Official Report: Monday 18 November 2024

Miss Hargey: I rise to speak about the protest outside Queen's University Belfast last Thursday afternoon and all that unfolded after it. The protest happened in my constituency. It took place to highlight the ongoing plight of Palestinians in Gaza in the face of the genocide, which is being investigated, continued illegal occupation and enforced removal of Palestinian people. This is what we saw unfold: protesters were taken to the ground; batons were drawn by the PSNI; concerning images of what developed appeared on our screens and social media on Thursday evening and into Friday; and a number of arrests were made.

I met representatives from the PSNI at lunchtime on Friday, and I raised with them directly our serious concerns about what happened. As I said, batons were drawn at the protest. I asked what pre-planning arrangements were made between the police and Queen's University, which would have known that a protest of that nature would take place at the event at Whitla Hall. I reiterated the right to peaceful protest in our society. Today, I reiterate our party's concern that, in some ways, that right was denied on Thursday based on what we saw on the lawns of Queen's University. Again, I call on the PSNI to review its arrangements and pre-planning and to engage with Queen's University to ensure that the right to peaceful protest is protected at any future events. We will continue to liaise with the police and Queen's University.

Mrs Dodds: The British Heart Foundation's 'Bias and Biology' report was launched in Parliament Buildings last Wednesday. The report highlights a very important element of healthcare in Northern Ireland: the systemic gender inequalities that exist across the cardiac care pathway.

It provides recommendations for closing that heart attack gender gap, which will improve outcomes and quality of life for women with heart disease in Northern Ireland.

It is estimated that 26,000 women in Northern Ireland are living with coronary heart disease, which kills twice as many women each year as breast cancer. That is a statistic that I was not aware of, and it is really quite startling. In the region of 2,000 women will die annually in Northern Ireland from heart and circulatory diseases. There is insufficient awareness of a woman's risk of heart disease and heart attack, which negatively impacts on women's prospects of recovery. Women are more likely to receive a delayed diagnosis or misdiagnosis after a heart attack and are less likely than men to receive timely, optimal care. There is also a lack of knowledge on the impact of the menopause and pregnancy on the likelihood of heart disease in women. The report calls on cardiovascular health to be a key component of the women's health action plan.

I also recommend to Members the event in the Long Gallery on cardiovascular disease led by the Heart Failure Warriors coalition. In particular, you may have noticed the story of Nicole and Farrah, twin sisters who live in two different trust areas in Northern Ireland. One has had good aftercare after a diagnosis of heart failure, but the other has had no aftercare. That highlights the postcode lottery with services in Northern Ireland.

Ms Bradshaw: I rise to note the achievements of the Ireland over-50 women's, over-55 men's and over-55 women's teams, which all competed at the recent Masters Hockey World Cup in Auckland, New Zealand. All three teams finished in at least the top eight, but the over-55 women's team deserves a special mention having reached the final, becoming one of the very few sports teams from Ireland to have played in a world cup final. The team narrowly missed out in the final, losing 1-0 to England, but it achieved memorable victories over Australia, Scotland and, most notably, South Africa in the semi-final, winning 5-0. The Ireland team included six players from the Ulster Masters team, all of whom still participate in the club game here in various guises, including one from Belfast Harlequins Ladies Hockey Club in my constituency.

Those hockey players are not just amazing athletes but fantastic role models. They all give back to the sport through umpiring, coaching, sitting on management committees, supporting fundraising efforts and, most importantly, encouraging players coming up from junior clubs, women returning from pregnancy and those picking up a stick for the first time.

At the other end of the age scale, I also note the victories of the Ulster under-16 boys, under-18 boys and under-16 girls in the Autumn Interprovincial Series, which concluded this weekend. They all won their leagues. That went alongside a narrow runner-up spot for the under-16 girls, so there is certainly a bright future for Ulster and Irish hockey. On that note, I give a special mention to the work of Ulster Hockey. Its contribution to the growth of the sport is measured not just by those results but by the growth in the number of junior leagues for women in recent years from nine to 12. That represents approximately 400 extra women playing the sport every week.

I hope that the achievements of the Ireland teams and those of the Ulster teams at the other end of the age range lead to a greater recognition of what hockey brings to society here, as one of the top three sports by participation, not just in Northern Ireland but in the world.

Mr Speaker: To acknowledge the over-55s, I call Steve Aiken.

Dr Aiken: Thank you very much indeed, and, yes, I am slightly over 55, Mr Speaker.

Members may not be aware that, over the past few days, we have had a very unwelcome visitor to our islands. I am not referring, as some politicians and journalists would, to the Chancellor of Queen's University, Hillary Clinton, whom I do welcome for her commitment to the university and Northern Ireland and for her steadfast support for Israel, holding Iran to account and Ukraine. There is absolutely no doubt that she has also become a figure of hate for those who would support Russia, Iran and their proxies in their intent to dominate and then destroy our Western system of peace and democracy.

That brings me on to our unwelcome visitor: the Russian naval ship Yantar. That ship, which is designed to find subsea infrastructure and to use underwater drones to either survey, tap or cut gas pipelines, fibre-optic cables and power cables, has been active before, probably cutting fibre-optic cables to Svalbard or in the Mediterranean off the coast of Cyprus, and her sister ships have been up to a lot of nefarious work in the Baltic Sea.

Last week, she paid a visit to the Irish Sea, and not just any part of it. Operating over cables that connect the Republic of Ireland to the United Kingdom, the vessel has been conducting operations that only the useful idiots protesting against NATO at Shannon Airport and on the pavement outside Queen's could consider benign. We need to be very aware of the critical vulnerability that this island faces from Russia and others. Thankfully, Northern Ireland, as part of our nation, comes under NATO's protective umbrella. The rest of this island is defenceless, however, and it is only by the good graces of the Royal Navy, the Royal Air Force and the United States Navy that we have any sense of security at all. If anybody still doubted the perils of defence freeloading, last week should have been a wake-up call, although, for those who remain blind to the reality of today's threats from Mr Putin et al, I severely doubt it.

Mr McCrossan: In recent weeks, the Minister for Infrastructure rightly made a positive announcement about the A5 upgrade. Unfortunately at the end of last week, news emerged, which the Minister has confirmed publicly, that pre-action correspondence of a potential legal challenge has been received against the upgrade. Rightly, that has caused a huge amount of frustration and anger in my constituency and beyond and a huge amount of concern over the implications of any action taken against the project.

There have been countless delays to the A5 upgrade, and, as a result, we have seen far too many deaths on the road. Almost 60 people are dead, and every single day of delay means that further lives in my constituency and in neighbouring ones are put at risk from that deathtrap of a road. There is no day on which I am on that road that I do not witness a potential accident or an accident occur. People have been seriously injured, and some have been left with life-changing injuries that they have had to live with and that they will have to live with for the rest of their life. The people of my constituency are traumatised by that road but are forced on to it because we have no alternative means of travel. Public transport is weak and largely inaccessible in rural constituencies, and in parts of my constituency in particular. We have no rail options. We have only the A5, which runs through the very heart of West Tyrone. That is why business owners and people right across the constituency are united in their frustration.

Those who are against the road upgrade may believe that they have due cause for objection, and they have a right to go through the objection process. They do not, however, have a right to continue down that path against the will of the majority of people whom I represent and, indeed, for whom the parties in the Assembly have been voicing concern. We need to see the road upgrade go ahead. Any delays are entirely unacceptable, and I consider any form of action to be an attempt to derail any form of progress being made with the A5.

The fact is that the A5 upgrade will go ahead, because it is an Executive flagship project. It is recognised across this island as being a critical piece of infrastructure for saving lives and protecting people, but it will also create economic opportunities for a part of the island that has been entirely cut off.

My message therefore to the objectors is this: please back off. Any action taken against the A5 upgrade literally costs lives, so I ask them today to withdraw any legal challenge and not to bring one again in the future.

Mr McHugh: Ba mhaith liom comhbhrón ó chroí a dhéanamh le muintir Loinsigh agus le muintir Shearcaigh faoi chailliúint thubaisteach Eoín, a fuair bás maidin Dé Domhnaigh seo chuaigh thart de dheasca taisme bóthair. Ní raibh Eoín ach 29. Go ndéana Dia A mhaith ar a anam.

Gortaíodh beagnach 8,000 duine ar bhóithre sna Sé Chontae anuraidh. Mar sin de, is cuí aird úsáideoirí bóthair a tharraingt ar a thábhachtaí atá sé bheith ar an eolas faoi shábháilteacht ar bhóithre agus bheith díograiseach ag cinntiú go dtig le daoine bheith slán agus iad ag taisteal ar ár mbóithre.

Is eol dúinn uilig príomhchúiseanna taismí bóthair: an ró-luas, bheith ag tiomáint faoi thionchar an óil nó drugaí, bheith ag tiomáint go neamhaireach, úsáid guthanna póca, gan crios sábhála a chaitheamh, agus droch-chothabháil feithiclí.

Gidh gur tábhachtach agus ábhartha iad na fachtóirí sin, ní mór a rá go gcuireann drochbhail ár mbonneagair go mór leis an fhadhb.

Is bóthar artaireach é an A5 chuig an iarthuaisceart, bóthair a théann trí mo thoghcheantar féin. Is minic a dúradh nach bhfuil an A5 acmhainneach ar an trácht atá ag taisteal air, nó chaill barraíocht daoine a mbeatha agus iad ag taisteal ar an bhóthar sin.

Is furasta an locht a chur ar na tiománaithe féin as cuid mhór de na taismí ar an bhóthar sin. Ach is léir go bhfuil contúirt sa bhóthar féin, nó tá an iomad bealach isteach agus amach ar an bhóthar chéanna.

Is minic an A4 luaite agam, nó ba é an bóthar ba chontúirtí in Éirinn é. Nuair a rinneadh carrbhealach dúbailte de, tháinig titim shuntasach ar líon na dtaismí.

Creidim gurb amhlaidh a bheas sé i gcás an A5 nuair a dhéanfar é a fhorbairt. Dá bhrí sin, is mian liom comhghairdeas a ghabháil leis an Aire John O’Dowd, nó d’fhógair sé le deireannas go bhfuil rún aige tús a chur ar an obair go luath sa bhliain 2025.

Chuir athbhreithnithe breithiúnacha moill ar fhorbairt an A5 agus is olc liom a chluinstin gur cuireadh agóid eile dlí ina aghaidh an tseachtain seo caite. Tá siúl agam go dtiocfar ar réiteach gan mhoill.

Cuirfidh forbairt an bhóthair seo go mór leis an tsábháilteacht ar bhóithre Thuaisceart na hÉireann. Tá mé ag dréim le titim láithreach i líon na dtaismí agus le tiománaithe a bheith slán agus iad ag taisteal ar an bhóthar seo.

Mr Dunne: I express my extreme disappointment at the decision of the Post Office to consider closing the branch in Main Street, Bangor, in my constituency. An announcement was made last week that affects, potentially, over 100 other branches across the UK, which are now under serious threat of closure. The post office was opened in 1936 and is an historic and integral part of the character of Bangor. Indeed, it is a notable post office and was one of the few that were opened during the short reign of King Edward VIII.

Many local residents who rely on these key services share my concerns and feel real disappointment today. Whilst we recognise that, today, a wider range of post office services is available in other retail units and outlets in different places, traditional post offices such as the one in Bangor Main Street provide a valuable and important service, particularly with so many bank closures, which we have seen in town and city centres over the past decade. As with many such closures, those who are impacted on hardest are the elderly and the more vulnerable people across our society, particularly in accessing cash and paying bills, including important utility bills.

Given the uncertainty created by the negative announcement last week, my thoughts are also with the staff whose livelihoods could be jeopardised by the changes, particularly as we approach the Christmas period. Following the disgraceful and shocking findings of the investigations of the Horizon scandal, there is a moral imperative for the Post Office management to avoid any further unnecessary job losses and to protect its already damaged reputation across the UK.

I will write to the Post Office management and the Economy Minister about the issue. It is important that every effort is made to oppose the changes, and I ask that every effort be made to reverse the decision. The loss of a post office will be yet another hammer blow to our city centre in Bangor, to the public and to other local businesses and traders, particularly our smaller and medium-sized businesses, which really are the backbone of our towns and city centres. Many of them rely daily on the post office for important services. There seems to be a growing trend for Bangor to be a soft target for cuts, which we have seen in recent years with the closure of the Bangor minor injury unit and the decision to remove the public enquiry office from Bangor police station. This move is a step backwards, and I ask for it to be reconsidered.

Mr Mathison: Today marks the start of Children's Grief Awareness Week 2024. It is an appropriate moment to reflect on the significant impact that bereavement can have on the life of children and young people. Data collection is not what it should be in this area, but it is estimated that, in the UK, by the age of 16, one in 29 children will experience the death of a parent or sibling. Those are sobering statistics. That is a child in every class, as they move through their educational journey. The impact of bereavement at that age is devastating. It is vital that the right support is available for our children, and nowhere is that more important than in our schools. Therefore, it is welcome that the policy focus of this year's Children's Grief Awareness Week is grief education, with a clear emphasis on the need for grief education to be an essential part of the curriculum from the earliest stage possible.

Research shows that good grief education can act as a strong protective factor when children later experience bereavement, which has such a huge and devastating impact on their well-being. That impact affects children in specific ways. It can leave them unsure of their previously assumed safety and security in the world and often without the language to speak about it. In that context, I particularly recognise the work of Marie Curie in this policy area in Northern Ireland. This week, it will launch its report on creating compassionate school communities that have policies in place to appropriately support bereaved children. The report will have a number of recommendations and is the culmination of a long period of research and engagement with stakeholders from across a range of sectors, most notably including engagement with young people who have been directly impacted by bereavement. It is essential that we engage with those children and young people if we want to deliver effective support.

I fully support the recommendations that will be announced, but I want to highlight two in particular. First, every school should have a bereavement policy in place to ensure that every child can get the support that they need in school when they are impacted by bereavement. Those policies should be embedded in schools and should generate whole-school approaches to bereavement support. All staff in the school should be familiar with the policy and should be fully equipped to deliver it effectively. Secondly, grief education should be embedded in the curriculum. Children in Northern Ireland should have a range of opportunities through their education to discuss grief and bereavement so that taboos around the subject can be broken down. Marie Curie's youth advisory panel is clear that those are vital interventions and that it is essential that, with the focus on grief education and the launch of Marie Curie's report, the Department now take forward the necessary work to deliver on the recommendations and to ensure that children and young people in our schools get the support that they need to prepare them for the impact of bereavement in their lives and to support them when they are dealing with grief and loss. I am that sure we all agree that we owe our children that.

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Ms Sheerin: I rise in celebration following a brilliant weekend of sport across the province, most notably my club, St Colm's Ballinascreen, becoming Ulster champions. I heartily congratulate everybody involved in the panel, particularly the management of Cathal, Paddy and Colm and the entire team. We have a brilliant mix of young and more experienced on our hurling panel, and they beat East Cavan Gaels by eight points yesterday to become the junior Ulster club champions. It is a fantastic feat for our small club, and I am very proud of everybody involved. The celebrations from last night probably still continue and rightly so.

I also note the fantastic achievements of Swatragh and Slaughtneil in reaching their respective finals at both intermediate and senior levels. I wish them the very best of luck in their finals.

Mr Buckley: Alexander McCartney was a global sexual predator: a vile paedophile who targeted hundreds, if not thousands, of young girls across the world. He blackmailed and exploited them, ultimately resulting in the deaths of a young girl and her father from the United States. The test of any society is how it treats its children. Since becoming an elected representative, I have become increasingly concerned by public attitudes towards paedophilia, which is a difficult subject for anybody to debate and talk about.

It was revealed in 2021 that, in Northern Ireland, one third of those convicted of child sex offences avoided a prison sentence. What has been going on in our society is absolutely abhorrent. It is happening across the United Kingdom. I will give three examples of sentences that, in my view and that of many of our constituents, were wholly and totally inappropriate. Huw Edwards, on whose phone 41 indecent images of children were found, received a suspended sentence: no jail time. The man who supplied those images got no jail time. Yet, across the UK, we see an attempt to target people for the offence of even putting up a Facebook post. Maybe they have offended somebody: they get jail time. When we look at cases like that, we see that how we treat our children is totally abhorrent.

Another case: just last week, a trainee teacher was let off a prison sentence. He was found to have shared hundreds of images of babies, yet there was no prison sentence. That 26-year-old distributed and received more than 1,000 of the most serious category A films and images. "Category A" is the most depraved and revolting. It is absolutely despicable. Just yesterday, the 'Daily Telegraph' reported that a paedophile convicted of sexually assaulting his stepdaughter had been allowed to remain in the United Kingdom because a judge ruled that deporting him to Africa — this is truly shocking — would breach his right to a family life under the European Convention on Human Rights. Has sentencing not gone mad in this place if we cannot collectively deal with such issues and ensure that those offenders are put behind bars?

Mr Speaker: Time is up.

Mr Buckley: I call for a wider sentencing review —

Mr Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Buckley: — and a UK-wide approach to dealing with the issue.

Mr Kearney: Tá sochaí faoi chomhtháthú sóisialta agus ceardchumainn láidre fite fuaite lena chéile. Is é sin bunchloch sochaí ina ndéantar na ceardchumainn agus na hoibrithe a chosaint le reachtaíocht agus leis an chomheagrú. Caithfidh sé bheith mar chuspóir príomha polaitíochta ag an Tionól seo ceardchumainn láidre a bheith ann. Tá ceardchumainn riachtanach má táimid le geilleagar a chur ar bun a rachaidh ar biseach do ghnóthaí agus ar bláth do na hoibrithe agus dá muintir.

Léirítear i dtaighde de chuid fheachtas Respect at Work agus Ollscoil na Banríona ar na mallaibh go bhfuil gníomh fostóirí in aghaidh na gceardchumann ag méadú ar fud na hÉireann. Maíonn oibrithe go ndéantar leatrom ar ghníomhaithe ceardchumainn agus go gcuireann fostóirí drogall ar oibrithe roimh dhul isteach i gceardchumainn. Tagann gníomh frith-cheardchumainn salach ar an rud atá d’fheidhm orainn mar shochaí agus muid ag leanúint den obair riachtanach le fadhbanna a réiteach. Tá ceardchumainn láidre de dhíth le dul i ngleic leis an phá íseal, dálaí oibre neamhbhuana agus an neamhionannas forleathan idir saibhir agus daibhir sa tsochaí againn.

De réir mar a dhéanfar an Bille um chearta fostaíochta/poist mhaithe a chur ar aghaidh sa Tionól, beidh sé de dhualgas ar gach aon Chomhalta a dhícheall a dhéanamh ionas go dtiocfaidh sé de reacht amach go mbeidh ceardchumainn láidre agus cearta láidre cómhargála ann. Tá bealach nua, forásach sa reachtaíocht sin le go gcuirfear oibrithe agus a muintir chun feabhais; go mbeidh caighdeáin arda saothair ann; go mbeidh luach saothair is fearr ann; go mbeidh ionaid oibre atá slán sábháilte ann; agus go mbeidh cosaint ann ar gach aon saghas leithcheala san ionad oibre. Capall na nuálaíochta agus an fháis eacnamaíochta ceardchumainn a bhfuil cumas iontu agus oibrithe a bhfuil pá maith agus post buan acu.

Ms Forsythe: Once again, I rise to highlight the funding needs in Northern Ireland. In our recent Budget announcement, it was recognised that funding for Northern Ireland should based on need. That campaign has been led by the DUP, particularly our leader, Gavin Robinson MP, for some time. We are pleased to see progress. However, its implementation fails to address the fact that we have fallen substantially behind the rest of the UK over many years in our funding and our baseline is not sufficient. We should not be waiting to apply piecemeal funding through monitoring rounds just to meet our basic public service needs and to keep things operating.

The DUP wants pay awards for public-sector staff that keep pace with other parts of the United Kingdom. The disparity is another symptom of the chronic underfunding of our public services here. Our nurses, doctors, police officers and teachers deserve to receive fair pay and conditions for the vital work that they do. It is wrong that too many of our best public servants are now employed by agencies rather than the public sector.

The Labour Government's decision to hike National Insurance contributions will cost our Civil Service an additional £20 million from April 2025. It will cost all employers in Northern Ireland, but that tax change, which was imposed without consultation or consideration of the disproportionate impact on the devolved Administrations, will force our Civil Service to divert critical resources from front-line services to cover those increased costs. It will reduce the funding available for healthcare, education and community services. That £20 million could instead have been used to employ more nurses and doctors to support an overburdened health system or to provide additional resources for schools.

Our public finances in Northern Ireland are under immense pressure, and we need a fair funding model that is correctly baselined and secured on a long-term and sustainable basis. That has long been a priority for the DUP, and we will continue to work hard to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland through our teams in Westminster, the Executive and the Assembly.

Mr Speaker: Members should take their ease while the top Table is changed.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The next item of business is a motion from the Opposition on breaches of the ministerial code of conduct.

Mr O'Toole: I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have five minutes to propose and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have three minutes. Matthew, please open the debate on the motion.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Since we took up the mantle of opposition, we have been clear that we will be constructive in putting forward positive ideas. Today, in our final Opposition day of 2024, we are doing just that on EU affairs, childcare and dereliction in the heart of Belfast. We also said that we would be robust in holding those in power to account. Today we are doing that, too.

In July this year, a report from the ministerial standards commissioner found that five different DUP Ministers had breached the ministerial code by failing to attend a range of NSMC meetings in late 2021. That finding is, of course, hardly surprising, given that the High Court ruled that those actions were totally unlawful, but that did not stop the boycott continuing in 2021. Indeed, in her report, the ministerial standards commissioner is clear that the decision to proceed with the boycott in clear knowledge that it was unlawful exacerbated the breach.

To quote the commissioner:

— she means the Ministers in question —

That gets to the heart of the breach and why it matters. Politics in this place is held in low esteem. People believe that parties in the Assembly, particularly the larger ones, believe that they can do what they like and face minimal or no consequences. All too often, that is true. There is a crisis of accountability in our politics. That was in evidence recently when the First Minister felt that she could instruct a Committee Chair on what could and could not be asked during scrutiny by a Statutory Committee. Part of our job in opposition is to effect a change in that culture. It is worth pointing out that, while the rules of the Assembly now provide for more stringent penalties, including formal censure or even exclusion, our motion today does not do that. That is not to say that those sanctions cannot be used in the future, but it is to say that our motion is about registering clear condemnation, affirming the centrality of the NSMC to these institutions and looking forward to solutions. It is not about scoring points; it is about accountability.

When it comes to accountability, people may remember the words of Tony McGleenan KC, who was defence counsel for several of the affected Ministers. He argued in court that a judicial remedy to the boycott was not appropriate back then because the Assembly was there to hold Ministers to account. Well, after two years of it being down, here we are. There is a broader point here about the legitimacy of using boycotts, which cripple the operation of government, as a legitimate political tool. That logic has seen us without a Government for half of the past decade. The collapse of the NSMC is part of that. It is pernicious. Strand 2 of the agreement is designed to be equal and interlocking with strands one and three, and it is important to make that point as often as possible. The NSMC was not and is not a bauble. It is supposed to be as core to the functioning of our Government as the Chamber and the Executive, so collapsing it for party political ends was never a legitimate action. The NSMC had no role at all in Brexit or the UK's withdrawal from the European Union.

That brings us back to the question on which the two big parties refuse to engage: reform. Reform is needed not just of the veto that allows one party to collapse the operation of strand one of devolution but of the system that requires a Minister to have a chaperone for a routine meeting with their southern counterpart, which is how the DUP was able to thwart the NSMC for so long. Sadly, neither area of reform is likely to make progress any time soon, because both big parties see continued advantage in a system that offers them not just a veto power but a shield from accountability. That is, once again, on display because, as I look to the ministerial Benches, I see that neither the First Minister nor the deputy First Minister, or even the junior Ministers, is here to respond to the debate, despite the motion clearly calling on the First Minister and the deputy First Minister to explore reform of strands one and two. They are not here: they have not turned up to engage in that simple ask and show accountability to the Assembly Chamber. That, I am afraid, says it all. It is why our role in opposition is so important. Even if it makes people in and outside the Chamber uncomfortable, we intend to keep doing it in the public interest.

I commend the motion to the Assembly. I reiterate the need for real accountability, real reform and an end to the politics of boycott.

Mr Kearney: The parties in the Assembly are responsible for the full and complete implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, including strand two, which is the subject of today's motion. The Good Friday Agreement must not and cannot be subordinated to sectional party or governmental interests.

All three strands of the agreement were designed and agreed, through negotiation, to be interdependent. The parallel and mutually reinforcing operation of the strands is the essential foundation of our peace settlement. The strands were negotiated and agreed as a framework in which to continue the management of democratic change in our society. The North/South Ministerial Council is therefore a fundamental political institution of the Good Friday Agreement, established to coordinate and cooperate on common policy areas across the entire island. In the post-Brexit era and in the context of the Windsor framework, North/South cooperation on investment, trade, agriculture and tourism has never been more important to the prosperity of everyone across these islands.

While the motion is correct to highlight the importance of the NSMC and its integral relationship to the rest of the agreement, it fails to note that the mechanism already exists to monitor and, if necessary, advise on improvements to the implementation of strands one, two and three through the Assembly and Executive Review Committee.

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate the Member giving way. I agree with him, but does he agree that, thus far, the AERC has done virtually nothing about reform? It has met once and has not discussed any type of reform.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Kearney: Go raibh maith agat.

I thank the Member for his intervention. It is incumbent, without exception or ambiguity, on every Member and Minister to stand up and take responsibility for ensuring that the agreement is implemented in its entirety.

