the right things. Over the past year or two, I regularly received text messages from Tommy Gallagher, who kept abreast of everything that was happening in politics, both in Stormont and on this island. Those were encouraging text messages, but sometimes they came with a suggestion about an issue that I might want to focus on, particularly in relation to education. Given his background as an educationalist, he retained a profound interest in education and its possibilities for transforming people. We are in his debt. He was an extraordinary Irishman, an extraordinary Fermanagh man and an extraordinary educationalist and public representative. His friends, colleagues and comrades in the SDLP continue to thank him and his family for his service. He is survived by his wife, Eileen, and their children, Clora, Thomas, and Donogh. May his gentle soul rest in peace. Miss Dolan: I join the SDLP in paying tribute to Tommy Gallagher — someone who gave so much of his life to serving the public. Tommy was, first and foremost, a Fermanagh man. He knew the struggles and the strengths of rural life because he lived them, and he carried that understanding into his work as a councillor and an MLA. We may have come from different political traditions but that never stopped Tommy from being respectful every time we met. He always asked how I was finding the job, the travel and the constituency work. He knew the ups and downs of MLA life, and he believed in representing our community as best he could. That is something that deserves recognition regardless of politics. Many in the Belleek area, including my parents, remember Tommy from his teaching days in Brollagh, but he had retired by the time that I joined the school. If people did not know Tommy through education or politics, they recognised him from his sporting achievements on the GAA field. For those of us in public life today, there is a lesson in Tommy's example. We will all be remembered, not for the arguments that we won or lost but for the way that we carried ourselves and the respect that we showed to others. In that sense, Tommy leaves behind a legacy that we would all do well to follow. On behalf of Sinn Féin, I extend my heartfelt condolences to his wife, Eileen, his children, Thomas, Donogh and Clora and the wider Gallagher family. I will miss seeing Tommy at events around Belleek. May he rest in peace. Miss McIlveen: It was with great sadness that we learned of the passing of Tommy Gallagher. I served with Tommy in the Assembly from 2007 to 2011, and found him to be a man who was not only a dedicated public servant but someone who demonstrated great warmth and kindness. Throughout his years as a public representative, Tommy worked tirelessly for the people of Fermanagh and South Tyrone. He was passionate about his community, especially rural areas, and he championed better healthcare, education and opportunities for local families. Beyond his political career, Tommy will be remembered for the person he was. He had a warmth and generosity of spirit that were endearing. He was approachable, genuine and deeply committed to helping others. Even at times of disagreement, he sought understanding, which is a quality that earned him respect right across the Chamber and far beyond. On behalf of the Democratic Unionist Party, let me say that our thoughts and prayers continue to be with Tommy's family, friends and former colleagues. His legacy remains in this place and across his beloved Fermanagh. Mr Dickson: On behalf of the Alliance Party, I pass on our condolences to the Gallagher family and to Tommy's colleagues and former colleagues in the SDLP. I first met Tommy Gallagher through my involvement in local government. We often attended a range of training courses and other events for councillors, and I always found Tommy to be a powerful advocate for peace and reconciliation, coming as he did from a constituency that bore a heavy burden of the Troubles. Tommy was always friendly and engaging in the world of local government. He was passionate about his community of Belleek and his roots in Ballyshannon. As Members said, he was an educator, and he taught in St Mary's High School, Brollagh, for nearly 30 years. Tommy made a very important contribution to the long and difficult road to the Good Friday Agreement. He was, as Members stated, a senior and trusted negotiator for the SDLP. I was fortunate to know him and have many conversations with him during those times and in those talks. In describing the talks process, Tommy said: "Quite clearly, we've had these difficulties. My message remains strongly that violence is counterproductive. It's so obvious, and the people who engage in violence must realise, the losers are their own communities that they live in." I joined the Assembly in 2011 as Tommy left it. He was a highly respected Member of the Assembly. His legacy will be an enduring commitment to peace and reconciliation and to making this place work. I send my condolences to his family and comrades. Ms D Armstrong: I have listened to the warm tributes that are being paid to Tommy Gallagher, who served the people of Fermanagh and South Tyrone with passion as their MLA for over a decade. Tommy was a kind and humble Fermanagh man who was always proud of his Fermanagh roots. He had a willingness to reach across the political divide in pursuit of a better future for the whole community, which, sometimes sadly, is something that is not always seen today. My Fermanagh colleagues and I recognised that Tommy was a man of conviction and decency who cared deeply for this place and its people and someone whom we could work with to achieve better outcomes for the west. His achievements were worthy. He was instrumental in key decisions, notably on the location of the Waterways Ireland headquarters in Enniskillen and in campaigning alongside the community to bring the South West Acute Hospital to the area. However, his heart was always in Belleek, where he worked tirelessly on local economic and heritage projects, most recently through the Belleek Development and Heritage Group. When I encountered Tommy, he always greeted me with the same warm, genuine smile and asked how I was getting on in politics. He was a man who brought people with him with no need to be in the spotlight. He was highly respected as a decent man, and he will be remembered with great affection. On behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party, I extend my heartfelt condolences to his wife, Eileen, children, wider family circle and his former comrades. Mr McCrossan: Following colleagues from across the House, I pay tribute to a man who gave so much of himself to others. Tommy was, first and foremost, an educator. He dedicated years of his life to the classroom, shaping and inspiring the next generation of young people. His work as a teacher left an indelible mark on countless young people, many of whom went on to speak of the encouragement and guidance that they received from him. That instinct to nurture, care and help others to fulfil their potential carried over seamlessly into his political life and journey. Tommy entered politics at a very difficult time in our history. It took courage, conviction and a deep sense of responsibility to stand forward for public life in those years, but that was the measure of the man. He believed that politics could be a force for good. He believed passionately in using his voice to represent the people of Fermanagh and South Tyrone. Top 12.15 pm As a founding member of the SDLP in Fermanagh, Tommy embodied the values of civil rights, fairness and non-violence. He worked to tackle rural neglect, to improve the infrastructure and public services that communities relied on and to ensure that the people in border areas were not left behind. He was particularly passionate about better roads and better healthcare and opportunities for so many young people. Tommy was first elected to Fermanagh District Council in 1989 and then, later, to the Assembly, where he served with distinction. In Stormont, he carried himself with dignity, humility and purpose. He was never a man for grandstanding, but he was always a man for principle. His contributions were measured, thoughtful and deeply rooted in the needs of his constituents. Tommy never lost sight of what politics is ultimately about: improving the lives of people, standing up for those without a voice and making sure that government works fairly for everyone. That was Tommy Gallagher to his core. Those of us who had the privilege of knowing him will remember more than his politics. We remember his warmth, decency, humour and generosity of spirit. He had a way of putting people at ease, finding common ground even in difficult debates and situations and reminding us all that at the heart of all our arguments and divisions were real people with real-life needs. The tributes that have poured in since his passing are testament to the impact that he has made not only as a dedicated public servant but as a neighbour, a friend and a family man. His community respected him, the Assembly respected him and his colleagues across political divides respected him. That respect was earned through decades of service and integrity. On behalf of the SDLP and personally, I extend deepest sympathies to Tommy's wife, Eileen, his family and their friends. Their loss is immense, but I hope that they can take comfort and have pride in knowing that he leaves behind a powerful legacy of service, decency, courage and compassion. Fermanagh is poorer for his loss, as is the Assembly, but we are all richer for having had the example of Tommy Gallagher before us. May he rest in peace. Mr McGlone: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your kind and respectful comments about Tommy and for facilitating the opportunity to pay our collective respects to him and the entire family. Tommy was a good friend to many, me included, and a mentor to many in his role as teacher, community advocate, public representative and stalwart GAA supporter, coach and player in football and hurling. Of course, he was delighted with the recent progress of some of his local teams. For Tommy, his teaching life was a vocation to inspire, nurture and help people. Therefore, it was no surprise that Tommy went on to become an elected representative, first as a councillor and then an MLA. He was driven by a passion for helping people, looking after people and serving the community that elected him and by a deep, deep commitment to achieving peace by the only method by which it could eventually be achieved: a peaceful methodology. More recently, Tommy was on the phone to me about people who had a problem or a particular issue in his locality that needed a bit of a push. He was always there to help and support people. If anyone turned to him for help, he gave his time willingly and freely and used whatever means he could to help that person along their journey. During the negotiations that ultimately led to the Good Friday Agreement, Tommy's dedication to peaceful means and achieving a peaceful outcome was prevalent. Tommy was a man of great faith; indeed, he visited Lourdes a short time before his death. He was deeply committed to his faith. Tommy was also a dedicated family man. Anyone who spent any time in his presence would know that and learn that from him. He was deeply, deeply committed to his wife, Eileen; his children Clora, Thomas and Donogh; and his grandchildren and wider family. That was so obvious to anyone who spent any time in his presence. To them, we offer our deepest heartfelt sympathies. Ar lámh dheis Dé go raibh anam Tommy. [Translation: May Tommy’s soul rest at the right hand of the Father.] Mr Durkan: I rise with a heavy heart to pay tribute to a man whose life was defined by service, sincerity and solidarity: Tommy Gallagher. Tommy epitomised the values of the SDLP. He was not just a politician, as we have heard; he was a múinteoir [Translation: teacher] a mentor and a friend to so many. In the classroom, on the GAA pitch and, later, in the Assembly, he led by example with dílseacht [Translation: loyalty] and meas [Translation: deep respect] for everyone. He gave a voice to the people of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, especially during times of great difficulty. Amid that darkness, Tommy worked for peace with quiet determination, helping to lay the foundations for a more hopeful future. Tommy was one of those rare public figures who never sought headlines, yet his contribution to public life was immense. His decency transcended party lines; his compassion knew no bounds; and his impact, especially on young people, will live long beyond his years. Ní bheidh a leithéidí arís ann. [Translation: We shall not look upon his like again.] To Eileen and all the Gallagher family I say that your loss is deeply felt not only in your home, not only in our party, but across this island. Tommy's legacy is not just in what he did; it is in how he made people feel: respected, heard and valued. May we carry that legacy forward with pride. Go ndéana Dia trócaire ar a anam uasal. [Translation: May God grant mercy on his soul.] Mr Speaker: Thank you. That concludes tributes to the late Tommy Gallagher. Ministerial Announcements: Proper Procedure Mr Speaker: Just before we move to Members' Statements, I regret that I have to raise this issue again: it is the principle that Ministers should bring significant announcements to this Chamber first and foremost. As we went into the summer recess, it was raised with me in connection with the Infrastructure Minister making announcements to the media in the Great Hall about the A5 but not coming to the Chamber. Last week, the Minister of Health made an announcement on a review of gender identity services by press statement, with no written statement to Members and no request to come to the House today. For that reason, I have accepted a question for urgent oral answer that will be dealt with later. Then, this morning, the Minister of Education gave an interview on the BBC about changes to gender identity guidance and policies in schools, but, again, there was no request to come to the House. I anticipated that Members might have sought to table a question for urgent oral answer today on that — had they, I would have accepted it — but I am sure that Members will take the opportunity to raise the issue at Question Time. I cannot be clearer that the role of the Assembly is to hold Ministers to account. While there is a role for written statements, Ministers should, as much as possible, bring policy changes to the House first and foremost so that they can be questioned by you on behalf of the public, so I will, unfortunately, be writing to Ministers again. I have to say that it is not the best start to our business. Nonetheless, I will seek to hold Ministers to account on behalf of you, the Members. Members' Statements Sectarian and Racist Attacks in North Belfast Ms Ní Chuilín: Members will be aware of a number of sectarian and racist attacks in the lower Oldpark area of north Belfast before the recess in May of last year. As recently as last week, residents were subjected to those horrifying attacks again. The terrified victims in the middle of all that need to hear our joint condemnation. I thank Nuala McAllister, one of the MLAs for North Belfast, and Jordan Doran, a DUP councillor, for attending a multi-agency meeting last week that my colleague John Finucane called. That was an opportunity for everyone there to call out sectarianism and racism. Today, I wish that we all stand together and call for that collective condemnation. In 2025, we are dealing with families who are barricading themselves behind their front and back doors in the evening, and that is completely unacceptable. Those families, and their extended families, are not sleeping. They are terrified. Their mental health is under massive pressure. I once again call out those sectarian and racist attacks without equivocation. No ifs, ands or buts: they need to stop. My final appeal is for individuals who go to the media without talking to families or having concern for the wider community please to stop. That, too, is causing stress. Mr Speaker: A lot of Members are looking to make statements today. If they can keep them as short as possible — Ms Ní Chuilín's was only two minutes — we will get more in. Transgender Guidance for Schools Miss McIlveen: I am absolutely delighted to welcome the decision by my colleague Paul Givan, the Education Minister, to withdraw the transgender guidance that was issued to schools in Northern Ireland. It is a significant and commendable step that reflects a commitment to clarity, fairness and the recognition of biological reality in our education system. It is also common sense. I asked for that guidance to be reviewed when I was Education Minister, then at the start of this mandate and again when Dr Cass issued her interim report, so I am pleased that we are now seeing its withdrawal. The withdrawing of the guidance ensures that schools are not compelled to adopt policies that conflict with biological facts. Importantly, the decision provides reassurance that single-sex spaces, including school sports facilities, changing rooms and toilets, can remain protected, where appropriate, in accordance with safeguarding considerations and biological sex. That is particularly fundamental for the safety and privacy of young girls. Furthermore, teachers and pupils will not be placed under pressure to use language, such as pronouns, that denies biological fact. That upholds the rights to freedom of belief and expression for all members of the school community and avoids compelling speech that may conflict with personal convictions or scientific understanding. The Minister's decision follows careful consideration of the judgement issued in For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers and the important legal implications that that case holds for departmental policy. It is right that educational guidance in Northern Ireland align with legal precedent and provide schools with a clear and lawful framework to support all pupils while respecting the rights of every individual. Any future guidance must be developed with due regard for biological reality, legal obligations and the welfare of all children. It is a common-sense decision that lets kids be kids. Breast Cancer Waiting Times Miss McAllister: I highlight the unacceptably long waiting times that patients who need for red-flag cancer referrals face, but, today, I will talk specifically about breast cancer. Most people will be aware of this, but, if they are not, the target for starting treatment for any diagnosis of breast cancer is within 31 days of a decision to treat. The longer that a patient waits for a decision to treat, the worse that it is for that patient. I am talking not just about the cancer diagnosis but about the social and mental impact on the patient. Over the summer, we looked forward to hearing from the Department of Health and the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust (SEHSCT) about their tackling of the regional waiting list. After writing to the South Eastern Trust, we were told to go to the strategic planning and performance group (SPPG). After writing to the SPPG, we were told to go to the Minister. I had already been to the Minister, however. I had asked his Department about how exactly we were tackling the regional waiting list, only to be referred to the trust. It is a game of pass the parcel. It is a buck to be passed between the Department and trusts. Ultimately, at the end of the statistics are patients. My constituency office has been working with some of those patients. One in particular, instead of sitting in stress and anxiety, took it upon herself to contact all her elected reps. She is in such stress because she sees her symptoms every single day yet is having to wait. I am grateful that she has now received an appointment, but it is outside the time frame. We need to ensure that no other patient has to wait more than nine weeks — more than six weeks — for a red-flag cancer referral. I hope that the Department and the Minister can come to the Chamber and address the issues without again passing the buck. Top 12.30 pm Maguiresbridge Tragedy Ms D Armstrong: I rise on behalf of the community of Maguiresbridge in County Fermanagh, where the shadow of heartbreak Iingers on, with the community united by the unimaginable loss of three cherished lives: Vanessa Whyte, Sara Rutledge and James Rutledge. In the silence that is left behind, the community remembers not just the sorrow but the love, laughter and light that they brought to the lives of those who knew them. Their memory is defined not by the tragedy but by the warmth that they gave, the bonds that they built and the legacy of love that endures beyond the pain. That is why I want to place on record my heartfelt condolences to the families of those involved in the tragedy as they navigate their way through this difficult time. I pay tribute to the workers from the emergency services who attended the scene at Drummeer Road that morning. We owe them respect and gratitude for the professional way in which they conducted their roles in the most difficult circumstances. I am aware that their attendance at the scene has had a profound impact and that counselling services are ongoing for those professionals who require it. I commend the local clergy, churches, schools, Gaelic clubs and Women's Aid for comforting friends, neighbours and the hundreds of mourners who attended the vigil and the funeral service in Maguiresbridge. Enniskillen Royal Grammar School, where James and Sara were pupils, opened its doors to the friends of the young victims and to special counselling professionals from the Education Authority to ensure that the young people could have an opportunity to talk about their sense of loss and the fear that they were feeling. The sense of shock and loss following that horrific event still resonates, and we must say collectively, "Never again". Violence against women and domestic violence is a scourge on society, and we cannot fail more women and children. We must turn words into action and act to make this place safer. Our heartfelt sympathies remain with the families and friends of Vanessa, James and Sara. Executive Delivery Mr O'Toole: Mr Speaker, I welcome back you and all our Assembly colleagues after a long summer break during which not much happened. The public of Northern Ireland might not have noticed that this place was not here, because not much has been delivered since we returned in February 2024. There has been a litany of failure by the four-party Executive. The Executive are not just failing; they are comatose. They appear to be somnolent and inert, and nothing is happening. The public out there were promised change and clear action back in February 2024, but nothing has happened and nothing is happening. Levels of public trust in the Executive are at rock bottom, but it does not have to be like this. As a constructive Opposition, we are robust, and will continue to be so, in challenging the Executive. Today, we set them six simple tests. They should not be difficult or impossible, because they are the tests that they set themselves. They are either based on things in the Programme for Government or are official targets. Can this four-party Executive pledge that, by the end of the mandate, waiting lists for cancer treatment — Miss McAllister spoke about that earlier — and waiting lists in emergency departments will be coming down and that we will have met the targets that are set out in law? Can they promise that work will have started on the life-saving A5 and the landmark Casement Park? Can they promise that nutrients flowing into Lough Neagh will be reducing? Can they promise that the Executive will have delivered 6,000 social homes by 2027? Can they promise that childcare costs will be lower for working families than when the Executive came in? This is perhaps the most obvious test of all: can they promise that they will still be here and that there will still be an Executive in 2027? Those should not be difficult questions, but, for the Executive, they probably are, because they are failing to deliver on all those things. We set out those six tests today not to be oppositional or difficult but to ask simple questions on behalf of the public of Northern Ireland, who deserve better. Can the Executive deliver for them, be honest with them and do right by them? We have set the tests today. Let us see the Executive follow. Maguiresbridge Murders Ms Murphy: I rise to speak about the devastating and senseless murders of Vanessa Whyte and her two beloved children, James and Sara, that happened in the summer. Our first thoughts must be with the wider family circle, friends and neighbours of Vanessa, James and Sara. All three were active members of their beloved St Mary's Maguiresbridge Gaelic Football Club and St Patrick's Lisbellaw Hurling Club, where their absence will be felt deeply on the field and the sidelines. James and Sara were known for their energy, enthusiasm and determination, whilst Vanessa was not only a devoted mother but a friend, colleague and neighbour whose warmth touched so many. Of course, it is not the first time that such an incident has faced the people of south-east Fermanagh. In 2017, Concepta Leonard was murdered by her ex-partner. She was a loving mother, a musician and a friend to many, whose life was needlessly taken. Remembering Concepta, Vanessa, James and Sara reminds us of the lives, full of love, potential and generosity, that were lost through tragedy and cut short by needless violence. I acknowledge the emergency services, local clergy, schools and community groups that rallied around those who were most affected to support them. Their quiet dedication in the most distressing of circumstances rightly deserves our recognition. We must take time to reflect on the fact that, once again, the brutal loss of life has brought to the fore urgent and, rightly, uncomfortable questions about how we, as a society, address violence against women, girls and children and the devastating impact of domestic violence. Proper resourcing needs to be provided to front-line organisations like Women's Aid and other vital support services that are at the coalface of supporting women and their families through domestic violence and abuse. The Department of Justice and the Department of Health must implement the recommendations that are made on their approach and that of statutory agencies and the role that they play at a multi-agency level. Out of this darkness, there must be a renewed determination across all sections of our society to end gender-based violence and ensure that our constituents feel safe and protected in their homes and communities. Today, we remember Vanessa, James, Sara, Concepta and all victims of domestic abuse and gender-based violence. Jobs Fair: Foyle Arena Mr Middleton: I pose this question: what should be the role of an elected representative? Is it to serve constituents, advocate for local interests and try to make life better for our communities? The sad reality in the Londonderry City and Strabane District Council area is that nationalist parties and independent republicans increasingly see it as being their role to spend hours virtue-signalling on issues that they cannot control yet spend mere minutes on things that they can control. Our council area tops the league table in almost every area that you would not want it to: economic inactivity, unemployment and deprivation, to name but a few. Yet time and time again, their focus has been on every issue rather than on trying to address the concerns that matter to people. There have been decades of control by the SDLP and Sinn Féin in the council, and, alongside the MP position, the area's Assembly seats are held by a nationalist majority, yet we continue to lag behind. Tomorrow, a jobs fair is due to take place at the Foyle Arena in the Waterside area of my constituency. Jobs fairs are an excellent opportunity for employers to meet potential employees all under one roof. However, one of the most significant employers, the Ministry of Defence and our armed forces sector, has been told that it is not welcome there by the SDLP, Sinn Féin and independents. The short-sightedness and downright bigotry of that position is shameful. To seek to deny people in my constituency the right to engage with that employer is disgraceful. Once again, there is a complete and utter failure of leadership from nationalism in my constituency. When a unionist colleague spoke of the importance of the military to them and their family and of the valuable jobs that are on offer, they were told by an SDLP councillor: "That's grand for your family, but it's not right to make it personal in how it makes you feel". That is the crux of the issue. Dehumanising those who are impacted on might be easier on the conscience of those representatives, but it does not change the reality. Unionists are just about tolerated by the nationalist leadership in our city. Even small gestures are too big for some. What happened when a portrait of His Majesty The King was offered to the council following the coronation? "You can have it, but not on our premises", was the message. Coronation celebrations? "Do it, but do not involve us", was that message. A jobs fair? "Yes, we can have it, but with only those employers who conform to our outlook", was the message there. That is the reality for unionists in my constituency. There are those who talk of the Derry model, but if that is the model that nationalists seek for their shared island, they are even more deluded than I thought. For the record, I am very proud of our armed forces, whether for helping out during the pandemic, defusing bombs that terrorists left or defending all our freedoms across the globe. Their devotion and sacrifice stand in stark contrast to those who seek to drag us back. Preston Creighton Mr Donnelly: I will take a moment to celebrate one of East Antrim's rising stars, 13-year-old Preston Creighton. Preston represents the renowned Evolution Boxing Club in Carrickfergus, which is a club with a proud tradition of producing champions, and he is already living up to that legacy. In just his first year of competition, he has stepped into the ring 18 times, including for six international bouts, and he has risen to the challenge every time. He won the Antrim Championship four times, and, in Naples, he represented County Antrim with two outstanding performances. He has gone toe to toe with boxers from Scotland and Wales. Most impressively, he won the international gold at the Monkstown Box Cup, defeating Finland's national champion. That is an incredible record for anyone, never mind someone of just 13 years of age. We can all admire Preston's hard work, determination and talent, and I have no doubt that he has a very bright future in the sport. On behalf of everyone here, let me say congratulations, Preston. You have already done Carrickfergus, County Antrim and Northern Ireland proud, and we will be cheering you on in the years ahead. SEN Places Mr Baker: I stand here to be a voice for children with special educational needs, who continue to be left behind. Before the recess, I tried everything that I could to have the Minister of Education come to the House and communicate to families his plan for children who did not have placements. Before we went into the recess, the number of such children was in the hundreds, and that is what the headlines were about. Today, we could say, "The number is down to single digits, and that shows some sort of improvement", but the detail is in the weeds, because hundreds of those children will not be in school this week because their place is not ready. Sadly, some of those who were lucky enough to get placements were left at home this week because of transport issues. This happens year-on-year. My first speech in the Chamber was about the need to prioritise special educational needs and early interventions, and I hoped that we would see improvements, but, unfortunately, we have not. That is simply not fair. It is not fair on those children, who are always left behind. We must ask these questions: why are they not being prioritised? Why do we not have a SEN-first approach to placements? Why, in 2025, do we not invest in high-tech IT for transport, given that a small number of staff are still working with pens and pieces of paper to map out routes? That is simply not good enough, and it shows where the priorities lie, which is certainly not with children with additional needs. I will quickly make a wee point about one of my cases, because it maps out the journey that children will have if we do not take this seriously and start prioritising those children. Seeing a set of twins start at nursery should be the happiest time for a parent and grandparents. In one of my cases, one twin has additional needs, and the other, who is in the mainstream, does not. Guess who got the nursery place. The wee child with additional needs watches his sibling go off to school, and the child who probably needs the most interventions and the most support is left behind. If we do not see change — if the Minister and the chief executive of the Education Authority do not get real on this — this is how that child's life will map out: come P1, their placement will be an issue, as it will be in the next transition year, when they go into first year. They will also have transport issues. Their parent will fight tooth and nail for support for that child, while the other child goes through the education system almost seamlessly. We need to stop that. We need an inclusive education system for all children. It is we who can deliver that. I want to work with the Minister and everybody in the House to make that a reality, but it will happen only if it is prioritised. Top 12.45 pm Irish Guards: 125th Anniversary Ms Bunting: I rise to pay tribute to the Irish Guards in their 125th anniversary year, following a weekend of commemorative events. The Irish Guards are an extraordinary regiment, renowned for their bravery, loyalty, passion and willingness to serve King and country even unto death. Theirs is a proud and distinguished history of unwavering service, and this weekend fully demonstrated their deep roots in and strong connections and bonds to Northern Ireland. It was a joy and a privilege to celebrate the historic milestone with them. There were a number of events to recognise such a significant occasion, which included beating the retreat ceremonies at Carrickfergus Castle and Edenmore, a remembrance service at the cenotaph at Belfast City Hall, a parade and concert in Bangor and, finally, a parade and laying-up of colours in my constituency of East Belfast yesterday. Everywhere they went, the soldiers on parade were cheered and greeted by large and enthusiastic crowds, wishing the young men and women well, delighted to pay tribute to them and their service, revelling in the ceremony, the music, the uniforms and the meaning and history of the occasion. Yesterday was particularly poignant and certainly historic, as the ninth set of old colours, which were presented to the 1st Battalion by Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II on 6 May 2009, were laid up in a beautiful service. Many of us were honoured to be in attendance on such a meaningful and historic day. Meaningful because of what the colours represent to a regiment: the sacred flags that serve as the physical embodiment of a regiment's honour, spirit and heritage; the ever-present banner standing as a rallying point for loyalty and morale, with them in battle, on parade and everywhere in between — always a source of pride and inspiration; and a powerful reminder of those who went before and all that they gave. I say "historic", because this is the first time that a regiment has laid up its beautiful colours anywhere on this island. For East Belfast to be chosen is inordinately special. Moreover, St Mark's Church in Dundela is, itself, a historic landmark, being the former church of CS Lewis. It was a privilege for those of us who were present to stand alongside serving personnel and veterans and their families to reflect, remember and give thanks. We in the DUP are proud of those from Northern Ireland who, despite opposition and threat from some quarters, have chosen the noble career of service in the military. We understand the sacrifice that that requires, including being away from family and loved ones for sustained periods and often putting oneself in danger. We commend the regiment and those in it. We pray for them and for their safety. We are grateful to them for our freedom and for their service, and we honour those who made the ultimate sacrifice. Battle of Britain: 85th Anniversary Dr Aiken: I will follow on from those words, as I, like many of us over the weekend, had the opportunity to thank the Irish Guards for their service. There were two events that, in particular, touched our armed forces community and our veterans. The first one, of course, was the laying-up of the colours in St Mark's Church in Dundela. I have to make a declaration of interest as a parishioner of that fine church, which was CS Lewis's former church. I thank all those from East Belfast and beyond who lined the damp streets, the veterans of the Irish Guards, the battalion itself, the regimental padre and the Reverend Canon Dr Helene Steed, our rector, for such a memorable occasion. My main thanks, however, go to you, Mr Speaker, and our wonderful Assembly staff for marking the 85th anniversary of the Battle of Britain. On Friday night, our Great Hall was filled to capacity by Northern and Southern Irish serving Royal Air Force members and veterans. It was particularly pleasing to welcome Brigadier General Rory O'Connor, the chief of staff of the Irish Air Corps, to the event. Few who were there will forget the stirring oration from Air Chief Marshal Harvey Smyth, who is head of the RAF and, surprisingly enough, a Lurgan College old boy. I have seen many of the original RAF artefacts that the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland (PRONI) displayed in the Senate Chamber. However, the fly-past by the Lancaster from the Battle of Britain memorial flight, with the roar of four Merlin engines, along the mile up to Stormont, clearly brought home the message of the debt that we owe to the few. Never has "Per ardua ad astra" — "Through adversity to the stars" — been more apt. A5 Project Mr McCrossan: The A5 project came to a grinding halt on 23 June 2025 as a result of a judicial review taken against the Department for Infrastructure. Since then, the silence from the Sinn Féin Infrastructure Minister on that all-important issue has been deafening. Several weeks ago, the Minister told the public that she would challenge the latest court ruling on the A5. Since then, all that we have heard is that an appeal has been submitted: no explanation, no plan, no indication whatever of how her Department intends to proceed or, crucially, how it intends to avoid making the exact same mistakes all over again. Families have not been updated, landowners have been left in limbo with their land in a terrible state, and accidents still happen on a daily basis. It is not a minor scheme: the A5 is the most important infrastructure project in the North of Ireland. It will cost £1·7 billion to connect Tyrone, Derry and Donegal safely with the rest of the island, yet, for almost 20 years, the project has been stuck in delay, tied up in court challenges and mismanaged at every turn. More than 50 people — 50 innocent lives — have been lost on that road while Ministers and Departments have dithered, delayed and failed to get the project over the line. The mistakes that have halted the A5 are unforgivable. They stink of complete, utter and absolute incompetence by the Department. Over the summer, we learned that DFI officials met DAERA on the issue of climate compliance not seven times, as they originally told us on paper, but 13 times. They had 13 meetings, and still the Department produced a scheme that could not survive a legal challenge; 13 meetings, and still they did not manage to get it right. If that is not incompetence, what is it? PAC recommendations were ignored. Where is the accountability for those who presided over the project and led to that terrible failure? The Minister has chosen silence as a response, but silence will not comfort the families who have lost loved ones. Silence will not reassure the people of west Tyrone, Derry and Donegal, who continue to risk their lives by travelling on that road daily, and silence will not deliver the A5. Let us be clear to the Sinn Féin Infrastructure Minister: you must come out, give a statement and update people on where the project is. I have never heard such silence from Sinn Féin in West Tyrone on this so-called priority. People's lives are at risk daily. Let us get the road built. Let us ensure that lives are saved and give the west what it truly deserves and has waited long enough for. It is time that the Minister got on with that job. Mr Speaker: I call Cheryl Brownlee. Confine your remarks to two minutes, please. Education: Controlled Sector Ms Brownlee: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Today, I speak about something that matters deeply to the Democratic Unionist Party: the future of education in Northern Ireland and, in particular, the vital role of our controlled sector. We have all heard a lot of debate recently around integrated education. While that discussion is important, too often it feels as if the controlled sector is pushed to the side, treated as if it somehow lacks ethos, respect or value. Let me be clear: that could not be further from the truth. It lacks absolutely nothing. Our controlled schools have a strong ethos built on inclusion, respect and community. They welcome children of all faiths and none. They are diverse and open, and they reflect the society that we want and need to build. The Department of Education's latest paper on integrated education exposes a fundamental flaw. Despite decades of transformation efforts, integrated education has failed to deliver a genuine balance and falls short of the aspirational 40:40:20 split; in fact, some are now less balanced than they were when they first transformed. It is not just a failure in numbers; it is a failure of principle. The transformation process, in certain circumstances, has created a label without substance, whilst our controlled schools, which quietly and consistently welcome children from all backgrounds, are being left behind. Controlled schools are achieving integration in practice and not just in name, yet they are being denied the support that they need. Unfortunately, time and time again, I see schools in the controlled sector in my constituency of East Antrim having to fight tooth and nail for the most basic of needs. For example, Carrickfergus Academy continues to operate across a split site, awaiting the central campus that it has been promised for years. That is not just an inconvenience: it is a barrier to cohesion and quality education. (Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair) Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up. Sorry. Thank you, Cheryl. Assembly Business Northern Ireland Assembly Commissioner for Standards: Appointment Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The next item of business in the Order Paper is a motion from the Assembly Commission to appoint an Assembly Commissioner for Standards. Mr Allen: I beg to move That this Assembly, in accordance with section 19(1) of the Assembly Members (Independent Financial Review and Standards) Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, appoints Mark McEwan as the Northern Ireland Assembly Commissioner for Standards. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to 45 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have up to 10 minutes in which to propose and five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes. Mr Allen: The Assembly Members (Independent Financial Review and Standards) Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 provides for the role of a Commissioner for Standards. It also provides for the commissioner's independence and powers, which include the same powers as the Assembly to call for witnesses and documents. The commissioner's primary role is to carry out investigations of complaints relating to the Assembly's code of conduct and the ministerial code of conduct and to report the outcome of those investigations to the Assembly. The role of the commissioner is therefore an important part of the framework for ensuring that high standards of conduct in public life are upheld in the Assembly. I thank the outgoing commissioner, Dr Melissa McCullough, for her service and dedication, particularly in managing her significant responsibilities amidst the additional challenges of the COVID pandemic and the period when the Assembly was not sitting. The 2011 Act that provides for the office of the commissioner requires that the person to be appointed as Commissioner for Standards be: "identified by fair and open competition". The Assembly has delegated that function to the Assembly Commission. The recruitment panel comprised the Speaker, on behalf of the Assembly Commission; the Chairperson of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, Cathy Mason; the Clerk/Chief Executive, Lesley Hogg; and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards at Westminster, Daniel Greenberg CB. The Assembly Commission thanks the Chairperson of the Committee on Standards and Privileges for her important involvement in the recruitment process. The Assembly Commission also particularly thanks Daniel Greenberg for giving of his time. The experience and expertise that he provided was of great assistance to the panel. Having completed a rigorous recruitment competition, the Assembly Commission is delighted to nominate Mark McEwan as Commissioner for Standards for a period of five years, as set out in the 2011 Act. It is an important and significant role that requires expertise and sound judgement. Mark McEwan has 26 years' experience in policing, including serving in the Metropolitan Police in London and, most recently, as Assistant Chief Constable in the Police Service of Northern Ireland before his retirement in 2024. From his extensive policing career, Mr McEwan not only has extensive experience of conducting investigations, including of sensitive and high-profile cases, but was involved in overseeing processes to uphold professional standards and deal with misconduct. The Assembly Commission therefore believes that Mark McEwan has the appropriate skills and experience to undertake the responsibilities of commissioner effectively. The Assembly Commission was pleased to table the motion on the appointment of a Commissioner for Standards, and I commend to the House the nomination of Mark McEwan as the Commissioner for Standards. Mrs Mason (The Chairperson of the Committee on Standards and Privileges): I speak to the motion having sat on the Assembly's recruitment panel for the appointment of a new Commissioner for Standards as the Chairperson of the Committee on Standards and Privileges. As Members are aware, the commissioner is an independent officer who is appointed by the Assembly to consider and investigate complaints of alleged breaches of the MLA code of conduct and the ministerial code of conduct. In fulfilling the role, the commissioner contributes to the overseeing and safeguarding of the ethical standards of MLAs and Ministers. The commissioner's independence is therefore essential to ensuring fairness, transparency, accountability and public trust in our standards regime. Top 1.00 pm The process for investigating complaints is designed in such a way that allegations of breaches of the MLA or ministerial codes of conduct go directly to the commissioner for assessment of admissibility and, where applicable, for investigation. For complaints against MLAs, the Committee then considers the commissioner's investigation reports, determines whether a breach of the code has occurred and, where appropriate, recommends to the Assembly the sanction to be imposed. The commissioner, the Committee and the Assembly therefore exercise the complementary functions of investigation, adjudication and sanctioning respectively, and each has a key part to play in ensuring that appropriate and proper standards of conduct are upheld by Members of the Assembly. As such, in order to safeguard the timely exercising of the commissioner's functions, it is important that the Assembly ensures that the office of Commissioner for Standards remains filled, without undue interruption. I take this opportunity to look back on and acknowledge the contribution of the outgoing commissioner, Dr Melissa McCullough, over the past five years. During her term, Dr McCullough addressed a range of challenges, including working through a three-year backlog of complaints, taking on additional functions in relation to ministerial complaints and taking initiatives to modernise the office of the commissioner, while dealing with a range of complex, sensitive and challenging cases. Dr McCullough did so professionally, engaging positively and empathetically with the Committee and with Members, generally. On behalf of the Committee, therefore, I put on record our thanks to and appreciation for Dr McCullough. The progress that she made in developing the office will provide a sound base upon which the new commissioner can build. I expect that the other members of the Committee will welcome the appointment of Mark McEwan, as I do, and look forward to engaging with the new commissioner on progressing the vital work of implementing the Assembly's ethical standards system. On behalf of the Committee, I support the motion. Ms Egan: As a member of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, I put on record my thanks to Dr Melissa McCullough as she leaves the role of the Assembly Commissioner for Standards. I found Melissa to be extremely professional and diligent in her role, and I always appreciated her willingness to engage with the Committee, explaining her findings and answering any questions that we had. I also welcome the appointment of Mark McEwan and wish him well as the incoming Commissioner for Standards. It is, without a doubt, a challenging position but an extremely important one. Mr Gaston: I preface my remarks by noting that the legislation under which we appoint Mr McEwan was only recently amended by the House. It was not, however, amended to tighten the rules on Members' conduct or to guarantee that the Commissioner for Standards would always investigate alleged misconduct — oh, no. It was amended to lay the foundations for a substantial MLA pay rise. We could have tightened the rules, but, sadly —. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Gaston, the motion is not about the Assembly Commission but is about the Assembly Commission's appointing a new Commissioner for Standards. With respect, I ask that the Member please return to the subject of the debate. Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Principal Deputy Speaker. As I was saying, the House, sadly, decided to look with importance to the interests of Members' wallets instead of seeking a higher standard of Member conduct. That does nothing for the standing of the Assembly in the eyes of the public. I trust that Mr McEwan will learn from their expectations and from where his predecessor fell short. I draw to the attention of Members what happened last week in Westminster, where there were questions about Angela Rayner's tax affairs. She was rightly referred to the ethics adviser, because it was recognised that that was the person for the job. What a contrast with what we have at Stormont. Let me remind the House of the Sinn Féin paedophile scandal around Michael McMonagle. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Gaston. Mr Gaston: The case was not referred to the — Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Gaston. Mr Gaston: — Commissioner for Standards. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Gaston. For a second time, I am asking you to return your remarks to the subject that is being debated. It is not a case of you throwing in "standards commissioner" and saying whatever you want. I ask you again, with respect, to return to the subject in hand. If you continue to go outside of that, I will ask you to take your seat. Is that clearly understood? Mr Gaston: Principal Deputy Speaker — Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Mr Gaston: — it is very relevant to the debate. I am simply comparing what happens in Westminster with what we see in Stormont. Indeed, the case that I mentioned was not referred to the Commissioner for Standards, but, instead, to an insider: the Assembly's head of Legal Services. Unsurprisingly, when he delivered the report to the Assembly, it exonerated the First Minister. He could only do that by not interviewing a single person about the case, including journalists who knew that McMonagle had acted as a Sinn Féin press officer. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Gaston, take your seat. Mr Gaston: Principal Deputy Speaker —. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Mr Gaston, take your seat. It is the first day back. We are all eager to get into it, but I remind you and other Members that you need to stick to the subject in hand. I will give you plenty of flexibility as long as you are making sense and are relating what you are saying to the subject in hand. You have done neither of those things. I am going to move on. Mr Kingston: As a member of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, I reiterate the words of the Committee Chair in welcoming the appointment of the new commissioner, Mark McEwan. I wish him well in post, and the Committee will work diligently with him. I also join others who have paid tribute to Dr Melissa McCullough, the outgoing Commissioner for Standards. It is an important role, which is part of the public scrutiny of our role as MLAs. I found her work to be thorough and her investigations to have been carried out diligently. It is fair to say that even those Members who came to her attention and were found to have breached the code of conduct or its principles mostly accepted, with good grace, that there was an issue. In most cases, an apology was made, and in some cases, there were further consequences. It is an important role that allows people to see that scrutiny is taking place, both by a commissioner and the Committee members, who are acting independently to ensure that the codes and principles of conduct are upheld by MLAs and the Assembly. We welcome the new commissioner and look forward to working with him. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Nuala McAllister to conclude and make a winding-up speech on behalf of the Assembly Commission. Nuala, you have up to five minutes. Miss McAllister: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank Members for their contributions. I was not on the recruitment panel, but, as a member of the Assembly Commission, I am assured that there was an effective, rigorous and fair recruitment competition. I repeat the Assembly Commission's thanks to all those who participated in the process. I also repeat the appreciation, personally and from the Assembly Commission's perspective, for the rigorous and thoughtful way in which Dr Melissa McCullough approached her tenure. Everyone can agree that she was both professional and personable. The Commissioner for Standards is crucial to upholding standards in the Assembly, and it is, therefore, important that the Assembly supports someone with the credibility and experience to undertake those significant responsibilities. As a corporate body, the Assembly Commission normally undertakes the recruitment of officers of the Assembly. However, the involvement of the Committee on Standards and Privileges is vital for this role, and I thank its Chairperson, Cathy Mason, who spoke at the beginning of the debate, for participating in the panel, and I welcome its support today. The Committee will want to build a strong and positive working relationship with Mark McEwan. I want to point to an issue that was mentioned in one of the contributions: the role and remit of the commissioner. The Commissioner for Standards works within the current legislative framework. That legislative framework has not been put before the House for it to change the roles and remit by the Assembly Commission. It would not be the responsibility of the Assembly Commission, so I want to put that on record. It is important that the role gives the public confidence that any breach of the Assembly code of conduct or the ministerial code of conduct will be investigated and dealt with and that it gives Members confidence that any complaints will be considered through due and proper process. Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way? Miss McAllister: Yes, sure. Mr Gaston: The Member talks about public confidence. When I made a complaint about a Chair, the previous commissioner said that she could not investigate said Chair. Will the Member ensure that, in order to instil confidence in the appointment, the new commissioner will not take the same view and that every MLA will be treated the same — they will be treated fairly, and no MLA will be above the law — when it comes to complaints being considered in the House? Miss McAllister: I thank the Member for his contribution. Just to be clear, no Member is ever above the law in the House. I know that the previous Assembly commissioner worked within the framework that she had and with regard to the proper processes, and I do not doubt that Mark McEwan will do the same. As a member of the Policing Board, I have personal experience of working with Mark in his previous role as Assistant Chief Constable. I know that he will work with professionalism and diligence. It is clear that he is well suited to ensuring that any allegations of breaches of the codes will be investigated. Mr Gaston: Will the Member give way? Miss McAllister: I will not give way again; I am just finishing up. On behalf of the Assembly Commission, I commend Members for the nomination of Mark McEwan for appointment as the new Assembly Commissioner for Standards, and I wish him all the best in his new role. Question put and agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly, in accordance with section 19(1) of the Assembly Members (Independent Financial Review and Standards) Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, appoints Mark McEwan as the Northern Ireland Assembly Commissioner for Standards. Committee Business Committee Membership Resolved: That Mr Jon Burrows be appointed as a member of the Committee for Education; and that Mr Robbie Butler replace Mr Andy Allen as a member of the Business Committee. — [Mr Butler.] Resolved: That Mr Mark Durkan replace Mr Daniel McCrossan as a member of the Committee for Communities; that Mr Daniel McCrossan replace Mr Patsy McGlone as a member of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs; that Mr Justin McNulty replace Mr Mark Durkan as a member of the Committee for Infrastructure; that Mr Patsy McGlone replace Mr Justin McNulty as a member of the Committee for Justice and that Mr Mark Durkan replace Mr Colin McGrath as a member of the Committee on Standards and Privileges. — [Mr McGlone.] Insolvency (Amendment) Bill: Extension of Committee Stage Mr Middleton (The Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for the Economy): I beg to move That, in accordance with Standing Order 33(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 33(2) be extended to 12 December 2025, in relation to the Committee Stage of the Insolvency (Amendment) Bill. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Gary. The Question is — sorry, Gary, you are due to speak on this. Go ahead. Mr Middleton: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I will be brief. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Apologies for horsing on. Mr Middleton: You are fine. As indicated at the Second Stage of the Insolvency (Amendment) Bill, the Committee's call for evidence was commenced over the summer recess, which was not ideal. Consequently, the Committee agreed that it would seek an extension of the Committee Stage until just before Christmas recess, as indicated in the motion. I anticipate that we will conclude our deliberations well in advance of that. However, we will surely need some of the extra time owing to the lengthy and complex nature of the Bill, which runs to 121 clauses and four schedules. On behalf of the Committee, I commend the motion to the House. Top 1.15 pm Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Gary. No other Members have asked to speak. Question put and agreed to. Resolved: That, in accordance with Standing Order 33(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 33(2) be extended to 12 December 2025, in relation to the Committee Stage of the Insolvency (Amendment) Bill. Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members, please take your ease before we move to the next item of business. (Mr Speaker in the Chair) Mr Speaker: Apologies, Members. I did not expect to be back just so quickly. We will move to the next item of business. Private Members' Business Windsor Framework Mr Brooks: I beg to move That this Assembly opposes the continued operation of the Windsor framework, including the application of EU law in Northern Ireland and the Irish Sea border that it creates; stresses that the present arrangements do not command cross-community support; expresses alarm that a recent UK-wide survey led by the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) found that 58% of businesses were having moderate to significant challenges as a result of the framework and that over a third had already ceased trade in Northern Ireland; though they wish to move beyond current arrangements, condemns the Government’s refusal to dismantle border control posts whilst at the same time subjecting movements of business parcels, veterinary medicines and used agricultural machinery to EU law; further condemns the Government's refusal to implement pre-existing agreements; believes that the independent review of the Windsor framework was a missed opportunity to propose solutions that are radical in moving beyond the current arrangements; calls on the Government to urgently change course in order to protect businesses, consumers and the integrity of the UK internal market; and further calls on the Government to practically demonstrate their commitment to fully restoring Northern Ireland’s place in the UK by insisting on an end to the democratic deficit sustained by the Windsor framework. Mr Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. An amendment has been selected and published on the Marshalled List, so the Business Committee has agreed that 15 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate. Mr Brooks: Many of us will have engaged in good faith with Lord Murphy's review when he visited this place in the previous term. I met him in my role as the Deputy Chair of the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee and, later that day, as part of a delegation from my party. I feel that, even then, there was a sense that whatever was suggested would not stretch the Government's ambition to reform how the framework operates. Despite the fact that Lord Murphy clearly heard and understood some of the mechanical issues around the functioning of our Committee in particular, it is clear that the report has been a missed opportunity to press for the necessary fundamental reform of the framework. Beyond tinkering at the margins, there is clearly an unwillingness in London at this time to take on board anything, however valid and obvious, that causes frustration in Brussels. Perhaps I should be unsurprised. When I worked in the European Parliament for my colleague beside me, it seemed to me that Keir Starmer spent more of his time there, seeking to assist European efforts to undermine a democratically mandated Brexit for the UK as a whole, than he did in Westminster. As our motion lays out plainly, the independent review of the Windsor framework, however well intentioned, has failed to address the obvious and extensive concerns that remain. The recommendations in the areas that require the most significant and urgent intervention are not filled with demands or pressing but merely meekly will the Government to "continue to do" all that they can, despite it being clear that the Labour Government are not currently showing and have never shown any intention of doing everything that they can to address the issues at hand. The framework risks being yet another exercise in glossing over the continued failure of successive British Governments to honour commitments and to address the problems faced economically and certainly constitutionally, if it has not already established itself as such. Fundamentally, the framework continues to lack democratic legitimacy in Northern Ireland. It was by design, not by accident, that the framework was adopted without the accepted norm of our constitutional settlement of there being cross-community support in this place. Unionist MLAs and, thus, the unionist community were overridden and had their concerns sidelined. That was not democracy in action, and it was certainly not the system of anti-majoritarianism that has been hypocritically championed by London, Dublin and non-unionist parties in the Chamber since 1998, when it was thought that unionists would otherwise benefit. The December 2024 consent vote, which passed with a simple majority, triggered the independent review precisely because the system lacks the essential consent of the unionist community. The review, commissioned under statutory obligations, is set to become another layer of bureaucracy rather than a genuine vehicle for restoring parity of esteem for the unionist community. Unless it delivers —. Mr O'Toole: I thank the Member for giving way. He says that cross-community consent is a constitutional norm. Should it not therefore have applied to the concept of Brexit overall for the UK's leaving the EU? His colleague clearly does not agree, but, if it is a constitutional norm, why did it not apply to the central decision of leaving the EU? Mr Brooks: Brexit was established by a nationwide referendum — it was the largest democratic exercise ever carried out in the United Kingdom — so it was a very different proposition. I do not argue that a sovereign Parliament cannot overrule this place, as a devolved institution; I am saying that it should not, given the norms that have previously been established. Let us be clear: unless the framework delivers real powers and protections, it merely entrenches the democratic deficit. I welcome the fact that Lord Murphy has listened to the concerns that all parties in this place raised about the accessing of information, the unrealistic timelines faced by the Democratic Scrutiny Committee, the need to have adequate staffing in relevant areas and the need for departmental points of contact to be empowered to speak to the Committee about areas as required. As I have said, however, the language on the more significant issues is weak. The Government and Brussels should be aware that the oft-repeated sound bites of reverence for the Belfast Agreement and the peace process will be as a fig leaf if the fundamental basis of confidence on both sides of the community continues to crumble, while genuine appeals to secure the foundations of these institutions and the actions required to do so are treated with contempt. Top 1.30 pm Under the terms of reference set by the UK Government, Lord Murphy was asked to identify issues and make recommendations to command cross-community support. However, let us be clear: the terms of reference themselves presume legitimacy in the framework that simply does not exist. The framework maintains EU law supremacy in Northern Ireland in areas such as customs, VAT, state aid and even medicines regulations without unionist consent or an adequate time frame. The Stormont brake and the Democratic Scrutiny Committee are in place, but this party has always been clear that they are not enough in themselves and that there is more work to do. Current mechanisms are not a remedy to a sovereign Parliament electing to bypass cross-community consent when the protections afforded to nationalism become an inconvenience if wielded by unionism. Unless the independent review assists the fulfilment of government promises and the full restoration of Northern Ireland's place within the UK internal market without the distorting overlay of EU law, it is fundamentally toothless. Moreover, as our motion outlines, recent findings from the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) in Northern Ireland reveal the harsh realities of the framework's impact on small firms. Its comprehensive study found that 58% of businesses trading with Great Britain and Northern Ireland reported moderate to significant disruptions, while more than one third — 34% — had already ceased trading rather than grapple with the growing compliance burden. Even more alarming is that 56% of affected businesses lacked confidence in future planning and only 14% understood or benefited from the touted dual market access. We look forward to welcoming the FSB to the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee to discuss its concerns about widespread trade friction, low confidence — Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree that the survey is an indicator that the Windsor framework, whilst it has no consent from unionism in this place, is now widely discredited among businesses across the piece in Northern Ireland? Mr Brooks: Absolutely, and, when some of those organisations were supportive of the vote to remain, other parties in this place valued their input. Dr Aiken: I thank the Member for giving way. It is not just small businesses. The Member will be aware that Marks and Spencer — other supermarkets are available — has made it clear that the issues are not with just small businesses but with even the largest businesses across our nation. Ms Sheerin: Will the Member give way? Mr Brooks: I will make some progress, if that is OK. I thank the Member for his intervention. Yes, I wholly agree, although I recall that, at a previous meeting of our Committee, when we invited the FSB to speak to us, a Sinn Féin member remarked that it was not the only stakeholder. While I agree with that, we know that it represents 89% of businesses in Northern Ireland, and I think that it would be concerned to hear the party that holds the economy brief being so dismissive. The message seems clear that, rather than functioning as the economic lifeline that many in the Chamber extol, the framework is introducing confusion, cost and red tape, fracturing the UK internal market and undermining business confidence across the region. This party warned that that would be the case with the protocol, and the framework has not resolved those issues, not least because successive British Governments have failed to honour promises made. However, the British electorate at large will be as unsurprised as unionists in Northern Ireland that the current Government show scant regard for commitments made. Unionists believe that the current arrangements continue to undermine sovereignty and seamless economic integration with the rest of the UK. Business and trade have been made not easier, as was heralded, but more complicated. What the independent review should have done was to confront the systematic distortions head-on, not merely document the inconveniences and encourage the Government to keep calm and carry on. It should have been bold enough to demand reforms to remove the EU impositions and remedy the issues that divide this nation, harm business and corrode community confidence in the very idea that the mechanisms within our devolved institutions can be trusted to be used in a fair and balanced way for both sides of the community. My party leader, Gavin Robinson, noted correctly that the independent review must be an honest assessment rather than an exercise in papering over problems and that there must be more urgency in responding to unionist concerns. That is not a request; it must be a demand. The DUP carries a clear mandate to continue to fight to fully restore Northern Ireland's place in our United Kingdom and remove any legislative or administrative apparatus that undermines it. We will not surrender from working to that end. Dr Aiken: I beg to move the following amendment: Leave out all after "ceased trade in Northern Ireland" and insert: "notes that the recent independent review of the Windsor framework is a missed opportunity to recognise the trade, economic and sovereignty challenges to both Northern Ireland and to the integrity of the United Kingdom as a whole; further notes that the existing safeguards within the Windsor framework, including the democratic consent mechanism, the Stormont brake, voting against applicability motions within the Assembly, the oversight by the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee and the UK Government’s role in safeguarding the integrity of the United Kingdom have all failed to arrest continued divergence within the internal UK market, and further, that existing processes as introduced by HMRC and other agencies have added to the cost of doing business within Northern Ireland; is concerned that changes to sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) and other germane regulations will not be fully discussed between the UK Government and the EU until 2027, with likely implementation not until 2028 and beyond; and calls on the UK Government to use the existing provisions within article 16 of the Windsor framework and pause all further implementation of the Windsor framework until after completion of the UK-EU reset negotiations in 2027, rather than blindly following the faithful implementation approach that is accelerating divergence within our nation." Mr Speaker: Thank you. You will have 10 minutes to propose the amendment and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have five minutes. Please open the debate on the amendment. Dr Aiken: I ask the Assembly to support our amendment to the important motion. There is a subtle difference between what the DUP has proposed and what we are saying. I declare an interest as a Member who supported the Remain campaign and as somebody who was involved in discussions with the then Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, to whom my party and I suggested the idea of a greater consent principle in the Northern Ireland Assembly. We even suggested that an Assembly Committee could act as part of that safeguard. For my sin of hubris, I now sit on the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee. As many of you have heard from me, or as those of you who have served on the Committee will know, it has categorically failed in its duties, in that it is barely democratic, it does not do much scrutiny, and, worst, for any Committee in the Northern Ireland Assembly, it is remarkably incurious about EU rules and regulations within the very wide remit of the Windsor framework and the Northern Ireland protocol, which is, in fact, growing. It is to that point that our amendment speaks directly. Every Member here who is not blinded by pro-EU or pro-united Ireland ideology must see that the checks, balances and controls of the Windsor framework are not working. Although we welcome the work that Lord Murphy did in his recent report — indeed, we have called for the adoption of his recommendations — it does not go far enough. I know Lord Murphy. He and I have worked on various committees covering the alphabet soup of British-Irish relationships. I knew him before I was even involved in politics. Lord Murphy gets it. Lord Murphy understands the issues. Anybody who understands Lord Murphy, who has read the report closely or who gave evidence as part of the report process, like I and some others here did, will know that the clear point is that he knows that trade diversion is occurring. Trade diversion is not just occurring; it is accelerating. We have heard many people say that a lot of the problems would be resolved by the SPS agreement. We have heard quite a lot of talk about the SPS agreement because it was going to answer the problems in a relatively short period of time. Indeed, that was going to happen in such a short period of time that the Welsh Government, who are, of course, Labour, consulted with the British Government, who are, of course, Labour as well, about spending significant amounts of extra public money on building border support facilities in places such as Holyhead and Fishguard. They have decided that, because of the SPS agreement's coming into place, there is no need whatsoever to spend that money, and, so, that money is not being spent. They have decided that that money can be used for other things, such as additional police, nurses and doctors. However, the Agriculture Minister here in Northern Ireland has stated on several occasions that he wishes to be a faithful implementer. The Secretary of State has used the words "faithful implementation" as well. Faithful implementation works on the assumption that it is going to happen fairly rapidly. My learned friend the Chair of the Agriculture Committee will probably talk to this when he is making his winding-up speech: the SPS agreement is not going to be enacted until about 2028, which is three years away. In the meantime, we will build border infrastructure — it is nearly finished — in Larne, Belfast, Warrenpoint and other places as part of the faithful implementation of that agreement, yet other parts of the United Kingdom will not be implementing it. Mrs Dodds: I thank the Member for giving way. You have described very eloquently the cost of border posts and the implementation of the agreement. However, that is only one element of it; we also have the Trader Support Service and all the ancillary services. We are probably in the region of £500 million now for costs. Do you agree that all that money would be better spent on enhancing trade within our internal market? Dr Aiken: I very much thank the Member for her intervention. I take issue with her figure of about £500 million; it is a lot more than that. It is interesting that every time that I, our wonderful MP for South Antrim, Robin Swann, or even some of our Lords have asked those questions, we have not got any answers from the British Government. Lord Elliott asked a question on the Floor and got a written response that mentions a figure of about £160 million, but that is for only a very specific area, not for all the other areas that are involved. We were also told very clearly that, within the consent process for looking at the Windsor framework, there would be break points and the ability for us as an Assembly — that means not just people on these Benches but everybody here — to hold the process to account. The first one was on applicability motions. When the first applicability motion came before the Assembly, we voted on it, and, because it did not pass with cross-community consent, it was deemed to have failed, except, of course, that the Secretary of State did not action it. The second one did not even arrive on time, because the applicability motion was already making its way through the various stages in the House of Commons and we could not even intervene. That should be a concern for every single person in the Chamber, because this issue should have been dealt with as it was part of the consent mechanism and system as well. We have heard about the Stormont brake. We tried to apply the Stormont brake. We brought it through, followed the process, but that was ignored as well. I will say to the Secretary of State that he has probably put into action a lot of the things that were requested that would fix the problems with the Stormont brake. He has put some of those into action, but not all of them. If there is to be faith that we, as an Assembly, have any voice on these things, we must be able to make it heard clearly. My concern is that, every time that we seem to do anything in here, the Secretary of State — let us be honest, it is probably Erskine House or the NIO — gets to a point and then says, "Oh, we are faithfully implementing it, and we do not want to offend anybody". We have heard that time and time again. Many of us who regularly visit Europe or go to Brussels have good friends in the Irish Government and with people across the whole process. We ask time and time again what "faithful implementation" means. A very interesting event happened not so long ago when a certain president on the other side of the Atlantic decided that there was going to be a differential in tax, particularly with taxes on goods going to the United States. There is a differential in that taxation regime, because Northern Ireland would be at the United Kingdom rate and the Republic of Ireland would be at the EU rate. Behind the scenes, many Irish officials were telling people that they were looking at the provisions of the Northern Ireland protocol so that they could call a temporary break in that process. There is a temporary break in that process because there would be — what is it, everybody? — a diversion in trade. There was going to be a significant diversion in trade. Those conversations are ongoing, and I understand that Simon Harris and his officials have been putting their feelers out to try to address that situation so that we can understand it. We are in a situation where the Republic of Ireland, rightly or wrongly, considers that there is going to be a major diversion in trade, and in Northern Ireland, there is a major diversion in trade. Rather than tearing up the entire Windsor framework completely, which will probably be difficult to do under international law, the key issue is that there should be break points in the Windsor framework that the Secretary of State should be adopting. We should be going to the point of saying, "Let us pause this to stop the diversion until such times as the SPS agreement gets across the line, and then we can look at it again". That is what people normally do during trade discussions. Those are the issues. Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. He raises an interesting point. Surely we are now at the point where, although the UK Government are determined to have a reset of relationships, as they call it, with the EU, that is actually going beyond that point and is now undermining more businesses in Northern Ireland that have genuine issues with trade in the current situation. Dr Aiken: I thank the Member for that. It is not just Northern Ireland businesses that are having those issues; it is businesses in the whole of the United Kingdom. Indeed, if people were honest, we would find that it is an issue across the whole of these islands, because there are many complaints from Irish businesses that are trying to —. Ms Sheerin: I thank the Member for giving way, unlike the Member for East Belfast. Earlier, you mentioned problems that businesses have faced. The Economy Committee took a presentation from the FSB following the report that it produced, and we were told, as the report outlines, that just over 700 businesses contributed to it out of 140,000 businesses across the UK. Top 1.45 pm Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up. Ms Sheerin: Is that proportionate? Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up. Ms Ferguson: It has to be said that, to me, the motion reads as little more than the TUV tail wagging the DUP dog, to be honest. Members, as you are all well aware, next June will mark a decade — 10 years — since the Brexit referendum in which the majority of people in the North voted to remain in the European Union. The majority of our citizens in the North were not beguiled by those who found themselves at the behest of Boris and the Brexiteers, yet, here we are again, listening to a DUP motion that refuses to acknowledge that the challenges about which they now complain are in fact the very outworkings of that failed project, which we were all well warned about. Economists, commentators, academics and organisations all warned of the many potential negative economic and social consequences of Brexit. Dr Aiken: Will the Member take an intervention? Ms Ferguson: No, thank you. Sorry, I want to move on. Some even defined the Brexiteers' choice to advocate a project that would increase trade barriers and hinder free movement as supporting self-inflicted recession. Brexit is a child of the DUP. You were repeatedly warned that it would be bad for the North and our economy. If we cast our minds back to the publication of a report by the Department for the Economy in July 2019 that warned of a possible 40,000-plus job losses, we remember that one DUP politician said that they could live with that. Another stated: "I wouldn't care what sort of situation I face as long as I'm out of Europe." Those who so whimsically dismissed the qualitative advice from so many sectors have a brass neck when they continue to complain about the outworking of the wheels that they set in motion. Our electorate voted overwhelmingly to remain. Our people know only too well the continued impact of Brexit on our economy, trade, small businesses, opportunities for students, our young people and even the stronger collective vigilance concerning human rights and standards in a post-Brexit era. Equally, however, our people know that unionism is no longer the monolith that it once was. Its electoral majority in the Assembly and at Westminster is gone. A majority in our local Assembly has instead voted to continue our post-Brexit trade arrangements and recognise the need to maintain the hard-fought and hard-won protections against Brexit's worst excesses. Mr Tennyson: It is telling that the first motion that we are debating in the Chamber on our return from summer recess is not about the crisis that faces children with special educational needs, hospital waiting lists, the ecological crisis that faces Lough Neagh or the cost-of-living crisis bearing down on our constituents; rather, it is a crass attempt from the DUP to relitigate old arguments and rewrite history. I understand why the DUP wants to do that, for it is not a pretty history from its perspective. Having campaigned for, promoted and voted for Brexit, it is once again shedding crocodile tears at the inevitable consequences of Brexit. Our departure from the EU has been a monumental act of self-harm. It increased division in our politics and chaos in the UK economy and deprived us of key opportunities. That may well not be the fantasy that previous Governments promised, but it is certainly the Brexit that those of us on these Benches voted against, because everyone knew that, whatever was written on the side of Boris Johnson's campaign bus, the DUP would inevitably end up under it. Alliance warned that leaving the EU meant new borders and new barriers and that those were always going to be constructed at ports and airports, where they could be managed and mitigated, rather than along a 300-mile land border. That is just logic, something that the DUP never applied during the Brexit debate. Instead, it told us that we were scaremongering. It told those who warned of supply chain issues that they could, "Go to the chippy", and, shamefully, it said that it could live with up to 40,000 job losses in the event of a no-deal Brexit. To attempt now to pin the consequences of its Brexit squarely on the Windsor framework is akin to driving your car square into a brick wall and blaming the airbag for your bloody nose. The Windsor framework is imperfect, as any solution short of full EU membership would be, but it is the bare minimum that is required to mitigate the impact of Brexit on our economy, create stability for business and protect the Good Friday Agreement. Let me say this clearly and unequivocally: Alliance recognises the challenges facing many of our smallest businesses. Unlike the proposer of the motion, we have set out solutions to ease that burden through simplification of the at-risk category, improvements to the Trader Support Service, streamlining of the customs duty reimbursement scheme, and awareness and training campaigns for GB-based suppliers. Dr Aiken: Will the Member give way? Mr Tennyson: I will indeed. Dr Aiken: Thank you very much indeed, Eóin. At the moment, the question over that scheme is the fact that reimbursement takes so long. Will you join us in calling on HMRC to get its finger out and, rather than waiting nine months to pay people, do it within 14 days? Mr Tennyson: I could not agree more. That causes cash flow issues for businesses, and it is a practical issue that could be addressed by government. Alliance is also clear, however, that, through returning to, at least, the customs union and, ideally, the single market, we can wipe away much of that Brexit-related bureaucracy. Today's motion omits key facts from the Federation of Small Businesses report. Some 87% of the businesses that responded to the survey were based in England, Scotland and Wales, businesses that do not enjoy the protections available to businesses in Northern Ireland under the Windsor framework. When we look at export statistics, we see that business exports were up by 7% in Northern Ireland last year. In Scotland, they were down by 13%; in England, they were down 4·5%; and, in Wales, they were down by 9%. The Northern Ireland economy grew faster than the UK average. I make no apologies for championing the interests of Northern Ireland businesses above all others. Crucially, nowhere in its report does the FSB call for the suspension of the Windsor framework, as both the motion and the amendment clearly do. On the contrary, the report explicitly calls on the Executive to "promote dual market access" and: "position Northern Ireland as a gateway for trade". I wholeheartedly support that call. Dr Aiken: Will the Member give way? Mr Tennyson: I will not give way again. Thank you, Steve. It is long past time that we moved beyond rehearsing the same old tired, circular arguments and talking Northern Ireland down. We have an opportunity to focus on practical and pragmatic solutions aimed at building on the protections of the Windsor framework and creating a more stable, prosperous and vibrant economy and future for everyone who calls this place "home". On that basis, we will not indulge or support the motion or the amendment. Mr O'Toole: Here we are again. We return after a summer break with, as Mr Tennyson said, public services in crisis, Lough Neagh dying in front of us, race and sectarian hate crime on the rise and a list of other things to debate, and, sure as day follows night, we have a motion on the Windsor framework in which the DUP seeks to negate the consequences of, as many Members have said, the hard Brexit that the DUP itself championed, delivered and insisted on. Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way? Mr O'Toole: I will be happy to give way in a moment; I just want to outline some of my points. It will come as no surprise to anybody in the Chamber that the SDLP will oppose the motion and the amendment. I will say this: the Murphy review offers practical ideas for smoothing processes in moving goods from Britain into Northern Ireland and improving democratic scrutiny in the Chamber. It is a reasonable bit of work. I do not agree with everything in it. Of course, I did not agree with Brexit: Northern Ireland should be back in the EU. I reiterate the point that I have made multiple times in the Chamber: the only way that that will happen — the only way of taking control of that process — is by voting for a new Ireland back in Europe. I recognise, however, that some sensible things are recommended in the report: better resource for Assembly Committees; some action on repayments under the duty reimbursement scheme; and a number of other things. We engaged with Lord Murphy and mentioned our proposals for an EU Commission office in Belfast, as well as observer status for Northern Ireland representatives, be they MLAs or, indeed, directly elected MEPs. I give way briefly to Mr Buckley. Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. Will he accept that an issue, support for which has deeply divided Northern Ireland and continues to affect Northern Ireland businesses of all sorts, is worthy of debate in the Assembly? Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute. Mr O'Toole: I did not say that it was not worthy of debate. I will tell you this, Mr Buckley: I am happy to debate this any day of the week. I and my side will win the debate, because we have won the debate repeatedly. I say this in the nicest possible way: I am in politics here because of Brexit. I have talked about that many times. Ms Ferguson mentioned that, next year, it will be a decade since Brexit. I was then a civil servant, working in the middle of it. I was literally in Downing Street when it happened. I left that life and career because I could not stay in it. I thought that Brexit was dreadful for Ireland, for Northern Ireland and for the whole system, and so it has turned out to be, worst of all for unionism. I think that we are moving towards a new Ireland, back in Europe. The mad decision that was made by English/British voters in June 2016 is what has driven that. Brexit was not something that I wanted, but it will expedite something that I do want, which is a new Ireland. Today, unionism is once again having a debate in the Assembly not about healthcare, waiting lists or Lough Neagh but about a debate that it cannot win. The Windsor framework is something that you created and have made worse every time. I will be honest: as someone who worked in London and understands how that machine works, I know that no one over there cares about the Windsor framework at the moment. I am really sorry to have to say that, but let me be blunt: it is not on the agenda in London or in Brussels. The Murphy review makes some sensible, practical suggestions. I will give way very briefly. Mrs Dodds: Thank you very much: you are always generous in giving way. I recognise that, when the Member was in Downing Street, as he often tells us, he was fulfilling the Tory party's wishes at that time. That may not have been his personal wish, but it is what he was doing. It is interesting, however, to hear nationalism in the Chamber today confirm that only majority rule is what it wants. Is that really what you see for the future? Mr O'Toole: I will say this: I was delighted to hear the Member have a little pop at the work of civil servants. In front of her is the deputy First Minister, who has SDLP, Sinn Féin and Alliance Party civil servants working for her. What the Member just said is, frankly, a slur on all civil servants, but that is fine. I have made clear my view on all of that. I will go back to the point that the Member made about majority rule. Mr Brooks mentioned the idea of a constitutional norm, but that is an absurd and wrong argument. By definition, the constitution of this place does not require double majorities for everything. We are in the UK, but I do not consent to that. That is not the way in which this place works, so it is an absurd argument. Mr Brooks also acknowledged that Parliament is sovereign. The UK Parliament — I want a new Ireland — voted for these arrangements. I am sorry for Ulster unionism that it has got itself into the position in which the UK Parliament voted for arrangements that unionism detests so much. Perhaps unionism should reflect on the original Brexit decision and on its tactics now of tabling these absurd and futile motions for debate. I care about the needs of business. I want smooth processes for businesses, whether they import or export. As Mr Tennyson rightly said, exporting businesses in Northern Ireland are increasing their exports. We are performing better economically than the rest of the UK. Yes, I want smooth processes east-west, but you are constantly tabling motions for debates like this about things that will not happen. The UK, which is struggling with growth and says that it does not have enough money to fill its fiscal black hole, will not jeopardise its just-repaired relationship with the EU, in the context, by the way, of a war on the continent of Europe. It is not going to upturn its entire —. [Inaudible.] Mr O'Toole: Hang on one second. I let you in. It is not going to upturn its entire relationship with the EU because a few unionist MLAs are ranting about it at Stormont. That is not going to happen. Here is the thing: grow up and accept the consequences of the Brexit that you championed. If you actually want this place to work, get down to real work rather than bringing this nonsense to the Assembly. Mr Speaker: Question Time begins at 2.00 pm, so I will not take any further speeches until after the question for urgent oral answer. The next Member to speak in the debate will be Mr Kearney. Before I call the deputy First Minister — if Mr Buckley would get out of the way, thank you — I welcome Mr Jon Burrows as a new MLA for North Antrim. He was signed in in early August, and this is our first opportunity to give him a welcome. I trust that you will have a good time in the Chamber and that you are able to serve the people of that area well. Oral Answers to Questions The Executive Office Online Safety Strategy 1. Mrs Guy asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on their input in delivering the online safety strategy for Northern Ireland 2020-25, given the strategy’s cross-cutting nature and their Department's role in ending violence against women and girls. (AQO 2284/22-27) Mrs Little-Pengelly (The deputy First Minister): Before I begin, with your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I would like to take a moment to reflect on the tragic deaths of Vanessa Whyte and her two children, James and Sara Rutledge. Those were absolutely horrific murders, and I have no doubt that everyone across the House shares in the horror of what happened. It emphasises, once again, the absolute need for us all to work together to end violence against women and girls. I pay tribute to the dignity and courage of their friends and family, and I think, in particular, of the school friends and other schoolmates of both of those children as they start back to school this week, with the grief that, undoubtedly, they will feel. We want to ensure that all women are safe and feel safe everywhere. That is why the strategic framework to end violence against women and girls addresses the whole range of gender-based violence, abuse and harm, including online. The framework is intended not to displace existing policy remits but to strengthen and coordinate the Executive response to challenging violence against women and girls. The ending violence against women and girls change fund is a fundamental part of delivering the strategic framework, and it focuses on prevention. There are many excellent projects, including in our constituency of Lagan Valley, which work with expert organisations and the PSNI to educate on safety in online spaces. The Department of Health has sponsorship of the Executive's online safety strategy and accompanying three-year action plan, which was published in February 2021. Our officials are members of the online safety strategy cross-departmental implementation group and work closely with colleagues to ensure that we use every opportunity to protect women and girls and to ensure their safety. The UK Online Safety Act is also an important tool in combating online abuse and harms, and we remain committed to engaging with Ofcom on its implementation. Mrs Guy: I thank the deputy First Minister for her response, and I echo her comments about those awful tragedies. Does the deputy First Minister regard online safety for our children and young people as a priority? If so, is the online safety strategy and action plan that we have at the moment good enough? Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. It is incredibly important that all the actions arising from that are fit for purpose. I have said to the House previously that I have had somebody charged and convicted under the online safety legislation. He pleaded guilty and is currently in custody. That is a demonstration, unfortunately, not only of the Act in action but of the need for the Act. I would like to get into a position where we do not need to use that piece of legislation, and that applies right throughout. I take the opportunity to extend support to Simon Harris, who has been subjected to a number of threats over the summer, including another one in the past number of days. It is absolutely appalling, and it demonstrates that abuse targets not just women and girls — the focus of this particular piece of work — but, very often, those in public life across all political parties. Of course, in this work, it is critical that we genuinely get the right actions to tackle that, should it be towards those in public life, women and girls — no matter where they are — or, in particular, children. Ms Finnegan: I acknowledge the leadership that the First Minister and deputy First Minister have shown in highlighting ending the scourge of violence against women and girls. Making progress will require a whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach. Can the deputy First Minister provide an update on how TEO is working collaboratively with Departments to tackle sexual violence against women and girls? Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. It is one of the six key outcomes: working better together. That means all parts of our system working together to try to tackle it. Just last week, we had the privilege and honour of attending an ending violence against women and girls conference at Craigavon Integrated College. There, we joined over 100 pupils from a number of schools and, in particular, the McNally family, who have done such incredibly brave work in the area. It must be so hard for them to talk about Natalie, describe who she was and step up time and time again, but they do that because they genuinely do not want the violence that happened to their Natalie to happen to another woman. I pay tribute to them. It was an absolute honour to be at that event with them. The event also demonstrated that it is not just about working across government and with local government but about working with young people and all parts of our society at the earliest possible opportunity to tackle misogynistic attitudes and the issues that, in turn, give rise to violence against women and girls. Mrs Dodds: I thank the deputy First Minister for her reference to the conference that we attended on Friday. One of the issues that is really important to families who have experienced that type of terrible violence is the justice system and, in particular, the length of time that it takes for cases to come before the courts. That causes those families such anxiety. Will the Minister work in the Executive to ensure a much swifter response for those families? Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her important question. She is absolutely right: justice in Northern Ireland is much too slow. It really affects people, not just those who are waiting to appear before the courts but the victims' families, who have to suffer for many months if not years while they wait for their cases to come up in court. That is an unbearable anxiety for those families. Families need to see justice being done and they need to see it being done much more swiftly. I had the opportunity to return to the Bar a number of years ago, and I was genuinely shocked by the length of time that criminal cases were taking. I was involved in a number of cases, none of which got to trial over the couple of years that I was at the Bar. It is an urgent issue, and we need to tackle it. Justice must be swifter. I believe that we are the slowest across these isles. That is not acceptable. It is not acceptable for victims or their families, and we need to get on and tackle the issue and produce swift justice now. President Trump: State Visit 2. Mr Brooks asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to outline the opportunities available for Northern Ireland from the upcoming state visit by President Trump. (AQO 2285/22-27) Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. President Trump's unprecedented second state visit to the UK is an opportunity to showcase Northern Ireland's strengths, build relationships with the president and his team and boost trade and investment. Using the visit to build personal ties is particularly important given the UK-US economic prosperity deal and ongoing uncertainty on tariffs. I will have the opportunity to participate in the state banquet at Windsor Castle on Wednesday 17 September, which is being hosted by His Majesty The King in honour of the president of the United States of America and the First Lady. As with all engagements, I will use the event to promote Northern Ireland as a great place to visit and in which to live, work and invest, and to remind the president about our unique connection to the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. As always, I will use the opportunity to showcase the fantastic place that I am proud to call home. When I met the president in Washington in March, we spoke about golf and, of course, about Northern Ireland, and I will be keen to highlight how successful this year's 153rd Open has been. It is vital to many businesses and communities across Northern Ireland that we not only reaffirm our unique position with respect to the president but cultivate a constructive relationship with the Administration that supports our exporters as well as encouraging investment. Through the Northern Ireland Bureau, we are developing those relationships with key stakeholders, many of whom are new in DC. It is not just about Northern Ireland benefiting from US investment but about how our companies can invest in and benefit the US as well. Mr Brooks: I thank the Minister for her answer and her work in that area. There has scarcely been a more important time to engage with the president of the United States. The deputy First Minister had to step up on St Patrick's Day this year when the First Minister decided not to show leadership. What are the plans in that regard this time? Will the First Minister attend? Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. At this stage, the First Minister will not attend the state banquet with President Trump. I engage with people, politicians and leaders from all the different shades of political opinion. As far as I am concerned, it is not about what I feel about them or even about my view of their political opinion but about my being in this role and stepping up, showing leadership and engaging with people where there is particular interest and importance for Northern Ireland. I believe that that is what leadership is all about, and I certainly will not be found wanting when it comes to stepping forward, should that be to represent Northern Ireland at the D-Day commemorations, to talk to Prime Ministers, to go to London to lobby for what is best for this place and raise our issues at every opportunity or, yes, to go to DC to talk to President Trump and to attend those events. When we met His Majesty The King, he was very clear about the fact that he wants the devolved regions and nations to participate in the likes of state banquets. That had not happened before during such state visits. They are unique and fantastic opportunities to engage with not just the president but the entire team that he brings with him. Many people will come to the UK as part of the delegation, and they are covering everything from trade to social links and departmental matters, which are things that go right through the Administration. There is a good opportunity to talk to a number of key people at such events, so I am looking forward to it. I will always stand up and speak up for Northern Ireland. Mr O'Toole: Given the conversation that we have just had on violence against women, it is important to put on record the fact that Donald Trump was found liable by a jury in a New York court of sexually assaulting a woman and that there have been numerous other allegations against him. May I ask that, in your and your office's engagement with President Trump, while acknowledging his office and the importance of the United States to this place, we do not operate a values-free policy, whether that is in relation to violence against women, the ongoing genocide in Gaza or the use of the authorities in the United States to intimidate people? It cannot be a values-free engagement, so may I ask the deputy First Minister to ensure that it will not be? Mrs Little-Pengelly: I will engage with the president of the United States because of the role that he holds, which is president of the United States. The US is incredibly important to Northern Ireland. I could outline many issues on which I disagreed fundamentally with previous presidents whom I have had the privilege of meeting, not least President Biden, but I went on and did what I did because of and for the people of Northern Ireland. I will outline very quickly for the Member some of the key reasons why US investment is important. US investment in Northern Ireland has been £1·5 billion over the past decade; 32,000 employees in Northern Ireland are employed by US companies; 28% of all Northern Ireland employment by international companies is by US companies; there are over 50 Northern Ireland companies in the US; and the US is Northern Ireland's second-largest single export market. As I said, I will step up and speak up for Northern Ireland while others shy away from doing so, because, regardless of people's personal views or feelings, it is important to Northern Ireland and the UK, and I will be there to speak up for Northern Ireland and for Northern Ireland businesses. Mr McGuigan: In her initial response, the deputy First Minister touched on the success of the Open. It was great to see that the promotion of the north Antrim coast flowed from the Open during the summer. Will the deputy First Minister give an indication of the projected economic impact of hosting the Open and say whether there are any plans to host it again in the near future? Mrs Little-Pengelly: Absolutely. What an incredible success. The only thing that did not go to plan was that there was not a Rory win. We had a Rory McIlroy win just this weekend, however, and I extend my sincere congratulations to him for that. It did not come through for the Open, but we have a win now. The Open was a huge success. It showcased our beautiful north coast. When I was speaking to people from all over the globe at the Open, they told me that they were blown away by how beautiful the scenery is and how fantastically organised the tournament was. Two hundred and eighty thousand spectators attended, with an estimated £213 million of benefit going to Northern Ireland. Anybody who tried to book a hotel anywhere up near that area for that week will know about that huge benefit. It was also really positive to see how many of the restaurants and local shops were full. We learned from the previous time, when there was some feedback that the conditions for people who were attending the Open did not facilitate the same benefit to the local economy. That was addressed and addressed very successfully this time. It was a hugely successful Open, and it would be great to have the British Open back in Northern Ireland. Ms Bradshaw: I fully agree that dialogue and engagement are really important, but I continue to be concerned that we have not yet seen an international relations strategy that would underpin all types of engagement on a world stage. I would appreciate an update on that. Top 2.15 pm Mrs Little-Pengelly: The Member will know from her role in the Committee that international engagement policy is a non-devolved area, but there is much that we can do, and we do it across a number of areas, particularly through soft diplomacy, which is about reaching out through our offices in Brussels and in DC. Of course, those offices go well beyond those physical locations, as the Member will be well aware, but it is also particularly about working with Invest NI and Tourism NI to make sure that those two elements are fully integrated into the key messages. I encourage Ministers to go out and tell our story. We must champion Northern Ireland at every turn because, if we are not doing that, who will? We are in our roles to be champions for Northern Ireland. We have a strong story to tell. Yes, of course, we have challenges, and, as we commence the new term, we must drive forward on delivery, but we have lots of good news to tell, and we ought to do that and champion that at every opportunity. Inquiry (Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses) and Redress Scheme Bill 3. Ms Ní Chuilín asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the Inquiry (Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses) and Redress Scheme Bill [NIA Bill 15/22-27]. (AQO 2286/22-27) Mrs Little-Pengelly: Mr Speaker, with your permission, junior Minister Cameron will answer the question. Mrs Cameron (Junior Minister, The Executive Office): We are pleased that the Inquiry (Mother and Baby Institutions, Magdalene Laundries and Workhouses) and Redress Scheme Bill passed its Second Stage before the summer recess. Ministers welcomed the opportunity to meet the Committee Chair and Deputy Chair to discuss the Bill before it entered the Committee Stage. We thank the Committee for its work over the summer months. The Department has engaged with victims and survivors and Committee officials in preparation for the Committee’s further evidence sessions, which are scheduled to begin this week. We acknowledge that it is highly sensitive and complex legislation, and it is important that people have the opportunity to provide further views through the Committee process. We are committed to working closely with others to deliver this important legislation, and there is an opportunity to shape it further as it progresses through the legislative process. This work remains a key priority for Ministers. Ms Ní Chuilín: I thank the junior Minister for her response. I am sure that she will appreciate that many victims and survivors have expressed deep concerns about the posthumous date for redress, and, indeed, there are other concerns about the Bill. Will the junior Minister commit to listening to those concerns, and will she continue to engage with the victims and survivors of the mother-and-baby institutions, Magdalene laundries and workhouses? Mrs Cameron: I thank the Member for that important question. Yes, of course, we acknowledge that some victims and survivors were disappointed by the proposed 2011 posthumous date in the Bill. We are actively listening to their concerns, and we also welcome the Committee's views. There is no precedent for posthumous claims for an admission-based scheme going back to 1922, and it presents a number of risks. We need to make sure that we have a deliverable scheme that supports as many people as possible. There are important factors to consider, not least the need to strike a balance between the desire to make reparations for the past and the pressures felt by public services today that we are all acutely aware of, such as issues around health and education. As for affordability, in a perfect world, we would have unlimited resource, but we do not have that. We do not live in a perfect world, but we will, of course, listen and engage. We will watch as the legislation makes its way through the process, and the aim is to strike a balance that is fair for everyone. Mr Dickson: I thank the junior Minister for the way the Bill is progressing. Has she or her civil servants had an opportunity to reflect on the recent television documentary that set out the situation in England regarding mother-and-baby homes? The lack of an apology from the United Kingdom Government means that we are at least a step ahead. Specifically, what liaison will her Department have with the authorities at Westminster to ensure that we get a both-islands approach to mother-and-baby homes? Mrs Cameron: I thank the Member for that important question. The public inquiry will tease out some of those issues, but, if the Member wishes to write to the office, we will ensure that he receives a full response. Ms McLaughlin: I reiterate the point about the arbitrary nature of the date for posthumous claims. Victims and survivors need to be listened to with respect and dignity, and it is totally disrespectful to victims and survivors that that date still stands. Mrs Cameron: I thank the Member for her important point. I reiterate that we absolutely acknowledge the disappointment that has been expressed. There are others who are not so disappointed, but we understand that there is a range of views. We have to make sure that whatever we do is fit for purpose and meets the needs of the legislation. We will continue to listen in order to ensure fairness for victims and survivors. UK Internal Market: Unfettered Access 4. Mr Harvey asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to outline any representations made to the UK Government in relation to removing all barriers to trade and ensuring unfettered access within the UK internal market. (AQO 2287/22-27) Mrs Little-Pengelly: As part of our ongoing commitment to ensuring that our circumstances are understood and appropriately reflected in policy and strategic decision-making within the UK internal market, we continue to engage with the UK Government across a range of forums. Those representations have been made at meetings of the Prime Minister and heads of devolved Governments, the Interministerial Standing Committee and the East-West Council, at which members of Intertrade UK were also present, and in many other engagements. Representations have also been made in the context of discussions on the Windsor framework and the UK-EU strategic partnership in the Interministerial Group on UK-EU Relations. Those engagements reflect our continued commitment to collaborative working with the UK Government but also to raising those important issues. We will continue to participate proactively in all forums and to advocate for Northern Ireland's interests at every opportunity. Mr Harvey: Thank you, deputy First Minister. Do you agree that the Murphy review was a missed opportunity? Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his supplementary question. It was absolutely a missed opportunity, which was deeply disappointing but, alas, perhaps not surprising. Our businesses face huge issues. I caught the end of the previous debate as I came into the Chamber for Question Time, and I was dismayed to hear those issues dismissed in such terms once again. In the final line spoken before I stood up, the leader of the Opposition, I believe, described it as a "nonsense" debate. It is an incredibly important debate. The people who decry so-called Trump tariffs and barriers to trade seem absolutely happy to accept all of the unnecessary bureaucracy, paperwork and process that amounts to non-tariff barriers not just between the UK and the EU but within the UK internal market. It is an absolute disgrace, and it needs to be addressed. The UK Government need to start taking it seriously. It is a huge cost to business, which is drowning in the paperwork. The UK Government promised the people of Northern Ireland unfettered UK trade: they must deliver. Ms Ferguson: The recently published 'Independent Review of the Windsor Framework' notes that one of the most obvious benefits that can be attributed to the Windsor framework is dual market access. Does the deputy First Minister agree that we need to see the implementation that both the British Government and the Executive continue to emphasise, as well as the publicising of the commercial benefits of dual market access? Mrs Little-Pengelly: At this stage, there is no evidence of any benefit from dual market access, and we continue to tackle the huge bureaucracy that it has brought to internal UK trade. There are, of course, different views on the issue in the Executive Office. I have asked for evidence of any benefit of dual market access: I have received no evidence that there has been any benefit whatever. Instead, we have got bureaucracy, paperwork and process, all of which is completely unnecessary. The UK Government need to step up, address that and start to work for business not just on this issue but for the UK economy as a whole. Mr Gaston: On 28 May, an official told the Executive Office Committee that regulatory divergence from GB was no longer an issue. Deputy First Minister, given the motion that your party colleagues have brought to the Chamber today, do you hold the same view as your official? What does it say about the Executive Office's desire to address the issues that that remark was made in the first place? Mrs Little-Pengelly: As indicated, there will be a range of views on the issue, but I appeal to people to look at the facts, to listen to companies, to listen to what people are facing and to look at what the UK Government promised and at what promises they are not fulfilling. There are real challenges for businesses. It is correct to say at this stage that there is very little regulatory divergence, but we are still unnecessarily checking things at the behest of the Windsor framework, despite the promises that there was to be unfettered internal UK trade. Doing that is not proportionate. It is not based on risk, is completely unnecessary and is pushing the cost on to businesses. If, indeed, the UK-EU deal comes through, and there are, for example, sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) agreements that remove any so-called advantages of dual market access, that would, in a practical way, smooth things further. It would not, however, remove the challenges that remain with customs paperwork or other processes that we were promised would be got rid of but have not been and are still in existence. The Government need to remove them now. They serve no purpose and are completely unnecessary. Get rid of them. Mr Stewart: Despite the commitments from the British Government to raise awareness and provide training for companies in GB supplying Northern Ireland, many companies are now telling businesses here that they are simply not willing to supply Northern Ireland, because, in their opinion, it is just too much hassle. That is having a huge impact on the supply chain, and we are seeing rising costs on the back of it. Surely that is unacceptable, and the British Government clearly need to be doing more on the issue. Mrs Little-Pengelly: The Member is absolutely right. Some companies do not supply Northern Ireland because they do not understand the system. Some companies try to ask for various company numbers or are looking for processes that are not needed. I get it all the time from people who contact me. It takes a bit of time, but they can navigate the system and get the situation resolved. There are still requirements, however. Certificates are required by certain people. I was contacted by Roy from mid-Ulster. He was trying to bring tractors into Northern Ireland. He required four certificates, and he could not give the haulage company a specific date on which he would get them. He therefore missed the window, and those tractors were stuck in Scotland for four to six weeks, despite their being paid for in full and the fact that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. That is not acceptable, and it is one of many different examples of, quite frankly, as I describe it, "the blob gone crazy". It is bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. We need to tackle that. The biggest frustration that the people have about Governments — whether here, across the United Kingdom or across the globe — is the fact that it is so difficult to get things sorted because of the unnecessary, disproportionate and non-risk-based nonsense that people are putting in place. They need to get rid of the bureaucracy. It does not serve any purpose. Get it sorted. Victims and Survivors: Memorial 5. Ms Egan asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on a permanent memorial in Parliament Buildings to victims and survivors, as recommended by the historical institutional abuse inquiry report. (AQO 2288/22-27) Mrs Little-Pengelly: We know how important the memorial plaque is, which is why officials have engaged extensively with victims and survivors in recent months to ensure that they heard a wide range of opinions on the wording. Draft options were shared with representative groups and individuals not affiliated with any group, as well as with the Commissioner for Survivors of Institutional Childhood Abuse (COSICA) and the Victims and Survivors Service (VSS). A final draft has now been developed, reflecting the views shared during that engagement, and is now under consideration. We remain committed to progressing that important inquiry recommendation and are keen to move forward as quickly as possible. Ms Egan: I thank the deputy First Minister for her answer. That is welcome progress. Can she provide reassurance that the most recent draft has the full backing of groups of victims and survivors? Mrs Little-Pengelly: The Member will be aware that the final draft is under consideration at the moment. Officials have undertaken quite a significant task to make sure that there is maximum buy-in and that views have been taken on the specific wording. Although the wording will not reflect exactly what everybody wants, because that is simply not possible, we have followed that process in order to try to get maximum possible buy-in. Hopefully, we will be moving on that very shortly. I take the opportunity to thank you, Mr Speaker, for your help and support. I know that you have been personally involved in working with many of the victims and survivors over a long period. Thank you for your cooperation with the Department and with us to try to get the issue resolved. Mrs Dillon: On the back of the question that Connie Egan just asked, can the deputy First Minister give a guarantee that the wording on the plaque will be reflective of the experiences and input of victims and survivors, and can she give us some sense of exactly what that engagement looked like? Top 2.30 pm Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her question. As indicated, that engagement was very much about communicating with groups but also with individuals and others outside those groups who are known to us, along with extensive engagement with the commissioner and officials who were working to develop that. I am optimistic that the wording of that will reflect consensus across victims and survivors. Our aim was to try to get resolution to what has been an outstanding commitment to victims and survivors for too long. We are all on the same page with really wanting it to be resolved as soon as possible to make sure that victims and survivors can see what was promised to them reflected in this place but also so that we can then move on to look at the other outstanding commitments from that overall inquiry. Mr Speaker: We will move on to topical questions. Executive Delivery T1. Mr O'Toole asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, given the Executive's failure to deliver — it is not just the Opposition saying that; independent think tanks such as Pivotal are scathing about delivery — including in the area of special educational needs — one of the areas in which delivery is woeful — and the fact that outside, today, kids and their families are protesting for basic services, while the Education Minister is not delivering that but is issuing a page of peremptory guidance that will make other vulnerable kids feel anxious and nervous, whether that is another example of the deputy First Minister's party and the Executive failing to deliver and, rather, engaging in bullying and deflection? (AQT 1501/22-27) Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. The Executive are focused on delivery regardless of the challenges. There are challenges around the funding that is available and challenges in our system to make sure that it can deliver for people and that it is fit for purpose. We have delivered, not least in getting the Programme for Government out and around £80 million of funding out through an early learning and childcare subsidy package and a £25 million package for early learning and childcare. We have published the framework to end violence against women and girls, including the delivery plan, and there is money on the ground for people. As mentioned, just this week, we had the release of some 50,000 additional inpatient, outpatient and diagnostic appointments to tackle the priority of the health waiting lists. So, there has been delivery. Perhaps we need to communicate it in a stronger way to make sure that people are aware of what has been delivered. I am pleased that the Education Minister has published the SEN plan. There are over 3,000 additional SEN places, and I am pleased that, finally, today, no child is without a place. However, the key focus must move on to ensuring that those places are suitable and that parents can get confirmation of those places at an earlier stage. That has taken a huge amount of work because of the number of additional places that are required, but it is a demonstration of the Executive in action. It was a big challenge. It was tackled, and those places were created. It was not easy to do, and more needs to be done. The system needs to be improved, and I know that the Education Minister is up for that challenge. Mr O'Toole: Saying that "more needs to be done" is a remarkable understatement. The deputy First Minister did not specifically address the point about the cheap headlines that her party and the Education Minister are chasing today around vulnerable kids and guidance in schools. I want to ask one other specific question that relates to delivery. We set six tests for you, and one is very specific: will work have begun on a rebuild of Casement Park by the end of the mandate? Mrs Little-Pengelly: The Member has spoken a number of times on a number of issues already today, from the Windsor framework right through to the important issue about safe spaces for biological females. It is important not to dismiss those issues and to say that they are nonsense. That is absolutely wrong. If this place is going to work, you need to recognise that, while it may not be an important issue to you, it is an important issue to many other people. I have outlined that, across a wide range of issues, the Executive are delivering not just the Programme for Government but a transformation board and transformation projects, looking at those budgets and looking into a three-year Budget coming down the line. We will do whatever we can to maximise the impact of what is a limited financial situation. That has included actions such as getting real money into parents' pockets from the childcare subsidy, creating those 3,000-plus additional SEN places, and ensuring that the ending violence against women and girls strategy has been published and that there is funding out on the ground. Many things are happening that are improving people's lives. That includes the big issues, such as tackling health waiting lists. The Member constantly goes back to the issue of Casement Park, while dismissing and demeaning everybody else for the particular issues that they question, but