Attempts to hollow out any institution of the Good Friday Agreement are unacceptable. They should be unambiguously opposed by all parties and both Governments. Reform should be done by utilising the agreement's existing provisions. In this case, as I elaborated for the Member who intervened, that means the AERC and not an obscurely defined review. The best protection for the agreement against its opponents inside and outside the Assembly rests in its complete implementation. The focus of all democrats and progressives should be on realising that objective and opening the next phase of our peace process, leading towards a new constitutional future for all our people built on reconciliation and national reunification.

Mr Kingston: The action of DUP Ministers in the previous Executive and the subsequent legal judgement were a collective demonstration that the original protocol imposed by the EU and the UK Government caused a deterioration in political and economic stability in Northern Ireland. The concerns of unionists had been trampled on, and the DUP makes no apology for having brought matters to a head. Only then did the EU reverse its position and return to the negotiating table. Ultimately, legislative changes were made. We in the DUP will take no lectures from other parties that resisted bringing about a political resolution to that impasse and, instead, called for the rigorous implementation of the protocol — the arrangements that were at the heart of the problem.

Mr Harvey: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kingston: Yes, I will.

Mr Harvey: Does the Member agree that the DUP was right to take that stand at that time?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Kingston: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Absolutely. My colleague is right: the party was right to make that stand. It brought about benefit to our constitutional position and to our economic position in the UK internal market.

During that period, we made it clear that it would not be appropriate for us to thwart decision-making on crucial issues such as health cooperation. In fact, cross-border meetings took place during the period, with the attendance of other Ministers to sign off on those issues and on PEACE PLUS funding. It is a pity that other parties did not follow that example: in 2008, Sinn Féin boycotted Executive meetings, and, in 2017, it pulled down the institutions and deprived the Assembly of the ability to sit, prevented British-Irish Council meetings from taking place and stopped the North/South bodies from being able to operate in any shape or form.

Until now, the common thread running through all strand two and strand three institutions has been that they are accountable to Stormont. Regrettably, the undemocratic imposition of over 300 areas of EU law on Northern Ireland has reframed the terms of North/South cooperation, attacking and diminishing the principle that the North/South Ministerial Council and other bodies are accountable to the Executive and the Assembly. That is where the act of bad faith lies.

The DUP supports practical, sensible and targeted cooperation between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. We do not feel that our proud British and unionist identity is under threat from the many positive examples of beneficial and life-saving cross-border health projects, including the all-island congenital heart disease network and the North West Cancer Centre. The DUP wants that vital work to continue.

When it comes to having respect for the institutions and the various codes that are applicable to Members, we should perhaps take a look at the recent history of those parties that are championing the motion. When Gerry Kelly admitted committing a criminal offence at the Tour of the North parade in 2013 and was sanctioned by the then Assembly Commissioner for Standards, it was the SDLP that used the petition of concern to block those sanctions from taking effect. In the same year, the then Lord Chief Justice ruled that Michelle O'Neill, the then Agriculture Minister, had breached the ministerial code by trying to transfer money from the direct farm support budget into rural development programmes without there being Executive consideration. More recently, the former Alliance Party MLA Patrick Brown was found to have failed to observe the principles of conduct for MLAs and to have brought the Assembly into disrepute.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up.

Mr Kingston: In closing, I say that —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up.

Mr Kingston: — those championing the motion would do well —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up.

Mr Kingston: — to remember that those in glass houses should not throw stones.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Yes, and perhaps Members can honour the fact that when I say that time is up, it is up.

Doug Beattie, I am not sure whether you were indicating that you wished to speak.

Mr Beattie: I was, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I will briefly contribute to what is a very short debate about a very important issue. The motion is factual in its truth but narrow in its content, and I have to say that it points at just one party — in this case, the DUP — when the issue of breaches of the ministerial code of conduct goes much wider by far. The truth is this: DUP Ministers' failure to attend NSMC meetings did not achieve anything that they set out to achieve, and we are no further forward today than we were back then. We do need a mechanism to hold Ministers to account, however, but I am not sure what the motion is trying to do about that.

I will raise a number of issues. First, the line in the motion that states:

is absolutely right, but we need much more robust action to be taken, and far quicker and more timely action, when they do not adhere to the ministerial code. I am not sure what is going to be achieved by having a debate about the DUP's failure to attend meetings, three years after the fact, albeit the proposer of the motion did say that it is about highlighting an issue. That is fair enough, as I have no problem with our highlighting an issue.

Mr O'Toole: I thank the Member for giving way. We are highlighting an issue, but it is true to say that the Commissioner for Standards' report came out only in July of this year. We are not looking to have a fight or to score points. Rather, we are trying to set standards for the future.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Beattie: My point was not directed at the SDLP for tabling the motion three years after the event. Rather, I am saying that the issue is that the commissioner published her findings quite late. Things need to happen an awful lot quicker. The reality is that the ministerial code is not fit for purpose. We were promised a revised ministerial code following the New Decade, New Approach deal, but we have not yet received it. We were also promised that the ministerial code would be looked at following the passing of the Executive Committee (Functions) Bill, but we are still waiting.

From recent engagement with the commissioner, I have found out that the ministerial Pledge of Office does not fall within her remit. When a Minister breaches the Pledge of Office, the commissioner does not have the remit to look at the situation. The Nolan principles of standards in public life, which apply to the Pledge of Office, are therefore not being looked at by the commissioner.

The second point that I would like to raise is on the second half of the motion, which talks about looking at a review of strand two of the Belfast Agreement. I am always mindful that we should never tinker with just one part of the Belfast Agreement. I tell you now that, if you start pulling at the thread of strand two, it will have an effect on strand one and on strand three, so I am always mindful of that. I understand what the party is bringing forward in the motion. There is no issue with that, but I am mindful that you do not want to pull at just one thread, because the whole thing could unravel, and the unbalanceable agreement that we have managed to balance could come apart very quickly. All that I will say on that is that we need to be careful.

We are in a reduced mandate. We have just over two years left. We, as an Executive and an Assembly, are struggling to get legislation out. This is not the time to start looking at one strand of the Belfast Agreement, although I understand the reasons for it.

Ms Bradshaw: I support the motion. The motion as framed is good, and we fully support it in its entirety, although we add that it is a pity that the opportunity was not taken to add a section on institutional reform — that very much speaks to the comments of Doug Beattie — which, if we looked at the wider piece, would include ensuring that breaches of the ministerial code are not just passed over. Mr Kingston clearly outlined why we need institutional reform: so that we cannot have a stop-start, collapsing Assembly.

We strongly share the proposer's frustration that vital North/South work has not been taken forward as well as it could have been in recent years in part because of a boycott of the institutions in their entirety and in part because of a previous boycott of the North/South institutions. Indeed, we are still in a position that the North/South bodies are not operating properly because their boards have vacancies, predominantly on the Northern side. We feel that that represents a significant opportunity lost.

We also await updates on the ministerial code. A question also arises about why we have a code that appears to be unenforceable without itself falling foul of the sectarian veto that stalls so much progress in this place. That has already been touched on this afternoon. We may note that the code applies to covering the full range of functions, including promoting good community relations. It is also hard to see how outright boycotts are in the public interest that we, as politicians, are supposed to serve.

Therefore, we welcome the proposal of a review of strand two; indeed, we would support a review of the institutions more broadly. Sticking with strand two alone, however, we share the view that it is a fundamental aspect of the agreement that cannot simply be ignored at will. With much more focus on ensuring that the administration and resourcing of North/South bodies were improved, we would eventually get to the point of being able to demonstrate more clearly the benefits for all our communities in Northern Ireland.

The motion could have been strengthened to make clear reference to how a sectarian veto should not be able to block a review aimed at ensuring that the North/South Ministerial Council and the ministerial code could function more effectively. I would argue that abuse of the sectarian veto is, in itself, contrary to the ministerial code, which demands that Ministers work for the whole community and towards a shared future. As long as that veto remains in place without review, we are left meekly calling for things that will probably never happen, leading to the public losing faith altogether, as we continue to lose opportunities to improve society. Nevertheless, we support the motion.

Mr Harvey: I will make a few points. First, it is interesting to note the new-found interest that the SDLP has in the events of 2021. It is a pity that it did commit itself back then to working constructively to address the issues facing us in order to avoid the action that was taken. Non-attendance at North/South Ministerial Council meetings could have been avoided with a political resolution, a resolution that the SDLP and other parties in the Chamber resisted to such an extent that they called for the rigorous implementation of the mechanisms at the very heart of the problem.

The motion makes no reference to the steps that we in my party took to ensure that our removal from the Council did not impact on or impede essential decision-making on crucial issues such as cross-border health cooperation. In that regard, the motion is factually wrong. Before the Opposition attempt to caricature my party as the bad guys holding up sensible solutions by way of cross-border cooperation, it is worth stating that we have no issue whatever with working collaboratively with neighbouring jurisdictions, particularly the Republic of Ireland, to achieve better, quicker and more efficient results for everyone on the island. Practical and sensible targeted cooperation on areas of mutual benefit is a no-brainer and should be welcomed.

The motion calls for a review of strand two; however, it should be remembered that the goalposts have already been moved in relation to the impact of the protocol on the North/South relationship. The undemocratic imposition of over 300 areas of EU law on Northern Ireland has reframed the terms of North/South cooperation. It has attacked and diminished the principle that the NSMC and other bodies should be accountable to the Executive and the Assembly. That is where the act of bad faith lies, meaning that there is inevitable damage to the delicate balance of relations.

On reform, I remind Members that the institutions that we are all privileged to serve in are built on consensus and the necessity of working and delivering for all and are founded on commanding the ongoing support of unionism and nationalism. In times past, the SDLP was quick to remind unionism of that fact but is now, sadly, less so. No level of reform should be used as a short-term tool to punish one community or elevate another with knee-jerk reactions. On the contrary, reform should seek to better solidify cross-community support and equality. Where devolution can be improved to benefit better governance —.

Mr Kingston: Will the Member give way?

Mr Harvey: Yes. I would welcome the Member's intervention.

Mr Kingston: Does the Member agree that our attention should be on the good governance of Northern Ireland and on ensuring that, for the rest of the term, the Assembly operates well?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Harvey: Thank you very much. I thank the Member for his intervention.

We in the DUP have demonstrated that we will not be found wanting, whether on the reduction in the number of MLAs, the reduction in the number of Departments, Ministers and advisers or on the wider streamlining of politics here. We have always been to the forefront of change for the better.

The reform of strand two or elements of strand one cannot be conducted in isolation from a wider discussion of reform. Piecemeal reviews based on party political motivations will not serve to better our institutions. The normalisation of our system of government towards voluntary coalition, for example, is something that we would wish to see in future. However, we must approach that and other issues with a strong realism that is in the here and now.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Harry. Your time is up.

Mr Harvey: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Mr Tennyson: It is telling that Minister Lyons and former Ministers McIlveen and Middleton are not in their place to answer for their actions, albeit they have wheeled out their colleagues to lay out a valiant defence of the indefensible.

The Good Friday Agreement relies on three strands: strong relationships internally in Northern Ireland; strong east-west relationships between this island and Britain; and strong North/South relationships. This place functions only on the basis of interdependence, respect and cooperation. In boycotting the North/South meetings, the DUP intentionally sought to disregard that agreement, disrespect its colleagues and disrespect the people whom it is here to serve. It claims to have done so in order to exercise leverage over the EU, in which it has failed. It exercised leverage only over the most vulnerable, who languished on ever-increasing waiting lists, were under pressure from huge spikes in the cost of living and struggled to get adequate education provision for their kids. Those were the people who suffered, not Boris Johnson, Rishi Sunak or the European Commission. It is telling that none of the Ministers or Members concerned are here to answer, because they know that that was the sole consequence of their actions.

The report of the Standards and Privileges Committee was clear in pointing to the fact that Ministers acted unlawfully and continued to act unlawfully even after the High Court decision had been made, setting a poor example, lowering standards and destroying what was left of public trust and confidence in our institutions.

I find the level of hypocrisy striking. We have Members of the DUP and Sinn Féin standing up and pointing fingers at each other for actions that their own parties engaged in. Mr Kearney talked about the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, but says that we could not possibly look at a review. A review was promised in the original text of the Good Friday Agreement and has never been implemented. This is not about elevating one community over another: it is about equality. It is about ensuring that everyone in Northern Ireland is treated equally by the institutions, irrespective of whether they are nationalist, unionist or represented by the Members on these Benches who do not align with either of those two boxes. It is also about accountability. Had the Assembly wished to debate a statutory motion of censure of any of the Members concerned, that motion would have been blocked by cross-community vote. Accountability in the Assembly will be a pipe dream for as long as the current arrangements are allowed to stand. I implore the two largest parties, who have been the stumbling block to reform —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Tennyson: — to wake up —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Tennyson: — and to deliver for the people whom they represent.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: OK. The Member's time is up.

Mr McCrossan: We tabled this important motion because of the determination in the July report, which very clearly indicates that there was a breach of the ministerial code. That is unacceptable, but I know that it would suit some Members or parties if we were to continue down the road of simply brushing everything under the carpet and saying, "It's in the past. Don't worry about it. Sure it's done now". It also suits the DUP to define good governance when it suits it to do so, but the reality is that the public have lost all confidence in the institutions. We have a huge mountain to climb if we are to reassure people that this place is here to serve their best interests and the common good.

Unfortunately, instead of saying, "Yes, fair enough, we should not have done that," the DUP continues to dig the big hole that it is in. That attitude will disappoint quite a lot of people, but it will not surprise them. The reality that the DUP fails to recognise is that boycotting did not work and collapsing the institutions did not work. Although the DUP was built on "Never, never, never," it always returns to the table with its tail between —.

Mr Kingston: Will the Member give way?

Mr McCrossan: No, you have said enough.

The DUP always returns to the table with its tail between its legs. The question is this: are you interested in representing all the people in Northern Ireland or not? The reality is that, right throughout its history, the DUP has cherry-picked the parts that suit it but wants the rest of us to run to its beating drum when it suits it. The reality is that things here need to change. We have a huge task in delivering for all the people in Northern Ireland on health, education and housing. The truth is that those are the issues that unite our society. People are united by their struggle to get operations or the treatment that they need, to get homes and to support their families. Typically, however, this place always falls into the trap of "them and us". "Let's distract from the fact that there has been no delivery by the House and create an illusion that we can't work together". In truth, that is a political decision.

Boycotting the North/South Ministerial Council achieved nothing, and the DUP has learned nothing. Deep down, it knows that all the boycotting has achieved nothing. Its Members are back in the Assembly with very little having changed and their tails between their legs. I remind the DUP that the protocol is a direct consequence of the Brexit that it wanted and for which it fought and argued. Maybe it is a case of the DUP being careful what it wishes for and of this being time to get on with it. People deserve better. They want this place to work, but they also want higher standards —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up.

Mr McCrossan: — from the people in elected office, who hold the responsibility for —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Daniel.

Mr McCrossan: — and have control of the Departments. It is time to get on with the job.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: OK.

Mr Gaston: As noteworthy as it is, the motion does not have one word in it explaining why the boycott started and why, quite frankly, it should be continuing. That is not surprising given its source. As a party that aspires to a united Ireland, the SDLP is hardly going to have a problem with the trashing of our east-west relationship. What is surprising is that unionists, who, alongside the TUV, said on "Ulster Day" 2021 that it was:

have abandoned their pledges about not operating the North/South Ministerial Council. Indeed, some were clear that they would not operate any of the Belfast Agreement institutions in such circumstances. I recall Mr Lyons once boldly declaring:

The lure of the ministerial car proved greater than his commitment to his own promise.

If there was any doubt about the continuing impact of the protocol, it was removed last week when a pet border was introduced between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, and not just a pet border but one that applies to guide dogs. So much for the deal that was sold to ordinary unionists on the basis of zero checks and zero paperwork. How much stronger a message it would send if, instead of merely returning to the Executive and North/South Ministerial Council, the DUP and the Ulster Unionist Party had kept their word and the Assembly had come back only to vote on the protocol.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Mr Gaston: Absolutely.

Mr O'Toole: If the Member thinks that no unionist should be here, why is he here?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Gaston: Thank you very much for your intervention. Obviously, this is not the Executive. This is the Assembly, but you can smile about your wee gotcha moment, if that is what you were after.

As I said, that would have underscored the message that the trashing of the constitutional guarantees of the Belfast Agreement meant that it could not coexist with the protocol.

Coming back to the SDLP, however, I find it amazing that this is the context in which it chose to cite the ministerial code. In recent days, we have had the scandal of the First Minister seeking, successfully, to head off questions at the Committee for the Executive Office about her adherence to the ministerial code. No one who watched her evidence would have concluded that she was committed to accountability and openness. I say this to the SDLP: if you want to be taken seriously as an Opposition, you need to be prepared to challenge Sinn Féin and, indeed, the First Minister.

Why, weeks after the scandal broke, have you not brought a motion to the House about McMonagle? We still do not even know how many days a week the self-confessed paedophile worked in Ms O'Neill's office. Did he work there at all or was she involved in funnelling money for constituency work into a party press operation? Let us get real, and, if we are to have these institutions, let us at least debate the breaches of the ministerial code that are relevant. It is time that the SDLP took off its constructive gloves and seriously challenged Sinn Féin regarding its handling of the Michael McMonagle scandal.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Before I call the next Member to speak, who will be Patsy McGlone to make a winding-up speech on the motion, I advise Members that the Speaker has received a letter from the First Minister and deputy First Minister notifying that they are unable to provide a response to the debate because there is no shared position across the joint Office. I am sure that the Assembly welcomes the courtesy of that correspondence.

Mr McGlone: Go raibh míle maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle.

That really takes us to the heart of the matter, does it not? This is supposed to be a Government by the people, for the people and for all the people, and, quite clearly, that is not spilling out of the letter that you referred to.

My colleague pointed out that five DUP Ministers had failed to attend North/South Ministerial Council meetings. We went into the details of the finding of the Commissioner for Standards that the DUP had chosen to act unlawfully. Indeed, she stated that they felt:

which, clearly, is not the case. The centrality of the North/South Ministerial Council to the functioning of those bodies of the Good Friday Agreement, which many of us went out and voted for and which helped to bring us peace, is integral to the way forward for this community and, indeed, for this island.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Mr McGlone: Yes.

Mr O'Toole: Does my colleague agree that it is notable and, perhaps, fitting that not only did those Ministers not attend NSMC meetings but, today, they have not even shown up here for accountability?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr McGlone: Go raibh míle maith agat.

I take the logic that the boycott now applies to the Assembly itself. That is not where people should want to place themselves. This is about real accountability and reform.

Declan Kearney said that the Good Friday Agreement cannot be subordinated. Chuala mé an méid a bhí le rá aige.

He said that the three strands depend mutually on one another. Clearly, from the letter that you have just referred to, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, his party has a task to seek to persuade Members from the DUP that, indeed, that applies to the Assembly, too, and to accountability within the Assembly. He referred to the Assembly and Executive Review Committee. As my colleague aptly pointed out, it has met only once. Its outcome seems to have been quite marginal.

Brian Kingston referred to unionists being trampled upon. I do not think that any of us would ever come with the mentality of trampling upon anyone, least of all our unionist colleagues or, indeed, neighbours and friends. Certainly, that is not why I am here. I would venture to say that the very man whom his own party supported, Boris Johnson, was the person who trampled upon them, danced upon them, laughed at them, sneered at them and did the dirt on them. Meanwhile, the DUP not only supported him and his Government but cheered for him at their party conference. Let us face facts, folks: you were taken for a bit of a run.

Mr Kingston: Will the Member take an intervention?

Mr McGlone: I am sorry: I do not have any time.

That is the reality of it. He referred to 300 areas of EU law that have been imposed on Northern Ireland. Another issue has to be explored here: are we suggesting that we discard those 300 elements of EU law? That is not the place where we want to be. Let us face facts: many elements of EU law are good law that has been brought to us here. Indeed, in many instances, it was brought forward through the mechanisms of the EU while Britain was still a member.

Doug Beattie pointed out the issues that need to be achieved around the Pledge of Office and that the Commissioner for Standards does not, in fact, have any remit or role to look at that. Paula Bradshaw, in supporting the motion, referred to other reforms. Indeed, the SDLP was one of the first parties in the Chamber to realise that further reform was required. In fact, the motion refers to "other reforms" that are needed to contribute:

Harry Harvey referred to the non-attendance. Of course, it could have been avoided, Harry. The boycott did not achieve a lot. On the issue of the protocol, as I have said, the protocol was the spawn of Brexit, for which, in fact, many in your party voted. The protocol was the child of Brexit. Having voted for that, people cannot absolve themselves of responsibility and say, "Ah, well. Sorry: it was not my fault". It gave the red light — I say "red light" rather than "green light" because it stopped us and took us backwards — to a process that wound up with the protocol and subsequently with the Windsor framework. As for "bad guys", Harry, I would never refer to you as a bad guy, but your own party helped to deliver Brexit and the protocol.

Eóin Tennyson referred to the boycott and disregard for the Good Friday Agreement. My colleague Daniel McCrossan also referred to it and to the DUP's digging itself deeper into a hole. The North/South Ministerial Council was there, and is there, to deal with relevant issues, whether those are about North/South, all-island economic cooperation, environmental regulations and support or health issues, which many Members have referred to here. Nobody — nobody — can tell me that boycotting those institutions delivered anything positive for the community in Northern Ireland. Nothing. The boycott delivered nothing positive in dealing with key, instrumental and positive elements that people should be getting on with.

If you choose to absent yourself from those key responsibilities and duties, you are neglecting your duties to the entire community. Sin a bhfuil le rá agam.

Mr O'Toole: I beg to move

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Business Committee has agreed to allow one hour for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have five minutes to propose and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. As an amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List, the Business Committee has agreed that eight minutes will be added to the total time for the debate. Matthew, please open the debate on the motion.

Mr O'Toole: Before the end of this year, the Assembly will have an opportunity to vote on the protocol, now often referred to as the "Windsor framework". Unlike a lot of the votes that we have in this place, this one will mean something. It is a vote that will not simply pass into the ether; it will have specific consequences. It is provided for in international law, and, assuming that it passes with a simple majority, as, most expect, it will, the UK Government have said that that will trigger a process of reviewing how the protocol works.

How should that review look? What should it look at? The consent motion is short and simply acts to confirm or reject the continued application of articles 5 to 10 of the protocol. Of course, we all want to see continued efforts to ensure that the movement of goods between Britain and Northern Ireland is as smooth as possible, but, if there is to be an independent review, it must look at the challenges and opportunities of our post-Brexit arrangements in total. That means maximising the investment and growth potential of our dual market access. It means ensuring that the EU and the UK are on the same page when encouraging and facilitating that investment. I have been among the loudest and most vociferous advocates of the opportunities from dual market access, but it will take more than local politicians talking; it will need policymakers in Brussels, London and Dublin to be fully engaged in helping us to benefit from our position.

We think that the independent review process, assuming that one takes place, is the perfect place to start that work, but this is not simply about pounds and pence or euros and cents; it is about the extraordinary opportunities for young people, universities and wider civic society and maximising our access to European programmes and European cooperation. For example, while it is welcome that Northern Irish students can participate in ERASMUS via higher education institutions in the South, we want to see Northern institutions fully participating again. We are, after all, bound to the EU not only by the obligations of the protocol but by the fact that our people — our citizens — have a permanent right to EU citizenship by dint of birthright. We also have another treaty right enshrined in the Good Friday Agreement and clarified by our former party leader Mark Durkan when he was an MP, which is that Northern Ireland, uniquely in the UK and, indeed, uniquely on the continent, has an automatic legal route to rejoining the EU via a referendum on a new Ireland. To be clear, that is not what today's debate is about, but it illustrates why we are entitled to speak up not just for a European future in the long term but for a joint effort by the UK and EU to maximise the benefits as we mitigate the challenges of our position. Those challenges also include a wide range of new disruptions to cross-border life in the all-island economy.

Let me say briefly that we will, of course, support the Alliance Party amendment, which adds to our motion. I note that some of the wording is a little clumsy. The Alliance Party has successfully courted soft nationalist opinion, but the way that its amendment is phrased indicates that people come "to Northern Ireland from Ireland". That is interesting phrase, and, if you want to continue courting soft nationalists, I encourage you to keep using such language. That would certainly be in our interests. In any case, let us be clear: the appalling policy decision to press forward with the electronic travel authorisation (ETA), potentially devastating tourism in Ireland, is an example of why the British Government needed to be put to the pin of their collar on the original protocol. We make no bones about the fact that we did that, and we will continue to do that.

There are other cross-border disruptions: financial services; data, including geo-blocking for sport fans; and other regulatory and tax problems that face frontier workers. The protocol itself, signed by the UK, promised in article 11 to ensure that the conditions for North/South cooperation were maintained. Let us hold them to that.

All of those things and, indeed, getting progress on softening east-west disruption would be made more straightforward and, indeed, more accountable, if Northern Ireland had representation in the European Parliament. Our party makes no bones about being the most pro-European party in the North and, indeed, about our aspiration to rejoin the EU, but I have also listened to MLAs and others outside the Chamber, including former Members, lament what they see as the undemocratic nature of the protocol. I presume, then, that they will be happy to support our call for Northern Ireland to be represented in the European Parliament. Whether you want to rejoin the EU, as I do, or simply think that our voice should be heard, we ask for your support. There are multiple routes to this happening and multiple examples of non-member states being represented. West Berlin sent MEPs to the European Parliament despite not being in the Community, as it was then. Gibraltar has never been in the UK, but it was part of the EU and was bound by EU law until Brexit and so voted in European parliamentary elections. Multiple accession countries have enjoyed observer status. Those examples demonstrate that there are precedents and possibilities. To those who are opposed, I simply say, "Why not?". In this place, we did not —.