the reality is that, on health, education and trying to grow the economy and champion Northern Ireland, it is the DUP Ministers who have stepped up to do that time and time again. This is an Executive that, across all parties, will be pushing as hard as possible to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland against our Programme for Government priorities. Legacy: Innocent Victims T2. Mrs Dodds asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, after stating that, this summer, we have endured the spectacle of the First Minister for all doubling down on her attendance at IRA memorials, her colleague, rather ironically, urging Sinn Féin to embrace the IRA more fully and the Secretary of State running to Dublin and telling us that he has almost reached agreement on legacy with the Dublin Government, whether it is time to seek the views of the innocent victims of terrorism on what an agreement on legacy should look like and for local politicians to condemn IRA terrorism. (AQT 1502/22-27) Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her important question. It is worth reiterating, time and time again, that terrorism was always wrong, that violence was always wrong, that there was never any justification for it and that there was always an alternative. I sit down and talk to victims' families, many of whom are still grieving and feeling the loss. They see the loss of their loved ones being mocked and laughed about and those who carried out those attacks being glorified. That is wrong. I disagree with the glorification of terrorism, should that be about the IRA, IRA prisoners, the UVF or the UDA. There is no space for that, it needs to go away and it is absolutely wrong. The police need to take a robust line on tackling the glorification of terrorism. At the heart of everything that we do, we should always remember the victims, who are still mourning, no matter what side of the community they come from. Their loss is acute, and we must do more to talk about and treat these issues in a sensitive way and, of course, step up, listen and deliver for the victims and survivors of the Troubles. Mrs Dodds: Deputy First Minister, many of us are really angry at the Secretary of State for running to Dublin for an agreement on legacy but not addressing the fact that Dublin has never admitted its role in IRA terrorism. It has not cooperated with the Omagh inquiry, and there has been no justice from the Dublin Government for, for example, the families of Ian Sproule and Lord Justice Gibson or the Hanna family. Will you assure us that you will do everything that you can to make sure that the issue of legacy addresses the core principle of justice? Mrs Little-Pengelly: Absolutely, the Member is correct. The approach to legacy must always have justice at its heart. Of course, the process has, at best, been opaque. The Secretary of State will deign to tell us what he has decided to do after his extensive consultations with the Irish Government. That is an appalling way to approach the issue. Victims should have been at the heart of the redesign of the process, and I do not get any sense that that has happened. The Secretary of State has asked for views and taken them in, and we are to wait to see what he will say in his judgements. I notice that there has been a significant reshuffle of the UK Government. Frankly, the Labour Government have, thus far, been shambolic. It is time for them to get their act together. While I may not be optimistic, I am hopeful that a reshuffle is an opportunity for them to do so. The UK Government need to get a grip, be that on legacy or many other issues. They need to get a grip on our economy, on immigration and on tackling the internal barriers to the UK internal market, and they need to get a grip on legacy and start talking to the people who are most impacted on by it. Bonfires: Displays of Hate T3. Mr McGuigan asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister whether they believe that the sickening displays of racist and sectarian hatred that we witnessed over the summer months on bonfires in Moygashel, Derry and elsewhere are legitimate expressions of culture or whether they will join him in unequivocally condemning those displays of hate and calling for those responsible for them to be held to account. (AQT 1503/22-27) Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for his question. Sadly, throughout the year, we have seen demonstrations that have aspects that are hateful, unkind, unpalatable and entirely unacceptable. That happens throughout Northern Ireland in many different areas. First of all, we should recognise that it involves a minority of people. When we look at what happened over this summer and last summer, we see that a minority of people carry out those attacks. I believe that the vast majority of people are opposed to hatred and to any threat of violence or intimidation. The Member will be aware of the fact that we are looking at a review of Together: Building a United Community (T:BUC), which is our good relations strategy. We have agreed to roll the flags, identity, culture and tradition (FICT) recommendations into that process as we move towards T:BUC 2, in order to take some of those challenges into account. It is important to say that there is absolutely no role for any paramilitary symbols, flags, activity, glorification or whatever it may be, and it is hugely hurtful to victims on all sides when those things are seen. In all our displays of cultural identity, we should be respectful. That does not always happen, and we have seen the worst of that from a minority at times this summer. Mr McGuigan: The deputy First Minister mentioned T:BUC and Executive strategies. However, in light of those incidents, as well as the serious health and environmental concerns and risks that bonfires pose, does she agree that the current unregulated approach is not working and that political action is needed to end the cycle of having illegal, dangerous and hate-filled bonfires? Mrs Little-Pengelly: It is important to point out that, across Northern Ireland every year, there are hundreds and hundreds of bonfires, the vast majority of which are displayed in an absolutely peaceful way as part of community celebration. Northern Ireland is not unique in that; the culture of bonfire building as a form of commemoration and celebration is common in many places outside Northern Ireland. However, there are a minority of cultural events and expressions not just with bonfires but across many types of occasions that cause offence, and those are key issues for us to tackle when moving forward with that review. They are not easy issues to tackle, but, again, I reassure everybody by saying that they should always remember that a minority is involved that we need to take on but that the vast majority of bonfires are cultural celebrations and commemorations that are displayed appropriately. For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers: Equality Commission Response T4. Miss McIlveen asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for their assessment of the Equality Commission's responses to the UK Supreme Court's decision in the case of For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers. (AQT 1504/22-27) Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member for her important and very relevant question. At the heart of all this must be a fundamental principle, which is that there should be safe spaces for biological females. That was at the heart of the court case. The court ruled that gender is based on biological sex. I was very disappointed in the Equality Commission's advice, but, alas, I was not surprised. A huge overreach is represented in its opinion on a possible interpretation of article 2. The commission should have stepped forward and stood up for women and to protect safe spaces for women. I welcome the fact that the Minister of Education did that today. Other Departments must look at the matter and make sure that we are continuing to do everything that we can to protect those who may feel vulnerable in some spaces. Miss McIlveen: I thank the deputy First Minister for her answer. Does she unequivocally agree that the response continues to leave women feeling vulnerable in places where they should feel safe, such as in single-sex changing rooms and toilets, and that any ongoing uncertainty that is caused by that delay from the Equality Commission is deeply frustrating, given the recognition of the common-sense reality that that judgement provided? Mrs Little-Pengelly: I thank the Member again for her supplementary question. This is a matter of common sense. Women need safe spaces, women deserve safe spaces, and many women are demanding safe spaces because that is what the law is there for and is designed to do. The Equality Commission had an opportunity to clarify and to give that certainty. It has not done so, and we could end up being the only part of the United Kingdom without that clarity and certainty. It is making an argument about there being no diminution of rights, but what about the diminution of my rights as a woman and the rights of women across Northern Ireland? We did not consent to have those damaged, dismissed or demeaned in the way that they have been thus far. It is time for common sense and for the Equality Commission to give clear advice and to make sure that it is providing, in legal duties, a safe space and a fair platform for our young girls. Top 2.45 pm Education Mr Speaker: Questions 2 and 13 have been withdrawn. Special Schools: Support 1. Ms Egan asked the Minister of Education to outline any engagement he has had with the Minister of Health to ensure that special schools are getting the support that they require from health professionals. (AQO 2299/22-27) Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): I met the Minister of Health, Mr Nesbitt, in November 2024, and we discussed nursing provision in special schools. I await the outcome of the Public Health Agency review of health needs facing children in special schools. Of course, my officials continue to work closely with colleagues in the Department of Health and the Public Health Agency to consider issues that affect all schools, including our special schools. Ms Egan: I thank the Minister for his answer. As I am sure that he knows, nurses support children with the most complex medical needs. Will he make the case to the Health Minister that they should not only be retained in schools but reinstated in schools that have removed them? Mr Givan: That was the basis of a meeting that I also held with the Chairman of the Education Committee, Mr Mathison, at which the case was made forcefully by principals in attendance about the need for medical professionals to be in their facilities. There was a period in which those services were withdrawn. The outworking of that meeting was a report that was commissioned by the Public Health Agency. I understand that that has been completed and submitted to the Chief Nursing Officer for assessment. I expect an outcome from that within the next number of months. Mrs Mason: Minister, you will be well aware of the situation in Knockevin School. Can you give us any update on communication that you have had with the principal there? That school has had its onsite nurse removed. You will also be well aware of the growing medical complexities that that school is facing. Can you give us any update on what your Department is doing in that regard? Mr Givan: Fundamentally, the Department of Health needs to ensure that appropriate health professionals are available. The particular interest is around making sure that allied health professionals are available to help to meet the need. Knockevin and other special schools have made the case — I agree with them — that there needs to be an enhancement and greater provision of medical practitioners in those settings. We have an increasing number of children who, thankfully, are living longer with complex medical needs. They are entitled to an education, but they can receive that education only in special school settings when they are in receipt of the appropriate and necessary medical care. The Department of Health is required to step up and support me, as Education Minister. It is something on which I engaged the Minister of Health, Mr Nesbitt. He has confirmed that he wants to support me in doing that. However, he also indicated the financial pressures that his Department, like my Department, faces. I will continue to champion the needs of our special schools so that they get the right support from our medical professionals. Mr Dunne: I appreciate the efforts that you are making on this important issue. Will you outline further what your Department is doing to address the difficulties in accessing support from allied health professionals, given what you have said about the increasing demand and pressures on our special school system? Mr Givan: I made a transformational statement about special educational needs in the Assembly in January of this year. I quickly followed that up by publishing the special educational needs reform agenda, and I followed up on that with a five-year delivery plan in February 2025, outlining the measures that we need to take to transform our special educational needs provision. That work continues. Funding was secured from the Executive for the transformation work, which will allow us to make some progress in respect of the funding allocations. However, I say this to Members from all parties: if you are serious about helping children with special educational needs — I do not question that you are — that needs to be followed through so that, when I go to the Executive to seek financial support for day-to-day or capital expenditure, we prioritise children with special educational needs. I need Sinn Féin, which holds the purse strings, to support me on that, and it also requires other Ministers, some of whom campaigned for canteens for prisoners, to recognise that we should be getting support for our children with special educational needs. All parties will need to support me as I continue to make the case. Mr McGrath: I certainly back what the Minister has just said about helping those in our special needs sector. He referenced earlier some conversations that he had had with the Health Minister. Were there any discussions about autism diagnosis and trying to speed up that process? The impact of delay is seriously restricting the educational outcomes of those people because we cannot get that tailored package for those pupils as quickly as possible. Mr Givan: The Member rightly raises the issue of the statementing process, which is often about carrying out the necessary assessments so that we can identify the needs. I have made it clear that we need to move away from a legalistic statementing process, because teachers can often identify that a young person or child, including those with autism, has additional needs, and we should be able to provide that support without having to go through an often litigious process during which parents are rightly fighting for their children. Part of the transformation that we announced in the reform delivery plan was very much about making sure that we are putting the right support in at the right time and not going through this bureaucratic process, which is often frustrating and delays the interventions that are necessary. Mr Gaston: The same crisis is affecting all sectors of the education system. The principal of a mainstream nursery in North Antrim that is taking part in the standardisation day is faced with a situation where a number of pupils who were referred to paediatrics by their health visitors have still not been seen prior to starting nursery. The waiting list for an ASD referral is three years. The standardisation programme helpline does not know what to do to move forward. Minister, do you? Will you commit to reviewing the funding available to nurseries that are taking part in the standardisation programme? Mr Givan: The Member has outlined issues that I am happy to come back to him on in correspondence. I think that the last point was to do with the standardisation process in nurseries. By that, I assume that he meant converting to full-time hours. Forgive me if I have misunderstood what he was trying to ask. The process around standardisation is one that we are taking forward. Starting this September, 2,500 places have been converted from part-time to full-time provision. That is a welcome increase in the ability of parents to have children in full-time places. We will seek to bring forward another 100 settings for the next academic year, and that will be another 2,000 places that we will move into full-time provision. That is a process that my Department, working with the Education Authority (EA), is carrying forward, and, of course, the criteria around that seek to ensure that there is fairness when it comes to the allocation of the standardisation process. School Bus Safety Measures 3. Mr McGlone asked the Minister of Education to outline any recent discussions with the Minister for Infrastructure and the Education Authority on the need for the implementation of new school bus road safety measures. (AQO 2301/22-27) Mr Givan: Ensuring the safety of pupils travelling to and from school is paramount. Recently, I met the Minister for Infrastructure and representatives from the Education Authority to discuss collaborative measures to improve bus safety. We reviewed the current safety measures on school buses, such as special lighting that alerts other motorists to exercise caution as schoolchildren may be boarding or alighting the bus. I understand that we are the only jurisdiction to have implemented such measures on school transport, and we discussed ways to refresh and reinforce that messaging. Road safety education within schools plays an important role in shaping the attitudes and behaviours of children and young people and helps them to become safer road users, both as children and into adulthood. The school curriculum also provides an opportunity for teachers to address road safety at primary and post-primary level. The Education Authority encourages schools to follow the DFI road safety guidance that is available online, and it offers additional safe school transport information to support the road safety campaigns of the Department for Infrastructure and Translink. Mr McGlone: Mr Speaker, I note that Deborah Erskine's question has been withdrawn, and, with your forbearance and permission, I take this opportunity to personally wish her all the best. I will move on. Thank you for your answer, Minister. We have had a number of queries from constituents whose children have to walk along busy roads where the speed limit is 60 mph and there is no pathway or footpath. Was that discussed at that meeting, or will the Minister chat to the Education Authority to establish whether, insofar as it is practicable, it could issue special bus passes in those circumstances? Mr Givan: When I met Minister Kimmins about that issue a week ago today, we discussed a range of issues to do with the safety of children and young people when they are accessing public transport and stepping off buses, as well as what measures we might take to provide more information. For example, how can we provide better information to those who are in receipt of bus passes and to their parents? We therefore discussed a range of issues, including the safe location of pick-up points. It is ultimately the responsibility of parents to make sure that they transport their children and young people to the appropriate pick-up location. The Member highlighted the issue of people walking along country lanes and so on. That is a concern for me as Minister, but it is also a concern for me as a parent that we try to make sure that parents transport children to the approved pick-up locations. It is important that those locations be chosen in a way that maximises safety. Mrs Dillon: Will the Minister outline any conversations that he has had with transport providers, including Translink, about ensuring that the pick-up and drop-off points are safe and that providers will be flexible? As the previous contributor outlined, it is not just about getting children to the pick-up and drop-off points but about what happens when they get out of their parents' car and have to stand there, because those places are sometimes not very safe. A wee bit more flexibility from transport providers in rural areas might be helpful. Mr Givan: It is a concern that we can all reflect on in our constituencies. Parents will want buses to pick up their children at the most convenient location, but there is also a tension, because providers, be they private bus operators or Translink, need to make sure that their buses access and stop at locations that are as safe as possible. Although everyone would like to be picked up from right beside their house, that is not always the safest location. Indeed, when it comes to having effective routes, it is not always possible to pick up everybody who is travelling to school on a particular route from their house, because of the time that it would take to have a collection point at each house. When it comes to not only the identification of safe locations but the effective operation of their routes, private bus operators and Translink constantly manage them to make sure that they are as safe as possible. Mr Buckley: School transport safety is of paramount concern to parents. In that regard, I thank the Minister for his engagement over the past year to resolve an issue in my constituency in The Birches. Through the Minister's engagement, that rural area was able to ensure that it had a service for its pupils. Is the Minister content that he is ensuring that we get the best bang for our buck when it comes to relationships and contractual arrangements with Translink and other third-party bus operators? Mr Givan: I thank the Member for his comments. He campaigned on issues concerning a particular bus route in his constituency, which we have now been able to resolve satisfactorily. When it comes to working on those particular issues, as I said to previous contributors, we are represented on the Department for Infrastructure-led strategic road safety forum. That forum brings together relevant Departments and organisations to make sure that, where we have a direct impact on road safety measures, the right people are there and engaging. My Department and the Education Authority contribute on that forum to the development of measures to try to make sure that we operate routes that are as safe as possible. My appeal to the general population is this: when you drive near a bus that has pulled in, do not overtake it. I know that the Minister for Infrastructure wants to introduce legislation on that, but be aware that collisions often occur when young people are getting off a bus because a vehicle overtakes the bus. At times, those collisions have been fatal or caused serious injury. There is responsibility on all of us, as road users, to be aware of what is happening around us and, particularly when it comes to school buses and the young people whom they transport, to be mindful of our actions as drivers. Top 3.00 pm Mr McMurray: Minister, as part of your discussions with the Department for Infrastructure and the EA, will you raise the matter of and support changes to the physical infrastructure leading to and from schools in order to ensure the safety of the pupils and staff who attend them? I am sure that that is an issue for many rural schools, not least those that have seen towns grow up around them, with the challenges that that poses. Rathfriland High School in my constituency faces that problem. Mr Givan: The Member raises a good point. In the vicinity of the school environment, the Education Authority has responsibility for improving the management of vehicle movements; in the public highway, it is the responsibility of the Department for Infrastructure. We engage with DFI on where it can help to improve junctions where there are schools, and, indeed, at times, we push for reductions in speed limits. I have welcomed the continued roll-out of 20 mph limits at schools. There is an enforcement issue in that we need to remind road users of those, and I want to see greater visibility of the PSNI outside schools, particularly at peak rush hour, to send a message to road users to slow down. That is important, and it speaks to the point that I have responsibility, but, so, collectively, do other Departments and agencies, for ensuring that we maximise the safety of transportation around and in our schools. Malone Integrated College: New Build 4. Ms Bradshaw asked the Minister of Education for an update on the proposed new build for Malone Integrated College. (AQO 2302/22-27) Mr Givan: A technical feasibility report is being prepared by the project integrated consultant team in order to identify options and costs to provide suitable accommodation for Malone Integrated College. Once the feasibility report is complete, a review of the options identified will be undertaken by the Department's technical advisers. The technical feasibility report is due to be completed in October of this year. A business case to identify the preferred option will then be taken forward. Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Minister. It sounds as though good progress is being made, but I impress on you how that school could benefit from a new build. It is incredibly diverse, and it has an excellent education and pastoral support system in place. It could do a lot better if it had a new school building. Mr Givan: I agree with the Member's sentiments on the need for progress to be made on the school. We are at the point of completing the stage 1 process, but there are other stages to go through. I want that to advance so that the project is subject to moving forward on a construction process when the capital budget is available. We are not at that stage, so I will not say to Members, "Give me more capital funding, and I could deliver this school". We still need to go through the various stages before I can make the case either for identifying the capital funding within my Department or for making a bid to the wider Executive as part of the Budget process for capital funding to be released, but I absolutely share the sentiments expressed by the Member. Mr O'Toole: Minister, Malone is a brilliant school, and it really deserves a new building. Is it not the case that, if the approvals go through, Malone will be added to a capital list that is already heavily oversubscribed? Can you give Malone and other schools in the constituency, including St Joseph's College on the Ravenhill Road, some sense of when progress will be made on that list? If you say that there is too much constraint, at least be honest today by and say when, you think, that might be delivered. Mr Givan: It is not about Malone being added to a list; it is one of many schools that are on that list. Of the 28 post-primary schools on the list that were identified for new build, only seven have moved forward to the various design stages — 21 schools have not advanced at all — and the 28 post-primary schools sit alongside primary schools on the list. The list is extensive. If we were to continue with the current projected capital expenditure, it would take decades to deliver what is already on the list of schools that require a new build. That is why I have not been able, much as I would like to, to open up a new call for schools to indicate that they require a new build. There are many schools that deserve a new build, but, because of the insufficient funding, we have not been able to do that. Capital funding has been given a SEN-first priority. We have spent £114 million on special educational needs provision to provide capacity in the school estate. That was not additional funding that we were given. That funding could have been spent on other capital projects, but we — rightly, in my opinion — have to use it to meet the needs of children with special needs. They have had the first call on that funding. That is why the challenge, collectively, goes out to the wider Executive. Whilst Members will rightly vociferously campaign for new builds in their constituencies, when it comes to the reality of decisions that are being taken in the Executive by their leaderships, that is not reflected in the allocation that comes to my Department. That is the honesty that people in the Chamber need to have about the reality of the decision-making process in the Executive. Mr Martin: First, I thank the Minister for being in my constituency last week. His visits were excellent, and I know that the boards of governors and the principals very much appreciated them. Minister, in a slight segue, you just referred to the capital list. How many schools in Northern Ireland are on that capital list and what is their status on it? Mr Givan: I thank the Member for having me in North Down and giving me the opportunity to visit the schools that I was able to attend. I thank him for the work that he does to campaign for those schools. To give the precise number, 103 projects have been announced under the major capital programme since 2012. A further 11 projects were transferred from Fresh Start funding to the programme in 2024. Of those 114 projects, 40 are complete; seven are on site or have appointed a contractor; 14 are at the technical design and pre-tender stage; nine are at the spatial coordination and detailed design stage; six are at the concept design stage; 14 are at the preparation and brief stage; and 22 are on hold. One project is awaiting an integrated consultant team appointment, and another has returned to the strategic definition stage following reconsideration of the size of the school that is required and planning requirements on the preferred site that was identified. That outlines in detail the significant pipeline of work and the insufficient funding that has been allocated to my Department to take those projects forward, never mind wanting to add further capital projects that the education system requires and deserves. Mr Beattie: That answer was really interesting and, in many ways, answers my question. It is the type of question that allows us to bounce around constituency areas, as the Minister well knows. I have written to him about Portadown Integrated Nursery and Primary School, which has already jumped through all of the hoops that it needs to jump through and is waiting for the land to be purchased for its rebuild. Is the Minister able to give us a timeline on any progress for that school? Mr Givan: I thank the Member for his question. He and others in Upper Bann have asked that question of me. That school is at the point at which it requires capital funding. It has completed all four of the stages that need to be completed. There is an issue regarding the council about the final site, but, like a number of schools, it is at the point at which it can move forward if there is capital funding available to do so. Frustrating as it is, the school is at a much more advanced stage than many other schools, but it is still waiting to get the green light as a result of my Department's insufficient capital allocation. Tandragee Junior High School: New Build 5. Mr Irwin asked the Minister of Education for a timeline of the next steps in the process for a new build for Tandragee Junior High School. (AQO 2303/22-27) Mr Givan: A technical feasibility report has been completed by the integrated consultant team that identified options and costs to provide suitable accommodation for Tandragee Junior High School. A review of the options identified in the report was completed by the Department’s technical advisers in September 2024. A business case to identify the preferred option to be taken forward in design is being drafted by my Department’s economists and is at an advanced stage. It is anticipated that the business case will be finalised and that Department of Finance approval will be in place by the end of this year. Mr Irwin: I thank the Minister for his response. When will construction on the new school start? Mr Givan: I thank Mr Irwin for raising the issue. He pushes not just for that school but for other schools in his constituency. Following the completion and approval of the business case, the preferred option will be progressed through the next design stages, which are stages 2, 3 and 4, so considerable work is to be carried forward before the school gets to the point at which we will be able to move towards allocating a contract for construction. Again, that will be subject to the availability of the capital budget. Let me assure the Member of the fact that, as he continues to push hard for the schools in his constituency, I will continue to make all the representation that is needed in the Executive for what is required in terms of a significant, additional and sustained capital increase for the Department of Education. That is what we need to allow projects such as Tandragee Junior High School, along with other schools, to move forward. Educational Underachievement: Parents and Primary Caregivers 6. Mr Harvey asked the Minister of Education to outline any additional focus that can be placed on the role of parents and primary caregivers, within the current strategies to address educational underachievement, to ensure that they are equipped to support the work of educators. (AQO 2304/22-27) Mr Givan: Parental participation is a cornerstone of the educational process and, indeed, success, with strong evidence linking parental engagement to improved outcomes. Recognising that, my Department has integrated parental engagement across strategies and programmes aimed at tackling underachievement. Sure Start empowers parents as their child's first educators. Through shared reading and positive home learning, initiatives such as Getting Ready to Learn help parents to support language, confidence and communication. The SEN reform agenda also seeks to help parents to support their children. The RAISE programme promotes a whole-community approach to tackling educational disadvantage. Strategic area plans have been developed for each locality and have been informed by stakeholders, including parents. Under the extended schools programme, schools receive additional funding to promote parental engagement and build stronger school-community links. Other geographically targeted initiatives, such as the full service programmes, Sharing the Learning and the west Belfast community project, support families through all phases of education, helping to reduce barriers and improve outcomes. School attendance is also a key driver of achievement, and parents play a central role in ensuring regular attendance. To support that, the Department and the Education Welfare Service produced 'School Attendance Matters: A Parent's Guide', offering practical advice to help parents understand their responsibilities. Mr Harvey: I thank the Minister for all that he is doing to tackle underachievement. The Minister will agree that education in the home that supports the work of teachers is vital in tackling underachievement. Can anything more be done through targeted support so that there is greater engagement in education from parents? Mr Givan: I echo Mr Harvey's comments. It is vital that we help. I know no parent who does not want to get the best educational outcomes for their children, but, often, they need help to do it. There is support through the extended schools programmes. There is an uplift of around 15% for participating schools in their allocation to offer their parental engagement programming. In the 2025-26 financial year, almost £1 million of funding will be provided for parental engagement under the extended schools programme. When it comes to a bid from the public sector transformation fund for SEN reform, £27·5 million has also been confirmed by the Finance Minister. That will allow us to take forward a number of interventions over the next five years, including projects that will have direct interface with parents and carers. We also have the Sure Start programme, which has been expanded to enable more children and families to avail themselves of that vital educational development. A 10% uplift in 2024-25 enabled 22 new areas to come into that programme, which supports 2,400 additional children and their families. There will be a further 11% uplift in 2025-26, and that will enable the introduction of an outreach provision to additional children and families who have been identified as being in need of Sure Start support and live outside the Sure Start geographical areas. The Sure Start budget in 2025-26 will be £37·4 million: that is a significant increase. The Book Trust budget will be £75,000: that will help engage parents in reading. The Getting Ready to Learn budget will be £634,000. Mr Speaker: Time is up on every front. Mr Givan: All those measures are designed to support parents to support children. Top 3.15 pm Mr Speaker: We will move to topical questions. Ministerial Accountability T1. Mr McCrossan asked the Minister of Education whether, given that, since taking office, he has gone on what looks like a solo run, upending the curriculum, rewriting inspection rules, picking fights with the integrated education sector, tearing up today's guidance and hand-picking appointments to significant positions, he believes that he owes any accountability to his Executive colleagues and whether his colleagues ever challenge him on his maverick ministerial approach. (AQT 1511/22-27) Mr Givan: People choose to go into opposition because they do not want to take responsibility; others choose to go into government to take responsibility. I am a Minister who will take that responsibility seriously on behalf of the people who elected me, and I will take decisions. I am not here to passively occupy this post; I am here to get things done. My track record in the Department of Education has delivered £14 million of funding to hard-working families through a new childcare scheme; 2,500 full-time places that were previously part-time in our nursery schools; new teacher recruits, who started on £23,000 when I came into office but are now on £31,500; a significant uplift in teachers' pay; a transformational programme of professional development for our teachers; and the establishment of a curriculum task force that will look at every subject to ensure that we are not just good in the United Kingdom but world-class. I am proud of the track record that I have delivered in the Department of Education, which is underpinned by the manifesto commitments that our party gave to the electorate. Mr McCrossan: It seems that I have hit a nerve, Minister, but here is some truth: SEN kids are being failed and schools are crumbling on your watch; you have lost a court case against the integrated education movement; and you continue to spin things to suit your own case. Is it not the truth, Minister, that you have treated the Department of Education like your personal fiefdom, pushing through divisive change without consensus, ignoring consultation responses and leaving parents, teachers and pupils to deal with the fallout? When will you start governing for the whole system rather than for your own narrow agenda? Mr Givan: The Member is absolutely wrong. He would know that if he had even looked at the court ruling on the Integrated Education Fund challenge to the strategy. That document was not published by me; it was published when Stormont was not operating. That was a settlement of the outworkings of a position that I had reached with the Integrated Education Fund, which took the case, as a result of my work to update the document on integration. The Integrated Education Fund agreed that I had got it right. Before I came into post, under direct rule, people had got it wrong. The most basic level of information would have saved the Member's embarrassment at getting his facts completely wrong. I am proud of the Department of Education's track record. What we have achieved in the past 18 months will pale in comparison with what we will do in the next 18 months on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland. Transgender Issues in Schools T2. Mr Middleton asked the Minister of Education to update the Assembly on the current policy position on transgender issues in schools. (AQT 1512/22-27) Mr Givan: I thank the Member for the question that he has raised. It is an important one, and the deputy First Minister touched on it. In May this year, I outlined my clear position on behalf of the Department in respect of such matters. I do not believe that a boy who identifies as a girl should participate in girls' competitive sports or that they should use girls' changing and toilet facilities. The UK Supreme Court's ruling in April made it clear that the interpretation of "male" and "female" in the Equality Act 2010 had to be based on biological reality. The 1973 regulations on school premises state that schools have to provide toilet facilities for those above the age of six on the basis of their being a boy or a girl. The ordinary and natural meaning of that is around their biological reality. The position is one of common sense. Yes, absolutely, sensitivity is required in navigating those issues, but the position that I outlined in May has been affirmed in the legal opinion that I received, and that underpinned the decision taken for the Education Authority to immediately withdraw its unlawful and flawed guidance in the area. Mr Middleton: I thank the Minister for his response. Like many parents, I welcome his guidance and leadership on the issue. Minister, I would be grateful if you could outline your Department's assessment of the position of the Equality Commission on these issues. Mr Givan: Following the UK Supreme Court judgement, rather than providing guidance, the Equality Commission said that that decision would be "highly persuasive" in similar situations, should they go to court or before tribunal. The Equality Commission then — wrongly, in my view — went down the route of issuing pre-action protocol letters to over 60 public bodies, I believe, including the Department of Education, to solicit their views. It then went to the High Court to seek some form of declaration to help inform how it would provide its own guidance. That approach is not the convention for how we take decisions on policy that can then be challenged and refined by the courts. It is highly irregular for the Equality Commission to act in the way that it has, and it is a waste of public funding, of which the Equality Commission is in generous receipt. I responded to that pre-action protocol to indicate that it is a waste of public funding. It is also a waste of court time. The courts need to deal with serious issues and with the criminals that come before them, rather than the speculative approach adopted by the Equality Commission. I have shared the approach that I took of responding legally to the Equality Commission with the arm's-length bodies of the Department of Education, and I expect them to take a similar approach; indeed, I encourage all public bodies to treat the Equality Commission's endeavours with the contempt that they deserve. Integrated Schools: Reasonable Numbers T3. Miss McIlveen asked the Minister of Education, having congratulated him on his work over the summer, whether he will provide an update on his approach to reasonable numbers for schools that are transforming to integrated status. (AQT 1513/22-27) Mr Givan: I thank the Member for that question. I recently published a written ministerial statement that set out my approach to the concept of "reasonable numbers" in the context of integrated education. That is a key consideration under articles 71 and 92 of the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 and is now further defined in the Integrated Education Act (Northern Ireland) 2022. Put simply, the legislation requires