Ms McLaughlin: Will the Member take an intervention?

Mr O'Toole: I will take an intervention, yes.

Ms McLaughlin: Will the Member agree that every Member of the Assembly has a responsibility to maximise our post-Brexit status?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member will have an extra minute

Mr O'Toole: Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I appreciate the extra minute, and I appreciate the opportunity to outline that, yes, we should take every opportunity to maximise the benefits.

I believe strongly in a European future, but I want the best for all of our citizens here. Whether they are EU citizens proudly or not, I want the best for all of our people under our unique status. In this place, we did not choose Brexit, but we have managed to protect ourselves from the worst consequences of Brexit. Let us go further. Let us maximise those opportunities, and let us ensure that our voice is heard where we need it to be heard. I commend the motion to the Assembly.

Mr Tennyson: I beg to move the following amendment:

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Eóin, you will have five minutes to propose your amendment and three minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other contributors will have three minutes. Go ahead.

Mr Tennyson: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I propose the Alliance amendment, which would support and enhance the motion by expanding on two fundamental issues: the need for a comprehensive UK-EU veterinary and sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) agreement and an electronic travel authorisation exemption for tourists crossing the land border.

As has been well rehearsed, Alliance opposed leaving the EU, but thanks to the recklessly hard Brexit pursued by the Conservative Government, aided and abetted by the DUP, special arrangements are now necessary to address the particular challenges posed to our economy. There is no escaping that fundamental truth, and so continuation of the Windsor framework, when the Assembly votes in the coming weeks, is essential to uphold our dual market access, protect the Good Friday Agreement and respect our international obligations. Any review that follows, to be clear, must command the respect of people from across our community and a broad swathe of political opinion and must not be the kind of sweetheart deal that we have seen between the UK Government and the DUP.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. He talks about the respect of all communities. The Belfast Agreement put at its heart cross-community voting in this place. Does the Member not have any concern or, indeed, remorse about the fact that there will be no cross-community vote on the democratic scrutiny motion in the coming weeks?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Tennyson: I am concerned about the impact that Brexit had on cross-community relations and on the Good Friday Agreement when the DUP rode a coach and horses through that agreement and completely undermined it. The Member needs to look in the mirror rather than to cast aspersions on those of us on these Benches post Brexit [Interruption.]

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Order. Will Members please stop shouting from a sedentary position? It is rude.

Mr Tennyson: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

The truth is that the overwhelming majority of people and businesses here want to see pragmatic solutions, not further instability and uncertainty. The commitment of the new UK Government to reset relationships with the EU is welcome, and we know that, through constructive and solution-focused engagement with our partners, flexibilities can be forthcoming and solutions found. Of course, the clearest way to address the additional trade borders and barriers created by Brexit would be for the UK to return to the EU or, at the very least, to the single market and the customs union. Short of that, however, a comprehensive UK-EU veterinary and SPS agreement is the clearest way to benefit our economy, producers and consumers. That is why we have been calling for such an agreement since January 2021, and I am proud that Alliance was the first party to do so. Industry strongly supports an agreement, recognising the opportunity to address a range of challenges from reducing checks, form-filling and barriers to trade to aiding with the movement of pets and supporting access to veterinary medicines.

Secondly, our amendment calls for an ETA exemption for tourists who arrive in Northern Ireland via the land border. Tourism is a vital strand of our economy, and the majority of international visitors to Northern Ireland arrive via Dublin Airport; indeed, the island of Ireland is marketed internationally as a single entity. Any additional bureaucracy will serve as a disincentive to tourists to come north. With the ETA roll-out imminent, swift action is essential to safeguard the tourism industry and the economy of Northern Ireland from unintended consequences.

As we have done throughout the entire Brexit process, Alliance will continue to engage constructively to maximise the benefits and reap the rewards that can be derived from dual market access and as presented in the Windsor framework. We will continue in that constructive spirit until such times as Northern Ireland and the UK are returned to the European Union.

Mr McGuigan: Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

In 2016, the vast majority of people in the North voted to remain in the EU. They did so in the knowledge that, politically and economically, it was in our best interests. For reasons that are for others to explain, both prior to the Brexit referendum and after, some wanted to pursue a strategy of political self-sabotage on a grand scale, regardless of the implications for peace on the island or the prosperity of businesses, communities and citizens in the North. Three minutes is clearly not enough time to allow me to give the detail of the last eight years, but suffice it to say that the results of Brexit, whether in Britain or Ireland, were never going to be positive. That is a fact that, hopefully, even its initial proponents across the Chamber can, at least in private, now recognise.

Thankfully for those of us who live in the North of Ireland, our majority voice was heard during the negotiations, and, more importantly, on the EU side at least, our voice was listened to.

In the negotiations, the terms and conditions of the Good Friday Agreement were front and centre: the EU was not going to allow peace in Ireland to be the collateral damage of English or British nationalism. The protocol and further agreements offer us and, in particular, our businesses protections from Brexit's worst excesses, as they allow for dual market access. We all need to be mindful of that fact when, in a few weeks, a democratic consent motion on the continuation of the current arrangements, which bring protections, certainty and stability for our business, is voted on in the Chamber.

The current arrangements are not perfect. As I said, Brexit could not be anything other than negative. Community and voluntary groups, businesses, sporting organisations and rural communities have lost access to millions in EU funding. Our young people are losing out on the full benefits of the ERASMUS scheme. The issues with veterinary medicines and the need for a sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) agreement between Britain and the EU are problems that need to be resolved. The electronic travel authorisation that is being imposed by the British Government will undoubtedly disrupt and damage the number of visitors travelling northwards and impact on our tourism and hospitality sectors. We will support the amendment, which mentions most of that and adds value to the original motion.

In the short term, the certainty and stability in our relationship with the EU that the protocol offers are vital. I would welcome relationships between the EU and the new British Government becoming closer, should that transpire and bring with it positive outcomes for the North in the medium term. Ultimately, I believe the majority of people in the North want, as they indicated in 2016, to be part of the European Union. The conversation that we are having today about future relationships with the EU, in tandem with the ongoing conversation about constitutional change in a new Ireland, will, I believe, bring about the long-term solution: a new, democratic Ireland, with all its citizens, North and South, benefiting from EU membership.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up.

Mr Brooks: Not one unionist in this place supported the protocol, which was cheered on by those who sought to overturn a democratic referendum. Unionists have long known that some embrace the notion of democratic consent only when it suits them. It is clear to unionists that those in this place who speak loudest of the Belfast Agreement, as though it were a holy text, are hypocrites on this issue. During the Brexit process, they and their comrades spoke ad nauseam of the need to uphold the Belfast Agreement in all its parts, not only in the letter, they said, but in spirit. That agreement means much more to those on the Opposition Benches than it does to me, yet, when it comes to the democratic consent mechanism, it seems as though the SDLP and others were content for it to deliberately and by design dump the principle of cross-community consent that was so fundamental in 1998. Unionist communities across this country noted that those parties value safeguards only when they are for nationalists: majoritarianism is the order of the day when it suits their own ends.

The nature of the democratic consent mechanism, like much of the protocol and Windsor framework, was imposed without the consent — without the cross-community consent, certainly — that, since 1998, we have been told was imperative to maintain the confidence of both communities and the legitimacy of government here. When those on other Benches next intervene, with sanctimony, to make the much-rehearsed point about the impact of this place being down, perhaps they will reflect on how their corrosive contempt for unionist concerns and violation of established governmental norms led to that. That issue will see MLAs compelled for the first time in decades to vote on a simple majority basis on an issue that is significant and contentious.

The DUP continues to believe that the barriers to trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland are unacceptable. The Windsor framework, even with the progress made in 'Safeguarding the Union', did not secure all our negotiating objectives nor remedy all the issues with the protocol. Northern Ireland should have left the EU on the same basis as the rest of the United Kingdom. We continue to work towards that aim. December's vote, although flawed, will be an opportunity to practically demonstrate that commitment in cooperation with other unionists. We will vote against the continuation of the current arrangements, but we are realistic about the outcome where the process requires only a simple majority.

Labour's reset in relations cannot be at the expense of honouring and advancing the commitments that formed the basis of the restoration of these institutions. My party secured in law the commitment to an independent review of the framework where there is no cross-community consent and to completion of that review within six months rather than the two years previously allowed under the Government's original unilateral declaration. A strengthened independent review should be the basis on which Labour honours its stated commitment to protect the UK's internal market.

Mr Buckley: Will the Member give way?

Mr Brooks: Yes.

Mr Buckley: Will the —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up. Sorry. The Member only had seconds left.

Mr Buckley: But sure —.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: But sure nothing.

Mr Buckley: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Go for it.

Mr Buckley: Obviously, this is the first time that we have operated using the new guidance for three-minute speeches. If a Member has taken an intervention, should the Principal Deputy Speaker not decide that they will receive an extra minute? My intervention was made at two minutes and 56 seconds.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Absolutely. The Member had three minutes originally, and an intervention in the dying seconds is not the way to do things. That also goes for debates where Members get five or ten minutes. I will refer the matter to the Speaker's Office. Until his ruling, I will not give an extra minute in those circumstances.

Mr Buckley: Further to that point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I appreciate your referring of the matter to the Speaker's Office, because I do not see anything in Standing Orders that suggests that an intervention made during any moment of a Member's three minutes will not be accepted.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: OK. That is accepted, but I will refer it on. I have done it with other Members, Mr Buckley, so I have been consistent. I guess that is what you are asking for, but I will get you a ruling. I am sorry, Mr Brooks.

Dr Aiken: I have two interests to declare. First, I sit on the euphemistically named Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee. Most Members will be aware of my view of that Committee. Secondly, for the avoidance of doubt, I voted Remain. I declare that in case people think all unionists were part of a monolithic block.

The Ulster Unionist Party will support neither the motion nor the amendment. In the short period of time that I have, I will concentrate mostly on the amendment. As a member of the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee, I notice that Mr Tennyson and Ms Nicholl are in the Chamber. As much as I enjoyed their company in Brussels last week — sorry, the week before; I need to be correct for Hansard — the key point is that on issues such as the EU waste management regulations, Alliance voted in the Committee against conducting investigations into their potentially significant impacts on Northern Ireland. The only Alliance Committee member who voted to support some form of investigation is no longer an MLA. Those decisions, as any dispassionate observer looking in on the Committee would see, are not because of the legal advice or what the industry has said. On many occasions, we have been told that the regulations will have significant impacts on Northern Ireland. To paraphrase Mr Tennyson at every meeting on virtually everything — I stand corrected; everything — Brexit has a cost. He then votes against, or does not vote for, an investigation. That is not representative of what a democratic scrutiny Committee should do.

Mr Tennyson: On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I hope that it is a point of order, Eóin.

Mr Tennyson: It is. The Member's remarks are inaccurate and he should withdraw them, given that I voted for an inquiry into the regulations that proposed a ban on mercury in dental fillings. I ask the Member to withdraw those remarks because they are not accurate.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order, Eóin. However, I will refer your concerns to the Speaker. Go ahead, Dr Aiken.

Dr Aiken: Thank you. Do I get an extra minute?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: No, you do not.

Dr Aiken: Oh come on, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. OK, I will speed on then.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Dr Aiken: Definitely.

Mr Brooks: Does the Member agree that the example given is probably the exception that proves the rule?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute now.

Dr Aiken: Thank you very much indeed, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Indeed, that is probably the exception that proves the rule. We also need to bear in mind that the SDLP and Alliance both called for the full and rigorous implementation of the protocol. What has changed? Surely Alliance are not reverting to cakeism. The vehemence with which the Alliance leadership, particularly the deputy leader of the party before Mr Tennyson —.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Dr Aiken: Certainly.

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate the disquisition on the Alliance Party: I am always up for that. However, given the Member's views about the democratic consent process and the scrutiny Committee, does he agree that having some kind of representation in the EU Parliament would be a positive step forward?

Dr Aiken: No. While some will welcome the Damascene change in direction by the Alliance Party that the amendment points out, the reality, based on the voting behaviour in the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee, is very different. Actions, Alliance, not words —.

Mr Tennyson: Will the Member give way?

Dr Aiken: No.

Actions, Alliance, not words, would make your amendment more convincing.

The motion itself has a degree of merit, but we cannot support the options for representation that were identified in the SDLP press release and in its comments on the motion. We have left the European Union. Anyone with even the remotest concept of how that organisation works will clearly understand the improbability of our getting any representative voice in the EU Parliament. There is no strand four to the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement. We need to work to make sure that the Irish Sea border impositions are removed.

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. That was four minutes on the dot.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Yes, I am taking note of the time. Thank you.

The next item of business in the Order Paper is Question Time. I therefore propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The next Member called to speak after Question Time will be Jonathan Buckley.

Mr Nesbitt (The Minister of Health): I thank the Member for her question. As she will be aware, I was pleased recently to approve additional regional funding for children with disability services, despite the financial circumstances facing my Department. That funding allocation will enable up to £2 million to be spent over the rest of this financial year, and there will then be £13 million a year in multi-year funding to support families who have children with disabilities.

On the allocation of the funding, each trust is working intensively with my Department to agree what actions can be taken forward this financial year. I have been clear that the plans must improve family support, short breaks, residential care and behavioural support for families who have children with disabilities. It is a tripartite approach, particularly for respite and residential care: we need not only infrastructure and funding but a workforce that is suitably qualified and, indeed, committed to that challenging role. An immediate priority is to reinstate and expand overnight residential short breaks for children with disabilities. I recognise that that is only one component of the continuum of support that those families need, so, in addition, I have asked the trusts to prioritise the continued development of short breaks, fostering or Share the Care services specifically for children with disabilities. Those services can include support from befriending right through to overnight breaks. We are also working with the voluntary and community sector to see how we can expand and extend some of the services already available. One example will be to expand access to after-school clubs and youth clubs to provide families with additional support.

In the longer term, I want to work with parents of children with disabilities to co-design, because it is not about presenting a plan and asking what they think but about getting as close as possible to starting with a blank page and asking what they think at that point.

Mr Speaker: That was right on the button of two minutes, Minister.

Mrs Dillon: Thank you, Minister. I welcome your answer. It fleshed out a wee bit what we had been told about the funding.

Will you give an assurance that accountability mechanisms have been put in place to ensure that the funding makes a real difference to young people with additional needs and their families, particularly given that this Thursday is Carers Rights Day? We know how much pressure there is on carers, and we have a responsibility to those individuals —

Mr Speaker: I think we get the gist.

Mrs Dillon: — so can you give us some assurances around that —.

Mr Speaker: I do not really approve of long questions or long answers. Fire away, Minister.

Mr Nesbitt: I give the Member that assurance. The important thing is to recognise that co-design means starting with as close as possible to a blank page and asking the service users, "What do you want, what obstacles are in your way and how can we overcome them?". We got to a point where residential care in particular was being knocked out by short breaks, because the two were incompatible in the same infrastructure. I want to be sure that we understand what the obstacles are, so that, as we go forward, we not only remove them but monitor the implementation.

Mrs Dodds: Minister, I thank you, because you have reacted to a pretty appalling situation across Northern Ireland. My question is on the differentials between the offerings in different trust areas. I have been involved in a case in which the parents moved from the Southern Trust, where they had overnight stays, to the South Eastern Trust, five minutes down the road, where there was no provision. Their overnight stays in the Southern Trust were withdrawn, and, when they moved back, of course, they were at the bottom of the waiting list for social work interventions and for overnight stays.

Mr Speaker: Will the Member get to the question?

Mrs Dodds: Will the Minister assure me that he will work on that postcode lottery for respite services across Northern Ireland?

Mr Nesbitt: I assure the Member that I am very focused on that. I see that she is wearing a Heart Failure Warriors badge, as I am, after visiting the group in the Long Gallery earlier. We heard the two sisters on Radio Ulster this morning. One is in the Southern Trust area, and one is in the Northern Trust area, and there is a very divergent set of experiences between the two. That leads me to the conclusion that, while it would be tempting to go from five geographic trusts to one, I am not sure that that would be any more than a divergence and a distraction. I want outcomes, so I have made clear to the chairs and chief executives of the five geographic trusts that I am looking, wherever possible, for regional services where they are collaborating and cooperating and not competing. Let us find out where best practice is happening in any particular service and roll that out so that it is common practice across the five trusts.

Mr Allen: I, too, join colleagues in thanking the Minister for his proactive approach on the matter. Will the Minister give a commitment that, when it comes to the allocation of funding, the trusts and his Department will work at pace to see tangible proposals and the delivery of support on the ground?

Mr Nesbitt: It is intended that the additional funding will assist with increasing short-break capacity and expanding family, therapeutic and behavioural supports in the community right across all five geographic trusts. It is very important to recognise that overnight residential short breaks are only one part of the continuum of services that are needed for children with disabilities and their parents and carers. We must look at opportunities to expand the support services that we can provide in the community. Those are under active consideration as we look towards a £13 million additional spend in the next financial year.

Mr Speaker: Question 2 has been withdrawn. I call Diana Armstrong.

Ms D Armstrong: I thank the Minister for coming to the Chamber today. Will the Minister provide an update on elective —

Mr Speaker: Just the question number first.

Ms D Armstrong: — care activity that is being delivered —.

Mr Speaker: The question number.

Mr Nesbitt: It is all going very well here. The South West Acute Hospital is a very important asset in the Northern Ireland health service estate. I have had the pleasure of visiting the hospital on a number of occasions in recent months. Indeed, I visited it most recently with the Member. I saw again how accessible and modern the facilities are. The hospital is commissioned for an average of 15·3 elective theatre sessions per week across gynaecology, general surgery, paediatric surgery and dental. The number of patients who are treated will vary slightly each week, and that will depend on the case mix. Whilst there had been a period of under-delivery, following a recent recruitment exercise, the trust has successfully appointed four new consultants. That has had a positive impact on theatre scheduling. I am pleased to confirm that the South West Acute Hospital is now delivering more elective activity than it has at any point in its history. While I am very aware of some ongoing local concerns regarding the future of the hospital, I assure all — that means its patients, staff and the wider community in the Fermanagh and west Tyrone area — that I see the hospital continuing to play a very important and long-standing role. In particular, initiatives such as the elective overnight stay centre at the SWAH are and will remain critical in helping to tackle our lengthy waits for elective surgery. Members will be aware that I recently encouraged people to view our hospitals as a network and to recognise the fact that not every hospital will deliver every procedure. There is a place for the SWAH in that network.

Ms D Armstrong: I thank the Minister for that very reassuring update. I am particularly pleased to hear that the hospital is delivering more elective activity than ever. In light of some of the recent concern in the local area that the South West Acute Hospital is facing a downgrade following the publication of the network document, what reassurance can the Minister give that that is not the case?

Mr Nesbitt: 'Hospitals — Creating a Network for Better Outcomes' clearly states that it is about the reconfiguration of the network of acute hospitals, of which the South West Acute Hospital is and remains a part. The proposed designation of SWAH as a general hospital refers to the tier at which it sits in the network and is not a reflection of its being downgraded from acute hospital status. In fact, the hospital network document does not contain any proposed reconfigurations. It simply sets a strategic context for future reconfiguration decisions.

Ms Kimmins: Daisy Hill is one of the elective overnight stay centres, and it has been doing fantastic work to date. However, there is always room for more. What consideration have the Minister and his Department given to potentially expanding it to include orthopaedic surgeries? That is one of our biggest waiting lists, and many of us will have constituents who are on those waiting lists, so I would like to hear a little bit more about that.

Mr Speaker: The initial question was about the South West Acute Hospital, but I leave it in the hands of the Minister for his response.

Mr Nesbitt: Thank you so much, Mr Speaker. I am going to have to get back to the Member, but I will say that there are successes in the transformation programme that we have undertaken since Professor Bengoa was first here in 2016. The elective overnight stay centres and the day procedure centres are a part of that. Primary care multidisciplinary teams are the shining example. Within all that, yes, I would like to see Daisy Hill being enhanced as an elective care centre.

Mrs Erskine: I saw in a recent media report that, in the past four years, £150 million from the public purse has been paid to private providers. Does that point to a capacity issue? I had a meeting recently with the trust in relation to the SWAH and it said that it had a demand/capacity gap, which it is looking to sort out, and it would rather get recurrent funding. Can the Minister point to the funding constraints that relate to elective care?

Mr Nesbitt: The two issues are the quantum of the budget and the fact that it is a single-year budget. I have said before that I am optimistic that, if we do not get to multi-year budgets for 2025-26, I see no reason why we cannot get there for 2026-27, not least because the Labour Government will have embedded themselves both in Downing Street and the Treasury. Those are the two issues that play into workforce. Workforce is always a challenge. There are so many moving parts in delivering healthcare, particularly at an acute hospital like the South West. When one part falls down, it has a huge impact. In fact, it makes the whole thing grind to a halt. Workforce is a priority focus for me.

Miss McAllister: It is positive news that four additional consultants have been placed at the SWAH. Has the Minister met any of the representative bodies on the efficiency of the elective care, not just particular to the SWAH but to all the elective care overnight and day procedure hubs across Northern Ireland?

Mr Nesbitt: I like to get out and about every week. I have been to the SWAH. I have been to most hospitals in Northern Ireland over the course of the months that I have been in charge. I meet not just managers but people who are delivering services, including those overnight services. However, as regards a strategic review, that is carried out by officials.

Mr Speaker: Mr McNulty — about the SWAH, I assume?

Mr McNulty: No.

Mr Speaker: Then we will move on to the next question. [Laughter.]

Mr Nesbitt: The United Kingdom National Screening Committee recommends that bowel cancer screening be offered to individuals aged between 50 and 74. Currently, in Northern Ireland, anybody aged 60 to 74 who is registered with a GP is eligible for bowel cancer screening. Action 7 of the cancer strategy for Northern Ireland 2022-32 is a commitment to reducing the sensitivity levels used in the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) and lowering the age range in the bowel screening programme in line with the UK National Screening Committee recommendation. Our work to meet the commitments to lower the age range and further reduce the sensitivity level is ongoing. However, it must be viewed in the context of the wider financial and capacity challenges within the supporting services. It is important to note that screening programmes are a pathway and not just a test. As such, where a screening programme makes changes to its eligibility, it is important that associated infrastructure, including diagnostic capacity and any treatments that may be required, is aligned accordingly.

Mr McCrossan: I thank the Minister for the answer, in particular his reference to action 7. I appreciate your long-held commitment to this, Minister, and I know that you feel strongly about this, but surely every day of delay is putting further lives at risk? Why can we not just test people now? That, undoubtedly, will save lives.

Mr Nesbitt: It is question of resource, it is a question of funding and it is a question of capacity. There are many things, on a daily basis, that people come to me about and ask, "Why do you not do this? If you invest in this, you will save money there. You will deliver the better outcomes that you talk about delivering." However, you need the infrastructure, funding and workforce, and when those three do not align, you cannot make the sort of improvements that I would like to see.

Mr Donnelly: What engagement has the Minister had with Bowel Cancer UK on the creation of a register for Lynch syndrome?

Mr Nesbitt: I have not had any particular engagement with that organisation on the question of Lynch syndrome, which, I understand, is a genetic issue. Early discussions are under way, however, to test the feasibility for the establishment of a Northern Ireland Lynch register, and those discussions are taking place between my officials, the Northern Ireland Cancer Registry at Queen's University Belfast and Health and Social Care (HSC) staff.

Mr Speaker: Question 5 has been withdrawn.

Mr Nesbitt: Members will be aware that the health and social care trusts have responsibility for commissioning and delivering services for children and adults, aligned to assessed needs. Respite or short-break care is defined as the provision of regular, occasional or emergency but time-limited breaks to those who are caring for others.

Statutory and independent-sector care homes facilitate planned and emergency short breaks for adults. In addition, short breaks are provided through the Shared Lives service. Currently, in adult services, there are a number of multi-use sites containing short-term respite and residential or nursing beds. That model has been utilised in order to expand the provision of respite services. My Department is leading on the reform of adult social care under the auspices of the social care collaborative forum. The commissioning and contracting work stream is taking forward the review of the regional care homes contract and specification, which will include provision for respite places in the care home setting. The maximising capacity work stream is working to make most effective use of the available regional care home resource.

In children's social care services, short breaks can be provided through hospitals, children's homes and specialist foster care settings. My Department is leading on the children's social care reform programme established in response to Professor Ray Jones's review. The reform programme contains a specific work stream in relation to residential care of children, including the provision of short breaks. There is a specific task and finish group, which is considering the introduction of multisite children's homes. By that, I mean an arrangement where children are cared for across a number of buildings that are collectively registered as a single children's home. Both of those work streams will conclude their specific pieces of work by March 2025.

Mr Blair: I thank the Minister for that answer. Further to that, will he respond to parents who have confirmed that their children are being sent out of Northern Ireland to access respite care? A response to a question for written answer from my colleague Nuala McAllister stated that that was not departmental policy. In addition, given the conversation that we had earlier about the £13 million that is available, how might that be used to address that issue across all trust areas?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his follow-up question. With his permission, I will go away and test the question of policy. Certainly, from my point of view, sending somebody out of the jurisdiction would have to be an act of absolute last resort. I hope that the availability from 1 April of a new £13 million fund for this area will go a long way towards making sure that that never happens again. The fact that it does not happen would be my number-one objective in providing that sort of care.

Dr Aiken: Is the Minister able to provide an update on the initiatives that his Department has taken to improve access to dental care in the Northern and Western Trusts? That is just to keep the Speaker happy.

Mr Nesbitt: Dental care?

Mr Speaker: Dr Aiken, I will call you for question 7. I call Cara Hunter to ask the initial question first. You are ahead of yourself [Laughter.]

Mr Nesbitt: Community dental services (CDS) in health and social care trusts provide dental care to patients who, for various reasons, are not suitable for treatment in the primary care setting. For young children or those with additional needs or in particularly complex cases, it may be necessary for the treatment to be taken under general anaesthetic. To ensure that the most urgent cases are treated as quickly as possible, community dental services teams operate a strict triage and prioritisation process for general anaesthetic that is based on clinical need. That means that, for patients whose cases are considered to be acute or urgent, waiting times can be relatively short, but, for those in the routine category, waiting times can be significantly longer.

The majority of children receive all their dental care, including extractions, under local anaesthetic in general dental services. Extractions under general anaesthetic are indicated in children who are too young to tolerate the treatment under local anaesthetic, need multiple extractions or display disproportionate anxiety. General anaesthetic may also be required for patients with additional needs who are otherwise unable to cope with invasive dental procedures. Some patients may require all or most of their dental care to be under general anaesthetic. That waiting list is separate from the paediatric extraction waiting list. Children with additional needs may be placed on either list, depending on their individual needs.

The trusts' CDS teams provided the following information on the current estimated average waiting times from the time of initial referral. For the Northern Health and Social Care Trust, it is six to 12 months for paediatric dental extraction lists and eight months for patients with additional needs requiring comprehensive treatment. For the Western Trust, it is one to two months for paediatric dental extractions and one to two months for patients with additional needs requiring comprehensive treatment.

Ms Hunter: I thank the Minister for that detailed answer. Minister, I will bring to your attention briefly the story of a family based in Greysteel in my constituency. They have a young girl called Maisie who has complex needs and was told that she would have to wait a year to get a tooth that was causing her so much bother that she could not eat taken out.

Minister, recognising the pressures on dental surgery, has your Department explored what we could do on a North/South basis? Has it looked at whether we could create a scheme for the children who are struggling with the waiting lists for surgery and find some way to resolve the issue and limit the waiting times?

Mr Nesbitt: I am more happy to engage with the Member on the detail of the individual case.

As a more general rule of thumb, the North/South reimbursement scheme, which was successful, no longer operates, because there is no budget for it. A bid was made in the previous financial year for budget to allow that scheme to be reintroduced, but that bid was unsuccessful. That is the position that we find ourselves in. Should that position change, as I have said in the House before, I am more than open to and would welcome sensible North/South cooperation.

Mr Speaker: I call Dr Aiken.

Dr Aiken: Thank you very much, indeed, Mr Speaker.

Will the Minister provide an update on the initiatives that his Department has taken this year to improve access to dental care in the Northern Trust and Western Trust, please?

Mr Nesbitt: No. [Laughter.]

Mrs Guy: Will the Minister provide an update on discussions with the UK Government on support for dentists who have been impacted on by the recent Budget announcements?

Mr Nesbitt: I am not aware of any discussions that are ongoing between my Department and the UK Government on the theme that the Member mentions.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member. The IMPACTAgewell project delivered by the Mid and East Antrim Agewell Partnership is an integrated community development approach to improving the health and well-being of older people. The approach brings together those involved with the care and support of an older person: the GP, community pharmacists, social care workers and the practice manager of a locality hub. IMPACTAgewell is continually developing to meet the needs of local older people and recently commenced work in Inver rehabilitation ward, with officers being involved at the very start of the rehab admission to ensure that, when the older person is ready for discharge, everything is in place for them to return home, including food packs, meals on wheels, key safes and referrals to occupational therapy and so on.

IMPACTAgewell has reported that, since its inception, as well as improving outcomes for older people, it has saved approximately £6·1 million by avoiding unscheduled care costs to the health service in this area over the past seven years. I see it as an example of best practice that I would like to see rolled out across Northern Ireland to become common practice in how we deliver healthcare and support to an ageing population.

I recently visited the Mid and East Antrim Agewell Partnership premises and confirmed a two-year funding extension. That reaffirms the Department's commitment to supporting innovative, community-based solutions that address the health and well-being of ageing populations. That funding will enable IMPACTAgewell to continue its vital work of delivering integrated support and services for older individuals, particularly those facing challenges with isolation, long-term health conditions or limited access to community resources.

Mr Crawford: Does the Minister agree that, following his recent visit and discussions with staff, the IMPACTAgewell project is a brilliant example of how spending money slightly differently can deliver far more significant benefits and savings in other parts of the health service?

Mr Nesbitt: I agree with the point, which is well made. My objective is to deliver better outcomes for patients, service users and the population generally as well as for those who deliver healthcare. Sometimes, slight adjustments are all that is required. Sometimes, a relatively small investment will have a disproportionately positive result.

Of course, it is important to monitor and measure outcomes, and the project is monitored quarterly against agreed targets by the Department of Health's strategic planning and performance group (SPPG). The case studies provided to SPPG in monitoring reports also demonstrate outcomes at a service-user level. The service will continue to be tested for value for money against other community care initiatives, such as acute care at home, that may cover some of the same areas.

Mr Nesbitt: Delivery of the mental health strategy has been taking place within an extremely challenging financial context, using existing limited resources to take forward actions. As a result, the strategy is being implemented through annual delivery plans that set year-on-year priorities and actions. While the number of actions that can be taken forward is limited due to the funding position, good progress has been made in taking forward a number of areas, including implementation of the community perinatal mental health service across the region — teams are now in place in all trusts — and establishing the regional mental health service, including the appointment of the head of the service and a service user consultant as well as preparatory work for the formation of a regional collaborative board. Work is ongoing to embed a mental health outcomes framework within Encompass, as it is rolled out. There is the development of a three-year early intervention and prevention action plan and the completion and publication of an independent mental health workforce review, with work under way to begin planning the implementation of key recommendations.

Additional investment of £2 million in child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) to enhance existing provision and alleviate pressures is under way, as is work to scope and develop a digital mental health service action plan. Finally, work is under way to commission a review of the scope, scale and capacity of the community and voluntary sector to ensure that it is fully integrated into the delivery of mental health services, building on the previous report on the community and voluntary sector's collective voice.

In the current year, our priorities are a continued focus on early intervention; developing a plan to maximise the role of the community and voluntary sector; the continued development of the regional mental health service; and stabilising and growing the workforce.

Ms Mulholland: Thank you, Minister, for that. According to a senior police officer whom I was speaking to recently, there has been a spike in suicides among males in the Causeway Coast and Glens area. Is your Department aware of that, and does it take an approach that looks at things through a rural lens and the effect that isolation may have among young men? Is there anything specific?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member. I am personally not aware of the spike that she referred to, but I assure her that the Department, in all its actions, is keen, eager and determined to look at rural impacts. That runs across all the activities of Health and Social Care.

Mr Nesbitt: The purpose of the plan is to highlight the wide range of policy and service development initiatives that are in progress and outline the actions and improvements that can be delivered over the next three years to improve health outcomes for women. At this stage, the focus is on mapping the work that is already under way across the health and social care system, including, for example, improving maternity, gynae and menopause services, cervical screening and breast cancer services and planning for a mother-and-baby unit, as well as identifying areas where further action is needed, for example, improving public health awareness around women's health; providing more training and education for healthcare professionals on those issues; and promoting healthy lifestyles and tackling health inequalities.

My Department will be running a number of engagement events from January, listening to women and further informing the development of the action plan. The pace and extent of delivery will be determined by our available capacity and resources, which remain under extreme pressure, which is well documented.

With regard to the budget required, clearly what is desirable exceeds what is available for the foreseeable future. However, many initiatives are under way that have received investment or that can be delivered at low cost or at no additional cost within current budgets: for example, in 2024, the introduction of primary HPV screening for cervical cancer and the delivery of menopause training to many healthcare professionals.

Mr Speaker: That concludes the period for listed questions. We now move on to topical questions.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his question. A number of pay parity awards are under consideration. He will be aware that, last week, I met Agenda for Change unions and the British Medical Association (BMA) to discuss the situation. On Saturday, I was at a GP conference in the centre of Belfast discussing the same issues. It is a matter of regret for me that part of what I am calling the "plan" has been leaked into the public domain. That has led to a degree of misunderstanding in Health and Social Care and among the broader public.

The situation is that the Department of Finance was well aware ahead of October monitoring that I needed £130 million to balance the budget and £320 million to deliver pay parity awards; in other words, £450 million in total. I got £350 million, so there is a gap of £100 million. The Department of Finance and, I think, the Executive generally are extremely keen that we all balance the books, because, if the Executive do not, the Treasury may want to recoup a £559 million loan that it is otherwise prepared to write off. I do not want to be the man responsible for that £559 million coming out of next year's Executive Budget.

At the same time, I want to deliver pay parity. It is in the public domain that I have said that I can use the £220 million that is left to me from October monitoring to deliver that pay parity for eight of the 12 months. I am now working at pace with Executive colleagues to close the gap that exists from 1 April 2024 to 31 July 2024. Since last Monday's Executive meeting, I think that there is now a real collective will to do that, not just for healthcare but for all public-sector pay.

Mr McGrath: Thank you, Minister. Yes, a promise that was made and then broken is being replaced with another promise that the money will be forthcoming next year. It is an awful lot to ask healthcare workers to accept that. Will the Minister commit to stopping the Executive's politicking and blaming of one another for why they do not have the money and ensure that our healthcare staff, who work exceptionally hard, get the same money as everybody else on these islands, to which they are entitled.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member, but, if I heard him correctly, he seemed to suggest that part of this year's pay award will be delivered in the next financial year.

Mr McGrath: It is next year, in January.

Mr Nesbitt: In January, yes. The point, to me, is that it is delivered in this financial year. If it happens to slip, that is a matter of regret, but it is not as big a regret as not being able to deliver it at all. I am determined to deliver it, even if it slips into the 2025 calendar year.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his question. Like me, he may have been in Long Gallery for the meeting on heart failure earlier today. Mr Speaker, I do not know whether it requires a declaration of interest, but that is the very condition that I was diagnosed with in 2016, so I declare that I have two stents, a pacemaker and a defibrillator. I suspect that you might think it kind of greedy of me.

Last week, I met the British Heart Foundation prior to the launch of the 'Bias and Biology' report on the heart attack gender gap. I welcome the report. It highlights issues of unawareness, under-diagnosis and under-treatment of cardiovascular disease among women and provides helpful policy recommendations that my Department will now consider. I further recognise the need for improved education and information on a wide range of women's health issues and risk factors. I want to support women and healthcare professionals in the identification, management and treatment of conditions, including cardiovascular disease, which is one of the leading causes of death among women. That work will form part of the women's health action plan that my Department is developing.

Mr Harvey: Thank you, Minister. Will you outline the budget that your Department intends to allocate to the women's health action plan?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for his question, but I do not have a specific answer. Some people think that I am not in favour of a women's health strategy: I am, in principle, but it is not right to present a strategy that you cannot afford to deliver on. The Member may be aware that I have campaigned on mental health since I came here many years ago. When Robin Swann became Health Minister, I was delighted that he appointed a mental health champion and brought forward a 10-year mental health strategy. However, the mental health champion, Professor O'Neill, will tell you that the Department has only about one eighth of the budget required for this year's action points, which means that you are raising expectations only to disappoint. That is why I want to go for a costed action plan as a first step towards delivering the strategy. The exact quantum is still under discussion as we firm up the elements that will go into the plan.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for the question. It is a very important point. I am sure that, from his former role, he is aware that the Department looked at the significant cost that it was incurring from the use of agency nurses. A decision was made to stop, and that was successful. I am told that there was a bit of scepticism when that proposal was first made, but it was delivered. The same focus will now be brought to bear on this issue.

While I understand why we sometimes go to the independent sector, particularly to tackle waiting lists, it makes me very nervous. If you go to somewhere such as Kingsbridge Private Hospital on the Lisburn Road and you put in one day a week as, say, a surgeon or consultant, you are in a very fine and enjoyable working environment. The private sector, to a certain extent, can become something of a Trojan Horse, in that you could lose some of your best workers to it. They could start at one day a week, but they could decide, "Well, this is such a nice place to work that I'll do two days a week".

Mr Gildernew: I thank the Minister. I share that concern overall. It is important. It is clear that more needs to be done to attract the required consultants to come and work here across the North, including the Western Trust area. What more can you do or are you doing to attract the required consultants to work in the public sector?

Mr Nesbitt: There are a couple of points to make on that. Some people think that consultants work for specific hospitals, such as Craigavon or Daisy Hill. Contracts should be with a trust, and consultants should be told that they are expected to travel as demand dictates. We have had some successful forays abroad to attract international colleagues, who have helped to close the gaps. To my mind, it is about not just pay but making the job attractive. The Member's colleague the Minister for the Economy has a focus on a definition of what a good job is. I have rehearsed my views in the Chamber before. There is a mix that needs to be put together to make consultants and everybody working in Health and Social Care understand that HSC in Northern Ireland is a good place to work and offers fair rewards and opportunities to develop in a personal and professional capacity.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for her question. I will certainly take that away, because, as a general point, we are looking at the productivity and efficiency of the health service, particularly in regard to elective or scheduled procedures. There is more to be done to deliver those in a more efficient, effective and timely manner. The area that the Member identified could well be at the top of that list.

Ms Kimmins: I thank the Minister for his answer. Red-flag referrals are one of the most concerning issues in gynaecology. Will the Minister give an update on any work that has been done on that? We had the cervical smear review in the Southern Trust, and, for many women, that is the most worrying aspect of it. If the Minister could provide information on that, I would be grateful.

Mr Nesbitt: I think that the Member is aware that, where money is available, it is being targeted towards red-flag referrals. I met the Member and a group of women from her constituency, and some of the narratives were truly shocking, not least those on the waits. For some people, the wait was being measured not in months but in years. It was not one, two or three years; I think that I am right in recollecting that, in one case, the wait had been seven years. Is that acceptable? No, it is not.

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member for her question. Yes, I think that the review is due to be completed shortly. A report will set out its factual findings. A further report will set out the facts on the invasive cervical cancer audits. Those two reports will be produced by the Public Health Agency (PHA) in the Southern Trust, and a detailed analysis will follow that will be supported by the appropriate independent experts. It is important that I say that, as we await the outcomes and analysis, those reports will determine the next steps.

As Health Minister, I remain committed to finding the most appropriate method to understand what happened, learn lessons and ensure that our screening programmes deliver on behalf of our population. The Belfast Health and Social Care Trust is now the provider of the regional laboratory service for cervical screening programmes. That service model is necessary to ensure that the performance standards and minimum requirements for screening and reporting staff are maintained.

Mrs Guy: Thank you for the answer, Minister. I know that you have dealt with Ladies with Letters, and I am sure that they appreciate that update. Will you establish a statutory inquiry into the matter so that the ladies get the accountability and transparency that they deserve?

Mr Nesbitt: I thank the Member. At this stage, my priority is waiting to be given the report on the cervical cytology review and the two reports that I mentioned in my previous answer and examining those.

A statutory public inquiry asks a number of questions: "What happened? Why it did it happen, and who was responsible? What can be done either to ensure that it never happens again or to minimise the risk of it happening again?". I want answers to all those questions, and I want the Ladies with Letters to be satisfied that they have got honest, appropriate answers to them all. If that can be achieved by another route that is not a public inquiry but gets us to where we need to be more efficiently and quickly, that is the route that I will take. I asked the Ladies with Letters to consider the amount of pressure that they would put on themselves as participants in a public inquiry, because public inquiries are not easy for groups like Ladies with Letters. I am not ruling it out, but I want to get the answers that a public inquiry will provide. If it turns out that a public inquiry is the only way to get them, I will certainly look at that positively.

Mr Speaker: There is no more time for further topical questions.

Mr O'Dowd (The Minister for Infrastructure): My officials continue to process this application, and, as the Minister with responsibility for this planning decision, I will fully consider the recommendation that comes from my officials before taking any decision in the public interest. I am aware of the number of responses to this planning application, as well as the opposition that exists both locally and among some colleagues. My Department, in considering all representations on any application, will give proper consideration to their content where they raise material planning issues. However, this question is about a live planning application. As the Minister who would ultimately take the decision on the application, it is important, in the interests of transparency, to ensure that no prejudice is caused to any party involved in the process. As such, it would not be appropriate for me to make specific comments on the planning merits or otherwise of this application at this time.

Dr Aiken: I thank the — well, I think that I thank the Minister for his response. The issue, Minister, for everybody in the Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council area and the rest of it and, indeed, for his own MLAs, who have sat with me on platforms about Arc21 and what it has been doing about the Hightown incinerator, is the issue that has been there all the way through: there is no grid connection, no business case and no reason for this to be built where it is.

Mr Speaker: Do you have a question, Dr Aiken?

Dr Aiken: I do indeed. I am getting to it, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Well, can we get to it?

Dr Aiken: The question is this: why are officials in the Minister's Department talking directly to Becon to see whether it can adjust to the planning rules and regulations so that it can meet the requirements to go for this when it is very clear that whatever has been put forward is not going to work? Over to you, Minister.

Mr O'Dowd: I thank the Member for his question; I will thank him.

The Member asked why my officials are engaging with an applicant. That is not unusual. Officials will engage with applicants on planning applications if they require further information or clarification on any matter. As I said, it would be inappropriate for me to go into the merits of this planning application or any other planning application before my officials have had the proper opportunity to engage on the matter and make a recommendation to me. Once a recommendation is made to me, I will make my decision based on the evidence presented to me.

Mr Kelly: Will the Minister consider holding a public inquiry to allow for a detailed independent examination before a final decision is issued?

Mr O'Dowd: A public inquiry is necessary when it is likely to elicit further information on material considerations where those considerations have not been adequately addressed by the planning application. Obviously, I am aware that there was a previous public inquiry on this application in October 2016. The decision on whether to hold a further public inquiry to consider the additional environmental information is one that I will make when officials have completed processing the application and provided their advice.

Mr Blair: How will the Minister ensure that residents' concerns about the incinerator, on issues including but not limited to traffic, residential amenity, visual amenity and, of course, pollution, will be given appropriate weight going forward?

Mr O'Dowd: All relevant material evidence presented as part of the planning application will be given the weight that it deserves as part of the planning process.

Mr O'Dowd: The York Aviation report calls for the development of an airport policy, and I welcome the fact that this is now in development. Our airports play an important role for our economy by providing the vital connectivity that we, as an island, rely on. Primary responsibility for the development of the policy lies with the Department for the Economy. Given the importance of airport connectivity to future growth and success, I am keen that my officials be consulted on the development of the policy. Preliminary discussions have already taken place between officials, and I expect that that will continue during policy development. The York Aviation report also calls for a clear structure of responsibility for aviation policy development in the North, and I have helped provide a pathway for this by agreeing in principle to the transfer of my airport responsibilities to the Department for the Economy. The current split in responsibility is a consistent cause of concern amongst airport and airline stakeholders, as they believe that it leads to a lack of coherence. The steps that I have taken, along with the development of an airport policy, should help address this issue.

Mr Honeyford: Every year, we pay for reduced air passenger duty. Will the Minister provide an assessment of how imminent long-haul flights from Belfast might be and what DFI is doing to assist in that?

Mr O'Dowd: I missed the start of the question, but I think that it is in relation to —. Sorry?

Mr Speaker: It is air passenger duty.

Mr O'Dowd: Thank you. My Department has no role or remit as regards air passenger duty. Those matters fall under DFE.

Mr Delargy: Minister, what is the rationale behind DFI's airport powers transferring to DFE?

Mr O'Dowd: In my opinion, it makes for more coherent policy direction for our airports. DFE already has the significant proportion of those airport responsibilities. The small matters that I look after, such as management of land adjacent to airports and noise control, fit better with DFE and allow a single point of contact for airports.

Mr O'Dowd: My Department is the lead Department for the strategic coordination of the emergency response to significant flooding, and my officials have worked with partner organisations to develop a multi-agency severe weather plan for emergencies that occur anywhere across the North. That plan details the pre-planned arrangements for a coordinated multi-agency response as a result of a warning for severe weather.

The Department’s preparations for the response to severe weather, including flooding, is an ongoing process throughout the year. The unpredictable nature of weather events means that heavy rainfall can occur at any time, and, as winter arrives, there can be an increased risk of adverse weather that can lead to flooding conditions.

Within the area of the Fermanagh lakelands, my Department, along with multi-agency partners, has developed a specific plan for when water levels rise and agreed thresholds are reached on Upper Lough Erne. That plan has been developed through the flooding and severe weather group, which is chaired by my Department, and it assesses the risks and potential impacts of water levels on low-lying roads in the locality around Lough Erne. In addition, and through the work of the regional community flood resilience group, there has been engagement with the local Boho community group to help it prepare for and respond to weather-related emergencies and to provide coordinated multi-agency support to individual properties or communities that may be cut off by flood water and require access to essential services. Through that community resilience work, my Department seeks to provide an extra layer of support in addition to the normal responses for those who may be impacted on by flooding in periods of severe weather.

In addition, my Department operates an on-call duty and flooding officer rota system 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, with staff on standby to respond to flood situations.

Mr Speaker: Are you nearly finished Minister? Your time is up.

Mr O'Dowd: Thank you.

Ms D Armstrong: To follow up, I take your assurances, Minister. What budget do you have in place for mitigations in areas of historic flooding?

Mr O'Dowd: I do not have the exact figures for budget allocation in front of me. As with all areas of public services, the budgets are under constraint, even in relation to flooding response. However, it has to be said that, despite those constraints, if we look at the flooding incidents last year, we see that my Department along with others responded to that emergency very well.

Ms Dolan: I welcome the Minister's assurances in particular around the Boho area. In relation to the Fermanagh lakelands — please, I hope that the Minister will answer this question — can he provide an update on the upgrades to the Belleek and Garrison waste water treatment plants?

Mr Speaker: Minister, there is a bit of a distance.

Mr O'Dowd: I take your guidance, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: It is up to you whether to answer. It is the same region, but a different subject nonetheless. [Laughter.]

Mr O'Dowd: I am aware that NI Water and Uisce Éireann have been working jointly in that regard and that they have submitted a bid to the Special EU Programmes Body (SEUPB) to have funding allocated to that project. I am optimistic that that funding bid will be successful. However, a formal announcement on it cannot take place until after the general election in the South.

Mr Speaker: That was a good answer to a question that was not prepared for.

Mrs Erskine: My question is related to flooding, but I have a different way of asking about it. A number of constituents have come to me in relation to the flood maps that are being updated and their home insurance. What conversations is the Minister having about the high cost of home insurance for homeowners in flood areas that have been identified in the updated maps? Is he having conversations with the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) about that?

Mr O'Dowd: I thank the Member for her question. Engagement with the FCA does not fall under my remit. It may fall under that of the Department for the Economy or, indeed, the Department of Finance.

With the flood maps, we now have a detailed analysis of where flooding is likely to occur. I accept that it may cause challenges for homeowners when their homes are identified as being in flood areas, but it allows my Department to plan an effective and efficient response to flooding and to put in place measures such as flood defences. They are of huge benefit to our society.

I accept the Member's point. I am happy to engage with any group in that regard, but I will engage first and foremost with the Department of Finance and the Department for the Economy to ensure that I am not stepping on anybody's toes.

Mr O'Dowd: The Member will be aware that rail services commenced from the new Belfast Grand Central station on 13 October 2024. Translink has confirmed that, despite rigorous testing and training in the run-up to the opening, a small number of technical issues emerged in the first few days of operation. Those were limited to train announcement issues and two services being altered by less than five minutes to accommodate passenger traffic flow. In addition, one set of point assets failed, which, upon further investigation, resulted in a component being replaced. Finally, delays on the cross-border network in the greater Dublin area, coupled with seasonal constraints, resulted in minor delays to some trains. It is, however, important to emphasise that those are minor teething issues and that, overall, the opening of Grand Central station has resulted in a growth in passenger numbers on the local and cross-border corridors.

Mr Butler: I thank the Minister for his response to that question. I also thank him for his written responses to the queries that have been raised with me by constituents who cite service-reliability issues, safety-and-capacity issues, economic impacts and environmental concerns. People are finding themselves late for work and hospital appointments. Is the Minister open to looking at the timetabling of trains going to Grand Central, taking into consideration those things that are impacting on my constituents?

Mr O'Dowd: The timetabling of trains etc is an operational matter for Translink. However, such matters should be kept under review, because we are, thankfully, seeing an increase in the number of passengers using public services. As with any new operation, there will be teething problems, as I outlined in my initial response. I am keen that Translink keeps those matters under review and that, where lessons can be learned, it learns them. If new services need to be provided or services have to be adjusted to accommodate the increased uptake, that should be done.

Mr Baker: Does the Minister agree that the new Grand Central station will be key to improving connectivity across the island?

Mr O'Dowd: It has thus far, despite the teething problems that I outlined to Mr Butler, proved successful. It will encourage more and more people to use public transport, locally and in the border corridor. There are some operational issues, outside my jurisdiction and outside our control, in the Dublin area, with increased train traffic there, but, overall, it has been a success.

Mr Dunne: Staying on the same railway line, is there any update on the provision of a safer railway stop at George Best Belfast City Airport to resolve the situation where passengers are often faced with a long and dangerous walk along the Sydenham bypass?

Mr O'Dowd: As part of the all-island rail review, there is a feasibility study on how we can have better connectivity with Belfast City Airport to encourage more and more people to use public transport and ensure that it is safely accessible. That work is ongoing.

Mr Dickson: Minister, are you prepared to give an apology to the passengers who were unable to get trains on Friday evening due to the volume of traffic, at both the Northern Ireland international football match and the Belfast Christmas market at the City Hall? Will you issue an apology on behalf of Translink to those commuters, who were left distressed at railway stations and on the tracks waiting for trains to go to and through Grand Central railway station?