that a school that is seeking to become integrated must be "likely to provide integrated education". That includes educating reasonable numbers of Protestant and Catholic pupils together, a principle that has been central to integrated education since its inception. I will be clear: the Department will not apply a rigid, one-size-fits-all definition. I recognise that local circumstances vary. I believe, however, that meaningful integration must be grounded in a genuine mix of pupils from both traditions. Transformation should reflect genuine integration and not just a change in designation. Therefore, as a general principle, the Department will expect transformation proposals to demonstrate that a school is likely to attract at least 10% of its year 1 or year 8 intake from the minority religion or that 15% of the combined number of Protestant and Catholic pupils will be from the minority religion in the first year of transformation. The balance should improve over time, with an aspiration for there to be broadly similar proportions from both communities. My approach has been informed by the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education (NICIE) 'Statement of Principles'; by academic research, such as that on contact theory; and by the lived experience of integrated schools across Northern Ireland. I trust that that provides clarity to the Member and to Members more widely. Miss McIlveen: I thank the Minister for his response. Will he provide an assessment of how schools that have previously transformed to integrated status have fared with regard to reasonable numbers? I am conscious of the fact that the controlled school sector is demonised by ideologues who preach about the label of "integration". Mr Givan: Controlled schools often provide a higher level of integrated status demographically than some integrated schools. They should be given the respect that should be afforded to them. In reviewing the demographic outcomes for schools that have transformed to integrated status, there are findings that should raise concern. Among six post-primary schools that have transformed, most have not met the year 1 target of 10% minority representation, and none of them approaches the 40:40:20 aspiration articulated by many in the integrated sector. In some cases, the proportion of pupils from the minority community is as low as one tenth of the majority. The picture is similar in primary schools. Of the 25 that have transformed, many still show a significant imbalance, even decades after transformation. Some have fewer than five pupils from the minority community. Those findings suggest that transformation, unlike newly established integrated schools, is not reliably producing the reasonable numbers that define integrated education. Childcare and Early Years Provision T4. Mr Frew asked the Minister of Education to provide an update on childcare and early years provision for the benefit of the Assembly and the education of Members from the Opposition. (AQT 1514/22-27) Mr Givan: I intend to bring forward a strategy on early learning and childcare in the autumn of 2025 that will support child development and make childcare more affordable, enabling parents to work. Recognising the need for immediate support, I secured £25 million of Executive funding in the previous financial year, followed by £55 million this year, to implement a package of measures. That investment has made a tangible difference to thousands of children and families across Northern Ireland. While I recognise that the Opposition want to portray Stormont as not delivering, those measures are being delivered by Stormont. For those who advocate not having this place, the measures would not have been delivered under direct rule. It is only because the Executive agreed to ring-fence and provide the funding, and I accept that it was supported by other parties on the Executive. A DUP Minister has delivered the scheme, having stood it up from scratch and implemented it. Many other Departments announce strategies and proposals that are never implemented. When DUP Ministers announce what they are going to do, they get on and do it, and that is what we have been able to do with that scheme. Mr Frew: I thank the Minister for that comprehensive answer. Has any assessment been done of how many additional parents have become eligible because of the extension of the scheme this September? Mr Givan: Initially, the financial support was restricted to the nought-to-five age group, because that is the most expensive period for childcare. We had 16,000 registered people in receipt of financial support of around £180 a month per child. That has had a real impact, because we bolted it on to the UK tax-free scheme. Having looked at further opportunities to expand the scheme, we have increased it to primary-school-age children, so it is now available from nought to 11 years of age. So far, with the scheme having just been extended, a further 4,000 people have registered, which means that 20,000 people are now in receipt of that financial support. We believe that more people could tap into the scheme, so we continue to engage on the issue. I appeal in particular to the schools that provide wrap-around support to sign up to the scheme. We know, for example, that 70 schools are registered for the UK tax-free scheme, but only 14 of that 70 have signed up to this scheme. There is a minimal administrative process, and the Department will meet the costs of it. Some parents have appealed to me about schools, including some in my constituency, that have not registered for the scheme. All the support that a school needs to carry out the administrative work is there, but we need schools to sign up to the scheme if they are going to provide that support. We believe that thousands more people can avail themselves of the support that we have been able to bring forward. Top 3.30 pm School Transport Policy: Bus Passes T5. Mr Honeyford asked the Minister of Education, who says that he is the Minister who delivers and who shares the Member's Lagan Valley constituency, given that, in September every year, pupils come to the Member about the fact that they did not get a bus pass, because they were not told at the time of applying for schools in their area that they had to apply for the two grammar schools even though they were not going to be accepted, what he is doing about that policy, which does not work and is not fair. (AQT 1515/22-27) Mr Speaker: Briefly, Minister. Mr Givan: The transport policy has been in place for years. I agree with the Member: some of its outworkings provide challenges and frustrations for many parents. You need to apply for a school that you do not believe that you will attend in order to get rejected, and then you can go to an alternative school to qualify for a bus pass. I certainly share the frustration about that process. I want to carry out a review of the transport policy. The policy's operational implementation is carried out by the Education Authority. It reaches the decisions on the distance from home to school and tests the distance to alternative schools that you could attend based on the sector that you apply to. I understand and, indeed, share the sentiments that have been expressed by the Member. Mr Speaker: That brings to a conclusion questions to the Minister of Education. Question for Urgent Oral Answer Health Gender Identity Services: Cass Review of Provision in Northern Ireland Mr Speaker: Jonathan Buckley has given notice of a question for urgent oral answer to the Minister of Health. I remind Members that, if they wish to ask a supplementary question, they should rise continually in their place. The Member who tabled the question will be called automatically to ask a supplementary question. Mr Buckley asked the Minister of Health to set out the terms of reference for the assessment of gender identity services provision in Northern Ireland to be carried out by Baroness Hilary Cass. Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): When I spoke to Dr Cass, I asked her whether she was prepared to come to Belfast in order to conduct a short, sharp quality assurance review of our gender identity service. She has agreed to come with a small team of independent experts to do that in the coming weeks. Mr Buckley: Minister, in all such discussions, I start from the position of common sense, namely that it is an indisputable, biological fact that a man is a man and a woman is a woman. Therefore, can the Minister confirm that any gender services that are commissioned by his Department will not affirm self-proclaimed definitions that deny biological reality and that, as reported in some cases, children as young as five will not be subject to manipulation or indoctrination in affirming a biological impossibility? Will the Minister explain why he is undertaking the review now, rather than before he allocated £800,000 of public money? Mr Nesbitt: I can confirm that the service will not be an affirming one. For the avoidance of doubt, when the Member says "affirming", I think that he means that, if a young person goes to the service and says, "I believe that I am the wrong gender", the service will immediately move to change their gender through surgery. That will not happen. Nobody will be coerced. Why am I bringing in Dr Cass? It is because I heard people, including Members of the House and specifically Mr Buckley, claim or make statements in media commentary that implied that it is an affirming service. Indeed, he did so on the radio in a debate that included Alexa Moore from the Rainbow Project. Alexa made it clear that it is not an affirming service. She said that that is what they wanted, but they did not get it. In order to tackle the misinformation from people such as Mr Buckley, I decided that the best way to assure ourselves that the gender identity service that we offer is Cass-compliant is to bring in an independent expert to review it, and who better as the independent expert than Dr Cass? Mr McGuigan: Minister, what consultation was done with the LGBTQ+ community in advance of announcing the review? Further to that, what reassurance can you give that community, particularly the trans community, that this will not cause further undue delays in the provision of needed support and services? Mr Nesbitt: We have had ongoing consultation with stakeholders on the design of our service but not with Dr Cass. That was my call. For completeness, I will share all the information. Dr Cass is coming with three other experts. Camilla Kingdon is a paediatrician and the immediate past president of her royal college. She is chair of the National Provider Network, the group that coordinates clinical approaches, education, audit and research across the new centres. Julie Alderson is a psychologist and the clinical director of the new Bristol service. She has also been a key figure in training our new staff on the shared holistic assessment framework that is used across all the new centres. By the way, when I say, "new centres", the Member will be aware that Wes Streeting, the Secretary of State, closed the gender identity service at Tavistock and is now creating six new regional centres in England. Finally, Judith Ellis is a nurse by background. She chaired the original multi-professional review group, which ensured that children and young people who were referred for puberty blockers had been through the appropriate consent, safeguarding and other processes. She has been a chief nurse at the Great Ormond Street Hospital, has had numerous other roles and has a lot of experience in education, quality assurance and setting standards. Ms Bradshaw: Thank you, Minister, for coming to the Chamber to answer the question for urgent oral answer. Many years ago, I visited Brackenburn Clinic and engaged with the healthcare professionals who were there, and I can confirm that they worked in the very best interests of the children and their families and their particular circumstances. Given that Cass is almost infamous in the whole public discourse, did you consider engaging somebody else with that professionalism to carry out the review? Mr Nesbitt: The answer to that is no. Mr McGrath: I thank the Minister for his answers so far and for giving us this information. This is a process question. There has been £865,000 allocated. Is the review of the implementation of the services that were already in place? The review is due to last for just two days. Can you give us an assurance that those who are in the system at present will continue to receive the services and that the review will only impact on future service delivery? Mr Nesbitt: Just for the record, the investment is £806,000, not the figure that the Member mentioned. That is for the service going forward. Very little has changed except that, previously, we had two services: a children's service known as KOI — Knowing Our Identity — and an adult service. The Member is well versed in health and social care provision, and he will be aware that it is far from unique for a move from one to the other not to mean being in one on a Sunday night and in the other on Monday morning. You hit a cliff edge and go back on a very long waiting list. That is why we decided that we needed the single lifetime service. The big changes are the ones that are Cass-compliant, which put a greater emphasis on psychological and psychiatric interventions. It is my understanding that, since the service began in 2014 — the money for it was signed off in 2013 — very few people have been referred to England for surgery. Very few. Mr Carroll: Minister, this morning you attended, alongside me and other MLAs, a mental health awareness event in the Long Gallery. What assessment have you or your officials made of the impact of implementing a Cass report mark II in the North? How will that impact on the health and mental health of trans and non-binary people who, as the Minister will know, already suffer from higher rates of mental ill-health and isolation due to the anti-trans rhetoric that is directed at them? I share the concerns of the Member for South Belfast at inviting Hilary Cass over here, given her report and how it has been discredited across the board. Mr Nesbitt: I note the Member's comments. The previous Government in London, in which Victoria Atkins was the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, wanted to bring in a temporary ban on puberty blockers. Eventually, the Executive joined in, extending that ban to Northern Ireland and, as the Member knows, that is now an indefinite ban, pending the results of clinical trials on puberty blockers. When I spoke to some of the families and the young people who wanted access to our gender identity service — Know Our Identity — it became clear that the wait was way too long. In fact, they were saying that there is not even a waiting list: the service was simply not taking new referrals because it was not resourced. The consequence of that was that loving parents, who wanted to do their best for their children, were turning to private providers. Who in the House, as a father or a mother, might not think that they would do the same thing? One example that I was given — I think that I am right in this case — was of a private provider who was Spanish, based in Romania and prescribing puberty blockers out of Singapore. Where was the safety or regulation in that? However, because I was being told that the only reason why people are going to the private providers is because our service exists only in name for young people who want to get a new referral to it, I decided that we must find the money to make the service work. Mrs Dodds: I thank the Minister. This is a sensitive and difficult subject. I reflect on the fact that we were not on our own in expressing some concerns, given that two very senior members of the Minister's own party expressed the same concerns. My question is very specifically about consent, because that is a really important issue for parents. If a young person is referred to the gender identity clinic, as it is now constituted, before the Cass review, do they have to have parental consent? The Minister said that "very few people" were recommended for surgery, so will he elaborate on that a little bit more and tell the House how many were actually recommended for life-altering surgery, bearing in mind that the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland believe biological sex to be a reality in fact? Mr Nesbitt: I will come back to the Member on the exact number, because I do not have it to hand. Consent is a crucial issue. Knowing our Identity, or KOI, is a service that comes under the child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS), and, as with all CAMHS services, parental participation and consent are required. The one caveat is that there are such things as the Gillick competence and Fraser guidelines for healthcare. They could — not "will" — be applicable, but that depends on the age and competence of the child. The Gillick competence and Fraser guidelines help people who work with children to balance the need to listen to children's wishes with the responsibility to keep them safe. Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for coming to the Chamber today. I want to reflect on the fact that we need to move away from the argument of whether something is gender-affirming and really take cognisance of the fact that trans people exist. Trans young people exist, and they should be included and welcomed in society. Today is not a great day for some young people, who might feel that the measure paves the way for bullying, in particular, in their schools. What plans does the Minister's Department have to ensure that any new service, following this review, will align with international best practice, including the World Health Organization's classification of gender incongruence, which brought gender care out of mental health and into sexual health? Mr Nesbitt: On the Member's last point, I have met families who are not happy that the pathway into Knowing our Identity is via CAMHS, because it is a mental health service. I am aware of that, but we have not been able to come up with a suitable alternative, so I am afraid that CAMHS it is. I agree with the Member that we need to move away from the debate about whether it is an affirming service. That is because, first of all, it is not an affirming service. There is no point speculating about it: that is the fact. Secondly, the debate should be about what is best for those young people and their families. Ms Brownlee: I thank the Minister for coming to the Chamber today. The media reported that children who are as young as five access gender services in Northern Ireland. As a mum of a five-year-old, I know how young and vulnerable those children are, and they are just learning to count. Will the Minister ensure the protection of our young people in the service by ensuring that they are not subjected to any life-changing medical interventions? Top 3.45 pm Mr Nesbitt: I acknowledge the statistic that the Member brought up about the five-year-old. I want to be clear that that did not happen on my watch; that was some time ago. I have already made it clear to the House that there will be no attempt to persuade, coerce or force a young person to move towards the most radical and life-altering step of surgery to alter them physically. The service will start with an emphasis on psychological and psychiatric support. There will also be speech therapy. The idea is to try to help. I found that surprising about the five year old, but I suppose the argument is this: if you are a young person and you are really concerned about who you are and are literally not comfortable in your own skin, do you have to be a certain age before you are allowed to talk to somebody about it? I do not think so, and I do not think that parents think so either. Mr O'Toole: It is important to talk sensibly about the issue and to unpack some myths. It is important, first of all, to say that trans people exist and trans young people are members of society who deserve healthcare, support, respect and esteem like everybody else. Earlier, two things that feel like myths were mentioned. Partly, they were mentioned to discredit them, but they need to be properly discredited. The first is that care generally means that young people are pushed towards immediate surgery, and the second is that people are coerced. Will he outline whether he has any evidence of either of those things happening in Northern Ireland? I would like to hear it, because I am not aware of any campaigner or medical practitioner who would ever advocate immediate surgical intervention or coercion at all. Does he want to unpack those myths and reject them? Some people are desperate to push the myths about what it means for what is, after all, a small and pretty vulnerable group of people and their parents? Mr Nesbitt: Let me put it this way, which, I hope, will be an assurance to the Member: if I were given incontrovertible evidence that that sort of thing was happening and was being promulgated by a member of the workforce delivering gender identity services, I would want to eyeball that person and say, "At least one of us has to go". Miss McIlveen: Will the Minister confirm, as referenced in the media, that the Rainbow Project was part of the gender clinic review group putting pressure on the clinicians to ignore the Cass review recommendations and, as such, was briefed on the Minister's plans before they were brought to the Executive? If so, how appropriate was that? Mr Nesbitt: The stakeholders, including the Rainbow Project, were brought into discussions about the way forward. That is entirely consistent with co-design, so I do not get the implication in the question that, somehow, that was wrong. The matter of regret for me is that it asked for and was given permission to talk to the wider stakeholder group about what we were proposing. I do not believe that the media were stakeholders, but they became aware of it and published that information. It would have been much preferable if it had come, as is normal, through the Department of Health. Mrs Dillon: In relation to the previous response, do you agree that, across the Executive, we have been clear, whether we are talking about victims and survivors of domestic and sexual violence, victims and survivors of historical institutional abuse, victims and survivors of mother-and-baby homes or those who, unfortunately, suffer suicide in their families or addiction, that, in every instance, those most impacted and those who understand it should be engaged with and listened to and that that is exactly why the Rainbow Project was involved in that conversation? Mr Nesbitt: Just before I respond to Mrs Dillon, I want to address something that I have not addressed, which is the idea that the plan was in the public domain before I briefed the Executive. I can confirm that that was the case because we did not make the announcement; it came via the Rainbow Project. To Mrs Dillon, the beauty of the National Health Service — the glorious, glorious concept — is that it does not matter who you are. If you need health and social care, you get it for free. Yes, all of those groups — those vulnerable groups that were let down by people like us, people in authority, be they politicians or people who were running institutions or whatever — have been hurt and let down, and they all deserve our attention. If anybody is trying to say that we should deliver health and social care only for the people whom we approve of, then, once again, count me out. Mr Martin: I think that the Minister has answered this, but I will give him the chance to be clearer. In answer to the supplementary question from my colleague from Upper Bann, he used the word "surgery". I will rephrase the question: does he agree that any counselling service for gender dysphoric children that the new service will provide will not be gender-affirming? Mr Nesbitt: It will not be gender-affirming. If you mean that somebody is going to come in and say, "I believe I am a girl, not a boy", we will not simply say, "Right, we are going to make that happen for you". Ms Mulholland: I thank the Minister for coming to the House. Will he outline how he will include buy-in into the future services from the sector and the individuals that this concerns, given that, previously, they have felt that they have been ignored or excluded from previous reviews? They have indicated that, currently, they have no faith in what they are calling "this two-day review", especially as they believe that the Department trailed out the previous and earlier review for years. Mr Nesbitt: Stakeholders were involved in the discussions that have led to this lifespan gender identity service. My officials have assured me that that has happened and that stakeholders are as happy as possible with what we propose. They also believe, as I do, that what we are doing is compliant with the Cass recommendations. When Dr Cass comes, she will do that short, sharp quality assurance that that is the case. There is no need for stakeholders to be involved in that, because the four people will be talking to the clinicians and the team who will deliver the service to make sure that everything is as we believe it should be. That is the nature of an independent review. Ms Forsythe: We know the pressure that the Executive are under in the current financial climate, especially with the health budget. The choice to fund the gender identity services is a choice over something else. In the interest of full transparency, what is the £806,000 that has been awarded for? Is it for the set-up? Is it the full cost for 2025-26? What are his plans and foresight for what the annual cost of running the service will be? Mr Nesbitt: I will run through some of the costs. The Member's opening remarks take me back to this point: we do not decide who does and does not deserve to have access to medical health and social care services for what they need or believe that they need. We will not cherry-pick on that. A lot of the money will go on staffing and the workforce for the new service. There will be a psychologist, which comes in at over £100,000, and there will be a service manager, a practitioner, another lower-band psychologist, administrative support, a medical secretary, a nurse, a pharmacy technician — that sort of thing. The figures all add up. Mr Bradley: Earlier, the Minister referenced "we", not "I". For the sake of clarity, will the Minister define who "we" refers to in his conversation? You talk about experts. My daughter is a nurse practitioner. She is my expert: she is whom I take my advice from. I would like you to explain to the House who is giving you advice, because this is certainly not your decision. You are acting on behalf of others who are making a decision, and you are the frontman. Mr Nesbitt: I am afraid that I am at a loss to remember when I said "we" rather than "I", but, as a general rule, if I say "we", you can take it that I mean "I", because I am the Minister, and the buck stops with me. Regarding the advice that you get, I am sure that your daughter's is first class. My advice has come from, for example, officials, CAMHS and the Knowing Our Identity service — people who are professional, expert and experienced in such things — and we have taken those ideas and consulted on them, as we should do. Maybe not in every debate or every day in the House, but that is a staple of how we deliver government services. We talk about co-design and co-production. That is how we have got to where we are today, and it is not the first time in this role and certainly not the first time in life that I have been given advice and thought, "I would like to bring in a little independent expert advice for some quality assurance". For example, I am reluctant to raise it, but, regarding the water issues at the maternity hospital, the Member will know that options were put to me with a recommendation for a specific option, and I refused to accept it. I said, "No, I want to bring in an independent expert to review and quality-assure what I'm being told, and then we will move forward". As with this, it does not delay moving to delivery, because I said to the trust, "You can go on with the design and continue to talk to consultants and experts about delivering your preferred option, and let us hope that that is where we end up". In the same way, the recruitment for the other posts that I have mentioned today and for those that I have not mentioned will continue, so bringing in Dr Cass and colleagues for a couple of days will not delay anything. Mr Gaston: Will the Minister confirm that the cost of the gender identity service is not a one-off cost but an annual cost of over £800,000; that this is only phase 1 of that service and a second phase to involve GPs will result in additional costs to the public purse; and that there are currently no costings in the public domain for medication, surgery and other treatments? Saying that the figures all add up, Minister, does not cut it with me. Let us be honest with the public: how much will the service cost? Mr Nesbitt: Obviously, there will be recurrent costs. It is not a service that will last until the end of the financial year or for a single financial year. With no disrespect to the Member, I think that making that point is redundant. As to the other costs that he mentions, I am not aware of any costs for primary care or for general practitioners. They will refer into CAMHS as they do for a lot of other issues. If the Member has fact on that that I do not have, I am more than happy to look at it. Mr Speaker: That concludes questions on the question for urgent oral answer. Private Members' Business Windsor Framework Debate resumed on motion: That this Assembly opposes the continued operation of the Windsor framework, including the application of EU law in Northern Ireland and the Irish Sea border that it creates; stresses that the present arrangements do not command cross-community support; expresses alarm that a recent UK-wide survey led by the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) found that 58% of businesses were having moderate to significant challenges as a result of the framework and that over a third had already ceased trade in Northern Ireland; though they wish to move beyond current arrangements, condemns the Government’s refusal to dismantle border control posts whilst at the same time subjecting movements of business parcels, veterinary medicines and used agricultural machinery to EU law; further condemns the Government's refusal to implement pre-existing agreements; believes that the independent review of the Windsor framework was a missed opportunity to propose solutions that are radical in moving beyond the current arrangements; calls on the Government to urgently change course in order to protect businesses, consumers and the integrity of the UK internal market; and further calls on the Government to practically demonstrate their commitment to fully restoring Northern Ireland’s place in the UK by insisting on an end to the democratic deficit sustained by the Windsor framework. — [Mr Brooks.] Which amendment was: Leave out all after "ceased trade in Northern Ireland" and insert: "notes that the recent independent review of the Windsor framework is a missed opportunity to recognise the trade, economic and sovereignty challenges to both Northern Ireland and to the integrity of the United Kingdom as a whole; further notes that the existing safeguards within the Windsor framework, including the democratic consent mechanism, the Stormont brake, voting against applicability motions within the Assembly, the oversight by the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee and the UK Government’s role in safeguarding the integrity of the United Kingdom have all failed to arrest continued divergence within the internal UK market, and further, that existing processes as introduced by HMRC and other agencies have added to the cost of doing business within Northern Ireland; is concerned that changes to sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) and other germane regulations will not be fully discussed between the UK Government and the EU until 2027, with likely implementation not until 2028 and beyond; and calls on the UK Government to use the existing provisions within article 16 of the Windsor framework and pause all further implementation of the Windsor framework until after completion of the UK-EU reset negotiations in 2027, rather than blindly following the faithful implementation approach that is accelerating divergence within our nation." — [Dr Aiken.] Mr Kearney: Those paying attention to the debate — that is, if they are not preoccupied with cost-of-living pressures or concerns about housing and hospital waiting lists — could be forgiven for being perplexed as to what this rinse-and-repeat demand to dismantle the Windsor framework is really all about. The most recent data from Queen's University's 'Testing the Temperature' research has provided a snapshot of public opinion on, among other things, the Windsor framework itself. That polling shows that 58% of those surveyed think that the Windsor framework provides "unique economic opportunities" for the North. Invest NI asserts that the Windsor framework puts the North in the advantageous position of being the only global region able to trade goods freely with both the British and EU markets. Top 4.00 pm There have been various references to the FSB in the debate to date. The FSB has also called for a pragmatic and business-focused implementation of the Windsor framework, which is in all our interests. That is why the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee exists: to ensure the smooth and democratic implementation of the commitments that were made in the Windsor framework. The consequence of Brexit has been to create multiple challenges, which need to be carefully navigated. Of course, none of that was ever in the thought process of the Brexit cheerleaders. Like lemmings, they simply followed the mantra to get it done. Meanwhile, back in the real world, others have worked to straighten out their mess. We continue to do so. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Blair] in the Chair) The fact is that the majority support for the Windsor framework across the North stands in direct contradiction to the DUP claims that are contained in the motion, so what is the motion really about? The repeat posturing of the DUP on the Windsor framework has more to do with its own electoral and political pressure, as the TUV snaps at its heels. It is increasingly obvious that the DUP's political agenda is being set by the TUV. The 2027 Assembly election beckons, and we can expect a lot more of that between now and then. In reality, the debate is simply a proxy for intra-unionist competition between those two parties. It is nothing to do with being solution-focused in the interests of businesses, employers, workers or families. Truth be told, the motion is a distraction brought to us by the very people who campaigned for Brexit and, 10 years later, are still complaining about how it has all played out. It is time for the DUP to get real. The Windsor framework, friends, is here to stay. Here is a wee word to the wise: the DUP should stop mixing up the implementation of the Windsor framework with the pressure that it is under from the TUV. Everybody sees that for what it is. It would be much better if it were to finally accept reality and join the rest of us in being solution-focused and maximising opportunities for local businesses and the regional and all-Ireland economies. Mr Martin: The leader of the Opposition is not here. I cannot remember the exact phrase that he used, but "grow up" was perhaps it. The last time that I was told to grow up was maybe at school, but I am also pretty sure that my wife might have referred to that at some point during our marriage. I want to develop that a wee bit. I listened to the Member opposite, and I listened to the Member for Upper Bann. I have found a bit of the debate quite condescending. If the Members opposite brought a motion before the Assembly on something that they were passionate about, such as a united Ireland, for example, obviously, on this side, we would argue against that, but I do not think that we would demean the very nature of what they were bringing. The debate today has been demeaning. You may not agree with the issue that we are outlining with the framework. The Alliance Party might not agree, either. However, we are entitled to do so, because there are lots of people — not all people — whom we represent who care very passionately about the issue. It is their constitutional right to care about it. That is the tenor that has been outlined. Notwithstanding that, our party has been very clear and continues to be clear about the barriers to trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. They are unacceptable, and they undermine our internal market. I have no intention of repeating the points that were made by my colleague from East Belfast; instead, I will, for anyone who happens to be listening to today's debate, give some real-world examples of what this means and what the operation of the protocol means for our constituents. We are more than aware that, when we make an online purchase, perhaps on Amazon or eBay — other services are available — we see the dreaded pop-up that says, "Not for postage to Northern Ireland" or, "The seller will not post to Northern Ireland". That affects buying simple items. We also know that data from the Consumer Council supports that contention. In fact, even the recent ushering in of new arrangements around GPSR and business-to-business parcels is creating its own problems. Those consumer issues should be a concern to all of us. Dr Aiken: Will the Member give way? Mr Martin: I will indeed. Dr Aiken: Thank you very much, Peter. There is another concern that should be expressed. I cannot understand how Members on this side of the House have been approached by lots of companies and individuals telling us about the real and significant problems, yet they do not seem to be talking to anybody else in the Chamber. Can you think of any particular reason why that is the case? Is it, in fact, a case of Alliance, the SDLP — well, there is nobody from the SDLP here — and Sinn Féin being disingenuous? Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute. Mr Martin: The Member should be a barrister. He asked a question to which he knows fine well the answer. I simply suggest to the Member that you perhaps need to come to people on these Benches if you want something done about this. Perhaps the feeling among businesses out there is that, if you go somewhere else, no one will care. It is a wee bit like this debate. The IOD has said that its members are experiencing greater levels of bureaucracy when doing business GB to NI and that it makes it more costly to do so. If it makes it more costly for business, it makes it more costly for the people whom we serve and for consumers. Another industry that will soon face problems, as my party colleague Carla Lockhart pointed out in Parliament last week, is the car industry. Northern Ireland is being placed in an impossible position. While the rest of the United Kingdom will operate its own approval-type system from 2026, Northern Ireland will remain bound by EU rules. The result is that cars approved for sale in GB may not be registered here in Northern Ireland. It will mean less choice for families who need to buy a car, higher prices for consumers who are already under pressure and job losses in an industry that sustains over 17,000 individuals and generates £3 billion a year in our economy. I would have thought that those are things that we would be concerned about. In fact, the leader of the Opposition raised the cost-of-living crisis, but he is not even here to listen to this speech. In Committee last year, we heard about EU proposals that could see treatments for conditions such as cold sores and dandruff become prescription-only medicines. If adopted, that would place serious pressure on the Department of Health, GPs and pharmacies and also see serious delays for consumers who wish to purchase medicines. On the Committee, we are waiting to see what the EU does, as we frequently do, before deciding how we will respond. As a key component of the motion, we are asking for the Government to listen to the concerns of businesses here and in GB and to protect consumers and the integrity of our internal market. The remaining challenges cannot be addressed through improvements to the operational framework. No degree of tinkering can remove the overarching need to restore the democratic right of the people of Northern Ireland to make and change their own laws. My party will continue to work to secure the removal of the framework arrangements and will campaign with all those across the United Kingdom who are determined to see the end of the internal borders and barriers within our own country. Mr Speaker — sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker; I promoted you there — I ask Members to support the motion. Mr Honeyford: On the first day back, this is the first motion. A couple of weeks ago, we had an announcement that 19,000 young people between the ages of 16 and 24 are not in education, training or employment and have absolutely no hope of anything in the future, yet the DUP brings a motion on the Windsor framework. You could not make this up. It is negative and anti-business. It is not about jobs, skills or stability. It is just more drama and more of the DUP talking Northern Ireland down, as it continually does. The previous Member who spoke confirmed that this has nothing to do with the economy or business; it is about their constitutional rights. That is all that this is about. However, the bit that the DUP cannot get its head around is that it holds the responsibility for the Windsor framework. It did not fall from the sky. It is a result of the choices that you guys all made all those years ago. That is why we got a hard Brexit: your obsession with it, your objection to softer deals and your collapsing this place. You created the conditions for which we needed the Windsor framework. The problems are your own. If you want to go and talk about it, have a committee somewhere in a room, and go and deal with your problems, but do not bring to us your "no, nay, never" politics, which are anti-stability, anti-investment and anti-opportunity, when we want this place to move forward. (Mr Speaker in the Chair) You asked what business wants. Over the summer, I spoke to representatives from the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the CBI, and I met representatives from the FSB twice. They all want stability and less drama in order to allow businesses to operate. They want us to stay out of the road and allow businesses to make money. Business is crying out for stability and certainty. It does not need the DUP to talk this place down. Let us talk about facts. Northern Ireland to GB trade is up by 12%. Actually, it is 12·4%, which is more than 12%. GB to Northern Ireland trade went up by 16% in the past year. Our economy is growing faster than that of any other region in the UK. The UK economy is not growing at any rate, but, for the first time in a long time, we are better than anywhere else as the UK limps along. That is thanks to access to the EU markets and the UK market. You quoted the FSB, but, actually, the motion completely misquotes it. Steve constantly makes a declaration of interest at the start of every contribution, so I might as well copy him. I am a member of the FSB, and I declare that. I have huge respect for what it does. I come from a business background. However, there were 778 responses from the 5·5 million businesses that are in the UK. The FSB itself said at Committee that that is not representative of 5·5 million businesses. Of those 778 responses, 112 were from Northern Ireland. The FSB does not claim that a third of businesses have stopped trading, so for the motion to do so is not only inaccurate but a downright, complete manipulation of what was said. I want to give a positive story about a business in Upper Bann that is in an area that will come into Lagan Valley after the next election. We keep hearing in this place that we have not seen dual market access. I have talked about Coca-Cola and that success. I have talked about Monster Energy drinks and that success. I have talked about PRM Group, and Marks and Spencer was mentioned. There has been an increase in business in 1,000 lines for Marks and Spencer in Lisburn because of dual market access. There is also Leckey. I could go on. I will talk, however, about Leprino in Magheralin. Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for giving way. Does the Member agree that the biggest challenge that is being outlined to us all is, I suggest, if my connections with business are anything to go by, access to workforce and Brexit's being a block to workforce? Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute. Mr Honeyford: Yes, 100%. On Friday, I met representatives from Leprino, which was Glanbia. Michelle Guy and I met them to talk about skills and the problem that they are having in bringing in workforce. They are bringing in skills, and apprenticeships are growing. The degree pathway is coming in, but there are also opportunities for people who work on the ground floor, as they are able to be promoted from within. That company will grow by 15% in the next two years. Leprino is moving all its production to Magheralin in Upper Bann. What is the reason? I did not say anything; I just asked why it is happening, and the simple answer was that it is because of Brexit and dual market access. From here, we can access Europe, the South, with the all-island economy, and GB. Leprino is creating jobs and more employment in the area to add to the success of Coca-Cola, PRM and Leckey in my constituency. It is a joke that, on the very first day back, a negative motion has been tabled that is inaccurate, looks backwards and completely talks us down rather than allowing this place to grow. Alliance, however, will always tell the story of creating jobs and skills, bringing investment and wanting to see opportunities, be they in Upper Bann, Lagan Valley or North Antrim. We want this place to do well. We want it to be better for people and to create jobs and put money in their pockets. Top 4.15 pm Mrs Dodds: Mr Speaker, I apologise: my phone went off; I forgot to put it on silent. The protocol and its successor, the Windsor framework, have overshadowed political and economic life in Northern Ireland for far too long. We have heard a range of views on that today. We have seen the sneering — I see it again from the Member opposite — from nationalists, with unionists expected to, "Suck it up". We have experienced all those things in the Chamber today, but we will continue to talk about the Windsor framework and the protocol because that is important. It was heralded as a solution — Dr Aiken: Will the Member take an intervention? Mrs Dodds: Yes. Dr Aiken: It is only a wee short one, Diane. A Member talked about the changes in rates of trade back and forth. Has anybody identified the fact that those changes in trade equate to the diversion? If anybody were to look at the trade back and forth across the Irish Sea rather than just through a particular bit, they would see clearly where the trade diversions lie. When we talk about respectful debate, I wonder whether people will bother to do a critical analysis of the trade figures. Over to you. Thank you, Diane. Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute. Mrs Dodds: I thank the Member, and I will come to some of those issues. At a time when people expect unionists simply to, "Suck it up", the tone from the Members opposite in the debate has been appalling. The Windsor framework and the protocol were imposed without the support of unionism. They handed lawmaking powers in vast areas of our economy to Brussels, and they drove that trade border through our internal market in the United Kingdom. What was heralded as a solution has left us with a core problem. Let us be absolutely clear and honest today: the core problem is that EU law still has primacy in Northern Ireland. Therefore, businesses face obstacles, consumers still pay the price and the democratic deficit is as glaring as ever. That is why this is important, and that is why we will hold to our mandate to restore Northern Ireland's full and equal place in the United Kingdom. The findings of the Murphy review confirm what we suspected all along. Instead of tackling the root issues, the report fell short. It avoided hard questions, and it failed to challenge the core assumptions of the protocol. Lord Murphy and his colleagues described some of the problems that businesses and consumers face, but shining a light on a problem is not the same as solving it. The central difficulty is a constitutional one — yes, the Member is laughing. I know that you do not like that, but, in a respectful debate, you would acknowledge that it is important to this side of the House. That laughter is appalling. The constitutional difficulty is the imposition of foreign law in this part of the United Kingdom without democratic consent. That is the truth of the matter. The review was hamstrung from the beginning, because its terms of reference insisted that any recommendations carry cross-community support. In practice, that gave nationalists a veto over the outcome, hence the attitude that we see in the Chamber today. A Member: Will the Member give way? Mrs Dodds: I will if you give me one minute to finish this point. The result was inevitable: no challenge to the Irish Sea border; no demand for the repatriation of powers; and no recognition that genuine change will require fresh legal arrangements with the EU. In short, the Murphy review ducked the fundamental question of how to restore Northern Ireland's full place in the United Kingdom's internal market. It was a tick-box exercise rather than a serious attempt to resolve constitutional and economic damage. Mr O'Toole: I thank the Member for giving way, and I will try to be brief. She mentioned cross-community consent and cross-community views. First, I have never ever demeaned or diminished unionist opposition to the protocol: I have not. Mr Buckley: You did it earlier. Mr O'Toole: Let me just say that being robust and challenging is not the same as being disrespectful, Mr Buckley. The Member talked about cross-community consent, but is it not, by definition, impossible to have cross-community consent on a post-Brexit arrangement because Brexit, by definition, does not have cross-community consent? Mrs Dodds: I will address your first point. I find it a bit rich of you to say that you did not have a demeaning attitude. You were the person who told us to "grow up" and sort it out. That attitude to what is a fundamental question for unionism shows us all what Alliance, the SDLP and Sinn Féin are all about. Let me be clear about the Windsor framework. It continues to drive up costs, reduces consumer choice and diverts supply chains, which goes back to your point. Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up. Mrs Dodds: Oh. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. [Laughter.] Mr Gaston: Well, it did not take long. On our first day back, we have already seen the sneering of the nationalist and republican alliance in the House. It has re-emerged after the summer break, all to hide their embarrassment at the decision and the call that they made for the rigorous implementation of the protocol. That is the very action that brought the barriers to the businesses that they rubbish in the House today. The motion is one that all unionists will support and that all democrats should support. It is a nonsense for some in the Chamber to call themselves a Social Democratic and Labour Party, yet back a state of affairs whereby, in over 300 areas, we are subject to laws that we do not make and cannot change. It is hypocrisy for the Alliance Party to claim that it is concerned about building a united community while treating unionist concerns with contempt, trampling on the very principle of cross-community consent that it claims to champion. Sinn Féin failed to move the border by the gun or the bomb, but, under the protocol, Larne has become a frontier town, with the border shifted to the Irish Sea. Unionists in the House were elected on a clear mandate on which all unionists were agreed and united: the united unionist declaration that was agreed under the auspices of the Orange Order. The protocol must be rejected and replaced with arrangements that fully respect Northern Ireland's position as a constituent and integral part of the United Kingdom. Once upon a time, Mr Gordon Lyons said: "If there is a choice between remaining in office or implementing the protocol in its present form, the only option for any unionist Minister would be to cease to hold such office." Where is he today? He is sitting at the table of the protocol-implementing Executive. The DUP went to the public with seven tests for returning to the Executive and claimed success. In February 2024, Gavin Robinson had an article in the 'News Letter' with the headline: "DUP set out to remove the internal trade border in the Irish Sea — and we've achieved exactly that". In April 2024, he told the BBC that the sea border would be gone by the autumn. Jim Allister challenged that spin and betrayal and was dismissed as a dead-end unionist by none other than protocol-implementing Mr Paul Givan. It turns out, Mr Givan, that Jim Allister was dead right. The motion exposes the truth. Northern Ireland continues to be governed by laws that we do not make and cannot change. We have an internal trade border that partitions our internal market. Day by day, we are being aligned into an all-island single market, which is a stepping stone out of the United Kingdom. The Murphy review, which was published last week, showed that the Government have no interest in addressing any of those issues. Those who claim to oppose the protocol, yet implement it in Stormont, need to face reality. Stormont has become the instrument of colonial rule and of the protocol. Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. Whilst I agree that the motion lays bare the situation that faces small business under the Windsor framework, would the Member accept that, in not having this place and his right to articulate that view, he would, essentially, be surrendering it to a UK and Labour Government, who are intent on hardening it even further? Mr Speaker: The Member has an extra minute. Mr Gaston: I thank the Member for his intervention, and I look forward with the hope that, in a number of years' time, we will have a Reform Government that will give many Labour MPs their P45 — much to the displeasure of the Ulster Unionist Party, which seems to prefer a Labour Government. I come to this point: the challenge for unionists is to match their actions to their words. As far as the TUV is concerned, there can be no Stormont Executive as long as the protocol exists. If the situation is as bad as you have outlined in your motion, why are unionists still implementing it? The protocol has to go. It is as simple as that. There cannot be a protocol and an Executive: it is one or the other. The Assembly can debate motions such as this, but unless unionism gets serious, unless it refuses to be party to its own destruction, London will not take one blind bit of notice. The logic is simple: people were promised one thing; they have been delivered another. I am happy to give way quickly. Mr Martin: I thank the Member for that. Is it the Member's view that we would get a better deal, as my colleague has just outlined, under direct rule? I ask because, in the past, given the Irish language and abortion issues, that has not always been the case. Mr Gaston: My challenge, in my few seconds that remain, is this: dead-end unionists were right. Take the abortion issue: what has this place done? That was the big thing. Stormont had to be here to stop abortion; Stormont had to be here to stop all those issues coming in. Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up. I call Mr Buckley. Mr Gaston: The DUP held the position of power but did nothing about it. Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up. Please take your seat. I call Mr Butler to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. Mr Butler: Mr Speaker, it is not the first time that people have made that mistake. Mr Buckley is about 20 years younger than I am, but I will take the compliment [Laughter] — and on the posters in Lagan Valley, if a few more had made that mistake and voted for me, I might have been in Westminster, but anyway —. Mr Buckley: Or vice versa. Mr Butler: That is a debate for another day. The Windsor framework was heralded by some as a solution, but, really, it was a deal that sold the people of Northern Ireland the false promise of delivering on the promises that were made by Brexit. In reality, what it did was entrench the Irish Sea border, which tethers us to rules that we do not write. The Member for Lagan Valley was right to point out some trade figures. There are some winners; there have been some losers. In Lagan Valley, there is a manufacturing company that uses steel that is tied to an EU tariff, which makes them uncompetitive with GB production to produce something that goes to the Republic of Ireland, and they are now out of that equation. That is the reality. I will name-drop two of the businesses that he talked about, because they are two fantastic businesses in Lisburn: Leckey and PRM Group. If you were to look at their books, you would see that, year-on-year, before Brexit happened, their profits went up. Do you know why? It is because they are darn well-run businesses with a vision. Yes, Brexit happened, but they took it in their stride because they had good business acumen. It was not Brexit or the Windsor framework that made them good: it was the sound management and leadership in those companies. They would have succeeded anyway. The motion calls for the outright end of the framework. I share the deep frustration that drives it, but our amendment takes a more forensic approach. It shines a light not only on the failures of the framework but on the failures of the so-called safeguards: the Stormont brake, the consent mechanism, the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee and the UK Government's supposed role as guarantor of the Union. Those were dressed up as protections, yet every one of them has failed to prevent divergence within our internal market. They are, at best, paper shields. Although I chair the AERA Committee, I am not speaking as the Chairperson. What I see, however, on a regular basis, is that we are dealing with greater areas of divergence. We see tractors, trailers and lorries sitting in ports in Scotland, which cannot come across because of paperwork and inefficiencies, but I tell you what: we can see drugs coming up through the Republic with no borders or difficulties. There does not seem to be the same challenge to that, yet we are talking about trade and people going about their ordinary, everyday business. Our amendment recognises the practical costs that burden businesses in Northern Ireland. This is not just the fault of Brussels but of our own Government in Westminster who add red tape, costs and delay. Worse still, major regulatory changes on food and on plant and animal health that we have recently heard being heralded in the reset deal will probably not come to fruition until the end of 2027 or perhaps into 2028. Top 4.30 pm We have an opportunity, however. We can sit idly by and watch divergence happen and make things more difficult for businesses, or we can do something that has already been done in Wales, where the opportunity was recognised, given the ongoing conversation between the EU and London, to stop works on Welsh border control posts until such time as it makes sense to continue. That is why our amendment calls for action now. The Government must and can invoke article 16 and pause further implementation of the deal until after the UK-EU reset negotiations in 2027. Herein, however, lies the good news for people who seek to apply the protocol and the Windsor framework rigorously: article 16 is a full and equal part of the text of the Windsor framework. It could be rigorously applied, and then, potentially, everybody would be happy. To do otherwise, however, would be to follow blindly the faithful implementation route and tighten the knot that already strangles Northern Ireland's place in the United Kingdom. This is not about rhetoric. I was a Remainer. I voted to remain and would do so again. Mr Gaston was right, and I agreed with him up to a point. He said that Mr Allister was absolutely right, but Mr Allister was absolutely wrong on Brexit. It was the Ulster Unionist Party that warned of what would happen and recognised that, because we have a border here, things would be difficult and Northern Ireland would be treated differently. Mr Allister did not have that foresight at the time. The TUV needs to take an equal burden of the fallout from the protocol rather than just blaming the DUP. Unionists are facing in one direction, however. This is really a good moment, because we are not tearing strips off each other today. As long as the DUP keeps its posters out of Lagan Valley, we will be all right. Let us stop talking about betrayal. Let us stop talking Northern Ireland down. Plenty has been said in the debate with which we can agree. I believe, for instance, that Mr Honeyford genuinely has at heart —. Mr Speaker: Your time is up too, Mr Butler. You are waxing lyrical there. Mr Butler: I thought that I had 10 minutes. Mr Speaker: You have only five minutes. It was a nice try to get 10. [Laughter.] Stand up, the real Mr Buckley. You have 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech on the motion. Mr Buckley: Thank you, Mr Speaker. For the first day back, it has been a spirited debate, but it did not take long for some of the typical accusations and slanging to come from across the Chamber. First, there was a tantrum from the leader of the Opposition, Mr O'Toole, who told us to "grow up". Does that not summarise the SDLP's approach to unionists' concerns about the Windsor framework and the protocol? That party's leader said that there could be civil disobedience "at a very minimum" if it did not get its way on post-Brexit conditions. We then had Sinn Féin tell us in the Chamber that it is "solution-focused". It was not solution-focused when it did not want even so much as a camera at the border or when Michelle O'Neill and Mary Lou were breaking down fake bricks at the border. Was that the constructive, solution-focused mindset that we so often hear about in Sinn Féin's media lines? Absolutely not. We then had the Alliance Party tell us that it is a champion of small business. It was no champion of small business when it voted through over 300 areas of law with scant scrutiny, to the detriment of small businesses, and no scrutiny for dealers of second-hand agricultural tractors, who face the myriad of bureaucracy associated with a framework in respect of which — let us be real, folks — it called for a worse version to be rigorously implemented. The Alliance Party has more faces than the town clock. Mr Honeyford said that the motion is not about jobs, stability, investment or our economy. Mr Honeyford is fundamentally wrong on every item. Each of those issues is contained in the motion. Members opposite want to say, "My goodness, how dare the DUP bring up the issue of the Windsor framework in its first motion for debate after we come back?". Why did we do that? We did it because it affects so many sectors in Northern Ireland, whether that is farmers on the one hand — we already know their credentials when it comes to farming — or, on the other, small businesses. What about the consumer who faces increased costs for parcels —? Mr Frew: Will the Member give way? Mr Buckley: I will in a moment. What about the consumer who faces increased costs in accessing cars? Mr Honeyford may not remember — maybe a summer mirage is affecting his opinion — what he said when the second-hand car dealers came to Stormont. What did he say? Mr Honeyford said, "It seems like you guys have got the worst of both worlds", yet he talks today about dual market access, reverting to his media type rather than identifying facts. I will give way to Mr Frew. Mr Frew: He must have been told off when he made that statement. The Member is right to point out the demeaning attitude of the parties across the way to the debate and the issues that businesses and consumers face, but would they dare to tell businesses and consumers to grow up? Mr Buckley: The Member is absolutely right. I would argue that we have had a spirited debate, because the issue fundamentally matters. A Member: Will the Member give way? Mr Buckley: I will in a moment. The issue matters. Whenever we come to issues of such importance, we have to remember that we have been here before. Whether we are talking about Brexit itself or any version that followed, they have not enjoyed the unanimous support of the House. Arrangements post Brexit — this should concern any Member who understands Northern Ireland politics, its complexities and the need for cross-community consent — have never enjoyed cross-community consent in this place. That should be of concern, and that in itself merits debate in the Chamber. Mrs Dodds raised a salient point. We are dealing with the consequences of a Brexit deal that was botched by consecutive UK Governments. The truth is, however, that, until this UK Government deal with the fundamental heart of the issue, which is that we have the continued application of EU law in this place, there will always be regulatory barriers and divergence that affect consumers and businesses alike. That is a statement of fact. Members can revert to media lines about the Brexit deal and about what happened, what did not happen and whose version of Brexit it is, but this version is clearly that of the Alliance Party, the SDLP and Sinn Féin. They called for it, championed it and ensured that barriers were put up to prevent consumers from accessing goods across Northern Ireland. I have often heard in debates in this place that Northern Ireland voted to remain. Folks, if every Member who voted that day in Northern Ireland had voted Remain, guess what: Brexit would still have happened. Members are deluding themselves and confusing the people out there. We have to get back to the fundamentals. There is dwindling business support for arrangements that cripple industry. What industry? The movement of parcels, consumers, used agri-food vehicles, cars and veterinary medicine. In a previous debate, I outlined more than 30 areas of business that are affected by the Windsor framework, yet Mr Honeyford and others in the Chamber tell us, "I have heard no concern. I have no concern. The place is booming". There is a survey by the FSB that some try to discredit, but what does it state? It states that 58% of businesses that were surveyed had moderate to significant challenges operating under the Windsor framework. Now, they are not the only ones with challenges. Due to the toxic nature of the debate, which people like you have introduced, anybody who is against the framework is deemed to be against stability, jobs and investment. People have been afraid to speak out, but no more. They are speaking out and calling out the disruption that they face. Now, the challenge is to the other parties. Are they prepared to champion business? Are they prepared to put their heads above the parapet, admit that they got it wrong and set about putting it right? If the Assembly approached the debate collectively, with the understanding that the Windsor framework is creating barriers for consumers and businesses, we could get real about dealing with the issue. I have no doubt that the Europeans would listen if some of their lapdogs on the Benches opposite came to that realisation and spoke up for Northern Ireland businesses. We then had the Murphy review, which has been touched on. The Murphy review identified some of the core issues, but it fundamentally failed to bring forward proposals that would deal with the issue substantially. Why was that? There was an in-built veto to that very review that said that, unless a recommendation was likely to gain cross-community support, it could not prosper. Where is the irony in that? A Member: Will the Member give way? Mr Buckley: No, not at this point. There is an irony that a recommendation from that review requires cross-community support, but the very arrangements that were being reviewed, which have no support from unionism in this place, are not subject to cross-community support. Folks, we have to be real. We have to help businesses, but, whilst people in the Chamber want to continue to bury their heads in the sand and ensure that businesses cannot get to the issues of barriers to trade and divergence of trade and consumers continue to face the repercussions of increased costs, we are fighting a losing battle. Whilst some across the House may not agree with me constitutionally or understand why I feel, as a unionist, that the agreement is so wrong, you will agree with me in the future when it shows that businesses and consumers from nationalist, unionist and other backgrounds alike— Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up. Mr Buckley: — face continual barriers, increased costs and a lack of consumer choice. Question put, That the amendment be made. The Assembly divided: Ayes 34; Noes 49 AYES Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Ms D Armstrong, Mr Beattie, Mr Bradley, Mr Brett, Mr Brooks, Ms Brownlee, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mr Burrows, Mr Butler, Mrs Cameron, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew, Mr Gaston, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Irwin, Mr Kingston, Mrs Little-Pengelly, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Martin, Mr Middleton, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Robinson, Mr Stewart, Ms Sugden Tellers for the Ayes: Dr Aiken, Mr Butler NOES Dr Archibald, Ms K Armstrong, Mr Baker, Mr Boylan, Ms Bradshaw, Miss Brogan, Mr Carroll, Mr Delargy, Mr Dickson, Mrs Dillon, Miss Dolan, Mr Donnelly, Mr Durkan, Ms Egan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Finnegan, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Mrs Guy, Miss Hargey, Mr Honeyford, Mr Kearney, Mr Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mr McAleer, Miss McAllister, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McMurray, Mr McNulty, Mrs Mason, Mr Mathison, Mr Muir, Ms Mulholland, Ms Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Ms Nicholl, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs O'Neill, Mr O'Toole, Ms Reilly, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Mr Tennyson Tellers for the Noes: Mrs Dillon, Ms McLaughlin Ms Bradshaw acted as a proxy for Ms Nicholl. Question accordingly negatived. Main Question put. Mr Speaker: I have been advised by the party Whips that, in accordance with Standing Order 27(1A)(b), there is agreement that we can dispense with the three minutes and move straight to the Division. The Assembly divided: Ayes 34; Noes 48 AYES Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Ms D Armstrong, Mr Beattie, Mr Bradley, Mr Brett, Mr Brooks, Ms Brownlee, Mr K Buchanan, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mr Burrows, Mr Butler, Mrs Cameron, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mr Dunne, Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew, Mr Gaston, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Irwin, Mr Kingston, Mrs Little-Pengelly, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Martin, Mr Middleton, Mr Nesbitt, Mr Robinson, Mr Stewart, Ms Sugden Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Buckley, Mr Martin NOES Dr Archibald, Ms K Armstrong, Mr Baker, Mr Boylan, Ms Bradshaw, Miss Brogan, Mr Carroll, Mr Delargy, Mr Dickson, Mrs Dillon, Miss Dolan, Mr Donnelly, Mr Durkan, Ms Egan, Ms Ennis, Ms Ferguson, Ms Finnegan, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Mrs Guy, Miss Hargey, Mr Honeyford, Mr Kearney, Mr Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mr McAleer, Miss McAllister, Mr McCrossan, Mr McGlone, Mr McGrath, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McMurray, Mr McNulty, Mrs Mason, Mr Mathison, Mr Muir, Ms Mulholland, Ms Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Ms Nicholl, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs O'Neill, Ms Reilly, Mr Sheehan, Ms Sheerin, Mr Tennyson Tellers for the Noes: Mrs Dillon, Mr Donnelly Ms Bradshaw acted as a proxy for Ms Nicholl. Main Question accordingly negatived. Assembly Business Ms Bradshaw: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During Question Time, I asked the deputy First Minister for an update on the international relations strategy. She responded by saying that international engagement as a priority area is a non-devolved area. There is a full directorate on intergovernmental international relations, and one of the key strategies should be an international relations strategy. Will you please review Hansard to see whether the deputy First Minister misled the House? Mr Speaker: I am happy to do that. Standing Order 10(3A): Extension of Sitting Resolved: That in accordance with Standing Order 10(3A), the sitting on Monday 8 September 2025 be extended to no later than 7.45 pm. — [Ms Bradshaw.] Mr Speaker: I ask Members to take their ease while we change the personnel at the Table. (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr Blair] in the Chair) Top 5.15 pm Private Members' Business Special Educational Needs: Crisis in Provision Mrs Guy: I beg to move That this Assembly regrets the continuing challenges faced by children with special educational needs (SEN) and their parents across Northern Ireland; notes the ongoing failure to plan strategically to meet the needs of children with SEN as they progress through the education system; further regrets that an outworking of this failure is some children with a statement of SEN being unplaced at the start of this academic year or deemed to have an allocated place that is impractical and cannot be taken up immediately; regrets that the publication of the SEN reform agenda and delivery plan does not provide timescales for the implementation of services, a clear indication of resource requirements or an overview of necessary workforce planning with Department of Health colleagues; and calls on the Minister of Education to provide clarity on the number of children currently without access to an appropriate placement for the 2025-26 academic year and to state when he will publish clear timescales for the implementation and delivery of the SEN reform agenda and delivery plan with the aim of ensuring that all learners are able to access fully the services that they require at the point of need. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to make a winding-up speech. Two amendments have been selected and are published on the Marshalled List, so the Business Committee has agreed that 30 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate. Please open the debate on the motion. Mrs Guy: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am proud that our first motion after recess focuses on children with special educational needs. That group of children and their families feel largely invisible and forgotten until the annual SEND crisis placement comes around. Placements are an acute issue that is worthy of our time and scrutiny. We are now a week into September, and the fact that we still have children who are without a school place, or who are unable to access their place, is a scandal. It is a consequence of a failure to plan properly for those children. It is so important today that we understand the full extent of the crisis in SEND. There is a hidden group of children who are absent, on reduced timetables or informally excluded for reasons related to the school environment. I cannot give you a figure for them because the Education Authority (EA) does not capture that data. We also have 2,500 children going through the statementing process who need support. There are also issues with transport related to safeguarding concerns, with escorts not having completed AccessNI checks. As the two amendments highlight, there are acute concerns around workforce, particularly classroom assistants, with a concern that the Department may restrict one-to-one support. We have seen nursing support withdrawn from some special school settings. We do not have enough special schools in Northern Ireland, and those that we do have are having to support children with ever more challenging needs. The transition between stages of education is woefully under-resourced, leaving children without suitable options post-16 and post-19. Those points illustrate a much bigger crisis than simply placements, so much so that we are having an inquiry in the Education Committee into SEN provision. Behind every statistic is a child and a family left living with the stress, uncertainty and injustice of their child not receiving the education to which they are entitled. To quote the independent autism reviewer, Ema Cubitt: "One child out of education is one child too many". It is our job to acknowledge system failures, but I acknowledge the brilliant work that is happening in our schools. In my constituency of Lagan Valley, as in every part of Northern Ireland, there are wonderful teachers, classroom assistants and health professionals who pour their energy into helping children to thrive. Special schools and mainstream schools alike are doing incredible work, often against the odds. They deserve our thanks and support. For the families being failed and abandoned, our job today is to demand accountability. Let us look now to the annual placement crisis. Children with statutory statements are left without a school place at the start of term. Others are allocated a place that looks fine on paper but is impractical, inaccessible or unable to meet their needs. Others are placed in contingency arrangements that are far from acceptable. Some receive only a few hours of home tuition, some wait indefinitely for special school places and some are offered a school that cannot meet their needs, yet we do not have clear data on how many children are affected. The Education Authority created over 1,300 places last year. I acknowledge that effort. However, even it admits that that approach is unsustainable. Schools that took in extra children last year cannot keep stretching endlessly. We are now staring into an even worse crisis in 2026. I want to make a point about the role that schools can play. I completely agree that all schools need to open their doors to children with special educational needs and disabilities not just because it is the right thing to do but because I hear time and time again that the schools that do so quickly find out that all children benefit. The schools that outright refuse to take children without providing any rationale for that should be held to account. However, some school leaders have genuine concerns about the resourcing, staff and building requirements that they need to ensure that they can give all children what they need to thrive. The issue is ensuring that resources are planned. Letters from the Minister in June and from the EA chief executive later in June are not a strategy; they are too little, too late. The system is surviving on firefighting and goodwill, not on planning or resourcing. When the SEN reform agenda and delivery plan was published earlier this year, there was hope that it might finally chart a way forward, and we welcomed its ambition at the time. However, look at it closely. There are no clear timescales for delivery, no detailed breakdown of costs, no workforce planning in partnership with the Department of Health and a worrying reliance on pilots and aspirations rather than hard commitments. Parents who have been failed for years do not need more [Inaudible] strategies; they need action, services and support, and they need them now. The Minister will, of course, talk about funding, and that is reasonable. More schools than ever are operating in a deficit, but, while rightly pointing to his constrained budget, the Minister also continues to champion additional bureaucracy instead of creating a single management authority. He has put no plan in place to rightsize our school estate. In opposition to the independent review of education, he championed Strule, which is taking an incredible amount of capital funding. This is about making hard decisions, which he appears incapable of doing in this context. Of course, he was happy to resign his position as First Minister to collapse the Assembly. It cannot be denied that those two years being lost made this situation substantially worse. That decision, which he was happy to make, made this crisis deeper. The constant collapse of this place is contributing to the funding issues in Education and other Departments but, specifically, the crisis impacting on the SEN system. We need an area planning approach to SEN, not just ad hoc letters and last-minute scrambling. Every child should have the option to be educated in their local community without families being put through the stress of fighting for transport or waiting months for a placement. Let us not forget the workforce. Classroom assistants, teachers and therapists are crying out for investment, training and support. They are the backbone of SEN provision, and, without them, any strategy will fail. The workforce plan needs to be done in partnership with the Department of Health, and there should be a joint budget. Two amendments have been selected, and both add to the debate. Procedurally, we cannot pass both amendments, but that should not lessen the points that they raise. Gerry Carroll's amendment rightly calls for a guarantee that every pupil who needs one-to-one support from a SEN classroom assistant will receive it. That is a simple and basic commitment, and I hope that the Minister will make that commitment today. Timothy Gaston's amendment highlights the vital role of classroom assistants. Too many are in temporary contracts, and too many are underpaid. There are also too few opportunities for career progression. Ulster University research from earlier this year showed that 82% feel that they are unfairly paid and that over three quarters want a clear career pathway. Those workers are the backbone of SEN provision. They deserve respect, stability and investment. The truth is that we have reached a point where the system is being propped up by goodwill, exhausted parents and overstretched staff. That is not sustainable, and it is not fair on the children whom we are here to serve. Today, let us be clear. The Minister must provide clarity on the number of children who remain without an appropriate place; he must publish clear, costed and time-bound plans for delivery; and he must prioritise those children and families, because they cannot wait any longer. Mr Gaston: I beg to move amendment No 1: Leave out all after "Department of Health colleagues" and insert: "recognises the essential and multifaceted contributions of classroom assistants, particularly in SEN settings, who provide daily, hands-on support with challenging behaviours, emotional regulation, personal care and individualised learning, often going far beyond their official job descriptions; deeply regrets that, in Northern Ireland, classroom assistants face systemic disadvantages, including widespread use of insecure temporary or term-time-only contracts, weak employment protections, inconsistent or pro-rata pay and few opportunities for career progression or professional development; notes with concern that around 68% of classroom assistants remain on temporary contracts, many for several years; condemns the reliance in many SEN schools on insecure engagement, which risks both the stability of provision and child safety, as highlighted by trade unions that warn of a race to the bottom in employment standards; is alarmed that nearly 14,000 classroom assistants are currently on temporary contracts due to fragile SEN funding arrangements; expresses deep concern that many feel undervalued, overworked and lacking recognition, with 82% reporting not being paid fairly and 87% supporting the establishment of clear career pathways tied to training and experience; believes that for SEN reform to succeed, the Department of Education must ensure that classroom assistants enjoy job security, fair and consistent pay, accredited training and defined progression routes; and calls on the Minister of Education to bring forward proposals to address these issues as a matter of urgency; and further calls on the Minister to provide clarity on the number of children currently without access to an appropriate placement for the 2025-26 academic year and to state when he will publish clear timescales for the implementation and delivery of the SEN reform agenda and delivery plan, with the aim of ensuring that all learners are able to access fully the services that they require at the point of need." Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): You will have 10 minutes to propose and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. Please open the debate on amendment No 1. Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker. The Assembly has before it a motion highlighting the ongoing crisis in special educational needs provision, and I commend the Alliance Party for bringing it to the House. It is timely, given that it is the start of another school year. The issue has received quite a bit of focus in the press, but I trust that the debate will result in changes that will be well embedded ahead of next year's commencement. Members, the crisis is real. Children with special educational needs, their parents and the staff who support them face daily challenges. Before the debate, I was contacted by a primary-school principal, who rang the preschool standardisation programme helpline only to be told that there was no money in the budget to address the issues that she highlighted. The issues were those that I attempted to raise during Question Time. The North Antrim primary school to which I refer has a nursery of 26 children. The children are supported, from 9.00 am to 1.30 pm, by two members of staff, one of whom is six months pregnant. Out of those 26 children, two await ASD assessments and require one-to-one support. Those children were referred to paediatrics by their health visitor and still have not been seen. That is alongside a plethora of other needs among this year's intake, such as behavioural problems, medical issues and toileting concerns. In the current set-up, those children cannot safely access their nursery education. The health and safety implications are profound. Urgent attention from an educational psychologist is required so that those children can access the preschool education that everyone is entitled to. The questions from the principal are these: who covers the toilet breaks in her nursery class, and who provides consistent support for children with complex needs? I want to leave those questions with the Education Minister. I hope and trust that he will come back on them. The motion rightly draws attention to the lack of strategic planning, the number of unplaced children at the start of this academic year and the urgent need for clarity on the implementation of a SEN reform agenda, but let us be clear: none of those reforms can succeed without the dedication of the classroom assistants who work daily with children with SEN. They support children with challenging behaviours, those with emotional regulation issues and those who require personal care. Often, support with learning is individualised to meet the needs of the pupil in the classroom assistant's care. My goodness, they often go far and beyond their official duties by becoming a vital part of the classroom experience for all the pupils who are there. Despite their value, those staff face systematic disadvantages. Around 68% of classroom assistants are on temporary contracts, many of them for multiple years. Nearly 14,000 classroom assistants are employed on such insecure terms due to fragile SEN funding arrangements. As we heard, surveys show that 82% feel that they are not fairly paid and that 87% support clear career pathways that are tied to training and experience. A workforce that is insecure, overworked or undervalued cannot provide the stability and consistency that children with SEN need. High turnover and low morale risk the quality of education and the well-being of the vulnerable children in their care. Repeatedly leaving classroom assistants, who are recognised as invaluable members of the school's educational team, without any guarantee, when the school year ends in June, that they will have a job in September is not a situation that would be tolerated in any other field of employment. Tellingly, it is a gender issue too. 