Mr O'Dowd: I saw some social media activity on that matter. I apologise to those who were left behind and did not get the service that they should have been getting.

I will raise the matter directly with Translink to see what lessons can be learned. Our message, correctly, is that we want to attract more people to use public services and public transport, but we have to get it right so that people will use them.

Mr McNulty: I think that the Member for Lagan Valley will agree that the train line in question goes beyond Portadown and travels to such places as Newry, Dundalk, Drogheda and Dublin. Minister, a same-day return fare from Newry to Belfast is 68% more expensive than it is from Dundalk to Belfast. Will the Minister explain why passengers travelling from Newry are expected to pay more for a shorter journey? How does that encourage people to use public transport?

Mr O'Dowd: The Dublin Government have been able to subsidise Iarnród Éireann to a higher degree than I have been able to subsidise Translink. They seem to have quite a healthy bank balance and they are able to subsidise public transport to a greater degree than I am. That is the reason for it. Translink is making some adjustments to fares on the Belfast to Dublin route in a bid to correct that anomaly.

Mr O'Dowd: I am pleased to inform the Member that, for the current financial year, I have been able to allocate funding to enable my Department to provide a full street lighting maintenance service, with outage repairs generally being carried out within the established target of five working days. My Department has replaced approximately 80% of its sodium lighting stock with LED units, which, as well as delivering sufficient reductions in electricity consumption and carbon production, has greatly reduced the number of street lighting outages on the network due to the longer operating lifetime of LEDs. I will continue to seek funding to convert the remainder of the network at the earliest opportunity.

Mr Durkan: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a fhreagra.

Does the Minister agree that street lighting plays an integral role, not just in road safety but in community safety? In light of recent events and what we have heard from many women about how unsafe they feel, does the Minister have any plans to improve response times, particularly where there are long-standing outages or delays?

Mr O'Dowd: If the Member has any specific areas in mind, he should feel free to contact my private office. I will ensure that they are followed up. Street lighting provides a safer environment for people to use pathways, walkways, active travel routes etc. The Member is right to raise the concerns about safety for women, particularly after recent events in Derry. I assure you that my Department will play whatever role it can in ensuring that the street lighting that is in place is serviced and maintained properly. As I said, if the Member has any specific areas of concern, he should feel free to contact my office.

Mr McHugh: Minister, will you outline the Department's policy for replacing street lighting?

Mr O'Dowd: As I said in my answer to the substantive question, there has been a significant change in our street lighting over the past number of years. Members of the public will have noticed that, in some areas, street lighting poles and equipment have been removed because they do not fit with the policy that has been in place for a number of years. That has caused some upset in certain areas, but the current policy dictates that, when street lighting has reached an age at which it requires replacement, it will be evaluated on whether it meets the current street lighting policy. If it does, it will be replaced. If it does not, it will not be replaced.

Mr Buckley: To follow on from Mr McHugh's question, the Minister will know that many areas in our rural communities benefit from street lights. Those street lights, in legacy terms, exist because of accident black spots or for community safety reasons. Does the Minister agree that taking those lights away and not replacing them puts those rural communities at considerable threat?

Mr O'Dowd: Each location is judged on its own merits and, as I said, against the departmental policy, which has been in place for a significant number of years. Safety — road safety and pedestrian safety — is one of the characteristics of that policy against which locations are judged. The other thing that we have to be mindful of — safety will always come first — is that street lighting, particularly in rural areas, can have a detrimental impact on fauna and on human health. We have to judge all those considerations against the current policy, but, where they meet our policy requirements, street lights will be replaced.

Ms K Armstrong: Minister, I come from a rural area. Street lights make it safer for pedestrians to walk along rural roads. Is there a record that we can access of removed street lights in each area in Northern Ireland?

Mr O'Dowd: I am not sure. I will ask my private office whether there are records. It may be that there are records for the Strangford constituency or for the council area — they sometimes swap over — but, if they are available, I will ask for them to be shared with the Member.

Mr O'Dowd: The estimated cost of the north Belfast to south Belfast Glider route is in the range of £142 million to £148 million. Although £35 million of funding has been secured through the Belfast region city deal, a considerable shortfall of some £110 million remains. Work on the feasibility of extending the route to Glengormley and Carryduff has been finalised, and I commissioned work on the delivery options that could be implemented utilising the £35 million funding envelope from the city deal. The outline business case is being finalised in line with the feasibility reports and delivery options. When my officials have concluded that work, I will be in a position to make a decision.

As the Member will know, my Department has been operating in what has been a difficult financial period for the past number of years, but we plan to make progress using the city deal funding that is available to us.

Miss McAllister: I thank the Minister for his answer. Although I appreciate that there are budget constraints, North Belfast is often left behind when it comes to work done to encourage sustainable travel, such as cycling infrastructure and greenways. What can the Minister do in the immediate term to assure people in my constituency that this is not yet another area on which they will have to wait years for work to get started?

Mr O'Dowd: I say to the Member that I commit to being hopeful that I will be able to make an announcement in the next number of weeks. Although I would much prefer to undertake the £140 million-odd scheme, I can make significant input into improving public transport options for people in Belfast, north and south, by investing the £35 million, or slightly more than that, in the time ahead. I therefore plan to move ahead, make an announcement and commence works to improve public transport options for people in north and south Belfast.

Mr O'Toole: Minister, will you be clear about the announcement that you have said that you will make in the coming weeks? Will you proceed with the Glider route or with additional bus routes? Like North Belfast, South Belfast, particularly along the corridor up the Saintfield Road towards Carryduff, is very congested, and air quality and congestion get worse as one goes down that road. Will the announcement be about an increase in bus routes or about the Glider route being delivered?

Mr O'Dowd: It will hopefully be a mixture. Significant investment is involved in providing the infrastructure needed for Glider routes, such as road widening and improvement and bus stop infrastructure. I will make a definitive statement in the next number of weeks.

Mr O'Dowd: As I said, my Department has been operating in a difficult financial environment for a number of years. Officials have advised that operating with the current level of vacancies has had an impact on the delivery of some operational flood risk management policy and IT functions. That also impacts on our ability to increase capital investment in new and existing flood risk management infrastructure and hinders our ability to improve our planning consultation response timelines.

My officials are mindful, however, of the need to maintain, so far as is possible, service delivery. For example, during the flooding that occurred last year, my officials quickly moved staff from non-operational roles to support the effective overall multi-agency emergency response.

In addition, working in partnership with Civil Service HR, and recognising that not all competitions can be brought forward at the same time, we have agreed a prioritised recruitment model, and plans are being progressed for the launch of about 10 professional and technical recruitment campaigns before the end of the calendar year. The prioritised competitions aim to recruit about 300 professional and technical employees across my Department and will be used to fill vacancies in the water and departmental delivery group.

Mr McMurray: Thank you, Minister. How will those vacancies affect flood risk management, public safety and coordination of public emergencies?

Mr O'Dowd: Last October, when we faced flooding emergencies, we moved staff from various elements of my Department to the direct, front-line emergency response. Following the flooding that we witnessed last year, the Member may recall that Storm Ciarán bore down on us. Thankfully, that storm diverted, and we did not get the worst of it. We would have faced serious challenges at that time had Storm Ciarán hit us, because staff cannot work 24 hours every day, and many of my staff were out in all sorts of conditions dealing with the original flooding. Storm Ciarán would have presented us with huge problems. As I said in answer to the Member's original question, we are running a recruitment exercise and hope to recruit over 300 professional technical employees across my Department.

Mr Boylan: What else is the Minister doing to improve the capacity and capability of his teams?

Mr O'Dowd: As has been said many times in the Chamber by many different Ministers, the austerity of the past 14 years has left a deep scar across our public services. We have not been able to recruit and maintain staff at the level that we would otherwise have achieved. As I said in answer to the original question, I am running a recruitment exercise. I hope to bring more and more people into my Department and put them into front-line services not only to ensure that we have an effective and efficient public service response to flooding incidents but to put us into a position to plan for flooding events and to do the research to allow us to determine whether we need capital expenditure for hard, fixed flood defences or for other forms of flood defences.

Mr McCrossan: Will the Minister outline whether the staff shortages contribute to delays in the planning system, including the progress of housing developments across the region?

Mr O'Dowd: They are having an impact, and you can see that in the response times from DFI Rivers. I have made a separate submission to the transformation fund to recruit staff for a number of areas in my Department. They will assist in lowering the response times for planning applications in order to speed up the planning process.

Mr O'Dowd: The new station will replace the one built in the 1970s with a modern, state-of-the-art facility that will provide a greatly needed enhanced passenger experience. It will be fully inclusive and will be a catalyst for future investment in the Lurgan area. It will also promote sustainable transport options and act as an enhanced gateway to the wider rail network across the island of Ireland. It will involve demolishing the existing station building and the adjacent Musgrave MarketPlace building to provide a new railway passenger facility. There will be an additional 60 park-and-ride spaces, a sheltering canopy on both platforms and a pedestrian/cycle bridge that will link the station building and platforms. My Department has already provided £2 million towards the project for the purchase of land adjacent to the station for the new park-and-ride site.

Translink has commenced the first step of the planning and engagement process for the proposed redevelopment by submitting a proposal of application notice (PAN) to Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council. An application for planning approval for the new station will be submitted to the local council by Translink after community consultation is completed later this month.

Mr Tennyson: I thank the Minister for his answer. As the Minister is a constituency colleague, he will know that, while the increased frequency on the Belfast to Dublin route is welcome, it has created some local concern in Lurgan about the increased congestion. Will those plans do anything to assuage those concerns?

Mr O'Dowd: First, the increased frequency of the Belfast to Dublin connection and the closure of the three sets of gates in Lurgan could have been better managed earlier in the application process for additional funding for the early service to the Special EU Programmes Body (SEUPB). Hindsight is a great thing, but, during planning, greater attention should have been paid to reducing the length of time that gates are closed in that area. My Department and Translink will now have to look at that to see how we can alleviate the issue, and that will be quite an expensive operation.

The investment in the railway station sends out a signal to the people of Lurgan that Translink and my Department are invested in them. I am sure that the Member has seen the drawings, as have I.

It will be a state-of-the-art building that will greatly enhance that area of Lurgan and send out the very strong signal that public transport is the way to go.

Mr Speaker: We move on to topical questions.

Mr O'Dowd: I have been advised that it would not be appropriate for me to name the challengers at this stage. However, I understand that there may be a hearing tomorrow, with each party setting out their initial case. At some stage then, there may be an opportunity for those who brought forward the case to be named, but it would not be appropriate for me to do that.

Like, I am sure, the vast majority of Members, I am greatly disappointed that the case has been brought forward. We are all aware of the need for the A5 in order to save lives, open up the north-west and provide for great connectivity. I assure the Member that my Department and I will defend the case robustly.

Mr Durkan: I thank the Minister for his answer and welcome his commitment to face down the challenge. Is he able to outline the implications of such a challenge to the A5 scheme, such as potential delay and continued risk to road users?

Mr O'Dowd: We will seek a speedy hearing of the case, at which we will present our arguments, as will the other party. A month's delay to a capital project of this scale can cost of millions of pounds. We are not at that stage yet, but if we go much further into the new year, we will be talking about millions upon millions of pounds of public money going to waste.

Mr O'Dowd: I have established a working group in my Department that includes officials from DFI Roads and others to engage with Translink, the PSNI and the city council. It meets on a regular basis and analyses the condition that the roads were in on previous evenings. It will bring proposals to me on how we can help to alleviate the pressures that are on the roads in Belfast city centre and the surrounding district. I reiterate the message that we need more and more people to use public transport. That is probably the best way to alleviate the pressures, but there are other measures that we can take. I am looking at the provision of public advertising and real-time information to drivers and others about the traffic issues that are in the Belfast area.

Ms Ennis: I thank the Minister for his response. He talked about other measures. Perhaps one of those could be the utilisation of park-and-ride facilities. Does the Minister agree that increased use of park-and-ride services could make public transport more accessible and help ease congestion?

Mr O'Dowd: Yes. We have to make park-and-ride services accessible and understandable to drivers. I will use the example of Sprucefield park-and-ride. Up to this stage, it has been difficult, I am sure, for drivers even to understand that there is a park-and-ride there. I have asked my officials to bring forward measures to ensure that we inform drivers who go past Sprucefield that there is a park-and-ride there, how to use it and the benefits of using it. Those of us who are privileged enough to be driven about will note, when sitting in traffic, the number of buses that go past. The people who go to Belfast on those buses get there before any of us. Let us sell that benefit to commuters and ensure that they have all the information that is at hand.

Mr O'Dowd: NI Water has advised me that it has not secured a site for the new waste water pumping station at Coshquin and, therefore, does not have planning permission to operate the waste water treatment works. The Coshquin waste water treatment works cannot be upgraded until a site has been identified and secured, and it then must go through the planning process. Therefore, the Cashel housing development cannot progress until a site has been identified and planning permission granted. NI Water has been in negotiations with the landlord of the preferred site since August 2023. As the negotiations have been unsuccessful to date, NI Water is also investigating alternative sites.

Ms Ferguson: I thank the Minister for his answer. Can he confirm that it is not a budgetary issue that is holding up the Cashel development in Derry?

Mr O'Dowd: At the moment, it is not. If you do not have a site or planning permission, I do not see how you can spend a budget. A number of barriers have to be overcome there. The site has to be identified, and planning permission has to be granted, and then the thorny question of budget comes alive.

Mr O'Dowd: I do not have a definitive timescale. I would obviously prefer it to happen sooner rather than later. It will probably require primary legislation, which means that it will have to be properly thought out and developed through the normal legislative processes of the House. Obviously the Committee will be key to that.

Mrs Erskine: I share some concern about that, because time is ticking on a crisis in NI Water. There is a funding gap of £145 million, and the £39 million of capital in the October monitoring round will not be just for NI Water. Last week, we had a debate on unadopted sites. When asked about developer-led contributions, NI Water said that it might have difficulty in getting some of the sites adopted. What will the Minister do to ensure that there will be mitigations for that in any future legislation?

Mr O'Dowd: My message is always the same in relation to these matters: people have to be in problem-solving mode rather than being simply in problem mode. It is vital that all of us — NI Water, developers, me and whoever — include in our minds how we will solve the problem. That is where the mindset is at. I have allocated an additional £19·5 million from the October monitoring round to NI Water to assist it to deal with the challenges it faces in providing waste water treatment, protecting the environment and other matters. I would like to be in a position to allocate more, but an investment of £19·5 million is quite significant.

Mr O'Dowd: In fairness, I think that that application came into my Department in early September. If I am correct, it was sent to us by the local council, which suggests that it is technical in nature and that there are issues that have to be resolved. My officials will work their way through those issues as quickly as possible, and I will then be in a position to make a decision. I would not say that an application lodged in September is overly delayed at this stage.

Ms Sugden: I appreciate that, and I appreciate that you are giving it attention. However, the British Open is coming to Northern Ireland next year, and we have a hotel that has been held up for nearly eight years, not necessarily because of your Department but for other reasons. Will you give this your attention, considering the mitigating circumstances around it?

Mr O'Dowd: I have had many conversations with my planning officials as to how we expedite planning matters, but the Member will appreciate that due process and due diligence have to be followed. I am acutely aware of the upcoming Open and the potential need for tourist accommodation in the area, so I assure the Member that the matter has my full attention.

Mr O'Dowd: The answer is yes. I have been provided with resource allocation of £22·8 million, which will allow me to take a number of measures. I will be delivering a full winter service in line with last year's, and I have provided money to NI Water and Translink. I have also invested around £15 million, I think, in my Roads division for road maintenance and upgrades and for street lighting.

Mr Boylan: Does the Minister agree that there are innovative methods that the Department could adopt in the future to get smarter about road maintenance?

Mr O'Dowd: Yes. My Department looks at the methods and at how we can use innovative measures to improve our reaction to and efficiency of road maintenance and to reduce the cost of road maintenance, which is always a challenge. I assure the Member that we are future-focused in how we deliver that service.

Mr O'Dowd: I do not know that I can be specific about that site, because I do not have the information in front of me. I imagine that, if a contractor has equipment and staff lined up for a job, there will be additional costs as a result of a cessation of work. However, it is important that we suspend some work of that sort around the Christmas period and allow traffic to flow more freely, not only in Belfast but in other towns and cities, because it is an important part of the year for many of our traders.

Mr Chambers: I thank the Minister. Following on from what the Minister has said, someone will take the hit, be that the public, through the tendering process, or the contractor. Would it not be more cost-effective to the public purse to programme such major work outside the period in which we have that traditional cessation of work?

Mr O'Dowd: Given the scale of work that we undertake, it is not always possible to have contracts delivered at a time that we find most favourable, be that due to cost, school times or whatever it may be. We have to align our contractors to the delivery of projects when they are available — we work with them on that — and when we have the finance to do so.

Mr O'Dowd: It applies to both. I have a lot of correspondence from developers regarding the development of businesses, hotels or whatever it may be, who are concerned that there may be waste water infrastructure constraints that will hold back their developments. As I said to Mrs Erskine, we all have to be in problem-solving mode. That includes myself, NI Water, developers and everyone else. NI Water is clear that there should be as early engagement as possible with it in relation to any planning that is being brought forward, and that early engagement has to include how we resolve the problem.

Mr Carroll: I thank the Minister. In relation to problem-solving, does the Minister agree that the solution is public investment in NI Water? Will he expand upon any work that his Department has done to engage with Treasury around the new capital borrowing rules, which could allow NI Water to remain public but get access to more finance?

Mr O'Dowd: NI Water will be remaining public. There has been no move away from that, and there will not be during my term in this office. I am aware that the Finance Minister is exploring all options in relation to funding, moving forward. Yes, NI Water requires additional funds, as do all public services, moving forward. I will work closely with the Finance Minister on identifying how we get funding to drive our public services forward.

Mr Speaker: Mr Butler is not in his place. I call Declan Kearney.

Mr Speaker: Minister, you have less than a minute.

Mr O'Dowd: As I have just announced, I have invested £19·5 million — half of the capital allocation that I was given — in NI Water, because I accept that there are resource and capital challenges for NI Water, as there are with all public services. That investment will help to alleviate the pressures that it has been facing in the delivery of homes, matters relating to the environment and other matters that NI Water has to take into consideration.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: That ends questions to the Minister for Infrastructure. I ask Members to take their ease for a wee minute, please.

Mr Buckley: They say that imitation is the greatest form of flattery, and I suppose that that is what we see today. This debate and vote are very much a dry run for what will come in the coming weeks: the vote on the democratic consent mechanism that was enshrined in article 18 of the original protocol and against which I and this party voted and spoke on many occasions.

What we have seen in the development of the debate is much revisionism in the Chamber. As my colleague Mr Brooks mentioned, we have heard much reference to the Belfast Agreement, which enshrined at its very heart a cross-community vote. Members will be well aware that, in the vote that we will have, the aspect of cross-community voting will be removed. In other words, it was designed specifically, at the behest of the European Union and with the UK Government surrendering, to have a pre-contrived outcome. That, in itself, is outrageous given the seriousness of the issue that we are discussing today, an issue that has a profound impact on many businesses and, indeed, community life in Northern Ireland.

Today and in coming weeks, when we go on to debate and vote on the democratic consent mechanism, the Democratic Unionist Party and I will vote against the continued application of articles 5 to 10 of the Windsor framework or protocol. We have a clear mandate to do so, because we see continued harm being caused to our many businesses throughout Northern Ireland. It is very clear. The DUP believes that continued —

Mrs Dodds: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: I will in a moment.

Mr Buckley: The DUP believes not only that continued barriers to trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland are unacceptable in a sovereign state but that they further undermine the integrity of the UK internal market. I give way to Mrs Dodds.

Mrs Dodds: I thank the Member for giving way.

What you describe is a situation that came to me this morning. A small business owner in our constituency came in great distress to say that she now has to apply additional taxation due to EU tariffs, because her goods arrive from another country via Great Britain. The root cause of that is the application of EU law in Northern Ireland. Does my colleague agree that that is undemocratic in the extreme and that we will continue to stand against it?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for the intervention. It gets absolutely to the nub of the issue.

Many Members do not want to talk about it, but the real issue that affects many of our everyday businesses — in our manufacturing sector, for example — is that they are forced into the red lane and face full customs and tariff checks, which competitively disadvantages them compared with their GB counterparts. Their businesses are becoming unsustainable.

The chief executive of Invest NI has said that he has seen no evidence to date that dual market access has attracted any foreign direct investment to Northern Ireland. The nub of the issue, as my honourable friend has said, is the continued application of EU law in some 300 areas that pertain to large swathes of our economy, which continues to impact on many businesses in Northern Ireland.

It is not just about the economy.

Mr McCrossan: Will the Member give way?

Mr Buckley: My time is brief.

It is also about immigration. We saw that in a recent debate at Westminster. Northern Ireland could, essentially, be a back door for illegal immigration because of the continued application of EU law. It applies also to issues of legacy.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member's time is up.

Mr Buckley: The issue is clear, Members. We will vote against.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member's time is up. Thank you.

Mr McNulty: I support the SDLP Opposition motion as a proud member of the most pro-EU party in the Assembly. Today is about the democratic consent process, which presents us with an opportunity to reflect on where we are, what challenges we face and how we can seize the opportunities that are ahead. The motion is not just a procedural step; it is a moment for us to set a course for the future. The process before us gives us a chance to discuss the future of our relationship with Europe and to consider the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead. At the heart of the discussion is our unique position. Our geographical reality has profound implications for our economic and social relationships, and it is one that we must navigate skilfully in the years ahead.

The decision that we face is not just about our current arrangements under the Windsor framework but about the long-term benefits of our relationships with the UK and the EU. We must look ahead, not just at the obstacles that we face but at how we can work together to build a prosperous, stable and inclusive future for people and communities on both sides of the border.

The SDLP will support the democratic consent motion because we firmly believe that the Windsor framework — the protocol — provides the North with the best possible protections from the fallout of Brexit. The protocol and the subsequent arrangements offer us a clear opportunity, with access to the UK and EU markets. That dual market access is not just a lifeline for our economy but a platform from which we can attract investment, stimulate growth and provide our businesses with a competitive edge in a global marketplace. The economic benefits of the framework are already becoming evident, with the North becoming a bridge between two major markets. For businesses here, that means continued trade with the EU and the UK without barriers —.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. He has always been a strong advocate of local, strong representation. In light of that, why does he support lawmakers 500 miles away in Brussels, rather than in the Assembly and, indeed, in Westminster, where his party takes its seats, making laws for Northern Ireland in over 300 areas?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr McNulty: You may consider the EU to be a foreign Parliament, but there are many in this House who consider London to be a foreign Parliament.

The economic benefits of the framework are already becoming evident, with the North becoming a bridge between two major markets. For businesses here, that means continued trade with the EU and the UK without the barriers that Britain now faces due to Brexit. That is a unique and valuable advantage, and it is one that we should not take for granted.

There are still significant challenges that we must address. Issues remain around disruption to cross-border trade and the provision of public services, and we must ensure that our businesses are supported in navigating the complexities of the new trading environment. Furthermore, the North's access to educational and training opportunities must be safeguarded, ensuring that people here can continue to benefit from the full range of opportunities offered by both the UK and the EU.

One of the key considerations in the process is the need to maximise the North's unique post-Brexit status. We must be bold in how we leverage the advantages of our situation for the benefit of our society and our economy. We must also consider how we can ensure that the North has a voice in the EU's decision-making processes. While we are no longer an EU member state, the North has a distinctive position that warrants consideration. That should include exploring ways for us to have a direct role or enhanced representation in the European Parliament to ensure that the North's interests are always taken into account. Our proximity to the EU, coupled with our dual market access, makes that a conversation worth having.

The democratic consent process is not just about a vote but about a vision for the future of the North. We have the chance to build a future that is defined not by the challenges that we face but by the opportunities that we can create. We can strengthen our relationship with the European Union and establish the North as a thriving, connected region that benefits from the best of both worlds.

Mr Gaston: In 1998, the people of Northern Ireland were promised that there would be no change to the constitutional status of Northern Ireland without their consent. Implicit in that was an acknowledgement that we, as citizens of the United Kingdom, had the right to take part in national referendums and that the decisions in those referendums would be honoured, yet many in this place have devoted the past eight years of their life to overturning the will of the people of the United Kingdom. Having failed to do that UK-wide, they turned their attention to another means of frustrating the will of the people, which was to keep Northern Ireland locked in the EU single market and customs union. What has been the result? In the past week, we have seen a move to impose a guide dog border between here and the rest of our nation. How liberal and progressive it is of those people to make it more difficult for the blind because that is what their EU overlords require of them. How wonderful it is that the self-styled Social Democratic and Labour Party wants to surrender lawmaking power in 300 areas to people whom no one in Northern Ireland elected. The SDLP welcomes a process that will see us subject to colonial rule in 300 areas of law. It invites us, four years down the line, to embrace laws made for us about which neither it nor anybody else in the Chamber has any knowledge and that we certainly will not be able to scrutinise. Significantly, at last Wednesday's meeting of the Committee for the Executive Office, it was pointed out that, under the protocol, Northern Ireland is tied to EU VAT rules.

In a few weeks' time, the Assembly will have its first significant vote to be decided on a purely majoritarian basis in over half a century. Where is the concern there for the Belfast Agreement and the principle of parallel consent? There is and always was an alternative. When it comes to trade, every border between fully sovereign states is managed by way of mutual enforcement. That principle is at the heart of the Bill that my party leader will introduce in the House of Commons next month. At Stormont, the truth is that, as soon as unionism was in the minority, nationalism, along with its little helpers in the Alliance Party, were happy to dispense with minority protections.