'A profile of Classroom Assistants in Northern Ireland', which was produced last year by Ulster University, revealed that 96% of classroom assistants are female. Supporting classroom assistants, therefore, is a matter of fairness, justice and equality for women in the workforce. Those highly skilled, dedicated, professional ladies must be properly valued and given the stability that they deserve. Top 5.30 pm Our classroom assistants are asking for what is fair and reasonable: job security, fair and consistent pay, accredited training and defined career progression. Those are not luxuries but are essential for effective SEN provision. Supporting them is inseparable from supporting the children. I commend the amendment to the House. Mr Carroll: I beg to move amendment No 2: Leave out all after "Department of Health colleagues" and insert: "; and calls on the Minister of Education to provide clarity on the number of children currently without access to an appropriate placement for the 2025-26 academic year and to state when he will publish clear timescales for the implementation and delivery of the SEN reform agenda and delivery plan, with the aim of ensuring that all learners are able to access fully the services that they require at the point of need; and further calls on the Minister to commit to ensuring that each pupil who needs one-to-one support from a SEN classroom assistant will receive such support." Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Assembly should note that the amendments are mutually exclusive, so, if amendment No 1 is made, the Question will not be put on amendment No 2. Mr Carroll, you will have 10 minutes to propose amendment No 2 and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who speak will have five minutes. Please open the debate on amendment No 2. Mr Carroll: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I commend the Members of the Alliance Party who tabled the motion. I disagree with nothing in it, but it needs to be strengthened, hence the amendment in my name. I am happy to support the amendment in Mr Gaston's name. I am at a loss as to why the amendments are mutually exclusive, but that is where we are. If you talk to any parent or education worker — I speak as somebody with several family members who teach, including in the SEN sector — they will tell you that the Executive are failing pupils with SEN. Each year, children with additional needs are treated as, at best, an afterthought. Last week, parents of SEN children found out about school transport arrangements at the last minute. Some were informed as late as Sunday night — the evening before their children were to return to school. Others did not find out at all. They just had to hope that the school bus would show up the next morning. Many children were stranded, left without any transport to school. The EA and the Minister promise that things will improve, but, every year, the chaos continues. Shamefully, pupils are left without school places, and decisions on school placements are made too late, which has knock-on effects on transport, childcare and much more, including people's life and routine. It is a perpetual crisis that only seems to get worse each summer. I note that some progress has been made in SEN provision. It seems — I emphasise "seems" — as though fewer pupils are waiting for school places this year than last year. There is some long-overdue progress, but, crucially, a lot more information is required on whether pupils are in the correct educational setting. I welcome the fact that a note on that will come from the Minister, but at least six children — one child is too many, as the Member for Lagan Valley said; six is far too many — with SEN remain without a school place. A further 100 children will not have a full-time school place until Halloween due to ongoing construction works. That is totally unacceptable, Minister. You need to sort it out; your Department needs to sort it out ASAP. At a protest this morning organised by Alma White and the campaign group Caleb's Cause, we were told that families are at breaking point. I support Alma, the other parents and their campaign. The current situation is totally unacceptable, and something urgently needs to change. Support should not cease when a young person leaves school, but, unfortunately, it does, and parents and carers are forced to pick up the pieces. Change should start with how we value and respect the education workforce. The Education Minister has shown a remarkable lack of respect for education workers. He is ignoring the red flags that they and their unions have raised, and he has attempted to criminalise them for engaging in lawful strike action during school inspections. That is not to mention the fact that more than 1,300 transport and catering workers are still on temporary contracts. There are 15,000 classroom assistants on temporary contracts. They deserve job security and fair pay. Classroom assistants are routinely subjected to violence at work and are hugely overstretched and underpaid, yet their work is transformative for thousands of pupils with special educational needs, especially those who receive one-to-one support. In making a statement on SEN reform in January, the Education Minister set alarm bells ringing by talking about how one-to-one support from classroom assistants is: "not always the most effective intervention for children."— [Official Report (Hansard), 13 January 2025, p10, col 1]. It is true that not every child needs that kind of support, but families of SEN pupils and trade unions saw that as a warning shot, laying the groundwork for reducing numbers of classroom assistants. Perhaps that is where the Minister wants to get to, but it is for him to clarify whether he will go there. No matter how much the Minister dresses up the plans as giving schools greater flexibility or listening to "emerging evidence", families and the education workforce saw this attack for what it was: a cost-cutting exercise to strike fear into the hearts of families of children with disabilities and undermine children's basic right to education. That is totally unforgivable. If it is otherwise —. Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way? Mr Carroll: Yes, I will. Mr Brooks: This is a genuine question. Does the Member have any evidence that one-to-one support is the best route? I respect the jobs that all of those workers do, but, surely, when it comes to education policy, we all want to be informed by what is the best route for our children, rather than other concerns. If there is evidence that one-to-one support is the best route, I would like to hear it from him. Mr Carroll: It absolutely is, if you speak to people who need one-to-one support or if you speak to classroom assistants and parents. [Interruption.] I gave way to you: give me a wee bit of respect, Mr Brooks. The onus is on your party colleague, the Minister, to provide evidence. He is claiming that one-to-one support needs to be restricted, so he needs to provide that evidence. You need to speak to your party colleague and ask him to provide that to the Assembly. If the Member undervalues or does not respect, understand or appreciate the role played by classroom assistants, I advise him to go to schools that work with and support children with special educational needs. You are trying to downplay the importance of their work, but it is on you to speak for yourself and defend that. [Interruption.] Do you want me to give way? Do you want to speak? Go ahead. Mr Brooks: I was just pointing out that I literally prefaced my remarks by saying that I acknowledged the excellent work that classroom assistants do. You are misrepresenting what I said. That is clearly not what I said. Mr Carroll: No, definitely not. The Minister needs to clarify his plans for classroom assistants. To go back to the previous comment, if he has real, existing evidence or research to justify reducing or cutting one-to-one support for people who already receive it, he needs to provide that to the House, to the Education Committee and to other Members. To my knowledge, however, he has not yet done so. I encourage Members to support my amendment, but, if they do not, I appeal to the Minister to address the points contained in it. Mr Baker: It is really sad that we are here again today to talk about the failures in special educational needs that our children face daily. I cannot describe how angry and frustrated I was before recess that we could not get the Minister to come to the Chamber to talk about the plans for families who had not been placed at that time. Their numbers were in the hundreds, and they just needed communication. Communication and a bit of respect cost nothing, but we did not get it. If you are going to prioritise, I advise that we prioritise the most vulnerable children in our society. That means that we have to do everything possible, which means working together. I will not stand here and completely blame the Minister for everything that has gone wrong in the past, but he can very much change the future. That is about getting it right from the very beginning. My first speech in the Chamber was about special educational needs, making the point about early interventions being key. I made a Member's statement this morning and used one of my own cases as a parameter for success going forward, were we to somehow be successful. I gave the example of a family with a set of twins who are going into nursery school. That should be the happiest time for parents, grandparents and the whole family, when they have the experience of seeing the children off to their first day of nursery. One child got a place, but the other child did not. The child who has special educational needs was the one who did not get a place. What will it mean for that family if we do not make changes to policy, investment and prioritisation in the Chamber? That child will always watch as his sibling progresses and gets his place at the same time as their peers. The other child may not even get transport to school if it is needed. If he is lucky enough to get a place, his transport may fail because we failed at the very start. When you do not have the placements right, that rolls on into transport. That creates a vicious circle for families, and it will happen again when the children go into secondary school. Even though they are well known in the system and they may have their statement, they still have to fight for that support and for that place. Lo and behold, it may not even be the right place. What we have seen and what we may hear today is that we have progressed some sort of measure from last year: the number of children who are not placed is in the single digits. One is far too many, but the reality is that there are hundreds of children who are not in school this week because their place is not ready. We all know, and the argument has been well rehearsed, that those places could also be the wrong place. What does that mean? It means that children end up on a reduced timetable, thus losing out on vital education. It is so unfair. We then have the same schools doing all the heavy lifting when it comes to those on free school meals, those living in deprivation, newcomer children and children with special educational needs. They are doing it all. They really are doing a great job, but not everybody is pulling their weight, and that is the sad reality. Talk to parents. Really listen to them. What I have heard in the past couple of weeks is, "What we are getting now are special schools on the cheap". They are not getting that integrated education. Far from it. We have children going into specialist provision in mainstream schools (SPiMS) placements or into units, or whatever you want to call them. Some could be in P2, while others could be in P6. That is insane. What we have there is placement by numbers. It is all data, but when you drop into the weeds of that, you will quickly find that, in the past number of years, children in their hundreds, if not in their thousands, have been placed incorrectly. That is the real scandal in all of this. How do we go about providing the right placements? How do we go about making sure that children are placed at the same time as their peers and then not waiting at the front door for transport, which is what I have heard this year? Minister, that can be done only by prioritising our children with special educational needs. That is a SEN-first approach. That is a child-centred approach. That is what we need. I am quite happy to be here to support you in doing that. What we do not need to hear is the bluster that sometimes comes across in here. We heard it in Question Time earlier on, when you set out the finances. Then, however, when you were asked a different question, your response was, "Look at my success over the past 18 months". Please tell us that you will drive delivery for children with special educational needs in the time that we have ahead and before the end of this term. Mr Martin: I commend the Member opposite for making a very passionate speech about special educational needs and not making it political. I mean that genuinely, Danny. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the issue today. I start by recognising its sensitivity for many parents in Northern Ireland. I also recognise the amazing work of our special needs teachers, who work under sometimes very challenging circumstances. I also pay tribute to the amazing children, some of whom have those particular needs, and the parents who care for and look after them on a daily basis. I will come back to that later on, but I am sure that everyone in the Chamber recognises that the current system is simply not good enough and does fail some children in Northern Ireland. To pick up quickly on Mr Carroll's statement, what we actually want is not necessarily for every child to have a classroom assistant, because that may not be the best intervention for every child. There may be better interventions that deliver more support, more help and more positivity in that child's life than one-to-one support will. There are lots of measures, but we have to bear in mind that we want the best for the child. That should be at the core of whatever the policy driver is. It is worth quickly noting a couple of pertinent facts. We know that one in five children in our education system now has a special educational need. That is about 70,000 children across Northern Ireland. About 8% of children subsequently have a statutory assessment. We know that demand has risen significantly in the past number of years, and the EA has responded in the past five years by creating an additional 6,000 SEN places. Expenditure by the Department has increased over the past seven years by 164%, rising to £670 million a year. As I mentioned previously, I recognise that there have been, and remain, significant challenges in the system. That has led to some heartbreaking cases emerging. Members of the Education Committee have sat through some of those stories. There has been an erosion of confidence among teachers, principals, parents and carers in the system's ability to support some of our most vulnerable learners. It would be foolish of me to say anything other than that. Top 5.45 pm One of the key strategic shifts that we need is to move away from a system that operates on a tactical basis to one that is more strategic in its thinking. Simply put, let us prepare not for next year but for the next 10 years. The Minister, who will, I feel confident, speak for himself on the issue, has already committed to do that. A plan — it was called 'Operational Plan 2', I think — has been designed to ensure that, in future, planning is not emergency planning but future planning. That will break the cycle that Members have mentioned today. As the Member for Lagan Valley said, we need additional special schools. There are eight in programme as part of the Department's new SEN capital agenda. We also have a SEN reform agenda, of which, as I mentioned, I have a copy with me. It is a comprehensive plan. We know that its cost is just over half a billion pounds. That half a billion pounds is not in the Education Minister's gift. It is not particularly in the Finance Minister's gift, but it is in the Executive's gift. As was made clear and as the Member for West Belfast noted, we have a SEN-first agenda, so I am sure that the Minister in front of me will look for support from other Ministers and Executive parties —. Mr Mathison: Will the Member give way? Mr Martin: I will indeed for the Chair of the Education Committee. Mr Mathison: The Member mentioned the cost of the delivery plan. It is not broken down into clear cost lines for all the actions. Does the Member not think that having a more detailed cost analysis would help us to decide what we really need to deliver from the plan and should prioritise? Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute. Mr Martin: Outstanding. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I agree with the Member, but I will give him a line from the end of the document: "Costings will be finessed in detailed implementation plans and in collaboration with key delivery partners." It sounds to me as though the costing is being worked on but that key inputs from delivery partners have to be fed in. I do not disagree with the Member, and the Minister may touch on this, but that statement is in the document, and I assume that the costing is being worked on. There are targets. We will not fall out over them. The proposers of the motion would like to see clearer delivery targets. I note that there are hard targets for year 1 in the document already and starting targets for all other themes. I understand that those targets are linear. Perhaps the proposers of the motion would like harder targets: those may come with additional information as the Department works through the detailed costings for the plan. Let us be honest, however: the Education Committee wanted this document. We talked and talked about it, we wanted to see it, and we got it. It is a complex and important document, so I am not overly surprised that we are still waiting for some detail on it. These are big issues to solve, as every Member has said. I have 15 seconds left. The Education Minister is passionate about making these changes. Our party is wholly committed to standing behind him in making them, because we know that, at the end of every policy, there is a child with a family — Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Your 15 seconds are up. Mr Martin: — and their own individual story. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): As this is Jon Burrows's first opportunity to speak as a private Member, I remind the Assembly that it is the convention that a Member's inaugural speech be made without interruption. However, if the Member chooses to express views that would provoke an interruption, they are likely to forfeit that protection. Mr Burrows. Mr Burrows: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Some Members: Hear, hear. Mr Burrows: This may be the first time in quite a while that I will have spoken for five minutes without saying something controversial, but I will try. Thank you for the warm words of welcome that all Members have given me. If I looked somewhat surprised when some Members walked over, shook my hand and said, "Welcome. You are a great addition to the Chamber", it is because they have blocked me on Twitter. There are at least four of them. I will go through my profile and see whether there are any more. I pay tribute to my predecessor, Colin Crawford, and not because that is the convention. I have been in North Antrim for the past four weeks, speaking directly to constituents. They told me that Colin had spent nights on the street when it was dark and dangerous. He had been in their homes at times when they had suffered real bereavement and crisis. In their darkest hours, they looked to Colin, and he was always there. He is not a man who is interested in climbing the greasy pole or in advancement. He is not even a man who is interested in being in the public eye. He is interested in helping people and, in that sense, he is a rare person in politics. I am glad that he is now part of my constituency operation and will be helping me to deliver services across North Antrim. North Antrim is a wonderful constituency. I will say this, and some people will certainly agree: it is the most beautiful constituency in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Some Members: Hear, hear. Mr Burrows: There is nothing controversial in that, and I have a strong evidence base for it that I will come to now. There is no other place in Northern Ireland that has not one but two UNESCO world heritage sites: the Giant's Causeway and the wonderful Moravian village of Gracehill. My constituency has the only UNESCO world heritage sites in Northern Ireland; the best coastline of the island of Ireland; the best whiskey in the world; the Dark Hedges; and all those other things, so I am absolutely honoured — I will try not to get emotional in saying this — to represent it. That is why, when I was under serious threat from dissident republicans — I have lived at 10 addresses in the past 25 years — I lived in Ballymoney for 10 years and nothing could budge me from there. I had bulletproof windows and blast-proof doors, and letter bombs were sent to me, but I was not for leaving. It is a wonderful constituency, but it has a lot of problems. The farmers, who are the heartbeat of the constituency, are in the armlock in society between trying to look after our climate for the future and allowing people to have a livelihood today. They are not listened to enough in this place — I hope that that is not a controversial statement — about the inheritance tax proposals that pose an existential threat to them in Northern Ireland. I will support our farmers. I will also support people who experience social housing issues. To be frank, I was shocked when, on my first day, I walked into Drumtara estate and had to pinch myself to be sure that I was in a first-world country, because it looked like a third-world country. Not only had people to wait years for social housing; they then had to wait years for basic repairs. There were homes with missing tiles, when people had been asking for them for months. I had to ask myself, "How did we put a man on the moon many years ago yet we cannot replace tiles?". There was grass that was uncut because the Housing Executive and the council could not agree on whose responsibility it was because a child's bike had been left in the middle of a grassy verge and whoever had the contract to cut the grass could not lift the bike away. It took an intervention from a councillor, backed up by an MLA, to get the grass cut. Those things simply are not acceptable. Of course, the constituency has a lot of problems with immigration. I will stand by the lawful immigrants of North Antrim. My granny was treated by Filipino nurses, and my family is eternally grateful for their care and diligence. I have supported the lawful migrants. I will always call out violence — unlike some people, I do not think that there is ever justification for violence — but I will have the honest conversations about asylum, illegal immigration and the fact that we ask the people in our society who have the least to take the biggest influx of newcomers, which puts pressure on access to social housing, health and education. I turn to education as I come to the conclusion of my remarks. I listened to constituents, and, when I did my research, I found that that was one of the top five things that people contacted the previous office about. They wait too long for statements of educational need and have to go too far for a school once they get one. I agree, therefore, with the substance of the motion. I also agree with Mr Gaston's amendment, which states that we need to value our teaching assistants. If this constitutes a conflict of interest, I declare that several members of my family are teaching assistants. We say that we value teaching assistants, but that is not shown in their pay packets or in their terms and conditions. They carry out a vital role for society, and I want to support them. I am happy to support the motion and Mr Gaston's amendment. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up. Mr Burrows: Thank you. [Applause.] Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Despite that reminder about your time being up, Mr Burrows, all Members, including me, wish you well for the times ahead. I will call —. Mr Nesbitt: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Mr Nesbitt, I am duty-bound to remind you that, as a Minister, you probably need to do this from the Back Benches. Mr Nesbitt: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr Burrows made his maiden speech seven hours and 18 minutes after the first session that he was available to attend. Can you check with the Speaker's Office whether that is a new record? Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I can check with the Speaker's Office whether that is a point of order, perhaps. [Laughter.] The question will be noted and referred to the Speaker's Office. I am sure that, if it constitutes a point of order, you will be provided with a reply. I call Mark Durkan. Mr Durkan: The new start that September brings should be a month of promise, maybe not for the Assembly but for the children who are starting a new school or a new school year. For most families, it brings hope and excitement, but, for too many parents of children with special educational needs, it brings only anxiety and exhaustion. That is the exhaustion of a parent who has had to fight every day just for their child's most basic right: an education. It is unacceptable that any family should be left in limbo, not knowing where their child will be come September. We need the clarity that the motion seeks on the number of pupils who have been impacted, because an allocated place on paper means little if a child cannot physically attend. Families deserve certainty, not crisis management year after year. We also know that demand is only increasing. The EA estimates that, by next year, an additional 1,000 SEN places will be required. Minister, what work is happening now to ensure that those places are available so that we are not back here in 12 months, facing even more chaos and distress for even more families? Inclusion must be more than a slogan. SEN cannot be seen as just an add-on; it must be embedded as a standard across all schools. We also need to recognise the wider impact on teachers and school leaders. Burnout levels are soaring, and the unions have been clear that the lack of SEN support contributes to unmanageable workloads and staff leaving the profession. Our classroom assistants and SEN staff are the backbone of our education system, yet they have been consistently undervalued and let down. Despite their passion and vocation, many have been forced out of posts that they love. Too often, I have heard about and from dedicated staff who are leaving to stack shelves in supermarkets because they can earn more money with less stress and greater job security. That is a damning indictment of how the system treats those who give so much to our children and, by extension, how it treats our children. Families feel unheard and unsupported. They have told us that year after year. The independent autism reviewer, Ema Cubitt, has warned that "trust has been eroded" through: "years of crisis management [and] short-term fixes". Too many parents feel blamed for school avoidance when, in truth, their children's needs have often simply not been met. I recently spoke to a mother — many of us will have many similar stories — who told me that, from the very start of her son's education, she knew that he needed extra help. Yet the diagnosis that, she knew, he needed did not come until he was practically finished primary school. At every turn, there was a hurdle, such as waiting lists and delayed assessments, and, while the system stalled, her son lost years of required additional support. When a placement was secured, it was simply a stopgap. He was placed in a class not because it was the best option but because it was the only option. We have seen that story on repeat: parents fighting the system and burning out while children pay the price, only to face another cliff edge, as others have mentioned, when the child reaches the age of 19. The Commissioner for Children and Young People (NICCY) could not have put it more plainly in the 'Too Little, Too Late' report when it said that our system has failed to plan ahead, failed to listen and failed to act with urgency. As one parent told the commissioner: "Every delay is another piece of my child's future slipping away". Both amendments reflect real concerns from the coalface. We support those calls, which reinforce the same basic point: SEN provision cannot function without valuing and resourcing the people who deliver it. Top 6.00 pm The dire situation is a direct result of the Executive's failure to plan ahead, to properly resource our schools and to give SEN staff the fair pay and recognition that they deserve. Instead, every year, we have the same sticking-plaster approach. It is time to rip off the Band-Aid and treat the problem before any more children are left scarred by the system. We have to do better. Early intervention and timely support must be the foundation of how we support children with additional needs and their families, because every child deserves the chance not just to survive in our education system but to thrive in it. Mrs Mason: For every child, the first day of school is crucial. It sets the tone for the year ahead. It is a cherished family memory that parents will carry with them for the rest of their lives. It marks the next big step in their child's life journey. While most families arrive early to capture those moments on camera, too many families of children with special educational needs are not standing at the school gates. Instead, they are anxiously waiting at home, clinging to the hope that a place will be found and their child will get their first-day memory too. That situation is not a one-off or an exception; it is an all-too-common reality for children with special educational needs in our education system. Right now, there are vulnerable children and their exhausted families still waiting for confirmation of a suitable school place that meets their needs. Some are waiting for classrooms that do not even exist yet. Yet, what does the Department do? It records those children as though they have already been placed, when the truth is that they have no classroom to enter and no education to access. That is not just an administrative failure but a moral failure. The stress and anxiety that those families feel are a direct result of the Department and the Education Authority failing to plan strategically to meet the needs of our children. For the families whose children have secured a place, the barriers do not end there. On the first day of term, many were left stranded, with children unable to get to school because appropriate transport had not been put in place. Just think about that: a child with special educational needs finally secures a place, and the family is ready to go, but they are left with no way to get to school. For families who were already feeling abandoned and exhausted, that was the final blow. It lays bare the neglect and the lack of foresight from the Minister and the Education Authority in meeting the most basic needs of children with special educational needs. Let us be clear: those families are not asking for special treatment; they are just asking for fairness. They are asking for the chance for their children, who are ready to learn, to start school just like everybody else. Every child must receive not only a place but the right place, one that is suitable, supportive and equipped to meet their needs. When a child enters a classroom, they must have wrap-around care to help them thrive. Frustratingly, that is just not the case. They must get the transport that they need to get there safely and comfortably. That is not optional; it is essential. Today, I call on the Minister to come forward with real solutions and to guarantee that every child will be placed in the right setting and get the full support that they deserve, because our children cannot and must not continue to be left behind. Ms Brownlee: This matter affects not just our education system but the lives of thousands of children and families across Northern Ireland: the state of the special school education system. As we know, every child, regardless of their needs, has the right to equality of education. However, the reality for many families and children who have special educational needs is far from ideal. Despite recent significant efforts and incredibly positive steps, we are still in a challenging situation. The placement of a child with special educational needs is complex. Whilst I have always understood and advocated the importance of prioritising those children, I did not fully grasp the intricacies of securing the right placement until I became a parent myself. Now, as I navigate the process alongside many families, I have a deeper appreciation of the challenges involved, even when a placement is secured, due to the nature of special educational needs. It involves much more than bricks and mortar. It needs a supportive and skilled workforce; access to the correct equipment; specialist input such as occupational and speech and language therapy; flexibility; and communication, because SEN is not straightforward. We are guided by the child, and that takes time, and parents need support in this too. Sometimes communication is one of the key factors for all involved. It is not just about Education and the Minister. We understand that there are responsibilities for Health. We also have to realise that there will be a significant impact on our economy, with more parents struggling to remain in employment and carers struggling financially. Sadly, some children who have not been supported will even end up in the justice system. What has become incredibly clear to me is the invaluable impact made by our classroom assistants, teachers and school leaders. Their dedication and support when working in incredibly challenging environments is absolutely vital to ensuring that every child receives the education that they deserve. They truly are the backbone. Therefore, I am pleased to see that the long-standing pay and grading issues have been resolved by the Minister, with increased pay secured and career progression pathways announced. Those steps are absolutely critical, as our education workforce is the foundation on which a strong and effective SEN system is built. We are aware of the environment in which we operate, with almost one in five of our pupils identified as having special educational needs. As it stands, nearly 30,000 children have a statement of SEN, and the number is growing. Despite the best efforts of our educators, support staff and health professionals, we know that we struggle to meet the demand. In recent months there has been positive progress. Some 1,374 new SEN places have been created across more than 150 classrooms. Last year, in my constituency, £7 million was invested in special schools, and we have seen improvements in placement rates. That is a step forward, but it is just the beginning. We need to be really honest about the scale of the challenges that we face and honest about priorities. When the Minister speaks and seeks support in the Executive to fund his SEN reform agenda, we must be there to support him. Parents and children are experiencing real frustrations with the current system. The lack of available spaces in specialist settings is one of the most pressing issues. Families are being left with no choice but to expect and accept placements that are not ideal, and, in some cases, children are being left behind. We know that the SEN reform agenda is ambitious. I acknowledge the £27·5 million investment and the commitment to new builds, but, again, we must be honest: the gap between what is needed and what is provided is widening, not narrowing. We must push for more funding, more spaces and a system that genuinely meets the needs of every child not just on paper but in practice, and that will require the support of every Member. Every child deserves the opportunity to thrive, and that cannot happen unless we provide the right support at the right time in the right place. We owe it to every child in Northern Ireland to ensure that they are not left behind. Miss McAllister: It is unfortunate that we find ourselves in this situation again, alongside many parents and families across Northern Ireland whose children, whilst they have been allocated a place in a school, have not been allocated one that will meet their child's needs. I want to focus my remarks on the cooperation or lack thereof between the Departments of Education and Health and on how we can get answers to the questions that have been asked. I saw the Minister of Health. He has now left the Chamber, but I thought that he had come in for the debate. It is really important that we should have more than one Minister present where issues and motions touch across Departments. That is something that we should look at as an Assembly, so that, when we need to work together, we can have both Ministers, either at a Committee or in the Chamber, to ask questions of. There is not just a need for communication from the Education Authority to parents. If we are not having improved communications between Departments, how do we expect it to filter down to the ground and to the people that it affects? We need to see practical solutions that will work, and then we will see an improvement for children accessing those places, whether that is through transport, construction work at schools or additional staff. One of the issues that I want to focus on is the need to improve the nursing tasks in schools. The fact that the Minister decided, I believe, in May to remove nursing tasks in our special needs schools was much to the confusion and not just the disappointment of many people, particularly those who look to the health sector, because delegated nursing tasks were removed as being authorised under direct payments. People who were not essentially qualified could not carry out the tasks, yet we were going to expect classroom assistants to do it because, let us face it, it was going to fall upon classroom assistants to pick up the slack, and that is just not acceptable. It is another consequence of a fall between the cracks of the reality of what it means to be a special educational needs school or to operate within a special educational needs system. I have had the opportunity over many years from being on the council and in the Assembly to visit special schools across Belfast. Specifically, I mention Cedar Lodge in my constituency of North Belfast and Fleming Fulton. Those schools are absolutely fantastic. When you go there and meet the pupils, you cannot help but feel happy at how happy and supported the children and the community are. Many of the principals and the teachers will reflect on how different it is now compared with years ago and feel that some of the services continue to be stripped away, in particular the health services. We do not yet know how many speech and language therapists are needed, how many psychologists are needed or how many nurses are needed for particular schools, because that work has not taken place. I ask the Education Minister whether he has had any direct conversations with the Health Minister in progressing that joined-up workforce planning across both Departments, because it is particularly important. I also want to touch on the issue of the individual child. I have heard about the special needs children getting classroom assistants when they are placed either in the mainstream schools or in SPiMS units or children who have attended a mainstream school from primary 1. I do not sit on the Education Committee, but, on the Health Committee and in constituency-based work, we hear time and again that one-to-one is not always the best way forward. It has to be individualised, and it has to be best for that child's needs. Unfortunately, parents wait far too long for those assessments. How many children do we still have on the waiting list to be statemented? That is just to get their statement. How many years must they then wait to get the services that they provide? If the Minister has not already, I recommend that he visit Belfast Boys’ Model School in North Belfast, because they run a different model of operation from other schools that basically cares for the individual needs of each child. We have to be realistic about the fact that there are some schools that do not put up their hand and take in children where it is needed. Fundamentally, at the heart of this are young people and children, and we need to ensure that their needs are met. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up. Mr Sheehan: This summer, we have seen yet again a crisis in special educational needs placements, with hundreds of children and their families facing an anxious and agonising wait for support and certainty. While, on paper, the number of those awaiting placements has been reduced significantly, that does not tell the whole story. Many of the so-called placements offered to families do not exist in reality. Some children are on reduced timetables, while others are placed in schools where the necessary facilities, required staff and wrap-around support have not yet been put in place. Families still live with uncertainty, anxiety and stress as they try to plan for their children's future. That is not a success story but a damning indictment of a system that, year after year, fails to plan, fails to prepare and fails to meet the needs of our most vulnerable children. Top 6.15 pm The problems go deeper than a few delayed placements: they are systemic. There has been a marked and sustained rise in SEN diagnosis, the trajectory of which was crystal clear, yet the Education Authority and the Department utterly failed to plan strategically for that rise. There has been the continuing failure of the Department of Health and the Department of Education to work together, as Nuala McAllister has just mentioned, in any meaningful way to provide joined-up support for children with additional needs. We have interrogated officials, as well as the allied health professionals union, and none of them was able to tell us how many children with a particular need are in our system and how many children with speech and learning difficulties need behavioural therapists and occupational therapists. That information just does not exist. There is a deliberate over-reliance on our non-selective schools and schools in working-class communities to carry the heaviest burden of SEN provision. A few months ago, just before recess, senior leadership figures in the Education Authority revealed to me that not one grammar school had been asked at that stage to establish specialist provision. I had to drag that answer out of an official. I had to ask him at least five times how many grammar schools had been asked to set up specialist provision, and none had. That is an absolute disgrace. Those are often the schools with the best resources and the most resources, and they should share the responsibility of supporting some of our most vulnerable children. That is not inclusion. It is not fairness, and it certainly is not planning. We have also seen failures beyond the classroom. Just last week, parents contacted my colleague Danny Baker distraught because their children had been left waiting for school transport that never arrived. Families who secured a placement for their child now discover that the bus is not turning up to get them. How can that be acceptable? The Education Authority and the Education Minister have failed those children time and time again. Hundreds of children with special needs still do not have a suitable placement. Many of those who do cannot get the support that they need or transport to get them there. Sinn Féin is clear: we need a SEN-first approach that puts the needs of the children at the very centre of the placement process, not as an afterthought. We need proper forward planning, real collaboration between Health and Education and an end to the practice of expecting the non-selective sector alone to deliver inclusive education. Every school, including the grammar schools with the greatest resources, must take their fair share of responsibility. At Question Time today, I heard the Minister again say that he needs more resources from the Finance Minister. Let me remind him that, Audit Office and PAC reports reveal that, despite the fact that hundreds of millions of pounds of funding has been put into special educational needs, neither the Department nor the EA was able to show value for money or efficiency. The Minister has his own budget: he can prioritise to where that budget is directed. If he does not want to prioritise funding for children with special educational needs, he should say that. Our children deserve better. They deserve dignity, certainty and respect. They deserve a system that plans ahead and works for them, not against them. Mr Brooks: I welcome Mr Burrows to his seat and to share in his good wishes to Colin Crawford. All of us who sat on Committee with him recognise the tribute that Mr Burrows paid to Colin, and I stand with him on that. Today's topic of discussion is familiar to us all in the Chamber, and I have said that before. All of us — I include the Minister in that — share the ambition to aspire to more and to work to deliver better for our young people with special educational needs. That is reflected in the fact that, earlier, we had Mr Gaston commend the Alliance Party and my colleague Peter Martin commend Danny on his speech. I say to Mr Burrows that that is not a normal occurrence: do not get too used to it. We all want every child in Northern Ireland to have a happy and fulfilling educational experience that develops them to their potential. Nobody expects the transformation of SEN services to happen overnight. We all understand those who have been at the coalface. We have heard of classroom assistants, teachers and parents awaiting placements who, at times, have had reason to lose faith and confidence in the system. Nevertheless, I believe that those most involved in the sector understand the situation and want to see progress. The concerns raised in the motion and the call for more action and clearer timelines are, no doubt, reflections of the urgency that is felt by parents, educators and communities. That said, I want to respond with a recognition of the ambitious path that has already been charted by the Minister and the careful work that is under way. In February of this year, the Minister published what was, perhaps, the most ambitious SEN reform agenda in a generation and, alongside it, a five-year delivery plan designed to ensure that children with SEN receive the right support at the right times. I was going to go on to expand on and to go through some of the outcomes framework and so on, but the discussion that took place between my colleague and the Chair of the Education Committee has probably shone more light on some of the views around that than I am likely to. Work is ongoing on that, as my colleague highlighted. The catalyst for the motion being tabled is frustration around the annual issues regarding placements. I understand that, as it stands — perhaps, the Minister will clarify this in his remarks — we have few or no children currently awaiting a placement. I understand that that does not mean that all is well, as we have heard in the Chamber, and I do not seek to portray that it is. Issues remain with children awaiting facilities to be completed and built, and there will be parents who will appeal for a different placement — some justifiably so. I do not think that anyone stands here to paint a perfect picture. Equally, however, we should not dismiss the progress that there has been, for political means. We know that the estate is in a poor state and requires vast investment. It was slightly disingenuous of the Member who spoke before me to suggest that the Minister has a budget and could, therefore, prioritise as he wishes. We know that there is a shortfall in the budgets; we know that the block grant is not meeting needs, so —. Mr Sheehan: Will the Member give way? Mr Brooks: Yes, I will give way. Mr Sheehan: The point that I was making was that there has not been real accountability of the funding that has been given to special needs, thus far. If the Minister can demonstrate value for money with the funding that he is putting into it, all of us would be in a different position when it comes to going to the Finance Minister, on his behalf, to ask for more money. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute. Mr Brooks: The Minister will, no doubt, deal with the points that the Member has raised, but we are all aware of the vast amount of investment that would be required, particularly around the estate and so on, to make the right provisions available to enable these children to have the right places and the appropriate setting. We all know the challenges around that — I do not want to underplay them — but I am sure that the Minister will address the points that the Member has made. We recognise that, due to the issues with the estate, some of the placements can be suboptimal compared with what we aspire to, ideally. Indeed, we know that it is not what the Minister aspires to, not least through his plans, as outlined, for new special schools in the future. However, rather than standing still, he has been working to ensure that, as the estate sits, it is used to its full potential, be that through creating further classrooms where space or resource allows or undertaking a refurbishment, as was the case in my constituency where a decision was made to refurbish the old Elmgrove Primary School to allow Greenwood Assessment Centre not only to move in but to expand its services. Not so long ago, Members were raising issues that had been raised by families of children who attended Greenwood — a wonderful school, which, admittedly, operated in less-than-optimal facilities at times. There we have an example of what can happen: the Minister recognised that the plans for a new special school at the Orangefield site could not come quickly enough; he visited the school; he listened to the issues; he saw the potential; and he moved to ensure that, while we awaited the investment for the new special schools, new places and new spaces would be made available in the near future by swelling the estate. I share the ambition of the Minister, and all in the House, that, in future, SEN children will be notified of their placements no later than any other child. Addressing the fundamental challenges on that front will, as we have said, take significant investment from the entire Executive when they consider their priorities. Whilst I understand to some degree that it is motherhood and apple pie to say so, we have always supported the need for a less siloed and more joined-up approach across the Executive. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Time is up. That concludes the list of Members who indicated that they wanted to speak, so I call the Minister of Education to respond. Minister, you have up to 15 minutes. Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Thank you, Members, for bringing the motion forward and for providing the opportunity to respond to myriad issues relating to the provision for children with special educational needs. Members' contributions have reflected the different aspects that we need to consider. First, I commend Jon Burrows on his maiden speech and welcome him to the Assembly and to the Education Committee. I know that that will be the first of many contributions by him on education, and I look forward to working with him on the Committee. I commend him absolutely for his public service during a very difficult period, which he reflected in his speech. Having to move home on no fewer than 10 occasions is appalling for anybody, but it was done in the service of others and for the greater good of our society. We commend you for that service, and for the desire to continue public service in your new role in the Assembly. We look forward to working with you in the days and months ahead. Having spoken to families, teachers, classroom assistants and pupils in many educational settings, I know the anguish that they feel about this issue, and the needs that they feel need to be met. As a responsible group of legislators, we all want do more. I think that everybody in the Chamber wants to do more. I listen to contributions from others and understand the frustration that people can have, but, at times, there can be an attempt to dehumanise some people and say that they have no empathy. It is sometimes said that MLAs or Ministers do not have an interest in these matters, and that somehow their lives are wonderful and perfect, which is not the case. On this issue, every single MLA has different needs that they are having to meet and are supporting their families and constituents who are in similar positions, so we all feel a collective responsibility. As Education Minister, I feel, more than anybody else in the Chamber and anybody else in society, the need to do more and want to have the support to do more. Therefore, I welcome the interest of Members and the opportunity to outline what we are trying to do. That is why I was disappointed in Michelle Guy, who proposed the motion. There were comments from others that rightly challenged me, and I expect to be challenged, but to throw in comments such as "too little, too late", and then go on the attack about Strule, controlled schools and a managing authority, demeans the MLA for Lagan Valley. It demeans the issue that we have come here to debate when she launches a broadside on other political matters. Mrs Guy: Will the Minister give way? Mr Givan: The Member has said enough, and I would rather prevent her from saying more things of a political nature given the attacks in which she engaged. When it comes to these matters, it is important that we address and deal with them with the urgency that they require and are fully aware of the challenges that exist. Those challenges did not just materialise in June when I corresponded with schools, nor did they materialise in March, contrary to what the Chairman of the Education Committee pronounced in a statement. I do not know where he has been, how he engages with his member on the Education Authority or how he has failed to listen to me for over 18 months —. Mr Mathison: Will the Minister give way? Mr Givan: I am not going to give way. I do not know how he has failed to listen to me for well over 18 months, when I have repeatedly outlined the significant challenges in special educational needs. For a cheap political shot, he puts out press releases about people being asleep at the wheel. Far from it being the case that I am not aware or am not seeking to take action, it is the Member who needs to be much more proactive. Top 6.30 pm Whilst this is the first motion today that has, rightly, been brought forward by the Alliance Party, the first inquiry that the Committee called for and took forward was not on special educational needs, which was the number-one issue — people said that it should be SEN first — but on relationships and sexuality education (RSE) so that the Chairman would know whether a three-year-old should have trans guidance withdrawn. I look forward to the Chairman's remarks. Where was the priority when he put it to the Committee that it should have an inquiry into that issue rather than this one? Therefore, I welcome the fact that the Committee now intends to have an inquiry into this issue. I will support it. I held inquiries as the Justice Committee Chairman. I worked proactively with his party leader in that role, and we produced sound evidence. I welcome the fact that he now wants the Committee to look into the issue and have an inquiry. That will help the whole system to respond. I look forward to the Member's trying to justify why he led the call for the RSE inquiry, which, 12 months later, still has not even reported. Where is the efficiency? Where is the discharge of the duties of the Chairman of the Committee in that issue? I say this to the Committee: get on now with an inquiry into special educational needs. You will have my full support in doing so. When we look at the particular issues around the Education Authority, we see that we stood up the SEN task force in February. The permanent secretary and the senior team in my Department were briefed. I was briefed three days later. Those briefings were about responding to the task force that had been set up. During that meeting back in February, we dealt in detail with that particular issue. Officials and the EA worked closely together. I acknowledge that some Members have put on record their appreciation of the work that the EA took forward. It was carried out in conjunction with representatives of my Department, not least the permanent secretary. It engaged with schools. I talk about this issue every week with my senior officials to make sure that we have suitable placements in place. I have been proactive on all those matters, week in, week out. We can look at addressing placements for children with statements of SEN. I continually reiterated my commitment to ensure that all children with statements of special educational needs have a school placement that is appropriate to meet their needs. That is, and it will continue to be, the primary focus for my Department and the EA. Parents of children with SEN want the same as any parent, which is for their child to be happy and thriving in a school setting that meets their needs, to enjoy the benefits of a full and enriching curriculum and to be supported by staff who are appropriately skilled and resourced. Those are reasonable expectations, yet, all too often, I have heard from families and spoken with teachers who have little confidence in the current system's ability to meet children's needs. I recognise that it is unsatisfactory that, by the end of June each year, not all children know what school they will be going to. That is not a position that any parent wants to be in. It is important that we recognise that over 6,000 additional special educational places have been created between 2020 and 2025. This year alone, 1,374 additional special educational places have been created, involving 29 classes in special schools and 128 specialist provision classes in mainstream schools. By September 2024, 178 new specialist provision classes had been created, providing more than 1,450 places in special schools and specialist provision. As of 5 September this year, no children with a statement of SEN were unplaced. That means that 100% of children now have confirmed placements. However, despite the huge amount of work, and Members have reflected on this, that has gone into achieving that, 80 children across 17 schools are unable to attend school on a full-time basis until preparatory work has been completed for their classrooms. The EA has worked with schools to put in place contingency arrangements for those children. By way of comparison for full transparency and accountability, on 3 September last year, the position was that 15 children with statements of SEN remained unplaced and 121 could not access full-time education. Therefore, it is important that we acknowledge that the process for securing placements and notifying parents of those placements is more complex for children who have a statement of SEN, as the statutory assessment process is ongoing throughout the year. I recognise that all our schools are inclusive of children with SEN and that we work under the presumption of mainstream education for our children, but there are some children for whom that is not the best option. Some require a smaller classroom environment with more targeted intervention, and that is when specialist provision in mainstream schools is not the most appropriate option. The willingness of our schools to step up and adapt existing classroom spaces is welcome. However, to meet the needs of our children who have statements of SEN, we must increase the proportion of schools that offer specialist provision above the 26% that already do. If we are to provide the right places in local communities where children live, we need all our schools to work with the EA to ensure that such local provision is available. The EA will continue to engage with our schools, and I encourage schools to proactively engage and to explore possibilities and options for offering specialist provision within their school structures, whether that be by utilising existing available space or facilitating the placement of modular units on their sites. It is only through the continued professionalism and commitment of our schools that the needs of all our children will be met. When it comes to forward planning, the EA published operational plan 2 earlier this year. It sets out the key area-planning activity to provide a network of sustainable schools. The operational plan includes addressing key priorities in primary, special and post-primary education, with a particular focus on meeting the increasing demand for SEN schools. The plan responds to projected changes in Northern Ireland's pupil population, which is projected to decrease overall in the next 10 years while the demand for SEN places is expected to increase. My Department will continue to work with the EA to secure provision for children with statements of SEN. There is much good work going on in our special schools and much specialist provision to meet the needs of our children, but we must continue to meet the increasing demand in future years. The level of need will increase again in 2026, and it is only through continued engagement with and support from all education stakeholders, including school leaders, boards of governors, sectoral bodies and Departments, including Health, that the system will be able to meet the increasing demand. There is a need for capital investment. That need continues to grow. In the past two years, placements have required investment of over £109 million. The Department simply cannot meet that pressure and children's needs with its existing level of capital funding whilst keeping all schools open and safe. Therefore, in coming weeks, I will bring detailed plans to the Executive for a flagship Executive-led and Executive-funded SEN capital investment programme. That decade-long investment programme will expand, enhance and restructure SEN provision across special schools and mainstream settings, moving decisively from reactive yearly planning to a strategic and sustainable approach. I look forward to securing cross-party support to deliver lasting change for children and young people with SEN. On SEN reform, the motion calls for clear timescales and resource requirements for the delivery of the SEN reform agenda. The indicative timescale of five years for implementation of the SEN reform delivery plan was predicated on additional investment of in the region of £570 million. I simply cannot deliver transformation on that scale with the current Education budget. Members will no doubt be aware of the financial pressures that we face, not just in Education but across the Executive. I am committed to delivering SEN reform as quickly as I can with the resources available to my Department, but it would be wrong to commit to clear timescales in the absence of any certainty about the additional funding needed to deliver the scale of transformation required. I have been successful in securing some investment, which has allowed progress to be made. I was successful in the bid to the public-sector transformation board, and the Finance Minister confirmed £27·5 million of funding over four years. That represents only 5% of what is needed, but it provides investment to take forward a number of priority projects. I can provide clear timescales for the 13 projects that will be funded from the transformation budget and will do so in due course. As we conclude the debate on the motion, I acknowledge that it is an issue that Members have, rightly, spoken passionately about. We have a collective responsibility for it. I will not shirk from my ministerial responsibility to lead on those issues. They require support from different Departments and the Executive collectively. I will test the Executive commitment to it when I bring forward my capital programme. I trust that it will be supported. At the heart of all this, beyond the political commentary, there are families and children who need hope. We can talk about failure, and, in some instances, it has not been what it should have been. However, we also need to give hope that we have a clear plan. I do, and we are delivering it. I want to do more, and, with the support of everybody in the Chamber, I trust that we will be able to meet the needs of those families and, importantly, their children. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Minister, thank you for that response. I call Gerry Carroll to wind on amendment No 2. Gerry, you have up to five minutes. Mr Carroll: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank Members for their contributions. As we heard in the debate, one in five pupils has special educational needs. In the past decade, the number of children with a statement of SEN has increased by 85%, but, unfortunately, the funding has not increased to match that need. That is the crucial point. The lack of planning and investment in our education system is failing children, families, communities and, crucially, education workers. The Minister tried to do a lot of deflection. He needs to take responsibility and act on those issues. I support Mr Gaston's amendment, as I said at the start of the debate. It recognises the important and undervalued work of classroom assistants. It calls for more-secure employment contracts, fair pay and better terms and conditions. I am still unclear as to why it is not compatible with my amendment. If classroom assistants were fairly paid and their working conditions were safer and more sustainable, every child could have the support that they need. If the Executive were properly to invest in education rather than firefighting, we might avoid the same old crisis that we have witnessed year after year. People simply do not buy the excuse that there is not enough money to repair the schools that are crumbling around us or to pay teachers, classroom assistants, cleaners, caterers and transport workers a decent wage. Contrast that with the fact that the head of the Civil Service recently had her pay and pension hiked with no performance review. Today, the news broke that she is set to get a further £16,000 pay increase. Most classroom assistants earn just above that, despite the increase that they received. There is plenty of money for who and what the Executive consider to be important. Refusing to invest in SEN provision is a political and moral failure. Empty words and consultations, in which the responses of the workforce and families are ignored, mean absolutely nothing. I urge the Minister to listen to the experience of pupils, their families, teachers and classroom assistants. Research from SEN Reform NI and Caleb's Cause found that just 47% of parents who were surveyed received their child's statement within the legal time frame. That is totally unacceptable. Some 77% said that their child with SEN did not have equal opportunities in the education system compared with their peers without special educational needs. That is a crucial point that the Minister fails to grasp. It touches on the heartbreaking example that Danny Baker gave about twins in West Belfast. We have plenty of plans, strategies and roadmaps — we are roadmapped up to the ears — but there is little by way of action. The message from the experts by experience is resounding. We need to reverse the damage that was done by a decade of chronic underfunding. We need systemic reform, and that does not mean fewer classroom assistants. The Minister should focus his energies on that instead of trying to poke trans and non-binary pupils and people in the eye by removing guidance. He talked about having a political focus and about distractions; I think he is quite distracted by trans people and those who do not fit his narrow view of the world. I will move on. It is worth reminding the Member for North Down that it is a political issue and, of course, a political Chamber, not some apolitical chamber for a bit of craic. Members from his party talked about how classroom assistants may not be the best-case scenario or needed in every situation. Maybe not, but the drive and the motivation behind their points and those of their Minister is about cutting costs and scaling back. I trust the experts, education workers and families rather than any party that tries to scale back on the basis of those points. I join others in welcoming the Member for North Antrim to the Chamber. I might well be one of the people who blocked him on Twitter. It was probably warranted and required, but, hopefully, if I extend that nice welcome to him, he will support my amendment. Top 6.45 pm Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Timothy Gaston to wind on amendment No 1. He also has five minutes. Mr Gaston: Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker. How do you follow that for a winding-up speech? I certainly welcome the warm words for and recognition of classroom assistants and the vital role that they play. Walking through the Lobbies to call for it is one thing, but delivering real change for the sector is another. The Department needs to address the issue of job security urgently. Finishing work in June, not knowing whether there will be a job for you when school returns in September, is simply not good enough. Secure contracts, fair pay, progression routes and more stable SEN funding are required to deliver the change that is needed. The motion and my amendment highlight the need for cooperation with the Department of Health. Like others, I was heartened to see the Minister of Health in attendance for part of the debate, but that hope soon waned when he made his pointless point of order and then left, which told me all that I needed to know about his attitude to the subject. Tackling the issue requires cross-departmental planning to ensure that educational psychologists, speech and language therapists and paediatric referrals are available to support the children and the classroom assistants who work with them. The Department needs to design a progression framework for classroom assistants that is linked to accredited training and qualifications. That could include recognising existing skills, offering further professional development and creating promotion opportunities for the sector. That may mean engaging with the General Teaching Council, training providers and unions. Since 96% of classroom assistants are women, improving their conditions will also require the Department to review gender pay and employment equality issues. MLAs who vote for my amendment will effectively be demanding action to end what is, in practice, the systematic undervaluing of women's work in the sector. If my amendment is passed this evening — I trust that it will be — I trust that the Minister will return to the Assembly with a report that outlines how many classroom assistants have been moved on to permanent contracts since the debate; the pay structures and progression routes that have been established; and how workforce planning is being integrated with SEN reform. Most important is that I pass that over to the Education Committee to ensure that it keeps a focus on the issue and on what has been agreed today in order to hold the Minister to account for delivering the will of the Assembly. Mr Baker cited a constituency case that highlighted how twins had been treated differently. No child should be treated differently. No child should be left at home while their brother or sister gets the opportunity that the child who has been left at home also deserves. I will finish by commending Mr Burrows on his maiden speech. I look forward to working with him in North Antrim. Many of the things that he highlighted are things that we have in common. I also pay tribute to his predecessor, Colin Crawford. Throughout his time in Stormont, Colin has been a friend. We started at the same time, and, indeed, we walked out many of those early days and experiences together. I wish Colin all the best. He has moved on and taken up a role with you, Jon. Colin is a genuine guy, and he will be very good and give you great service in your constituency office. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call Nick Mathison to conclude the debate and make a winding-up speech on the motion. You have up to 10 minutes. Mr Mathison: I begin by adding my words of welcome to Mr Burrows. I look forward to working with you on the Education Committee. I add to the tributes to Colin Crawford, whom I worked with for a short time on the Committee. I found him to be a gentleman. I suspect that you, Mr Burrows, may express your views slightly more forthrightly than Colin ever did at the Committee, and I look forward to that. I wish Colin all the best in his future endeavours. I was going to begin my remarks by saying that it was to be welcomed that we have had a debate with such a positive tone and one that parents of children with special educational needs who were watching would feel had adopted the approach that is required, through taking the issues seriously and ensuring that the difficulties, challenges and distress that parents have been through over the past number of months were properly acknowledged. The Minister, however, had other ideas, making some highly personalised attacks and using some really interesting distraction techniques in order to deflect from the issues. That was entirely unnecessary, because I agree with much of what he said in his contribution, and I want to support him. It was disappointing that he felt the need to personalise the debate in the way in which he did. I will leave my remarks there in that regard, because, ultimately, the debate is about the parents, children and young people who need effective SEN services, not about personalities in the Chamber. I reiterate, however, that my record on and commitment to delivering the reform of SEN services is very clear. Let me speak to some of the facts that the Minister highlighted. He referenced comments that I made about a freedom of information request that I had submitted to the EA asking for some specific information about when the Minister was formally notified of the scale of the challenge of placements for September 2025 and about the likely numbers involved. That freedom of information request came back stating very clearly that officials were briefed on the scale of the challenge in February 2025 and that the Minister was formally corresponded with in March. At no point have I suggested that that is when the SEN crisis began, and to suggest so is clearly an exaggeration and a misrepresentation. I will, however, highlight the point that the Minister was aware of likely numbers probably much earlier, but he certainly was as of February 2025. I therefore question why he waited until June 2025 to go out to schools to ask them whether they would please help. I do not think that it is inappropriate to say that that was too little, too late. I do not, however, discount the work that the Minister has delivered in this mandate on the SEN reform agenda, nor do I doubt his officials' commitment to delivering on it. Moving on, I do not intend to rehash what has already been covered in the debate. The motion is clear in setting out the problems in the SEN system and in what it is asking for, and it seems that there is going to be support for it across the Chamber. I will add to my colleagues' comments about the amendments. We have no issue with supporting them, and I find myself in the very strange position of saying that I agree wholeheartedly with pretty much everything that Mr Gaston said today. Mr Gaston: You have seen the light. [Laughter.] Mr Mathison: I record my appreciation for the engagement that I have had with classroom assistants in Castle Gardens Primary School in my constituency. They highlighted very clearly to me the level of disparity between the different contracts that exist, even within one school, as well as the pay and job security disparities, the pressures that that puts on staff and the impact that it has on their morale. I therefore fully support the proposals in Mr Gaston's amendment. On Mr Carroll's amendment, I absolutely agree that the system should deliver a one-to-one classroom assistant for those children who require one. We should, however, also be open to creative thinking on the best way in which to meet children's needs effectively. Mrs Dillon: I thank the Member for allowing me to intervene. I welcome the news during the debate that the Education Committee will carry out an inquiry into SEN provision. That is really important. Given some earlier comments from Members about the need for engagement with the Department of Health, I encourage us to have that engagement. We also need to get an understanding of the savings and efficiencies that could be made were Health and Education to work properly together. Children's needs could be met so much better and in a much more efficient way if we had good, proper collaboration between the two Departments. Mr Mathison: I thank the Member for the intervention. I am conscious of time, but, yes, we would be keen to engage further with the Health Committee. I felt that our concurrent Committee meeting in the previous session was really effective in drawing out some of the challenges around workforce and some of the lack of data that we have on the workforce that is even present in the education system from the health sector. It has never been acceptable that children with SEN are routinely left unplaced at their key transition years in our education system. It is not acceptable that, despite years of the problem being highlighted and after multiple reports and recommendations, which have been referenced here today, the Department has still not got to grips with the problem. I do not underestimate the scale of that challenge — that is not said lightly — but it is clear to me that, if that was how we ran the mainstream admission system, parents would be outraged. However, we seem to have reached a point where it has become normalised for our children with SEN to remain unplaced, particularly at key transition years. It is important to challenge any narrative that this year was, in some way, better because the raw numbers may have been lower. Of course, it is welcome that no children are officially unplaced at the moment. However, we were clear when we heard evidence from the EA in Committee that the director who was speaking in that evidence session would not let members make the statement that that was an improvement. He was clear that it is not an improvement. He was clear that the level of pressure and leverage that they had to apply to schools to get those children placed was unacceptable. He did not have confidence that, for the year ahead, there was a clear road map, a clear pathway for ensuring that children would be placed. That is simply because he does not have the resources at his disposal to ensure that, when he approaches a school and asks them to take a placement, he has a mechanism to say where the placement will go. It is an ask; it is a request. We would not accept that in the mainstream system. We would not consider area planning to be that we ask schools whether they would like some more places. That is not how it operates. I do not downplay the challenge to the EA and the Department in dealing with the issue. We have already heard that the numbers of children presenting with SEN are rising. Money is in short supply, and the Minister does not tire of reminding us of that. Crucially, as I have referenced, we operate a system where schools seem to behave as independent entities and can say no to a specialist provision if they wish to. I know that schools do that for a range of reasons: they do not have confidence that they will be supported; they are worried about whether there will be enough resource; or they are worried that they will be asked to deliver something at the eleventh hour, with not enough time. However, with all those caveats noted — I say this in good faith — I ask the Minister to come back to the Assembly with a clear plan for how he will deal with placements specifically and how he will ensure that, in the areas and the schools where it is identified that placements are required, the placements will be delivered in those settings. It cannot be enough to just ask politely for schools to help. We have to go beyond that. My time will not permit me to speak to the delivery plan in detail, but it is welcome that a plan around transformation has come forward. However, it is a big, complex document. It is ambitious in scope, and, by that definition, it is difficult to track and measure success, so we need the Minister to set out clearly what the delivery plan will do to make parents and children feel that the system is different and that something has changed. We have 18 months left of the mandate. We are in year 2 of the five-year plan. We really are at the point where parents are impatient for delivery. When will things change? The challenge is clear, and I am not here to attribute blame to anybody. There have been years of systemic failure, but I have no doubt that the people working on the issues in the EA and the Department are committed to delivering change. However, we need to be realistic about where we are. Resource is extremely scarce. We are beyond further reviews, pilots, trials, testing and reviewing. We need to be clear: where can investment be delivered in the transformation plan for it to make a real difference? Families and children need it desperately. We cannot waste any more time in this mandate with pilots. We need to move beyond that. We also need assurances — clear assurances — that the failure to effectively and appropriately place our children with SEN will not be repeated on this Minister's watch. I hope that we hear that coming through clearly. I hope that we can move the tone of the debate on. I look forward to the Education Committee's inquiry into the matter. I have no intention of personalising that debate. I want to hear the evidence of parents, children, young people and teachers and to listen to them. This is not about political point-scoring. It is not about personal attacks. It is about delivering for the children who need it in our system. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Your time is up. Thank you. Before I put the Question on amendment No 1, I remind Members that, if it is made, I will not put the Question on amendment No 2. Question, That amendment No 1 be made, put and agreed to. Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to. Resolved: That this Assembly regrets the continuing challenges faced by children with special educational needs (SEN) and their parents across Northern Ireland; notes the ongoing failure to plan strategically to meet the needs of children with SEN as they progress through the education system; further regrets that an outworking of this failure is some children with a statement of SEN being unplaced at the start of this academic year or deemed to have an allocated place that is impractical and cannot be taken up immediately; regrets that the publication of the SEN reform agenda and delivery plan does not provide timescales for the implementation of services, a clear indication of resource requirements or an overview of necessary workforce planning with Department of Health colleagues; recognises the essential and multifaceted contributions of classroom assistants, particularly in SEN settings, who provide daily, hands-on support with challenging behaviours, emotional regulation, personal care and individualised learning, often going far beyond their official job descriptions; deeply regrets that, in Northern Ireland, classroom assistants face systemic disadvantages, including widespread use of insecure temporary or term-time-only contracts, weak employment protections, inconsistent or pro-rata pay and few opportunities for career progression or professional development; notes with concern that around 68% of classroom assistants remain on temporary contracts, many for several years; condemns the reliance in many SEN schools on insecure engagement, which risks both the stability of provision and child safety, as highlighted by trade unions that warn of a race to the bottom in employment standards; is alarmed that nearly 14,000 classroom assistants are currently on temporary contracts due to fragile SEN funding arrangements; expresses deep concern that many feel undervalued, overworked and lacking recognition, with 82% reporting not being paid fairly and 87% supporting the establishment of clear career pathways tied to training and experience; believes that for SEN reform to succeed, the Department of Education must ensure that classroom assistants enjoy job security, fair and consistent pay, accredited training and defined progression routes; and calls on the Minister of Education to bring forward proposals to address these issues as a matter of urgency; and further calls on the Minister to provide clarity on the number of children currently without access to an appropriate placement for the 2025-26 academic year and to state when he will publish clear timescales for the implementation and delivery of the SEN reform agenda and delivery plan, with the aim of ensuring that all learners are able to access fully the services that they require at the point of need. Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, please be courteous enough to remain quiet until we properly conclude our business. Adjourned at 7.00 pm. Top

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.