I ask unionist colleagues in the Chamber to stop and think about where we are right now. The protocol has done what 30 years of IRA terror could not: moved the border to the Irish Sea.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he agree that one of the major issues is the approach taken by many political parties in the Chamber of continually burying their heads in the sand about the total and absolute carnage that continued trade borders between Great Britain and Northern Ireland creates for Northern Ireland businesses?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Gaston: I thank the Member for his intervention. The rigorous implementers do not care about trade. All that they care about is doing as much damage as possible. They love the thought of colonial rule in Northern Ireland, because that supports their objective of saying that Northern Ireland cannot work.

Frankly, it is time that unionists reflected on whether this place is worth having at all, particularly if the majority of people here are prepared to say to their constituents, "I am happy to hand over powers to people whom no one in Northern Ireland elects and who have no concern for the people of Northern Ireland".

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I call Kate Nicholl to make a winding-up speech on the amendment. Kate, you have three minutes.

Ms Nicholl: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. If this is a dry run for the debate on the democratic consent motion, Lord help us.

Mr Buckley: We will hopefully have more than three minutes.

Ms Nicholl: I will need more than three minutes.

I will start by responding to that intervention. Yesterday was my son's fifth birthday. When he opened up his pirate ship, his eyes lit up in much the same way as Jonathan Buckley's eyes lit up when the man from Invest NI talked about dual market access. I keep thinking that the reasons that we have not been able to maximise our dual market access are the continual collapse of the institutions and the Tory chaos at Westminster.

I welcome the motion. It is important that we talk about this. We do not want to rehash history. We knew that any form of Brexit would be a bad deal for Northern Ireland and that the hard, purist form of Brexit pursued by the DUP and the Tories would be particularly bad. Brexit is the root cause of the problems that businesses face right now. We need, however, to look ahead and to be realistic about our options and about the potential pathways ahead. We know that the Windsor framework is not perfect. There have been lots of jibes about rigorous implementation, but I remind the Members who like to make those jibes that that related specifically to the breaking of international law.

Steve Aiken said that he would not support our amendment. I have a lot of time for Steve — I had a great time with him in Brussels — but he did not talk about why he does not agree with a sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) agreement or the electronic travel authorisation (ETA) exemption; instead, he focused on our behaviour in Committee.

Dr Aiken: I thank the Member for giving way. That was because we had only three minutes and I did not have a chance to get into it.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Kate, you have an extra minute.

Ms Nicholl: That does not change the fact that Alliance members on that Committee voted for five inquiries.

Mr Tennyson: Will the Member give way?

Ms Nicholl: Yes, go ahead.

Mr Tennyson: Does the Member agree that the Alliance Party has implemented fully and faithfully the terms of reference for the Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee? If Mr Aiken had bothered to take even a cursory glance at those terms of reference, he would know that

but his lack of attention to detail is not surprising, given that he has already misled the Assembly once today.

Dr Aiken: Oh, meow. Bowl of milk, please.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Excuse me. Sorry, Kate, could you give me a wee minute? Members, when people are on their feet, they need to be heard. We are all used to the cut and thrust of politics, but some interventions are bordering on rude. Kate, go ahead.

Ms Nicholl: Thank you. As there is not much time, I will focus on the amendment, specifically the ETA. An electronic travel authorisation tourist exemption is a vital mitigation that we call for in our amendment. It will have a huge impact on our tourism offer and industry. Over 70% of Northern Ireland's international visitors enter via Dublin and cross the land border. ETA requirements could deter visitors, as many might simply exclude Northern Ireland from their travel plans. Also, there are legal risks for tourists who may unknowingly cross the border without an ETA.

In 2023, there were an estimated 5·4 million overnight trips to Northern Ireland, with an associated expenditure of £1·2 billion, and £900 million of that came from external visitors, so it is so important that we talk about the impact of tourism. My colleague talked about how much of an impact the SPS agreement would have. The best deal was always to remain in the EU, but, now that we have left, we have to continue to work hard to make progress on issues emerging from that decision that affect people in Northern Ireland.

On the point about democracy, the protocol and the Windsor framework were literally passed by Westminster.

Alliance will continue to offer a constructive and forward-looking approach that seeks to build positive relationships across these islands and across Europe. That is the very least that our constituents deserve —

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Time is up, Kate.

Ms Nicholl: — and it is what we need to maximise opportunities.

Ms Nicholl: I call Colin McGrath to make a winding-up speech on the motion. Colin, you have five minutes.

Mr McGrath: Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Maybe I will pledge not to wind people up but to wind up the debate and see how we get on with that. It is great to hear so many people complaining about not having enough time to participate in the debate. Maybe, if we go back to a having a smaller number of motions, more people will participate, and we will be able to use fully the time that is available.

In tabling a motion on the North's future relationship with the EU, we, as the most pro-European party in the Assembly, did so to rectify the destabilisation that was brought about as a result of Brexit. In 2016, the tactics of Farage, Johnson and the European Research Group (ERG) were effective and worked on their target audience. They sowed the seeds of division, fear and deep mistrust. Also, they promised their target audience a utopia. They promised them that everything would be great and sunny. What they delivered, however, was a wrecking ball without an operator, with more-honest politicians left to pick up the pieces.

Since the referendum vote in 2016, in acknowledging the democratic wishes of the UK as a whole, our drive, loyalty and priority has been to fight the worst excesses of Brexit and ensure that the people here — the ones whom we represent and who voted overwhelmingly to remain in Europe — would not be heinously impacted on. None of us believes that the EU is some sort of utopia. There is much about the EU that needs to be reformed, but it has always been our view that we are better placed inside that body, where such reforms can take place.

There has been much discussion on that relationship with the EU, but we spent most of the debate talking about the democratic consent motion that is coming up. However, there is so much more to the motion. We were talking about helping young people to learn and share their lives with others across Europe. We were talking about helping our tourism industry by facilitating easier travel. We were talking about our voice being heard in a democratic fashion and about helping our farming sector and our food processors to ensure that they can access better arrangements. That was what we were trying to do, but it descended into a little bit of a farce from some people. That is unhelpful, and we do not believe that it manages to bring out the arguments that we could make.

Some Members highlighted the fact that the debate was simply a dry run for the Windsor framework debate. I am sorry that that has happened, because there is so much more that we could talk about. Some who mentioned that imitation was the greatest form of flattery simply rehashed their own arguments from years ago. They are simply imitating themselves by constantly discussing pro-Brexit arguments.

Mr Buckley: I thank the Member for giving way. The reason that I have to repeat all that is because so much of it has not been dealt with. Does the Member regret the fact that his party's motion on the relationship with the European Union fails even to mention the serious frictions that are faced by businesses that are involved in east-west trade?

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: The Member has an extra minute.

Mr McGrath: Thank you very much.

The motion is about the EU and our relationship with it. It is about us being able to have our voice heard where those decisions are taken so that people cannot say that their voice is not being heard. People seem to be completely averse to our having a seat at the European Parliament in order to be able to articulate our views on those laws that impact on here, which, in so doing, would enable businesses here to continue to have access both to the UK and EU markets and would remove the sense that your voice was not being heard or that you were having laws thrust upon you. If you were actually there participating and giving your views, you would be part of that process. It seems that you are not prepared to countenance that, but it would be constructive in trying to resolve the issues. Sometimes the arguments that are presented are a monumental example of cutting off your nose to spite your face. It goes back to that political territory of, "No, no, no" and, "Never, never, never" while forgetting that it is actually the businesses and communities that we represent that get hurt the most. However, do not let that get in the way of your being able to stand up and make a pointless argument.

People here and in Ireland as a whole have not bought into the false promises that Farage, Johnson and their ilk made, as they know what the EU delivered to us, which was an opportunity for seamless trade and to be part of a wider international community. It was about the promotion and propagation of our peace process through many hundreds of millions of pounds of Peace moneys. It was not about Little England nationalism. In acknowledging what has come before, the SDLP remains the most pro-Europe party in the Assembly. We have our sights set firmly on the future. As we make the case for exploiting the benefits of the Windsor framework, improving access to Erasmus and having representation in the European Parliament, the SDLP will continue to make the case that, ultimately, our best days lie ahead of us in a new, unified and reconciled Ireland that is at peace with itself and prosperous in the EU and on the wider world stage. I hope that all parties will support our motion, although I will not bank on it.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: I have been advised by the party Whips that, in accordance with Standing Order 27(1A)(b), there is agreement that we can dispense with the three minutes and move straight to a Division.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker: Members, please take your ease while we change the Top Table.

Ms McLaughlin: I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have five minutes to propose and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. As two amendments have been selected and are published on the Marshalled List, the Business Committee has agreed that 16 minutes will be added to the total time for the debate.

Please open the debate on the motion.

Ms McLaughlin: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Since the Assembly was restored, childcare has been a key focus of many contributions in the Chamber. When we debated the issue in February, there was cross-party agreement on the need for progress. Childcare now features in the Programme for Government as a stand-alone priority, which is no small thanks to the determined organising on the part of parents and providers outside this Building to highlight the scale of the crisis facing the sector. However, merely signalling that childcare is important is not enough if it is not properly addressed. There is a real issue here that we must deal with in an ambitious but realistic way, but neither the DUP amendment nor the People Before Profit amendment seeks to do so. The DUP amendment would water down our motion, whilst, sadly, the People Before Profit proposals are not remotely viable or realistic.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Ms McLaughlin: No, sorry. I am pushed for time.

While there is no doubt that some progress has been made with the introduction of the childcare subsidy scheme —

Mr O'Toole: I appreciate the Member's giving way. On the childcare subsidy scheme, does the Member agree with me — a parent of a young child in childcare — that it is a positive step forward, as we have acknowledged to the Minister, but we need more than that? We need a comprehensive strategy that is a long-term solution, not simply one intervention.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute.

Ms McLaughlin: Yes, obviously, it is very much welcomed. That cross-party intervention has delivered over £1 million of savings to parents in Northern Ireland and is to be commended. However, we still wait for the early learning and childcare strategy to be published more than nine months into the mandate. As we look ahead to the final month of 2024, families are still being put under immense pressure by eye-watering costs that are much higher than their mortgage. Too often, workers in the sector are still subject to low wages and a lack of professional support. Providers still struggle to keep the lights on and the doors open. Registered childminders still ask themselves when they will receive some long-awaited and hard-earned support from the Government. It is clear that the Government need to step up a gear, as the families and providers suffering from crushing costs are done waiting.

A 10-year early learning and childcare strategy must be agreed, published and funded without further delay. We in the SDLP know what we want to see from that strategy. We want to see a transformative, ambitious and child-centred approach that meets both the seriousness of the crisis facing families and the opportunity to get this right.

We know that the English standardised hours model of childcare does not work in practice. The childcare sector in England is at breaking point, with fewer than half of childcare providers being able to deliver the expanded model and a quarter of providers having said that they are likely to close. The model's focus on working parents means that it fails to make the biggest difference to the children who may need it most. Early education is a tool for intervening positively in a child's earliest days to alleviate disadvantage and level the playing field. By intervening too late and meeting the needs only of some children, the free hours model fails to meet that test.

The new strategy must set a much higher ambition. It should treat early education and childcare as what they are: the most important tools at our disposal to address poverty, reduce disadvantage and boost our economy. If we thought about childcare like that, it would seem only sensible for the strategy to cap costs so that no parent would pay more than they could afford and fees would be at least halved by 2030. Denmark, Finland, France, Norway, Portugal and Sweden apply fee caps for public and, sometimes, private services. We can too.

With the right priority, we would design a strategy that invests in providers and raises pay and qualifications for workers through a new public funding scheme. We would also put in place a structure around early education that delivers quality through a new independent body and by accelerating cross-border collaboration. In short, we would want a guarantee of affordability for parents, a guarantee of sustainability for providers and workers and a guarantee of the best start in life for every child.

As has been said in the House many times, childcare is not just a cost; it is an investment. The money that we need is on the table to start that investment with some of the biggest interventions. The Executive will receive over £70 million from additional Barnett consequentials as a result of higher childcare spending in Britain. Unlike the DUP in its amendment, we believe that that money should be ring-fenced and invested immediately.

Finally, let us demand that the Government move heaven and earth to build the system that parents, providers and children deserve. Nothing is more important than that.

Mr Martin: I beg to move amendment No 1:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): You will have five minutes to propose amendment No 1 and three minutes to make a winding-up speech.

Mr Martin: I thank the Members opposite for tabling this important motion. I do not doubt their sincerity in proposing it. Our amendment reflects the original motion but recognises the significant progress that has been made on the issue since the establishment of the Executive earlier this year.

The implementation of the Executive early learning and childcare strategy has been a priority, and work on it is progressing. That work, however, will be informed by emerging survey data and further stakeholder engagement. I will touch on something that the Member for Foyle mentioned. She called for action, effectively, and said that she wanted something, but she did not want the English model. That plays into our debate on the issue, and, at this point, I simply remind Members that we want the right strategy, not a rushed strategy.

I will briefly touch on what has been delivered recently. The Northern Ireland childcare subsidy, which the Member referenced, is easing financial pressures on working households by providing a 15% subsidy towards parents' bills that is paid directly to providers, with parents still being able to claim 20% tax-free childcare on the remaining bill.

Just eight weeks ago, over 11,000 parents were benefiting from the scheme, including 700 in my constituency.

The standardisation of the preschool education programme was called for in the 'A Fair Start' report. Some £5 million has already been allocated, and an additional 2,200 full-time places are expected by September 2025 via 107 preschool settings. It should be noted by Members that this is the most significant expansion of early years education in Northern Ireland for decades. It will have a positive impact on thousands of children every year and, as such, the hard work of the Education Minister and his Department should be warmly welcomed.

I will quickly mention three other schemes that are in the package we are discussing today. Sure Start, for example, has an additional £3·1 million, and that has allowed a 10% uplift in the programme. In fact, this year, it has brought 22 additional disadvantaged areas in Northern Ireland into the programme on a permanent basis. An additional £473,000 has been added to the Pathway funding. That intervention now supports over 10,000 children who are at risk of educational underachievement, and the total funding stream sits at nearly £4·5 million. We know that many preschool education settings are facing challenges as they support children who are undergoing special needs assessment. Some £1·6 million has been allocated to support children with emerging SEN in the early years. However, more widely, we must be cognisant of the pitfalls of simply demanding fast action on the issue, not least because we need to be aware that the policy driver is the correct one and not just a fast one.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mr Martin: I will.

Mr Brooks: Does the Member agree that, as well as having the right plan, we need to have evidence-based plans? We cannot pick arbitrary targets out of the air and label them as ambition.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Martin: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I concur with my colleague. I referenced the evidence-driven model earlier, and it is incredibly important. I will touch on it shortly in my statement.

I also ask the proposer of the motion to accept that capital and resource need to be in place, in addition to funding, to facilitate the positive transition that we are all looking to achieve. We have already clearly indicated in our amendment that building the evidence base for the most appropriate model for Northern Ireland is crucial. On the 50% figure my colleague referenced, I believe the figure came from the Opposition's 'A Plan for Change' document and the subsequent 'A Childcare Guarantee' document. I read both, but it was not clear to me whether the 50% figure was evidence-based, sectorally driven or just an arbitrary figure that Opposition Members had landed on, and perhaps they can mention that in their closing statements.

However, in closing, I ask Members to pragmatically accept that significant progress has been made on:

as referenced in the motion, since the re-establishment of the Assembly. The progress is remarkable, given the Education Minister's constrained budget. The growth will continue if the Executive continue to fund the strategy. Finally, achieving affordable childcare, with a tailored model for Northern Ireland, is probably something that we all want. We want the best model. It cannot be rushed. It must be tailored to this place. Our amendment seeks to achieve that, and, as such, I ask Members to support it.

Mr Carroll: I beg to move amendment No 2:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Assembly should note that the amendments are mutually exclusive. If amendment No 1 is made, the Question will not be put on amendment No 2. The Member has five minutes to propose the amendment and three minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who wish to speak will have three minutes. Please, Mr Carroll, open the debate on amendment No 2.

Mr Carroll: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. High-quality, accessible and affordable childcare is one of life's basic essentials, but for too many families across the North, suitable and flexible childcare is too hard to find or the costs are simply far too high. Employers for Childcare reported that the average cost of a full-time childcare place in 2023 was £193 a week. Research by Melted Parents found that 80% of families spent more on childcare each month than on mortgage payments. For some people, juggling childcare with work just does not add up. Eighty-eight per cent of parents surveyed by Employers for Childcare had to change their work arrangements due to the cost of childcare, including cutting back on their working hours. Lower income households were much more likely to stop work altogether due to childcare costs. That leaves too many families dependent on a failing social security system, which has been ravaged by over a decade and a half of austerity, to get by.

A lack of high-quality, accessible and affordable childcare affects us all, but it has particularly failed single parents and low-income families. Children who do not have access to high-quality early learning and childcare miss out on many things, including the early identification of special educational needs and disabilities. The damage does not stop there. Workers in the childcare sector are underpaid and overstretched, while small childcare providers struggle to break even. All of that is because our current political and economic system sees childcare as an individual or family responsibility rather than a collective social responsibility, which it is. We agree with the motion that the existing three-hour model does not go far enough to help struggling families. Parents in Scotland, England and Wales have access to 30 hours' free childcare a week. The fact that the preschool offer in the North is up to 22·5 hours a week reflects a shameful lack of action and ambition. What is even worse is that only 40% of children receive those 22·5 hours.

The early learning and childcare strategy should be published as a matter of priority. For almost a decade, the North has been the only part of these islands without a childcare strategy. In that vacuum and without targeted investment, costs for families have continued to rise, with working-class families suffering the most. Our amendment calls for a more radical change: aiming for the goal of universal free childcare by 2030. Treating childcare as a free and universal basic service would mean better outcomes for children and parents. Seventy per cent of parents surveyed by Pregnant Then Screwed said that they would work more if childcare was free. It is definitely viable.

The idea of universal basic services rests on the assumption that the main role of the state is to ensure that everyone's basic needs are met. That is not such a radical idea. If a state repeatedly fails to meet its citizens' basic needs, what purpose does the state serve? High-quality, free and accessible childcare is a basic need for every family with children. When seen in that way, as a basic public good, it seems obvious that access to childcare should not be determined by the wealth and working status of families. It also seems obvious to me that childcare should be available to all parents for as many or as few hours as they need. If we treat childcare as an essential universal basic service, workers should be given fair terms and conditions to reflect their responsibilities. Despite that, some in the Chamber will try to characterise the idea of universal free childcare — there has been an attempt already — as outlandish or unaffordable. However, there is more than enough wealth in our society to fund universal free childcare. Fair, progressive taxation would mean that the rich finally pay their fair share towards our public services. At the devolved level, the Executive could scrap rates relief for wealthy businesses. Stormont gave a £73 million handout last year to companies such as Coca-Cola —.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Mr Carroll: Sure.

Mr Brooks: Does the Member have any idea how much that would cost? Will Moy Park get the bill for that one as well?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Carroll: I hope that your Minister can tell us how much it will cost when he responds. I know that the Member has an aversion to making corporations pay taxes. He should maybe explain his rationale for that. It is mind-boggling to me that he is happy for a company to have £2 billion sitting in a bank and that he is happy for people to struggle to pay childcare. Square that circle.

Executive parties are making a conscious choice to prop up big businesses, which pollute our environment and often treat their workers poorly, at the expense of working-class families who are struggling to care for their kids. That is something that the Member for East Belfast is happy to maintain. Instead of placating the rich, we should be investing in community-led childcare services to allow providers to pay staff fairly and to provide free childcare to all who need it, whenever they need it.

I urge Members to support the amendment.

Mrs Mason: The high cost of childcare is a serious burden on many families, and it leaves parents struggling to make ends meet after paying their essential bills. Delivering high-quality and affordable childcare across the island is a priority for Sinn Féin, and we are working hard to ensure that working families get a break and that children have access to first-class services from birth.

Transforming childcare has been a priority for the Executive from day 1. All Barnett consequentials are allocated directly to the Executive, where locally elected Ministers prioritise spending and allocate finances on the basis of need. The Executive have agreed that delivering affordable, high-quality childcare is a priority for this mandate. Thanks to the work of the Finance Minister, Caoimhe Archibald, we have secured the initial £25 million investment to fund critical first steps towards making childcare more affordable.

Positive developments include expanding preschool places; creating additional childcare places, including more places for children with special educational needs; and delivering the childcare subsidy scheme. Whilst there is much more work ahead, those steps are meaningful and mark progress towards reducing childcare costs and supporting parents, children and providers. Sinn Féin is committed to working with everyone to build on that momentum by creating a bespoke childcare scheme that expands existing support for families and providers to ensure that childcare services are accessible, high quality and affordable for all.

Every child must have fair access to appropriate childcare. A long-term childcare strategy must create more places for children with special educational needs and physical disabilities; support the rapid growth of the Irish-medium sector; and give real and targeted backing to the community and voluntary sector, which works hard every day to provide real wrap-around care for families who need it most. We must support our childminders who provide bespoke home-from-home care. New initiatives must be welcomed and nurtured, particularly for our home-approved childminders who give care and attention to young children who need to be cared for in their own home. We need to transform childcare to meet the needs of all children by helping providers and childcare staff to utilise early intervention practices in the childcare setting to improve children's educational outcomes.

No matter whom I speak to in the childcare sector, their biggest concern is always the workforce. Real, dedicated plans to transform the childcare workforce are imperative for any strategy to work. We will continue to work hard to deliver high-quality, affordable childcare to ensure that all families are supported and our young people get the best start in life.

Mrs Guy: I thank the SDLP for tabling the motion, which is absolutely worth our time.

The pandemic had the effect of focusing policymakers' minds on childcare. Its function as vital economic infrastructure rather than just a domestic issue for mummies and grannies to deal with suddenly became understood. Rapid interventions followed with the objective of getting people back to work, and childcare has remained at the top of the political agenda. Its recent inclusion in the PFG and progress to make costs more affordable have been rightly welcomed.

The Department of Education and Early Years should be commended, alongside providers and parents, for delivering the childcare subsidy scheme, which is making a real impact, but, as many will say today, the model is too limited in scope. It must be extended to include school-aged children and those on universal credit. Members who took the opportunity to question departmental officials at the last Education Committee were encouraged to hear that the Department is considering that as part of the development of the full early years and childcare strategy.

Ms Mulholland: Will the Member take an intervention?

Mrs Guy: Yes, go ahead.

Ms Mulholland: Does the Member agree that it is the organisations in the sector that have really pushed the strategy and helped with its development?

Mrs Guy: Absolutely. I point in particular to Employers for Childcare, which has done an awful lot to develop the evidence base that will inform the strategy.

Those of us who are passionate and sincere about continuing momentum in this space must be accurate about how we frame the debate. A narrative is being pushed that is not quite accurate, which is that the interim steps produced by the Department and a priority around action are delaying the production of the full strategy. The strategy is about a decade in the making. There has been ample time for the measures to be brought forward and implemented as part of the wider strategy, but successive Education Ministers have not prioritised the strategy. Since 2017, we have had two periods of collapse of the institutions.

Democratic accountability requires that I make those points because those collapses have, undoubtedly, contributed to how overdue support to parents and the publication of a childcare strategy are. We anticipate the consultation to be early in 2025, and, after 10 years of development, our expectations are high.

What drives further delivery in early years cannot have a purely economic rationale. Affordability and making sure that parents have the chance to go out to work is essential — absolutely — and I am relieved to hear other parties finally moving away from the disastrous 30-hours model, because seemingly affordable childcare is of no use to anyone without provision. A core funding model for providers, with conditionality to guard against the setting of a fees target to aim for, can help to ensure that we do not end up pitting our parents against providers. To ensure quality, that model can allow providers to pay trained, vocational staff appropriately and provide them with the opportunity for a career.

Finally, evidence shows that the framework for those aged nought to three gives children, including our SEN children, the chance to thrive and reduces the need for more resource-heavy, costly interventions later on. The aspiration for such a framework must be child-centred and universal to have the greatest possible impact.

Mr Crawford: We all know that the early years of a child's life are critical. Research consistently shows that the foundations laid in those formative years have lifelong implications. Children who have access to quality childcare are not only better prepared for school; they develop essential life skills and become active contributors to society. However, the current landscape for childcare in Northern Ireland is fragmented, expensive and often inaccessible, particularly for low- and middle-income families. Many families find themselves without adequate childcare options while struggling with the financial burdens of finding a safe and nurturing environment for their child. The high costs of childcare force parents, particularly mums, out of the workforce or into jobs that they cannot sustain, undermining their potential and limiting our economic growth. In general terms, the situation in Northern Ireland remains one where, for many families, there is insufficient access to appropriate childcare and early years support and the cost is too high.

Affordable childcare has an important role in facilitating parental employment, which, in turn, can reduce child poverty. In 2023, a major review by the Department of Education found that the majority of parents on low and middle incomes considered childcare to be unaffordable. Childcare is a critical period for development, and access to quality, affordable childcare is essential to our children's growth and learning. We must ensure that every child, regardless of their background, has the opportunity to flourish. Universal child-centred childcare means creating an environment where each child's unique needs are met, where they can learn at their own pace and where they can develop the social skills that are necessary for a bright future.

I support calls for the Minister of Education to work with the Minister of Finance to ensure that all families have access to affordable childcare. I also encourage continued collaboration between Departments to develop flexible and diverse childcare options that meet the varying needs of families.

Ms Mulholland: I thank the SDLP for tabling the motion. I am glad to see that they have moved away from championing the free hours policy pursued by the UK Government. We all have seen that that policy has failed to reduce costs for families and has placed undue pressure on providers. That has led to provision being even more restricted, which has caused untold frustration and challenges in the UK.

I support the motion's intent. We need to go much further if we are to properly address the challenges that our parents, providers and economy face. To truly transform childcare in Northern Ireland, we need a holistic approach that addresses the current situation. The childcare subsidy scheme is a step in the right direction. I use it — I should declare that — but it has to grow and evolve. It needs to include school-age childcare.

Mr Brooks: Will the Member give way?

Ms Mulholland: Go ahead. I have very little time, so it has to be short, David.

Mr Brooks: Certainly. I agree with the Member on the need for a holistic approach, and I am glad that she sees the worth in the current scheme. Did the Alliance Ministers support the £25 million allocation to the childcare and early learning scheme at the Executive?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute.

Ms Mulholland: I do not sit on the Executive, so I am not able to tell you that.

The scheme needs to include school-age childcare and ensure that those on universal credit can benefit. Programmes such as Sure Start should be placed on a statutory footing and expanded. We know how much that can alleviate some of the causes of poverty. We know the value of Sure Start. We have to ensure that our childcare workers feel valued and supported, and that starts with better pay and conditions and better opportunities for training and development. We have to address the barriers that prevent children with disabilities and additional needs from accessing childcare and early education. Inclusion should be at the heart of the system. We need to address the barriers to rural provision and the lack of choice for parents. I declare an interest, as my baby's day care is provided 28 miles from my home, owing to the lack of childcare in my area.

It is not just about quick fixes or stopgap measures but about a paradigm shift towards a system that puts children at its heart. It means recognising that childcare is not just a means of getting parents back to work but a way of giving every child the best start in life, supporting families and ensuring equal opportunities for every child.

The motion includes a goal of reducing costs for parents by 50% by 2030. That is a commendable ambition, but I want us to aim even higher. Universal free childcare, as called for by Gerry Carroll, is an aspiration that we share. The reality, however, is that, right now, we do not know how that is achievable within budget availability. Achieving it requires significant and sustained investment in workforce development, infrastructure and programmes such as Sure Start, as I said. It cannot simply be about expanding the subsidy scheme alone. While subsidies are essential, they must form part of a broader strategy that includes structural reforms and a commitment to long-term funding.

Mr Durkan: The cost of childcare is not just a personal issue for parents but an economic and societal issue that hinders progress across the region. From looking at the places that do childcare well, such as the Nordic countries, we see how affordable childcare systems create thriving economies, higher workforce participation, gender equality and all-round more prosperous communities.

The Executive have failed families and childcare providers, many of which have been pushed to breaking point, with some forced to close their doors in recent years because of unsustainable pressures. The recent £25 million investment, while welcome, is just 6% of the £400 million needed for a comprehensive childcare strategy. Fair play to the Minister for doing something with what he had, but, in reference to our motion, if the Minister had more, would he not do more?

The Northern Ireland childcare subsidy scheme itself has been a wee bit clunky for parents and providers to navigate. Sadly, it reflects the Executive's half-hearted and half-baked approach to childcare support. We have heard about the high costs of childcare, with some parents spending more on it than they do on their housing costs. Families find themselves in the absurd predicament of working just to hand over a monthly wage for childcare.

We should also look at the costs of not providing affordable childcare. The burden is often disproportionately carried by single mothers, many of whom face having to leave their jobs in order to care for their children. The result is a loss of skilled workers from the workforce, ultimately stifling economic activity. At the same time, an already overburdened welfare system faces additional pressure. Children miss out on opportunities, while the absence of early intervention increases the risk of future health and education challenges, all of which will drive up costs.

Mr Martin: Will the Member give way?

Mr Durkan: Certainly.

Mr Martin: Does the Member agree, in pursuit of the right childcare policy, that it should be evidence-driven, sectorally driven and parentally driven and that, while time is important, it is not the sole driver in the debate?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Durkan: Yes, but urgency is required. We hope that tabling the motion and, hopefully, the Assembly passing it will increase the urgency with which the Executive deal with the issue, which has dragged on for far too long. It is only recently and only under the Member's Minister that any action has finally been taken.

Childcare providers have been forced to balance rising costs with limited financial support. I have concerns that the National Insurance increases could have a detrimental impact on staffing levels and on the sustainability of providers, who already struggle. They, too, must be supported in the childcare strategy.

As I said, we have waited far too long for the implementation of a comprehensive childcare strategy. Promises have been made, but delivery remains elusive. Families continue to struggle with escalating costs that are among the highest in Europe. It is no coincidence that we are also among the worst-performing regions in economic productivity. Universal and affordable childcare is the key to unlocking future prosperity. Let us begin there and give children, families and society the foundation that they need and deserve.

Mr Gaston: I have been something of a lone voice here in raising the fact that parents in Northern Ireland have been short-changed when it comes to childcare support. I welcome the belated recognition of that fact in the SDLP's motion. It ill becomes the House to seek to con the people of Northern Ireland that Stormont is doing something great for working families with a support scheme for childcare when the reality is that the Executive have taken money that should have gone to the scheme and spent it on other things.

On 21 October, I asked the Education Minister directly to explain why the childcare support offered by the Executive was £32 million less than the amount provided by Westminster. The Executive got £57·2 million in Barnett consequentials because of the scheme introduced in Great Britain, yet the four-party Executive, of which the Minister is a part, allocated only £25 million to childcare. I am still at a loss as to what the Minister or the Executive deem more important than allocating all of the moneys received from Westminster for childcare to offsetting childcare costs. Neither the Minister nor his Executive colleagues even blush that, having got £57·2 million for a childcare scheme, a whopping £32 million of that has been taken and spent on goodness knows what else. If the Executive are serious about addressing rising childcare costs, a good place to start is ring-fencing the entirety of past and future moneys received from Westminster and spending them solely for that purpose. I support the motion.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you. I call the Minister of Education to respond to the debate. Minister, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr Givan (The Minister of Education): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to respond to the debate on a motion that speaks directly to the needs and aspirations of children and families across Northern Ireland. I very much welcome the motion before us, because it brings into focus something that is important to many people in Northern Ireland.

I absolutely recognise the importance of quality early learning and childcare provision in giving children the best start in life and supporting parents, particularly women, to enter or remain in the workforce. I take the opportunity to acknowledge the quality early years and childcare services that exist across Northern Ireland.

When I took up this post in February, I said that I would bring forward an early learning and childcare strategy that would support child development and make childcare more affordable and accessible in order to enable parents to work, and I remain fully committed to doing so. However, strategies take time to develop and implement, and I realised that action was needed immediately. That is why I secured an additional £25 million of Executive funding in May to implement a package of measures in this financial year. That investment is making a real difference to thousands of children and families across Northern Ireland.

I welcome the Finance Minister's support in the form of that £25 million. I also welcome the Ulster Unionist Party's support for that being included. I note the comments made by my colleague in Lagan Valley, the Alliance Member: "This has been decades in the making. We have been waiting for years for this to happen". I thank Sinn Féin and the Ulster Unionist Party for supporting the £25 million allocation to this budget. Members may wish to look closer to home when it comes to what priority was given in the Executive to this issue. A strategy, while necessary to provide a blueprint for the longer term, would not have delivered the immediate benefits that were, I knew, urgently needed.

Let me summarise what has been achieved. First, I implemented a Northern Ireland childcare subsidy scheme that provides eligible parents with a 15% reduction to their childcare bills. The uptake for the scheme has exceeded our expectations. To date, nearly 13,300 children and 1,550 providers have registered, with reductions already having been made to bills since September. The mover of the motion indicated that £1 million of savings had been provided, but that is £1 million a month. In the first two months alone, the scheme saved parents £2 million on their childcare costs, with a further £2 million having been saved through the tax-free childcare scheme. The combined effect of those schemes has been to save working parents in Northern Ireland over £4 million in the past two months alone. By way of example, a parent with two eligible children could save up to £668 on their monthly childcare costs, which is a reduction of 32%. Over a 12-month period, that represents a total saving of £8,000. That is a significant step forward from where we were just nine months ago when I last stood here to respond to a similar motion on 12 February. Having listened to parents and providers, it is my intention to bid for funding to sustain the scheme beyond the end of March 2025 until a longer-term strategy is in place.

I appreciate that there have been calls to increase the subsidy and to extend it to others, such as parents with school-age children. I will consider those options over the coming months. With there being a limited budget, the focus this year has rightly been on working parents with children who are below primary-school age. That group typically faces the highest costs due to its reliance on longer childcare hours. The scheme also targets parents — they are mainly mothers — who are at the stage of making decisions about whether to return to work following maternity leave. Childcare costs can be a significant barrier to that. The scheme is set up in such a way that means that we could easily expand it if there were a case to do so and if the Executive made the required funding available. I will give that careful consideration. That gets to Mr Durkan's question of, "If the Minister had more, would he do more?". Absolutely I would do more.

When intervening on his colleague, Mr O'Toole made a comment about our needing to make more than one intervention. A second area of progress that I will highlight is our investment in a range of core early years programmes. Those that have benefited include Sure Start; the Pathway fund; Toybox; non-statutory preschool providers; the Irish-medium preschool support service; PlayBoard; and the Bookstart Baby programme. That investment has helped to secure vital services for some of the most vulnerable and has enabled those programmes to provide pay rises to their staff while maintaining and, in some cases, expanding front-line services.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Minister give way?

Mr Givan: I would like to highlight one more area, and then I will give way.

As well as supporting Department of Education early years programmes, we have been able to boost some programmes that other Departments administer. Those include the Department of Health's early years and childcare provision for children with additional needs and disabilities, and support for the expansion of its approved home childcare scheme. Funding has also been provided to the Department for Communities to train more childminders through labour market partnerships. A third area of progress relates to the standardisation of the preschool education programme. The Education Authority is well advanced in identifying the first preschool settings that will transition to delivering at least 22 and a half hours of preschool education per week from September 2025. Three lists, with a total of 107 potential candidates, have been published on my Department's website and are undergoing consultation. Final announcements on the first settings that are due to transition are planned to be made before the end of the calendar year. Far from making only one intervention, I have made many interventions.

I will give way to the Member.

Mr O'Toole: I am impressed with the Minister's list. I was not suggesting that he had not done any other work. I think that he would note that we have acknowledged that he has taken action and made progress.

Since he mentioned Sure Start specifically, I will say that it provides a fantastic service. One thing that it has been challenged with is lack of funding over multiple years. Is the Minister working with the Finance Minister in order to, hopefully, secure a longer-term funding profile for Sure Start centres across Northern Ireland so that they can be guaranteed funding for multiple years?

Mr Givan: Sure Start can be assured of the priority that I have given to it in the strategy. Of course, the Executive want to do multi-year Budgets, and that would provide greater security. However, given that I have made it a priority to support Sure Start, we were able to give permanency to just over 20 areas where it operates that had been extended temporarily. I absolutely recognise the importance of Sure Start.

The motion calls for financial support for childcare providers. The package of measures announced in May included proposals to establish a targeted business support scheme for providers that were in significant financial difficulty and in areas where demand for childcare exceeded supply. I have been engaging with the Department for the Economy on that area. The Minister wrote to me on 1 August, offering to lead on a scoping exercise in conjunction with Invest NI, the Department of Health, the Department of Education and wider stakeholders to develop a clear picture of the business support requirements in the childcare sector. The Department for the Economy is leading on that, and I look forward to further engagement.

Finally, I turn to the work being done to collect data that is necessary to inform policy development, and this speaks to the issue of informed policy. Whilst there is a lot of anecdotal evidence on childcare costs and usage, we have very little robust statistical data that is representative of the population as a whole, and that has hampered policy development. Core to that is data being collected from providers through the childcare subsidy scheme. Based on the data collected since September relating to 13,000 children who are currently registered, we know that the average net cost for families per child is about £400 per month. Some families are paying more, some less, but, for the first time, we have reliable data to estimate the average net cost. We also know that about 90% of children accessing the subsidy incur childcare costs of less than £700 per child per month after accounting for the financial support from the subsidy scheme. All of that is helping to provide us with a clear picture. The Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) commissioned a survey, which issued on 4 November. The findings and data that are being collected will help to inform the strategy that I am going to take forward. It is very much my intention to have that work completed by the autumn of 2025 so that we have a comprehensive strategy. However, it is the immediate action taken by the Executive, and by me as Education Minister, that is showing a tangible benefit for hard-working families, and I am determined to continue to build on the progress that we have made.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Minister, thank you for that response. I now call Gerry Carroll to make a winding-up speech on amendment No 2. You have up to three minutes.

Mr Carroll: Thank you. If I heard you correctly, Minister, with regard to £400 per month on average for childcare, I think that your figures are way off. People are paying way more than that. That is not the first time in the past week, I think, that you might be incorrect on that. You may want to check the figures that I previously referred to.

Access to affordable childcare plays a big part in getting parents back to work. Too often, unaffordable or unsuitable childcare is a barrier for people returning to work, especially women. That is why the childcare subsidy scheme does not go far enough. The reality is that many people feel forced to return to low-quality, poorly paid jobs just to pay the bills. We should remember that childcare provided by parents and carers at home is work, it is labour, and the responsibility for raising children still rests overwhelmingly with women. The state has exploited the unpaid work of women for far too long. The care, education and development of our children have been commodified. It is deeply unfair that, while families are forking out many hundreds of pounds on average per month on childcare costs — certainly more than £400 — some companies are making profits hand over fist. The profit motive also undermines the quality of care that children receive and allows low pay and exploitative working conditions to flourish.

Families are at breaking point. This is ultimately a question of values and of what society considers to be a public good. Unfortunately, it seems that free childcare is not the will of the House. The idea of access to essential services being based on need rather than ability to pay is a founding principle of the NHS. It is also a founding principle that applies to schools — primary and post-primary. Childcare is social infrastructure. Our current system is broken and is failing children, families and small childcare providers and workers. If we believe that every child and every family have the right to benefit from access to high-quality childcare according to need and not their ability to pay or what is in their bank account, we should be aiming and voting for universal free childcare by 2030.

I have no time to go through all the contributions to the debate. Some Members said that the current system is not functioning. That is right, but, when it comes to thinking outside the paradigm, it seems to be business as usual. That is not a good enough approach to this or any other issue.

Alliance MLA Sian Mulholland mentioned the shared aspiration of free childcare. That is good. However, I presume, from her comments, that she and her party will not vote for my amendment, which aims to provide universal free childcare. That is a shame. To me that says that, although people talk about the concern that exists out there, they do not want to rock the boat too much. There is an alternative. There is a solution out there, which is to fight for universal free access to childcare. I urge people to vote for the amendment that will provide it.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): I call David Brooks to make the winding-up speech on amendment No 1. You also have up to three minutes.

Mr Brooks: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. First, I will address what Mr Carroll said. I am not opposed to people's paying their tax or, indeed, better services for working-class people and everyone in society: it is just that the Member tends to lean towards pipe dreams without costing them. We heard that in his own speech in his dismissal of accurate figures that were given by the Minister, without actually going into anything other than something that he has heard or seen. I will give way if the Member wants to give us the data that he has.

Mr Carroll: Yes, sure. I will repeat what I said earlier. I do not know whether he was listening. I said that Employers for Childcare reported that the average cost of a full-time childcare place in 2023 was £193 per week. Unless I have picked the Minister up wrongly, I heard him say that it was £400 per month. There are other figures; I could go on and on and on. The data is there. Go back to Hansard and see what it says.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): The Member has an extra minute.

Mr Brooks: The point remains that the Minister's point was made on data that has been collected and is therefore accurate.

I will see what I can get through. I want to acknowledge that, in general, in this place, there is goodwill towards childcare. We all want to see improvements for our constituents and families. Indeed, when the Minister made his announcement back in May, our party leader, Gavin Robinson, who has himself expended considerable efforts on those issues, acknowledged the collaboration with the Opposition party's now leader, Claire Hanna, alongside Melted Parents, to inform the plan that the Minister brought forward for the initial £25 million. Indeed, at the Education Committee, I often engage with Pat Sheehan to say that, if we want to see this, we need the Finance Minister to engage. We have seen the Finance Minister bring resources to the Minister that have allowed him to progress. It is fair to say that, in the Committee, there has always been a rightful intent to apply scrutiny to decisions and not allow Ministers to rest on their laurels. I know that the Minister wishes for that. There has, nevertheless, been general acknowledgement of progress and a shared interest in seeing the issue prioritised and advanced. I certainly believe that the Minister, as he has outlined, is grasping those challenges and meeting them head-on.

My colleague Peter Martin has already laid out our party's position on the motion and amendment. I align with that. I will not duplicate too much. I recognise that the Opposition will want to be seen to hold feet to the fire and to push for more, push for it faster and push for greater ambition. However, if I may say so, they have plucked the arbitrary figure of 50% out of the air, even if it sounds good to the public's ears. You could pluck arbitrary figures on just about anything. We could have a 50% cut to electric bills, food bills and fuel bills. That is all desirable — perhaps, even, universal for Mr Carroll — but, while all those things would help families, and there is nobody who would not welcome them, we need more than that from the official Opposition. We need to have a plan in that regard.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): You have an extra minute.

Mr Brooks: I have an extra minute. There you go. I thought that my time was up.

We cannot rely on the fantastical pipe dreams of how we will fund that. Of course, it would be desirable to be able to give everyone in society universal free healthcare. Of course, it would be desirable to give everyone who depends heavily on childcare, particularly working families, a 50% cut in their bills. I hope that we can work towards that, but we should not set unrealistic targets or raise expectations beyond what they may be. Instead, we should stick to the Minister's plan, which is to help people and deliver that in real time. We look forward to all parties in the Executive supporting efforts in the longer term and multi-year budgets to see further support for childcare.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you. I now call Cara Hunter to conclude and make a winding-up speech on the motion. You have up to five minutes.

Ms Hunter: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Unaffordable childcare costs impact on so many families in Northern Ireland. For so many, it is not just a policy issue but an everyday human struggle. Parents who work every hour that God sends are rightly angry, annoyed and tired. They are tired of working hard but somehow never having enough money. They are tired of not being able to afford the small, important things that make life worth living — small treats such as going out for dinner or a day out with the kids — while others can barely afford to eat, all so that they can afford childcare.

Parents are weighed down and burdened by ever-increasing costs. Imagine being a family in which both parents work tirelessly, only to spend an average of £12,000 a year on full-time nursery care or £6,000 a year on after-school childcare. That makes childcare the second largest monthly expense after rent or mortgage payments. Parents are being forced to dip into savings, take out loans or even borrow money from family just to cover the basics. In some heartbreaking cases, parents even skip meals to keep their children in appropriate childcare settings. That has a huge impact on parents.

When we talk about productivity and economic recovery, it is really important to think about the role that childcare plays. In Northern Ireland, 95% of parents report that the stress of childcare costs negatively impacts on their performance in the workplace. Alarmingly, 76% of parents have said that they have had to change their working arrangements, reduce hours, turn down promotions or leave the workforce entirely. That, of course, disproportionately impacts on women, forcing many to sacrifice careers that they worked so hard for and spent years building. From having the most caring responsibilities to the ever-present glass ceilings, women already carry a heavy weight on their shoulders when it comes to the workplace. They do not need another reason to be kept out of it.

Another key point that has been echoed around the Chamber today is that the childcare sector is buckling under severe pressure and strain. I have met some incredible childcare providers in my constituency, such as Appletree Childcare in Glenullin. I had a really good conversation with the staff about the important role that they play in developing young people and being there for them. The amazing staff are so devoted, but they are under so much pressure. Across Northern Ireland, costs, including staff costs, are rising due to inflation. The Executive need to help our childcare sector. Up to 14% of providers have had to increase their fees just to keep their doors open. Providers tell us that they are at breaking point, and, sadly, families are being priced out of the system.

I move briefly to Members' comments. I thank everybody who contributed. A wide range of views were expressed, but, ultimately, we all want to help parents and families across the North. Mr Carroll touched on the importance of supporting childcare providers that are struggling profusely. Cathy Mason talked about the importance of supporting working families by creating a strategy that looks at a long-term vision for the workforce and where we go from here. Michelle Guy referred to the fact that the delay with the strategy showed a lack of priority. She also said that the collapses that we have had over the past number of years certainly have not helped.

The DUP stated that significant progress has been made. I agree that welcome steps have been taken, but we have a long way to go. A hugely important aspect of that is the childcare strategy. A lot of parents will be really concerned to hear that that might take years to come forward. We have come a long way from where we were, but we need to go much further. We need the childcare strategy to create the most effective change possible. The UUP re-emphasised just how essential childcare is and that we need the strategy now.

For over a decade, we have been the only place across these islands without a childcare strategy. The time for warm words is over. Families and providers need action urgently. Let us not wait until more families are forced to choose between food and a future.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Before I put the Question on amendment No 1, I remind Members that, if it is made, I will not put the Question on amendment No 2.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Do we have Tellers?

Members, Standing Order 27(4) states:

I am satisfied that a reasonable time has passed. As only one Teller has been nominated for the Noes, the Ayes have it.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, take your ease before we move on to the next item of business.

Order. Members, my error. Apologies. We need to put the Question on the motion as amended. We are in your hands for that.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Members, take your ease.

Ms Nicholl: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister of Education to imply that Alliance Ministers did not support the £25 million for childcare, especially considering the fact that the Alliance Party was the party that brought the proposals for subsidised childcare to the House? [Interruption.]

Those two parties supported free hours —.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Order, Members. Points of order will be conducted through the Speaker's Chair, not through the Benches to my left or right. That question, Ms Nicholl, will be taken away, and the Speaker's Office can consider whether it was a point of order and, if it was, reply to it.

Ms McLaughlin: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister for Communities walked past while another Member was making a point of order and shouted to her, "Sit down". Is that in order?

Mr Buckley: Hansard.

Ms Mulholland: He was not at a mic, so it is hardly going to be in Hansard. Do you think that that was appropriate?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Again, points of order will be conducted through the Speaker's Chair, Mr Buckley.

That point of order, Ms McLaughlin, will also be taken to the Speaker's Office for advice and a reply.

I call Sian Mulholland.

Ms Mulholland: It was on the same point, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): That is OK. The points of order have been dealt with. I ask Members to take their ease before we move to the next item.

Mr O'Toole: I beg to move

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have five minutes to propose and five minutes to make a winding-up speech. As an amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List, the Business Committee has agreed that eight minutes will be added to the total time for the debate. Mr O'Toole, please open the debate on the motion.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I hope that people will see today as a robust and productive Opposition day, when we have put accountability on the record but also dealt with substantive policy issues. In our final motion of the day, the question that we will debate is not simply a local Belfast issue but something that affects the whole region, because our major city is a key economic and cultural driver of this region. None of us should be relaxed about the state of Belfast city centre.

A gateway project to revitalise the north-east quarter of Belfast city centre was first proposed 25 years ago, in 1999. Shockingly, not only has that part of the city — specifically, what is now known as the Tribeca Quarter or district — not been revitalised but it has fallen into the most appalling disrepair. There has been enormous improvement in what is now known as the Cathedral Quarter. In our hospitality and cultural offering, it is the go-to part of the city for visitors, but, right in the middle of it, there is a blot that stretches from Royal Avenue to St Anne's Cathedral. If you walk around there — I am sure that Members have done so, given that the issue does not just affect Members who represent the city of Belfast but is relevant to our entire region — you will see dereliction, antisocial behaviour and broken glass. You will see some of the most historic buildings in Ireland falling progressively into disrepair. It is obviously and self-evidently an eyesore, but it is not just that. It is robbing us of rates that we might have if productive businesses or houses were there and even from the properties that are there at the minute. Answers to questions that I asked of LPS have highlighted a shocking level of rates that has been forgone or given to the owners of those properties via reliefs that should not have been due. We have lost millions of pounds in rates revenue.

What is happening with this site? We simply do not know, is the honest answer. I do not want to spend all of this brief debate talking about the intentions or wishes of the current owners of the Tribeca site, because, frankly, I think that a little too much energy has been wasted on that already. I want to have a constructive and clear conversation about where we go from here, because it is simply not acceptable for us to allow such dereliction in the middle of the major city of this region to continue. It is not acceptable, and I do not believe that it would be accepted in any other major city on these islands. Can you imagine if this were the case in Dublin, London, Manchester or Glasgow? Of course, there is dereliction in those cities, but it is not to this extent and not in a such a strategically important place.

What do we do about it? Our motion calls for a number of things. It calls for the Minister of Finance to start to "address city centre dereliction" not just in Belfast and at the Tribeca site but throughout the region. It affects other places. We want to look at a:

and, my God, we have a problem with landbanking. We also want a specific look at how we can revitalise and make use of the extraordinary opportunity of that part of the city. We are in the Northern Ireland Assembly now, but this Building is but a boy compared with the Assembly Rooms in the middle of the Cathedral Quarter. It is rich in radical history, including that of the dissenting Presbyterian tradition of 18th-century Belfast. We are allowing it to literally and shamefully fall into ruin.

This is not in our motion, but, today, we have put forward a specific proposal. I am happy for the Minister to explain to me why she thinks it is not a goer, as long as she and her colleagues are thinking about an alternative. We think that you could look at financial transactions capital (FTC). We in the Finance Committee are always shaking our heads about how much of that we give back. We have given back more than £300 million of financial transactions capital in the past half a dozen years. It is not grant funding and cannot simply be given to build a railway or a school; it has to go to an entity that is capable of completing a financial transaction. Why not look at a Laganside-style corporation, perhaps with commercial involvement, that could use unspent financial transactions capital to vest that site, which is now known as Tribeca, get it into proper hands and make use of it commercially, culturally and historically in order to properly celebrate the Enlightenment history of that part of the city, get rid of the dereliction, move on and turn the page on decades of shameful dereliction in that part of the Cathedral Quarter?

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Will the Member draw his remarks to a close?

Mr O'Toole: It is time for us to take action. I hope that the Minister will do so with her colleagues in Belfast City Council, and I commend the motion. Let us finally get on and do something about this blot that is in the middle of our city.

Ms Forsythe: I beg to move the following amendment:

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): You will have five minutes to propose and three minutes to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have three minutes.

Ms Forsythe: I thank the Opposition for highlighting in the motion the importance of Belfast — the capital city of Northern Ireland. As an MLA for South Down, I usually speak up to champion my part of the country and to showcase the Mourne Mountains, but, today, I am speaking to recognise the significance to us all of those issues in Belfast. The DUP wants to ensure that our capital city is a vibrant place to live, work and do business. We want to see Belfast and its city centre continue to grow and prosper. In recent years, we have welcomed investment to our city, and we want to continue to attract development, business and tourism. We would be wrong to ignore the projects that have benefited from being in Belfast city centre and have been a success. However, we fully agree that prolonged dereliction reduces footfall for businesses, reduces community morale, opens the door to antisocial behaviour and raises a number of health and safety issues.

The Finance Minister must take action to ensure that land and property that are in prime locations are used to the benefit of the economy and the community. That goes for public and private land, which is something that the motion does not seem to acknowledge. There are significant publicly owned sites in the city that present issues. Our amendment seeks to widen the focus of the motion beyond the city centre. As someone who commutes to greater Belfast on four days most weeks, I am well placed to speak to the image that is presented to people when they travel along main arterial routes, including the Newtownards Road, Peter's Hill and Sandy Row. They should not see the dilapidation and dereliction en route to our city centre. That is not attractive to residents and tourists or to businesses that are considering investment. It feeds into poor perceptions of community safety. There is a key role for the local council in addressing this, and we welcome the reference to the need for action from Belfast City Council. Ministers, their Departments and other partners, such as the councils, must work together to address dereliction. In particular, we look forward to Minister Muir introducing his dilapidation Bill. Delays to urban regeneration are not only unsightly but also have real financial consequences due to the lost rates revenue from vacant properties and reduced footfall.

The Finance, Economy and Infrastructure Ministers must encourage investment in Northern Ireland and work to attract developers. The DUP wants to promote continued and timely development in Belfast. However, we are aware that vacancy is a complex issue. A vacant land tax does not represent a silver bullet and risks simplifying the issues involved. It presents many significant questions. For example, would it create a chill factor for investment? What would the impacts be for publicly owned vacant land, which is also a key feature in our city centre? Would it unfairly penalise landowners for delays beyond their control? Is the SDLP proposing to apply a tax across Northern Ireland? There are derelict sites in isolated areas in my constituency of South Down for a variety of reasons, and I am concerned that a possible precedent could be set here. The SDLP has called for the introduction of a vacant land tax without any mitigation for consultation or indication of what scale or range of sites it might apply to. The Welsh example suggests that such a policy is problematic to implement.

Our amendment expands the motion, noting the opposition to long-term landbanking, but records concern over introducing a new tax and highlights that land affected is both public- and private-sector-owned. A proactive solution, rather than the punitive approach suggested by the Opposition, is required. The Finance Minister should regularly review the rates across the Tribeca Belfast site. Indeed, responses to questions by the leader of the Opposition suggest that LPS is already having some success in ensuring rates reliefs are applied effectively. The full review proposed by the leader of the Opposition is unquantified and raises questions about why any future review or revaluation should be limited to one area when dereliction is a common problem across towns and villages in Northern Ireland. The Finance Minister and colleagues should absolutely engage with landowners and Belfast City Council on their proposals. The Minister should work with the investors and landowners, rather than moving to penalise them. As I said, our amendment seeks to widen the scope of the area included in the motion and notes our concerns. I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Members, as the business in the Order Paper is not expected to be disposed of by 6.00 pm, in accordance with Standing Order 10(3), I will allow business to continue until 7.00 pm or until the business is completed.

Miss Hargey: I welcome the debate. It is important because of the vital role that Belfast plays, the population that resides here and those who work, visit and do business. There is no doubt that a prolonged period of dereliction has impacted on the city centre and, indeed, sites across the city, including in our neighbourhoods. Landbanking of key sites, the Primark fire, COVID, the cost of living, the change in retail trends, out-of-town shopping and the policy of austerity have all impacted on the situation.

The absence of adequate housing in the city's core and the failed regeneration policies of the 70s, 80s and 90s, which segregated the city centre working-class communities from the city's core, have also played a part, and the impacts of those policies are still being felt today. Developer-led regeneration and traditional economic development practices are failing to address the challenges of our time. That has been demonstrated in the Tribeca area, and I warn against simply transferring the land from one developer to another. Trying to secure sites via paid lobbyists could potentially lead to a conflict of interest. What we need is a new people-centred approach to economic development that redirects wealth back into our local economy and places control and benefits into the hands of local people, communities and businesses. We need to build an inclusive and shared city for all, regardless of ethnic and socio-economic status, and where economic power works for local places and people. We need to learn from the mistakes of Laganside and others in not engaging communities, and proactively excluding them is not the way to do it.

I live in one of the communities that was affected when Laganside drew its strict boundaries that excluded all the inner-city communities. We know that that was policy: it was by design. Communities feel the negative impact of that approach, and I implore anyone who promotes that approach to speak to all those communities.

Greater citizen and community involvement and meaningful participation are viewed as improving the quality and legitimacy of decision-making, thus building democratic accountability. We need a community wealth-building vision with underpinning principles and outcomes and time-bound actions that will direct all future development and ensure that sites are developed in a way that meets the needs of our people, communities and economy. That includes all communities, not just the few that are mentioned in the amendment. That is why we have a concern about the amendment: all working-class communities should be included.

We want Belfast city centre and, indeed, the city to be a place that thrives, where people can live and access services that are open and accessible to all no matter your socio-economic status, and that reflects the rich heritage —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Will the Member draw her remarks to a close, please?

Miss Hargey: — of our city, such as the Assembly Rooms.

Ms Nicholl: I am glad to speak on the motion. Many of the aims and ambitions set out in the text were reflected in the Alliance motion on the rejuvenation of high streets across Northern Ireland. I am always happy to talk about tackling dereliction, which plays an important part in creating more vibrant high streets. As any MLA for Belfast will attest, we know how deeply that has impacted on our city centre.

While a range of factors are at play in the motion, a key priority for Alliance is the devolution of regeneration powers. For many years, Alliance has been clear that we need to secure the devolution of regeneration powers to our councils. We have been waiting too long for them to transfer. I am an unashamed, proud champion of Belfast — I love our city — and I genuinely believe that councils are at the heart of our communities and are best placed to deliver local solutions for our towns and cities. While planning has been devolved to councils, it is long past time for those powers to follow suit.

On Belfast City Council, our councillors have been working hard to tackle the dereliction and regeneration of our city centre, and, while the substance of the motion is really important, I do not want to discount that important work. The work on supporting the Vibrant Business Destinations programme, including on high streets, which can support and complement the city centre in improving street furniture, is really important. Fighting for the recently announced expansion of the Vacant to Vibrant scheme outside the city centre to help revitalise neighbourhoods and inject vibrancy into vacant commercial properties is also so important. We have been pushing to secure the creation of a small business champion, and I am excited about the delivery of Belfast Stories and other city deal projects, such as the Lagan footbridge. We are working to ensure that all projects are accessible, inclusive and sustainable. So much work has been happening, but that is not to say that there is no room for much more. We believe that it is time to reform our rates system, including through the potential expansion of the small business rate relief scheme and making it easier for businesses to set up in vacant premises and promote growth. Especially when we look at our arts sector, we see how regenerative small businesses are.

The Assembly Rooms is a venue that can show its cultural and artistic values to a new generation, and we should maximise that potential by showcasing and supporting our brilliant local talent. That is why we have supported a proposal to offer support for artists to take over vacant space and secure long-term tenancies at council level: to better support our arts sector.

There are roles for Departments, councils and a multitude of stakeholders who must be included in the conversations, which is why we have called on the Economy Minister to develop a comprehensive strategy to rejuvenate high streets and town centres. No one action can tackle the dereliction or bring vibrancy to our high streets. The winding down of the high street task force following the publication of the 'Delivering a 21st Century High Street' report was bitterly disappointing, particularly in the context of that 2022 report being left to gather dust —

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Will the Member draw her remarks to a close?

Ms Nicholl: — while problems mounted.

Mr Allen: Dereliction in Belfast city centre, particularly around the Tribeca Belfast site, demands urgent attention. What should have been a symbol of regeneration has become a site of neglect, impacting on the city's appearance and economy and on community morale. Derelict properties and vacant land result in lost revenue from unpaid rates — funds that could support essential local services — and deter footfall, harming businesses and undermining Belfast's potential as a vibrant hub of activity. A proactive approach to tackling those issues is essential. Introducing a vacant land tax may incentivise property owners to develop or release unused sites, unlocking opportunities for investment and growth. However, such a proposal must be examined in detail to avoid any adverse impacts or unintended consequences that cause a chill factor, as per the concern raised in the amendment.

A renewed Living over the Shop scheme, for example, could help transform unused spaces into much-needed housing, boosting footfall and supporting local businesses while helping with the housing crisis. As has been mentioned, Belfast City Council's Vacant to Vibrant programme is a promising step forward and has already breathed new life into 26 properties in the city centre, with more projects under way. In addition, other important work is being taken forward. For example, in east Belfast, an action group has been convened, and I look forward to attending the launch of a vision for the Newtownards Road next week.

We must also prioritise the preservation of historic buildings such as the Assembly Rooms and turn them into cultural and economic assets. By celebrating Belfast's heritage while fostering growth, we can create a city centre that balances its past with a vision for the future. With focused, collaborative and innovative policies and investment, we can transform derelict spaces into thriving hubs of community and commerce, ensuring that Belfast becomes a source of pride and opportunity for all.

Mr Kingston: Belfast has been on a similar journey to that of many other cities that expanded rapidly during the Industrial Revolution, such as Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow and Newcastle, with old industrial and warehousing land being repurposed for modern-day use. Whilst other cities also experienced Blitz attacks during the Second World War, Belfast suffered more than any other city from the terrorist onslaught of the Provisional IRA, which tried to destroy the economy of the city and held back investment for 30 years. That is the reality.

Belfast has been on a similar journey to many other cities that expanded rapidly during the Industrial Revolution, such as Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow and Newcastle, where old industrial and warehousing land has been repurposed for modern-day use. Whilst other cities also experienced the Blitz attacks during the Second World War, Belfast suffered more than any other city from the terrorist onslaught of the Provisional IRA, which tried to destroy the economy of the city and held back investment for 30 years. That is the reality.

Our capital city has had to play catch-up, but there has been notable progress in recent years, particularly in hotels and tourism; student accommodation; modern office development, including at City Quays; the fabulous new Ulster University campus; and retail, residential and leisure developments. The fact that Deloitte carries out an annual Belfast crane survey to count new developments in the city centre is a positive sign. I recall attending the launch of its first crane survey in 2016, when I was Lord Mayor.

Looking at the wording of the motion, we can understand the appeal of a vacant land tax to work against land banking and delay. However, we must assess whether applying more stick would actually be a disincentive to investment.

Mr O'Toole: Will the Member give way?

Mr Kingston: I will not have time. Sorry.

In my experience, new developments, whether in the public or private sector, always take longer than expected for a host of reasons. It is necessary to work with developers to resolve issues and urge them to make progress.

Our amendment highlights areas of dilapidation along some of the arterial routes into our city centre, including the Newtownards Road, the Shankill Road and Sandy Row. In the Shankill area, the Democratic Unionist Party has supported the BUILD initiative since its inception. It is a community-led partnership that seeks to address issues of vacant and derelict land.

Developers often cite their frustration with our planning system. Northern Ireland needs a fit-for-purpose planning system to attract investment and development. The stalled Tribeca development is a negative in the north Belfast section of the city centre, and it should receive dedicated attention. Along with Upper North Street, it stands in stark contrast to the development and regeneration around the new campus.

We should be mindful that economic opportunities have changed in recent years, including with changes in shopping habits and the increase in homeworking, but we remain of the view that more can be achieved through engagement with site owners by Executive Ministers, elected representatives, Belfast City Council and relevant statutory, community and private agencies to minimise delay and enable ongoing regeneration of our city centre.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call the Minister. Minister, you have 10 minutes.

Dr Archibald (The Minister of Finance): I welcome the opportunity to speak on the issue. We all want to see our town centres and shopping areas thrive. The difference that a bustling business, new homes or a vibrant community can make to once empty properties is striking. Regeneration, however, must be carried out in consultation with communities and done with communities and not to them. Local communities must benefit socially and economically from such regeneration. As Deirdre set out, redevelopment cannot exclude the communities that are already there. Regeneration must be done in a way that maximises the potential for all.

The motion is cross-cutting and spans a number of ministerial portfolios. The motion partly concedes that by recognising that there are fundamental responsibilities across the portfolios of the Communities Minister and the Economy Minister, as well as for Belfast City Council. There is also a key role not mentioned in the motion for the Agriculture Minister and the Environment Agency, which is a key arm's-length body pertaining to the issue and holds records dating back to 1834 on around 14,000 brownfield sites.

The policy issues with Tribeca arose not because of the rating system, which already imposes a liability on vacant commercial property — I have written to Executive colleagues about my intentions on that policy — but because of a wider civic policy on regeneration strategy at central and local government level, planning policy and the general ability for a group or entity to control a major area of land in one city or town. It is important to highlight that any ownership or management of contiguous or associated properties will increase the potential for a management entity to make opportune use of the features of a property tax system. That risk is, perhaps, the fundamental factor in any future decisions on whether paramount oversight of a fixed area should be permitted within the planning and regeneration systems.

While those issues are outside my remit, I am willing to work collectively at an inter-agency level to resolve the issue. The question now, though, is how to address the issue that has arisen and how to manage future development work that could lead to a similar situation. Neither of those points is neatly contained in the central two elements of the motion, which have been addressed to my portfolio, as the Minister of Finance, but they have been touched on in the wider debate.

The first element in the motion refers to:

The question, of course, is this: what is meant by "vacant land"? My Department holds no such data set. While I am happy to be corrected, I am not aware of a central registry of such land being held at either central or local government level.

On the DUP amendment, while I am not sure about the "chill factor" that it references, there is a clear requirement for an evidence-based approach to such a significant tax intervention. As with the motion, the amendment asks me to do many actions that sit outside my policy portfolio, although I support the wider Executive's work to facilitate regeneration alongside local government bodies.

In order to implement a new and novel tax, establishing a vacant land data set would be the first step required to assess feasibility. That database would then need to incorporate the number and size of the individual sites that qualify, along with their ownership profile, location and other characteristics such as current zoning, the socio-economic context, the market context and previous use. What exemptions should apply in such a data set, and how do you distinguish between urban, rural and mixed areas? None of that detracts from the potential value of such a measure. However, the timescales for researching and establishing even the fundamental data to begin looking at the economic value of such a tax measure, let alone creating the administrative and IT infrastructure for developing and maintaining such a tax base, mean that that is not a short-term fix for the immediate situation pertaining to Tribeca.

Of course, the rating system already imposes a liability on vacant commercial property. That brings me to the second element of the motion, which calls on me to:

As implied in the text of the motion, the fact that rates are due for the Tribeca site is the first key point. Earlier this year, my Department concluded a consultation that looked at non-domestic vacant rating and increasing the liability level to raise revenue. That work highlighted that the policy issue was not one of simply escalating the liability level. Over 70% of respondents raised issues with such an approach in the immediate term for valid reasons. There are particular concerns about the increase in stranded assets in the office and retail sectors due to wider market changes, many of which have been accelerated by the COVID pandemic.

We need to ensure that, in increasing the liability, we do not simply increase the dereliction that often accompanies higher property tax levels in other jurisdictions. Despite that, I am attracted to the option of increasing liability in that area in a managed and coordinated way, and I have outlined to the Executive how I want to look at the area in the context of my strategic policy direction. That will, however, need to be coupled with work across the Executive on sequencing any increased liability in the area with our wider work to regenerate and decarbonise our built environment.

LPS assesses liability or grant relief in accordance with the statutory framework for the rating system, which, in turn, is set by the Assembly and the Executive. If a property qualifies in line with the statutory framework, it is entitled to that support. Of course, rates can be applied only to a property that is there. Occupiers of properties that are granted relief are awarded the support after a process of application, assessment and decision by the district valuer on the basis of the facts and evidence in each case. LPS will, however, update and backdate liability when changes in the area are identified. LPS is reviewing procedures to ensure that changes of occupier for properties benefiting from such rate reliefs are identified. Likewise, valuers in LPS continue to work with relevant stakeholders to provide professional valuation advice on proposals for the area.

The Member who proposed the motion spoke of using financial transactions capital coupled with land acquisition. Although that was not outlined in the motion, I will elaborate on the points made. FTC can be deployed by the public sector only as a loan or an equity investment in a private-sector entity. The investment fund that is managed by CBRE is an innovative way of using FTC to invest in long-term transformation, thus supporting economic development and regeneration and tackling regional imbalance. I have met representatives of a number of projects that have benefited from the investment fund, including two hotels in Belfast. The fund has also supported the provision of prime office developments in Belfast city centre, as well as new, purpose-built student accommodation. I have encouraged, and I continue to encourage, all project developers to check the fund's criteria and engage with the fund manager to see whether they are eligible for support.

On the distinct point about land acquisition, or vesting, I refer the Member to a previous report from Belfast City Council on the powers of vesting for the Tribeca Belfast development:

section 97(1) of the Local Government Act 1972,

As I highlighted in my earlier comments, I suspect that the party that tabled the motion is somewhat misguided in its attempts to lay responsibility for the Tribeca situation on me, as Finance Minister. I understand and support the rating point that was made on revenue potential, but the rating system serves to assess and bill the built environment that is there, not that which is intended. Like the rest of the Executive, I am eager to see regeneration in the area, not least because of the anticipated revenue from rates. Since day 1 as Minister, I have spoken about how I want to realise tax-based growth here for that very reason. The vesting action that the Member advocates is for the council and the Department for Communities to take, but it would no doubt prove a difficult matter and one of cross-cutting legal complexity. In any event, it is a much more difficult and protracted process than tabling a motion for debate in the Assembly.

Although the council's assessment seems to be that it would be for the Communities Minister and the council to take forward that complex work, I am of course willing to do whatever I can, through my ministerial portfolio or as a member of the Executive, to facilitate and assist that consideration. We all want our town centres and shopping areas to thrive. As I have highlighted throughout my response, addressing the issue of long-term derelict properties is multifaceted, requires partnership working from all involved and must be done in consultation and agreement with local communities. I am happy to play my part in conjunction with Executive and other colleagues to take forward that work.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): Thank you, Minister. That was just five seconds short of your allotted time. Well done.

I call Paul Frew. Paul, you will have to keep it short, because you have only three minutes. Try.

Mr Frew: You are giving me a bad name, Mr Deputy Speaker. On a serious note, I do not know that three minutes is anywhere near sufficient for anybody to frame an argument in any debate. I ask the Opposition to consider that for the next time. When it comes to their aims and objectives, maybe less is more.

Mr O'Toole: I thank the Member for giving way. May I suggest, in that case, that he and other parties implore their colleagues to show up and participate in our debates? When we have had four hours to spend, the time has often been used up simply because Members did not turn up to debate. I appreciate that he is not one of those Members, but that is one of the reasons why we have four motions today.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): You have an extra minute.

Mr Frew: It has been an interesting debate. However, when I read the motion, I was horrified to see how eager the SDLP is to slap businesses, people and the community with a further tax. It seems that the SDLP thinks that the way to get out of all problems is by taxation. To impose such a tax would lead to massive consequences for economic drive, economic vision and every other issue that we have, be that cash flow, inflationary pressure or planning issues and the length of time that it takes planners to conduct their business. Slapping another tax on businesses and people who are trying to develop our cityscapes is a horrid suggestion. It would lead to more deprivation and dereliction. We should know and learn from history that taxation simply does not work when there are so many other issues involved.

I was glad to see mention in the motion of Belfast's Assembly Rooms as part of Belfast's rich history. The building is of historic significance not only to the Enlightenment but to the United Irishmen rebellion and the debate that was happening at that time in Belfast and throughout Ulster and Ireland. Not least, the building was known for its contribution to music and was the venue for the historic Belfast Harp Festival of 1792. Belfast is steeped in history. I always encourage people to learn their history, because it is multifaceted, detailed and complicated — exactly how this problem is today. I despair when I see dereliction and waste ground, not only in Belfast — our capital city — but in our other towns, such as Ballymena, Ballymoney, Ballycastle and Bushmills. I can rhyme them all off. Even the small villages in North Antrim suffer from dereliction, and we should all consider that. It is multifaceted, and it will not be solved by slapping a further tax burden on our people.

I mentioned the Assembly Rooms. I hark back to that time in Belfast when you had all the innovation and entrepreneurs. Think of the Joy family and the McCrackens. What would they think of the SDLP's plan for further taxation? If they were alive today and heard the SDLP's plans, what would they think? I think that they would be horrified, especially considering the amount of work that they did for poor people through their involvement with Clifton House. It is an intriguing debate, but I hope that the idea of a vacant land tax will not see the light of day.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Dr Aiken): I call Colin McGrath. Colin, you have five minutes.

Mr McGrath: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It would be too easy to say that the DUP looks back to people from 200 or 300 years ago to ask for their impression of how to do things today. I hope that we can get the DUP modernised and moved right up to date.

The debate has been positive in the sense that, while we have different views and opinions on the outcome, everyone has the view that they want to see Belfast and, as has been referenced, town centres across Northern Ireland being vibrant places: places that people enjoy; places where people can work; and places that work for people. We want families and others to be able to go into the town and city centres and for those to be enjoyable places in which people can spend time.

It is fairly obvious from the example of the Tribeca site that something is not working. It has been like that for a long time. It is a grim part of the town, and the difficulty is that, if you have a business in that area, you are impacted on by the fact that the area is running down continually. Nobody wants to go to that part of town. That perpetrates the issue, and the dereliction moves further and further from the site at which it started. We know that that level of decay and squalor can spread and make places less attractive.

I hope that people will see as a constructive thing the fact that we are here, discussing the matter in another Opposition day debate and talking about how we can challenge it and that we are having conversations and trying to find solutions that will help our cities and towns right across the North. Tools are at the Executive's disposal that can help drive the regeneration of the city centre and maybe leave a more positive and lasting legacy.

We referenced the fact that a vacant land tax would help to incentivise people to take up premises. People are saying, "We do not think that that would do anything". Look at what not doing it has done. It is not helping. The place is not improving by people doing nothing, sitting back, not helping and saying "Ach, sure, maybe the council will get around to it. Maybe the Executive will get together so that all the Departments will do something." Those places have been lying like that for years and years, and they have not been improving. Maybe we need to think about doing something different and doing something in a different way to try and help.

Mr Frew: Will the Member give way?

Mr McGrath: I am really short of time, so please be quick.

Mr Frew: What would you suggest should be done about publicly owned land that lies vacant for years?

Mr McGrath: I would say that the Department should get its finger out and do something about it. Really, it should be down to that. It is down to Departments and public bodies. They should be doing something about it. They should be leading by example and actually using what they can in the likes of, for example, 2 Royal Avenue.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): You have an extra minute.

Mr McGrath: The place at 2 Royal Avenue has been developed into a venue for arts and culture purposes, and it is providing those services. A building that was run down has been taken and turned into something that can be used for the good of the community, so there is an incentive for public bodies to do that type of work.

The amendment references a number of arterial routes. Mind you, you could find a common thread in the amendment, because if you look at the routes that are referenced, you will see that they may be from a particular side of the city or cover particular parts of the community. Much more could have been made of the amendment. The amendment tries to water down what we are suggesting. By simply highlighting an issue, it merely asks Ministers to actually do their job. Ministers should be out working with their colleagues to see whether there is a way to help regenerate and revitalise areas. Having an amendment that says that Ministers should be meeting and trying to help areas feels like we are just asking them to do their job. It simply asks for a "review", so I feel that the amendment is a bit weak. It does not have that punch behind it that would help to bring some sort of resolution to the problems that we can see.

There were references in the debate to there being a number of new issues to consider. Those include COVID-19 and what has happened as a result of that and the reprofiling of high streets, which we are all aware of. That is happening everywhere, not just in Belfast. My colleague from South Down referenced that as well. We in Downpatrick are suffering from that lack of footfall because people have changed their shopping habits, so we need to try to reprioritise how we deliver things in the high street. However, that will not happen if big empty buildings are left lying for years.

Buildings on two of the corners of the main junction in Downpatrick are lying empty. One has been lying empty, doing nothing, for decades, nearly. It is right in the heart of our town, so if something could be done to try to incentivise those who own the land to do something with that building, it could help to turn around and repurpose the high street, which we also need to do.

There were some references to schemes such as Living Over the Shop. We did that successfully in Downpatrick. I am sure that it would also work in Belfast. It was done for a number of years, and it helped to encourage a wee bit more footfall in the city centres and town centres in the evening because people were living there, rather than them just being work-based areas.

There was reference to the carrot and the stick. As I said, the problem may be that those are the wrong way around. There has been too much carrot and not enough stick. That is why we are where we are with so many of the town centres left languishing. I accept the Minister's saying that there were no data sets from which to get the information to deliver some of what we have asked for. Let us do it. Let us not always just look and say, "We cannot do that". That does not reflect a forward-looking Executive that will try to deliver for our local communities, which is what the SDLP wants to do.

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Blair): Thank you, Colin.